# 7D and 5D II that different?



## hgascoigne (Aug 8, 2012)

Hello all,

I've been sitting on the fence between a 7D and 5D II for about 3 months now. I've been reading a lot online about the difference between the two cameras. I hear people talking about the "feel" of 5D images and how the color is better, but is it really that different or is it just pixel peeping? I'm not a professional wedding shooter, just a guy with a hobby. That doesn't mean I don't want the best, but that's a $600 difference that I'd rather not spend if I don't have to. 

I mainly shoot landscapes and portraits of friends and family. Thank you!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2012)

The 7D would be a better choice if you were going to shoot sports/wildlife, but IMO, the 5DII is the clear choice for landscape and portrait use.


IQ of the 5DII is noticeably better. 
ISO noise is over a stop lower - if you shoot indoor portraits in ambient light, that's a big help.
The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.
DoF is thinner on FF, which is useful for portraits (for the same framing, for the DoF you get at f/2.8 on FF, you'd need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C).
If you're shooting in good light, you can post-process the 7D images to essentially the same quality as the 5DII (except for the DoF part, since despite the new background blur tools in CS6, you can't get the same look). But it takes a fair bit of work, and the 5DII gets it right straight out of the camera.


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 8, 2012)

+1 to what Neuro said.

You could also get the same benefits he speaks about with a 5Dc but that is a much older rig in terms of menu systems, etc.. The images from a 5Dc have a wonderful quality about them and you can pick one up for under $800.


----------



## Helevitia (Aug 8, 2012)

I've owned a 7D since April/May. It's a great camera, you won't be disappointed. The one huge difference that I noticed right away is the ISO noise. The 5DM2 blows away the 7D in this area. If noise is a big concern, you should really rent both cameras and look for yourself. I really believe that anything past ISO 400 on the 7D has too much noise. The 5DM2 can easily go up to 3200 and still have an usable image. Of course, noise is subjective and what bothers me may not bother you  

And last, might as well wait 1-2 months and see what new Cameras Canon will announce. It looks like they might release an entry level Full Frame DSLR. It'll probably be about $2K.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 8, 2012)

The colors of the 5Dc are considered better by many people, thats a $800 used body but only 12.8mp. The 5d2 on the other hand is a 21mp body with much better ISO capabilities. The 5Dc has ISO capabilities similar to the 7D, but again it is FF and slightly cheaper.

While the 5dii will be better for you as far as getting a shallow Dof and noise improvements, the 7D will let you buy cheaper EF-S lenses some of which are pretty good. (17-55 and 10-22 come to mind) .

Also the 7D is much faster with focussing and has a higher FPS and lots of newer features compared to the 5dii.

Your preferences may vary... it's your choice but the 2 bodies are compelling and fairly different.


----------



## hgascoigne (Aug 8, 2012)

Thank you all for the comments. I decided to pull the trigger on the 5D Mk. II. My bank account looks a little sad, but (hopefully) it'll be worth it. I'm a college student so being poor is nothing new.


----------



## chasn (Aug 8, 2012)

I am a pure hobbyist and have had a 7D for a couple of years and a 5DII for a couple of months ( couldn't resist trying FF). I suppose a lot of my pics are sports related but even so if I had to buy one camera it would be the 7D by a mile. Fast fps, good AF, Ef-s lens compatibilty, flash control, extra reach and much cheaper. If you are heavily landscape/ weddings/low light then the 5DII may well be a lot better ( and I have taken some nice low light shots with the Zeiss 18 mm lens) but at a price. In goodish light shooting raw pros might tell the difference but I couldn't - obviously the lens collection you have could be relevant.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 8, 2012)

hgascoigne said:


> Thank you all for the comments. I decided to pull the trigger on the 5D Mk. II. My bank account looks a little sad, but (hopefully) it'll be worth it. I'm a college student so being poor is nothing new.



5D II is good a choice if you not shooting anything fast


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> IQ of the 5DII is noticeably better.



When making large prints from ISO 1600 and higher shots...yes. Otherwise I have yet to find a person who can tell me print from print when the prints (16x24") aren't labeled. And that's the real test because otherwise biases, both conscious and subconscious, overwhelm reason.

Granted I apply a bit more processing to 7D files then 5D2 files. A little more sharpening and local contrast enhancement, and sometimes a little more NR.



> ISO noise is over a stop lower - if you shoot indoor portraits in ambient light, that's a big help.



Agreed. With that said, the 7D can reliably go to 3200 for medium sized prints (11x14). I often find nailing focus with fast primes in low light to be the bigger challenge, and the 7D is noticeably better here.



> The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.



False. Diffraction does not impact any format more than any other for a given combination of FoV and DoF.



> DoF is thinner on FF, which is useful for portraits (for the same framing, for the DoF you get at f/2.8 on FF, you'd need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C).



True. But there are caveats:

1) Thin DoF comes into play for head shots. FF is really thin here shooting primes wide open, thinner then most people care for. I'm surprised how often this is cited as an advantage given how rarely I see portraits with super thin (one eye in focus) DoF.

2) If you need more DoF then you get wide open on FF, then you all of a sudden lose the high ISO advantage vs. crop. If you can shoot FF wide open, then focus becomes even more critical.

This is considering fast primes. If we're talking f/2.8 zooms, then FF tends to be in a sweet spot wide open. I can understand why, for example, a wedding photographer with f/2.8 zooms would want FF DoF.




> If you're shooting in good light, you can post-process the 7D images to essentially the same quality as the 5DII (except for the DoF part, since despite the new background blur tools in CS6, you can't get the same look). But it takes a fair bit of work, and the 5DII gets it right straight out of the camera.



The work is no different. It's just different numbers in the same dialog boxes, or different settings in the camera styles.



Helevitia said:


> I've owned a 7D since April/May. It's a great camera, you won't be disappointed. The one huge difference that I noticed right away is the ISO noise. The 5DM2 blows away the 7D in this area. If noise is a big concern, you should really rent both cameras and look for yourself. I really believe that anything past ISO 400 on the 7D has too much noise.



If noise >400 is too much on your 7D, then there's something wrong with your 7D. One of my favorite candid shots of a relative's baby was shot at ISO 800, pushed 1/3rd stop in ACR, and printed to 20". There is no noise.


----------



## lol (Aug 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.



If you consider equivalence, you'd need to stop down the 5D2 shots more than on the 7D to get the same depth of field, assuming you have already use the correct focal lengths for the same field of view. So there is no benefit to the 5D2 there. If anything, if you're going pixel peeping, the 5D2 would then be worse for diffraction since it has more of them.

Even for noise, still considering strict equivalence, the 7D is generally superior to me since when you go fishing in the shadows it is less prone to show banding. The only benefit I see for picking a 5D2 over a 7D is if you need the shallower depth of field that can be attained with lenses that exist.

The other apparent advantages of a bigger sensor only come into play if you don't need or care about strict equivalence.


----------



## 1255 (Aug 8, 2012)

i sold my 5d2 early on (one week prior to the official announcement) to slightly offset the cost of a 5d3, and i bought a 7d in the interim to play around with while i waited for the dust to settle (waiting for the dust to settle on the 1dx now). 

loved my 5d2, so OP great choice. 

must say though, the 7d has produced a few truly magical shots, wonderful. it's a great camera, and will remain in my kit. 

ps always +1 for neuro. most everyone makes great comments on the site, and all are appreciated, but neuro, i see that profile pic of yours and i pay attention. 

as always, thanks to all, good shooting and all that...


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 8, 2012)

lol said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.
> ...



Indeed true. For years, people have been dogging the 7D. But, for years it has been producing me phenomenal images...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 8, 2012)

Do you need the absolute best speed and af for the cash? = 7d

Do you need the absolute best IQ for the cash? = 5d2

The 5d2 has good simple to use and understand AF, the 7D has very good image quality, especially if you are confident with slight unsharp mask and luma noise nr at the raw stage.

You can shoot sports with a 5d2 and you can shoot portraits and landscape with a 7d, but if you have a specific interest refer to the first part of my answer.

I shoot a lot of video with mf and chose the 7d as there is just that bit more focus latitude.


----------



## Wilmark (Aug 8, 2012)

To the OP. These two canon cameras are exact opposites to each other. If you cannot tell the difference you should be looking for a point and shoot or a rebel/mirror less and put the extra money to your kids college fund.

What the 5DII have the 7D lacks and viceversa. The 7D has performance/Speed, post processing options (esp with firmware upgrades) dual digic, great auto focusing system. The 5DII have a great FF sensor for the best IQ canon has to offer (almost). But none of those things the 7D has as a matter of fact its quite poor in those points described for the 7D. But the 7D sensor sucks when there is low light. Dont care what other tell you it sucks. Like a good phone it will take great shots in good light. The 5DII will take great shots in poor light. If you want the best of both worlds go for the 5D MkIII. People bitch about the price but i think its worth it. But IMHO if you had to ask, you are wasting your money on either.


----------



## hgascoigne (Aug 8, 2012)

For me, I believe my deciding factor with going FF was simply just that. I've had a T2i for 2 years now and have heard so much about FF being great. I don't shoot any sports and I want to give FF a go. The worst that can happen is that I decide I don't need it and sell it. I bought it used for $1550 so I feel like I got a pretty good deal on it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 8, 2012)

lol said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.
> ...



Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence? FF gives you the option for shallow DOF and faster shutter speed. Given a trade between faster shutter speed and shallower DOF versus not getting the shot due to blur, I'd choose faster shutter speed and shallower DOF. I'd rather shoot a 5DII at ISO 3200 in a dark auditorium rather than a 7D at ISO 3200. The same lenses will also result in higher resolution (lp per image height) on a larger sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence? FF gives you the option for shallow DOF and faster shutter speed.



+1.



hgascoigne said:


> For me, I believe my deciding factor with going FF was simply just that. I've had a T2i for 2 years now and have heard so much about FF being great. I don't shoot any sports and I want to give FF a go.



The 7D uses the exact same CMOS image sensor as your T2i. The benefits you'd gain with the 7D are entirely outside the area of (direct) IQ - faster frame rate, better AF especially AI Servo, more robust build, etc.


----------



## hgascoigne (Aug 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 7D uses the exact same CMOS image sensor as your T2i. The benefits you'd gain with the 7D are entirely outside the area of (direct) IQ - faster frame rate, better AF especially AI Servo, more robust build, etc.



Which is why I went for the 5D. I wanted to see what kind of image quality I would get from moving up to FF.


----------



## lol (Aug 8, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence? FF gives you the option for shallow DOF and faster shutter speed. Given a trade between faster shutter speed and shallower DOF versus not getting the shot due to blur, I'd choose faster shutter speed and shallower DOF. I'd rather shoot a 5DII at ISO 3200 in a dark auditorium rather than a 7D at ISO 3200. The same lenses will also result in higher resolution (lp per image height) on a larger sensor.



I'm only using equivalence for comparison purposes, saying that in like for like output conditions, the 7D has the slight edge in theory (in practice, it is not really significant). BUT I also say if you do need to operate in the area that the 5D2 brings in which is not easily attainable on the 7D, obviously that's a benefit too. For those reasons, I have both cameras myself.

Personally, for a lot of my shooting, I don't need a shallow DoF and in fact I struggle to keep enough DoF on subjects. So overall, the 7D (or any other Canon 18MP crop sensor body) is better suited to me than a 5D2 is maybe 99% of the time. But I still got the 5D2 for that 1% of the time when the 7D reaches its sensor size limits.

As a parallel to the so called MP wars, I think too many people blindly think bigger sensor must always be better, without understanding why it might or might not be.


----------



## hgascoigne (Aug 8, 2012)

Lol, I understand where you're coming from. For me, I shoot landscapes and from what I have heard the FF does benefit here, and I am a big fan of shallow DoF in my portraits. Therefore I think the 5D plays more toward my tendencies than does the 7D.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 8, 2012)

I hope I have collected all the circumstances on one diagram. Unofficial subjective 5d2 vs 5d3 vs 7d buyer's guide  I know the thread is on 7d vs 5d2 but if you can't have them both but still want best they both have, you should go 5d3 anyway (I don't have 5d3 so can't confirm all myself)




5d2 or 5d3 or 7d - buyer's guide  by marekjoz, on Flickr


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2012)

lol said:


> BUT I also say if you do need to operate in the area that the 5D2 brings in which is not easily attainable on the 7D, obviously that's a benefit too. For those reasons, I have both cameras myself.



Agreed, but for me, that's a lot more than 1% of the time. 

I had both 7D and 5DII, until swapping the latter for a 1D X. IMO, the 5DII provides a ~1.3 stop ISO advantage over the 7D. As was pointed out earlier, that's a trade-off with DoF. But...from my testing, I think the 1D X delivers a 2-stop advantage over the 5DII, with no penalty in terms of thinner DoF.


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 8, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> I hope I have collected all the circumstances on one diagram. Unoficial subjective 5d2 vs 5d3 vs 7d buyer's guide  I know the thread is on 7d vs 5d2 but if you can't have them both but still want best hey have, you should go 5d3 anyway (I don't have 5d3 so can't confirm all myself)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hilarious and very true!


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 8, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I have collected all the circumstances on one diagram. Unoficial subjective 5d2 vs 5d3 vs 7d buyer's guide  I know the thread is on 7d vs 5d2 but if you can't have them both but still want best hey have, you should go 5d3 anyway (I don't have 5d3 so can't confirm all myself)
> ...


Thank you


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 8, 2012)

The 5DII is still a stellar camera and something about the images just looks awesome compared to the APS-C family. 7D is great but I think you made the right choice, the jump from a T2i was wonderful for me. The only time I'd recommend the 7D over a 5DII is if you were shooting sports/wildlife and needed the superior AF/burst rate.


----------



## picturesbyme (Aug 8, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> I hope I have collected all the circumstances on one diagram. Unofficial subjective 5d2 vs 5d3 vs 7d buyer's guide  I know the thread is on 7d vs 5d2 but if you can't have them both but still want best they both have, you should go 5d3 anyway (I don't have 5d3 so can't confirm all myself)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Haha.. I like this 
...and as long as the models are not running we're safe


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 9, 2012)

hgascoigne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D uses the exact same CMOS image sensor as your T2i. The benefits you'd gain with the 7D are entirely outside the area of (direct) IQ - faster frame rate, better AF especially AI Servo, more robust build, etc.
> ...



Congrads...you should like it!


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> lol said:
> 
> 
> > BUT I also say if you do need to operate in the area that the 5D2 brings in which is not easily attainable on the 7D, obviously that's a benefit too. For those reasons, I have both cameras myself.
> ...



It will be interesting to see how the next 1-2 generations of FF cameras develop. If the pixel density of the 7D is about the limit of good sensor performance (Airy disk, etc.), then a FF camera that is about 46 MP will match it, and there would be no advantage of a crop camera besides price and file size.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 9, 2012)

But also the 5D MKII is a step backwards. AF system is so old and ruins the camera really, is it still worth £1600 I don't think so, if it were £1250 £1300 then I would say yes. But then the 5D MKIII is that worth another £1000 premium again no, but this is a frustrating time as a buyer for Canon so you did right pulling the trigger I just won't! It would be my luck to pull the trigger on one and it be dropped in price by a big margin or this consumer FF camera would be released. Also still shooting a 40D and spending £1600 on a camera with the same AF system would be counter productive IMO.


----------



## picturesbyme (Aug 9, 2012)

tomscott said:


> But also the 5D MKII is a step backwards. AF system is so old and ruins the camera really, is it still worth £1600 I don't think so, if it were £1250 £1300 then I would say yes. But then the 5D MKIII is that worth another £1000 premium again no, but this is a frustrating time as a buyer for Canon so you did right pulling the trigger I just won't! It would be my luck to pull the trigger on one and it be dropped in price by a big margin or this consumer FF camera would be released. Also still shooting a 40D and spending £1600 on a camera with the same AF system would be counter productive IMO.



Sold my old 5D2 and got one for $1899 brand new not that long ago, canon auth. dealer+freeS&H (that's about £1212 right?).


----------



## Richard8971 (Aug 9, 2012)

I have both and while I love the image quality and colors in the 5D2, I find myself grabbing my 7D more. The 7D, for the money (I have seen it new for as low as $1300.00 ~ $1350.00 @ B&H recently) is one heck of a camera. It is fast, responsive and the image quality is outstanding. For the best rounded out camera that gives you a good mix of balanced features/quality for a great price, you cannot beat the 7D. 

D


----------



## helpful (Aug 9, 2012)

The 7D and 5D II are way different. Extremely, extremely different.

The 7D somehow ends up being the most useful camera to me. I am sorry to put down a good camera like the 5D II, but the 7D seems to do everything better except for the sensor. Even the shutter sound of the 7D is professional, while the 5D II sounds like a plastic toy.

Academics (and I'm one myself) might say that the sensor is the essence of a camera. But if a camera can do everything better like the 7D can versus the 5D II, except for the sensor, it just makes it much more easy to use as a machine for taking photographs.

And in the conditions where a low-light sensor would be needed, oftentimes the 5D II's shortcomings (like a focus tracking system that is actually allergic to focus tracking) prevent its better sensor from having a chance to shine. A picture that isn't in focus on a 5D II sensor is much worse quality than the same picture with a bit of noise on the 7D's sensor, but in focus. That's just an example.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 9, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> To the OP. These two canon cameras are exact opposites to each other. If you cannot tell the difference you should be looking for a point and shoot or a rebel/mirror less and put the extra money to your kids college fund.



Way to start off your post by making a statement that is both false and insulting. The reason the question comes up so often in forums all over the Internet is precisely because these cameras are not "opposites", but are relatively close in terms of IQ and features.



> But the 7D sensor sucks when there is low light. Dont care what other tell you it sucks.



Here are two ISO 3200 crops presented at roughly the size they would appear on 24" prints. Does either one "suck"? Can you tell me which cameras they came from?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 9, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence?



The original comment was that a 5D2 lets you stop down more before diffraction impacts sharpness. This is false. When shooting equivalent landscapes (FoV and DoF) diffraction does not impact any format more than any other. You cannot get "more DoF with less diffraction" with FF. This is true across the spectrum, from 4/3 to large format.



> I'd rather shoot a 5DII at ISO 3200 in a dark auditorium rather than a 7D at ISO 3200.



For me it would depend on other factors. Again I'll point out that if you need more DoF then you can get with a wide open prime on FF, then you've lost the sensor ISO advantage. f/1.4 is not a sweet spot for FF, it's hardly usable. And I have more trouble nailing focus with a fast prime on the 5D2 then on the 7D, aggravated by having the lens wide open. 

Now if we're talking f/2.8 zooms where f/2.8 offers sufficient DoF, then yes, I would pick up the 5D2 for the dark auditorium. The f/2.8 zooms make complete sense on FF for, say, wedding and PJ work.



> The same lenses will also result in higher resolution (lp per image height) on a larger sensor.



A false meme caused by a general misunderstanding of lens testing. The same lenses will result in higher detail contrast (sharpness). If these were the film days, that difference would be a big deal. In the world of PS it's inconsequential between these two particular sensors, except at higher ISOs where sharpening increases the noise differences.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 9, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> Here are two ISO 3200 crops presented at roughly the size they would appear on 24" prints. Does either one "suck"? Can you tell me which cameras they came from?



Right hand is 7D

They both are suffering from noise


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 9, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> It will be interesting to see how the next 1-2 generations of FF cameras develop. If the pixel density of the 7D is about the limit of good sensor performance (Airy disk, etc.), then a FF camera that is about 46 MP will match it, and there would be no advantage of a crop camera besides price and file size.



I imagine we will see higher resolution sensors than that. But at today's tech level, I would love to see a 45 MP 5D. For all the hand wringing and discussion over IQ differences between the 5D2/5D3 and 7D, I see very little difference between them at low to mid ISO, even while pixel peeping. I see a much more significant difference between Canon anything and the D800. Fine details and surface textures really stand out on the D800. Granted, this isn't going to matter unless you make large and very large prints. But it does matter there, a lot more than any difference between Canon's APS-C and FF sensors.

Put three 30" landscape prints side by side, and the 7D/5D2 prints will look the same. The D800 will be noticeably better.

I don't care to try and support two lens systems, so I hope Canon's high resolution FF comes out soon.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 9, 2012)

> They both are suffering from noise



They're both ISO 3200 and the presentation size is roughly 24". There's some noise, but neither "sucks", and there really isn't much at all to choose between them. (And some of the roughness you consider "noise" would disappear in a print where all pixels can be laid down on the paper instead of scaled down by algorithm.)


----------



## mibu (Aug 9, 2012)

hello guys. I have a 7d for about 3 years and got a 5d a month ago, just before I have gone to croatia in vacation. there I have done lots of tests with both cameras. what I have found out is that with the 5d the images have more clear fine details than with the 7d, especially with a very good lens. for example, I took landscape photos of pine trees on a mountain and the needles are much clearer on the 5d. the lenses I tested with there were a tamron 48-75mm, f/2.8 and a zeiss planat t 50mm, f/1.4. with both the details are better on the 5d. 
actually this is the case even in the photo of the bottle label published here. I think a little more contrast should not be misunderstood as better image quality...


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 9, 2012)

mibu said:


> hello guys. I have a 7d for about 3 years and got a 5d a month ago, just before I have gone to croatia in vacation. there I have done lots of tests with both cameras. what I have found out is that with the 5d the images have more clear fine details than with the 7d, especially with a very good lens. for example, I took landscape photos of pine trees on a mountain and the needles are much clearer on the 5d. the lenses I tested with there were a tamron 48-75mm, f/2.8 and a zeiss planat t 50mm, f/1.4. with both the details are better on the 5d.
> actually this is the case even in the photo of the bottle label published here. I think a little more contrast should not be misunderstood as better image quality...



I found similar differences between 7d and 5d2. But I think sometimes it's a matter of technique. 7D requires better technique and it forgives much less than 5d2 with the same lenses (if they are good of course and don't blurr the image too much in the corners and don't provide much more CA), like 70-200. I found out after some longer time, that on 7D you really need to setup everything more accurate. I think that the correct ISO setting in 7D is more crucial than in 5D2. Also 7d has really big pixel density in comparison to 5d2 and crop 1.6, so it requires higher shutter speed. 
My observation are:
1. If you crop 5d2 image cutting off 1.6 factor to achieve the same image as in 7d (so having less pixels in that image than in 7d) - the image on 7d will be better as there are "more pixels in the duck", than on 5d2.
2. If you manage to take two photos having "same pixels in the duck" on images from both cameras (without any cropping), so using longer focal on 5d2 (or coming closer to target), but not 1.6 longer because of resolution differences - you will see better picture quality on 5d2.

7D is a great black teleconverter for use with any lenses


----------



## tomscott (Aug 9, 2012)

picturesbyme said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > But also the 5D MKII is a step backwards. AF system is so old and ruins the camera really, is it still worth £1600 I don't think so, if it were £1250 £1300 then I would say yes. But then the 5D MKIII is that worth another £1000 premium again no, but this is a frustrating time as a buyer for Canon so you did right pulling the trigger I just won't! It would be my luck to pull the trigger on one and it be dropped in price by a big margin or this consumer FF camera would be released. Also still shooting a 40D and spending £1600 on a camera with the same AF system would be counter productive IMO.
> ...



Doesn't work like that here in the UK cheapest atm in around £1600 second hand the 5D MKII are about £1250. The 5D MKIII is £1000 more here than it is in america..

That offer from adorama on the home page for $4299 with a 24-105mm and the grip. Well it is $4299 body only in the UK or £2800, prices are ridiculous over here.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 9, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> > They both are suffering from noise
> 
> 
> 
> They're both ISO 3200 and the presentation size is roughly 24". There's some noise, but neither "sucks", and there really isn't much at all to choose between them. (And some of the roughness you consider "noise" would disappear in a print where all pixels can be laid down on the paper instead of scaled down by algorithm.)



I wouldn't be happy with that noise - there is some ugly stuff in the left image


----------



## mibu (Aug 9, 2012)

yeah marek, you’re absolutely right! so the main point in the choice between 7d and 5d can be the final printed image. and that means if you want to print large, then the 5d is a better choice.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 9, 2012)

Unless you are trying to get a keeper out of a very fast moving subject.

A 7D may exhibit more (but perfectly acceptable) noise, but in some situations you might want a choice of 24 frames taken over 3 seconds rather than 10 or 11.

You might also want to have more of those shots in focus.

In which case BETWEEN A 7D AND 5D2 you would want a 7D.

I am not knocking the 5D2, or blind to any of the shortcomings of the 7D, but they are different cameras optimised for different users.


----------



## mibu (Aug 9, 2012)

exactly!


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 9, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence?
> ...



What does this have to do with my comment that you cited? ???



dtaylor said:


> For me it would depend on other factors. Again I'll point out that if you need more DoF then you can get with a wide open prime on FF, then you've lost the sensor ISO advantage. f/1.4 is not a sweet spot for FF, it's hardly usable. And I have more trouble nailing focus with a fast prime on the 5D2 then on the 7D, aggravated by having the lens wide open.
> 
> Now if we're talking f/2.8 zooms where f/2.8 offers sufficient DoF, then yes, I would pick up the 5D2 for the dark auditorium. The f/2.8 zooms make complete sense on FF for, say, wedding and PJ work.



Yes, you would lose the speed advantage to maintain the same DOF but it wouldn't be any WORSE than the crop sensor. The FF sensor gives you add option of shallower DOF, and that can be traded for shutter speed. I like having that option. A crop sensor does not give you that option.



dtaylor said:


> > The same lenses will also result in higher resolution (lp per image height) on a larger sensor.
> 
> 
> A false meme caused by a general misunderstanding of lens testing. The same lenses will result in higher detail contrast (sharpness). If these were the film days, that difference would be a big deal. In the world of PS it's inconsequential between these two particular sensors, except at higher ISOs where sharpening increases the noise differences.



I don't understand what you're saying. I'm saying that the enlarging process will affect details when printed at the same size and that higher density crop sensors will require better optics to resolve the same level of detail when printed at the same size. Are you saying that it's not true or that it doesn't matter? Interpolation (uprezzing) can not create more detail. I don't mean to sound petty but I'm genuinely curious. I recently printed an image from a 5DII 24in x 36in. I was happy with the print. Would the 7D have provided the same print quality?


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 9, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> +1 to what Neuro said.
> 
> You could also get the same benefits he speaks about with a 5Dc but that is a much older rig in terms of menu systems, etc.. The images from a 5Dc have a wonderful quality about them and you can pick one up for under $800.



+2. Get the 7D + 5Dc combo. I've used that combo for years before getting the 5D3.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 10, 2012)

Or you could just get a 5D Mark III or a used 1D Mark IV and have everything in ONE camera, considering you can only take ONE picture at a time. What good does having two cameras with seperate qualities do you when you need both qualities at the same time? I purposefully sold my 5D Mark II and 7D for a 5D Mark III so I could have both in one camera (and then some). 

RLPhoto has the right idea regarding cost, however. A 5D and 7D will be much cheaper than either camera I mentioned. Price is certainly a factor and I won't pretend that it doesn't matter. So I am also caught between a rock and a hard place when people ask me this question. Do you spend a lot of money for ONE camera with everything, or for much cheaper, get two cameras; one with quality A and one with quality B? Unfortunately my photography does not allow me to do so. If yours does, then yes, by all means have an A and B body (not to be confused with main and backup).

Yes, the 7D and 5D2 are different and are a great A and B body duo.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Aug 10, 2012)

I use a 7D and a 5D Classic. Once you get your Lightroom process figured out for each camera, you have to pixel peep to see the difference. 

I use the two cameras almost interchangeably in my work, but if I want shallow DOF, I use the 5D, deep DOF, the 7D. If I shot sports or other fast moving subjects, the 7D would be the choice for sure. It is a much faster handling/focusing camera.

In portrait work, the 5D gives smoother skin tones, while the 7D picks up every pore and blemish, probably due to the greater megapixels. I really do prefer the 5D for portraits.

I haven't used them much in low light. I normally keep both set for ISO 100 and never go over 800.


----------



## EOBeav (Aug 10, 2012)

hgascoigne said:


> Thank you all for the comments. I decided to pull the trigger on the 5D Mk. II. My bank account looks a little sad, but (hopefully) it'll be worth it. I'm a college student so being poor is nothing new.



You won't regret it. I moved from a Rebel to a 5DmkII last winter and haven't looked back.


----------



## picturesbyme (Aug 10, 2012)

tomscott said:


> picturesbyme said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...



Fry's ships worldwide... I got it from them a few weeks ago.


----------

