Really confused: 5D Mark II vs. 7D

[tdigi]

<p>How does the 5D2 compare in auto focus to a 20 or 30d? I personally find the auto focus to work pretty well ( I used a 40D, 5D and some rebels and I find it works at least as well ). It rarely hunts in low light ( and thats mostly what I shoot in ) Is that not more of a lens issue? </p>

[xavier_henri]

<p>

<p>Hmmm, I believe I need to explain why the following kind of photography might be better on the 5D² independently of the "larger prints" criteria.</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Portrait</strong> : because a 5D² + 135 f/2 L is lighter and cheaper than a 7D + 85 f/1.2 L (for equivalent shallow depth of field and blurred backgrounds). [#1 for me]</li>

<li><strong>Architecture</strong> : because you would either use tilt/shift lenses or need sufficient extra resolution to recover perspective in post-processing.</li>

<li><strong>Low-Light</strong> : because an sRAW1 ISO 6400 5D² file is just unbelievable.</li>

<li><strong>Landscape</strong> : only if you don't use a heavy tripod (higher ISO), otherwise I believe 7D is about equivalent.</li>

</ul>

<p>If none of these ring a bell, then by all means get the 7D.<br>

Oh, and concerning weight, you might want to leave the zoom on its shelf more often, knowing that cropping lighter prime lenses images gives excellent results on the 5D² ;-)</p>

</p>

[matthijs]

How shallow does the DoF need to be?

 

I recently shot portraits on a 15mp crop using a 100/2.8 lens and it was pretty shallow. My advice would be to try them

both and to stop reading...

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Low-Light</strong> : because an sRAW1 ISO 6400 5D² file is just unbelievable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Xavier, your comment intrigued me. I have never used sRAW1 or sRAW2. I just assumed they were the same quality but smaller. Are you saying that high ISO quality is better using sRAW1 compared to standard RAW? Or am I reading into something I shouldn't be?</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Vertigo. Have you ever tried shooting with live-view? Both the 5D2 and 7D have it. Maybe this will help. Maybe it'll make it worse. Worth a try.</p>

[xavier_henri]

<p>Jamie,<br>

The sRAW1 format is in fact very different from RAW (14 bits per pixel Bayer matrix): it is already demosaiced and is coded in <a href="http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/#sraw">YCbCr</a>. Luminosity information is coded with 15 bits and chrominance with 2x15 bits every 4 pixels. Therefore, it is very effective at higher ISO settings where chrominance noise will be smoothed out (very impressive at ISO 6400).</p>

<p>Concerning focusing (a few <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EOS5D2TipsE.php">tips here</a>), the center AF point is very good in low light; much much better than my old 20D. </p><div></div>

[katrina_chickloski]

Hmm. Reading this over and now more confused than ever. Right now, hold on to your seats, I am using a Nikon D40X. I have outgrown it and need something with more, well everything.

 

I am willing to switch from Nikon to Cannon if the camera is right.

 

My main passion is landscape with portraits on the side. I shoot sports as I have children. So..with the two main uses being a bit different what of these two cameras would best suit me. From what I am reading..I would need the two of them. ACK!

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Katrina, you won't need two of them. By far the best all round camera of them all is the Canon 7D. It does everything you could ever wish for. It's a great sports action camera and will handle landscapes and portraits beautifully. The 5D2 is more expensive but it has slight advantages with super wide angle lenses, slightly better at high ISO, shallower depth of field and marginly better image quality. Aside from those minor differences the 7D is better in almost every other aspect. I am not biased towards the 7D, I own the 5D2.</p>

<p>Xavier, that is extremely interesting. I have never considered that sRAW could perform differently. I must get out there and experiment with mine. Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention.</p>

[macaddicted]

<p>@Katrina: Good, so it's not just me. But the price difference buys a really nice panoramic head from ReallyRightStuff or Manfrotto.</p>

<p>@Xavier: Thanks. Is there an English translation available?</p>

[cen_kourville]

<p>I'm in the same situation as Katrina, with one difference. My son plays competitive hockey, and often the arenas are not well lit. I presently have a 50d with a great 70-200 2.8 IS lens.<br /> <br /> At 1/500 atd 2.8 I have to use ISO 1600 and I find the quality not adequate.<br>

With the the quicker focusing 7D vs the better high ISO 5Dm2, who comes out ahead.<br>

A higher miss rate is ok, but I want hq photos. Any thoughts?</p>

[ralf_h]

<p>Mind if I play through?<br>

<img src="http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc139/palmtree41/bob-hope.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Katrina and Cen, first of all let me say that it's better not to divert a thread from its orignal path. Rather, open a new one (after searching, of course).</p>

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

<p dir="ltr">Second, before switching think well on the lenses you want to use. For me, it's the lens selection that keeps me in Canon. Only if you are absolutely sure that the lenses in both systems are equivalent <strong>for you</strong>, think about which bodies to attach to them.

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

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

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

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

</p>

 

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

 

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

</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>When using a 35mm lens, a crop camera only uses roughly 1/3rd of the information captured by the lens and discards the rest. The difference in detail will be sizable (obviously).<br>

I shoot MF and this discussion, comparing between formats, has long existed and the principles have not changed. Applications, convenience and features - as most pointed out- need to be considered. <br>

Imagine both cameras had 500 megapixels with no noise. A 1/3 crop is still a 1/3 crop. It is a smaller format.</p>

[katrina_chickloski]

Sorry I my question was off the main topic. I guess I should of asked if someone could sum this up in more simpler language.

[picture_it]

<p>Katrina you're question is not that far away from the main subject. You're right when you first said that it looks like you need both of them, I would only say thats true if money is no object or you need both to earn money with.<br>

I have both and I would not recommend getting a 5dmk2 to somebody who doesn't fall into either of those categories, only if 80% of the photo's you do fall into what the 5dmk2 can do better than the 7d, and thats not a lot of people.<br>

To be honest I don't think the 5dmk2 is worth £2000 unless you can get the money back by doing jobs with it.<br>

I thought the 7d was way over priced when it fist came out, I only bought it when the prices drooped, now at the current price I think it is one of the best cameras you can buy.<br>

What Yakim said about the the lenses you have when thinking about swapping to Nikon or canon also applies here when deciding between crop or full frame.<br>

Have another look at the photos that Daniel lee Taylor posted here. Do you want to pay £1000 more for that much of a difference in IQ. The 5dmk2 is only worth the money to you if you are going to use it for what makes it different to the 7d, you need to be shooting regularly at high ISO, you're regularly printing at A2 and above, you have thousands of pounds worth of wide angle lenses that are no good on a crop camera. Otherwise you've bought a camera that is great for 20% or 10% of the photos you do but for the rest the 7d would have been better or you couldn't tell the difference.<br>

If you're heart it set on a FF camera and it wasn't urgent that you have one now I would try to hold off for the moment and see if a 5dmk3 would be coming out in 2010. Because I think it's not just the 7d body thats different from the 5dmk2 but also the way the image is processed. We wouldn't have had this discussion 4 years ago comparing a 18mp crop camera to a FF camera. Which makes me wonder how good the IQ from FF camera with the everything from the 7d ( not just the AF) would be.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Katrina, if your "passion" is landscape, then get the 5D MkII. I own both the 7D and the 5D MkII and the 7D doesn't come close to the full frame on scenics. The full-frame is also excellent for childrens' sports, but not as good as the 7D for that purpose. You'll be overjoyed with the IQ of the 5D MkII on landscapes, it's simply stunning.</p>

<p>I use my 7D 99% of the time for wildlife photography, taking advantage of the larger image in the viewfinder and its fast 8-fps burst rate and faster AF; the 5D MkII is used for everything else, where it's full frame sensor yields wider angles, superior IQ and much better high-ISO performance. The 7D is "ok" on landscapes while the 5D MkII is "stunning", IMHO, as an owner and user of both.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>The 7D is a great camera, no doubt. It is another step forward for camera tech. Several have given good advice here, however, IMO a couple of things to consider: DOF, ISO, and IQ.</p>

<p>The 5D MkII will have the same depth of field as your old 5D. Additionally, if you like to use DOF creatively, you will get more chances to do that with the 5D MkII. With Macro this can be somewhat of a challenge.</p>

<p>If you need to shoot in low light the 5D MkII is great. If you don't, then it won't help much. I've pretty much abused my 5D MkII since I got it by shooting way too much in low light, and I have decent images from it and would not have with earlier gen cameras. The technology is making high ISO very usable, and the 7D will be pretty good as well.</p>

<p>IMO, full frame IQ is great. Medium format would be a lot better, but way out of my price range. Somewhat better than you old 5D. The 7D I'm sure is very good as well, but for me the smaller sensors just fall a little short. I've made some fantastic large prints with my old XTI, but I made the jump to FF and I'm not going back. And if I would win the lottery I'd jump to MF.</p>

<p>If you loved your old 5D, it will be a lot like that in Image Quality but a little better.</p>

[picture_it]

<p>Just remember that on the 5dmk2 you'll need good wide angle lenses, from what I've seen the 5dmk2 pushes the 17-40 to it's limits and doesn't show off what the 5dmk2 can do, I know a couple of photographers who after buying the 5dmk2 got rid of their 17-40 and got a 16-35 , so if IQ is everything you'll going to need a 16-35 2.8 mk2 lens costing £1200.<br />Bringing the total with the 5dmk2 to around £3200<br />Someone mentioned here the tokina 11-16 and that is excellent, and the samples I've seen I would agree and it costs around £400-£500<br />So the price of a 7d and a tokina 11-16 2.8 is going to be less then the 5dmk2.<br />May be you already own a 16-35 2.8,or you can afford it, I'm just making the point that it's easy to forget hidden extras when buying new kit.<br />While there is no doubt the 5dmk2 is going to give better IQ, I've always thought lenses are more important than the camera, I don't mean to repeat my self but for landscapes if you're using the right technique I don't see much of a difference between the 5d and the 7d <strong>if you're using good lenses.</strong> For me on just IQ the biggest difference between the two is noise.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The 16-35mm is a totally different lens on the FF 5D MkII than on the 7D, with vastly different perspective. It's difficult to compare the IQ of the 7D and 5D2 in with wide-angle lenses because you need more than one image on the 7D to equal the image of the FF sensor. Buying a EF 24-105mm f4L IS as the "kit" lens with the 5D2 is an incredible bargain, yielding excellent results at its widest range, when used properly and post processed well. For a landscape specialist there are superior lenses, but for versatility it's hard to beat the 24-105mm f4L IS.</p>

<p>As the owner of both the 7D and 5D2, the IQ of MY 5D2 is clearly superior to the MY 7D. However, they are both excellent. When friends ask, I suggest the 5D2 for landscape, portraits and general photography and the 7D for wildlife, sports and macro (although the 5D2 is fine for macro also).</p>

[katrina_chickloski]

Thank you for responding back and it is all making sense. I guess I really should just sit and evaluate my needs and wants and go from there. :)

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>from what I've seen the 5dmk2 pushes the 17-40 to it's limits</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's the case, the 50D and 7D will push the same lens even further due to their much higher pixel density. Theoretically, the 7D should require the best glass of all. In practice I can't see any decent lens being pushed to its limit by the 5D2.</p>

[picture_it]

<p>Hi David I,m not sure where you're coming from I wasn't saying to put a 16-35 on a 7d quite the opposite I was saying if you own a 16-35 that would make you buy a 5d on that basis alone.<br>

I don't understand what you mean by <em>with wide-angle lenses because you need more than one image on the 7D to equal the image of the FF sensor.</em><br>

The 24-105 is versatile, but the 24-70 is better optically and is the lens most pros will have in their bag along with a 70-200 2.8. The 24-105 is a good travel lens and a good jack of all trades and master of none lens, but if IQ is important I would think twice before buying it.<br>

Also can you honestly look at the photos that David Lee Taylor posted here<br>

<a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VIsm-202431584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VIsm-202431584.jpg</a><br>

and still say the 5dmk2 is <strong><em>clearly Superior </em></strong>than the 7D</p>

[xavier_henri]

<p><strong>@David</strong>: all my links were in english, so I suppose you mean that my sRAW1 explanation was too technical. It all boils down to sRAW1 smoothing chrominance a bit and leads you to a 10 MPixels file that is somewhat already filtered for higher ISO.</p>

<p><strong>@Katrina</strong>: we have approximately the same interests...</p>

<ul>

<li>You did put Landscape first, and I believe you won't want to haul a heavy tripod. The 5D² will enable cleaner higher ISO at smaller apertures (deeper depth of field). Especially at dusk.</li>

<li>For portraits, the shallower depth of field will help to have your children pop out of a blurred background.</li>

<li>Now for sports, the 7D would surely be better, but I do manage quite well with the 5D². I use centered AI-Servo which is very effective, even in lower light. I then have enough pixels to crop and place my subject adequately in post-processing (cropping a centered subject to the thirds leaves you with 12 MPixels).</li>

<li>And I'm sure you will take pictures of your kids in low-light, in that case it's a no brainer.</li>

</ul><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>You're not going to get much better conditions in the field, from a viewpoint of detail and sharpness, than Imaging Resource gets in their lab. Again I should note that I applied a little sharpening after resizing the 7D image. I bring this up because I've seen countless people compare crop and FF images with equal processing when crop images need a touch more sharpening. This is because a crop sensor resolves scene details at a lower point on the lens MTF curve. A crop sensor is not recording only 1/3rd as much information as Mauro incorrectly states. It doesn't work that way because a lens has resolution to spare at either pixel density, but the contrast of the resolved detail drops lower as pixel density increases. (I forget what my USM settings were, something like 0.5 @ 50%.)</p>

<p>The 5D2 is slightly better and slightly cleaner under best conditions at low to mid ISO. Out of the camera it gives a better first impression than the crop I provided shows because out of the camera it's sharper than the 7D (higher MTF). But again, they're close enough that it's something you can nearly eliminate in post processing.</p>

<p>If you're seeing a more dramatic difference in either direction then some other factor compromised the sensor. I do believe some of the people who say they own both and feel the 5D2 is much better, but I also believe they are not accounting for some confounding factor in the comparison. Lens quality difference, diffraction at chosen aperture (starts to hit the 7D at f/7), camera body settings, whatever. Set everything up properly in a carefully controlled test and the difference you should see should be about the difference I showed in those two crops.</p>

<p>Again, at high ISO it's no contest. The 5D2 retains detail at high ISO like no other camera. And if you need to use, say, a 17mm T/S, it's no contest. But these needs don't apply to most photographers spending their hard earned money, and the 7D is a much more refined body.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Unfortunately dpreview changed their studio scene between the 5D2 and 7D reviews, but there are still similar elements and the sizing isn't too far off. If you take those and apply a touch of sharpening to the 7D file, you see pretty much the same fine detail as the 5D2. The 5D2 has a slight edge, but nothing that would stand out in print.</p>

<p>Jamie - I have the 17-40L and like it, but I can't imagine it would do the 5D2 justice. The corners get too soft and mushy on FF. Quite frankly the Tokina 11-16 on a crop sensor is a much better combination. If you're looking at that FoV range, you need to price a 16-35 II for the 5D2. Or wait for Canon's rumored 14-24 competitor.</p>

<p>I'm not saying I wouldn't go shoot if all I had were a 5D2 and a 17-40L. But if I had went the 5D2 route, I would have been looking to upgrade that lens eventually.</p>