Canon 7D vs 5Dmk2 for Weddings

<p>I would like to know what professional wedding photographers suggest between the two cameras. I've read a ton of different threads and it seems like the general concensus is to go with the 5Dmk2. I have the money to go with either camera, but I really want to make the smart choice based on where I'm at now, and future prospects. I am by no means a professional, but a serious amateur working towards becoming professional. Here's what I'm thinking and questions:</p>

<p>1. Autofocus: I <strong>really</strong> like the multiple crosspoint AF in the 7D. 5Dmk2 seems to be lacking in this area. This is a big issue for me right now because I'm currently using a DSLR that does not have multiple autofocus points--just the center point, and I've been struggling to get accurate focus with large apertures when doing portraits. (Just last week I shot an engagement session and a tiny little twig behind the couples' heads was in focus!) It's also really difficult for me to focus on an eye because my viewfinder uses a very large circle--not a point-- to indicate the area I'm focusing on, so I can't tell if it's focused on the eye or the cheekbone, or the bangs, etc. until I see it in Lightroom.</p>

<p>2. High ISO: This is another thing my little DSLR struggles with and I know can be important for ceremony shots where flash is not allowed. 5Dmk2 wins for High ISO and IQ, but is the 7D really that far behind? Are there a lot of times during a wedding that an ISO higher than what a 7D can do well is needed?</p>

<p>3. Lenses: I do not own any Canon lenses. From what I've read, both EF and EFS lenses can be used on the Canon 7D, but EFS lenses can not be used on the 5Dmk2. Is there an advantage to being able to use both types of lenses on the 7D? Are EF lenses generally considered more expensive/better quality?</p>

<p>4. Sensor size: I know this is hotly debated, but it seems most agree full frame is better for IQ and DOF. I'm happy with the crop on my APS-C DSLR..but in order to become a more serious professional, should I make the leap?</p>

<p>5. Flash: it appears that the 7D has an on camera flash to activate other flashes, while the 5Dmk2 does not? Is the 7D more convenient? I'm painfully aware of my lack of flash understanding, and I need to work on this.</p>

<p>6. Future: The 5Dmk2 is old. But still very popular and considered a great camera. Will the 7D have this same reputation in a couple years?</p>

<p>I've also read that people think Canon will announce the Canon 5Dmk3/5Dx at the end of the month. If current spec rumors are true, would it be wise to buy the new version instead? Or save money and get the 5Dmk2? Or forget it all and go with the 7D?</p>

<p>I know many of the answers to these questions come down to opinion, which is why I'm asking this in the wedding photography forum. I will be shooting my first wedding in a month, for my best friend (last minute decision to get married, very small budget, already told her that she should consider hiring a professional). I hope to become a professional portrait/lifestyle photographer.</p>

<p>My gut tells me to get the 7D, but my brain tells me to get the 5Dmk2, and then the devil on my shoulder tells me to wait and get the new 5Dmk3. What do you think? Thanks for any insight, I'm driving myself crazy!</p>

<p>What's wrong with your current camera?</p>

<p>What I mentioned in 1, 2, and 4. Plus I want better FPS.</p>

<p>By better FPS - frames per second? The 7D wins here, much better for Sports, Action etc, but most Wedding pros are using Full frame, just more flexible. Check the Wedding Forum for more opinions.</p>

 

<p>A couple more questions before committing and answer. Are you in an area where you can rent gear? If so can you afford to rent a body and a couple lenses to try out? Will this affect your purchasing budget? Also why only considering Canon. Have you looked at alternatives?<br>

I will comment, that I would never step back to APSc cameras. IMO the 5DMKII is a no brainer over the 7D. </p>

<p>Assuming you are doing weddings, then the 5D2 for sure. It give much cleaner file than the 7D. You don't need high FPS for weddings and yes the 5D2 AF system leaves a lot to be desired.</p>

<p>Mark: Yes, frames per second. It's not critical to wedding photography, I only mentioned it because Dan wanted to know why I want to upgrade from my current DSLR.</p>

<p>Peter: Yes, I'm looking into renting before I purchase. From what I've read and talked about with other people, Canon seems to be the brand to choose. However, if you have anything to offer for Nikon, go for it :)</p>

<p>Green Photog: how much to be desired? Enough that I should wait for the 5D3? This is my #1 issue because I really really dislike how..finicky..my autofocus is. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Nikon cameras, D300S, D700, D3S, (and the newer D4 and D800) have a lot more autofocus points to use.</p>

<p>1. If you don't have a camera with a sophisticated focusing system now, either the 7D or 5DII will be a step up anyway. The 5DII does have its problems with focus, it seems, but IMHO, you learn to deal with what you have, or get something else. With either one, you are still going to have to learn good autofocus techniques. There is nothing out there that will allow you to have amazingly great focus all the time, without any effort on your part. Not even Nikon cameras, as some will have you believe.</p>

<p>2. The 5DII wins with high ISO only because it is full frame. And only by a small margin. If you don't underexpose, the 7D/cropped sensor camera is fine. You also have to factor in just how often you are going to be printing a high ISO image big. Most of the time, at weddings, these are taken no flash, during a ceremony. Even if you print these large, there are noise reduction processing techniques. Otherwise, there are other things one can do. No one is forcing you to take high ISO images otherwise. If high ISO is such a high priority, you should be looking at a Nikon.</p>

<p>3. There is no advantage to using EF and EFS lenses on a 7D unless you make those advantages by using the 7D for additional reach. It has to be a calculated approach. EF lenses are not generally better quality or more expensive, except that L lenses are never EFS lenses. The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 zoom is not an L lens, but is generally considered to be on par with L lenses, image wise.</p>

<p>4. Full frame is not necessarily better for image quality. It does allow you to have shallower DOF, paired with wide aperture lenses, than a cropped sensor camera. How important that is to you depends on you. IMHO, shallow DOF is overrated for weddings. Obviously, for single person portraits and some two person portraits, a lot can be done to throw backgrounds out of focus. However, for many other types of images, you need some DOF. For portraiture outside of weddings, it can be more important.</p>

<p>5. The 7D is not more convenient by nature of its ability to trigger off camera EX flashes. I personally don't use the Canon wireless system and couldn't care less about this ability. Or the 5DII's lack of a pop up flash.</p>

<p>6. The 7D looks to be on its way to being well regarded years from now. However, I love my 5D (original) and still use it. I love my 20D, even though it has more negatives than my 5D. It is all relative.</p>

<p>7. If you have the money, I'd wait to see what the 5DIII is about. I am. I am even leaving room to switch to Nikon.</p>

<p>8. If you are not in a hurry (DON'T be in a hurry), do as suggested above and rent gear. Only spend your money when you know what works for YOU and what gear you can grow with.</p>

<p>Well, it's often best not to place too much stock in rumors....but a lot of rumor sites did nail down the specs of Nikon's D800 well ahead of time...so I wonder if the specs and announcement dates floating around on the 5d3 may be somewhat accurate. If so, you'll probably see improved autofocus and high iso performance with the 5d3 rather than an increase in pixel count. So, if you have the money, it may make sense to wait a bit. Just make sure to budget for lenses (and a flash?) in addition to the camera.</p>

<p>I have a 5d2, but I haven't shot with the 7d, so I'll skip that part of the question.</p>

<p>OK, let me ask this bluntly then. What camera do you own now? Why do you think it won't work? What other gear do you own? Lenses, flash?</p>

<p>You're shooting a wedding in a month. You should build on what you know now with the gear you have, add too it if you want, but switching cameras will just give you another camera. If your lens options aren't where they need to be you'll be in the same situation later that you're in now, just less cash to fix it. I take it from your comments that you own a Canon 5DmkII, if that's the case then skip the 7D thoughts and look at lenses and flash setups.</p>

<p>For wedding work, I would choose the 5D2 over the 7D.</p>

<p>Depending on your budget, you might consider a gently used 5D. Use it for your first several weddings. Re-invest your earnings into equipment. By that time, the 5D3 might be out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to know what professional wedding photographers suggest between the two cameras. I've read a ton of different threads and it seems like the general concensus is to go with the 5Dmk2. I have the money to go with either camera, but<strong> I really want to make the smart choice based on where I'm at now, and future prospects</strong>. I am by no means a professional, but a serious amateur <strong>working towards becoming professional.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

Then this should be predicted on a plan to buy into a Camera System and not about buying a Camera.<br>

In this regard, consider firstly thinking about the number of cameras in that system (two is minimum) and then about whether or not, it will be a dual format system.<br>

Assuming (because of your post here) that Canon has already been chosen as the Camera System – then the next choice simply follows as which is the better strategic purchase:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>If it is to be a Dual Format Kit, then the 7D is the better choice now, because (a reasonable and logical expectation) the 5DMkII will be replaced soon and you will have better leverage as which to choose then, as the second camera – the 5DMkII (for value) or the 5DMkIII (for better whatever they invent).</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>If it is to be a Single Format Kit:</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>IF you choose APS-C format the 7D is the better choice, (obvious)</li>

<li>IF you choose 135 Format (“Full Frame”) then the 5DMkII is the better choice, (obvious)</li>

</ul>

<p>Now that then brings the questions back to:<br>

Dual or Single Format Kit?<br>

If Single Format - which Format?</p>

<p>It’s my expectation that the answer to the question “<em>If Single Format – which Format?”</em> will be predicated on the LENSES which are available; and your general preferences and styles of shooting and not upon the miniscule differences between the two cameras being discussed.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>Regarding the flash issue, you are probably better off using pocketwizards to trigger off camera flash than the 7D's on camera flash. So I wouldn't consider the presence of an on camera flash to be an advantage for the 7D.</p>

<p>My 2 cents: I've shot weddings, full-hall birthdays, christenings, rubber-chicken award ceremonies, grand openings and 4X6-foot check presentations with a CANON G9 attached to a 580EXII on an articulated arm. No complaints. Enlargements up to poster size if they want them.<br>

The only minor annoyance is the auto-focus acquisition and slight shutter lag, BUT, if you can anticipate and pre-focus these are not insurmountable problems. <br>

Of course a 7D, 5DMkII or a 1Ds would seal the deal easier but I can get by without to much trouble.<br>

This is no testimony to myself but to the capabilities of even now past generation gear. After that it all comes down to the eye and the shutter finger, one of each I hope we all have. </p>

<p>If I was buying now, without having any real investment in lenses or camera bodies, I would opt for the 5D MkII over the 7D. But that isn't the situation I'm in, so I bought a 7D. It works great. Raw image quality is slightly better than the previous 50D but not by much if not shooting jpgs. Autofocus is fast & accurate in just about any lighting conditions, and I think it's a fine camera for weddings. </p>

<p>One advantage the 7D has over the 5D MkII is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. Image Stabilization in a normal range Canon f/2.8 zoom is not available for full frame cameras. A lot of people poo-poo IS in in a wide lens, but I find it to be very helpful at weddings and probably worth the extra stop of high ISO loss. I know that in my case, it certainly offsets the loss, or at least a large part of it.</p>

<p>Another minor issue with full frame cameras is the loss of DOF compared to the smaller APS-C cameras like the 7D. Often to keep the DOF sufficient you have to stop the lens down at least one full stop. When you do, there goes the that high ISO advantage.</p>

<p>But I still think that these advantages of the 7D do not quite offset the gains in image quality by the 5d MkII. They certainly make it closer though.</p>

<p>Interesting series of answers and they underline a point that is common to most members submitting an answer. The 7D is a very good camera in many respects but the consensus is go Full Frame and get a 5DMKII regardless of the well known AF issues that have been extensively documented across the internet.</p>

<p><strong>Why Full Frame?</strong><br>

Noise is a big reason. The full frame sensor is cleaner. It's a function of Pixel density. I'm going to contradict Nadine's point #4 above, that sensor size does not equal better image quality. That's not the case. Consider that pro landscape and portrait shooters will shoot Medium Format (MF) for a reason. They want as much data as possible on the sensor to get the finest detail they can. In the film days this was true of wedding and event shooters as well. The top shooters shot MF. Unfortunately it's not a practical format due to size, weight and a number of factors that would take too long to explain here.</p>

<p>The difference between a FF sensor and a similar APSc cropped sensor is Pixel density. Consider the Photon rain analogy of photons (light) falling into buckets(pixels) which collect the rain drops. A larger bucket collects more drops. Given two sensors with similar numbers of pixels, and each with lenses of the same f/ratio, the larger sensor collects more photons yet has the same spatial resolution. (The lens for the larger sensor would have a longer focal length in order to cover the same field of view is the system with the smaller sensor.) In the analogy of the photon rain filling buckets, the, larger the bucket, the more drops that can be collected in a given amount of time (shutter speed).</p>

<p>This is important for a very fundamental reason: the accuracy of the signal measured is directly proportional to the size of the signal. In the physics of photon counting, the noise in the signal is equal to the square root of the number of photons. Making a deeper bucket does not help with electronic sensors because the light will not penetrate any deeper. So to collect more light, <strong>only surface area matters</strong>, and this is why the "bucket depth" is the same for small and large pixels. Why is this important? It turns out that the noise in good modern digital cameras is dominated by photon counting statistics, not other sources and the larger sensor collects more photons. <a href="http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/">Reference</a></p>

<p>Any wedding and event shooter will tell you that a key, top of the list reason to choose one camera over another will be high ISO ability and sharpness. A full frame sensor will beat an APSc sensor every single time for the reason above. They will also tell you that fine detail and sharpness is critical. The Full Frame sensor beats the APSc on both counts. Otherwise, why not use a Point and shoot camera that has more mega pixels than any of these larger DSLR's? Because noise and fine detail suffer as the sensor gets smaller.</p>

<p>One of their other top reasons for choosing a camera body or system is AF. Wedding, event and kid shooting is fast paced, If you have to use 'tricks' like pre-focusing to get the shot you want, 2 things happen, you miss shots you should have gotten and you're concentrating on camera techniques instead of getting the creative shots you have in your vision. The camera has to be an extension of that vision and <strong>not</strong> something you are fighting with to wrestle the shots from. I don't want to even think about camera functions during a shoot. I want to be totally focused on the shots I want to create. If the AF is letting me down, I'm distracted from my purpose and the shoot will not be as good as it should have been. </p>

<p>Another analogy. I don't know how my fingers actually do everything they do. So if I am a novelist and writing a book. when I go to my desk, I don't have to spend 5 minutes trying to figure out how to get my index finger and thumb to pick up the pencil (or type on the keyboard). I just do it and go about writing. If every action my finger took required mental energy to complete, I would be completely distracted from the creation of the novel, my ideas would be lost before writing them down and the novel would suffer. I want my camera to do what it's supposed to do so I can stay focused on the creation of the shots.</p>

<p>OK so enough of that. Lets look at what choices you have. I'm going to dismiss the APSc format for the reasons above (DOF, High ISO and fine detail).</p>

<p>So you are left with choosing a 5DMKII which has known AF issues. Most of the time, it's OK and you can live with it. In a dark reception hall, a dark church or chasing a 1 year old, it will periodically not get the shots you want. If you are being paid for this work, then that's not acceptable IMO.</p>

<p>You said that rentals are available to you and I would suggest you try a Nikon D700. Not because I'm a Nikon fan-boy but because when I switched 1.5 years ago, it was clearly the better camera in all respects. The D700* is the better camera. The 7D has 19 focus points and the 5DMKII<em></em> has 9 and the Nikon D700 has 51. It can focus far better in tougher situations than these other 2 bodies. It is also superior in low light to the 5DMKII by about 1 stop, providing good images up to ISO6400. The Canon can go above 6400 (as can the Nikon), but I wouldn't shoot it over ISO3200 unless I absolutely had to. <br>

<br /><br>

As for the system approach, Nikon and Canon are about equal, each has a full selection of top end lenses and flash units with service and support to match. Each has weakness's and strengths in the lineups. <br /><br>

*the D700 is an older body and some might suggest has been replaced with the D800 model due for release. The D800 is a very different camera and much more designed for the studio shooter and landscape photographer. Nikon has announced that the D700 is still in the line and will continue to be built until demand drops. I would speculate that this body will be replaced in the next year with an announcement in Jan/Feb 2013.</p>

<p>Also do not get caught up in megapixel counts. The 5DMKII is 21MP and the D700 is 12. That sounds like a disadvantage but actually the reverse is true. The D700 has larger photosites on the sensor and thus more data being collected by each (see above why that matters). As a result, fine detail and low noise is excellent. Myself, I've enlarged to 60" from this camera without issues. Plus as a sidebar, the larger the sensor and thus file size, the more demands on your computer system and data storage. If you get a 21MP camera, can your computer handle the extra load placed on the CPU when processing images? Will you need to buy a new computer at the same time as buying a new camera?</p>

<p> </p>

There is the EF 24-105 4L that have à wider range than 17-

55 for APS. DOF Will be similar. The advantage I see for à

2,8 lens over à 4,0 is the ability to focus in dime conditions.

I also think the 70-200 have à more useful range for FF

than on APS.

<p>Lots of great information from everyone. It really helps. I think I'm pretty much convinced I should go with a full frame camera. But for the second camera, I have read that a lot of photographers really like the Dual Format, as William W describes-- is this because of the better range you can get on a APS-C with the same lens? Or because you can get a great lens otherwise not available for a FF camera, as Jim Strutz mentions? I like the idea of being able to buy whichever lens best fits the budget and what I need, which is one reason I was leaning toward the 7D.</p>

<p>Dan: I've been avoiding mentioning what camera I have because I dont want to start a brand discussion. It's not Canon or Nikon. I plan on renting the 5Dmk2 for about a week which covers the wedding and gives me practice time, and bringing my current DSLR. That way I have back up and if I cant get the hang of the 5Dmk2 quick enough, I'll still have my familiar set up.</p>

<p>Peter: Thanks for the very in-depth post. You've convinced me to go full frame! I will look into the D700. Before I rent anything I'm going to drop in at a camera store and hopefully play around with the cameras mentioned. I'm leaning towards Canon, but I havent yet played around with either brand's system menus to see which feels right (and ergonomics). And I do have the computer to handle it.</p>

<p>So this leaves me with trying to figure out if a dual format system is best, or stick with full frame. Being able to buy whichever EF or EFS lens is best in regards to price appeals to me, but does it matter? It looks like there are not that many EFS lenses available compared to EF.</p>

<p>Even though I m a Canon shooter, I would have to agree with a lot of the points Peter Z makes. A lot of your decision should be based on what you already have. If you are not that committed to any system yet, then rent to try out different options. I have the original 5D, and love it. This is coming from starting with a 40D (crop). I find the detail much better with full frame, and the lens selection way better with full frame, as well as shallower depth of field. I am getting more and more into portrait work, and love the images that the 5D produces. <br /> I also agree strongly with what Nadine is saying. You have to get used to any new body, regardless of how good the AF is. The AF system on the 5D I own is not the best, but I have learned how to work with it to get a very high percentage of keepers in terms of in focus shots. I helped shoot an Indo-Canadian wedding last summer, and used my 5D with my 70-200 f4 lens. Granted, the wedding was outside, and there was enough light, but I found that this combination was pretty darn good to work with, whereas trying to use my 70-200 on my 4D would have been way more challenging because of the different field of view.<br /> Good luck on your choices. I would say if you need to camera right now get the 5D MK II, or rent one, and save for a 5D MK III when it comes out. There is always the option to get a great deal on a 5D original like I did. I got mine for about a grand a year or so ago, and it is in pristine condition. Then maybe eventually you could get a crop camera (7D?) and have a dual format system. I don't see myself getting into weddings much, but if I did I would want a dual format system so you don't have to worry as much about changing lenses etc. on the fly. <br /> Good luck!<br>

I am attaching an image from the wedding where I was a back up shooter.</p>

<p>Oops. Here is one image from the wedding I shot at.</p><div></div>

<p>Lauren, Certainly the on screen menus are different and if you are familiar with one system's style, the other might feel foreign. But I wouldn't necessarily base a purchase one one being 'better' than another. Each has it's quirks, each have good features and each could be better. But why I don't feel the menu's make much difference is, once you have set up the camera the way you like it, you don't use the menus very much and rarely in the middle of a shoot.</p>

<p>Where I like the feel of a Nikon is the dual wheels to control aperture and shutter speed. I never found the wheel on the rear of a Canon to be as easy to use. Pentax uses the same layout as does Sony. For some reason, Canon has decided to do this differently. Where it makes a bigger difference is if you add a grip to the body, I have fairly big hands and with a grip added, in portrait orientation, my thumb can't reach the aperture control dial on a Canon without shifting my hand. When shooting flash, having fast and easy aperture control is critical. With the dual wheel arrangement on the other brands, it works and is much easier to control. But that is a personal choice.</p>

<p>If you are going to spend some time at a store to try both cameras, then take your own CF card and try to do a test series in the store. Go find a dark spot and do some hand held focusing tests and high ISO tests. Use the same focal length lens with or without anti shake on both. Then do some tests in good light the same way. Finally try to capture people walking through the store and see how well the AF locks in for each camera. The tests won't be prefect because you won't know all the finer points of how each camera works but it will give you some indication of the quality of each camera. Take the card home and study the photos you took to help determine which camera feels right for you.</p>

<p>I would caution against being 'pushed' to one brand or the other. Salespeople may be well meaning but have an affinity for one over the other. Maybe they shoot Nikon and don't encourage Canon. Maybe they are getting a commission boost (often called a spiff) to sell one over the other. If you like Canon better, fine, that's you're choice and just see for yourself if it will do what you need it to do.</p>

<p>Look at the lenses that are available and the prices. If Nikon turns out to be too expensive to get what you think you need, then Canon may be your answer and vice versa. Don't dismiss the 3rd party lens choices either. This levels the playing field quite a bit. For example, the 24 or 28mm - 70mm range is a key lens that most shooters look at first. If you are used to APSc, 18mm on APC = 24mm on FF. Nikon's pro grade 24-70mm f2.8 is $1899. Canon's new 24-70mm f2.8 is $2299. Tamron makes a stellar 28-75mm f2.8 that is $599. I have 2 of these lenses and love it. I've used the Nikon version and honestly there is very little difference.</p>

<p>Now dual format. IMHO, there is only one reason to do this. That a lens shows a different crop circle on the smaller sensor. So for example, the APSc camera is approx 1.5 crop factor, meaning that a 50mm lens on APSc give the same crop and a 75mm on a FF body. So the lens might have 2 different uses.</p>

<p>But I think this "advantage" (I contend that this isn't and advantage at all) is outweighed by confusion. Even with the same brand system, there are differences between bodies. If you look at the top shooters in the business, they all always shoot a pair of identical or near identical bodies.<br /> The reason is simple, first you know exactly how a lens works on both bodies you are carrying and more importantly, if you switch between bodies during a shoot, you don't fumble with different controls on each body. Certainly within one brand, the controls are similar, but they are not the same. Last thing you need is grabbing the APSc body and missing the shot because you forgot that some control works a bit differently that your FF body. Manufacturers do this on purpose, they want to differentiate the APSc 'consumer grade' cameras from the FF 'professional grade' bodies.</p>

<p>Finally, you will actually spend more having APSc and FF in your kit. For example, you want an wide to mid length zoom available to each camera. So you buy a 24(28)mm-70mm lens for your FF. Then you buy a 17-50mm zoom for your APSc to as closely as possible give you the same focal range. You've spent $500 on a lens that can only be used on the APSc body. If both bodies were FF, you could use the same 24-70mm lens on both bodies. Same goes for prime lenses. the 2 most common lenses used for wedding shooters are the 50mm and 85mm. If you put the 50mm on APSc, it's almost the same frame crop as the 85mm on FF. So that combo becomes redundant. Putting the 85mm on APSc would be too long and the 50mm on FF might not be long enough most of the time. So to fix this, you buy a 35mm for your APSc body to give you near 50mm crop. Thus now you've bought 2 extra lenses you didn't need.</p>

<p>It's a more expensive option to own 2 FF bodies at the beginning but worth it once you get to that level. At first I'm going to contradict myself if your budget is limited and buying 2 $2500 FF bodies is out of reach. I would recommend that you get a cheaper used APSc body as a backup body. Maybe if it's Canon, a 40D If it's Nikon a D90. Both will do a fine job as a spare. When the budget allows, sell them off and get a second FF body to pair with the main camera.</p>

<p>Note, one advantage with Canon would be that for now, you could buy a second hand 5D as your backup body. It's still a very good camera and until you are ready for 3 equal bodies, this could make a difference. Nikon doesn't have a pre-D700 body you could buy as a spare, so you would either have to get an APSc body or a second D700. Since the D700 is so well regarded, the used prices are as high as the new ones.</p>

<p>I forgot another option as a backup body for a D700. Instead of a D90, the better choice would be a D300s (nearly identical in controls to the D700) or a D300. </p>

<p>Peter--I don't refute what you said re full frame. Note that what I said is a bit different than you state.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Full frame is not <strong><em>necessarily</em></strong> better for image quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are experienced wedding photographers (David Wegwart is one of them) who use cropped sensor cameras for weddings and their choice was a deliberate choice, for other reasons.</p>

<p>I guess I was saying that buying a full frame camera by itself does not equal 'better' image quality. Someone who knows what they are doing may be able to produce better image quality with a cropped sensor camera that someone with a full frame camera who doesn't know what they are doing... Can a cropped sensor camera produce good enough image quality for weddings? Absolutely.</p>

<p>Anyway, Sandra, you will (and I think you knew this) be getting lots of differing answers. As I've always said--you need to make your own priority list and follow your own needs and desires.</p>

<p>More importantly, I can't stress enough the value of using a camera to cement decisions. This is not only to assess technical issues, but 'personal' ones as well. For instance, some people like the layout of controls better on a Nikon or Canon camera--the company philosophy could be important to you re future cameras. It isn't all about technical features.</p>

<p>Another example--you may think (on paper) that you would like to get a D1X because of the features. Yet when you actually use one, for a wedding, you realize how important size and weight are to a wedding photographer--particularly a smaller wedding photographer (like myself). This is one of the reasons I don't put a battery grip on my cameras. I like the small size of the cameras. I like how small the 40D is (I use one as a second camera).</p>

<p>It is all well and good to take in information and opinions. I'd say get out there, rent some cameras and figure things out for yourself.</p>

<p>Nadine, I completely agree with your recent post. I only posted the FF vs APSc noise info because there is a lot of misinformation out there as to the differences. FF isn't better because it's bigger or whatever.</p>

<p>You are also correct that the model or brand is a personal choice as much as a technical one. What works best for you and your style is as equally important as the technical features of any model or system.</p>

<p>As for the following. Absolutely. A Jeff Ascough could produce a wedding that was breathtaking with a Rebel. The tools are important, but the skill and vision are even that much more important. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I was saying that buying a full frame camera by itself does not equal 'better' image quality. Someone who knows what they are doing may be able to produce better image quality with a cropped sensor camera that someone with a full frame camera who doesn't know what they are doing... Can a cropped sensor camera produce good enough image quality for weddings? Absolutely.</p>

</blockquote>