For me, much is about my budget. I am very blessed that I was able to get a used basic aps-c and a used 100-400mm that takes great pictures, which I have blown up to 24x36. At the same time, it is a system that works great for my emphasis on wildlife, usually birds. I like to go as light as I can. I see people with fancy heavy equipment on tripods, who are very stationary at a five foot elevation, and they aren’t getting the pictures that I do from much better angles. I know the value of patiently targeting an animal, waiting for a compelling moment. That means I have to hold my equipment steady for several minutes at a time. My camera weighs just over a pound, and I usually am using a 100-400mm lens that weighs 3 pounds. On my crop sensor I get effectively 640mm, and I have a 1.4 teleconverter that can increase it to effectively almost 900mm. My biggest problem is noise when I am capturing a small bird in flight at 1/4000 second or the dimmer side of the golden hour. But as I said, I feel very blessed that I have the equipment that I have.
Pixel pitch is a term that I was not familiar with until today. I am interested in the comparison between full frame and aps-c when taking wildlife photos that often need to be cropped, even when using a strong telephoto lens. Which camera type gives the best results after cropping to the same cropped results? I found an article that says it is all about the pixel pitch, which is the resulting measurement of pixels after cropping, using both types of sensor. I was surprised that in the comparison of Canon options, which all of my equipment is, the aps-c has the lowest pixel pitch, which means smaller, more concentrated pixels and better resolution. Of course, we know that full frame gives the best results for uncropped or lightly cropped photos, but it seems from this article that the cheaper, lighter, less “professional” grade camera is best for highly cropped wildlife photography, without considering the other variables. I am wondering if there are any thoughts on this about whether I am missing something other than the other variables in the pricier cameras, such as autofocus considerations. My camera is the T7i (800D). Here is the link that I found:
https://www.everyothershot.com/pixel-pitch-canon-dslrs/
It took me a lot of search and some math of my own, but I see that you are correct on that approximately percentage. That is not information that is easily found for sure. I am glad that I learned something new, but also very happy with my aps-c.
The Canons are 1.6 crop. Divide 1by 1.6, and you get .625, which leaves out 37.5%. Mine is the Canon T7i.
That makes sense to me. I have found that there are definite advantages and disadvantages to each choice, and the photographer needs to find the perfect choice for his or her needs.
Well not really. A home run scores one, leaving empty bases. Two doubles scores one, plus a man on second base, lol. 🙂
By the way, my crop sensor crops out 37.5% of the frame, which is a lot, but much better than many cameras. I do enjoy the reach it gives me with my wildlife photography emphasis.
I imagine that I am much newer to photography than you are, but I have found that depending on budget and the photographer’s purpose, there are advantages and disadvantages to each. I agree that for those with an unlimited budget, taking primarily landscapes, architecture, or portraits, full frame is definitely the way to go. I made my decision based on budget and doing wildlife photography. I understand that great photography means putting out the money necessary for the very best, but people with lower budgets can still make the best choices to be highly competitive. Wildlife photography demands a super telephoto lens, and I believe, also mobility. I can get pictures handheld that are much better than people that I see who are mostly immobile with their heavy and bulky lens on a tripod because I get moments and angles that they miss. They need lenses with much more reach and all the bulk that comes with it. The images that I get with my used aps-c and used EF 100–400 mm f/4.5–5.6L IS USM I has won a number of contests for me and the images blown up to 24x36 have done quite well for me in the gallery where I have a display. So to me, I have made the best choices that I can, considering both my budget and my priorities. I do appreciate your advice, but I have given much thought to my purchases. I actually enjoy the challenge of getting better pictures than photographers with the best and newest equipment.
Thanks for your answer. I should have specified that I am referring to cameras with the same pixel density, which is the only way to do a scientific comparison. All things being equal other than the question at hand considering the crop.
I am wondering how a crop sensor image would compare with the same image taken with the same lens and distance on a full frame camera, manually cropped to the same extent. Does that result in the same resolution and IQ?
I have gotten overwhelming response, and I am very grateful for everyone’s helpful comments and kindness. I should clarify though that I am 100% satisfied with my equipment. Actually pretty thrilled with it. My question actually was about the awkward position that I felt I was in, trying to put out professional quality work and frustrated at the label of “entry level” with a truly great camera. One commenter said it is a firm enthusiast level, and I agree, although I always see it categorized at top tier entry level. The answer was probably correct that it is the manufacturer trying to get people to buy the label with the bells and whistles perhaps unnecessarily. Also my T7i has optional tutorials on the screen, though I never needed that. Therefore it is good for newbies who want a great camera ongoing.
[quote=amfoto1]That's a solid list of reasonably good, affordable lenses. There really appear to be no big reasons to change anything, though you might want to know what your options are. One at a time:
EF-S 18-135mm is a very good "walk-around" choice... better than the EF-S 18-55mm lenses. Your STM version isn't as fast focusing as the more expensive USM version, but they have identical optics so there is no difference in image quality. Unless you are having problems with the focus not being quick enough, there's little reason to swap with the more expensive version. Oh, one other difference that videographers might consider, the EF-S 18-135mm is the only lens Canon makes that can use the PZ-E1 Power Zoom module. Possible possible improvement lenses would be the EF-S 17-55mm IS USM if you feel the need for f/2.8... or the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM if you can live with f/3.5-5.6 but want something a little wider. Of course, to get that f/2.8 you give up a lot of the zoom range, but would see even better image quality. Do not be "fooled" into the EF 17-40mm f/4"L" USM... Even though it's an L, it doesn't have as good zoom range, doesn't have IS and... most importantly... doesn't have as good image quality as the EF-S 17-55mm! Also don't consider a swap to most of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 or earlier EF 17-35mm f/2.8 lenses, even though they are all "L" series. They also all lack IS and have less zoom range... as well as lower image quality... with the only exception being the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM "III", where Canon finally dialed in the image quality of these lenses. However, that's an expensive lens, plus rather big and heavy.
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (first version, with "push/pull" zoom) is another excellent performer. Whatever you do, don't put any filters on it. For some reason that particular lens doesn't "play well" with filters. It loses sharpness with ANY filter... even top quality UV or clear. I have no idea why this is, but it wasn't uncommon for people who used it to be amazed to learn how good their lens was, merely by removing the "protection" filter they'd had on it from new. It's a lot more money, but the EF 100-400mm "II" is a solid step up. It gains about 1/2 lb. weight compared to the earlier version, but is even sharper as well as focusing closer. In fact, it gives the highest magnification of any Canon lens 300mm or longer (the old EF 300mm f/4L IS USM used to offer the highest magnification). There also was significant improvement to the IS system in the "II". The "II" lens works VERY well with Canon's 1.4X II or III, too. It's almost sharper with one of those TCs, than it is alone! Some say the push/pull zoom acts like a pump that pulls more dust into cameras.... though I really don't know if that's true. Personally I'm not a fan of push/pull zooms... but that's just me.
EF 1.4X II teleconverter works very well, though only with certain lenses due to the protruding front element. You are lucky you have a T7i, which is able to autofocus an effective f/8 combo, like your 100-400mm with the 1.4X added. The previous Rebel models couldn't do that. Neither can the SL3 or T7. The 7D Mark II can, but only at the center AF point. A [u]few[/i] 1.4X III and lens combos allow more than one AF point to work in the 45-point system found in your camera. I don't know if that's true with the "II" version of the TC (probably not). One lens/TC combo that allows up to 28 AF points to work in your camera is the 1.4X III and 100-400mm II. But I wouldn't spend the money to update both of those only for this reason, since I only use a single AF point most of the time anyway.
EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is a very good, budget ultra wide! Note that you were being a bit optimistic about the aperture at the wide end.... not that it matters very much since this type of lens is usually stopped down for max depth of field, not used wide open (except maybe for astrophotography). Image quality is excellent. Plus it's got IS, which is unusual on ultra wide zooms. The older, more expensive EF-S 10-22mm USM would be an upgrade in some ways, but in other ways it's not. It also has superb image quality, but not noticeably better or worse. It certainly is better built (less "plasticky") and a larger max aperture that would be nice for focusing and composition if working in lower light. It has USM focus drive which can be faster in some lenses, but isn't in this case. The 10-22mm gives slightly better zoom range, but lacks IS and is larger and heavier. No need to "upgrade" unless you use this lens heavily, where the better built lens would likely be more durable over the long run.
EF 50mm f/1.8 II... Ahh, the "thrifty fifty". I always found 50mm-sh lenses boring on my film (full frame) cameras, preferring a slightly wider 35 or 40mm usually paired up with a short tele like an 80 or 85mm. Then I started shooting with APS-C cameras like yours, got my 50mm out of storage, dusted it off and learned to love it! Frankly, the version you've got leaves a lot to be desired. If you use this lens much I'd encourage you to upgrade to the later "STM" version or the f/1.4 USM. Both of those give faster and more reliable autofocus, as well as better image quality. The difference in IQ isn't huge, but can be seen as better contrast and color fidelity when the lenses are compared side by side. All these lenses aren't their sharpest wide open, but a stop or so down will improve image sharpness a lot. With the f/1.4 that means using f/2 or f/2.2. With the f/1.8 lenses it puts you closer to f/2.8.
EF 100mm Macro.... great lens! Not sure the version you have. The original was okay, but had ploddingly slow autofocus. Not a problem when shooting macro, which is often better done with manual focus anyway. But if using the lens as a short telephoto for non-macro purposes, the slow AF may be a concern. The 2nd version with USM was a very solid step up in a number of ways and the latest "L" with IS takes it a couple steps farther. One thing you don't need to worry about is image quality with any of the Canon EF 100mm Macro lenses. While each generation has improved IQ, it's minor and you'd have a hard time telling one from the other simply judging by thei images they produce. If your lens extends when focused closer, that's the original version. When set to infinity it's smaller than the later versions, but once focused to full 1:1 it's as long or longer than them. It DOES NOT have option to fit a tripod ring (a "deal killer" for me). It uses a micro motor focus drive that requires you switch off AF before manually focusing it. Failing to do so and overriding the lens' AF manually will eventually damage the focus mechanism. Both the later versions have USM that's not only faster (though not blazingly so), it also allows you to override manually any time without concern. Both the later versions are internal focusing (IF), so don't grow longer when focused closer. (This IF design actually changes focal length during focusing.I've heard at full 1:1 these lenses are more like 70mm.... but you never notice this while using them.)
The newest and final version of this lens is an L and has IS. Actually the middle version may not have a red stripe or L on it, but it's build, materials and performance are just as good or better than the EF 180mm f/3.5"L", which does have the red stripe. Canon created a special "hybrid" type of IS for this lens. It's good, but even it has limited effectiveness at higher magnifications. At full 1:1 it probably only gives about one stop of assistance, while at infinity it's probably more like 3 or 4 stops. This is actually better than optically stabilized macro lenses from other manufacturers (the Sigma 105mm Macro is one that's said to be close to the same as the Canon in this respect). Because I often like to use a tripod or monopod for macro shooting, my 100mm USM is fitted with the optional Tripod Ring B (which is the same ring as used on the EF 180mm, MP-E 65mm and one or two other lenses). The 100mm L/IS USM is the only lens that uses the slightly more expensive Tripod Ring D. One thing I dislike about my 100mm USM is its lens hood... it's MASSIVE. Ridiculously large. Still, I use it unless it's in the way for extreme close-ups. The 58mm filter thread diameter of the 100mm USM also allows direct mounting of Canon's Ring Lite and Twin Lite flashes for macro work (so do the MP-E 65mm and the EF-S 60mm Macro). The EF 180mm and 100mm L/IS USM both have larger diameter filters and require special Macrolite adapters to fit those macro flashes.
No macro lens is particularly fast focusing. They all use "long throw" focus mechanisms that emphasize precision over speed. Overall, while I might use a macro lens as a short tele for non-macro purposes, I wouldn't use one for action shots such as sports. They simply cannot acquire or track fast enough for that. Precise focus is more important than speed for macro work! I've heard that the RF 100mm L/IS is one of the fastest ever, but haven't used and compared it. All three of the EF 100mm Canon lenses have focus limiters that can help. The final EF 100mm L/IS has the best of these, with three possible settings.
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is a lens I've never used or compared. It's a small "pancake" lens, isn't it? There are several EF 24mm with various features, but they are all bigger and heavier... not to mention more expensive!
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is another lens I haven't personally used and compared. I understand the II version has some incremental improvements, along with a more modern appearance. Perhaps the biggest performance difference is better IS and quieter "Nano" USM focus drive. But unless those are of any concern I don't know that an update would be worthwhile. Optically the best of the bunch appears to be the white 70-300mm "L", which also is the only one that can optionally be fitted with a tripod ring (C). If I were to use one of the 70-300mm and my budget were unlimited, the L would be my choice... but it's also a whole lot more money! On thing that's certain is that any of the 70-300mm are somewhat to a whole lot better lenses than any of the Canon EF 70-300mm lenses!
In the end, I don't see much need for any changes. Most of the possible upgrades would do little to make for better images, though they may be beneficial in other ways.
Maybe you should just put your limited $ toward more trips to go take photos![/quote]
Wow, again I am amazingly impressed with your comprehensive responses. Much appreciated. Actually I have thoroughly researched each lens before making my choices, although you have shared some things that are helpful beyond that. The only lenses that I really care about fast AF is my telephoto, and I don’t use the 70-300 anymore because that is what I had before deciding that I should have an L lens with great reach for the bulk of my work. The 70-300 is a good backup. I got my L on an eBay auction for $669 in excellent condition. My previous post did indicate that my macro was the old version 1 which I got the same way for $190. All of the rest of the lenses are just for the opportunities that I have for anything other than my typical wildlife telephoto shots. Nothing over $192 among them. I am 100% satisfied with them and am not seeking anything new, same with my camera. The 24mm is an overlap on my 18-135, but I got it because it is fast, very small, great IQ, and quite inexpensive new. Same thing with my 50. It is my only really fast lens.
Just for your information, the 1.4 teleconverter II works on my 100-400 I with slow AF and single center spot focus. I have it available if my need for reach is great and I don’t need a fast focus.
amfoto1 wrote:
First of all, a Canon T7i is not an "entry level" camera. In fact, it's several notches above that. Today in N. America the Rebel T7 (note: no "i") is Canon's entry-level DSLR. I understand they have an even cheaper, more entry-level model in other parts of the world, but I don't know much about it. Back here in N. America, one step up from the T7 to the SL3 gets you a BUNCH of additional features: Your T7i is another step up from that.
This compares the T7 with the SL3: https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-Rebel-SL3-vs-Canon-EOS-Rebel-T7
What the above doesn't tell you is that the SL3 uses a much more powerful, three generation newer Digic 7 processor. Canon must have over-produced Digic 4 processors way back in 2008, because they have continued to use them in their most entry-level cameras... including the T7, T6, T5 and more. It also doesn't mention that the SL3 has a self-cleaning sensor, as does your camera and all other Canon DSLRs... except the T7 (and presentably the 4000D).
Here is a comparison of the SL3 with your T7i: https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T7i-vs-Canon-EOS-Rebel-SL3
Notable differences between those two DSLR models are that your T7i has a more advanced 45-point autofocus system. Both the T7 and SL3 use a fairly simplistic 9-point AF system, much like what was used in their DSLRs in 2004. Your AF system is more user configurable. Also, your T7i has "Anti-Flicker". This feature is used to greatly improve exposures under fluorescent and similar lighting. Canon's Anti-Flicker was introduced on the 7D Mark II, but is now found on all models... except the T7 and SL3.
There is a newer T8i out now.... but overall it appears to be a relatively minor update of your camera. One thing I don't like about it is that the T8i cannot be fitted with a battery grip. Canon eliminated this option. Your T7i can be fitted with a BG-E22 grip that doubles battery capacity and provides comfortable grip and secondary controls for vertical camera orientation. I don't know why Canon took away this feature... in fact the BG-E22 can be used with 3 or 4 concurrent or earlier models, in addition to yours. I use grips on most of my cameras, so for this reason alone I personally wouldn't buy the T8i.
And there are two current Canon APS-C models "above" yours: the 90D and the 7D Mark II. Both of those DO have option of fitting a battery grip (BG-E14 for 90D, BG-E16 for 7DII).
The 7D Mark II is Canon's most "pro" quality APS-C DSLR. It has a unique AF system that's slightly more advanced than your camera's. And it's built for greater durability, better sealed for weather resistance. And it has dual memory card slots (one Compact Flash, one SD). However, the 7DII is older and considerably more expensive, actually has less resolution (20MP) and is somewhat specialized as "sports/action" camera. It also lacks many of the automation features found on the "lesser" cameras, to help less experienced photographers. 7DII also has lots of user-customizable features. Those can be great.... But they also can get users in trouble if they don't know what they're doing with them!
When it was first announced the 90D, Canon tried to claim it would supersede both the 80D and the 7D Mark II. Sure, it was an update from the 80D. And it has a maximum frame rate that rivals that of the 7DII... but it doesn't really replace it for a number of reasons. Canon has quietly kept the 7DII among their "current" models and continued to sell them.
The 90D and 7DII gain a "true" pentaprism. Your camera uses a "penta-mirror" in the viewfinder. That saves cost and weight. A true pentaprism makes for a slightly larger and slight brighter viewfinder in the "higher" models. But it may not be something you really notice unless you closely compare the two side by side.
The 90D also uses a new 32.5MP sensor. This is massive resolution to pack into an APS-C format camera. It's more than quite a few so-called full frame cameras offer, even though they have much larger sensors. In fact, the 90D's sensor (also in the M6 Mark II mirrorless camera) has the most density of pixels in ANY interchangeable lens camera. Some larger format "full frame" and "medium format" digital have more total megapixels, but none of them come anywhere close to the density of pixels in the 90D. While it can be great to have all those megapixels, the ultra high density sensor creates some challenges. For one, it makes getting a steady shot... a shot free of camera shake blue... more difficult. Faster shutter speeds and tripods are more necessary. It also appears to be more susceptible to digital noise at higher ISOs, such as might be needed when using faster shutter speeds. And, such ultra high density is VERY unforgiving of any lens short-comings. Anyone planning to use this camera had better plan to invest in high quality lenses!
Speaking of which... Glass is more important than camera bodies. Lenses make more difference in images than the camera they are used upon. Personally I'd much rather have a premium lens on an entry-level camera than the opposite. Lenses in general also hold their value much better than digital camera bodies. My first DLSR was a Canon 10D back in 2004. It cost $2000, plus another $400 for the battery grip. Today it's worth about $150. Meanwhile I've got lenses I bought and used on that camera that I could sell today for as much or more than I paid for them. Of course, most of my lenses dating from way back then have depreciated to some extent... but most are worth at least half what I paid or more, even after 20 years of use. Also, I still regularly use some of the same lenses I bought 15, 18, 20 years ago. They have served equally well on film cameras at first, then on a series of DSLRs... roughly five different generations I've used personally, not counting quite a few models I skipped purchasing.
You didn't tell us what type of subjects you shoot or very much about what you do with your images. Without knowing those things, it's pretty hard to say if moving to a larger format like full frame would be of any benefit to you. Edit: You mention NANPA, which is the North American Nature Photography Association... which still leaves several options: large wildlife, small wildlife, birds, landscapes, macro... etc.
Your T7i may not be the top of the line model. But it's a solid, capable camera with a good feature set.... As good or better than many cameras on the market. And definitely NOT "entry-level". In fact, it's a one-generation-old "top-of-the-Rebel-line" model. Call it an "enthusiast camera".. though one might also label the 90D that way.
You also didn't mention what lenses you've got... Maybe you're all set with top quality glass, not much to be gained. But, if not, lenses are probably where you should put your money.
There may also be other, better ways to spend what little money you have to work with (you also didn't indicate how much that might be). For example, a good tripod might be helpful. Or you might even be better served putting the money toward taking a trip somewhere to take photos.
First of all, a Canon T7i is not an "entry le... (
show quote)
Wow, thanks, that is a lot of information! I have checked out comparisons of the cameras that you mentioned, and as far as the SL3, I want light weight gear, but I went for the T7i mainly because of the auto focus. I did comment on some of your questions such as the type of photography that I prefer and my main lens, but that was later on the thread. I was already afraid that my long question would lose interest. I mostly do wildlife, as you can see from the images that I posted. I also love macro. Here is my list of lenses ( the 100-400 is my workhorse):
Canon EF-S 18-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS STM
Canon EF 100–400 mm f/4.5–5.6L IS USM I
Canon 1.4x teleconverter II
Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro I
Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM
Canon EF 70-300 IS USM I
Anything over $200 I have bought used on eBay and have always been very pleased. I have my work in a gallery and do art fairs occasionally and a couple solo exhibits, but I haven’t connected with a way to really make money so that I can put more time into the photography that I love. I need other work to pay bills.