Could use some help selecting a body

[DB_Cro]

Yeah. I'm going for a Sigma 70-200 2.8 with stabilization for example now, which is very expensive (for me) just because I can't
push ISO on any Canon I can afford. If I had the 6D, I might have been fine even with the canon's own F/4 without IS, but nope.. :-/

I just hope that lens is good or I'm screwed.
I can't shoot concerts with my 55-250 F/4-5.6 anymore and hope to get a sharp shot at 1/30s at 400mm eqiv.
I still DO but it's a pain.

This is the very least I'm happy with:
TK Wonder by Dalibor Bauernfrajnd, on Flickr

Borrowed a 70-200 2.8 without IS for the event, ISO 1600 (I avoid going over 800 on my T2i because.. damn..) and still had
to shoot at 1/50s. :-/ But well worth the hassle for a few nice shots.

 

[Derrel]

The simple fact is that Canon-made sensors have a lot of noise in the shadows; if the shot is underexposed in the field, and then the exposure "lifted" or brightened in software, the Nikon cameras have remarkably better imaging performance.

dPreviews studio scene comparisons show this quite obviously. This advantage spans the entire product line of both companies, from crop-frame to full-frame to high-MP full frame.

Nikon D750 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

[DB_Cro]

Yep, that's a good example and a huge difference.
If you go to dxomark and compare the numbers between the D750 and 5d markIII it's more
then obvious that Nikon is considerably better, but these studio test shots show just how
much difference is there.

Also, people tend to assume that a more expensive camera will do better - always and in
every way. Here we have a situation where the 5d markIII (which is still an amazing body)
will get it's ass kicked (even if only slightly) by a cheapo 6D from the same brand! Less mpix
on same sensor tends to do that.

So, Canon, FFS, you've showed us you can do a great 50mpix camera (5DS/R), now show us
a new 80D, or 7d markIII that can produce clean ISO6400 images and leave the mpix count
at the 18-20 range like it is now, most pros don't need more. I can understand chasing the mpix
records in entry level bodies where consumers are more.. well.. ignorant.

Anyways, that D750 is sweet and if Canon doesn't put out a 5d markIV that matches it, they're
screwed. They can't live off fame and amazing glass forever.

#pissed

 

[JacaRanda]

Makes me wonder why everybody that CAN afford to switch don't. Apparently, some differences, advantages, and disadvantages are either not significant or important enough.

 

[DB_Cro]

Brand loyalty or some other arbitrary BS, but the "hope" that the next body will be the one
that turns everything around is always realistic. No one wants to switch twice, and I can't
figure out if it would be better to invest in medium level bodies on both sides at once
(and get good glass) or get one of them, but top of the line.

Like right now if I was to invest in Canon gear, since I do a lot of different events daily that involve
both sports and everything else, a 7d markII would be an amazing choice, probably better then the
D7200. However, on the personal projects and my freelance work side of things, I really need a 6D
at the very least!

On the other hand, I could probably get away with using D7200 for everything.
Don't even get me started on the D750, that thing is literally built for my needs, I'd actually rather
have that then the 810, and not many people would.

 

[astroNikon]

FYI, with the Nikon d7x00 DX, and all the FX bodies you can opt to get older Pro glass that requires an in-body focus motor for lens AutoFocus.

On my d7000 and d600 I did just that. I bought into older (though Nikon still makes New AF-D and AI-S lenses) pro glass. For example the 80-200/2.8 AF-D is roughly $700 used compared to the newest 70-200/2.8 AF-S G VRII which is roughly $1400 used. Of course 3rd party lenses like the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC is roughly $800 too.

Nikon has 3 levels of Pro 70/80-200/2.8 that has a built in lens motor so one could pick a price level of a used lens to save money.

 

[DB_Cro]

Yeah, that's a good point too.
No such thing on the Canon side of things and a used, 18-19 year old 1st gen. non-IS 70-200 2.8 is
still freaking $700-800 here, and I need the damn IS because I'm limited with my body ISO range.

I just hope that 70-200 sigma I'm going to get is as good as I hope.

 

[beagle100]

Yeah, that's a good point too.
No such thing on the Canon side of things and a used, 18-19 year old 1st gen. non-IS 70-200 2.8 is
still freaking $700-800 here, and I need the damn IS because I'm limited with my body ISO range.

I just hope that 70-200 sigma I'm going to get is as good as I hope.

you can always hope but the Sigma ((and Tamron) won't be as good as the Canon 70-200 2.8 II
(but maybe close enough)

 

[DB_Cro]

Yeah, that's a good point too.
No such thing on the Canon side of things and a used, 18-19 year old 1st gen. non-IS 70-200 2.8 is
still freaking $700-800 here, and I need the damn IS because I'm limited with my body ISO range.

I just hope that 70-200 sigma I'm going to get is as good as I hope.

you can always hope but the Sigma ((and Tamron) won't be as good as the Canon 70-200 2.8 II
(but maybe close enough)

If it's as good as the 1st gen Canon 70-200 (that's 20 years old now) that I've been using from
time to time, I'll be freakin' happy.

 

[Jim Walczak]

you can always hope but the Sigma ((and Tamron) won't be as good as the Canon 70-200 2.8 II
(but maybe close enough)

I think that's a bit subjective. Back when I still shot Canon, I went with the Tamron because every third party testing sight was actually showing the Tamrons as sharper than the Canon L lenses costing twice as much. Today just taking a quick peek at current comparisons such as DXO for example, the difference regarding image quality still isn't that significant at all...the Canon is slightly better, but just barely...for the additional $700, it's rather disappointing really. The Canons do have a better build quality...for someone shooting in the arctic or the dessert, that weather sealing may have some appeal and it's been my experience that the L lenses have historically had a bit faster focus focus, however when it comes to image quality alone (the true mark of a lens in my opinion), the Tamrons and Canons are quite comparable.

My advice to ANYONE considering this lens range for a Canon body is, as always, to do your homework. If price isn't a consideration and you have the money to burn, then by all means go with the Canon. For the rest of us however, if you look at the reviews objectively, you don't really get THAT much better of a lens with Canon for the additional $700. Personal opinions aside, the numbers seem to speak for themselves.

 

[DB_Cro]

I've looked at all reviews that exist, and I love how well the old canon L works, but I just can't afford the new one
with IS (which I really need).

I own a Tamron 17-50 and it's not usable in bright sunlight, the images.. well.. flicker, it's really some sort of design
flaw.. unless I stop down to F/8 to get the shutter speed down. At 1/2000 or 1/4000s I often get somewhat blurry
images that I never get with other glass (I know what I'm doing, damnit), IS on or off. Also, the rubber part for focusing
came off/unglued itself. Same with 1st gen 70-200 2.8 tamron. Loud, slow focusing is also an issue. None of this is
an issue even with the 20 year old 70-200 canon that I've been using.

Not that I have a choice, I can maybe get a used 70-200 is II canon, there IS one used available locally, but I'd rather
get a sigma and be able to buy a replacement for the 17-50 too.

Anyways, we got off subject a bit.

p.s. Tony & Chelsea N. on youtube did a comparo of the sigma, canon and tamron 70-200, last gen all of them, and the image quality differences are hard to spot actually, it's the other stuff that Canon does a lot better.