# EOS 7D mk2 or 5D mk3



## alistairm1 (Oct 11, 2014)

Had to start this as I didn't want to hijack LesC's post about the 6D and 7DII.
I have reviewed my photography over the past few years and I seem to have a bit of everything (portraits, landscape, street, night, quite a bit of theatre [where it's allowed], with some static birds, BIF, and airshows).
As you can imagine, I am in a quandary about this.
I can get a 7DII with the canon 15-85 lens for the same price as a 5DIII with the 24-105L, which doesn't help the decision-making process.

The birds and airshows don't figure as highly in my repertoire as the other stuff, but I don't want to hamstring myself by getting a camera which will not make a good stab at everything.

I have read extensively about the two cameras, and I'm struggling to find the killer feature which will inform my decision. Each have their own benefits and drawbacks, but I can't find the one feature which will make the decision for me. 
Is there significantly better IQ from the 5DIII over the 7DII? Will I miss the reach that the 7DII will give over the 5DIII (I can get round that a bit by using a TC). 

I think it will come down to IQ (not exceptionally bothered about DR, so no "neither of them has an EXMOR sensor", please), but I've not found anything which seems to say one way or the other.

I don't remember being this indecisive, but I'm not sure. 

Anyone got any thoughts which might assist someone who has buyers remorse before actually buying anything? :-\


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2014)

*Is there significantly better IQ from the 5DIII over the 7DII?*

Yes, particularly at higher ISO. That doesn't just mean low light - shooting BIF in the mornings/evenings or with clouds, I'm often at ISO 6400 to get a high enough shutter speed. 

The 6D vs. 7DII would a harder choice, in this case I'd absolutely say get the 5DIII + 24-105L.


----------



## alistairm1 (Oct 11, 2014)

Thanks, neuro. I had put the 6D in the original mix, but felt the number of focus points would be too much of a drawback compared to the zone focussing available on the 5DIII and 7DII


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 11, 2014)

I'm inclined to agree with Neuro on this one. It seems like you would benefit more from a 5D Mark III. If it's at a local shop I would even try to twist their arm a little and say that you are offered to buy the 7D Mark II with the 24-105L for the same price as your locally offered 5D-combo. They are not going to sell at a loss anyway, so try to haggle a better deal and suggest that you might come back to buy more from them if they can get you a great deal.
Good luck!


----------



## alistairm1 (Oct 11, 2014)

Sadly it is two different suppliers. And I think the 24-105 wouldn't give me as wide an angle of view on the crop body as the 15-85 would. One time where the 1.6x works against you -(


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Is there significantly better IQ from the 5DIII over the 7DII?*
> 
> Yes, particularly at higher ISO. That doesn't just mean low light - shooting BIF in the mornings/evenings or with clouds, I'm often at ISO 6400 to get a high enough shutter speed.
> 
> The 6D vs. 7DII would a harder choice, in this case I'd absolutely say get the 5DIII + 24-105L.



+1 with Neuro.

@ OP, I can understand your feeling toward 7D II specs. At the end, it's about owning a camera that can handle most situation.


----------



## richro (Oct 11, 2014)

To make things a bit interesting, what about a 6D+70D two body combo for a similar price?


----------



## alistairm1 (Oct 11, 2014)

SWMBO would make me sleep in the shed with the spiders if I came home with two bodies. Either that or she would have three bodies to dispose of ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

The reason the decision is hard is because they are that close. Looking at the Imaging Resource samples...

* For ISO 100-800 I would say that _after post processing_ it's a wash, just like with the prior generation (7D vs. 5D2). No one is ever going to tell the prints apart, not even you if the labels are removed. 

* Pixel peeping ISO 3200 I see higher IQ in the 5D3 shot even after processing the 7D2 shot. At 50%? Differences are pretty small, and at this MP size (7D2 scaled to match 5D3) that's a 20x30 print. You could pick them apart, but the difference just isn't that large. (That's an improvement over the last generation. I never would have said this about the 7D vs. 5D2, not at that print size.)

* ISO 6400 is where the 5D3 really starts to pull ahead. Judging from the various sample shots around the web, I think the 7D2 will be usable for smaller prints (8x12; 13x19) at ISO 6400 and even 12800, for most subject matter (particularly the target market, sports). But the FF bodies will clearly show an advantage here, and go even higher.

So you have to decide what ISOs you shoot at, and whether you want/need better IQ at high ISOs or more fps. Keep in mind your workflow and common print sizes. SOOC the differences are larger. And if you never print larger then 8x12...I'm not sure it ever matters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> The reason the decision is hard is because they are that close. Looking at the Imaging Resource samples...
> 
> * For ISO 100-800 I would say that _after post processing_ it's a wash, just like with the prior generation (7D vs. 5D2). No one is ever going to tell the prints apart, not even you if the labels are removed..
> 
> So you have to decide what ISOs you shoot at, and whether you want/need better IQ at high ISOs or more fps. Keep in mind your workflow and common print sizes. SOOC the differences are larger. And if you never print larger then 8x12...I'm not sure it ever matters.



I recommend a bit of caution when interpreting static test scenes like those from IR. They keep lighting and aperture constant, while varying shutter speed and ISO. In low light with longer shutter speeds, the relative impact of noise sources is different so the results may be slightly more applicable to fast action in decent light than to true low light. 

Also, ISO noise isn't everything...



alistairm1 said:


> portraits



One thing to consider is that the 'crop factor' also applies to DoF for the same framing. To get the DoF of an f/2.8 lens on FF, you need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C. To get the DoF of an f/1.4 lens on FF, you need an f/0.9 lens on APS-C.


----------



## alistairm1 (Oct 11, 2014)

Thank you, dtaylor, for that in-depth review of images. SOOC is good for SWMBO to post on FB, but I'm up for a bit of post to polish the product. High frame rate is not really that much of a requirement, so I would'nt miss the extra 4fps that the 7DII would bring. (I hope)
I really prefer natural light where-ever possible, so I suppose high ISO performance is probably more important to me than
I think. Particularly in theatres, where tungsten is my major challenge (although that is now being complicated by the trend to convert to LED, especially when there is a mix of the two -( ).
Still, it wouldn't be anywhere near as enjoyable if there weren't any challenges 

It's looking more and more like the 5DIII will be the way to go.

Thanks again to all of you who have responded to my plea for help.


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 11, 2014)

Neuro hit the head on the nail. Also consider better performance regarding noise.

You do lose the crop factor however, and this is a consideration, but for your parameters, the 5DIII is your choice.

sek



alistairm1 said:


> Thank you, dtaylor, for that in-depth review of images. SOOC is good for SWMBO to post on FB, but I'm up for a bit of post to polish the product. High frame rate is not really that much of a requirement, so I would'nt miss the extra 4fps that the 7DII would bring. (I hope)
> I really prefer natural light where-ever possible, so I suppose high ISO performance is probably more important to me than
> I think. Particularly in theatres, where tungsten is my major challenge (although that is now being complicated by the trend to convert to LED, especially when there is a mix of the two -( ).
> Still, it wouldn't be anywhere near as enjoyable if there weren't any challenges
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I recommend a bit of caution when interpreting static test scenes like those from IR. They keep lighting and aperture constant, while varying shutter speed and ISO. In low light with longer shutter speeds, the relative impact of noise sources is different so the results may be slightly more applicable to fast action in decent light than to true low light.



In what scenario do you think this would matter, other then astro landscapes? (FF hands down for that.) Asking because I've never noticed a difference (past gen) until the shots got into several seconds.



> Also, ISO noise isn't everything...



I didn't see any differences...after post...between the old 5D2 and 7D at lower ISOs. I don't expect any between the 5D3 and 7D2. Open to evidence I'm wrong. Again, this is after post. (SOOC FF is sharper and often has more local contrast.)



> One thing to consider is that the 'crop factor' also applies to DoF for the same framing. To get the DoF of an f/2.8 lens on FF, you need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C. To get the DoF of an f/1.4 lens on FF, you need an f/0.9 lens on APS-C.



Good point.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

alistairm1 said:


> Thank you, dtaylor, for that in-depth review of images. SOOC is good for SWMBO to post on FB, but I'm up for a bit of post to polish the product. High frame rate is not really that much of a requirement, so I would'nt miss the extra 4fps that the 7DII would bring. (I hope)
> I really prefer natural light where-ever possible, so I suppose high ISO performance is probably more important to me than
> I think. Particularly in theatres, where tungsten is my major challenge (although that is now being complicated by the trend to convert to LED, especially when there is a mix of the two -( ).
> Still, it wouldn't be anywhere near as enjoyable if there weren't any challenges
> ...



Agree totally with your decision. IMHO it's literally high ISO vs. fps, and the 5D3 has decent fps to start. Given what you just said your answer is 5D3.

If you're open to refurbished, keep in mind the Canon loyalty program discount. You can get an old, used, no longer working Canon DSLR off eBay and net a big discount off a new DSLR.


----------



## alistairm1 (Oct 11, 2014)

Unfortunately, no CLP for us non-US customers :'-(


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 11, 2014)

It depends on what lenses you'll be able to afford to use or have for each camera. I use the 5DIII for everything (sports, portraits, landscapes, etc.) because it is the only camera I have. Sometimes, I wish it had a higher frame rate for shooting my kids soccer games, but that is about it (a deeper buffer would help too). And yes, I love the additional DOF control of FF.


----------



## alistairm1 (Oct 11, 2014)

I haven't got anything special by way of glass, but never really bothered as I was able to produce acceptable results, certainly in the eyes of the judges at the clubs I attend, and SWMBO.
However, I realise that the glass I have now will need to be "refreshed" to make best use of this body. 
But, rather like Dr. Frankenstein, body first ;-)

Not the classic way (Glass first, body later), but the loss of my 50D leaves me with no body at all at the moment. So that's why I'm keen to get the body I need, and will serve me well in the future, first, and then upgrade the glass as and when the money becomes available.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I recommend a bit of caution when interpreting static test scenes like those from IR. They keep lighting and aperture constant, while varying shutter speed and ISO. In low light with longer shutter speeds, the relative impact of noise sources is different so the results may be slightly more applicable to fast action in decent light than to true low light.
> ...



I did some testing with my 5DII where I varied ISO and light levels (constant 1/60 s and f/5.6) vs. varying ISO and shutter speed (same lighting, f/8, 'reasonable' shutter speeds of 1/30 s to 1/8000 s, they weren't long exposures). The latter is what most testing sites do. I found that when varying light levels instead of shutter speed, noise at higher ISO was more evident and there was more noticeable color desaturation in the red channel, and to a lesser extent the green channel. The differences were easily seen in testing, but I'm not sure of the impact on everyday shooting. 




dtaylor said:


> > Also, ISO noise isn't everything...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was contiguous...ISO noise isn't everything, even if that's the same at low ISO (not personally convinced of that yet), there are other considerations when comparing FF and APS-C, DoF being a significant one for some use cases.


----------



## vulie504 (Oct 12, 2014)

Yea the 7D ii is tempting, especially at that price. I'm toying with the idea of possibly using a 7D ii as a backup camera to the 5th iii. One great thing is that the physical layout is basically the same between the 2 cameras.


----------



## LesC (Oct 12, 2014)

alistairm1 said:


> Had to start this as I didn't want to hijack LesC's post about the 6D and 7DII.



Hi Alistair, wouldn't have minded you 'hijacking' my post as we seem to have pretty much the same quandary 

I think if money's not too much of a concern (or you can at least get away with it without the 'financial controller' noticing), then the 5D MKIII would be my choice too although the AF for video, if that's important may be better on the 7D MKIII. My other concern would be that with the 5D MKIII, you'd want good L series glass to go with it, so what you've currently got or intend to spend on glass may come in to it too?


----------



## alistairm1 (Oct 12, 2014)

Les, I only have 3rd party glass, which on my 50D was more than adequate. 
The 5DIII comes with an L designated lens, but I'm sure it's not top of the range.
However, retirement looms, and I'll get a lump of cash from my pension, and a large proportion of that is earmarked for glass.
This may all change, though, as I've been diagnosed with glaucoma, so the eyes are going to be deterorating from now on, so I may be 
here looking for advice on Braille cameras at some point. (A joke, but it may be that IQ may not be as important in a few years time)

Not willing to give in yet, though


----------



## Chisox2335 (Oct 12, 2014)

I'm confused. The 7d2 with the 15-85 should run you max around $2500. Where are you getting a 5d3 with a 24-105 for $2500?


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 12, 2014)

I'd go with a 6D and 7D II over a 5D3.


----------



## greger (Oct 12, 2014)

I'm waiting for the 7Dll to be released and tested by consumers. I think 5DlV is in the near future. It may be the first
Full frame camera to get dual pixel AF like 70D and 7 Dll.


----------



## slclick (Oct 13, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> I'd go with a 6D and 7D II over a 5D3.



You're going to need both to beat a Mk3


----------



## alistairm1 (Oct 13, 2014)

There's a bricks and mortar store where the 7DII is £1599 and the 15-85 is £590 and an internet store has the 5DIII with 24-105L as a kit is £2149
I can afford one or the other, and for reasons of marital harmony I need a one-body solution.


----------



## photennek (Oct 13, 2014)

Hi,

I'll reply to you more from the "feeling and guts" aspect, a bit in the form of my story.

As background, I've had my wife's old 20D for some time to use, and let's say photography got "serious" last december (2013), and since the beginning of 2014 I've started to daydream about 5d3. I went on and first upgraded glass (twice!), thinking maybe that will get me by until the 5d4 would be out. Things went well and I was patient until... the hype about 7d2 started!!! 

So I really like what it promises and started to think could it "replace" my daydreams of 5d3. I still consider myself quite novice as a photographer, and I don't expect I would need such professional level equipment as 5d3 appears. I mainly take portraits and other pics from my wife and children, and when they get bored of me with camera I also go for nature, streets, birds & other animals, actually whatever I find interesting. So a pretty mixed bunch. Tried stars and moon, and in general love night's lighting, also try to catch children playing inside at evenings when its dark, and while interested also in flash photography, with children I seldom have it. So, which should it be for me?

After the 7d2 was published at the time of Photokina, I spent a lot of time comparing these options, and finally (local retailer put a 300+ euro discount on 5d3) something snapped in my head and I went and got the 5d3. I'm still learning to use it, but *I haven't regretted*. I also thought do I need the 10fps, but I find 6fps enough for me. Have used it to shoot a running competition and with birds (yes, in flight, didn't do that before), and my problem is not the lack of speed but lack of skills in using the autofocus well enough and following the damn birds!  The only single thing I still ponder is how much better the autofocus will be on 7d2. Likely the improvements in autofocus for me are marginal (with my current skill level anyway), otherwise I am completely childlike happy with the 5d3, even if people here are already eagerly waiting for 5d4.

I plan to go with the 5d3 for the next almost 10 years, or at least until it breaks (shutter count gets high or otherwise).

Not much fact here, but I struggled like you do now, and this was my choice.


----------



## Helios68 (Oct 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Is there significantly better IQ from the 5DIII over the 7DII?*
> 
> Yes, particularly at higher ISO. That doesn't just mean low light - shooting BIF in the mornings/evenings or with clouds, I'm often at ISO 6400 to get a high enough shutter speed.
> 
> The 6D vs. 7DII would a harder choice, in this case I'd absolutely say get the 5DIII + 24-105L.



+1. As your use are really wide, I would also choose 5DIII for better ISO and IQ.


----------



## LesC (Oct 13, 2014)

alistairm1 said:


> There's a bricks and mortar store where the 7DII is £1599 and the 15-85 is £590 and an internet store has the 5DIII with 24-105L as a kit is £2149
> I can afford one or the other, and for reasons of marital harmony I need a one-body solution.



One thing to look out for, I'd assume that at that price for the 5d/24-105, it's a grey import. If you're happy going that route I reckon you'd be able to better the price for the 7D/15-85 online too, for example DigitalRev have the 15-85 for £419. no price for the 7D MKII yet.


----------

