Really confused: 5D Mark II vs. 7D

<p>Ok, I'm really confused.<br>

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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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?.</p>

<p>Fairly easy :<br>

 

<ul>

<li >

<p >For landscape, portraits, architecture and low light -> 5D²</p>

</li>

<li >

<p >For sports, wildlife and macro -> 7D</p>

</li>

</ul>

</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p>* Will you regularly produce large prints (i.e. 16x24 or greater) from high ISO (i.e. 3200 or higher) shots?</p>

<p>* 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?</p>

<p>If you've answered yes to either question, get the 5D mkII.</p>

<p>If not, get the 7D.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>David,</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But some people do need something like a T/S 17mm, and for them FF is the only option.</p>

<p>Hi David,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

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...

<p>Yah' see, just when I think I've gotten the info to make up my mind...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>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).</p><div></div>

<p>Oh yeah...if you want to knock yourself out viewing all types of studio tests and samples:<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. <br>

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. </p>

<p>Good luck with it.</p>

<p>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.<br>

Regarsd,<br>

mickey pradhan</p><div></div>

<p>One thing the 7D can't do:</p><div></div>

<p>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. </p>

<p> 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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

In the studio you are controlling the enviroment with lighting so ISO performane shouldn't be a issue<br>

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."<br>

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.<br>

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. <br>

For everything else get th 7D.<br>

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.</p>

 

<p>

<p dir="ltr">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.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>I have a 7D and a 5dmk2 I need the 5d for certain shots for clients, eg food, architectural.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>Do you like to shoot <strong>very shallow depth of field</strong> shots? The 5D II and other full-frame cameras will give better results in that regard, not just on wide angle.</p>

<p>I aslo like being able to shoot hand-held in low light. The 5D II is hard to beat in that department.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>