Really confused: 5D Mark II vs. 7D

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by macaddicted, Dec 20, 2009.

  1. Ok, I'm really confused.
    Backstory: I've been a reasonably proficient amateur for 30 years (good enough to chimp, not good enough to sell. ;-) ). About two years ago I indulged my sticker/feature envy and went to a 1D Mk III from a 5D. I was working on HDR and wanted the wider bracketing and higher frame rate. I had to sell the camera a bit a go to pay some bills (sucks owning your own business in this economy), but am ready to pick up a replacement main body.
    Another point is my physical problems: I have both constant vertigo and rheumatoid arthritis. So the wide angle nature photography I enjoyed really isn't an option. The 1D hurt to carry, much less shoot with.
    Lastly, I have two AB lights and a fairly good selection of modifiers from Photoflex. I am looking at getting into studio still life (and product, if I absolutely have to) at home. Oh, and I have a 20D I've kept as a backup, and a few L glass zooms.
    I've been looking at the reviews, reading here and elsewhere and I can't make a decision on what I should plan for. I had an original 5D and loved it, in fact I probably shouldn't have bought the 1D- it was more camera than I needed for what I wanted it to do. I learned my lesson there.
    What I can't figure out is where the cameras fit in terms of overall quality. The 1D systems are obvious, and I'm not going there again anytime soon. Am I right in thinking the 5D II is sort of a poor man's 1Ds III, and that the 7D is the same to the 1D III/IV? Am I right in thinking that outputting the images in the 16x20 to 20x24 range I'm not going to notice THAT much difference? I know that I am doing this for personal enjoyment, and outside of the occasional photo club critique/competition I don't think I'll be printing the images very big. My objectives for use have changed too. I don't need the ultra wide angle capability because the opportunities to use such a lens seldom happen now. The price difference between the 5D II and 7D is not enough to make it a significant factor
    Ultimately what I think I am asking is this: does the 5D Mark II have features, whether in usability or image capture, that justify it's added expense to the semi-advanced amateur? Or am I better off with the 7D and putting the savings towards a decent panorama head?.
     
  2. Fairly easy :
    • For landscape, portraits, architecture and low light -> 5D²
    • For sports, wildlife and macro -> 7D
     
  3. I have to disagree with Xavier. His advice is the typical full frame vs crop advice, but I don't think it applies in the case of the 7D. Answer the following two questions:
    * Will you regularly produce large prints (i.e. 16x24 or greater) from high ISO (i.e. 3200 or higher) shots?
    * Do you own, or will you soon purchase, lenses that really benefit from their stated focal length and therefore are best mounted on a FF sensor, such as the Canon 17mm T/S or a fast, wide prime like the 24 f/1.4L?
    If you've answered yes to either question, get the 5D mkII.
    If not, get the 7D.
    Nobody could reliably tell 20x30 prints from a 5D mkII and a 7D at low to mid ISO, and the 7D has the better body and feature set by a wide margin. If you have any question about what the 7D can do in a studio, Canon has a 7D sample portrait image at their Japan site. The file is what you would expect from a FF body and would easily make a 20x30 print. It's absolutely gorgeous. http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos7d/downloads/001.jpg
     
  4. If you are a lover of wide angle lenses, or for one reason or another shoot at high ISO (1600 etc.) get the the 5D Mark II. If you are a birder or sports shooter you are better off with the 7D. If you don't know, get the 7D. If you need or want the FF (like me) you'll know.
     
  5. David,
    Daniel is absolutely right. The 5DII does have superior image quality and low light performance to the 7D, but you’d never know it unless your printer takes paper by the roll and ink by the pint. Heck, at common print sizes, even the original Digital Rebel has all the IQ one needs.
    I would tentatively disagree with Daniel’s second point. The two lenses he used as examples are about the only ones that don’t have comparable equivalents in an EF-S mount, and, these days, the EF-S lenses are fantastic matches to their EF counterparts.
    Cheers,
    b&
     
  6. Ben - that was my point, though perhaps I wasn't clear. Unless you have one of a few, very specific lenses in the Canon system, you lose nothing going with crop over FF. I consider several of the wide angle options now available to be equal to or better than their FF equivalents (i.e. Tokina 11-16 vs. Canon 16-35). You don't need FF for good wide angle. As you point out, the EF-S and 3rd party options are excellent.
    But some people do need something like a T/S 17mm, and for them FF is the only option.
     
  7. Hi David,
    The main reason I switched to full frame was so that I can enjoy the beautiful shallow depth of field that full frame offers. That, and the high ISO quality would prevent me from buying a 7D. If you're going to use wide apertures to isolate subjects in your studio shoots then the depth of field issue is a major factor to consider.
    The 7D is definitely the best all round camera on the market right now but if you need the utmost quality, good high ISO performance and shallow depth of field then the 5D2 is superior in those aspects. Fast AF, high frame rate, built in flash and a cropped sensor from the 7D isn't going to offer any advantage whatsoever inside a studio.
     
  8. Based on what you described - studio work, product shots etc. I would pick the 5DII over the 7D - no matter what anyone says there is a difference between those two cameras in Image Quality. Heck, I even think the good old 5D classic beats the 7D in pure Image Quality. If you don't need lighting fast AF and 8fps, then the 5DII is the way to go -just my 2 cents.
     
  9. I don't typically shoot at high ISO, and 16x24 is about as large as I need to go. I have a cluster of L glass I picked up that gives me coverage from 17-400 (actual). I can't foresee using a TS lens, and (holy mackerel $$) won't be getting a 24 f/1.4. I could see getting a 50 or 60 macro or perhaps the 50 f/1.4 for playing around with DOF, but not the others. If I need wide I'll look into one of the 10 or 11mm zooms. Need detail? Stick the system on a tripod, fire off 6 or 8 frames and stack them.
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm leaning towards the 7D. As Ben noted I would likely not notice the difference at sizes I would likely be printing.
    And besides, I really would like to try panoramas. There are some places I've shot that even a FF can't do justice. Thanks again to all.
     
  10. The market focus for the 5DMkII is all about image quality. Very good low light performance. The 7D on the other hand is more focused on action and speed. Its smaller sensor is not quite as good as the 5DMkII. But it can take 10 frames per second and has a new focusing system that is geared for following moving objects.
    If you were making a living taking pictures of sporting events or birds the 7D is an obviouse choice. However for studio work you don't need 8fps or the ability to track moving objects. But you do need to be able to get the overall best possible image. In that case the 5DMkII is the better choice.
     
  11. From my experience, the 1D Mk III outresolved any lower priced camera including the 5D, but not by much. You could tell on a regular basis which was the more expensive camera. Unfortunately, the 1D Mk III is a very bulky camera. Certainly not the camera you would want to carry around if you wanted to be discrete, or if you suffer from rheumatoid arthritis...
     
  12. Yah' see, just when I think I've gotten the info to make up my mind...
    The studio stuff is so I can continue in some manner in photography, but go sit down when I 'm not feeling well. It's personal work that likely won't circulate past my front door. The product photography is for those times when I don't have a shot I need for my web site or advertising. My 20D would probably give me acceptable results for that.
    On the other hand I'm not shooting sports or birds (why does that sound menacing) so the extra focal length and frame rate isn't as much of a factor. I suppose it could be useful for HDR type stuff- less time between frames, or image stacking (who does that?).
    So now I'm a little less in the 7D camp. If I had to choose today I'd still go with the 7D. Don't have to choose today, but when I do you've all given me the kind of feedback I was seeking. Thank you.
     
  13. David - I own both but of the two I prefer the 5DII - largely for IQ and DOF / wide angle reasons. The only advantage you may find with the 7D (beyond the price difference) is the wireless flash and built in flash (which can be useful for those odd occasions where you don't want to carry a flash gun). Both are very good cameras but if you have a full frame lens line up the 5DII is the one I would suggest. The 7D advantages are the better AF, higher frame rate, built in flash and wireless capability in addition it has the 1.6x factor which is useful for sports. The 5DII advantages are high ISO, image quality and wide angle capability. So if you can pay the extra the 5DII is the one i would suggest.
     
  14. David - here's your image quality difference at ISO 400 (crops from the Imaging Resource studio samples). I resized the 7D file to the same dimensions as the 5D2 and added a bit of USM to compensate for the resizing. Unfortunately their framing is a tad off so the 5D2 bottle is a bit smaller. Still, you can see the 5D2 has a hair better resolution. And if you go look at the full sample you can see it has a bit less noise in the shadows.
    But guess what? Not a soul on Earth could tell them apart printed to 20x30. (These crops, viewed on a monitor, would be like crops from a 65" print.)
    You need to ask yourself if there's $1,000 worth of difference there, or if you would be better off saving the money or using it on additional equipment (lens, more lights, whatever).
    00VIsm-202431584.jpg
     
  15. Oh yeah...if you want to knock yourself out viewing all types of studio tests and samples:
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
     
  16. I have a simple opinion. The bodies you described, both 1.6 crop and 1.0 crop, will more than do the job for you although I have a 5D and am constantly amazed at what I see when retouching at 300 per cent crop when redoing an eyelash. After over twenty years of EOS ownership, several of which were in my own photo business and with a newspaper, I have formed the opinion that I only want to exchange equipment when I have equipment that doesn't work well for me. Case in point, I got rid of the EOS D60 not because it didn't take satisfactory pictures but because the focus and delay were driving me nuts. I won awards for pictures taken with that body. A case in point the other way was when I abandoned Medium Format in 2002 to go into digital. I had worked with my Bronica system for a long time and was totally comfortable with it being mostly manual, handling the bodies and speed grip,winder, and using fill with Vivitar 283s flashes (I still get surprised by Canon flashes more than I did with the 283s). I got very nice pictures with it (although I don't miss my smelly, hot darkroom). I regret not keeping that MF gear when I went digital. I would be very pleased to own either body you are considering and would endeavor to make the best of whatever I possessed. As someone said you won't see discernable difference in the pictures. The problem, IMO, reduces itself to simple ergonomics. With your stated limitations it may be best just to handle the equipment, judge the ease of operation and pick the one that makes you the most physically comfortable. One of my bodies is an XTi and with the 18-55 IS it weighs less about 2.5 pounds, I use it occasionally when I want to go light. It takes passable pictures. Best of Luck.
     
  17. Thank you Daniel. That was nice of you to put together. I had looked at the site a couple days ago but seeing the crops side by side helps.
    Something Dick wrote struck a chord. I started with a Nikon FM and shot with that until I went digital. I was never happy with the x0D bodies and I think until just now I didn't know why. I could never seen to adapt myself to the crop. What I visualized as I framed in image in my mind and what I saw in the viewfinder were vastly different. What drives the point home is the fact that I was so much happier with the 5D. In looking back I wonder if I didn't give myself enough of a chance to re-learn how to pre-image my shots. It's sorta like going back and forth between a Mac and PC. The OS's do so many things the same way that the differences make you crazy.
    I'm still not thoroughly convinced that the 5D II has enough separation from the 7D to be worth the extra money in my case. Were it a comparison between the 50D and the 5D II it would be no choice, I would choose the 5D II. Even between the 7D and 50D I would take the 7D. There's another thread in the forum right now about DOF and resolution between the two cameras. I'm going to look at the links Daniel put up there before I make a final decision.
     
  18. I went from a 40D to a 5D2 ( never shot film so I pretty much started on APS-C ) The low light performance is pretty amazing and if you print large or not its still a very useful function. Yes I understand you see the advantage more if your printing large but how about cropping in and getting a clean useable print. If low light, wide angle, shallow DOF is your thing you will love a 5d2.
    I am a very happy 5d2 owner but its really a tough call if its worth the extra money over a 7D. I never used a 7D but I was pretty happy with a 40D so I am sure the 7D is more then capable.
    Good luck with it.
     
  19. Very simple as if u have invested in cannon lence stick to cannon ,beacuse the face vaule is that its you creativity not the camera will make a different turst me on it as i was is USA doing classical fine art,and commercial photography i did use leica M8, cannon5D,fujiS2 and fujis5pro ehich they stop producing ,PENTAX ,and persentely having D200,D300s the best thing is that i can do thesame stuff with these kind of camera , but buy end of the day it your call.
    Regarsd,
    mickey pradhan
    00VIyl-202497584.jpg
     
  20. One thing the 7D can't do:
    00VIz1-202499584.jpg
     
  21. What a wonderful dilemma to have. We are just so fortunate to have a choice between these superb bodies. I my case I went with a 7D. Its feature set swung it for me, the hi-res in low light argument not really making it worth going for the 5D MkII for what I do. I had a 5D and sold it some six months back in order to hold out for the MkII. But when I tried the 7 and 5 back to back, the feature set of the 7D won we over. I am staggered still by its ability to focus in tricky light and catch faster motion. The money I saved over the 5D MkII remains enough to address a key issue I had with 1.6 crop - it does not allow my 16-35 lens to deliver the wide angles I bought it for back in my film days. But it is not as big a deal as I thought, and a few days with a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 has also seen my previous Canon only lens allegiance threatened. In the UK, Canon outlet has had numerous 5D Mk II bodies up for grabs. Still a lot on their e-bay sight today. So if you are keen, look for a refurbed body from suppliers where you are. Every bit as good as new, in my experience, and with a full 1 year warranty if sourced through Canon. I have not seen many - if any - 7D refurb offers, but you never know. The key, however, is to USE both bodies before making a choice. I was an FF 'snob' until I actually tried a 1.6 body. It is what YOU want from a body that counts, nothing else.
     
  22. This man has said that the difference in price between the 7d and the 5dmk2 is a factor, I can't belive that people are recomending the 5dmk2 and to get a good lens for wide angle on a full farme would be the 17-40 = £600 or the 16-35= £1200. I have seen some samples of the sigma 12-24 and while there may be good examples out there, but the ones I have seen have been poor opticaly and you can't fit a polarizer on them.
    Bottom line the 5dmk2 does give better iq, But by how much, a lot of reviews and opinions you'll find will say the difference is massive just as many will say it's small.
    The iq on the 5d is great, but than agin it should be, beacuse you are paying for a £2000 sensor, the body certanly isn't worth £2000. The fact it the 7d is the camera the 5dmk2 should have been.
    I'm getting a little tired of this 7D only for sports and the 5d is the only camera for landscapes.Landscapes should be taken on a tripod at the lowest ISO, using this technique you won't see much difference. And you can happily shoot with a 7d and a sigma 10-20.
    In the studio you are controlling the enviroment with lighting so ISO performane shouldn't be a issue
    To qoute something I read elsewhere, " People had trouble deciding between the 7d and the 5dmk2 when they were close in price, that in it's self shows how good the 7d is that it was a hard decision between a APS-c and a FF camera simarly priced, now the difference is £600 it has made that decision easy."
    The 5dmk2 has a below average body for a camera in this price range, but it gives great IQ at high ISO. The 7d is fine up to 3200 ISO.
    I have heard that the 5dmk2 is the must have for portrait becuse of the shallow DOF, this is true to some extent but not everyone wants just their pupil in focus.If you're using a 16-35 lens, shooting at high ISO a lot, you like getting very shalow DOF shots, or you're doing advertising where they have to print massive, then the 5dmk2 is you're camera.
    For everything else get th 7D.
    I don't know if I'am the only one but I'am amazed more at the quality of the 7d then I'am the 5dMK2. I would expect a FF camera to perform as does th 5d, so for me it wasn't a shock when I saw the quality of the images. But I didn't expect a APS-C camera to be not far behind it.
     
  23. AF speed and AF coverage is very important to me. I thus went from 1D to 40D to 7D. The 5D and 5D2 were never an option. Obviously, if you only shoot with the central AF point then this is a moot point.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  24. I have a 7D and a 5dmk2 I need the 5d for certain shots for clients, eg food, architectural.
    What Yakim has said reminded me of an issue I have with the 5d, is it's AF. The 5d is perfect for low light due to the FF sensor and great noise control, but it does hunt a bit in low light, unlike the 7d. So sometimes I have switched to the 7d in low light because of the AF,when I'm taking shots of bands and concerts. I'm not happy with the 5d's AF even more so after buying the 7d and seeing what Canon are capable of.
    I know I'm not going to make alot of people happy by saying this, but if I didn't need the 5d for work and that I have lenses that would be wasted on a crop camera, I would choose the 7d over the 5d. The fact that I have a great camera for low low light but sometimes I use another camera that has worse noise because I can't trust the AF of the 5d is not acceptable. I'd choose a noisy but sharp image than a noise free but out of focus image anyday.
     
  25. Do you like to shoot very shallow depth of field shots? The 5D II and other full-frame cameras will give better results in that regard, not just on wide angle.
    I aslo like being able to shoot hand-held in low light. The 5D II is hard to beat in that department.
    Getting shots in focus has never been a particular problem for me with full-frame cameras, although I have heard that complaint from time to time.
    --Lannie
     
  26. How does the 5D2 compare in auto focus to a 20 or 30d? I personally find the auto focus to work pretty well ( I used a 40D, 5D and some rebels and I find it works at least as well ). It rarely hunts in low light ( and thats mostly what I shoot in ) Is that not more of a lens issue?
     
  27. Hmmm, I believe I need to explain why the following kind of photography might be better on the 5D² independently of the "larger prints" criteria.
    • Portrait : because a 5D² + 135 f/2 L is lighter and cheaper than a 7D + 85 f/1.2 L (for equivalent shallow depth of field and blurred backgrounds). [#1 for me]
    • Architecture : because you would either use tilt/shift lenses or need sufficient extra resolution to recover perspective in post-processing.
    • Low-Light : because an sRAW1 ISO 6400 5D² file is just unbelievable.
    • Landscape : only if you don't use a heavy tripod (higher ISO), otherwise I believe 7D is about equivalent.
    If none of these ring a bell, then by all means get the 7D.
    Oh, and concerning weight, you might want to leave the zoom on its shelf more often, knowing that cropping lighter prime lenses images gives excellent results on the 5D² ;-)
     
  28. How shallow does the DoF need to be?

    I recently shot portraits on a 15mp crop using a 100/2.8 lens and it was pretty shallow. My advice would be to try them
    both and to stop reading...
     
  29. Low-Light : because an sRAW1 ISO 6400 5D² file is just unbelievable.​
    Xavier, your comment intrigued me. I have never used sRAW1 or sRAW2. I just assumed they were the same quality but smaller. Are you saying that high ISO quality is better using sRAW1 compared to standard RAW? Or am I reading into something I shouldn't be?
     
  30. Vertigo. Have you ever tried shooting with live-view? Both the 5D2 and 7D have it. Maybe this will help. Maybe it'll make it worse. Worth a try.
     
  31. Jamie,
    The sRAW1 format is in fact very different from RAW (14 bits per pixel Bayer matrix): it is already demosaiced and is coded in YCbCr. Luminosity information is coded with 15 bits and chrominance with 2x15 bits every 4 pixels. Therefore, it is very effective at higher ISO settings where chrominance noise will be smoothed out (very impressive at ISO 6400).
    Concerning focusing (a few tips here), the center AF point is very good in low light; much much better than my old 20D.
    00VJEa-202605584.jpg
     
  32. Hmm. Reading this over and now more confused than ever. Right now, hold on to your seats, I am using a Nikon D40X. I have outgrown it and need something with more, well everything.

    I am willing to switch from Nikon to Cannon if the camera is right.

    My main passion is landscape with portraits on the side. I shoot sports as I have children. So..with the two main uses being a bit different what of these two cameras would best suit me. From what I am reading..I would need the two of them. ACK!
     
  33. Katrina, you won't need two of them. By far the best all round camera of them all is the Canon 7D. It does everything you could ever wish for. It's a great sports action camera and will handle landscapes and portraits beautifully. The 5D2 is more expensive but it has slight advantages with super wide angle lenses, slightly better at high ISO, shallower depth of field and marginly better image quality. Aside from those minor differences the 7D is better in almost every other aspect. I am not biased towards the 7D, I own the 5D2.
    Xavier, that is extremely interesting. I have never considered that sRAW could perform differently. I must get out there and experiment with mine. Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention.
     
  34. @Katrina: Good, so it's not just me. But the price difference buys a really nice panoramic head from ReallyRightStuff or Manfrotto.
    @Xavier: Thanks. Is there an English translation available?
     
  35. I'm in the same situation as Katrina, with one difference. My son plays competitive hockey, and often the arenas are not well lit. I presently have a 50d with a great 70-200 2.8 IS lens.

    At 1/500 atd 2.8 I have to use ISO 1600 and I find the quality not adequate.
    With the the quicker focusing 7D vs the better high ISO 5Dm2, who comes out ahead.
    A higher miss rate is ok, but I want hq photos. Any thoughts?
     
  36. Mind if I play through?
    [​IMG]
     
  37. Katrina and Cen, first of all let me say that it's better not to divert a thread from its orignal path. Rather, open a new one (after searching, of course).
    Second, before switching think well on the lenses you want to use. For me, it's the lens selection that keeps me in Canon. Only if you are absolutely sure that the lenses in both systems are equivalent for you, think about which bodies to attach to them.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  38. When using a 35mm lens, a crop camera only uses roughly 1/3rd of the information captured by the lens and discards the rest. The difference in detail will be sizable (obviously).
    I shoot MF and this discussion, comparing between formats, has long existed and the principles have not changed. Applications, convenience and features - as most pointed out- need to be considered.
    Imagine both cameras had 500 megapixels with no noise. A 1/3 crop is still a 1/3 crop. It is a smaller format.
     
  39. Sorry I my question was off the main topic. I guess I should of asked if someone could sum this up in more simpler language.
     
  40. Katrina you're question is not that far away from the main subject. You're right when you first said that it looks like you need both of them, I would only say thats true if money is no object or you need both to earn money with.
    I have both and I would not recommend getting a 5dmk2 to somebody who doesn't fall into either of those categories, only if 80% of the photo's you do fall into what the 5dmk2 can do better than the 7d, and thats not a lot of people.
    To be honest I don't think the 5dmk2 is worth £2000 unless you can get the money back by doing jobs with it.
    I thought the 7d was way over priced when it fist came out, I only bought it when the prices drooped, now at the current price I think it is one of the best cameras you can buy.
    What Yakim said about the the lenses you have when thinking about swapping to Nikon or canon also applies here when deciding between crop or full frame.
    Have another look at the photos that Daniel lee Taylor posted here. Do you want to pay £1000 more for that much of a difference in IQ. The 5dmk2 is only worth the money to you if you are going to use it for what makes it different to the 7d, you need to be shooting regularly at high ISO, you're regularly printing at A2 and above, you have thousands of pounds worth of wide angle lenses that are no good on a crop camera. Otherwise you've bought a camera that is great for 20% or 10% of the photos you do but for the rest the 7d would have been better or you couldn't tell the difference.
    If you're heart it set on a FF camera and it wasn't urgent that you have one now I would try to hold off for the moment and see if a 5dmk3 would be coming out in 2010. Because I think it's not just the 7d body thats different from the 5dmk2 but also the way the image is processed. We wouldn't have had this discussion 4 years ago comparing a 18mp crop camera to a FF camera. Which makes me wonder how good the IQ from FF camera with the everything from the 7d ( not just the AF) would be.
     
  41. Katrina, if your "passion" is landscape, then get the 5D MkII. I own both the 7D and the 5D MkII and the 7D doesn't come close to the full frame on scenics. The full-frame is also excellent for childrens' sports, but not as good as the 7D for that purpose. You'll be overjoyed with the IQ of the 5D MkII on landscapes, it's simply stunning.
    I use my 7D 99% of the time for wildlife photography, taking advantage of the larger image in the viewfinder and its fast 8-fps burst rate and faster AF; the 5D MkII is used for everything else, where it's full frame sensor yields wider angles, superior IQ and much better high-ISO performance. The 7D is "ok" on landscapes while the 5D MkII is "stunning", IMHO, as an owner and user of both.
     
  42. The 7D is a great camera, no doubt. It is another step forward for camera tech. Several have given good advice here, however, IMO a couple of things to consider: DOF, ISO, and IQ.
    The 5D MkII will have the same depth of field as your old 5D. Additionally, if you like to use DOF creatively, you will get more chances to do that with the 5D MkII. With Macro this can be somewhat of a challenge.
    If you need to shoot in low light the 5D MkII is great. If you don't, then it won't help much. I've pretty much abused my 5D MkII since I got it by shooting way too much in low light, and I have decent images from it and would not have with earlier gen cameras. The technology is making high ISO very usable, and the 7D will be pretty good as well.
    IMO, full frame IQ is great. Medium format would be a lot better, but way out of my price range. Somewhat better than you old 5D. The 7D I'm sure is very good as well, but for me the smaller sensors just fall a little short. I've made some fantastic large prints with my old XTI, but I made the jump to FF and I'm not going back. And if I would win the lottery I'd jump to MF.
    If you loved your old 5D, it will be a lot like that in Image Quality but a little better.
     
  43. Just remember that on the 5dmk2 you'll need good wide angle lenses, from what I've seen the 5dmk2 pushes the 17-40 to it's limits and doesn't show off what the 5dmk2 can do, I know a couple of photographers who after buying the 5dmk2 got rid of their 17-40 and got a 16-35 , so if IQ is everything you'll going to need a 16-35 2.8 mk2 lens costing £1200.
    Bringing the total with the 5dmk2 to around £3200
    Someone mentioned here the tokina 11-16 and that is excellent, and the samples I've seen I would agree and it costs around £400-£500
    So the price of a 7d and a tokina 11-16 2.8 is going to be less then the 5dmk2.
    May be you already own a 16-35 2.8,or you can afford it, I'm just making the point that it's easy to forget hidden extras when buying new kit.
    While there is no doubt the 5dmk2 is going to give better IQ, I've always thought lenses are more important than the camera, I don't mean to repeat my self but for landscapes if you're using the right technique I don't see much of a difference between the 5d and the 7d if you're using good lenses. For me on just IQ the biggest difference between the two is noise.
     
  44. The 16-35mm is a totally different lens on the FF 5D MkII than on the 7D, with vastly different perspective. It's difficult to compare the IQ of the 7D and 5D2 in with wide-angle lenses because you need more than one image on the 7D to equal the image of the FF sensor. Buying a EF 24-105mm f4L IS as the "kit" lens with the 5D2 is an incredible bargain, yielding excellent results at its widest range, when used properly and post processed well. For a landscape specialist there are superior lenses, but for versatility it's hard to beat the 24-105mm f4L IS.
    As the owner of both the 7D and 5D2, the IQ of MY 5D2 is clearly superior to the MY 7D. However, they are both excellent. When friends ask, I suggest the 5D2 for landscape, portraits and general photography and the 7D for wildlife, sports and macro (although the 5D2 is fine for macro also).
     
  45. Thank you for responding back and it is all making sense. I guess I really should just sit and evaluate my needs and wants and go from there. :)
     
  46. from what I've seen the 5dmk2 pushes the 17-40 to it's limits​
    If that's the case, the 50D and 7D will push the same lens even further due to their much higher pixel density. Theoretically, the 7D should require the best glass of all. In practice I can't see any decent lens being pushed to its limit by the 5D2.
     
  47. Hi David I,m not sure where you're coming from I wasn't saying to put a 16-35 on a 7d quite the opposite I was saying if you own a 16-35 that would make you buy a 5d on that basis alone.
    I don't understand what you mean by with wide-angle lenses because you need more than one image on the 7D to equal the image of the FF sensor.
    The 24-105 is versatile, but the 24-70 is better optically and is the lens most pros will have in their bag along with a 70-200 2.8. The 24-105 is a good travel lens and a good jack of all trades and master of none lens, but if IQ is important I would think twice before buying it.
    Also can you honestly look at the photos that David Lee Taylor posted here
    http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VIsm-202431584.jpg
    and still say the 5dmk2 is clearly Superior than the 7D
     
  48. @David: all my links were in english, so I suppose you mean that my sRAW1 explanation was too technical. It all boils down to sRAW1 smoothing chrominance a bit and leads you to a 10 MPixels file that is somewhat already filtered for higher ISO.
    @Katrina: we have approximately the same interests...
    • You did put Landscape first, and I believe you won't want to haul a heavy tripod. The 5D² will enable cleaner higher ISO at smaller apertures (deeper depth of field). Especially at dusk.
    • For portraits, the shallower depth of field will help to have your children pop out of a blurred background.
    • Now for sports, the 7D would surely be better, but I do manage quite well with the 5D². I use centered AI-Servo which is very effective, even in lower light. I then have enough pixels to crop and place my subject adequately in post-processing (cropping a centered subject to the thirds leaves you with 12 MPixels).
    • And I'm sure you will take pictures of your kids in low-light, in that case it's a no brainer.
    00VJfe-202817684.jpg
     
  49. You're not going to get much better conditions in the field, from a viewpoint of detail and sharpness, than Imaging Resource gets in their lab. Again I should note that I applied a little sharpening after resizing the 7D image. I bring this up because I've seen countless people compare crop and FF images with equal processing when crop images need a touch more sharpening. This is because a crop sensor resolves scene details at a lower point on the lens MTF curve. A crop sensor is not recording only 1/3rd as much information as Mauro incorrectly states. It doesn't work that way because a lens has resolution to spare at either pixel density, but the contrast of the resolved detail drops lower as pixel density increases. (I forget what my USM settings were, something like 0.5 @ 50%.)
    The 5D2 is slightly better and slightly cleaner under best conditions at low to mid ISO. Out of the camera it gives a better first impression than the crop I provided shows because out of the camera it's sharper than the 7D (higher MTF). But again, they're close enough that it's something you can nearly eliminate in post processing.
    If you're seeing a more dramatic difference in either direction then some other factor compromised the sensor. I do believe some of the people who say they own both and feel the 5D2 is much better, but I also believe they are not accounting for some confounding factor in the comparison. Lens quality difference, diffraction at chosen aperture (starts to hit the 7D at f/7), camera body settings, whatever. Set everything up properly in a carefully controlled test and the difference you should see should be about the difference I showed in those two crops.
    Again, at high ISO it's no contest. The 5D2 retains detail at high ISO like no other camera. And if you need to use, say, a 17mm T/S, it's no contest. But these needs don't apply to most photographers spending their hard earned money, and the 7D is a much more refined body.
     
  50. Unfortunately dpreview changed their studio scene between the 5D2 and 7D reviews, but there are still similar elements and the sizing isn't too far off. If you take those and apply a touch of sharpening to the 7D file, you see pretty much the same fine detail as the 5D2. The 5D2 has a slight edge, but nothing that would stand out in print.
    Jamie - I have the 17-40L and like it, but I can't imagine it would do the 5D2 justice. The corners get too soft and mushy on FF. Quite frankly the Tokina 11-16 on a crop sensor is a much better combination. If you're looking at that FoV range, you need to price a 16-35 II for the 5D2. Or wait for Canon's rumored 14-24 competitor.
    I'm not saying I wouldn't go shoot if all I had were a 5D2 and a 17-40L. But if I had went the 5D2 route, I would have been looking to upgrade that lens eventually.
     
  51. The 24-105 is a good travel lens and a good jack of all trades and master of none lens, but if IQ is important I would think twice before buying it.​

    Any zoom lens is a jack of all trades and master of none. There are no zooms that can match a top quality prime. I do think you're being too harsh on the 24-105. For a 4x zoom lens with a fixed aperture it's no less incredible than the 3x 24-70.
     
  52. Someone calling themselves "picture it" said:
    "I don't understand what you mean by with wide-angle lenses because you need more than one image on the 7D to equal the image of the FF sensor."
    If you use a 24mm lens on a 1.6 crop-sensor, it'll yield a field of view equivalent to a 38.4mm lens on a FF sensor. To show the same content as in the full-frame camera with the same lens will require either more than one image or moving further away from the subject, which generally can't be done on a scenic.
    Look at http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM to compare the IQ of the 7D and 5D2. They're obviously different. Both are good, but the 5D2 is better to my eye. This gets aggravated if you shoot a lot at dawn and dusk, where the need for high ISO emphasizes the 5D2's advantages. Did you mean Daniel Lee Taylor? Anyway, Imaging-Resource seems independant to me and not too huge up on any one body.
    Regarding the 24-105mm f4L IS, it's an excellent lens. As I said, it requires proper PP for ultimate performance. I find that DxO's Optics Pro 6.1 takes this lens to a very high level. Several of the other lenses suggested are also quite good and may or may not be preferred, depending on the OP's priorities.
    Like I've said several times, I own both the 7D and the 5D2 and would suggest the 5D2 to any friend that was focused on landscapes, portraits and general photography, while I'd suggest the 7D to those that would focus on wildlife and sports.
     
  53. Daniel, thanks for the nice clarification about comparing the 5D2 and 7D. I agree completely with your analysis. I'm biased toward my 5D2 because of my propensity to shoot pre-dawn and post-dusk landscapes. Even so, I'm biased to my 7D for the larger wildlife target image in the viewfinder, faster AF and faster burst rate. I consider them different tools for different jobs. If money were limiting me and I could have only one, I'd go for the 7D because wildlife photography is my highest priority and make do with the wildlife.
    For anyone that can afford both, I don't know why you would won't both a FF and a crop-sensor camera around your neck at the same time. I find myself moving from one to the other almost every time that I venture out.
     
  54. Stick both on a tripod, put excellent glass on each, fire a test. Difference at 16x24.....nothing. Ask yourself honestly....and I mean HONESTLY....how often do you print bigger than that?
    I have come to love the 7D. I just did some 16x20 prints from it of a family portait session at a local park. The detail was stunning....the color superb....and even though the iso was set at 400, there was no noise in the image. At that size, there really was no advantage to shooting with my medium format film gear.....none.
     
  55. "David Stephens , Dec 22, 2009; 11:15 a.m. Katrina, if your "passion" is landscape, then get the 5D MkII. I own both the 7D and the 5D MkII and the 7D doesn't come close to the full frame on scenics. The full-frame is also excellent for childrens' sports, but not as good as the 7D for that purpose. You'll be overjoyed with the IQ of the 5D MkII on landscapes, it's simply stunning. I use my 7D 99% of the time for wildlife photography, taking advantage of the larger image in the viewfinder and its fast 8-fps burst rate and faster AF; the 5D MkII is used for everything else, where it's full frame sensor yields wider angles, superior IQ and much better high-ISO performance. The 7D is "ok" on landscapes while the 5D MkII is "stunning", IMHO, as an owner and user of both."
    I'm curious David....all this talk about wide, wide angles. There is a 10-22 Canon lens available giving a 16mm equivalent. Most of the wide angle landscapes one sees from the best out there over the last 50 years are from MF and LF film gear....and not using extreme wides. I think this issue is far overdone. Also, for landscapes, a tripod is a must. And as such, I shoot landscapes at iso 100 or 200 or 400....non of which exhibit any noise from either camera at 16x24 or 20x30.....so again, for landscapes, not really an issue.
    Finally, even with the best glass Canon has to offer, from full frame bodies, I see softness in the corners....even at f/8. I see far less on the 7D because of the crop sensor. A 16-35II is razor sharp to the corners on the 7D....not so on the 5D2.
    With the above in mind, I find the comment on superior image quality in favour of the 5D2 to be questionable....and yes, I've used both, and own the 7D.
     
  56. Is it me or what?
    David are you aware of the existence of 10-20mm,12-24mm,10-22mm 11-16mm lenses! That will give you a focal length of at least 16mm on a crop camera thats not a million miles away from 16mm.on a FF.
    This is why I couldn't understand you're point and I still can't understand your point of basically taking a series of panoramic shots to make up for the wide angle you loose when using EF lenses on a crop camera.
    They have been making wide angle lenses for crop camera for some years now.
     
  57. Also David you said "I don't know why you would won't both a FF and a crop-sensor camera around your neck at the same time. "
    You have them as a backup for example weddings and I have a 70-200 2.8 IS on my 7D and a 24-70 2.8 L lens on my 5dmk2 and have them both at hand for speed.
    Newsflash
    YOU OWN BOTH!
    Whats you're reason?
     
  58. Both messages are ment for David Stephens not Dave Luttmann
    I should have made that clear sorry.
    And Jamie the reason the 5dmk2 pushes lenses to the limit is partly due to the 21mp and FF but most of all it will use all the lens not just the center as does a crop camera. And lenses are generaly worse at the edges. Add that to the FF and the 21mp and you could end up with some dodgy corners
     
  59. I don't think wide angle should be a reason to choose one or the other camera. There are good wide angle lenses for APS-C nowadays.
     
  60. which one is better for macro?
     
  61. Daniel, you may have miss read the my statement. I said:
    "a crop camera only uses roughly 1/3rd of the information captured by the lens".
    I agree with you that a good lens has plenty of information for the 5D2 pixel density, even away from the center. A crop sensor discards roughly 2/3rd of the image project by a 35mm lens on the film plane.
     
  62. f IQ is important I would think twice before buying [a 24-105].

    I doubt that the poster has ever used the 24-105; otherwise, he wouldn't have made such an obviously unfounded statement.
     
  63. Mr. picture it said:
    "Newsflash
    YOU OWN BOTH!
    Whats you're reason?"
    I don't have to defend that, but I will and already have referred to my usage of both already in this thread. When shooting birds and other wildlife, I gimbal mount my 400mm with the 7D on a tripod. I keep the 5D2 around my neck, with either the 24-105mm or the 70-200mm depending on what secondery use I my need (landscape vs. a herd or flock of animals). BTW, DxO's Optics Pro 6.1 automatically corrects for most of the geometric errors caused by the 24mm on FF combination and sharpens that lens, the 24-105mm f4L IS, considerably.
    Mr p.i. also said:
    "David are you aware of the existence of 10-20mm,12-24mm,10-22mm 11-16mm lenses! That will give you a focal length of at least 16mm on a crop camera thats not a million miles away from 16mm.on a FF.
    This is why I couldn't understand you're point and I still can't understand your point of basically taking a series of panoramic shots to make up for the wide angle you loose when using EF lenses on a crop camera."
    When you put the same wide angle lens on a 7D and a 5D2 it'll require multiple images on the 7D to cover the same field of view. I'm almost certain that you understood that.
    Once again, I'd like to refer readers to http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM where they can compare for themselves. If they see no difference in IQ between the 5D2 and the 7D, then they should buy the 7D and save some money. If they see a difference and that's important to them, then they sound consider the 5D2. The choice will lead to a different compliment of lens choices, due to the crop vs. FF.
    Let's not forget that the OP has len kit built around the 5D and 1D MkIII, including the excellent 24 f1.4. I could be wrong, but I think he's asking about bodies in the context of his usage and his existing kit. The price difference between the 7D and 5D2 is not an important factor to him. He seems to be considering the 7D because of some raves that his read, that it might match the IQ of the 5D2. I say that he should way changing from ff to crop based on his happyness with the lenses he already owns and he's need for slightly superior AF and a higher burst rate. Maybe he should get both. ;-)
    As for the OP's RA, I think that the 7D is very slightly heftier, but makes up for that with easier to use control buttons and a slightly more thoughtful layout. They'll both feel very comparable in his hands if he liked his old 5D, but I'd give a slight nod to the 7D for the buttons.
     
  64. Easy; buy both. If you can't afford both buy the one you can afford.
     
  65. And Jamie the reason the 5dmk2 pushes lenses to the limit is partly due to the 21mp and FF but most of all it will use all the lens not just the center as does a crop camera. And lenses are generaly worse at the edges. Add that to the FF and the 21mp and you could end up with some dodgy corners​
    21MP and FF will not push a lens to its limit unless it's a really poor lens. Certainly any L series lens will perform comfortably on the 5D2.
    The crop cameras only use a small portion of the centre of an L series lens with a much higher concentration of photosites so naturally they are far more demanding on a lens compared to a full frame camera.
    Your argument about lenses being worse at the edges does nothing to support your original statement. A 5D2 will not make the edges any worse compared to a FF camera with half the resolution (original EOS 1Ds for example). So, it's not the 5D2 that is pushing the lens to its limit, it's the design of the lens itself, nothing else.
    Like I said, the relatively low pixel density of the 5D2 and any other full frame DSLR (Nikon and Sony included) are nowhere near as demanding on a lens as today's high resolution APS-C cameras such as the 7D and 50D.
    5D2 owners who have been selling their 17-40mm lenses either have bad copies of the lens (or camera) or they simply don't know what they're talking about.
     
  66. Just to further clarify, I have Canon L 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400.
    I've looked at the samples on Imaging Resource. I'm still not completely convinced that the difference in quality justifies the added expense. Going back to the crops that Daniel linked to, and looking at the originals in PS, I can see there is a difference. Most noticeable is the pattern (moire?) in the beer glass graphic. It is easily seen in the 7D but not in the 5D II.
    The problem is that I'm not experienced enough in digital photography to know if this is a problem.
    But what it comes down to is this: Is the 5d Mark II so much better that it justifies spending an extra $1000 or so over the 7D? I'm a lifelong amateur with reasonable skills who recognized he went too far with the 1D Mk III. Thus, at this point, I must answer no, it is not worth the added cost.
    Are there benefits to the 5D II? Certainly. DOF and diffraction are things I never thought about when I started this thread. But I'll be doing still life in my studio experiments so DOF isn't as much of a problem as it would be for portraiture. For outdoor, and I keep coming back to this "joke," but a pano head might be a better use of the money I save. For diffraction, if someone wants to get 6" from a print and tell me that it's blurry then OK, I'll have to live with it. Again, I'm not going to sell, I'm not looking to sell. The most I would charge anyone is for consumables.
    Perhaps a 5D II would be better; I'll not go any higher in cost than that. Yet I constantly return to a thought that Dick's post brought to me: It is, perhaps, better that we learn to adapt to our media and learn how to best express our vision with the tools we have. Watercolor painting isn't going to be as detailed on the same scale as oil or acrylic. The same is true of, say, chalk and pencil. In learning the limits of the media, in this case the lens and sensor, we understand what can and cannot be done, what can and cannot be overcome. For much of my first decade in photography I had nothing more than a Nikon FM and a Nikkor 50mm f/2. That was all I had for my photography. My "vision" was limited by my equipment, yet somehow I got by. I admit I am anxious to see if I can recapture that with a crop system.
    Lastly, I am assuming that Canon continues to fill the gap between the 5D's and x0D's with a 7D type camera, In that case I will have a path that I think I would be happy to stay in. Unless you are willing to pay top dollar there is always going to be a better camera, just like the "newest/greatest" camera is just around the bend. Wait 18-24 months and the digital world remakes itself. I would rather purchase a camera that meets my minimum needs, that I offers a path I can follow for upgrades when the need or desire arises, and lastly that meets the reality of my lifestyle and personal abilities. When I take into account my needs and the amount of time and energy I will likely be able to contribute to my photography I am forced to return to the reality that the 7D is still the best choice for me.
    Thank you for all your quality posts. Many issues I would never have considered, especially the ones I mentioned in this post, would have never occurred to me. Hopefully this will be useful to others in the future.
     
  67. David, thanks for continuing to be involved as the thread you started has evolved.
    Lacking a specific announcement of an upcoming camera model in the next few weeks, I think it's folly to keep waiting for the next great thing. The 5D2 and 7D both have excellent IQ. Yes, there is a difference, but I really think it comes down to your planned usage and the features that you prefer and how much you value IQ.
    Is it worth the difference in price? To me, yes, but to you, maybe not. Only you can answer that question.
    Maybe this will help you decide, if you're hoping for a new 5D2/7D hybrid, what do you hope it will do? What combination of features would be ideal for you? Do you want a cheaper 5D2 or do you want some combination of features? If it's just price, then evidently you prefer the IQ of the 5D2 and it's relatively important to you, but you're trying to fit it in your personal value proposition. You've gone through some good bodies in resent years. I think that you should buy a body that your really like a lot and just stick with it for three to five years. Yes, no sooner will you buy and something "better" will be offered within months. You've just got to ignor that a focus on your photography.
     
  68. 21MP and FF will not push a lens to its limit unless it's a really poor lens. Certainly any L series lens will perform comfortably on the 5D2.​
    I'm not sure what you mean by "comfortably," but I can assure you that not all L lenses perform "optimally" on a 5DmkII. The edges on some L lenses are quite soft. the 24-105 f/4 IS L has very noticeable softness on the edges of the frame despite the fact that this lens has better MTF specs than the more expensive 24-70 f/8. Unless Canon starts making Leica-quality glass, lens performance will continue to be a limiting factor in IQ, especially at the wide end.
     
  69. @David Smith: You are going to use tripods therefore at lower ISO, you don't own fast primes so are not really interested in shallower depth of field. It's a no brainer, buy the 7D...
     
  70. David Stephens,
    I think you read what you want to read, nowhere did I say about putting the same wide lens on both a 7d and a 5dmk2.All the way through this I have stated that if you have expensive wide lenses buy a 5dmk2 and forget about this discussion because you have already bought into a FF system. You're comments are so contradictory I can not keep on saying the same thing again and again for you not to listen I think you need to clean your computer screen because you're not reading my comments correctly.
    Jamie you own a 5dmk2 and it looks like you have a 17-40 and/or a 24-105. While they are very good lenses they are not the best canon make. With the exception of very few lenses any lens that starts at f/4 compared to a lens that starts at f/2.8, when both are set to f/8 the 2.8 is going to be better that’s another advantage of buying fast lenses. In an Ideal world I would have primes for every focal length but that’s not practical for me.
    Diffraction is not so much of an issue here, you get more DOF with a Crop camera so you don't have to stop the lens down as much to get front to back sharpness.
    I love Canon and because of issues I have with Nikon I wouldn't swap, but a lot of people accept that Nikon has the edge on wide zooms and Canon have better tele zooms.
    I have invested a lot of money with canon and I love using it, but that doesn't stop me from accepting reality. It doesn't bother me to accept Canon's negatives as well as their positivesI take it as a whole package, if some want to believe that Canon walk on water, and that helps them sleep better, that’s fine by me.
     
  71. 21MP and FF will not push a lens to its limit unless it's a really poor lens. Certainly any L series lens will perform comfortably on the 5D2.
    The crop cameras only use a small portion of the centre of an L series lens with a much higher concentration of photosites so naturally they are far more demanding on a lens compared to a full frame camera.
    I wanted to comment on this.
    Decent lenses can out resolve even very dense sensors like on the 7D. But the MTF curve, the contrast of the details, varies noticeably between lenses even at low frequencies. It's easy to tell a good lens from a bad lens or an OK lens on bodies like the 10D and 20D. It's even more apparent on the 7D.
    To make the most of a dense APS sensor you need a lens with a high MTF response in the center portion. I wouldn't say a 7D is dramatically more demanding, but it is more demanding in this respect. To make the most of a 35mm sensor you need a lens with good sharpness and MTF across the entire frame, but the MTF response doesn't have to be quite as high as you might want with a dense APS sensor.
    Here's the thing: Canon makes plenty of lenses with excellent MTF response in the center portion. But wide angles are difficult to make and Canon wide angles often suffer in corner performance. That's something to consider when looking at these two bodies.
     
  72. I don't shoot a lot of landscapes but when I do, I find the 10-22 an excellent lens in all regards. General purpose lens? There's no fast and stabilized normal zoom for FF. Light and good travel setup? 10-22 and 24-105. IQ differences? Yes, they exist but how often will you encounter them?
    I am not dismissing the 5D2. Only saying that there are a lot of benefits choosing the 7D.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  73. Going back to the crops that Daniel linked to, and looking at the originals in PS, I can see there is a difference. Most noticeable is the pattern (moire?) in the beer glass graphic. It is easily seen in the 7D but not in the 5D II.
    I'm not sure what that is, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the sensor. The red symbol (lower right) has a different texture which is obviously due to glare from the lights. I think perhaps the lighting emphasized some texture in the beer glass graphic in the 7D shot as well.
     
  74. Jamie you own a 5dmk2 and it looks like you have a 17-40 and/or a 24-105. While they are very good lenses they are not the best canon make.​
    I think everyone here already knows this and I did not pretend otherwise. My argument was that the 5D2 has not found the optical limit of these lenses, regardless of their performance.
     
  75. I think you read what you want to read, nowhere did I say about putting the same wide lens on both a 7d and a 5dmk2​
    A nowhere did I say that you said that. You make of things and display mock horror, just to displace attention from your weak position.
     
  76. I don't think you can really make an argument that one is so much better, they are 2 of the best cameras available today. They offer many different features but both are probably more then capable for 90% of us and probably overkill for most of us :-}.
    Look at what features interest you most and pick one. If you cant get good photos you cant blame either of these cameras.
     
  77. OMG. Why do these posts have to turn acrimonious? I reiterate my earlier post that, speaking from my own experience, which is what Dale Carnegie said is the only thing we are truly expert at, this quibbling about subtle differences is interesting from an academic standpoint but does not effect outcomes that much. That is, unless you are shooting the stratosphere of New York advertising or some other highly critical application like printing huge landscapes. Again, in my opinion, there is a variety of equipment that will get most jobs done in a more than satisfactory way. I did a shoot recently where I did some headshots for a fairly well known person. It was the first work for me in quite a while after cashing out my business. I used an L lens for those pictures. I had set up a studio in the customer's home. However, horror of horrors when she asked me to do her family, because I wanted to take the camera off the tripod and move around in the confines of the lights, I stuck a paltry, two hundred dollar, EF 28-105 on the 5D. I took quite a few photographs while freely reacting with the offspring from different positons under the twenty year old, outmoded, strobes and softboxes. Notwithstanding the consumer lens on my camera the pictures turned out great and I got much more than I billed in payment. They never asked what lenses I used or about the age of my lights. So often, the best in the enemy of the good. On a serious note, I really have slowed my participation in PN because of the rancor that simple questions seem to engender. This is sad because I have learned so much here on from you all. I believe, very strongly, that picture outcomes lie with the photographer supported by equipment that has sufficient capability to do the job and the OP will be blessed whatever he buys that meets that test. My 28-105 and old Novatrons passed that test on, at least, one occasion.
     
  78. David Stephens who asked that question? This thread is so long I'm not going to read it all again, but I don't remember anyone asking that question, I may be wrong.
    Fair enough if you wanted to state that,no problem. But why every time myself and others mentioned about wide lenses for crop cameras you kept coming back with the same argument, at least three times, banging on about that you need two images from a crop camera for every one image from a FF camera?
    Sorry I don't know if it me, but that is the impression I got from you
    And I agree with Yakim, I used a tokina12-24 on my 7d, and by a lot of peoples account the 10-22 optically is better, and the edge performance is crisp, and Sharp back to front on a print 24 X 16. Obviously you have to know where to focus and not just focus on infinity.
    Jamie I respect you opinions, but if the 16-35mm looks better than the 17-40 on a 5dmk1, logically the 5dmk2 is going to show up more imperfections on both lenses thus making the 17-40 look even worse.
    I'm not knocking the 5dmk2 and when I use it it's amazing, because it picks up where the 7d stops. But that is only for 20-30% at the most for the work I do, some people it's going to be smaller.
    It's like buying a Ferrari and only being able to drive it 90% of the time at 40mph, the fuel costs more, the parts are more, the insurance is more, repairs are more. And a lot of people buy one and do exactly that. But it impresses people when you say you own one. There's nothing wrong in that but you're not using it to it's full potential.
    If you buy a 5dmk2 and want maximum IQ you have to put not just good lenes but exellent lenses on it.
    It's hard to accept (and I've been there) when you pay £600 for a 17-40 and £700 for a 24-105, they are not giving them away, and they are still have problems. When you can buy a tokina 11-16 or sigma 10-20 for about £350 and get excellent edge sharpness on a crop camera, because they use less glass and are cheaper to make and easier to make and get good performance.
    When you buy a 5dmk2 body, the price dosen't stop there if you want the best from it.
     
  79. Save the money and get a new better tripod or another AB or Vagabond battery pack. The 7D has plenty of pixels, offers an upgrade to your long lenses (by making them longer), and since you don't want to shoot wide, the 7D has what you need (superior focus abilities, light weight, and fast frame rates). You will probably miss the big viewfinders of your previous cameras though. Remember that in low-light situations, where you need to manual focus, you will miss those big vewfinders the the extra light they transmit from their big mirrors.
    If you're wondering about megapixels, think more about horizontal resolution. Compare those numbers and you'll see that the two are almost identical in resolution. It's noise levels (which are really not hugely different) and frame rates (which you already know about) that differentiate the two cameras most for you, since you're not after the wide-angle capabilities of the 5D2. I have a 5D, and I plan to get the 7D, because it will compliment my current kit very well.
    Remember that if you shoot small animals in nature or if you shoot models in the studio, better auto-focus is a plus, as is having a 1.6 crop-factor with your longest lens, so that tiny monkey or bird or spider in the distance will be bigger in the final print, no matter what size the print ends up being.
    Oh, and for print sizes - 18 Mp or 21 Mp there will be almost NO noticable difference. The difference will be primarily in the noise and lens you use. Also try upscaling from RAW if you print from sRGB JPEG images, like I do. You'll be amazed at the quality you can get. In my opinion, my 12 Mp 5D is all I will EVER need, though I haven't had a chance to see the light, since it is the best camera I've used. My sister printed a half-crop at 20x30 from my camera, and the results are astoundingly crystal clear. I shot the photo with my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS. This means a 30x40 print from that camera would be high quality, and who needs any better than that. My guess is if I were to print the full image at 40x60 the quality would be more than acceptable, but I NEVER print that large.
     
  80. Some people will pay for superior IQ and some won't. Our OP has owned a 1D Mk III and a 5D, so he seems to be willing to spend money at times, but now he's vacillating for some reason that we're all having trouble interpreting. I'm hopeful that he'll make a decision and tell us his reasoning some time soon. He can't go too far wrong with either of the choices that he's laid up in front of us, I'm simply curious to see where he lands.
    BTW, the 24-105mm f4L IS improves geometrically by at least one order of excellence when you process its images with DxO's Optics Pro 6.1. I was ready to sell mine, due to the softness mentioned by many here, until I started using DxO.
    Dave
     
  81. "Katrina Chickloski , Dec 21, 2009; 04:29 p.m.
    Hmm. Reading this over and now more confused than ever. Right now, hold on to your seats, I am using a Nikon D40X. I have outgrown it and need something with more, well everything.
    I am willing to switch from Nikon to Cannon if the camera is right.
    My main passion is landscape with portraits on the side. I shoot sports as I have children. So..with the two main uses being a bit different what of these two cameras would best suit me. From what I am reading..I would need the two of them. ACK!"
    Why are you considering a Canon? The D700 is AMAZING! 12 Mp is more than you will probably EVER need, and if you really need to upgrade one day, you can get a used D3x or whatever Nikon comes out with in the future. You do know that the Nikon D3x with the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 lens is the best landscape camera in the world, right? The D700 with that lens would be an unbelieveable combination which makes me want to get them and use two systems. I just can't afford all that right now.
    You should be looking at the D300s and the D700 (my favorite camera). The D5000 is a good upgrade for you that won't cost you an arm and a leg, and it will offer you things that none of the other cameras can (a swiveling screen that will allow you to shoot portraits from above without a ladder). Why not get the D5000, and keep your D40 as a backup?
    ;)
     
  82. Scott, make a 16x24 from both a D700 and 7D....then you'll know why the extra rez is a benefit. For still life and fine art, this will be a nice benefit on say, a 16x20 print.
     
  83. What was the question again?
     
  84. Ralph Jensen , Dec 23, 2009; 03:42 p.m.
    What was the question again?​
    I forget.....Wasn't it digital vs film.....or Canon vs Nikon.....or something......
     
  85. Fair enough if you wanted to state that,no problem. But why every time myself and others mentioned about wide lenses for crop cameras you kept coming back with the same argument, at least three times, banging on about that you need two images from a crop camera for every one image from a FF camera?
    Yeah...I don't get his line of reasoning either. For WA work you don't need two images on the 7D to "match" the 5D2, you just need a wider angle lens. I wouldn't stitch two 16-35 shots simply to try and get a FF FoV on my 7D, I would shoot with a Tokina 11-16.
     
  86. Why are you considering a Canon? The D700 is AMAZING! 12 Mp is more than you will probably EVER need, and if you really need to upgrade one day, you can get a used D3x or whatever Nikon comes out with in the future. You do know that the Nikon D3x with the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 lens is the best landscape camera in the world, right? The D700 with that lens would be an unbelieveable combination which makes me want to get them and use two systems. I just can't afford all that right now.​
    Well...
    My D700 has logged tens of thousands of shots and about as many miles. It's rugged, durable, and easy to use. The D700's low-noise features are amazing, and its color rendition is exquisite. But, in terms of pure resolution there's a HUGE difference between 12 MP and 18 or 21 MP. I like my D700 images, but my 5DmkII images amaze me. Yes, the Canon has some weaknesses, and the Nikon has more features and better durability, but when you absolutely, positively need to blow up a print or make a serious crop, there's no substitute for the extra pixels. I still use both cameras, as they compliment each other IMO.
    Regarding the D3x, it's a wonderful camera, but Nikon needs to "get real" with the price tag. Sony uses a very similar sensor in cameras that sell for about a third of the D3x's price. There are places where I don't want to walk around with an $7500-dollar camera in plain view. If someone swipes my 5DII I'll be angry but I won't be devastated. Plus the 5DII is a lot lighter. Oh, and by the way, 1080p video is a nice feature, and I get to enjoy it with my $2700 Canon.
    Regarding the 14-24mm lens and "the best landscape camera in the world:" First of all, a great landscape camera/lens requires movements (rise, shifts, and tilts). If you had mentioned the D3x and the 24mm PC-E lens, I might have been more inclined to agree. Then again, Canon sells the equivalent for a lot less (5DII + 24mm TS II). Plus, Canon has the 17mm TS lens (no Nikon equivalent). The 14-24mm lens is very sharp by all accounts, but the inherent distortion in something so wide isn't very useful unless you intend to morph rectangles into triangles and make tall trees bend toward the ground like Gumby with a hangover.
    If Nikon offered a less-expensive version of their high-res camera (with 1080p video), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Bottom line: if you need high resolution in a 35mm body your choices are Canon, Sony, or very deep pockets. The silver lining for Nikon is that Canon's lenses lag behind Nikon's best (the 14-24 and the new 70-200). If you can afford that D3x you'll have some nice glass to mount on it.
     
  87. I've done similar things with my Canon 5 D with L lenses Dan. My Sony R1 produces JPEG images good enough to print at 20x30 inches (it makes 10 megapixel JPEG images from a 1.7 crop factor sensor). How much bigger do you need to print? I've NEVER printed an image larger than that, though I've seen a print at 40x60 from a Canon 5 D MkII shot with a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 lens, and I was very impressed by the image quality. The 20x30 prints I get from my 12.8 megapixel Canon are quite impressive (very clear and detailed). Feel free to order one: http://ffphotos.zenfolio.com
    For a few megapixels (even for twice as many), unless you're already using $1,000+ lenses and mounting your camera on a tripod whenever you shoot, it doesn't make sense to be switching camera systems (or even cameras). If you want other new features or something, then that's a different story, but to move up from 12 megapixels, because you think it will make your photos look better? Sorry, that isn't going to work . . . unless you're planning to print HUGE or crop a lot. Do the math: 1/4 of a 21 Mp Canon image is 5.25 Mp and 1/4 of a 12 Mp Nikon image is 3 Mp. Yes, there is a more significant difference there if you plan to print at 16x20. Not necessary if you're only printing at 8x10 though. I've seen some really good quality 8x10 prints from 3 megapixel point-and-shoot cameras. Quadruple that, and you have a 16x20 print from a 12 megapixel camera. I realize it doesn't work EXACTLY like that, but from my experience, a 12 megapixel full-frame camera with good lenses is PLENTY.
    I'm not trying to say that a 12 Mp camera is as good at a 21 Mp camera . . . just that for most print sizes it will not be noticed, and for even the very largest prints, it will be a non-issue. People expect a huge print to have "some" grain or fuzziness in it. I believe that megapixel race is almost over. You can see that companies are taking a long time to double from 10 Mp to 20 Mp. That's because megapixels have become less important to people.
    As far as the Nikon D3x with Nikon 14x24mm f2.8 lens being the "best landscape camera in the world" . . . it costs less than a high quality large format lens and large format camera (if you include the film and processing for the first 1,000 shots). It is MUCH more portable. The images can be cropped to 12 megapixels or less and still be blown up to 20x30 (the largest popular size for print sales), and you can put a 24mm, 35mm, 45mm, 65mm or even a 90mm tilt-shift lens on it easily enough, though from what I've seen, many landscape photos are shot without tilts or shifts (some purposely). As far as the distortion created by a wide-angle lens . . . I would like to show you some examples, but it's best if I just tell you about the fact that I've seen some very cool, super-wide landscape shots with distortion present. Sometimes distortion has been used to add impact. Sometimes it has been corrected in Photoshop. Yes, there is distortion present most of the time in any shot with a super wide lens on a full-frame SLR, but when composed well, a shot made with the 14-24mm Nikon lens can look almost distortion-free, even at 14mm. At 24mm, it will deliver superior photos at 24mm when compared to photos from all those people out there using the Canon full-frame cameras with their 24-70mm L and 24-105mm L IS lenses. You've got to admit the lens is stellar and the 24 megapixel Nikon D3x is also a stellar performer. What more can you ask for?!? I know, I know . . . tilts (and shifts). Yes, that would be nice, but if I had to pick one lens for landscape use, it would probably be the 14-24 on a full-frame camera. You can't go wider with a 24 tilt-shift, but you can crop after shooting with any lens.
    Yes, I know that technically, a Red camera, like the one Peter Lik now uses would probably be superior, but I bet that thing is no where near as handy, costs WAY more money, shoots much slower, and is much more difficult to use. There is the wind factor too (wind moves big cameras more than small, compact cameras, given the same, easily-carried tripod).
     

Share This Page