Canon 7D vs 5D MKII?

alexthecheese

alexthecheese

alexthecheese

Soldato
Joined
10 Mar 2006
Posts
3,975
Hi

Lining up my 30th present in June, as have been asked what I might potentially want, so I'm looking into a dslr.

I like the idea of the full frame 5d mkii, but the 7d is newer and faster and is probably more sporty? I won't use it for any sport and will likely be just taking photos as I walk along somewhere, so what do you think I should get?

I'm also noting that the 5d is quite a lot more expensive, but will likely come down when the mkiii comes out?
 
5dmkii is the superior camera for still photography

the 7d would be more for sports, wildlife etc with a faster focusing system and faster fps

cant comment on the prices when the mk3 comes out
 
If you're not after a sports camera then go for the 5D MkII.. I got one a short time ago and I'm very impressed with it and just love the Full Frame, can't really say anymore, you wont be disappointed.

As for price, it's already at a reasonable price I think but sure it may come down with the mkIII release but the mkIII is almost twice the price on release so not sure if it will have that big an impact.
 
Youtube the comparison, as a bloke called Kai does a review of the two cameras side-by-side.

Both very different cameras, suited to very different things.
 
The mk2 has officially dropped $300 in the US... not sure if that's been done over here yet though.

I own a 7D, but I bought it a long time ago now.
At the time, my concern was also that the technology in it was far better than the 5D.

I still knew I wanted to go full frame though, so would wait until the next iteration of the 5D.

If I do get a 5D mk3 in future, I'll still use the 7D though because it's really good for sports and events.

If you don't need the quicker AF, reach of the crop and shooting speed, I'd certainly go for the 5D.
 
How much difference is there in the AF between the 7D and 5Dii? Is the 5d painfully slow?

Also the 7D is 8fps where as the 5Dii is 3.9, and to be honest I didn't think it was even as fast as that, but still, I don't think I'd ever need 8fps. That is mentally quick. :p

I think I do like the idea most of having a full frame sensor for the best picture quality. Just out of interest, how does the 7D sensor compare to the likes of the 550d/600d? I presume those two share the same sensor.
 
Paul11 said:
5dmkii is the superior camera for still photography

the 7d would be more for sports, wildlife etc with a faster focusing system and faster fps

cant comment on the prices when the mk3 comes out
Click to expand...

here is my two pence on points where the 7d and 5dmk2 is very close IQ wise:

  • The sharpness and detail retention are very nearly the same (when the sensor resolutions are the same) if you put good enough glass on the crop camera. Which is to say, any real difference here will be due to sensor resolution differences more than anything else (again, as long as you put sufficiently good glass on the crop camera).
  • The high ISO capability is a moving target -- the crop cameras are always catching up to previous generation full frame cameras, and the question is always how much is enough for one's needs.

  • Tonal smoothness at low ISOs is something that can largely be dealt with in postprocessing (tonal smoothness matters only in areas with no detail), and is also something that is likely to improve with the 7D's successor.

That leaves depth of field latitude as the only thing that full frame does that crop really can't. Then it becomes a question of whether or not you have enough depth of field latitude to suit your needs.

edit: i will throw this in to show u all that its very VERY possible to get GREAT High ISO shots on a 7d with a bit of PP

http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electr...-Denoiser/9880192_smTBLd#!i=673462551&k=Taz8j
 
Last edited:
Inregards to the AF, the 5D is more likely to hunt in dark environments and it won't be as quick as the 7D at tracking fast moving subjects reliably.

Again what you are shooting is the important factor.
If you were intending to shoot sports and events, the 7D, with its speed would be the far better camera for that usage, but as you've said it's not your intention, the 5D makes much more sense.
 
I think the question with the AF, which is often missed in discussions, is what lenses do you think you'll use?

If you use really rapid lenses like the 135L or 70-200L lenses, the 5D is still a very respectable camera for AF. It's when you start shooting big aperture lenses, particularly primes like the 85L and 50L that its AF starts to be problematic if you're not careful. Anything in the realm of normal lenses with USM will be fine on a 5D, especially if you use centre point AF (I never use anything but that when I'm using AF; I don't shoot anything that you can't get a way with recomposing). I use a Canon 50 1.4, Tamron 90 2.8, Sigma 24 1.8 and Sigma 85 1.4 and the only one that has autofocus slow enough to cause issues on my 5D classic is the Sigma 24.

When you're feeling lazy and just want shots for memory and nostalgia it's also nice to just be able to slap the 50 1.4 on and get very thin DoF as it allows you to be much lazier with composition etc. and still get noise free, decent images :)
 
Thanks for the replies guys, much appreciated. I have read other threads asking the same question - should've searched first - and I think the 5D MK2 is more what I'm after.

Like I say, I like the benefits that the full frame sensor will give, and I'm not a sports shooter, though the concerns about the AF are a little worrying.

If you were to suggest two lenses for the 5D MKii that were suitable for travelling, what would you guys suggest? I think the reality of the cost associated with buying the 5D will then start to settle in.
 
The AF on the 5d2 is fine as long as you understand its limitations. In good light on shots with a reasonable DOF all the points are fine. In poor light use the centre point and recompose (understand the limitations of this in terms of moving the plane of focus).

For really narrow dof shots be very careful, but then that is always the case.

The problem with the 5D2 AF is that it the biggest single weak point of a still great camera. As such it really stands out. Hence the 5D3 being just about perfect !

2 lenses - 24-70 f2.8 great flexible lens with nice DOF possibilities. Plus 17-40 f4 as a wide angle/landscape lens.
 
Those two lenses would set me back ~£750 + £550 minimum, about £1300.

With the body, which I have seen as cheap as £1350 ish, that's about £2650. Less if I get the body and lenses second hand.

Is it appropriate to spend less on the lenses that you suggest when spending that much on the body?
 
Hodders said:
The AF on the 5d2 is fine as long as you understand its limitations. In good light on shots with a reasonable DOF all the points are fine. In poor light use the centre point and recompose (understand the limitations of this in terms of moving the plane of focus).

For really narrow dof shots be very careful, but then that is always the case.

The problem with the 5D2 AF is that it the biggest single weak point of a still great camera. As such it really stands out. Hence the 5D3 being just about perfect !

2 lenses - 24-70 f2.8 great flexible lens with nice DOF possibilities. Plus 17-40 f4 as a wide angle/landscape lens.
Click to expand...

Recomposing is fine for still shots but not so good for anything that moves
 
alexthecheese said:
Those two lenses would set me back ~£750 + £550 minimum, about £1300.

With the body, which I have seen as cheap as £1350 ish, that's about £2650. Less if I get the body and lenses second hand.

Is it appropriate to spend less on the lenses that you suggest when spending that much on the body?
Click to expand...

24-105 and a 70-200f4
 
I'd say go for something like the 24-70 and a 70-200 instead of the 17-40 mentioned above as you'll have more flexibility. With a full frame the 24-70 will do you for landscapes.

The 24-105 is a good walkabout lens and well worth considering.

I went for the 24-70 f/2.8L USM and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, if your budget stretches that far then I'd recommend them, I'm very pleased. Also note that there is a new version of the 24-70 2.8 coming out soon but it's priced at £2299 and considering the current version can be got for £900 then that's probably the way to go if buying now.
 
jonneymendoza said:
2299 for the new 24-70? is that a joke? more then the 70-200f2.8 mk2?
Click to expand...

nope, no joke :(

And just to clarify, I was recommeding the old/current 24-70 not the new one at that crazy price which don't even have IS to help justify the price increase.
 
Jase said:
nope, no joke :(

And just to clarify, I was recommeding the old/current 24-70 not the new one at that crazy price which don't even have IS to help justify the price increase.
Click to expand...

Canon ripping people off left right and centre. 5dmk3 is also a rip off IMO unless you make money from taking pics. 3k for 5dmk3 vs 2.4 on d800 with 10+MP more? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom