Another one with a quandry over 7D or 5D MK2- putin ginsurance money to good use.

[timbowles]

<p>There is a very good possiblity that I will be getting some insurance money for some film camera equipment that was stolen. It seems I have to get "today's equivalents". It also seems that I will have the money to buy the camera I want, but unfortunately it is not made yet (the 5D MK3). I was really hoping the Mk2 was going to have the features the new 7d has, but I was diappointed. I am not in a huge rush to jump into digital photography, so I figured I'd wait for the MK3 (heck, I'd already waited for the MK2). I like everything about the 7D except for the cropped sensor. I don't really need long reach and I want to be able to use my current lenses (17-40 f/4, 50 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8 macro, 70-200 f/4 and 1.4 tele-xtender). I have also been pining for the 24-105 that comes almost half price kitted with the 5D to use as my walking around lens.<br>

I shoot mainly landscape, still life/abstract etc- Stuff the 5D thrives at. But, I also have a young child and another one coming plus 2 Golden Retrievers. I need a lot of fast focusing ability now. I have been contemplating a DSLR mainly because I am fed up with shutter lag in my P&S when trying to get photos of my 2 year old..... And tired of wasting film or missing the shot. She's FAST! So the 7D is attractive in that respect. Plus playing with the on camera synced to off camera flash could be interesting. Shooting rates are not overly important to me (being a methodical film shooter), but image quality and sharpness is paramount. I shoot LF as well, so if I was thinking I'd enlarge something special (past 16x22) I'd probably be getting out the view camera. Easily said though- once I start snapping a DSLR, my tune may change.<br>

So I'm debating between biting the bullet and getting the 5D mk2 with my coveted 24-105 and then selling it to upgrade to the Mk3 when it comes out or getting the 7D. A problem with the 7D is that I don't want to start collecting EF-S lenses, and I want to be able to shoot hand-held in low light with a normal lens. I'm thinking my option would be to purcahase the 7D with the 28 f/1.8. Pricey, and redundant considering I have an excellent lens already that covers this focal length. Also, I see more long than wide for normal so the 35 f/2 would be a better visaul fit. Problem here is redundancy again, and is the 1 stop in speed really worth it over the 17-40? I've never shot digital, so I don't know if I can make up for the speed loss by just increasing the iso a bit- apparently the 7D performs well even at IS0 800. Another question is how the 17-40 would perform on the cropped sensor- I've read that it may not be as sharp, as it wasn't designed for that purpose. I guess I'm just spoiled by my 50/1.4. My 3rd option is to get the 7D then sell it when the 5Dmk3 comes out if I feel it would better suit my needs. I don't want to buy the 7D with the 24-105 becasue spending all that extra money just doesn't seems worth it..... I may still eventually get the 5D MK3 kit and woiuld feel like a moron if I bought the lens now for more money. Again, I've gone this long without it.....I'd have to say that the biggest benefits I see in the 7D is the superior AF system (points and speed) and new metering system. Other than the cropped sensor and its associated benefits, the 7D seems like the superior camera. I keep talking myself in a circle between these 2 cameras, because I don't know enough about either of them.<br>

Real world experienced people would be great here<br>

Opinions?</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>I have a 5D II and the AF is actually pretty good. Not 1-series class, but I shoot HS sports with it with no issues. Based on your description, I go with that one (the 5D II).</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have suggested elsewhere, and haven't yet been slapped down for it, that the 7D in some sense <em>is</em> the 1D for the APS-C format. In any case, for an APS-C body, I suggest that the 35mm f/2 is a good way to go, even with the other lenses. It is an older lens, so not the fastest focusing, but is still very good in low light (but I was photographing spot-lighted ruins, not fast-moving two-year olds). However, in my own experience, they seem to slow down a bit (the kids, not the ruins) as they get older, becoming virtually completely immobile (<em>sessile</em> , it's called in biology) by the teen years ;).</p>

[rayabel]

<p>7D will handle all the lenses you already have. The ONLY EF-S lens (1) you will need will be a wide angle since all your EF lenses will be Xmm*1.6. The 17mm won't be wide any more (17mm*1.6=27.2mm). A 10mm (10*1.6=16mm) EF-S will be needed for get back to the 17mm area.</p>

[timbowles]

<p>Thanks for the thoughts.<br>

I'm not too concerned with maintaining the ability to go wide if I got the 7D, as I still will be using my film bodies (EOS 3 and Elan 7. May add the 1V as well) pretty heavily for outdoor work. I guess I'm trying to decide whether going FF is worth giving up the AF, metering and flash sync of the 7D. I feel I would really use those 3 things. My biggest concern with the 7D is losing my go-to indoor/ low light lens (the 50/1.4). I would largely be getting the 7D over the 5D MK2 to photograph my kids who are often in low light situations indoors but I won't be able to reasonably use this lens. I have the 580 EXII, so I won't even need to go to high ISO's necessarily- I'll just lose the fast, sharp, quick focusing, shallow DOF lens of choice..... If the 35 f/2 is slow to focus, it may not cut it for this purpose and by going that direction I shot myself in the foot by not just getting the 5D2.</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>Another question is how the 17-40 would perform on the cropped sensor- I've read that it may not be as sharp, as it wasn't designed for that purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many people say you need to get the the best possible lenses to take full advantage of the new high resolution digital sensors. However modern iso 100 filems have just as much resolution (if not more). All of the lenses you have are highly regarded for there good optical performance and the designs originated over 10 years ago when film dominated the market. All are widely used on the 5D MkII. </p>

<p>With any lens, sharpness tends to drop off as you approach the edge of the image circle. The 17-40 will work just fine on the 7D. In fact the image quality would be a little bit better snce the image circle is sized for full frame rather than the small APS-C. The 17-40 is very popular on the both versions of the 5D. I use this lens on my 5D MkI and I consider it to be one of my better lenses. My other favorite is the 70-200 F4IS. The 24-105 is also quite good but at 24mm I prefer to use the 17-40. At 24mm the 24-105 has some barrel distortion and a little vignetting. The 17-40 is much better at 24mm.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I see in the 7D is the superior AF system (points and speed) and new metering system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200 all focus very fast on the original 5D MkI. Focus speed is a function of the speed of the electronics in the camera and the speed of the focusing motor in the lens. The slowest part is generally the lens motor, not the electronics in the camera. The 7D focus sensor is claimed to be more accurate at tracking moving objects. Canon has not claimed that it is significantly faster. </p>

<p>We are probably a couple of years away from seeing a 5D MkIII and we have no idea as to what it will feature. The 7D is a new camera that on paper appears to have very good auto focus sensor but it has not been out long enough for us to really know (I prefer to wait for a year on new cameras). Other than that the only other advantage the 7D has over the 5D is 8 frames per second verses 3, and the 1.6 crop factor. These are great features for sports or wildlife shooting. However you primarily shoot landscapes and still life where you won't need 8fps or the 1.6 crop factor. </p>

<p>I think the 5DMkII is the best choice for you.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Tim, I'm confused as to why getting the 7D would mean losing the 50/1.4. Granted, it's effective focal length wouldn't be the same, but 80mm is usually fine indoors. But if you do want a fast lens that would be closer to "normal" on a crop sensor body, I'd recommend the 35/1.4 L, which is one of the very best EF primes.</p>

<p>As for bodies, however, I use my 5D II for indoor, available light potraiture of my children, and find that its high ISO capability more than compensates for it's less-than-optimal AF system. The quality of images it produces is quite simply stunning, but I'm afraid I'm unable to compare it to the 7D. Before acquiring the 5D II, I had only ever used full frame film bodies (such as the 1V, F-1, and T90) and had no interest in crop sensor DSLR's. And while I will also pick up an 5D III if and when it arrives, I wasn't willing to wait.</p>

<p>As for lens/body "compatibility," I have often heard from experienced photographers that EF L lenses are optimized for full frame sensors, and are consequently not as impressive on crop sensors. But again, I don't know this from my own experience.</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I'm trying to decide whether going FF is worth giving up the AF, metering and flash sync of the 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The flash sync speed of the 7D is 1/250 while the 5D is 1/200. In most situations this is not a significant difference. The 7D does have the ability to control the 580 or 430 flash remotely. Canon has never put that feature into a camera before. </p>

<p>The big difference in metering with the 7D is that it incorporates color information. On most digitals if you take a picture of a red flower in bright light you could over expose the red sensors while the green and blue are OK. If you know about this it is easy to detect with RGB histogram (both cameras have it) and correct. In most other situations you would not notice anything. In fact in every review I have seen, I have not seen any comments about the new exposure meter. Most reviews tend to focus on the AF system. </p>

<p>I am not sure (I don't have the 50 1.4) but it is my impression that the focusing motor on it is not one canons faster ones. The 24-105 is however very fast. You could use the 24-105 with the flash to take pictures of your kids as they run around the room. Yes you won't have shallow DOF with this lens, but when you are taking pictures of fast moving subjects you generally don't want shallow DOF. The 5D high iso capability is at least as good, if not better then the 7D. </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have both and the 5DII is the better camera in most applications - higher IQ, much better at High ISO and able to get wide angles as it is full frame. The 5DII is a little slow for AF and has a slow frame rate and no built in flash / flash synch. I bought the 7D for sports and it works well in this area although the high ISo performance is a little disappointing on the 7D relative to the 5DII. In terms of metering the 5DII does not have any problems and have not noticed any improvement form the 7D in this area. I cannot comment on the 17-40 F4L on the 7D as I sold mine and bought the 16-35 F2.8II. the 16-35 works great on the 7D and there are no issues with it. In terms of high ISo the 7D is fine at ISo 800 and reasonable at ISO 1600, ISO 3200 can be used at a pinch but is noisy. For kids and dogs the 5DII is fine but you will miss the odd shot - the 7D has better AF and frame rate and I bought it for kids sports (Ice Hockey and ski racing). Even here the 5DII AF is not that bad - about 90% in hockey and poerhaps as high as 95% for ski racing. I could live without my 7D but not the 5DII - together they make a great pair although I would rather have a 12MP version of the 7D which is great at ISO 3200!</p>

[timbowles]

<p>Thanks guys- this is all great info. This real- world experience is exactly what I was after. I should have used different terminology in my previous post- I didn't mean flash sync, but rather synchronous control to external flashes.....<br>

I've never heard people "complain" about the 5D Mk1 or 2, but who's going to after spending that kind of $, right? It's reassuring to know that 1) the MK2 kit can easily satisfy my indoor needs- my kids aren't race cars after all ;). I only question my ability to catch the candids where they see the camera and turn away :P I don't think the camera body is going to make a big difference there though, by the sound of it. and 2) the improved meter in the 7D may not be that important of a difference if I know what I'm doing. I'm so in the habit of taking incident light readings with my hand-held I was second guessing this one anyway for outdoors and "slow moving objects". I do tend to rely on the camera and flash to get it right without my help indoors with quick candids though.....So I may call that one a draw. On the other hand, it's not like the 5D mk2 has an inept metering system- I know it's good. I just feel it could be better for a camera in that price range. That just leaves the off-camera flash control, and well, although it could be creatively useful it's not something I would be looking for in a camera as a high priority. It just seemed that the 7d was my perfect package except for the cropped sensor. However, it sounds like I may not be sacrificing *too* much (not enough to make it worthwhile, anyway) in getting the 5D2 over the 7D. But I would be getting a much better camera in other ways. It sounds like this should be the way for me to go.<br>

A question for Steven- this may sound naive but I'm coming from a film background where light goes into box and excites everything equally. When you say the 7D meter is using color info, is it exposing different colors differently on the sensor to keep them from clipping? Is it just the red sensors that tend to overexpose (I've read that the 1D does a "better job" of keeping the red channel under control). If you see clipping in the red channel on the RGB histogram, how do you adjust for it? Is there a function that allows you to change exposure to different color channels? If so, this blows my mind as to the control and creative possibilities it would allow. I'm used to "EV13 in the light?- here's your shutter speed for that aperture" kind of control.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I just got my 7D and frankly, I'm very, <em>very</em> impressed! I never thought that Canon would make a camera that I would like as much as my 1v but this may very well be the one. It handles beautifully and the AF seems to be outstanding, with several ways to customize it. It's very fast and mine seems to have no issues. As far as lenses, I've used a number of L lenses on my 10/20/30D with outstanding success; my favorite combo was always my 30D and 70-200 2.8IS and I'm looking forward to using that lens on my 7D a lot. I also used the 17-40 on those cameras a lot, also with great success. I could go on for hours about how much I like this camera but I won't. JDM's assertion that it's a 1d-series for the APS-C class is pretty accurate in my opinion.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I own a crop body for sports and a full frame body for landscape/architecture, and lenses from 14/2.8 to 400/2.8, and I use a 4x5. I have been shooting digital for about 4 years.</p>

<p>For your selection of lenses and requirements there is no question, in my mind, that the 5DII is the best choice. It is the best value in any full frame DSLR in the marketplace. I always think it funny when people are looking for the next camera upgrade when the newest camera has been around for less than a year. Things are moving quicker now but not that fast. Get the 5DII now and consider a "5DIV" in 3 or 4 years time.</p>

<p>If a fast high-res full frame body, like the 5DII, had existed when I bought the two bodies that I have, I would have bought one 5DII instead. There are just too many compromises with lens selection on a crop body for non-sports related photography.</p>

<p>If you really want to wait another year or two for the next best full frame body, and you do not want to lose a fortune in depreciation, then consider a well used 1DsII in the $1500 to $2000 USD range or a used 5D in the $900 to $1200 USD range. </p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>"A question for Steven</p>

<p>... which perhaps I can respond to ...</p>

<p>this may sound naive but I'm coming from a film background where light goes into box and excites everything equally. When you say the 7D meter is using color info, is it exposing different colors differently on the sensor to keep them from clipping? Is it just the red sensors that tend to overexpose (I've read that the 1D does a "better job" of keeping the red channel under control). If you see clipping in the red channel on the RGB histogram, how do you adjust for it? Is there a function that allows you to change exposure to different color channels? If so, this blows my mind as to the control and creative possibilities it would allow. I'm used to "EV13 in the light?- here's your shutter speed for that aperture" kind of control."</p>

<p>I do a lot of botanical photography, and have to deal with many flowers that have a quite remarkable degree of red saturation. They may look red, or orange, or yellow, but are still capable of blowing out the red channel effortlessly in what is otherwise a correctly exposed picture. An absolutely pure red flower would not be so much of a problem, because it would just appear as a bit less bright that it should be, with some loss of highlight detail. The problem comes when there is a significant green component (amazingly, the blue component can be right down at zero - I've just been looking at some shots of the brilliant orange daisy <em>Gazania maritima</em> which I took on the Cape coast a few weeks ago, and they have no blue in them at all) leading to a change in the red/green balance, with orange flowers appearing too yellow. A red with some blue in it can also be a problem, changing to a much more purplish red. Whilst it is possible occasionally to provoke blue-channel saturation, red seems to be the most vulnerable channel. This may be associated with the (to me) rather surprising fact that the sensor array in Canon cameras is really YGB not RGB, with R being obtained as Y-minus-G.</p>

<p>What to do about it? The RGB histogram on the camera is not always an adequate guide, because if there is only a small area of problem colour, the spike at the top end of the red histogram may be hard to see because so few pixels are contributing to it. Also, it is the histogram of the converted image not the RAW image, so may not be telling you what you need to know. However, it does not take a lot of practice to recognise that you are dealing with a problem colour, and two or three stops of underexposure will usually pull the red channel down below the saturation level. You then have to spend a lot of time fiddling around during post-processing in order to bring the image generally up to an aceptable exposure level whilst retaining the correct balance between R and (usually) G on the flowers. The only consolation is that getting the colours correct on the output from a current-generation DSLR is an absolute breeze compared with trying to do so using film.</p>

<p>So, back to colour metering, in principle this could help to avoid saturation in any one channel, but you'd still have to do the same amount of work at the post-processing stage to compensate for the resultant general under-exposure. And there's certainly no separate exposure control of each of the different colour sensors on offer – that really would make RAW conversion challenging! </p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Basically the RGB histogram allows you to recognize the problem right away in the event you didn't before you took the picture. So you can right away take another picture to correct it. For the type of shooting I do It has been a very infrequent issue and I haven't seen the need to do a lot of photo shop work on those few photos. As far as I know, when the 7D sees the issue it just adjusts the shutter speed. It doesn't just adjust the red exposure. </p>

<p>Instant feedback is one of the things you will have to adjust to with digital. If your shutter speed is too slow to freeze motion you will know very quickly. If you accidentally change a setting in the camera (such as exposure compensation) you will know after only a few shots. If the contrast in a image is too high you will know. No more wasted rolls of film due to a stupid mistake. </p>

<p>You have a lot of controls you didn't have on film. For example, you can change the iso at any time. You also can adjust color saturation, contrast, color tone, sharpness, and white balance. Using my software (Adobe CS3, and DPP) I find the color and contrast settings (and possibly others) are applied to RAW as well as JPG files (based on what I have see on photo.net that is not always the case with some software). Now when you find a landscape you like you can play with picture style A, B, C, D, E... as well as depth of field, ISO, and white balance all on the camera. You can then do even more on the computer. </p>

[timbowles]

<p>Thanks for the further clarification. I thought I was missing something major in these high end cameras- I know a lot of digital shooters and I've never heard of this red channel issue. So, the way I understand it, the 7D's advantage is to recognize the red channel overexposure and automatically underexpose the entire image. But, if you recognize that the possibility is there before you take the picture and plan to compensate for it, that feature is really of no use.<br>

There is so much on Google regarding this red channel clipping, I don't know where to start reading! As far as I can understand, to correct for it all you need to do is underexpose the initial shot then use post processing. But how exactly do you adjust in post? Channel mixer to balance B&G to the R then levels or brightness to bring them all up equally?<br>

This is a bit off topic, but I want to make sure I know what instances to look for:<br>

1) A lot of green and any amount of red in a scene- the red tends to blow out. The more red, the worse the effect<br>

or 2) a little bit of blue and any amount of red in a scene, same as above.<br>

So although the red channel is more sensitive to blue, it's more likely to see this effect in nature due to green because of the abundance of foliage. It seems to me that you are describing more of a color shift due to the presence of blue (going purplish), not an overexposure so I'm a bit confused over scenario #2. I'm also wondering about the orange flower going yellow. Are these color shifts due to loss of red input when it blows out (red no longer, now white)? I imagined red clipping to be more of a bright red blob with no detail, vs a shift in color.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>Do you have a sense of what amount you're getting back for your film cameras? What was stolen? In my dealings with insurance companies home and auto claims, they've always given "fair market value" not "today's equivalent." I would have loved for my totaled 15 yr old Civic hatchback to have been replaced by the current model, but no I only got fair market value for it, which was a small downpayment on a new civic. Almost all old film cameras can be priced fair market value at somewhere like keh.com or B&h/Adorama, I can't imagine say a mint used 1vHS $600+/- being replaced with a 1dmk2, values aren't comprable. I'm just curious, but I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatched kinda thing... Regards Tom</p>

[timbowles]

<p>That's why I say "a good possibility". I just wanted to educate myself before some decisions have to be made (probably this week). Looking at my policy and talking to my camera store who has done this kind of thing before, I have the option of taking a cash equivalent for up to 2 years or "replacement" for 6 months. I spoke with my adjuster (and the camera store) and "replacement" seems to mean with something currently available. As film cameras are no longer made, the replacement is digital. My store did up an estimate and I sent it to my adjuster- I'm just waiting to talk to her now (when I called friday, she had gone home sick). I had no idea how much the stuff was worth when it first happend, and considering my deductible and claims free discount (which takes 3 years to regain) I wasn't even going to make a claim. Out of curiosity, I searched current prices for the camera and lenses. Then I woke up in a cold sweat when I realized that I had transferred a bunch of filters, etc to that bag about a week or two prior (my car bag, whos contents was always changing). Even with only cash value, I could afford a 7D.....</p>

[martin_engineer]

<p>Never having used a 7D, I'm still confident that you'll be satisfied with a 5d mark 2. With a f1.4 lens at ISO 3200 you can shoot in near darkness with acceptable shutter speeds and still have better image quality than on the 7D. <br>

As for the off camera flash control, you can always pick up a set of e-bay radio triggers for $30 and not be limited by line of sight.<br>

The 24-105 is really quite good at focusing quickly and accurately. I've used the combo (5dMk2 + 24-105) to take pictures of my 9 month old crawling around.</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>Tim, it is the cameras that become redundant, not the lenses. With SLR's buying faster lenses does two thing that you cannot make up for by just cranking up the ISO. <br>

1. More control of depth of field<br>

2. Gives you a brighter viewfinder<br>

My opinion; buy the nice glass and stick with film. Don't feel pressured into downgrading into digital, because, and your initital thoughts seem to verify my own thinking, you will get into this upgrade cycle that the digital era has amplified and is promoting harder than ever. It is still the glass that has the biggest impact.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Tim, a further word on red, and occasionally blue, channel clipping. Let me reassure you: it is not a problem for the vast majority of types of photograph, and unless you are taking that kind of shot, you simply don't need to worry about it.</p>

<p>Blue channel clipping is very rare indeed in my experience, but I have provoked it when photograping some very intensely blue flowers such as certain central/south-American species of Salvia, and the effect is not usually too noticeable even then. Note that it has nothing to do with the inability of film to record those colours correctly under daylight.</p>

<p>Unless you are doing botanical photography, red clipping is likely to affect you only if you photograph certain types of intensely red fabric, of the kind often found in sportswear. That is a red/blue problem, and what should be a bright red turns to a slightly blueish red. The red/blue effect can also happen with some flower colours, but the red/green problem is by far the commoner. The source of the colour shift is very simple. If you underexpose to a point where red is not quite clipped and then try to increase the overall brightness, green and blue can increase but red has nowhere to go, so the proportion of blue and green in the colour increases relative to red, and the hue shifts. If there's no blue, and green is at about 50% saturation, you will see bright orange, but as green increases relative to red, the colour shifts towards yellow.</p>

<p>Back to your general question, I have a 5DII which I use for most of my photography, and a 50D of which I make relatively limited use with long lenses and where I need a higher frame rate. I have a 7D on order for my wife, but I shall probably not bother to replace the 50D with a 7D myself. In terms of medium to high ISO performance the 5DII leaves the 50D absolutely for dead in terms of noise levels. I was just pixel-peeping at some shots taken with the 5D at ISO 3200 and deciding that the noise level was so low that no NR was needed (and I'm not talking here about accepting nonzero default NR settings either), but on the 50D a shot taken at ISO 3200 with no NR looks terrible, and requires significant NR to make it acceptable (although that can be achieved with care). Even at ISO 800 the 50D needs some NR. Now, the 7D is claimed to be quite a bit better than the 50D, but in my view it would need to be at least three stops better to be comparable with the 5DII, and I don't hear any plausible claims to that effect. That said, the 7D sounds like a real step forward in many ways, and if a 1.6-factor body was my mainstream camera I would certainly update to it.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Tom suggests sticking solely to film. I really don't think that is sound advice. After many years of film use with high-end equipment, finally with an EOS-1V, I bought a 20D when they came out, because that was in my view the first reasonably affordable Canon digital body that was worth considering. After one major trip with both the 1V and the 20D, I never took another shot on film, and I managed to sell the 1V while I could still get a bit of money back on it. If you are in doubt about your future direction, test the water by buying a low-end or recent s/h digital body, then you'll find out for yourself. But don't cut yourself off from the biggest advance in photography since it was first invented!</p>

[jonathan_borden]

<p>I've used every shape and sort of film camera over the years from Canon FTb/F1 Leica M3/M6 4x5 8x10 etc. and onto the Digital Rebel XT. I recently upgraded to the 5D Mk II.<br>

The digital sensor on the 5D Mk II is unquestionably better than any 35 mm film I've ever used. One of the biggest detractors from image quality is hand shake/motion. Faster ISO helps this. On the Mk II the quality at ISO 3200 is very roughly that of ISO 400 film perhaps a bit better. ISO 100 is limited by technical factors other than pixels (e.g. shake/lens/focus). I use a Brightscreen to allow manual focus or verification of autofocus.<br>

The AF speed on the 5D could be faster but on the other hand I see lots of keeper hockey shots and evening soccer shots at 3200 so everything is a tradeoff ... like its always been.<br>

If you get a Mk II I doubt you'd sell it when the Mk III comes out -- heck if you want to spend $$$ just get a Phase One p65+ :-))</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I shoot film and digital in tandem, and am baffled as to why so many people consider the choice between the two media to be "either-or." Each has its virtues, and bashing one doesn't make the other better.</p>

<p>However, Tim, since your film body was stolen, you have a set of excellent EF lenses, and you're leaning heavily towards digital now, an EOS DSLR is clearly your best choice. As tempting as it might be to pick up a 1V for a song, the 5D II will suit your present purposes better, especially for low light, high ISO shooting.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Tim - just to re-assure you on handling, the 7D and 5DII feel almost identical (really just the placement of the on off / thiumb wheell on switches) and just like the 1V (without the winder). the viewfinder on both is very good but both lack the multi-spot and side meter capability of the 1 series. On the metering both work fine and the red channel issue is more theoretical than real. I cannot notice any real world metering difference between the two bodies. The hard part for a film shooter is setting the white balance (I bought an Expodisk which helps) and learning to sharpen as all digital images are soft out of the camera. As i said earlier if I have to choose between my two bodies it is the 5DII for almost all applications but the 7D is better for sports.</p>

[timbowles]

<p>Thanks again for all the great insight. I think the 5D2 is the smart choice for me and my needs/current lenses. I still have 2 other film bodies (Elan 7 and EOS 3), and I think a DSLR will be a good compliment to my current set-up. As said by Mark, I don't see it as a film or digital because I still think each are better suited for different purposes. That's why I think I have to go against Tom's recommendation. I've waited this long to by a DSLR because I haven't really needed one and I haven't seen one I was happy enough with to buy and use for many years to come. Once I buy one, I'm not the type of person or one with enough money to get into the upgrade game. I was waiting for the 5Dmk3 because I think it will be the camera I would use until one of us dies. It sounds like the 5D2 may be that camera and I need not wait- if the money comes through, we'll see. Again, thanks everybody.</p>