Canon 7D or 5D?

<p>Ok... I am just starting to get serious about photography and need some pointers.<br>

I have been looking at the Canon EOS 5D and the the Canon EOS 7D, and I need to know which would be better for me since I am just starting. I don't want to get one now... and then a year from now wish I had bought the other. But I also don't want to get something so advanced that I don't understand how to use it. I don't know a whole lot about cameras but photography has quickly become one of my biggest passions and I am determined to continue developing my photography skills. So this is a big decision for me. Any suggestions, opinions, ideas? Please and Thank you!<br>

~Corbie</p>

<p>If you're comparing the 5D Mark I to the 7D, go 7D all the way. If you're comparing the 5D Mark II versus the 7D, it sums up to this: if you shoot landscapes/architecture go with the 5DMkII, for everything else go 7D. If you're comparing the video capability of 5DMkII and 7D, the 5D offer shallower depth of field and wider angles, but the 7D records better and much smoother, in several different fps and resolutions, and manages better camera panning and tilting during video recording.</p>

<p>Erwin Marlin</p>

<p>P.S.: If you were comparing it to the 5D Mark II, I'd go for the 7D, save the extra $1000 dollars the 5D Mark II costs, and buy the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>While the 5DII is an absolutely outstanding camera with superior image quality, the 7D is the ultimate all-around camera. I would recommend it over most every other camera due to its amazing versatility and capability.</p>

<p>The 5D, as amazing as it's IQ is , was released Fall 2005 and is pretty old school. I wouldn't buy one unless you're on a tight budget and found a great deal. If you can find new "old stock" it is likely to be priced about the same as a 7D. If you can swing it, another grand buys a 5D Mark II, a much better camera in most ways.</p>

<p>Both the 7D and 5DII are very similar in terms of form factor and user interface. In other words, one is not more difficult to operate than the other. The choice comes down to whether you need an APS-C gunslinging sports/birder shooter like the 7D or a slower but full frame landscape, studio and portrait box like the 5D Mark II. Of course either one can cover all this and more--just not in cutting edge fashion--and make a fine general purpose box.</p>

<p>Also, realize both models are aimed to semi-pro and advanced shooters and thus lack Basic Zone Icon modes like Sports, Portrait, Landscape, Macro, etc. If you think you'll miss these modes, consider a 50D or Rebel series.</p>

<p>My 7D review:</p>

<p>http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_eos7d.htm</p>

<p><em>If you're comparing the 5D Mark II versus the 7D, it sums up to this: if you shoot landscapes/architecture go with the 5DMkII, for everything else go 7D.</em></p>

<p>IMHO the IQ differences are not significant until you hit higher ISOs. Landscapes and architecture are often done from a tripod, which means ISO 100-400. In print there really isn't a significant difference between the two here.</p>

<p>So my rule of thumb is that if you often need to make large, detailed prints from high ISO shots, get the 5D2. If you won't need high ISO often, or won't need large prints from your high ISO shots, then stick with the 7D.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMHO the IQ differences are not significant until you hit higher ISOs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>High ISO doesn't work as a "cut-off".</p>

<p>It's already very clear that the 7D is finding great favour as a low light sport camera (3200/6400 ISO football and ice hockey shots abound), and the 7D is obviously going to be in another league to the 5D Mk II for that kind of photography because of its excellent - and versatile - AF.</p>

<p>So</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>If you won't need high ISO often</strong> , or won't need large prints from your high ISO shots, then stick with the 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just doesn't work - people are very specifically choosing the 7D <em>because</em> they shoot at high ISOs, something at which it excels.</p>

<p>The 7d is an apsc and the 5d full frame. If your composition style favors isolation and shallow dof then the 5d2. The 7d has an advantage for sports/bird photography due to the more advance/faster af system.<br>

In a year or two there will be something newer and better so if you are a gadget junkie you will not want either in a few years.</p>

<p>Basically the 7d is a newer camera with all the bells and whistle. The 5d2 primary advantage is full frame and lower noise at higher iso; but the body around the sensor isn't that great.</p>

 

<p>I have the 5D and the 7D is a better choice for almost all subject matter, here are so photos taken at least 1600 ISO and a Sigma 15mm fisheye. I did use noise ninja on them. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=943915</p>

<p>Erwin said it best when with the suggestion of the 7D and the 17-55 IS canon EF-S lens. Great body and the best lens made for a 1.6 cropped sensor. You will capture stunning low light indoor/outdoor photographs/videos.</p>

<p>Hard to make a mistake with this choice since both are great. If you want a faster focusing camera (particularly in low light), go 7D. If you want full frame sensor, go 5D MKII. IQ Will be similar with the 5D a perhaps bit better (if you are really looking at larger enlargements).</p>

<p><strong><em>"Any suggestions, opinions, ideas?"</em></strong></p>

<p>What camera(s) are you using now?<br>

How is that (those) camera(s) limiting to you in regard to what you can do; and also want to do? </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>*sigh*</p>

 

<p>There is one, and only one, determining factor between the two cameras.</p>

 

<p>How big will you print?</p>

 

<p>If your printer sits on your desktop, get the 7D — or any other APS-C camera, if it better

fits your hands / budget / sense of menu layout / favorite color scheme / <i>etc.</i> Or the 5D if that’s more comfortable. Print quality will be indistinguishably superb amongst virtually any DSLR ever made.</p>

 

<p>All of the arguments above about which has the better image quality, though technically correct,

will be either invisible or negligible at the sizes most people print at. It’s only when you start

measuring the print size in feet instead of inches that they become apparent.</p>

 

<p>If you plan on buying your paper by the roll and your ink by the pint, then you should start agonizing over the camera sensor’s image quality. But otherwise, lenses and technique — especially technique — will be all that will determine print quality.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

 

<p>P.S. I haven’t seen any direct comparisons yet, but I would expect the original 5D to still

hold its own against the 7D in actual print performance — and perhaps even surpass it in

some respects. Yes, even at high ISO. In <em>prints,</em> not pixel peeping. b&</p>

<p>> and I need to know which would be better for me since I am just starting<br>

None of the two. I would suggest to start with a 400/450/500D until you know what <strong>you</strong> need. When you have learned what you really want you can sell it and buy the one that fits your needs. Since prices have most likely fallen by then, the price difference will be small and probably you can even save some money by going this route.</p>

<p>Matthias has a point. Either the 5D (I or II) or the 7D may be overkill for a beginner.</p>

<p>But, of course, either of the more expensive cameras can be used in pretty much automatic mode, just as easily as the "Rebel/xxxD" family. Also, although I don't mind the controls on my XTi, most of us (not all) prefer the more "advanced," two-wheel control system that you will find on either the 5D or 7D.</p>

<p>If the prices of the 5Ds or the 7D hurt your pocketbook, consider the Rebels. Otherwise, you can learn with the fancier ones if you pay attention to what the camera is doing and learn from it so that you can take over control when you need to.</p>

<p>I also agree with Metthias. If you are a beginner, save some money and start with an XSi or aT1i. (In fact, just about any modern DSLR with 8MP or more should be good enough). These are fine cameras that are fully capable of producing exceptional results. However, many budding photographers think that they must get the absolute best and most expensive equipment in order to produce decent photos. This just isn't true. You will learn that the camera is only a small part of the puzzle. The lens matters much more than the camera, as does lighting, composition, subject matter and being in the right place at the right time. You will also need to learn what camera settings produce what kind of effect. You may want to read Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Book, or one of Bryan Peterson's books. There are many others. Join a local photography club if there is one in your area. Get a cheaper camera now, then in two or three years of practice you will know what camera to buy instead of relying on the advice of others. Best of luck in your decision.</p>

<p>I'd be inclined to agree most with Erwin - if you shoot landscapes/architecture go with the 5DMkII, for everything else go 7D. The 5DMII is undoubtedly better for these disciplines due to its larger sensor and better dynamic range performance. Also if you ever shoot architecture seriously you'll need a full frame sensor to take advantage of canon's new outstandingly good quality ts-e lenses.<br>

If you take some of the others advice and look for a cheaper model to start off with I'd look at a second hand body from the xxD range. You can pick up a 20, 30 or 40D second hand for a very reasonable price now and these will offer better performance than most of the rebels as well as holding their value better for when you come to sell and upgrade.</p>

<p>Keith - I have the 7D and while I agree that it is excellent at high ISO, it does not match the 5D2 at high ISO. I suppose I should clarify "large prints". For example: if you might need to produce a 16x24 or 20x30 wedding print from an ISO 6400 shot then you want a 5D2. An ISO 6400 sports shot for a magazine page is a different and less demanding beast and well within the ability of the 7D, where the wedding poster would be pushing it hard at that ISO. (At low ISO, no problem.)</p>

<p>Believe me, my post was not intended as a knock against the 7D or a recommendation against it. On the contrary, if I really wanted the 5D2 I could have saved up for another month and gotten one. I specifically chose the 7D. I haven't had it too long, but it has already thoroughly impressed me. The feature set is awesome, the IQ is FF equivalent at low to mid ISO, and the fit and finish are top notch. Canon hit a home run with the 7D.</p>

<p>Having said all of that: my post was basically my opinion on the 7D vs. 5D2 and why one would choose the 5D2 over the newer, cheaper 7D considering the 7D has a much better feature set. For a true beginner to photography, I think I would recommend a 40D or 50D plus some decent lenses. (I don't like the Rebel bodies and control layouts, though they're capable of great work and are fine for the budget minded.) If you're still interested in a year or two and have managed to start to hit the limits of your equipment, then invest the money for pro bodies and glass. (Unless you're wealthy and don't care what you spend.) Just my opinion, but it could take you years to exceed a 40D/50D and some good glass.</p>

<p>7D is your best option from what you said. You said "I don't want to get one now... and then a year from now wish I had bought the other." So I would not suggest you getting the lowest DSLR. Since you also mentioned you are getting serious about photography, one would assume you already have a budget camera. The only reason my vote is 7D is it has on-board flash, the 5D doesn't. So you will need a external flash if you went with the full frame. The auto focus on the 5D is relatively slow compared to the newer crop cameras. 7D all the way. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>I am surprised that there is just one feeble voice for 5D. It is old, but it still is a FF camera, which is a significantly different style and quality.</p>

<p>Basically if you are into high speed shooting or need video, 7D is the clear choice. Otherwise 5D may be better (it was for me as I sold my 7D and kept the old 5D).</p>

<p>I did like 7D and would buy it again when I have enough extra money but for everyday landscape, nature, people shooting, I still prefer 5D. The reasons for me are its FOV and ultra clean files at low/medium ISO.</p>

<p>I have owned both cropped and full frame cameras and I would choose base the choice on necessary focal lengths. If your photography concentrates around focal length lenses of 105mm and shorter, I would go with he 5D (you will have a more satisfactory DOF control). If you are more into longer than 105mm shooting (sports and wildlife) than the 7D would be a better choice. Keep in mind that you can learn/master any camera and shouldn't regret either one of these fine cameras, even 10 years later. Create your best!</p>

Corbie, until you answer some fundamental queries like the ones William W has asked as well as let us know your budget, it will be difficult to assist. It may well be that you're better suited to an xxD camera (40D, 50D?), amazing as these two machines are.

<p>Corbie: don't get the 5D. It's missing some critical features that the newer Canon cameras such as the 7D and 5DMkII have. The new cameras have "live view" with an accurate viewing screen on the back of the camera that lets you judge how the picture will come out (including very precise focus) before you release the shutter. It's a breakthrough capability that wasn't in the 5D. They also allow you to adjust your camera to compensate for the minor unit-to-unit focus differences of lenses, which is a major reason that pictures aren't as sharp as expected, and a source of angst and complaint from beginning (and advanced) photographers. Finally, they automatically shake off dust from the sensor, which has effectively eliminated another big source of angst and complaint.</p>

<p>There are a couple of reasons to favor the 5D2 over the 7D: the obscure ones (you can print somewhat bigger and you can shoot in a little darker situations without a tripod) and the big, important one (you get shallower depth of field for a given perspective/field-of-view). The latter is truly important for portraits/weddings/fashion, but otherwise it's not worth worrying about too much. You can take great landscapes with either. If I were going to shoot a lot of sports I would get the 7D, since it is faster to handle and has a focusing system designed for that.</p>

 

<p>In the current Canon range if you are considering sport think 50D (best beginner option), 7D (best mid-range option) or 1D Mark III (best Pro option). Otherwise, any other body in the current Canon range will do a good job (provided the lenses and bodies are properly matched).</p>

<p>Ok only you must ask you. What lenses you have.<br>

this is my opinion<br>

if you have aps-c bunch of lenses buy 7d otherways 5d<br>

sory of my bad english</p>

<p>That has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked. Do you have an answer to the question that was asked? Or are you just trolling?</p>