And unless you make money from canvas prints the extra 10MP serve no purpose other than to eat more memory.
Superior optics, processors, noise performance and other built in systems make the picture, not the megapixels.
Canon 7D vs 5D MKII?
- Thread starter alexthecheese
- Start date
And unless you make money from canvas prints the extra 10MP serve no purpose other than to eat more memory.
Superior optics, processors, noise performance and other built in systems make the picture, not the megapixels.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,222
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
ANd the D800 has all of that mate, FF, great optics, ISO, etc etc etc get £600 cheaper
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
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.
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.
Those kind of lenses though, presumably aren't of sufficient quality to serve the 5D mkii properly?
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.
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.
Those kind of lenses though, presumably aren't of sufficient quality to serve the 5D mkii properly?
Last edited:
The extra resolution makes the D800 a great cameras for wildlife. 15MP in DX mode makes the D800 the ultimate nature camera doing high-res landscapes and wildlife with plenty of pixels per feather.
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.
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.
Those kind of lenses though, presumably aren't of sufficient quality to serve the 5D mkii properly?
If you cannot budget the lenses then i would sick to a crop sensor camera and use some of the cheaper lenses around. I would take a complete crop sensor camera outsift with a selection of lenses, flashes, filters and tripod over a single high end camera with 1 good lens.
A single 24-70 lens kit would also be highly restricting for me. I would much rather have a wide angle and a telephoto option, skipping the boring intermediate focal lengths the 24-70 would cover. On Canon I would us either17-40mm f/4 or better still the Nikon 1424mm f/2.8 with an adapter plus the Canon 70-200 2.8 or the f/4.0 variant, or maybe a 300mm f/4.
To cover the middle ground something like a 35 or 50mm prime would suffice.
The canon and Nikon 24-70s are very nice and a workhorse for weddings and photo journalism but are not very interesting otherwise, except at the 24mm end they do a reasonably wide job.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,222
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
i would get a 35L, 50 nifty fifty and a 70-200L f2.8 or F4.
i am looking to get either a 35L or a 24L as my walkaround lens
i am looking to get either a 35L or a 24L as my walkaround lens
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
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.
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.
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.
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.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,222
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
FF vs crop u only get one meaningful thing u can never reproduce via PP and thats DOF. you get a much nicer DOF on FF then in crop. the rest such has DR, ISO performance can all be tweaked via PP to match a FF picture from a crop picture.
The thing is, FF is not cheap both body and lenses. You really need 2k+ to start off with a 5dmk2 and a lens.
Dont forget, the 7d is very close in price terms to a 5dmk2. its all about what do u want from a camera body. best all round camera? go for a 7d and if you have lots of money, go for a 5dmk3.
That is my humble advice. Dont be fooled and scared on people saying the 7d has poor high ISO because with PP work it can look just as good as a FF shot.
A shot taken using 12800 ISO. not my shot, curtasy of a bloke called Teamspeed on another forum who knows his stuff:
The thing is, FF is not cheap both body and lenses. You really need 2k+ to start off with a 5dmk2 and a lens.
Dont forget, the 7d is very close in price terms to a 5dmk2. its all about what do u want from a camera body. best all round camera? go for a 7d and if you have lots of money, go for a 5dmk3.
That is my humble advice. Dont be fooled and scared on people saying the 7d has poor high ISO because with PP work it can look just as good as a FF shot.
A shot taken using 12800 ISO. not my shot, curtasy of a bloke called Teamspeed on another forum who knows his stuff:
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
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.
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'?
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'?
What sort of photography are you in to?
IS on a lens only helps with movement that you make, if your subject is moving you need the higher shutter speed (ignoring panning).
A second hand 70-200 f4 might be a good shout at around £380. I don't know anything about the 70-300.
IS on a lens only helps with movement that you make, if your subject is moving you need the higher shutter speed (ignoring panning).
A second hand 70-200 f4 might be a good shout at around £380. I don't know anything about the 70-300.
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
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.
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.
You say the allure of the 5D is making you swing that way but I think you need to take a rational look at the whole crop vs FF debate.
On this forum and many others there has been a craze in the last years to buy FF camera with all sorts of claims about how they are infinitely better than crop cameras, yadyadyada. The truth is they are both tools for the job and it is important to view the complete system including body, size/weight, lenses, auto focus, metering, reliability etc, as well as the effects of different sensor sizes.
There are pros and cons to both crop and FF sensors and you will be surprised that there is no real outright winner for most people.
The FF sensor is larger which allows more photons to be capture which can improve low light performance by a little over 1 stop, and also allows a shallower DoF equivalent to a little over 1 stop. Mathematically these gains are mirrored.
To put that into perspective, if you used an f/4 lens on a FF camera (e.g. 24-105mm f/4 on a Canon 5DMKII) you will find almost identical low light and DoF characteristics on a crop camera using an f2.8 lens (well f/2.5 would be closer), e.g. 7D and 17-55mm f/2.8. So going form an f2.8 zoom lens on a crop camera to an f/4.0 lens on a FF camera gains you almost nothing in low light performance or DoF control.
Similarly, to get the same results as a f2.8 lens on a FF with a crop camera you need about f/2.0 (actually f1.8). 70mm f2.8 on FF can be achieved with f/1.8 on the nice and cheap nifty fifty 50mm f/1.8
All sorts of issues arise when you actually need to get some reach, requiring obscenely expensive lenses. On a crop camera a 70-200mm f/2.8 can be a very useful lens with a lot of reach and a fast aperture. On FF to get the same reach you are at 300mm, and the 300mm f/2.8 is in a totally different ball park in terms of weight and cost. And if you use a 300mm (f/4.0) with 1.4TC on a crop camera to get sufficient reach you are going to be looking at the 500mm f/4 with 1.4TC to equal or better your reach on FF.
On the flip side if you use a 24mm f/1.4 on FF a lot, and use it at f/1.4 for some funky wide angle shallow DoF effects, then you don't have so many options on crop (you would need a 16mm lens and you wont get the same shallow DoF).
If you are thinking of lenses like the 70-300mm f/5.6 to use on a FF 5D then I would seriously consider going with a crop camera and the amazing Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 (will give you same reach and same low light performance, faster auto focus and better optics) or even pushing to the f/2.8 version which will blow the 70-300mm out of the water.
Remember, camera technology progresses very fast while good lenses will always be good and hold their value. I suggest investing in good glass and waiting to see what FF camera are around in a few years. I have a strong feeling the 5DMKIII will be a stop gap camera of starters and the replacement wont be as long in coming as you might think.
I avoided buying into a FF camera and instead purchased everything else I need to make the transition, lenses, filters, TCs, tripod, ball head, books. Now as soon as I switch to FF I will have a complete setup of the top of the line lenses and support.
What held me back was the lack of pixel density in FF camera. Only with the arrival of the 36MP D800 is the FF route looking to be a viable alternative. Previously I would be looking at a 2 camera setup.
On this forum and many others there has been a craze in the last years to buy FF camera with all sorts of claims about how they are infinitely better than crop cameras, yadyadyada. The truth is they are both tools for the job and it is important to view the complete system including body, size/weight, lenses, auto focus, metering, reliability etc, as well as the effects of different sensor sizes.
There are pros and cons to both crop and FF sensors and you will be surprised that there is no real outright winner for most people.
The FF sensor is larger which allows more photons to be capture which can improve low light performance by a little over 1 stop, and also allows a shallower DoF equivalent to a little over 1 stop. Mathematically these gains are mirrored.
To put that into perspective, if you used an f/4 lens on a FF camera (e.g. 24-105mm f/4 on a Canon 5DMKII) you will find almost identical low light and DoF characteristics on a crop camera using an f2.8 lens (well f/2.5 would be closer), e.g. 7D and 17-55mm f/2.8. So going form an f2.8 zoom lens on a crop camera to an f/4.0 lens on a FF camera gains you almost nothing in low light performance or DoF control.
Similarly, to get the same results as a f2.8 lens on a FF with a crop camera you need about f/2.0 (actually f1.8). 70mm f2.8 on FF can be achieved with f/1.8 on the nice and cheap nifty fifty 50mm f/1.8
All sorts of issues arise when you actually need to get some reach, requiring obscenely expensive lenses. On a crop camera a 70-200mm f/2.8 can be a very useful lens with a lot of reach and a fast aperture. On FF to get the same reach you are at 300mm, and the 300mm f/2.8 is in a totally different ball park in terms of weight and cost. And if you use a 300mm (f/4.0) with 1.4TC on a crop camera to get sufficient reach you are going to be looking at the 500mm f/4 with 1.4TC to equal or better your reach on FF.
On the flip side if you use a 24mm f/1.4 on FF a lot, and use it at f/1.4 for some funky wide angle shallow DoF effects, then you don't have so many options on crop (you would need a 16mm lens and you wont get the same shallow DoF).
If you are thinking of lenses like the 70-300mm f/5.6 to use on a FF 5D then I would seriously consider going with a crop camera and the amazing Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 (will give you same reach and same low light performance, faster auto focus and better optics) or even pushing to the f/2.8 version which will blow the 70-300mm out of the water.
Remember, camera technology progresses very fast while good lenses will always be good and hold their value. I suggest investing in good glass and waiting to see what FF camera are around in a few years. I have a strong feeling the 5DMKIII will be a stop gap camera of starters and the replacement wont be as long in coming as you might think.
I avoided buying into a FF camera and instead purchased everything else I need to make the transition, lenses, filters, TCs, tripod, ball head, books. Now as soon as I switch to FF I will have a complete setup of the top of the line lenses and support.
What held me back was the lack of pixel density in FF camera. Only with the arrival of the 36MP D800 is the FF route looking to be a viable alternative. Previously I would be looking at a 2 camera setup.
Last edited:
There is no 70-300mm f/4.0, it is f/5.6 on the long end where it counts and so is relatively slow.
I kept the 1Ds2 over the 7D in the end for the increased background blur that is possible. We only have a small house and anything I can do to blur out the cluttered background when taking shots of the little 'un is a massive bonus 
It took me ages to finally make the decision over which to keep though, both have their good and bad points.
It took me ages to finally make the decision over which to keep though, both have their good and bad points.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,222
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
ISO gaining 1 stop can easily be fixed via PP. just have a look at that 12800 ISO shot on a 7d on a fast moving target indoors
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
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.
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.
Hmm....
EDIT: Is the 70-200mm 2.8 all across the board? That would make sense...
Last edited:
If you can fix the 7D 1 stop then you can likely do the same to the 5D image so you'll still have the gap. Teamspeed does get great results that's for sure. Helped a lot when I had a 7D. For me the choice between FF and crop was all about DoF and background blur in the end, ISO performance was further down the list.
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.
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.
Hmm....
EDIT: Is the 70-200mm 2.8 all across the board? That would make sense...
Maybe look into buying some nice lenses that would work on both cop and FF, like the 70-200 2.8 or most of the primes. This will greatly add to your current abilities while you think about going full frame. You may see in 1 years time the 5DMKII going much cheaper, or 5dMKII is now down in price to somewhere you could stretch to. If you have already purchased some nice lenses then you have less to purchase when you by a FF camera.
I also wouldn't under estimate the value of a good photography book, course, or even a holiday.
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
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.
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:
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
OK, I've been been doing some more reading, and more headscratching. Please bear with me. 
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...
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...