Is the 5D markII worth the extra money then the 7D ?

[ronhartman]

<p>Brett,<br>

Of course the camera is not rubbish. I was just being silly, along with the unintended silly comments.<br>

But I do want to get a MkII when the price comes down a bit.<br>

Ron</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>It's obvious from this thread that some people spend time with their photography actually practicing it, while others pixel peep and complain. It's a cliche but the truth remains, to paraphrase another contentious slogan, cameras don't take pictures, photographers do. And FWIW, anyone that makes a buying decision based on pixel peeping at ISO6400 is either a nut case with lots of spare time on his hands, or has extremely specialized photographic requirements. It's very ironic that ten years ago most serious photographers would not have ordinarily used 800 or 1600 speed film, yet nowadays if images aren't sharp at ISO3200, something is considered deficient in the camera design.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Memes I'm sick of seeing on the Internet:</p>

<p>* The 5D mkII is not weather sealed. (Yes it is: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/03.html#03)</p>

<p>* Any camera with anything less than a "professional" AF module with dozens of points has poor / useless / antiquated AF. (No it does not. Any modern DSLR, including Canon and Nikon's cheapest plastic entry level bodies, has excellent AF. Differences only show up as small percentage changes in the number of keepers, and then often only show up with the most challenging subjects. Whether or not you understand how AF works, and therefore how to use it, makes a far, FAR larger difference.)</p>

<p>* Full frame is always better than cropped. (No it is not. The 7D, for example, has better IQ at low to mid ISO than the various 12 MP FF bodies. Likewise the lenses you own or can afford might mean that shots from a cropped body will be better for you than shots from a FF body.)</p>

<p>* I tried XYZ camera and it's no good because at 100% the image is soft. (Aside from all of the mistakes you might have made shooting XYZ camera, current pixel densities dig deeper into the lens MTF curve than ever before. At 100% they are not going to be pixel sharp or have ideal contrast without some post processing, either in camera or in Photoshop. Plus, looking at them this way is like putting your nose on the surface of a huge poster. Is this really how you intend your work to be viewed?)</p>

<p>* I compared XYZ and ABC cameras in a store and one/the other has terrible image quality by comparison. (You can't properly test two cameras in a store, and rear LCDs never provide optimum views. Not to mention each body requires unique post processing to maximize IQ. If you think you have any valid conclusions about IQ after doing this then you deserve to spend the next 6 months shooting with nothing but disposable film cameras.)</p>

<p>* Canikon blows Nicanon away! When is one/the other going to catch up! (Every day working professionals produce award winning images with bodies from each of the major manufacturers, including old and entry level bodies. Quit telling yourself that you are special for your brand choice. Slapping down a credit card does not make you special, and bragging about your brand makes you a bore.)</p>

<p>Now that I have that off my chest: if you're in the Canon system and are debating the 7D vs. 5D2, buy the 5D2 if you must have the very best high ISO performance or if you have lenses which will take full advantage of the 35mm sensor. Otherwise buy the 7D.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Sorry Ron, I am too daft to recognize sarcasm. My bad.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Charles' point is well taken. Who shoots at 6400iso and expects miracles? My entire portfolio from 12 years of field work in available light is 90% iso 100 or 200.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Oh, another meme I'm sick of...</p>

<p>* Buying XYZ camera over ABC camera will make all the difference in the world in IQ. (No it will not. The average viewer can only tell the difference between prints from different bodies when the prints are large and the IQ variances between the bodies are large as well. Pixel peeping I can see the differences between a 5D, 7D, and 5D2. Printed to, say, 16x24 and hung on a wall there isn't a soul on this forum who could reliably tell which was which in a double blind test. Your choice just isn't THAT big of a deal so quit risking a heart attack over it.)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>In response to Dan Mitchell, I stand by what I said. If Canon,Nikon,Sony,etc, are going to charge £2000 for a camera put a little effort in it. Don't put a 21mp sensor in a body that is 4 years old, because that is what they have done. They added a better screen, the micro adjuster and..... oh yeah thats about it. Apart from that its the 20d or 5d mark I body.<br /> I went to the shop again to day when I picked up the 5d mark II, everything that I didn't like about the 20d is practically still there. The shop owner went on a canon course about the two cameras (7d & 5d). The Canon rep said .The market for the 5D MKII is small and has got smaller with the launch of the 7d, the people who are buying 5d is studio photographers, for advertising, or landscape photographers who want to print very big.<br /> Today I shot the 5d against the 7d with my 70-200 2.8 is,at iso 6400 I was hard pressed to tell the difference in noise,and defiantly the 5d produces softer images at high iso I,m convinced there is some kind of old noise reduction software going on in that camera.<br /> I would by angry with canon if I bought the 5d MKII, then they released the 7d.<br /> Check this out this video out I think it sums everything up beautifully<a rel="nofollow" href="

target="_blank"></a> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this is how you feel about the 5D2 (and Canon cameras in general, and cameras from Nikon and Sony, and who knows what else...) and you are utterly convinced that the "problem" is that the cameras are "rubbish," the answer is pretty simple:</p>

<p><em>Find something you like better and purchase it instead.</em></p>

<p>And why <em>post a question</em> here ("Is the 5D markII worth the extra money then the 7D?") if you have already decided what the answer is and that <em>anyone with different experience must be wrong?</em> . If you ask a question we assume that you want feedback from people who have experience with the equipment/technique about which <em>you asked</em> because you want to get a better sense of what the facts (or opinions) are.</p>

<p>If you just want to tell us what "rubbish" some piece of equipment is, simply offer a post like "5D2 is rubbish" or else get a blog and just post your points of view there.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>To the OP William, the tone and content actual of your various comments throughout this post show that you have little interest in the question you're supposedly asking, and that you have little credibility on the overall subject matter. Sorry man, but if you say a bunch of stupid, outrageous stuff - "it's rubbish" "they should at least put a little bit of effort into it" - people are not going to take you seriously. The 5d2 has excellent sharpness and overall image quality. If you can't achieve it you either have a bad copy of the camera or you are doing something wrong.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Meme, short form for Manuel, thanks guys, don't have the 5dII, do have the 7D which was best suited my needs for an upgrade, the 5D and 1Ds are perfect full frames for what I use them for. My 50D is also an excellent camera but was missing video which can be important when doing certain type of events. If I had upgraded to full frame would have gone with the 1DsII, about all the camera one needs for full frame.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>My reasons for posting this question was originaly in my mind the 5d was a dream camera until I tested it.When everyone is raving about how good something is and I can't see it I want to know why. Someone said here that the 5d has to be treated like a medium format camera with a shallow depth of field, I agree, hence accurate AF is a must. Something that I and some people who bought a 5d feel, is that the body's AF system struggles with. So why are Canon making a camera with such an amazing sensor and putting in a body that can't cope with the demand of the sensor.<br>

For looking at noise at ISO 6400 and comparing it, am I missing something or isn't this one of the big things about the 5d. So why wouldn,t anyone test this out? I don't care what photographers had to do 10 years ago I,m buying a camera in the 21st century as I don't care about the pros and cons of horse riding when now I drive a car.<br>

As for soft images from the 5d at high ISO I,m only saying what I,m seeing some one recommended this site <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</a><br>

And at high ISO that is what I'm seeing.<br>

I,m sorry to upset anyone here because it seems I,ve touched a few nerve's here and I understand how some people may want to justify their purchase of a 5D MKII they bought the best camera there was, and still is regarding IQ at large prints, I would have bought it to if I had the money when it came out.<br>

But you must understand £2000 is a lot of money to find, I haven't got the option of being able to say in 2 months time " Oh the 5d is better then the 7d( or vice versa) I'll just pop down the shop and pick one up while I get my newspaper " I appreciate some of you might be able to do that, but not me. I just want to know where the extra money is going too on a 5d because I don't think canon can claim it costs £1000 just for a larger sensor. And I don't want to end up having a camera that I have to wear a sign around my neck saying " I can print really big". Believe it or not I'm happy to spend the money on a 5d that was the camera I've been saving for not the 7d. But I found it disappointing when I had it in my hands and part of me wants the 5d to be the camera I wanted.<br>

I just wanted other peoples opinions.<br>

Thanks to every ones replies<br>

just in case anyone who missed it you've got to see this<br>

<a href="

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I'd like to make a couple of points and agreeing with some of the posters here:<br>

The 7D has the body that the 5DMk2 should have had, but then Canon would not sell many 7Ds so they gave it the quality of the 50D.<br>

Yes, at the moment Canon's AF is not as good as Nikon's. That may well change.<br>

Most shots on all cameras are taken at less than 1600 ISO, so high ISO noise reduction only appeals to a small % of savvy buyers. The camera manufacturers make too much out of it. Smart people ignore it. They have to be heavy with in camer noise reduction due to the high photo cell density over 12mp. In the Canon range, the 5DMk1 is still favoured for its quality images, expecially for landscapes. MP count is not really an indicator. I good 12mp FF sensor can outperform one much larger as the individual photo cells are much bigger. Its the same with the Nkion D700.<br>

All manufacturers will never give you all the features you want at once. They want you to accept the compromise and upgrade to new models every 2-3 years. Fast obsolescence is now a feature of the digital camera business. So buy used, and buy well, to avoid the depreciation trap. Think of it like buying a car or a PC.<br>

Gone are the days when you could buy a camera and use it for ten or twenty years. It used to be even better than that. The quality and reliability of film cameras before they were saddled with electronics and LCD menu systems was awesome. I have film Nikons that I used my whole pro life and which have been cycled maybe 500,000 times, and with care and a yearly service they are still excellent even now. But we will never see that quality again. Todays mid range cameras are throw away items after 3 years so thats all the makers have to cater for, hence the plastic bodies and compromised mechanical quality. They keep the respectable quality for the Pro models. These buyers are not fooled by the marketing.<br>

So in answer to your question, if you are after really good FF image quality in a mid range camera and you don't want to spend a lot of money, buy a good 5Dmk1. Keep it for two years, sell it again and buy the FF version of the 7D which is inevitable.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I,m sorry to upset anyone here because it seems I,ve touched a few nerve's here and I understand how some people may want to justify their purchase of a 5D MKII they bought the best camera there was, and still is regarding IQ at large prints, I would have bought it to if I had the money when it came out.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is becoming increasingly hard to figure out what your point is.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>When everyone is raving about how good something is and I can't see it I want to know why.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, from all you have posted the last thing you are interested in is "knowing why" others like this camera. What you do seem to be interested in is telling those of us who use this camera and find it to be a very effective photographic that we don't know what we are talking about. <em>OK. WE HEAR YOU! You have made your point.</em></p>

<p>A hint: One possible reason that you don't understand why people this camera is that <em>everyone else is crazy.</em> This, however, is not the only possible explanation.</p>

<p>(I print as a lot from my 5D2 exposures and at sizes up to 24" x 36". It produces excellent print quality.)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I just wanted other peoples opinions.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no evidence from your posts that this is true or that you are remotely interested in the opinions of others about these cameras, except to the extent that their opinions provide a target for your follow-up posts.</p>

<p>This is the end of my participation in your little game.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[c jensen]

<p>There are plenty of in depth reviews and comparisons available that answer all your questions. BTW you shouldn't be surprised when folks in a Canon forum get upset when you tell them they spent a lot of cash on rubbish. </p>

[mars c]

<p>Reading some of your post, I wish I was born in the future, so all this dilemma are solved, hahahahha.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>Stephen Asprey, you're right I'm used to buying equipment and getting many years of use out of it' like my lenses. But with camera body's it's a throw away mentality now, the manufactures now what they are doing. And I think it's Canon that are playing the games here G Dan Mitchell.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>Oh and I think I'm going to take your advice Stephen and get a 5d MKI, and may be a 7d later on when the prices might drop a bit more. I don't think the MK II is going to convince me at the curant price.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>william bray wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote><p>I just wanted other peoples opinions.</p></blockquote>

 

<p>No, you didn’t. You wanted a unicorn pony, and decided to stomp your feet when you

learned that Canon only sells horse ponies, and that you can’t afford the pretty brown one

— and it’s unfair that the black one trots nicer than the faster brown one.</p>

 

<p>Either that, or you wanted to troll. Makes no difference to the adults here, though.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>OP said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I,m sorry to upset anyone here because it seems I,ve touched a few nerve's here and I understand how some people may want to justify their purchase of a 5D MKII they bought the best camera there was, and still is regarding IQ at large prints,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't get it and you don't sound sorry, and it's nowhere near the best camera for large prints. i.e. large format film, 50+mp mf digital. In any case there's no need to justify anything. It's a stellar camera and is a bargain for what it provides. Sorry man, you don't know what you're talking about</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I couldn't even continue reading this thread. The 5D Mark II is an excellent camera and worth every cent I paid for it hands down. This camera may be too much for many people. I for one very seldom use autofocus and use a tripod and Live view with 100% zoom to get the sharpest focus I have ever gotton on any camera I have ever had. Maybe you don't know this technique, but it is failproof and works excellent with my fast primes i.e. 85 1.2 L, 50 1.8 even at night. But, you are correct. If you don't know how fabulous this camera is it is probably not the right camera for you.</p>

<p> </p>

[christian_odell1]

<p>I went from a 30D, with I'd shot with for years to a MK2 and have never been happier. I also shoot mostly wide-open using my strobes only as fill. Anyone that thinks the MK2 is only so-so imagewise is out of their mind. There is an immediate difference in quality. <br>

Sure, if you pixel peep or shoot at high-iso than you're going to get a bit of softness because of the noise reduction built into the camera, but otherwise there is not question about it's ability. Just being able to use my 24-70L and the 135L as they were intended is worth the money. Plus, I shoot alot of Mamiya m645 and OM Zuiko glass on my body with adapters and both types excel on the larger sensor. The OM glass is being used as it's meant to frankly I don't think anyone has ever made a 135/2.8 that matched the look and bokeh of theirs. My Mamiya glass, particularly my 210 is amazing looking and I don't have to fight the extra length the crop factor gave me. <br>

If you don't like the every-so-slight-only-pixel-peepers-notice softness on the MK2 and don't want to turn off the native N/R ... then that is what God made High-Pass sharpening for.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I could figure out where this thread was going from the very first post. Paraphrased, since I'm too lazy to tag the quote:</p>

<p>"If you take away the 21 megapixel full-frame sensor, the 5D MarkII is rubbish."</p>

<p>That's like saying that if you took the 12-cylinder supercharged engine out of a Ferrarri it's a bad car. Or if you took away her looks, Heidi Klum is a bad model. No kidding, Sherlock. That's the main selling point. If you take the main selling point away from <em>anything</em> it becomes a waste of money.</p>

<p>Frankly, ths guy obviously doesn't get the point. I don't want to be rude Mr. Bray, but you've made yourself out to be someone who does much more reading than shooting. I like my Nikon D300 for sports, and any other situation where a little extra zoom helps, and the mobility of a lighter camera is useful. I have also used the 7D quite a bit, and it excels here. The 7D is also the only camera that has a video mode that I find useful enough to replace a camcorder. When I'm shooting anything, <em>anything</em> where I don't need a ton of zoom, I use the D700.</p>

<p>Then again, the only features I care about are how good my photos look, and how well my camera holds up to heavy use. Weird, I know.</p>

[patrick tom]

<p> The focus and features on the 5d mk2 are better than on the 40d which are better than the focus and features on the 20d which means according to yourself you've been shooting with rubbish. Personally most of my shots are pretty sharp off the 5d mk2 compare to the 40d, whether it be action or events. I haven't tested the speed of focus but it is definitely more accurate. Who cares if you rattle off more frames if you're not shooting accurately. </p>

[william_bray1]

<p>here are two photos of the 7d and the 5dMKII, they are 100% crops both taken with the same lens. Nothing has been done to them!<br>

I don't know of another way to upload the images<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=942086">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=942086</a><br>

both were shot at 6400 <em>ISO</em> I promise the softer photo is the 5d.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>I suggest you look at this Zack if you're wondering how your camera will hold up<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml</a></p>

[calin_deac]

<p>I have never understand this silly " indecisions" between crop and full frame when you talk about print quality.<br>

A APS-C camera ( no matter how quick or sealed it is) will never ever manage to produce that specifically 3D look that a a full frame gives.<br>

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/<br>

Scroll down and look how the " rubbish " wipes the floor with the 7D - especially in sharpness- no matter the ISO.<br>

or : <a rel="nofollow" href="http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/iso_comp_7/" target="_blank">http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/iso_comp_7/</a><br>

download the images look at the details and you'll see the difference between flattness and "3D rubbish"<br>

When something is so obvious any discussion is futile.<br>

And I'm not talking about the 7D softness:<br>

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/<br>

or about the tens of posts about bad focus ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1019 ) and the increase numbers of 7Ds send back to canon for that reason. Believe me, there are not all users mistakes.</p>

<p> </p>