Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 7d or 5d II
Dieselstation Car Forums > Multimedia > Photography > Gear & Equipment
Grantzphoto
I'm torn pretty hard on this IDK if I should get the 7d and lens/more light mods or the 5d II. I feel almost like the 5d is old tech now and is being left in the dust in terms of video and iso. Plus 8 fps is killer on the 7d. On the 5d side though full frame is sweet although I don't have a lens to use it on the ultra wide side. Also the 5d II might be better at managing noise at a high iso level but idk. Humph!

Edit: just heard about the firmware update coming for the 5d middle next year but still idk.
Nike SB'd
What glass do you already own?
brenton ho
the new 7d is killer! it basically killed the market for used 1dmk2/n owners. With hd video and the newer af system, i'd get a 7d first if you dont have a uwa already available. (more lights and glass make more of a difference IMO)
Grantzphoto
QUOTE(Nike SB'd @ Oct 22 2009, 01:19 AM) *
What glass do you already own?

Sigma 10-20

canon 24-70 2.8

canon 50 1.8

I'll be picking up a 200 2.8 with either
Martin
I think the most relevant question is, what will you use the camera for?

Looking on your portfolio makes me say go for the 5D. I don't really see any use of a quick camera in the pics your taking.
If you shot a lot of actionshots I'd say 7D instead. Fullframe is awesome to portraits and automotive stillshots.
And adding a 200 would make the perfect setup of lenses.
The sigma's AF don't last that long anyway, sell it with your current camera. biggrin.gif
Grantzphoto
QUOTE(Martin @ Oct 22 2009, 10:02 AM) *
I think the most relevant question is, what will you use the camera for?

Looking on your portfolio makes me say go for the 5D. I don't really see any use of a quick camera in the pics your taking.
If you shot a lot of actionshots I'd say 7D instead. Fullframe is awesome to portraits and automotive stillshots.
And adding a 200 would make the perfect setup of lenses.
The sigma's AF don't last that long anyway, sell it with your current camera. biggrin.gif
Yeah I'm just thinking that frame rate would be nice for the occasional wedding I do. I'm leaning towards the 5d right now but I have a couple more days to think about it. I don't know why it kills me but not having a lens for rig shots with the 5d will piss me off. I guess over the winter it will be time to save for the 16-35 lol
Nike SB'd
QUOTE(Grantzphoto @ Oct 22 2009, 06:31 AM) *
Sigma 10-20

canon 24-70 2.8

canon 50 1.8

I'll be picking up a 200 2.8 with either


If I were you I'd go for the 7D and a 16-35. Remember glass doesn't really depreciate, you pay for it once and you're good to go, if you decide to sell in five years the lens will still be worth 75% of what you paid for it. The 5D II would be worth maybe 25% by that time. Investing in bodies is a loosing effort and outside of full frame I think the 7D is a more usable camera anyway. I was even considering getting one for work (my company owns all Canon products, L glass etc) so I don't have to beat up my own gear. If the 7D were full frame I'd own one.

With that said we all know it's hard to resist the "I need a better body" urges so I understand either choice. Plus the 5D II is a beast, I just think that if you don't have all the glass now, start buying that and save up then move to full frame.
mackey
If you go with the 5D II, you'll have to loose that 10-20 Sigma and upgrade to either the 17-40 or the 16-35.
Grantzphoto
QUOTE(mackey @ Oct 22 2009, 01:29 PM) *
If you go with the 5D II, you'll have to loose that 10-20 Sigma and upgrade to either the 17-40 or the 16-35.

Yeah that's why I'd be saving for the 16-35 over winter. But. Now it looks like I'll be sticking with the 7d what everyones said makes sense. Thanks!
Dejan Sokolovski
7D is allot cheaper, atleast here in Sweden and seems to have better FULL HD-filming if that interestes you...
But on the other hand the 5D II is an awesome camera, but then you need to buy new lenses and shit and
it will cost you devil when you're finnished... tongue.gif

I'd go for the 7D, even I want to change to Canon 7D from Nikon D90 but too lazy to sell all gear and all
the extra shit I got, that are for Nikon... :/
DonJuanMair
I'm probably the only to think get the 5D mkII, sell the 50mm and the sigma and get the 17-40

You say your going to get the 200mm on either body, that's going to be 320mm on the 7D!! I don't know what your shooting but that's only really good if your shooting in Africa or motorsports maybe.

I just got the 200mm also and wish I would have upgraded my 100mm now instead of getting the 200mm.

If you shoot weddings also get the 5D its better for higher iso's too
mackey
QUOTE(Grantzphoto @ Oct 22 2009, 12:40 PM) *
Yeah that's why I'd be saving for the 16-35 over winter. But. Now it looks like I'll be sticking with the 7d what everyones said makes sense. Thanks!


I highly doubt you'll be shooting wide open enough to take advantage of the 2.8 on that lens. The 17-40 F/4 L is sharper and half the cost, might make shopping for another lens, or some accessories more worth it.
DonJuanMair
But he could use that f2.8 for weddings nicely, especially in low light situations
SwissWhiskey
2.8 is useful at weddings. Well judging by the weddings pic i've seen. To us normal photographers a low DOF pic is nothing but the general public like it.
Seethegrim
So any of you guys liking the official release from Canon saying the 8fps on the 7D is a fk up. You get ghosting when shooting at 8fps. The previous frame has 'resonance' on the next frame.
Balls up of note.

I would go for the 5D mk2 man. Buy as expensive as you can. Make a plan to sell livers later.
Dragos
I went fron 30d to 5d Mk II. I'm am very happy with the camera. I like the dynamic range of it i like the big viewfinder but i don't like the shitty AF. I think go for 7d and buy more gear ! When i first wanted to buy a dslr i had to choose from 30d with premium lenses vs the 5d with with lots of things missing from my back pack! But as other said think first on what do you use you're camera!
mackey
QUOTE(DonJuanMair @ Oct 29 2009, 10:44 AM) *
But he could use that f2.8 for weddings nicely, especially in low light situations


ISO would handle the 1.2 difference in opening. But I hear your point, this is an automotive forum tho, didn't know wedding were a factor lol.
DonJuanMair
Lol I know dude but he said he does the occasional wedding
Grantzphoto
I ended up getting the 7d and I like it a lot! Focus is so much better than my xti.
RaymondN
I wish I could afford the 5D II. sad.gif

I need a camera upgrade bad though, the XTi just ain't cutting it anymore. Thinking about the 5D classic but IDK.
Martin
QUOTE(Dragos @ Oct 30 2009, 12:06 AM) *
I went fron 30d to 5d Mk II. I'm am very happy with the camera. I like the dynamic range of it i like the big viewfinder but i don't like the shitty AF. I think go for 7d and buy more gear ! When i first wanted to buy a dslr i had to choose from 30d with premium lenses vs the 5d with with lots of things missing from my back pack! But as other said think first on what do you use you're camera!


How shitty is the AF, worse than the 30D? I'll probably go for the 5D mkII anyway, the dynamic range and fullframe is what gets me going.
Dragos
i think kind of the same. or 10% better smile.gif my 30d had some problems with autofocus when i upgraded to 5d mk II so i can't really tell how big is the difference smile.gif
The full frame and the big viewfinder makes the cut smile.gif And it has a nicer feel in the hand but the battery grip and spare battery as expensive as hell but are a must
mackey
Not to plug the 5D II more, but I shot some ISO800 shots over the weekend of my son for Halloween and couldn't have been happier with how they turned out, makes me giddy to actually try ISO50 for a shoot.
Jeeves
Full-Frame -vs- Cropped seems to be the only real question at hand here.

In my eyes the naming convention is clearly deceiving.

[Just because I found this article for a post I replied to...]
Even ISO 400 on the 7D starts to show noise, a place where it doesn't even phase the FF sensor of the 5D MkII.
http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/...DMKII_vs_7D.jpg
mackey
QUOTE(Jeeves @ Nov 2 2009, 12:56 PM) *
Full-Frame -vs- Cropped seems to be the only real question at hand here.

In my eyes the naming convention is clearly deceiving.

[Just because I found this article for a post I replied to...]
Even ISO 400 on the 7D starts to show noise, a place where it doesn't even phase the FF sensor of the 5D MkII.
http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/...DMKII_vs_7D.jpg


assuming the 5D II is on the right, that is quite the difference.
Jeeves
QUOTE(mackey @ Nov 2 2009, 02:21 PM) *
assuming the 5D II is on the right, that is quite the difference.


My mistake, sorry. 7D is on the left, 5D MkII is on the right. You are correct.
IMO, it's all about pixel density. You can't beat the tech specs of the camera except when they start incorporating in body noise reduction then I start worrying about what other important details I could be losing. And that doesn't make me the least bit happy.

Somewhere in the mix I'm sure there's an ideal megapixel ratio for the APS size sensor to minimize noise and the same for the APS-C however I'm concerned that with cameras getting cheaper and cheaper and Canon (and Nikon/Sony/etc.) trying to make them more appealing to the average consumer (by pushing them as an upgrade to the point and shoot line) the megapixel wall will be hit at some point soon and in camera software will be realistically the only way to compensate for hardware/production price limits.

Oh well. It's not like I'm an award winning photog anyway. smile.gif

Edited for spelling errors since I was typing fast.
mackey
QUOTE(Jeeves @ Nov 2 2009, 02:03 PM) *
My mistake, sorry. 7D is on the left, 5D MkII is on the right. You are correct.
IMO, it's all about pixel density. You can't beat the tech specs of the camera except when they start incorporating in camera noise reduction then I start worrying about what other important details I could be losing. And that doesn't make me the least bit happy.

Somewhere in the mix I'm sure there's an ideal megapixel ratio for the APS sensor to minimize noise yet and the same for the APS-C however I'm concerned that with cameras getting cheaper and cheaper and Canon (and Nikon/Sony/etc.) trying to make them more appeaking to the average consumer (by pushing them as an upgrade to the point and shoot line) the megapixel wall will be hit at some pint soon and in camera software will be trealistically the only way to compensate for hardware/production price limits.

Oh well. It's not like I'm an award winning photog anyway. smile.gif


Thats why you'll see the cost of consumer driven DSLR's go down, but the cost of Pro DSLR's (5D's and 1DS's, D3X's, etc) go up. Thats why the D3X is like 8k now?
Jeeves
QUOTE(mackey @ Nov 2 2009, 03:36 PM) *
Thats why you'll see the cost of consumer driven DSLR's go down, but the cost of Pro DSLR's (5D's and 1DS's, D3X's, etc) go up. Thats why the D3X is like 8k now?

Noone I've talked to has been able to explain the D3X. Seems that was just a bad move by Nikon. The Sony Alpha 900 uses a near identical sensor. Nikon claims it's not quite the same (though Nikon's sensor is a Sony sensor) and I've read varying information both ways but the tech specs on the D3x and the Sony A900 combined with the photos are a tough sell. Neverminding the $5,000 USD price difference.

If it weren't for noone ever ripping them apart and trying to transplant a sensor it would seem that people have essentially proven that the sensors in the two cameras are the same: http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/02/nikon-d3...d-by-nikon.aspx

The only thing that's been terribly tough has been Sony breaking into the "Professional" DSLR market and that's solely because they bought the digital end of Konica-Minolta's name and went to market with it utilizing their mounts and such.

Edit: And while the #D line's are still their high end line, it's also hard to argue that Canon isn't trying to pull in the avid prosumer with the attraction of HD video. Purists would argue that a high-end camera should never have that feature (not that it isn't an utterly amazing feature to have.)
Seethegrim
QUOTE(Jeeves @ Nov 3 2009, 12:03 AM) *
My mistake, sorry. 7D is on the left, 5D MkII is on the right. You are correct.
IMO, it's all about pixel density. You can't beat the tech specs of the camera except when they start incorporating in camera noise reduction then I start worrying about what other important details I could be losing. And that doesn't make me the least bit happy.

Somewhere in the mix I'm sure there's an ideal megapixel ratio for the APS sensor to minimize noise yet and the same for the APS-C however I'm concerned that with cameras getting cheaper and cheaper and Canon (and Nikon/Sony/etc.) trying to make them more appeaking to the average consumer (by pushing them as an upgrade to the point and shoot line) the megapixel wall will be hit at some pint soon and in camera software will be trealistically the only way to compensate for hardware/production price limits.

Oh well. It's not like I'm an award winning photog anyway. smile.gif


I like you. You talk sense.
Travis Geny
The distillation of all this (that I can see anyway) is that the 50D and 7D are decent, prosumer cameras that will create good images, most of the time for most shooters.

The 5DmkII is for the professional who is looking for the best possible image quality without having to spend $7k on a 1D.

The maxim in the camera world I have come to live by is that cheaper gear simply does not have the performance of more expensive gear and whenever I skimp and go with the lower-end model, I kick myself because it's just not as good as the higher-end model....

Which means I need to sell a kidney. Any takers?
Jeeves
The other Poster looking for a camera PM'd me and this was part of my reply. Still seems valid, so I'll repost outside of the PM.

QUOTE
I'll stick with what I said in the thread. The 5D itself is a relatively stagnant camera. I don't expect there will be any new firmware or features and Canon has for all practical purposes abandoned it. The MkII is their baby now. Now, it is STILL a great camera. It's personally what I shoot with. I'd LOVE to pick up a MkII myself but I can't justify it as an upgrade. The 7D and the 5D MkII are both alive and have upgrades and such in the future. We've already heard that a firmware upgrade is coming for video for the MkII and we've seen at least one for the 7D already.

So, I think the question really is one of what's most important. I pointed out my view of what's different. the 5D is much better at low light ISO (and the MkII is even better) where as the 7D really isn't very good at it in direct comparison. However it is quite fast (Now, if you compare that to the MkII... it'd be tougher, really while expensive the MkII is obviously the best of both worlds). So, it's all a question of what are you going to do with it, which is most important (ISO, Speed, Make (nikon/canon), etc.) then narrow that down to whichever fits the bill smile.gif
StE823
interesting post.. how about both 7D and 5D2? one for action shots and one for portrait/still carshoots.. it may sound crazy but I think it's still worth.

I was shooting with my 1d3 and 40d all summer (rigging with the 40D and 10-22), but i sold both cameras (including my 17-55IS) and picked up a 7D + 16-35mk2 recently (hopefully 5d mk2 around christmas), i've also been told that the 16-35mk2 are pretty soft at the corner when mount on a full frame body (so far VERY sharp on my 7D), same with the 17-40L.. seems like canon does not have any good UWA lenses compare to nikon sad.gif

back to the 7D, downgrading from 1D3 to 7D, i don't see anything that i really miss beside the 10fps (shutter sound was awesome on the 1D that i really miss), iso is pretty much the same.. metering is awesome as well.. if you don't mind a crop body, 7D is really an awesome camera for the price
SwissWhiskey
STE823,

Hows ISO 400 on the 7D compared to the 40D? If you compared an ISO 400 ISO sized down image (say 1600 or 1920 px) from the 40D against the 7D, which image is going to be cleaner WITHOUT noise reduction.

The thing that disturbs me with the ever growing Mpx number is that you'll have to clean up ISO400 with a noise remover in the future on prosumer bodies. How about giving us a clean image out of the box...?!
StE823
QUOTE(SwissWhiskey @ Nov 10 2009, 10:08 AM) *
STE823,

Hows ISO 400 on the 7D compared to the 40D? If you compared an ISO 400 ISO sized down image (say 1600 or 1920 px) from the 40D against the 7D, which image is going to be cleaner WITHOUT noise reduction.

The thing that disturbs me with the ever growing Mpx number is that you'll have to clean up ISO400 with a noise remover in the future on prosumer bodies. How about giving us a clean image out of the box...?!

hey.. umm.. i didn't really compare iso side by side... but i just compare the iso from the shots i have taken at iso 1600+.. and no noise reduction used so far (it kinda slow down the burst) iso 400 was ok on the 40D, but i can see noise starting at 800..

so far i really like the 7d's iso performance..
Whisperer
Grantzphoto, i own both 5D mark2 and 7D, so i can trustly say that 5D mk2 is MUCH better in picture quality and noise on hi ISO's.
If you or anybody have some questions - ask me! You are welcome!
Seethegrim
QUOTE(Whisperer @ Nov 10 2009, 10:19 PM) *
Grantzphoto, i own both 5D mark2 and 7D, so i can trustly say that 5D mk2 is MUCH better in picture quality and noise on hi ISO's.
If you or anybody have some questions - ask me! You are welcome!


On top of that, nobody once has mentioned that when you have a full frame sensor (5dmk2), your dynamic range is insanely superior to any crop. In terms of wanting better photos, thats alot of 'quality' going into your image right there which is impossible to produce otherwise. It bugs the be-crap out of me when I shoot with 2 bodies (1 FF & 1 CS). The full frame shots (regardless of glass) are just so much richer in image quality than the other.

To me it makes no sense to want sub-par quality if you can afford something better. 10fps & noise handling means nothing if your images are going to still look ok-ish.
The Yank
QUOTE(Seethegrim @ Nov 13 2009, 04:22 PM) *
On top of that, nobody once has mentioned that when you have a full frame sensor (5dmk2), your dynamic range is insanely superior to any crop. In terms of wanting better photos, thats alot of 'quality' going into your image right there which is impossible to produce otherwise. It bugs the be-crap out of me when I shoot with 2 bodies (1 FF & 1 CS). The full frame shots (regardless of glass) are just so much richer in image quality than the other.

To me it makes no sense to want sub-par quality if you can afford something better. 10fps & noise handling means nothing if your images are going to still look ok-ish.


Agreed. A crop sensor paired with in-camera noise reduction works reasonably well, but it still can't go head-to-head with a full-frame camera. IMHO, the crop bodies have a "digital" look to them, where's a full-frame body yields files that look more like medium format film shot on Kodak E100VS. Everyone I know that's made the switch from crop to full-frame bodies have reached the same conclusion.
Mike Boldt
Ehhhh I don't know what I think about the 7D after this... 18MP on a 1.6 APSC =/

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/
The Yank
QUOTE(Mike Boldt @ Nov 28 2009, 03:28 AM) *
Ehhhh I don't know what I think about the 7D after this... 18MP on a 1.6 APSC =/

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/


I suppose the moral of the story is to shoot in jpeg with the 7D, or get up to speed on your post processing technique. As others have already suggested, I think people are mis-categorizing these two cameras. IMHO, the 5D is the body to own if optimal image quality is of primary concern. The 7D is more of a "features" camera that sacrifices image quality for improved AF and FPS. Again, it gets back to what you're shooting. If I were a motorsports photographer, and was always shooting cars in action, the 7D would be the obvious choice. In fact, considering the difference in price, I'm not sure why anyone would buy a 1D over the 7D. That said, if you're just shooting static cars where FPS and AF performance isn't that important, the 5D is the clear winner. It's dynamic range and high ISO performance are just outstanding, which really comes in handy when shooting dark car interiors. The way I see it, the 7D is a poor man's 1D, while the 5D is a poor man's 1DS.
Martin
QUOTE(Mike Boldt @ Nov 28 2009, 10:28 AM) *
Ehhhh I don't know what I think about the 7D after this... 18MP on a 1.6 APSC =/

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/


Didn't read the entire text, but looks like the 7D doesn't focus as it should. And using the live view for focusing has never given me a better result than the AF, even the image appears sharp when focusing in live view.

Anyway, I'm in the 5D mk2 club aswell now. Yay!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.