Arrrrgh - 7D/5D2 dilemna

[Durbs]

So, I was all set to get the 7D, but with the 5D2 now being discontinued, it's getting within £250 of the 7D...

Of my existing lenses, my Sigma 10-20 is the only one that wouldn't fit, but the need for the wide-angle lens would go with full-frame, so the sale of this lens would essentially fund the difference.

But then the 7D is the newer camera - better AF, better FPS etc. and I know I would appreciate the crop factor on the 7D when shooting wildlife - i'm not a dedicated nature guy, but do enjoy the challenge of shooting animals when out and about and we do go travelling a lot. Equally, I know I would enjoy the wider FOV from going FF and having <20mm without the distortion I get with my 10-20.

I'm still a bit of an "everything" photographer. I'd like to call myself a travel photographer, as that's where 90% of my best shots are taken, but really enjoy dabbling with portraiture, macro... anything and everything.

So I'm torn basically.
Without buying new lenses (and without selling the wangle) I can cover:
10mm - 300mm (16mm - 420mm equivalent)
If I went FF, I could cover 24mm - 300mm.

If I was to upgrade any lens it will be my 70-300 (as discussed in another thread) as it's the weakest of the bunch.
I've held and dabbled with both cameras, and both feel comfortable to use.

I'm going to Cuba at the end of the month, and would love to have a new camera for this trip. My "trusty" 1000D is really starting to hold me back (no spot metering, terrible ISO performance over ISO800 etc.).

But I am genuinely flummoxed over what to buy. I don't have tons of £££ to throw at new lenses, and worry a FF camera would highlight the lack of 'L' or equivalent glass.

Voting and arguements below please!

 

[stu.artd]

I've voted for the 5d2.
Primarily because since I got mine I have barely used my 7d. It just seems to give more natural results and I've used my 50 1.8mk2 lens a lot more on it than I ever did on the 7d.

The 7d is better suited for widlife due to the sensor crop and improved AF but that's not where you've said your main area of photography lies. The 5d2 will give better ultimate image quality and better ISO performance, and given the usage I think you could benefit more from that than from faster AF/FPS.

I'd imagine that the primary 'walkabout' lens you'll have on the camera most of the time when travelling will be the 24-105, which isn't too bad a range to have and it should give good results.

 

[gnirtS]

Depends what you do. If its wildlife or sport or pretty much anything fast moving the better focusing system, reach and burst rate of the 7D is the way to go.
If what you photograph generally doesn't move much then its more of a decision to make.

 

[Durbs]

Never sport, but as I mentioned above, definitely some wildlife... Not that I set up a hide and stay motionless for days on end, just I'll go somewhere with a view to photograph wildlife when on holiday/out on walks... But on that same holiday, I'll be wandering around towns and historic sites as well as walking the countryside.

So my issue is both are vaguely "specialist" cameras insofar as 7D kicks ass for wildlife, 5D is possibly better choice for landscape/city-scape shots.

I guess, I can always get more range with a longer lens on FF, but not wider on a crop-sensor without distortion?
#Firstworldproblems

 

[woof woof]

Do you find distortion on APS-C an issue? Must admit that I never did.

The 17-50mm zooms can be poor at the wider end as can 24-70mm lenses but the wides in the 10-20mm type range should be ok and to go wider on full frame means spending quite a bit and having a very limited choice.

PS. I notice you are using a Sigma 10-20mm. I've never used that lens but my current Sigma 12-24mm has effectively zero distortion even on my 5D and was IMVHO better on my 20D than my previous Canon 10-22mm.

 

[Durbs]

I don't think I can actually use my 10-20 on full frame though - I think the "DC" in the name means it will either heavily vignette or won't actually mount.

 

[woof woof]

If it's a Sigma it will actually mount, but I don't know at what point the vignetting will be acceptable, if at all.

Still surprised that you find actual distortion an issue though as wide lenses are usually well corrected, more so than standard zooms.

 

[wyx087]

full frame without a question.

for "everything" hobby photographer, I think a 5D gives much more creative options than another APS-C camera.

I went a similar route, from D3100 to 5D2, and found a massive improvement in my photos. mostly thanks to the massive full frame viewfinder and the excellent sensor.

also remember with a crop sensor, you are not actually getting 420mm equivalent focal length. it is 300mm focal length, but cropped. you can achieve same result by cropping a full frame photo.

 

[tbm]

Tbh I think you've got it all weighed up and make a sensible argument for both.. ultimately it's your decision and nobody else can really help

One angle perhaps not considered is that if buying the 5D, you'll still have the 1000D with a crop sensor for the extra reach.. although how much you'll want to use this after experiencing the lovelyness of the more up market bodies is debatable.

To me it sounds like your useage might perhaps err more towards the strengths of the 5DII, and I personally view full frame as the more "pure" choice but then that doesn't really mean anything.

Another way to look at it is that the 5DII is at a great price now and might well present the most cost-effective time to go full frame (I got my 5DII all of two days ago ), while the 7D will probably fall in price more once a successor is announced and it's discontinued.

Also after the 40D I decided I'd probably never buy another crop body camera as all subsiquent bodies were travelling away from where I want to be in terms of features (lots of MP and associated noise) however again this is just a personal view, and the impressive AF capability and frame rate of the 7D cannot be denied.


EDIT: One final thought Re. lenses - since upgrading I am screwed for wide and standard zooms for the 5DII.. lenses that will cost me at least £1300 for f/4 L glass (and obviously I'd rather have f/2.8). That said I am loving the wide FOV and shallow DOF that can only be found with a (relatively) fast prime on FF (35/2)

 

[Durbs]

Well, the votes seem heavily in favour of the 5D2...

I was thinking further about it last night, and figured that in time, and with a 7D Mk2 rumoured in Feb (or failing that, at least sometime 2013), it makes sense to get the 5D2 now, and maybe look at a 7D mk1 when the mk2 comes out as prices will drop even further (possibly).

 

[lizzy23]

i also had this dilemma and plumped for the 7D, i enjoy landscapes,,,,,,,,,,, but i also like to take photos of my dogs that are fast moving spaniels, i came to the conclusion after lots of research that the 7d was a much better landscape camera, than the 5Dii was action camera if that makes sense, in all honesty i don't think you'll be dissapointed with either

 

[Phil V]

full frame without a question.

for "everything" hobby photographer, I think a 5D gives much more creative options than another APS-C camera.

I went a similar route, from D3100 to 5D2, and found a massive improvement in my photos. mostly thanks to the massive full frame viewfinder and the excellent sensor.

also remember with a crop sensor, you are not actually getting 420mm equivalent focal length. it is 300mm focal length, but cropped. you can achieve same result by cropping a full frame photo.

I agree that the 5d is the way to go, but the 7d viewfinder isn't that far behind the 5d II.

But I have to question that last bit
Yes the crop sensor is only cropping the 300mm. But it's still giving you 18 mp whereas cropping the 5d image to the same FoV would give something like 10* mp, which makes for a very significant difference.

*I haven't looked it up or worked it out, feel free to do so but let's not pretend that 2 megapixels up or down changes the facts greatly.

 

[wyx087]

I agree that the 5d is the way to go, but the 7d viewfinder isn't that far behind the 5d II.

But I have to question that last bit
Yes the crop sensor is only cropping the 300mm. But it's still giving you 18 mp whereas cropping the 5d image to the same FoV would give something like 10* mp, which makes for a very significant difference.

*I haven't looked it up or worked it out, feel free to do so but let's not pretend that 2 megapixels up or down changes the facts greatly.

you are correct, down to the 10MP (APS-C is half size of full frame, so 21/2). but it's only megapixels, even a 5MP shot can be printed to A4 size without problem. I know because I've printed around 4MP crop of a photo and still looking great, can't tell difference between that and full 21MP shots.

the post processing crop also gives much more composition options. with use of centre point AF plus assist points, 5D2 really isn't too bad at AI servo.

 

[Durbs]

There's also little things with the 7D which attract me, the wireless remote flash control for example. I've played around with off camera flash. but only tethered, so going wireless for free is tempting. 5D would require a transmitter so more £££.
Plus I think my existing Cokin P filter-holder will be much more prone to vignetting (I think?), especially if/when I invest in a wide-angle lens for the 5D like the 17-40 L. Currently it's only an issue less than 12mm.

Lawks...

 

[drexyl]

I'd vote for the 5D MKii. I've still got both camera bodies you mention but I'm waiting to offload the 7D.
The quality of images on the 5D MKii always staggers me.
I have had some good results (IMO) with the 7D but I've been let down by it too many times to mention. That's now been replaced by a 1D mkiv which I'm still not comfortable with yet. But already much better than the 7 D.

 

[DavidW]

When I upgraded to full frame, the difference in the 'feel' of the camera, having a wider viewfinder made me never want to go back. Also the lenses made for crop-frame bodies never have the same quality IMO,

 

[Durbs]

...Also the lenses made for crop-frame bodies never have the same quality IMO,

But therein lies the rub - will I "need" to upgrade to L/EX lenses if I move up to FF?
I'm not earning mega bucks, and have other hobbies on the side too, so won't be able to kit myself out with new lenses any time soon.

S'pose I could look at a 2nd-hand 7D and new 5D?

 

[Durbs]

(Not immediately, due to aforementioned lack of funds)...but a 2nd body would be useful, the Mrs is a keen 'togger as well and could then have best of both worlds?

 

[Nod]

5D for wide angle stuff and keep the old crop body for the extra apparent reach. Sell the 10-20 and either get a 16-? (same AoV on FF as 10mm-? on 1,6x crop) or for (verging on the ridiculously!) wide (on FF) Sigma 12-24. Any lenses not specifically made for crop bodies (IIRC, Canon EF-S, Sigma DC and Tamron DiII) should fit and work on a FF body but check first! Hopefully, you've got a long life ahead of you to build up a bagful of better lenses.

 

[Nod]

Since your wife's a keen photographer as well, you may not have the extra hurdle that some people need to surmount!!!

 

[Durbs]

If only it was that simple - selling the 10-20 would fund the difference between the 7D and 5D, so my widest would be 24 (the 24-105 USM, not L...)

And whilst she is a keen snapper, she's not officially the wife yet, as meant to be saving for the wedding

 

[Nod]

In that case, put your foot down with a firm hand and ask her why she feels the need to spend so much on a dress she'll only wear once!

 

[Durbs]

Heh - she's actually not at all fussed about dress, ceremony etc... just having a darn good knees up with a load of mates.
Will want to a good camera to snap the day though

 

[Nod]

I would suggest that you sit it out photographically and enjoy the day rather than spend some of it peering through a 'finder! Take a compact for candid snaps but leave any serious photography to someone else!

 

[Durbs]

Yeah - that's the plan - although will set "it" up as a photo booth with a remote and a range of props for people to self-shoot with...

 

[POAH]

If you care about IQ then get the 5D2 if you only ever show small jpegs online then get the 7D.

 

[Hope]

I've been having this issue for so many weeks, don't think I can go back to the old focussing system having used a 7D. Might just go to a 5D III instead

 

[Hope]

To those of you with both cameras, can post any shots up comparing the two?

I have scoured the net but it has been quite inconclusive in its findings!

 

[woof woof]

I doubt that shots posted here will prove much, in fact I doubt they'll prove anything at all. You could ask for helpful people to send you a couple of RAW's you can process and look at on your own pc.

 

[Phil V]

I doubt that shots posted here will prove much, in fact I doubt they'll prove anything at all. You could ask for helpful people to send you a couple of RAW's you can process and look at on your own pc.

Even then, the comparisons would be fairly worthless, unless you're comparing 2 identical scenes you'll not really get a feel for how the cameras record differently.

I can't honestly believe that it comes down to IQ though - the 2 cameras are like chalk and cheese in their strengths / weaknesses.

My comparison shots would be:

A cylce race where the shot from the 7d was bright, clear and in focus, the 5dII shot would be bright and clear and OOF.

A wedding 1st dance shot with only the DJ lights at 6400 ISO - the 5d shot would show a definite IQ advantage.

 

[woof woof]

Even then, the comparisons would be fairly worthless,...

Well, no they wouldn't be fairly worthless. You'd be able to make a much better stab at assessing image quality than looking at web posted images processed by someone else and as for the images being different... the shot info would be there so anyone with half a brain could take the settings into account.

Anyway, it's just a suggestion, and BTW, it's possible to take in focus action shots with a 5D. They don't all have to be OOF.

 

[Phil V]

Well, no they wouldn't be fairly worthless. You'd be able to make a much better stab at assessing image quality than looking at web posted images processed by someone else and as for the images being different... the shot info would be there so anyone with half a brain could take the settings into account.

Anyway, it's just a suggestion, and BTW, it's possible to take in focus action shots with a 5D. They don't all have to be OOF.

Firstly there's no real value in comparing completely different shots from 2 cameras with different lenses taken by different photographers in different light. That's impossible circumstances to give an objective comparison - far too many variables. You may believe that you could get an idea of what the cameras were capable of - I'd like to think that the truth is both simpler and more complicated. Most cameras will take a great looking shot in good light with a good lens and good technique, IQ becomes easy to distinguish in lesser circumstances. As in my 2nd example (which you didn't find fault with).

Secondly - I never suggested it was impossible or even unlikely to get a correctly focussed image from a 5d, the scenario was to show that the 7d's focussing is superior to the 5dIIs. Do I need to cite tests and references for such a universally acknowledged fact:shrug:. The 5dII is unsuitable as a sports camera, due to it's rather poor AF system. Particularly when compared with the 7d which has an amazing AF system for shooting moving objects.

 

[draiman]

I owned both the 5dii and the 7d at the same time and for direct comparisons in normal everyday situations (photos of kids, family etc) the 5d images were head and shoulders above the 7d when viewed up close digitally. When printed out at normal size though the difference really was negligible.

I'd personally go for the 5dii again when I buy my new camera because I use my photos as screensavers and view most on the tv through the ps3 so the difference is noticeable in quality there. If you need the autofocus system though then the 5d really does struggle on the outer points so be prepared to do a lot of focus and recompose (which in itself can present problems).

They are both great cameras though. I just couldn't go back to the 7d for what I take pictures of after using the 5dii.

 

[modchild]

I got a 7D, then added a 5D2 about a month later and ended up having to force myself to use the 7D as it got so little use it wasn't worth me having it. Then Canon dropped the 5D3 on the world and so I sold both the 5D2 and the 7D and got a 5D3 instead. Out of the choice of the 2 you have I'd go 5D2 anyday.

I added a 7D to my 5D3 after a while because I really liked having a second body with the extra reach, but I could manage easily with just the 5D3 (just don't tell the wife) but the 7D is great for aviation shots with a mid range lens.

 

[WERDNA]

A mate of mine in the camera club I'm in, has both the 5Dmk2 and 7D for the last few years (although he has just sold the 7D to fund a 1DS mk1V for nature photography)!
If you want a regular user's view of both, then I could put you in touch?

 

[drexyl]

If you're anywhere near the north east of England you could borrow both bodies of me & make your own mind up.

 

[Hope]

If you're anywhere near the north east of England you could borrow both bodies of me & make your own mind up.

Wow! How kind (and brave!!)

 

[woof woof]

Firstly....

Secondly...

Urgh...

What you said in reference to what I thought was a better idea than looking at on line JPEG's was that comparing RAW files would be "fairly worthless unless comparing two identical scenes" and that a 5D shot of a cycle race would be bright clear and OOF.

I realise that the net is big enough to encompass such sweeping drivel but I do tire of reading it. My bad I also wonder how I and many others took pictures before the 7D came along although there is a chance that someone will be able to take two identical images with the two cameras that the OP is interested in

 

[stu.artd]

If I have the time then I will take a photo of the same subject with a 5d2 and a 7d, using the same lens and from roughly the same spot. There will be a time gap between the two photo's as the lens will need swapped round.

I'm not going to mess about with tripods as I very rarely use them, I'll take the photo's as I would if I was using the camera in my normal manner. I'll have the flash set to off on the 7d and have no flashgun on the 5d2. I will set the aperture and ISO on both cameras to the same settings and will probably take a few with the ISO ramped up a bit as well. Both cameras will be set to the same settings as far as I can see.

The subject will very likely be something boring, like a bush or whatever I can see in the garden but at least it will provide some directly comparable photo's.

This is assuming it's not chucking it down, as if it is I'm not getting myself soaked for the sake of comparisons that will likely be ruled invalid by somebody (not having any kind of dig at anyone here, it's just what I've seen happen on occassion) because I didn't follow an exact scientific method.

I'm probably going to be :bonk: :bang: by starting this but if I have time today (Sunday) then I'll give it a go.

 

[Throttle]

Go with the 5D2 i have one myself and i got the 7D to get a better AF system and crop for extra reach as such,
but i found the noise in photo's compared too the 5D2 too much for me in comparision so i sold it and now i just have the 5D2 and a RX100 now