5D Mark II and Canon 7D Choice

[dcstep]

<p>The noise difference is very easy to see, even at internet sizes. Yes, if you limit yourself to ISO 100, then it'd be really hard to see the differences, but shooting at dawn and dusk and after dark it's not even close, once the ISOs get beyond 800. Yes, PP reduces the differences, but starting with a RAW file with just a smattering of noise in the dark areas yields a better result than a file covered with noise.</p>

<p>My point remains, listen to those that own and use both. For sport, birds and wildlife, I reach for my 7D; for everything else, I reach for my 5D MkII. They're different tools for different jobs. If you can't afford the 5D2, then buy the 7D.</p>

<p>They're both great cameras.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Yes, if you limit yourself to ISO 100, then it'd be really hard to see the differences, but shooting at dawn and dusk and after dark it's not even close, once the ISOs get beyond 800.</em></p>

<p>I agree that there are differences above 800. But I also don't shoot tripod mounted landscapes above ISO 800, even at dawn, dusk, and after dark. Shots I do make above ISO 800 are rarely enlarged to 24" or 30". The advantage above ISO 800 has to be weighed against common use scenarios.<em> </em></p>

<p><em>My point remains, listen to those that own and use both.</em></p>

<p>How about listening to those who own and/or have tested both, and more importantly have evidence to backup their claims? Every time this topic comes up I ask for the samples which prove a significant detail advantage at low to mid ISO, or a significant difference in noise when making small to medium prints from high ISO shots. Those samples never materialize.</p>

<p>If the opinions you refer to are backed up by anything more than wishful thinking or meme repetition then it should be easy to produce the evidence. Why do I never see said evidence?</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Just have them go to the Imaging Resource and download the Raw samples. They need to make sure they're the Raw files of the still life and not the JPG. I've been having people make huge enlargements from each camera....only to email me later and confirm what I've said all along....at 16x24 to 20x30, at iso 100 or 200 for a landscape, there is no difference.</p>

<p>I really wish these people would conduct this simple test before parroting the misinformation they read online!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Daniel said:<br>

<em>"I agree that there are differences above 800. But I also don't shoot tripod mounted landscapes above ISO 800, even at dawn, dusk, and after dark. Shots I do make above ISO 800 are rarely enlarged to 24" or 30". The advantage above ISO 800 has to be weighed against common use scenarios."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I think this is the crux of our discussion. I quite commonly shoot at dawn, dusk and night without a tripod; therefore, I value the 5D2's high-ISO capacity. Also, the fact that I can afford both a 5D2 and a 7D has allowed me to not be forced into chosing one over the other.</p>

<p>I AM convinced that, given ISO-100 and use of a tripod and owning the right lens, I could make essentially the same wide-angle scenics with my 7D that I make with my 5D2. It would take a very large print before a difference would be noticed by most viewers.</p>

<p>My most common subjects are birds, so if I were forced to chose just one camera it would be the 7D for it's high frame rate and quicker focusing. It's high-ISO performance would be a compromise that I'd have to live with. If I'd never known the high-ISO potential of the 5D2 then I wouldn't know what I was missing, but know that I've enjoyed it for two-years, it'd be hard to give up.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>FWIW, the President's photographer doesn't use a 7D. He does use a Canon 5DMKII.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Donald said:<br>

<em>"FWIW, the President's photographer doesn't use a 7D. He does use a Canon 5DMKII."</em></p>

<p>I would concur with his choice. The ISO flexibility would be very useful in that assignment. I saw him taking a lot of available light shots in the little piece I saw about him on <em>Sunday Morning</em> (or was it <em>60 Minutes</em>?)</p>

<p>That doesn't make the 7D an "inferior" camera, just not as good for that usage.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I've also seen a number of photographs of Presidents taken with 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. I'd choose one of those because of the severe resolution limitations of the 5D2 ;-)</p>