50D or 7D?

[steve_reynolds3]

<p>I am going to buy one of these cameras and am trying to decide whether to spend the extra $600 or so for the 7D. I want to be able to shoot pictures of dogs and horses, sometimes from some distance and in action. My other passion is martial arts and I want to take some action pictures of that.<br>

We also want to do some HQ video of both things. I'm not familiar with video recorders, but would the video capability of the 7D be adequate for the type of use I am looking for? Or, would a standard video recorder be better or easier to use?<br>

At this point I can only afford the cameras and the basic 28-135 mm IS USM lens and a few extras. Moving up to the 7D would mean that I would definitely have to hold off getting additional lenses for the camera.<br>

Thanks for any advice! Best, Steve</p>

[authoritee]

<p>The 7D is a much better option. Video capability permits you to do what you want, and more, and the image IQ is way better. A 28-135mm lens will be enough for you in the beginning; you'll get acquainted with your camera and you'll be able to cover a long focal range. Whenever you start feeling more creative, and feel that you're lacking something in your images, it might be time of a new lens, but not straight from the beginning.</p>

<p>The 50D should be replaced very soon by the 60D, if assumptions are correct.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to be rude, but that question was similar to something like "what's better, a casio or a cartier?"</p>

<p>Luck,<br>

Erwin Marlin.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>If you can afford it the 7D is a much better camera, the biggest problem with the 7D and video is the ability to focus on moving subjects, it has to be done manually. </p>

[jeffrey_c1]

<p>7D. No question about it. The extra $600 is well worth it. Better iso performance, 8 fps, better af, hd video, built-in wireless E-TTL, and many more.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Steve, 7D is a much better camera especially for action. It's got amazing video capabilities but it is not an easy video camera to operate. It will take you time to learn and you will have to purchase additional accessories to be able to produce high quality videos. And they are not cheap accessories. So you might want to consider that as well. Without those accessories you will not be able to stabilize the camera unless you will be using it on a tripod.</p>

[jerry_cipriano3]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>I don't have the 50d or 70d. I have older models. However I believe that I haven't heard an answer to your question yet. Frequently on these forums, respondents want to simply say which camera is best. You, however, asked whether the video in the 7d was adequate for your action sports or whether a separate video camera was a better option. I don't know, but have heard that separate video recorders are significantly better. I didn't hear an answer above. You also mentioned that buying the 7d would preclude you from buying other lenses. I suspect many professional photographers would opine that buying the 50d (also a very fine camera) and investing the $600 in another lens might be a better option. That $600 would buy a 70-200 f4.0/L or a 70-300 IS. I suspect that another lens might be more important in your instance.</p>

<p>Jerry Cipriano</p>

[ilya_e]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know, but have heard that separate video recorders are significantly better</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can tell you that you've heard wrong. In order to have the same quality videos as 7D or 5DII can produce you will have to purchase $50,000 (or more) worth of regular camera equipment. Something like Red or any other cameras. And some professional say that 7D and 5DII beat Red.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Never mind the video, but right now you have a relatively new, well-weather-proofed design (the 7D) and an older design that will soon be replaced whether this fall or later (50D). I don't imagine that the 7D would be more than pennies cheaper without the video.</p>

<p>If you can get a substantial discount on the 50D, it might be worth it, as it is a fine, elderly camera. If I were buying one of these, I'd definitely try to raise the money for the 7D, however.</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>Why does the 50D get referred to as elderly? it is only almost 1 year to the day older than the 7D and is still in the current Canon range and available in all good camera stores.<br /> The 7D is technologically way ahead of the 50D but to get the very best from it will need a steep learning curve and I cant help feeling that there are a lot of 7D amateur owners who do not use this camera to its full potential and as a result they would be better served with the 50D. Unless you were printing at massive sizes the extra 3mp would be neither here nor there imo.<br /> The video however is a different matter all together and if you really think you will be shooting both formats regularly then the 50D should not even be in your shortlist but you should be thinking more between the 550D / t2i with a second good quality lens or the 7D. Both 18mp both HD video capable and both with excellent high ISO/low noise capabilities.</p>

[bob_rodman]

<p>Buy the 7D you wont regret it, I currently own the 50D & 7D both of them are great cameras. The better features & HD Video on the 7D make it the camera I use most often.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>IMO, if you bought the 50D you'd miss the features a 7D would provide. However, when all is said and done, you won't miss the $$. Go for it. You deserve it!</p>

<p>Here is a link to some <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/canon7d/videos">videos I made with my Canon 7D</a>.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.vimeo.com/12098176">I like this one best.</a></p>

<p>Although the web version has some rendering/compression artifacts</p>

<p>All but the video called "Reversed" were made with the 7D.</p>

[max_young]

<p>I just purchased a brand new 50D (genuine Canon Australia stock) as a back up body to my 5D Mkii for about $695 USD. That price cannot be beaten. If you can snag a similar deal, go for it.</p>

[steve_reynolds3]

<p>Thank you all for your great thoughts and advice! I've got some figuring and considering to do, it is great to have perspective from those who know so much more than I do. All my best, Steve</p>

[bloodnut]

<p>i've never used a 7d but own a 50d and a 40d, they both work fine, i would think about lenses and the 50d's are coming down in price, the 50d is stll a good camera</p>

[mark from thailand]

<p>I just upgraded from a 40D to the 7D (thanks to a baggage handler somewhere between Singapore & Manchester!).</p>

<p>The 7D is better in terms of</p>

<ul>

<li>HD Video that is relatively easy to use</li>

<li>Faster fps action shooting</li>

<li>Larger, brighter viewfinder</li>

<li>Better focusing</li>

</ul>

[JDMvW]

<p>Why is the 50D elderly? It has to be measured in "camera years" -- If I were a camera I'd be 2,345 years old.<br>

:)<br>

More realistically, it's a matter of features which have taken a major leap forward since the 50D was released.</p>

<p>It's a very fine camera, and if you can get it for the right price, as I said,....</p>

[jim_j2]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00WrJs"></a>"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6132907">Steve Reynolds</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 13, 2010; 08:06 p.m.</p>

<p >I'm about 30 minutes into membership on photo.net, have already read some great stuff. I need some advice. I would say I am an advanced beginner, who has been out of active photography for quite awhile other than just point and shoot."</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Steve,</p>

<p >Honestly, What are your experiences with an SLR?</p>

<p >I'm not trying to be rude in any manner here, but although having nearly 30 years experience with an SLR, My first digital is the 50D and although I understand lighting, aperture, shutter, DOF etc., etc.. it's still quite a steep learning curve to use all the features and Custom functions. And I sorta "grew" to the 50D from the film EOS 7e and EOS3 which I feel was an advantage.</p>

<p >Kind of like Jerry eluded to, . . . your initial questions in this thread really haven't been answered yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >"I am going to buy one of these cameras and am trying to decide whether to spend the extra $600 or so for the 7D. I want to be able to shoot pictures of dogs and horses, sometimes from some distance and in action. My other passion is martial arts and I want to take some action pictures of that."</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

 

<ul>

<li>Fast shutter speeds are required for "action" shots. Also inclusive of faster lenses with an aperture of at least f/4, but better if f/2.8. You can bump the ISO up to make up for both slower lenses and shutter speeds.</li>

<li>"dogs and horses, sometimes from some distance" Depending on the distance, will require longer focal length lenses. I would expect at least something in the 200mm range as a minimum, unless you are in the arena or it is very small, then the 28-135mm IS may be o.k.</li>

<li>The Martial Arts will be much closer and may even require a wider lens, something like the 17-55mm range.</li>

</ul>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>"We also want to do some HQ video of both things. I'm not familiar with video recorders, but would the video capability of the 7D be adequate for the type of use I am looking for? Or, would a standard video recorder be better or easier to use?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes to both questions IMHO.<br>

I don't have much experience with Video, but I find the Video usage in my Fuji P&S adequate for what I would do which is not very much. However, even with the P&S, the video feature is a challenge. I'm just an old coot, and old skool (Not as old as JDM though!), and just have trouble mixing a still camera with video capabilities!<br>

Both are fine camera bodies, and yes the 7D has the video where as the 50D does not.<br>

However, IMHO the 50D with the exception of the video will do everything that you want to do and with the prices dropping a bit, . . . that $600.00 or more will come in mighty handy toward an additional lens, tripod, flash, monopod, media, software, bag or other accessories that you will eventually find that you want or need! </p>

<p>If it were me, (but it's not) I'd be looking at the best price I could get for the 50D and the best kit lens I could afford, then a decent lens with an aperture of f/2.8 or larger and a tripod, and possibly a flash unit!</p>

<p>Welcome to PN!</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>As an actual owner and heavy user of both bodies, I'd say grab the 50D and spend the savings on glass unless you really, really want video. Your lenses have more to do with your photography than the body. </p>

<p>And as for the video, it's great on the 7D, but you don't get workable autofocus and the onboard sound is terrible. It's also not much fun to use handheld. If you can live with these constraints, it's a great performer. If not, you would be far, far better with an actual camcorder. </p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>I'm torn on what to advise on this. I have the 40D - When I bought, the only other choice was the 5D, which was way out of my price range.</p>

<p>I photograph moving dogs in the field as well and here's where I'm torn: I would welcome better auto focusing of a 7D. It ain't easy catching a monochrome Weimaraner moving fast against the nearly monochrome desert. As far as sharpness, quality, etc. The 40D or 50D is probably adequate to start out with - but given the subject matter, the 7D would be great.</p>

<p>Although...... The other thing about photographing moving dogs in a field - and we're talking dogs with legs on them - you are really going to need more than the 135mm. The 135 is very limiting. The 70-200 mm is what you want.</p>

<p>Can you still get great photos of moving dogs with a 40D or 50D? Sure, you'll just have to work harder, which is maybe not so bad when you're learning. Some of the pro dog photographers have advised me to anticipate where the dog is going to end up and pre-focus on the area. Half of the success is taking A LOT of photos.</p>

<p>Steve, you know dogs. You know how they quarter - which way the scent is blowing - when they are going to go on point - use that knowledge to anticipate when / how to focus.</p>

<p>I think you are going to want that 70-200 mm. Buy a 40D / 50D. Learn with it. Then get the next body. It's always nice to have a 2nd body anyway. The pros I've seen working field events have 2 bodies. One with a 70-200 and one with a shorter lens and a flash for close-ups.</p>

<p>Wouldn't it be great if we could get the best camera and the best lens at the same time. ;-) but a lot of us have to build up one piece at a time. :-)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Hope y'all don't mind if a Nikon guy chimes in, here. But as much as this is a "which camera" conversation, it really should be at least as much about lenses. Good points by Leslie, above.<br /><br />On a cropped-format body (I use a Nikon D300 - which is similar in many ways to Canon's 7D), the 70-200/2.8 is my go-to, meat and potatoes, don't-leave-home-without-it <strong><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=743317">field dog lens</a></strong>. I use it more than any other lens for that sort of stuff. And even then, at actual events, I find myself itching for 300, and even 400mm. Shooting from the gallery at a trial or hunt test, 200mm <em>just</em> gets the job done, and I'll sometimes use a 1.7TC. Most of the stuff I really like, I get by shooting before or after formal events, when I can work with dogs and handlers under more up-close and non-interfering-with-judges circumstances. A shorter lens can work for that sort of stuff, usually - but it's still the 70-200 that I reach for the most. A second body often has a 17-55/2.8 on it, or sometimes a 30/1.4.<br /><br />About higher frame rates, more agile AF, the ability to natively control off-camea strobes, and a body that's more weather/dust-resistant. Yup, that stuff is <em>really</em> useful. Especially the AF. But: a more modest body, later to be retired to backup status, while you get real glass in the meantime - that's a pretty compelling strategy.<br /><br />You'll notice I didn't mention video. Nope, I sure didn't. If it's going to be the DSLR doing it, the advice you've heard above is sound: you need real mounting gear, probably external audio gear, and lots of practice. The results will otherwise be frustrating. So perhaps going with a more modest, dedicated camcorder isn't such a bad thing for the time being. <br /><br />Good luck! Don't forget to allow for the cost of a decent protective filter in front of your favorite field lens. Thorn scratches, horses kicking up gravel, dog drool, quail and pheasant droppings flying about, retrievers shaking wet ducks ... trust me, the business end of your lens is going to be seeing some action, that way.<br /><br />The light for such events is often lousy (and beautiful, of course - that early morning stuff is what always looks the most gorgeous). A faster lens can really help. A 70-200/4 wouldn't kill you, given the higher ISOs that one can constructively use these days.</p>

[steve_reynolds3]

<p>What incredible feedback! I am so happy my friend Leslie suggested I join photo.net and then post this question here! Did photography way back when in journalism school and for small newspapers, but it has been a LONG time, way BEFORE digital!<br>

After listening to such great feedback and factoring in my shortcomings (experience and financial), I believe the 40/50 with a better lens is the best way to go.<br>

Steve<br>

Hey Matt, whereabouts are you shooting field trials? I've been all over the country running dogs but mostly do Weimaraner stuff!</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>DC area, Steve. I've been known to visit the occasional field trial, but more often hunt tests. Was at the DC Weim club's events this spring, and they hosted the national events in May (I was photographing in the field when I could ... <em>but</em> I agreed to gun for the senior and master dogs, too - no wonder I was tired that weekend!).<br /><br />Good luck with where you're headed. There's nobody to photograph working and hunting animals like someone who trains them. You know what's coming! Mostly, have fun.</p>

[matt_mak]

<p>The 7D is best. I would go with it over the 50D. It's better in the long run to spend a little extra now, and get something that will last longer.<br>

<a href="http://www.cameraly.com/">Photography</a></p>

[dean_schreuder]

<p><em>"and get something that will last longer."</em></p>

<p>I own both and they are both built almost identically... build quality wise that is.</p>

[steve_reynolds3]

<p>Small world Matt! That was kind of my home club back when I did the national Weim field trial circuit. I was at Clear Spring every spring and fall. Still have several clients/dogs from that club. I am excited about writing, photographing and videotaping the field dog world!</p>