5d mk2 Vs 7d

Andy77

Andy77

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,543
Name
andy
Edit My Images
No
Ok, im just in the midst of deciding what to upgrade to, do i buy a 7d to which i can still use my current len's or go for a 5d mk2 which i will have to save abit longer for and then save for full frame len's, the reason i ask is im just setting up to do mobile portraiture ect and i know the 5d mk2 is the one to go for regarding portraits, but how does the 7d hold its own at portraits ect, but i also wont be doing just portraits. Has anyone experience of the 7d's image quality, im using a 17-55 2.8 IS @ the momment and been told that its very good on a 7d, so really how does the image quality hold its own on the 7d against the 5d mk2.

Thanks Andy :thumbs:
 
I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not a portrait man though. I shoot a mix of travel/landscape and some aviation and the very occasional bit of sport like marathons. I have a 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. I'm so undecided which is the best body to go for.

PS - Sorry for the slight thread hijack.
 
Well I am a very happy 7d owner and use my 24-70 a lot of the time. I take a lot of portraits and do weddings. I will continue to use it but am saving for a 5d mkII to replace my backup and have the 7d as a second body. I'm going for the 5d mkII purely to get extra low light and full frame benefits. I still take nothing away from the 7d though. It is a great camera for portraits but I think its obvious that the 5d mkII beats the 7d for portraits.
 
Portraits/landscape: 5D2. Things that move: 7D.
 
The IQ of the 5D will be nicer, but unless your making large prints then you probably wont easily notice the difference - the 7D will take some very nice portraits. Where the advantages of the 5D show though will be with DOF and high ISO, so if that appeals go for the 5D.
 
I faced the same dilemma - upgrading a 40D and 17-55 lens. Tried the 7D, and very nice too but not the big jump I was expecting. Also tried the 5D2, almost by accident, and the rest is history - quite expensive history.

It's basically speed and reach vs image quality - all aspects of it, sharpness, noise, dynamic range, colour. But you do have to output pretty large to notice it - like A4 and above on a regular basis.

One thing I like about the 5D2 is that I shoot quite a few kids together and often find there's a really good solo shot in there that I couldn't capture properly at the time. With the 5D2, I can just crop in and pull it out and still retain good enough quality. 5D2 is like an 8mp crop format camera in that sense, if you see what I mean, similar to the 40D. Bit of a cheat, but it works ;)
 
arad85 said:
Portraits/landscape: 5D2. Things that move: 7D.
Click to expand...

As he said!

I own both with L glass. Both brilliant but 5d2 rubbish for fast things. Oh and sometimes crop factor of 7D useful. You know it's the 5D every time for portraits!!! Although just shot Elbow at 2 gigs and used both but 7D at 3200 gave fantastic results.
 
Regards the 7D it will be fine - I like the slightly longer 24-105 on FF bu the 17-55 should be fine for the most part.

Yes the 5D does seem to produce nicer results but if you shoot other things, the 7D may be better for you! Tough choice but I went with the 5DII.
 
For portraiture, what do you hope to gain from a 7D that you don't get already from your 40D? It's faster and has lots of bells and whistles, but how many of them will benefit your portrait work?
 
what you have to focus on is the lenses for portrait and photography skills
for portrait i would get a 7D and put the money difference for finance a good lens.
if you want to do very good portrait 7D + 85 1.2 or 35 1.4 would be perfect.
i have a 5D (until tomorrow :) ), it delivers excellent pictures portrait or landscapes.
7D is more portrait and sports.
both are good really, you just need good lenses and skillz. To be honest i believe a 60D with good lenses would do
 
Can someone tell me, are the rear LCD screens the same resolution on the 7D and 5DmkII? I loved the high res screen on my 7D, if 5D2 is the same then I'm leaning towards that body.
 
According to dpreview, the screens are the same size and resolution.
The main difference is the 5DII has a sensor which adjusts the brightness according to the ambient light so you get a much more accurate impression of the image tones.

I've been using a 60D (same sensor as the 7D) as 2nd body to my 5DII for about a month; here's my 2p...
Zoomed into 100% I can tell straight away which camera was used.
Even at ISO 100 there's noise present on the 60D.
If I didn't have the 5DII I'd think the 60D images were pretty clean, but the 5DII is in a different league.

However - at 'normal' print sizes will you ever be able to tell the difference ?
These images were taken on a mix of both bodies at ISO 2500 under strong red lighting. There is no way to tell which is which - they both captured the blue component noise free enough to recover the skin tones and both are usable at A4.

But my point is... In the above images, I bet you could spot the difference on an A3 print.
I recently printed a 5DII A3+ image taken at ISO 6400 and forgot to apply noise reduction; it was fine, the noise was barely perceptible even looking mega-critically at the print. The 5DII is amazing!

Just one word of warning....
I use my 70-200 as a walk about lens on the 5DII; you can forget anything like aviation shots!
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Just one word of warning....
I use my 70-200 as a walk about lens on the 5DII; you can forget anything like aviation shots!
Click to expand...
I have the 17-40 and 24-70 but will have to sell the 70-200 to fund the 5D. The 24-70 will be a good walk about lens righ? I tend to like a slightly wide shot anyway. 17-40 will be v wide I guess.
For aviation I would most likely get a 100-400 at a later date.
 
Yup - 17-40 will be VERY wide. I used to do quite a lot of stitching before I got the 5dII as 24mm wasn't anything like wide enough. But on the 5DII 24mm is transformed - I hardly ever stitch and have no desire to get a wider lens.

24-70 is a great walk about lens and the 5DII will do it justice, but for anything like portraiture you may find 70mm a bit on the short side.
 
EMA747 said:
For aviation I would most likely get a 100-400 at a later date.
Click to expand...
Good choice.... :)

20100807_163113_5484-Edit_LR.jpg
 
Nice shot Tim. You can't go far wrong with a Spitfire. Do you find the slow(ish) fps of the 5D a problem for aviation? When I had a 1DmkIV and 7D I usually had it on the slower burst mode as the faster one seemed a bit overkill for planes.
 
I don't shoot a lot of aviation, but when I do, as with most subjects, I'm really not a spray and pray sort of guy. Sure, I'll pop off a few shots in case camera shake robs me of my prize, but it doesn't have to be at 8 or 10 FPS. I was at Biggin Hill last year and I could not believe the techniques employed by some people. It was absolute scattergun shooting. The only thing that could have stopped them firing was a full buffer.

The only real limitation that springs to mind is when shooting a display team and wanting to time a shot precisely for a formation or passing manouevre. Now my timing isn't great, and the 5D2 is pretty pedestrian out of the gates, so I can see an advantage in a snappier camera with higher frame rate for such occasions. Relatively speaking, most aircraft do not move very fast at airshows and the 5D2 is quite capable of keeping up. That includes AF performance too.

I also find that it and the 100-400 are very well suited optically. The big fat pixels of the 5D2 give the lens an easy time, unlike the very demanding 7D. IS is also a tremendous boon for those slow prop planes, where you want to capture prop blur. Choppers are even more demanding if you want rotor blur.

Here's another from the combo, wide open at 400mm and 1/320....

20100807_155127_5284_LR.jpg


and at 1/160....

20100807_155320_5314_LR.jpg


Here's a 100% crop from an image taken wide open at 400mm and 1/250. Sharpening is at Lightroom defaults....

20100807_154845_5263_LR.jpg
 
Those are cracking images Tim, and reassuring as I have recently got a 5dii. I have to say, it absolutely blows you away with the quality compared to anything else I have ever owned the minute you stick a lens on it :)
 
That's why the 5D2 is the first camera I reach for, unless I know that AF or frame rate will not be up to the job. :)
 
tdodd said:
That's why the 5D2 is the first camera I reach for, unless I know that AF or frame rate will not be up to the job. :)
Click to expand...

Look, just stop it will you :)
I've got 2 trips to the USA coming up this year, Boston and New England in the spring and California and Oregon in late summer.
Both trips will be cities, small towns/villages and landscapes. I've been trying to convince myself that the 7D will be fine but this thread is propelling me into getting hold of a 5D Mk II.
 
The photos don't show up on my iPhone but I will be sure to check them out later.

Do you think it's a bad idea to get a 5d2 now given the mkiii is supposed to be out soon? My thinking is it will likely be around £2500 which I cant afford, and Kerso has quoted my a price of £1499 for a brand new mkii.

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums
 
EMA747 said:
The photos don't show up on my iPhone but I will be sure to check them out later.

Do you think it's a bad idea to get a 5d2 now given the mkiii is supposed to be out soon? My thinking is it will likely be around £2500 which I cant afford, and Kerso has quoted my a price of £1499 for a brand new mkii.

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums
Click to expand...

Definitely, I bought a 5Dmii before Christmas for £1600. I'd thought about waiting for the MkIII but who knows how long you'll be waiting, and as you say its going to be more expensive. I'd agree with it being around the £2500 mark which would put it out of my range too

Edit - meant definitely would get one, not that its a bad idea
 
Last edited:
footman said:
Look, just stop it will you :)
I've got 2 trips to the USA coming up this year, Boston and New England in the spring and California and Oregon in late summer.
Both trips will be cities, small towns/villages and landscapes. I've been trying to convince myself that the 7D will be fine but this thread is propelling me into getting hold of a 5D Mk II.
Click to expand...

The 7D is perhaps the more versatile camera if you are shooting in a wide range of conditions. The 5D2 is a bit of a one trick pony (IQ), but when that trick is what counts most then it's the one to go for. You know, really I would be happy to shoot with any of my cameras for almost any shooting scenario. They'll all turn in great results when used skillfully with good glass. They each have their pluses and minuses too, which is the reason I have a choice of three, but honestly, you would be happy with any of them unless you had some very specific requirements that only one would meet.
 
tdodd said:
The 7D is perhaps the more versatile camera if you are shooting in a wide range of conditions. The 5D2 is a bit of a one trick pony (IQ), but when that trick is what counts most then it's the one to go for. You know, really I would be happy to shoot with any of my cameras for almost any shooting scenario. They'll all turn in great results when used skillfully with good glass. They each have their pluses and minuses too, which is the reason I have a choice of three, but honestly, you would be happy with any of them unless you had some very specific requirements that only one would meet.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Tim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top