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

[william_bray1]

<p>All the way through this I have expressed my opinions with out insulting anyone. Not bad for a troll, something it seems you can't do. So what does that make of you Brett.<br>

By the way remember Brett that's a cool troll if you don't mind. deep down I think your like Mr Hitler from the you tube clip<br>

<a href="

I know you love to watch this so here it is one last time for Brett.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Sorry dude, you're a troll, no better than any kid on YouTube. You really don't belong on here with serious people. What is that, five posts since you said you were done posting on this thread? And I never said you were cool, learn how to read.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>Brett you're like a clock. Wind it up and it ticks all day.<br>

It's been fun.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Troll alert, folks.</p>

<p>Let. The. Thread. Die. Please.</p>

<p>(Stay tuned for witty and insulting rebuttal by the OP... Enjoy it when it comes, but... "Please don't feed the troll" :-)</p>

[mattb1]

<p>Kind of a funny read, well if you skip the trolling. The guy seems bent on bashing a great camera. I know the 5D II has shown a lot of my mistakes to me, not the cameras fault. I don't want a camera that will cover up my mistakes.</p>

<p>Anyway, I just want to point out that the reports on LL about the Arctic trip seem somewhat suspect to me. The same 'report' was made about the then new 1D II (I think it was the II) in a previous Arctic trip, right down to the same 'failure' rate. That same line of Canon cameras have shown themselves to be quite robust and does not reflect the 'report' made on LL. Seems to be more of an affinity to a brand than related than balanced reporting (other manufactures failures on the trips are attributed to some other factor and quickly dismissed). I think they are correct in 'reporting' any perceived issues as a way to hold the manufactures accountable. However, this one has not stood the test of time and should be put to bed.</p>

<p>Not to imply that LL has bad opinions or poor photographic skills, they all are very good artists and have great skill. Well beyond what I can accomplish. Still, everything you read on the internet needs to be taken with a grain of salt so to speak. IMO the 5D II will go down as what it is marketed as: weather resistant not water proof.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Ooh steady, Brett, Dan - I recently got a sniffy "<em>I've deleted your posting - there's no call for that kind of talk...</em>" message from a mod on another forum on here for suggesting someone was possibly a troll (a lot less directly than you have here).</p>

<p>Even so, you're right about this one!</p>

<p>(It'll be interesting to see if the mods here are as "sensitive"...)</p>

[adrian_lowe]

<p>Yes...it is!</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>What is it with Brett and Dan are they a tag team or something, it looks like Dan has had to come to Brett's rescue.<br>

Were you two high school freinds, who proberly spent their lunch breaks playing Dungeons and Dragons in the classroom, and now you spend your evenings and weekends searching Photonet looking for people to gang up on. Take a walk out of your front door and and socialize with some real people.<br>

Man I bet you two are a nightmare to meet in real life.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>No response. Please don't feed the trolls. :-)</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>Rent the cameras and do the tests yourself. Or buy used and resell what you don't want. <br>

There are unlimited dogmatic voices, all sure they have the answer. But the most important answer will come from you: do you see meaningful differences? <br>

When I wanted to compare film to digital I read all the theoretical discussions of film vs: digital. I did the tests myself, shooting what I like to shoot, looking at my favorite output forms. Then I decided for myself. <br>

Do the same. It's much more satisfying. You'll see that some of the points here apply to you. And you'll feel like you are straining your brain to make sense of what others have posted. But most of all, you'll smile and be happy knowing where the truth, as pertains to you, really is. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Let. This. Thread. Die. Please.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Didn't it die quite awhile ago, Dan, namely, shortly after your first response to this, er, troll?</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I hate the 5D II vs. 7D debates, they're apples and oranges.</p>

[picture_it]

<p>William a bit of advice, calm down from my own experience be careful when running down other peoples equipment, people can get very touchy and rightly so when they have spent a small fortune.<br>

I have the 5dMK2 and the 7d, I bought the 7d as a backup when my 5d mark1 died.I think we've established the 5d has better IQ you said that you're self. But the question is how much better? Depends on what you're shooting, I think to say the 7d is only for sports and wildlife is wrong you can do at least 80% with the 7d as you can with the 5d, does your income depend on that 20%? And the 7d does what the 5d can't. You mentioned weddings, I shot a wedding recently usually I would be using the 5d with a 24 70 2.8 L lens and a 70 200 2.8 is L on the 7d, I thought I'd swap and use the 7d with the 24 70. I really liked the 7d and I'll be doing this again, I could use the 24-70 at 70mm and get tight portraits, the focusing is better than the 5d, that doesn't make the 5d bad. ISO 3200 on a 7d was fine. And the speed and buffer is amazing.<br>

For landscape the 7d is fine with a good lens, canon 10-22, unless you're going to print very large but for A3 it's fine, you won't loose a lot of IQ. If I didn't have the 5d I wouldn't have a problem shooting with the 7d. For landscapes you should be using a tripod and the lowest ISO, so just from this it will minimize the difference in IQ.<br>

For me the 5d comes in to it's own for out of focus shots I use it a lot for food, even some of canon's L primes perform slightly worse when wide open but with the 5d I can stop it down a bit and get a better performance from my lens while still getting fantastic depth of field. The ISO noise is better than the 7d but I'm impressed that a cropped sensor gives the 5d a run for it's money.<br>

It seems you're starting out and I think the 7d would probably suit you better when you're clients require that 20% only the 5d can deliver, thens the time to get it. I have found in this game it's all about compromise, zooms or primes, fast and heavy lenses v slow and light. All manufacturer's won't give you one camera that will do it all, they have a name for this " BAD BUSINESS". We have to get used to it. So to answer your original question is the 5d worth the extra. Yes but only if you need it for a specific style,or you can't shoot with anything unless it gives you the best IQ or to earn money with. If you can't take a great photo with a 7d the 5d isn't going to help.<br>

I don't want to get in any argument here but if some people don't want the responses they got DON'T PROVOKE IT.<br>

And it's up to me and others if we want to participate in a discussion or not.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>And it's up to me and others if we want to participate in a discussion or not.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And let's all agree to stop participating in this one. :-)</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>Please don't feed the troll :-)</p>

[douwe_spoelstra]

<p>Okay, some of you might be aware, but the 50D had a serious problem! I would like to pop a question to all you happy 7D owners. The question concerns non repearable purple fringing from 50D. I do waterports photography and found the 50D to be absolute rubbish in this case. In very backlit situations the 50D would color the water in the picture entirely purple. You do not believe? well I will post a picture to proof what I am saying. In fact 15% of all my watersport photographs are distroyed by this phenomenon. I have never seen this problem with the previously owned 20D! And so in complete dispare I have sold the 50D and bought one of the last remaining 40D's and guess what.... everything is back to perfect again. So this step up in 50% more pixels has some serious downsides, if you ask me. So you can guess my question, does the 7D display the same problem? I Really would like to buy that camera but offcourse only if its usefull. And oh yes, if I look at the 50D pictures and compare them to my 40D pictures, I find the 50D so soft that I do not see any gain in I Q in the real world over my 40D's. Maybe I am crazy but printed big size the 40D looks sharper, huhh how is that possible. And so for me the 5D markii is back in the picture.. here you can see an example, I know its not art but you'll see what I mean <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=5738984">http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=5738984</a></p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>Douwe, you'd probably get a better response if you started a new thread. Your post is deep down in a thread containing a pissing match that many will avoid. Your serious post warrants a separate thread.<br>

I haven't experienced purple fringing with my 7D yet. I've only taken several hundred bird and wildlife shots (some around and across water), but nothing to match the circumstance as in your examples.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>I've never heard about this before I think David is right start a new thread. Can you please leave a message with the link here so we can follow it.<br>

Thanks</p>

[douwe_spoelstra]

<p>Okay thanks will do!</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>Douwe I don't want to bring this up in your new thread, and start another war, so I wanted to tell you now. I went to a shop again today to test the 7d and the 5d again ( different shop). The sales man told me there has been cases of the 5d over heating and shutting down when used in video mode, I don't know how long it takes to do this. But apparently this happens when using L lenses, beacause they are sealed and don't allow air inside the body when zooming thus the over heating. This is the fist time I heard any thing like this. The sales man was honest he wasn't pro nikon or anything and he didn't run the 5d down he was just saying the facts.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Yup, now we can all be afraid - <em>very afraid!</em> - that the 5D2 is unusable in video mode with good lenses.</p>

<p>Right.</p>

<p>Let. It. Die. Please. :-)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Purple fringing thread is here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00V4BW</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>Dan I just wanted to tell you the 5d I tried last showed none of the softness I spoke about before. This was the 3rd one I tried. But I have too say the images were good, I wouldn't go as far as to say they blew me away, beacuse the 7d was equally as impressive for it's ability to be close to the 5d for a cropped camera, but the 5d is one of the the best images ( proberly the best from canon), I have seen from a DSLR, the tone, coulour, I could happily shoot in jpeg with this camera and use the images with minimum editing, I don't think I could be as confident with the 7d I'd still keep shooting in RAW. Now I have seen a 5d working as it should I can start to understand why so many will put up with the issues I have with it just to have the IQ. Now canon have shown us what they are capable of, and that they can now get a image thats comparable from a APS-C to a full frame, and they don't keep the tech they have in the 7d only for the 7d. The 5D mark III should be breathtaking.<br>

It's a shame the first or seacond 5d didn't performe as well as the 3rd, if they did I wouldn't have posted this question.<br>

I have to say your one tough cookie Dan and you don't give up.<br>

See you around.</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>I have used both, and overall 7D is a better camera. If AF is not top-notch and fast, what use is a camera with great IQ if you miss a shot? I am sure 5D Mark III will be breathtaking.</p>