5d mark 1 vs. 7d?

[aaron_phillips1]

<p>If I were you I would get the 7D. For sports you will find yourself frustrated by the lack of true tracking ability and slow firing of the 5D. You may lose as many shots as you get, while the 7D rivals the 1D Mark IV focusing system and IS bettter than the 1D Mark III. Also, the 7D is perfectly fine for wide shooting. Just slap a 10-22, or my preferred a Tokina 11-18 and you are just as wide as a 16-35mm or a 17-40 on a 5D. And for those of you who havent used it, the Tokina is an excellent lens.<br>

The 5D II does easily kick the 7Ds tail at high Isos, but as long as you use solid glass, for most sporting events youi will not need to go over 1600 anyway. Also, keep in mind as someone mentioned earlier, the 7D essentially turns a 70-200 2.8 into a 100-300 2.8, or a 200 2.8 prime into a 300 2.8 prime. I have found that my 7D allows me to get away with not having to buy the uhber expensive 300 2.8 to shoot sports, though if you did buy it, you would be rewarded with a lens that is REALLY about a 460mm 2.8, and obviate he need for a 400mm or a 500 mm lens for shooting sports.<br>

All in all I think the 7D is simply a better camera. The 5D definitely has its uses, such as very low light shooting, but for equal the price of a 5D II body (I already owned a 5D II though, and then sold it for a second 7D), I get the 7D and the FABULOUS 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens. Its a nobrainer.</p>

<p>And as a final note, if you are going to be a professional photographer you can never say you dont want to have to carry around a lens for one specific purpose. ALL lenses serve a specific purpose. If you want to shoot wide you have to carry a wide lens. And if you will be shooting with crop bodies, who cares if your lens is efs or not. Canon makes some great EFS lenses, such as the 17-55.<br>

The final advice I would give is drop the 24-70mm 2.8 and grab a 17-55 2.8 which will give you equal IQ, the same focal length as the 24-70 on a full frame and let you get much wider. Also if you are going to shoot sports in low light, drop the 100-400L and get yourself a 70-200 2.8 IS which will be the same price, OR grab a 70-200mm F4 (NON IS) and a 400mm 5.6 if you really need to get out that far. those two will even out to about the price of the 100-400. You are just sacrificing too much light with the 100-400L if you are shooting sports in low light.</p>

<p> </p>

[caleb_santos]

<p>I have the 5D mk2 and 7D. Last year my kit consisted of 5D mk1 and 50D. I sold them both to upgrade to 5Dmk2. I miss the old 5D and am seriously thinking of buying a used one again as a backup (as opposed to the 7D as backup). That's how I stumbled upon this thread. <br>

I definitely do not miss the 50D. I am seriously considering selling the 7D and downgrading to the old 5D. The only thing holding me back is the awesome features the 7D brings to the table. The 7D is very comparable to the 50D when you consider noise and IQ, but you can overlook all that with the 7D's feature set. The best thing about the 7D is the spring open CF door. The grip is awesome too. 100% viewfinder is excellent. Live view is a breeze, vs. the 5Dmk2 (a little clumsy when trying to switch between video and camera modes). As far as AF goes, every camera and lens I have had in recent years have had great AF accuracy. So, AF is not a deciding factor for me, even though I understand the 7D is more flexible in that department. One final good note for the 7D is its Auto White Balance which is more often more correct than all the other cameras I mentioned.<br>

Many people might think I am crazy but... I just don't think images captured by the 7D look as nice as those captured by the 5D or 5Dmk2 (I am talking about ISO 100). I think Canon just tried to squeeze a bit too many pixels onto that sensor. ISO 3200 on the 7D doesn't look much better than on my old 10D. Even on low ISO colors don't look smooth. I read on forums everywhere that the 7D almost equals the 5Dmk2 in IQ and blows the 5dmk1 out of the water.... that was just a bunch of bologna. <br>

So, to answer the OP's question... the 5Dmk1 is worth every penny. But, if you need speed, the 7D will do marvelous. The 5Dmk1 is a bit slow and the buffer will get full quickly. BUT, if you really want the best of both worlds, buy a used 1Dmk3. BUT, if you are considering a new 5Dmk2, I would say it is the best (new [digital] {35mm format SLR}) camera for money at this point in history. Then again, I haven't used a Nikon D700. I'll post some 100% crops for Manuel.</p>

[caleb_santos]

<p>Not the best pictures in the world, but if you have a suggestion for better test subjects, let me know, i just did this real fast from where I am sitting in my basement :P<br>

10D 3200<br /> <img src="http://www.santos-isensee.com/photos/CRW_7865.jpg" alt="" /><br /> 7D 3200<br /> <img src="http://www.santos-isensee.com/photos/7D-3200.jpg" alt="" /><br /> 5D2 3200<br /> <img src="http://www.santos-isensee.com/photos/5D-3200.jpg" alt="" /></p>