Help me choose: 5DmkII 7D 60D

Why not ask him if you can have a play? Its the best way to answer your question. If it does what you want then you will know the answer! ;)
He's a pro and usually out every weekend, isn't local either and I would abhor to borrow stuff from someone who uses it to make money in case something goes wrong while it's in my hand.
 
alchemistkevin said:
Thanks, tbh, I assumed one meant the other with FF cameras, if it focuses correctly and quickly (and I've set everything else right) I'll get a shallow DoF with proper focussed images? or am I missing something?

Put it this way. A out of focus shot cannot be saved by a photoshop god but a noisy image can be saved a bit by a 10 year old adjusting a few sliders on photoshop/lightroom etc.

For me a out of focus shot is much worse then a noisy shot and that is what's different between a ff an a crop. A ff has less noise and slightly better bokeh and better IQ but any experience tog will tell u that it's not all about IQ. It's all about compsition and I don't see many good composition shots that are out of focus lol
 
alchemistkevin said:
Thanks, tbh, I assumed one meant the other with FF cameras, if it focuses correctly and quickly (and I've set everything else right) I'll get a shallow DoF with proper focussed images? or am I missing something?

Forget about dof, it's more or less irrelevant for bodies as you can get as much or as little dof you want, ff or crop!
 
Last edited:
Put it this way. A out of focus shot cannot be saved by a photoshop god but a noisy image can be saved a bit by a 10 year old adjusting a few sliders on photoshop/lightroom etc.

Agree. I'd rather have a noisy image that can be saved using PP rather than an OOF shot that has no hope. With motor sports I'm guessing you'd be more prone to OOF shots hence the requirement for good AF.
 
Shoot Em Up said:
Agree. I'd rather have a noisy image that can be saved using PP rather than an OOF shot that has no hope. With motor sports I'm guessing you'd be more prone to OOF shots hence the requirement for good AF.

Yup exactly I mean in a perfect world canon should make 5dmk2 have 7d Af but it diddnt. That's why there is a huge debate between the two cameras .

I can see the mk3 having 7d Af though but at what price? If it's 3k Mark canon can sod off
 
OK - so do the last few posts make a case for the 7D as it's got better/quicker AF and I'll just need to learn photoshop better to tweak the IQ?

Simples? or any more twists?
Shall I still be thinking about the 5D or the D700?
 
Why is there no thank button on these forums with so many helpful people around?
 
Hi Kevin

There's a lot of crap spouted about the 5DMK2 Af that's not 100% right.The center focus point is actually supurb and is as accurate as anything out there.Look at the amount of pro wedding/portrait togs out there that are using the 5DMK2.Granted,there are better alternatives for for action/sport but that doesn't mean it's not capable of doing the job.

You could always do what I did and just say sod it and get a camera with awesome af,outstanding image quality,brilliant high iso,build quality that's as good as it gets,super duper speed etc etc.1DMK4.

Cheers
Gary
 
You've got a very pretty camera :) but it's pretty expensive too.

While the money isn't the primary stumbling block, I'd like to prove myself with the 7D/5D before I spend any more on equipment. I'd like to think £3K is a fair budget for any decent photographer to prove himself with.

If I were looking at Nikon's primarily I would've got this done and dusted quicker with a D700 and a trio of Nikon lenses from 14 to 200mm but this AF business is what's making me reconsider the 5D2.

Shall I go full frame then and live with the AF?

Will the slow AF hamper the number of usable pictures I can produce with a 5D over the 7D or shall I go for the 5D forgetting the slow AF and enjoy the IQ?
 
You're putting far too much emphasis on kit. You say £3,000 is enough for a photographer to prove himself, but in my opinion, so is £300!

For sure, get good kit if you can, but I really think from what I've read you are worrying FAR too much about some irrelevant things.

The sensor in the 7d is fine for shallow dof.

The focus of the 5d will be fine for what you need.

Depending on the lenses used and how far you pixel peep, from face value you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two bodies, shot for shot.

At the end of the day it's you who makes the picture, and it's you who makes the biggest difference.
 
Last edited:
You're putting far too much emphasis on kit. You say £3,000 is enough for a photographer to prove himself, but in my opinion, so is £300!

For sure, get good kit if you can, but I really think from what I've read you are worrying FAR too much about some irrelevant things.

The sensor in the 7d is fine for shallow dof.

The focus of the 5d will be fine for what you need.

Depending on the lenses used and how far you pixel peep, from face value you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two bodies, shot for shot.

At the end of the day it's you who makes the picture, and it's you who makes the biggest difference.
you're right but this is where the confusion comes from.

Although the photographer makes a lot of difference, no wedding photographers I know (pro's) will use anything but a FF. they say it produces better IQ in low light and less noise at high IQ.

The only reason I'm thinking of the 7D is, almost everyone says it's the best for moving objects.

You're right, I'm dithering too much but then again, I don't want to spend £3k and find AF is not good when photographing cars.
 
You're right, the 5dmk2 is better for weddings, but that's due to overall IQ and high iso.

I've shot motorsport and showjumping on both 5d bodies and they were fine. 7d is better (as is the 50d) but that's only because they are quicker, both in AF and FPS but I still got good results from the 5d. It's certainly not a deal breaker IMO. The main drawback of the 5d when using telephotos I found was the lack of crop factor, not the AF.

I used to shoot fast moving things with my 400d with no problems!!

I don't think there isnt a body on the market that you can't use effectively in any given situation, and I think we worry that because "x" is superb at "y" we must have "x". The only ones who due have good cause to worry are professional sports togs, but that's how they make their money so should have the best possible tool for the job.
 
Last edited:
you're right but this is where the confusion comes from.

Although the photographer makes a lot of difference, no wedding photographers I know (pro's) will use anything but a FF. they say it produces better IQ in low light and less noise at high IQ.

The only reason I'm thinking of the 7D is, almost everyone says it's the best for moving objects.

You're right, I'm dithering too much but then again, I don't want to spend £3k and find AF is not good when photographing cars.

For weddings i can probably manually focus easily. AF is not essential for wedding shots as 9/10 wedding photos are people standing static.

Now if you shoo sports and street photography or your kids running around the park, the AF is essential.

Its all good saying that the 5dmk2 center point is fine but who in here shoots all there subjects straight down the middle of a frame? Rule of Thirds anyone?

Also do forget the higher FPS. essential for fast moving objects. Ask yourself, why doesnt pro sports tog shooting a footy match use a 5dmk2 instead of a 1D?
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
For weddings i can probably manually focus easily. AF is not essential for wedding shots as 9/10 wedding photos are people standing static.

Now if you shoo sports and street photography or your kids running around the park, the AF is essential.

Its all good saying that the 5dmk2 center point is fine but who in here shoots all there subjects straight down the middle of a frame? Rule of Thirds anyone?

Also do forget the higher FPS. essential for fast moving objects. Ask yourself, why doesnt pro sports tog shooting a footy match use a 5dmk2 instead of a 1D?

Rule of thirds can be thrown in the bin when shooting fast sports!! You don't have time to worry about faffing with stuff like that (and as far as I'm concerned there are no "rules" in photography as it's an art form!).

And whatever body I use for sports, I always use the centre AF point.
 
Last edited:
vulcan2912 said:
I've shot sports,motorsports,aviation,wildlife,weddings,kids,portraits,macro with the 5DMK2 and can't ever remember once thinking that the AF wasn't upto the job.The 3.9 fps,small buffer maybe,but never the AF.

How does the AF compare to my 400d!
 
Back to the OP.

If you like shooting sports and don't have a lot of money to spend on long glass then a crop camera is what you are going to want. If you're after Canon then the 7D fits the bill perfectly. It's a very versatile camera which will perform all the tasks you require of it.

If you want to go full frame then you may need to be using a TC with lenses (which means buying a fast long lens to start off with) or paying the money for longer glass. It may be though that a 100-400 or 150-500 type lens might give you the reach you require? If so they're not too expensive.

The 5D2 does have better IQ and ISO performance than the 7D, it's AF is not as good though. The outer points are not cross type and in low light struggle to lock on. You can mitigate this slightly by always aiming for high contrast areas in normal use but in low light it'll be hit and miss. The IQ is very good and 21MP gives you a lot of pixels to crop as well if needed.

Then there's the D700, I've been looking at this myself of late as the AF on this camera is very good. I don't know enough about the Nikon glass at this stage to make the change myself though. The 7D and 5D2 both do video as well if you are interested in that, the D700 doesn't. It also does have a lower MP count but that really isn't an issue unless you want to print really big!

As you're into sports the 1D3 should be mentioned. Cost wise it's around £1250 second hand. The AF is very good, it's a 1.3x crop and has good IQ. It's only 10MP but it's a very good 10MP. Personally I rate the IQ slightly better than the 7D.

You could also look at the 1Ds2 but this is not a camera up to todays standards of ISO and user interface. It's a heavy old lump with a kooky 2 button interface. It does however have great IQ and AF and I love using it. With LR3 it's useable up to ISO3200 as well.

You should also bear in mind that a lot of the comparisons with IQ come down to actually quite small differences that in the main only 100% peepers will see. For web sized (1024x) and printing up to A3 size you'll most likely not notice a great deal of difference. The shallower depth of field from a FF is nice and it does let you throw the background out of focus just that little bit more than a crop, and I have got shots with the 1Ds2 that I haven't with my 7D no matter how hard I try to replicate them.
 
Rule of thirds can be thrown in the bin when shooting fast sports!! You don't have time to worry about faffing with stuff like that (and as far as I'm concerned there are no "rules" in photography as it's an art form!).

And whatever body I use for sports, I always use the centre AF point.

Tbh, this is why I just can't understand why people find this type of photography enjoyable, it's not exactly the most artistic/creative form of photography is it?

For me, it would feel like wasted shutter clicks, and I'd much rather spend my time paint-balling or similar, rather than chase people with my centre focus point.

But I guess it's different strokes for different folks...
 
MomentCapture said:
Tbh, this is why I just can't understand why people find this type of photography enjoyable, it's not exactly the most artistic/creative form of photography is it?

What a complete crock of rocking horse kaka.

There's a hell of a lot more skill in sports photography than massacring a field of poppies.
 
Tbh, this is why I just can't understand why people find this type of photography enjoyable, it's not exactly the most artistic/creative form of photography is it?

For me, it would feel like wasted shutter clicks, and I'd much rather spend my time paint-balling or similar, rather than chase people with my centre focus point.

But I guess it's different strokes for different folks...

And some of us would rather sand paper our man bits and then dip them in vinegar than go paint balling. :p
 
MomentCapture said:
Tbh, this is why I just can't understand why people find this type of photography enjoyable, it's not exactly the most artistic/creative form of photography is it?

For me, it would feel like wasted shutter clicks, and I'd much rather spend my time paint-balling or similar, rather than chase people with my centre focus point.

But I guess it's different strokes for different folks...

You do have a valid point mate.
 
Tbh, this is why I just can't understand why people find this type of photography enjoyable, it's not exactly the most artistic/creative form of photography is it?

For me, it would feel like wasted shutter clicks, and I'd much rather spend my time paint-balling or similar, rather than chase people with my centre focus point.

But I guess it's different strokes for different folks...

That's what great about photography, there's something for everyone. Sports photography I find challenging (as well as BiF etc.), people and portraits don't excite or challenge me in the same way although I enjoy that aspect of photography as well. Landscapes I struggle with, as it generally means finding somewhere nice in the first place!
 
Last edited:
What a complete crock of rocking horse kaka.

There's a hell of a lot more skill in sports photography than massacring a field of poppies.

^this.

First game I was at I took more pictures than I do now, I just 'machine-gunned' it and got a few images which I would call decent. Now I take 1/3-1/4 of the number of pictures, and because I'm thinking more about composition etc I get more decent images.

If anything it takes lots of skill, as your brain has to think super fast about composition etc, you don't have the luxury of time.
 
That's what great about photography, there's something for everyone. Sports photography I find challenging (as well as BiF etc.), people and portraits don't excite or challenge me in the same way although I enjoy that aspect photography as well. Landscapes I struggle with, as it generally means finding somewhere nice in the first place!

I guess your right, it's just hard for me to get my head around the idea it's fun is all.
 
Last edited:
What a complete crock of rocking horse kaka.

There's a hell of a lot more skill in sports photography than massacring a field of poppies.

I like massacring poppies!:razz:
What have the poppies ever done for us!
 
MomentCapture said:
Tbh, this is why I just can't understand why people find this type of photography enjoyable, it's not exactly the most artistic/creative form of photography is it?

For me, it would feel like wasted shutter clicks, and I'd much rather spend my time paint-balling or similar, rather than chase people with my centre focus point.

But I guess it's different strokes for different folks...

Well you really don't fully understand your own hobby. I enjoy all photography, from night time long exposures, to shooting sports, landscapes and portraits.

For me, shooting sport (especially motorsport), capturing that minute piece of time, capturing the look of determination and pain, is the most enjoyable of them all.

If you want to keep to "rules" then surely you're just pushing out what someone else thinks is "correct", thus copying what they think a shot should look like. That's not art.
 
jonneymendoza said:
You do have a valid point mate.

No he doesn't.
 
If anything it takes lots of skill, as your brain has to think super fast about composition etc, you don't have the luxury of time.

I guess I can see your point, I have as similar thought process when taking street portraits of strangers, although that has the added complication of interactivity.
 
I like F1 and the biggest task of my kit would be to take great F1 pictures.
I also travel to motor shows and love to photograph metal in the real world.
I would also like to photograph sports (local footie games) & portraits of my kids.:thankyou:

For the three things you have listed above the 7d is the one to go for, FPS is more important (to me anyways) than the FF sensor of the 5d.

Get a couple of decent L glass to go on the front with low F values and they will serve every purpose in low light and bright sunny days.

Good luck

spike
 
Back
Top