Canon 7D

<p>Would you use a Canon 7D as your portrait and wedding camera over a full frame camera? What would be your lens choices?</p>

Absolutely not. The best lenses for Canon cameras are not designed for aps cameras. For example, the 70-200 2.8 is way

too long on a 7D. IMO the 7D is not a serious camera for any kind of pro other than a wildlife photographer.

<p>Absolutely. The best lenses for Canon cameras are designed for all cameras. For example, the 70-200 2.8 is way perfect on a 7D. IMO the 7D is a serious camera for any kind of pro especially a wedding photographer.</p>

<p>I'm sure why Jeremy doesn't think that you can use a 16-35L 17-40L, 24-70L 24-105L or any fixed focal length lens on a 7D, but here is my take. (I shoot portraits, but not wedding so you have to take this from a somewhat narrow pov)</p>

<p>The 24-70 is a great portrait lens for a 7D (or similar) For me even better is the 85 1.8 (I've only played with the 1.2. I don't know it well enough so I don't want to recommend it).</p>

<p>How wide you do want to go. the 16mm and 17mm focal lengths are extremely wide on a full frame but still very wide on the 7D. The difference here might be do you want the 2.8 or 4.0 as a max. f/stop.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help guys</p>

<p>Well, the 7D has a better AF and metering system than most Canon full frame cameras (read the 5D series). Shooting a cropped sensor for indoor formals means you can shoot at f/5.6 and have the DoF of f/8- that can let in some more light, which I prefer. Or even shooting wide open gives you a bit more DoF than you would otherwise have on a FF camera. And when shooting weddings, that can be nice. If I were shooting portraits only (not wedding day portraits) than I would love the DoF that a FF provides. But weddings are run & gun with not a lot of time to establish your shot. The extra DoF is nice. And yes, I know you could up the ISO on a FF camera, but that has it's drawbacks and I am not speaking in terms of noise. As far as lenses go, I have no clue why Jeremy thinks you can use the 70-200 (or others) on a crop sensor. Additionally, many lenses will vignette on a FF sensor whereas on a cropped sensor a lot of the edge issues (sharpness, vignetting etc) are instantly taken care of for you! That's not to say full frame isn't advantageous, but for shooting weddings, a cropped sensor and the 7D in particular would be tough to beat!</p>

 

<p>Mark, the 70-200 focal length has emerged as a useful focal length over decades of professional use and evaluation. We must all have got it wrong because you think that 1.6 times longer is "way perfect".</p>

<p>If you want to develop a system with a bunch of hodge-podge sensor sizes and focal lengths, that 's your choice. The vast majority of the serious (real) pros I know that work in these industries are using FF sensor cameras. The flagship Nikon cameras are FF and many of the most popular pro Canon cameras are FF. The 24-70 and 70-200 focal lengths have been designed by Canon and other major manufacturers as their flagship focal lengths because they are the focal lengths that photographers need.</p>

<p>So let's go through the list:</p>

<p>1) The 16-35 on a 7D is a 26-56. Not as wide as the 24-70 and not long enough for portrait/tight work.<br>

2) The 17-40 on a 7D is better but it's f4 and has less range than the 24-70.<br>

3) The 24-70 on a 7D is not wide enough for wedding photography when one is working in a confined space.<br>

4) The 24-105 is an f4 and it's not wide enough.<br>

5) The 70-200 is a 112-320. Ask yourself why this focal length did not emerge as a dominant, popular focal length. Because it's too long at the wide end. That is unless the most important thing is reach - as in wildlife photography.</p>

<p>Cheers, JJ</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The vast majority of the serious (real) pros I know that work in these industries are using FF sensor cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is called anecdotal evidence and it's useless. I work with plenty of other pros shooting both portraits and events and almost none of them use full-frame cameras. I also work sports and nobody uses full-frame. However, most use the 70-200.</p>

<p>So Jeff, if anecdotal evidence is useless, why did you cite your own anecdotal evidence? I did make other relevant arguments. Do you have any comments about those? JJ</p>

<p>My anecdotal comment was given to point out how it's useless. Neither statement has any statistical validity. People use the 70-200 with a variety of sensor sizes. It's not a bad thing.</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone for the great feedback.<br>

Don</p>

<p>Hate to tell you this Jeremy, but you're dead wrong. I've seen more wedding photographers using APS-C than full frame, and they get along just fine.</p>

<p>The 70-200's are more useful on APS-C in every situation. 70mm vs 112mm is a matter of a couple steps, but sometimes you have to have 320mm to get the shot, and on that end it's not just a couple steps.</p>

<p>As for a mid range zoom, a wedding photographer using APS-C would have a 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This is the optical equivalent of the 24-70 with a bit more reach and IS.</p>

<p>For portraits with lots of background blur? The 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 are ideal. The previously mentioned 17-55 will do great for the group shots. And if you need to go really wide, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 will out perform any of Canon's current UWA FF zoom lenses as the FF models all struggle with edge and corner sharpness.</p>

<p>I would have no hesitation shooting weddings and portraits with a 7D. Or I should say will have no hesitation. I don't do weddings full time, but I sometimes assist friends and have also shot as the main photographer for friends and family. I've certainly encountered no limitations related to APS sized sensors. If I've ever wanted for anything it was resolution, and the 7D will go toe-to-toe with the 5D2 in a 30" print here.</p>

<p>One more note: the 7D has wireless flash control, a feature designed for portraits. I would have loved that for one wedding with difficult lighting. I would have literally had an assistant walk around holding a slave flash for better lighting control in that case. Normally you would use wireless flash in less rushed conditions than a wedding such as a regular portrait shoot. Just getting the main flash off the camera and using the camera flash for fill lets you do wonders.</p>

<p>The 7D is fine for whatever photographic task you want to throw at it.</p>

<p>Wrong about what Daniel?</p>

<p>1) I made no comment at all about how many wedding photographers you have seen with a 7D. So I am not wrong about that.</p>

<p>2) You say "The 70-200's are more useful on APS-C in every situation". That is obviously wrong because the 70-200 can not logically be more useful when you need 70 mm now can it. I said the 70-200 is better on an APS when reach is the primary objective. So according to your own argument, I am not dead wrong about this.</p>

<p>3) The BEST Canon 50 and 80 lenses for background blur are 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 NOT the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. But not because of DOF. They are better because of bokeh. I said the FF sensor works best with the best Canon lenses. 85 mm is the portrait length of choice for a reason. 85x1.6 is not the portrait length of choice. So I am not wrong about that.</p>

<p>4) The 17-55 2.8 is the one lens that Canon has that comes close to the L series lenses for the FF cameras. But that's it. You have no other choices for the APS sensor. So for a serious lens of appropriate focal length and f-stop, you are limited if you go to an APS body. So I am not wrong about that.</p>

<p>5) The Tokina 11-16. That's perfect for an APS camera if you want wide angle. But it has so little reach that for weddings it means constantly changing lenses. And it's not a Canon lens now is it. I made a comment about CANON lenses. So I'm not wrong about that.</p>

<p>6) The 7D will not go toe to toe with a 5D Mk 2 in a big print. It's not ALL about resolution. So I'm not wrong about that.</p>

<p>7) The 7D has wireless flash. BUT if you really know what you are doing at a wedding, when you need flash you will have a flash on your primary body. That flash will already have IR, wireless flash, so you will be able to slave other flashes using your main flash. </p>

<p>8) You said "The 7D is fine for whatever photographic task you want to throw at it". Are you serious? Are you really serious Daniel? I guess Canon should just stop making all the mark 1 series cameras then. What fools all those pros are for wanting professional grade FF sensor cameras.</p>

<p>JJ</p>

 

<p><em>Wrong about what Daniel?</em></p>

<p>Your opinion that crop sensor cameras are not suitable for portrait and wedding work.</p>

<p><em>2) You say "The 70-200's are more useful on APS-C in every situation". That is obviously wrong because the 70-200 can not logically be more useful when you need 70 mm now can it.</em></p>

<p>Let me try to be more clear: <strong>70mm vs. 112mm is a matter of a couple steps. 200mm vs. 320mm is not.</strong></p>

<p><em>3) The BEST Canon 50 and 80 lenses for background blur are 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 NOT the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. But not because of DOF. They are better because of bokeh.</em></p>

<p>You can use all of them on a 7D.</p>

<p><em>I said the FF sensor works best with the best Canon lenses. 85 mm is the portrait length of choice for a reason.</em></p>

<p>Did you just finish a freshman college course or something? Was that on a quiz? Portraits are made with everything from UWA to 500mm telephotos. There is no "portrait length of choice." The sweet spot for a typical head shot is 85-200, depending on how much you want to flatten features, your working distance, and whether you want to show shoulders.</p>

<p><em>85x1.6 is not the portrait length of choice. So I am not wrong about that.</em></p>

<p>85 x 1.6 = 136. You'll note that Canon has two portrait lenses at this length, the 135 f/2L and 135 f/2.8 soft focus. Better write them and tell them to cancel the 135 soft focus and make an 85mm version instead because that's the "portrait length of choice."</p>

<p>And if you're so stuck on 85mm, there are four choices for the same FoV on crop (Canon 50mm f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2; Sigma 50mm f/1.4).</p>

<p><em>4) The 17-55 2.8 is the one lens that Canon has that comes close to the L series lenses for the FF cameras. But that's it. You have no other choices for the APS sensor.</em></p>

<p>You can use all L lenses on a crop camera. Most L lenses (i.e. any telephotos) become more useful on crop. So much for "no other choices."</p>

<p>Basically if you want the "ideal" mid-range zoom for weddings, you have one choice for FF (24-70 f/2.8), and three choices for APS-C (17-50 f/2.8 and 17-50 f/2.8 VC from Tamron; 17-55 f/2.8 IS from Canon). Note that on APS-C you get IS with two of those choices.</p>

<p>What was your point again?</p>

<p><em>So for a serious lens of appropriate focal length and f-stop, you are limited if you go to an APS body. So I am not wrong about that.</em></p>

<p>How can the camera that takes more lenses be more limited?</p>

<p><em>5) The Tokina 11-16. That's perfect for an APS camera if you want wide angle. </em></p>

<p>You should have ended your comment there.</p>

<p><em>6) The 7D will not go toe to toe with a 5D Mk 2 in a big print. It's not ALL about resolution. So I'm not wrong about that.</em></p>

<p>You couldn't discern 7D from 5D2 low to mid ISO 30" prints in a double blind study if your life depended on it.</p>

<p><em>8) You said "The 7D is fine for whatever photographic task you want to throw at it". Are you serious? Are you really serious Daniel?<br /> </em></p>

<p>I'm sorry, maybe bold will help here to: <strong>The 7D is fine for whatever photographic task you want to throw at it.</strong></p>

<p>I wonder how many weddings were successfully shot today with crop cameras? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hmmm...</p>

 

<p>Daniel, </p>

<p>1) You did not respond to my point 1. So that still stands.</p>

<p>2) You failed to see the logic. You said the 70-200 is better in EVERY situation. There is a LOGICAL problem with this because the 70-200 is not better on an APS camera when you need 70 mm. My point still stands.</p>

<p>3) When I speak of a portrait lens of choice, I am speaking of the focal length that we call a portrait lens. This is typically in the 85 mm range. Of course you can make a portrait with any lens. BUT DO WE CALL A 17 mm LENS A PORTRAIT LENS? Obviously not. There is a reason for that. But the problem with your response is that the logic is inconsistent. You just finished saying that any focal length can be used as a portrait lens and then you say the sweet spot for a head shot is 85-200. So, I'll leave it up to you then. What is the focal length for portraits? Is it UWA-500 mm or 85-200? Either way you answer you'll be wrong according to YOUR OWN argument. </p>

<p>4) So your suggestions to us are 24-70, 17-50 or 17-55. I already went through all of this in an earlier post. The 24-70 is not wide enough for wedding work in tight spaces. That's why YOU suggested the 17-55. I AGREED that the 17-55 2.8 was a contender. The problem is that the 70-200 2.8 is now a bit too long and leaves a gap between the 17-55 and 70-200. My point still stands.</p>

<p>5) You failed to address the specific problem I discussed with the 11-16. So my original problem with that choice for weddings was not addressed. My point still stands.</p>

<p>6) I probably could not tell the difference double blind. But according to your logic, it would follow that you could not tell the difference between a D3X and a 7d double-blind either. Hands-up - what wedding photographers want the 7D sensor rather than the D3X sensor at the same price? If your hand is up Daniel, I quit. Have fun with your 7D. But to get back to the point, serious lab tests could tell the difference. My point still stands.</p>

<p>7) You did not respond about flash. My point still stands.</p>

<p>8) Your logic is flawed again. You said the 7D is fine with WHATEVER photographic task you want to throw at it. Then you argue the point with a statement about weddings. Weddings are a specific kind of task, not ANY task. My point still stands.</p>

<p>There are other issues you raise as well that I have decided not to address due to space and time considerations. In the end it comes down to whether you want a little sensor with tons of lenses that do not form a completely cohesive system. Or, do you want a "large" sensor with cohesive lens choices that have tried and tested focal lengths.</p>

<p>Daniel, you can come back at me if you like but it's not going to be helpful. You provoked a response from me by telling me that I am dead wrong. I wanted to defend myself from your attack. I did that. You then attacked me again. I have now defended myself again on every point. Shall we waste more of our Sunday? <br>

Cheers, JJ</p>

 

<p>Is this argument even winnable? Obviously a keen eye, years of experience and a full working knowledge of the tools you choose (whatever those are) must count for something? </p>

<p><em>1) You did not respond to my point 1. So that still stands.</em></p>

<p>Well bully for you.</p>

<p><em>2) You failed to see the logic. You said the 70-200 is better in EVERY situation. There is a LOGICAL problem with this because the 70-200 is not better on an APS camera when you need 70 mm. My point still stands.</em></p>

<p>At this point I feel like I'm speaking to a novice with a maxed out credit card, lots of "pro" equipment, but not much experience. There is not a significant difference between 70 and 112 except the few steps it takes to get the same view in the frame. That's why a 112-320 is more useful than a 70-200.</p>

<p><em>3) When I speak of a portrait lens of choice, I am speaking of the focal length that we call a portrait lens.</em></p>

<p>There is no such single focal length. I know you want to declare 85mm the only portrait length, then declare that only full frame cameras can use the 85 f/1.2L. But that is a line of reasoning for a child. In reality the 85L is as useful on crop as FF. And where one wants less FoV, there are plenty of 50mm's to choose from. So enough with your childish attempts at word play hoping to score points. Reason like a man, not a 12 year old.</p>

<p><em>I AGREED that the 17-55 2.8 was a contender. The problem is that the 70-200 2.8 is now a bit too long and leaves a gap between the 17-55 and 70-200. My point still stands.</em></p>

<p>It's a typical sign of a newbie to max out a credit card buying lenses trying to cover every single focal length 3x over with "no gaps". I hope in your next college course they force you to use only prime lenses. You might learn something about the various focal lengths and how to frame with your feet.</p>

<p>Suffice it to say there's nothing to miss between 55mm and 70mm on a crop body (88mm and 112mm equivalent).</p>

<p><em>5) You failed to address the specific problem I discussed with the 11-16.</em></p>

<p>There is no specific problem with the 11-16. Changing lenses is part of the game. If changing a lens was a big deal we would all shoot with 18-200mm or 28-300mm lenses all the time.</p>

<p><em>But to get back to the point, serious lab tests could tell the difference. My point still stands.</em></p>

<p>Is that what the salesman told you before you maxed out your credit card?</p>

<p><em>7) You did not respond about flash. My point still stands.</em></p>

<p>Do you realize how stupid you sound? "My point still stands...my point still stands!" The last time I debated someone who repeated that phrase as many times as you, I was in 3rd grade, and my classmate was crying and pounding his fists because the rest of us wouldn't accept that his G.I. Joe with laser rifle could kill everyone else's G.I. Joe without being hurt.</p>

<p>Wireless flash on the body means you can use all main flashes off the body. That will either save you a few hundred, or you won't care because you have more flashes than you'll ever need. It's nice to have it in the body, but it's not critical to achieving a task. Just like having full frame is not critical to achieving a task.</p>

<p><em>8) Your logic is flawed again. You said the 7D is fine with WHATEVER photographic task you want to throw at it. Then you argue the point with a statement about weddings. Weddings are a specific kind of task, not ANY task. My point still stands.</em></p>

<p>I'm sorry JJ, but your G.I. Joe is not immune to all damage from other characters in this game...oh, wait a minute, my bad. I had a flash back due to a certain repeated phrase.</p>

<p>The second phrase was not offered as a self contained or complete proof of the first. I would think that would be obvious.</p>

<p><em>There are other issues you raise as well that I have decided not to address due to space and time considerations.</em></p>

<p><strong>My point still stands! My point still stands! My point still stands!</strong></p>

<p><strong></strong> <em>In the end it comes down to whether you want a little sensor with tons of lenses that do not form a completely cohesive system. Or, do you want a "large" sensor with cohesive lens choices that have tried and tested focal lengths.</em></p>

<p>In the end you can accomplish any task equally well with either one.</p>

<p><em>I wanted to defend myself from your attack.</em></p>

<p>You posted a silly opinion and that opinion got hammered by multiple people. Your attempts to prop up your position have only made it seem more silly. If you want to continue to look silly, post more arguments that a 7D is "not a serious camera for a pro" because "there's a gap between 55mm and 70mm...OMG! A GAP!"</p>

 

<p><em>Is this argument even winnable? Obviously a keen eye, years of experience and a full working knowledge of the tools you choose (whatever those are) must count for something?</em></p>

<p>Those things count for just about all of it.</p>

<p>There was just recently a thread in the 'weddings' forum discussing the pros/cons of using a 7D and 5D together for wedding work, or using the 7D with another 1.6 camera body...so it isn't that unusual. And I don't think they would consider themselves non-pro for not using full-frame exclusively. At any rate, I think the OP got the answer he needed, or at least more info to base his decision on.</p>

Daniel, a quick glance at Jeremy's portfolio would indicate a solid body of work and obvious prowess with the tools of his trade. I would be slow to dismiss his comments, although you both make valid points.

<p>To the OP, this question will, unfortunately, not have a conclusive answer. It would depend primarily on your style. Read these: http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00VjaC?start=0

<p>http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00VJhy

<p>One thing about AF and portraits. First the 5D despite it's age focuses just fine for near any portrait situation. Even in low light my 5D and 100 F2 USM never lets me down. Maybe it won't track a flying bird like a newer body but it shouldn't be considered an issue for portraits. I just took an all day workshop with well known pro and he doesn't bother with AF at all.</p>

<p>I'm in the position of choosing between 5d2 and 7d, owning an EF 50mm f1.8 II, an EF-S 55-250 IS, both Canon and a 430EX II flash.<br>

Reasearching for differences between 5d2 and 7d (2.0.3 is out now for 5d2, adding the long awaited 24fps), looking for both great IQ, AF and video, I thought that I would go for 7d for the following ~3 years.<br>

But then I wanted to go further and see what I would do after 3 years. <br>

My next lens (for coverage and image quality in as few lenses as possible) for 7d would be a EF-S 17-55 f2.8 so I would have the whole APS-C equivalent 17-250mm range covered with a good 17-55 and a decent 55-250 and also some low light power with the 50mm 1.8 II. That should be fine enough for weddings, portraits and some landscaping (I must note that I do not make a living out of photography). But then I will be stuck with APS-C because of the ~1000$ EF-S lens. Of course I can sell both the body and the lens, but I would get like 50% of the current price? On the other hand, if I go now for the 5d2 + 24-105 kit, it costs me like 450$ more upfront, then another 300$ for a EF 100-300 USM. This means that for $750 more upfront I get better IQ for the most of my pictures (in the 24-105 focal range) and I don't need upgrades for the next 6 years. So rather than loose 1000$ in 3 years, I think I am better borrowing the extra $750 now.<br>

Any opinions? :-)</p>