Perhaps some amount/most of the IQ difference can be leveled with skillful post processing.
I really do want a waffly kind of consumer eulogising to be challenged. I am not interested in touching any individual consumer's satisfaction, but about the unsupported conclusion that is all too easily thrust at us along with each on-date release of new product that it is a significant piece of new hardware.
It seems probable to me, and other thinking (and testing) people, that the differences in IQ of images (as distinct from native differences in FOV etc) from the 5D2 and the 7D (and the 40D since it was introduced into this discussion - with good reason- by Pathfinder) are mainly due to software processing. Whether done covertly in camera, or emulated in post, I think it highly likely that IQ from any of these cameras can be produced (within the ISO 100 - 1600 range) which is indistinguishable in normal viewing conditions.
The obvious consequence is that IQ should not be the main reason for choosing between them. That is part of an answer to the OP's question about choosing between them.
So if we put IQ aside (and the software involved in producing it), do the differences between these cameras in the number of MPs, frame rate, AF points, processors, and sensor size, matter? Well, I think, the answer must be "not directly". What is more directly significant is lens, and lighting, and the hands and the head of the photographer. And then with what happens next in post processing, which is also mainly dependent on the skills of the editor. The 7D has more on paper potential for sporties and birders vis a vis the 5D2, while the 5D2 has more potential for artifiers. That's kind of obvious and non-controversial, just like the differences between those cameras and MF. I wonder if the OP really needed to ask the question. Unless the original question was really about IQ, and we have dealt with that.
I will say that the 40D is more work than the other two, but work is mainly about the user, and while SOOC usability might be easier with later products, work is not removed from the equation even with them.
Facts and romance are often at odds, and I think this is indispensable to keep in mind in the case of choosing between the current cameras in question.
Neil
Neil,
Nothing personal here, but I think your spewing a bit of Internet babage here...
First, you are obviously getting your "facts" from the Internet. Unless of course you own (or have used extensively) 7D and 5DMkII bodies that you are comparing here, which I do not believe that you do.
Second, you obviously have something against marketing, and in particular here, camera companies marketing. Are you suggesting that the camera companies keep investing in R&D, then don't "market" their new products? Maybe just have available on their website the white-papers for potential customers to download and read through.
I think if that were the case, you probably wouldn't even own a 40D, you might still be using a film camera.
It's a simple enough concept: Camera companies need to make a profit. They do this by selling cameras (among other items). They sell cameras by marketing the new products to potential buyers. They take some of that profit and invest it into more R&D, to produce new camera models for them to market, and us to purchase. Round and round the wheel goes...
I'm not too shabby at software, but I'm telling you, from my copies of the 5DMkII and 7D, I cannot produce the same IQ of image above ISO 800 from my 7D as I can my 5DMkII. Simple as that...
Also, as you've alluded to, the 7D images take a lot more massaging in post work than do my 5DMkII images. I don't even think about noise reduction in post on my 5DMkII images until ISO 3200, if even then. Not so on the 7D, not by a long shot!!!
So, why don't you rent a 5DMkII for a week and shoot it side-by-side with your 40D, then, draw your own conclusions?
BTW, I have nothing at all against the 40D. I have shot one quite a bit and was pleased with it, but to maintain that it is on equal ground with the two cameras mentioned here is misleading. Not only with IQ, but with all the other newer features of the 5DMkII and the 7D.
I guess I'm grateful that I don't have to live everyone's experiences myself personally in order to talk about them. Case in point, you have passed on your experiences to me here through the internet and I am quite ready to take them at face value and pass them on to others, without feeling the need to verify them first hand. If you are in the market for a vehicle I think it likely that you don't hire or even test drive every potential vehicle, but think it makes sense to include and exclude vehicles to consider based on the experiences of others. Heck, life is just too short! It's in like manner that I pass on here what experiences I have, what I have learned others have, and some concepts, facts and figures that I think are relevant to the topic before us. That your experiences don't quite match up with those of some other people I have similarly read about is interesting, as much for you as for me, possibly.
But in any case, I basically don't disagree with anything you have said. I have talked about the differences between the cameras in question, both native and in the specs, saying the differences (at least between the 5D2 and 7D) are as significant as the differences between all of them and MF, for example. A newbie might need those differences explained, sure. I wonder though why experienced people would even want to ask that kind of question, just as you might wonder why anyone would be asking which to choose between a motorbike and a SUV. Unless, as I said, they were really asking about comparing IQ from each of them. To that question I replied that direct comparisons could not be made and gave the reasons.
My opinions range outside my direct personal experience, just as yours might do about motorbikes. I think you are likely to have an opinion and expound on it more eloquently than me about all of Honda Gold Wing vs ST 1300, BMW R 1200ST, Ducati ST3, Triumph Sprint ST and Yamaha FJR 1300, among others, without perhaps having laid skin on them. Tell me, which do you give more credence to: the advertising copy of the manufacturer, or the reviews in the enthusiast mags? Do you really mean to say I should go to Canon as the authority for my decision about buying a camera body? Tell me, do you change your bike with every new model released? What would make you change your bike? Two engines?
Ah Randy, if only the world, or even just the camera world, or motorbike world, were able to be put in our own nutshell of choice!D
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited March 21, 2011
Honestly having shot extensively with both the 7D and the 5D mk2, I can definitely say that in the real world the differences in "image quality" are not really the deciding factor. Not unless you shoot in extremely low light, or unless you shoot a specific type of photography that requires an exact focal length with shallow depth or perspective control.
For 99% of users, the best reasons to pick one camera over the other have everything to do with the camera's performance, ...or of course that low-light and shallow depth "advantage"...
Neil, I trust you will take this in the spirit of the debate you've triggered - nothing personal, here, but I've been trying to figure out why I keep coming back for more on this despite having sworn not to beat what threatens to be rapidly becoming a dead horse. But I find myself returning and wondering WHY this bothers me so much, so I guess I still have more to say!!
So why does this bother me? I'm not a techno-freak who buys for Latest & Greatest reasons, I don't pixel-peep any more than is necessary to ensure the photo is sharp and useable, I'm not a Canon fangirl (honestly, if I'd known what I know now when I got my first dSLR, I'd have ditched my Canon film lenses and jumped to Nikon, since those weren't up to digital resolution and I often prefer the "look" of Nikon portrait shots anyway). I just don't CARE if my camera gear "looks good" to clients/other photographers, is new/used, banged up/pristine - I all I want is tools I can pay for cash-in-hand (vs credit) that do the job I need and want them to do. That's it!
I've come to the conclusion that what is niggling at me is your implication (stated various times in different threads on the subject) that anybody who suggests the 7d is a great tool - which, let's be honest here, you haven't actually *used* yourself - is somehow only responding to the Borg mentality of "must have latest and greatest at any price", and that the camera doesn't provide any benefits over its predecessor models. I'll be honest - I find that a bit insulting! I'm old enough and, I'd like to think, intelligent enough - not to mention the daughter of a Hollywood publicist and therefore more consciously aware of marketing techniques than many!!! - to be able to tell the difference between the power of marketing suggestion and the reality of my own experience.
To put the shoe on the other foot: what if those who own 7d's and 5dII's suggested that you only praise your 40d to justify not being able to spend more on a newer model, and to make yourself feel like a staunch defender of the faith - wouldn't having that motivation attributed to you (regardless of whether it has any validity) make you feel just a tad defensive?!
Let's be clinically clear on a couple of points:
- for higher ISO's (eg 1600+), the 40d is quite good, the 7d is better, and the 5dII is best of all. I'm not debating that at all.
- yes, some of that improvement between models is in how well the files accept software adjustments/enhancements. The 40d needs quite a lot, the 7d needs some, and the 5dII produces the cleanest high ISO images SOOC (as it should, given that it's a bigger sensor and we are, to some extent, comparing tangerines to giant navel oranges!).
What I - and a few others - are saying from our own experience is that, compared to XXd files, the 7d (while not as good as the 5dII on this score - again, I'm not arguing that AT ALL) produces images which are more *useable* when shot at higher ISO's. They come out cleaner to start with, and respond easily to software manipulation, particularly when run through LR3. With my xsi and 50d at 1600 I needed to use a standalone noise reduction program and spend a fair bit of time cleaning things up; with the 7d, even if I go up to ISO 2000, a couple of quick tweaks of the LR sliders, and I'm good to go. I suspect with the 5dII I could happily use 3200 without needing even that (*which is known to be one of the 5dII's greatest strengths*. Nobody disputes that.)
So why don't I own a 5dII? Because at the time I jumped to the 7d, the 5dII was still nearly $1,000 more expensive. I quite simply couldn't (and still can't) afford it. In time, I will jump to FF and have no doubt I'll revel in all that high ISO yumminess, but until then, I've gone with what I feel is the best alternative tool on offer. This isn't a blind response to marketing hype, but the reality of the products available in the Canon line and the features/performance they can offer me at certain price points. The 7d isn't a "perfect" camera - it has its foibles, just like any other model - but it was the best available to me at the time I wished to purchase at the price I could afford to pay. It's as simple as that.
I think the reason that 7d vs 5dII comes up so often is because the strengths (and prices) of these cameras have moved closer together than the XXd vs FF cameras used to be, and thus it IS a reasonable thing to consider between them based on FF vs crop, AF performance, ISO performance, and price. As many have said, each of these cameras has its place in the lineup - it's not even necessarily that one is "better" than the other, but that it can provide different strengths and features for the photographer, at different price points. As consumers, isn't that something to be glad about rather than fight over?
The 7D is way better than the 5DII... if you shoot sports:D
So, can we agree that when you're deciding which of these three to buy, you should not make your decision based on IQ (they're all very good) but on features (like ISO performance, fps, resolution, crop factor, etc.)?
Oh, and Diva--the 7D and 5DII are still $1000 apart: $1480 and $2500. Hmm, the 7D body only is backordered at Adorama, but the kits are available.
The 7D is way better than the 5DII... if you shoot sports:D
So, can we agree that when you're deciding which of these three to buy, you should not make your decision based on IQ (they're all very good) but on features (like ISO performance, fps, resolution, crop factor, etc.)?
Oh, and Diva--the 7D and 5DII are still $1000 apart: $1480 and $2500. Hmm, the 7D body only is backordered at Adorama, but all the kits are available.
MKII is $2000 refurbed from Canon... although the warranty is only 90 days. Still a 1 year 3rd party warranty would cost a lot less than $500.
Neil, I trust you will take this in the spirit of the debate you've triggered - nothing personal, here, but I've been trying to figure out why I keep coming back for more on this despite having sworn not to beat what threatens to be rapidly becoming a dead horse. But I find myself returning and wondering WHY this bothers me so much, so I guess I still have more to say!!
So why does this bother me? I'm not a techno-freak who buys for Latest & Greatest reasons, I don't pixel-peep any more than is necessary to ensure the photo is sharp and useable, I'm not a Canon fangirl (honestly, if I'd known what I know now when I got my first dSLR, I'd have ditched my Canon film lenses and jumped to Nikon, since those weren't up to digital resolution and I often prefer the "look" of Nikon portrait shots anyway). I just don't CARE if my camera gear "looks good" to clients/other photographers, is new/used, banged up/pristine - I all I want is tools I can pay for cash-in-hand (vs credit) that do the job I need and want them to do. That's it!
I've come to the conclusion that what is niggling at me is your implication (stated various times in different threads on the subject) that anybody who suggests the 7d is a great tool - which, let's be honest here, you haven't actually *used* yourself - is somehow only responding to the Borg mentality of "must have latest and greatest at any price", and that the camera doesn't provide any benefits over its predecessor models. I'll be honest - I find that a bit insulting! I'm old enough and, I'd like to think, intelligent enough - not to mention the daughter of a Hollywood publicist and therefore more consciously aware of marketing techniques than many!!! - to be able to tell the difference between the power of marketing suggestion and the reality of my own experience.
To put the shoe on the other foot: what if those who own 7d's and 5dII's suggested that you only praise your 40d to justify not being able to spend more on a newer model, and to make yourself feel like a staunch defender of the faith - wouldn't having that motivation attributed to you (regardless of whether it has any validity) make you feel just a tad defensive?!
Let's be clinically clear on a couple of points:
- for higher ISO's (eg 1600+), the 40d is quite good, the 7d is better, and the 5dII is best of all. I'm not debating that at all.
- yes, some of that improvement between models is in how well the files accept software adjustments/enhancements. The 40d needs quite a lot, the 7d needs some, and the 5dII produces the cleanest high ISO images SOOC (as it should, given that it's a bigger sensor and we are, to some extent, comparing tangerines to giant navel oranges!).
What I - and a few others - are saying from our own experience is that, compared to XXd files, the 7d (while not as good as the 5dII on this score - again, I'm not arguing that AT ALL) produces images which are more *useable* when shot at higher ISO's. They come out cleaner to start with, and respond easily to software manipulation, particularly when run through LR3. With my xsi and 50d at 1600 I needed to use a standalone noise reduction program and spend a fair bit of time cleaning things up; with the 7d, even if I go up to ISO 2000, a couple of quick tweaks of the LR sliders, and I'm good to go. I suspect with the 5dII I could happily use 3200 without needing even that (*which is known to be one of the 5dII's greatest strengths*. Nobody disputes that.)
So why don't I own a 5dII? Because at the time I jumped to the 7d, the 5dII was still nearly $1,000 more expensive. I quite simply couldn't (and still can't) afford it. In time, I will jump to FF and have no doubt I'll revel in all that high ISO yumminess, but until then, I've gone with what I feel is the best alternative tool on offer. This isn't a blind response to marketing hype, but the reality of the products available in the Canon line and the features/performance they can offer me at certain price points. The 7d isn't a "perfect" camera - it has its foibles, just like any other model - but it was the best available to me at the time I wished to purchase at the price I could afford to pay. It's as simple as that.
I think the reason that 7d vs 5dII comes up so often is because the strengths (and prices) of these cameras have moved closer together than the XXd vs FF cameras used to be, and thus it IS a reasonable thing to consider between them based on FF vs crop, AF performance, ISO performance, and price. As many have said, each of these cameras has its place in the lineup - it's not even necessarily that one is "better" than the other, but that it can provide different strengths and features for the photographer, at different price points. As consumers, isn't that something to be glad about rather than fight over?
Thanks dm, as always I learn a lot from your posts. What you have had to say about the 7D since you got it has been in the forefront of my mind when considering questions like here in this thread. I have said that if I were to buy a camera at this instant it would be a 7D. In the hypothetical case where I could choose between a brand new 40D and a 7D, I would choose the 7D without hesitation. The 40D is, as I've said, too much more work and requires significantly more skill, both in shooting and post processing. However, having had the 40D for a bit over 3yr, I am now beginning to know how to get out of it what I want, and I am beginning to have the level of expertise that it requires of me to get it. I am also just beginning not to have to put in so much work for good results. I don't really need a 7D now since I believe it would not make a significant difference to me. Had I not had these 3yr with the 40D (and I think you never had a 40D) during which I committed myself to trying to get the best results possible with it (I recognised immediately I began to use it the depth of its potential), if I were at the stage I was when I got the 40D, then putting the 7D in my hands would have gotten me comparable results in significantly less time, and with significantly less work, than it has taken me with the 40D. So to me the 7D looks like a 40D made easier and more efficient. That's progress, sure. On the other hand, I doubt that the 7D would have "educated" me to the same level as the 40D has done.
So, the 7D would be my choice at the moment, if I imagined wiping the 40D from my history. But whatever my personal position with respect to either of these cameras, in this thread I was responding to a comparison of performance and IQ that others had already asserted, partly on the naked specs alone, especially the claims about the extent of better performance and IQ that were being made, and to descriptions like "vastly" better. I think a case has been made that the differences (apart from the native differences) between the 3 cameras in question are vast or negligible depending on the skillset of the user, and the investment of more work by the user into the 40D.
Just like you, I can rise above petty prejudice and "sour grapes". I believe the potential of these 3 cameras is very similar, and that the most solid reason for choosing any one of them involves ease and efficiency, as well as purpose (for sport, for birding, for portrait, for landscape) - and not performance and IQ. I have cast no aspersions on the actual buying choices of individuals, I have only responded to the *words* in threads like this one.
I admire the tech in all of these cameras, my admiration for the 40D has not diminished with the appearance of the other two, and I can't wait to glimpse what is about to come over the horizon. Will I buy it? At the drop of a hat if, like the 40D has done, it can take *me* to a new level!
Other than the incredible AF system, %50 faster shooting speed, and %80 more pixels, the 7D is pretty much the same... and movies...
Lol
On the other hand, there is the skillful photographer and editor... Yes? Or do you really think all the things you mention are a guarantee of the great image?
Movies? A few seconds of video, do you mean? You call that movies??
On the other hand, there is the skillful photographer and editor... Yes? Or do you really think all the things you mention are a guarantee of the great image?
Movies? A few seconds of video, do you mean? You call that movies??
Neil
my experience is that you never know what you are missing until you have actually tried what you are missing.
I am not going to argue IQ. We all know that you can get stunning images from flagship camera or the most basic entry level body. The issue is what is left on the editing room floor? What is the keeper rate? I can assure you that the keeper rate is higher with camera bodies that are specced better when shooting in challeging sitauations. There is no way around it.
Neil, as a hobbyist, this is probaly transparent to you. You know your camera and what is it capable of and have your workarounds. You have the luxury of time and opportunity to create your best shots and cherry pick your results..this simply is not the case when you are shooting a wedding or a sports event. Keeper rate is paramount in these cases.
Guess I'm confused about all this banter over the 40D. My eyes read that the OP was interested in either the 7D or 5D2.
IMHO, with the copies of each that I currently own, my 5D2 spanks my 7D for quality images over ISO 800.
Yours may be different, if you own both, but that's an easy call on my copies.
Camera's are just tools, choose the best tool for your intended job(s). Both of these bodies are really good, each just has strengths in different areas is all.
Carry on...
I had a 40D...now two 7Ds and a 5D MK II.
Love 'em all.:D
40 had cleaner files...7 is fast and great for birding...5D2 awesome quality when used with awesome lens.
I could right a few more paragraphs on this.....but who would want to read it!?
my experience is that you never know what you are missing until you have actually tried what you are missing.
I am not going to argue IQ. We all know that you can get stunning images from flagship camera or the most basic entry level body. The issue is what is left on the editing room floor? What is the keeper rate? I can assure you that the keeper rate is higher with camera bodies that are specced better when shooting in challeging sitauations. There is no way around it.
Neil, as a hobbyist, this is probaly transparent to you. You know your camera and what is it capable of and have your workarounds. You have the luxury of time and opportunity to create your best shots and cherry pick your results..this simply is not the case when you are shooting a wedding or a sports event. Keeper rate is paramount in these cases.
Yeah, sure.
Things are easier, and I've always said that new tech leads new ideas, new styles, techniques, stuff we've never seen before, whether from amateurs or professionals. High level photography is in some ways now a less exclusive pursuit, much less of the prohibitive gear and the prohibitive darkroom wet developing kind of factors. Getting right up there at the cutting edge with digital is at least as prohibitive in its own right, but most shooters do quite well enough with less than the full metal jacket, partly because much more is automated. So with that headstart, the very many more talented people than I ever expected existed can produce beautiful images.
Photography now articulates more closely with the whole range of visual communication arts, as demonstrated for example by the range of integrated Adobe products. It's not just the likes of wedding photographers whose tool of trade is the camera. Obviously all these different kinds of professionals have a high stake in their gear. That gear has to meet the requirements of all the various digital communication technologies.
Which brings up the issue of software. I've said that some of the biggest differences between the cameras discussed in this thread are in the digital software built into them. And obviously high up among the factors that determine the success of any particular digital visual communication product is digital software. So it might be assumed that the most successful wedding photographers, for example, now are expert not only with the latest digital cameras but with the latest digital software. My point is that the emphasis which you and others place on the camera might be missing that factor.
You imply that you need to work in bulk. I assume then that you batch process in something like Lightroom. For that kind of pressured workflow to be as efficient as possible as much as possible in the workflow has to be automated. That's software more than hardware. That's electrons more than photons. Yet you don't reference software and that whole workflow in your comparisons nearly as much as is necessary.
The saying "garbage in, garbage out" is as true with new tech as with old. I think the keeper rate starts with the photographer rather than with the gear. The gear, which is hardware + software, through from camera to printer, makes it easier and more efficient to get the good stuff in and out. It doesn't create good stuff in and of itself. So, yes, a reasonably proficient wedding photographer, for example, can handle a higher volume of business with a lot less time and effort with new gear and new software than with old tech.
But Qarik, isn't this more about business than photography? Was the OP's question about which camera is better for, say, growing a wedding photography business? And as I've been saying, that wouldn't start and stop with just a camera!
because he is saying something relevant to this thread, and because his views on comparing camera bodies make sense to me, we are saying very similar things. I quote:
"After all, interesting subject matter with great composition and technique, great lighting, great lenses and careful processing, all still contribute more to image quality than any body."
The value for me in this thread has been the realisation that camera bodies can't be compared out of context. Camera bodies don't make sense in isolation. The importance of the camera body in photography, from the beginning of the process to the end, is fluid and relative.
I appreciate more how IQ is a place which can be reached by many different routes, and no item of hardware-software can be an IQ universe containing all those routes.
Talking specifically about the 7D, 5D2 and the older recent 40D, I now think that the differences between these bodies that matter (not that are asserted to make one body significantly better than another in terms of the quality, or an enhanced likelihood of quality, of the final product) are the differences that are obvious in *some* of the specs, eg sensor size, burst rate, AF point spread and controllability. Such differences speak to purpose, and to ease and efficiency. Workaday, practical and pragmatic.
To have teased out into clarity in my own mind what often seems nonsensically tangled in this kind of discussion has been worthwhile. I think, too, that our discussion here probably mirrors many development and marketing meetings held behind closed doors in Canon's headquarters.:D
I want to apologise to pathfinder, for attacking him earlier in this thread, on the basis of a few words extracted from his post. It was unwarranted of me. His post is in fact a lot more balanced than I represented, and indeed pretty much spot on, if I may say so. Sorry mate!
I see you've had lots of responses. Here's my two cents. Both are fine cameras. And there are other options that would work, too.
I think you would be happy with either, but you strike me as a 7D kind of guy, from the priorities and concerns you list in your first post.
I have a 5D2. I have a buddy who has a 7D. He takes great pictures with his camera. There is a little something extra in some of my shots which I prefer, that I've not seen in his (although I often take crap shots).
I have to say, though, if my primary purpose was shooting sports or moving targets, I'd take the 7D over the 5D2.
the other thing I don't see mentioned, but having a crop sensor when I shoot sports is preferred - I extends all my lenses which is what I need since you're usually a spectator and need the reach. So I definitely would go for the 7D as being a versitle camera. I love mine. I am planning on getting a 5D(original) but as a companion to my 7D. That way I have the full frame and the versatility combined at almost the price of a new 5DMII.
the other thing I don't see mentioned, but having a crop sensor when I shoot sports is preferred - I extends all my lenses which is what I need since you're usually a spectator and need the reach. So I definitely would go for the 7D as being a versitle camera. I love mine. I am planning on getting a 5D(original) but as a companion to my 7D. That way I have the full frame and the versatility combined at almost the price of a new 5DMII.
Uh-huh. For sports I would never want a 5D 1 or 2. I'd much rather have crop for sports than FF.
FF generally provides better IQ (though the 7D and 40D come very, very close) than crop. As (I think) Neil said, careful PP can bring crop-sensor images to virtually the same level as FF ones. I think FF has more DOF (another advantage of crop for sports).
Uh-huh. For sports I would never want a 5D 1 or 2. I'd much rather have crop for sports than FF.
FF generally provides better IQ (though the 7D and 40D come very, very close) than crop. As (I think) Neil said, careful PP can bring crop-sensor images to virtually the same level as FF ones. I think FF has more DOF (another advantage of crop for sports).
Have you ever used a 5D (1 or 2) for sports?
Four frames a second really isn't all that bad, and if you own long enough lenses, the crop factor doesn't matter either.
As for the focusing, which I'm sure will come up, most of the time someone shooting sports will have it on the
center focus point, so most of that great new focusing system on the 7D goes to waste.
Both cameras will do the job, if they're being held in the right set of hands.
Not disputing that at all. I would definitely use a 5D for sports if that's all I had. I hear the center point is kinda 1D-like. And no, 4fps isn't that bad, esp. if you don't shoot bursts. But, the 7D is the better all-around sports camera, plus it has the advantage of 1.6x crop. Yeah, it doesn't matter if you own long enough lenses, but shorter lenses aren't as expensive
okay, okay, I was wrong on the DOF thing. :hide I guess that's an advantage of FF for sports.
I use a 5DmII for sports all the time, and love it. Of course, I almost never use burst mode (aka spray and pray). And I find that the better reach one gets with a crop sensor is largely illusory, as one can do the crop PP and get almost the same result so long as the pixel density is similar. A 7D has higher pixel density, so there is *some* advantage, but not much. I just really like the image quality on my 5DmII. I can learn to deal with the rest...
It also depends on the sport. I've never shot baseball, but I can image that a high burst rate might be really handy to have. For the sports I shoot (soccer, basketball, whitewater, climbing) anticipation gives more keepers than spraying and praying.
I use a 5DmII for sports all the time, and love it. Of course, I almost never use burst mode (aka spray and pray). And I find that the better reach one gets with a crop sensor is largely illusory, as one can do the crop PP and get almost the same result so long as the pixel density is similar. A 7D has higher pixel density, so there is *some* advantage, but not much. I just really like the image quality on my 5DmII. I can learn to deal with the rest...
It also depends on the sport. I've never shot baseball, but I can image that a high burst rate might be really handy to have. For the sports I shoot (soccer, basketball, whitewater, climbing) anticipation gives more keepers than spraying and praying.
yep John, I agree it has to be technique and technology, in that order!
Comments
Neil,
Nothing personal here, but I think your spewing a bit of Internet babage here...
First, you are obviously getting your "facts" from the Internet. Unless of course you own (or have used extensively) 7D and 5DMkII bodies that you are comparing here, which I do not believe that you do.
Second, you obviously have something against marketing, and in particular here, camera companies marketing. Are you suggesting that the camera companies keep investing in R&D, then don't "market" their new products? Maybe just have available on their website the white-papers for potential customers to download and read through.
I think if that were the case, you probably wouldn't even own a 40D, you might still be using a film camera.
It's a simple enough concept: Camera companies need to make a profit. They do this by selling cameras (among other items). They sell cameras by marketing the new products to potential buyers. They take some of that profit and invest it into more R&D, to produce new camera models for them to market, and us to purchase. Round and round the wheel goes...
I'm not too shabby at software, but I'm telling you, from my copies of the 5DMkII and 7D, I cannot produce the same IQ of image above ISO 800 from my 7D as I can my 5DMkII. Simple as that...
Also, as you've alluded to, the 7D images take a lot more massaging in post work than do my 5DMkII images. I don't even think about noise reduction in post on my 5DMkII images until ISO 3200, if even then. Not so on the 7D, not by a long shot!!!
So, why don't you rent a 5DMkII for a week and shoot it side-by-side with your 40D, then, draw your own conclusions?
BTW, I have nothing at all against the 40D. I have shot one quite a bit and was pleased with it, but to maintain that it is on equal ground with the two cameras mentioned here is misleading. Not only with IQ, but with all the other newer features of the 5DMkII and the 7D.
As always, YMMV
Peace
I guess I'm grateful that I don't have to live everyone's experiences myself personally in order to talk about them. Case in point, you have passed on your experiences to me here through the internet and I am quite ready to take them at face value and pass them on to others, without feeling the need to verify them first hand. If you are in the market for a vehicle I think it likely that you don't hire or even test drive every potential vehicle, but think it makes sense to include and exclude vehicles to consider based on the experiences of others. Heck, life is just too short! It's in like manner that I pass on here what experiences I have, what I have learned others have, and some concepts, facts and figures that I think are relevant to the topic before us. That your experiences don't quite match up with those of some other people I have similarly read about is interesting, as much for you as for me, possibly.
But in any case, I basically don't disagree with anything you have said. I have talked about the differences between the cameras in question, both native and in the specs, saying the differences (at least between the 5D2 and 7D) are as significant as the differences between all of them and MF, for example. A newbie might need those differences explained, sure. I wonder though why experienced people would even want to ask that kind of question, just as you might wonder why anyone would be asking which to choose between a motorbike and a SUV. Unless, as I said, they were really asking about comparing IQ from each of them. To that question I replied that direct comparisons could not be made and gave the reasons.
My opinions range outside my direct personal experience, just as yours might do about motorbikes. I think you are likely to have an opinion and expound on it more eloquently than me about all of Honda Gold Wing vs ST 1300, BMW R 1200ST, Ducati ST3, Triumph Sprint ST and Yamaha FJR 1300, among others, without perhaps having laid skin on them. Tell me, which do you give more credence to: the advertising copy of the manufacturer, or the reviews in the enthusiast mags? Do you really mean to say I should go to Canon as the authority for my decision about buying a camera body? Tell me, do you change your bike with every new model released? What would make you change your bike? Two engines?
Ah Randy, if only the world, or even just the camera world, or motorbike world, were able to be put in our own nutshell of choice!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
For 99% of users, the best reasons to pick one camera over the other have everything to do with the camera's performance, ...or of course that low-light and shallow depth "advantage"...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
So why does this bother me? I'm not a techno-freak who buys for Latest & Greatest reasons, I don't pixel-peep any more than is necessary to ensure the photo is sharp and useable, I'm not a Canon fangirl (honestly, if I'd known what I know now when I got my first dSLR, I'd have ditched my Canon film lenses and jumped to Nikon, since those weren't up to digital resolution and I often prefer the "look" of Nikon portrait shots anyway). I just don't CARE if my camera gear "looks good" to clients/other photographers, is new/used, banged up/pristine - I all I want is tools I can pay for cash-in-hand (vs credit) that do the job I need and want them to do. That's it!
I've come to the conclusion that what is niggling at me is your implication (stated various times in different threads on the subject) that anybody who suggests the 7d is a great tool - which, let's be honest here, you haven't actually *used* yourself - is somehow only responding to the Borg mentality of "must have latest and greatest at any price", and that the camera doesn't provide any benefits over its predecessor models. I'll be honest - I find that a bit insulting! I'm old enough and, I'd like to think, intelligent enough - not to mention the daughter of a Hollywood publicist and therefore more consciously aware of marketing techniques than many!!! - to be able to tell the difference between the power of marketing suggestion and the reality of my own experience.
To put the shoe on the other foot: what if those who own 7d's and 5dII's suggested that you only praise your 40d to justify not being able to spend more on a newer model, and to make yourself feel like a staunch defender of the faith - wouldn't having that motivation attributed to you (regardless of whether it has any validity) make you feel just a tad defensive?!
Let's be clinically clear on a couple of points:
- for higher ISO's (eg 1600+), the 40d is quite good, the 7d is better, and the 5dII is best of all. I'm not debating that at all.
- yes, some of that improvement between models is in how well the files accept software adjustments/enhancements. The 40d needs quite a lot, the 7d needs some, and the 5dII produces the cleanest high ISO images SOOC (as it should, given that it's a bigger sensor and we are, to some extent, comparing tangerines to giant navel oranges!).
What I - and a few others - are saying from our own experience is that, compared to XXd files, the 7d (while not as good as the 5dII on this score - again, I'm not arguing that AT ALL) produces images which are more *useable* when shot at higher ISO's. They come out cleaner to start with, and respond easily to software manipulation, particularly when run through LR3. With my xsi and 50d at 1600 I needed to use a standalone noise reduction program and spend a fair bit of time cleaning things up; with the 7d, even if I go up to ISO 2000, a couple of quick tweaks of the LR sliders, and I'm good to go. I suspect with the 5dII I could happily use 3200 without needing even that (*which is known to be one of the 5dII's greatest strengths*. Nobody disputes that.)
So why don't I own a 5dII? Because at the time I jumped to the 7d, the 5dII was still nearly $1,000 more expensive. I quite simply couldn't (and still can't) afford it. In time, I will jump to FF and have no doubt I'll revel in all that high ISO yumminess, but until then, I've gone with what I feel is the best alternative tool on offer. This isn't a blind response to marketing hype, but the reality of the products available in the Canon line and the features/performance they can offer me at certain price points. The 7d isn't a "perfect" camera - it has its foibles, just like any other model - but it was the best available to me at the time I wished to purchase at the price I could afford to pay. It's as simple as that.
I think the reason that 7d vs 5dII comes up so often is because the strengths (and prices) of these cameras have moved closer together than the XXd vs FF cameras used to be, and thus it IS a reasonable thing to consider between them based on FF vs crop, AF performance, ISO performance, and price. As many have said, each of these cameras has its place in the lineup - it's not even necessarily that one is "better" than the other, but that it can provide different strengths and features for the photographer, at different price points. As consumers, isn't that something to be glad about rather than fight over?
So, can we agree that when you're deciding which of these three to buy, you should not make your decision based on IQ (they're all very good) but on features (like ISO performance, fps, resolution, crop factor, etc.)?
Oh, and Diva--the 7D and 5DII are still $1000 apart: $1480 and $2500. Hmm, the 7D body only is backordered at Adorama, but the kits are available.
MKII is $2000 refurbed from Canon... although the warranty is only 90 days. Still a 1 year 3rd party warranty would cost a lot less than $500.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_214217_-1
Thanks dm, as always I learn a lot from your posts. What you have had to say about the 7D since you got it has been in the forefront of my mind when considering questions like here in this thread. I have said that if I were to buy a camera at this instant it would be a 7D. In the hypothetical case where I could choose between a brand new 40D and a 7D, I would choose the 7D without hesitation. The 40D is, as I've said, too much more work and requires significantly more skill, both in shooting and post processing. However, having had the 40D for a bit over 3yr, I am now beginning to know how to get out of it what I want, and I am beginning to have the level of expertise that it requires of me to get it. I am also just beginning not to have to put in so much work for good results. I don't really need a 7D now since I believe it would not make a significant difference to me. Had I not had these 3yr with the 40D (and I think you never had a 40D) during which I committed myself to trying to get the best results possible with it (I recognised immediately I began to use it the depth of its potential), if I were at the stage I was when I got the 40D, then putting the 7D in my hands would have gotten me comparable results in significantly less time, and with significantly less work, than it has taken me with the 40D. So to me the 7D looks like a 40D made easier and more efficient. That's progress, sure. On the other hand, I doubt that the 7D would have "educated" me to the same level as the 40D has done.
So, the 7D would be my choice at the moment, if I imagined wiping the 40D from my history. But whatever my personal position with respect to either of these cameras, in this thread I was responding to a comparison of performance and IQ that others had already asserted, partly on the naked specs alone, especially the claims about the extent of better performance and IQ that were being made, and to descriptions like "vastly" better. I think a case has been made that the differences (apart from the native differences) between the 3 cameras in question are vast or negligible depending on the skillset of the user, and the investment of more work by the user into the 40D.
Just like you, I can rise above petty prejudice and "sour grapes". I believe the potential of these 3 cameras is very similar, and that the most solid reason for choosing any one of them involves ease and efficiency, as well as purpose (for sport, for birding, for portrait, for landscape) - and not performance and IQ. I have cast no aspersions on the actual buying choices of individuals, I have only responded to the *words* in threads like this one.
I admire the tech in all of these cameras, my admiration for the 40D has not diminished with the appearance of the other two, and I can't wait to glimpse what is about to come over the horizon. Will I buy it? At the drop of a hat if, like the 40D has done, it can take *me* to a new level!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
That comment will spark another two pages of comments, won't it?
I'm just waiting for somebody to throw the 60d into the mix and start a REAL bun-fight
Lol
On the other hand, there is the skillful photographer and editor... Yes? Or do you really think all the things you mention are a guarantee of the great image?
Movies? A few seconds of video, do you mean? You call that movies??
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
my experience is that you never know what you are missing until you have actually tried what you are missing.
I am not going to argue IQ. We all know that you can get stunning images from flagship camera or the most basic entry level body. The issue is what is left on the editing room floor? What is the keeper rate? I can assure you that the keeper rate is higher with camera bodies that are specced better when shooting in challeging sitauations. There is no way around it.
Neil, as a hobbyist, this is probaly transparent to you. You know your camera and what is it capable of and have your workarounds. You have the luxury of time and opportunity to create your best shots and cherry pick your results..this simply is not the case when you are shooting a wedding or a sports event. Keeper rate is paramount in these cases.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
I had a 40D...now two 7Ds and a 5D MK II.
Love 'em all.:D
40 had cleaner files...7 is fast and great for birding...5D2 awesome quality when used with awesome lens.
I could right a few more paragraphs on this.....but who would want to read it!?
Yeah, sure.
Things are easier, and I've always said that new tech leads new ideas, new styles, techniques, stuff we've never seen before, whether from amateurs or professionals. High level photography is in some ways now a less exclusive pursuit, much less of the prohibitive gear and the prohibitive darkroom wet developing kind of factors. Getting right up there at the cutting edge with digital is at least as prohibitive in its own right, but most shooters do quite well enough with less than the full metal jacket, partly because much more is automated. So with that headstart, the very many more talented people than I ever expected existed can produce beautiful images.
Photography now articulates more closely with the whole range of visual communication arts, as demonstrated for example by the range of integrated Adobe products. It's not just the likes of wedding photographers whose tool of trade is the camera. Obviously all these different kinds of professionals have a high stake in their gear. That gear has to meet the requirements of all the various digital communication technologies.
Which brings up the issue of software. I've said that some of the biggest differences between the cameras discussed in this thread are in the digital software built into them. And obviously high up among the factors that determine the success of any particular digital visual communication product is digital software. So it might be assumed that the most successful wedding photographers, for example, now are expert not only with the latest digital cameras but with the latest digital software. My point is that the emphasis which you and others place on the camera might be missing that factor.
You imply that you need to work in bulk. I assume then that you batch process in something like Lightroom. For that kind of pressured workflow to be as efficient as possible as much as possible in the workflow has to be automated. That's software more than hardware. That's electrons more than photons. Yet you don't reference software and that whole workflow in your comparisons nearly as much as is necessary.
The saying "garbage in, garbage out" is as true with new tech as with old. I think the keeper rate starts with the photographer rather than with the gear. The gear, which is hardware + software, through from camera to printer, makes it easier and more efficient to get the good stuff in and out. It doesn't create good stuff in and of itself. So, yes, a reasonably proficient wedding photographer, for example, can handle a higher volume of business with a lot less time and effort with new gear and new software than with old tech.
But Qarik, isn't this more about business than photography? Was the OP's question about which camera is better for, say, growing a wedding photography business? And as I've been saying, that wouldn't start and stop with just a camera!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Don't trash those paragraphs Ric, you can use them in the next 7D vs 5D2 thread! Yes, someone will surely want to read them!:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=193357
because he is saying something relevant to this thread, and because his views on comparing camera bodies make sense to me, we are saying very similar things. I quote:
"After all, interesting subject matter with great composition and technique, great lighting, great lenses and careful processing, all still contribute more to image quality than any body."
The value for me in this thread has been the realisation that camera bodies can't be compared out of context. Camera bodies don't make sense in isolation. The importance of the camera body in photography, from the beginning of the process to the end, is fluid and relative.
I appreciate more how IQ is a place which can be reached by many different routes, and no item of hardware-software can be an IQ universe containing all those routes.
Talking specifically about the 7D, 5D2 and the older recent 40D, I now think that the differences between these bodies that matter (not that are asserted to make one body significantly better than another in terms of the quality, or an enhanced likelihood of quality, of the final product) are the differences that are obvious in *some* of the specs, eg sensor size, burst rate, AF point spread and controllability. Such differences speak to purpose, and to ease and efficiency. Workaday, practical and pragmatic.
To have teased out into clarity in my own mind what often seems nonsensically tangled in this kind of discussion has been worthwhile. I think, too, that our discussion here probably mirrors many development and marketing meetings held behind closed doors in Canon's headquarters.:D
I want to apologise to pathfinder, for attacking him earlier in this thread, on the basis of a few words extracted from his post. It was unwarranted of me. His post is in fact a lot more balanced than I represented, and indeed pretty much spot on, if I may say so. Sorry mate!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thanks.[/QUOTE]
I see you've had lots of responses. Here's my two cents. Both are fine cameras. And there are other options that would work, too.
I think you would be happy with either, but you strike me as a 7D kind of guy, from the priorities and concerns you list in your first post.
I have a 5D2. I have a buddy who has a 7D. He takes great pictures with his camera. There is a little something extra in some of my shots which I prefer, that I've not seen in his (although I often take crap shots).
I have to say, though, if my primary purpose was shooting sports or moving targets, I'd take the 7D over the 5D2.
Prothero Sports Photography
http://pspphotos.net
Uh-huh. For sports I would never want a 5D 1 or 2. I'd much rather have crop for sports than FF.
FF generally provides better IQ (though the 7D and 40D come very, very close) than crop. As (I think) Neil said, careful PP can bring crop-sensor images to virtually the same level as FF ones. I think FF has more DOF (another advantage of crop for sports).
Have you ever used a 5D (1 or 2) for sports?
Four frames a second really isn't all that bad, and if you own long enough lenses, the crop factor doesn't matter either.
As for the focusing, which I'm sure will come up, most of the time someone shooting sports will have it on the
center focus point, so most of that great new focusing system on the 7D goes to waste.
Both cameras will do the job, if they're being held in the right set of hands.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
okay, okay, I was wrong on the DOF thing. :hide I guess that's an advantage of FF for sports.
Photos | Blog | Youtube
It also depends on the sport. I've never shot baseball, but I can image that a high burst rate might be really handy to have. For the sports I shoot (soccer, basketball, whitewater, climbing) anticipation gives more keepers than spraying and praying.
yep John, I agree it has to be technique and technology, in that order!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Just saw your post....You'd have to pry it out of "my cold dead hands"...
I'm really excited about it for this June...going on a trip to the outer banks...can't wait to try some beach/landscape shots!
My Smugmug Site