Canon 7D vs 5D MKII?

jonneymendoza · 15 Mar 2012 at 11:47

alexthecheese said:
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...

EF-S lenses only work with crop bodies, not full frame bodies. the 7d is miles better then the 550d.

Better ISO, better camera features, better body build and handling, and far better AF system.

alexthecheese · 15 Mar 2012 at 12:03

Cheers. Do EF lenses work on all Canon SLRs, both crop and full frame?

Rojin · 15 Mar 2012 at 12:26

alexthecheese said:
Cheers. Do EF lenses work on all Canon SLRs, both crop and full frame?

Yes

alexthecheese · 2 May 2012 at 14:35

OK, me again.

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

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!

jonneymendoza · 2 May 2012 at 14:51

alexthecheese said:
OK, me again.

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

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!

Well mate, that is why IMO people on cropped bodies only upgrade to another crop body not for IQ but for camera features only.

That is why i myself will only look at a FF to upgrade from my 400d.

D.P. · 2 May 2012 at 17:14

alexthecheese said:
OK, me again.

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

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!

This is typical of camera bodies these days, the IQ has improved so much that even the low end camera give stunning results and furthermore, to reduce manufacturing costs the same sensor will be used across different bodies. Also, the lower end bodies get upgraded more regularly so they can sometimes even surpass the IQ of higher end but slightly older bodies. This even happens between crop and FF sensor, the newer crop sensors outperform the older FF sensors.

You need to choose a body based on the functional and features you need. If you do mostly landscape or still life then the lower end bodies are sufficient, if you do action and sports you will want a higher end body like 7D.

Username Mike · 2 May 2012 at 17:36

Have you been into a store and actually had a go with each camera? I suggest you try. The 550D I found was a very small camera and you may need a grip to even hold the thing. For the price though its a good camera.

If you are thinking of using video on any of these cameras the 5D is defiantly the better camera. The 550D (and 60D for that matter) is very soft for video from my experience when compared to the 7D and 5D. Comes down to what you want to use them for. If not then no need to even look at those features.

ajf · 2 May 2012 at 19:21

I know this is a bit chalk and cheese, but how does the af on a 5d compare to an older 350d in terms of speed etc?
I have the 17-40 f4 L and the 100-400 L and do some aircraft photography but in the main its slow moving objects.

I started off looking at a 600d, then a 7d but do fancy a full frame camera. It's a question of do I spend loads now, or compromise and spend more again later?!

Ksanti · 2 May 2012 at 20:24

ajf said:
I know this is a bit chalk and cheese, but how does the af on a 5d compare to an older 350d in terms of speed etc?
I have the 17-40 f4 L and the 100-400 L and do some aircraft photography but in the main its slow moving objects.

I started off looking at a 600d, then a 7d but do fancy a full frame camera. It's a question of do I spend loads now, or compromise and spend more again later?!

I'm fairly sure they're about the same. The 5D has a 9-point system instead of a 7-point one, but they're not that different I'd guess. What might be a more worthwhile upgrade could be a 1DS2 or a 1D2 or 3?

Shooting a 17-40 and 100-400 I'd guess your shooting doesn't rely on minutely shallowly depth of field which is why I'd consider the 1D as well as the 1DS as you might find 100-400 isn't long enough on full frame for aircraft photography, which might need teleconverters which would then definitely need a 1 series AF system

An Exception · 3 May 2012 at 08:52

Go FF imo.

Approx 1 stop shallower DOF with Nikon 1.5x Vs FF or 1.3 stops Canon 1.6x crop Vs FF.
This is especially significant in portrait photographyr.

Next up, unless in exceptional circumstances, the same lens will appear sharper on a FF camera, and other lens faults will be appear reduced in comparison, like CA and purple fringing.

ISO is better, but not only is it less noisy, but even when it does get noisy it holds onto details better and doesn't blur over them.

The things that favor crop cameras are mainly cost. Also pixel density is usually denser thus if using sharp lenses at sharp settings, can give you more effective reach as the image is effectively already cropped for you but there are more pixels in that smaller area, however camera's like the D800 seem to now have the best of both worlds.

There are some decent crop camera's around, but I wouldn't EVER want to buy a 7d considering how much they cost, as I just don't think the IQ is anywhere near up to scratch, instead a D7000 would be an easy choice for me personally.

For FF, I would get a 1dsii or 5di or 5diii, (I would skip 5dii), or a D700 (would be my choice, but am biased), or even a D800.

If I had to pick one and cost was't an option, easily a D800, with FF goodness, great AF, video (not as good as 5diii though), 1.2x & 1.5x crop modes at 5/6fps it kind of has it all imo.

However, another camera I would be very interested in getting although it may or may not suite you, is a Fuji x1pro, with wide angle and a 35mm 1.4.

Yes it's a crop and after experiencing FF definitely prefer FF, but this crop sensor is special, the camera looks cool, so you can take it anywhere and not look like a geek. However it doesn't have as many lens options like DSLR's have. If I was a casual photographer though, or had money to spare, that would be my choice (if I could afford an M9).

alexthecheese · 3 May 2012 at 09:50

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

Rojin · 3 May 2012 at 10:32

The 5D2 has better IQ over the 7D, and the obvious FF DoF benefits. I never had any IQ or sharpness issues with a 7D and I'm actually looking to pick up another as a backup camera to the 1Ds2. None of my lenses are sharper on a FF body than they were on the crop body, in fact on a crop body you are actually using the sweet centre spot of a lens so softer corners are not as big an issue as they are on FF.

I would pick a 7D over a 550D purely for the handling and AF performance (8 fps is great for sport as well). If those aren't that important to you and you prefer a smaller body then go for the 550D. The 5D3 offers much better AF than the 5D2, but other gains aren't as major. So if you're happy with focus\recompose techniques I'd definitely have a look at the 5D2. I was looking at a 5D2 as a second camera, but 7D's have started to appear second hand for around £600 (one sold for £520 recently on TP due to a 70-80k shutter count which is nothing really) so I am coming round to wanting to pick up one again as the crop factor is great for sports.

Edit: Also the original 5D is going for £450 nowadays, that's a good price for entry into FF...

An Exception · 3 May 2012 at 11:26

^^^
7D doesn't have the IQ compared to other crops and therefore it doesn't have the reach either, because you can't crop so much before the IQ become unacceptable (which is subjective).
The 24mp Nex7 by comparison blows it away in terms of detail and crop-ability.

Also lenses are effectively sharper on FF apart from exceptional circumstances. Even with some lenses that get a little soft at the corners, the corner sharpness usually equals or betters the corner sharpness of a crop camera that is using the sweet spot of a lens. Only if a lens is ridiculously sharp in the center of ridiculously soft in the corners, is this not the case.

Below is an example with the 35g, which get's allot softer the further you get to the edge of the lens, yet the corners are still sharper on FF.
DP reviews and DXO also confirm FF is a fair amount sharper. And for the same reason FF is sharper, it also show less lens faults. Allot of people seem to like to suggest FF somehow need better more expensive lenses mounted on their camera's, but that's a myth, and the truth is the exact polar opposite for the vast majority of the time.

Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.4G with Nikon D700
100% crop from corner 1.4

Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.4G with Nikon D300
100% crop from corner

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_35mm_f1-4G/

Rojin · 3 May 2012 at 12:13

Sorry but a lens is not made sharper by anything, it is a fixed variable. Different sensors have different performance levels, and also PP will effect final sharpness of output. Which I guess is more in line with what you mean?

As I have already said none of my lenses were suddenly sharper when used on the 1Ds2 over the 7D. I don't pixel peep, I look at final output. At 15x10 (which is what I mainly print) there is no apparent difference. I do the odd A2 print as well, and in this case (airshows) the 7D output was better than the 1Ds2 for detail due to the crop\reach. Of course the D800 may change all that with it's higher density, but I can only comment on what I have actually seen.

Lensrentals have already done D800 comparison with lens resolution, and have shown that excellent technique and high quality lenses are required to get the full performance out of the D800. So not a myth at all (although the small differences aren't something I would worry about, for landscapers wanting max res\detail I guess it is important). Higher density sensors usually found on crops do show CA etc more as it is across more pixels, the actual CA produced by the lens isn't really effected. Again this is from my use of the CA king 85mm f1.8 on both FF and crop cameras. On a side note, apparently LR4.1 has a new better CA defringe tool (might also be worth looking at the for the Sigma 85?) but that is digressing

An Exception · 3 May 2012 at 13:40

Rojin said:
Sorry but a lens is not made sharper by anything, it is a fixed variable. Different sensors have different performance levels, and also PP will effect final sharpness of output. Which I guess is more in line with what you mean?

No that is not what I mean. Sure the lens doesn't physically change from one size sensor to another, that much is true. However the surface area of the lens used does change. A 12mp image from a crop camera is magnified approx over twice as much as the same 12mp FF image. It's for this reason of less magnification, that diffraction limits are also different between FF and crop sensors. For example the diffraction limit of a 12mp image is F10 on a crop camera, but it is F16 on a FF camera.

Rojin said:
As I have already said none of my lenses were suddenly sharper when used on the 1Ds2 over the 7D. I don't pixel peep, I look at final output. At 15x10 (which is what I mainly print) there is no apparent difference.

Well mine were, DXO shows the same, DPR shows the same, numerous other examples show the same, but then again I had a look to see what the difference was. And if your going to compare, it makes sense to compare at 100% magnification, I wouldn't dream casting judgement on image quality if I was only comparing a 4x6, 10x8 or 10x15 print etc. because at the end of the day, output size and magnification varies. For example, you might want to print a 10x15 at 25% magnification, but if you need to crop in post and still need to print a 10x15, it might be at 100% magnification, thus all the flaws will be much more visible.

D300 12mp

D700 12mp

Rojin said:
I do the odd A2 print as well, and in this case (airshows) the 7D output was better than the 1Ds2 for detail due to the crop\reach.

That is probably the case.

"The things that favor crop cameras are mainly cost. Also pixel density is usually denser thus if using sharp lenses at sharp settings, can give you more effective reach as the image is effectively already cropped for you but there are more pixels in that smaller area"

Rojin said:
Lensrentals have already done D800 comparison with lens resolution, and have shown that excellent technique and high quality lenses are required to get the full performance out of the D800. So not a myth at all

"Allot of people seem to like to suggest FF somehow need better more expensive lenses mounted on their camera's, but that's a myth"

I was not referring to pixel density, but people think they need better quality lenses on FF than they do on a crop, and that is indeed a myth.

Rojin · 3 May 2012 at 14:03

As usual we'll have to agree to disagree, no point arguing when you're using DXO and DP for reference which are the two places I would never use information from in relation to a purchase decision. 100% pixel peeping is not what I do with my photography, only the output format is important to me.

An Exception · 3 May 2012 at 14:20

Rojin said:
As usual we'll have to agree to disagree, no point arguing when you're using DXO and DP for reference which are the two places I would never use information from in relation to a purchase decision. 100% pixel peeping is not what I do with my photography, only the output format is important to me.

Pixel peeping isn't photography, it is simply a form of analysis, a way to gather information that can then be applied to one's photography in a practical sense. It can be useful to have a good understanding of the limit's your equipment, as I would rather know about limitations before running into them in the field, as I like to be prepared.
We can agree to disagree, even though I can show you my own samples that confirm DXO DP Cameralabs etc etc. but it would be more noble for you just to admit you might actually be wrong, because your effectively arguing against mathematical principals and image samples because you can't see any difference in a 10x15 print, that's like arging a 5dii IQ is no better than an iphone, because I can't tell any difference in a 4x6 print...

Rojin · 3 May 2012 at 14:32

lol, I don't agree with you so I'm wrong? Nice

The problem with DXO mark and all their mathematical principles, is that many don't apply to photography and are only relevant in their lab tests. You can worship at their alter as many do, I choose not to as do many others. In printed output up to A2 size the 7D and 1Ds2 that I had and used side by sides showed no difference in sharpness\IQ (not related to FF DoF etc). That is a fact that relates directly to my use in photography, because it was my actual use in photography. You may be able to see slight differences when viewing at 100% and 200%, but if that does not impact your final output medium, then it has zero relevance at all. If you can't see that then you're condemned to agonising over DXO charts forever!

Edit: Also on your DXO chart for the 35mm f1.4G, it's the resolution figure that we are discussing here (vignetting hammers the overall score), this does still show a difference but it is slight. If you look at the D90 it's a difference of 1 unit in comparison to the D700... Also have a look at the Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS mkII scores that DXO give, if you compare it to the 70-200L f2.8 and 70-200L IS f2.8 it fails miserably. After using all 3 of these lenses considerably I can tell you that the mkII is far and away the better lens. It's results like this why I can't take DXO too seriously. It is an interesting read at times though, I'll grant you that.

Rojin · 3 May 2012 at 15:04

alexthecheese said:
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

Forgot about the D3200 question, if I was you and it's a camera you're considering I'd definitely wait to see how it reviews and what users make of it when released. Nikon have their game face on so you'd hope it delivers the goods.

Columbo · 3 May 2012 at 15:17

An Exception said:
Pixel peeping isn't photography, it is simply a form of analysis, a way to gather information that can then be applied to one's photography in a practical sense. It can be useful to have a good understanding of the limit's your equipment, as I would rather know about limitations before running into them in the field, as I like to be prepared.
We can agree to disagree, even though I can show you my own samples that confirm DXO DP Cameralabs etc etc. but it would be more noble for you just to admit you might actually be wrong, because your effectively arguing against mathematical principals and image samples because you can't see any difference in a 10x15 print, that's like arging a 5dii IQ is no better than an iphone, because I can't tell any difference in a 4x6 print...

Stop pixel peeping, get off DXO and take some pics ffs. Are you printing shots for billboards or something?

Who cares about mathematical equations and 100% image crops if you are not doing photography professionally.

I'd take real world user experience over the DXO and DP labrat tests anyday of the week simply because it means more to me.