Jump to content

7D vs. 5D Mark II...I know it's been done to death...but...


zvia_shever

Recommended Posts

<p>I shoot with a 40D, 17-55 2.8 IS and 70-200 4L IS. As it's my big 4-0 in a few months, instead of the typical big party, I'd rather spend my hubby's money on a new body. I'm looking at the 5D Mark II or the 7D. <br>

I like the 40D and have always shot with a crop, but getting the itch to switch to FF. I mostly shoot my kids and vacation travel. </p>

<p>Reasons for 5D Mark II: Landscape photography<br>

* Grand Canyon in March<br>

* Yellowstone and Tetons in June<br>

* Arches and Canyonlands in October</p>

<p>Reasons for 7D: Kids <br>

* Tennis tournaments<br>

* Kids running around<br>

* Tetons wildlife</p>

<p>What to do?<br>

Money is a consideration. If I go with the FF, I may have to sell the 40D and I'd definitely sell the 17-55 to buy the 5D and 24-105L as a walk around, then rent a wide angle for my trips and eventually buy when I have enough $$'s. If I go with the 7D, I may be able to keep the 40D as a back up, I'd keep the 17-55 and then buy a wide angle (probably 10-22).</p>

<p>I've thought about this a lot and so far the best option I've come up with would be to buy the 5D and 24-105L, sell the 17-55 and keep the 40D to use with my 70-200 (love that lens). I guess I'd rent a wide angle for the 5D until I could afford to buy one. The issues with this combo though are 1. Price and 2. That's pretty heavy to lug around on vacation.</p>

<p>Any thoughts? Thanks, Zvia</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I have both and would consider the 5DII the better all-around camera. With the 24-105 and the 70-200 you have enough lens coverage. Keep in mind that 24 mm is a pretty strong wideangle on a FF body. Keep the 40D to get more reach for wildlife on the 200 mm lens.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Truthfully, I would not upgrade from the 40 to the 7D. The cameras are too close in years although the 7D offers significant improvements. If I could swing it, I would upgrade directly to the 5D Mk II.<br>

If you never shot FF before then you are in for a treat. I used a 30D for 5 years before switching to the 7D, but in between I purchased the 5D classic. The original 5D is still a great camera so I did not see any reason for me to update to the Mk II, yet . The 7D has weather sealing, Video, grid, advanced AF, LV, quiet shutter, 6+ frames per sec etc. plus it was cheaper so I went for that.<br>

With that said, I would sell the 17-55mm, keep the 70-200 and get the 24-105 which is a very good lens. Keep the 40D as a back up since you can use the 24-105mm on that too, only now you are talking 38.4 -168mm because of the crop factor which is a great reach for travel. If you want true wide angle use the 24-105mm on the 5D beleive me you wont regret it. <br>

If you want to go really wide angle you can maybe get a used prime like the Sigma 20mm f1.8 ($520) which gets pretty good reviews on the 40D that equates to 32mm. For wide angle work I usually don't go under 20mm unles I want to create special effects, there is just too much distortion.<br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Like Peter I have both cameras... I use the 7D for most of the catalogue work I do and the 5DII for anything else. Sometimes when my 5D isn't available and I use my 7D I still get results I'm happy with, but I always wish I had my 5D. Whenever you open up a shot taken on the 5D in Photoshop you immediately notice the difference in the details, the contrast and the color. It's just that much better.</p>

<p>Are you going to notice the difference in pictures of your kids? Not really... I take pics of my daughter in P mode most of the time, lol... or with my iPhone. But your vacation pics and landscape pics will be amazing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I upgraded from the 40D to 7D, and am quite happy, that said when I took my 40D in for service (sticky shutter button) and found out that for the price I paid for my 7D I could have upgraded to a 5D MkII I was sick. Actually I'm better off with the 7D, I'm often shooting at the long end of my 70-200mm (Kids Sports) , do you find yourself past the 150mm mark often? if so then the 7D would be the sensible choice. Although, the 5D with a 24-105 and 70-200 would make a great combo, remember a 24mm on a FF is a lot wider than your 17mm on the 40D, and the 300mm f4 IS is a great lens at a bargain price if you need the long FL. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Deciding between two such excellent cameras can be an emotional decision as much as a rational one. So my first question would be ' why do you ahve the itch for the 5D?' Is it the constant talk of 'crop frame' (suggesting somehow 'inferior') versus the 'full frame'? Or is it the talk of the image superiority of the 35mm sensor?<br>

When talking of image superiority, what size will you be printing? Although I have not used either (yet!) I am coming to the same decision point as you and the impression I get is that up to A4 (about 12x10) you are unlikely to see any realistic difference - do you want to pay the extra for little or no practical difference? You may be able to see the differences at 100% on-screen a 6-foot print! Is this irrelevant to you?</p>

<p>My preference would be for the 7D because of the better autofocus for wildlife. But it seems you have more of a bent towards landscape - the 5D would still make an excellent wildlife camera, the only difference being that your keeper rate may be lower than with the 7D. From the way you word your post I feel that if you get the 7D you may at times have that 'what if' feeling, soemthing you would not have if you got the 5DII.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I guess my only true concern going from crop to FF is the speed burst. <br />It's nice to have 6 fps when shooting my kids' sports etc.<br>

Am I going to see a difference between the 2 cameras in landscape shots printed out to 16x24?...that's the largest I'd print. If not, then sticking with a crop may be better as I'd get to keep the high fps and length...but if the image quality is so much better with the 5D on 16x24 prints, then that's another issue.</p>

<p>BTW...although the best option is to keep the 40D for when I need it, I just don't see myself lugging round 2 bodies when hiking 1/2 the day. That's pretty heavy on my 100lb fame.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Truthfully, I would not upgrade from the 40 to the 7D. The cameras are too close in years although the 7D offers significant improvements. If I could swing it, I would upgrade directly to the 5D Mk II.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since the 5D II is an older camera than the 7D, I'm not sure what this means....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I can understand why both are appealing. Here's my take: Sure the 5D II is FF and would be amazing at landscapes, but the 7D is also very very good at landscapes, in fact, probably indistinguishable in moderate sized prints. Here's where I think the 7D wins if you can only have one; it has better AF and a faster frame rate, which makes it better at kids/sports/wildlife. Another big thing to consider is that with the 5D, you lose focal length compared to the 7D, but with the 7D you lose ot on the wide end, <strong>HOWEVER,</strong> wide glass is much cheaper than long glass. Buying a 10-22mm for the 7D to act as the 16-35mm would on the 5D is much more affordable than buying a 400mm, 500mm, or 600mm lens for the 5D to take the place of a moderate telephoto on the 7D with the 1.6x crop factor. So if you can only have one, the 7D is what I would choose.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nathan...your argument for the 7D makes sense as I could buy a 7D and 10-22 for the same price as the 5D alone. Still back to one question though. In a 16"x24" print, will there be a noticeable difference in quality to the naked eye between the 7D vs. 5D?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses! Zvia</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I' use a 50d & 5d ll, and my brother has a 7d, all I will say is in image quality there is no comparison, the 5d ll image is well on top, you will always think about that F/F you didn't get, if you can live with 3.9 frames. PS... if you can keep the 40d I would, this is a great camera, they got that one right a long with the 5d ll ......</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Keep the 40D and get the 5D MKII. Best of both worlds! You CAN afford it, considering your travel schedule... If you must sell something, sell one of your S lenses.</p>

<p>I own a 5D (original) and a 7D. I use the 5D way more for portraits, family snapshots etc.<br /> I generally only use the 7D for sports, wildlife. I'm also disappointed with the noise / noise reduction artifacts of the 7D.</p>

<p>Be aware that Canon DSLR HD video will likely play back stuttery or with skipping frames on all but the fastest computers with high end video cards.</p>

<p>BTW, <strong>if a shot is framed the same</strong>, with the same lens and settings, <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=909607"><strong>bokeh </strong></a>is often better with a FF because of the shorter distance to the subject. (This confuses some people.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>In a 16"x24" print, will there be a noticeable difference in quality to the naked eye between the 7D vs. 5D?</em></p>

<p>At ISO 800 or below, if both images are properly processed, there will not be a noticeable quality difference in a 24" print. Even at larger sizes there will normally not be a discernible difference, though you might see a tiny difference with the most demanding scenes at 30" or larger. (It would not be a difference which the average viewer would catch, or which would cause one print to clearly stand out as better.) For the record, I have an Epson 3880 and regularly make 20" and 24" landscape prints. I have yet to see a pair of prints where the 5D mkII was better.</p>

<p>A 7D file will need a little more sharpening, and may need a little more NR, but that's just a matter of what number you put into a dialog while taking the same post processing steps.</p>

<p>You can see this yourself by processing and printing the DPReview and Imaging Resource samples. Amateur Photographer also came to this conclusion in their 3/6/2010 edition. In testing they found that at A2 size "...it is impossible to distinguish between images from the two cameras...".</p>

<p>There are small differences when pixel peeping, but even those disappear with proper post processing. With the exception of about a stop of extra DR, the 5D mkII only holds a significant IQ advantage at ISO 1600 and above, and even then only in large prints. If you're going to be making large, high ISO prints, the 5D mkII is hard to beat. But most landscapes are shot tripod mounted at low ISO.</p>

<p>BTW: the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is a sharper lens, corner to corner, than the Canon 10-22. At 16mm (25mm in 35mm terms) it's also sharper corner to corner than the Canon 24-105L is at 24mm on FF.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>BTW, this question always produces a number of people who say that the 5D mkII is "sooo much better!" The last time a thread like this caused a long winded debate I produced a test set from DP Review's images. I have to link to it because photo.net won't allow uploads of other people's photos, even crops from tests. Disclaimer: I did sharpen some squares slightly, but then I always state that 7D files need a bit more sharpening to match 5D mkII files.</p>

<p>http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/7530/testac.jpg</p>

<p>Last time I showed this no FF fan would dare say which square came from which, though I was hoping someone would take the bait on the pair with the largest difference.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I own the 5D MkIi and the 7D and much prefer the 5D2 for all the uses that you listed. It's high-ISO performance is at least 2-stops better than my 7D. I use my 7D for wildlife and birds in flight, where you need high burst rates. Also, the larger subject image in the viewfinder makes it easier for me follow a fast moving birds. Kids player soccer, etc. are plenty easy to follow and capture by the 5D2.</p>

<p>Remember, on a full-frame camera, the 24-105mm is a true wide angle lens, with a wider angle of view than a 17mm on your crop-sensor.</p>

<p>Here's an image with my 5D2 with the 24-105mm, shot at ISO 6400 and handheld, demonstrating the incredible flexibility of that camera for street and travel photography.</p>

<p><a title="Anyone for absinthe? by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" Anyone for absinthe? src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/5190792043_85e2c6f940_b.jpg" alt="Anyone for absinthe?" width="683" height="1024" /></a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't know what to do any more than I did before I posed the question ;) Maybe the answer is getting the 7D now and waiting for the 5D Mark III rumored to be coming out late this year. I know either choice will be better than my 40D as I'll need the pixels if I want to blow up to 16X24 or higher.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you notice, everyone that suggests the 5D, has an APS-C body to accompany it and each body serves its specific purpose, but if you can only have one camera to do it all, the 7D would be the choice. The 5D is the absolute best in certain areas(large prints/high ISO), but suffers in other areas (AF/frame rate). However, the 7D is very good in <strong>ALL</strong> areas. For one camera to be the solution to any photo opportunity, the 7D is the answer.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To go along with what Alan says, I've made 16x24 prints with my 10MP 40D that looked great, I imagine the 18MP 7D with newer technology would probably blow that "great" 40D print out of the water. I've also made 18x24 prints from an 8MP 1D II (although its APS-H(1.3x crop)) that were flawless. So if an 8 and 10MP camera can make those big prints, I wouldn't hesitate to go huge with the 7D. Another thing to keep in mind if you like to print large is stitching. I would definitely practice this before going out west. Basically, instead of taking one photo of a landscape, you take 3 or more photos side by side of the same scene. Say you have an 18MP 7D, in essence what you're doing is turning it into a 54MP camera by taking an 18MP image of the left third of a scene, 18MP of the center, and 18MP of the right third. You use software to stitch the images and now with the higher resolution you can make HUGE prints. Here's an example of a stitch that I did, if I didn't tell you, you probably wouldn't realize that this is 5 images. It also helps to get a wide panorama when you don't have a wide enough lens to cover a scene.<br>

<a href="../photo/11971332">http://www.photo.net/photo/11971332</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nathan, how does the 7D's high-ISO performance compare to the 5D2? It's at least two-stops worse.<br>

For the uses our OP describes, there is no problem with the 5D2's AF. I know pros using it successfully for birds and wildlife. It can certainly handle her kids.</p>

<p>I love my 7D, but it doesn't come close to my 5D2 for travel and night street photography. For portraits 5D2 great. Saying that the 7D "very good in ALL areas" is misleading, IME. Does anyone that owns both the 5D2 and 7D agree with you? I don't think so.</p>

<p>The 5D2's high-ISO and low-light capabilities totally changes your outlook toward photography in those circumstances, including indoor photography in decent light. The 7D is "good", but still well short in those circumstances. If someone cites a need for high burst rate and elite AF, then I recommend the 7D, but not for the circumstances that our OP named.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I shoot two 7D's professionally, day-in, day-out. It's an excellent camera for all around versatility and image quality. I am currently printing for customers at 24x36 and larger.<br>

That said, I went 7D for three reasons. Financial, features, and upgrade path.<br>

Financially it was $6,000 cheaper for me to shoot two 7d's. That accounts for cost of good glass. I already have top of the line APS-C glass, matching that in full frame L glass is a really big bite.<br>

Features, well. It's newer and faster, has a built-in horizon level (architecture anyone?), and has better auto focus. Nuff said.<br>

On the upgrade cycle, it was safer to buy the latest technology, than something that is now two and a half years old. I figured on skipping a model, and waiting for a 5DIII or equivalent. pfft. Wish me luck.<br>

Also, if Canon can't catch up with Nikon in the IQ arena pretty soon. I'll be testing those waters in the very foreseeable future. I almost certainly won't "switch", but I just might see a very valid point in going both ways and I'm not the first.<br>

Mind that the one thing you cannot cheat is physics. Full frame has the advantage of physics. That's why it's so easy to pick out a medium format image. It actually looks meaningfully different. Full frame images can often look meaningfully different than crop images.<br>

BTW, I'm mostly with the other Nathan on this. If you don't have the 70-200 2.8 IS yet then just buy the 7D and buy that lens. Shooting kids at play with that lens is a DREAM and the 1.6 multiplier makes it really something special. Mixed with the fast autofocus of the 7D and you'll get some truly awesome candid images. You could easily kip the 5DII for now and not miss it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Oh a challenge, I missed this before, I am certainly not scared to "guess". My guess for Daniels 7D vs 5D MkII files? I say the 7D is the right hand column.</p>

<p>What I love about these threads is that people who actually own, or use, both camera formats all state that they can see quality differences between FF and crop cameras. Those that only own crop cameras say there is no difference unless printed very large. I didn't buy a 7D because after using one for an extended period I could clearly see a difference in my images.</p>

<p>They are both superb cameras, Canon did an amazing job making us want both when either can do almost anything perfectly.</p>

<p>Of the six shooting situations that Zvia lists as main uses, I would choose a 7D over a 5D MkII for just one, kids running around. For the first three the 5D MkII will be considerably more capable than the 7D, for Teutons wildlife, unless you are thinking BIF then the 5D MkII is better, even the crop factor/tele advantage is not realisable, for kids tennis both would work perfectly, we are not talking about top pro mens 100MPH+ serves here. My money would go into a 5D MkII.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...