Canon 7D vs 5D Markii

tshaddick

Hey all,

I am thinking about picking up a second camera body, and I am looking for your opinion on whether I should get a 7D or 5D Markii. Obviously there is a big price difference between the two, so I am wondering whether the extra price is worth it.

I mainly take wildlife and motorcycle racing photography. So I like the cropped sensor of the 7D (which I currently own) so that I get the extra zoom for the far away shots.

I am just wondering other than the obvious difference of the 5D being full frame, whether I will see any difference in the image quality. To me it seems like they both have the same processor, but I am not really good with all the technical details.

So I would appreciate the feedback of anyone that has tried both out.

Thanks

insanefred

tshaddick wrote: »

Hey all,

I am thinking about picking up a second camera body, and I am looking for your opinion on whether I should get a 7D or 5D Markii. Obviously there is a big price difference between the two, so I am wondering whether the extra price is worth it.

I mainly take wildlife and motorcycle racing photography. So I like the cropped sensor of the 7D (which I currently own) so that I get the extra zoom for the far away shots.

I am just wondering other than the obvious difference of the 5D being full frame, whether I will see any difference in the image quality. To me it seems like they both have the same processor, but I am not really good with all the technical details.

So I would appreciate the feedback of anyone that has tried both out.

Thanks

If you're not sure which body right now, stick with the 7D. Or try to rent a 5d2 and decide for yourself.
The extra zoom is a myth, you DO NOT GET ANY MORE ZOOM. Instead you just lose FOV vs full frame.
In IQ, there is an obvious difference IMO. The whole "it features processor X or dual X" is just marketing, I wouldn't pay any attention to that.

ThatCanonGuy

7D definitely. The sensor multiplies your FL by 1.6x; FF just gives you a wider FOV. The 7D is much better for wildlife and racing, wildlife because of the crop sensor and racing because of the better AF. The image quality is very close. Yes, the 5D2 will be better, but the 7D is still very good and is better suited to your tasks.

insanefred

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

7D definitely. The sensor multiplies your FL by 1.6x; FF just gives you a wider FOV. The 7D is much better for wildlife and racing, wildlife because of the crop sensor and racing because of the better AF. The image quality is very close. Yes, the 5D2 will be better, but the 7D is still very good and is better suited to your tasks.

It doesn't multiply you FL, unless there is some magical tele-converter that attaches itself.

insanefred

richy wrote: »

Sorry. It produces an extended Effective focal length compared to full frame i.e. it gives a narrower field of view for the same focal length which gives the same field of view as an extended focal length on a larger sensor.

/Pedantry

Now back to the point.

The 5d2 and the 7d compliment each other wonderfully. The 7d is probably the better buy unless you need the thinner dof or more light catching ability (higher iso) or want to shoot ultrawide (and there are pretty good efs ultrawides these days which slightly negates this).

100mm is 100mm /end of story
I would seriously try renting the 5D2 before even considering it for the work you do.

kdog

insanefred wrote: »

100mm is 100mm /end of story

Yes, the lens is 100mm. However, on a 1.6 crop body, the effective focal length is multiplied by 1.6, "end of story".

For wildlife and sports, the 7D wins hands-down. You get the focal length multiplier, and a faster and more advanced AF system. Plus the burst rate of the 7D is something like 3 times faster. I do own both bodies and use the 5DMKII for portraits and landscape because it produces cleaner images, especially in low light conditions. The shallower DOF is useful for portraits as well, as Richy said. I've always been happy with the super-wide performance of the EF-S 10-22 on the crop-body Canons, so that's not a factor for me.

insanefred

kdog wrote: »

Yes, the lens is 100mm. However, on a 1.6 crop body, the effective focal length is multiplied by 1.6, "end of story".

For wildlife and sports, the 7D wins hands-down. You get the focal length multiplier, and a faster and more advanced AF system. Plus the burst rate of the 7D is something like 3 times faster. I do own both bodies and use the 5DMKII for portraits and landscape because it produces cleaner images, especially in low light conditions.

Getting more focal length but having same Dof, would be a contradiction to physics. 100mm is a 100mm on 4/3s, aps-c, aps-H, or full frame. The ONLY thing that changes is your FOV. Not your focal length, that remains absolute.

tshaddick

Thank you all for your opinions. I myself thought about getting another 7D, so it's nice that there are others in agreement. Now the question is whether there is going to be an updated body tht willl be coming soon to replace that I should wait for..hahaha.

kdog

insanefred wrote: »

Getting more focal length but having same Dof, would be a contradiction to physics.

No argument from me.

100mm is a 100mm on 4/3s, aps-c, aps-H, or full frame. The ONLY thing that changes is your FOV. Not your focal length, that remains absolute.

Narrowing your field of view is the same thing as increasing magnification assuming your sensor pixel count stays the same. Regardless of semantics, the same lens placed on a 7D gives you more reach than when it's on a 5DMKII. That's an absolute and undeniable fact.

ThatCanonGuy

7D Mark II is a long way away... 2012 at the earliest... the 1Ds4 and 5D3 should both come before the 7D2. Besides, the 7D is still a very capable and very modern camera.

insanefred

kdog wrote: »

No argument from me.

Narrowing your field of view is the same thing as increasing magnification

*FACEPALM
Close one eye, what do you see? Now, do the same with but take a toilet paper tube and look through it with one eye. Did everything suddenly get bigger (magnified) ?
I digress.

insanefred

richy wrote: »

Hence the word 'effective' Please make the effort to read and comprehend what I wrote before dismissing it. Two things change, the Field of View (which decreases which is where the Effective Focal Length comes into it) AND the depth of field increases.

The word effective is irrelevant, when the physics are absolute. When framing subject the same on a Canons APS-C, and full frame, you'll zoom back out roughly 60% with Canons APS-C. The camera isn't doing any magical tele-converter tricks with Canons APS-C or the lens.

insanefred

richy wrote: »

It would if you then expanded what you saw through the tube to cover the same area as the original field of view.

lets say the text on your screen, 2' away. Both with and with out the tube.

insanefred

richy wrote: »

Nobody said it was. Being effective is only irrelevant if you are in management.

If I put a 100mm lens on a crop camera and print an 8x10 of the resultant image, then put the same lens on a full frame camera and take the same picture and print it the same size are you saying the pictures will look the same or one will have a narrower field of view (the same effect as increasing the focal length) or are you suggesting increasing or decreasing the focal length doesn't change the field of view?

Very few people discuss the field of view of their lenses, they tend to discuss the focal length. Hence when crop cameras came along people adopted EFL as a way of describing the cropped field of view effect on cropped sensor cameras in relation to full frame film cameras. When was the last time you talking about your 79-24 degree lens? Thought so.

Canons APS-C vs full frame everything else being equal. You will get less FOV (less scene captured hence less scene printed) with an APS-C. This shouldn't be confused or be interpreted to be higher magnification.
Now, if I did want to have the same framing, FoV, I would need to take several steps back or use a wider angle lens. Despite this can change the perspective considerably.
Instead of saying effective focal length, try to say effective field of view.

richy wrote: »

Very few people discuss the field of view of their lenses, they tend to discuss the focal length. Hence when crop cameras came along people adopted EFL as a way of describing the cropped field of view effect on cropped sensor cameras in relation to full frame film cameras. When was the last time you talking about your 79-24 degree lens? Thought so.

I don't know where this started honestly, but it needs to stop. I guess sales people needed to dumb things down for football (soccer) moms.
Yes, I think it should be called football NOT soccer. And what we call football, handball or something else.

puzzledpaul

I tend to think in terms of 'pixels on subject' which takes both Mp and crop factor into account.

So, here, for every 100pixels across a subject on a 5dm2 frame, there's 148 on a 7D frame... or more than double the pixels (219%) by area.

pp

kdog

puzzledpaul wrote: »

I tend to think in terms of 'pixels on subject' which takes both Mp and crop factor into account.

So, here, for every 100pixels across a subject on a 5dm2 frame, there's 148 on a 7D frame... or more than double the pixels (219%) by area.

pp

Bingo. This is exactly the way I look at it as well.

insanefred

richy wrote: »

This is hilarious, thanks! Wubzy was driving me nuts, nice to have some entertainment. Assuming both sensors have the same pixel count (with the crop having the corresponding higher pixel density) and you make the same size print (remember magnification is a factor in printing) are you still saying the magnification does not increase? (remember by saying this you are countering the very argument made by the anti crop crowd that a crop sensor forces a higher magnification).

So any photographer who thinks in terms of 35mm focal lengths when shooting different formats is a soccer mom? I love that!

Canons APS-C vs full frame everything else being equal. You will get less FOV (less scene captured hence less scene printed) with an APS-C. This shouldn't be confused or be interpreted to be higher magnification.
Now, if I did want to have the same framing, FoV, I would need to take several steps back or use a wider angle lens. Despite this can change the perspective considerably.
Instead of saying effective focal length, try to say effective field of view.

I used the term soccer moms, I couldn't thing of something better.

insanefred

If you change focal length you change FoV, AND perspective. Why do you think you shouldn't take a head and shoulders shot with a 50mm versus an 85mm?
Photo printing is after the fact, if everything is equal, that argument would be like me saying that I can just switch my camera to "DX mode" for more magnification. Or crop latter? It isn't the same.

insanefred

A longer focal length with compress the backround more, hence changing perspective.
Canon isn't always right, they use what they think will make things sell easier with out bluntly lying. They are a business after all.

insanefred

richy wrote: »

So Nikon and Canon are wrong?

A longer focal length will change the perspective dependent on the distance between the sensor, subject and background remaining constant. To maintain framing when changing sensors you would also change these.

I didn't say they where wrong, I said they'll use what works if makes a sale.
But your perspective still changes. I can set an APS-C with the 35mm 1.8 lens and a full frame with a 50mm 1.8. Both cameras and subject at the same distance, the 35mm is going to distort more and have more back round.

insanefred

richy wrote: »

ok try it. I just tried with a 7d and 5d2. Put a chair in front of two computer monitors, shoot one with a crop & 50mm and one with a FF and 80MM (24-105@~80mm), keeping the chair the same size in the frame resulted in the same amount of monitor in each image. It's a very easy test for anybody who wants to make their own conclusion. Object in foreground and objects in background that are easy to judge size by (a bottle of wine on a table in front of a window works just as well, keep the wine bottle the same size in both shots and see if the apparent size of the window changes).

By all means, if you can prove otherwise I am interested. Always interesting to find out if you are wrong but it does need to be proven. Apologies but I have to dash Shooting time.

Photos taken on a tripod, slight vertical movement due to differ camera hight, horizontal remains the same.
Nikon D5100 with 35mm 1.8

Nikon D5100 with 50mm 1.8

Nikon D700 with 50mm 1.8 cropped to APC-C size.

Nikon D700 with 50mm 1.8


Notice the Nikon D5100 with 35mm 1.8 has a wider back round than the Nikon D700 with 50mm 1.8? This is the change in perspective.
Notice the Nikon D700 with 50mm 1.8 and Nikon D5100 with 50mm 1.8 have the same DOF but different FOV?

Airedrifter

Back to your question.

If you already have a 7D, get the 5DII. If you didn't have either, get the 7D. You are going to shoot more than the 2 interests you list and the value of the full frame for landscapes and portraits will serve you well. The 5DII will be an outstanding image producer in its own right. Besides, you'll probably only have one primary lens for your shoot anyway. It will go on the 7D for your two interests and something complimentary that will take advantage of the full frame will go on the 5DII. IMHO

DeVerm

Airedrifter wrote: »

Back to your question.

If you already have a 7D, get the 5DII. If you didn't have either, get the 7D. You are going to shoot more than the 2 interests you list and the value of the full frame for landscapes and portraits will serve you well. The 5DII will be an outstanding image producer in its own right. Besides, you'll probably only have one primary lens for your shoot anyway. It will go on the 7D for your two interests and something complimentary that will take advantage of the full frame will go on the 5DII. IMHO

+1
The 5D2 is a great addition to your current 7D. They use same batteries/charger and this doubles your lenses (not getting into this fight but a 17-40L will be standard zoom on your 7D while it is very wide angle on the 5D2). I love the combo !

insanefred

But if you have any Canon EF-S lenses, they won't fit on the 5D2

ThatCanonGuy

I don't think EF-S should influence the decision. The only 3 EF-S lenses that are worth owning if you have the budget for a 7D or 5D2 are: 17-55, 10-22, and 60 macro. The 17-55 can be sold for a 24-70 for little loss. The 10-22 can be replaced with the 17-40 or 16-35 if you have the budget (10mm = 16mm APS-C). The 60 macro can be replaced by a number of options, my recommendations being the 100/2.8 macro or either of the 2 L macros (100 or 180).

If you have the budget to consider a 5D2 then you should be able to sell your EF-S lenses and get a few Ls with minumum loss (if you decide to go for the 5D2)

Overfocused

I've had a pretty flaky experience with my 7D's AF system. It doesn't seem to be as good at razor-sharp focus accuracy because it tries to focus too fast. It also misses the mark more than the MKII, even on spot focus. I still have to see if adjusting the AF speed makes a difference but my MKII with the same lenses has a much better AF experience than the 7D I currently have since I never worry about the MKII's accuracy.

Brett1000

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I don't think EF-S should influence the decision. The only 3 EF-S lenses that are worth owning if you have the budget for a 7D or 5D2 are: 17-55, 10-22, and 60 macro.

actually there are a few more EF-S type lens worth owning - the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Sigma 17-50 2.8 to name two !:D

ThatCanonGuy

Brett1000 wrote: »

actually there are a few more EF-S type lens worth owning - the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Sigma 17-50 2.8 to name two !:D

OK, yes... but they work on FF, albeit with vignetting It might be enough to get some people to go for the 7D, but for me if I had a 5D2 I'd get some better glass for it

Matthew Saville

Overfocused wrote: »

I've had a pretty flaky experience with my 7D's AF system. It doesn't seem to be as good at razor-sharp focus accuracy because it tries to focus too fast. It also misses the mark more than the MKII, even on spot focus. I still have to see if adjusting the AF speed makes a difference but my MKII with the same lenses has a much better AF experience than the 7D I currently have since I never worry about the MKII's accuracy.

I believe it was either Rob Galbraith or some other semi-well-known sports shooter who tested the 7D AF system to be as good as, or even better in some cases, than the 1-series flagship AF. So I would say, put some more effort into mastering the 7D's AF system, and you'll be rewarded. Or send the camera in for a checkup... ;-)

=Matt=

tshaddick

What if I want to use the second camera body for Macro photography. Would a 5D ii be better for Macro than the 7D?

Overfocused

tshaddick wrote: »

What if I want to use the second camera body for Macro photography. Would a 5D ii be better for Macro than the 7D?

OHHH MY GOODNESS YES. One reason being diffraction starts at F/6.3 on the 7D cause of the pixel density. The MKII can go to F10 without any diffraction. As a macro freak with both cameras I will attest that it is quite noticeable with micro detail when you want to shoot at F10 and beyond! While it wont be noticed in web sized previews, it makes a difference when you want to print big - the MKII allows you to press your face on the glass while remaining razor sharp on poster sized prints ... not that I have a habit of pressing my face on glass... I get close though

The MKII gives better sharpness, higher resolution, and less noise, which multiplies the contribution to overall IQ in macro - especially if you find yourself without a flash or sunlight or want to use smaller apertures.