So This Guy Says To Me...

<p>I was speaking with a photographer the other day who has been "shooting forever" and started his own business at the age of 40 (shooting school photos, school sports, senior portraits etc) and he mentioned he had a Canon 7D. I thought "Hey great time to talk to another photographer" so I mentioned that I havea Canon 5D Mark II and he proceeded to say "Oh man. You need one of those like you need a hole in the head". Obviously nobody really needs 21mp but still, can anybody support his claim? I know the 5D Mark II isn't as "simple" as his 7D but I would still like to believe that there's a good reason I own this camera. I mean, in all honesty, I could care less what he says but I'd like to know what you photographers out there thought: what do you think about the choice between a Canon 7D and a Canon 5D Mark II?<br>

- Anthony</p>

<p>Oh boy, incoming. I have both and for sports (which I rarely do) and aviation photos, I shoot my 7D. For all other type of shooting I shoot the full frame (5D & 5D mark II). I do like the AF, metering and white balance of the 7D but for pure clean picture, I love my mark II. Only other issue I have with the crop frames, when shooting a blue sky, I get noise in the blue even at the lowest ISO. My full frames don't have that issue. So final question, "If I have one camera which one?" <strong>5D mark II</strong>. If I was packing light for travel, 7D bacuse the on-board flash. You have an awesome camera, don't sweat it. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>A, I don't know how "complicated" the 5D II is, but after months of owning 2 7Ds, I still haven't touched the plethora of AF modes. Center point is about all I can handle. That said, I covet a 5D II. I just didn't have the money at the time. (sigh) Maybe the 5D III.</p>

<p> Smile, say thank you, walk away and forget about it.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"Oh man. You need one of those like you need a hole in the head"</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This guy has an attitude. The wrong attitude.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p><em>he proceeded to say "Oh man. You need one of those like you need a hole in the head".</em></p>

<p>Don't worry about it. Inside he was going "Damn! I wish I had one of those!"</p>

<p> <strong>"Oh man. You need one of those like you need a hole in the head".</strong><br>

I guess he uses cheap kit lenses on his 7D too , I guess maybe he was suffering from gear envy (I wonder if he uses the <strong>P</strong> for professional mode all the time )</p>

<p>They are fairly equivalent in practice.<br>

One represents the next to the top for APS cameras (I'd still put the APS-H camera at top, even though....). The other is next-to-the-best for 35mm sensors. Presumably that's why Canon did the unusual name of 7D rather than 80Dds or whatever it could have been.</p>

<p>There was no need for either of you to feel sensitive about the capabilities of either camera, although the guy was obviously what here in migrant worker country we call el-jerko, closely related to the chupacabra.</p>

<p>Different strokes, etc.</p>

<p>I shoot mostly action with a collection of 1.6crop cameras (including a 7D), but I'm nevertheless in the market for a "full frame" body for more deliberate shooting.</p>

<p>Sheesh!, and I thought I looked cool with a Battery Grip on my 40D!</p>

<p> Camera Schmamera it is the monkey operating the thing that make the real difference!</p>

<p>With those envious types, I just complement their fine equipment and smile.</p>

<p>like others I also own both (they make a good pair). Of the two the 5DII is the better camera for most subjects. The 7D has only two real advantages - it is better for sports (faster AF, 1.6 crop and fast frame rate) and it has wireless flash control built in. For almost all other shooting I prefer the 5DII for its better high ISo performance, higher image quality (small but noticible) and wide angle use. I guess the built in level in the 7D can be called an advantage but I still use the green plastic spirit levels.</p>

<p>I won't attempt to analyze the competence of this guy, but depending upon what you do he might have a point.</p>

<p>My feeling is that cropped sensor cameras are clearly capable of producing excellent image quality, and they often provide some useful features at a lower price point. If you mostly hand hold your shots and don't generally print really big you'll see little or now image quality benefits from shooting full frame. I'm convinced that the majority of folks shooting DSLRs are getting plenty of quality from their cropped sensor bodies, and that their photographs would not look different in any significant way if they switched.</p>

<p>But I shoot full-frame. What's up with that?</p>

<p>I usually shoot from a tripod or very carefully (at least most of the time) handheld, I use good lenses, and I am pretty particular about various aspects of the capture stage. I know what I'm doing - though always willing to learn new techniques - when it comes to post-processing, and I do my own printing at up to 24" x 36" sizes. I don't need the higher burst rates and so forth provided by cameras like the excellent 7C.</p>

<p>The people I feel bad for are the folks who feel that they need to get a 5D2 or a 1Ds so that they can take relatively casual photos that they'll share on the web or send out for printing at small sizes. Either they have been sold a bill of goods by someone claiming that these cameras will be "better" for them in some objective way or else they are just trying to impress people with the gear they can afford.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>after months of owning 2 7Ds, I still haven't touched the plethora of AF modes. Center point is about all I can handle. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I love that you said this! Then again, there are people who shoot only in bright light that don't need anything over 200 ISO so the 5d might seem more to handle!<br>

Whenever a random person contributes something like that, just say, "Is that right?" If he keeps going, you keep repeating that line until he gets it. Works greatly for me!</p>

<p>It's a loaded topic to begin with, and it's not really fair to compare the two. Leaving the FF vs APS-C religious argument off the table for now, the fact is that the 5DII was built around it's very fine FF sensor to suit a particular market segment and price point. It was rounded out with new features over it's older brother as best as possible within that price point, and it quickly became a hit among the budget constrained FF faithful. It was never designed to be the all around most useful affordable DSLR. It was designed to be the best value in a FF DSLR. Big difference.... The 1080P movie mode was a bonus that fit into the price point without re-inventing the wheel, and gave the 5DII a huge marketing boost in return. After all, even as the value leader in FF DSLR's, the 5DII isn't cheap, and it was important to give some mojo beyond what the FF faithful were willing to pay for it without question.</p>

<p>It is a great success, and Canon continues to give it heavy play, as it is likely the highest profit margin DSLR model in it's lineup (relative to R&D costs), and it helps push consumer budgets for gear and lenses ever higher over time. Aside from it's limited feature set due to it's price point, and the expense of it's sweet FF sensor core, it is also becoming quite long in the tooth due to it's age in the ultra competitive DSLR market place.</p>

<p>Enter the 7D. The 7D employs a sensor size that "fits" 90+ percent of all DSLR cameras built by Canon. It is in the hottest segment of the market in terms of engineering competition, consumer brand name market status, overall profit return on investment resulting from sheer manufacturing volume of newly designed components that will fit many other high volume models with little or no modification in a short time frame (even though some models like the 7D may initially appear to be priced below real cost).</p>

<p>That is the category where tech advances are rapidly made, things happen in the market place, and sheer volume spread over many models and price points can erase design failure losses, as well as reap huge rewards for successful engineering risks. Even though manufacturers are careful to classify cameras like the 7D as "pro-sumer", and "advanced amateur" cameras to maintain their marketing pecking order, there are likely more cameras in it's class employed by successful pros than the ultra priced "pro" series cameras that consumers and dreamers believe to be the only choice working pros are willing to consider.</p>

<p>Because of the smaller space needed by an APS-C sensor, the higher ROI of APS-C development, and the combination of huge volume potential despite crushing competitive pressure, the much newer 7D is far more advanced than the 5DII in almost every measure. It's just a simple function of progress. The next version of the 5D will likely offer many of the improvements built into the current 7D, along with a larger/better FF carrot, and the cycle will continue.</p>

<p>I know some FF advocates will scream at me for suggesting that any lowly APS-C camera might be a better choice than a 5DII for shooting anything other than a four hummingbird throwdown, or (gasp) that a 7D offers better button design, better weather sealing, far more advanced metering functions, better and more advanced control layout, much better AF, video, speed, and speed (I like speed). You can slow a 7D down to a crawl, but you can't speed up a 5DII much faster than near dead. Also consider the advanced menu layout, custom options, built in wireless strobe control, 100% viewfinder coverage, selectable transparent LCD viewfinder overlay, dual axis electronic level in both rear LCD and viewfinder modes, much improved rear LCD panel, faster write-to-CF card speed, dual DIGIC 4 chips that deliver better still and video performance than a 5DII can be tweaked with firmware to match in several important areas, and even offers enough extra speed to allow real time wireless video transfer to an external monitor/storage device (no way on a 5DII). That list just scratches the surface for a start.</p>

<p>The truth is, unless you are devoted to FF as a matter of blind faith, are in such constant need of the few clear advantages inherent to the FF sensor that the long list of APS-C related features you must give up to have FF as your primary camera is easy, or if you just feel better owning the highest priced camera you can afford, the 7D can understandably be mistaken for highly advanced alien technology when compared to the 5DII.</p>

<p>It's generational, not personal....</p>

<p>The 5DII is a great camera, and will continue to be a great camera. It's FF sensor is the most important single photographic goal for some people, and it delivers that metric in a solid package, with a feature set, and price point that appeals to a broad enough segment of the market to be reasonably profitable, and very attainable. Sweet! For many others, APS-C sensor line currently capped by the 7D offers the best overall feature set for a working camera, and the 5DII is more of a specialty tool. We all have great choices available today, and even better choices tomorrow with both sensor sizes.</p>

<p>The "guy" in the story was way out of line dismissing the 5DII as claimed, but then again, many people who save their coins for a 5DII, and an all EF-L lens kit to the exclusion of anything else build a personal wall of denial that allows them to consider APS-C cameras to be substandard junk cameras for those who cannot afford the "real thing". They are just as out of line as the "guy" in the story.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was reading this, and understanding your stance from previous posts, I liked how it started at least. Its true, the 7d has lots of bells and whistles that almost make you wonder why you are even needed to take the photo in the first place! (Don't interpret that as an insult to the 7D or technology). The sad thing is, for what I do, the only thing that really impresses me is the thought of putting a wireless flash control into the 7d. (Hurry up canon 5diii!)<br>

I will have to say its not surprising that 7d advocates are obsessed with speed, considering how speedily they run through the determining factor of a 5dii. I will first post these outside links:<br>

http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-7d-vs-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-iso-comparison-2/<br>

http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/<br>

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eos-7d-review/ (scroll way down!)<br>

I do this to share a variety of side by side comparisons. I do this because for the crop fundamentalists, they focus heavily on what they care about, speed. I'm doing this because I focus heavily on IQ, which is all that matters to me and others in the end. My buildings and landscapes don't need that many points tracking them! <br>

I will go as far as saying this though on my views between the two:<br>

The 7d is an excellent camera, it is better built to handle more things than the 5dii can handle. The 5d series is in a niche market, and shoots to a specific niche. The thing is, the mere existence of this camera should show how big this niche is! In the end, if you shoot indoors, if you shoot after 4pm, if you shoot portraits, if you shoot landscape, the 5d series has more to offer on the IQ end. If you shoot fast action sports, planes, fast moving wildlife, if you're a military photographer, fast moving street scenes, (anything that implies fast or speed really), the 7d is cheaper while still managing to be overkill for that purpose! I defend the 5d whenever I see 5d users insulted for their decision is all. There are potentially more crop zealots spamming the internet than there are ff ones. In the end they are 2 different tools, and everyone but the owner's insight is just pure nonsense. You get the tool you need/want.<br>

I'd like to end with an excerpt from dpreview:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"In some respects the 7D is even a better camera than the EOS 5D Mark II and a viable alternative for all those who do not want or need a camera with a full-frame sensor. Its 8 fps continuous shooting speed and highly flexible AF system might even make it a consideration for credit-crunch battered sports photographers on a budget." - dpreview<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I am one of those people who saved his pennies for the FF kool-aid (just aquired a 5D original). For me I had this specific goal in mind for many years. It all depends on your type of shooting. I do very little sports shooting. If I do, it is for the local school to help their yearbook. 3fps is fine.</p>

<p>Most of my shots are deliberately set up, portraits, animals, candids, where the AF speed and burst rate of the 7D is just overkill for me.</p>

<p>I was able to get a very nice condition 5D for about $300 less than a 7D... not a very big difference, and yes the original 5D is getting older in it's technology but: Had I stayed with APS sensors a couple of things were really bugging me:</p>

<p>#1: The lack of my 50mm lens ... being a normal 50mm lens. 80mm is just too close for comfort in too many situations. To get the normal perspective I would need to buy a 30mm lens.</p>

<p>#2: I would need to buy an extra lens (the 10-22) in order to get the extra wide coverage which I already have in 17-40.</p>

<p>So for me and my lens line-up, a FF just made sense. What really put the last nail in the coffin was when I began using my old film camera with my lenses... I started burning through film like no tomorrow, and the price of the Used FF would have soon been reached with the price of film.</p>

<p>I would consider this guy to be a APS extremist, just blow it off if your 5DII works for your needs.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I could care less what he says</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assume you mean <em>couldn't</em> care less. Could care less is a strange US version of the phrase.</p>

<p>LOL, Steve I believe A Tran has enough people messing with him as is!</p>

<p>It's an idiom. In the American version, it is an ironic statement. At least he didn't say aluminium or Nick-ar-AGG-wa.</p>

<p>Andrew "P" for professional mode! Very funny, I'm going to use that one.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, I don't know how I could have made such a mistake. Obviously I meant "Nick-ar-AGG-you-a."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I assume you mean <em>couldn't</em> care less. Could care less is a strange US version of the phrase."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my "other life"(college faculty) I get to be professionally concerned about stuff like this. "Couldn't care less" is the correct expression in US English, as well. The "could care less" business is a misuse of the phrase by those who haven't thought about what it means.</p>

<p>"Couldn't care less" is essentially the core of an idea fully expressed thusly:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Given than I <em>do not care at all about this</em> it should be obvious that<em> I couldn't care less </em>about it, because caring less than not caring at all is impossible."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To say "I could care less" suggests something completely different:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Although I can imagine how <em>I could care less</em> about this than I do, I do care about it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, if you want to express your utter lack of interest in something, say "I couldn't care less." Or, use a more contemporary expression: "I don't give a sh!t." ;-)</p>

<p>Dan<br>

BTW: I have a few other favorite bizarrely morphed expressions. Some students now are starting to substitute "back round" for "background" in their writing, and others have written "fast paste" when they meant "fast paced!" Gotta' love 'em!</p>

<p>We live in an age of extravagance. It would be easy to make long lists of all the stuff we all have that we really don't need. I don't see spending an extra $1K on a camera all that bad in world where people drive Hum-Vees to the grocery store. Do I need a 5DII? I was doing just fine with my 20D, and before that with my mechanical film cameras, but I still love my 5DII! :)</p>

<p>I was selling cameras when the movie Stepmom came out. We saw a rush of moms come in asking for "that camera Julia Roberts was using". It was a Nikon F5. It turned out that what they really liked was the continuous shooting, and after seeing the price tag most went with a N60 or N70. One bought the big F5 though, and the gearheads who hung out at the store were crapping themselves. The audacity of this woman to come in here and buy the most expensive camera for snapshots of her kids! Didn't she know F5s were for real photographers. You know, the kind of guy who hangs out at the camera store talking gear all weekend instead of going out shooting. ;)</p>

<p>I am a Nikon guy but I suppose if I was shooting around a school, particularly sports" I might use my D300 more frequently than the D3. At worst either would be fine. For protraits either camera is just fine. Soooo. The guy is a jerk. He is not wrong, just rude. If he has carved out this little niche he falls into the category of professionals who are good at some things but not most things like a generalist would be.<br>

<br />Enjoy your big sensor. Most professionals gear-up for what they do. Most full-time folks I know have both. </p>

<p>I have never liked using "I could care less" in writing or speech, but in speech the meaning is clear through context and inflection. The context of the post made it clear what was meant, and I'm so used to it I hardly notice it, but it would certainly be jarring to those who don't encounter it in daily speech.<br>

Sort of like using "sure" or "right" in mock agreement with a statement. "Yeah, right" works in writing because its meaning is clear.</p>