Canon 5D MKIII Vs. Canon 7D

[bazz farazz]

<p>So, this on going war in my head of what to upgrade to is coming to a close at the end of the summer. As I've posted before that I shoot roller derby but I also enjoy portraits and one day soon want to open my own studio when I finish school. I was planning on getting to 7D and have money for glass and studio equipment but my question I guess is could the 5D MKIII handle shooting sports with it's new auto-focus system which I read is the same as the 1DX (I could have misread that somewhere)? I often shoot in skating rinks that are very dimly lit and need something that will handle LOW-light situations. Any compare and contrast between the two would be awesome. Thanks in advance for all and any help.</p>

[zml]

Rent, test, buy (or not...)

[scott_ferris]

<p><a href="http://www.thecamerastore.com/blog/2012/04/13/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-part-2-mike-drew">This video</a> should help, low light sports shooting with a 5D MkIII. It isn't a 7D but the images are going to be at least two stops better than a 7D.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The 7D focuses better in low light but 5D2 IQ is a lot better...</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>Disclaimer: I've not used a MKIII<br>

I do have a 7D and a MKII and I've read a fair amount about the MKIII... will wind up getting one when an impulse hits when I'm tired after a long stretch of work and need a shot of Feel-Good...<br>

I agree with the rent and try approach... can't be beat....<br>

On the other hand... some things are so good you should just get one... maybe...<br>

For example: I rented a 7D to see what it was all about and I said wow and bought one.<br>

I wanted the 5D MK II and when a used one came along I bought one without ever shooting one.... I felt confident I knew what I wanted and what it will do... I was right.. no regrets.<br>

I will buy a MKIII without testing because I have the confidence that the MKIII will be a blend of 7D and MKII with even more improvements....<br>

That's me.<br>

Lensrentals has both cameras you are considering. <br>

Opinions Based on reading and use of 7D and MKII:<br>

The MKIII is the low light winner by far. The AF on both the 7D and MKIII should be more than adequate. If the price of the two cameras were close MOST people would buy the MKIII.... the price difference however will make people take pause....<br>

Enjoy the hunt.<br>

Richard</p>

 

[bazz farazz]

<p>Thanks so far! I'm actually borrowing a 7D from my friend to test with tomorrow. Great video Scott, Thanks! The price plays somewhat of a factor. If I do go with the MKIII it will eliminate any studio equipment I wanted. But the higher ISO capabilities may make up for that. I usually use my two AlienBee 800's when shooting derby and was looking at getting the Einsteins. </p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>If you are talking about shooting in studio, the low light capabilities of a camera won't make up for poor lighting in a *studio*. Outdoors, I lust after the benefit of high ISO performance.</p>

 

[nathangardner]

I've been using the mk iii for a week and the high iso performance is amazing, better than the 1d IV, and the 1d IV is

better at iso performance than the 7d. Both are great cameras, but the 5d3 is incredible. The only thing the 7 has

over the 5d is the frame rate, and the 5d rate isn't slow. Also, the 7d frame rate decreases in low light for no reason,

independent of AF and shutter speed, just an odd quirk of the camera, so the 7d may not necessarily even have the

faster frame rate in dim lighting. But then again glass is an issue. A 2.8 zoom on the 7d will be better than a cheap

variable aperture zoom with poor AF on the 5d3.

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>Everything that I have read is that the high iso performance in RAW files is about the same in the 5D2 and 5D3 - the latter might be a smidgen better. The one place where the new 3 model does make major strides is the AF system. So if you need that, then yes, rent then make a decision. If fast AF is not needed, you are better off with the 5D2...</p>

[philip_wilson]

If you can afford it then I suggest the new 5DIII. The frame rate is fine for most sports - remember until the late 1990s we

shot sports at 5fps or less. THe IQ will be better in low light and the AF should be better. Of course the 5DIII is two years

newer and over twice tHe price so it should be better. The only reason to go with the 7D is if you need more money for

glass. Your system needs to be balanced so getting a 5DIII and putting cheap glass on it is not the way to go. For sports

you need fast glass and this is expensive

[dcstep]

<p>I own a 5D MkII and a 7D and find the 5D2 superior for low light shooting, except the AF is weak and the fps is slow. The 5D3 fixes that. You don't need extreme focal length for your usage, so I get the 5D3 and use a 70-200mm lens.</p>

[bfmelton]

<p>It seems to me that when Canon designed the mkIII it paid attention to the tons of people who said they wished that the 7D was FF. That's essentially what the mkIII is. It's got An AF that's as least as good as the 7D and a fps that comes close to it (well, a lot closer than the mkII does).<br>

I've not shot with the mkIII but I have both a 7D and a mkII and have shot night football with the 7D. I've always hated graininess, and the 7D has too much for my taste as low as ISO 800. On the other hand, this is sports we're talking about, and the grittiness of sports seems to me more tolerant of a bit of grain.<br>

Nevertheless, based on my experience, I would say go with the mkIII and do what you can with your existing glass until you can afford better glass (and good glass makes a whale of a difference). But 7D stuff is by no means bad. You could also go with 7D and good glass now, and then trade the 7D for a mkIII in a year or so when perhaps mkIII prices have dropped a bit. You might even find that the longer reach of the crop on the 7D is a quality that offsets the FF when shooting sports.</p>