7d vs 5d II

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sziehr, Mar 21, 2010.

  1. sziehr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    #1
    I am upgrading and i have the options of the above cameras. The 7d and the 5dII. I used a friends 7d and was just tickled with the new AF and zone of focus that feature alone sold me. My question is FF really worth the upgrade cost of another 800 bucks over the 7d. I am more than pleased with the noise of the 7d but then again i am coming from a 50d perspective. I was just wanting some input.
     
  2. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    #2
    You haven't told us what you're going to be shooting? If you're shooting sports and anything with quick moving objects, the 7D is the way to go. If you're shooting architecture, portraits, etc, then the 5DII is the way to go. The autofocus system in the 5DII isn't designed for really shooting moving objects, so it's simply not well suited for fast action.

    I have both cameras for those purposes alone. I shoot with the 7D for sports events, and the 5DII for pretty much anything else, just because the image quality is much better than the 7D. ;)
     
  3. Abyssgh0st macrumors 68000

    Abyssgh0st

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    Norman, OK
    #3
    First of all, what do you shoot? And also, can you validate the ~$800 difference?

    Do you own many L lenses, or plan to in the future? If so, choose 5D MKII.

    Do you need ISO up to 25600? If so, choose 5D MKII.

    Do you shoot lots of ultra wide angle shots? If yes, choose 5D MKII.

    Do you currently have mostly EF-S lenses? If so, choose 7D.

    Do you need fast FPS? If so, choose 7D.

    Would you rather get a 7D used in the ~$1400-1500 range and get a very nice lens (Canon 17-55, or 24-70 perhaps?) with the money that would save by staying with the 1.6x crop? If so, choose 7D.

    There's obviously more to this, but these are just some quick points.
     
  4. TH3D4RKKN1GH7 macrumors 6502a

    TH3D4RKKN1GH7

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    #4
    Why would owning L series lenses make a difference? L series lenses work just as well on 7D as they do on 5D. The lenses aren't any less useful besides losing the wide factor on some. Also the ISO bit... like 25600 is that useful.

    It really does just depend on what you shoot like fierce said.
     
  5. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #5
    I'm in a similar situation. By now I think I've read anything and everything there is re 5DMkII and 7D. I would really like an FF camera, but in some instances the autofocus (AF) system of 5DMkII may be too limiting. Without doubt though, the camera is superb for shooting mostly stationary objects. I will most likely go with the 7D and then either upgrade, or buy, a 5DMkIII (hopefully it will include an up-to-date AF system).

    Good luck!
     
  6. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #6
    Yeah it does work as well as on 5D except that if he doesn't have any L lenses, then owning a 5D will be a waste, and you cant use EF-S lens on a FF body too.
     
  7. Abyssgh0st macrumors 68000

    Abyssgh0st

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    Norman, OK
    #7
    Do you plan to actually contribute to the thread, or pull out random tidbits and try to falsify them? Obviously if he owns primarily EF lenses he's not going to have a ton of EF-S lenses that would be irrelevant on the 5D MKII (as pointed out by wheelhot).

    Regarding your comment regarding ISO, it was just an assertion in favor of the 5D MKII. Obviously that isn't going to be the make or break selling point, as I mentioned in saying that those were just a few of the many comparison points.

    Just by having a quick glance at the OP's Flickr, I noticed he owns at least the 24-105mm f/4.0L. He obviously does primarily portrait shooting, so at this point I'd say the 5D MKII all the way presuming that he already has an external flash and/or adequate lighting equipment.
     
  8. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #8
    From what I've read on the merits of these camera's this thread could have been closed after post #2. In other words, I think fiercetiger summarizes it best... moving subjects = 7D, stationary subject = 5DII.
     
  9. TH3D4RKKN1GH7 macrumors 6502a

    TH3D4RKKN1GH7

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    #9
    My clarification is a contribution. You stated his ownership or future ownership of L series lenses as a reason to get a 5D over a 7D and I questioned it. You didn't ask of EF-S lenses, which hold more weight into the debate over getting one body over another because those lenses only work on one of the two bodies, as where L series lenses work fine on both. So what exactly is your issue here again?

    And Virtual you're very right.
     
  10. Abyssgh0st macrumors 68000

    Abyssgh0st

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    Norman, OK
    #10
    It wasn't clarification, it was a pedantic attempt to excoriate my constructive advice. And if you would read my original post (quoted above), you would see that I did in fact ask regarding EF-S lenses.. clearly stated with the rest of the pro-7D questions.
     
  11. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #11
    You don't need a full frame body if you are interested in ultra-wide angle lenses. Back when crop cameras were introduced, yes, there was a gap in the wide end of the spectrum as most lenses were designed for film (i. e. full frame). Nowadays, there is no such gap and you have plenty of ultra-wide angle lenses to choose from. I dare say the choice is even bigger than on full frame.
     
  12. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #12
    I saw a good summary of Canon's line up in another forum which is applicable here...

    It went something like this...

    xxxD -> xxD -> a/b

    a) 7D -> 1DIII/IV (Sports/wildlife)
    b) 5DII -> 1DsIII (Portrait/studio/landscape)

    Indicating that there's no single pro camera that does it all near the top... pro's have to make a choice on what their priorities are and follow that path, or have one from each path.
     
  13. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #13
    There's no really fast ultrawide zooms, or fast wide primes for crop cameras.

    I think the original point was appropriate.
     
  14. jerryrock macrumors 6502

    jerryrock

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Amsterdam, NY
    #14
    The 7D is unique in having a 63 zone metering system that factors in focal points and color luminance information for extremely accurate metering. It's focus system is also superior to that of the 5D.

    The 5D would be better suited for landscapes or studio work while the 7D excels at fast action.

    What you loose in wide angle with a cropped frame sensor, you gain on the telephoto end. So that 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens is now 112-320 mm. Great for wildlife or birding.
     
  15. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #15
    What about Tokina's 11-16 mm f/2.8? That's about as fast as it gets when it comes to ultra-wide angle lenses.

    Also, speed with ultra-wide angle lenses is not as much of an issue as with tele lenses.
     
  16. sziehr thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    #16
    Ok i shoot a huge range on location studio all with lighting rigs. I then turn around and use it for just generic shooting and natural light shots. I use my 50d for the gamet.
    I have for lenses already
    24-105 Is L F4
    17-40 L F4
    70-200 L F4
    I am ok with crop cause that is what i have used for most of my shooting career. I do not shoot supper wide i stay above 35mm most of the time. The 17-40 comes into play when i just need to open up for nature shots or want to induce a strange perspective look.
    I know with a FF i will get that 17 to really be a 17. I can see that as being helpful but i find i am always over 35mm on my 24-105 when i am shooting and greatly enjoy that range it is my favorite lens so far. With a FF 35 would be 35 not 50 ish equivalent. I am just torn i am so used to the extra reach a crop gives me i am-exploiting it. I can do so much with just my 24-105 thanks to the extra reach the crop gives me that i am torn.
    To answer the question i do not need much past 6400 iso which is what the 7d churns out cause past that it is not realy usable for print.

    So i am conflicted as some one who is doing more profesional work
    shooting people in the studio the answer has seemed to be 5d II
    I guees what i am saying is why short of the extra width you get. I am shooting down at 100 iso in the studio with 3200 watts of strobes the zone AF would be of more use i think than the extra width of a lens since you want to shoot over 85mm to get a flat look for a head shot. I can do that with great ease on my 24-105 currently. I would have to bump to the 70-200 to achieve such a goal if i went FF.
    keep up the input it is helpful.
     
  17. John.B macrumors 601

    John.B

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    Holocene Epoch
    #17
    That's true, although I've usually tended to stay away from wide apertures with wide angle shots; nice bokeh on a wide shot doesn't do much for me, when I'm shooting wide I'm trying to get a fairly deep depth of field.

    YMMV.
     
  18. gødspeed macrumors regular

    gødspeed

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Location:
    Oregon
    #18
    I'd call that due skepticism, and just because you said something "constructive" doesn't mean it should not be subject to the same critical analysis as anything else. While pointing out the greater ISO range was legitimate (as was pointing out that ultra high ISO is rarely useful), I agree that having a collection of L lenses is completely irrelevant to the decision at hand.

    Personally I have the 7D, and I do at times regret not instead saving up for a 5D mark II. A breakdown of the advantages of each may be useful for the OP:

    7D:
    - 1.6 times longer focal lengths due to the cropped sensor means that a short to medium telephoto range becomes a medium to long telephoto range, which may or may not save you money on specialty lenses.

    - compatibility with EF-S lenses

    - 8 fps still shooting

    - better AF

    - though the recent 5D mark II firmware update did add more video framerates, the 7D still has one that the 5D does not: 720p/60

    - weather-sealing

    5D mark II:
    - 1.6 times shorter focal lengths than the 7D means that ultra wide shots don't take as extreme specialty (expensive) lenses.

    - better lowlight performance

    - shallower depth of field for any given f-stop than the 7D, which may or may not be an advantage in your eyes.

    - live histogram and audio recording control in video mode with 2.04 firmware (though rumored to be coming to the 7D as well)


    feel free to add points to, or to excoriate, anything above ;p
     
  19. sziehr thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    #19
    knowing that the 5d has the same AF that i have come to hate in the 50d just to much fighting with it to give me a nice 3 point cross lock when doing head shots the 7d is really on the tip of my trigger finger. That zone focus where i can almost always get a proper head focus eyes and nose all in focus will come in very handy shooting vertical head shots.
     

Share This Page