7D vs used 5D

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I would think the person behind the camera would make more difference then the actual camera used.</em></p>

<p>Always. And yes, you can certainly shoot sports with a 'slow' 5D. (While I'm glad to see Canon put better AF and faster fps in the 7D, the simple truth is that people push so hard for such things because they don't know how to most effectively use AF and they struggle to anticipate the moment. Some knowledge and practice would go a long way towards offsetting the 'need' for such features.)</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"Jamie............motordrive film advance. I believe some were up to 7 frames a second"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Sure, I know that.... I was just trying to make a point that although the 7D looks absolutely sensational for a crop camera, many sports and wildlife people don't actually need it, they just want it.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>don't get me wrong....I fully advocate the method of anticipating the moment. It's the way I shoot all the time actually. But, I have also found that applying the anticipating the moment with a really fast burst mode yields peak moments on a much higher per centage rate. Of course, this means you have to sync the anticipating concept and the burst method together. Which means to say, it aint gonna happen by accident, it still takes skill.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>5D is FX. 7D is DX. (Yeah...you tell me why?) You can't compare them directly. Lets wait and see, but the crop factor will be the decider for you. If you are serious about landscapes you need FX to get the wide angles you need. Less of an issue for portraits, but FX will allow you to use that magic 85 to 135 range of lenses again instead of trying to make 50's work.</p>

[jtk]

<p>From the many prints I've seen (letter sized), 5D doesn't rival Pentax K20d. Meanwhile, 5DII is a step ahead. This has partially to do with optics (Pentax superior glass vs Canon's pseudo-L) but mostly to do with Pentax's decision to minimally ham-handed process. 5D is mush, but 5DII moves ahead.</p>

[jtk]

<p>" for landscaping, portraits and sports and wildlife photography. Will the FF 5D yeild better results in terms of IQ?"</p>

<p>Since 5D doesn't yeild better results than Pentax K20d for those purposes, much less equal 4000ppi scans of 35 film, the answer is no. But 5DII probably will.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"Since 5D doesn't yield better results than Pentax K20d for those purposes" </em> John, just curious what information you are basing this statement on?</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Yes John, let's hear it. 5D inferior IQ to Pentax K20D? That's a very bold statement. Sounds like the 5D user in question doesn't know what they're doing. As for Pentax glass being superior to Canon L glass, that's also questionable. Pentax make good lenses and although I have little experience of their latest lens line-up I doubt they <em>exceed</em> typical Canon L quality. Perhaps they match it but exceeding it is a whole different ball game. Sounds like the photographic public have been wrong all this time, they've been buying 50Ds, 5Ds, D300s when they should have stuck with Pentax and Samsung ;-)</p>

<p>With the possible exception of the new 7D (as we simply don't know yet) I am not aware of ANY crop camera that can come anywhere near the image quality of the original 5D.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>"[A]lthough the 7D looks absolutely sensational for a crop camera, many sports and wildlife people don't actually need it, they just want it."</p>

<p>Jamie, doesn't your statement apply to the so-called "need" we profess for <em>all</em> of our gear?</p>

[w_t1]

<p>Jamie, with the "need vs. want" you're not dealing with reality here since photo.net or the canon-sponsored EOS forum specifically is basically a greed-based forum. Yes, I have a few lenses that aren't necessary like most others. People come here to speculate on how good that yet-to-be-released 7d is gonna look around their shoulder, and the great pictures they will be able to capture with it, since their 5D pictures suck. I've linked to this article many times, it's worth printing and contemplating. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html</p>

<p> </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I've heard a few people mention that the introduction of the 7D will make the price of the used 5D go down; I don't think it will affect it at all. The 7D buyer and 5D buyer are 2 totally different photographers and for this reason I don't think the 7D will have any impact on 5D prices. If I wanted a FF camera that shot 3fps, I don't think a new APS-C camera that shoots 8fps would change my mind. I guess we'll see in a few months. Anyways, if you can't buy both the 5D and 7D, I would either get the 5D and a 40D or 20D, or do like everyone else says and prioritize and choose the best one for you.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>deleted - redundant - sorry</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Since 5D doesn't yeild better results than Pentax K20d for those purposes...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is simply nonsense...</p>

<p>... though I suppose it could be true if you only make snapshot sized prints.</p>

[david_ahn]

<p>Between the 5D Mark I and the 7D, if 8 fps and video aren't necessary for what you do, I vote for the 5D. Due to its full-size sensor with larger pixel size, its high-ISO performance is probably better than the 40D/50D/7D. These are 3 iterations of Canon APS-C sensors that increase pixel density without improving noise (though with smaller pixels, keeping noise the same IS improved noise). I'm basing this on photos from a beta 7D unit (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239).</p>

<p>As others have mentioned, not on your menu but the best setup is a 5D Mark II for landscape & available light and a 7D for sports/wildlife. (Have 5DMk2, will buy 7D.)</p>

[david_ahn]

<p>Between the 5D Mark I and the 7D, if 8 fps and video aren't necessary for what you do, I vote for the 5D. Due to its full-size sensor with larger pixel size, its high-ISO performance is probably better than the 40D/50D/7D. These are 3 iterations of Canon APS-C sensors that increase pixel density without improving noise (though with smaller pixels, keeping noise the same IS improved noise). I'm basing this on photos from a beta 7D unit (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239).</p>

<p>As others have mentioned, not on your menu but the best setup is a 5D Mark II for landscape & available light and a 7D for sports/wildlife. (Have 5DMk2, will buy 7D.)</p>

[dave92029]

<p>Compared to many who are regulars on this forum I'm just a novice, but I do enjoy practicing my photogrphy hobby whenever I can. In my eyes I see a steady improvement in my photos. <br>

As I read this thread most seemed to compare the difference in sensor size between the 5DII and 7D as the primary reason why they felt one body was "better" than the other for a particular purpose. Sure the FF sensor naturally captures a wider area than the APS-C sensor.<br>

In my limited experience I realized that I need an assortment of lens to fit the type of photo I want to capture. Sure a FF sensor allows me to capture a wider angle field of view than the same lens on an SPS-C sensor camera, BUT I have found the metering to be the real challenge in those shots. Landscapes generally include lots of earth tone colors which don't usually have lots of contrast.<br>

The 7D appears to have on paper a superior AF/ metering system to the FF 5DII. I would guess that the superior metering system may enable the 7D to deliver more detail than the 5DII. The samples on the limited reviews that are available show some amazing landscape shots from the 7D, and I attribute that the the metering system and the sensors ability to control noise at reasonable ISO levels. I say reasonable ISO levels because in low light there is much less detail to capture.<br>

Some have claimed that FF is better than APS-C for portraits. Again, my limited experience has shown that I get better, shots if I'm able to give the subject more space. The subjects appear more relaxed the farther away I stand with my camera, but that may just be me. LOL It isn't obvious to me that either sensor is "better" than the other when shooting people. Just grab the right lens based on the circumstances.<br>

A general comment about landscapes, I have found the most interesting shots are the ones that do not try to include everything along the horizon but select out a specific subject. Yes, a wide angle is required to capture one mountain or tree, but sometimes the APS-C allows me to do this without hiking as far as I might have to with a FF sensor.<br>

If you have the right lens and are comfortable using your camera body I believe that either sensor can be used to get THE shot. It is the photographer that needs to use the body and lens and compose the shot. That is the art.<br>

Personally for me, the current AF/ metering on the 7D would make that my camera body of choice.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Dave, your theoretical speculations about supposed inefficiencies of the 5D metering system (or is it AF system? - you are a bit unclear) for landscape photography and other subjects are, uh, interesting. However, I think that the actual experience of those who have used both formats in general and the 5d specifically might be worth some consideration.</p>

<p>While one certainly can produce fine landscape photographs with a cropped sensor body, this is specifically one of the types of photography where the full frame format has advantages. (There is more to the resolution potential in a photograph than the number of megapixels - sensor size makes a difference.) As a landscape photographer, your "earth tones don't have a lot of contrast" notion about metering simply baffles me on multiple levels. And "in low light there is much less detail to capture" - huh?</p>

<p>Regarding portraits and the format question, this could go either way depending on a variety of factors including the final print size - but connecting the difference to some issue of how far you stand from the subject is simply bizarre. You don't put the same lenses on a FF body that you put on crop - you don't stand closer because you use full frame! (I suppose that if you want to make such odd assumptions, the full-frame shooter could argue - falsely, of course - against using crop for this purpose by saying that "you have to shoot from too far back to establish a relationship with your subject if you shoot crop," right?)</p>

<p>You continue on this odd path with the following strange comment about landscapes: "APS-C allows me to [correctly frame subjects] without having to hike as far." I'm still laughing over that one. (I'm packing this morning to head out for four days of back-country landscape photography.)</p>

<p>I think that the 7D is going to be a very fine cropped sensor camera and a worthy next step in the sequence of cameras that Canon used to call the X0D series. As a photographer who uses full-frame bodies I could see the value in having a 7D as a second (or third) body for my own photography and I can understand why some photographers might prefer it as their primary body - for example the fast frame rate could be useful in certain types of sports photography.</p>

<p>But just because it is newer than some other camera does not automatically make it universally better in all ways for all things. I used a 5D for a variety of types of photography - including those mentioned by the OP- for several years and I now use a 5D2. My actual experience with these bodies shooting these subjects is quite the opposite of your speculation.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[greg_segallis]

<p>Obviously it depends on what and how you shoot. For my shooting, I find the burst drive mode of marginal value.<br>

I shoot a variety of sporting events (soccer, baseball, football, basketball, ballet, dog agility), and rarely do I change my 40D's drive mode from single shot. Reason being, anything less than 50fps typically means there is too much lag between shots to get two perfect shots, or for something like dog agility, the subject will have moved out of the field of focus. Even a ballet dancer will have moved her leg too far between shots for 10 fps to get two consecutive "good" shots. My shooting style is to capture the peak of the action, which I find usually requires on the order of 1/20th to 1/100th second accuracy.<br>

Occasionally, a 6 to 8 fps burst might get a few good frames for "slow" moving action like a running back on a sweep. Although for those shots I usually prefer to squeeze off frames with my finger, and the 1/2 sec lag or so between frames is about right, so no need for burst trigger.<br>

My limited wildlife shooting probably fits this scenario as well. I'll be patient and wait for the "one" shot of a bird with its wings in the right spot.<br>

Now processing delay is another story. I can easily fire off 20 or more RAW shots in 15 to 30 seconds, so a camera that hangs while it processes and writes 20 frames is a big problem.<br>

Where I am limited by my 40D is in shooting ballet and indoor or night-time sports. I really need two stops better low-light performance. I would much prefer a single clean frame of a dancer or wide-receiver, than two or three noisy images. (Sure it would be nice to have great noise performance AND the reach of a crop body)<br>

So my preference in order of importance is this:<br>

1) Ultra low-noise at 3200 or 6400 ISO<br>

2) fast capture<br>

3) 12 Mpixels (anything more usually only adds more post-processing time and increased load on my computer and hard drive storage, and offers little difference in my 8x10 prints) - bigger photosites = better low-light performance, so 18 Mpix isn't worth it for me.<br>

So the 5D has been on my radar for years. But I would go for the 7D in a heartbeat if someone told me the shots are as clean as the 5D at 3200 and 6400 ISO. Until then, I guess I'll keep drooling over the 5DmkII.</p>

 

[mtoumbev]

<p>I've read this thread with interest, as I'm in a similar situation to upgrade from my 300D.<br>

I'm mostly into landscapes and cityscapes, with aviation photography also in there. For me the FF sensor will do wonders with the landscapes and cityscapes, while a 1.4x converter can be used for aviation. Such a body as a 5D should last me for years, as it is fully-featured and has an MP count high enough for almost all uses.<br>

From what I've read - in regards to IQ - the MP count is not such a high player when compared to the sensor size - the 12.1MP FF may well yield more detail compared to an 18MP APS-C, and 12.1MP should be sufficient for 'most' people's uses.<br>

Finally, for the cost of a 7D, a used 5D and a new piece of glass/1.4x TC can be bought, which would be more useful than 6MP more or the new autofocus features to me.<br>

Its all about what suits your style most.</p>

[christian_bowman]

<p>I currently own a 5D and and a 20D. The FPS isn't the issue, the real issue is the new autofocus, body sealing, UDMA, and 640x480 3" lcd.<br>

These are ALL reason enough to buy the newer 7D. The camera also sports a built in flash (there are lots and lots of times, this becomes handy) and you can push the iso further than the 5D.<br>

ALSO... Auto dust cleaning! it's just much more versatile. So many times i've had to clean my sensor, not sealed very well and no auto cleaning.<br>

GO THE 7D. if you need wide, just get a wide lens... 17-40mm is a great lens for crop bodies. OR go he 10-22mm.. if u want ultra wide.</p>