dSLR Upgrade Decisions

[Hotpuppy]

Great comments Tony!

As for the lenses you are correct. The catch is I already have EF lenses.... so really using a 7d or 60d throws away 40% of my lens. Underwater, we are shooting in the dark with a preference for wide angle.... so narrowing the field of view seems like a waste.

The thing that really threw me was the color gamut. The 7d has alot smaller gamut then the 5d MK ii. While I'm not shooting for Nat Geo, I sure would like to. I think I have a little ways to go, but here's what it cracked down to for me:
Strobe, Housing, and Camera costs:
60d: $3800
7d: $4200
5d MkII: $5K.

Is that expensive? Yes.... but then again so is a dive trip. In the end the overall cost difference is minute. The 7d's focus system I think is worth the extra difference..... and the low light performance is really comparable. This site sums it up nicely on a feature by feature basis: Canon EOS 5D Mark II vs EOS 7D
Of particular note: 3x the color gamut. 30% larger viewfinder. Lower noise at higher ISO.

The photos from a 5d are simply breathtaking most of the time.... anyhow. We all know that. The 7d on the other hand has a great focusing system, better price etc. The only significant NO GO is the overheating issue that has been widely reported. The last thing I need is 15 minutes into a dive my camera shuts down because it got hot. If I decide to shoot video I want the $1800 camera to just shoot the video!

Btw, here are my pics from the last trip: Cozumel - Cinco De Mayo 2011 - UnderseaX - a set on Flickr

I'm not completely done editing and color correcting... but it's 90% there. I try really hard to keyword my shots, so the night shots and flash shots and color correcting shots should be (but may not be) marked.

 

[M_Bipartitus]

Depending on when your next trip is (and your budget) you may be able to wait on a 5D mkII until a MkIII comes out. I got my 5D + housing from a guy who was buying the 5D MkII the week they were released. Jot older technology, but saved $$$.

I'm a little biased towards FF as a 5D user, but I'll mention that your concern over sensor noise is a good reason to go for a larger sensor. I haven't used a 60D nor a 7D, but keep an eye on how big the viewfinder is. I am always frustrated when I move from the large 5D viewfinder to a tiny rebel viewfinder. Keep in mind that on a dSLR you want to avoid liveview mode underwater as the focusing is typically slower and the fish don't wait.

I hadn't considered an MP-E underwater. It looks like someone has tried on wetpixel (MP_E 65mm Underwater - Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums). Cools shots, but sounds like a pain in the neck unless the dives are dedicated to super macro.

 

[Ozwald]

As the proud owner of a 7d and being familiar with the 60d I can tell you that there are a few significant differences.

1. no "micro adjust on the 60d. this can be huge!
2. 8 fps with the 7d, 5 fps with the 60d. might not matter.
3. superior "autofocus" system with the 7d
4. better weather sealing on the 7d

none of this may matter to you if you are only using the camera uw. if i were looking for a camera that was the "ultimate " portrait camera i'd grab a 5d. personally i get a ton of use out of the 8fps......

 

[craracer]

If it helps any, and I'm sure that you've done plenty of research, this site might help to sway you one direction or another:

Digital Cameras: Digital Photography Review, News, Reviews, Forums, FAQ

 

[Hotpuppy]

As the proud owner of a 7d and being familiar with the 60d I can tell you that there are a few significant differences.

1. no "micro adjust on the 60d. this can be huge!
2. 8 fps with the 7d, 5 fps with the 60d. might not matter.
3. superior "autofocus" system with the 7d
4. better weather sealing on the 7d

none of this may matter to you if you are only using the camera uw. if i were looking for a camera that was the "ultimate " portrait camera i'd grab a 5d. personally i get a ton of use out of the 8fps......

What is your take on the dreaded overtemp warning? My take on it was that Canon screwed up... and that the camera would be handicapped for video use. I usually shoot stills, but if I want to shoot video I don't want it to turn off on me.

Also are you using EF lenses? I keep coming back to the 40% deduction from my lenses as a real waste of glass. On my APS-C it turns my 17-40 into a 25-55. 17 vs 25 isn't much, but if you are underwater it's a real narrowing of your FOV.

 

[Viz'art]

Of all the lens you listed, the 17-40mm is the only one useful underwater and indeed, it is kind of a bummer to loose the FOV on the crop sensor.

The 5D Mk II is quite a performer and yes it will be replaced eventually, but that does not make it a lesser camera, it has become quite the standard for pros in both still and video underwater (where a 1D serie camera wouldn't bring much more to the table anyway).

The 7D however has a more extended range of underwater friendly lenses available (Thinking of the Tokina 10-17mm among others) so its a tough call, my personal gear is Nikon based but if I was going to Canonize myself, I would do so with the 5D and I would add the Sigma 15mm, which is a much better fisheye than the Canon one (they definitely need to update this puppy), the new 8-15mm looks like it has/will have potential as well).

 

[dhaas]

Amigos,

Just back from Cozumel with shooters using Canon XTi, T2i 5D MK II and myself using my Canon 60D. If not going full frame the 60D is plenty of camera. If you need 8 FPS (frames per second) for above water then by all means 7D is nice too.

I posted on Dr Colyn's thread (do a search) why I chose the 60D for Penta Prism viewfinder and a few other features. That said even a Rebel T2i / T3i will produce great shots with a decent lens and more time in the water.

Sample pics all shot with one lens a Canon 10-22mm EF-S. Tried this along with the frequently recommended Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye mainly for my own ideas.

As Viz'art says the Sigma 15mm Fisheye on a cropped sensor body is super nice too.

dhaas

 

[Hotpuppy]

@dhaas: Nice shots... thank you for posting. I think where the 7d really performs is it's focus system. Indeed, the focus system is the reason I would buy that camera if I was going aps-c. It should also be noted that it has some very nice video settings including 50/60 fps for doing slow motion. It's low-light performance is comperable.

@vizart: Yes, FF really takes the cake. The most striking difference to me is that the 5d can distinguish 3x the colors of the 7d. Colors translate into gradients and that means that all things being equal it can produce better photos. If I didn't have the EF glass I would lean quickly to an APS-C and probably the 7d. However, that said, if the overheating thing has not been resolved then the 60d would take the day. A camera that overheats is worthless. Period. The 5d mk ii on the other hand is certainly not yesterday's computer. I get the post someone made but it's simply a surface comparison. The ff sensor has larger pixels and larger pixels mean less amplification which in turn results in less noise. Seeing as much of what we do underwater is in challenging light conditions noise reduction is important. I am finding that my interests lean to macro as opposed to reefscapes. For above land I'm interested in a gamut of things but primarily landscape, things, macro. The fact that I have a MP-E 65mm should say something about my interests. I simply can't reconcile the loss of 40% of the FOV on my lenses.... after all FOV is what you pay for when you buy lenses..... quality lenses deliver less distortion and that is why they cost more.... .

Ken Rockwell even mentioned in his review of the 17-40 that it was a better lens then the EF L 16 whatever. That sort of surprised me, but it's a super nice lens and it really changed my view on buying the best I can afford vs the best deal I can find. I lucked in to most of my lenses when I bought my 40d. I realize that not everyone shoots Canon, but I like their stuff and I'm invested in it. I think Nikon has an edge when it comes to geotagging, but there is a good reason so many 5d mk ii's are found in the pro world. While I'm not earning an appreciable income from photography, I do have the goal of making money. In fact, the only microstock that has sold so far from my portfolio has been underwater..... so again, I want to produce the best possible images for myself and for resale as a secondary reason.

My point being that I've pretty much decided to shoot a 40d for now and buy a 5d mk ii in a month or so.... if I get word that a mk iii is imminent I'll probably wait and get one of those or a lightly used 5d mk ii. I'm never opposed to a bargain.

 

[kirasir]

Hotpuppy,

This is may not be what you want to hear, but as a G9 user as well, let me offer you an advice: get a nice strobe or two for your G9 and master your camera.

G9 is a great little P&S camera and it may not take as nice pictures as a 7D but it's only a tool in the hands of a user. UW photography is not as simple as pressing a shutter button and letting the camera do the work. You really need to understand where the light is and what settings will work best for any given shot. All of this only comes with practice and experience, and no high end camera will be able to magically give you a perfect shot.

Yes, G9 suffers from a really high noise above 100ISO, yes, the glass is not perfect, but can you really spot the glass issues in your UW shots? And shutter issues? Well, even that's debatable...

My advice to you, take your G9 and dive it until you know how to take that perfect shot under any lighting conditions. Then spend the money and upgrade once you really can't get better pictures out of it.


Cheers

Great comments Tony!


Btw, here are my pics from the last trip: Cozumel - Cinco De Mayo 2011 - UnderseaX - a set on Flickr

I'm not completely done editing and color correcting... but it's 90% there. I try really hard to keyword my shots, so the night shots and flash shots and color correcting shots should be (but may not be) marked.

 

[Hotpuppy]

Hotpuppy,

This is may not be what you want to hear, but as a G9 user as well, let me offer you an advice: get a nice strobe or two for your G9 and master your camera.

G9 is a great little P&S camera and it may not take as nice pictures as a 7D but it's only a tool in the hands of a user. UW photography is not as simple as pressing a shutter button and letting the camera do the work. You really need to understand where the light is and what settings will work best for any given shot. All of this only comes with practice and experience, and no high end camera will be able to magically give you a perfect shot.

Yes, G9 suffers from a really high noise above 100ISO, yes, the glass is not perfect, but can you really spot the glass issues in your UW shots? And shutter issues? Well, even that's debatable...

My advice to you, take your G9 and dive it until you know how to take that perfect shot under any lighting conditions. Then spend the money and upgrade once you really can't get better pictures out of it.


Cheers

Great advice.... and the answer is yes, I can spot the difference. Above land I shoot an EOS 40D. There really is no comparison between the G9 and the 40D. I'm happy with my shots for the G-9 and feel like my next leap is to improve the glass and sensor that are involved. There is a substantial and noticeable delay between pressing the shutter and it actuating on a G9. With a 40D the delay is significantly shorter.

As far as glass issues, yes, a EF series lens compared to a G9 lens is a world of difference. What the lens can resolve cleanly and crisply along with the F/stop capabilities define what the camera can see. The amount of light that passes through a 35mm style SLR lens is several orders of magnitude greater than what goes through a G9. The g9 is a nice camera, but at the point where you can afford an SLR and know what shutter speed, ISO, and aperature do you probably would benefit from the increased control and capability of a SLR.

The question for me is not one of SLR vs G9. It's really more of a upgrade before SLR because I don't see the wisdom in investing in a housing for my older 40d, which is still very capable. The differences between the 40d and the 5d mk ii are quantum as well and the 5d takes phenomenal images that leverage the field of view that my lenses can produce. If I did not own full frame lenses I would buy a 7d or a 60d..... which honestly is a tossup because both are good cameras. However, with full frame lenses it's pointless rather senseless to invest in great lenses and the chop off the outer 40% of what they can see.

To put the sensor issue in perspective for you.... take your dive mask, and tape off 40% of the glass around the edges. It's going to feel like you are diving in a tin can. That should be roughly a 3/4" piece of electrical tape around the edge of the mask lens in case you care to try it.