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

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Another disappointment was weather sealing. The 7d has it 5d doesn't. Not impressive for a £2000 camera.<br>

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<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

 

<p>William, you are right,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p><em>" what was left was rubbish"</em> One man's trash is another man's ......</p>

<p><em>"Canon might as well just put one AF point in the center."</em> 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.</p>

<p><em>"The images looked soft on the 5d at high ISO"</em> 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. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</a></p>

<p><em>"now I feel I'm going backwards"</em> 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.</p>

 

<p>I just took a look at the Imaging resourse site, and it comfirmed what I thought the images are softer from the 5d mkII</p>

<p>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</p>

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

side.

 

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.

<p>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!</p>

<p>william,</p>

 

<p>First, viewing 100% pixel crops is the worst possible way to compare cameras. The

<em>only</em> meaningful way is to make same-sized prints, ideally of the same scene, and with

post-processing tuned for each file (<em>not</em> using the same “recipe” for

both).</p>

 

<p>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.)</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I felt that if you took away the 21 MP full frame sensor, what was left was rubbish."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I you go FF, you go <em>because </em> it's FF. You go because you want better lens choices at the <a href="../photo/9727999&size=lg">wide end</a> ...<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=844914">super tele reach</a> is not all that important to you.<br>

That's my opinion.</p>

<p>I use a 5D, love it... but hope to add a 7D to the bag someday :-D</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

I would by angry with canon if I bought the 5d MKII, then they released the 7d.<br>

Check this out this video out I think it sums everything up beautifully<br>

<a href="

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>By the way, that Youtube vid was cracking, LOL!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>William, calm down. You obviously prefer the 7D and keep hammering the 5D2 so why keep posting on here? Go get a 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br /> <br /> That's probably why Canon has more than one model in their line-up....</p>

<p>The 5d2 beats the 7d hands down any day of the week on image quality, versatility, and creative potential. No contest. Not even close.</p>

<p>Ron said</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've been dying to get a piece of rubbish. Good luck with that</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have no axe to grand, but the D700/D3 wipes the floor with the Canon equivalents.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hyperbole anyone? Perhaps you are doing something wrong, since thousands of pros and seasoned veterans get outstanding results with Canon.</p>

<p>"I was hard pressed to tell the difference in noise and defiantly the 5d produces softer images at high iso" William Bray.<br>

<br /> 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?<br /> 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.</p>

<p><em>"Megapixels and video don't mean anything if Canon can't get the basics right - such as the horrendoudly antiquated autofocus!"</em><br /><em></em><br />And I wonder what those pros using 60MP digital MF backs will think of that statement, especially considering they use completely manual focus.</p>

<p><em>"I have no axe to grand, but the D700/D3 wipes the floor with the Canon equivalents."</em><br /><em></em><br />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.</p>

<p>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.</p>