5D Mark II and Canon 7D Choice

<p>What are some of the reasons why a person would choose a Canon 5D Mark II instead of a Canon 7D?</p>

<p>To name a few:-<br>

Better depth of field, less noise at higher ISO, larger and brighter viewfinder and ultimately image quality all though to be fair the differences are getting smaller.</p>

<p>The main reason in my mind is more wide angle lens choices. It really depends on what you want to shoot.</p>

<p>What does "better" depth of field even mean? Suffice to say, you can match a FF camera's DOF with a crop camera easily enough. http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/full_frame_vs_crop_sensor_-.html</p>

<p>In noise terms, the 7D can match the 5D Mk II across the board - and can be better at high ISOs because of the lack of high ISO banding that some 5D Mk IIs suffer from.</p>

<p>The 7D has a "100%" VF which is only slightly less bright than the 5d Mk II's.</p>

<p>IQ? Numerous tests - and a number of threads on here - have proven pretty emphatically (except to the most rabid FF fanboys) that there's <em>no</em> practical IQ difference between these cameras.</p>

<p>The only real advantage the 5D Mk II has over the 7D is that it's capable of being wider at the wide end. And that's it. No other worthwhile benefit.</p>

<p>The 7D is faster, more versatile, has better and more flexible AF, is longer at the long end, and basically does everything very well, whereas the 5D Mk II is inherently limited - you see precious few 5D Mk IIs on the sidelines of sporting events or shooting BIFs and the like...</p>

<p>What does "longer at the long end" even mean? I heard somewhere that some sports organizations had banned from the sidelines all cameras capable of recording video.</p>

<p>As Keith points out, "better" is a very misleading term to apply in relation to depth of field. You can match depth of field, but you will need an f-stop about 1 1/3 stops larger to do so on the 1.6-factor body, with a lens of 1/1.6 times the focal length. At the same f-stop and angle of view, the 1.6-factor body gives more depth of field than the FF body. Sometimes this is helpful, sometimes not, it depends on what you are doing.</p>

<p>However, as a user of both bodies, I can't agree that the high-ISO noise performance of the 7D is as good as that of the 5DII. The 7D is considerably better than the 50D which it replaced in my line-up, and can be used effectively at high ISO settings with appropriate use of NR, whereas I find that the 5DII requires little if any NR at ISO 3200 (provided you have exposed correctly) and is still very good at ISO 6400.</p>

<p>The 7D finder is not quite as good as the 5DII, but I find that when I am using the two cameras together the difference is not great in practice, whereas earlier/lesser 1.6-factor Canon bodies don't come close.</p>

<p>As far as the bodies are concerned, in my view the 7D is superior to the 5DII in all respects except the sensor and finder; both cameras in their next incarnation are in need of some thoughtful cleaning up of the minor control interface, and the 7D in particular has Too Many Buttons, at least two of which (Direct Print/RAW+JPEG and Picture Style) are completely redundant.</p>

<p>So why do I use a 5DII at all? Much of the answer lies in the way the format interacts with the available range of lenses. In particular, there's no equivalent of the 24~105/4 in the EF-S series, and indeed for my needs there's no one-lens walk-around solution for 1.6-factor, since the 15~85 is too slow and the 17~55/2.8 too limited in zoom range (although 10~22 + 24~105 is a very good two-lens solution provided the change-point is not a problem). There's also no 60/2.8 IS macro (the 100/2.8L IS is a great lens on FF, but too long for much of my botanical work on 1.6-factor, and although the EF-S 60/2.8 is excellent, it does not have IS). There is no EF-S equivalent of the TS24 (using a TS17 on 1.6-factor is not what I would consider a solution to that problem). There's no (Canon) standard fast prime for 1.6-factor. And so on. If Canon would plug some of those gaps, preferably with lenses built to L-series standards (entirely appropriate for the 7D) there might well come a point where I would not feel the need for FF. But not yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I heard somewhere that some sports organizations had banned from the sidelines all cameras capable of recording video.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's OK if you have a man walking in front with a red flag.</p>

<i>Suffice to say, you can match a FF camera's DOF with a crop camera easily enough.</i><P>

What lens are you going to use an a 7D that provides you with the same framing and limited depth of field as a 28/1.8 on a 5D? Or a 24/1.4, or 20/1.8?<P>

<i>The only real advantage the 5D Mk II has over the 7D is that it's capable of being wider at the wide end. And that's it. No other worthwhile benefit.</i><p>

Which lenses on a 7D will provide the same potential to shoot handheld in dim conditions as the 28/1.8, 24/1.4, and 20/1.8 on a 5D? I often shoot at night or in dark clubs where wide apertures are essential. Settings of 1/15 second or slower are quite common when shooting at f2 and wider, even with ISO settings of 1600, 3200, or 6400.

<p>Gee, I thought it was clear from the internet that image quality is better on full frame, at least when making larger prints. That certainly has been my experience. Here is a controlled test from a couple of years ago that was discussed on this forum:</p>

<p>http://www.wyofoto.com/EOS_IQ_shootout_2008/EOS_shootout_2008.html</p>

<p>It has been the case for decades that the larger the format the better it is for bringing out detail in wideangle images generally used in producing large print landscapes and architectural images. That is why 8x10 and 4x5 cameras were, and still are, used for these purposes. </p>

<p>Each additional increment in sensor/film size from small to large will help with wideangle large prints. The sensor of full frame cameras is about 2x the size of crop body sensors and when coupled with superior wideangle and superwideangle lenses is capable of greater print enlargement.</p>

<p>Telephoto/supertelephoto and action photography is vastly too cumbersome to attempt to use 8x10 and 4x5 cameras and this is where the crop sensor digital bodies also overcomes full frame sensor cameras. As an example being able to use a 300/2.8 on a crop body instead of a 400/2.8 on full frame allows for much greater ease of use as well as the fact that crop bodies will always be capable of greater image processing and shutter speeds.</p>

<p>For the time being it is more appropriate to use crop bodies for fast action and telephoto images and full frame for still life and wideangle images.</p>

<p>I use my fast crop body for soccer, and autoracing, using supertelephotos and I use my full frame camera for landscapes and architecture using superwideangles and tripods. In my case my crop body is vastly faster than my full frame so I always grab the crop body for general images using lenses from 50mm and up. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What does "better" depth of field even mean? Suffice to say, you can match a FF camera's DOF with a crop camera easily enough. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/full_frame_vs_crop_sensor_-.html" target="_blank">(link)</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agree that "shallower" would have probably been a more appropriate choice of words when referring to DOF. However, the link you posted is not really accurate or helpful information and not very well thought out by the author. I'd suggest this as a more appropriate explanation of the subject:</p>

<p>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html</p>

<p>To answer the OP's question, one of primary reasons to choose the 5D II over the 7D is depth of field control. If you like the ability to shoot with shallower depth of field (and to be fair, some people aren't interested in this) then the full frame camera will give you many more options. </p>

<p>For example, if you want a wide angle view but still want to isolate your subject with shallow depth of field then the 24mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4 lenses are excellent on full frame. They are good on crop also, but they are no longer wide angle and will also give you deeper depth of field for equivalent photographs. There are no lenses available for 1.6 crop that will give you the shallow depth of field "look" of the 35 1.4 or 24 1.4 wide open on full frame.</p>

<p>Another good example of a lens where you can't replicate the shallow depth of field "look" with a crop camera is the 85mm f1.2. On a crop camera you are choosing from 50mm lenses to get an equivalent field of view, where the lenses either aren't as fast (50 1.4's) or aren't as good wide open (50L) as the 85L. The end result appearance of the images can be very different not only because of different depth of field, but also because of the lens choices that you have to make to get an equivalent field of view (ie equivalently useable lens for a given shooting scenario).</p>

<p>So while it may not matter to everyone, there is a good reason to choose the 5D II over the 7D. And yes, I have owned and shot with the 7D, but decided not to keep it.</p>

<p>I own and use the 5D MkII and the 7D. I don't know how anyone can say that the high-ISO performance of 7D is as good as the 5D2. The 5D2 is at least one full stop better. Still, the 7D is very good and with appropriate post processing really narrows the gap.</p>

<p>When you're likely to crop, like for bird photography and most nature photography, then consider the 7D for its fast reflexes and tighter view in the viewfinder making tracking easier. (Yes, I know that the cropped 5D2 will have the equivalent IQ of the 7D, but actual usage in the field will yield more "keepers" with the 7D).</p>

<p>If you're not likely to crop, then the 5D2 will generally yield a superior result, so long as speed isn't highly important. For scenic, street photography, night photography without flash, portrait photography, or any usage were fine detail is appreciated, then the 5D2 is the tool to grab.</p>

<p>Someone mentioned the wonderful match of the 5D2 with the 24-105L. I agree with this whole heartedly. It's got fantastic image quality (after processing appropriately). It's a true wide-angle to portrait length. I do a lot of scenics and find myself at 24mm often. I DO plan to add a 17-35mm for these usages, but as a walk-around the 24-105mm will be in my bag.</p>

<p>This is a really popular topic. Seems like it reappears every week. The popularity rivals the Elan vs N90 discussions of yesteryear.</p>

<p>JD, you seem to do a lot of landscape type work, so my suggestion would be that the 5D II is the better choice because of overall image quality. The things that make the 7D a great camera may not be tools you use, like AF and high frame rate. If you were a sports or bird photog then I would say the 5D II is peraps not the best choice.</p>

<p>If you are not in a hurry, I'd wait until the 5D III comes out next year.</p>

<p>It would seem like you asked a simple question, but there are a lot of people around that have to try and prove they made a better purchase than everyone else. If it were solely to help you make a good decision it would be great, but too many seem just to want to prove that they made the best choice. Sort of a need for positive re-enforcement of their purchase choice. I'm glad they like their cameras, but look at a lot of posts with a critical eye. Both are great cameras, just not the same tools. </p>

 

<p>The 5D mkII is better for large prints from high ISO shots, tilt/shift work, and fast aperture/low light wide angle work.</p>

<p>The 5D mkII does not offer noticeably better IQ at low to mid ISO, and is not a better landscape camera unless you can afford a T/S lens. It does offer more shallow DoF, but the difference is not what it is often made out to be online. You can get very thin DoF in the normal to moderate telephoto range with crop.</p>

<p>Note that with the exception of high ISO, the 5D mkII advantages require an investment in certain lenses. T/S lenses or fast wide primes. If you do not own and will not buy those lenses, you won't get the advantage.</p>

<p>For the majority of people the 7D is the better buy.</p>

I'm utterly puzzled why this subject comes again and again, in one form or the other! 5D2 is full-frame and 7D is not - why to compare two different bodies. I find my 5D2 and 500D quite sufficient for all sorts of captures - would I ever need 7D - never!

<p>Daniel said:</p>

<p>"The 5D mkII does not offer noticeably better IQ at low to mid ISO, and is not a better landscape camera"</p>

<p>When previewing images at 100% during processing, my 5D2 has noticeably better IQthan my 7D. Of course, printing at that size results in a print much larger than most of us ever do. I do agree that for most print sizes and internet sizes, the differences won't be "noticed".</p>

<p>Although the 7D costs less than the 5D2, the question of whether it's a better value will depend on how you use it. I find myself using its high-ISO potential more and more as I realize how useful it really is. Being able to use f/4 lenses instead of always looking for a f/2.8 faster is a huge money saver. The 5D2 has changed the way that I think of street shooting and early and late scenics. Put it on a tripod and it really shines, but hand holding at ISO 6400 can be liberating.</p>

<p>Until you've used the 5D2 and stretched it to its capacities, you don't really know how you'll use it. BTW, I love my 7D for birds and wildlife, but for scenics, travel, street shooting and portraits, the 5D2 is the body that I grab.</p>

<p>Husain said:<br>

"I find my 5D2 and 500D quite sufficient for all sorts of captures - would I ever need 7D - never!"</p>

<p>Looking at your images, I understand why you say that, but someone shooting sports and wildlife is likely to appreciate the 7D much more than you ever could.</p>

<p>I seem to have had the same experience as David. I use both cameras, and I love them both. Why would one choose the 5DII over the 7D? I seem to get better quality images from the 5D. Because of the full frame, you get wider angles than with a cropped sensor, so subjects can be placed closer to the camera than with the 7D. This allows you to focus closer and therefore blur the background more than with a 7D with the same lens. This makes the 5DII a better choice for portraits. People argue on this forum that the image quality of the 7D is as good as the 5DII, but my experience has been different. The 5DII seems to get consistently better images at higher ISOs.<br /> You can't go wrong with either camera. They are both fantastic! The 7D has its advantages, but if I could only keep one, I would keep the 5DII. I think of the 7D as a cropped 5DII. I get the feeling that the higher pixel density on the cropped sensor may be affecting the image quality at higher ISOs and long exposures.</p>

<p>The folks at DxO Labs rate the overall sensor quality of the 5D Mark II at 79, the overall sensor quality of the original 5D at 71, and the overall sensor quality of the 7D at 66. In my own experience, the 5D (original) exceeds the 7D in raw image quality, especially at higher ISO settings. There are still some situations (usually related to action and sports) in which I prefer the 7D. For landscapes the 5D is my camera of choice. When faced with the choice of replacing my 5D with the 5D Mark II, or replacing my aging 20D with a 7D, the 7D made the most sense to me. Now when the 5D Mark III comes out . . . .</p>

<p>You can pick 2 or 3 cameras and do your own sensor comparison here:</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jim - <em>The folks at DxO Labs rate the overall sensor quality of the 5D Mark II at 79, the overall sensor quality of the original 5D at 71, and the overall sensor quality of the 7D at 66.</em></p>

<p>DxO ranks the latest medium format digital backs as having lower IQ than the 5D mkII and, in one case, the Nikon D90! This is of course nonsense to anyone who has ever seen large prints from 35mm and MF digital. Their tests are not calibrated for resolution (seriously) and are easily fooled by things like in camera RAW NR and the strength or lack of an AA filter.</p>

<p>DxO also can't properly measure the DR of any camera, and is consistently 2-4 stops off values produced by other testers using repeatable, verifiable tests, namely transmission step wedges.</p>

<p>In short, DxO numbers mean nothing.</p>

<p><em> In my own experience, the 5D (original) exceeds the 7D in raw image quality, especially at higher ISO settings.</em></p>

<p>Then you're doing something wrong. The 7D has a clear advantage in fine detail in large prints and has superior high ISO noise performance to the original 5D. It also has greater DR by about 1.5-2 stops.</p>

<p>As to the 5D mkII vs the 7D, the IQ differences have been debated ad nauseam on this site. The truth comes out when unlabeled 100% crops are posted and even the FF fans can't tell which came from which (which also puts to rest any statement that the original 5D has higher IQ as this would imply it also has higher IQ than the mkII). The 5D mkII has slightly better IQ in the low to mid ISO range, but the differences are so small that minor post work can eliminate them, if they make it to print at all.</p>

<p>At higher ISOs the 5D mkII starts to show distinct detail and noise advantages in print, and it is the superior camera for high ISO work. That said, the 7D does very well at high ISO when producing small to medium sized prints.</p>

<p>The only other IQ difference of note is that the 5D mkII has about a stop more DR and is more forgiving of exposure errors thanks to that increase in DR and to lower shadow detail noise. But the differences are small here, not huge.</p>

<p>Daniel is exactly on in his comments. For landscape photography, one can obtain just as wide a FOV on the 7D as 5D2. At 100-800 iso, there is no difference between the two even at 20x30 in terms of noise. At 20x30, one can, on occassion (and the right paper) see a subtle difference in detail. If you primarily print 20x30 and smaller, and use good glass on both, you really will only find differences on screen at 100%.</p>

<p>And when you get down to it, the 7D should be better for landscape as the DOF isn't as shallow ;-)</p>

<p>Now when one considers the other benefits of the 7D.....better metering, better AF, better weather sealing, higher frame rate, etc, etc, it becomes quite obivious that unless you do landscapes with a T/S lens at f1.2 and iso 12,800, the 7D is just as good!</p>

<p>Oh, and if you <em><strong>REALLY</strong></em> want to see how much of a difference there is, go to the Imaging Resource, download the still life shots for each camera (the Raw files, not the JPG) and process them in something like Lightroom, and then do your work up for a 16x24 and 20x30 print. Print an 8x10 crop from each. Like I said, at 100 or 200 for a landscape type shot, you won't see a difference in print. And lets be honest, those 6400iso shots aren't being printed at 20x30 are they?.....probably 8x10 or 11x14 in an album. And after NR processing in Lightroom, they look pretty much the same in those 8x10 or 11x14 prints.</p>

<p>The 7D-huggers can argue all they like, but look at the comments of those that own both the 5D MkII and the 7D. We all prefer the 5D2 for landscape, portraits, night shooting and street shooting. The extra dynamic range, better high-ISO performance and big RAW image make it easier to work with in the real world. I'm very pleased with many of my 7D images, but the 5D2 performs better for me when dynamic range and light are issues.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00Xm20"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5331729">David Stephens</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 30, 2010; 12:06 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 7D-huggers can argue all they like, but look at the comments of those that own both the 5D MkII and the 7D. We all prefer the 5D2 for landscape, portraits, night shooting and street shooting. The extra dynamic range, better high-ISO performance and big RAW image make it easier to work with in the real world. I'm very pleased with many of my 7D images, but the 5D2 performs better for me when dynamic range and light are issues.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might want to check those figures David. The 5D2 tests at having a 0.1 stop extra amount of DR over the 7D. You're a better man than I if you think you can see that in real world use.</p>

<p>Like I said, make some print comparisons like I have. There is NO difference at 16x24 between them. People can go on and on about why they think one is better than the other, but if it can't be demonstrated in print, it is of no benefit. Especially for landscape, the 7D has a great benefit.....deeper DOF. Couple with the benefit of using the centre of the glass, I get perfectly sharp edges and corners, where the 5D2 struggles because of lens limitations. And my landscapes are at iso 100.....and I see noise at all, regardless of print size. If I can't see any noise at all, then even if the 5D2 has lower noise at iso 100, I've yet to see any benefit.</p>

<p>And please, spare me the hugging comments....I've used both cameras extensively, and own the 7D for professional work. Assuming those with an opinion (substantiated as well) that is different than yours do so through inexperience is rather silly.</p>

<p>It seems more often than not, that when confronted with sample prints, all these benefits seems to vanish....and no one can tell the difference.</p>