Canon 50D to 7D

Foxy xoFoxy xo Registered Users Posts: 52 Big grins
edited January 18, 2011 in Cameras
Hi!

It has been a long time since I visited the forum here at dgrins.

I've been so busy with college and general life!

I've had my 50D for quite some time, but I've really wanted to shoot some creative video shots. My Sony HDR CX-150 really limits me because of the (in my opinion), HORRIBLE 30mm that it has. The autofocus on it also behaves strangely, and from what I have seen, the 7D shoots video fantastically.

Just one thing bothers me. I've seen some reviews, and a couple of them mention that the 7D sits BETWEEN the 50D and the 5D.

I presume it means it is better than the 50D, but not quite as good as the 5D?

Again, from what I've seen, I'm not sure how this is worked out, because other than the full frame, what does the 5D have over the 7D, other than better noise/pixel density.

Can anyone shed some light here? Am I doing wrong in moving to the 7D from the 50D?

Thanks!

Comments

  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    I can't speak to the video function because I don't use it (yet :D). As a still camera, however, the 7d is often considered the best all-rounder in the current Canon lineup, and the best sports-shooter south of the 1-series cameras. Its ISO performance is considerably better than the 50d, but not as impressive as the high ISO on the full-frame 5dII (and, for the record, FF cameras are generally more costly). However, the 7d's autofocus and fps exceed the speed of the 5dII - that's not to suggest the 5dII is bad, just that its much slower, and doesn't have the AF configure-ability of the 7d. Many suggest that the 7d is the sports camera to get, with the FF quality of the 5dII more suited to portraits, landscape and slower-moving subjects. If that's in your budget, it's a good suggestion but for me, the 5dII wasn't an option due to $.

    I moved from a 50d to a 7d which I use for general shooting - it was the closest in the Canon lineup to what I need at the price I could afford, and I found it an upgrade in almost every regard (including handling, ISO, AF speed and accuracy, and included bells and whistles such as the flash commander). In a perfect world I'd probably have a 5dII since I could really use its high iso ability, but it was way out of my budget, and I'm more than happy with the 7d - it's a great camera and the ISO performance, even if not as impressive as the 5dII, has served my needs very well (I regularly shoot it at iso 2000 and it produces entirely useable shots). I'd like to move to FF at some point, but for now the 7d is a great camera for me.

    HTH!
    facebook | photo site |
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited January 17, 2011
    Foxy xo wrote: »
    Can anyone shed some light here? Am I doing wrong in moving to the 7D from the 50D?

    Well, you can't shoot video with the 50D, so the 7D solves that problem for you. mwink.gif The 5D has many advantages over a 7D, but going full frame means you will have to re-examine your lens lineup. EF-S lenses won't work on it, for one thing, and losing the 1.6 crop factor means everything will be shorter and wider.

    What do you want to shoot?
    My Pics
  • Foxy xoFoxy xo Registered Users Posts: 52 Big grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    Well the biggest reason is of course the video. And that probably sounds stupid seeing as it isn't even designed for that! The 50D serves the purpose for what I need it for, but the added benefit of having video packed into it makes all the better, especially for me. I haven't really played with video on a DSLR, but I can imagine it is much nicer shooting with it than say, a Handycam. It has a greater DOF, ability to change glass and ability to manually focus. Of course a full frame would be nice, but it's not a commodity for me, and certainly not worth paying the extra cash, especially when it doesn't have the video option which I'm also after.

    At this time, I can't really say I want to shoot anything specific, but I do want the benefits that a DSLR have to offer over a consumer video camera.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited January 17, 2011
    Foxy xo wrote: »
    Of course a full frame would be nice, but it's not a commodity for me, and certainly not worth paying the extra cash, especially when it doesn't have the video option which I'm also after.

    At this time, I can't really say I want to shoot anything specific, but I do want the benefits that a DSLR have to offer over a consumer video camera.

    The 5DMkII has video as well, but it's more expensive than the 7D. Sounds to me like the 7D might be just right for you. deal.gif
    My Pics
  • Foxy xoFoxy xo Registered Users Posts: 52 Big grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    Oh gosh, of course it does! Sorry, it's late and I'm not thinking straight!

    But yes, it is a little outside my price range haha.

    Do you have any insight on video cameras vs DSLRS with video capability?
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited January 17, 2011
    Foxy xo wrote: »
    Do you have any insight on video cameras vs DSLRS with video capability?
    Sorry Foxy, I don't do video, but I'm sure plenty of others will chime in here. thumb.gif
    My Pics
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    I don't do video either but I can say that the flip screen on the 60D might help. The T3i is purported to have this feature too. The T2i, 60D, 7D, & 5D2 all shoot 1080p video. The 7D IS better than the 5D. It is (generally, but certainly not always) not as good as the 5D Mark II.
  • Foxy xoFoxy xo Registered Users Posts: 52 Big grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    I'd prefer not to have the flip screen! Seems a little gimmicky to me, and I don't really need that!
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    I think you'll find it useful if it's on the camera you get.
  • pthpth Registered Users Posts: 49 Big grins
    edited January 18, 2011
    I have and love a 5dm2. I do not do any serious video, but I have used it. One important difference between the current video options and a camcorder is the lack of auto focus on the DSLR. That said the video is sharp, has wonderful DOF and terrible sound unless you use an external mic.
  • canoesailorcanoesailor Registered Users Posts: 79 Big grins
    edited January 18, 2011
    divamum wrote: »
    I can't speak to the video function because I don't use it (yet :D). As a still camera, however, the 7d is often considered the best all-rounder in the current Canon lineup, and the best sports-shooter south of the 1-series cameras. Its ISO performance is considerably better than the 50d, but not as impressive as the high ISO on the full-frame 5dII (and, for the record, FF cameras are generally more costly). However, the 7d's autofocus and fps exceed the speed of the 5dII - that's not to suggest the 5dII is bad, just that its much slower, and doesn't have the AF configure-ability of the 7d. Many suggest that the 7d is the sports camera to get, with the FF quality of the 5dII more suited to portraits, landscape and slower-moving subjects. If that's in your budget, it's a good suggestion but for me, the 5dII wasn't an option due to $.

    I moved from a 50d to a 7d which I use for general shooting - it was the closest in the Canon lineup to what I need at the price I could afford, and I found it an upgrade in almost every regard (including handling, ISO, AF speed and accuracy, and included bells and whistles such as the flash commander). In a perfect world I'd probably have a 5dII since I could really use its high iso ability, but it was way out of my budget, and I'm more than happy with the 7d - it's a great camera and the ISO performance, even if not as impressive as the 5dII, has served my needs very well (I regularly shoot it at iso 2000 and it produces entirely useable shots). I'd like to move to FF at some point, but for now the 7d is a great camera for me.

    HTH!

    I have just switched from a 50d to a 7d and agree with almost eveything Divamum said here. My only disagreement is, in a perfect world I'd have a 1d4 - but I cant afford the mortgage.

    As for the 60d, I dont think you would find it much of a step up from the 50d. It has one or two gimmics, but there is no microadjust and a plastic casing it is obviously aimed at the consumer market. The 50d and 7d are aimed at the prosumer.

    The 5d2 was one of my considered cameras before I got the 7d. But the loss of cropfactor meant that I would need longer lenses for my wildlife shooting and that would not only break the bank, but would also mean carrying a lot of extra weight around with me.

    As it is the 7d does most of my work with an EF 100-400 L and my macro work is done with an EF-s 60mm. I carry an EF 28-105 but haven't used it on the 7d yet - haven't had the need.

    Some things were immediately apparent with the 7d over the 50d, once I had the set up sorted, it locks on to focus a lot quicker. Shots that the 50d would have missed while looking for focus, the 7d gets with ease and the images seem a lot clearer and brighter.

    Choosing the right camera is a big step and in some respects a leap of faith, take your time and choose what suits you.
    John T
    www.jtsphotoblog.blogspot.co.uk
    www.johngwynant.blogspot.co.uk
  • Foxy xoFoxy xo Registered Users Posts: 52 Big grins
    edited January 18, 2011
    I haven't read entirely much into it, but is the AF the only thing a video camera has going for it over an DSLR?

    I think I have my eyes set on the 7D. I've taken everything into consideration, and it wouldn't make sense to get the 60D, and the 5D2 would require new glass, and it is already much more expensive.

    Thanks for the replies (:
Sign In or Register to comment.