Rebel t2i versus 7 D

[rogernoel]

<p>Perhaps this has been discussed and I have missed it, but here is my question etc.<br>

I currently have a 30D which replaced my Rebel 300D about three years ago. For me the 30D has been a great camera. I probably have owned at least 30 cameras over the years. To date I have only taken 5,000 shots with it, but it is like new after three years. When the 7D came on the market last year, I said this is for me. I want to be able to crop a shot to the nth degree. Since the 30D has 8.2 MP and the 7D has 18 MP the math is easy. Now Canon has the Rebel T2i, also with 18 MP and a lot of the same specs that are on the 7D. What to do, What to do? I like the physical arrangement of the buttons, knobs etc on the 30D vs what I had on the older 300D. So I am in a quandary. I have thought about going to the 5D, but I am very happy with the EOS F setup. Besides I would never give up my 17-55 2.8 USM IS lens. Ha Ha. Most of my pictures are landscape travel shots, with some sports, and people shots. I have 5 Canon lenses and one Sigma lens. Any comments or suggestion?</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>The big differences are in the FPS rate, buffer, flash controls, ergonomics, etc. of the 7D. I would probably buy the less expensive T2i (550D) because I don't think I would use the additional features of the 7D and the ergonomics of the Rebel series are fine with me. But if you are comfortable with the larger XXD models the 7D may make more sense, especially for features like the "lens micro adjust" that 50D owners say is important.</p>

<p> </p>

[awahlster]

<p>The video is better in the 7D as is the overall construction of the camera and the weather seal which is said to be equal to the older EOS 1 film camera (which was pretty dang good) The controls are said to be bigger on the 7D to make use with gloves easier. Which of course makes use without gloves nice as well.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I have not used either the 7D nor the t2i, so feel free to dismiss what I'm going to say in advance. :-)</p>

<p>That out of the way, there are a few observations that I think are valid regarding cameras in the two Canon cropped sensor model tiers. (It was so easy when we could refer to them as XX0D and X0D - maybe now it is XD and tXi? Heck, I think I'll use that.)</p>

<p>In the past, the cameras in what might now be called the tXi category (formerly "digital rebels") would produce equal image quality in comparison to the XD (formerly XOD or 20D, 30D, 40D, etc.) models with the same photosite dimensions. In other words, your 8MP XT could produce an image indistinguishable from your 8MP 20D. That continued to be true as more recent models were introduced.</p>

<p>What were the differences. Roughly:</p>

<ul>

<li>Larger body on the more expensive camera. You might regard this as an asset (if you convince yourself that you can shoot better with a larger body or if you think it makes you look more like a "pro" photographers) or a liability (if you travel, need to lighten your load, perhaps do street photography, or aren't concerned with what your camera looks like).</li>

<li>Additional features on the more expensive body including faster burst rates, more advanced AF systems, larger LCD panel, etc. If you need these features then the extra cost and size is worth it. If you don't need them it may not be. (Note that, for example, the AF systems on the current low-end cameras are as good or better than those on the more expensive models of a few years ago.)</li>

<li>Operating controls. I've shot both, and my view is that you quickly adapt to whichever you use. </li>

<li>Price.</li>

</ul>

<p>So, the bottom line question is "will the more expensive body produce better photographs for me?" The answer is... it depends. If you rely on fast burst rates and so forth, maybe. If you don't, after the purchase excitement wears off you may discover that the photographs made with either camera will be indistinguishable. If you shoot subjects and in ways that don't take advantage of the added/upgraded features of the more expensive body... the added cost won't gain you anything.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<blockquote>

<p>What to do, What to do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wait for the 60D. It really shouldn't be too far away.</p>

[zml]

<p>What to do? Go to a store that has both cameras and will let you take a few shots with your memory card. Then come back home, load the pics and compare... After all, pictures are the ultimate goal here (at least to me) and the camera is only good if it allows me making the pictures I want. As for your need "to crop a shot to the nth degree", something tells me that you might be a bit disappointed: resolution is only a part of "cropability" and your technique and the optics (not to mention exposure and AF systems, off-sensor processing, esp. color channels) play a major role here so no, the math is not easy.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The grip on the rebel series is narrow and bites into my knuckles, actually hurting after a few minutes of shooting. The 7D wider and more rounded grip with finger groove is comfy for a few hours. Try before you buy.</p>

[hjoseph7]

Sorry G Dan, but although you can get comparable images from the Rebels in comparison the XXD cameras, you are still comparing apples to oranges. You might as well say that you can make a comparable image from a Pentax K1000 as that of a Leica, or Canon 1ds. Or that a Volskwagen bug(circa 1965) will get you to work in about the same time as a Lexus. Give me a break !

[dstephenson]

<p>Good points G. Dan but you missed a few:<br>

Magnesium alloy frame vs polycarbonate,<br>

limited ISO range on the T2i,<br>

cant output live 1080 video on the T2i,<br>

faster shutter speeds available on the 7D,<br>

and 100% pentaprism VF vs 95% pentamirror.<br>

"So I am in a quandary." Yes Roger you are because there are a ton of differences in both bodies.We all are in a quandary when upgrading. Being happy with a camera purchase is more than just the number of pixels. Shoot both, handle both as Michael said and decide for yourself and not us what will be best for your style of photography. Good luck,<br>

Doug</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Harry, I've shot with cameras from an XT to the 5D2 and I've sold prints from the XT up to 18" x 24". There is no significant or even visible difference in image quality between shots with the two levels of camera if the sensor quality is the only issue. As I pointed out, if the other features that differentiate the camera are significant to the user - and there is a good chance that they are not in the situation of the OP - then the more expensive body might be worth the additional cost.</p>

<p>Your Lexus/VW analogy is not so great. What the Lexus offers is luxurious appointments by comparison to the VW. "Luxury" is a pretty much irrelevant concept when comparing these cameras.</p>

<p>Douglas, I didn't intend my post to be a comprehensive comparison of all features of the two camera options. I offered, I think, enough general comparisons to make my main point: For a given user, the most expensive, biggest, and baddest-looking camera is not always "better" than a less expensive camera. And if you put both cameras on a tripod and point them at the same subject, use the same lens, and expose the same way, I challenge anyone to tell which was made on the less expensive camera based on sensor-based image quality.</p>

<p>If the "better" camera were always the "better" choice, Canon would only have to make one body. But what is better for me or for you is not necessarily the right choice for every other photographer.</p>

<p>In the end, any of these cameras will work fine.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>I hear a lot of theory here but how much of it is practical experience. Different folks have different requirements for cameras. They're just tools. I think the OP would be better served with a 7D just because he is used to a 30D and the size and controls are similar. I bought a 5D Mark II last year and since then the 7D has had zero appeal to me. On the other hand the T2i is very appealing because it serves a different purpose for me than the full frame since it has the reported excellent image quality in a small camera. They don't have any in stock at the usual subject places B&H and Adorama but when they do I will get one to use on the street and while traveling light. I like the interface on my XSi and it has served me well for several years. I think the 7D is probably the best APS-C camera out there right now but it just isn't what I need. Good luck!</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I upgraded from the T1i to the 7D, so while I can't comment specifically on the T2i, it's pretty close. I find the 7D much more convenient, with the extra wheel on the back of the camera. It's much nicer not having to push a button to change the wheel function like you have to on the Rebel series, you just spin the other dial. The FPS rate is much better, and having a bigger viewfinder with the pentaprism is also a great feature. The 7D is also more comfortable in my hands...I don't have gigantic hands, but they're big, and the 7D fits better. It also weighs a bit more, which gives it a more solid feeling.</p>

<p>I have absolutely no complaints over my upgrade to the 7D, so that gets my vote. I'll keep the T1i as a backup, but when I reach for a camera in my bag, it'll be the 7D.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>My understanding is that the 7D and T2i have the same sensor. If that's the case, their IQ would be identical with the same lens used under the same exposure conditions (aperture, shutter speed, and ISO), would it not? And then it does come down to G Dan's question: Which particular set of features do you want/need?</p>

[rogernoel]

<p>Thank all of you for the informative and techincal advice. I have about 60 days before I will be doing some extensive traveling again, but I wanted to have some time to practice with the new camera that I will buy. The suggestion to wait until the 60D comes on the market was humorous and maybe a good idea, but I wonder what could they have on that one, that isn't already on their two latest EOS F cameras?<br />Some gentleman said something to the effect, that one might buy the camera so that they could look like a professional photographer. Ha Ha. Most of those that I have met over the years were working like demons to make ends meet. Not for me. I have about 16 cameras in a closet, to include a Leica IIIg with four Leica lenses. A Nikon F Photomic T with four Nikon lenses, and a host of other cameras to include a Retina and Yashica or two. My last film cameras were Pentaxes. I started taking pictures with a French box camera on the streets of Vienna Austria in early 1946, and still find after golf, photography brings me great happiness. <br />I am going to try to find the T2i and the 7 d. The latter is available all over Phoenix, but I have yet to find the T2i, and I see that my friends at B & H are out of stock. <br />Again thanks for the comments. I will post back here later.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I thought this was interesting. The T2i seems to produce very high quality video</p>

<p>http://vimeo.com/10021921</p>

[rogernoel]

<p>Tommy, I would have to agree there does not seem to be any significant difference in the video. I am going to look for the T2i and the 7D in a store and try the comparison test recommended in the preceding posts. Currently the T2i appears to be in short supply in many places, included my favorite source of camera equipment, i.e. B & H. I will get back to my comments later. Thanks for your input.</p>

[Jim_Dockery_Photos]

<p>As a climber/skier/backpacker I'm in a similar quandary. I've had two Rebels and have adapted to the handling no problem. I love the size and weight, which tilts me back that direction, but the weather sealing and overall toughness among other features makes me want the 7D (even though I've never hurt my Rebels). Price will likely decide the issue.</p>

[guy_joassin]

<p>I have in the past 30 years plus purchased the best photographic equipment that was available. As far as film is concerned, it was always my experince that the best lenses produced the best slides and prints. I am not so sure this applies equally well to digital photography. I already have had experience with several Nikon DSLR's and presently with the D90 and D700 and several zoom lenses, DX and others. Just for fun and to see what results I would obtain using a zoom Contax lens with adapter, I very recently purchased a Canon T2i (EOS 550D) with the 18-55 kit lens which I did eventually trade for the the 18-135 lens because of the wider range of focal lenght. I have taken pictures (using an ISO 100-400 setting) at nauseum with all my cameras and many lenses and printed straight off the cards in the 4 by 6 and letter size, with the Epson Artisan 800 and Stylus Photo R380 printers. Except for minimal distorsion at extreme focal lenghts which I could have to a certain degree avoided or corrected, I HAVE OBTAINED EXCELLENT RESULTS IN ALL CASES AND I SEE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN QUALITY, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT CLOSE-UP PHOTOS OF TRILLIUMS ARE A BIT SHARPER WITH THE NIKON MICRO 60 MM MOUNTED ON THE D700. There are millions (OR BILLIONS) of words of data, discussions, opinions, advice and recommendations out there. I believe much of it is irrelevant to the practice of every day photography by millions of people. If one can afford or wishes a $ 5000 camera with a $ 1000 plus lens, by all means do that and I will not argue with the fact that you will have a better product . But ultimately and practically speaking wonderful photos can be made by spending less than $ 1000. Somebody who cannot afford very expensive equipment should not feel bad. In my opinion the choice of a Canon 550D with the kit lens should be plenty satisfying. And then, think, your stuff will eventually be worth close to nothing let alone finding a dealer willing to take in trade all that "outdated stuff". Guy Joassin.</p>