If you can work it into your budget, try renting both alternatives.I really wish I knew someone that went from a T2i to either model I am deciding between so that I could ask them about high iso performance
The link you provided has more to do with Dynamic range instead of Noise. The photographer in the link failed to expose for the subject.heres a good review of the d800e vs the 5d3
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1344321
while reviews are saying the sony is better than the d800e
5D mkI-MkIII, 6D, and 7D all are capable of shooting in Dual ISO mode with Magic Lantern that will extend the dynamic rage to 14LV. Normal Canon with out Dual ISO dynamic range is 10-11LV, while newer Sony and Nikon sensor range is around 14LV. Hence under normal circumstances newer Sony/Nikon sensor is better than Canon sensor in dynamic range, however with Dual ISO Canon take a leap forward and match the dynamic range of Sony/Nikon sensor at 14LV.so the op wants to shoot birds that are hidden in the dark and you still want to argue that the a7r isnt a good option. The a7r will bring up the shadows while the 5d3 and the 6d will both give you a nice addition of banding and noise.
Only one person in the thread thought that it was exposed improperly while everyone argued that it was.
But just by looking at the pictures I personally think the d800e has less noise but its probably too close to tell.
So you can buy a 6d but dont try to focus using anything except the center focus point if shooting into the dark. However I recommend researching the sony in this aspect because I havent paid that much attention to that point since it doesnt effect the way i shoot.
The 70d crop probably wont improve much if at all noise wise over the t2i unless you only shoot jpeg.
Its not that I dont like canon...I do. I shoot with a 50d but Canon hasnt done anything to improve noise when shooting in raw. The only thing they have done is improve in camera noise reduction which means if you shoot jpeg then the camera is getting better at processing.
You can wait but IMHO you will not see much improvement between the 70D and T2i in the real world.SO much to consider!
I'm not backing up at all when shooting, I'm used to the 640 equivalent, and honestly sometimes it's a tad too short. I suppose that makes FF probably not a great choice. So I could go with the 70D, or wait to see what the 7D Mark II brings to the table. I really want that bump up in image quality; guess we shall see.
Slash, In that comparison at 1600 I think the 70D looked slightly better noise-wise. Of course those look like better lit shots...usually when I'm shooting birds at 1600 it's very dark, which probably leads to all the noise.
5D mkI-MkIII, 6D, and 7D all are capable of shooting in Dual ISO mode with Magic Lantern that will extend the dynamic rage to 14LV. Normal Canon with out Dual ISO dynamic range is 10-11LV, while newer Sony and Nikon sensor range is around 14LV. Hence under normal circumstances newer Sony/Nikon sensor is better than Canon sensor in dynamic range, however with Dual ISO Canon take a leap forward and match the dynamic range of Sony/Nikon sensor at 14LV.
As I have said before, the photograph in the link you provided shown that the user is an amateur who do not know how to properly expose for difficult lighting. And, same go for the majority of the comments as well as you're.
Please read up and learn Dynamic Range, Zonal Systems, LV, EV, spot metering, incident metering, as well as reflective metering. Once you understand it, come back here to educate me and the rest of AT people on how to take pictures, properly expose, and process an image, and on how ignorant you were.
But to properly expose go ahead and put a flash on your camera and shoot with the 400mm lens recommendation....im sure that will do alot of good with exposing properly.
Not sure if that's a sarcastic comment or not, but it reminded me that many bird photogs actually do use flash extensively. Get a high-powered flash unit (such as a 580EX) and put a Better Beamer on it. This should help tremendously with exposure out to ~100 feet. This is actually probably the best expenditure for the OP's needs at the moment.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/better_beamer.shtml
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3651
http://www.digitalbirdphotography.com/7.9.html
Heron @ 200 feet with DIY "Monster Beamer":
That bird on the right's eye freaks me out and detracts from the photo imho. It is not an improvement in my eyes.
It's the same as red-eye in a human photo, it's easily photshopped out. A single click and it's gone. The HUGE increase in detail, from being able to see the feathers, to being able to see the blue coloring, etc. isn't an improvement? I suppose the left side is more evocative, more mysterious, possibly a better general scene; but if your goal is to get a decent shot of the bird itself, the right side is clearly much better, and NO amount of aperture/ISO/etc will combine to give a photo that equals that on the right. If you did, the sky behind would be 100% white.
At least match white point though.
For ID-shots the right one is okay, but from a technical point of view, the color-mismatch and weird lighting makes it a bit of an eye-sore. It's not just the red eye, it's also the flatness that camera-sourced light imparts upon an image.
A bank of off-camera remote fired flashes may well give a better image, or the flash turned down a bit, to allow ambient light to give more depth to the texture (assuming non-diffuse lighting, and not a heavy overcast).
Oh, and i think the sky should be brighter than the bird. That's probably also what throws me off in a major way.
So, yeah, flash can be used at long range, but TTL flash metering is going to be out of whack, so you've got to know what you're doing.
Get full-frame. If you get crop you'll just be left wishing for more
Doubly true if you want to stick with Canon. Canon's crop sensors aren't that great, so if you were in a situation where you really needed some extra reach, just stick a 1.4x TC on a full-frame body. 5D3 will AF at f/8 with a non-reporting TC, 6D should as well.
Get full-frame. If you get crop you'll just be left wishing for more
Doubly true if you want to stick with Canon. Canon's crop sensors aren't that great, so if you were in a situation where you really needed some extra reach, just stick a 1.4x TC on a full-frame body. 5D3 will AF at f/8 with a non-reporting TC, 6D should as well.
By that logic, go Medium Format, if you get Full Frame you'll just be left wishing for more.
I thought AF with a TC was based on the lens? With canon anything above f4 loses AF with even the 1.4, or so I've read
There are a lot of problems with continuing that line of reasoning beyond full-frame 35mm.
Going from crop to full-frame gains image quality and creative possibilities, without sacrificing anything in the way of usability. Sure, the cameras are a bit larger, but they still have advanced AF, lots of shooting options, fast burst rates, good battery life, etc.
Once you go above full-frame, you make a lot of sacrifices in terms of portability and general usability of the cameras. MF is great for studio work, but a FF DSLR is much more versatile for general use, especially with subjects that move.
With full-frame, you have access to lenses that can give you a medium format-like "look", which will be impossible with a crop sensor. For example, a Canon 50mm f/1.4 gives a DOF that matches what would be possible on a MF camera with an 80mm f/2.8 lens. On medium format, there are not many lenses faster than f/2.8, whereas there are a huge number of fast lenses for full-frame DSLRs.
The 5D3 and 1DX won't AF with a reported aperture of slower than f/5.6 (which is f/4 + 1.4x TC). However, if you get a non-reporting TC, the 5D3 has been reported to AF fine even at f/8. There are quite a few threads on this over at Fredmiranda and other photography forums.
There are a lot of problems with continuing that line of reasoning beyond full-frame 35mm.
Going from crop to full-frame gains image quality and creative possibilities, without sacrificing anything in the way of usability. Sure, the cameras are a bit larger, but they still have advanced AF, lots of shooting options, fast burst rates, good battery life, etc.
Once you go above full-frame, you make a lot of sacrifices in terms of portability and general usability of the cameras. MF is great for studio work, but a FF DSLR is much more versatile for general use, especially with subjects that move.
With full-frame, you have access to lenses that can give you a medium format-like "look", which will be impossible with a crop sensor. For example, a Canon 50mm f/1.4 gives a DOF that matches what would be possible on a MF camera with an 80mm f/2.8 lens. On medium format, there are not many lenses faster than f/2.8, whereas there are a huge number of fast lenses for full-frame DSLRs.
The 5D3 and 1DX won't AF with a reported aperture of slower than f/5.6 (which is f/4 + 1.4x TC). However, if you get a non-reporting TC, the 5D3 has been reported to AF fine even at f/8. There are quite a few threads on this over at Fredmiranda and other photography forums.
Well, to be fair, that image was basically being used as a demo for what's possible with the DIY beamers (which basically consist of a frame and a fresnel lens). I don't think that he was arguing the artistic merits of using flash, with that photo (which were more "raw" than a lot of the others on his site, which have been manipulated in PS). The same author/site has lots more examples of using flash that are more subtle / better photos.
NOW I KNOW WHAT WAS BUGGING ME!
Thanks for posting some more examples, I finally figured out the real problem.
The artificial light makes it appear as though the birds were a taxidermists cabinet, and the pictures taken indoor, because the lighting doesn't look properly natural anymore.
Even in the first sample, you notice that light is coming from two directions. Which in nature is...rare. And that makes them look like studio shots. Now I suppose that's not bad per se, but it's been what was irritating me about the technique, besides the flatness issue. So for me, flash as a last resort, or to expressly get that effect, would be okay, but if I could avoid it, I would.
Off-camera flash especially should make the effect more subtle, because you can light up from the direction the main source of light is coming, and thus augment the natural effect. That does restrict your shooting though, because you have to carefully pre-select the areas where you can take a picture, and due to often limited access, you can't always place a flash where you'd like to.
As for the 35mm discussion: it isn't an option for birding, unless birding makes you >10k profit per year already, or you can sink 10k into a hobby. Because those 10k are the markup you pay to maintain roughly the same kind of capability, at the cost of weight and size, for a little bit of low light image quality. And by just getting faster glass for a crop body, you can get similar effects at much reduced expenditure.
Even in the first sample, you notice that light is coming from two directions. Which in nature is...rare. And that makes them look like studio shots. Now I suppose that's not bad per se, but it's been what was irritating me about the technique, besides the flatness issue. So for me, flash as a last resort, or to expressly get that effect, would be okay, but if I could avoid it, I would.