5dMark II vs. 7D : which matches my lens collection

<p>I am currently looking to purchase a DSLR. I own a Canon 50mm 1.4, Canon 24mm 2.8, and a Canon 85mm 1.8. I am aware of the way the crop changes the focal lengths.<br>

I will be using the cameras indoors with natural light as well as for street/architectural photography in NYC. I would like to be able to shoot in low light situations as well (streets at night).<br>

I have always been a snob for 35mm film and would obviously prefer the FF camera, but I am wondering if I can really justify the cost difference of $800. <br>

How significant is the difference in DOF? Will my lack of L glass show on a 5Dm2? Anyways, any suggestions would be appreciated.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Yes you can. 5D MkII.</p>

<p>You have a an old skool trio of primes for a 35mm film. You must have walked through a wormhole from 1979. I'd get the 5DII and pronto.</p>

<p>As someone who owns both bodies and all your lenses except the 24mm - get the 5DII. Of the two the 5DII is (in my opinion the better camera) and except for AF and the wireless flash control beats the 7D in every dimension. The DOF difference is noticible between the two bodies - especially for portrait and macro shots. With the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 you have lenses that are the equal (if not better) than the F2.8 L zooms. On the 5DII you will find both of these lenses soft wide open but will be happy with them from F2 / f2.8 onwards. I cannot personally see the difference between the 50 F1.4 and my 24-70 F2.8L on the 5D II if they are shot at 50mm and the same aperture so I would not worry about your glass. For low light the 5DII is almost 2 stops better in my opinion. I will generally try to use the 7D below ISO 800 (only going to 1600 or 3200 for low light sports) in contrast 5DII images at 3200 ISO are very good. these crops of hocky shorts show the difference.</p>

<div></div>

<p>the above is the 5DII at ISo 3200, here is the 7D (Raw converted in DPP - Photoshop is poor at high ISO on the 7D)</p><div></div>

<p>No brainer, 5D II, and yes it will be worth the extra money. The lack of L glass is not an issue at all with primes, but if you buy zooms in the future you should definitely go for the red stripe.</p>

<p>I can't answer the question about depth of field. I'm pretty sure that if you get the 7D (a fantastic camera; I have one), you'll miss having a wide-angle lens, since your widest lens will be wider than what a 35mm lens (which is only moderately wide) is on a full-frame body. Your lenses are good enough for either body; good primes can be just as sharp as L zooms.</p>

 

<p>If the choice is 7D or 5D II, and changes to the lens collection are forbidden in either situation, I think you'd be happier with the 5D II. If lens changes are possible, then it becomes a bit more complex, but still, by the time you've adjusted your lens collection to suit the smaller sensor of the 7D, you'll probably have spent what you'd have spent on the 5D II anyway, and if you don't need any of the nifty features of the 7D (and I'm guessing you don't), the 5D II is probably still the better choice for you.</p>

 

<p>So: go get that 5D II and enjoy using a great camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I have always been a snob for 35mm film and would obviously prefer the FF camera, but I am wondering if I can really justify the cost difference of $800. </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a no-brainer award. You have just answered your own question.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>I've got the 7D, and have been a wee bit regretful that I didn't splurge on the 5D MkII (though, to be honest, the 7D was a splurge itself). If I had to do it again, I'd definitely get the MkII, even it it means waiting another month or two to save.</p>

<p>If you like shooting wide and wide open (at least in part for the DOF), I'd absolutely go with the MkII. There is a noticeable difference in DOF between the two at equivalent focal lengths (a 30mm 1.4 on crop versus 50mm 1.4 on FF), probably in the range of 2+ stops. So your 30mm 1.4 on a 7D would look close to a 50mm 2.8-ish on FF. Not the end of the world, but it could be better if you like the narrow DOF.</p>

<p>5DII. Period.</p>

<p>I would really like to think of any, even a minute argument, to oppose the above views, but I cannot - you should buy a 5DmkII<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>A comprehensive discussion of APS-C vs. FF:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm</a></p>

<p>Quick answer to your DoF question: DoF will be slightly more than 1 stop shallower on a FF, when comparing equivalent fields of view (e.g. 160mm on FF, vs. 100mm on APS-C).</p>

<p>I love my full frames, both the 5D and the Mark II. With that said, the 7D with my 17-55 2.8 IS attached with a 580 EX II it produces some super nice shots. Very sharp! But If I had ONE choice, Mark II all the way. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p><em><strong>"Will my lack of L glass show on a 5Dm2?"</strong></em><br>

I don't have the 5DMkII nor the 24/2.8, but I do have the 5D and the 50/1.4 and 851.8 . . .<br>

I agree with Philip Wilson re the 50/1.4 . . . IMO it is more than quite nice in the sharpness stakes at F/2.2 and beyond, but I think he is too harsh on the 85/1.8. I use the 85 wide open, often and am very satisfied with the results.<br>

Maybe the 5DMkII is less forgiving of both lenses - I have not used a 5DMkII. Maybe Philip is more critical than I – hard to judge over discussion on an internet forum . . . <br>

All the images in my portfolio are reasonably hi res - - - have a look for yourself and see what you think of the 85/1.8 used at F/1.8.<br>

The 85 wide open: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=925231">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=925231</a><br>

The 50 close to wide open: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=965762">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=965762</a><br>

The 50 reasonably wide open and high ISO: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=964622">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=964622</a><br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>I can't wait for Canon to make a 5D MIII... You know, with a full frame sensor AND all the advanced goodies the 7D has... You know it coming, it's just a matter of when.</p>

<p>As for me, I'm a current 7D owner and couldn't be happier. I know it's not a full frame but with my shooting style, I opted for the newer, more advanced 19 point auto focus system that the 7D has. I've used a 30D, 50D and a 5D MII and was always a little frustrated with the 9 point AF system on those. With that said, if (or when) Canon does make a 5D MIII with all the features of the 7D, I'll be all over that!</p>

<p>William - it is just the edge sharpness on the 85 f1.8 that I find a little soft - don't get me wrong it is very usable at F1.8 but is not good until F2 (ish). It is also possible that you have a slightly better copy than I do. I like the 85 f1.2 but always regret that it is not the 85 f1.2. I spent over 20 years shooting with the FD 85 F1.2 and still love to use that lens. It may well be that I am being too harsh on the 85 f1.8 - one day I will get the F1.2 lens (perhaps when they get to Mk III). The 5DII is quite hard on lenses - I have always been happy with the 85 F1.8 on film and on my 1DIIN (or indeed the 7D where the edges our out of the shot).</p>

<p >

 

Philip - Gidday, thanks for replying. </p>

<p >

<p>

<p>

<p>Yes I well know you passion for the FD 85F/1.2 - I read many of your informative comments here at Photonet.

<p>

<p>I agree about the edge sharpness of the EF85/F1.8 when used at F/1.8.

<p>

<p>But also I do Focus and Recompose quite often and I am not going to assume that it is not I who is a little out of whack . . .

<p>

<p>And edge sharpness, whilst important, has never been really high on my priority, because of the framing and the type of photos I have tended to take.

<p>

<p>I am not sure that my 85/1.8 is a better copy than yours - I think we just both expect a lot from our gear and we each know our gear quite well - and can quite easily define the limits of our gear and we each also know our own limits.

<p>

<p>I think that the frustration of Internet Forums (for me at least) are the limitations of the written word and the disjointed nature of the conversations and the inability of direct social contact and physical handling of cameras and lenses . . . being able to do all those things . . . but it seems to me this website is pretty good at harnessing a broad range of critical and well informed opinions . . . of which yours is one - I always look forward to reading your comments.

<p>

<p>WW

 

<p >

<p>PS I note that the 5DMkII is "quite hard on lenses" - thanks for that informtion - I have filed it away in my brain box - as I wrote: I do read all your text, carefully.

<p>

<p>

 

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Your lenses cost less than either body. Therefore, I would not solely base the decision which camera to take on the lenses you already have.</p>

"Your lenses cost less than either body. Therefore, I would not solely base the decision which camera to take on the lenses you already have."

<p>Hmmm..... not sure I understand exactly what you're trying to say Matthias :)

<p>To the OP: 5D2 and don't look back :)

<p>For the specific reasons that Randy the OP listed, I think the 5DII is definitely the right choice. I do happen to think though that the 7D is the better all-around camera for reasons stated a zillion times before on this and other forums. I'm with Dean though; when Canon releases the 5DIII with the 7D's features I'll be one of the first in line, admittedly because I like really cool new, shiny things, <em>not</em> because I need anything else since for me the 7D meets all of my photographic needs superbly and I find that I don't want much else in a camera.</p>