Should I upgrade from the 7D to 5D mark 2 upgrade.

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by ty_thornton, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. My main arena is band and musician photography and recently I have been considering upgrading from the 7D to the 5D Mark 2. Do you guys reckon its worth doing or should I stick to what I have?
    Will the image quality be better or similar? What sizes will I be able to blow the images upto? I get requests for this regularly for band launch events and shows.
    If there are other pros and cons between the two I would love to hear them :)
  2. I would have thought that you'd pick the 5DMKII to begin with. I'd imagine that you work frequently in low light situations and the 5D beats the 7D any time in that department. I can't imagine that you really need the advantages the 7D has over the 5D - continuous shooting, more and better AF zones, etc. If I were in your shoes I would indeed upgrade to the 5D - IQ will be noticeably better.
  3. Is that you yahoo Dang?
    If you've already got the 7D you are going to chuck away a lot of money by going to a 5D.
    For band photography the extra reach the 1.6x crop gives will be handy.
    An effective 80mm f1.8 for the price of a 50 f1.8?
    An effective 160mm f2 or 320mm f2.8 for the price of a 100mm f2 or 200 f2.8?
    There is a lot to be said for cropped sensors.
    The low light performance on the 5D2 is a benefit, but only a massive benefit after ISO 1600.
    With a flash and/or fast lens I'd hope to be more in the ISO 400 or at a push ISO 800 range. Remember (because most folk forget) you shoot for the lit areas with concert photography, not the black areas where you will never record any detail.
    A 7D will give photo quality at A2. How much bigger do you need to go at photo quality, an extra 3MP will not make any meaningful difference at these kind of sizes.
    The 7D has an AF system that dances all over the 5D2s, as does the frame rate.
    If the previous poster doesn't see a need for this in band photography then they haven't done it.
  4. My only disagreement with the previous response is with the benefit of the cropped sensor. I haven't used both cameras side by side, but I strongly suspect that 5D2 images will have significantly less noise at high ISOs than the 7D, even after you crop the full frame image in your computer to be the same size as what you would get from your 7D. Even though you will end up with a bit less resolution with the 5D2 after cropping, I strongly suspect that the IQ of the 5D2 will be superior at high ISOs. And if you want shallower depth of field, that will be easier to achieve on the 5D2 as well.
    I don't know what your shooting habits are or how large you want to print photos. I've shot a few concerts with my 40D, and I didn't like using my flash at all. I much preferred the stage lighting. So I ended up shooting at ISO 400 - 1600. This worked well for me, and I did get usable images, but I imagine I could print them much larger with a 5D2. If you're happy with the noise levels on your 7D now, I'd suspect that there's little reason to spend all that money to upgrade. If your clients want prints larger than what the 7D can handle, then by all means upgrade. Someone with more experience with both cameras than I could say for sure, but with a 5D2 you may be able to increase the size of your prints by 50% or more. If you can, borrow a friend's 5D2 and compare.
  5. Are you sure that is an upgrade? That depends on what your needs are.
    The 5D2 is a very nice camera if full frame is want you need for your shooting. However the focusing system is nothing to get excited about.
    I would choose the 7D for the benefit of the cropped sensor in nature photography. Also the 7D has a much better focusing system that is very beneficial for nature and sports photography.
  6. I own both and prefer the 5D2 for concert photography because of it's much better noise performance at ISO 1600 and 3200. At high ISO and cropping it's clearly better and easier to work with. Still, a question would be which lenses do you have and do you have stage access. A 70-200mm covers a lot of ground on the 7D, but your may feel out of reach, unless you're on the stage or right in front.
    Both camera bodies are quite workable, but the sharpness of the 5D2 when used with superior lenses is really hard to beat.
  7. If these are events in which beer gets thrown around the 7D is better sealed...
  8. I got beer on both my 5DII and 7D and they did fine. Either camera is great choice for stage photography: 7D has an advantage in off-center AF whereas the 5DII trumps it at ISO above 800.
  9. I love the 5D2 for band photography but I would think a 7D with the right lenses would do well too. What lenses do you use? I find the 85 1.8 works well as does the 70-200 2.8.
  10. The print size limit is about the same for the 7D and 5D2 at low to mid ISO. At high ISO 7D print size is bound by noise, and the 5D2 can therefore print larger. So you have to ask yourself: how important is it to be able to shoot at, say, ISO 3200 and 6400 yet be able to print larger than an 8x10 or 11x14? If it's very important, 5D2. Otherwise, save your money.
    Other than that the only real 5D2 advantage in my book is the ability to use certain lenses (or rather, use them at their intended focal lengths) such as the T/S lenses. That's not an issue for what you're doing.
    The DoF issue is always raised, but it's actually a non-issue. Fast primes will blur the background on both 35mm and APS-C. The difference in blurring between these two formats is equal to maybe a one stop aperture change. You could blur the background more by spending the $1,000 difference on one or more fast lenses.
  11. I keep seeing this argument that print size is all that matters in chosing between the 5D2 and the 7D; however, IME those using large HDTV monitors to view their images will readily notice the IQ difference between the 7D and the 5D2. Viewed in 1080 on a 52" Sony Bravia HDTV, the differences are readily observed from the viewing position.
    Print size will often be an important factor in deciding on the IQ required, but other image viewing methods are changing the paradyme.
  12. Daniel Lee Taylor. You never miss this discussion when this comes up. You must have radar. I appreciate your contribution think you are mostly correct. I ran a photo business for several years and used what I had unless I thought I could amortize the purchase and get an additional return out of an upgraded equipment investment. I used Bronica for years because I never, ever, got a disatisfied wedding customer from what that array delivered. The bottom line was more important to me than how new my equipment was. I just finished a job after a few years out of the business with a well known individual who was more that satisfied with my now outdated 5D1 images and I received a sizable bonus over my fee. Unless I am convinced a properly working current piece of equipment won't make money why should I try for something better. Unless your 7D can't deliver and will cost you money why upgrade?
  13. If have to ask this question, I don't think you really NEED either. Most people buying a 5D or 7D know all the differences and advantages of each and know exactly which one will suit their specific needs best. If you're unsure about the decision, then I'd just stick with what you have.
  14. A one-stop difference in dof, while certainly not a deal breaker, is more than a non-issue. After all, put the 70-200mm f/2.8 on the 7D and take a picture at 70mm. Put the same lens on the 5D2 and take the same picture at 112mm at f/2.8, you will see a one-stop effective "improvement" of dof. So perhaps you could save a few bucks an buy the 70-200mm f/4 for your 5D2 if that's all you need. But it's more difficult the other way around. To duplicate the dof you would get with the 5D2 at 200mm and f/2.8 on the 7D, I suppose you would need to buy the 135mm f/2 lens for about $1000. And there goes all that savings on just one focal length. What then do you do to make up for the loss of wide angle? I spent $700 on the 10-22mm lens, which is great, but now the total is up to $1700 and counting.
    Now personally, I don't think the one stop loss is a big deal. But if you care about getting shallow dof and don't want to sacrifice that, it's more than a non issue.
  15. There may well be a perceptable difference in depth of field between two similar lenses on a 7D or 5D2.
    I presume all those who care will be shooting at or close to full aperture.
    In which case focusing will be critical, especially with telephoto lenses.
    So what do you want? The AF system of the 5D2 or the AF system of the 7D?
    All these folk wanting to up the ISO have rather missed the point of high contrast stage lighting or don't know how to meter.
    At ISO 400 or 800 there should be enough light for a workable exposure with a fast prime lens in the highlight area.
    All using stupidly high ISO does is make what should be black grey and noisy, and the highlights washed out.
    Okay, at ISO 3200 the 5D2 will be better than the 7D, lets just hope the AF system was playing ball.
  16. Buy a 5D1 and if you don't like it, resell it.
    They're going for about 1200ish on craigslist in LA.
    Then you'll know if you want the 5d2 which will run you twice as much $$.
    The IQ of an old 5D is nothing to sneeze at.
  17. Like Puppy I have both but i do not shoot bands. In terms of build quality and sealing I cannot see any difference between the two bodies (the 7D has a better card door but has the pop up flash). From ISo 800 onwards the 5DII is about two stops better in noise (i.e. ISO 3200 on 5DII is about as noisy as ISO 800 on the 7D). The 7D is great at ISO800, usable at ISo 1600 but you need to post process carefully to use ISO 3200.
  18. I shot these with my 40D and felt really good about them. I assume the 7D blows my 40D out of the water...
  19. Great shot John, how did you get such clean 3200 ISO on the 40d?
  20. I am sure you can rent, or borrow, a 5DMKII and test it for yourself. Only you can decide what works best for you. The 5DMKII at ISO 3200 is quite usable, I don't know about the 7D. But I suspect that differences will be minimal, or undiscernible, once you factor in careful image post-processing and noise reduction techniques.
    You can go to many testing and reviewing websites and download and post-process the images yourself.
  21. Tommy,
    Thanks for the compliment, you made my point for me... nothing special. SIGMA lens 70-200 2.8. Noise was not a problem. I took several hundred shots, with 40 or 50 of this quality in the end. I did some very minor Photoshop work to the best 25 shots when I was done.

Share This Page