7D vs 5D mk II in Studio Fashion & Portrait Photography

[payamghafoori]

<p>Hi everybody,<br>

<br /> I just want to bring a question sourced out of my own concern/business. Please help!<br /> I mainly shoot fashion, portrait and studio wedding shots. As it is clear most of my shoots are in the studio or in the bright daylight (rarely exceed 100 to 400 range of ISO).<br /> I just want to expand the business and tried my best and accumulate around 5000 USD. Now I wonder if it is better to invest in Canon 7D plus three decent lenses (70-200 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS & 10-22 super wide) or got a Canon 5D mk II and forget the latter glass i.e 10-22.<br /> The reason I am interested in 10-22 is that it gives me the chance to somehow shoot wide landscapes and also I love extraordinary, edgy and eye catching look of super wide angle fashion studio shots.<br /> So please advise and leave some professional comments. Does anyone have any idea about below factors for both camera models?<br /> - Any apparent difference in Depth Of Field in similar condition<br /> - Any apparent difference in up sizing photos (large prints like 100x75 cm)<br /> - Pixel Pitch concerns (individual pixel size and pixel density and their influence on the end quality of photos shot under ISO 100-400 and printed in large sizes, if any)<br /> - …<br>

<br /> I do appreciate your kind help</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>Biggest difference is that you get more shallow depth of field options for a given angle of view. For your application I'd say that is pretty important and so I'd recommend going full-frame with the 5D2 now.</p>

<p>The other reason to prefer the 5D2 is that the standard zoom goes wider than most of the standard zooms for crop bodies, which in my experience dramatically reduces the need to switch lenses.</p>

<p>Upgrades later are expensive if you've got to sell any crop-only lenses such as the 10-22.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Sounds like you'd be better off with the 5D II because:<br>

1.The larger the prints you make the more mp it helps to have.<br>

2. The larger the sensor the shallower the dof for a given f stop.<br>

3. Since you love wide shots the 10-22 can only give you a 16mm equivalent whereas it is possible to purchase a <em>really</em> wide angle FF lens from Sigma, their 12-24.<br>

4. Generally the larger the pixels the better the DR, which always comes in handy.<br>

5. And the last point is not generally understood well, but the higher the pixel density the higher the resolution the lens needs to be for an equivalent final LPH. But even if the lens is capable of providing that higher resolution that part will still be of lower contrast that the lower resolution part of the lens. In other words, if you use the same lens on the 5D and the 7D, the lens will seem to provide a higher contrast on the 5D.</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>"more shallow depth of field options for a given angle of view."</p>

<p>Yes. And even better, you get _sharper images_ at shallow DoF. Most lenses are funky wide open, and when you go looking for shallow DoF on a crop camera, you have to move further into that funky territory. On FF, you shoot your 35/1.4 at, say, f/2.0 and get nice sharp images at the plane of focus. On crop, to get the same DoF, you shoot the 24/1.4 wide open (worse performance) on a sensor with a much finer pixel pitch (showing the funkiness even better). Not a good game to be playing.</p>

<p>On the other hand, on FF, you have to work to get your corners sharp. I have a large number of lenses that are 20mm or cover the 20mm focal length, and only the Voigtlander 20/3.5 and Zeiss 21/2.8 can produce decent images out to the corners on the 5D2, and even the 20/3.5 is only so so (not as sharp overall as the 21/2.8 and quite a bit of (although still correctable in Lightroom) CA. The 21/2.8, though, is a real pleasure to use.</p>

<p>By the way, the Sigma 12-24 cannot be said to be the sharpest lens in the world, and it's got some strangenesses about how DoF works that are not predicted by the usual formulas. But it's amazingly well corrected for distortion and once you have DoF figured out, it's a blast for interiors.</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_osullivan1]

<p>David, though I realized you need a wider lens for the equivalent aov on a crop sensor, and though I knew that for any particular aov the ff produces shallower dof, and though I realized that any lens is sharper stopped down from wide open, I never put them all together like you have above. You've just tipped my own future buying decision! Thanks....<br>

Stephen</p>

[derek_stanton2]

<p>I would advise different lenses. With the 5DMkII, the 50mm 1.4 EF or Sigma 50/1.4. Perhaps the 24-70 2.8, and an 85mm prime. The f1.2 if you can afford it. If not, the 85/1.8 will do fine. </p>

<p>As for the idea of doing "extraordinary, edgy and eye catching look of super wide angle fashion studio shots," i'd like to see something along those lines that inspires you. I'm pretty certain you'll find, if you can even manage it, that the 'look' you'll get won't be particularly appealing or marketable. "Studio shots?" How large is your studio that you can shoot an extreme wide in it? It would have to be quite large, with a corner cyc wall, or you'll be shooting very close to the models which will distort features. If you're looking simply to lengthen legs and such, try a less wide (28mm?) lens and work with angles. And, tall, thin models. </p>

<p>For fashion, portraiture, weddings, i don't think you really need 200mm of lens. And, if you haven't shot in churches much yet, i'm betting you'll need SPEED. Faster apertures and higher ISOs than you're considering here. </p>

[matthijs]

Not professional but I can't stay silent.

 

 

Unless you're really good the differences in image quality and number of pixels are negligable.

 

So the main decider will be super wide and super shallow versus super long and slightly less shallow.

 

(do not overestimate the super shallow dof differences, they're there but it's not like a 7D is a P&S with a pinkt mail sized

sensor)

[danielleetaylor]

<p>At low to mid ISO you will find no difference in properly processed files from these bodies. I always say "properly processed" because the 7D does require a bit more sharpening (details are recorded at a lower point on the MTF curve of the lens).</p>

<p>You're not going to find a difference in ability to enlarge. And while 7D files won't be quite as smooth when pixel peeping, they print just as well.</p>

<p>DoF differences between 35mm and APS-C are extremely overrated. The truth is you can get completely blurred backgrounds with either one and a fast lens. If you handed a set of prints shot wide open with both to someone they would never guess that you used two different bodies.</p>

<p>David's post makes for good theory, but the difference between the 24 f/1.4L @ 1.4 and 35 f/1.4L @ 2 in the center isn't enough to be noticeable at most print sizes after post processing. It's also a strange use scenario involving two lenses you may never own. A much more likely scenario is an 85 f/1.8 on both where the APS-C user steps back a bit to get the same framing. Good luck noticing or caring about the differences there.</p>

<p>I don't mean to always sound like I'm bashing the 5D mkII. It is a fantastic camera. But it's advantages over the 7D come down to high ISO and the ability to use certain lenses at their intended focal lengths (i.e. 14mm prime; T/S lenses). If you're not specifically looking for those uses there's not much to justify the cost and loss of features. The 5D needs a refresh in light of the 7D.</p>

<p>If you do go with the 7D, I would suggest different lenses. The 70-200 is great, but I would get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 over the Canon 10-22 (faster and sharper, especially in the corners). And I would consider either the Canon 15-85 IS or Canon 17-55 IS over the 24-105. Don't let the L badge fool you, those three choices are in the same class in terms of optical performance.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I would suggest the 5DII of the two for your uses (I own both bodies). On lenses I would strongly recommend the 70-200 F4 IS - I also own the F2.8 version but find the F4 is great for all applications except low light and indoor sports or very shallow DOF portraits. On the other zooms I prefer the 24-70 f2.8 to the 24-105 F4 (I sold the latter to buy the former) and for wide angle zooms the 17-40 F4 is a good buy (although I sold mine to buy the 16-35 II). This set is probably beyond your budget so you may want to consider replacing the mid range zoom with a prime (e.g. the 50 f1.4 or perhaps the 85 F1.8 if you shoot a lot of portraits). in the real world the gap between the 17-40 and 70-200 is not that big especially given the resolution of the 5DII and your ability to crop. I don't know if daniel owns both of these bodies but I do find a difference in results between the two. While I am sure that others may not see the difference I can usually tell - except for medium aperture good light low contrast shots. While you may not need to use high ISO even at low ISO (100 - 400) the 5DII shows considerably less noise (if you doubt this check the popular photo tests of both bodies) and smoother images. Except for sports the AF performance differences between the two bodies are small and if you are familiar with canon metering the new 7D metering system will cause problems. I will expand on this as I am sure it will draw criticism. In essence the 7D metering system is theoretically better than that of the 5DII. In practice I find it more difficult as the 5DII shows exactly the same characteristics as canon metering systems for the past decade (or more). Thus I find that a scence where I know +1 stop of compensation is needed on evaluative metering I find that on the 7D I may only need 2/3 of a stop. To a new Canon user this should not be an issue but for some of us it causes problems. Again check the reviews for confimation of this issue as many reviews regarded the 7D metering as unpredictable.</p>

<p>this is not meant to denigrate the 7D it is a fine camera (I bought one of the first) and makes a good complement to the 5DII. The optimum would be a 5DII with the 7D AF system and frame rate.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em> I don't know if daniel owns both of these bodies but I do find a difference in results between the two.</em></p>

<p>I had a chance to test both before making my decision. I judged by properly post processed prints. The 7D requires more sharpening (as all APS-C cameras do) and may require a touch of NR where the 5D mkII would not. After that I challenge anyone to reliably pick between 5D mkII and 7D 24-30" prints in a random, double blind study. I don't believe anyone could.</p>

<p>Someone like Payam doesn't need to handle both to see the same thing. Download test samples from Imaging Resource, process, print, shuffle, and see if anyone can tell. Even when pixel peeping there's not much of a difference between the two, certainly not for the price.</p>

<p>I tend to harp on this because invariably someone on a budget worries about buying the 7D when they can't really afford the 5D mkII, or will have to give up other equipment to go with the 5D mkII. They've been told so many times that "full frame is better" that they're stuck on what should be an easy decision. They get advice that there's a significant IQ difference when there simply isn't. Worse, they're often directed towards lower cost FF lenses which cannot compete with the APS-C versions they might have bought. (Why spend $800 more for a 5D mkII on the basis of image quality, then slap a 17-40L on the front? Any 7D with a Tokina 11-16 will out perform that combo, and by a visible-in-print margin. Just look at the corners and edges of a 24" landscape print. To compete you will need the 16-35 II and that's another grand to get what you could have had in APS-C for less.) Not to mention the feature set differences.</p>

<p>If you have to shoot in low light a lot of the time, if you have T/S lenses or a 14mm prime, or even if you have the 24 and 35 f/1.4L primes and like those focal lengths, by all means, knock yourself out on the 5D mkII. Otherwise, I don't see $80 worth of difference between the two in print, much less $800.</p>

[mike_oflaherty]

<p>Take them both fro a test drive it will be the only way you'll get a true answer . Both are great cameras, if money is not the issue I would go with 1 series. Myself I could not justify that amount of money for a hobby and settled for a 5D2 since it's a ff and that's what I was used to shooting with on my old A2E.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>1Ds MkII, $1900. S/H<br>

16-35 MkI, $800. S/H<br>

24-70, $1200. New ($900ish S/H)<br>

70-200 f4 IS $1200. New<br>

Total $5,100.</p>

<p>For high end portrait and wedding work, especially if you are thinking of printing large, FF is better, much better. Daniel is very fervent in this matter but the truth is he does not own the FF, he owns the 7D, a fine camera to be sure but with a sensor less than half the size of a FF even he has to admit the physics is against him. Crop cameras amazingly good, FF cameras better, medium format best. Phillip owns both, he says the FF.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Daniel is very fervent in this matter but the truth is he does not own the FF, he owns the 7D, a fine camera to be sure but with a sensor less than half the size of a FF even he has to admit the physics is against him.</em></p>

<p>I've held both and prints from both. I could pay cash for the 5D mkII tomorrow if I wanted. I would if I could simultaneously get a 24mm T/S, but I can't comfortably do that and there's no other advantage that I can see absent that very special lens. Physics is only against the 7D when it's at high ISO, and I rarely need to print larger than 8x10 from high ISO.</p>

<p><em>Phillip owns both, he says the FF.</em></p>

<p>I say make 30" prints from the ISO 400 studio test samples at Imaging Resource. (Or 8x10 prints of crops sized as if they were cut from 30" prints...save some money that way.) Ask 20 people if they see any difference. See if one tells you yes. Then judge whether or not that (invisible) difference is worth $800. Shuffle the prints, don't look at them for a couple days, then shuffle them again. Can you pick them out reliably? And if so, how much time does it take studying them with your nose on the print, or a loupe?</p>

<p>(I could end this debate in 5 minutes by posting crops from IR, but photo.net has a policy against that.)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>That is the difference between you and Payam though Daniel, he does print above 8x10, he is investing in a system to deliver studio wedding and fashion images some of which he will print large. The 7D suits you and many others perfectly, that does not mean it is the answer to everybodies question though. For Payam's intended use the difference could very well show up (Phillip says it does), it is the kind of scenario where the best outright IQ might well be relevant.</p>

<p>Terms of use say you can link to any site you like (well not any site but most) you can't post any images that you did not shoot or that another in the thread did not shoot and you adjusted. So link away.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Payam - here's another set of crops to judge by, in addition to the excellent test images at Imaging Resource. Patrick Dean commented that they're similar up to ISO 400, then start to diverge at ISO 800. Aside from thinking that one of the crops illustrates my comment that APS-C needs a touch more sharpening, I would agree with him while pixel peeping.</p>

<p>http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-7d-vs-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-iso-comparison-2/</p>

<p>But in print, particularly with a touch of NR on the 7D, you won't normally notice any divergence until ISO 1600 or even 3200 with smaller prints.</p>

<p>There's another good comparison on the web, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. I'll post if I do.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Interesting link. Why would you think images shot at EV +6 would give you an indication of a cameras low light abilities?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Some how I missed this earlier...</p>

<p><em>That is the difference between you and Payam though Daniel, he does print above 8x10,</em></p>

<p>Where did I say that I did not print above 8x10? Where did I say that the 7D was equivalent at only 8x10? At low to mid ISO the 7D will match the 5D mkII at any print size given proper settings or post processing. (As I've said, APS-C images are softer out of camera unless you bump up the sharpness.)</p>

<p><em>For Payam's intended use the difference could very well show up (Phillip says it does), it is the kind of scenario where the best outright IQ might well be relevant.</em></p>

<p>If you think it could show up, by all means perform a test and post the results. You seem to miss the point that I have thoroughly investigated both bodies, including using them myself, making prints, and studying the studio test samples from professional testing sites. I had/have no interest in perpetuating rules of thumb, buying what I think other people deem is "professional", or justifying a purchase. I only wanted to know if there was a significant difference between them in IQ. There is not. Put another way, I am convinced that in a double blind random trial no one would be able to tell which body shot which print at low to mid ISO. At high ISO, the 5D mkII walks away for larger prints. If you will regularly make 24" ISO 3200 prints, by all means, 5D mkII. Most people don't regularly do that.</p>

<p>Can you show me the difference in the studio test samples at low to mid ISO? What did I miss? There's a touch more noise in the 7D files while pixel peeping. That's it.</p>

<p>I'm curious: have you tested either body?</p>

<p><em>Terms of use say you can link to any site you like (well not any site but most) you can't post any images that you did not shoot or that another in the thread did not shoot and you adjusted. So link away.</em></p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com</p>

<p><em>Interesting link. Why would you think images shot at EV +6 would give you an indication of a cameras low light abilities?</em></p>

<p>Why would you think EV makes a difference? Do you understand how exposure works? You use aperture and shutter speed to make sure the proper amount of light hits the sensor whether the EV for the scene is -6 or +6. That's what EV tells you, how to massage that light into the narrow range that will make something other than pure black or pure white on your sensor or film.</p>

<p>A properly exposed ISO 3200 test shot is a properly exposed ISO 3200 test shot regardless of scene EV, unless you get into long exposures (i.e. 5s or more) where heat buildup on the sensor becomes an issue. What's important is whether or not you nail the exposure, and the amount of shadow detail in the scene. A scene with mostly highlights will look cleaner at ISO whatever than a scene with mostly shadows. A slightly overexposed scene will look cleaner than a slightly underexposed one.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>If you don't think EV makes a difference then you don't have the faintest idea what you are looking at. Makes me think your "tests" are a load of hokum, check out the noise in a 0EV shot and one at +6EV, you might stop talking so much rubbish.</p>

<p>Did you read your own link? Peter, the reviewer, says <em>"IQ wise the 5D Mark II is much better, there’s no comparison really." </em> and goes on to say<em> "Really depends on just how important image quality matters in your work. If it is the main aspect–the 5D2 is your camera"</em></p>

<p>Now forgive me for being stupid but isn't IQ of prime concern in studio wedding, portrait and fashion work?<em><br /> </em></p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Makes me think your "tests" are a load of hokum, check out the noise in a 0EV shot and one at +6EV, you might stop talking so much rubbish.</em></p>

<p>Maybe you better spend some time browsing the low light test photos at: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DA7.HTM</p>

<p>You'll notice that across a row there's virtually no difference in noise despite the dramatic difference in EV, except for small differences as you get into multi-second exposures. The differences are between rows, i.e. between ISOs.</p>

<p>After you're done learning from that, perhaps you can come back and explain to all of us why that is. (Hint: the amount of light hitting the sensor to produce a tonal range from black to white, at a given ISO, has to be the same regardless of scene brightness. That's why we control the light hitting the sensor using shutter and aperture.) If you still don't get it, I would be happy to recommend some books on exposure to you.</p>

<p><em>Did you read your own link? Peter, the reviewer, says "IQ wise the 5D Mark II is much better, there’s no comparison really." and goes on to say "Really depends on just how important image quality matters in your work. If it is the main aspect–the 5D2 is your camera" .</em></p>

<p>He said no such thing in the review. He was speaking in the comments in reference to high ISO shots. (Nothing like bending context to make your point, eh?)</p>

<p><em>Now forgive me for being stupid but isn't IQ of prime concern in studio wedding, portrait and fashion work?</em></p>

<p>Why don't you ask Amateur Photographer? In their March 6th issue they came to pretty much the same conclusion I've been singing from roof tops. They stated that at 24" (A2 print size, so 23.5" actually) it was impossible to tell the difference between images from the 5D mkII and 7D. Hmmm...now where have I heard that before?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Sorry, I could reply to all your points but I am really bored.</p>

<p>You patently have not done studio wedding, portrait and fashion work to pay the mortgage.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>