CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The performance / responsiveness of the Autofocus (AF) would be a reason to consider an upgrade. The frames per second (fps) would also be a consideration for a general purpose camera with sports included in the expressed needs. In a burst of images on continuous AF, even the 1DX won't have 100% focus in every image, and this is the body used by professionals around the world. You might also need to confirm your technique on how you've initially locked focus and how you track a moving subject, as an potential area to consider beyond changing equipment.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Lets surprise a few folks with some verifiable facts: the recommendation not to go higher than ISO 1600 is correct for the Canon 80D (and most APS-C cameras). Using ISO 2000 is acceptable too. For the Canon 5Dm3 consider ISO 3200 safe and 4000 acceptable too.

See http://photonstophoto.net/Charts/ PDR.htm for specifics on other cameras.

There is a chart listing, for each camera model, what Bill Claff is calling "Low Light ISO". That is the ISO that produces 6.5 stops of dynamic range. The 6.5 is slightly arbitrary but virtually everyone agrees it is valid. That dynamic range, from the camera, means that if the exposure is dead on perfect it will be possible to make a technically perfect JPEG or print.

Of course if exposure is off by any given amount the post processing to correct the image brightness will reduce the dynamic range of the final product, resulting in a less than "perfect" display image. Sometimes that cannot be avoided, but "perfect" is the target.

Look at the ISO vs Dynamic Range for any camera an note the Dynamic Range at ISO 25,600! The 80D is only 3.28 stops and 5Dm3 is 4.27 stops. The cameras can provide an image at ISO 25,600, but a technically correct print is not possible. With an 80D, and a dynamic range of only 3 stops (assuming you can nail the exposure) the best print will be noisy and extremely high contrast.

The most significant difference between FF and APS-C cameras is low light performance, which is about 1 fstop better for a FF sensor.

In essence, for wildlife an APS-C camera might be best, but for low light sports shots in a high school gymnasium the FF camera is clearly better.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

If it helps (or not) - I'm still using my T1i and pleased with it, for my needs.
(Not that I haven't been tempted though...)
My walk-around lens is a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM, and I have the Canon 50 f/1.4.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Your first decision is APS-C or FF. Either will do well for portraits. FF is better at landscape, but APS-C can work. For sports I'd say APS-C only due to the reach and the expense of getting reach with lenses on a FF.

If you decide APS-C, the first question is WHAT IS LACKING WITH THE T3I? I have a T2i and it works fine for most shots. Yes my 80D can do more, but it is rare I encounter those situations. For most cases the T2i is fine.

If you are still working out kinks by trial and error, I think you should stay with the T3i until you can find what it can't do for you that something newer can.

If $ is no object, get one of each!

What you haven't told us is what lenses you have. Do they limit you?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Before you make decisions, ask yourself "What am I not getting out of my current equipment?" Then ask "Is the solution to the lack equipment or training and experience?"

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The "problem" with full frame cameras is that they require full frame-capable lenses. Those are necessarily bigger, heavier and more expensive than lenses for APS-C cameras.

APS-C cameras, on the other hand, can use both crop only AND full frame lenses.

Compare a wide angle crop only zoom such as EF-S 10-18mm ($279, 67mm filters, 270 grams) or EF-S 10-22mm ($599) on APS-C with full frame EF 16-35mm f/4L ($999) or EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III ($1899, 82mm filters, 790 grams).

For sports/wildlife you'll probably want a telephoto much of the time. Even comparing EF lenses to EF lenses, you'll need much larger, heavier and more expensive ones for full frame than for APS-C. For example, if you use a 55-250mm now, you'll want a 100-400mm with full frame. Or if you use a 300mm, you'll want a lens that reaches 500mm. Or if you use a 400mm, you'll need 600mm to be able to frame distant subjects the same way as you do now with APS-C cameras. For example, compare an EF-S 55-250mm ($299, 58mm filters, 375 grams) with an EF 100-400mm II ($1899, 77mm filters, 1640 grams). Or compare an EF 300mm f/4L IS USM ($1349, 77mm filters, 1190 grams) with an EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II ($8999, 52mm drop in filters/130mm diameter front element, 3180 grams). Oh, and you'll probably want a sturdy tripod for that 500mm lens, too... so figure another $1000 to $1500 for that (not to mention it's size and weight).

Will full frame make "better images"? Yes and no. While viewing the images HUGE on your computer monitor OR if you make really big prints from them, you'll see the superiority of image made with a full frame camera. By "huge" I mean what a lot of people do automatically, looking at their images "at 100%". On most modern monitors, with a 24MP camera that's like making a 40" by 60" print (five FEET wide)... and then viewing it from 18 or 20" away. Ridiculous! Few people will even print half that size. BUT, for most peoples' real world uses, a modern APS-C camera will fulfill their needs just as well. At more normal sizes 13x19 or 12x18 or smaller... and especially for much lower resolution and far smaller Internet sizes... you won't see much or any difference between images made with APS-C or full frame.

So, it depends a lot upon what you plan to DO with your images, whether it makes sense to spend the extra for a full frame camera AND lenses... as well as deal with the larger sizes and extra weight.

Both cameras have faster frame rate and more advanced AF systems that would be better for active subjects than your current camera. Both also offer a moderate upgrade in resolution from your current 18MP camera.

80D is 24MP and about 4 years newer than 5DIII. 80D introduced a new 45-point AF system, all cross type, with up to 27 points able to focus at f/8 and rated to -3EV.

5DIII is 22MP and wit's AF was much improved over the previous 5D series model. It uses a 61-point AF system, 41 of which are cross type, f/8 at the center point only, rated to be -2EV capable.

(Note: f/8 focusing allows a lot more lens/teleconverter combos to be used. Many cameras that are "f/5.6 limited" simply are unable to focus them.)

Also keep in mind that the older 5D Mark III was superseded in 2016 and Canon will at some point no longer support it with spare parts and factory repair services. The 80D is still in production, so there's good possibility will remain serviceable further into the future.

Local camera shop is full of B.S. With newer models, I don't think twice about shooting ISO 3200... twice the limit your local store is telling you. Below is a high ISO, low light test shot I did with one of my 7D Mark IIs at ISO 16000 (not a typo.... sixteen thousand, not 1600):



Sure, there's some "noise" in the above image... but IMO it's very well controlled for such high ISO. I'd make an 8x10 or 8x12 print from that shot, though probably not any larger.

I've sold a lot of images made at ISO 6400, 8000, 12800 and even a few at 16000. I shoot RAW and do some extra post-processing and careful noise reduction on those very high ISO shots.... Above image was NOT as extensively post-processed. It was shot RAW by only a single 60 watt bulb and a small window, both about 8 or 10 feet from the subject. To see the "worst case", I deliberately only applied default level of NR to the image in Lightroom (none is applied in-camera when shot RAW). The only adjustment to that image was a slight increase in contrast. That actually should have made existing noise more apparent.

I recommend checking out Bryan Carnathan's reviews at The-Digital-Picture.com He is very informative, specializes in Canon gear (though he is knowledgeable about other brands, too) and does thorough testing. I've found his reviews to be spot on, for any gear that I use.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

This adds another complete set of possibilities to your question!

First though do consider which pictures you compare. While those examples are fabulous images, not one was taken in the environment you want to target. Just because a camera does well in good light does not mean it does well in a gymnasium!

As to whether you actually need to upgrade, there is no question! Your current camera does not hold a candle to the 80D much less a 5Dm3 for the target purpose. And there are even more things to consider!

For example your current lens collection is not particularly adequate. The 18-400mm is too wide and also too long as well as way to slow. You really need something like a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8.

And since you don't have a great investment in lenses there is another option that would really fine tune your kit. Buy not only the Tamron 70-200mm, but get it in a Nikon mount and upgrade to a Nikon D750. The lens is necessary the same either way. But while an 80D (ISO 1834 max) is better than your T3i (ISO 1177 max), and a 5Dm3 (ISO 3652 max) is better than the 80D, the D750 (ISO 4075 max) is better than the 5Dm3.

The D750 will cost the same as a 5Dm3 and the Tamron lens is the same. But the Nikon combination gives you the best performance for the same price and beats anything less than several thousands for a Nikon D4 or D5.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Well spoken

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Some subjects or lighting may not need the maximum dynamic range, and therefore could be shot with a higher ISO. Sometimes, if the only way to get the shot is higher ISO, a less than technically correct print may be better than nothing.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

And that is exactly why those conditions are mentioned in the article you quoted.

In fact, even with the best equipment available that is the precise situation the OP is targeting (poorly illuminated school gymnasiums). And because that is the stated reason to upgrade there is no point in not carefully selecting the best match possible within the price range acceptable.

It would, as an example, a very poor choice to "upgrade" to any APS-C body... even though as many have suggested those cameras are quite wonderful for other purposes.

DebDKusz Loc: PA

Thank you for your input. I’m always looking for websites to help me further. Greatly appreciated!

DebDKusz Loc: PA

Wow! Thank you for your thorough response. This definitely helped out. I think I’m going to further review my decision but this group has truly made me think clearer on what I need to do. One for sure is to see what I’m doing wrong and correct the problem.

Thank you again for this response and additional websites.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I didn't quote any article, and I don't see where the OP mentioned poorly illuminated school gymnasiums.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It was an example.

DebDKusz Loc: PA

I’d like to thank everyone who have expressed their opinion and shared beautiful pictures. The websites referred will be extremely helpful in my search. Thank you all for your time to help me out!