Canon EOS 7D: the best amateur camera?

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It may sound silly nowadays with all these high end cameras....but I'd still love to have an Olympus E20.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, I'm happy to say that mine still works--and I even found a brand new battery pack for it a couple of months back--made by Olympus. (Oh, did it cost!)</p>

<p>I think that most of us overbuy. I was rarely happier than when I was out with that clunkly old 5 MP monster--and most of my photos on PN were made with itl.</p>

<p>Donald, I understand your enthusiasm for the 5D II, but Daniel actually makes some good points. Wouldn't it be nice if life were so simple that there was one answer for everything and everybody? The fact is that persons' needs are different.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[teresa_atkinson]

<p>Best for what?</p>

[steve_hendrix1]

<p>This is a good food for thought thread.</p>

<p>Alberto, I would say judging from the work you have shown that in most cases you will be hard pressed to see any significant difference in image quality. Perhaps a bit at higher ISO shots (if printed large). You're discounting the old debate of crop vs full frame, and mention budget as a factor (isn't it always? :-)</p>

<p>I think given that the image quality is pretty indistinguishable for the most part that your considerations probably come down to other elements. And I think crop vs full frame would possibly be one of those elements. I had a similar debate before I bought my 5DMKII. I considered a crop sensor camera and before I even compared any image quality or look, I looked through the viewfinder and that did it for me. The cropsensor viewfinder just looked tiny. Full frame for me. </p>

<p>But that was before Live View was as ubiquitous as it is today, so maybe even that is not as much an issue. But I still always want as large a sensor as possible. I shoot most often wide open or close to it and focus falloff is important to me. And being able to see where that focus point that encompasses only 3/4 of an inch is falling. For landscape, this may not be an issue.</p>

<p>A 5DMKII is $800 more than a 7D. Budget can be a slippery term. Yes, 7D is in my budget, but if I really wanted to (or could get permission to...he-he) I could stretch to the 5DMKII if I wanted. So a real question could then be for that $800, what would I buy to complement the 7D instead? Maybe a 7D with a 17-40/4 works better for me than a 5DMKII without a 17-40/4.</p>

<p>I think for your work, a 7D is going to work fine compared to a 5DMKII.</p>

<p>But I will also say - everyone is different. Yes, there are numerous options, different cameras, lenses, etc. Whatever floats your boat is justifiable if in the end it helps get you where you want to be as far as the results are concerned. And how it does that is different for each of us.</p>

<p>The other bottom line is - go to a camera store and try them out. Look through the viewfinder, check the interface out, take some sample shots.</p>

<p>Steve Hendrix</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Alberto, Steve's reminder of the higher initial cost of buying the camera body is always a reminder to me that the real costs will come with the purchase of lenses--typically more and more of them over time. Since most persons seem to wind up with both a full-frame and a crop sensor camera sooner or later, however, I tend to recommend buying (1) a full-frame camera first and (2) lenses for FF cameras--except for the occasional EF-S lens for wide angle on crop sensor cameras., if the need ever arises. (I virtually never shoot wide on crop sensor cameras, but I do have good glass for FF wide angle.)</p>

<p>If you have lenses made for film cameras, that would be yet another reason to stay with full-frame, everything else being equal.</p>

<p>I can only say that, in my case, I went full-frame (the 5D and before that the Kodak 14n with Nikon glass) with DSLRs before buying the 50D. I have never regretted that choice, and I only went to the crop sensor camera when I wanted more magnification. If you do not require that extra magnification, then the initial choice would be an easy one for me: buy full-frame. I really think that you would like it better for most shots.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3028001">Donald Bryant</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Apr 30, 2010; 01:09 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Daniel Lee Taylor get a grip, all other things being equal the 5DMKII will produce finer detailed images than the 7D. There are several tests on the internet that demonstrate that. If you are interested in looking at the tests then Google for it!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Donald, I'd love it if you did it for me. Could you point out the test sites that showed the 5D2 to be better on a 16x24 compared to the 7D. When I did it, no one could tell the difference....except for one thing....the edges and corners were FAR better on the 7D. I used a 24L on the 7D and 35L on the 5D2. </p>

<p>Have you?</p>

 

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Donald, what the data indicate is that the FF camera does some things better, and that the crop sensor camera does other things better. I have seen no study that says that one or the other is best for all types of photography under all conditions. That is the reason that over time persons are likely to want to have one or more of each. If one can only afford one DSLR? Well, then one must look at what type of photography is most important to one.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[rogernoel]

<p>Just finished reading all the pro and con on what to buy. Alberto, I wish you luck with whatever your purchase, and I can almost guarantee , you will be happy with either camera. I was in BEST BUY today looking at the two cameras being discussed. I am going to buy the 7D. I will be going from a 30D to the 7D. I have six lenses, of which 5 are Canon. My favorite lens is the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM lens. It won't work with the 5D2 and neither will my Sigma 10-20 WA lens. Do I have a longing for full frame, maybe, but I went from the Rebel 300D to the 30D and I now will go to the 7D. I have been taking pictures since my use of a French box camera on the streets of Vienna Austria in early 1946. I have had, and still have a Leica IIIg with four lenses, and a Nikon F Photomic T with four lenses, among my 18 cameras. Good luck and please let your viewers know what you decide.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Post your results here David and I'll concede.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>For what it's worth, I have a Zeiss 85 1.4 that is giving me great results edge to edge on the 5D II--even wide open. I used to have the Canon EF 85 1.2 and got nowhere near the same results--even stopped down. Therefore the problems that can sometimes be seen on the corners with some lenses are quite likely due to lens deficiencies, nothing inhering in the camera itself. All that, however, was at 85 mm--hardly a wide angle lens.</p>

<p>I do know that the original EF 24mm f/1.4 struggles a bit in the corners when shot wide open, but is much less a problem when stopped down. I do not know what the case is for the new Mark II version. </p>

<p>All of the above is very subjective, however, and I am not sure that careful lens tests would give the same results. If anybody has the data for the various lenses at various f-stops on both FF and crop sensor cameras, I would like to see them.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[sang_lee6]

<p>After reading all these posts, I'm thinking.. gosh.. is this just different opinions or being harsh on other ppl's opinion?<br>

Let's talk about this statistically, there are a lot of professionals who are using both 5dmkii and 7d. I'm sure there are more photogs on 5kmii who wants to use it as both photos and films, but ppl who shoot wedding and landscapes use 5kmii a lot. I think its simply wrong to say that all those ppl are wrong to choose 5kmkii which produces same quality prints, similar features and much more expensive than 7d. I totally agree everyone has different opinions on the equipments, but thats your own opinion. </p>

<p>Just another opinion. =)</p>

[dallalb]

<p>Interesting discussion, folks! David Stephens, thank you for looking at my portfolio: I think you understood very much about me by looking at my shots. I think that you read in my mind!</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Daniel Lee Taylor get a grip, all other things being equal the 5DMKII will produce finer detailed images than the 7D. There are several tests on the internet that demonstrate that. </em></p>

<p>I've named the sites and reviews that support my opinion. Name yours.</p>

<p> </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>The guy loves light, texture, color, detail, scenic, subtlety and he's coming off a top film camera.</em></p>

<p>Given two 16x24" prints, one from a 5D mkII and one from a 7D, both shot at low to mid ISO and optimally processed, you would not be able to tell any difference in "light, texture, color, detail, scenic, subtlety" if your life depended on it. How many different ways must this be said? Amateur Photographer came to this conclusion. You can come to the same conclusion by printing the Imaging Resource or DPReview test samples. Dave Luttmann has tested both and come to pretty much the same conclusion. And I tested both and came to this conclusion, hence my purchase of a 7D.</p>

<p>You say you own both. Have you ever actually tested them, equalizing all factors and producing 24" prints?</p>

<p>Alberto asked: <em><strong>Leaving some old debates (like crop vs. fullframe sensor)</strong> and considering all the aspects involved <strong>(included price),</strong> could you state that the new EOS 7D camera is the "best" option for an amateur photographer?</em></p>

<p>The answer is <strong>yes.</strong> The 5D mkII is a great camera. But given the IQ, feature set, and cost of the 7D, the 5D mkII becomes something of a specialty camera for those who need the best high ISO performance or who own certain lenses like the T/S lenses or f/1.4L wide primes.</p>

<p><em>Why in the world would he want a 20D or even a 7D?</em></p>

<p>Let me give you an example of real world choices and results. If he gets a 5D mkII he said he will then save up for the Canon 17-40L as he's on a budget. If he gets a Canon 7D he said he will get the Canon 10-22.</p>

<p>* The 7D + 10-22 is roughly equal to the 5D mkII + 17-40L, but costs less.</p>

<p>* If he were to skip the 10-22 and get the Tokina 11-16 he would have a combo that would produce noticeably superior IQ (sharpness and fine detail, corner to corner) than a 5D mkII + 17-40L, and would even edge out the 5D mkII + 16-35L II, all at a lower cost. (I own both the 17-40L and the Tokina 11-16.) Everyone telling him that a 5D mkII has noticeably superior IQ is confining him to choices that will leave him with <strong>noticeably inferior IQ</strong> on wide angles and scenics, the very application where it is claimed the 5D mkII is better! Fine detail? Texture? Subtlety? <strong>Not in the outer frame of a 17-40L shot on full frame. </strong>This will be noticeable in print.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Nothing in his portfolio says "full frame". He's not even pushing the ultra wide angle end yet, which was traditionally the domain of full frame before lenses like the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 11-16. And he's not shooting high ISO scenes (i.e. clubs, bands, night sports, etc). Does he own a T/S lens? No? Then nothing that was produced in his portfolio required full frame.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Alberto said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting discussion, folks! David Stephens, thank you for looking at my portfolio: I think you understood very much about me by looking at my shots. I think that you read in my mind!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm mainly focused on birds and wildlife, but the things that you're doing is where I'd like to go with my scenics. I invested in a high end ballhead and have started working much more on my scenics. Seeing what you're doing I could learn a lot from you and will watch your portfolio.</p>

<p>Having said that, I agree that you could justify either the 7D or 5D MkII; however, I own both and would always reach for the 5D2 when I'm doing anything other than birds and wildlife. People can argue about pixels all they want, but when I show a 1080 image from the 5D2 on my 52" Sony Bravia HDTV I'm NEVER dissapointed with the IQ. At high ISO, viewed in this format, the 5D2 blows away the 7D, generally. They're very, very close at low ISOs.</p>

<p>Arguing about comparative IQ at low ISO is good and useful, but get above ISO 800 and the 5D2 sets itself apart from the 7D. So, if you handfhold in low light, like dusk and dawn, then that'll be valuable.</p>

<p>If you can afford it, then I think you'll prefer the 5D2. The AF issues are very minor for the work that you do, IMHO.</p>

[daryl_sullivan]

<p>I've shot for many years, in the newspaper industry. I shot the EOS1, 1n, 1v, before going digital.<br>

I did a lot of research before going digital, as the company I work for does not supply the photographers<br>

with equipment, we are expected to supply our own. Some things I learned:<br>

1: The megapixel race is just a race. In order to double the resolution, you have to quadruple the<br>

pixels. For example, going from 4 mp to 16 mp will double the resolution.<br>

2: The reason a DSLR has better image quality than a powershot, is because of the sensor size.<br>

A larger sensor has less chromatic aberrations, because the light doesn't "bleed" over other sensor<br>

sites. And it records more image detail.<br>

3: The post processing of the images in-camera.<br>

That was of course then, and this is now.<br>

Now cameras have much better noise reduction, and post processing is much better.<br>

But considering what I have read from previous posts, you are doing a lot of landscape type of<br>

photography.<br>

For that reason, unless you are looking to do HD video as well, I would suggest the original 5D.<br>

It will give you the same view on your lenses.<br>

I'm certainly not giving the 7D a bad review, as that is the camera I'm currently looking at for my<br>

job. The type of photography I do, for the paper, is based on speed. I've gotten used to the<br>

1.3 FOV from the 1D series, although I'm not really sure I can get used to the 1.6 FOV. But with<br>

todays economy, I can't really spend the $5k for the 1v MKIV. And I really need to update due to<br>

the current CPS standards for membership. And I have to supply the equipment I use.<br>

I hope the information I've supplied will help you in your decision. But I can say that Canon is<br>

pretty much ahead of others in digital photography. Some Nikon users might disagree. :-)</p>

 

[jerryrock]

<p>Camera selection is a very personal choice and although most won't admit it, the primary factor is financial. You get the best camera that fits your budget and for many that camera is the EOS 7D. <br>

Seven years ago I was in a better financial situation and purchased the Canon EOS 1Ds which was my first professional digital camera. That camera continues to serve me well but is now technologically outdated. I purchased the EOS 7D in December and although it took a while to get used to the crop frame sensor, I quickly adapted. The exposure system and color rendition is superior to my original 1Ds, but the RAW images appear softer with more visible noise than I was used to. Learning to tweak the images in ACR (especially ACR 6.0 that ships with Photoshop CS5) I can now produce images I an completely satisfied with. The addition of HDR video is moving me (creatively) in a new direction with even greater possibilities.</p>

 

[dallalb]

<p>Thank you very much for your precious suggestions! Daniel and David, althought you have different opinions I would thank you very much for your honesty: I think both are true. The conclusion might be that both these cameras are very good products and the choice might be a matter of taste. I realize that switching to digital from film with one of these cameras is a great upgrade in many aspects. I'm aware that a good camera does't make a good photographer, but a good photographer with a good camera can expand his possibilities to new photographic subjects! It's a hard choice!<br>

Daniel, do you this that the Tokina 11-16 performs better than the Canon 10-22?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Thank you Alberto. I'm looking forward to your reactions a week or two after you decided and had some time in the field.</p>

<p>Next questions... which post processor and how should manage your settings differently in digital vs. films? There is so much written on these topics that you need to immerse yourself it making those decisions. I will definitely say that, given your standards, you'll want to shoot in RAW and then control an fine tune the conversion to jpeg. Your Canon will come with Digital Photo Professional, which is excellent technically, but clunky and slow. Lightroom is the very most popular and very good. I use something called DxO Optics Pro, which is by far one of the least popular, but I love it.</p>

<p>Photoshop is a POWERFUL but incredibly dense and complicated tool. You use it after RAW conversion to fine tune your images after RAW conversion. For scenics, you may seldom pull out Photoshop. Generally I'd recommend starting with Photoshop Elements and only moving up to full Photoshop if you find that you need it. Either way a starter course will be a giant help to getting started; however, Elements is intuitive enough to pull out of the box and muddle through on your own to a high degree. Full PS may be the least intuitive program ever invented.</p>

<p>Keep us updated, my friend. Once you get through a small transition phase, I think you'll experience new freedom that will translate positively into your results.</p>

[dallalb]

<p>Thank you David for your suggestions. I'm not scared about post processing, since I use a hybrid workflow from several years: I shoot film but then I scan only my best with Nikon's 5000 ED scanner (in .tiff 16 bit) and post process with Photoshop CS3. I have a quite good knownledge of this software. The new "thing" for me will be the use of a raw converter, since I'm aware that I will shot in raw...</p>

[dcstep]

<p>That's great. You'll get happy results immediately.</p>

<p>Exposing in RAW requires a slightly different approach than film. Look at the histogram and over-expose slightly, such that the histogram moves to the right without running up the right side. Go too far and you blow out the highlights and they can never be recovered, but exposing a little hot will preserve details and allow you to pull the intensity down in RAW conversion, add saturation, etc. The key is knowing the histogram, if you don't already, and "exposing to the right" without blowing out highlights.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Daniel said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Given two 16x24" prints, one from a 5D mkII and one from a 7D, both shot at low to mid ISO and optimally processed, you would not be able to tell any difference in "light, texture, color, detail, scenic, subtlety" if your life depended on it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And he could not be more right.</p>

<p>The utter claptrap written about the supposedly glaring IQ difference between FF cameras and <em>well processed</em> 7D images makes me gag: it's not just not true, it's <em>palpably</em> untrue.</p>

<p>A well executed 7D photo is the equal - in terms of any parameter by which you'd want to consider the image - of any image from any FF camera you care to choose; and, as I've pretty conclusively demonstrated here before now (7D vs. Nikon D700), <em>miles ahead</em> of some, at any ISO you care to choose.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Keith, many of us don't limit ourselves to low ISOs and 16x24.</p>

<p>Ideally I shoot all my scenics with the tripod, but there are times at sunset or sunrise where I might not have it and need to handhold at ISO 1600 or pre-dawn light might dictate ISO 3200. Yeah, I've gotten "good" results with my 7D at ISO 6400, but the 5D2 would have been better had it had the reach I needed. The 7D vs. 5D2 comparison seems particularly adverse at ISO 1600, where the 5D2 is still cruising and the 7D is showing its first hints of strain.</p>

<p>Also, more and more of us have advanced into the 21st century and now own and use HDTVs to view our images at 1080 on a 52" diagonal screen. You CAN see the differences there. It's not quite as dramatic as back in the day when I'd mix a 44cmx44cm slide in with my 35mm slides, but you can see it. I would venture to guess that more people are now using their HDTVs to view their images than are printing 16x24" prints.</p>

<p>The 7D is a wonderful camera and I own one, but at realistic, yet high, ISOs the 5D2 is superior. Once you get used to that capacity, you use it. There's not one bit that's <em>palpably</em> untrue about what I just said. Some of you guys insist on measuring and comparing new cameras with old standards that are no longer state of the art.</p>

[alan_krantz]

<p>Folks talk about 7d and reach but given a fixed lens 200mm for example and use it on the 7d or 5d is the 7d image noticeably better than the 5d image crop and enlarged to match the 7d ?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Alan, if all you need is "reach" then taking a 5D2 image and cropping it gives you roughly the equivalent of the 7D. The problem is if you need accuracy, quick AF and speed, then the 7D steps forward. I shoot a lot of birds and birds in flight. The AF of the 5D2 is considerably slower, particularly with a 1.4x TC attached. The larger subject in the 7D viewfinder makes it easier to keep the AF points on a subject that's moving.</p>

<p>There's also the cost of lens to consider. If you want to gain a superior image, then you need to invest in longer lenses. I have a friend using a 5D2, so to get equivalency to my 7D/500mm f/4 combination with the 1.4x TC, he's got the 600mm f/4 plus the 1.4x TC. His lens cost thousands more than my already expensive 500mm f/4. Down at 200mm the lenses won't break the bank, but when you get to the fast 400mm and above, you're talking major bucks.</p>

<p>I love my 5D2 and used it for bird photography for a while, but the 7D is the body that's attached ot my BIG lens.</p>

[alan_krantz]

<p>You just said that cropping was equivalent so why do you then compare the cost of 500mmf4 vs 600mmf4 ?I.e, I can use the 500mmf4 on the 5d and crop for a near equivalent (with regards to quality) image.</p>

<p>The auto focus is a different (and real) issue one should consider when making a choice between the two cameras but not related to my question.</p>