What do I buy? 5d vs 7d vs 10-22 mm lens

Hi All,

I m an amatuer photographer who is looking to take it to the next level. I

currently own a rebel 350 d body and the following canon lenses - 28-300 3.5 -

5.6 L , 100 mm macro 2.8, 50 mm 1.8. I started out wanting to buy a 7d body.

As I read more, thr more confused I get about the following:

 

1. Should I buy a 7d or a 5d mark 2? I.e invest in a good camera body Or

2. Should I spend the money on a good wide angle lens. I read some articles

claiming that it's the lenses that matter, not the body.

 

My primary areas of interests are: portraits, archtecture, food and nature.

 

Thanks in advance.

<p>Gopal,</p>

 

<p>What is it that you’re dissatisfied with with your current setup? What do you wish you

could do that you can’t? What makes you look at a shot and say, “If

only…”?</p>

 

<p>Answer those questions and the solution to your dilemma should become clear. You might be

better off spending the money on lighting equipment, or traveling to places to shoot, or workshops,

or even something as off-the-wall as dumping everything you have and switching to large format

film. Or, maybe, a different body or lens. Perhaps.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>7d + good wide angle. I own 5dmkII and for my partner I bought the 7d. The 5dmkII will give you tad more resolution finally, but the 7d is a more grown up cam in my humble opinion and will provide great image quality too + other nice advantages. I bought the 5dmkII but i would have bought 7d if it were on the market last year. The lenses will make a difference. You will feel like making the right decision with either cam however, so take it light!</p>

Well, I started out thinking about upgrading my camera body for the following reasons:

 

 

1. I hrd the sensors on the 5d/7d is way better than 350d thereby getting better quality pics on the same lens.

2. Have a backup body in case I have the chance to do some wedding type shoots.

 

As I started to research I got caught up in the infamous full frame vs aps-c body debate. If I eliminate the option of buying

the lens , I'm still confuse whether I should spend $800 extra for a 5d mark 2.

<p>Lenses first. Do you have <em>any</em> specific reason to want a different body? Unless you can point to a feature—lower noise at high ISO, faster fps, more AF points, video, etc.—that you <em>need</em>, your time and money are much better spent practicing with what you have. "Take it to the next level" is a very vague goal; you can certainly improve your photography by <em>learning more about photography</em> rather than spending money on bodies you don't seem to know much about.</p>

<p>A body just records the image formed by the lens. Some bodies record that image in ways that make it more versatile, but forming that image is what is important, and that starts with 1. light, 2. composition, 3. the lens. The lens determines the transmission of the scene's color, contrast, detail, and field-of-view. The lens is also what actually focuses, and the lens is also (in the Canon system) what applies image stabilization.</p>

<p>Your lineup lacks ANY wide angle. 28mm on a 1.6 crop body (like your Rebel) is very close to "normal," i.e. a middle focal length. So certainly I would suggest that you pick up a general-purpose zoom like the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens ($150) to start with. Your 28-300L is a great do-everything lens for a fullframe body but lacks wide angle on a Rebel. And filling that gap with a 10-22mm is an OK idea, but using an ultrawide lens is very challenging and you're better off learning to see a given scene in a variety of standard focal lengths first, IMHO.</p>

<p>Also, for architecture you NEED a wide-angle lens. What does a 7D or 5DII have that you NEED?</p>

Thx Hans. I like your approach. This way I can get a 7d plus 10-22 mm lens for the price of the 5d mark 2. I read that the

video is better on the 7d as well. Not my primary requirement but it doesn't hurt either. :)

<p>Ah, I see you posted a bit more detail while I was writing. "Way better" is subject to interpretation. They have better high ISO performance and higher detail, but do you really need either of those things? Or is technique what holds you back? Think about it.</p>

<p>The 7D is a better camera than the 5DII in virtually every single way except for sensor size. That sensor size means the 5DII has better high ISO performance; are you regularly shooting photos with high ISO that you intend to print at very large sizes? The sensor size also affects depth of field and therefore background blur with given subject framing; is this something you're having problems with? The FF also means a bigger viewfinder (but so does the 7D). Finally, the sensor size would make all your current lenses effectively "shorter" by 37.5%; is that what you want? If not, the 7D has weather sealing, faster AF, faster fps, better flash control, better video control, etc. etc.—pretty much every feature is as-good-as or better-than, and it's cheaper.</p>

<p>Personally I think that as an amateur who doesn't seem sure of the pros and cons of a new body vs a new lens, you are much better off saving your money and learning/practicing more (maybe get a new lens, as those are forever useful and hold their value better, haha). But if it was me, Hans's suggestion of 7D+wide makes more sense than 5DII for the kind of photography <em>I</em> do.</p>

<p>for food and architecture 7D will provide greater dof than ff. also, if you generally shoot in good light (low iso) then 7D may get the nod.<br /> if you generally shoot in 'available darkness' go with 5D<br /> all that being said, glass is ultimately the most important thing. i'd much rather shoot excellent primes on a crop body than all-in-one zooms on a ff. personally, i have no use for mega-zooms or consumer optics.</p>

@ Gabriel - thx so much for your detailed feedback. You really got me thinking and I think this is going to be my final

approach:

 

1. Get a wide angle lens for now and practice a LOT!

2. When I get to the stage that I can make some money, I will get the 7d. I think I'm more than convinced on the 7d vs 5d

debate.

 

Thx everyone for your feedback

<p>I would not buy an EF-S lens, which rules out the 10-22. I suggest keeping options open to a full frame camera in the future. I have a full frame body and a crop body and being able to use the same lenses on either body is extremely useful.</p>

<p>Generally, full frame cameras are more capable for typical wideangle subjects like architecture and landscape, and crop bodies are more capable for telephoto subjects like sports and animals in nature. Either can handle portraits, macro, and general photography well.</p>

<p>Since you are seeking a wideangle view, in particular, I suggest choosing the 5DII especially since you point out it is the same cost as a 7D and 10-22. Your 28-300 would then provide a wideangle view suitable for most applications. I suspect the 28-200 on the 5DII would provide similar image quality to the 10-22 on the 7D at the same focal lengths.</p>

<p>If your interest in high image quality continues then at some point you will want to supplement your 28-300 with some more high quality narrow range zooms or primes to add to your excellent 100 and 50mm lenses. There are better wideangle lens choices for full frame bodies than for crop bodies.</p>

<p>If you choose to go the route of the 7D at least consider full frame wideangle lenses like the Sigma 12-24.</p>

<p> </p>

Let me ask this question - with all else being equal, will an image using 5d body + my 28-300 lens be any better than am

Image from the 350 d + 28-300 ?

<blockquote>

<p>The 7D is a better camera than the 5DII in virtually every single way except for sensor size.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. They're actually very similar in most ways: menu system, external controls, hand-feel and behavior of both ambient and flash metering systems. Heck they even have the same LCD although different covers. I find the 5DII viewfinder more pleasant to use mainly because it is so much larger and thus easier to compose with. In fact it's a joy to work with compared to the small VF of the 7D. And, yes, the 5DII has better IQ, especially if you use high ISO and print large. Where I'd give the 7D the nod is the AF system--amazing--the improved weather sealing and the inclusion of a popup flash. However the 5DII does feature some weather sealing above the earlier XXD and Rebels models so it's not completely nekid. More weatherproof than me!</p>

<p>Given the OP's photographic subjects--portraits, archtecture, food and nature--and ownership of only FF lenses, I think the 5DII is a better choice. He doesn't really really need the faster FPS of the 7D or more nimble AF, but would benefit more from the increased IQ and wide angle possibilities of the 5DII. However, the 7D is as good as APS gets and you can't lose with either choice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Let me ask this question - with all else being equal, will an image using 5d body + my 28-300 lens be any better than am Image from the 350 d + 28-300?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The crux of this is "all else being equal." It is physically impossible for all else to be equal in this case; if you frame a subject identically and from the same perspective, the 5DII will have narrower DOF for the same aperture. If you stop down to bring back DOF, you're using different optics of the given lens (possibly better or worse, depending). Also, FF will give stronger vignetting from your 28-300 and include the less-sharp corners of that lens. And what ISO are we talking about? At low ISO, both cameras will look good (albeit the 5DII will be better), but at high ISO, the 5DII will have a big advantage. It all becomes contextual...</p>

<p>On the other hand, I would venture that yes, the image quality will be generally higher on the 5DII, sometimes significantly so. And of course we haven't even mentioned resolution, for which the 5DII will blow your 350 Rebel out of the water. This isn't just good for printing, but for cropping out sub-images.</p>

<p>"Puppy Face" brings up some decent points with regards to intended use. I still think the 7D is a more versatile camera, but all of this serves to highlight just how important it is that <em>you</em> have a clear idea of what you want and need out of a camera, which will only come from experience.</p>

<p>I might sign off with one of my favorite pieces of advice, which is—why not rent first? Or borrow from a (generous and well-equipped) photographer friend, if you have one? You can try out both firsthand and get a feel for their differences. This goes for lenses as well. Not everything in life has to be bought at full retail.</p>

<p>I have a T1i and the EF-S 10-22. This lens is super. Though it is a 2.8, you would have to pay twice as much for the EF 16-35 for use with the 5d. Add it all up and decide. There would be nothing wrong with if in the future you also got the 5d. My 2 cents, for now, buy the 10-22, keep your 350d for a while longer. Learn the 10-22 and then upgrade to the 7D or go for it and get a FF and keep the 350 for use with the 10-22 and your other lenses. I will eventually go for a FF but I already have a 70-200 F4 and a 24-105 F4 to use with it. They also work great with my T1i which I would keep as a backup and for the 10-22. The 10-22 can be used for 3 out of 4 of your photographic needs (nature as in landscapes etc.). Not the greatest for portraits but in a pinch the 22mm end (equivalent to 35mm) can be used in some cases.</p>

<p>Or file your taxes early--hopefully you have a big refund--and buy both a 5DII and 7D. It's actually a killer combo and will cover just about every situation you can dream of.</p>

<p>If you want a reality check, look at this website (<a href="http://www.juzaphotography.com">www.juzaphotography.com</a>) and see how many pictures were taken with a Rebel 350D and L lenses. Wildlife photography needs resolution, shutter speed and good autofocussing and this site shows all can be done to a very high quality with a simple body and great lenses.<br>

Unlike John Crowe, since the 7D came out I do not worry about whether the lenses I get will fit on a FF camera. The 7D seems to have negated a lot of what were the often-quoted benefits of FF and now the line-up has matured into tools for specific jobs. So my benchmark is now the 7D + better lens unless there is a very specific reason I should buy the 5D MkII.</p>

<p>And besides it seems to me a false economy to get the 5DII without getting a whole stack of lenses to warrant the MP and the IQ that this lens gives. How much is that going to cost you?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The first thing I would do is sell the 28-300mm and get some better and faster glass in smaller ranges, Such as the 17-40mm f/4 L and the 70-200mm L (take your pick of the 4 versions, 5 now.) For stills, I'd go with the 5D, for action, I'd go with the 7D. Also, invest in a nice tripod if you haven't already.</p>

<p>I agree with Puppy (I also own both the 7D and 5DII) of the two I prefer the 5DII although both are good cameras. For wide angle shots, portraits and low light the 5DII is a much better body. For sports and wildlife the 7D is better due to it's faster frame rate, better AF and 1.6x factor. I cannot comment on the 10-22 glass as I have never used this lens. Both the 17-40 F4L and the 16-35 f2.8 II lenses are very good - the 16-35 being especially good but rather expensive. It is important to note that on the 7D the 16-35 is behaves as a standard zoom ( 26 - 56 mm effective). If your basic problem is the lack of a wide angle lens then your best option will be to add a new lens. Unfortunately the main (and most affordable) options are APS-C EF-S lenses which do not allow you to move to full frame. I suggest that if this is the issue then try the Canon 10-22 and I have seen good results from the Tokina 11-16 F2.8. I would not suggest that you buy a body until you know exactly why you want one - then you will know what you need. Nathan offers good advice on lenses as any 70-200 will do a great job and the 17-40 is a very good lens if not that wide on an APS-C body.<br>

I have noticed a recent trend to knock the 5DII when compared to the 7D - I wonder how many people who do this have significant experience with both cameras. Despite comments on the video differences they are almost identical (the lack of manual settings on the 5DII was resolved by a firmware update about a year ago) the main difference being the way you move to video mode and the fact that the 7D has 60fps 720p which is useful for action sports. The 5DII is about two stops better on real world noise performance than the 7D and the 7D gets very noisy at high ISo if the exposure is slightly off - whereas the 5DII is more tolerant.</p>

<p>Quick tip on the Tokina just mentioned: although it's supposed to be APS-C-only, you can allegedly mount it on FF bodies in which case it is usable around 15-16mm (becoming, in effect, an ultra wide prime). Obviously this "feature" is not supported so buy and use at your own risk.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find the 5DII viewfinder more pleasant to use mainly because it is so much larger and thus easier to compose with. In fact it's a joy to work with compared to the small VF of the 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I hold Peter on the highest regard and don't recall ever to dispute him on anything but I guess there's always a first time. I have a 7D and last weekend I was shooting simultaneously with it and my friend's 5D2. I still remember my amazement of how small the difference in VF size was. At one point I was holding one in each hand to make sure I didn't get the wrong impression. I didn't. It's because of the mediocre 5D2's magnification (71%) and coverage (98%) vs. the 7D's great ones (100% for both). This compensates (a lot, I might add) for the big difference in sensor size.</p>

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

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

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

 

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

</p>

 

<p>If you go <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/page5.asp">here</a>, you can see a visual comparison of the 7D and 5DII viewfinders taking into account their physical sensor sizes and respective viewfinder magnifications (but possibly not penalizing for coverage... it's not clear). As you can see, the 5DII really isn't that much greater-sized than the 7D once lower magnification knocks it down a bit. Bigger, yes, and it is nicer to use as a result, but the 7D is hardly "small."</p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">On paper, the 5D2's VF is much bigger than that of the 7D. I still wonder why it didn't show up as such when I held both cameras to my eye. I think my brain is playing tricks on me....</p>

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

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

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

 

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

</p>