5d mark 1 vs. 7d?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by ralph_nguyen, Feb 5, 2010.

  1. Howdy all,
    I shoot mostly everything and I think it's about time I think about upgrading my body from an XSI. I do too much low light and action-oriented photography to tolerate the XSI's low-light handling.
    I know there are a lot of threads comparing the 5dm2 to the 7d, but there are none comparing the 7d to a 5dm1? Can you guys tell me about that?
    How do I know if I need full-frame? I have tried the 10-22 and it is A LOT of fun to use. I wish I didn't need that dedicated lens to get that type of view, but I really enjoy the 1.6x "zoom" on the crop sensors as well.
    So I was wondering for in the $1000-range, should I try and aim for a 5dm1 or a 7d?
    Also, I get $2500 in scholarship money in May. I was wondering if I should use that to get a 7d + ~$1000 of camera equipment, or get a 5dm2? Right now, I have a 24-70/2.8L, 100-400L, 85/1.8, and a 50/1.8.
    What do you guys think? Keep in mind, I shoot everything.
     
  2. I too upgraded from an XSi and I settled on the 7D. I did my first shoot with it yesterday and I can tell you it is clearly a considerable upgrade. I cannot tell you about the 5D but I know that you will be making a change as to the focal lengths of any lenses you already own if you go with a full frame. The 7D's focus accuracy is amazing and I have literally only a few from a 600+ shots session that were not significantly sharper than my Rebel. Again, I can't comment on the comparison to the 5D, but I can say with a high degree of safety that you will not be disappointed in the 7D. It's amazing!
     
  3. Maybe you are studying photography and the scholarship is to provide you with the kit you need. If not, I can't help raising an eyebrow at the idea of spending $2500 of scholarship money on toys, when other possible recipients might have the usual priorities of rent, heat and food. But there you go, funny old world.
     
  4. I wish I didn't need that dedicated lens to get that type of view,
    I'm confused by this statement. You want that field of view, but you don't want a lens dedicated to providing you that field of view?
    Are you hoping you can get the same field of view from a 300mm? I don't get it.
     
  5. Between the 5D and the 7D, go with the 7D. I have both and if I had to choose which one to keep I would keep the 7D. Full frame and crop sensors are different, I use wide lens often, 14mm, 15mm fisheye, and 17mm, as of today I do not know of any zoom lens that can match what the ultra wide primes are capable of doing with a full frame. The 7D will run you several hundred dollars more than the 5D.
     
  6. I bought my 5D used for a great price on Adorma. I've taken over 17,000 photos with it so far. I've test driven the 7D at a local shop and liked how it feels. I would say the best advice is to take a few minutes and examine how you shoot. Look at the photos you've taken. If you tend to shoot medium telephoto or longer, I would say go with a crop body. If you like wide open landscapes, a full frame would be better.
    I'm like you in that I am a generalist. I shoot everything and so I have my XTI and my 5D to cover the range. If you're still not sure what to do, see if you can rent a 7D. Personally, I try to avoid lenses that can only work on one of my camera bodies.
     
  7. No offense meant at all, but based on your post, you would probably be better off for now spending just a bit of that scholarship money on a good photography book.
     
  8. I too shoot with both. I would also pick the 7D. I will say that the ISO performance is about a half to a stop better than my 5D. But it blows the 5D out of the water with the following. LCD, Metering, AWB, sensor cleaning, FPS, HD video, wireless flash commander and AF to name a few. I have the 17-55 2.8 IS attached to mine. My 5D gets the 70-200 2.8 IS. The 2 combo makes for a great team when shooting weddings. Final answer, 7D. v/r uffdr
     
  9. Isn't scholarship money for...............school? Finish school, get a great job, then buy a nice 8D or 5D mark III.
     
  10. Isn't scholarship money for...............school? Finish school, get a great job, then buy a nice 8D or 5D mark III.
     
  11. Come on, guys, what's with the moralizing? Scholarships are awarded for academic achievement, and not on the basis of need. Perhaps Ralph lives at home with his parents, who also pay his tuition fees. Or perhaps he works part time, and has diligently saved for his educational expenses.
    Whatever is the case, just let him spend his well earned scholarship money how he likes.
     
  12. Thanks for the attacks guys. I am glad that you guys can make attacks on my character without knowing anything about me besides what I have just posted here; I am also really happy that you guys contributed to the discussion in the process. Everyone knows that getting a scholarship and having a job are mutually exclusive, right?
    What I needed to emphasize in my post was that I shoot sports and I shoot low-light, and sometimes I even shoot low light sports. I needed a situation that will optimize how I function all the time.
    I'm confused by this statement. You want that field of view, but you don't want a lens dedicated to providing you that field of view?
    I was tired when I wrote that. What I meant to say was I didn't really want to toy with EF-S lenses, if I didn't have to.
    Manuel - What reasons could you see for keeping the 5Dm1 over the 7d?
    Douglas Stephenson - Thanks for replying twice with the same comment with so much great information. You are the reason why the photo.net community continues to thrive!
     
  13. If I were in your situation I would probably stump for the 7D.
    Neither camera is perfect so it comes down to listing the advantages and disadvantages and then making a decision based on your intended use. The 7D has video, live view, better AF, faster processors, more MP, pop up flash, etc. The 5D has only those advantages inherent to a full frame sensor - shallower depth of field, focal lengths as intended (wide angle options), larger pixels so potentially better high ISO performance and a slightly larger viewfinder. Your call, but I would imagine that for someone who shoots "everything" the 7D would be the more flexible option.
    I have absolutely no idea why anyone would be so presumptuous, self righteous and filled with moral superiority when answering a question about camera choices! Seriously, how perfect must you be to decide how and when someone else should spend their money.
     
  14. The 7D is superior for sports and action. I own the 5D2 and the 7D and use the 7D for wildlife and action. If your priorities lean toward scenics and street photography, then the full frame is really nice, but your 100-400mm will be great for sports and wildlife on the 7D.
     
  15. What I needed to emphasize in my post was that I shoot sports and I shoot low-light, and sometimes I even shoot low light sports. I needed a situation that will optimize how I function all the time.
    The 7D is far and away a better sports camera than either the 5D or 5D2. It has superior IQ at all ISOs to the 5D, and has roughly equal IQ at low to mid ISO to the 5D2. The 5D2 is much better at high ISO, but that's really only an issue if you plan to print those high ISO images at 16x24 or larger, or you need to go that extra stop or so (the 7D is really a 6400 max camera, 12800 isn't usable except under special circumstances). For your needs and budget I can't think of any reason why you would look at either of the 5D's over the 7D. It would be a waste of money and time to get the original 5D over the 7D.
    I'm confused by this statement. You want that field of view, but you don't want a lens dedicated to providing you that field of view?
    I was tired when I wrote that. What I meant to say was I didn't really want to toy with EF-S lenses, if I didn't have to.
    I had a hunch that's what you were getting at, but I was also trying to drive home a point that you buy a lens for a given FoV. Who cares if it's EF-S? Would a full frame owner worry that his 16-35 was not usable on medium format? Should an EF-S owner worry that his lens doesn't work on four thirds?
    This kind of concern comes from the idea that APS-C is "inferior" or "won't last", that eventually we all want to go full frame. The existence, performance, and sales success of the 7D should put the nail in the coffin of those myths. Digital APS-C is here to stay because it is a sweet spot in terms of cost and performance. At one time I thought full frame could come down in price and drive APS-C into entry level bodies only. But Moore's law can't do anything about sensor size and cost, only sensor density. To some degree we've seen the opposite happen as APS-C sensors have encroached on the resolution and high ISO abilities of 35mm sensors. The advantages of a 35mm sensor are smaller today than they were when the 1Ds or 5D was new, they're not much cheaper to make, and therefore they are being held to the high end of the line.
    APS-C and EF-S are here to stay.
     
  16. Hi Ralph I recently sold my 4 years old 5D and bought a new great and impressive 7D. Like you I like to shoot in many different situations and till now I don't miss the FF. The AF on the 7D rocks.
    Agustín
     
  17. Unless it's for sports or action I'd get the 5D. Full frame is special. A 50 1.4 on my 5D pulls in so much high quality detail it's scary. I gave up a new 50D without hesitation.
     
  18. Ralph, as has been previously stated, the 7D's AF is a lot better than the 5D Mk I or II. The 7D was engineered more for your kind of photography, whereas the 5D was more a wedding photographer's weapon of choice. The 7D's AF gets less confused in low light, the sensor's low light performance is phenomenal, and the framerate in continuous is much higher than the 5D. Also, using APS-C sensor cameras give you cheaper ways to get into extreme wide angle, which can be beneficial to you if you're shooting extreme sports. I know you didn't really want to mess with EF-S lenses too much, but the 10-22 is a phenomenal lens. Also, I'd take some of the dough you're saving and go for the 50 f/1.4 It's far superior to the f/1.8 both in optics and build quality. I really think that the 7D would be the best fit for what you'd like to do. To get the sensor performance of the 5D and the speed of the 7D, you'd need a 1D Mk IV... and who the hell can afford that? Good luck man, and happy shooting.
     
  19. If your priorities lean toward scenics and street photography, then the full frame is really nice, but your 100-400mm will be great for sports and wildlife on the 7D.
    I can understand why you would want a 5dm2 for scenics, but why street photography? I do a bit of that and am always fearful of getting my butt beaten to a pulp!
    high ISO images at 16x24 or larger, or you need to go that extra stop or so (the 7D is really a 6400 max camera, 12800 isn't usable except under special circumstance.
    Is the 12800 really that terrible? I haven't researched it fully but how awful would it be? Would it be akin to my using ISO 1600 on my XSI, because I do use it quite a bit. I wouldn't plan on shooting these high ISO images at >16x24. I mean, I am doing okay with f1.8 and f1.4 at ISO 1600 (there was only one time I was shooting Women's Gymnastics at my school that ISO 6400 and f2.8 were producing really shoddy pictures, but that was really out of the norm).
    Touche to your point about EF-S and APS-C.
    A 50 1.4 on my 5D pulls in so much high quality detail it's scary
    Can I see an example picture to see what you're talking about?
    , using APS-C sensor cameras give you cheaper ways to get into extreme wide angle, which can be beneficial to you if you're shooting extreme sports.
    Are you just talking about the 10-22? Or is there something I am missing?
    I have another question, but I don't know if anyone would really know the answer. Is a new body going to be coming out soon that will replace either the 5dm2 or the 7d? I was just wondering if I should stick it out or not.
    Thanks for the tip! I'm strongly leaning towards the 7D. Would there really be a reason for me to get a 5dm1 then, even as a backup body? This is just strictly hypothetical, as I seriously doubt I would have the funds to do that.
     
  20. I have used the 7D in ISO 3200 and still get good results, so the the low light capabilities is as good as the 5D. Based on your use or intended use the 7D will work better for you. No one has mentioned video but you will be surprised how good the video is on the 7D. Buffdr names most of the reasons why a 7D is a better buy. I have a full frame because I do quite a bit of wide photography and I have not found or read about a zoom lens, whether dedicated crop on not, that can match the primes on lack of distortion, for example, I used to own the 17-40 L lens, after my purchase of a Tokina 17mm prime I sold the 17-40 L lens. The main reason for selling the L lens was the distortion on the edges on the 17-40 L lens. When I mention distortion I am mostly referring to architecture where the distortion is most evident, if it is landscape it is not as crucial. I do not do sports but I like to capture birds in flight and the 7D and it's focus ability is way ahead of the 5D, in fact it is almost as good as my 1D. The disadvantage on the 7D would be on the wide side as the only primes are 14mm, 15mm (fisheye), and 17mm TS-e, when the crop factor is added you go up to the equivalent of 21mm, 23mm, and 26mm lens. The advantage of the 5D has better dof field when isolating subjects but the advantage is so small that most people will not notice. The 5D is not a good sports camera as it is too slow. If you ever decide you want to go wide you can purchase later a 5D or 1Ds (which I also own). Cameras do not retain their value well, money is best used to purchase good quality lens, L lens if one can afford them, as they retain their value very well. Too many of us become collectors as we hate to part with equipment that becomes like a good friend to us.
     
  21. The low light capability of the 7D is probably as good as the 5D1, but not near the 5D2, which is almost twice as good at ISO 3200 than the 7D. (I've got both the 7D and 5D2, so I've seen their side-by-side performance. I know that the OP was asking about the 5D1, but I wanted to make sure that all reader have an idea of where the 7D falls in the high-ISO Canon performance.
     
  22. OK Ralf here's a boring test shot from my 5D and 50 1.4 at F8.
    00Vi8E-218351584.jpg
     
  23. And here Ralf is the boring 100% crop from near the center of the boring test photo. Why anyone thinks that more small pixels are going to get them any more practical quality is beyond me.
    00Vi8K-218351684.jpg
     
  24. Would love to see unaltered images taken at 3200 ISO with the 7D and 5DII, no post processing at 100%,
     
  25. "Why anyone thinks that more small pixels are going to get them any more practical quality is beyond me."
    I'm with you Michael. I have a 1D MKIII that has pixels about the same size as a 5D and at 10mp gives me plenty of image quality.
     
  26. If I were you I would get the 7D. For sports you will find yourself frustrated by the lack of true tracking ability and slow firing of the 5D. You may lose as many shots as you get, while the 7D rivals the 1D Mark IV focusing system and IS bettter than the 1D Mark III. Also, the 7D is perfectly fine for wide shooting. Just slap a 10-22, or my preferred a Tokina 11-18 and you are just as wide as a 16-35mm or a 17-40 on a 5D. And for those of you who havent used it, the Tokina is an excellent lens.
    The 5D II does easily kick the 7Ds tail at high Isos, but as long as you use solid glass, for most sporting events youi will not need to go over 1600 anyway. Also, keep in mind as someone mentioned earlier, the 7D essentially turns a 70-200 2.8 into a 100-300 2.8, or a 200 2.8 prime into a 300 2.8 prime. I have found that my 7D allows me to get away with not having to buy the uhber expensive 300 2.8 to shoot sports, though if you did buy it, you would be rewarded with a lens that is REALLY about a 460mm 2.8, and obviate he need for a 400mm or a 500 mm lens for shooting sports.
    All in all I think the 7D is simply a better camera. The 5D definitely has its uses, such as very low light shooting, but for equal the price of a 5D II body (I already owned a 5D II though, and then sold it for a second 7D), I get the 7D and the FABULOUS 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens. Its a nobrainer.
    And as a final note, if you are going to be a professional photographer you can never say you dont want to have to carry around a lens for one specific purpose. ALL lenses serve a specific purpose. If you want to shoot wide you have to carry a wide lens. And if you will be shooting with crop bodies, who cares if your lens is efs or not. Canon makes some great EFS lenses, such as the 17-55.
    The final advice I would give is drop the 24-70mm 2.8 and grab a 17-55 2.8 which will give you equal IQ, the same focal length as the 24-70 on a full frame and let you get much wider. Also if you are going to shoot sports in low light, drop the 100-400L and get yourself a 70-200 2.8 IS which will be the same price, OR grab a 70-200mm F4 (NON IS) and a 400mm 5.6 if you really need to get out that far. those two will even out to about the price of the 100-400. You are just sacrificing too much light with the 100-400L if you are shooting sports in low light.
     
  27. I have the 5D mk2 and 7D. Last year my kit consisted of 5D mk1 and 50D. I sold them both to upgrade to 5Dmk2. I miss the old 5D and am seriously thinking of buying a used one again as a backup (as opposed to the 7D as backup). That's how I stumbled upon this thread.
    I definitely do not miss the 50D. I am seriously considering selling the 7D and downgrading to the old 5D. The only thing holding me back is the awesome features the 7D brings to the table. The 7D is very comparable to the 50D when you consider noise and IQ, but you can overlook all that with the 7D's feature set. The best thing about the 7D is the spring open CF door. The grip is awesome too. 100% viewfinder is excellent. Live view is a breeze, vs. the 5Dmk2 (a little clumsy when trying to switch between video and camera modes). As far as AF goes, every camera and lens I have had in recent years have had great AF accuracy. So, AF is not a deciding factor for me, even though I understand the 7D is more flexible in that department. One final good note for the 7D is its Auto White Balance which is more often more correct than all the other cameras I mentioned.
    Many people might think I am crazy but... I just don't think images captured by the 7D look as nice as those captured by the 5D or 5Dmk2 (I am talking about ISO 100). I think Canon just tried to squeeze a bit too many pixels onto that sensor. ISO 3200 on the 7D doesn't look much better than on my old 10D. Even on low ISO colors don't look smooth. I read on forums everywhere that the 7D almost equals the 5Dmk2 in IQ and blows the 5dmk1 out of the water.... that was just a bunch of bologna.
    So, to answer the OP's question... the 5Dmk1 is worth every penny. But, if you need speed, the 7D will do marvelous. The 5Dmk1 is a bit slow and the buffer will get full quickly. BUT, if you really want the best of both worlds, buy a used 1Dmk3. BUT, if you are considering a new 5Dmk2, I would say it is the best (new [digital] {35mm format SLR}) camera for money at this point in history. Then again, I haven't used a Nikon D700. I'll post some 100% crops for Manuel.
     
  28. Not the best pictures in the world, but if you have a suggestion for better test subjects, let me know, i just did this real fast from where I am sitting in my basement :p
    10D 3200
    [​IMG]
    7D 3200
    [​IMG]
    5D2 3200
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page