I need your advise on a Canon DSLR

[edmund_deguzman]

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

I currently have the following Canon dslr,lens and flashes.<br>

Canon 10D<br />Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens<br />Canon EF 35-350 f/3.5-5.6L USM<br />Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens <br />Sigma 14mm f/2.8 EX HSM RF Aspherical Ultra Wide Angle Lens <br>

Canon Speedlite 550EX E-TTL Flash<br />Canon Speedlite 580EX E-TTL II Flash<br>

Canon - Speedlite Transmitter ST-E2 <br>

I would like to upgrade to a new DSLR and I've considered the 7D or the 5DMKii. I have read all the pros and cons between the two but I would like your opnions on which way I should lean towards. <br>

Currently my type of shooting is mostly no action, low light, no flash and tripod assisted setups. It would seem obvious to get the 5D MKii but I've read that the autofocus gets pretty difficult under low light conditions.<br>

Also, judging from my current setup mentioned above. Which lenses would you recommend I keep and which lenses should be replaced.<br>

I would appreciate your comments and suggestions.</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>This and very similar questions have been asked numerous times only in the last few weeks (or days!). Search the Canon forum and see for yourself.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I'd go with the 5D II. If you aren't shooting action then AF won't be a big deal. If you have a hard time with focus in low light, then use Live View on the LCD and zoom 10x on your subject then manually focus. I do this quite a bit, especially with macro work, and it is a great way to get spot on focus. If you're shooting from a tripod, then the extra time it takes shouldn't be a factor. The 5D also has a larger sensor to make better use of the wide end. Which brings me to my next point, the lenses. I'd sell the 28-135mm and the 35-350mm. I'd definitely buy a 17-40mm f/4L for a great super wide lens, unless the budget will stretch for the 16-35mm f/2.8L. I don't know anything about the Sigma 14mm, but I imagine it was your wide angle on the 10D. It acted like a 22mm lens on your 10D, so with a true 17mm, you may not need it any more and could sell it too. Eventually I'd get a 70-200mm L and maybe a 100-400mm L for reach since it is a full frame camera, but since you tend to do a lot of tripod work I would assume you do landscapes where the super wide angle would be more beneficial now.</p>

[nathaniel_alpert]

<p>I can respond to this part of your question "It would seem obvious to get the 5D MKii but I've read that the autofocus gets pretty difficult under low light conditions."<br>

You state that you do no action, tripod-based photography. The 5D mii is for you. Under these conditions you will absolutely love the Live View Feature. With LV, you use the rear LCD to view your image while focusing. Focusing should be done manually, at 5x or 10x magnification. You will be able to inspect many points of your image, mapping out the depth of field, with or without the lens stopped down. You can do this in low light. You will also have a real time RGB histogram to preview your exposure. No more guessing. No more out of focus images, no more depth of field surprise. Try it you will like it. Surprising how few understand that this feature is a game changer for landscape photographers.<br>

Oh, and there is a mode to simulate the exposure on the LCD, too. But there are tricks to ensure that you get an accurate histogram, so do your homework.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I would go with a 5D2.</p>

<p>All of your lenses are good; I would see how you like them on the new camera, then decide whether to replace some.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Based on your lens kit I think the 5DMKII is the camera for you.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

Souds like the 5D2, both are great cameras with high resolution, the 5D2 will give you better high ISO and overall better IQ and like Nathaniel said, the LV with exposure simulation is a fantastic new tool in its latest incarnation, I enjoy using this camera. Same on the lenses, use yours untill you find their limitations. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens, will be very nice on the 5D2.

 

Ross

[dustin_turin]

<p>Another vote for the 5DII, particularly if money is not the constraint. You really can't beat the low light performance. And true, the AF could be better (I would love to have the 7D's AF), but it's still very good and will be better than what you are upgrading from. </p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Slam dunk -- either the <strong>5D2 or the 7D.</strong> (or, you could wait 6-12 mos. for the 60D and 5D3)</p>

[edmund_deguzman]

<p>Thank you for all the great responses and suggestions. I am definitely leaning towards the 5D MKii. Although it is true that there have been quite a few threads regarding this same question (5Dmkii vs 7D), I found your comments helpful when your suggestions mentioned the performance of the camera with my existing lenses.</p>

[adam_gifford]

<p>If you move to a full frame camera like the 5Dm2, if you are used to the "crop" viewing angle on your lenses your lens lineup is going to act differently.</p>

<p> </p>

[edmund_deguzman]

<p>Before I purchased the 10D I was using an EOS 3 film camera with the same lenses I currently own. I was pretty happy with that setup, hopefully the 5D mkii purchase would refresh my memory of the EOS 3 days.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I own both the 7D and the 5D2 and for your uses and with your current lenses, I'd pick the 5D2.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have both the 5DII and 7D and came from film (including the EOS 3). I still own most fo my film bodies and have the following AF observations.<br>

The 7D clearly has superior AF to the 5DII but the 5DII is really not that bad. If you use the center AF point and re-focus I find the 5DII to be very similar in performance to the old EOS 1N. The EOS 3 (and 1V) have faster AF but not by a lot. In low light the differences are not that great (Again using the center AF point on the 5DII as the other points are quite a bit worse) with the 5DII being about 25% - 50% slower but still achieving focus.<br>

While the 5DII is slowish in low light - the 7D also slows down quite a lot (we are talking EV1 to EV5 here). Where I have found issues with my 5DII AF is when I shoot very low contrast subjscts - even in bright light - such as shooting towards the sun.<br>

The low light performance of the 5DII is 1-2 stops better than the 7D in terms of noise. I also find that at higher ISOs (e.g. 1600) the 5DII is much less sensitive to noise if the exposure is slightly off. I find the 7D gets noisy at 1600 ISO if you under or over expose slightly.<br>

For lenses I love my 24-70 F2.8 on the 5DII but rarely use it on the 7D. You may find the Sigma 14mm shows quite a few flaws on the 5DII but is still usable assuming it will AF. I have the older 14mm F3.5 Sigma which will only work at F3.5 on the 5DII and at this aperture the quality is poor. I have not used the 35-350 or 28 -135 but they will work fine. If you are looking for a lens upgrade then I can highly reccomend the 70-200 F4 IS (I also have the 70-200 F2.8 but find the F4 IS performs just as well in applications where you do not need F2.8).</p>

[bonyari]

<p>Disclaimer: I have not used either body. I own a 5D. <br>

It's quite redundant for me to chime in, but I'd go with the 5DII. I'd sell the Sigma 14 and Canon 28-135 since these are covered by the 24-75 and 35-350 lenses (not even considering optical quality), and use that money to get a 17-40 or a 16-35 if you really need a wide angle.</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>Implicitly promoting 5DII? Otherwise what is the relevance of comparing a full frame with crop! The original 5D (moderately priced) performs superbly and needs no 'II' bit for high quality pictures!</p>

[edmund_deguzman]

<p>Good point <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2328952">Mus Akhtar</a>, full frame on the 5D @ nearly 1/2 the megapixel as the 5DII. What are the obvious differences between the 5D and 5DMKii ? </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The 5D II gives you a stop or so gain in ISO performance, and of course yields more resolution for enlargements and extra detail. I've never experienced low light focusing issues with the 5D II (and I have done a fair bit of low light focusing with mine), and there's no question that if I were you, it's the body I'd get.</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>I think Canon has failed to add adequate features to 5DII that would have really justified the increased price of this body, hence the question about its cost effectiveness! I think 5DII has no real or meaningful advantages over the 5D, except some superficial improvements!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>If you can afford the 5D2, then don't make the decision based on price. I own both and the 5D2 blows away my 7D at high ISO. I view images from both on a 52" HDTV at 1080. The IQ of the 7D is good, but the 5D2 is clearly superior at ISOs over 800. You've already got the lenses for full frame, so I'd suggest staying on that road, unless you're going to shoot birds, wildlife or action sports, where the 7D is superior.</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>Of course 7D does not compare well with 5DII but then 7D equally does not compare well with 5D! Why to jump to 5DII while 5D is priced less and performs superbly!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>If one can afford it, buying the current generation usually makes sense. In the case of the MkII vs. the MkI you gain exceptional video, pixel density and improved high-ISO performance.</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>David, none of these 5DII improvements are of any real use to a reasonably skilled/ keen photographer unless one is mostly shooting under very low light conditions which on average is not what we do most of the times! But even under those low light condition 5D performs exceptionally well!<br>

To do video, there are many low priced but high performing video cameras and it makes little sense to invest in 5DII for the sake of the video capturing feature!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The OP says he doesn't use a tripod or shoot action, so the 5D2 won't be a negative, yet the high-ISO 5D2 will be of great practical use to him in the real world. I find myself shooting all kinds of low light situations with my 5D2 that neither the 5D or the 7D would handle as well. Coming from a 10D the improvement that the OP experience will change his approach to digital photography.</p>

<p>The OP asked about the 5D2, not the old 5D. He's stuck with the 10D for a good while now and will likely do the same with his next camera. For those that can't afford the MkII, then the 5D is indeed an option, but the superior performance of the MkII should be considered by anyone that can afford it. The high-ISO performance changed my whole outlook toward photography. The first week that I had it I used it on Automatic most of the time and was surprised to see how many images were taken at ISO 3200 that looked really great.</p>

<p>Regarding the 7D vs. the 5D, I think that the 7D's AF is clearly superior and it's high ISO is one knotch better. Not as good as my 5D2, but quite nice, even at ISO 6400.</p>

<p>Saying that you can get video on a cheap camera is silly when the 5D2's video is essentially "free" and so is the 7Ds. The pricing is consistant with current generation cameras without video. I don't use mine a lot, but you can make a really stunning HD movie of like a acquarium with just a monopod and no special equipment. With video quality approaching 35mm film, the 5D2's video is nothing to sniff at. I doubt that the OP will go beyond something like an acquarium scene, but even that little is quiet impressive.</p>

<p>Remember, the OP is "jumping" from the 10D, so no matter where he lands it's a big jump forward. I'd just suggest that, if he can afford it, he should jump all the way to the current generation.</p>

[nathaniel_alpert]

<p>Mus Ahktar has expressed his opinion rather forcefully about the 5D and the 5d mark ii, stating that "none of these 5DII improvements are of any real use to a reasonably skilled/ keen photographer unless one is mostly shooting under very low light conditions which on average is not what we do most of the times! But even under those low light condition 5D performs exceptionally well!." However, it seems he shoots a Canon 350D not a 5d or a mark ii. I own both the 5d and the 5d mark ii. As i noted in an earlier post, for those working on a tripod, the mark ii clearly outperforms the original because of live view, which allows the shooter to examine the focus at 5x or 10x, simulate stop down exposure, check focus and depth of fieldwhile stopped down (even in low light) and perview exposure with a real time histogram. This is a game changer for landscape photographers. Focsing the 5d mark i in low light is nearly impossible and checking depth of field in low light is definitely impossible. Everything about the mark ii is improved over the original. The mark i is a fine camera and a useful tool but if one has the money, the mark ii is the way to go.</p>