7D vs. 5DmkII

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by michaelfranz, Nov 16, 2010.

  1. I recently posted a question for the 60D vs the 7D. I have found myself in a situation though that now begs me to ask this question. Price aside, which camera is a better choice?
    It seems that the 7D has better AF and metering then the 5DmkII. I like the the 7D for this reason. I also like the idea of a full frame camera to take full advantage of the L series glass, and the ISO range that the 5DmkII offers.
    Does anyone have some insight here? I shoot mainly landscape and portraits, so the 8fps really isn't a big deal to me, it's just a bonus.
    I plan on purchasing 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, the 85 f1.2L, and a wide angle not sure what yet, it depends on the body I chose. If i chose the 7D it will obviously be 10-22. If I go with the 5DmkII it will either be the 17-40 f4 or the 16-35 f2.8.
    So, with that being said, what are your thoughts, and thank you for taking the time to put them down here for me.
     
  2. Obviously the 5DII is better for landscape, but the 7D is very close. The 7D may be more up-to-date regarding FPS and focusing, but you are not using it for sports so the 5DII would be fine.
    I have the 17-40 with the intentions of using for full frame, when I am able to afford full frame. Lots of people use the 17-40 for landscape and are satisfied. I've handled the 16-35 which is just slightly bigger and heavier than the 17-40, not so much so that I would leave it at home. The 16-35 was out of my price range, otherwise it would be a difficult decision. However, I am very pleased with the 17-40.
    I also own a 70-200 L non-IS. Fantastic lens. I love it, but unless I specifically think I will use it, I leave it home while trekking on the mountain due to the weight and bulk. The 70-200 f4 IS was not available at the time I bought my lens. If I were purchasing today I would not hesitate buying the f4 IS version.
    It might be a good idea to add the total weight of what lenses, camera body, and accessories you would be using for landscape photography. And, don't overlook a tripod. If you don't use a tripod, it will be difficult to take full advantage of the fine image quality of the 5DII. Of course, if you do little hiking, the weight issue may not be a problem.
    G Dan Mitchell does an excellent job describing the equipment and lenses he uses with a 5DII and I believe his website is without equal:
    http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
    No doubt the 85 f1.2L is great for portraits. You might consider the 100 2.8 macro IS lens for outdoor photography. It would also serve you well with portraits.
     
  3. Do yourself a favor - get the 5DII and be done with it.
     
  4. For landscapes and portraits there is no better camera than 5DII. 7D can't come even close to 5DII in that regard. By the way I just dumped 85LII for the new Sigma 85 f/1.4. This lens is incredible.
     
  5. That's a lot of expensive, heavy glass. You can use it to take great pictures with a crop camera, but it's wasteful: so much of the image circle--and the most expensive bits that illuminate the corners of the full frame sensor--is thrown away. Unless you need the 7D, I'd get the 5DII to go with them.
     
  6. Full frame will give you a shallower DOF and more background blur which you may desire for portraits.
    If I was going to buy an 85/1.2L, I'd go for the full frame camera.
     
  7. I also like the idea of a full frame camera to take full advantage of the L series glass​
    What is 'full advantage' of the L series glass?
    so much of the image circle--and the most expensive bits that illuminate the corners of the full frame sensor--is thrown away.​
    I never have understood these as logic as a reason for buying 5DII over 7D. The fact is, if you want the best 200mm lens for APS-C you go for the 70-200fxL series. The alternative would be to take a camera with the resolution of the 7D and put on it a lens like 55-250 - now that would be a waste. My decision would be based on the facilities offered by each camera.
     
  8. its really a no brainer, 5D2 is the choice for landscape and portrait
     
  9. I have a 5D mkI and a 7D.
    Reading your post I unequivocally would recommend the 5DmkII !
     
  10. "I plan on purchasing 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, the 85 f1.2L"
    If you can afford those lenses then I would go for the 5D Mk II, both cameras are an excellent choice. I also had a hard time choosing between both cameras when it came time to upgrade. I chose the 7D because I'm into sports and would like to get into birding. The added reach of a cropped camera, the faster AF of the 7D, Sensor cleaning and weather sealing is what sealed the deal for me, plus my 5D classic still got a couple of years to go.
     
  11. I'd say go for the 5DMII with 17-40 for landscapes. I have this combination and absolutely love it.
     
  12. Franz writes, "It seems that the 7D has better AF and metering then the 5DmkII. I like the the 7D for this reason."​
    Yes, 7D AF is generally better, especially if you live and die by the outer AF points. However if you mainly use the center point, they're equal, even in low light. With that said, the outer points of the 5DII rarely fail me except in very poor light. As for metering, I can't see any difference in results or accuracy between the two cameras. Both are very good but have a few idiosyncrasies you must learn to override.
    For landscape, travel and portraits the 5DII VF and IQ whips the 7D.
     
  13. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Buy both.
    Then you do not need to buy the the 24 - 70.
    And you still have more FL coverage.
    And a fast 85 and an equivalent fast 135.
    And your wide angle zoom can be a non varying maximum aperture: F/2.8
    And you have a back up camera to use when you send one in for service.
    WW
     
  14. For what I have seen from the files they produce, having used them both but not owning one, the image quality of the 5d2 is vastly superior, and I don't mean only iso, mean quality at 360°, just make a very big print and see the difference.
    There's no reason from what you said to use a 7d instead, apart the fact that it costs almost the half and it is instead a very good reason I think!
    Having more needs than you for a better AF at the end I decided for a 1dsmk2 instead (to complement the 1d2 I had) , what you can get at lower price than the 5d2, just a bit more than a 7D.
    Image quality, FF and great AF...if you can accept a "rough" camera, little screen, no LV, no sensor cleaning, no AF micro adjustment, no video, nothing else than a traditional camera. But who cares? ;-)
     
  15. I do a lot of landscapes and I use the 7D. I also do a lot of birds in flight shooting as well, so the AF and frame rate of the 7D both come in handy. I find that the 7D is an outstanding all-round camera, capable of handling an extremely wide range of photographic situations. If I only did landscapes and portraits I'd probably choose a 5DII. I think both cameras actually compliment each other very nicely which is why I will probably buy a 5DIII whenever it comes out so that I can have both the crop-body and FF capabilities. As for the 7D, it's a camera that I love very much because it can do just about everything I throw at it and it does it very well. I've never used the 5DII but it has the same metering as my 20/30/40D all had, and I think the metering in the 7D is much better. The IQ of the 5DII is the best though, and in a different class, along with the 1DsIII, but contrary to what some seem to imply (mostly on other forums), the IQ of the 7D is still excellent and yields incredible pictures, provided you know what you're doing from the outset. For your specific needs though, the 5DII sounds like the best choice. I must say that I'm amazed at how often this question comes up.
     
  16. If pure IQ is your goal, 5D mark II hands down. I have 3 bodies now, 5D, 7D and 5D Mark II. When the IQ counts, I always shoot the Mark II. As a matter of fact, at the end of this week, I will sell my 7D to get another mark II. To "me" it is 2 stops better in ISO performance, period! V/R Buffdr
     
  17. Another vote for the 5D MKII.
     
  18. Thank you everyone for all your responses. It sounds like the 5DmkII is probably where I am leaning. especially sine I am going to need to make some very large prints.
    William W [​IMG][​IMG], Nov 16, 2010; 07:48 p.m.
    Then you do not need to buy the the 24 - 70.
    Why would I not need to buy a 24-70? Am I missing the point on something?
     
  19. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    You mentioned some heavy duty hardware as your intended buy in your post – including the trilogy of F/2.8 L zooms – so I believe that with a rethink you might consider buying two cameras and fewer lenses – the budget would not be that much different, but IMO the outcomes and leverages great.
    Specifically to your question, with a dual format kit (APS-C and 135 formats) looking at FoV (field of view) the only two zooms required, are the 16 to 35 and the 70 to 200/2.8, to get equivalent FL thus:
    16 to 35/2.8 provides 16 to 35 and also equivalent 26 to 56.
    70 to 200/2.8 provides 70 to 200 and also equivalent 112 to 320.
    Thus with those two zooms and two cameras the equivalent FoV coverage at F/2.8 (in 135 format terms) is 16 to 56 and then 70 to 320.
    The gap 57 to 69 is insignificant.
    This dual format concept is predicated upon interchanging cameras and lenses – not just interchanging the lenses on one camera.
    The longer version is here: http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00XfDY
    WW
     
  20. 5DII and 85mm L is the best combo. Go for FF.
     
  21. Thanks everyone for the honest feedback. I've been struggling with the 7D versus 5DMkII for quite a while now. I purchased my first 5D when they first came out and it has been a fantastic camera. Now ready to by a second camera and with everything I've read, I think I'll stick with the 5D and get the MkII. Any thoughts out there when the MkIII will come out and what the main changes will be?
     
  22. "Any thoughts out there when the MkIII will come out and what the main changes will be?" - Mark Laven
    <br>The 5D MarkIII comes out December 24th 2010... just kiddin'! :)
    <p>The 5DII is a stellar tool. Get it and don't look back. I had mine stolen from my house this Sunday but I'm not planning to wait till the MkIII comes out; I intend to jump right back in there and get another 5D2. (cue scrimp & save mode ;-))
    <p>To the OP - IMO a 5D2 is a no-brainer in your case and for your intended uses. I would get the 17-40L for your landscapes. Stopped down to around f/8, IMHO it is the equal of the 16-35 and at a fraction of the cost. Unless you reeeeally need that extra 1mm of width - which is not insignificant but IMO not sufficient to justify the price difference (for stopped down shooting applications).
    <p>The 85L is highly regarded and can produce stellar results but seems to be a super-specialized lens; the DOF is razor thin and I reckon most who buy it do so intending to use that razor thin DOF (i.e shoot at f/1.2). If you plan to shoot stopped down even a bit, you should definitely consider the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 or (as in my case after careful analysis and reading up), decide to get a 135 f/2L which is arguably one of the most solid performers in the entire Canon lens line-up...and at less than half the cost of the 85L, serious bang for the buck. Check reviews of them both here: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/502-canon_85f12ff and http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/430-canon_135_2_5d
     
  23. Michael, AF, whiz bang metering (a Sekonic is a better option for the spot for landscape, and the incident/flash for portrait), and high ISO are all things that are next to useless for the type of photography that you are planning to do, and by choosing a small frame sensor, you will be shooting in the sweet spot of the lens. Spend less on the camera, and more on the glass, because history tells us that most digicam users will not keep their camera longer than 2.5 to 3 years.
     
  24. If I had the confidence to buy all "old" equipment and not be lured by the new shining techonolgy...I'd have 3 x 5D1 (no batt. grip) each with a 35mm f1.4, an 85mm f1.8 and a 135mm f2 or 200mm 2.8...the gap between is filled by you feets...they would give you the highest quality and versatility at the cost of a 5D2 + zoom. The total weight would be probably less than my actual 1ds2 with the zooms...and if you can also give up the AF, then the same lenses made by zeiss, those squeeze detail out of a 12mp sensor in a way you can not imagine untill you see it...I've seen the files of a 35mm mounted on a 17MP 1ds2...in comparison the 16-35 really seems a cheapo! :) WOW!
     
  25. I always get a chuckle at the "obviously the 5D2...it's a no-brainer" comments.
    Try this for yourself, go to the Imaging Resource links below. Find the iso 100 still life images. Find the Raw versions. Download them from each camera. While the exposures where a bit different (equalize them if you wish), process them in Lightroom.
    Now the real fun starts. Sharpen them to taste for print output at 16x24 or 20x30 if those are your larger prints sizes. I used the 16x24 as it is my more common large size for print sales. Now make a crop print, say 8x10 from the centre of the 16x24 and 20x30 print. Now compare. Here's what I found....no one could tell the difference.
    Aside form not being able to tell the difference in print, we'll also here the same mindless banter spit out....full frame is better for portraits (as though portraits need a razor thin DOF to work). Let say that by this logic, it is true....the obviously crop camera with better DOF MUST be better for landscape....I know, stupid reasoning, so best ignored.
    Here's what does happen. Put good glass on each for a landscape....and you'll quickly find the crop camera has sharper edges and corners as the lenses aren't being tested as much there.
    Best advice, try it yourself. You'll quickly find that where it matters....prints....you won't see a difference. You can get good DOF from a crop. You can get better AF on the crop. The resolution difference is too small to notice....unless you like to stare at 100% pixel screen views. You can go just as wide on a crop. You can obtain a shallow DOF on a crop. It's about using the right lenses for each....and not falling into the standard "no brainer" comments.....because those comments are really no brainers!
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2THMB.HTM
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DTHMB.HTM
     
  26. I always get a chuckle at the "obviously the 5D2...it's a no-brainer" comments.​
    Dave, I have to disagree with you, from my experience a crop camera does not produce as good a quality image as a FF, I have gone the Gamut of 20,30,40D, 5D and now with the 5D2 and good glass, I am very happy, much happier than when I shot film and the overall quality of an image from the 5D2 as compared to a 7D is better and I believe pretty much undisputed amongst reviewers of these cameras. Not saying the 7D is bad, just that the IQ edge goes to the 5D2 and you have better wide angle options, like the 24 t/s lens which is really not very wide on a 7D and its edge sharpness is great.
    Ross
     
  27. Feel free to disagree Ross. When I made print samples, even those who were rabidly full frame supporters, couldn't tell the difference in print. The problem is, believe it or not, most people on forums compare only 100% pixel views. Any differences there just vanish in print. I may be old fashioned, but I use a camera for prints....not for 100% screen tests.
     
  28. Speaking in terms of the D700 and the D300s (I'm a Nikon shooter), I can tell you that it really comes down to ISO, print size, and focal length. If you regularly shoot at high ISOs, or you regularly make prints over 8x10, then the full frame sensor is worth the extra money. If you don't do either of those often (if you mostly shot school sports for instance), then the extra reach and lower cost of the 7D actually make it a better camera, even objectively.
    I've taken gorgeous and crappy shots with both the D300s and the D700. Even though the full frame sensor might be strictly better, I can tell you than unless you're printing big or using high ISOs, your clients won't be able to tell. And if you're fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to regularly have clients than can see the difference, then you ought to be buying a 1DS or even a Mamiya anyway.
     
  29. I also print Dave, using an IPF 6100 and still prefer FF, thing is, printing may not be around forever with e-paper soon to replace those framed prints, technology marches on.
     
  30. Dave Luttmann is correct. I am convinced that those who disagree have either a) never once performed this test, or b) have performed it using the exact same settings they would use on a FF camera. Crop, including the 7D, admittedly needs a bit more local contrast enhancement and sharpening, and the 7D in particular benefits significantly from RAW processing in ACR instead of DPP. Even with optimum processing you might still see tiny differences in noise and detail which favor the 5D2 at 100% screen views. Those differences do not make it to print. Therefore they aren't worth getting hung up over and are certainly not worth $1,000.
    Dave and I aren't the only people to come to this conclusion. Amateur Photographer came to the same conclusion in their March 6, 2010 article comparing crop and FF cameras. They saw no difference between large prints from both cameras.
    The repeated advice to mate the 5D2 to the 17-40L is particularly troubling as this combination cannot touch the 7D + Tokina 11-16. Why spend $1,000 more hoping for ultimate image quality only to end up with softer corners and edges than you would have gotten with the lower cost combo? To mach the 7D + Tokina combo you need to pick up the 16-35 f/2.8L II, which increases the price difference even more.
    Unless you regularly make larger prints from high ISO images and/or use certain specific lenses which really benefit from a 35mm sensor (i.e. fast wide primes and T/S lenses), the 7D is the better camera and the better buy.
    While I'm at it, I consider the 85 f/1.2L to be bad advice as well. It's a great lens. But unless you absolutely need that last stop of light or that razor thin (think one eyelash) DoF, the 85 f/1.8 is the better choice. It's much cheaper, lighter, faster focusing, with the same bokeh qualities and darn near equal IQ. (The L is better wide open, but not by a huge margin. The non-L is very good and easily usable wide open in its own right.) The L version is a specialty lens. If you don't already know for certain that you need it, you don't need it. If the Sigma 85 f/1.4 offers performance similar to its 50 f/1.4 cousin, than that's another good, lower cost option. (I haven't used the Sigma 85 yet, but the Sigma 50 is excellent so long as you get one without focusing issues.)
     
  31. Ross - the overall quality of an image from the 5D2 as compared to a 7D is better and I believe pretty much undisputed amongst reviewers of these cameras.
    I have yet to see a professional reviewer come to this conclusion based on prints. I have, however, seen the opposite:
    When A2 (42x59.4cm) prints are required, the resolution of the EOS 5D Mark II's images must be dropped to 240ppi, while those from the EOS 7D must be printed at around 223ppi. At lower sensitivities it is impossible to distinguish between images from the two cameras when they are enlarged in this way. - APS-C vs full frame, Amateur Photographer, March 6, 2010 edition. (Emphasis mine.)
    I found the same exact thing in my tests.
     
  32. Agreed Daniel. That is pretty much how I see it. I considered the 5D2 for a while, but when I looked at the results on print....where it matters....it made no sense. I agree that if you like to print 24x36 at iso 6400, then yes, you'll get a slight advantage on the 5D2.
    The funny thing though for me, I've been using the 7D in wedding receptions at 6400 iso. In Lightroom, the NR is so advanced at maintaining detail, the I get clean 8x10, and very, very good 11x14 prints for albums.
    The part I find odd though, is how the same incorrect information gets repeated....despite the test being so simple to perform. Like I said, I had photographers that would have bet their left arm that the 5D2 would cream a crop sensor....only to find on a 16x24 print that they were struggling to see differences. I find if they can, it's because the person who made the print applied the same global settings on the crop body as the FF....when the crop body will need a bit more sharpening....and used DPP to convert the raw.
    On a 16x24, it's a difference between a 234ppi print and a 216ppi print....it doesn't show, no matter how much pixie dust you sprinkle on them ;-)
     
  33. http://tinyurl.com/3ac38eb
     
  34. I can only say that I own both and that the 7D IQ even at low ISO is not as good as the 5DII. In theory the 7D has better metering but in the real world there is little to choose between them. Both cameras need good glass and the 17-40 is not a great lens on full frame. so the suggestion that the 11-16 Tokina (which I do not own and have not used) may be as good and cheaper may well be true. The real issue on 5DII vs 7D image quality is what are you prepared to accept. By any objective standards the 7D produces very good images. However, the 5DII clearly produces better images. I am unsure why this is so contraversial (or indeed if the people who object to this actually use both systems!). The simple fact is that the 5DII and it's lenses costs significantly more than the 7D but lacks the high frame rate and faster AF. If the 5DII did not take better shots I suspect that it would not sell as well as it does.
    I actually think that it is hard to compare these two cameras - for most purposes the 5DII is the better camera. For specific applications e.g. sport the 7D is the better bet. One thing that I would suggest is that the 24-70 is not a great lens on the 7D. I rarely use my 24-70 on my 7D but it gets used a lot of the 5DII. My 7D is basically used with my 16-35 II and my 70-200 lenses (I have the F4 LIS and the F2.8 non IS)
     
  35. Philip - However, the 5DII clearly produces better images.
    Photo.net won't allow uploads of images produced by other people, even crops of test images published on the web. But I don't think they care if a link to an off site photo is posted. So...
    Can you please look at the link below and tell me, without going to the original test sites and looking for telltale clues like minor exposure or magnification differences or glare, which crops come from which camera? Since this is a 100% screen view and since the 5DII clearly produces better images it should be a cinch.
    Can you print that link at 187 ppi (20x30" equivalent) and see if anyone else can tell you which came from which? How about 234 ppi (16x24" equivalent)?
    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bz1sfHfXHVDCNWM0NjAyNGEtZDI5Zi00MTZhLThmNWItMjI3YmI5NmJmYTMx&hl=en
     
  36. Good link Daniel. It should be an eye opener for the people who haven't actually compared, but are convinced that on is still better over the other on print.
     
  37. However, the 5DII clearly produces better images. I am unsure why this is so controversial​
    It's not "controversial", but saying it doesn't make it so.
    As Daniel and David have amply indicated, the evidence out there supports their position extremely robustly; whereas, aside from a lot of folk saying that the 5D Mk II has better IQ, there seems to be very little actual proof that this is the case.
    So no: not "controversial", disputed: and not supported by the actual evidence that exists.
     
  38. As Daniel and David have amply indicated, the evidence out there supports their position extremely robustly; whereas, aside from a lot of folk saying that the 5D Mk II has better IQ, there seems to be very little actual proof that this is the case.​
    This is not evidence but an opinion. There have been numerous threads about it here and on other forums and the above opinion is in minority. I would say wishful thinking. I might reconsider my opinion if you point me in direction of a controlled test. The link above is a joke.
     
  39. This is not evidence but an opinion.
    I'm not sure you understand the difference. The controlled tests performed by DPReview, Imaging Resource, and Amateur Photographer are evidence. The mere statements of the majority of people in a thread are opinion.
    I would say wishful thinking. I might reconsider my opinion if you point me in direction of a controlled test. The link above is a joke.

    The link above pulls crops from controlled tests at the two sites mentioned above. Both sites control the parameters of their tests to a much higher degree than you are likely to experience in the field. I've noticed that none of the people here with strong opinions that the 5D mkII is significantly and clearly better are able to tell me which crop came from which. If the 5D mkII offered superior IQ to the degree claimed, this should be a simple matter.
    The controlled tests from three professional sites and numerous blogs confirm the tests and personal experiences of Dave and I. At low to mid ISO the 5D mkII is sharper out of camera and offers a bit more local contrast. It's also a bit cleaner. But out of camera they are already very close. Optimum processing (settings in camera for JPEG or work in post) brings them so close that the differences are not detectable in 24" and typically even 30" prints, much less significant.
    At high ISO the 5D mkII walks away in terms of both noise and detail retention. That's the remaining clear FF advantage given today's technology level, though I do anticipate that higher resolution FF sensors in the future will restore some of the lost IQ advantage at lower ISOs.
     
  40. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    The evidence collected by collating the history of a particular commentator’s previous efforts, lends itself for one to form the strong opinion that the understanding of the written English Language and the meaning of English Words: is not their strongest suit.
    Neither, it seems, is scientific method nor controlled testing understood . . . argument out of context, however, still appears rampant.
    Oh well . . . maybe time for JDM to pop in again?
    BTW, Michael - have you made any decisions yet?
    WW
     
  41. Go to Google and search for: canon 7d vs 5d mark ii. That is my evidence. Most tests say that 5DII wins the IQ battle. And this is exactly what I've heard from actual owners of both 7D and 5DII on FM. Apparently this is a heated debate and I think it not very smart to state that tests prove that 7D is as 5DII when there are many other controlled tests that state otherwise. Again, this is an opinion and not a fact. So please stop forcing your opinion on everybody. We will talk more when you can afford 5DII and able to do your own tests
     
  42. @Willian W
    Hey idiot, nobody asked your opinion thats for sure. Keep your stupid comments for your wife.
    This is unacceptable and, since it's not the first such comment this user has made, it has resulted in "Mr. E" being removed from the site
     
  43. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Nice! The tone of the conversation sure steps down a peg or two quickly. I'll place my opinions when and where I like, Honey: The opinion was based on research and collating the data provided, that's all.
    What’s your evidence and premise for your classification of “idiot”?
    One might conclude it is merely your own inadequacies and failures?

    WW
     
  44. Ilya E [​IMG], Nov 18, 2010; 04:39 p.m.
    Go to Google and search for: canon 7d vs 5d mark ii. That is my evidence. Most tests say that 5DII wins the IQ battle. And this is exactly what I've heard from actual owners of both 7D and 5DII on FM. Apparently this is a heated debate and I think it not very smart to state that tests prove that 7D is as 5DII when there are many other controlled tests that state otherwise. Again, this is an opinion and not a fact. So please stop forcing your opinion on everybody. We will talk more when you can afford 5DII and able to do your own tests​
    Ilya,
    That is not evidence....it is more opinion like we see in this thread. The fact that under controlled tests completed by respected reviewing sites shows that you cannont tell the difference on screen, let alone print, is the evidence.
    Feel free to show me some side by side tests that I can print to confirm your opinion. At present, all you have is an opinion. It is quite clear to see in the samples that there is no difference. I've done the comparisons myself at 16x24 and no one could see the differences....you know, all the blather about "more 3D look" and "better contrast" and "better color" and "better detail"....that comes up in threads....but is NEVER supported in test images.
    Gee, I wonder why that is?
    If you're happy with the 5d2, that's great. I think it's a superb camera. But if someone is going to state that the differences are "Obvious," then it should show in the test images. The fact that it doesn't is evidence....not opinion.
    Ilya E [​IMG], Nov 18, 2010; 04:43 p.m.
    @Willian W
    Hey idiot, nobody asked your opinion thats for sure. Keep your stupid comments for your wife.​
    Wow, it appears this forum would be better off without the like of you.
     
  45. Ilya - Go to Google and search for: canon 7d vs 5d mark ii. That is my evidence.
    From search result #1: However, the difference in noise and image quality will only be visible at higher ISO’s and comparatively large magnifications or in very large prints or if you need to severely crop the image.
    http://www.sandrophoto.com/2010/03/17/canon-eos-7d-vs-5d-mark-ii/
    From search result #2: I will say that at ISO 400 and under, in normal lighting scenarios, the 2 look fairly similar, and with 18 megapixels, file sizes aren’t even that far apart.
    He goes on to talk about differences at higher ISOs but his crops actually betray his words as being two strong. I could have used his own crops at ISO 800 and you still wouldn't have been able to tell me which was which.
    http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-7d-vs-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-iso-comparison-2/
    From search result #3: While the differences aren't HUGE, the 5D Mark II's full-size sensor definitely made a difference at ISO 3200 and beyond. Of course that means both cameras were fairly well matched up through ISO 1600, not an easy feat for an 18MP cropped-sensor camera.
    http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/
    Ilya, did you even look at the Google results before making your statement? I searched on your exact terms and didn't cherry pick among the results, I simply opened the first three. All three, to one degree or another, support what Dave and I are saying. The crops in result #2 show the same thing I see in test images from DP Review and Imaging Resource: small differences that are not print observable (24") through at least ISO 800.
    Most tests say that 5DII wins the IQ battle.

    Technically, yes, the 5D mkII at any ISO is a little bit better. But the differences are so small at lower ISOs that they are either a) easy to process away, or b) don't make it to print.
    Feel free to post your tests for discussion. I would be very interested in determining why you are getting different results from all of the above such that you see a huge difference in IQ.
    Apparently this is a heated debate
    Apparently, judging from your comment to William. Can we please stick to tests and facts? Have you decided which crop belongs to which camera yet?
    and I think it not very smart to state that tests prove that 7D is as 5DII when there are many other controlled tests that state otherwise.
    Could you please link to them since the Google search turned up more supporting evidence for my position?
    Again, this is an opinion and not a fact. So please stop forcing your opinion on everybody.
    Translation: please stop posting evidence that contradicts what I previously believed.
    We will talk more when you can afford 5DII and able to do your own tests
    Oh, was that an attempt at an insult? A burn? Sorry to disappoint you Ilya but both when I bought my 7D and today I have the cash on hand to buy a new 5D mkII. No credit cards or loans, just slap down the debit card. It's 5 minutes away at Fry's. I had access to one and checked them both out and I went with the 7D.
    The 5D mkII is a fine camera and is certainly superior for certain uses (low light; T/S work). It does not, however, offer such an increase in IQ as to be discernible in 24" prints.
     
  46. Ilya,
    Did you even read the searches in Google you told everyone is your evidence? Because what I'm reading as your evidence, actually supports what Daniel and I are saying...and contradicts you.
     
  47. The risk of putting a question here is to end up more confused......
     
  48. But i will give my small contribution. My partner and I own both and for us the 5dMKII is the one we like more, no doubt there for us.
     
  49. What differences do you see in print Hans?
     
  50. Hi everyone... I dont want to add some fuel to the fire that is already burning in this discussion... wich I thing is more retorical, or plain academic... I know what you're going to say (or write), but just look at the DxOMark sensor comparisons:
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...619|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon
    As you can see, there's some noticeable differences. Anyway, I dont think this discussions are really helpfull to the people that are merely asking an opinion. Usually people starts making a statment based on theyr own preferences and choices, instead of pointing out the advantages of each choice. Surely, 7D and 5DMKII are 2 diferent cameras, and is like compare oranges with apples. Some prefear oranges, others apples. The choice will depend on several issues (mostly private ones), wich i think were plain and correctly explained in the first 2 pages of this discussion. And who cares about reviews, tests or charts, or whaterver? I think what Michal was wanting, was you're own opinion, since he also can have access to those tests. And I also think he should rely more on people who realy has the experience of both cameras.(I'm not one of those, by the way)
     
  51. Interesting thread. 7D looks pretty good for the price. Have to read Michael's earlier thread about 60D vs 7D now.
     
  52. Its the same phenonena thats starting now with the D7000. Real world prints are so impressive that some are saying they are close to the D700 output. Its agreed they are better than the D300.
    Ergo, the same arguments are here comparing the "new" 7D producing better prints than the 5D2. And there are those out there who still stand my the original 5D for landscape work.
    And you know, it takes a mighty good photographer to wrest the best out of a sensor any way.
    What I also wanted to say was that landscapes might be better shot with a wide prime rather than a slower zoom?
     
  53. So does that mean that the IQ of the 550D (T2i - same sensor as the 7D?) is close to the IQ of the 1DsIII (same sensor as the 5DII?). Hmmm.
     
  54. Image quality at normal ISO's hasn't really improved in the last five years. Go back to some reviews from that time and read comment's such as "breathtaking images". Nothing's changed, and the price of a 1DsMkIII isn't based on its image quality. Sure high ISO has improved, and according to Nikon and Canon, we all should be shooting at 12 800, but for most images that most people take, a 20D is just fine.
     
  55. Nuno wrote:
    The choice will depend on several issues (mostly private ones), wich i think were plain and correctly explained in the first 2 pages of this discussion. And who cares about reviews, tests or charts, or whaterver? I think what Michal was wanting, was you're own opinion, since he also can have access to those tests. And I also think he should rely more on people who realy has the experience of both cameras.(I'm not one of those, by the way)​
    The choices may have been correctly explained on the first two pages, but I find it rather odd that one would state that they don't care about tests....when the tests show plainly and simply that the differences explained on the first two pages are pretty much imaginary.
    Probably to make it clear, from someone who has tested both.....is that under the overwhelming majority of image taking situations, there is no visible difference on prints as large as 16x24, and sometimes larger.
    Comparison images on print show this to be the case.....vacuous opinions don't.
     
  56. @Dave..
    The prints. The difference starts for me especially in the less exposed parts, where the 5 dmkII seems to be capable to capture more data then the 7d. the 7d gets more and more easy ' muddy' there. With even and carefully exposed subjects it may be hard to find a difference indeed. Though these situations occur (a perfect and especially even lit scene) , they are not the daily practice for landscape photography. Also I find noise control is better in the darker parts of the image with the 5dmkII. I imagine though anyone can work on that if required to some extent. In practise I find the 7d requiring a more perfect exposure and the 5dmkII more 'forgiving' in that. (yes I know all should be proper exposed of course !, but again sometimes I am happy to be able to recover some data available in raw). In general the 5dmkII gives me more data to be able to work on an image (bright and dark parts). As addition I have the impression the real iso of the 7d is about 1/3 stop less then proposed, meaning you have to overexpose some to get good noise behavior, at some more risk of overexposing.
    Just my findings,& opinions from how those camers behave in practice in my situation and by no means a law for everybody!
    Cheers!
     
  57. Well said Hans.
    Yes, I would expect the 5D2 to be more forgiving. When I use the 7D for landscapes, I must admit I'm pretty much always at iso 100 and don't see any noise even in the shadows...but I normally don't venture larger than 16x24 to 20x30, and that on HM Photorag 308....which is going to to be a little more forgiving than a lustre paper for example.
    Regards,
     
  58. I have both cameras, and the 5dII is clearly the best. The autofocus on the 7d is more modern, but not much more functional. It is even a little to confusing for some people. The 5dII obviously has less noise at high ISOs. The 7d has the the built in flash that will control your EX Flashes off camera. It has a much higher burst rate than the 5dII. I guess you probably know all the features of both cameras.
    With that said, for me, the 5dII clearly gets higher quality images. If I could only keep one, I would definitely keep the 5dII, and I would hardly miss the 7d.
    P.S. If you get the 7d, you might rethink the 85mm f/1.2L. It's pretty tight on a cropped sensor in my opinion for portraits (equal to 136mm on a full frame), and it is HEAVY. Rent it first, and see for yourself. Besides, if you get the 70-200mm, that will work great. Instead, consider a fast 50. Always get the fastest glass you can afford, so you don't regret it later. Consider renting all of this stuff before you buy.
    P.P.S. A 5D Mark III is likely to come within a year.
     
  59. Thanks Mark! That's the kind of opinion Michael needed to read. By the way, what are your lens recomendations for the 5DMkII? I'm about to buy one and needed some advice. I've eard that some lenses (FF not croped ones) create some shadows in the corners (vigneting). Shall we start with what? A 50mm F/1.4 or the F/1.8? (read some reviews saying oposite things about them)
     
  60. If your subject involve extreme wide angle compositions, there's a small lens that tips the favor towards the 7D, and it's not even made by Canon. I've been using the Sigma 8-16 on my APS sized cameras for over half a year now, and it simply delivers-- _much_ better than the 10-22 Canon variant in its overlapping range, and MUCH wider, this lens is EF-S only and its FF counterpart (Sigma 12-24) isn't as good.
     
  61. Petrana, the 8-16 is very sharp and controls CA extremely well. It is a bit prone to flare, but that is kind of normal for these ultra wides. And yes, it is much better than the 12-24 option on a FF body.
    Mark, could you post a sample for us of a scene that shows the 5D2 being clearly better than the 7D. Low iso and high iso would be nice. The reason I ask is that when I did it, one wasn't clearly better all the the time....and other test sites that provide raw samples simply don't show this "clearly" difference on any normal size print....at least not below a 2 foot wide print. I'd be interested in seeing what some people perceive as being "clearly better", and how that translates into a print.
    Thanks!
     
  62. I use and recommend for the 5DII and the 7D:
    Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mark II
    Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG
    These lenses give an excellent combination of ranges for both camera bodies, and vignetting is minimal and easily corrected in camera JPEG's or post processing RAW's. I don't shoot much wide angle, but I recommend Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L for the 5D. The 10-22mm f/3.5 - 4.5 EF-S is excellent for the 7D and half the price. I've used both, and in my opinion, the 10-22mm gets more distortion. Vignetting is more of a concern with the wide angles, but everything is a compromise.
     
  63. Petrana, the 8-16 is very sharp and controls CA extremely well. It is a bit prone to flare, but that is kind of normal for these ultra wides. And yes, it is much better than the 12-24 option on a FF body.​
    All I'm saying that this lens makes extreme wide angle viable on a 7D; it outdoes any FF camera out there. It is of course much slower at f/4.5, but its top notch wide open. Flare? it is better than my 14-24/2.8 on my Nikon FF, and costs 1/2 as much.
     
  64. Dave, I don't have examples of shots that I have made with both cameras at the same time in the same conditions with the same lenses to make a fare comparison. These two images are very similar. The 5d was at 145mm, and the 7d was at 200mm. Generally though, while pixel peeping (which I don't recommend), noise is more apparent in the 7D photos compared with the 5DII at the same ISO. The 7D is very very good, and I love it, but I think the 5DII is better, and the difference is pretty obvious if you really really magnify the dark parts of the images. The noise is corrected very well with NIK's Dfine 2.0.
    00XiAc-303839584.jpg
     
  65. Here is the 5d
    00XiAi-303839684.jpg
     
  66. Its good discussion...I think there are three points here:
    1. For those who don't delve into the advanced capabilities of Photoshop and who may never print larger than A3, the difference would be marginal.
    2. For pixel peepers and high ISO chasers, the choice would be the 5D2.
    3. Then there are the new generation of digital shooters who want the final product to come out of the camera, not the computer, and who do not want to be bothered with much post other than minor tweaking and cropping perhaps, then the 5D2 might be the best if set up properly.
    My personal opinion is that digital has become far too complex. When it can produce the same output as say velvia, straight out of the camera, then the game is won over film.
    I went on a landscape photography workshop a few months ago. There were 8 of us...6 with pretty good DSLRs and two with film cameras. It was amusing in the field when we came to set up on a rocky headland at dawn and the film guys set up on tripods the same as the digitals guys. For the next hour the digital guys were hammering off dozens of shots and examining the rear lcd (one with a loupe) and the film guys got busy having some coffee, waiting for the decisive moment. Then, just when the right moment came, the film guys just walked up to their cameras and shot one frame with +1 and -1 exposure bracketing. Done. The digital guys just stared....
    To me, when it can be this easy to get pro results on a digital camera, then I will buy the best, but not until then.
     
  67. Hi everyone... I dont want to add some fuel to the fire that is already burning in this discussion... wich I thing is more retorical, or plain academic... I know what you're going to say (or write), but just look at the DxOMark sensor comparisons:
    No thanks. DxOMark ranks medium format digital backs as being below the 5D mkII, A900, and in one case the D90! This is laughable to anyone who uses those backs and makes very large prints from them (or has seen very large prints from them). DxOMark scores are not calibrated for resolution differences and are easily thrown by things like in camera RAW NR or differences in AA filters (or the lack of an AA filter).
    In some cases I'm not even sure what they're measuring. Take DR for example: their DR ratings for every camera I've checked are off by 2-4 stops and easily disproven with a Stouffer transmission step wedge test.
    DxOMark also recently made the claim that manufacturers bump ISO at wide lens apertures to compensate for light loss at the sensor. That's true. But what DxO failed to grasp is that most of this light loss occurs in the lens itself and is not unique to or caused by digital sensors. Any college student in photography, photographer with a technical reference, or especially a film maker could have told them that. (T-stop vs. F-stop.)
    Their scores only rarely coincide with the test results of their peers, test results which are, by comparison, pretty difficult to misread. DxOMark is a horrible source of information.
     
  68. Hans Koot - I would agree with you that the 5D mkII is a more forgiving camera with better shadow noise and contrast/separation, and also wider total DR. That said, I have been amazed at what I can pull out of the shadows with the 7D using ACR and a little local contrast enhancement plus noise reduction.
     
  69. Marc - I copied both crops to compare in PS and got a phone call. When I turned back to my monitor I had to switch back to the web browser to identify which was which. No joke. This is how small these differences are that we're debating.
    Once you equalize the black points there's not any real difference between them. The black area in the 7D image is not noisier in this case so much as it is lighter. Equalizing the black points also makes the 7D's noise/grain appear about the same. I'm assuming this is a lower ISO test.
     
  70. Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore...
    This takes me back to the heady days of my hifi obsession: there are the measurebators who talk about specs and electronic physics, there are the subjectivists who want to believe that their thousands spent on top nothc gear have been worthwhile and end up exaggerating the importance of minor changes; and there are those who go out, use the gear in the real world and are very happy, but occasionally (very occsasionally) they stop and ponder to look at/listen to the hyper detail but generally are not that obsessed.
     
  71. Marc
    Thanks for the tips. I saw some tests of the Sigma 50 F71.4 and it looks excelent, far much better then the Canon 50 F/1.8 or even the F/1.4. The 24-70, it's too heavy, and too expensive for me, any alternatives?
    Stephen
    I loved that story about the film and dslr shooters! I have to tell it to my students. I use film for 30 years, and one of the reasons i want to go for FF is because i always felt disapointed with digital dslr's results! So the 50D MKII seems a good choise (can't afford the Canon 1D MKIV or MKIII, or the Nikon D3, and the D700 is about to be replaced next March). And this way I can have just one set of lenses for both cameras, Film and Digital
     
  72. Good call Mike. Reminds me of something a speaker and cable rep told me years ago. He told me that if a speaker costs $50 on the shelf, it probably cost $25 to make. If it's $100, they probably made it for $60. If it's $500, they probably built it for $200. If the speaker is $2,000, they probably made it for $500. He actually went as far as telling me that even if your stereo system is top-notch, it's not worth spending more than $4,000 or so a pair for speakers, unless listening to music is your only hobby. He claimed that beyond that, you have to spend roughly double to get 105% the audio quality of the 'cheaper' set.
    He also said that they often price things higher based on what people will pay instead of what it costs - in other words, a speaker that could be sold for $5,000 with a good amount of profit to both manufacturer and store might be priced for $10,000, for no other reason than because that's what audiophiles are prepared to spend.
    I strongly suspect cameras to be the exact same. While I'm not debating the extra quality of the full-frame sensor, I wouldn't doubt that the 5D is 90% the camera of the 1Ds, and that they 1Ds is priced over three times the amount only because people think they need to pay that.
     
  73. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I am still curious to know what Michael decided.
    WW
     
  74. I'll extend your question Dave, if I may:
    "What differences do you see in print - or not - that can't easily be "equalised away" into irrelevance simply by making trivial workflow changes?"
    I ask this because - in my experience of many files from each camera - it takes precious little "effort" indeed to render 7D files, at any ISO, essentially identical in terms of IQ to 5D Mk II files.
    Which is the whole point: the end results of which each camera is capable are of such high quality that any observable differences between the two are likely to be down to conversion and PP decisions made by the photographer, rather than to any inherent superiority of one body's IQ over another...
     
  75. The link above is a joke.​
    If that's the best counter-argument you can come up with, Ilya - "I don't agree because I don't agree" - then I think we can safely say you've lost this battle...
     
  76. At high ISO the 5D mkII walks away in terms of both noise and detail retention.​
    I'm not even necessarily convinced that's true, Daniel.
    One of the evident shortfalls in at least some 5D Mk IIs at high ISO is the banding "pattern noise" that it can be prone to, even before you start to push the files: the 7D doesn't have that tendency at high ISO.
    Certainly I can easily shoot at 6400 ISO with my 7D with absolutely minimal PP attention needing to be paid to the files to make them look - well, amazing - and 12,800 ISO calls for only slightly more effort on my part (and then mainly on rectifying slight colour shifts that sometimes occur).
    The absence of 5D Mk II-style banding makes it all very easy.
     
  77. Keith - I certainly don't want to give the impression that the 7D is bad at high ISO. I have ISO 2000 and 3200 8x10-11x14 prints that, with a bit of work, look as good as prints from low ISO portrait films. While there is a visible noise pattern it actually resembles very tight grain.
    Never the less, the 5D2 does retain more fine detail once you get into higher ISOs, especially in strong reds. DP Review's test samples show this. And both smooth areas and shadow areas are noticeably cleaner. But I'm not sure how much difference it makes at, say, 8x10. I don't often print 16x20 from ISO 3200 or 6400.
    Banding is something to take into consideration. I've heard people complain about this but I don't honestly know how bad it is or in which situations it is most noticeable. The 7D is very resistant to banding issues.
     
  78. Guys, I think we scared Michael off! I'm not sure he was anticipating such heat in the discussion ;-)
     
  79. Hey Marc,
    I just viewed the crops. It appears the 7D is acutally more detailed than the 5D2. The 5D2 looks smeared in comparison. If I had to choose between these two samples, the 7D is clearly the winner for detail and a natural image...the 5D2 has less noise, but it appears that way as the detail is smeared away.
     
  80. Then, just when the right moment came, the film guys just walked up to their cameras and shot one frame with +1 and -1 exposure bracketing. Done. The digital guys just stared....
    To me, when it can be this easy to get pro results on a digital camera, then I will buy the best, but not until then.​
    It wasn't all that long ago that I eBay'ed off my 4x5 Polaroid film holder. My take is, if they had a rear LCD preview, they'd obsess over it, too. The only point to take away from this is many, many DSLR shutter activations are knowingly wasted, on the off chance we might get a usable variation on the light. But then, it might be simple impatience. It is a bit more difficult to just wait calmly for the light when you can usefully fidget in the meantime.
     
  81. Michael,
    Go back to e-bay and buy another! There's always a chance to correct our mistakes! lol I agree that it would be quite usefull if we had a film camera with a rear LCD. That was the next step film cameras were going to, after Nikon F6, but, unfortunetly, they put in a sensor instead! And the point & shooters market killed the film cameras, or, they're development. My dream is that they will do one day a film/digital camera, where you might have the option to record the image on a sensor or in a film (instead of choosing between jpeg or raw). But, that's just a dream. In the meantime i use both, on a double headed tripod, and set the menu in the digital equal to the film, just to have an idea of the outcome. So, the DSLR works like the rear LCD!
     
  82. I kind of stopped reading because I don't understand why someone would buy an 85 1.2L and not know which camera body to get? I got a good deal on a 85 1.2L about a year ago and went bought a Canon 5D Mark II so I could use it. An 85 1.2L on a 7D is unusable for portraits what the 85 1.2L is famous for. To me the 85 is even long on a 5D. My favorite lens by far is my Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and I have the Tamron 70-300 VC on order. I don't agree that if you have a 5D2 your must have all L-series lenses. I use cheap zooms and fast primes and could not be happier. I have excellent equipment and still got some money in my pocket to hire models.
     
  83. When an excellent forum like this degenerates into a name calling contest, I lose respect for the name callers...
    Here is my opinion on 1.6x vs. full frame. Take it for what you will...
    If you are shooting a 1.6x camera with top-line lenses and are getting excellent results... Your imagery "may" improve if you shift to a full-frame body with top-line glass.
    However, if you are shooting a 1.6x camera and are not getting excellent imagery, you should either upgrade your lens (especially if using a kit lens) or learn how to shoot (if you are using a top-line lens with your 1.6x camera). A 1.6x system with top-line lenses is capable of excellent imagery and if it is not happening, the fault is with the indian, not the arrow!
    Just converting to full-frame will not magically improve a photographer's imagery anymore than just buying a new set of clubs will make a duffer into a scratch golfer.
    I do however, strongly endorse shooting with a two camera system regardless if that system is full frame or crop (although crop systems can be lighter in weight). You will have the advantage of switching focal lengths without switching lenses and possibly missing a shot or getting dust on your sensor. The two camera system is also an insurance policy against missing out on a once-in-a-lifetime photo opportunity if your camera fails. I was on a tour to China in March-April of this year and carried two 1.6x cameras and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses (my favorite general photography and travel combination). Another photographer was shooting with a Nikon DSLR and an extended range zoom. The other tour member fell in front of the Xi'an City Walls and destroyed his camera. He did not have a backup camera to use.
    BTW: You can view my images of China shot with a Canon 30D and 40D using 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses at: http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/
     
  84. Glad to find this thread, I am considering an upgrade from my T1i which is great until the light goes dim and I need higher iso. I am considering the same choices, as well as the new 60....hmmmm.
    I do mostly action and wildlife, so the 7D is the way i'm leaning right now. I have a few months to see what happens in 2011 though.
    Thanks for the informative posts.
     
  85. The 7D and the 5DII are both excellent DSLRs and both have good points. The 5DII could easily be used in producing portraits and weddings. While the 7D is the sports version, fast wildlife shooting, and anything that involves high-sequencing.
    David Ziser, a very popular wedding photographer, has selected the 7D for shooting weddings. His reasons for the 7D is the photojournalistic style can be achieved. The 5DII, being a bit more expensive can accomplish with a slower frames per second. Other wedding photographers may select the 5DII.
    I see no fault in either, just differences in the which model to shoot for what occasion.
     
  86. WOW! I take a week off and all of a sudden there are 9 pages! Thank you to all of you that took the time to give me your input. I ended up renting both bodies and shooting with them for a few days and I think I have convinced that the 5DmkII is my camera. If I was shooting more action, i think the 7D would have won, but I am not.
    Maybe if the money comes in I will look at that as a back up to shoot with. Again, thanks to everyone who took the time to give me their input. It is greatly appreciated.I thought for a few minutes that there was gonna be a knock down drag out fight between a few of you! :)
    I guess we are all passionate about our gear!
     

Share This Page