# 5D mark III or 7D and 5D mark II



## vlim (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm looking to upgrade my photo gear for wildlife photography. Would you buy a 5D mark III to complete my 40D or for the almost same price buy a 7D and 5D mark II (and sell my 40D) ?

Low light situations in european and tropical forests are the places where i'll take my pictures...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2012)

5DIII. Much better high ISO, better AF, and will soon be able to autofocus with an f/8 TC combo.


----------



## vlim (Nov 20, 2012)

Thanks ! i really hope a new 100-400 4-5.6 IS (as good as his little bro' the 70-300 4-5.6 IS) or 400 5.6 IS or 300 4 IS II will be announced in the upcoming months...

Because i have a little doubt about how a 5D mark III will work with the actual and old 400 5.6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2012)

vlim said:


> Because i have a little doubt about how a 5D mark III will work with the actual and old 400 5.6.



I think it would work very well, actually. The shot below is with the 'old' 100-400mm, with a 1.4xIII on the 1D X (560mm, 1/320 s, f/8, ISO 5000). The 400/5.6 would take the extender a little better, although IS does help a bit...


----------



## vlim (Nov 20, 2012)

Thanks for the sample ! It works very well 

Initially i was thinking about the great, sharp and light 300 f4 L IS but i think it'll be too short coupled with a FF for wildlife photography


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 20, 2012)

I am a big fan of the 5D II + 7D combo, I shot with that for a little over 2 years. But I am going to have to recommend 5DIII on this one. It is a great all around camera. 

While the 7Ds crop factor might make lenses feel longer, I don't think you'll be getting more detail than if you shot the 5DIII and cropped.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2012)

vlim said:


> Thanks for the sample ! It works very well
> 
> Initially i was thinking about the great, sharp and light 300 f4 L IS but i think it'll be too short coupled with a FF for wildlife photography



I agree that 300mm on FF is pretty short for wildlife. But consider - you could use a 300/4 IS with a 2xTC for a 600mm combo. I ran into Lillian Stokes (as in the Stokes Guide) on a mountaintop in Hew Hampshire a couple of years ago, and she mentioned that she usually shot with a 1D IV, 300/4L IS, and 2xII becuase the combo is light enough to carry.

I'm sure a new 100-400 will be better, but the current one is quite decent, and I prefer it to the 70-300L for the extra reach and compatibility with the 1.4x TC. I have the 600 II, but sometimes that's too much for a short outing, and the 1D X with the 100-400 w/ 1.4x is a more portable combination. I hang that from my Blackrapid strap, put the 40mm f/2.8 pancake in my pocket, and I'm good to go...


----------



## vlim (Nov 20, 2012)

humm pretty hard to choose  I would rather have the 300 because costaricians forests are pretty tough in terms of low light ans the IS and the f/4 aperture would help me instead of the 5.6 without IS.

The combo 1D mark IV and 300 f4 yes, but the 1.3 crop factor surely helps...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2012)

vlim said:


> The combo 1D mark IV and 300 f4 yes, but the 1.3 crop factor surely helps...



The 2x TC helps more. I had been considering getting a 1DIV to replace my 7D, for birds/wildlife with the 1.3x and as a backup camera (which is all my 7D really is at this point). But...someone on TDP did a very nice comparison of the 1DIV vs. the 1D X cropped to match the FoV (using a 500/4 II), and I must say it was really hard to discern any difference. So I've basically discarded the idea of getting the 1DIV. Not sure if it's even worth keeping the 7D as a backup, actually selling that and getting a 6D instead might be the way to go...


----------



## vlim (Nov 20, 2012)

What makes me thinking about a FF is the fact that in forests like the ones of Costa rica, you're not necesseraly need a crop factor but you absolutely need light and speed. So actually, until a very good 7D mark II (with a great AF, high iso and weather sealed) is arriving, i think the 5D mark III is my best option...

I know the 300 2.8 L IS would be the best option but it's not the same price (even a used one) and the same weight...


----------



## nonac (Nov 20, 2012)

I had the exact situation about 3 months ago. Had a 40d and wanted to upgrade. I ended up going with the 5D III. I couldn't even pick up my 40d after that and ended up selling it. I'm now waiting for the next hi level crop body to complement the 5d; however, I don't know if it will be able to. I shoot wildlife as well and the low light ability of the III alone, in my opinion, far outweighs the loss in reach with the crop body, not to mention other great attributes such as the focusing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 20, 2012)

I sold my 7D and 5D MK II and bought a MK III. The 7D no longer got any use. I had planned to use it in focal length limited situations and for product photography, but the MK III handles that well.
I bought my wife a 1 GX whis has been pretty good at product photography, but can't match a tethered DSLR.


----------



## vlim (Nov 20, 2012)

Thanks for sharing your experiences, i'm more and more convinced about the 5D mark III as my next dslr body ;D


----------



## weixing (Nov 20, 2012)

Hi,
I'm currently using a 400mm F5.6L and 60D for birds photography and I'm also consider changing to a FF (I'm thinking of 6D), so here is what I think at the moment.

The advantage of FF is better image quality, better high ISO performance and better low light AF (both 5D3 and 6D had better low light AF than current crop sensor DSLR on paper), but the disadvantage is "lesser reach". Also, with a crop sensor, you are using the center "sweet spot" of the lens image circle, so your image is relatively sharper across the entire image compare using a FF. 

With a 1.4x TC on 5D3 or 6D (on paper, 6D had better low light AF at center AF point than 5D3, so hoping it'll get F8 AF), you get closer to the "reach" of a crop sensor, but with a 1.4x TC, your AF will be slower which is not good for birds photography... now, the question is how much slower? 

So I'm waiting for the 7DII specification to be out before I decide. Hopefully, the 7DII will have better low light AF and 1 to 2 stop better high ISO performance than current model... if not, I might change to a FF if F8 AF is not that slow.

Just my $0.02.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 20, 2012)

Also depends on whether you need a second body. I went to Antarctica earlier this year, so needed two bodies as I could not have a risk of failure. On some event shoots it is helpful having a second body with second lens. So I now have a 5DmkII and a 7D. I admit that the 7D gets very little use, except when I need the reach (e.g. wildlife or windsurfing photography) or need faster focus (sports). The IQ of my 5D classic was better than that of the 7D under low light, but it does have its benefits as indicated above. And in any case the IQ of the 7D is often sufficient for the job. And finally the 7D flash is very useful when packing light and need a fill flash or when using the flash to control remote flashes.

I've heard the comment that a cropped 5D mkII or III image is better than a 7D - I'll try this out with by 400mm f5.6 this weekend.


----------



## Beemar (Nov 20, 2012)

My first post. Hope I can add some info. Have 7D just bought 5D markIII, trying to ignore the suggestions of soft focus. Frighten animals each year in Kruger park with my 70-300mm lens which is perfect for use from a vehicle, with the 7D, if using tripod for longer range shots even a 500mm length might still not be long enough, and it is too heavy for hand holding.So now it's down to the 5D with shorter range (no crop factor). I've tried both camera's and yes there is a closer picture with the 7D, but with the extra 5 Megapixels of the 5D a very small crop gets you to the same size shot, without loss of quality on one hand, but you gain very fast auto focus, several stops of usable ISO re loss of light in afternoons/evenings. The real trick however with the 5D mark III, is the extra speed that you really need for hand held pix that you get from the extra ISO at any time, like 1/000/ or 1/1500 sec.gets you the sharp pix you're praying for. One more suggestion from Art Wolfe don't take portraits all the time, let a little of the background scenery into your shots to help tell the "story" (Thanks Art!!) A 70 - 300mm is plenty in that situation. No disadvantage I can see with the 5D versus the 7D,- Beemar.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2012)

weixing said:


> ...but with a 1.4x TC, your AF will be slower which is not good for birds photography... now, the question is how much slower?



It will depend a lot on the lens being used with the TC. I can't speak for the 5DIII (or 6D, obviously), but even with the 2xIII (slows AF by 75%), the 1D X and 600/4 II do well for BIF.


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 20, 2012)

I was shooting with the 7D and 5D MkII for a couple of years, the 7D for wildlife and the MkII for landscapes, macros and low light. Back in July, I replaced the MkII with the MkII and finally got to use it properly last month (other than playing around in my back garden and for landscapes). The first morning I was in Scotland, I used the 7D as usual for red squirrels, then the light levels dropped, so I switched cameras. After that, the 7D never came out of the bag, there was such a marked difference in image quality, despite the loss of reach. At one point I even had the 2x extender on the MkIII (something I rarely did with the 7D) and the image quality was still better. It's such a joy to use and once you get used to the AF, it's so much more assured. So in short, get the 5D MkIII and keep your 40D as backup.


----------



## canon816 (Nov 20, 2012)

vlim said:


> Thanks for sharing your experiences, i'm more and more convinced about the 5D mark III as my next dslr body ;D



I've owned all the cameras you are asking about and currently shoot with a pair of 5DIII's. I would much rather have 1 5DIII then a 7D and a 5DII.

It seems that most everyone has given you great reasons so I won't write a book, but will just state that the image quality at high ISO is the kicker for me.


----------



## CharlieB (Nov 21, 2012)

I'm biased... I got the 5d2 and 7d... instead of the 5d3. Two bodies, both not bad... not as good as it gets, but not bad. And they do the jobs I want to do with them.


----------



## vlim (Nov 21, 2012)

Thanks guys for your comments and advices  Now, i know the 5D mark III is my choice, i have to think about the best option in terms of lens to couple with...


----------

