7D to 5Dii (upgrade?)

[vornstar]

Hi

I currently have a 7D. I'm looking at having a go with full frame but do not have huge amounts of money to play with. Would a 5Dii be a worthy upgrade or am I really better off saving until I can afford something else?

Thanks for looking.

 

[valb]

Not an easy question to answer.

I made the change from 7D to 5D mark 2 a while back. IMHO The 5D gives better IQ. However I did miss the faster fps of the 7D when taking photos of birds in flight and the dog running. You also lose the crop factor which obviously gives your lens more reach. Finally the 7D has many more focus points than the 5D.

I never found the AF aspect an issue as I tend to use just the centre focus point and recompose. The loss of the 1.6 crop factor was not a massive issue for me as I found that I could zoom in on photos taken with the 5D with no real loss of quality.

So if long reach and more fps is important to you stay with the 7D otherwise the 5D mk2 is an excellent camera.

 

[arad85]

If you do anything other than centre point focusing, I wouldn't switch (I've owned both at the same time and don't rate the 5D2 autofocus very highly).

 

[vornstar]

Would having a full frame camera give me better low light capabilities? I really don't know much about them yet. Just seems that a lot of people want to move to full frame. Just wondering what the advantages would be.

 

[woof woof]

FF will very possibly give you better low light image quality at higher ISO's but maybe you could get a little more out of your current camera by shooting at wider apertures and exposing to the right and getting the best possible result from your post capture processing? Of course wider apertures get you less depth of field and exposing to the right may lead to slower shutter speeds but if you move to full frame you may be shooting with longer lenses and you may then be tempted to shoot at smaller apertures to get you more depth of field and that could lead to lower shutter speeds and a temptation to use higher ISO's to get the shutter speed back up.

Overall though I'd say that going FF will very probably get you better low light performance, but it'll also very possibly mean shooting differently.

 

[Durbs]

Just to mention too, that you'll need all your lenses to be EF (Not EF-S or the Sigma equivalent) if you move to Full Frame - these lenses tend to cost quite a bit more than EF-S ones, so it might cost you more than just a body upgrade.

 

[vornstar]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the thing with the lenses. Not a straightforward upgrade then.

 

[woof woof]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the thing with the lenses. Not a straightforward upgrade then.

I shot for years with film and when I moved to an APS-C DSLR it took a while to get used to it but I did get used to it and I used it for something like 9 years and when I then moved to a 5D it was a bit of a shock... With the lenses I used on my APS-C DSLR I needed to move closer to my subject and I found that I was fighting for depth of field and battling to keep the shutter speed up and I needed different lenses and use them at smaller apertures, eg. APS-C was great with a 30mm but on the 5D I ended up using a 50mm. Now that I have both FF and MFT the differences are even more apparent.

There's a lot to think about when moving to different sensor sizes

 

[vornstar]

Thanks. I think I need to try and get my hands on one to have a go with before I buy some.

 

[Brachytron]

Ask yourself why you want to move to FF. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors and dare I say it snobbery about FF vs APS-C. There are benefits to both which you have to review against your picture taking requirements. Sure FF has better high ISO capability but unless you consistently shoot at ISO>1600 is this really a reason to change? And as sensor tech improves, the gap is closing. FF has higher dynamic range, but unless you always save as 16 bit TIFFS and view on the highest quality monitors you will barely see the difference, certainly not if you print on a typical A4 or A3 photo printer. FF has better control over depth of field, but then you really need expensive f1.4 or f1.2 lenses to benefit from this. At low ISOs, APS-C will give better detail and resolution than FF at a given MP rating because the pixel size is smaller. APS-C gives you extra reach for wildlife shooting but still allows great ultra wide angle shooting unless you want the 8mm fisheye effect (but again is this a reason to change?). FF are overpriced compared to an equivalent spec APS-C, so you could be a decent camera and lens for the price of a FF body. After all, a good lens is the most important bit of kit you have.

 

[andrewc]

If you shoot nature or sports, then don't change. The 7D AF is ideal for those disciplines, as well as the high pixel density of the 7D compared to a FF camera.

If you shoot people or landscapes or predominately in low light conditions, and have suitable lenses, then there is the opposing argument to consider.

 

[arad85]

At low ISOs, APS-C will give better detail and resolution than FF at a given MP rating because the pixel size is smaller.

Not quite true as the sensor is but one part of a complete system. The lenses are a major contributor to sharpness and for most things where you can get the full sensor in use, FF is normally sharper (that is, if you're not cropping heavily to get the centre portion of the sensor).

 

[stu.artd]

I had a 7D for a year or so before I added a 5D2, and I tend to use the 5D2 most of the time. The 7D does have a much better AF system, however the 5D2 very rarely lets me down whether I'm using the centre or one of the other AF points. I predominantly shoot at low ISO's and although I do like the 7D I just prefer the output from the 5D2. Maybe it's something to do with the fact I used a 35mm SLR before going digital and I'm happier with lenses like the 17-40 or 24-70 really being wider again. I've kept the 7D as a backup camera for times when I want the 'extra reach' provided from the 1.6x crop factor or as a 2nd body with a telephoto lens while the 5D2 has a wide angle or macro fitted.

 

[vornstar]

Thanks for the replies. You've given me a lot to think about. I'm more confused than before I asked the question.

 

[woof woof]

Thanks for the replies. You've given me a lot to think about. I'm more confused than before I asked the question.

I think that you can tell that FF is "best" at the very highest ISO's and when printing very big. If you mostly shoot at low to high ISO's and not at the stratospheric ISO's that the very best cameras are capable of giving good results at these days and if you don't print mega big or crop like crazy and print big I personally think that a smaller format is good enough.

I did a load of comparison tests between my Canon 20D, 5D and Panasonic GF1 and G1 and after shooting raw and processing for best effects I found that other than at the highest ISO's and when pixel peeping at very high magnification the MFT cameras were good enough. Also in print up to and including A3 no family or friends I roped in could reliably pick whole image prints from MFT from 5D prints.

These days new cameras are better than my old 20D and 5D and my new GX7 (MFT) gives very good image quality even into very high ISO's. My A7 (FF) is better... but I think it's only visibly "better" when looking really closely or shooting at very high ISO's.

Personally I wouldn't worry about minute differences in image quality between cameras these days unless you're really pushing the envelope of what is possible by shooting at very high ISO's, printing very big pictures, cropping like mad or obsessively pixel peeping. Of course if you want to shoot with a particular lens that will influence your choice. For example I bought a 5D partly because I wanted to use the excellent Sigma 12-24mm, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 at their intended field of view and I now have a Sony A7 to use old manual lenses on.

Hope my little rant helps