canon 5DmkII or canon 7d?

dantambok · May 5, 2010

I was thinking of buying the Canon 7D but i am also thinking about the Canon 5D mark II...
And I'm getting this as a birthday gift from my mom so my budget is about 2000$ but i still think i can convince her for a 5D..
If in any way i can, is the 5D really better?:scratch

pyry · May 5, 2010

dantambok wrote: »

I was thinking of buying the Canon 7D but i am also thinking about the Canon 5D mark II...
And I'm getting this as a birthday gift from my mom so my budget is about 2000$ but i still think i can convince her for a 5D..
If in any way i can, is the 5D really better?

They are both excellent cameras - just intended for different situations and shooting styles. The 7D is better for fast action, the 5D2 for landscapes, portraits and so on where the larger format and resolution are more important than speed and better focus tracking.

The diffences aren't so great that one couldn't be used in place of the other, but the performance sweet spots do lean two ways.

dantambok · May 5, 2010

I'm leaning in the favor of the 7D.. but talking IQ wise... which one is better? and really by how much?

mercphoto · May 5, 2010

dantambok wrote: »

I'm leaning in the favor of the 7D.. but talking IQ wise... which one is better? and really by how much?

It really, really depends upon your intended use. What do you intend to use the camera for? While I firmly believe the 5D would have a better IQ than a 7D I would never buy a 5D and I lust after the 7D. Why? Because of my use of the camera is far better suited to the 7D than the 5D.

What are you taking pictures of?

dantambok · May 5, 2010

Since I'm only 15 years old and still don't have kids.. I'll be taking pictures of the kid of my older brother...

And maybe pictures os some basketball games, some vacations, portraits and some trips to the beach with friends..

Village Idiot · May 5, 2010

pyry wrote: »

They are both excellent cameras - just intended for different situations and shooting styles. The 7D is better for fast action, the 5D2 for landscapes, portraits and so on where the larger format and resolution are more important than speed and better focus tracking.

The diffences aren't so great that one couldn't be used in place of the other, but the performance sweet spots do lean two ways.

It's opinion really. Other than the "better" AF and maybe the crop on the sensor for reach, depending on what I was shooting, I see no benefit for me of a 7D over a 5D MKII. Granted I shoot a lot of portraiture, but I've never had issues shooting concert photography and action portraiture where timing is crucial. In fact, faster FPS is pointless for me unless I have a flash that can fire that many pops to match it or I'm just plain blind. Some people might appreciate it more than me though.

I still own a 30D, but I rarely ever use it.

dantambok · May 5, 2010

Village Idiot wrote: »

It's opinion really. Other than the "better" AF and maybe the crop on the sensor for reach, depending on what I was shooting, I see no benefit for me of a 7D over a 5D MKII. Granted I shoot a lot of portraiture, but I've never had issues shooting concert photography and action portraiture where timing is crucial. In fact, faster FPS is pointless for me unless I have a flash that can fire that many pops to match it or I'm just plain blind. Some people might appreciate it more than me though.

I still own a 30D, but I rarely ever use it.

thanks for that...

colourbox · May 5, 2010

dantambok wrote: »

I'm leaning in the favor of the 7D.. but talking IQ wise... which one is better? and really by how much?

If you're not shooting in demanding professional situations and you're not going to make large prints of most images, it will probably be difficult to see the difference between the two cameras. The shooting scenarios in pyry's post are the ones that will show the differences. Landscape vs sports, for instance. You might be able to tell a 5D landscape from a 7D landscape if you enlarged the image enough. Or if you're at a basketball game, you might be able to get the shot better with a 7D if the FPS and low-light autofocus were the difference makers there.

But in general "I'm shooting my brother and maybe shooting some trips" usage, you'll hardly tell the difference, especially if you're still learning. In that case, the biggest difference will be the extra $800 your mom will spend. Because that usage scenario is more consumer than pro. You probably won't be pushing either camera to its limits.

Video is the other differentiator. Do you need manual audio level control, then you get the 5D. Do you need 60fps, then you get the 7D.

Based on what's been said so far, that you won't be in the deal-breaker situations very often, it sounds like you should get the cheaper camera. By the time you have enough experience to know which parts of the camera are holding you back, there will be another generation or two of camera out there and you'll be upgrading anyway. I'm going to say get the 7D, save your mom $800, and put the money that wasn't spent on the 5D into the proper lenses. If you find that you want some expensive lenses, consider getting the Rebel T2i (90% of the 7D at 50% of the price) to free up a lot of cash.

dantambok · May 5, 2010

colourbox wrote: »

If you're not shooting in demanding professional situations and you're not going to make large prints of most images, it will probably be difficult to see the difference between the two cameras. The shooting scenarios in pyry's post are the ones that will show the differences. Landscape vs sports, for instance. You might be able to tell a 5D landscape from a 7D landscape if you enlarged the image enough. Or if you're at a basketball game, you might be able to get the shot better with a 7D if the FPS and low-light autofocus were the difference makers there.

But in general "I'm shooting my brother and maybe shooting some trips" usage, you'll hardly tell the difference, especially if you're still learning. In that case, the biggest difference will be the extra $800 your mom will spend. Because that usage scenario is more consumer than pro. You probably won't be pushing either camera to its limits.

Video is the other differentiator. Do you need manual audio level control, then you get the 5D. Do you need 60fps, then you get the 7D.

Based on what's been said so far, that you won't be in the deal-breaker situations very often, it sounds like you should get the cheaper camera. By the time you have enough experience to know which parts of the camera are holding you back, there will be another generation or two of camera out there and you'll be upgrading anyway. I'm going to say get the 7D, save your mom $800, and put the money that wasn't spent on the 5D into the proper lenses. If you find that you want some expensive lenses, consider getting the Rebel T2i (90% of the 7D at 50% of the price) to free up a lot of cash.

thank you for that very informative post... so I guess it'll be the 7D..

MT Stringer · May 6, 2010

If you plan to shoot some indoor sports or even night games with crummy lighting like most football and soccer fields have, then the 7D should be considered. 8 fps and high ISO capability plus the extra reach provided by the 1.6x crop sensor. I shot a softball tournament this past weekend with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS attached to the 7D. Over 4000 shots. I also have a MK3, but only used it with a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for the two games that were played on a bigger field. Images were nice and sharp with the 7D.

An 85 f/1.8 would be a nice addition for indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball, if that is what you will be doing.

Check out the pics I shot at the NHRA Spring Nationals from my seat in the third section of the stands. Racing pics were taken with the 70-200 f/2.8. The pics in the pits were taken with either the 17-40 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8.

Good luck.
Mike

And one from the softball tournament.

dantambok · May 6, 2010

oh thanks Mike... btw, those are some nice pics

JohnBiggs · May 10, 2010

Honestly, If you aren't shooting for any professional purpose, I'd go with a cheaper body and get better lenses. You can do wonders with a rebel and a used 70-200 2.8 IS L

LindsayNicholsPhotography · May 10, 2010

I've had the 5D Mark II since just before Christmas and LOVE IT! Before you buy, see if your local store rents out the bodies and take them for a spin. tech specs are one thing but if you don't like the feel you may not enjoy using it.

pathfinder · May 10, 2010

I own both cameras ( and like both of them ), but IF I could only have one, I would take the 7D over the 5DMKii, unless you are planning to shoot and print large scale prints - say larger than 16 x 24 inches.

The faster frame rate, the better autofocus, the built in flash with the ability to control an off camera flash all favor the 7D for general usage. The 5DMkII may be better in a studio situation under some circumstances, but overall the 7D is a better all around camera and what I carry with me daily. Like i said, I own, love, and use both as required by my need for print quality.

Put the money you save with the 7D into good "L" glass, like was already suggested. It is glass that really makes a difference, not camera bodies. 85 f1.8, 35 f1.4 L, 50 f1.4, 135 f2 L, 17-40 f4 L, are all great suggestions and not that expensive for great lenses. If you have the funds, the 17-55 f2.8 IS L is a great lens, but the ones I have suggested will also work on a FF body when the time comes that you really need FF.

PhotoLasVegas · May 10, 2010

May I also recommend the 7d, and use bing.com for the search, click on the Bing Cashback and buy from a reputable source. We got our 7d for about $200-300 less than most other places (once you factor in the rebate).

Shot with the 7d for the first time this weekend and very impressed. Noise is much better than the 40d.

We couldn't justify the extra $1000 on a 5d, although we'd love to go full-frame... as mentioned before, get the 7d and then pick up a 50mm f1.4 for less than just the 5d body. Then save up for a 24-70 or a 70-200 and you're golden!

divamum · May 10, 2010

I am a new 7d owner (I have also shot with an xsi and 50d) and I have to say I'm blown away by what it offers. I wrote a mini review this morning in the "all things 7d" thread (post 48), including a link to a shot at iso 2000. While I"m sure the 5dII's high iso is even better, the 7d has really impressed me with what it offers in that department even as "only" a crop camera. Add in its other features including the blazing fast and accurate AF and I'm thrilled with it.

I purchased one of the refurbs currently available at Adorama for $1399. Other than the white box and gold refurb sticker, it's as new, including all accessories. Adorama supply it with a full 1 year warrantee, too.

PhotoLasVegas · May 10, 2010

divamum wrote: »

I am a new 7d owner (I have also shot with an xsi and 50d) and I have to say I'm blown away by what it offers. I wrote a mini review this morning in the "all things 7d" thread (post 48), including a link to a shot at iso 2000. While I"m sure the 5dII's high iso is even better, the 7d has really impressed me with what it offers in that department even as "only" a crop camera. Add in its other features including the blazing fast and accurate AF and I'm thrilled with it.

I purchased one of the refurbs currently available at Adorama for $1399. Other than the white box and gold refurb sticker, it's as new, including all accessories. Adorama supply it with a full 1 year warrantee, too.

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=166425 ($1415 shipped, new)

Sam · May 10, 2010

Pathfinder,

I have looked at this camera as a second, (sell my 5D and buy a 7D), and also as an only camera for a friend who now owns a 30D.

The only thing I have read that was negative was that the high ISO performance was lacking, yet I am reading here it's very good?

How would you rate the 7D high ISO performance against a 5D II? Can you quantify this a little for me? Equal, less, 7D 400 ISO = 5D II 800 ISO, etc.

Thinking of wedding, indoor events, etc.

Thanks!!

Sam

JohnBiggs · May 11, 2010

Sam,

I've never seen someone claim the 7D has poor high ISO performance.... Where did you read that?

mercphoto · May 11, 2010

Village Idiot wrote: »

It's opinion really. Other than the "better" AF and maybe the crop on the sensor for reach, depending on what I was shooting, I see no benefit for me of a 7D over a 5D MKII.

Just flat not true.

http://www.johnthawley.com/journal/2009/8/21/motorsports-and-the-canon-5d-mk11.html

"It's not going to be a reliable tool for fast action trackside shooting."

colourbox · May 11, 2010

Just to muddy up the decision a little... Canon now offers rebates on both the 7D and 5D
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PromotionsAct

Sam · May 11, 2010

Glad to hear my internet travels have been down a flawed foggy path of misinformation and innuendo.

But if anyone owns both cameras I would really like to hear what your thoughts are as to the 7D high ISO compared to the 5D II high ISO.

As I stated before I am contemplating (that means all three of my active brain cells are assigned the task of evaluating this) trading my 5D mark I for a 7D, and I would like to know how this camera would perform in low light, wedding work.

Thanks!!

Sam

JohnBiggs · May 12, 2010

JohnBiggs wrote: »

Sam,

I've never seen someone claim the 7D has poor high ISO performance.... Where did you read that?

Well digging through the DXO Mark site it appears the 7D is worse off in every aspect of image quality than even a 30D.

If one was to believe these DXO tests.... I hope I misinterpreted something.

ziggy53 · May 12, 2010

JohnBiggs wrote: »

Well digging through the DXO Mark site it appears the 7D is worse off in every aspect of image quality than even a 30D.

... I hope I misinterpreted something.

If you only look at the results comparison using the "Screen" tab, the Canon 7D does not do well compared to the 30D. The screen tab compares per pixel testing and does not account for the greater pixel density of the 7D.

If you use the "Print" tab you will see a more realistic accounting of how the 2 cameras compare with regard to either printing to 8" x 10" or scaling to a common size.

Using the Print tab you should see that the 7D has improved SNR at ISO 100 (around 1/3rd stop), compared to the 30D, then they become very similar in aggregate noise until ISO 1600, where the 7D once again excels. (But not by an enormous margin.)

The 7D is around 1 stop better than the 30D in dynamic range at ISO 100 and ISO 200. Then the lead diminishes until ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 where they become similar.

Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity are close enough between these models that you would probably not be able to see a difference in print.

Considering that the 7D has 18 MPixels versus the 8 MPixels of the 30D, these are not too bad for results. The increased total pixel count will also affect overall image detail, which does impact visual image quality, but that is not measured or reflected in the DXOMark results.

Remember that these results only compare the RAW file attributes and only the DXO processing with the following technologies and methodologies:

http://dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Technologies

Different RAW processors and different processing will produce different results.

I use the DXOMark findings as "part" of any comprehensive research regarding a new camera purchase for myself or recommendations to others.

Sam · May 12, 2010

Ziggy,

I am seeing the same thing as John on the DXO site. The charts seem to indicate that the 30D out performs the 7D. I don't accept this.

Warning & disclaimer: I am going into grump mode here.

I don't care about charts, graphs, parsing, equivocating, compensating, adjusting, or complex physics equations.

This shouldn't be difficult. I do suspect that the 7D will produce a cleaner image at high ISO than the 30D. Irrespective of what the DXO charts indicate. I am trying to substantiate this (or show it isn't true) and get some thoughts as to how the two cameras compare in this area.

IE: Would a 7D image at 1600 ISO have a similar amount of noise as a 30D at 800 ISO? I am speaking of real world photography, not esoteric measurements taken by Tesla through a worm hole.

Sam

ps: Just soos ya know I do have the highest respect for Ziggy.

ziggy53 · May 12, 2010

Hi Sam,

Few sites do exacting comparisons at both normal illumination and correct exposure and low light levels and correct exposure, forgetting and forgiving sensor sensitivity differences. Cameras will respond differently in these different circumstances and different still if the latent RAW image needs to pull or push exposure.

Imaging-Resource.com does a fairly reasonable job of providing images in numerous scenarios and across generations of cameras.

You are welcome to peruse their site and compare image examples, but let's start with a comparison of low-light and high ISO.

I prefer to look at like ISO settings to start.

For instance, the ISO 1600, 11 lux, Canon 30D image link:

http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/E30D/FULLRES/E30DLL1603.JPG

... and the same illumination for the 7D link:

http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/E7D/FULLRES/E7DhLL016003.JPG

Now the .67 lux at ISO 1600, no NR, 30D link:

http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/E30D/FULLRES/E30DLL1607XNR.JPG

... and the 7D at the same illumination, ISO and no NR:

http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/E7D/FULLRES/E7DhLL016007XNR.JPG

The take-away here is that both cameras produce usable images for many applications in low light at correct exposure. The amount of detail in the 7D is indeed much, much greater, even in these conditions. More detail also means more opportunity for software noise reduction and ultimately larger usable print sizes for the 7D. How large you can print is still somewhat dependent upon the amount of detail required by the image to convey its message and partly by individual taste.

Additional Imaging-Resource test images from these 2 cameras:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E30D/E30DPICS.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DA7.HTM

divamum · May 12, 2010

The increased detail at 1600+ is what I"m really noticing - and appreciating - in the 7d. There is visible noise, but 1. it cleans up really nicely (it seems to be a different pattern than the noise in the xsi and 50d and responds to NR adjustment better) and 2. even after "cleaning" there's way more detail, so it doesn't get that oversmoothed look NR can sometimes give.

Conclusion: real-life high iso performance far exceeds the other two cameras I've used, namely the xsi and 50d. I have no plans to make prints at the equivalent of 1:1, so I'm confident it will be just fine.

I'm that the 5dII is even better, as it should be; for my low-light theater shoots a 5dII would, objectively, probably be the ideal camera. Why did I get a 7d instead of waiting until I could afford the 5dII? The not insignificant price difference (around $1000 when all was said and done), lens incompatibility with one of my workhorses, the Tam 17-50, the blazing fast and configurable AF, and the built-in flash transmitter. Those were all significant to me, and made it worth the jump.

I didn't expect the 7d's high ISO to impress me as much as it has; I wasn't expecting it to offer much over the 50d in that regard. It has been a very pleasant surprise to discover that it's offering me a BIG improvement in that department. Maybe not as much as a 5dII would have, but more than enough to keep me happy for a while!

JohnBiggs · May 12, 2010

ziggy53 wrote: »

If you only look at the results comparison using the "Screen" tab, the Canon 7D does not do well compared to the 30D. The screen tab compares per pixel testing and does not account for the greater pixel density of the 7D.

If you use the "Print" tab you will see a more realistic accounting of how the 2 cameras compare with regard to either printing to 8" x 10" or scaling to a common size.

Using the Print tab you should see that the 7D has improved SNR at ISO 100 (around 1/3rd stop), compared to the 30D, then they become very similar in aggregate noise until ISO 1600, where the 7D once again excels. (But not by an enormous margin.)

The 7D is around 1 stop better than the 30D in dynamic range at ISO 100 and ISO 200. Then the lead diminishes until ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 where they become similar.

Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity are close enough between these models that you would probably not be able to see a difference in print.

Considering that the 7D has 18 MPixels versus the 8 MPixels of the 30D, these are not too bad for results. The increased total pixel count will also affect overall image detail, which does impact visual image quality, but that is not measured or reflected in the DXOMark results.

Remember that these results only compare the RAW file attributes and only the DXO processing with the following technologies and methodologies:

http://dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Technologies

Different RAW processors and different processing will produce different results.

I use the DXOMark findings as "part" of any comprehensive research regarding a new camera purchase for myself or recommendations to others.

The only time the 7D clearly 'wins' over the 30D in image quality according to DXO is just on Dynamic range but only in the normalized print conversion.

However I must call fowl on the print conversion as far as dynamic range is concerned. The print conversion DXO does is effectively reducing the resolution to 8MP.

The 30D is already 8MP, so no change is noted. The 7D and 5DII both gain 1EV in dynamic range. However I do not see how any decrease in resolution can create something new. (In this case more dynamic range.)

ziggy53 · May 12, 2010

JohnBiggs wrote: »

... However I do not see how any decrease in resolution can create something new. (In this case more dynamic range.)

I believe that the dynamic range improvements are largely due to:

Improvements in imager design including photosite sensitivity improvements along with "cleaner" signals and data from the imager.

Improvements in the low noise amplifier circuits.

Improvements in bias voltage circuits and A/D converters.

Improvements in the primary image processor. (Digic)

Improvements in RAW image conversion inside of the camera and outside of the camera in software engineering.

Malte · May 12, 2010

JohnBiggs wrote: »

... I must call fowl...

Birdy nam nam. :hide

Malte

pathfinder · May 12, 2010

Sam wrote: »

Pathfinder,

I have looked at this camera as a second, (sell my 5D and buy a 7D), and also as an only camera for a friend who now owns a 30D.

The only thing I have read that was negative was that the high ISO performance was lacking, yet I am reading here it's very good?

How would you rate the 7D high ISO performance against a 5D II? Can you quantify this a little for me? Equal, less, 7D 400 ISO = 5D II 800 ISO, etc.

Thinking of wedding, indoor events, etc.

Thanks!!

Sam

Hi Sam,

I missed this post and your request about image quality with the 7D versus the 5DMKii. So I went and reread the 7D review on dpreview to see what they say about it.

They never really compare it to the 5DMkii, but they do compare it to the 50D and the Nikon D300s, very favorably.

My experience with the 50D is that ISO 1600 is quite useful if not under exposed. There should be some ISO 1600 images from a 7D somewhere on the web, but I don't have a link handy right now.

I've only had my 7D a couple months, but I have had my 50D for some time now, and dpreview says the 7D is as good as the 50D or better in terms of noise and sharpness. Both the 50D and the 7D have hi pixel densities for APS sensors and demand the very best of lenses - indeed their image quality is limited by the lenses mounted on them.

canon 5DmkII or canon 7d?

Comments