50d vs 7d

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mayer chalom, Dec 19, 2009.

  1. mayer chalom macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    #1
    Hello, I am going to purchase my first dslr soon and I am contemplating between the 7d and 50d.

    I know when people see the words first "dslr" they think noob, but I am mainly an advanced videographer and have used high end dslrs before and I am looking to buy my own.
    In all honesty the 50d would suffice all my needs, but the video function on the 7d is really pushing me.
    I know that lenses are much better investments than bodies, as bodies do get outdated, but it's clear that the 7d has video and the 50d does not. Some will probably suggest the t1i but for video it's not comparable to that of the 7d or 5d mark II.
    I know the differences between the two photography wise, but even if the 60d comes out and does have video it will still cost 1400 dollars for the body anyway as all the xxd bodies usually do.
    I have used cheaper consumer dslrs and I really have to say that I hated the nikon d40(x) and rebel xt. So for those who recommend those bodies and high end lenses I really don't think I can let myself use them.

    In conclusion, for photography the 50d meets all of my needs (well except 7d's nice autofocus would help), but the 7d would 100 percent benefit me in my video work though.
     
  2. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    #2
    I think you've already answered your own question in your conclusion. :p

    If you can spent the extra money, I'd say go for it. The is basically a superior version of the 50D. The autofocus system is the main reason I'd go 7D vs the 50D. The video is just an extra, but noteworthy feature as well.
     
  3. mayer chalom thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    #3
    Thanks for the encouragement

    BTW I don't own any lens (well I own a nikon 1.4 mf lens as well as some old mf minolta lenses that aren't compatible with any camera system available today).

    I know I'm on a photo forum so many people here probably don't know the impact of the 7d and the 5d mark II's video function especially now since the video function has full manual control as opposed to the t1i (full auto, which sucks, no audio input, and only 720p mode with more video artifacts than that of the 7d and 5d). I hope I didn't confuse you with that.:)

    I really do see the benefit of the 7d the 600 dollar difference would only buy me one lens that I would eventually get (the tamron 16-50 2.8). I really don't want to sound like a noob but the biggest difference I found between the L lenses and non l is that the L's have much faster apertures and faster autofocusing. In reality the average person would have a tough time seeing the difference between some nice non l lenses and some l lenses. L lenses also tend to have less ca, but no ca is worse than in my canon xl1 video camera:) It makes it a really hard decision because L lenses can be overkill on some consumer bodies, but it's hard for someone on a limited budget. My final budget.

    Although the 7d's af system is great the 50d would suffice for me as well, but anything is better than that crappy 3pt af system of that retched nikon d40x (my friend's camera I've been using) that everyone praises (I absolutely hate that camera, and with slow non is glass it just sucks in alot of situations)
    My budget is about 2100 usd fyi.
     
  4. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #4
    in my opinion, get the 7D and you can play both video and photograph depending on which u feel like using.

    Well here's the deal, if you cant afford L lenses, go for those good 3rd party lenses (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for one), and I dont agree that average person will have a tough time seeing the difference. I went to a camera shop yesterday, and the shop seller allowed one of its customer (she's a newbie, I asked) to try out a 2nd hand 70-200 VRI and the customer was shocked at how fast is the autofocusing and the IQ of the lens, and you forgot to mention that L lenses usually are constant aperture throughout their zoom range which means constant exposure.
     
  5. stagi macrumors 65816

    stagi

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    #5
    what type of things are you going to be shooting?
     
  6. mayer chalom thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    #6
    Portraits and photojournalism. The 7d's 8fps isn't completely necessary but the video is really pushing me. IF the 50d had video capabilities that of the 7d I would get that and use the money saved to buy another lens.

    Right now I'm gonna get the 7d with the the kit 28-135 as well as a nifty fifty. Then maybe after a month of shooting I'll probably get a sigma/tamron 17-50 2.8. (I can't really afford L lenses but for video the benefits of L are useless). In video the only important factors are focal length and aperture for lenses. The 17-50mm (plus the 1.6 crop equals to about a 27-75mm lens and the 2.8 seems perfect for photojournalism)
     
  7. akdj macrumors 65816

    akdj

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #7
    Hi Mayer

    You've made a good decision with the 7d. I, too, am a videographer (last 18 years)...and a photographer.

    I shoot with both the 5d2 and the 7d...I've also owned the range of XXd cams from the 10d to the 40d (Skipped the 50d for the 5d2). I've got a friend that I shoot often with, he has both the 5d2 and 50d. FWIW, he also runs a local camera shop in town and after the last couple weekends shooting together, he sold his 50d this past week on Craigslist, bought a 7d the same day:)

    They are both APS-C cameras and they both have the name Canon on them, other than that, totally different animals. The 7d is a much bigger advancement, IMO, than the average xxd upgrade (IE, 40-50d, 20-30d)...over the 50d. It's also a helluva video cam...not sure what you normally shoot with but if you're relatively poor like me, You're relegated to 1/3 or 1/2" sensors *under $10k cameras with fixed lenses;)

    I shoot video with both the HVX200a and EX1...the 5/7d cams combined with the video cams is a perfect combination. It'll allow you to get those magical DOF shots, low light motion, and an indiscreet body. Nice combination!

    I would look at a different lens than that kit lens. Spend the 1699 instead and pick up a used 70-200f4 or, as others have mentioned, a nice Sigma or Tamron zoom (fixed 2.8). Also, the 17-55 *I think:) IS from Canon is a sweetheart (maybe a bit spendy). The kit lens, 28-135, is a bit long in the tooth...it's alright, but on a Crop Cam, it's not going to give you a WA shot.

    Good Luck and Great Choice!

    J
     
  8. mayer chalom thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    #8
    Thanks for the encouragement

    In my eyes even if I do buy a lower body I can really still afford only one L lens, and one lens won't really make all the difference. Since dslr's have developed so much already, in fact in reality actual photo features and image quality has reached such a high point and improvement isn't as rapid as it was 5-7 yrs ago. Since I'm starting out on a higher end body, I can get better lenses as I go along the nxt couple of years. Thanks for the support from a fellow videographer. I usually do event videography and documentary so the 7d really is amazing especially in low light with fast lenses compared to 1/3' cams. I wouldn't exactly call an hvx and ex1 a cheap combo but yes they aren't red one cinema cameras or an f900:). Right now I've been relegated to using my xl2 and hfs100 (hd consumer cam but is really amazing, matches the xha1 most of the time). These photogs really never seen the crap that can come out of 1/3' cams, so they just usually recommend any camera body. The kit lens is a good spur of the moment lens, especially with its long telephoto. In low light it will suck, but in good to sufficient light it will pretty good especially with the 7d low noise at high iso. I will probably be getting the 7d with the kit, a nifty fifty, and tamron 17-50 2.8. I really don't need the 70-200 telephoto. The 7d for me will probably be my primary camera for my documentary work, then my hfs100, then my xl2:). For event documentary the xl2 and hfs100 have the advantage of a motorized zoom, and better audio controls, but otherwise the 7d clearly has the better image quality and better low light.
     
  9. CrackedButter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #9

    I'm a firm believer in not mixing crop factors with shooting photojournalism. Full frame all the way, that would mean buying the 5dmk2 imo.
     
  10. stagi macrumors 65816

    stagi

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    #10
    If you are shooting photojournalism I would recommend the 7d mainly for the better autofocus. The autofocus on the 7d is much, much better than any other canon out there right now (we will see how the mark IV compared but that is also a lot more expensive).

    Also I would have to disagree with CrackedButter, I actually do like to have at least one crop camera in my bag. for times when you really need that extra reach its great! I shoot with 5d's and 7d's side by side for weddings and think its a great combo.
     
  11. mayer chalom thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    #11
    Still indecisive

    The 5d mark II and 1d mark IV are out of my price range. I wouldn't want to put a "kit lens" on a full frame cam anyway. I'm really going to get the 7d for its video function for pro use.

    My main problem is not knowing what equipment to get, it is investing it properly. Just as a reminder my budget is about 2100k. Maybe if I sell some of my video equipment I can finance a nice L lens.
    In my opinion the canon 24-70l 2.8 seems a little overpriced. Even a 70-200 f4l half the price of that and probably the same image quality. I'm looking at the tamron 17-50 (equivalent to 28-75 on a crop body) as an alternative. I don't understand how canon or nikon could charge so much for a 24-70 2.8. Its not even a super telephoto. I'm sure it super sharp and has super accurate/fast af, but it is hard for someone to invest just into one lens. Even a 50d with the 24-70l costs about 2200 dollars! It would seem stupid to put L lenses on some of the cheaper rebel bodies (although the t1i seems much better than its older brothers).

    I almost wish that the video function didn't exist because that would make my decision easy:)
     
  12. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #12
    The kit lens for a 5D is the 24-105 f/4 which is a good kit lens btw.

    lol, honestly, I dont think lenses are overpriced. Especially when it is super sharp and super accurate like you said. Now the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 are 2 totally different beast, the 70-200 is known as a telephoto lens and its f/4 while the 24-70 is known as a walk around lens and its f/2.8, double the light gathering capability then the f/4 which explains the price (and f/2.8 lens will cost almost double of a f/4 due to the complexity to build one)

    Anyway, super telephoto lenses costs much more (those f/2.8s I mean).

    And actually, there are many photogs who before upgrade to a more expensive body like the 7D or 5D, mounts their L lenses on those cheap Rebel bodies.

    Actually, if you think the 24-70 as expensive, wait till you see the 85 f/1.2 ;)
     
  13. CrackedButter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #13
    Great website btw, nicely presented, the music isn't too hammy compared to other wedding websites. Btw the I understand your point about having 2 different bodies for weddings, just not for photojournalism. I concede half your point :).

    Besides the 15mm fisheye, what are you shooting with?
     
  14. mayer chalom thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    #14
    I'm not planning on getting the 5d mark II, but anyway there is only one stop difference between f4 and 2.8. I'm sure it doesn't cost canon that much more to make a 2.8, just like it doesn't cost canon more to reproduce a 1d mark IV as a rebel xt! (R and D cost more but still there is alot of profit in lenses and bodies from Canon/Nikon). My dad and my uncle were in the photo retail business for almost 40yrs (they stopped in 2001) and they would always explain to me the kind of bs that retailers would throw in to a deal. It makes sense that lenses are expensive because it is supply and demand. You can ONLY use canon lenses on a canon body, and nikon lenses on nikon body etc.
     
  15. CrackedButter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #15
    Check out the price difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and the f4 version. There is a large cost factor. You're talking to a guy who dreams about owning an f2 version of the 24-70 L! :)

    The difference is in camera bodies I might agree with you more though.
     
  16. steve123 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    #16
    Mayer,

    First, thank you for initiating this thread. First, I would consider myself a noob. I stumbled into the hobby of videography a couple years ago by taking a bunch of still photos from a panasonic DMC TZ3 point and shoot and making a "movie" with them. I started with Movie Maker and had major frustration. Then I discovered iMovie on my mac and that turned my frustration into a passion for me. I eventually purchased my first video camera, an HV20, and started learning videography. Today, I see the need to have another video camera for another camera angle and low light. I also have a need to have a better camera for still photography, especially in low light.

    I'd consider myself a videographer first since that is where most of my experience is. Hence, your perspective from the videographers point of view is welcome help. I too have been looking carefully at the 7D because of it's video capabilities. My question is, would the 7D make a good addition to my HV20 for video needs? I have read other videographers reports that video on a DSLR is a nice "toy" but not for the serious videographer. I'm not a serious videographer but I would like to know if I should focus on a superior "video camera" or if a "video dslr" would be a better choice. I've even read a lot about the Red One and future stuff from Red.

    Thanks again for the thread. It's helped me understand my perspective better.

    Steve
     
  17. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #17
    While the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is "just one stop", that is the equivalent to double the light gathering capability, and the size of the optics must adjust accordingly. This means bigger elements are used, and hence more glass, a more complicated griding and polishing process, beefer components in the body. There are also more elements in the faster lens because as a trade off for the bigger components, aberrations are increased and must be compensated for.

    Also, if you think the 1DmkIV and Rebel XS cost the same to produce, you need to spend a little time looking at the manufacturing processes and technologies used in producing both. Injection-molding a plastic body is a fraction of the cost compared to forging and machining a body out of magnesium alloy. Processing capabilities must be increased to deal with the huge ammount of data shooting at 10FPS generates, and the mirror mechanism has to be much beefier and lighter to accomidate shooting at that speed. The viewfinder is also a complex prism of optical grade glass compared to a simple mirror box. The list continues down to virtually every part of the camera, every component costs more to make on the 1D series body because of the higher quality components and processes involved.
     
  18. mayer chalom thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    #18
    I'm sure a 1d costs more to make because of its magnesium body than the plastic xt but after R and D, the cheapest part is manufacturing. I'm just looking for recommendations between the 50d and 7d, (I just recently saw the 7d for 1600 vs the norm 1700 so I'm in a little bit of glee). I don't mean to be controversial. How is the viewfinder and focusing screen in the 7d vs the 50d.

    I haven't been to my camera shop yet to test everything. I really didn't like the rebels though. Is it a big deal that the 7d doesn't have interchangeable focusing screens whereas the 50d does?
     
  19. mayer chalom thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    #19
    7d is superior in many ways, but hv20 still has some advantages

    I have the hv30 (well I have the hfs100 but had the hv30 I just wanted manual gain which was only available on the hfs, being an hv20 owner you would know about the stupidness of not having manual gain with that annoying light trick thing. IN retrospect I sort of miss tape for its cheap media, but tapeless is easier logging if you have a quad imac or mac pro). The 7d video feature is not a gimmick at all, just go to vimeo and see some of the amazing stuff produced with it. It has full manual control vs the 80% manual control you have on the hv and hf series from canon. IF you get fast lenses you will have low light capabilities that will surpass those of 10k video cams. Plus you get great shallow dof, and amazing colors plus good sharpness that pro video cams can't compete with. The only cons I see are that zooming is really hard on a 7d, and zooming and focusing is even harder without a follow focus or a shoulder stabilizer. The rolling shutter is about the same as it is on a hv30. But there are alot of benefits to using a 7d. I would keep the hv20 , the resale value isn't really worth the hassle of selling it anyway. If you are serious about video you should start learning final cut if you haven't so already. I'm mainly getting the 7d for low light video and as an interview cam while using a nice 1.8 or 1.4 lens for shallow dof.
     
  20. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #20
    Well the viewfinder on the 7D is 100% whereas the 5D is not and if I'm not mistaken, the 50D and 7D body is magnesium too fyi. Also FX120 basically wrote a very detailed information about why f/2.8 glasses most of the time costs about double the price of a f/4.


    Interchangeable focusing screens such as grid focusing screens? Well if thats the question, then the 7D doesn't need em cause it has a feature that allow you to turn on/off the grid in the viewfinder (Nikon has this feature for quite awhile already)
     
  21. mayer chalom thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    #21
    After christmas, I have two options

    Getting the 7d with the 28-135mm lens, plus a nifty fifty, then a couple months later I'm planning on getting the 70-200 f4l, and the 17-55 2.8.

    Or get a 50d with the same 28-135mm lens, nifty fifty, and a 17-55 2.8. Then a couple months later get the 70-200 f4l.
     
  22. stagi macrumors 65816

    stagi

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    #22
    Thanks, I try and keep the music real for my taste (hate going to sites with cheesy songs playing). I shoot with a variety of lenses but really love my basic 50 1.4 & 70-200 2.8. the 24-70 2.8 comes in 3rd and then a few other primes that I use.

    @mayer chalom another advantage of the 7d besides the auto focus is the viewfinder is larger and it looks like image quality is better (although I haven't used a 50d so can't say from first hand). dpreview does have some shots to compare the 2 here:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=32879822
     
  23. MSM Hobbes macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    NE Hoosierana
    #23
    FWIW - I've the 50D, now for ~7 months, and very much enjoy shooting with it... however, seeing the 7D,,, good grief, need a towel to collect the drool :eek: For "only" a few hundred more [remember, this is a long term commitment, and those dollars spread out over many years becomes less of a shock... least that is the reasoning I keep trying to convince myself of too] this much more weather-resistant, video-capable [for what that is worth], etc. camera body could be had - IMHO now the top of the line 1.6 sensor Canon camera.

    Have you [or anyone else comparing these two] seen the following reviews:
    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos7D_vs_50D_vs_5DII.html
    http://www.komar.org/faq/camera/canon-7d-versus-50d/
     
  24. Acsom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    #24
    I just went from the 40D to the 7D. The 7D is a great body, but there is a bit of a learning curve for those moving from the x0D cameras. It might be easier to just learn a 7D, rather than move from an x0D to the 7D.

    What I've found most confounding are the number of different autofocus options! I've wound up leaving it on AF point expansion for 90% of my usage, switching to spot AF for most of the rest. What I've found most useful is the excellent high ISO performance. The 40D is useful up to 800, and acceptable at 1600; the 7D is useful up to 3200 and acceptable at 6400. The extra pixels are a push, IMO. 10mp was enough, 18mp is enough. I haven't found a use for the extra 8mp yet, but it's only been a couple weeks.
     
  25. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #25
    Hopefully you're aware that 28mm is not wide at all on a crop-sensor camera. on a Canon 1.6x sensor, it's more or less the equivalent 35mm focal length of 45mm (pretty much a "normal" lens by definition).

    As long as you've thought that through, it's not an issue. For me it'd be a big issue given that I like to shoot landscapes.
     

Share This Page