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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Thanks the replies guys, much appreciated.

I found earlier a link to get a brand new 5D mkii for £1159. Is that too good to be true?

RE: the lenses, I did not think that they would be so expensive. I was thinking £400 each, or so. :o

The 24-70mm at the same place is £750, so I'd be looking at a single-lens setup for £1900, then with bits presumably £2k.

That is probably about as far as I'd go for the time being, would it be worth getting the 7D on this basis, to get another lens, or should I perhaps start with the 5D and get lenses as I save more?

There's a 70-300mm lens that's only.... £130? What is this place about? I'm confused - it's a Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens that is a few hundred quid elsewhere.

EDIT: Yep, that website I found seems dodgy. :rolleyes:

Those kind of lenses though, presumably aren't of sufficient quality to serve the 5D mkii properly?
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for the replies.

I am still leaning to the Canon 5D, perhaps in the hope it'll come down a bit. I was looking at lenses last night trying to work out where to start. There seems to be lots of choice, I ended up going down the EF-S route before I even realised they don't fit. :o

Anyway, like I say, still tempted to get the 5D to then add lenses a couple of months down the line, perhaps 2nd hand. The lure of the 'full frame' is greater than the crop, just because I've always wanted one (despite never having an SLR at all).

I'm kinda tempted even to just get a 50mm 1.4 and then get 2nd hand lenses like the 17-40mm thereafter. The 70-300mm is actually pretty reasonable brand new, though f/4, which I understand isn't the greatest in the world. Anything better is significantly more expensive. If people upgrade from the 5d MK2-3, then I'll look to get a 2nd hand camera as well, perhaps. There are 'like new' ones about for £1200, maybe they'll hit £1k by the time I'm 30 - June.

Please tell me if I'm being slightly mad though.
 
Cool. I do understand that the likes of the 7D give fantastic pictures - like that one there! - but still the allure of the 5D is... alluring. :rolleyes: :o

I am tempted to get the 24-105mm f/4, as recommended here, but the 24-70mm is f/2.8, so is better - but then the 24-105mm has image stabilisation. So would the 24-105mm offer greater length but with the IS, equal performance?

What about a 17-40mm with a 70-300mm? Second hand 17-40mm go for £400, brand new 70-300mm around £300 (too cheap a lens for the 5D?). Then chuck in a 50mm 1.8 to be upgraded later to a 1.4.

How would I be doing with that?

Can I also ask a stupid question? With the 50mm 1.x, can you take photos that AREN'T full of 'bokeh'?
 
It's gonna be stills, friends, people, landscapes - not really into sport as such (apart from F1).

The 70-200mm and 70-300mm are both available in f/4, but the 70-300mm f/4 with IS seems to be cheaper than the 200mm version, so I'm confused by that.

Is that because of the general quality of the lens? The 70-200mm is avialable in f/2.8 but is obviously more expensive for that reason.
 
D.P. said:
Long and extremely useful post
Click to expand...

Thanks DP, I do understand more perhaps why you guys are banging on about the debate of crop vs full frame, and posts like yours do make it stick more. So thanks muchly.

It does seem like the budget I have for a full-frame camera (which I'm not really sure on, that doesn't help - I started at £2.5k and the more I look the more I find I'm trying to do it on the cheap, which is leading to what you're saying above) wouldn't do it justice, unless I can get a particularly good deal on the camera, same with the lens, and live with the fact that I wouldn't have as varied a setup as if I went down the crop camera route.

I think I'll have to put a thinking cap on and see what I can get with each setup, then run it past you to tell me I'm doing it all wrong. :o

The only thing I think is that if I were to get less lenses that are better, on EF rather than EF-S, then I wouldn't have to change them if I went for a further FF upgrade down the line? That is a bit of a reach though, I'll admit. :o

Hmm....

EDIT: Is the 70-200mm 2.8 all across the board? That would make sense...
 
Last edited:
Ha. I can imagine. The idea of this is that next year we'll be travelling for 6 months around the world. I don't want to go out there and not come back with any cool snaps and in the year before we go I should be able to learn to be good with it. And no doubt learn more when we're out there. :)

I've just watched the DigitalRev guy review the new 70-200mm IS II, and that looks superb, but said it made a bargain of the first one. Does look impressive. And big.

I'll have to see how much money I can pump into it. I could afford a killer setup, but it'll eat into the money we're saving for our trip next year, so it's a bit of a balancing act.
 
Last edited:
OK, I've been been doing some more reading, and more headscratching. Please bear with me. :p

I was just watching another DigitalRev video - quite enjoy his style now, though it was a bit hard to get used to at first - and he compared the 550d to the 7d, as if it were the 7d's little brother.

The images he said were pretty much comparable, though the 7d requires more after touching due to the softness of its images.

Now that makes me think that the 7d would be wasted on me, and that if I were not able to afford the 5d mk2 with suitable high-quality lenses, I might as well get the 550d with the same quality of lens as if I got the 5d. The stuff that the 7d offers (bar the 8fps I'm not really sure what it actually does) wouldn't go far with me, I'd expect.

Now the other thing is that I don't understand what lenses work across both. The EF-S has a shorter distance between the lens and the sensor, meaning they will collide, but I wouldn't want to have to change lenses down the line if I went FF.

For example the 70-200mm 2.8 seems to fit the 550d, but something like the 17-40mm wouldn't? Or would it? Should I care about having lenses that work with crop and FF? Hnnng... :D
 
OK, me again. :p

Well, things are different now, as you may well have expected. :o

I am more inclined to go for the crop camera, rather than the FF, and in doing so spend more money on the lenses and save money overall.

Now I did ask it earlier, but I'm struggling to see the reason to go for a 7d over a 550d, given that it is the same sensor, though the 7d I understand has another ISO stop available at 12800 (edit: not sure that's actually true). Comparisons seem to state that the cameras will produce pretty much identical pictures on the same lenses.

There is also a marked price difference - hdew has the 550d for £385 vs £835 for the 7D. £450 difference there, that's almost a 24-105mm f/4.

It gets tricky with the lenses as the EFS 17-55mm 2.8 with IS is cheaper than the 24-70mm, but wouldn't be a lens to keep with the intention of going FF. The 24-105mm with the crop body I guess would mean that it's not particularly wide, and being f/4 it's a stop down on the 2.8.

Looking into this stuff makes you go round in circles! :o
 
Last edited:
Hmm... this is making me want the 5D mk2 again, even though you said skip it, An Exception, as the alternatives are even more expensive again.

How about the Nikon D3200 as an alternative in between the 550d and 7d/5d2? It's not out, but seeing as how well Nikon appear to have done with the D800, could we expect similar gains with the D3200?

EDIT: Hmm... jiudging by the DPReview samples, high-ISO stuff is not suited to that camera. Seem significantly worse even than the 550d.l
 
Last edited:
OK guys, I'm pretty much set on the 550d now. Will be playing on my mates this weekend to make sure. I think it's probably for the best - I could get the 5D mk2, but the missus wants me to have it for my birthday and my finances wouldn't allow me to get the 5d mk2 by then. There's also the other valid reasons of this being my first DSLR etc. etc...

Can someone knock me up a first lens to get? Looking at the EF-S range, the only Canon one that stands out is the 17-55mm, at 2.8. That's £660~.

There is the alternative, which my mate at the weekend had on a 7D, of the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4. That seems to offer the best value - but having just read the review of it on www.the-digital-picture.com, it doesn't seem to be that great after all.

Any suggestions on lenses to buy as a first all-rounder to then be added to?
 
An Exception said:
5D Mark I
Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 or Sigma 24-70 2.8
50mm 1.8
Click to expand...

I'm wary of buying the 5D as it's obviously going to be 2nd hand and I won't get a warranty with it or understand if I'd be getting hold of a good one. I would appreciate the video recording aswell.

Rojin said:
The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is the best EF-S standard zoom that you can buy, although you do pay the premium price for it. The Tamron 17-50 non VC and the latest Sigma 17-50 OS are both viable alternatives that are well liked. I had the Tamron and it was excellent value for money, the Sigma has OS though. Further down the line if you start looking at primes, have a really good look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4, this was by far my favourite lens on a crop body.
Click to expand...

Maybe it'll have to be the 17-55mm f2.8 then - it does seem to be miles ahead of the other competitors - the newer Tamron 17-50 with VC performs worse than the older one it seems, but it's only the newer one that I'll be able to get hold of.

I think I'll stop looking at it all now as it's giving me a right headache. :p
 
Errr... what about the D5100 guys? Similar price, around £50 more, but has a much better sensor according to DXO Mark (sorry to bring that up :p).

It's shy of a couple of megapixels to the 550d, but has much lower noise according to that website and goes up to 25600 ISO, even though that looks terrible.

The lenses for Nikon look to be markedly more expensive though, and there doesn't appear to be a 17-55mm equivalent - the ones in that kinda range seem to have worse f/stop thingies and the best one is about a grand. :confused:

This shows it to be better... :o

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_550D-vs-Nikon-D5100
 
Err well yes, that's kinda why I'm here really - I don't know what I am looking at. For whatever reason I started looking at Canon, as my mates have them, and continued to do so. Should I be apologising? I thought I'd keep my ramblings in one thread, rather than creating lots. :o

Would the 17-55m 2.8 keep its value? I'm confused as I've come from the 7D/5D2, to the 550d/7D, now I'm 550d/5100. Appreciate I'm all over the shop.

If the 5d1 comes with a warranty then fair enough, though I would like the video though.

The Nikon 5100 has automatic focussing in video mode, which is another reason to get that for my video 'needs', but then if I ask the same question, what lenses should I look at if I were considering a 5100, what response am I going to get? :mad: or :p?
 
jonneymendoza said:
err. my 400d did me proud today in a large hall with not good lighting down southbank royal festival.

shooting 1600. Just had a look at the shots now and they are not that noisy. i can only imagine a 5d3 shooting at 6400 that will look comparable to a 400d 1600.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that against me worrying about the 5100 sensor vs the 550d sensor?
 
Yeah, I would like to borrow their lenses, but I know they're tight gits and wouldn't let me. :o

After reading reviews of the Nikon 5100, it does seem to be the most appealing so far, in the price range that suits me best, but the lenses don't seem to offer the range that the Canon do.

The equivalent 17-55mm Canon lens that Nikon offer is £1060 compared to £660 for the Canon.

Maybe I've still not grasped all this. :confused: :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom