Canon 7D vs 5d mark ii

Hello all,

 

I currently use a canon 7D and love every aspect of it. I shoot all types of things, sports, nature and landscapes, and wildlife. Very little

studio or portrait work. I am in need of a second body, as an old one has finally seen its better days. I am at the point where photography

is a serious enough hobby that I am considering a full frame body. So, the question is whether getting the 5D mark ii is worth the extra

price for me. I know I will be getting a truly magnificient camera, but need some help justifying it. Can you please help me out with

positives and negatives of full frame slrs and if anyone has used or currently uses these two cameras together I would love to hear what

you have to say. Thanks so much.

 

David

<p>Hello David,</p>

<p>I don't know how others will respond, but I just bought a second 7D for my wildlife photography. I do SOME but not a lot of landscape, and I don't (yet) own a 5D or other full-frame DSLR.</p>

<p>My main goal was to have two matched cameras so there would not be the confusion of switching back and forth from one camera's controls to another. My main interest is in birds and birds in flight, which requires quick AF and rapid frame rate, both of which suggest a 7D instead of a 5D. I believe the 5D Mark II is similar, but certainly not identical to the 7D in its menus and controls.</p>

<p>If I did a lot of landscape photography, or low-light work for example, I might lean toward a 5D Mark II. But if I did that, I would probably opt for two of them, for the reason given in the previous paragraph.</p>

<p>Something to consider, at least.</p>

Hi Dennis. Thanks for your response. Very helpful. As one solution I am considering is just getting a second 7D.

<p>You should consider your lenses too, what do you have? How many of them would work on full-frame?</p>

<p>I have no EF-S lenses, so all would work on full frame. 70-200, 24-105, 16-35, 100-400, 500mm, 15mm fisheye.....</p>

I have a lens array very close to yours. I have a 5D1. The wide angles work extremely well on full frame and the range of the 24-105 is what I use most of the time I don't change lenses that often. That is not true on my 1.6 crop body. I have a 17-40 and it is a good walk around on that body. As far as picture quality you probably won't see much difference at usual print sizes. Having used MF for years along with 35mm I don't mind mixing formats. I do have a 1.6 crop body also but mostly use the 5D. The only real advantage I see for you going to full frame is better use of your existing lenses. There is probably about six or eight hundred dollars difference. My next buy will be full frame but not for some long time.

<p>I got a 5DII, my first DSLR, upon its release in late 2008, and have recently acquired a 50D as a crop complement to the full frame body. I must say that I am extremely pleased with my dual format system, and will probably sell my 50D and pick up a used 7D once the latter's successor is released.</p>

<p>What you might want to consider doing if your budget is constrained, David, is to hold off purchasing a 5DII until <em>its </em>successor is released. (An anouncement to that end is expected soon.) Gearheads will be dumping their 5DII's on the used market like crazy, and you'll be able to buy one for far less than you can now.</p>

<p>I use both a 5D and an older 20D. I went about it in a way that I ended up with two sets of lenses for ultra-wide and mid-range zoom. At least the telephoto lenses are fine on both, but my 'digital only' lenses are pretty much convenient only on the APS-C camera.<br>

My next camera might be either 35mm ('full-frame') or APS-C. Since I shoot more wide angle than telephoto, however, I'll probably upgrade the 5D first since I also use some legacy lenses (particularly a Nikon PC-Nikkor) that are only 'normal' on the 20D, but are wide angle on the 35mm sensor. Plus, I'd love to eventually get the TS-E 17mm lens and have it actually image at the 'full format' size. I do lots of architectural photography and landscapes.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if I were taking lots of wild animal nature shots, I'd surely put the priority on getting a 7D to get all those pixels from a nice EF 100-400mm lens.</p>

<p>The top picture from earlier today is of a "wild" creature with a telephoto zoom on a APS-C camera and the bottom shot is a wide angle perspective corrected shot on a 5D "full-frame".<br>

It's nice to have one of each if you don't mind the expense of duplication of sections of your lens range. The 7D is the finest Canon APS-C format camera to date.</p><div></div>

<p>I have a 7D and 5DII - of the two I prefer the 5DII and will take in above the 7D unless I am shooting sports or wildlife. The AF and fps of the 7D are clearly better than the 5DII. In all other respects the 5DII is the better body if you have full frame lenses. This topic has been done to death but the IQ of the 5DII is clearly better than the 7D (if you look through the old posts you will se the only people that dispute this do not own the 5DII). While the cameras are slightly different they are so close that it is easy to switch between them. Aside from video (where the 7D has easier controls) the only major control (used a lot) that differs is the quick settings screen. On the 7D you have a button but on the 5DII you depress the joystick. I find the 7D and 5DII controls so similar that apart from occasionally pressing the joystick on the 7D for the quick menu (You can change what it does but not to the same function as the 5DII) I have no problem switching between the bodies. Going from my 1DIIN to either the 7D or 5DII is more difficult.<br>

I would say that for landscape (even if you just shoot at 100 ISO) the 5DII is worth the extra money.</p>

<p>G'day David,</p>

<p>I have and use both. Both are excellent and are capable of producing great images. For ultimate IQ I use my 5DII - it simply produces stunning images, especially at higher ISOs. I use mine for portraits, weddings, landscapes etc and as my main travel camera.</p>

<p>The 7D is a superb action camera - I use it for sports, active children, car rallies, air shows etc - it has fast and accurate AF and a fast continuous frame rate which has allowed me to get shots the 5DII wouldn't have.</p>

<p>So, I have the luxury of choice, though I have used the 7D for landscapes and the 5DII for action. There is a lot of overlap between the two bodies but enough of a difference to justify having both. My opinion is that together they give a more rounded overall kit than would be the case in having two identical bodies. If you want another APS-C then perhaps a 60D with its less expensive lighter body and tilt screen?</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

<p>Like Philip and Bob, I have a dual-format kit with a 5DII and a 7D.</p>

<p>In all respects except the size and performance of the sensor, the 7D is the better camera, not only regarding AF and fps, although these are certainly major advantages. I find the built-in level very useful (that will surely be on all future prosumer bodies). Like many long-in-the-tooth high-end SLR users, I used to be very sniffy about built-in flash, nut my first DSLR (20D) made me realise that it has its uses.</p>

<p>As far as sensor performance goes, there is in my experience not much difference up to ISO 200; the difference in pixel count is seldom significant, and other aspects of image quality are closely comparable. At higher ISO settings the 5DII has a an increasingly clear advantage. With careful choice of exposure settings, I can take shots at ISO 3200 with little or no need for noise reduction on the 5DII, whereas ISO 3200 shots on the 7D need quite a lot of work. That said, the 7D is significantly better that any of its 1.6-factor predecessors: I use it quite a lot at ISO 800 for wildlife, with much better results than the 50D produced at that setting.</p>

<p>Sensor size (leaving aside performance) is also an issue. I have a TS24 lens (not yet upgraded to the II version, but maybe one day ...) and to take full advantage of that you need a FF body, although it is also a very useful lens on 1.6-factor. For photographing my wife's paintings, the 5DII with the 50/2.5 is the ideal combination; there is certainly no Canon lens that does the job equally well on 1.6-factor. For close-up/macro work, the EF-S 60/2.8 on 1.6-factor is as good as the 100/2.8 USM or the new 100/2.8L on FF in terms of optical performance, but has neither IS nor a tripod ring capability; a 100mm lens is too long for some kinds of close-up work on 1.6-factor (and not long enough for some live insects). Finally, the 17~40, 24~105, and 70~200/4IS is a kit of lenses on FF that I find very convenient and reasonably carryable, and although there are some extremely good EF-S lenses, you can't put together a combination of lenses on 1.6-factor that quite compares as a whole with that FF kit.</p>

<p>Hope this gives you some points to think about.</p>

<p>Just to add another thought - they really do make a great pair as you get more lens versatility and can cover a wider range of subjects with the 5DII and 7D than with a pair of 7Ds. <br>

Other minor differences include the viewfinder on the 5DII is bigger but as Robin says the 7D has the built in level. With TS lenses I find the 7D is slightly more awkward due to the built in flash. In terms of high ISO Like Robin I will use my 5DII up to ISO 3200 but try and keep my 7D at 1600 or below. The 7D seems much more sensitive to underexposure noise issues than the 5DII does. The 7D does have the advantage of a built in flash but I tend to take a small EX270 unit (since I was almost exclusively a 1 series user in the past I got in the habit of carrying the small Canon flashes for fill in use - the 2 battery 270 is a great little unit for fill in).<br>

With the two bodies having the same batteries, same cards (a 7D can read the card taken from a 5DII and vice versa) and almost the same menus and controls they make a great pair.</p>

<p>Dave, you are considering buy a second 7D? I don't understand that.</p>

<p>I own a 5D original and a 7D. In my opinion, the (pixel peeping) image quality of my 5D is far superior. The 7D shows much noise and noise reduction artifacts in comparison.</p>

<p>I also choose the 5D when I'm shooting images that I might upload to my stock agencies. Images from my 7D are often rejected by my stock agencies for noise.</p>

<p>I use my 5D for portraits and where I need wide angle. A FF camera will give you shallower DOF since you need to be closer to the subject for the the same framing.</p>

<p>I take my 7D when I'm shooting wildlife (reach) and when I want the HD movie option.</p>

<p>By the 5D MKII. You deserve it and you won't regret it since you already have a 7D.</p>

<p>Isn't Canon about to announce a new body this week or next?</p>

<p>I have the 5D II and the 50D. I can only say that I like the options that are available to me with both. I like to shoot in low light, and I like to shoot very wide at times with a 12-24mm superwide lens. Otherwise, my collection of lenses is similar to yours.</p>

<p>As for replacing the 50D with the 7D, well, in the best of all worlds (one where I had money), I would do that. In the meantime I am very happy just having both formats and some good lenses.</p>

<p>The 5DII is an absolute gem of a camera. I am sure that you would love it, not to take a thing away from the 7D and similar cameras. Justify the extra expense? Well, I can't offer any justification for myself in terms of investment, since I do not shoot for money. I just love the effects that I can get with full-frame.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>7d is a wonderful camera, but the thing is what type of lenses you have. I've been using 1.6 crop bodies until last friday. I bought a used 5d the first version, and the thing for me is the lenses that were better fit to fullframe body. Even though I know that the focus system is far from 7d:s equivalent, I had to say that the difference of the body is something that might be nice to test and as my own choice is still 5d.<br>

I have had 20d and 40d as previous bodies, and used lenses 17-35, 28-135. 35-350, 50, 105mm and many others as well (80-200, 28-70, 28-80, 35-135),. Those lenses are all made for film bodies or full-frame, so the difference of usefulness is quite obvious. The thing is then, how your way of use will fit to new body. If possible, try a full-frame first, then make the decidicion which one of the bodies will fit best to your need. There could be then some problems using as a backup body, if the body has a different crop-factor. In my opinion the picture is somehow easier to build with a fullframe, but might be totally feeling based fact.<br>

Both of the camera are nice, 7d is better focusing, quicer and with the crop-factor advantage and dis-advantage. Better video if that is needed. 5d is then the best full-frame at that price-level, the difference is based on the full-frame. Sports and the places, where you cannot pre-focus the subject is far of the quality of 7d. Still I personally like the better viewfinder and the usefulnes of my old lenses. For my need, as well the speed is fast enough for my use. Then one of the advances of the 5d mk II is then the better ISO values, but the real difference is minor.</p>

<p>I use my 7D for wildlife (about 2000 clicks per month) and use my 5D MkII for everything else. They're both great.</p>

<p>If I were in your shoes, I'd probably make the leap to the FF 5d or 5D2. *If* you want to continue to expand your photographic experience and capability. That's not to say that the 7D isn't a marvelous camera, but, for 95% of your current photography (I expect), given your lens set, either the 7D, or 5D will perform outstandingly, but by expanding your coverage (esp. at the wide end) you may be able to realize realms you haven't explored before. Of course if there is a specific area you love (like Birds in flight for example) that you need the specific benefits of the 7D for, and you mostly do, you should just get another...</p>

<p>I guess it comes down to one question: Are you happy enough w/ your current setup to negate the potential expansion of your photography capability? <br>

If so, then another 7D is in the cards... If not, then a 5D/5D2 is definitely worth the extra $$$. </p>

<p>I did a dual format kit for a long time, and loved having both ends well covered, but recently have gone to a FF only kit for the simplicity... sometimes I miss the added length, and the FPS, but not often enough to get another Crop sensor unit...</p>

<p>Full frame is nice, but crop sensors demand less from the edges of lenses, so if you are going for absolute resolution there are two sides to the coin. If you stop down so the lens is at its best, then the 5D II will probably win in outright resolution. Otherwise, it may be the other way around in the corners of the frame. I rarely stop down past f/2.8 for my work, but then I also rarely care about absolute sharpness of a photo because I'm not doing stock photography or anything demanding absolute perfect sharpness (except formal photos)</p>