Canon 7D vs 5Dmk2 for Weddings

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I have read that a lot of photographers really like the Dual Format . . -- is this because of the better range you can get on a APS-C with the same lens? Or because you can get a great lens otherwise not available for a FF camera, as Jim Strutz mentions?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, a dual format leverages the useability of the Lens Cache.<br /> For example take three fast Primes – 24, 50 and 135 and an APS-C and FF camera, then I have a light weight and very flexible kit which I can carry on me with one extra lens in a large coat pocket .<br /> Similarly two Zooms only – 16 to 35/2.8 and 70 to 200/2.8 <br /> Similarly One zoom and Two Primes – 16 to 35/2.8 and 50 and 135.<br /> These are all examples of carrying very light weight but yet having a very powerful two camera kit</p>

<p>The whole kit’s System Redundancy is also more easily managed (fewer parts) with a Dual Format Kit – but I admit that point is a little academic as certainly it is more likely for digital cameras and flashes to fail, than lenses to fail.<br>

There are quite a few other aspects involved in choosing the particular components of a well planned efficient dual format kit - right down to the camera batteries.<br>

And it is sage advice to use the tools, especially the cameras - before you buy.</p>

<p>These facts do not mean that Dual Format is “better” – it is just better for me; and nothing else I have contemplated since I cut over to digital has swayed that opinion.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>The EF-S17 to 55/2.8 IS is a great lens and I used it quite a lot – but did not buy it as, to maximize the economies of money and space and weight and usefulness: only EF mount lenses are suitable in a Dual Format Kit.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I concur that, especially taking into account - <a href="http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm">Equivalence</a> - that the EF24 to 105/4 IS is the 5D’s 17 to 55/2.8 IS, so I don’t see that lens particularly swaying my choices and great lens though it is, it did not.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p><strong>Lauren, I'd wait.</strong></p>

<p>You are not presently pressed like an established wedding shooter. Use that to your advantage.</p>

<p>There is a bit of a paradigm shift at play in camera offerings right now, or happening soon. More performance at the same or lower price as previous models.</p>

<p>I have owned and shot with every camera that's been discussed on this thread and then some ... and any of those choices are obviously very capable or none of us would be using them ... however,<strong> </strong><strong>I wouldn't recommend any of them </strong>unless pressed by immediate need.</p>

<p>Much of the "Geek Speak" presented here is old news. Sensors and digital camera systems designers have innovated ways to increase the meg count without a corresponding drastic reduction in performance. Other innovations such as back-lit CMOS sensors have further increased sensitivity for improved ISO performance ... plus, post software like Light-room is advancing at a ferocious rate, and so on.</p>

<p>The crop sensor verses full frame debate based on getting more reach with the same focal length on a crop frame ... is marketing spin. In fact, there is no difference what-so-ever. Given the same or near same pixel pitch, a full frame image cropped in post processing will yield the same image as taken by a crop frame camera. The difference is that you can crop the FF image, but you cannot add to a smaller sensor one ... nothing wrong with crop frame cameras, but focal length extension isn't an advantage.</p>

<p>Same kind of spin when considering auto focus points. 51 AF points is primarily for continuous focus tracking used in sports photography to shoot bursts of action. Most wedding photographers do not use focus tracking, instead manually move the AF point away from the center to shoot off-center compositions. What is important for that is not a zillion AF points to scroll though, it is using less AF points that are the more sensitive cross sensor type that can focus more accurately in lower light, and how fast and easy it is to get to the off-center AF position you want.</p>

<p>Keep your eye on what happens in the coming weeks ... Canon has yet to drop the other shoe, and the 5D replacement is due soon. Sony is paving new paths with their A77, and their A600 and A99 are also due soon, Nikon has already announced their D800. </p>

<p> </p>

[abbas_haider]

If you already have EFs lenses then you have to go to 7 d as they cannot be used on 5d. Whereas if you have EF lenses

then you can go for anyone of them and great shots can be taken

However, if you are spot oriented and can frame the picture well then 7 d is the choice, but of you are background

oriented or doing cropping then 5 d is the one

Just one clarification 17-55 EFs FOV is similar to 24-70 L which is EF

[bengt_rehn]

<p>I agree 100% to wait a couple of month if possible. The already annonced Nikon D800 bring the dual format issue to a higher level. It has, as opposed to canon, a DX setting that have an impressive 15 Mpix and you can of course use all DX lenses if you want. This has become a real advantage for Nikon now that its possible to get a high enough resolution in cropped (DX) mode.<br>

On the other hand, Canon could have something really, really intresting in the upcomming 5D replacement. Maybe the 18 Mpix sensor from DX1 with an incredible high ISO performance and wide dynamic range.</p>

<p> </p>

[adamczyk]

<p>What's the difference. Use the camera that you know how to use, with lenses that do the job. Images quality depends more on the photographer then the equipment, pick one format, learn eveything you can and then go out there and shot weddings. I still use a 40D as my primary camera, with few pro quality lenses and I had never had a customer tell me that there is too much noise in the pictures or not enough DOF. Image quality has to do more with the lens and the light then the camera body. As everyone pointed out, the 2 formats are different in some respects but at the end of the day it is customer that tells you weather you did you job or not. I suggest you practice to shoot at high ISO like 1600 or 3200 and use some software to clean the noise, you will quickly find out how much you are underexposing. On my 40D, I often crank up to ISO 1600 and then in LR 3 remove the noise, run it through CS 5 for further noise reduction. It may take few more minutes but once you get the hang of it you will see how easy it is, and you will not worry about noise as much. That is my 2 cents.</p>

[lauren_s.]

<p>I am definitely going to wait before I decide what to buy. I want to see what Canon comes out with next. If I have to spend more money on a new camera that will last me a long time, like the 5Dmk2, then I think it's worth it. You've all given me a lot to think about.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>For clarity:<br /> I too have done a lot of experimentation using various lenses (esp. 24, 35, 50, 85 and 135) on APS-C Cameras and the using a “Full Frame” camera to then cropping that image to equivalence of what I would have attained using the APS-C Camera.<br /> Certainly with cameras similar to the 7D and the 5DMkII, there is not that much difference, as already mentioned above.</p>

<p>However, I still see an advantage in a dual format kit as it leverages the Lens Cache and keeps the number of lenses to a minimum:</p>

<p>Because, whilst I do tend to shoot a little wide anyway to allow me to crop to any PARTICULAR PRINT ASPECT RATIO later –<br /> I do not particularly like to shoot using only FF bodies and not having a long enough lens, just to crop later to match what I would achieve with the same lens on an APS-C.</p>

<p>I see greater value and easier and better creative control, in seeing the framing and the view point I require - through the viewfinder prior to the moment of shutter release.</p>

<p>I do not want to have to think ahead shoot a lot wider wide using a FF camera, only for the purpose cropping the images later to achieve in Post Production the shots as if I were using a “crop camera” and the same lens – that to me is fiddly and just time wasting.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[fotografz]

<p>WW, I would think that depends on the shooting style and focal length preferences of each shooter. A vast majority of wedding photographers use zoom lenses, so framing as wanted is pretty easy. </p>

<p>If I favor longer lenses, I personally would use a FF camera <strong>and a longer lens </strong>to take advantage of the higher resolution and bigger brighter viewfinder. Most longer lens users at weddings favor a 70-200/2.8 and don't have much call for over 200mm. The amount of times most need beyond 200mm, and have to crop is probably not often.</p>

<p>It's a matter of personal preference, and that's all that matters. I'd never go back to a crop frame camera again ... except maybe a pocket camera for personal snaps where FF isn't available. </p>

<p><strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

[William Michael]

<p>Hi Marc,<br>

Yes - individual choice for sure.<br>

I was thinking about how I wrote, what I wrote as I was cleaning my swimming pool (sunny Sunday morning here). . .<br>

I am not sure that I was as clear as I could have been, even though my intent was to further clarify, taking into account my <strong>agreeing</strong>, with your comments.<br>

Maybe point form is better - what I was attempting to say is this:</p>

<p>I like a dual format kit.<br>

One of the reasons I like a dual format kit is that such leverages the lens cache, especially in so far as I can carry fewer lenses and have the “advantage” of “getting more reach”, using and APS-Sensor (and the same, set of fewer lenses).<br>

Yes the greater “reach” advantage of APS-C is now more and more marketing spin, when comparing the newer, better digital sensors and as mentioned near the same pixel pitch.<br>

But - (and this was my point) – I still like the dual format kit because I can carry fewer lenses (in fact very few lenses, like maybe two only) and have the advantage of seeing the framing that I am shooting - when I am shooting that particular shot - and still have the extra "reach" available if I need it - not that I am wanting (for example a 200mm lens) to use all the time and instead of buying that 200mm, lens I buy a 135 and use it all the time on an APS-C camera.<br>

Yes, also I tend to use the 5DMkII for the general shots which will be larger, wall hangers.<br>

And also, as I think we have concurred previously, 200mm on an APS-C is very rarely used by me at any Social Function or Wedding.<br>

I am covering more social events nowadays and I am tending toward using 16 to 35/2.8 and an 85 and two cameras most of the time - the 85 on APS-C is about the longest reach I require.<br>

If I were using only 5D's in my kit, I (believe) I would need to carry a 135 an not the 85 (135 is bigger and bulkier) and I would have to leave the 16 to 35 at home and (worst of all) I would have to buy a 24 to70/2.8 . . . and I really don’t want to do that (buy another zoom lens, that is).<br>

Minimalist concept for sure, but it works for me.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[blue-bend-photography]

<p>I, personally, don't have or use a 7d. One of the photographers that works for me does though. He has a 7d and a mark iii. He uses the 7d with his 70-200 to get that extra zoom without losing the light and then the mark iii for everything else. if i did more stuff up close like he does, i think that i would consider this setup. you can check out his portfolio on our site. colby.</p>