5D vs. 7D
swintonphoto
Registered Users Posts: 1,664 Major grins
I am thinking of adding some Canon gear. I don't have a ton to invest and am thinking of getting into a FF system with the 5D (the mkII is out of my price range right now), or a 7D. I shoot mostly weddings and do landscape/cityscape artwork. I want decent high ISO. The resolution difference is not that important. Thoughts?
0
Comments
Save your water! All gear has limitations, and limitations is not the same as no good!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
5D will have superior noise performance by far. It's an artwork camera more than an action camera. Also, full frame will allow you to have better selection of wide angle lenses for your landscapes and wedding photos, while a 1.6x would make it harder on you if you want to buy higher end lenses. I own the MKII and its ******* fantastic, and if resolution doesn't really matter, the 5D IQ is just as fantastic with a few less features, and the thing has no diffraction up to a whoppin' F13!! This is the highest performing camera Canon has in terms of diffraction limitations. The 7D starts suffering from diffraction at a pathetic F6.8 which limits your large print landscapes to an extreme if you ask me. Diffraction even though it is at pixel level will really show up after a couple of stops down once you go past the limit. My camera suffers past F11, and loses significant fine detail between F16 and F22. The extra range of sharpness will give you much more room to blow up a 12MP image to a large format print. Start as sharp as possible and you'll have much more room to enlarge.
A table of Canon DSLR DLA ratings is available here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-dslr-digital-camera-review.aspx
IMHO, the Canon 5D is still an awesome camera! Given the price point, I don't think you can do better for your listed uses. Look how many excellent wedding/portrait/landscape photogs still use the 5D. The 7D is a good body, but it's a 1.6 crop, which for me, is not the most versatile for either weddings nor landscapes.
I've just recently purchased the 7D, but being spoiled for quite some time with the 5D family, I'm not too impressed with the 7D's noise. I purchased it to upgrade my crop body, not replace my high ISO/low noise expectations.
As a side note: IMHO, the original 5D produces a little bit better skin tones than the 5DMkII. I'll grab the 5DMkII over the 5D though because of the better high(er) ISO, the great LCD & the nice menu system.
BTW: These are just my personal observations, so 7D owners (me included), this isn't any kind of slam on the 7D.
Hope that helps...
All in all, I have to say the only allure of full-frame for me is with primes. There are just too many good zooms for crop sensors; and if you think about it the crop sensor has a huge advantage with light angles and vignetting. If you're not pushing the ISO to high heaven or needing super shallow DOF, a 7D is a way better choice if zooms will be the most used. IMO the only reason to get a 5D mk2 is for the resolution, low-light performance and FOV, or the only reason to get the 5D mk1 is the price, the skin tones, and the FOV.
Of course for portrait photographers, this might be just the ticket... But as a landscape and wildlife photographer, I'd buy a 7D without hesitation. Extra reach with tele's, more *sharp* options with ultra-wides. And almost as much resolution as current FF bodies!
BTW, remember that crop sensor bodies have come a LONG way in low light performance. The 7D is super clean and totally usable even at 1600 and 3200. In fact the only advantage the 5D mk1 has is in fine image detail, the 7D sensor is probably inherently LESS "noisy". Bottom line- If all you need is "decent" low light performance but you shoot action and landscapes on the side, get the 7D. You'll do just fine in low light with a 1.4 or 1.2 prime, seriously.
I also find it slightly funny how Canon users quibble over the 1-2 stop difference between the 7D and the 5-series, when the true champ by a long shot is the D700, let alone the D3s. If you're so concerned about low light high ISO, why not put your money where your mouth is and get a Nikon?
Sorry, couldn't resist. My POINT is, we should AVOID measuring cameras in a quantitative way, it's a never-ending battle and the grass will always be greener on the other side. Buy the best all-around camera for YOUR style of shooting, and you'll be happy.
Respectfully,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The OP asked specifically between two Canon bodies, why the constant need to throw a "Nikon" commercial into threads?
In my experience, the D700 and 5DMkII are VERY close in high ISO performance. And, if 1 ~ 2 stops difference doesn't mean anything to you, well...
I suppose 7D or 5D is my main question for my next camera so I follow this discussion with interest. What I would value most is great dynamic range at the ISO sweet spot (100?), preferably an HDR mode so a "single shot" from a tripod (for stability) can be processed in-camera to jpg via bracketing different exposures . As I don't really care about ISO, I'll likely stick with Canon and likely aspire to the 5D for the image quality even though I will have to sell my 17-55 EFS. Of course Matt's point on the extra range with 7D is persuasive. God, all these trade-offs. Why not save up for a 1 series?
@swintonphoto. With your budget and goals it seems the 7D is a perfect choice.
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/12/27/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d700-in-depth-iso-comparison/
I don't want to start being pompice with this, so, looked into into the 5D and 7D a bit. The 7D does take cleaner pictures at higher ISOs than the 5D, and has more resolved detail. On the flipside, the diffraction is not invisible either, though. It really murders macro (especially from personal experience I can say this... but here's a formal comparison too)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=33754372
So, for your purposes mentioned here, I do think the extra resolution with the generally cleaner photos will trump the 5D in everything but macro work. The 7D is the camera you're describing
Looking at those one thing I noticed is the off colors at ISO 6400 on the 5D seem to be a lot more splotchy while the D700 has some but it is smoother and not as noticeable.
That's probably because the MKII's color noise is shifting between green and blue adding a little contrast among the color noise while in the D700 its mainly just blue. By no means is it smoother... Either way, color noise is fairly negligible since its so easy to get rid of it... luminance noise is much harder to remove without destroying the actual structure of the image.
See, what'd I say? this forum is getting hijacked, or at least its lost 1 tire. haha
Pardon the interruption, but I cannot seem to figure out how to expand my ISO range on the Mk2. I set the C-FN, latest firmware...?? All I see is 6400
Highlight tone priority has to be off and ISO expansion on, otherwise you'll be limited to ISO 200-6400
I have extensive experience with the Canon 5D, 7D and 5D MkII. To answer your question in one sentence i'd say once you go full frame you will never go back. Every time you press that 1:1 button in Lightroom with a crop body you will always be disappointed in the noise factor.
Interesting to see "favourable" comments about the 7D. In my opinion as a photographer since 1972 it produced hellish results.
At the end of the day you want clean images with good detail, good saturation and contrast. For this you'd be better with a full frame. The diffraction percentages that another poster has provided you with are indeed a good clue as to where i'd be looking, for my next purchase. The 5D is a wonderful camera all be it it's not a speedy creation. This however is another discussion about falling for the hype that you need 8 or 10 fps to catch action.
I can recommend the 5D and when you save up your pennies you will love the 5D MkII. It's ability to resolve detail that you cannot see with the naked eye is amazing.
Best of luck...
Martin.
:photoCanada Lens Rentals - Come join us on Facebook
Canon 7D, EF 15mm Fisheye, EF 400 f2.8, EF 300f2.8, EF 100-400L IS, EF 70-200 f2.8, EF24-70 f2.8, 580EX II. Manfrotto mono, 055 ProB, 701 Video head.
First SLR Zenith B, 12th Birthday 1972.
Martin.
Not hype for people (like me) who shoot sports. Higher fps is a good thing for people like me. Just wish they'd do a good sports full frame camera....
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
APS-H is a very moderate crop and, dare I say it, the Canon 1D MKIV is an extremely competent sports camera.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'm with ya...and saving my pennies for one.
Was sitting next to someone shooting with a 1D MKIII shooting MMA the other night. Always sounds like a machine gun next to mine.
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
Only advantage of FF cameras for me is some awesome L glass and other high end lenses can be used without crop... such as TS lenses, 35mm, 50mm etc.
My Gallery
Realize this: we've come such a long way over the past 5-10 years. 5 years ago, the 5D mk1 was ground breaking and everybody raved about it's low-light performance, and how it was the only camera you should possibly consider if you shot in low light. (And before that, the 1D mk2 was "required"...)
Now 5 years later sensor technology has improved so much that the 7D can beat the original 5D. And yet the 7D is somehow un-acceptable? One would have to concede that this premise is based soley on the fact that there is something better out there, NOT whether or not the 7D is truly acceptable... The classic "chronic upgrade syndrome" reasoning. By which logic, every low-light shooter in the world should go buy a D3s right now. Which, in case you missed the irony, is a ridiculous notion. THAT is my point- be careful making absolute statements, because they can end up sounding slightly hypocritical if you consider the big picture.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Welcome to our new and crazy world....ISO 25,600 results from a D3s that can rival ISO 1600 color film that was used a decade ago.
Which absolute statement are you talking about?
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Can't disagree with that, but when I upgraded from my 40D I was faced with the same choice. In the end I went for the 5DII because the low light performance of the 7D was actually quite similar to the 40D, where as the 5DII was much better.
The 5DII has definitely given me more options in certain situations (e.g. aisle shots) where I no longer have to use flash.
I dare say the D700 might me marginally better at low light than the 5DII, but not enough to make it worth considering swapping systems and it has no video!
Huh? I've not seen people say this. I know loads of photogs using the 7D for these situations. I've shot my friend's 7D and I'd have no problem using it. Is a 5D (or other cameras) better for these types of shots? Sure but I'd hardly say the 7D is a bad choice. And, again, I'm not seeing, "overwhelming advice given everywhere," saying this.
There are lots of examples of the 7D in low light-high ISO settings and it does just fine. Also lots of examples of portraits shot with a 7D and the look fine as well. Again, not saying it's the BEST camera out there but it's not a POS.
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
The vast majority of portraits I have done have been with either APS-C/crop 1.6x or APS-H/crop 1.3x format camera bodies. If I do shoot in crop format I tend to use a bit more noise reduction in post, which will smooth the tones, and I may try to separate the subject from the background with software too, all in the quest for producing the best product.
There is no magic in using a FF body and it's still very easy to produce garbage, but in the right hands and using the right combination of equipment a FF body can produce slightly better results SOOC.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Well said, Matt
Here's the deal: I shoot mostly portraits and low-light theatre. I'd love a 5dII for its high ISO ability. Top of my list of Canon choices.
I don't have the $2500 to spend on it (ok, it's dropped a bit recently, but it's still usually over 2K)
The next best choice - FOR ME - was a 7d.
I've been really happy with it, and it has significantly outperformed my Xsi and 50d in low light. I wasn't happy shooting the xsi over 800, or the 50d over 1600 and even those were diasppointing; I regularly shoot the 7d at 2000 and have been entirely happy with the results. It's not as good in low light as a 5dII would be, but since I can't afford the 5dII, it's a moot point. If I were making my entire living at this, I could justify investing in the 5dII, or even one of the 1d's, but I'm not and I can't. So I made what I feel was the best choice within the limtations of budget.
Having the built-in flash controller is pretty nice, too ;D