7D vs. 5DmkII

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So, with that being said, what are your thoughts, and thank you for taking the time to put them down here for me.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:<br>

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Do yourself a favor - get the 5DII and be done with it.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Full frame will give you a shallower DOF and more background blur which you may desire for portraits.</p>

<p>If I was going to buy an 85/1.2L, I'd go for the full frame camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also like the idea of a full frame camera to take full advantage of the L series glass</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is 'full advantage' of the L series glass?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> so much of the image circle--and the most expensive bits that illuminate the corners of the full frame sensor--is thrown away.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <em>would</em> be a waste. My decision would be based on the facilities offered by each camera.</p>

<p>its really a no brainer, 5D2 is the choice for landscape and portrait</p>

<p>I have a 5D mkI and a 7D.<br>

Reading your post I unequivocally would recommend the 5DmkII !</p>

<p>"I plan on purchasing 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, the 85 f1.2L"<br>

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. </p>

<p>I'd say go for the 5DMII with 17-40 for landscapes. I have this combination and absolutely love it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Franz writes, "It seems that the 7D has better AF and metering then the 5DmkII. I like the the 7D for this reason."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<p>For landscape, travel and portraits the 5DII VF and IQ whips the 7D. </p>

<p>Buy both.<br />Then you do not need to buy the the 24 - 70.<br />And you still have more FL coverage.<br />And a fast 85 and an equivalent fast 135.<br>

And your wide angle zoom can be a non varying maximum aperture: F/2.8<br />And you have a back up camera to use when you send one in for service.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>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.<br>

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!<br>

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.<br>

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? ;-)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>Another vote for the 5D MKII.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2223148">William W</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 16, 2010; 07:48 p.m.<br />Then you do not need to buy the the 24 - 70.</p>

<p>Why would I not need to buy a 24-70? Am I missing the point on something?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p>16 to 35/2.8 provides 16 to 35 and also equivalent 26 to 56.<br>

70 to 200/2.8 provides 70 to 200 and also equivalent 112 to 320.</p>

<p>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.<br>

The gap 57 to 69 is insignificant.<br>

This dual format concept is predicated upon interchanging cameras and lenses – not just interchanging the lenses on one camera. </p>

<p>The longer version is here: <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00XfDY">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00XfDY</a></p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>5DII and 85mm L is the best combo. Go for FF.</p>

<p>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?</p>

"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

<p>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.</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>I always get a chuckle at the "obviously the 5D2...it's a no-brainer" comments.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2THMB.HTM</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DTHMB.HTM</p>