Contemplating the next camera - 7D/5D

eoren1

I'm currently shooting with the Canon 50D which has just passed 80,000 actuations. I use the Canon 10-22, 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/4 IS. I saw a great deal on the 7D a few hours ago that I seriously contemplated (and did so until it went out of stock :huh). That led me to question my next camera purchase.

I shoot landscape photography as well as portraits of the kids. They're still young so not really into fast-moving sports. Usually shoot at the beach/outdoors. Occasionally indoors but hate to shoot above ISO 800 on my current camera.

The 7D seems to have the big advantage of very low cost to upgrade. For a little over $1000, I step up to a better camera and can keep all of my lenses. I can also stay in my comfort zone knowing what the lenses offer me. I have found that the resolution of the 50D does lead to seeing the small but noticeable defects in lenses such as CA in extreme lighting conditions (made worse when shooting HDR brackets). I also wonder about noise as I have been shooting star shots at ISO 3200 and find them okay but not great as far as the extent of noise and ability to reduce it in post.

The 5D (and I will hopefully be able to wait for the mk III) is much more of the landscape lens and I imagine the full frame will shine in shots of the kids as well. Again, AF speed is not paramount right now with kids not in sports. Cost of entry is significantly higher. Will need to sell the EF-S lenses and then purchase the 24-70 and 16-35 or 17-40 I think. That's easily $5000.

So I'm wondering what thoughts you have about the 7D as a landscape photographer's camera. How would it compare to my 50D in terms of image/noise. Will I 'see' more CA and other small lens defects owing to the increased resolving power of those 18 megapixels on a cropped sensor?

I would much rather have this discussion now in a leisurely fashion than in a panic if the shutter goes.

ThatCanonGuy

Looking at your blog - really like your work, by the way - I do think a 5D Mark II (or III?) would be nice. You can stay with the 7D and your current lenses, and still have 75-90% of the IQ of a 5DII + 17-40. The 7D has the advantage of being sports-ready if/when your kids do start playing. FF really shines in landscapes, but the crop factor of the 7D/50D really shines in sports

The current 5DII has excellent ISO capability - I've used one at 3200 and, with some NR in LR or ACR, it's fine. I think the 5DIII will probably be much better with ISO.

If you want FF, one option would be to wait for the 5DIII. If you like what it offers, then get one; if not, pick up a 5DII for around $1200 (I'm guessing used value based on the original 5D). Then you'd have the 5DII for landscapes and you could keep your 50D for sports; or, if the 5DIII turns out to be a good sports camera, you could just get one of those and have it do landscapes and sports. The current 5DII actually has an excellent center point; it works fine for sports/action.

If you go FF, I'd get the 17-40 - pretty much the only differences between it and the 16-35 are the aperture and focal length. They're both great on FF, from what I've seen. Instead of a 24-70, you could save money by just getting an 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and stuff - you'd have 17-40 + 85 + 70-200. Maybe add a 50mm to fill the gap. That's $700 (17-40) + $400 (85mm), instead of 16-35 + 24-70. Buying used or refurb cuts down costs even more.

eoren1

After I typed the above, I looked up some 7D reviews. Was shocked to see it was released in 2009 - didn't realize it had been that long. In a perfect world, the 5DIII and 7DII will be out well before the 50D shutter starts giving me problems.

I know the 5D II/III would be the better camera. The question is - is it a $5000 better camera???

As for lens choices, I started off with a 30/1.4, 50/1.8, 70-200 setup on the XT and later 50D. Have to say I really like my three zooms right now and would likely go with a 3 zoom setup if I do move to the 5D. I may add that 85/1.8 at some point though.

Appreciate the kind words regarding the blog. Doing more formal landscape work (and thereby finding the limits of my current gear - damn Marc Muench and his star shots :bash) is what prompted this question in the first place.

pmaxwell

even though the 7D is a little old for a body, it is a great and fun body. I shoot a lot of kids sports and the 7D is great for that, I got mine this summer. I love it. I have b ten buying most of my glass with the thought of a future full frame body in mind. My wife wants me to pick up an extra body so she can shoot with me more. I'm waiting to see what the new 5D will be before I do it.

I was encouraged to see this pop up today.
Canon Rumors

eoren1

Saw that. Between that post and today's deal (7D body only $1100 from authorized retailer - dead now), I have been really thinking about the possibilities.

Moving Pictures

eoren1 wrote: »

Saw that. Between that post and today's deal (7D body only $1100 from authorized retailer - dead now), I have been really thinking about the possibilities.

Be real careful with those low prices. I traced most of 'em back to some nasty reports of scam, bait-and-switch, grey-market hijinks, etc.

eoren1

I know. This was actually legit...

denisegoldberg

For what it's worth, I've had a 7D since the summer of 2010. I purchased it via the Canon customer loyalty program when my 40D decided to break for the 2nd time. I've been very happy with the camera; I was pleasantly surprised when it felt like a big step up from the 40D.

--- Denise

angevin1

eoren1 wrote: »

I know the 5D II/III would be the better camera. The question is - is it a $5000 better camera???

Well, #1. Canon Seem to think so, and a lot of shooters do too.

#2. I think Field of View is a biggie. My first impression when I went FX was: Ah, home at last. Of course that's because I had no idea when I first bought into digital what a crop sensor was. And being from 35mm land I was used to a FX view. For me crop sensors were akin to having a part of the world shut off to me.

#3. I think part of your question should be, what level do I want my Landscapes to attain?

#4. Lastly, of course you could buy the 5DMk2, get a landscape lens (prime), and still retain your 50D until you supplant the Lenses you would ordinarily use for your kids. There are a BUNCH of choices when it comes to lens/landscape work: Adapters to use older Nikon/Contax/Leica lenses (I do!), Voigtlander MF lenses (I have those too!) and of course Canon Primes.

eoren1

Thanks Tom and Denise.

I've done some research and realized I would lose maybe $300 on the sale of both EF-S lenses. That would help with $1500 to offset the cost of a new system. The more I read, the more I believe the 5D is the better choice in the long run.

Rumors now point to a Photokina (Sept 2012) release for both the 5D and 7D replacements. I'll just have to be gentle with the 50D til then

kdog

As far as shooting landscapes, I don't see a FF as being much if any advantage. An EF-S 10-22 on a crop body is the same as a EF 16-35 on a FF. The only place the FF is theoretically superior is for less noise on long exposure night shots or at higher ISOs. On the other hand, I've shot extensively with the 7D at super high ISOs and am extremely impressed. Click here to see an example of the 7D at ISO6400 with no extra noise reduction outside of the default ACR settings. http://www.desertilluminations.com/Sports/CSC-Gymnastics/Level4-StateMeet-Lemoore/20380271_LbXwMG#1612537916_5v8vT57-X3-LB

You might want to check with Aaron Newman (anwmn1) who shoots landscapes with a 7D.

To me the biggest advantage of the FF body is for better control of depth of field for portrait work. Particularly when shooting portraits at short focal lengths (wide FOVs) the FF will allow you to blur the background to a much greater degree than is possible with the crop body. At longer focal lengths, subject isolation is no problem with either body. It sounds like for the things you like to shoot that you don't need to be in a huge hurry to switch crop factors.

Even if you do decide to pick up a FF some day, you will probably keep a crop body around for sports and wildlife. I bought my 7D after my 5DMKII for those purposes. I think you would find the 7D to be an excellent upgrade to your 50D.

eoren1

Thanks Joel. One of my concerns with the 7D is that it will easily outresolve my lenses. I love my 10-22 and 17-55 but do find that I get some fringing at high contrast areas. From reading about this it seems that the 7D would only accentuate this. Granted, downsizing to the equivalent megapixels as the 5D essentially removes this.

Like I said, I'm hoping to have the luxury of deciding in September when both cameras are updated. At that point I may know more about the sports inclinations of my kids and whether the speed/reach of the 7D series provides advantages from that aspect.

I didn't realize Aaron does all of his landscape work with the 7D - good to know.

kdog

eoren1 wrote: »

I didn't realize Aaron does all of his landscape work with the 7D - good to know.

Actually he switched from Olympus to the Canon 7D about a year ago.

Matthew Saville

kdog wrote: »

As far as shooting landscapes, I don't see a FF as being much if any advantage. An EF-S 10-22 on a crop body is the same as a EF 16-35 on a FF. The only place the FF is theoretically superior is for less noise on long exposure night shots or at higher ISOs. On the other hand, I've shot extensively with the 7D at super high ISOs and am extremely impressed....

If only! Many / most copies of the 16-35 can only DREAM of being as sharp in the extreme corners of a full-frame camera as the 10-22 on a 7D! I mean the 16-35 mk1 is a total joke, and the mk2 can be sharp if you get a good copy, but many of the copies I've worked with are screwy with stop-down focus shift or just plain crap corners.

As a landscape photographer, I'd take a 10-22 on a 7D ANY DAY over a 5D mk2 and the average 16-35 or 17-40.

Having said that, your other comment is indeed right- There's a great advantage for any landscape photographer who also enjoys shooting stars at night....they just don't make a crop-sensor version of the 24 1.4 L! Although again personally, I've seen great work done with the 7D and a Tokina 11-16 2.8; that's a wicked combo for adventure / night photography. Certainly a top choice for Urban-X types!

All in all, I'd say that although FF has a few clear (some slight) advantages in both image quality and lens versatility, it's just not *that* critical when it comes down to it. Unless you're the next Marc Muench or Tom Lowe, rest assured a 7D can give you everything you "need"...

eoren1 wrote: »

Thanks Joel. One of my concerns with the 7D is that it will easily outresolve my lenses. I love my 10-22 and 17-55 but do find that I get some fringing at high contrast areas. From reading about this it seems that the 7D would only accentuate this

The 10-22 should be pretty close to flawless when stopped down, have you compared your issues to some of the reviews that showcase the lens' best performance? Also, are you using the Adobe or other profiles for removing fringing and stuff like that? I haven't seen specific before and after samples for that specific lens, but from all the other lenses I've used with Adobe's profiles, the results are great and as long as I can stop down enough to sharpen up extreme corners, the software does a dang good job of cleaning up other image qualities.

...Or, it may just be time to "upgrade" to something like the Tokina 11-16 2.8. ;-)

Good luck!
=Matt=

eoren1

Matt-
Thanks for the comments.

Yes, LR does take care of 95+% of the issues. Only time I see it now is when I:
1. Forget to click the correct button and edit in Photoshop
2. Extreme conditions - shooting HDR into the sun - and see some effects at the very highest areas of contrast

I'm not going to be shooting stars on any more than an occasional basis (judging from the lack of comments on a recent Landscape forum thread devoted to star shots, I'm guessing I have a LOT to figure out on that end).

I told myself that I would not buy another camera until dynamic range of the sensors was improved and/or Canon finally allowed more than 3 bracket exposures. Keeping my fingers crossed that either the next 5D or 7D addresses those issues. Seeing as how the 1Dx's sensor was a move in that direction, I do have some hope that the sensor tech will move down to the other single digit bodies.

Matthew Saville

eoren1 wrote: »

Matt-
Thanks for the comments.

Yes, LR does take care of 95+% of the issues. Only time I see it now is when I:
1. Forget to click the correct button and edit in Photoshop
2. Extreme conditions - shooting HDR into the sun - and see some effects at the very highest areas of contrast

I'm not going to be shooting stars on any more than an occasional basis (judging from the lack of comments on a recent Landscape forum thread devoted to star shots, I'm guessing I have a LOT to figure out on that end).

I told myself that I would not buy another camera until dynamic range of the sensors was improved and/or Canon finally allowed more than 3 bracket exposures. Keeping my fingers crossed that either the next 5D or 7D addresses those issues. Seeing as how the 1Dx's sensor was a move in that direction, I do have some hope that the sensor tech will move down to the other single digit bodies.

If you know that full-frame will eventually be in your future, but you're still not 100% into the current options, then yes waiting for a 5D mk3, or some sort of "5DX" type body, is the best idea in my opinion. I'd love to see Canon offer better bracketing in their affordable bodies, and better DR / ISO is always welcome. I'd say if you already have a 7D or a rebel that has the 7D sensor, rock it out!

BTW, if the 10-22 continues to bother you, (doesn't sound like it's that big of an issue though?) ...do keep in mind that the Tokina 11-16 2.8 works GREAT on full-frame at 16mm, giving you the option of 16mm f/2.8, with 77mm filter threads even, which is a great option compared to any L lens on full-frame. ;-)

=Matt=

eoren1

Still have the 50D and am happy to sit on the sidelines waiting to see what sensors get placed in each body as upgrade time approaches. Just thought it was worth exploring the issue when i saw my shutter count creep up to the 80,000 range and didn't want to have to post here in a panic asking what to do.

You do love that Tokina... I've seen a lot of others praising that lens but don't really see the need to get the 2.8.

Matthew Saville

eoren1 wrote: »

Still have the 50D and am happy to sit on the sidelines waiting to see what sensors get placed in each body as upgrade time approaches. Just thought it was worth exploring the issue when i saw my shutter count creep up to the 80,000 range and didn't want to have to post here in a panic asking what to do.

You do love that Tokina... I've seen a lot of others praising that lens but don't really see the need to get the 2.8.

Yeah if you don't shoot photojournalism or stars, don't bother with f/2.8.

And yeah, I think 2012 is going to be a really up-in-the-air year for both Canon and Nikon. They're both in a position to release some interesting cameras, and the million-dollar question as we all know is, will the affordable models be low-res and built for speed, or high-res for studio / landscapes.

The next Nikon flagship might come out on Jan 6th, the Canon 1Dx will ship in a couple / few months, and I'm betting a 5D mk3 & D800 will come out some time in the next few months as well...

Good luck either way!
=Matt=

divamum

I think many Canon owners are in a quandary at the moment. I love my 7d but, really, I could use the 5dII's high ISO capability and probably "should" shoot full frame with the portrait stuff I do. Current prices on the 5dII have been seriously tempting... but I definitely don't want to give up the 7d's amazing focus and customizability. I suspect the 5dIII is going to be ridiculously expensive, and I can't say I'm interested in even MORE pixels (since that will require a computer upgrade as well). What's a Canonite to do?!

So far, I'm just sticking with my trusty 7d, but it has definitely prompted much thinking...

kdog

divamum wrote: »

I think many Canon owners are in a quandary at the moment. I love my 7d but, really, I could use the 5dII's high ISO capability

Are you not happy with the 7D's high ISO performance? I've used my 7D for gymnastics and events at ISO 6400 and have been amazed at how well it does. (see the link I previously posted for some of my samples)

pmaxwell

Kdog,
I would love to see a side by side comparison at higher ISO's on the 7D vs the 5DII. I have the 7D too, and for me that is too much noise in the sample picture, though with indoor lighting sometimes you have to revert to high ISO to get the capture (and a very nice capture it is).

Personally I can't wait for my daughters to move to outdoor sports this spring, as the lighting in our field house is awful.

divamum

It does do really well - definitely the best of the Canon crop cameras - but there's always room for more! I find with the 7d iso 1250 or, if it's really dark, 2000, are where it's happiest and where LR3 cleans it up the best. Highest I ever shot was 3200 and it was definitely noisy and I wouldn't use it for clients unless it was some kind of a intentionally grainy mood shot; maybe it would have been better if even at that ISO it hadn't been underexposed, which of course made it even noisier.

I'm not doing as much theater shooting right now so it's not as big a deal as it was a year ago, but even so - there are benefits to full-frame which I suspect I'd like, eg control of shallow dof. 'Course, then all my lenses will feel a bit short.... So, I stick where I am for now. But it will definitely be interesting to see where Canon goes next - I HOPE there will be a relatively affordable ff option in the future, as it seems likely I'd be part of its target market

Matthew Saville

kdog wrote: »

Are you not happy with the 7D's high ISO performance? I've used my 7D for gymnastics and events at ISO 6400 and have been amazed at how well it does. (see the link I previously posted for some of my samples)

I do post-production for a living now, so I've worked on THOUSANDS of low-light images from all manner of cameras, and I can definitely say that while the 7D does perform quite acceptably at 3200 and even 6400, the 5D mk2 still is a much more reliable option for professionals in that low light. On the 7D, and any other crop-sensor, any amount of under-exposure can make an image nearly useless while the 5D mk2 images just keep going. When I have to shoot a $5,000+ wedding gig in near-darkness, I turn to the full-frame options. Having said that, I've done paid work for years on crop sensors, even ones far worse than the 7D. And the clients never complained. And even nowadays for random personal stuff, I'd much prefer a lighter, smaller camera setup such as a 7D with a 35 f/2, compared to the ridiculous overkill that would be a 5D mk2 and 50 f/1.2 for personal use. Just my personal preference, of course!

=Matt=