<p>If I were you I would get the 7D. For sports you will find yourself frustrated by the lack of true tracking ability and slow firing of the 5D. You may lose as many shots as you get, while the 7D rivals the 1D Mark IV focusing system and IS bettter than the 1D Mark III. Also, the 7D is perfectly fine for wide shooting. Just slap a 10-22, or my preferred a Tokina 11-18 and you are just as wide as a 16-35mm or a 17-40 on a 5D. And for those of you who havent used it, the Tokina is an excellent lens.<br>
The 5D II does easily kick the 7Ds tail at high Isos, but as long as you use solid glass, for most sporting events youi will not need to go over 1600 anyway. Also, keep in mind as someone mentioned earlier, the 7D essentially turns a 70-200 2.8 into a 100-300 2.8, or a 200 2.8 prime into a 300 2.8 prime. I have found that my 7D allows me to get away with not having to buy the uhber expensive 300 2.8 to shoot sports, though if you did buy it, you would be rewarded with a lens that is REALLY about a 460mm 2.8, and obviate he need for a 400mm or a 500 mm lens for shooting sports.<br>
All in all I think the 7D is simply a better camera. The 5D definitely has its uses, such as very low light shooting, but for equal the price of a 5D II body (I already owned a 5D II though, and then sold it for a second 7D), I get the 7D and the FABULOUS 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens. Its a nobrainer.</p>
<p>And as a final note, if you are going to be a professional photographer you can never say you dont want to have to carry around a lens for one specific purpose. ALL lenses serve a specific purpose. If you want to shoot wide you have to carry a wide lens. And if you will be shooting with crop bodies, who cares if your lens is efs or not. Canon makes some great EFS lenses, such as the 17-55.<br>
The final advice I would give is drop the 24-70mm 2.8 and grab a 17-55 2.8 which will give you equal IQ, the same focal length as the 24-70 on a full frame and let you get much wider. Also if you are going to shoot sports in low light, drop the 100-400L and get yourself a 70-200 2.8 IS which will be the same price, OR grab a 70-200mm F4 (NON IS) and a 400mm 5.6 if you really need to get out that far. those two will even out to about the price of the 100-400. You are just sacrificing too much light with the 100-400L if you are shooting sports in low light.</p>
5d mark 1 vs. 7d?
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted
<p>If I were you I would get the 7D. For sports you will find yourself frustrated by the lack of true tracking ability and slow firing of the 5D. You may lose as many shots as you get, while the 7D rivals the 1D Mark IV focusing system and IS bettter than the 1D Mark III. Also, the 7D is perfectly fine for wide shooting. Just slap a 10-22, or my preferred a Tokina 11-18 and you are just as wide as a 16-35mm or a 17-40 on a 5D. And for those of you who havent used it, the Tokina is an excellent lens.<br>
The 5D II does easily kick the 7Ds tail at high Isos, but as long as you use solid glass, for most sporting events youi will not need to go over 1600 anyway. Also, keep in mind as someone mentioned earlier, the 7D essentially turns a 70-200 2.8 into a 100-300 2.8, or a 200 2.8 prime into a 300 2.8 prime. I have found that my 7D allows me to get away with not having to buy the uhber expensive 300 2.8 to shoot sports, though if you did buy it, you would be rewarded with a lens that is REALLY about a 460mm 2.8, and obviate he need for a 400mm or a 500 mm lens for shooting sports.<br>
All in all I think the 7D is simply a better camera. The 5D definitely has its uses, such as very low light shooting, but for equal the price of a 5D II body (I already owned a 5D II though, and then sold it for a second 7D), I get the 7D and the FABULOUS 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens. Its a nobrainer.</p>
<p>And as a final note, if you are going to be a professional photographer you can never say you dont want to have to carry around a lens for one specific purpose. ALL lenses serve a specific purpose. If you want to shoot wide you have to carry a wide lens. And if you will be shooting with crop bodies, who cares if your lens is efs or not. Canon makes some great EFS lenses, such as the 17-55.<br>
The final advice I would give is drop the 24-70mm 2.8 and grab a 17-55 2.8 which will give you equal IQ, the same focal length as the 24-70 on a full frame and let you get much wider. Also if you are going to shoot sports in low light, drop the 100-400L and get yourself a 70-200 2.8 IS which will be the same price, OR grab a 70-200mm F4 (NON IS) and a 400mm 5.6 if you really need to get out that far. those two will even out to about the price of the 100-400. You are just sacrificing too much light with the 100-400L if you are shooting sports in low light.</p>
<p> </p>