Torn between 2 bodies

[j_gallagher]

I am just about ready to buy my first Canon...I am torn between the 7d and the 5d mark ii...

I am mainly a portrait photographer (children and families) and i do some weddings. I do not know enough about the video aspect of the

dslr's to use it.

Which camera from a strictly photographic sense would be best for me?

I am leaning towards the 7d and then using the extra money for a good lens...

Any comments would be appreciated.

 

Also, what lens would you suggest for a portrait photog...I am new to canon...

 

Thanks

Judy

[jaydesi]

<p>As a 7D owner, it's hard for me to recommend something else, but it seems that most folks who do portrait go for the 5DMkII.</p>

<p>Both cameras will be put to best use with high quality lenses. For the 5D, I often see people recommending 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm. There are top-quality, fast L-series lenses in all those lengths. Of course, the length you use varies by the type of portrait you're shooting and the space you have available.</p>

<p>I also suspect the low-light capabilities of the 5D will serve you better doing weddings where flash is not permitted, but otherwise, I'm sure you'd be fine with either camera.</p>

<p>All that said, I'm sure you'd be able to do just fine with a 7D and the L-series lenses, just keep in mind the crop factor when purchasing. You don't want to end up with too long a lens for your work.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilya_e]

<blockquote>

<p>I am mainly a portrait photographer (children and families) and i do some weddings</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are describing 5DII. 7D is great but more suitable for action/sports photography. For lenses I'd recommend 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 (I or II). That setup should have you covered for any situation.</p>

[davyjo]

<p>Go for the 5D II if money isn't a worry. It is a superb camera for portraits and weddings. If you were shooting sports or wildlife I'd go for the 7D.<br>

You will be very happy with the 5D II or 7d but plan on spending lots on quality lenses.</p>

 

[peter_e]

<p>I have both. The 7D has distinctly more noise than the 5Dii, but better AF. I would think that the noise on a dark background, for instance, would give preference to the 5Dii. Both cameras have high-resolution sensors that benefit from top quality lenses. This includes the 50 to 100 mm non-L primes in the $ 400 range, i.e. 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 100/2.</p>

[stp]

<p>Based on my own experience and from reading responses to similar questions, I'd recommend the 5DMkII. IQ and low-light (high ISO) capabilities are the main reasons for my recommendation. If you're doing primarily portraits, two good lenses (at reasonable prices) are the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>The 5d2 and 85mm 1.8 (notable portrait lens and very inexpensive) is one the single highest scoring body/lens combos in all of the testing done by DXO Mark for any camera and any lens, nearly maxing out the quality gauge at 59 out of 61. The same lens on a 7D scored a 33 out of 61.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>Judy, I have a 5D (the original) and also a 7D (which I only use when I have to), and if you state that you are a mainly a portrait photographer, I have no hesitation in putting in a vote that you go towards the 5D.</p>

<p>The lenses I recommend is the 50mm 1.4, the 85 mm 1.8 and the 135mm. There are the more expensive versions of all those three primes, but that's what works for me best ~ primes that is.</p>

<p>Talking about cost it is possible that you might save a bit of money by buying the camera and a lens as a 'bundle kit'. It would most possibly be a sort of zoom lens in some configuration but there's nothing wrong with getting a fast or something f/4. zoom to get you started. the 24 -70mm 2.8 would be a good catch if you can find that in a 'bundle'.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>Judy, I have a 5D (the original) and also a 7D (which I only use when I have to), and if you state that you are a mainly a portrait photographer, I have no hesitation in putting in a vote that you go towards the 5D.</p>

<p>The lenses I recommend is the 50mm 1.4, the 85 mm 1.8 and the 135mm. There are the more expensive versions of all those three primes, but that's what works for me best ~ primes that is.</p>

<p>Talking about cost it is possible that you might save a bit of money by buying the camera and a lens as a 'bundle kit'. It would most possibly be a sort of zoom lens in some configuration but there's nothing wrong with getting a fast or something f/4. zoom to get you started. the 24 -70mm 2.8 would be a good catch if you can find that in a 'bundle'.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have both and the 5DII is the better camera for all purposes excluding sports. I would like to suggest that shooting weddings with one body looks like a high risk activity and you may want to consider this. In terms of lenses for a 5DII the 85 f1.8 is hard to ignore for portrait use as it is cheap and performs well. You probably also need a wider lens and a longer lens. I find the 24-70 and 70 -200 f4IS get the most use on my 5DII but they are both quite expensive. If you want to skip the 85 then an F2.8 70-200 works well but they are quite expensive and outside of sports use my F4IS gets used more than my F2.8. The 24-105 is also a good lens but I prefer the 24-70 as it is sharper and faster. the 50 f1.4 is a good lens but the AF is not the best and it is soft (at least my copy) until about f2. On the 7D the 50 F1.4 is a great lens but I find it rarely goes on my 5DII (mind you I have never been big on 50mm lenses despite owning 4 or 5 - I find 35 and 85 much more versatile).</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I own both, but would always grab the 5D2 for portraits, scenics and most general use. I use the 7D for birds and wildlife.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I am <strong>new to canon</strong>... torn between the <strong>7d</strong> and the <strong>5d mark ii</strong>... I am mainly <strong>a portrait photographer</strong> . . .do <strong>some weddings</strong>. Which camera from a <strong>strictly photographic sense</strong> would be best for me? <strong>what lens</strong> would you suggest for a portrait photog?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I cut over my own kit and four studio W&P kits to Canon several years ago. I understand the transition process.<br>

For Portrait Work the 5DMkII wins. I used the 5DMkII in March this year and was very suitably impressed comparing it to my 5D.<br>

For Weddings you need at least TWO DLSR bodies, we carried three. There is great leverage in a dual format Wedding Kit and if you search these forums, especially the Weddimg Forum, you will find I have previously been quite verbose on this particular topic.<br>

IMO within the Canon Range the 7D + 5D is the most powerful value for money professional wedding combination kit. (plus another back up APS-C Canon DSLR)<br>

Note that when running a dual format kit with respect to the L/2.8 Zooms the 24 to 70 becomes superfluous in respect of FoV.<br>

Also there is leverage apropos Primes in this same regard.<br>

As one example, I shall transpose my lenses from my "Light Weight Wedding Kit":<br>

Cameras: 7D + 5DMkII (+40D as back up) <br>

Three Prime Lenses: 24LMkII; 50/1.4; 135L; x1.4MkII<br>

Two Zoom Lenses: 16 to 35MkII; 70 to 200/2.8L</p>

<p>With respect to <em><strong>“from a strictly photographic sense”</strong></em> with that kit, you get 135 format equivalent<br>

Primes: 24/1.4; 38/1.4; 50/1.4; 80/1.4; 135/2; 189/2.8; 216/2; 302/2.8.<br>

Zooms: 16 to 35/2.8; 26 to 56/2.8; 70 to 200/2.8; 98 to 280/4; 112 to 320/2.8; 156 to 448/4 <br>

And all these Aperture Speeds at a “doable ISO3200” and a “very acceptable ISO1600”, to print to 11 x14 inches, easily, with those two Camera Bodies.</p>

<p>For Portrait Lenses on a 5D(MkII), I mostly use: 24L; 35L; 35/2; 50/1.4; 85/1.8; 100/2.8macro; 135L; occasionally 300/2.8L.<br>

The most used Portrait Lenses for me are: 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 and the 135L. That falls within the traditional “Portrait FL range” so those statistics are not surprising. There are many example of these lenses, used as Portrait Lenses, under various conditions - in my portfolio here: <a href="../photos/William_W">http://www.photo.net/photos/William_W</a> also the 70 to 200/2.8 features often: as I quite like that lens, though never really use the zoom for Portraiture per se, and it was rarely used at all at Weddings.</p>

<p>I encourage you, as you are cutting over to a brand new SYSTEM to think through exactly what the final kit is that you require – and base that decision on your outputs.<br>

Also you need to have a timeline of purchases based upon outputs and prioritizing at each step what the next most important, most used tool to purchase will be. <br>

I took about three months to arrive at my final decision, I admit that I was buying a total of five kits and that was a deal of Capital with which I was entrusted - so I had to earn what I being paid: but your personal money is no less important.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>search the forum history, there's a bazillion 7D vs. 5D II threads. If I had a nickel.....</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>As usual I'm going to go against the grain on this question.</p>

<p>Assuming proper processing, at low to mid ISO you cannot discern between large prints from the 5D mkII and the 7D. Pixel peeping reveals some minor differences in noise level and out of camera sharpness. But for all practical purposes at low to mid ISO these cameras offer equivalent IQ. It's not until high ISO that the 5D mkII pulls ahead in a way that would actually be noticeable or meaningful in print. If you were in a gallery full of large, low/mid ISO prints from both, and there were no labels, you simply could not pick them out. (I always say "with proper processing" because APS-C sensors require more sharpening than 35mm sensors. And there are times where a 7D file might need a touch of NR where a 5D mkII file would not.)</p>

<p>Anyone who doubts the 7D's abilities as a portrait, wedding, or fashion camera merely needs to download and print Canon's portrait sample from http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos7d/, or some of Stephen Eastwood's samples from http://stepheneastwood.com/blog/?p=130. Even Eastwood's ISO 3200 samples are excellent.</p>

<p>Given the significant feature advantage enjoyed by the 7D, your choice should come down to the following questions:</p>

<p>* Do you regularly need to make large prints from high ISO shots? (Example: 16x20 from ISO 6400.)</p>

<p>* Do you own certain lenses which really only make sense on 35mm? (Examples: T/S lenses; fast, wide primes.)</p>

<p>* Do you own lenses which you don't want to replace with functionally equivalent APS-C versions? (Examples: 16-35 f/2.8L; 24-70 f/2.8L. These lenses work fine on crop, but their FoV is significantly changed. If you want that FoV you would be better off with the crop equivalents.)</p>

<p>If you answer yes to any of the above, give strong consideration to the 5D mkII. If you answered no to all of them, buy a 7D and enjoy both the better features and the lower price. Take the money saved and put it towards glass.</p>

<p>Since this is your first Canon camera, I'm assuming you only need to be concerned with question one.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>The 5d2 and 85mm 1.8 (notable portrait lens and very inexpensive) is one the single highest scoring body/lens combos in all of the testing done by DXO Mark for any camera and any lens, nearly maxing out the quality gauge at 59 out of 61. The same lens on a 7D scored a 33 out of 61.</em></p>

<p>DxOMark has also scored a Nikon D90 higher than a medium format back, a result so ridiculous that they should have taken the site down while they fixed their testing methodology. They are roundly ridiculed for their tests and scoring which completely fail to match the results of other sites or the real world experience of photographers.</p>

<p>I can guarantee you that if I produced 20x30" portrait prints made with the 7D and 5D mkII, both using the 85 f/1.8 within the ISO range 100-800, that you would be unable to tell me which body produced which print.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>In the comparisons and considerations between choosing the 7D over the 5DMkII for Portrait work, one significant element was overlooked.<br /><br /><br>

IMO this element is integral to many portrait photographers, myself included and it is one KEY reason why <strong>when choosing between the two formats,</strong> I choose 135 Format over APS-C Format, for most portrait work.</p>

<p>One should reckon whether or not <strong>the availability of (extreme) shallow DoF is a prerequisite</strong> for the Portrait Work undertaken.</p>

<p><br /><br />Also, this single consideration, <strong>combined with the lack of choice of wide and fast Prime lenses for APS-C </strong>should also be considered together, if wide lenses are to be used for Portraiture</p>

<p>As the OP is essentially a Portrait Photographer – IMO this is a key question for primary consideration and perhaps should be contemplated before consderation is given to any of the other points raised.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[matthijs]

<p>If money's tight I'd say a 50D and a 50/1.8. This is a pretty nifty combo. (Upgrade to 50/1.4 if you prefer a lens that's not totally plastic bodied...)</p>

<p>If money is rather less tight a 7D plus 50/1.4 has a very slight edge image quality wise over the above combo.</p>

<p>If money's not a huge problem a 5D-II plus an EF 85/1.8 gives the best results.</p>

<p>Apart from that, read the excellent advice of my fellow posters.</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

[markonestudios]

I have used the 7D (albeit briefly). It is impressive but... I own the 5D2. Based on intended usage, IMO the 5D2 will more likely be the better tool for your particular job for reasons very well described above.

[garymoncur]

<p>I am in total agreement with William W re. portrait photography. I do not own a FF body and for my uses crop sensor bodies are more than up to the job but oh boy there are times I wish I had that narrower DOF and the best way to get that is FF. If your serious about portrait work go with the 5DmkII.</p>

[kerri_albano]

<p>As someone who shoots weddings and portraits currently with a 50D I dream of the day I can get a 5D mark II or perhaps by the time I can afford it, gasp a MarkIII.<br /> Because of the lighting situations a wedding photographer deals with (especially during the reception) I feel the 5D would be a far better choice. The noise is significantly lower. Good luck in your decision.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Just a gratious, non-helpful, flying in the face of all the photo.net doctrine comment:</p>

<p>I love the title of this thread ;)</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>For portraits, 5D, IMO.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, what lens would you suggest for a portrait photog...I am new to canon...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Judy, I love my <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=909607"><strong>Canon 85MM 1.2.</strong></a> However, they are very expensive and when shooting wide open, DOF is paper thin, often leaving one eye out of focus.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Yup, the title of the thread is great..!</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Go for the 5D MKII. The one person suggesting a 7D in this thread is a one note Samba who always recommends the 7D over the 5DMKII. There is nothing wrong with the 7D, but for portrait work the 5DMII is the superior camera. If portrait work is your primary interest the EF 85mm f/1.8 is a potent combo. Unfortunately the 7D becomes defraction limited about f/8 or so and the view finder of the 5D is the better of the two by more than a little.<br>

But don't take our word for it, if possible rent both and take them for a test drive.</p>