Canon EOS 7D: the best amateur camera?

<p>I've read many threads on the Net about this camera and many discussions on Photo.net about 7D vs. 5D II... Leaving some old debates (like crop vs. fullframe sensor) and considering all the aspects involved (included price), could you state that the new EOS 7D camera is the "best" option for an amateur photographer? Many claims that the 5D II is stronger in landscapes and low light shots, but is the 7D (and good technique) really so behind in the real world?<br />Thank you for sharing your opinion and experience.<br />Alberto.</p>

<p>If "one" does not understand controlling light, and depth of field with aperture and shutter speed to begin with . . . then any camera set on "A" is the "best" option for an amateur photographer.</p>

<p>I recall reading in the forums here, (my opinion too!) that the equipment "does not necessarily make the "photograph!""</p>

<p>Outstanding photographs are made every day with some of the most basic and cheapest camera's.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The best camera is the one that you have in your hand when you want to shoot. Either the 5D or the 7D will do produce exceptional images. With the right lenses, the 7d has some edge in action photos. It seems to focus a bit faster. With the right lenses, the 5D, with its full frame sensor, delivers superb wide angle shots and great low light performance. But either will do great work in almost all situations. The biggest variable is you. My advice? Buy one, shoot more worry less..</p>

<p>You are way off, it is a used Bronica ETRS :-). No, seriously, it is what's behind the viewfinder that counts. You pick the tool that best fits your need. Make sure you have enough money in your budget for a good selection of lenses that fits your need, then decide on a body. If I could choose between e.g. a 7D with a kit lens, and a 50D with a couple of L lenses, I'd take the latter.</p>

I use a Rebel XSi and a 5DII. And based on my street-shooting needs, they are best. It's subjective.

<p>I always thought that Leicas were the definitive "rich amateur" cameras...</p>

<p>It is really not possible to label any single camera as "the best" for the sort of photographers you mention. It is a fine camera that will work well for quite a few people in the category you describe, but there are a number of other bodies that could be better for particular photographers depending on a host of factors.</p>

<p>It is wise to be suspicious of "best" descriptions that are offered in such a general way.</p>

<p>Are amateurs anyone who does not make a living from photography? Does it include people who just want a box camera?</p>

<p>That being said, when I asked the <a href="http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi">Magic Eightball</a> site if the 7D camera was the best, it answered "YES"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Are amateurs anyone who does not make a living from photography? Does it include people who just want a box camera?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose the answer to both, in my case would be yes!</p>

<p>I've been doing this for 30+ years, and I still consider myself an amateur!</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It is really not possible to label any single camera as "the best" for the sort of photographers you mention. It is a fine camera that will work well for quite a few people in the category you describe, but there are a number of other bodies that could be better for particular photographers depending on a host of factors.<br />It is wise to be suspicious of "best" descriptions that are offered in such a general way."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good advice!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That being said, when I asked the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi" target="_blank">Magic Eightball</a> site if the 7D camera was the best, it answered "YES"</p>

<p>When I asked the Magic Eightball if my 50D was the best . . . It said to "try again later!"</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Thank you, but maybe I was not clear in my question. I'm not a beginner, I know the basis of photography and I shoot with a 35 mm film camera in fully manual mode (please refer to my portfolio). I'm an amateur in the JDM definition: "anyone who does not make a living from photography". I'd like to upgrade to digital and for a long time I struggled with some debates as "crop vs. fullframe" and so on... I simply want to buy the "best" camera I can affort, because with digital I cannot change my roll of film to modify the final output. On the base of what I've read so far I concluded that maybe is the Canon 7D my "best" digital camera, because it has an affortable target price (for my budget) and it can give me reasonable high quality results in different situations. I know there are better performers in specific situations, but every choice is always a compromise... Is this choice a good compromise or will I have regrets to buy the 7D instead of waiting for more money to buy a 5D II, for example?</p>

<p>Alberto, the "best" camera for every amateur fits their budget. By that criteria, the Rebel or the G11 or some Powershot is a better fit than either the 7D or 5D2. If either will fit your budget, then they're so different that the "best" will depend on how you plan to use it. If you can't afford a 5D2, then the 7D is "better"; however, if you plan to shoot birds in flight, wildlife, action sports, etc. then the 7D is "better" regardless of price. OTOH, if you can afford it, the 5D2 is "better" for portraits, scenics, street shots, flowers, archetecture, etc.</p>

<p>Are you looking for validation so that you can report to your wife that you made the "best" purchase? If so, then tell us which camera you like the best and someone here will give you a written report saying why it is indeed the "best" camera for you. ;-)</p>

<p>Alberto,</p>

<p>Now that we are all done with our "Humor," we could better help answer your questions;</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Knowing what lenses you already have</li>

<li>what type of shooting do you do, i.e., Portraits, Landscapes, Wildlife etc., etc.</li>

<li>How much "post processing" are you familiar with, etc., etc.</li>

</ul>

 

<p>Alberto,<br>

Also, this article may be of some help!<br>

Philip Greenspun's "Building a Digital SLR system" found here on PN.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system/</a></p>

 

<p>For me the 'better' camera would be the 7D plus a good lens rather than a 5DII and mediocre lens.</p>

<p>Alberto said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'd like to upgrade to digital and for a long time I struggled with some debates as "crop vs. fullframe" and so on... I simply want to buy the "best" camera I can affort, because with digital I cannot change my roll of film to modify the final output."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two thought, since you're coming from film, you're coming from full-frame. Is there a reason that you want a crop-sensor? It'll be a change from what you're used to. I'd only suggest the change if you tell us that your frustrated with the lack of effective "reach" of your lenses. If there's no disatisfaction there, then crop vs. FF is merely a monetary choice.</p>

<p>You're mistaken about the ability to change the character of digital images as you can with film. Shoot in RAW and you can change the character after the fact, going from accurate color to super saturated color to black & white to sepia, all with the same image. If you want to go from ISO 100 to ISO 1600, you simply turn a dial rather than getting out your changing bag. The flexibility of digital is one of the great attractions. Also, once you've invested in the camera, lens and CF card, then altenative exposures of the same event cost NOTHING, NADA, $0000 because you don't have to pay for film for every image. This is useful in all shooting, but invaluable for wildlife, where you might shoot several hundred images of the same subject, hoping for the best pose and light in the eye, etc.</p>

 

<p>If you are used to 35mm cameras, get the 5D-II, because of the large viewfinder. Switching to APS-C is a "downgrade" in terms of viewfinder size and usability. Just check out both cameras yourself and see how YOU feel about them -- if the 7D feels right for you, go for it. But keep in mind that many other dSLRs are excellent picture-takers, too -- a used EOS 40D (or old 5D) leaves you plenty of money for high-grade lenses, which you will use much longer than any digital body.</p>

<p>As Beuh mentioned . . .</p>

<p>Yes there is considerable difference in the viewfinder of my EOS 3 an my 50D without a doubt!<br>

But, I do find the "Live view" very handy, especially when on a tripod for "these old eyes."<br>

So that too, may be something you want to consider.</p>

<p>It took me better than 2 years to decide which digital body I wanted. Of course then the bodies that I could afford to consider was between the 20D and the 40D. Then the 50D came along, and the 5D was available, now there's the 7D and the MarkII's, etc., etc., and the "rumor" of a 60D!<br>

My point is, . . . there will always be something "attractive" across the fence, but that's not to say that I probably wouldn't have been just as happy with a 20D! "Some things only improve with age!" </p>

<p>Best advice, . . . alot of reading, and keeping abreast (informed) of the similiarities from one body to the next, paying attention (or taking notes) as to the exact same features from one body to the next, weighing the cost difference's etc., etc.<br>

And, yes . . . there is much "good advice" to be found within these PN Forums which is invaluable because no marketing advertisment will ever give you the shortcomings of a product!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>could you state that the new EOS 7D camera is the "best" option for an amateur photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a broad range of amateur photographers. For the beginning photographer, I wouldn't say any camera is better than another. Until you learn the basics of photography and how to use a particular camera to its fullest potential, no camera will be any better than another. Now if you're talking an amateur that knows all the rules of photography and is very good with a camera and uses all the tools available to him/her, then the 7D would be the best APS-C choice available right now, at least for Canon. Some could argue that its the best APS-C camera on the market, and others would argue maybe for the Nikon D300s. It just all depends what you need to get out of the camera and how you use it. One may be best for one person, but not for another.</p>

<p>The original 5D would be a smooth, "cheaper," transition from film since it has a FF sensor and used ones go for a little over a grand. Also, I think they've pretty much leveled off in price, so when you decide you want the 5D II or want the 7D instead, you will more than likely be able to get all your money back.</p>

<p>The 7D is the best APS-C sensor based DSLR that Canon makes. It is a serious performer with AF and sports a 100% viewfinder.<br>

The 5DMKII will have superior image quality to the 7D at all ISO settings, especially for discriminating fine detail. The 5DMKII viewfinder shows 98% of the sensor area, very close to the 7D.<br>

If you don't own any Canon lenses buy the 5DMKII if you can afford the camera with good lenses.<br>

If you purchase the 7D be sure to purchase good lenses.<br>

In short either body requires good lenses to produce the best output so include that consideration into your budget.</p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It looks like to me your shooting style doesn't really require faster AF which 7D provides over 5kmkii. <br>

Also, since your coming from EOS3, FF camera will work the best with your current lenses(whichever they may be, but you've been using them with your eos3 with good results).<br>

So, I'd say go with 5dmkii or even 5dmki(if price is a big issue for you).</p>

<p>Alberto,<br />I second Nathan's suggestion to get a used 5D (original version). I was in your shoes a few months ago - long time film user looking to dip his toes into DSLR work. I came across a good condition 5D for roughly $1000, less than half the price of the 5DII and almost half the price of the 7D. This left me with enough money to invest in a 24-105L, and I couldn't be happier with the setup. The IQ of a 5D is outstanding. You lose out a little in ISO capabilities. The 5D goes upto 3200 but honestly 800 is about as far as you should use it unless you are adept at using noise reduction software. That said, for most purposes you won't need more than 800 unless you do a lot of sports or low light work. You don't have the benefit of Live View with the original 5D or video recording. I can see the benefit of Live View if you do a lot of macro work. If you do mostly street photography, Live View is pointless.<br />Cheers,<br />Kayam<br>

P.S. Also, for what its worth, I agree with Nathan - the prices on the 5D seem to be relatively constant. If I look at Craigslist for e.g. I see a lot of 5Ds with similar (actually higher) asking prices than what I got mine at.</p>

<p>I personally think that the 7D is definitely one of the finest cameras on the market and one of the best that Canon has ever made. Combined with a photographer who has taken the time to study its manual and learn all of the fine points of its operation, it is a phenomenal tool with massive capability. It's a camera that can handle a wide range of photo opportunities from fast action to landscape as well as low-light shooting. Where some cameras are able to do certain things very well, the 7D can do a lot of things very well, making it a superb choice for almost any situation.</p>

<p><em>The 5DMKII will have superior image quality to the 7D at all ISO settings, especially for discriminating fine detail. </em></p>

<p>God I get tired of this myth.</p>

<p>At low to mid ISO it's not possible to distinguish between large prints made from 5D mkII and 7D images, given proper post processing. (APS sensors need a bit more sharpening.) You can confirm this by studying and printing the Imaging Resource samples, the dpreview samples, etc, etc. Amateur Photographer came to the exact same conclusion in their March 6, 2010 issue.</p>

<p>Buy a 5D mkII if you need to make large prints from high ISO shots and/or if you want to use certain lenses at their intended focal lengths, such as Canon's f/1.4L wide angle primes or T/S lenses. Buy a 7D for just about everything else. For most people it really is that simple of a decision.</p>

<p>I will at least partially second Daniel's comments. There is an residual 35mm film effect that still has a viral meme effect on these discussions.</p>

<p>The same generation 35mm size sensor and APS-C sensor with equivalent "ppi" ratings are going to be practically impossible to tell apart from the image without the exif data. Most empirical tests by magazines, etc., seem to back this up. The major difference, if any, would be in the theoretical possibility that the smaller sensor might have a little more trouble with "noise" than the larger one, from variables having to do with spacing of the individual sensors, heat, etc.</p>

<p>By the way, there's no need to get huffy about the answers you got. As many were at pains to point out, this is not a question that can be answered in a universal sense, since your own taste, habits, and background are going to shape what is best for you -- something quite different than what would be best for me or other people.</p>