DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 7D or Canon 5D Mark II?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/03/2010 09:38:29 PM · #1
I know the difference is the full chip but is it really worth it?
02/03/2010 09:46:10 PM · #2
I am eating Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches and Ramen noodles for ayear to afford both. Plus 24-70L, 70-200L 100MacroL and the 28mm 1.8

Realize full chip gives you better wide angle. If you go with 7D you have to pay even more to get even more wide angle.
02/03/2010 09:49:14 PM · #3
I had the same debate at the end of last November. I went 5DII for the FF, image quality and low light performance. Overall feel of the camera in my hand was also a big factor. 7D is great too, and if I find I need the extra fps, I'll probably pick one up as a secondary camera! Right now the 70-200 f2.8L (II?) is on my short list.

Message edited by author 2010-02-03 21:49:34.
02/03/2010 09:58:20 PM · #4
This is a hell of a tough choice right now... the 7D has a more modern AF system as well as a few other nice features that the 5DII lacks because, well, it's a year older.
I really have thought about upgrading from 5D to 5DII, but IMO I will wait for the next iteration.
Bottom line, no way I am going back to APS, so I will wait for the 5DIII. IN all probability, another 18-24 months to go on that, though.
02/03/2010 10:12:55 PM · #5
Originally posted by kirbic:

This is a hell of a tough choice right now... the 7D has a more modern AF system as well as a few other nice features that the 5DII lacks because, well, it's a year older.
...

It seems as though I've always heard grumblings about the 5D and 5DII's AF system, regardless of how new they were. Any speculation on why Canon hasn't taken a more active role in addressing this? Having never really used one other than screwing around in electronics stores, I haven't had a good chance to really see these problems myself. Is it because the camera isn't designed with action scenarios as a prime environment for use?
02/03/2010 10:16:31 PM · #6
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by kirbic:

This is a hell of a tough choice right now... the 7D has a more modern AF system as well as a few other nice features that the 5DII lacks because, well, it's a year older.
...

It seems as though I've always heard grumblings about the 5D and 5DII's AF system, regardless of how new they were. Any speculation on why Canon hasn't taken a more active role in addressing this? Having never really used one other than screwing around in electronics stores, I haven't had a good chance to really see these problems myself. Is it because the camera isn't designed with action scenarios as a prime environment for use?


I wouldn't go as far as to call it a problem... my (original) 5D focuses just fine, and it is one of the first ones shipped to the US in September, 2005. The 5DII is by most reports better still, especially in low light. The AF system on the 7D is more advanced, though, with more cross-type sensors. By nearly all accounts, it is superior to either 5D model.
02/03/2010 10:30:44 PM · #7
I have friends that use both cameras. There is a distinct difference in what they like to shoot. The 7D guys are all into sports photography especially fast moving ones.!!
02/03/2010 10:38:42 PM · #8
I think ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' andrewt is on the right track. I moved from a cropped sensor to the 5D because I wasn't shooting sports any longer and started shooting more landscapes & portraits. If you need the extra reach the 7D appears to be awesome, If more portrait and landscape, 5DII.

Originally posted by andrewt:

I have friends that use both cameras. There is a distinct difference in what they like to shoot. The 7D guys are all into sports photography especially fast moving ones.!!
02/03/2010 10:40:55 PM · #9
I tried both with my own lenses and shooting what I do in the real world and the 7D won out. the main reasons being:

7D native flash sync is 1/250, the 5DMKII was 1/200. Doesn't sound like a lot but when Im shooting a 4 yo thats running around and cant sit still it makes a difference.

5DMKII's focus points, I didn't like them at all, I found them to be far too crowded for my tastes in the center of the view, didn't like the thought of focus-recompose-shoot, I prefer to focus and shoot.

Love the 7D's focus points and have it permanently set to manual selection of the points as a few test shots relying on total AF failed miserably.

AS far as the whole lens issue between the two I compared side by side my 40D with a 10-22 on it with the 5DMKII and my 17-40 and the view was identical between the two including distortion.

7D also gained a point with the IR flash trigger that works amazingly well, a lot of the tests I tried I could even put the flash beside me or behind me even in some rooms and trigger the flash ;)

Price was of course another factor, and although its not much more than a toy to me as far as the video ability goes, the 7D kicked ass with that too with being able to focus while shooting and amount of options for the video was quite a bit more.

As far as focus speed on both, I didnt notice much of a difference on any of my lenses that would mount to both bodies and I tried them all :)

and the high ISO quality on the 7D is pretty fricken sweet as well, far exceeding my expectations and I might break out of my ISO100 comfort zone with this one :) (yes 99.5% of my shots I take at ISO100)

-dave

if you can RENT BOTH or borrow them and try them for your self and make your own mind up
02/03/2010 10:45:32 PM · #10
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Any speculation on why Canon hasn't taken a more active role in addressing this? Having never really used one other than screwing around in electronics stores, I haven't had a good chance to really see these problems myself. Is it because the camera isn't designed with action scenarios as a prime environment for use?


Price.

The AF isn't bad, it just isn't good. It works, but it is nothing like the d300, d700, d3, 1d, 1ds, etc.

The same can be said about the build quality. While I was using one, the mirror flipping up was somehow enough to knock the "ground glass" out of the body (it's a piece of plastic). Repair involved pushing it back into place until a click was heard.

The 5d II lacks good af, a titanium body, weather-sealing, general hardiness, decent fps-rate, etc. But it gives the second best image quality of any 35mm dslr, and the first (d3x) costs 3x as much.

Message edited by author 2010-02-03 22:47:16.
02/03/2010 10:45:32 PM · #11
Originally posted by andrewt:

I have friends that use both cameras. There is a distinct difference in what they like to shoot. The 7D guys are all into sports photography especially fast moving ones.!!

That's kinda what I was asking- is it intended more for a different niche, so the addition would just be unnecessary cost? Or do they not want it competing so directly with their flagship 1D?
And ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' kirbic, my use of the word "problem" was somewhat misleading. I mean, since it's obvious they can produce a better AF system, and use it in other cameras at nearly the same time of release, WHY NOT?
02/03/2010 10:55:27 PM · #12
Originally posted by robshookphoto:


The 5d II lacks good af, a titanium body, weather-sealing, general hardiness, decent fps-rate, etc. But it gives the second best image quality of any 35mm dslr, and the first (d3x) costs 3x as much.


This is not true. The 5D did not have weather sealing, MKII does.
While I guess it's true that it ISN'T titanium, hardly any body today is. They are made out of magnesium (which the 5d and 5d MKII are as well).
After some dredging though, I found this release from Photokina from Canon discussing the MKII's AF, which strikes me as total rubbish since anybody with google can find tons of people complaining:
Firstly the market's evaluation of the 5D's AF system has been very positive; there have been no complaints from users, with everyone saying it's very good. Given that, to a certain extent, we think we shouldn't change it. And also there's some limitation with size; the AF sensor in the 50D is very big; the one in the 5D is much smaller. If we wanted to have all cross-sensors in the 5D Mark II, it would mean we might have to sacrifice the compactness of the body. It's all a question of balance of features and benefits."
Anyway, I was mostly just curious.
02/03/2010 11:35:30 PM · #13
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

This is not true. The 5D did not have weather sealing, MKII does.
While I guess it's true that it ISN'T titanium, hardly any body today is. They are made out of magnesium (which the 5d and 5d MKII are as well).
After some dredging though, I found this release from Photokina from Canon discussing the MKII's AF, which strikes me as total rubbish since anybody with google can find tons of people complaining:
Firstly the market's evaluation of the 5D's AF system has been very positive; there have been no complaints from users, with everyone saying it's very good. Given that, to a certain extent, we think we shouldn't change it. And also there's some limitation with size; the AF sensor in the 50D is very big; the one in the 5D is much smaller. If we wanted to have all cross-sensors in the 5D Mark II, it would mean we might have to sacrifice the compactness of the body. It's all a question of balance of features and benefits."
Anyway, I was mostly just curious.


The 5d II is built far more cheaply than the nikons, the 7d, and especially pro bodies. This includes its inferior weather sealing.

When you hold these cameras, you quickly notice the differences. The 5d II is very cheaply built. It's extremely light and feels very "plasticky" next to 1d/1ds, d700/d3, and even the 7d. Why would canon do this? Simple. They wanted to put a full-frame 21mp sensor into a sub-$3000 camera body.

The same goes for autofocus. The body-size argument is, in my opinion, BS.

The 7d managed to have fantastic af that rivals that of good copies of the 1d III, and it is in an even smaller body than the 5d II. Yes, the 7d does not have the large sensor the 5d II does, but the d700 has both that and an AF system stolen out of the D3.

The obvious answer is Canon skimped to gain market share because of price. I'm not complaining - the 5d II is a fantastic camera. While it is nowhere near suited for the perils of some aspects of professional photography, it is also not marketed at that group. Professionals who need a pro body still use the 1ds III or are waiting for the IV.

Message edited by author 2010-02-03 23:36:01.
02/04/2010 12:09:53 AM · #14
Originally posted by robshookphoto:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

This is not true. The 5D did not have weather sealing, MKII does.
While I guess it's true that it ISN'T titanium, hardly any body today is. They are made out of magnesium (which the 5d and 5d MKII are as well).
After some dredging though, I found this release from Photokina from Canon discussing the MKII's AF, which strikes me as total rubbish since anybody with google can find tons of people complaining:
Firstly the market's evaluation of the 5D's AF system has been very positive; there have been no complaints from users, with everyone saying it's very good. Given that, to a certain extent, we think we shouldn't change it. And also there's some limitation with size; the AF sensor in the 50D is very big; the one in the 5D is much smaller. If we wanted to have all cross-sensors in the 5D Mark II, it would mean we might have to sacrifice the compactness of the body. It's all a question of balance of features and benefits."
Anyway, I was mostly just curious.


The 5d II is built far more cheaply than the nikons, the 7d, and especially pro bodies. This includes its inferior weather sealing.

When you hold these cameras, you quickly notice the differences. The 5d II is very cheaply built. It's extremely light and feels very "plasticky" next to 1d/1ds, d700/d3, and even the 7d. Why would canon do this? Simple. They wanted to put a full-frame 21mp sensor into a sub-$3000 camera body.

The same goes for autofocus. The body-size argument is, in my opinion, BS.

The 7d managed to have fantastic af that rivals that of good copies of the 1d III, and it is in an even smaller body than the 5d II. Yes, the 7d does not have the large sensor the 5d II does, but the d700 has both that and an AF system stolen out of the D3.

The obvious answer is Canon skimped to gain market share because of price. I'm not complaining - the 5d II is a fantastic camera. While it is nowhere near suited for the perils of some aspects of professional photography, it is also not marketed at that group. Professionals who need a pro body still use the 1ds III or are waiting for the IV.


while i agree with most of what you are saying, you keep missing another big variable in equation - which is SONY (A900 and A850).

I think 5d mk2 's price is result of Sony selling their full frame under 3000 dollars and has not much to do with built and AF. Because A900 is well built and has a pretty good AF too.
(plus i think A900 has better image quality compared to 5d mk2 at base ISOs, since it has same sensor as D3X).

pricing is mostly a different issue than body built and AF etc. Pricing is more to do with market and its conditions.

02/04/2010 01:43:47 AM · #15
5d mkII is the best thing Canon make.
02/04/2010 03:02:43 AM · #16
I have the 7D and the 5DmkII and prefer the 5DmkII, though probably because I had it first and thus all my lenses are EF. If you work more at the wide end then there is little competition. However, with the 1.6 crop factor of the 7D, I am getting a whole new level of use from my longer lenses (since 21/18 < 1.6). As others have said, the focussing system on the 7D is in another league, allowing for much greater discrimination, you can change the sensitivity and timing of tracking so that a bird flying into the branches of a tree won't cause the tracking to shift from bird to branch right away (according to the literature). FPS is much higher on the 7 too. Feel wise, they both feel of similar build quality but I find I prefer the layout of the 5, I am sure this is just because I am more used to it. I also find the 5 easier o set up and navigate the menus through - again this may be familiarity but trying to be objective, I'd say that the 7 is a bit more complicated.

Early days for me with the 7 but those are my early impressions.
04/26/2010 12:46:28 AM · #17
Hi. I have a canon 400D and want to upgrade. 7D or 5D mark II??? Reason to upgrade - better quality image esp low light. Take variety of subjects but favour portraits and shoot the occassional wedding. 5D II should be better in these respects being full frame but is it HEAPS better than the newer and cheaper 7D? Would the 7D still be a big step up from the old 400D? The 5D will cost me more not only to buy the body but cause I'll have to upgrade my work horse lens currently the EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM to somethoing like the 24-70mm f2.8 L USM.
04/26/2010 04:19:22 AM · #18
I don't own the 7D, but I have a 5DmkII and a 1DmkII. I got the 5DmkII mostly because of the FF sensor. With my sigma 12-24, it provides a significantly wider FOV than any non-fisheye lens on a crop body. As to the build quality, it's solid. Not 1D solid, but it's not supposed to be, but definitely better in the hand than my old 10D that still shoot since I had it converted to IR. If you want a camera that's 1D solid, then get a 1D series camera. Right now, my 1D is my backup cam, unless I need the FPS or something to fend off a charging rhino. When I get a new backup cam, it'll probably be a 7D
04/26/2010 04:33:16 AM · #19
I have the 5Dmk2 but understand that the 7D is better in some ways. But I primarily do Real Estate photos so FF was big for me. I had a 1Dmk3 for a while but wanted to use the 16-35 II lesne which wasn't wide enough on a non-FF camera.

Last Saturday I bought my wife the new 550D. The photo dude in the shop said (right or wrong as it may be) that the 550D and 7D basically are the same cameras with the only siginificant difference being that the 550D comes in a more toy like, light, non-weather proof casing. I love it though and wish my 5D was more 550D like.
It seems to me that the 7D and 550D (and 1Dmk4) is one generation (albeit only slightly) ahead of the 5Dmk2.
04/26/2010 04:41:21 AM · #20
I've been to a movie shooting this night and the crew used only 7d as their camera. they said it's hd video is as good as on the professional cinema cameras. so amazing! they said now they don't ned to carry all the huge stuff with them:) just a note about 7d.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/22/2020 12:50:01 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/22/2020 12:50:01 AM EST.