Is the 5D markII worth the extra money then the 7D ?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by william_bray|1, Nov 14, 2009.

  1. Hi I have been shooting with a 20d for some years now and have been happy with it I can print A3 without any problems. Now I want to up grade my body,since I started I always wanted to eventually go full frame, In fact this was the major deciding factor for choosing Canon over Nikon when I bought the 20d. I have been looking at the 5d mkII, When I first saw the specifications on paper it made feel that I could order it without even trying it.
    Now I have the money to upgrade I tried it out the other day. I was not impressed. I felt that if you took away the 21 MP full frame sensor, what was left was rubbish. I have a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 is, 100 macro, and some other lenses.I have found when shooting wide open, which I do a lot , I can only trust the center AF point on my 20d, so AF on a camera is important to me. The AF points on the 5d looked lost to me, cramped in the center of the frame. Canon might as well just put one AF point in the center.
    The images looked soft on the 5d at high ISO, as if it was applying some in camera noise reduction. When I compared the 7d, the images were sharper with a little bit more noise. So if I used Noise Ninja on the 7d images I don't think there would be much difference with ISO performance.
    Another disappointment was weather sealing. The 7d has it 5d doesn't. Not impressive for a £2000 camera.
    I don't know much about the video recording side of things but from what I've read the 7d beats the 5d here as well
    I been starting shooting weddings and commercial and selling some of my own work in art exhibitions over the last couple of years and it's been going well. Eventually I would like to have more income from this so I need a better body.
    Please can you give me your opinions over the 7d and the 5d.I have always had it in my mind to go full frame and now I feel I'm going backwards. But my heart is telling me there's more to a camera then megapixels and sensorsize.
  2. William, you are right,
    There is much more to a camera than mega pixels and sensor size, there is nothing more (really) to image quality, though, than megapixels and sensor size. It is that simple.
    The 7D seems to be a very good little camera, very capable and a real step up in the crop camera sensor size. I can see your dilemma. But the 5D MkII does beat it at outright image quality, so is the payoff of functionality against higher output at larger print sizes worth it to you? You really are the only one to tell. It is expensive but try renting both for a long weekend, compare your results and go from there, our opinions are nowhere near as relevant as what will work for you.
    Another thought, and the route I have always gone, is to buy second hand 1 series bodies, the 1Ds MkII is a very good buy secondhand, at least you get to use your lenses as they were meant to be used. It has the the best of several worlds, cheap, first class AF, weatherproofing, FF etc etc.
    Take care, Scott.
  3. " what was left was rubbish" One man's trash is another man's ......
    "Canon might as well just put one AF point in the center." Well, basically that is what they did. So what. All you really need is one. I own a body with 51 and 98% of the time only use one and most of the time it is the center one.
    "The images looked soft on the 5d at high ISO" The quality of high ISO images depend on your lenses, technique, skill and post processing skills. You can compare reliable, unprocessed results here between the MKII and the 7D.
    "now I feel I'm going backwards" Get the 7D if you want a crop camera. Get the MKII if you want a full frame. Sounds like you have already make up your mind anyway.
  4. I just took a look at the Imaging resourse site, and it comfirmed what I thought the images are softer from the 5d mkII
  5. I,m quite suprised how little difference there is in noise between the 7d and 5d at 6400 iso. the 5d only just beats it and the 5d is slightly softer. comparing what the 7d can do with a small sensor, I think when canon bring out a 5d MK III, and if they put as much thought in to it as they obviously have with the 7d, the 5dMK III would be awsome. But that won't happen for another 2 years and you'll have to wait 1 more year for the prices to go down. 7d is looking good. Thanks for recomending that web site
  6. Saying the 5Dii blows the 7D away in image quality is very subjective. In most circumstances nobody will be able to see
    any difference. Only when shooting extremes you'll see à difference and then only when pixel peeping or printing 40" to à

    And the 7D seems to shoot better video's in some circumstances.

    Try to rent or borrow them both and judge for yourself. You might be surprised.

    Have fun! Matthijs.
  7. When is Canon going to realize that the 5D II is rubbish and lower the price. I've been dying to get one ever since it came out!
  8. william,
    First, viewing 100% pixel crops is the worst possible way to compare cameras. The only meaningful way is to make same-sized prints, ideally of the same scene, and with post-processing tuned for each file (not using the same “recipe” for both).
    That being said, how big do you want to print? At A3, I don’t think you’ll see any difference between the 5DII and the 7D. At A2, the 5DII should be clearly but subtly better in side-by-side comparisons, and most non-critical viewers (read: the general public who’d be buying the prints) will say that the differences aren’t all that significant. At A1, the 5DII will likely be unquestionably better. At A0, the 5DII will be significantly better, but the 7D should still be surprisingly good. (That’s all dependent on technique and lenses, of course.)
    Since A3 is bigger than most people normally print, and since few people ever even think of making A0 prints, the 5DII is rarely worth the extra money over the 7D. But if A1 and A0 prints are your thing, then the 5DII is a no-brainer.
  9. I have one crop body and one full frame body so I understand the arguments on both sides. If starting now, with only one choice of sensor size, in a new camera I would select the 5D II.
    If you are highly concerned about some of the issues you raise with respect to the 5D II body then have a good look at a used 1DsII.
  10. William, my evaluation of the high ISO images is that they are both very, very close in IQ - I find the MKII has a slight advantage. But it is your opinion that counts. The bottom line is that it appears the two are so close to being the same that any differences could easily be balanced and corrected in post processing, both are excellent, each has its own advantages and disadvantages over the other and you won't be disappointed with either.
  11. I think that the 7D might be a better all-around, do-everything camera than the 5DII with faster AF, weather-sealing, improved video, and very capable high-ISO performance, not to mention general fast performance with two processors as opposed to one. That being said, if you want even better low-light performance, cleaner high-ISO performance, and even more detail in large sized prints, then I think that the 5DII is top-dog in this case. Properly processed images from the 5DII probably yield some of the best IQ attainable from any camera body--I don't know for sure since I haven't used one but what I have seen from it has been most impressive. A lot probably depends on what you're going to shoot. I chose the 7D because I shoot a wide variety of subjects in a wide variety of settings, so it's the perfect choice for me. I'd love to have a 5DII for just landscapes although, again, I think that the 7D will excel in this area as well. I love the versatility built into the 7D.
  12. "I felt that if you took away the 21 MP full frame sensor, what was left was rubbish."
    When I see such a comment about a camera like the 5D2 I have to wonder what the writer is expecting from a camera. The 5D2 is "rubbish?" It may not be perfect - what camera is? - but "rubbish" is way over the top.
    Both the 7D and the 5D2 are fine cameras that are capable of producing outstanding photographic results. Each has its relative strengths and weaknesses, and deciding between them is certainly not a matter of deciding which one is outstanding and which is "rubbish." It is a matter of thinking rather carefully about your intended use and then determining which camera best matches up with your needs. In the end it is also important to keep in mind that no camera (or lens, or flash, or much of anything else) is going to be "perfect in every way," but that it is better to get a thing that does the job pretty well and get on with that job.
    The greatest strength of the 5D2 is in its larger sensor. (The fact that it has 21 MP instead of 18 MP is a very minor difference in and of itself - essentially insignificant.) If you do certain types of photography and shoot in certain ways and present the photographs in the right form... the full-frame sensor can provide some image quality advantages. (The differences will not be "night and day," but they will be there.)
    For example, if you do landscape photography of highly detailed subjects, shoot from a tripod with MLU and remote release, use excellent lenses, have very careful and precise technique, apply skillful post-processing technique, and often make very large prints the full frame sensor is probably for you. I'm sure you can translate that description to certain other subjects and scenarios besides landscape.
    On the other hand, if you mostly shoot handheld, tend toward active subjects (perhaps sports?), and generally don't make the very largest prints possible (where the incremental advantage of full frame might make a bit of a difference) then there is every chance that the feature set of the 7D would be a better fit for you. Again, you can extrapolate from that description to other related types of photography where this camera might be the best choice.
    There are other differences due to the different sensor sizes as well. The effect on DOF and the usability of various apertures is probably apparent to you already, and you may also understand the effect of sensor size on available lens choices and how various lenses will function on your camera.
    It is also important to keep in mind that the different strengths/weaknesses of the two bodies do not imply that camera A can do subject X and camera B cannot do subject X. While one camera may not be quite as optimized for a particular sort of shooting (say sports or landscape) either can generally do a fine job even with those subjects that don't fit precisely into its area of strength. In other words you can do pretty darn fine landscape work on a 7D and make excellent sports photographs with a 5D2.
    The weather sealing issue is another one to visit again. Neither camera is "weather sealed," and any differences between them are truly trivial - and perhaps as much a matter of marketing language as actual functional differences in the field. Either can be used in somewhat challenging environmental conditions. (I have one of the two and I've shot it regularly in light rain, ocean spray, dust (even a dust storm), snow, and so forth.) But if you need true weather sealing you are not going to find it in a Canon camera in the price range of these two - you'll need a 1-Series body.
    The images from the 5D2 are most certainly not "soft" at any ISO if you are using a good lens, know how to post-process your RAW files, and so forth. If you saw soft images from a 5D2 this was not due to the capabilities of the camera.
  13. I you go FF, you go because it's FF. You go because you want better lens choices at the wide end ...super tele reach is not all that important to you.
    That's my opinion.
    I use a 5D, love it... but hope to add a 7D to the bag someday :-D
  14. Given modest enlargement and reasonable lighting, the real difference between crop and full sensor is the field of view for a given perspective. It's great to shoot at a 50mm focal length and get that natural perspective and not feel like you are viewing through a shoe box. Also, don't you hate to carry around all that heavy glass knowing that much of the image circle is wasted?
  15. William, G Dan's response to your dismissive "assessment" of the 5D II is bang on. I have a 5D II and I have obtained some soft images with it. But the softness has been due to my technique (inattentiveness to the focus point, setting the shutter speed too slow, etc.) and not to the body. And I have obtained images that are sharp even when viewed at an absurdly large 200%. Again, it's all a matter of technique (with a little help from the glass).
    But if you really think that the 5D II is "rubbish," why are you considering it? I personally have no interest in crop sensor bodies, for the reasons Ken and others have cited. But if I did, I'd certainly pick up a 7D.
  16. In response to Dan Mitchell, I stand by what I said. If Canon,Nikon,Sony,etc, are going to charge £2000 for a camera put a little effort in it. Don't put a 21mp sensor in a body that is 4 years old, because that is what they have done. They added a better screen, the micro adjuster and..... oh yeah thats about it. Apart from that its the 20d or 5d mark I body.
    I went to the shop again to day when I picked up the 5d mark II, everything that I didn't like about the 20d is practically still there. The shop owner went on a canon course about the two cameras (7d & 5d). The Canon rep said .The market for the 5D MKII is small and has got smaller with the launch of the 7d, the people who are buying 5d is studio photographers, for advertising, or landscape photographers who want to print very big.
    Today I shot the 5d against the 7d with my 70-200 2.8 is,at iso 6400 I was hard pressed to tell the difference in noise,and defiantly the 5d produces softer images at high iso I,m convinced there is some kind of old noise reduction software going on in that camera.
    I would by angry with canon if I bought the 5d MKII, then they released the 7d.
    Check this out this video out I think it sums everything up beautifully
  17. I have had a 5D2 since it first hit the shelves. After extensive use I have formed the opinion that it should be treated with the same respect as a medium format camera. If you rush around rattling off shots at breakneck speed with a 5D2 you will end up disappointed. You have to take your time with it and give special consideration to achieving accurate focus before taking a photo. When you treat it with respect and use it like this it produces incredible results, in my opinion better than any DSLR currently available, including the Nikon D3x at higher ISO. It's sensor captures incredible detail and any hint of misfocus stands out a mile.
    It's a great camera for portraits, weddings, landscapes and general photography. It is not the camera of choice for motor racing, fast moving wildlife and 10fps nonsense.
    The 7D is definitely a better all-rounder but if you like shallow depth of field and unbeatable image quality the 5D2 is by far the best choice.
    William, calm down. Canon were obviously correct to charge £2000 for the 5D2 because they couldn't keep up with demand for the camera for months after its release. Plenty of people were happy to pay that money, myself included. If I had no camera now and had £2000 to spend I would still choose the 5D2 over the 7D. I prefer the shallow depth of field of a full frame sensor and the better viewfinder. Not everyone else does. You obviously prefer the 7D and keep hammering the 5D2 so why keep posting on here? Go get a 7D.
  18. By the way, that Youtube vid was cracking, LOL!
  19. William, calm down. You obviously prefer the 7D and keep hammering the 5D2 so why keep posting on here? Go get a 7D.​
    Wise words. I own a 5DII and would choose again to buy it over a 7D, but there are probably just as many photographers who disagree with that choice as who agree with it.

    That's probably why Canon has more than one model in their line-up....
  20. The 5d2 beats the 7d hands down any day of the week on image quality, versatility, and creative potential. No contest. Not even close.
  21. Ron said
    When is Canon going to realize that the 5D II is rubbish and lower the price. I've been dying to get one ever since it came out!​
    You've been dying to get a piece of rubbish. Good luck with that
  22. I have no axe to grand, but the D700/D3 wipes the floor with the Canon equivalents.​
    Hyperbole anyone? Perhaps you are doing something wrong, since thousands of pros and seasoned veterans get outstanding results with Canon.
  23. "I was hard pressed to tell the difference in noise and defiantly the 5d produces softer images at high iso" William Bray.

    This statement does not fit the current accepted review findings. Pretty much everyone agrees that FF sensors exhibit much higher per Pixel Sharpness and lower Digital Noise at high ISO settings (read low light conditions).This is a direct result of a FF Sensor having a much lower pixel density per square cm. If you were to use a Scanning Electron Microscope to examine the pixels (Photosites) on a Nikon D300 sensor and compare them with the pixels on a Nikon D3 sensor (both sensors rated at a nominal ~12 Megapixels), then those on the D300 would be smaller and more densly packed than those on the D3 FF sensor. The Photosites are far bigger and spaced further apart on a FF sensor and better able to take advantage of the light passed by the lens (there are fewer "Null Points" where access to the photosite is restricted due to the proximity of other photosites situated too close by i.e. a "shadow" effect. To better understand what I am saying, take 20 marbles and place them equidistantly from each other in a simple square or rectangle. Place them so that they touch each other and shine a powerful torch obliquely on them from about a 3 o'clock position. Look at the shadows laid down. Repeat the same exercise with the marbles spaced 2 cms apart. Which configuration allows the most light to cover the majority of marbes?
    A 21 or 25 Megapixel FF camera will exhibit a shallower DOF and hence will need to be used more carefully (and with higher quality lenses). Next time you try this test, shoot the identical test scene and within minutes of each test frame, (using a decent tripod, and Mirror Lock Up), pick a distinct part of the image and manually fine tune the focus of the lens for both camera bodies and then set the Autofocus to Manual ( this will remove any chance of the Autofocus "hunting"). You will need to compensate for the fact that one camera has a x1.6 factor magnification. The quickest way to do this and good enough for this type of assessment, is to pick up the Canon EOS 7D plus the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens, and move them backwards to a point where the framed subject is identical. Shoot the frames for comparison at identical ISO and Aperture settings. Shoot the frames as RAW frames NOT JPEG's. All JPEG images undergo in-camera processing (the degree of processing will depend on the camera body/model). Open the two frames in ACR 5.5 or the latest Beta version of Lightroom with ALL settings at Default i.e. No Noise Redcuction or Sharpening enabled. View at Actual Pixels i.e. 100% NOT at 75% or 150% or 200% or some other magnification. At anything but 100%, your computer will have to heavily process the file to display it on your Monitor and all sorts of other artifacts will be introduced. Make sure that your Monitor is set to the highest resolution that it can display. This represents the best that this PC/Monitor can display. Now do the comparison and let me know which combination is sharper, has less digital noise AND fewer artifacts. Artifacts can more easily be seen by looking in areas of high contrast in the background of an image. These can appear as squiggles or other strange pattens that were not in the original image (banding is an artifact). I look forward to your findings as I am considering upgrading to a 5D Mk.2 from a 5D Mk.1, but I will consider the new 7D as well. I am only interested in absolute IQ as I make large prints for mounting and anything less than perfect will show in a large print. Prints are the real test of a camera/lens combination, not what is seen on a monitor. Many people have monitors that cannot even dispay 95% of the Colour Gammut available in Adobe RAW and most monitors have never ever been calibrated. Not the ideal situation situation if you really want to look at a camera/lens combination from an IQ perspective.
  24. "Megapixels and video don't mean anything if Canon can't get the basics right - such as the horrendoudly antiquated autofocus!"

    And I wonder what those pros using 60MP digital MF backs will think of that statement, especially considering they use completely manual focus.
    "I have no axe to grand, but the D700/D3 wipes the floor with the Canon equivalents."

    Wipes the floor? In what respect? If you're talking purely about autofocus I would be inclined to agree (I also assume you have not taken the new 1D Mk4 into consideration). If you're taking about any other aspect of the cameras I would not agree. The IQ of the D700/D3 doesn't compare to the 5D2, apart from at extreme ISO. I use the HD video function frequently and Canon rules the roost in that department, even with the current limited firmware of the 5D2. I prefer the Canon interface but that's subjective to the user. They're all great cameras but the D700/D3 don't wipe the floor with their Canon counterparts.
  25. It seems you do not really like the 5D camera afterall. It happens that way sometimes. I would just look for another model that suits your needs a little better. I am sure the 7D will be very nice. When it comes to sensor size I would think that your shooting style would really make the difference. The larger sensor would be very nice for wide angle and the small sensor is very nice for tele shots. What is more important to you in this regard? If it were me I would just buy a 50D and be happy with that. But my mattress has a deficiency of spendable stuffing.
  26. Brett,
    Of course the camera is not rubbish. I was just being silly, along with the unintended silly comments.
    But I do want to get a MkII when the price comes down a bit.
  27. It's obvious from this thread that some people spend time with their photography actually practicing it, while others pixel peep and complain. It's a cliche but the truth remains, to paraphrase another contentious slogan, cameras don't take pictures, photographers do. And FWIW, anyone that makes a buying decision based on pixel peeping at ISO6400 is either a nut case with lots of spare time on his hands, or has extremely specialized photographic requirements. It's very ironic that ten years ago most serious photographers would not have ordinarily used 800 or 1600 speed film, yet nowadays if images aren't sharp at ISO3200, something is considered deficient in the camera design.
  28. Memes I'm sick of seeing on the Internet:
    * The 5D mkII is not weather sealed. (Yes it is:
    * Any camera with anything less than a "professional" AF module with dozens of points has poor / useless / antiquated AF. (No it does not. Any modern DSLR, including Canon and Nikon's cheapest plastic entry level bodies, has excellent AF. Differences only show up as small percentage changes in the number of keepers, and then often only show up with the most challenging subjects. Whether or not you understand how AF works, and therefore how to use it, makes a far, FAR larger difference.)
    * Full frame is always better than cropped. (No it is not. The 7D, for example, has better IQ at low to mid ISO than the various 12 MP FF bodies. Likewise the lenses you own or can afford might mean that shots from a cropped body will be better for you than shots from a FF body.)
    * I tried XYZ camera and it's no good because at 100% the image is soft. (Aside from all of the mistakes you might have made shooting XYZ camera, current pixel densities dig deeper into the lens MTF curve than ever before. At 100% they are not going to be pixel sharp or have ideal contrast without some post processing, either in camera or in Photoshop. Plus, looking at them this way is like putting your nose on the surface of a huge poster. Is this really how you intend your work to be viewed?)
    * I compared XYZ and ABC cameras in a store and one/the other has terrible image quality by comparison. (You can't properly test two cameras in a store, and rear LCDs never provide optimum views. Not to mention each body requires unique post processing to maximize IQ. If you think you have any valid conclusions about IQ after doing this then you deserve to spend the next 6 months shooting with nothing but disposable film cameras.)
    * Canikon blows Nicanon away! When is one/the other going to catch up! (Every day working professionals produce award winning images with bodies from each of the major manufacturers, including old and entry level bodies. Quit telling yourself that you are special for your brand choice. Slapping down a credit card does not make you special, and bragging about your brand makes you a bore.)
    Now that I have that off my chest: if you're in the Canon system and are debating the 7D vs. 5D2, buy the 5D2 if you must have the very best high ISO performance or if you have lenses which will take full advantage of the 35mm sensor. Otherwise buy the 7D.
  29. Sorry Ron, I am too daft to recognize sarcasm. My bad.
  30. Charles' point is well taken. Who shoots at 6400iso and expects miracles? My entire portfolio from 12 years of field work in available light is 90% iso 100 or 200.
  31. Oh, another meme I'm sick of...
    * Buying XYZ camera over ABC camera will make all the difference in the world in IQ. (No it will not. The average viewer can only tell the difference between prints from different bodies when the prints are large and the IQ variances between the bodies are large as well. Pixel peeping I can see the differences between a 5D, 7D, and 5D2. Printed to, say, 16x24 and hung on a wall there isn't a soul on this forum who could reliably tell which was which in a double blind test. Your choice just isn't THAT big of a deal so quit risking a heart attack over it.)
  32. In response to Dan Mitchell, I stand by what I said. If Canon,Nikon,Sony,etc, are going to charge £2000 for a camera put a little effort in it. Don't put a 21mp sensor in a body that is 4 years old, because that is what they have done. They added a better screen, the micro adjuster and..... oh yeah thats about it. Apart from that its the 20d or 5d mark I body.
    I went to the shop again to day when I picked up the 5d mark II, everything that I didn't like about the 20d is practically still there. The shop owner went on a canon course about the two cameras (7d & 5d). The Canon rep said .The market for the 5D MKII is small and has got smaller with the launch of the 7d, the people who are buying 5d is studio photographers, for advertising, or landscape photographers who want to print very big.
    Today I shot the 5d against the 7d with my 70-200 2.8 is,at iso 6400 I was hard pressed to tell the difference in noise,and defiantly the 5d produces softer images at high iso I,m convinced there is some kind of old noise reduction software going on in that camera.
    I would by angry with canon if I bought the 5d MKII, then they released the 7d.
    Check this out this video out I think it sums everything up beautifully
    If this is how you feel about the 5D2 (and Canon cameras in general, and cameras from Nikon and Sony, and who knows what else...) and you are utterly convinced that the "problem" is that the cameras are "rubbish," the answer is pretty simple:
    Find something you like better and purchase it instead.
    And why post a question here ("Is the 5D markII worth the extra money then the 7D?") if you have already decided what the answer is and that anyone with different experience must be wrong? . If you ask a question we assume that you want feedback from people who have experience with the equipment/technique about which you asked because you want to get a better sense of what the facts (or opinions) are.
    If you just want to tell us what "rubbish" some piece of equipment is, simply offer a post like "5D2 is rubbish" or else get a blog and just post your points of view there.
  33. To the OP William, the tone and content actual of your various comments throughout this post show that you have little interest in the question you're supposedly asking, and that you have little credibility on the overall subject matter. Sorry man, but if you say a bunch of stupid, outrageous stuff - "it's rubbish" "they should at least put a little bit of effort into it" - people are not going to take you seriously. The 5d2 has excellent sharpness and overall image quality. If you can't achieve it you either have a bad copy of the camera or you are doing something wrong.
  34. Meme, short form for Manuel, thanks guys, don't have the 5dII, do have the 7D which was best suited my needs for an upgrade, the 5D and 1Ds are perfect full frames for what I use them for. My 50D is also an excellent camera but was missing video which can be important when doing certain type of events. If I had upgraded to full frame would have gone with the 1DsII, about all the camera one needs for full frame.
  35. My reasons for posting this question was originaly in my mind the 5d was a dream camera until I tested it.When everyone is raving about how good something is and I can't see it I want to know why. Someone said here that the 5d has to be treated like a medium format camera with a shallow depth of field, I agree, hence accurate AF is a must. Something that I and some people who bought a 5d feel, is that the body's AF system struggles with. So why are Canon making a camera with such an amazing sensor and putting in a body that can't cope with the demand of the sensor.
    For looking at noise at ISO 6400 and comparing it, am I missing something or isn't this one of the big things about the 5d. So why wouldn,t anyone test this out? I don't care what photographers had to do 10 years ago I,m buying a camera in the 21st century as I don't care about the pros and cons of horse riding when now I drive a car.
    As for soft images from the 5d at high ISO I,m only saying what I,m seeing some one recommended this site
    And at high ISO that is what I'm seeing.
    I,m sorry to upset anyone here because it seems I,ve touched a few nerve's here and I understand how some people may want to justify their purchase of a 5D MKII they bought the best camera there was, and still is regarding IQ at large prints, I would have bought it to if I had the money when it came out.
    But you must understand £2000 is a lot of money to find, I haven't got the option of being able to say in 2 months time " Oh the 5d is better then the 7d( or vice versa) I'll just pop down the shop and pick one up while I get my newspaper " I appreciate some of you might be able to do that, but not me. I just want to know where the extra money is going too on a 5d because I don't think canon can claim it costs £1000 just for a larger sensor. And I don't want to end up having a camera that I have to wear a sign around my neck saying " I can print really big". Believe it or not I'm happy to spend the money on a 5d that was the camera I've been saving for not the 7d. But I found it disappointing when I had it in my hands and part of me wants the 5d to be the camera I wanted.
    I just wanted other peoples opinions.
    Thanks to every ones replies
    just in case anyone who missed it you've got to see this
  36. I'd like to make a couple of points and agreeing with some of the posters here:
    The 7D has the body that the 5DMk2 should have had, but then Canon would not sell many 7Ds so they gave it the quality of the 50D.
    Yes, at the moment Canon's AF is not as good as Nikon's. That may well change.
    Most shots on all cameras are taken at less than 1600 ISO, so high ISO noise reduction only appeals to a small % of savvy buyers. The camera manufacturers make too much out of it. Smart people ignore it. They have to be heavy with in camer noise reduction due to the high photo cell density over 12mp. In the Canon range, the 5DMk1 is still favoured for its quality images, expecially for landscapes. MP count is not really an indicator. I good 12mp FF sensor can outperform one much larger as the individual photo cells are much bigger. Its the same with the Nkion D700.
    All manufacturers will never give you all the features you want at once. They want you to accept the compromise and upgrade to new models every 2-3 years. Fast obsolescence is now a feature of the digital camera business. So buy used, and buy well, to avoid the depreciation trap. Think of it like buying a car or a PC.
    Gone are the days when you could buy a camera and use it for ten or twenty years. It used to be even better than that. The quality and reliability of film cameras before they were saddled with electronics and LCD menu systems was awesome. I have film Nikons that I used my whole pro life and which have been cycled maybe 500,000 times, and with care and a yearly service they are still excellent even now. But we will never see that quality again. Todays mid range cameras are throw away items after 3 years so thats all the makers have to cater for, hence the plastic bodies and compromised mechanical quality. They keep the respectable quality for the Pro models. These buyers are not fooled by the marketing.
    So in answer to your question, if you are after really good FF image quality in a mid range camera and you don't want to spend a lot of money, buy a good 5Dmk1. Keep it for two years, sell it again and buy the FF version of the 7D which is inevitable.
  37. I,m sorry to upset anyone here because it seems I,ve touched a few nerve's here and I understand how some people may want to justify their purchase of a 5D MKII they bought the best camera there was, and still is regarding IQ at large prints, I would have bought it to if I had the money when it came out.
    It is becoming increasingly hard to figure out what your point is.
    When everyone is raving about how good something is and I can't see it I want to know why.
    No, from all you have posted the last thing you are interested in is "knowing why" others like this camera. What you do seem to be interested in is telling those of us who use this camera and find it to be a very effective photographic that we don't know what we are talking about. OK. WE HEAR YOU! You have made your point.
    A hint: One possible reason that you don't understand why people this camera is that everyone else is crazy. This, however, is not the only possible explanation.
    (I print as a lot from my 5D2 exposures and at sizes up to 24" x 36". It produces excellent print quality.)
    I just wanted other peoples opinions.
    There is no evidence from your posts that this is true or that you are remotely interested in the opinions of others about these cameras, except to the extent that their opinions provide a target for your follow-up posts.
    This is the end of my participation in your little game.
  38. There are plenty of in depth reviews and comparisons available that answer all your questions. BTW you shouldn't be surprised when folks in a Canon forum get upset when you tell them they spent a lot of cash on rubbish.
  39. Reading some of your post, I wish I was born in the future, so all this dilemma are solved, hahahahha.
  40. Stephen Asprey, you're right I'm used to buying equipment and getting many years of use out of it' like my lenses. But with camera body's it's a throw away mentality now, the manufactures now what they are doing. And I think it's Canon that are playing the games here G Dan Mitchell.
  41. Oh and I think I'm going to take your advice Stephen and get a 5d MKI, and may be a 7d later on when the prices might drop a bit more. I don't think the MK II is going to convince me at the curant price.
  42. william bray wrote:
    I just wanted other peoples opinions.​
    No, you didn’t. You wanted a unicorn pony, and decided to stomp your feet when you learned that Canon only sells horse ponies, and that you can’t afford the pretty brown one — and it’s unfair that the black one trots nicer than the faster brown one.
    Either that, or you wanted to troll. Makes no difference to the adults here, though.
  43. OP said
    I,m sorry to upset anyone here because it seems I,ve touched a few nerve's here and I understand how some people may want to justify their purchase of a 5D MKII they bought the best camera there was, and still is regarding IQ at large prints,​
    You don't get it and you don't sound sorry, and it's nowhere near the best camera for large prints. i.e. large format film, 50+mp mf digital. In any case there's no need to justify anything. It's a stellar camera and is a bargain for what it provides. Sorry man, you don't know what you're talking about
  44. I couldn't even continue reading this thread. The 5D Mark II is an excellent camera and worth every cent I paid for it hands down. This camera may be too much for many people. I for one very seldom use autofocus and use a tripod and Live view with 100% zoom to get the sharpest focus I have ever gotton on any camera I have ever had. Maybe you don't know this technique, but it is failproof and works excellent with my fast primes i.e. 85 1.2 L, 50 1.8 even at night. But, you are correct. If you don't know how fabulous this camera is it is probably not the right camera for you.
  45. I went from a 30D, with I'd shot with for years to a MK2 and have never been happier. I also shoot mostly wide-open using my strobes only as fill. Anyone that thinks the MK2 is only so-so imagewise is out of their mind. There is an immediate difference in quality.
    Sure, if you pixel peep or shoot at high-iso than you're going to get a bit of softness because of the noise reduction built into the camera, but otherwise there is not question about it's ability. Just being able to use my 24-70L and the 135L as they were intended is worth the money. Plus, I shoot alot of Mamiya m645 and OM Zuiko glass on my body with adapters and both types excel on the larger sensor. The OM glass is being used as it's meant to frankly I don't think anyone has ever made a 135/2.8 that matched the look and bokeh of theirs. My Mamiya glass, particularly my 210 is amazing looking and I don't have to fight the extra length the crop factor gave me.
    If you don't like the every-so-slight-only-pixel-peepers-notice softness on the MK2 and don't want to turn off the native N/R ... then that is what God made High-Pass sharpening for.
  46. I could figure out where this thread was going from the very first post. Paraphrased, since I'm too lazy to tag the quote:
    "If you take away the 21 megapixel full-frame sensor, the 5D MarkII is rubbish."
    That's like saying that if you took the 12-cylinder supercharged engine out of a Ferrarri it's a bad car. Or if you took away her looks, Heidi Klum is a bad model. No kidding, Sherlock. That's the main selling point. If you take the main selling point away from anything it becomes a waste of money.
    Frankly, ths guy obviously doesn't get the point. I don't want to be rude Mr. Bray, but you've made yourself out to be someone who does much more reading than shooting. I like my Nikon D300 for sports, and any other situation where a little extra zoom helps, and the mobility of a lighter camera is useful. I have also used the 7D quite a bit, and it excels here. The 7D is also the only camera that has a video mode that I find useful enough to replace a camcorder. When I'm shooting anything, anything where I don't need a ton of zoom, I use the D700.
    Then again, the only features I care about are how good my photos look, and how well my camera holds up to heavy use. Weird, I know.
  47. The focus and features on the 5d mk2 are better than on the 40d which are better than the focus and features on the 20d which means according to yourself you've been shooting with rubbish. Personally most of my shots are pretty sharp off the 5d mk2 compare to the 40d, whether it be action or events. I haven't tested the speed of focus but it is definitely more accurate. Who cares if you rattle off more frames if you're not shooting accurately.
  48. here are two photos of the 7d and the 5dMKII, they are 100% crops both taken with the same lens. Nothing has been done to them!
    I don't know of another way to upload the images
    both were shot at 6400 ISO I promise the softer photo is the 5d.
  49. I have never understand this silly " indecisions" between crop and full frame when you talk about print quality.
    A APS-C camera ( no matter how quick or sealed it is) will never ever manage to produce that specifically 3D look that a a full frame gives.
    Scroll down and look how the " rubbish " wipes the floor with the 7D - especially in sharpness- no matter the ISO.
    or :
    download the images look at the details and you'll see the difference between flattness and "3D rubbish"
    When something is so obvious any discussion is futile.
    And I'm not talking about the 7D softness:
    or about the tens of posts about bad focus ( ) and the increase numbers of 7Ds send back to canon for that reason. Believe me, there are not all users mistakes.
  50. And here is another comparison thread between 7D and 5D2 :
    by 6400 the are no more details in the 7D images.
    But better buy it and be happy.
  51. For me, the full-frame vs crop argument had nothing to do with image quality. Full frame simply gives me the ability to throw shallower depth of field for portraits.
  52. Just got back from an early morning shoot with the 5d2 and going through the shots. The quality is absolutely stunningly amazing. Using a relatively modest setup - 5d2, 70-200f4 and standard issue Bogen tripod. Cable release, mirror lockup, self-timer, 100iso.

    The quality is heads and tails above my scans of my Fuji 6x9s, which were shot with world class optics. Incredibly clean, sharp images out of the 5d2 with beautiful color, zero noise, and spectacular detail. I've owned the D60, 20D, 40D, and 50D, and the color, white balance, tonality, and detail on the 5d2 blows them all away.
  53. I used to be a Canon shooter with a 5D and 1D II N.
    When the 5D Mark II came out I was on the verge to ditch both bodies and get the new 5DII.
    Did not do it because there was something other new out there: Nikon D700.
    I switched to Nikon, exactly because of the same reasons why the OPer does not like the 5DII.
    Don't misunderstand me, I am not into the brand war. I know well both brands I owned and used 4 Canons and 3 Nikons. And countless amount of lenses from both sides. Both companies make great cameras and glass.
    But, I considered exactly same reasons and made the switch in 2008.
    Just my thoughts.
  54. I own both and have posted images and crops from both. If you are trying to compare the two cameras than you do not have a good idea what type of photography you want to do as they both serve different purposes. In my opinion and testing the 5D2 produces significantly higher image quality than the 7D - this is not to say that the 7D is bad. The 7D is in a different league for AF as the 5D2 really only works with the center AF point. The FF sensor on the 5D2 has a big advantage for wide angle shooting as you can get wide angle shots with top quality optics. Conversely the 7D is useful for telephoto shots due to the 1.6x factor.
    Thus rather than be an unhappy 5D2 user at the 7D launch I was happy as it 7D launch as it is a great complement to the 5D2. I use the 5D2 for most work but the 7D for sports.
    However if you asked me to sell one and keep the other then I would keep the 5D2.
  55. the 5D2 really only works with the center AF point.​
    Sorry Phillip, you have a faulty camera then. All of the af points work perfectly well.
  56. William-
    I fail to see how a blog post written primarily about the Sony A900 in Antartica has to do with non-Sony camera durability over time. For starters, the Sony cameras are not known for their durability; if anything, their main selling point is value. Secondly, I said I was only concerned with image quality and durability in my cameras (admittedly, I left out the phrase 'over time'), and your link does not address either of those things - at least as relates to the brand in question. Perhaps I skimmed it too fast or I just don't 'think outside the box' enough, but I don't get it.
    Most print and advertising photographers use medium or large format cameras. They are much more of a pain in the butt to use, but all they care about is how the image looks on the two-page spread in Vogue. Many landscape photographers feel the same way. Before digital, almost nobody in the print world shot 35mm, unless they needed mobility or speed. Why? Bigger film. In today's words, bigger sensor. If that's not argument enough for you as to why full frame cameras are produced, coveted, and eventually purchashed, than nothing is.
    I refer you back to my previous example of using attractive people to sell clothes and makeup. If you don't understand why Coco Rocha models for Gucci instead of Reba McEntire, then I suggest you investigate the wonderfully low-priced clothing selection at Wal*Mart. You are not a Gucci customer. You can be content in the knowledge that you're dressed just as well as the people with $2000 suits, and you can tell yourself that they don't have a better appearance because they have better clothes, because those don't matter - they're just more attractive people.
  57. I don't own a 7D so I can't comment, but from what I've seen from the reviews it looks like a nice camera. Personally, I do wonder if putting 18MP on a crop sensor may be pushing it, but I'm sure time will tell on this.
    I upgraded from an XSi to a 5Dii back in August and I've been doing quite a bit of shooting with the new camera and comparing it to it's baby brother. Here are a few of my thoughts on the 5Dii:
    1) Image Quality: I have found the image quality to be outstanding and slightly better than the 12MP XSi in many respects, expecially at the extremes. IMO, the 5Dii will produce better photos under a wider set of conditions than a crop-sensor camera with fewer MP's. You just have more to work with. (More MP, bigger pixels, possibly more dynamic range, and better high-ISO noise). You can push the camera to the extremes and still get a very good result. I also feel that having more and bigger pixels can produce slightly sharper images under certain conditions. However, when your not pushing it (good light, lower ISO, 8x10" prints or less) you may not see much or any difference when comparing the results with other cameras. Even under the right conditions, today's P&S cameras can produce quality images.
    2) Autofocus: I'm not sure why there have been so many complaints about the 5Dii's autofocus. I have taken close to 1000 photos in the last few months and almost none of these have been out of focus. In the few cases that were, it was probably my own fault. I should admit that I don't do much high action photography, and if I did I may scrutinize the AF more, but for the most part, I find the AF to be more than adequate for general photgraphy. For me, this is a non-issue since the 5Dii's AF does what it is supposed to do. Sure, more AF points would be better, but in the end I'm not really sure this would contribute significantly to me taking better pictures given my style.
    3) Full frame sensor: The FF sensor buys you more ultra wide-angle lens options and a shallower DOF. If these are important to you (as are to many) then FF would be an advantage. However, if your photography is geared more toward long telephoto shooting you will probably be happier with a crop sensor due to the extra reach.
    ... I was not impressed. I felt that if you took away the 21 MP full frame sensor, what was left was rubbish.
    I don't agree. This is just not true.
    ... The AF points on the 5d looked lost to me, cramped in the center of the frame. Canon might as well just put one AF point in the center.

    I use the focus-and-recompose method so having most of the AF points centered has not been a problem for me. The focus seems to almost always lock in and when it does, the image is correctly focussed.
    ...The images looked soft on the 5d at high ISO, as if it was applying some in camera noise reduction. When I compared the 7d, the images were sharper with a little bit more noise.
    I think it is a known fact that JPG's are a little softer than RAW out of the 5Dii. I only shoot in RAW so this has not been an issue for me. Shooting in RAW just gives you much better control of your final output.
    Another disappointment was weather sealing. The 7d has it 5d doesn't. Not impressive for a £2000 camera.
    I would never take any camera out in the rain without protection. I wouldn't trust any weather sealing on either the 5Dii or the 7D. Why take the chance with expensive equipment. If you want to shoot in the rain, buy a rain cover, or use a see-thru showercap in a pinch.

    Please can you give me your opinions over the 7d and the 5d.I have always had it in my mind to go full frame and now I feel I'm going backwards. But my heart is telling me there's more to a camera then megapixels and sensorsize.
    Depending on your shooting style (action/telephoto vs. portrait/landscape), one camera may work better than another for you. However, I believe it is possible to produce award winning photos with either one. I also believe that there are so many other variables (lighting, lenses, subject, composition, PP, shooting style, etc.) affecting final image appeal that the camera body gets way too much attention. IMO under certain shooting conditions the 5Dii will provide you with a small IQ edge over crop cameras. However, except for very large prints, heavy cropping, or if you're looking really hard, or if you are working at the extremes, these differences may not be very noticable. OTOH, for me, the 5Dii was worth it, I have no complaints, but I'm also happy to now have both a lightweight crop (XSi) and a full frame.
    Good luck in your decision.
    MW ( The 'Vermont' gallery was taken with the 5Dii, all other photos taken with the XTi or the XSi)
  58. I don't know why you weren't able to read the full article. So this is for you Zack.
    The largest group of failures through were among the Canon 5D MKIIs. Of the 26 samples of this camera onboard, one quarter (six) failed at one time or another, and while three recovered, the other three never did. In all cases it appeared to be water or humidity damage. Of particular concern were two cameras which stopped working while completely protected within Kata rain covers during a light rain ashore. They came back to life the following day though and were mostly fine for the rest of the trip, but one died permenently just before the end of our voyage.
    Several people noted that when returning to the ship after working in light rain 5D MKIIs with vertical battery grips tended to collect water in between the grip and the base – something that may have been the cause of some of the failures.
    I should note that the 5D MKII's are not rated as weather resistant, but then neither are the Sony A900's. I deliberately allowed both of my A900 bodies be exposed to the rain for two days ashore to see how they would stand up. There were no operational difficulties. I also have used the Sonys back here in Toronto in snow storms, (unprotected), both before and after the Antarctic trip, with no ill effects. Though also not claimed as weather sealed, they appear to be as well protected as any other camera I've ever used.
    I don't know what conclusions should be drawn from this high percentage of 5D MKII failures. All I can do is report on the facts of the matter. As for the weather during which most of the failures happened, it was no worse than a drizzly day in winter in New York or Berlin. Nothing Antarctic about it at all.
  59. William you should start a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to informing the world about the horrible quality of the 5d2. You would save thousands of veteran professional photographers from wasting their time using such rubbish for equipment.

    Yeesh, someone close this thread already. People, quit feeding the troll (I should talk) and go out and take some photographs.
  60. I'd like to thank people like Mike Whalen who give honest opinions and not get defensive when someone dares to question a camera that they may own.
    I have spent a lot of time testing these cameras out and searching for reviews. The results I have found are the 5d gives amazing images but the 7d is very close behind it in terms of IQ. To quote Mike "under certain shooting conditions the 5Dii will provide you with a small IQ edge over crop cameras. However, except for very large prints, heavy cropping, or if you're looking really hard" and he and others who have a open mind are right on the money.
    Sorry if I'm one of the few who expected more of a battle between a crop sensor and a full frame.But I say what I think.
    The body of the 5d was rushed IMHO to answer nikons D700 but if canon didn't start to up their game with their body's I think I would be joining all those who swapped over to nikon. But thank God with the arrival of the 7d I think Canon's finally got their finger out and started listening to their customers. Be honest if the 5dMKII had a 12mp sensor like Nikon, the camera would be a insult in todays market, you couldn't really call it cutting edge.
    One other issue that I don't think has been pointed out is diffraction between these two cameras. The 5d should beat the 7d here, but considering the greater depth of Field you get with a crop camera you shouldn't have to use as smaller aperture as you would have to use with the 5d.Thus your lens should perform better when its not stopped down so much and you will reduce the effect of diffraction on a cropped sensor. So in the I suspect the difference here would be the same as mentioned about IQ with large prints and heavy cropping.
    In the end I'm going for a 7D and with the money I save I will get a 5d mark I. The money I spend will not be much different to getting a 5dmkII.
    Thanks for everyone taking the time to write, but this is the end of the road for me on this discussion.
  61. under certain shooting conditions the 5Dii will provide you with a small IQ edge over crop cameras​
    No, sorry, back to school. The 40D, a crop camera at 10mp, vs the 5d2 full frame 20+mp, much larger sensor, no contest
    I have spent a lot of time testing these cameras out and searching for reviews.​
    B&H 264 reviews average 5/5
    Thanks for everyone taking the time to write, but this is the end of the road for me on this discussion​
    Thanks for quitting, you never had any interest in discussion to begin with, you just wanted to show how cool you are
    But thank God with the arrival of the 7d I think Canon's finally got their finger out and started listening to their customers. Be honest if the 5dMKII had a 12mp sensor like Nikon, the camera would be a insult in todays market, you couldn't really call it cutting edge.​

    Yes, and if the ocean wasn't full of water you wouldn't call it wet. What is your point? Everything you write just oozes with condescension, dis-ingenuousness, and insidiousness, and a generous serving of not having much of a clue what you're talking about.
  62. William you should show your photography work to see if you need the 5D2, the 7D or some photography classes.
  63. "...this is the end of the road for me on this discussion."
    Please move along everyone. Nothing happening here...
  64. Why don't we all together look at the differences in outputs huh? Just forget about technical details...
    For me 5DMkII is unbeatable until any succeeder like 5DMkIII or whatever...
    7D just doesn't look attractive to me at all... Just checked the simple jpeg outputs... Compared... and let me tell you that I wouldn't change my 30D to 7D when there's 5DMkII...
  65. You think I'm cool Brett. I didn't know you cared.
    And G Dan is still playing his games, you enjoy it don't you, come on tell the truth.
  66. "for everyone taking the time to write, but this is the end of the road for me on this discussion."
    -- william bray
  67. Occasionally a thread produces emotion..and usually its Canon v Nikon, or digital v film. there's nothing wrong with it so long as its informed discussion.
    It would not be overstating it there there is a lot of disappointment voiced on this and other threads about the 5D2 and the 50D. It seems that Canon is repositioning its product line a little and asking more than others for FF and underestimating the requirements for better AF and a good body.
    the 5D2 may get the 7d's body and better AF. That would be good, then it would be a little brother to the yet to be release the new 1Dxx etc. It will be 2010 to know if that is the reasoning. It makes it hard for prosumer buyers though. Nikon made it easier by releasing the D3/300/700 fairly close together and kept the feature set common between them. It was logical and made sense. Canon seem unable to do the same. Perhaps the design teams don't communicate enough. Technically theye are certainly just as capable as anyone else. So its marketing thats getting in the way.
    The near future will tell whether Canon can do the same and make it logical and easy to see the price/feature points as you go up in the product range. I also think that Canon were as complacent with their bodies as Nikon was with its recent lenses. Both are guilty of being blind to the market and its also called arrogance. Watch for Sony IMHO. Good, sealed bodies, Ziess lenses...they just have to do more work on software and AF.
  68. Prosumer vs. pro is in the results IMO. Cameras exist to take pictures, not for their own sake. 5d2 results are at the very top for any camera made by Canon or Nikon at any price.
  69. Two quick comments
    To Brett Cole - my 5DII is not faulty and the other AF points will work - point was simply than unless you use the center AF point on the 5DII the results are not that great. Using just the center AF point with assist turned off in one shot gets the best results for studio and portraits. Using the ccnter AF with assist in AI Servo for sports will give about 95% hit rate for ski racing and 90%+ for ice hockey using an L series F2.8 or better lens (e.g. 70-200 F2.8 or 300 f2.8). If you have not tried shooting a moving target with an off center Af point try it.
    To William Bray - the 5DII is very similar construction to the 7D - flash apart and the slightly different plugs there is very little difference in construction. I have read the posts about 5DIIs in the Antarctic but I am unsure how they failed. I have been shooting climbing and skiing for almost 25 years and have never had a camera fail. Over this time I have used New F1s, T90s, 1NRS, 1VHS and even the 5DII. I try not to shoot digital below -25 C but have done so and have definately had a 5DII in the car overnight when it has been below -40C. On the subject of the Nikon 700 I do not think that the 5DII is a Canon response to the 700. Firstly they were released too close together for Canon to have done this in a rush. Second the 5DII had video and a much higher resloution sensor - surely the simple response would be an upgraded version of the first gen 5 (e.g. 12 MP no video etc...). On the subject of tests saying the 5DII is the same as the 7D try these (Darwin is a top landscape shooter) (another top Pro - see image qualitysection)
  70. On the subject of tests saying the 5DII is the same as the 7D try these
    Another annoying thing on the Internet is personal opinion presented as truth. Reichmann's complaints are not supported by any samples I've seen, and he never followed up on his review. (Perhaps he did have a faulty beta model.) I respect the man, but he is one man and is not in the business of performing professional, reproducible, empirical tests.
    As for Darwin, his results are well below the results obtained by two sites which specialize in professional reviews: dpreview and imaging-resource. (Not to mention below countless samples posted by individuals.) If you get soft photos with a camera model, and somebody else gets sharp and detailed photos with the same camera model, then the problem is you , not the camera model. This is common sense but common sense never stopped people from repeating stupid things and I therefore expect to see the Darwin review quoted every time somebody dares compliment the 7D or post a sharp photo from one, right up until the 7D mkII is released. Darwin's review will be the go-to piece for everyone trying to justify a 5D II or another brand.
    Don't get me wrong. The 5D II does have superior IQ. I think it has pretty much the best IQ of any DSLR on the market today. But at ISO 400 and below no mere mortal can tell it from a 7D in print. It would be tough to tell even at 800. Keep that in mind when deciding how to spend your hard earned dollars.
  71. Wow, who'd have thought two cameras from one manufacturer would produce such in-fighting! :) I've no doubt that the 7D is a fine camera. I happen to own the 5D2. It was my plan to get a 5D regardless, so the Mark II was a definite plus. I wouldn't ever trade it for a 7D. It does what it says on the tin, and does it very well and fits my style and intended usage.
    <p>Referring to the original question, "Is the 5D markII worth the extra money then the 7D ?" As has been seen here, there are strong opinions from some very seasoned shooters here. Whereas there seemed to be a lot of bashing, I think they key point is that with every subsequent iteration of a dSLR, there necessarily have to be improvements in one aspect or another, over previous models. It's the nature of this digital age. In the grand scheme of things, a camera is worth what you are willing to pay for it. So was a 1DsIII a worthwile purchase? For a shooter who required its features and had the cash, the answer would be yes. There are plenty of very happy 5D2 shooters as I am sure there will be many happy 7D shooters. The Antarctic test was, IMHO, not the be all and end all of 5D2 tests because, let's face it, how many of us buy a sub 1 series camera to shoot in extreme climates on a regular basis?
    <p>Let's all get back to what really counts: making lasting images with our imaging machines. Mine is labelled 5D Mark II ;-)
  72. I own the 5D2 and the 7D. My 7D's performance at ISO 1600 gets as noisy as my 5D2 at 3200. The OP seems to want to go full-frame but I'm not sure why. Given his lenses listed, it's clear that he's not a sports or wildlife photography. He lists a macro lens, so I think he should consider staying with a crop-body if he uses that a lot.
    For scenics and portraits it's hard to beat the 5D2. Look at the IQ reports on comparing to any body by any make you like. It's a top contender for high honors. This Nikon/Canon pissing match is absolutely rediculous. If someone personally like one over the other, then go with that personal preference, but come around here saying one blows away the other. Independent tests, like DxO's show that both have top contenders.
    As for AF, I'm personally not having any trouble with either the 5D2 or the 7D. Since I do a lot of birds in flight, I've made certain that I know what mode I'm in and which focal spot is likely the lock on (I usually specify only one for BIF). AF speed is a big factor in my lens selection and I haven't been disappointed.
    The video function is much more intuitive to use on the 7D vs. the 5D2.
    Oh, if I could only have one camera, it'd be the 5D2 and I'd figure out how to do my bird photography without the 7D's 1.6-crop.
  73. I think most of the strong sentiments in the thread were less about one camera or another and more about the OP acting like a troll. is a serious forum that is largely free of troll like behavior. When someone eggs people on like that and spouts a bunch of hyped nonsense it gets people riled up.
  74. All the way through this I have expressed my opinions with out insulting anyone. Not bad for a troll, something it seems you can't do. So what does that make of you Brett.
    By the way remember Brett that's a cool troll if you don't mind. deep down I think your like Mr Hitler from the you tube clip
    I know you love to watch this so here it is one last time for Brett.
  75. Sorry dude, you're a troll, no better than any kid on YouTube. You really don't belong on here with serious people. What is that, five posts since you said you were done posting on this thread? And I never said you were cool, learn how to read.
  76. Brett you're like a clock. Wind it up and it ticks all day.
    It's been fun.
  77. Troll alert, folks.
    Let. The. Thread. Die. Please.
    (Stay tuned for witty and insulting rebuttal by the OP... Enjoy it when it comes, but... "Please don't feed the troll" :)
  78. Kind of a funny read, well if you skip the trolling. The guy seems bent on bashing a great camera. I know the 5D II has shown a lot of my mistakes to me, not the cameras fault. I don't want a camera that will cover up my mistakes.
    Anyway, I just want to point out that the reports on LL about the Arctic trip seem somewhat suspect to me. The same 'report' was made about the then new 1D II (I think it was the II) in a previous Arctic trip, right down to the same 'failure' rate. That same line of Canon cameras have shown themselves to be quite robust and does not reflect the 'report' made on LL. Seems to be more of an affinity to a brand than related than balanced reporting (other manufactures failures on the trips are attributed to some other factor and quickly dismissed). I think they are correct in 'reporting' any perceived issues as a way to hold the manufactures accountable. However, this one has not stood the test of time and should be put to bed.
    Not to imply that LL has bad opinions or poor photographic skills, they all are very good artists and have great skill. Well beyond what I can accomplish. Still, everything you read on the internet needs to be taken with a grain of salt so to speak. IMO the 5D II will go down as what it is marketed as: weather resistant not water proof.
  79. Ooh steady, Brett, Dan - I recently got a sniffy "I've deleted your posting - there's no call for that kind of talk..." message from a mod on another forum on here for suggesting someone was possibly a troll (a lot less directly than you have here).
    Even so, you're right about this one!
    (It'll be interesting to see if the mods here are as "sensitive"...)
  80. is!
  81. What is it with Brett and Dan are they a tag team or something, it looks like Dan has had to come to Brett's rescue.
    Were you two high school freinds, who proberly spent their lunch breaks playing Dungeons and Dragons in the classroom, and now you spend your evenings and weekends searching Photonet looking for people to gang up on. Take a walk out of your front door and and socialize with some real people.
    Man I bet you two are a nightmare to meet in real life.
  82. No response. Please don't feed the trolls. :)
  83. Rent the cameras and do the tests yourself. Or buy used and resell what you don't want.
    There are unlimited dogmatic voices, all sure they have the answer. But the most important answer will come from you: do you see meaningful differences?
    When I wanted to compare film to digital I read all the theoretical discussions of film vs: digital. I did the tests myself, shooting what I like to shoot, looking at my favorite output forms. Then I decided for myself.
    Do the same. It's much more satisfying. You'll see that some of the points here apply to you. And you'll feel like you are straining your brain to make sense of what others have posted. But most of all, you'll smile and be happy knowing where the truth, as pertains to you, really is.
  84. Let. This. Thread. Die. Please.
  85. Didn't it die quite awhile ago, Dan, namely, shortly after your first response to this, er, troll?
  86. I hate the 5D II vs. 7D debates, they're apples and oranges.
  87. William a bit of advice, calm down from my own experience be careful when running down other peoples equipment, people can get very touchy and rightly so when they have spent a small fortune.
    I have the 5dMK2 and the 7d, I bought the 7d as a backup when my 5d mark1 died.I think we've established the 5d has better IQ you said that you're self. But the question is how much better? Depends on what you're shooting, I think to say the 7d is only for sports and wildlife is wrong you can do at least 80% with the 7d as you can with the 5d, does your income depend on that 20%? And the 7d does what the 5d can't. You mentioned weddings, I shot a wedding recently usually I would be using the 5d with a 24 70 2.8 L lens and a 70 200 2.8 is L on the 7d, I thought I'd swap and use the 7d with the 24 70. I really liked the 7d and I'll be doing this again, I could use the 24-70 at 70mm and get tight portraits, the focusing is better than the 5d, that doesn't make the 5d bad. ISO 3200 on a 7d was fine. And the speed and buffer is amazing.
    For landscape the 7d is fine with a good lens, canon 10-22, unless you're going to print very large but for A3 it's fine, you won't loose a lot of IQ. If I didn't have the 5d I wouldn't have a problem shooting with the 7d. For landscapes you should be using a tripod and the lowest ISO, so just from this it will minimize the difference in IQ.
    For me the 5d comes in to it's own for out of focus shots I use it a lot for food, even some of canon's L primes perform slightly worse when wide open but with the 5d I can stop it down a bit and get a better performance from my lens while still getting fantastic depth of field. The ISO noise is better than the 7d but I'm impressed that a cropped sensor gives the 5d a run for it's money.
    It seems you're starting out and I think the 7d would probably suit you better when you're clients require that 20% only the 5d can deliver, thens the time to get it. I have found in this game it's all about compromise, zooms or primes, fast and heavy lenses v slow and light. All manufacturer's won't give you one camera that will do it all, they have a name for this " BAD BUSINESS". We have to get used to it. So to answer your original question is the 5d worth the extra. Yes but only if you need it for a specific style,or you can't shoot with anything unless it gives you the best IQ or to earn money with. If you can't take a great photo with a 7d the 5d isn't going to help.
    I don't want to get in any argument here but if some people don't want the responses they got DON'T PROVOKE IT.
    And it's up to me and others if we want to participate in a discussion or not.
  88. And it's up to me and others if we want to participate in a discussion or not.
    And let's all agree to stop participating in this one. :)
  89. Please don't feed the troll :)
  90. Okay, some of you might be aware, but the 50D had a serious problem! I would like to pop a question to all you happy 7D owners. The question concerns non repearable purple fringing from 50D. I do waterports photography and found the 50D to be absolute rubbish in this case. In very backlit situations the 50D would color the water in the picture entirely purple. You do not believe? well I will post a picture to proof what I am saying. In fact 15% of all my watersport photographs are distroyed by this phenomenon. I have never seen this problem with the previously owned 20D! And so in complete dispare I have sold the 50D and bought one of the last remaining 40D's and guess what.... everything is back to perfect again. So this step up in 50% more pixels has some serious downsides, if you ask me. So you can guess my question, does the 7D display the same problem? I Really would like to buy that camera but offcourse only if its usefull. And oh yes, if I look at the 50D pictures and compare them to my 40D pictures, I find the 50D so soft that I do not see any gain in I Q in the real world over my 40D's. Maybe I am crazy but printed big size the 40D looks sharper, huhh how is that possible. And so for me the 5D markii is back in the picture.. here you can see an example, I know its not art but you'll see what I mean
  91. Douwe, you'd probably get a better response if you started a new thread. Your post is deep down in a thread containing a pissing match that many will avoid. Your serious post warrants a separate thread.
    I haven't experienced purple fringing with my 7D yet. I've only taken several hundred bird and wildlife shots (some around and across water), but nothing to match the circumstance as in your examples.
  92. I've never heard about this before I think David is right start a new thread. Can you please leave a message with the link here so we can follow it.
  93. Okay thanks will do!
  94. Douwe I don't want to bring this up in your new thread, and start another war, so I wanted to tell you now. I went to a shop again today to test the 7d and the 5d again ( different shop). The sales man told me there has been cases of the 5d over heating and shutting down when used in video mode, I don't know how long it takes to do this. But apparently this happens when using L lenses, beacause they are sealed and don't allow air inside the body when zooming thus the over heating. This is the fist time I heard any thing like this. The sales man was honest he wasn't pro nikon or anything and he didn't run the 5d down he was just saying the facts.
  95. Yup, now we can all be afraid - very afraid! - that the 5D2 is unusable in video mode with good lenses.
    Let. It. Die. Please. :)
  96. Purple fringing thread is here:
  97. Dan I just wanted to tell you the 5d I tried last showed none of the softness I spoke about before. This was the 3rd one I tried. But I have too say the images were good, I wouldn't go as far as to say they blew me away, beacuse the 7d was equally as impressive for it's ability to be close to the 5d for a cropped camera, but the 5d is one of the the best images ( proberly the best from canon), I have seen from a DSLR, the tone, coulour, I could happily shoot in jpeg with this camera and use the images with minimum editing, I don't think I could be as confident with the 7d I'd still keep shooting in RAW. Now I have seen a 5d working as it should I can start to understand why so many will put up with the issues I have with it just to have the IQ. Now canon have shown us what they are capable of, and that they can now get a image thats comparable from a APS-C to a full frame, and they don't keep the tech they have in the 7d only for the 7d. The 5D mark III should be breathtaking.
    It's a shame the first or seacond 5d didn't performe as well as the 3rd, if they did I wouldn't have posted this question.
    I have to say your one tough cookie Dan and you don't give up.
    See you around.
  98. I have used both, and overall 7D is a better camera. If AF is not top-notch and fast, what use is a camera with great IQ if you miss a shot? I am sure 5D Mark III will be breathtaking.
  99. Objective testing (see ) shows the 5D2 to be among the top two or three DSLRs, bar none. Why we're talking about something that doesn't exist as if it does, the 5D3, is beyond me.
    IME using single-spot for birds and wildlife, the AF of my 7D and 5D2 are equivalent. The high ISO performance of the 5D2 is better than the 7D, with the 7D comparable up to around 1600 ISO then falling off. (Maybe when I get a 7D module for DxO's Optics Pro that gap will close, but comparing the 7D processed with DPP to the 5D2 processed in Optics Pro, the 5D2 wins.)
    Based on my experience, users can chose between the 5D2 and the 7D based entirely on their specific needs. If you want to buy Nikon or Song, then go ahead. There's no need to bash Canon and worry about nonexistant issues. Look at the images of others with these cameras and you'll see much to admire.
  100. They are both great cameras with different strengths and weaknesses. I can see why a particular photographer might prefer either over the other for certain types of photography. For quite a few of us, the idea of owning both is attractive.

Share This Page