7D vs. 5D Mark II...I know it's been done to death...but...

[dcstep]

 

<p ><a name="00Y0SQ"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3766364">Zvia Shever</a> said:</p>

 

<p>"I don't know what to do any more than I did before I posed the question ;) Maybe the answer is getting the 7D now and waiting for the 5D Mark III rumored to be coming out late this year. I know either choice will be better than my 40D as I'll need the pixels if I want to blow up to 16X24 or higher."</p>

<p>Don't buy the 7D if you want a 5D. What do you expect out of a 5D MkIII that you can't get out of a MkII? Yes, there'll be a III, but there'll also be a 7D MkII that'll undoubtedly have better high-ISO performance, so why not wait for that.</p>

<p>Your 40D will do most of what the 7D can do. If you're unhappy with your 16x24" prints, then buy the 5D2 now. If you're not doing that, then you might stand pat and just invest in a lens that'll help you with some part of your photography. You told us what type of images you take, but you didn't tell us what makes you unhappy with your 40D. That might help us to really zoom in on what would answer your desires best.</p>

 

 

[zvia_shever]

<p>If I could foresee the future and that future held a 5D Mark III with 5+fps and improved auto focus, I'd be thrilled....but ultimately no one knows but Canon. My brother-in-law owns both the 5D II and the 7D. I think I can convince him to lend them to me for a few days to try them out (I'll raid his lens stash too). It's funny, he owns almost all Canon cameras from the 30D-60D, 5D and 5D 2 plus an arsenal of lenses, yet never leaves the dreaded green auto square....makes me crazy! </p>

<p>One other note: Poor Nathan is being bashed for his love of the 7D but even on dpreview it got an 84% approval vs. a 79% for the 5D Mark II. So maybe there's some validity there. <br>

I'll post my thoughts after I try both out. Thanks again for all the opinions! Zvia</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I wouldn't worry about poor Nathan. He haunts these 7D/5D threads and seems to love to butt heads.</p>

<p>Trying both is absolutely the best answer. Please come back to let us know what you decide.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I don't even have a "love" for the 7D. If it were me personally, I would choose a 1D III over a 7D, but for everyday use on all subjects, especially when <em>Money is a consideration</em>, I don't see anything wrong with the 7D. With cameras today, you could pretty much pick up any camera and, if you know what you're doing, make incredible photographs. I'm not downing the 5D, if I had the money I'd have one, but I'm not convinced that everyone needs one. </p>

<p>Zvia,<br>

I would consider what everyone has said, but most of it is just arguing between camera geeks, although there is a lot of validity to all of it. Bottom line, get what you really want in your gut. I know there's one of these cameras that you would <em>really</em> like to have. Whichever it is, (probably the 5D II) get it. If you don't, you'll always wonder what it's like. Then you'll have your dream camera and you can walk around all day with a $#!+ eatin' grin on your face.</p>

[nathangardner]

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't worry about poor Nathan. He haunts these 7D/5D threads and seems to love to butt heads.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's true, and I hate it. Every time I see a 5D vs 7D thread, I tell myself "don't do it" but I always get sucked in. But I don't always push the same camera, I try to suggest the right one for the situation. If I'm wrong in this case, then it won't be the first time and it won't be the last. And I really don't like to butt heads, it just always ends up happening. And as David says, trying both is the only way you'll know which is for you, but if you're anything like me you've probably already decided which one you'll like better, which is fine, get that one. As long as you get the one you really want, you won't be disappointed.</p>

[spipaw]

<p>I agree with J. Harrington.I have a 40D and four months ago bought a 5D markII. I like you Zavia, was concerned with the burst speed of the 5D but soon realized that being a former film shooter, if you plan you shots and are prepared, then this can be a non issue. I have kept my 40D to use as backup and to use if I really do not want to miss the height of the action. I have gotten rid of all of my S lenses(which includes the kit, 10-22, and 60mm macro) and have not looked back. As far as printing goes, I also have an Epson 3800 and usually print 13x19 with a few 16x24 from the 40D and they always come out stunning for me. I have yet to print from the 5D, but I hope to do that as soon as my schedule permits me. i am still getting used to my 5D but here are some action samples from my site with the 5D markII. Go <a href="http://spiderpaw.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/the-return-of-mr-bankz/">Here</a>.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I've thought about this a lot and so far the best option I've come up with would be to <strong><em>buy the 5D and 24-105L, sell the 17-55 and keep the 40D</em></strong> to use with my 70-200 (love that lens). I guess I'd rent a wide angle for the 5D until I could afford to buy one. The issues with this combo though are 1. Price and 2. That's pretty heavy to lug around on vacation. <strong><em>Any thoughts?</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you keep the 40D, then you get better lens / FL leverage if you buy either the EF17 to 40F/4L or the EF16 to 35F/2.8L <strong><em>and not the 24 to 105</em></strong><br>

This means the “walk around” camera (at typical “walk around" Focal Lengths / FoV) essentially becomes the 40D.<br>

But the point I am making is: if you run a dual format kit with only two zoom lenses: the 24 to 70 and 24 to 105 become mostly superfluous, in respect of FoV.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[Alex]

<p>I went from the 40D to a 7D about 1 year ago and I could not be happier with the camera. The difference between then (to me) is day and night just the focusing system made the change worth it.<br>

I see my self getting a 5D as an addition (not a replacement) when they upgrade to a Mark III it could be this year, next year or when ever that happens. I like to get the same sort of focusing system I enjoy so much on my 7D. I don't want to jump the gun and get the 5D Mark II when I can wait until they get what I really want.<br>

Most likely if you get the 7d you will not stop until you get the 5D (like me) but the 7D will keep you happy and bussy for a while until you get there and the Mark III or may be a Mark IIII comes along.</p>

[bob_king2]

<p>I own and use all three cameras you mention - 40D, 7D and 5DII. My take is that all 3 can serve the purposes you have stated, but in my opinion: the 5DII has the better sensor, especially at high ISO; the 7D has better everything else and its sensor is not far behind the 5DII at lower ISO's; the 40D is still a good camera. I find the 40D/7D to be good action photography cameras with the 7D being the better. The 7D is not just an upgraded 40D - its in a class of its own. I've done action photography with the 5DII - eg kids playing energetically, planes at airshows - and the camera handled it well using AI-servo auto focus. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is superb on the 7D. I have made highly detailed 20" x 30" prints from both my 40D and my 400D.</p>

<p>My advice? The 7D with a wide angle zoom such as the EF-S 10-22.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Amazing how quickly threads of his kind fill up! I am another dual-format (5DII+7D) user, having owned over time a 20D, 40D and 50D as predecessors to the 7D, and a 5D as predecessor to the 5DII. Here's my take on the position.</p>

<p>1. The 7D is a significant step forward from the 50D and a big step forward from the 40D. The 7D is also a significant step forward from the 5DII in all respects except sensor size; the 5DII has capabilities (apart from the sensor) close to those of the 50D.</p>

<p>2. You don't seem to be doing the kind of shooting that demands two different lens+body combinations over your shoulder at the same time, nor the kind of non-repeatable shooting (like weddings and safaris) where you need a backup if one body fails (which is very rare in normal circumstances). The 40D (unlike the 7D or even the 50D) will give you negligible "crop factor gain" compared to the 5DII, because the 40D has a 10Mpixel sensor but a 1.6-factor crop of the 5DII sensor is still 8MPixel. So I don't think there's any point in your retaining the 40D, either with a 5DII or with a 7D. Selling it will make a significant contribution to your upgrade costs.</p>

<p>3. The 7D produces excellent image quality even at medium to high ISO settings, but it is not as good as the 5DII at really high ISO. Doing a lot of high-ISO work is one of th relatively limited number of reasons why you might prefer the 5DII. At low to moderate ISO there are very few practical purposes for which the image quality is any different. There are other specialist reasons for using a 5DII, for example to make best use of tilt/shift lenses, to copy artwork with a 50/2.5 (by far Canon's best combination for that purpose), and for close-up.macro work with the 100/2.8L IS where you need IS but want a wider angle of view than that lens gives on 1.6-factor. All of these happen to apply in my case; if they dd not, I might well work with 1.6-factor only.</p>

<p>4. You already have the (reputedly – I have not used it myself) excellent 17~55/2.8 which will be an outstanding combination with the 7D. Add a 10~22 for landscape and you are in excellent shape. In my experience the 10~22 on the 7D is very competititve with the 17~40 on the 5DII, and better in some ways (less distortion the the wide end, les CA).</p>

<p>Do I need to sum up? I don't think so!</p>

[ken schwarz]

I toured the U.S. west and shot extensively with a 30D, the 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200/4 lenses. Results were great,

but I FREQUENTLY hankered for a full-frame body. Why? Not image quality. Dust! It's a constant concern: entering

and fouling the non-sealed zooms, and getting inside the camera during lens changes. The 5D2 and 17-40 and 24-

105 zooms are better sealed, and because the main zoom goes wider and longer, lens changes are much less

frequent. It's a big improvement in the field and for your purpose I do recommend it. You would not get these benefits

with the 7D.

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657840">Scott Ferris</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 10, 2011; 11:30 p.m.<br>

Oh a challenge, I missed this before, I am certainly not scared to "guess". My guess for Daniels 7D vs 5D MkII files? I say the 7D is the right hand column.<br>

What I love about these threads is that people who actually own, or use, both camera formats all state that they can see quality differences between FF and crop cameras. Those that only own crop cameras say there is no difference unless printed very large. I didn't buy a 7D because after using one for an extended period I could clearly see a difference in my images.<br>

They are both superb cameras, Canon did an amazing job making us want both when either can do almost anything perfectly.<br>

Of the six shooting situations that Zvia lists as main uses, I would choose a 7D over a 5D MkII for just one, kids running around. For the first three the 5D MkII will be considerably more capable than the 7D, for Teutons wildlife, unless you are thinking BIF then the 5D MkII is better, even the crop factor/tele advantage is not realisable, for kids tennis both would work perfectly, we are not talking about top pro mens 100MPH+ serves here. My money would go into a 5D MkII.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Scott, I've done both the fullframe and crop dance for years at weddings. At 16x24, like Daniel said, there is no difference between the two. There also appears to be this silly myth that you need a fullframe body to do landscapes. I guess some people think all landscapes are ultrawide shots. That said, a Sigma 8-16 is pretty darn wide for a crop camera. So is a Sigma 10-20, or the Canon 10-22. There are plenty of wide angle options for crop bodies. As to noise, I routinely use 3200 and 6400 on the 7D during weddings without a problem. In fact, the results are clean at 8x10 and 11x14....so no worry there for albums.</p>

<p>Sorry, but the 7D and the 5D2 are both superb camera....but if you think it's only crop users that like the 7D, you couldn't be more mistaken. And like Daniel, I've done enough print comparison between the two to be able to say that at 16x24, there is not any perceptible difference between the two. None!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>About high-ISO shooting in general. Once you have a camera that can do it well and you've tried it, it's not a "specialized" type of shooting. It becomes second nature. Many of us that came from the film days tend to chose our subjects and continue to shoot within the parameters of those days.</p>

<p>When I bought my 5D MkII it arrived a few days before I went on a cruise with the kids and grandkids. I didn't have time to really study the operation, so I used it on Automatic much of the time. Later when processing the images I noticed that many were at ISO 3200. Manually I propably wouldn't have gone there, if the camera hadn't directed me there.</p>

<p>Next I wondered, how would the camera do at ISO 6400? I found that, so long as I didn't underexpose, the results were terrific.</p>

<p>Understanding this has changed my outlook toward shooting and selecting subjects. I still use the lowest ISO that I can in the circumstances, but, whether I'm shooting birds in flight, deer after dusk or street scenes at night in New Orleans, I have no reluctance to shoot at ISO 6400.</p>

<p>It's not "specialized" photography, just normal day-to-day shooting for anyone that realizes that their camera can handle it.</p>

[michael_bailey3]

<p>Zvia, I am in a very similar decision making mode as you are, however, I am still shooting with a 20d! Up until last year I have been perfectly happy with the output of the 20d, as it has been very reliable and produced very good images. Photography is just a hobby to me, and I never plan to submit my photos for professional critique. That being said, I have never had friends or family tell me that I ought to buy a better camera to try to reduce the noise in my photos, average people are amazed at some of the pictures I have produced. I am one who believes that the onus is still on the person behind the camera to make a quality photo, with the technology just an instrument to that end. I have literally spent months and months reading reviews, looking at sample pictures, and driving myself mad trying to decide. As I have been happy thus far, either one I choose will blow me away I'm sure! I believe the important thing to do is look at the pictures you have taken in the past and decide which aspect you feel needs improving. For me, my landscapes I think are great, however I need improvement on autofocus, as my dinosaur 20d is not quite "smart" enough to achieve the action photos I would like, so I am leaning towards the 7d As every review I have read clearly shows that the autofocus between the 5d II and the 7d are a world apart, the 7d wins hands down. On any other issue, for each positive review favoring one, there is another favoring the other. Unless you are gonna pixel peep, save the thousand dollars and buy some glass. I'm trying to convince myself here too :) On the glass, most reviews give the Tokina 11-16 mm better marks than the Canon 10-22mm, plus it is cheaper and includes a lens hood....just a thought for your wide angle on a crop sensor.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Your opinion is as valid as mine, that is what makes these threads so utterly pointless. However, of the declared owners of both 7D and 5D MkII, you are in the extreme minority in not seeing IQ differences in good sized prints, all power to you and your printing technique.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"And like Daniel, I've done enough print comparison"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nobody knows how much print comparison anybody has done, certainly Daniel does not own a FF digital.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Sorry, but the 7D and the 5D2 are both superb camera...."</em> Dave Luttman, Jan 11, 2011; 08:41 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did I not say exactly the same thing? Oh yes I did <em>"They are both superb cameras," </em>Dave Luttman, Jan 11, 2011; 08:41 a.m, quoting Scott Ferris from Jan 10, 2011; 11:30 p.m.</p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>Interesting thread on using a 5Dii after using a 40D is found <a href="00XzCj">here</a>.</p>

<p>Apart from that: "My brother-in-law owns both the 5D II and the 7D. I think I can convince him to lend them to me for a few days to try them out (I'll raid his lens stash too)."</p>

<p>Go for it! My guess is that after handling them both for a day and post processing the results you'll know exactly which one you want.</p>

<p>Have fun, Matthijs.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Scott. Looking at the samples that Daniel posted, it is obvious that if the difference at 100% is so small that you need to study the image to see the slightest difference in noise or acutance, then at a print level (about a 60% reduction to the 100% screen view), the differences vanish. Daniel's example shows this isn't an opinion, but a fact. At 16x24 the difference doesn't show. Daniel doesn't need to own one....he provided a comparison image showing the differences between both. Like I said, if it is barely perceptable at 100%, then it won't show on print. This is common knowledge for printing.</p>

<p>But feel free to test this yourself. I've done comparison prints for people who argued the point to death....only to be left scratching their heads as to why they can't see a difference in print.</p>

[Brad_]

About 15 months ago I bought a 7D. Had it for a week and returned it for a 5DII. Differences in IQ were

striking.

 

However, if I were shooting sports, I would probably go for the 7D and live with the IQ hit.

[michael_bailey3]

<p>I think the point is this....comparing photos to an amateur or hobbyist really has little bearing on selection. It is like picking out a television. You go to Best Buy and look at the choices. Side by side comparisons will likely provide a clear winner, however when in the home set up by itself, there are very few who could see a difference.......photography is the same. Not many plan to have two of the same photos hanging side by side in the living room, so, unless you are a professional planning on making huge photos and criticizing them to death, why spend the money?</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>About 15 months ago I bought a 7D. Had it for a week and returned it for a 5DII. <em>Differences in IQ were striking</em>.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> Then you were doing something wrong, Brad.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00Y0cL"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 11, 2011; 11:41 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>About 15 months ago I bought a 7D. Had it for a week and returned it for a 5DII. Differences in IQ were striking.<br>

However, if I were shooting sports, I would probably go for the 7D and live with the IQ hit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you post an example of this striking IQ difference Brad? Looking at Daniel's sample, the difference is almost invisible at 100% pixel on screen. I've never seen any "striking" differences noted on any credible review site either....be it DPReview, The Imaging Resource, etc, etc.</p>

 

 

[Brad_]

>>> Then you were doing something wrong, Brad.

 

Thanx for your concern. But honestly, no. What has your direct experience been using both cameras? Could it be that perhaps you were doing something wrong having used both?

[john_a5]

<p>First, I am a dedicated, and professional, FF shooter, but I think there are several considerations here for an amateur.</p>

<p>When I look at the two cameras you suggest, I had to wonder if maybe you should throw a 60D in the mix as well?!? The reason I say this is because in many ways, the specs of the 60D are closer to those of the 5DII except as to sensor size/MP. The focus systems are similar, each has a partial cut off in the viewfinder, and the FPS are similar.</p>

<p>The 7D has a jump in the internal workings over either and maybe a build quality nearer the 5D than the 60D. It comes closer in many ways to being the crop sensor 1ds model in the line, whereas the 60D and 5D maybe more equivalent in their sensor size category.</p>

<p>I do have to qualify my statements here somewhat as I don't know any of these cameras but the 5DII, but I also don't know anything about you as a shooter. Do you really need fast FPS or the best focusing system (5dII system is very good, just something to knock if you feel so inclined) or the expense of buying FF glass? Do you need really high iso performance (except maybe on rare occasions)?</p>

<p>Buying a 60D could save you $1600 compared to getting the 5dII, get you the 18mp for landscapes, have a similar fps and focus system to the 5DII, the same sensor as the 7D and have money left over to get Photoshop CS5 (great raw processor, lens distortion correction and noise reduction--much better than CS4 not to mention great post software) and money to burn on some new glass.</p>

<p>Anyway, only you know how much you do anything (or how important those things are overall) and how important spending that extra money on a camera really is--especially given that there has been an inordinately long lag in the upgrade of the top of the line cameras. If you have been happy with the 40D for the most part, then maybe the 60D gives you the jump you need for now--or the 7D. Just a thought.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Brad said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"About 15 months ago I bought a 7D. Had it for a week and returned it for a 5DII. Differences in IQ were striking."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Brad, BUT it's only clearly evident when I review my images on the computer screen, prior to and during RAW conversion. I routinely look at the eye and fur of animals, sign details on street scenes, background details in scenics at 100% and higher to pick the sharpest image from among several options of the same shot. If an image is sharp and 100% and higher, then it'll stand cropping well and it's clearly sharper than the less sharp viewed at the same size.</p>

<p>The biggest advantage of the 5D2 over the 7D, IME, is at ISOs above 800. Since I shoot a lot of wildlife at dawn and dusk and shoot sunsets and sunrises and pre-dawn and pre-dusk, I find that the 5D2 does a clearly better job at these taskes.</p>

[peter_e]

<p>The difference between the 5DII and 7D is primarily in noise, noticeable even at ISO 100. But maybe it is only my 7D and I have a bad copy.</p>