# 5D III or 7D II?



## chrysoberyl (Aug 24, 2015)

I have a 6D and it is a great camera, but not for BIF. My long lens is a 70-200 2.8 II with a 1.4X III teleconverter, but at some point I will buy a 400 or 500mm prime. So the 7D II would be nice to lengthen the reach. My main question is, is the 7D II AF substantially better than that of the 5D III? What other considerations should I have for BIF?

I can’t believe this topic has not come up – but if it has, I am sure someone will kindly direct me to that discussion.

Thanks,
John


----------



## Ruined (Aug 24, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> I have a 6D and it is a great camera, but not for BIF. My long lens is a 70-200 2.8 II with a 1.4X III teleconverter, but at some point I will buy a 400 or 500mm prime. So the 7D II would be nice to lengthen the reach. My main question is, is the 7D II AF substantially better than that of the 5D III? What other considerations should I have for BIF?
> 
> I can’t believe this topic has not come up – but if it has, I am sure someone will kindly direct me to that discussion.
> 
> ...



For BIF the 7D2 is hard to beat both for its AF and its crop factor. I would get the 7D2. Plus the 5D3 has a problem with AF illumination in AI servo mode that the 7D2 does not.


----------



## candc (Aug 24, 2015)

The 7dii is pretty much made for birds and bif. The framerate and buffer are really important. The 5diii is probably better for everything else but you already have the 6d which has just as good iq, so you will be all set.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 25, 2015)

I do not own the 7D2 but the 5D3. 
If you're about to keep your 6D (FF) I'd go for the 7D2 as far as I've read around the net and in this thread as well.
BUT 
if you're going to sell the 6D to fund the new body I'd go for the FF body because you'd miss that one otherwise.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2015)

I have both. For birding, I grab the 7DII (usually +100-400mm II). The AF is superb, the frame rate significantly better, and there is genuine extra "reach".


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 25, 2015)

I rarely see consensus in this forum, so I am convinced to go with the 7D. Thanks, all!

John


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 25, 2015)

I use both, and I'd just add one point...

I take out the 5d3 in low light situations. I do a lot of bird photography under a forest canopy, and I find that I must sacrifice range for light in two fashions under certain circumstances. If it's a little darker than I'd like, I'll leave the 7d2 at home and affix the 100-400II to the 5d3. If it's going to be very dark in there (storm clouds under canopy, or evening), I'll take the 70-200II and the 5d3.

This is VERY range limiting, but it's better than not getting any shots at all. 

I must say I really appreciate that Canon made the 7d2 to be almost exactly like the 5d3 ergonomically and interface software-wise, as swapping the cameras out like this becomes very trivial. I think the pair was very deliberately designed to work together. 

I will also say that I far prefer shooting the 7d2 to my (newer) 5d3, as the features that have been added to the more recently released 7d2 really matter. The shutter speed and the shutter feel (and lack of noise) are the big ones for me. I eagerly await these features being added to a 5d4.


----------



## ksgal (Aug 25, 2015)

Have a 7DII, and it is spectacular. When I hear comparisons, you do get at least a stop better performace on the 5DIII vs 7D2 for low light, so some choose the 5DIII over it. 

But for pixels on the target, Buffer Rate, and superior AF, the 7D2 has it hands down. 
(Buffer difference is substantial, 5D3 is ok on CF, not ok when SD card is in there)

It is critical that you expose to the right with this sensor. underexpose it and it looks noisy and looses detail.


----------



## Nelu (Aug 25, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> I rarely see consensus in this forum, so I am convinced to go with the 7D. Thanks, all!
> 
> John



Well, I hope you`ll like your new camera but there is two things that you should take into consideration:
1. Wildlife doesn`t show up for you when the light is good; animals and birds are mostly active at dusk and dawn, when there isn`t much light and when the 5D Mark III is much better than the crop-sensor.
2. The 7D Mark II`s AF is only better on the paper, not in the real life. Not even close!
Yes, the frame rate is better, which will allow you to take many more out-of-focus photos than the 5D Mark III.

I have the 1DX, the 5D Mark III and I also had the 7D Mark II for about a week, but I returned it.
They call the 7D Mark II the "1Dx`s little brother"; I would rather call it the little handicapped brother...

I hope your experience will be different; if not, you have 30 days to return the camera if you don`t like it.

Happy shooting!
Nelu


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2015)

Nelu said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I rarely see consensus in this forum, so I am convinced to go with the 7D. Thanks, all!
> ...



1. "Wildlife doesn`t show up for you when the light is good" - that is a rather surprising statement. Sure animals and birds are active at dawn and dusk, and sometimes very much so, but our threads in "Animal Kingdom" are replete with photos of birds and animals during bright daylight. Without the faster frame rate of the 7DII I would have missed the best shots of eagles and ospreys last week if I had been using my 5DIII. 

The 5DIII is indeed rated a stop faster than than the 7DII for the same S/N. If you are standing at the same distance away from the subject with a crop and FF and have the same lens, then you have the same size image on each sensor and the same number of photons. You can down-sample the crop image by 1.6x to give the same number of pixels as the FF, which is equivalent to gaining 0.7 stops in S/N.

2. I don't know what you are doing wrong, but I get shot after shot in sharp focus on both the 5DIII and 7DII.


----------



## Nelu (Aug 25, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Sure animals and birds are active at dawn and dusk, and sometimes very much so, but our threads in "Animal Kingdom" are replete with photos of birds and animals during bright daylight. Without the faster frame rate of the 7DII I would have missed the best shots of eagles and ospreys last week if I had been using my 5DIII.
> 
> The 5DIII is indeed rated a stop faster than than the 7DII for the same S/N. If you are standing at the same distance away from the subject with a crop and FF and have the same lens, then you have the same size image on each sensor and the same number of photons. You can down-sample the crop image by 1.6x to give the same number of pixels as the FF, which is equivalent to gaining 0.7 stops in S/N.
> 
> 2. I don't know what you are doing wrong, but I get shot after shot in sharp focus on both the 5DIII and 7DII.



I consider bright daylight to be a bonus if your goal is to take lots of in-focus photos but I usually prepare for the more challenging but also more rewarding light conditions. I prefer to be out for shooting at dawn and dusk because good light cannot be faked in Photoshop, be it for landscapes or birds in flight.

About the success rate with the Canon 7D Mark II: I did perform the lens micro adjustment, without any luck. Probably just a faulty body because the 5D Mark III works really well for me and the 1Dx is simply insanely good.
I have to admit that I`ve seen some really nice photos taken with the 7D Mark II on this website and on others, I`m not saying that the camera doesn`t work.
I just didn`t work for me and probably for others complaining about AF inconsistency.

Cheers
Nelu


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2015)

How did you attempt AFMA?


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 26, 2015)

All, many thanks; this has been quite valuable, especially the considerations regarding low light conditions. By the time I purchase a 7D II, I hope any AF bugs will have been worked out. And I doubt that I will be disappointed, because my only experience is with the 60D and 6D.

John


----------



## Nelu (Aug 26, 2015)

AlanF said:


> How did you attempt AFMA?


Reikan FoCal, same as for my 5D Mark III and 1Dx.


----------



## Nelu (Aug 26, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> All, many thanks; this has been quite valuable, especially the considerations regarding low light conditions. By the time I purchase a 7D II, I hope any AF bugs will have been worked out. And I doubt that I will be disappointed, because my only experience is with the 60D and 6D.
> 
> John


John, please get back to us in a week or two and let us know how do you like it, for BIF and for landscapes, as well.
Thanks,

Nelu


----------



## NancyP (Aug 26, 2015)

The topic has come up repeatedly. 

I too faced that decision, with the same two cameras (60D and 6D) currently in use, and went for the 7D2. It just arrived, and I have not had any time to do more than read its manual and look around the menu. This weekend will be the field trial, AFMA, etc. Price and pixel density are good arguments for using the 7D2 for birding. I have a EF 400 f/5.6L as my birding lens. I can use this lightweight combo for handheld birds in flight - the 60D was fine, I expect the AF of the 7D2 will be a revelation. I will live with a bit extra noise. I want to rent some Big Whites over the next year or so to see whether I can handle them, which I prefer, start saving. 

I have found that I generally shoot either birds or landscape, not both on the same outing. Macro works well with both APS-C and FF.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2015)

NancyP said:


> The topic has come up repeatedly.
> 
> I too faced that decision, with the same two cameras (60D and 6D) currently in use, and went for the 7D2. It just arrived, and I have not had any time to do more than read its manual and look around the menu. This weekend will be the field trial, AFMA, etc. Price and pixel density are good arguments for using the 7D2 for birding. I have a EF 400 f/5.6L as my birding lens. I can use this lightweight combo for handheld birds in flight - the 60D was fine, I expect the AF of the 7D2 will be a revelation. I will live with a bit extra noise. I want to rent some Big Whites over the next year or so to see whether I can handle them, which I prefer, start saving.
> 
> I have found that I generally shoot either birds or landscape, not both on the same outing. Macro works well with both APS-C and FF.



Nancy
I set my 7DII at iso 640 and then process with DxO prime. Noise is virtually non-existent. 
It's a great camera to go 
with the 400mm.
Alan


----------



## bod (Aug 27, 2015)

NancyP said:


> The topic has come up repeatedly.
> 
> I too faced that decision, with the same two cameras (60D and 6D) currently in use, and went for the 7D2. It just arrived, and I have not had any time to do more than read its manual and look around the menu. This weekend will be the field trial, AFMA, etc. Price and pixel density are good arguments for using the 7D2 for birding. I have a EF 400 f/5.6L as my birding lens. I can use this lightweight combo for handheld birds in flight - the 60D was fine, I expect the AF of the 7D2 will be a revelation. I will live with a bit extra noise. I want to rent some Big Whites over the next year or so to see whether I can handle them, which I prefer, start saving.
> 
> I have found that I generally shoot either birds or landscape, not both on the same outing. Macro works well with both APS-C and FF.



Hi Nancy

I would be very interested to hear how you find the 7DII. I also have the 6D which is great but I am considering adding a 7DII, firstly for more reach when shooting birds and secondly for better AF when shooting field sports. I currently use my old 500D but I have to MFA to get good results and would like an APSC with AFMA and ideally f/8 AF to allow the option of extending reach with TC's.

Alan has posted helpfully on his experience with the 7DII and the new 400 zoom but I am interested to hear how you go with the 7DII and 400 prime. I am thinking of also swopping my 300 f/4 for one of the 400's. I want though to also be able to shoot large insects (e.g butterflies) - does this work well with the prime in view of its longer MFD?

Thanks


----------



## digigal (Aug 27, 2015)

I have the 7D2 which I use for wildlife (esp birds) and although I have the Canon 400/5.6 lens I replaced is several years ago with the Canon 70-200/2.8 II+ 2x because of its versitility when traveling (I also carry the 1.4x as well). With this combination I'm shooting effectively at the same distance as with the 400 but do give up some ability to acquire focus quickly compared to the bare lens. Sharpness when focus is acquired is extremely good and I hold my own with the guys I shoot with who are using bare Canon 500's and 600 lenses. You do need to have good technique but it's the same weight as the new Canon 100-400 which my husband uses yet I have the option of breaking my lens down and shooting shorter and at 2.8. Basically with my lens and the 2 TC's I've got a 112-640 mm range that's 2.8-5.6 range depending on the TC--just something else to think about. Also we just got back from a trip to Iceland and I used the 7D2 to do all my landscapes as well as the wildlife and I thought it acquitted itself quite well! Here's some shots (processed in LR)


----------



## mehaue (Aug 27, 2015)

@digigal What lens did you use for landscape photography with your 7D2 ?
Great pictures by the way!

cheers
Martin


----------



## AlanF (Aug 27, 2015)

bod said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > The topic has come up repeatedly.
> ...



If you want to shoot both insects and birds with the same lens, the 100-400mm II is king of the jungle because it can focus down to just under 3 ft or 1 m. Here are a couple of recent shots of a butterfly and dragonfly I took with the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC, zoomed out to about 350mm at f/7.1. They would possibly have been better using the bare 100-400 II, but I didn't have to remove the extender between long distance shots.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 27, 2015)

Ruined said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 6D and it is a great camera, but not for BIF. My long lens is a 70-200 2.8 II with a 1.4X III teleconverter, but at some point I will buy a 400 or 500mm prime. So the 7D II would be nice to lengthen the reach. My main question is, is the 7D II AF substantially better than that of the 5D III? What other considerations should I have for BIF?
> ...



Does the 7D II show AF points in red while in AI Serv in low light? The 5DIII shows AF lock once focus is made, only in AI Serv do they remain black at all times? Just interested in the 7DII


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 27, 2015)

Nelu said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > All, many thanks; this has been quite valuable, especially the considerations regarding low light conditions. By the time I purchase a 7D II, I hope any AF bugs will have been worked out. And I doubt that I will be disappointed, because my only experience is with the 60D and 6D.
> ...



Hi Nelu, after seeing the 7D II photos here, I am undecided; I'm not sure I can live with the loss of sharpness, compared to my 6D. This shot was in low light and taken with my 6D from about 40'. So now I am leaning toward the 5D III. However, I want to see what NancyP posts, and will review 7D II photos in other threads.

John


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 27, 2015)

I like the idea of a 7D2 to go with my 5D3, the x 1.6 would be great but at what cost? Low light is often the case for me so I love my 5D3, I have just got a 100-400mk2 and with the x1.4III the IQ is amazing!!! Also AF speed does not seem to be that much of an issue for me so far at 560mm, some great pics posted on here, you guys sure do get me thinking...


----------



## Ruined (Aug 27, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



Yes, it does. It behaves like the 1DX with the latest firmware.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 27, 2015)

Thanks, was just watching some vids, looks GREAT! Going to have to save for one (7D2) I think


----------



## AlanF (Aug 27, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> Nelu said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



I might be wrong and spouting hot air, especially as we are comparing different lenses on different bodies and subjects, but what your photo appears to me to be showing is the superior acutance of the larger pixels of the 6D, and there is a trade-off between acutance and resolution with pixel size. The beak on your egret with its straight lines and coarser features comes out very well, but the fine details of the plumage don't. So, at first glance it looks very sharp. In comparison, this image of similar size of a Chinese pind heron, much further away at 560mm on the 100-400mm + 1.4xTC (as opposed to to 260mm on your 70-280 + 1.4xTC), has poorer acutance but but better resolution of the feathers. Superficially it is not as sharp.

(What I mean about the trade-off between acutance and resolution definitely happens when you take photos from the same distance with the same lens but comparing FF with crop.)


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 27, 2015)

What an excellent example of acutance! That’s why I read this forum; to learn. Thank you, Alan. So had you taken this photo with a 5DS from the same location, it would look the same? Now I’m forced to wonder whether I should consider the 5DR or 5DRS.

All this research is good – it keeps me from spending money.

John


----------



## sedwards (Aug 27, 2015)

i also have both the 7DII and 5DIII . I find the 5DIII to be much better with higher iso but the 7DII is no slouch.
image quality seems almost thee same for me.

7DII


Gray Catbird by Stuart Edwards, on Flickr


Eastern Kingbird by Stuart Edwards, on Flickr


5DIII


yellow-bellied sapsucker by Stuart Edwards, on Flickr


Hello ! by Stuart Edwards, on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Aug 27, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> What an excellent example of acutance! That’s why I read this forum; to learn. Thank you, Alan. So had you taken this photo with a 5DS from the same location, it would look the same? Now I’m forced to wonder whether I should consider the 5DR or 5DRS.
> 
> All this research is good – it keeps me from spending money.
> 
> John



I look upon the 5DS as a 7DII with a 1.6x1.6 times larger sensor, and about the same quality for images that don't fill the crop sensor. On the other hand, the 5DRS has dropped the AA filter, which is tempting. But the file sizes are putting me off vs ~26 mb for a 20-24 megapixel. So. I'll wait for a crop without an AA.


----------



## digigal (Aug 27, 2015)

@digigal What lens did you use for landscape photography with your 7D2 ?
Great pictures by the way!

cheers
Martin

Thanks. The landscape photo unfortunately suffers from water spots on the lens from the constant blowing mist because of standing behind the waterfall. I was using my Sigma Art 18-35/1.8. This was the first principle landscape trip my husband and I have been on. We usually photograph wildlife/birds and do "happy snap" landscapes on the side --usually without a tripod!! So when I say a landscape trip that means we used a tripod!! The following pictures were using my Canon 24-105. The Braided river photo was from a helicopter photo tour so was handheld at high ISO and unfortunately I had forgotten to turn on my IS for that trip. Fortunately we had the doors off and I shot a lot so got some acceptable ones. The ice bridge was from the Ice Lagoon and was shot hand held in a zodiac so the only one on a tripod was the waterfall--guess the wildlife experience with handholding did come in handy after all)
Catherine


----------



## entoman (Aug 27, 2015)

I use 5DMkiii and 7DMkii bodies, shooting wildlife and landscapes for publication.

The 5DMkiii has a bigger brighter viewfinder, making it easier to compose and judge depth of field, and easier to focus manually. It also has a better performance at high ISO, being very usable even at 3200 ISO. It is the perfect camera for landscapes and other static subjects.

The 7DMkii has faster autofocus, faster burst speed, and quicker handling. The high ISO performance is fine up to 1000 ISO, perfectly acceptable at 1600 ISO, but I would only go to a higher ISO in an emergency. It is the perfect camera for sports, wildlife and action photography.

If I was limited to a single body, and had to choose between 5DMkiii and 7DMkii, there is no question about the model of my choice. It would be the 7DMkii. Why? Because it is far superior to the 5DMkiii for wildlife, and at low ISO is more than a match for the 5DMkiii with landscapes.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Aug 28, 2015)

i have both the but ive shot more with my 7D2 i love it so much ive neglected my 5D3
u cant lose with either


9W9A4108-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


9W9A4346-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


9W9A2739-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


----------



## digigal (Aug 28, 2015)

entoman said:


> I use 5DMkiii and 7DMkii bodies, shooting wildlife and landscapes for publication.
> 
> The 5DMkiii has a bigger brighter viewfinder, making it easier to compose and judge depth of field, and easier to focus manually. It also has a better performance at high ISO, being very usable even at 3200 ISO. It is the perfect camera for landscapes and other static subjects.
> 
> ...



I was very pleased with the 7D2s versatility in Iceland and when we were in Mongolia shooting the Eagle Festival, the Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 gave me a greater chance at getting usable shots in the inside of the dark gers out near the Kurdistan border. It's a great all around camera for a person who concentrates on wildlife and is on the move (not shooting from blinds or a set up) and the capabilities at low ISO for landscapes makes it a great performer for the reasons you mentioned. 
I'll be using it in Madagascar next month, Antarctica in December, the Falklands in January, India for Tigers with Andy Biggs and a few days of birding in April, and Svalbard for Polar Bears and Arctic Foxes in July so I have plans to give the 7DM2 as heavy a workout as the 7D which went to 7 continents also!
Catherine
Catherine


----------



## bod (Aug 28, 2015)

AlanF said:


> If you want to shoot both insects and birds with the same lens, the 100-400mm II is king of the jungle because it can focus down to just under 3 ft or 1 m. Here are a couple of recent shots of a butterfly and dragonfly I took with the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC, zoomed out to about 350mm at f/7.1. They would possibly have been better using the bare 100-400 II, but I didn't have to remove the extender between long distance shots.



Hi Alan - Thanks for posting these images. Very useful to see some example insects images from the 100-400 II

I am finding this a stimulating thread and your comments have been thought provoking for me such as on acutance and resolution. Similarly your observation that "You can down-sample the crop image by 1.6x to give the same number of pixels as the FF, which is equivalent to gaining 0.7 stops in S/N" was something of a revelation to me as I had not considered this before.

Thanks again.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Sep 23, 2015)

love my 7D2 and 5D3


9W9A1306-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


9W9A1121-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


9W9A0872-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


----------



## Vincwat (Sep 23, 2015)

I have both, and I am so disappointed by the IQ of the 7Dk2 that I am selling it.
For me IQ is more important than the AF or the frame rate. Maybe my 7Dmk2 has a problem, I don't know. But the images show no details. I have shot birds with the 7Dk2 and without details in the feathers it is useless. Yes I have done AFMA with my lenses. Now I must say that that It seemed to work better with my Tamron 150-600 than with the Sigma 150-600 sport. The 7Dmk2 with ISO above 1600 is not giving usable images in my opinion. But the problem if you don't own F2,8 or F 4,0 telephoto lenses (If you were you would probably be using the 1Dx) you need to increase the ISOs to keep the shutter speed high. If the light is not good you easily go beyond 1600 ISO (my Sigma is at 6,3 when zooming at 600mm). So 10 shots per second at 3200 ISO gives you 10 shots per second of unusable images...
I am considering the 1DX when the 1DX mk2 comes out.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2015)

It's your lenses that are the problem. Both the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm have very low MTFs of 0.4 at 600mm at 30 c/mm (i.e. APS-C) and 0.5-0.6 at 400mm. The 100-400mm II is significantly sharper.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 23, 2015)

The pics in this thread contradict your statement.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1332307


----------



## tomscott (Sep 23, 2015)

Here are a few from that thread with the tamron 150-600mm and the 7DMKII borrowed from Tongho58



Black Skimmer Skimming by Tongho58, on Flickr



2015 Hummer On Pride of Madeira # 1 by Tongho58, on Flickr



Osprey With Fish by Tongho58, on Flickr



2015 Hummer On Pride of Madeira # 17 by Tongho58, on Flickr



Breakfast of Champions by Tongho58, on Flickr

Most of the shots are at 600 and wide open. The guys obviously incredibly talented but this combo looks killer to me.


----------



## Benhider (Sep 23, 2015)

5D Mark iii is a fantastic camera, and full frame does make a huge difference


----------



## tomscott (Sep 23, 2015)

As a 5DMKIII owner I'm looking to add a 7DMKII to my kit and have been nothing but impressed so far with what I've seen.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2015)

tomscott said:


> The pics in this thread contradict your statement.
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1332307



If you get close enough and fill a significant fraction of the frame, most lenses are sharp enough. It is indisputable that those lenses do have low MTFs on APS-C and it shows when the subjects are further away and fill less of the frame. You pay money to get sharper lenses be able to crop more and get usable images.

You gave examples from Tongho58 to support what you said. But, here is what Tongho wrote in his comments:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tongho58/15707862869/

"Tongho58 I'm disappointed with shots taken with 7D II, "at full resolution". Nothing beats full frame and a sharp lens!"

You have also attributed shots taken with the 5DIII to the 7DII, such as the above.


----------



## RodS57 (Sep 25, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Here are a few from that thread with the tamron 150-600mm and the 7DMKII borrowed from Tongho58
> 
> (Removed pics)
> 
> Most of the shots are at 600 and wide open. The guys obviously incredibly talented but this combo looks killer to me.



They are all wonderful shots but to address your "killer combo" comment.

I have this combo and I am struggling to get sharp shots with it. I am hoping my skill set is the limiting factor here. The 7D2 is the most complicated camera I have ever used and the tamron is the biggest lens I have used. Still trying and keeping fingers crossed.

Before anyone asks I did try AFMA but without concrete results so I disabled it.

Rod


----------



## dslrdummy (Sep 25, 2015)

I shoot the 7Dii and 5Diii side by side at sports and find the 7Dii very noisey in anything other than good light. I am yet to use it extensively with the 100-400ii which I just purchased but will be taking both bodies, the 100-400ii, 300ii and 1.4 and 2x TC's to Zambia next month so I will have plenty of opportunity to compare all combinations on some wildlife. Like AlanF I will probably opt to go with the 100-400 on the 7Dii but use the TC's on the 5Diii.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Sep 25, 2015)

all these birds in flight photos and landscapes pics
and no action shots
i have both a 5d3 and 7d2 they both can do what u need them too do just have good glass and your be ok



9W9A0872-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


9W9A1122-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


9W9A1306-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 30, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> I have a 6D and it is a great camera, but not for BIF. My long lens is a 70-200 2.8 II with a 1.4X III teleconverter, but at some point I will buy a 400 or 500mm prime. So the 7D II would be nice to lengthen the reach. My main question is, is the 7D II AF substantially better than that of the 5D III? What other considerations should I have for BIF?
> 
> I can’t believe this topic has not come up – but if it has, I am sure someone will kindly direct me to that discussion.
> 
> ...



In your situation I would go for a 7DII. But the 5DIII's af will not be the limitation for BIF images. I've got a lot of great images using 5DIII's. Regardless of how good the AF system is, technique and experience has a greater affect on your keeper rate.

Both are great cameras, MP is similar, AF is very similar and the handling is similar too. The only difference is the frame rate and physical size of the sensor.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 30, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 6D and it is a great camera, but not for BIF. My long lens is a 70-200 2.8 II with a 1.4X III teleconverter, but at some point I will buy a 400 or 500mm prime. So the 7D II would be nice to lengthen the reach. My main question is, is the 7D II AF substantially better than that of the 5D III? What other considerations should I have for BIF?
> ...



Thanks! Since going to 6D from 60D, I really want full frame, but the image quality in the posts has convinced me that the 7D II will be fine. And your point on technique and experience is well-made, especially in my case.


----------



## Khufu (Oct 10, 2015)

I've never shot a 7D II but as a 5D3 shooter I found the 70D to be great fun to shoot BIF for a little while... alas the Full Frame perspective of the 5D3 will get you photographs that pop in ways an APS-C sensor physically cannot. There are people on this forum who will tell you (and have already told me) otherwise but I simply have to write off their opinions as, I don't know, some kind of APS-C fanboys/gals, because the results I've gotten from shooting the 400mm f/5.6L and 300mm f/4L are at times quite magical and when I see a lot of 7D II shots I just wonder how amazing they may have looked with the wider frame perspective... I enjoy trying to get great animal portraits, if just 'reaching' animals is enough, grab that 7D II...

Also, I shoot FF action shots (Roller Derby, mostly), FF adds a whole new dimension to the images, or at least expands on ALL three of the usual ones


----------



## midluk (Oct 11, 2015)

Khufu said:


> I've never shot a 7D II but as a 5D3 shooter I found the 70D to be great fun to shoot BIF for a little while... alas the Full Frame perspective of the 5D3 will get you photographs that pop in ways an APS-C sensor physically cannot. There are people on this forum who will tell you (and have already told me) otherwise but I simply have to write off their opinions as, I don't know, some kind of APS-C fanboys/gals, because the results I've gotten from shooting the 400mm f/5.6L and 300mm f/4L are at times quite magical and when I see a lot of 7D II shots I just wonder how amazing they may have looked with the wider frame perspective... I enjoy trying to get great animal portraits, if just 'reaching' animals is enough, grab that 7D II...
> 
> Also, I shoot FF action shots (Roller Derby, mostly), FF adds a whole new dimension to the images, or at least expands on ALL three of the usual ones


Sorry, but that really sounds like you are trying to justify to yourself why you spent all that money on the 5D3 when you already had the 70D. Of course with the same lenses it will look wider on FF than on APS-C, but when you scale the focal length and the f-stop with the crop factor you should get equivalent images. If you still have differences that is either because of differences in lens quality or sensor technology (age, price point and pixel count) but not caused by the sensor size itself. Of course images wide open on FF (like 50mm f/1.4, which would be 31mm f/0.9 on APS-C) are not easily reproducible with APS-C, but that usually happens in the shorter focal length range and not in the very long focal length ranges like the 300mm and 400mm you mentioned.


----------



## Khufu (Oct 11, 2015)

Precisely the argument that I'm talking about 
The physics are different. To truly get a more closely matched perspective you'll need to shrink your subject and environment by 1.6x and bring them 1.6x closer to the image plane. A FF sensor is looking at the right-most subjects from further leftwards than a smaller, or "cropped" focal plane. Try observing the difference as you close one eye and shift your head an inch or so side-to-side, you'll notice everything in the world shifts slightly relative to eachother, shift far enough and you'll "see around" corners, features etc... A photographic representation isn't all observed from the same position, on a FF sensor it's observing from a 36mm perspective shift, from one edge to the other. This effect is increased as you move towards Medium Format and larger focal planes and reduced as you use smaller sensors, like in compact cameras and phones, hence the "ants eye view" kind of effect... That's how the world may look if you had tiny eyes. 
The calculations people make reflect attempting to achieve similar Depth of Field and "spread" of captured subjects, but they rarely mention true perspective and it's a very real thing! I recommend looking at some old plate/large format images and seeing how the perspective feels much more open, regardless of Depth of Field. 

For the record: I had the 5D3 some 2 years or so prior to the 70D. 

Your words sound a lot to me like somebody trying to justify APS-C over FF


----------



## candc (Oct 11, 2015)

if the angle of view is the same then the perspective is the same if shot from the same spot.

example is 10mm on aps-c and 16mm on ff. shot from the same spot, the perspective is the same


----------



## Khufu (Oct 11, 2015)

But an imaging sensor is not a 'spot', it is a rectangle. 

The edges of your sensor are not in the same physical location, yet they're capturing edges of the same photograph. A larger sensor increases this separation, which becomes quite significant as you consider sensor sizes from phones through M4/3 to APS-C, 35mm type and greater... 

I'm sorry if you struggle to understand this, or if you're just too miseducated and stubborn to consider what you're citing as is "the same" is actually a rough guide but ultimately not true.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 11, 2015)

Khufu said:


> But an imaging sensor is not a 'spot', it is a rectangle.
> 
> The edges of your sensor are not in the same physical location, yet they're capturing edges of the same photograph. A larger sensor increases this separation, which becomes quite significant as you consider sensor sizes from phones through M4/3 to APS-C, 35mm type and greater...
> 
> I'm sorry if you struggle to understand this, or if you're just too miseducated and stubborn to consider what you're citing as is "the same" is actually a rough guide but ultimately not true.



? 

No, candc is right. Perspective is a result of distance from a subject and has nothing to do with sensor size as long as framing is the same.

Earlier you talk about old images from LF plate cameras being more 'open'. Any perceived difference is to do with tonal graduation and significant (longer) lens magnification giving better detail, and also a fair amount of distortion from those old lenses.


----------



## midluk (Oct 11, 2015)

Let's assume the simplest form of a camera: the pinhole camera with an infinitesimal hole size (and not taking diffraction into account).
The effective focal length of the camera is the distance of the sensor to the hole. If you place an APS-C sensor at a specific distance and a FF sensor at 1.6 times the distance to the hole every light ray that passes through the hole will hit both sensors at corresponding points (e.g. center, corners, centers of edges, 50% from center to edge, ...). Also the same amount of light hits both sensors. So at least in this case we get exactly the same image from both sensors.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2015)

midluk said:


> Khufu said:
> 
> 
> > I've never shot a 7D II but as a 5D3 shooter I found the 70D to be great fun to shoot BIF for a little while... alas the Full Frame perspective of the 5D3 will get you photographs that pop in ways an APS-C sensor physically cannot. There are people on this forum who will tell you (and have already told me) otherwise but I simply have to write off their opinions as, I don't know, some kind of APS-C fanboys/gals, because the results I've gotten from shooting the 400mm f/5.6L and 300mm f/4L are at times quite magical and when I see a lot of 7D II shots I just wonder how amazing they may have looked with the wider frame perspective... I enjoy trying to get great animal portraits, if just 'reaching' animals is enough, grab that 7D II...
> ...



I have the 5D Mark III and the 70D. The 5D Mark III IQ wipes the floor with the 70D every time. I like both cameras. When I need faster a frame rate I use my 70D. Otherwise, the 5D mark III gets used. 

I too had the 70D first. Am I trying to "justify" the purchase? Nope. I don't have to justify it to anyone, especially not on an anonymous forum. Don't know why a thought like that would even enter your mind. Just silly.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 12, 2015)

candc said:


> if the angle of view is the same then the perspective is the same if shot from the same spot.
> 
> example is 10mm on aps-c and 16mm on ff. shot from the same spot, the perspective is the same



The one on the left is clearly wider.


----------



## midluk (Oct 12, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > if the angle of view is the same then the perspective is the same if shot from the same spot.
> ...


No, they just do not point in the exact same direction. The left picture shows a little bit more on the left edge, the right picture shows about the same bit more on the right edge.
And even if it were wider, you would not notice the slight difference withoud direct comparison. It is definitely far from a factor of 1.6!


----------



## JoFT (Oct 12, 2015)

If you want to keep the 6D: take the 7D2. It adds more variety on your glass..


I do have both: 5d3 and 7d2. I travel with both. Here the Idea:
[/size]14mm f2.8 on 5D3 (Samyang) this lens becomes:
[/size]21mm f2.8 on 7D2
[/size]35mm f2.0 IS on 5D3 (Canon EF) this lens becomes
[/size]56mm f2.0 on 7D2
[/size]85mm f1.4 on 5D3 (Sigma) this lens becomes
[/size]136mm f1.4 on 7D2
The 7D2 is a really good camera, but low light isn´t its strength especially with RAW: The JPG engine is pushing the camera to be maybe 1 sop better in comparison to the 7D.


But the crop factor is the topic....


Some more: http://bit.ly/1CtrDbl


----------



## midluk (Oct 12, 2015)

JoFT said:


> [/size]14mm f2.8 on 5D3 (Samyang) this lens becomes:
> [/size]21mm f2.8 on 7D2
> [/size]35mm f2.0 IS on 5D3 (Canon EF) this lens becomes
> [/size]56mm f2.0 on 7D2
> ...


This is not exactly correct. You also have to scale the f number with the crop factor to really get the lens that gives equivalent images. If you scale both the focal length and the f number you keep the absolute diameter of the aperture constant, which is what then gives you the same DOF and the same amount of light per pixel (assuming same pixel count).
This is also the main reason why you have higher noise on APS-C compared to FF at the same ISO. The ISO number is defined using the real (not the equivalent) f number. So what is called ISO 100 on APS-C is equivalent to ISO 100*1.6*1.6=250 on FF from a noise perspective. There might of course be some more differences resulting from more advanced technology in more expensive FF sensors compared to entry level APS-C sensors and better fill factor and less relative tolerances due to the bigger pixel sizes, but this is not the main contribution.
If you are limited by DOF (and shoot stopped down) you will not gain much with a FF sensor compared to APS-C, because you can use an f number which is 1.6 smaller on APS-C and consequently can reduce ISO by a factor of 1.6*1.6=2.5. The main advantage you get is in situations where you are not limited by DOF (or even want extremely shallow DOF) and can use low f numbers on FF which are not reachable equivalently on APS-C. And of course at the ultra ultra short end on APS-C you can get as low as 16mm equivalent (10mm) while on FF you can get to 11mm (canon lenses, non-fisheye), but the problem here is more lens design (and the distance of the back lens element from the sensor) and not so much caused by sensor size.


----------



## JoFT (Oct 12, 2015)

midluk said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > 14mm f2.8 on 5D3 (Samyang) this lens becomes:
> ...




You are right, Beside the Angle of view there is an influence on the DOF, too. But this is another effect. The noise consideration was new to me. For me noise is related to pixel size: a pixel is a photon counter - and less size means less photons and more deviations and therefore noise....


But the effect is there.. I experienced it in sports photography when the 7D became the perfect solution shooting field hockey in summer outside - using the 28-300mm L-Lens... /Which is 44-480mm on the 7D....


For me this works, especially in combination with my zoom lenses...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 12, 2015)

midluk said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > [/size]14mm f2.8 on 5D3 (Samyang) this lens becomes:
> ...



Wait - what? Thank you; nicely explained. Now I am back to wanting a 5D III.


----------



## midluk (Oct 12, 2015)

JoFT said:


> You are right, Beside the Angle of view there is an influence on the DOF, too. But this is another effect.


What gives you the blurry out of focus area is the light that comes through the outer parts of the lens. The bigger the lens diameter, the blurrier it will be. What counts here is the absolute lens diameter not the relative f stop.



JoFT said:


> The noise consideration was new to me. For me noise is related to pixel size: a pixel is a photon counter - and less size means less photons and more deviations and therefore noise....


Less size means less photons if the illuminance (i.e. photons per area) on the sensor is the same. But if you shrink the sensor and at the same time increase the illuminance to compensate (which you effectively do if you also shrink the focal length by the same factor while keeping the area of the lens constant) you end up with the same number of photons. Assuming no transmission losses all light from the image-visible part of the "world" that reaches the lens area ends up on the sensor. This amount of light is independent of the size of the sensor (if you move the sensor closer to the lens, which you do by decreasing the focal length). If you do not keep the area of the lens constant but also shrink the lens diameter by the same factor (i.e. keep the f stop constant) then you will end up with less photons.
If you do long exposures where dark current becomes important, bigger pixels should even have more noise because the dark current scales with pixel area.



JoFT said:


> But the effect is there.. I experienced it in sports photography when the 7D became the perfect solution shooting field hockey in summer outside - using the 28-300mm L-Lens... /Which is 44-480mm on the 7D....


Yes, sure. The EF 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM on the 7D corresponds to 45-480mm f/5.6-9 on a FF which would be a significantly bigger and heavier lens. On the tele end APS-C can show its advantage.


----------



## candc (Oct 13, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > JoFT said:
> ...



there is no such thing as iso equivalent. exposure and iso are not related to sensor size. there is equivalent aperture of lenses as they relate to different size sensors but that's only for dof


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 13, 2015)

The real difficulty is the burst rate the 5D MKIII is 6fps whereas the 7D MKII is 10. How significant this is only you can tell but aside from that the best compromise is actually the 5DS that has a 5FPS burst mode. It can be cropped to APS-H or APS-C and the noise at high ISO is slightly better than the 7D MKII. It also has a 1/2 stop more up to its maximum ISO although the 7D MKII has a higher maximum ISO rating (which is unsuable). 
In all other respects the cameras are very similar with the same metering systems, similar focus points (5DS 61, 7D MKII 65) but the 7D MKII does add more cross type and does have GPS. The 5DS also has the mirror damping which is critical in my book for long exposure shots but not so for BIF. 

Then there is the not so insignificant difference in price the 5DS is £ 2999 ($ 3699) whereas the 7D MKII is £ 1299 ($ 1599) over double the price. 

The 7D MKII will always inhibit more noise than your 6D simply as a factor of the pixel size, it also has worse IQ at high ISOs but is far better at subject tracking, metering and reach.


----------



## JoFT (Oct 13, 2015)

midluk said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > You are right, Beside the Angle of view there is an influence on the DOF, too. But this is another effect.
> ...





JoFT said:


> Nicely explained.... I had to think about this.... Physically you are right - Isn´t that the definition of the f-number of the lens....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





JoFT said:


> Here I disagree to some extend: I was not talking about sensor size but pixel pitch. My question is how many Photons a pixel can count:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thank you: this is why it makes sense to carry 2 bodies and 4 lenses instead of 1 body and 8 lenses.....


----------



## midluk (Oct 13, 2015)

JoFT said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > JoFT said:
> ...


Yes, the full well capacity should indeed change with absolute pixel size. This helps you at low sensor sensitivities (i.e. low ISO). This is consistent with my statement that ISO 100 on APS-C corresponds to an equivalent ISO (the ISO that the light meter gives you when you use the equivalent f number) of 250 on FF. So FF can reach a factor of 2.5 lower ISO. Which of course if you can compensate for lower ISO with a longer exposure or a bigger aperture gives you lower Poisson noise on FF compared to APS-C. As soon as you are above ISO 250 it will give you no advantage, but higher pixel (electrical) capacity (proportional to area) should even increase read noise, because the same number of electrons (caused by photons) in the pixel area cause a voltage that is proportional to the inverse capacity. Bigger pixel size means less voltage and therefore more read noise (relative to the signal).

So to sum up all the points I have stated before:
An image taken with an APS-C camera with focal length f, f-stop N, and ISO s would look exactly the same (including noise level and DOF) as an image taken with a FF camera (same pixel count) and focal length 1.6*f, f-stop 1.6*N and ISO 2.5*s. This is as long as you do not take differences in the fill factor (possible advantage for FF) and differences in the read noise and dark current (disadvantage for FF) into account.

FF has an advantage in areas that APS-C can not reach:
- low (equivalent) ISO (below 250)
- low (equivalent) f-stops at the same equivalent focal lengths
- very low (equivalent) focal lengths
APS-C has an advantage mainly at long focal lengths where you do not have the equivalent focal length available on FF (lens weight, size and cost).
In all other situations where you can take the image at the corresponding equivalent values it does not make much of a difference whether you use APS-C or FF unless there is a significant difference in fill factor or dark current and read noise become important.



JoFT said:


> The ISO itself for me is a kind of artificial factor in the game. It is well defined to match film and digital to come to comparable values f.i. on light meters camera settings etc. At the end it is a calibration value set by the camera manufacturer....


We are comparing two cameras of the same manufacturer that do not have a huge age difference, so the ISO values should be roughly consistent between the 7D2 and the 5D3.


----------



## JoFT (Oct 13, 2015)

midluk said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > midluk said:
> ...




Wow, thank you a lot. Are You in the business? from where do you know this??? I could not find this.... 


What wonders me: I shoot both, and -especially at ISO100 there is no difference in noise visible to me. I can mix both cameras easily - as long as I am below ISO 200....


But pixel size will have an effect on diffraction limits, too, or???


----------



## midluk (Oct 14, 2015)

JoFT said:


> Wow, thank you a lot. Are You in the business? from where do you know this??? I could not find this....



No, I'm not in the business, but as an experimental particle physicist I have some experience with light detection. It's mainly a combination of facts I read somewhere in the past. The rest I deduced myself. I'm pretty sure I did not make any big mistakes, but I might have missed something or made some simplifications. So feel free to point to problematic areas in my argumentation. After all I also want to learn something from thinking about it.



JoFT said:


> What wonders me: I shoot both, and -especially at ISO100 there is no difference in noise visible to me. I can mix both cameras easily - as long as I am below ISO 200....



At ISO 100 (real not equivalent) the main limitation is likely read noise, which might indeed be comparable on both cameras. Absolute read noise (in ADC counts) should be identical for different sized sensors using similar technology. Of course the relation of ADC counts to photon counts will be different for different pixel sizes (and different ISO settings).



JoFT said:


> But pixel size will have an effect on diffraction limits, too, or???



The diffraction is caused by the edges of the aperture. It's worse the bigger the ratio of edges to total area becomes. So it depends on the absolute size of the aperture. Which again means that equivalent images (everything scaled as above) will also be affected identically by diffraction on APS-C and FF. You are mainly enlarging the diffraction by choosing a larger focal length but compensating for that by the bigger pixels. Of course for a constant sensor size bigger pixels (which means a lower pixel count) will be affected less by diffraction (or more pixels like in the 5DS means diffraction becomes more evident), but this is just the general loss of resolution where at some point the additional loss by diffraction becomes negligible. And of course it you scale only the focal length but not the f number you get less diffraction for FF but this is not caused by the pixel size but by the fact that you change the absolute aperture.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 14, 2015)

midluk and JoFT: You have made this one of the most education and interesting threads. I cannot express thanks enough.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 14, 2015)

Having both is a killer combination. My 7DMKII arrives on Friday. ;D


----------



## JoFT (Oct 15, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Having both is a killer combination. My 7DMKII arrives on Friday. ;D




Congrats!!! 100% agree!!! killer combo nails it!


----------



## JoFT (Oct 15, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> midluk and JoFT: You have made this one of the most education and interesting threads. I cannot express thanks enough.




Thank you: I must say: midluk´s explanation have blown me away, positively. and challenged as well. I do not call me an expert in this matter - but same motivation - i want to learn and understand.


Maybe that my demands on "expertness" are a bit higher working with lasers and having a friend who is developing optics since years...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 15, 2015)

The way the pricing has gone on the 7D MKII so quickly I can see Canon canning it in the future and retaining APS-C for consumer DSLRs only. They may well expand the FF cameras that have crop modes and try & retain the higher pricing. The 7D MKII pricing is very similar to the 6D with way more functionality (except wi-fi) and with a 5DS currently 2.5X more expensive with very similar spec except for frame rate & GPS to the 7D MKII and FF sensor to the 5DS.


----------



## turbo1168 (Oct 15, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> The way the pricing has gone on the 7D MKII so quickly I can see Canon canning it in the future and retaining APS-C for consumer DSLRs only. They may well expand the FF cameras that have crop modes and try & retain the higher pricing. The 7D MKII pricing is very similar to the 6D with way more functionality (except wi-fi) and with a 5DS currently 2.5X more expensive with very similar spec except for frame rate & GPS to the 7D MKII and FF sensor to the 5DS.



I don't see much difference in the pricing drop over the first year or 2 in other Canon cameras. 70D, $100 drop first year, another $100 second year. 6D, $250 drop first year, another $100 second year, etc. After the initial big push when released, the pricing gets adjusted to what the market will bear.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 15, 2015)

turbo1168 said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The way the pricing has gone on the 7D MKII so quickly I can see Canon canning it in the future and retaining APS-C for consumer DSLRs only. They may well expand the FF cameras that have crop modes and try & retain the higher pricing. The 7D MKII pricing is very similar to the 6D with way more functionality (except wi-fi) and with a 5DS currently 2.5X more expensive with very similar spec except for frame rate & GPS to the 7D MKII and FF sensor to the 5DS.
> ...



I think people get confused over grey market pricing, retailer street pricing and Canon's pricing. The only one that matters to Canon is their own pricing to retailers and we don't know what that is. 

If you look at MAP pricing however, the real drop has been in the 6D, which is selling for about 60% of its introductory price. The 7DII is selling for about 80% of its introductory price. Another way to look at it: the 6D began life more expensive than the 7DII and it's now selling for less than the 7DII. Granted the 6D is an older camera, but the key point is that the 7DII has not dropped any more quickly than other cameras. Actually, the 5Ds seems to have fallen further, faster.

People who predict the demise of the 7DII fail to understand how significantly Canon changed the target for this body. The 7DI was a top of the line general purpose camera at a time when the cost of entry into the full frame world was much higher. 

With lower cost full-frame cameras (like the 6D) Canon decided to make the 7DII into a niche market camera. It is called the APS-C version of a 1D for a reason. It is very much targeted to sports, wildlife and bird shooters and does that very well. Many buyers of the 7DII are using it as a second body (which is my case) and it is clearly designed to complement the 5D. That doesn't mean it can't be used as one's sole or primary body, just that it also fills a niche that no other body can.


----------



## Andreas (Oct 15, 2015)

I have a 5Ds for underwater photography, high resolution is great, low fps no issue. 7DM2 for topside for wildlife, where higher speed is advantage paired with a 100-400 lens the crop sensor gives you extra reach and my 5DM3 use more for landscape and underwater too when i wnat to have high resolution topside....advante is that all 3 cameras use the same batteries, same grips, same metering system, very easy and fast to switch from one to another...


----------



## turbo1168 (Oct 15, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I think people get confused over grey market pricing, retailer street pricing and Canon's pricing. The only one that matters to Canon is their own pricing to retailers and we don't know what that is.








Kind of the point I was trying to make. Market MSRP (USA for example) shows a steady price drop on most any camera body as time goes on. 6D prices dropping so drastically was probably due to the fact that the consumer's didn't purchase them in as high of numbers as Canon projected. Pricing was too high that many could justify purchasing the 5D bodies instead or purchased a crop frame such as the 70D at a lower price point. Simple supply and demand.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 15, 2015)

Ruined said:


> For BIF the 7D2 is hard to beat both for its AF and its crop factor. I would get the 7D2. Plus the 5D3 has a problem with AF illumination in AI servo mode that the 7D2 does not.



+1, this is a terrific combination for BIF


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Oct 27, 2015)

WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP PUTTING THE 7D2 AS A SOLELY A SPORTs,WILDLIFE CAMERA IT CAN DO EVERYTHING U NEED IT TOO DO AND MORE ESPECIALLY IF U HAVE THE RIGHT GLASS


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP PUTTING THE 7D2 AS A SOLELY A SPORTs,WILDLIFE CAMERA IT CAN DO EVERYTHING U NEED IT TOO DO AND MORE ESPECIALLY IF U HAVE THE RIGHT GLASS



Where to begin...

Compared to a FF rig, here are the drawbacks to the 7D2:


Except on the very long end, EF mount zooms' usefulness is marginalized by the crop factor, in particular with standard zooms. A 24-something EF mount lens becomes a 38-1.6X something on a 7D2, which is very frustrating as a walkaround -- I had a 24-70 f/2.8 on my old crop rig and I constantly was changing it out for my EF-S 10-22.
FF generates smaller DOF for a given aperture
FF does a better job in low light
Canon famously does not develop L grade glass for the EF-S mount. This tends to burn you on the ultra-wide end, where it is not possible to 'crop up' to the FL range you need. In other words, you can make do with a 16-35 f/2.8 as a standard zoom on a crop, but this becomes impractical / prohibitively expensive to get a great UWA lens on crop. You are stuck with decent EF-S glass that lacks weathersealing or USM focusing, or you eat $3k to slap that 11-24L on your crop rig to build a FF equivalent 18-38mm lens. Those aren't winning options.

So it's not that the 7D2 is a poor rig -- far from it! It's just that once you are in the $1,000+ territory for a body, for a host of reasons, *a 6D or 5D3 is almost always the more powerful tool for general photography*. The EF standard zooms are perfect length-wise, there are professional grade / sealed / USM focusing UWA lenses available, and small DOF / low light opportunities can be more fully realized. 

_But on the long end or with high burst applications_, the 7D2 shines as those drawbacks typically are a secondary consideration to burst speed or reach. Those scenarios naturally lend themselves to birding, wildlife, and sports. That's why that's the 7D2 tends to be marginalized as a specialty tool in comparison to most FF rigs.

Can you use the 7D2 to shoot just about anything? Absolutely. But the the various FF rigs will outperform it pretty handily unless burst or reach is key to what you shoot.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 27, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> WHY DO PEOPLE ...


Sorry mate, but the message is not easier to read and understand if the caps lock is broken 
Even if it's right.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP PUTTING THE 7D2 AS A SOLELY A SPORTs,WILDLIFE CAMERA IT CAN DO EVERYTHING U NEED IT TOO DO AND MORE ESPECIALLY IF U HAVE THE RIGHT GLASS
> ...



Negatives are all well and good but what about the positives? Lots of benefit of crop

FF is great if you need smaller DOF but what about situations where you don't?

The current gen 5DMKIII and 6D are old cameras the difference between it and the current crop sensor gen is 1-2 stops which is much better than the old 18mp sensor. 

Say your shooting wildlife in low light the FF camera may be the best camera for the job but with wildlife DOF is always welcome at F4 or even F5.6 your plane of focus is quite thin. if your shooting the 100-400mm you may be shooting F5.6 at 400mm at 3200ISO on FF you can do the same on crop but the DOF is more like F9 at the same settings, to get the same DOF on FF and go up to F8 you will need to up your ISO to 6400 to compensate for the stop of light loss. This narrows the game quite a bit the difference is 1 stop of light and with the crop camera your getting 640mm with the same lens.

Its true the FF cameras will always be better because they have better light gathering capability. But the new gen crop vs current gen FF its pretty close. I cap my 5DMKIII at 4000ISO and I'm quite happy to shoot the 7DMKII at 4000. The grain of the new crop cameras is very natural, it also has no colour noise either the 5DMKIII is so annoying I'm forever cleaning it up.

The 17-55mm F2.8 is also excellent it may not have the build but certainly has the IQ. Had mine for about 6 years and love it, although its had no use since I went FF but now I have the 7DMKII I wouldn't hesitate to use it instead. These lenses are also cheap now the 17-55mm can be had for around £500 and the 10-22 £400. The 24-70mm has no IS either and is £1250 the 16-35mm is also £1200. There are also really fantastic budget performers like the 10-18mm, 17-85mm. One of my good friends a marine biologist is currently in Antarctica for a year long stint and his gear - 7D MKI 10-18mm 17-85mm and 70-300mm L and he loves it. Very difficult conditions and he's had no problems so far.

People really overestimate the need sometimes and its amazing what results you can get. 

So really if you want to stick with crop canon has you covered with the 10-22mm which is 16-35mm equivalent 17-55mm which is 24-70mm roughly equivalent then any other lenses for longer from the EF range will fit. Also the third parties make some awesome stuff Sigmas 18-35mm F1.8 anyone? 

My 7DMKII was £800 and a 5DMKIII is still running for £1500+ so its half the price. Fantastic camera IMO.

So ye both have their benefits and negatives. But currently until the 5DMKIV is released the crop cameras have a lot of benefits on current gen FF. IMO having both is the ideal situation both for different jobs but if the 7DMKII is top of your budget then it will excel at pretty much anything you throw at it and is probably canons most versatile camera for bang for buck at the time of writing. Especially with its newer features like 10FPS, range of points across the viewfinder, Dual pixel AF, the hybrid viewfinder and the GPS.

Ive had my 5DMKIII for 3 years and have shot over 150,000 images with it shooting weddings, events and motorsport and I have been blown away with the 7DMKII. The 5DMKIII has taken a back seat for the time being, it is still my go to camera for weddings and events but the 7DMKII makes a fantastic BU camera.

I couldn't say any of this for the old 18mp sensor I had a 7D original and sold it within a few weeks because I was so disappointed with it. The new 7DMKII is a huge upgrade on the older tech.

To push people toward FF for everything is a mistake a lot of people continue to do on this forum, its often overkill for most people and the upgrade in lenses etc is usually a large one. Canon now offer such a great range of primes that getting smaller DOF at all the usual focal lengths 35, 50 and 85mm is nice and easy.

Like I said you can never replace the light gathering of the FF cameras or the very shallow DOF, but with both comes challenges. The crop cameras offer 90% of the performance for 50% the price. Now there is a good alternative in the Canon line up its a no brainer to get one IMO.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 28, 2015)

tomscott said:


> My 7DMKII was £800 and a 5DMKIII is still running for £1500+ so its half the price. Fantastic camera IMO.



Agree with all you've said but where are you getting those cameras from in the UK for those prices ? Even without VAT the 7DII is about £1100 and the 5DIII £1850.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 28, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > My 7DMKII was £800 and a 5DMKIII is still running for £1500+ so its half the price. Fantastic camera IMO.
> ...



I get all my gear grey market. The prices are from SLRHUT, usually buy all my stuff from DREV but with the yen to the dollar SLRHUT are much cheaper.

You get a year worldwide warranty, come within 3 days. All of my grey market gear has had no problem with being repaired through my membership with CPS. Don't see the need to spend the extra 30% buying from the UK, its cheaper than claiming the VAT back at the end of the year.

I have also found the service as easy as the companies in the UK the turn around time is about the same. I usually buy all my Canon gear grey market, funnily enough they all come european spec anyway, on the odd occasion I buy off brands they will be from UK because if I'm not happy sending them back is quite costly. I find the Canon stuff is incredibly durable and the 1 year warranty a bit of a joke really for the prices, have found no benefit so far to buy from the UK unless I'm not happy with the lens itself and want to return it which is a hassle. 

The one issue I've had so far is my 70-200mm MKII wasn't right when it arrived from DREV I'm assuming it was from transit so they sent it to CPS for free and all postage paid and it was aligned and came back as new. So I'm pretty happy with the service. Also DREV and SLRHUT have their customer service based in the UK now so you can actually deal with things there and then, rather than on HK or US time.

Its even cheaper now at £780

http://slrhut.co.uk/product/ID1666C5/9128B043AA_Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-DSLR-Camera-_Body-Only_-/


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Negatives are all well and good but what about the positives? Lots of benefit of crop
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Awesome reply, thank you, Tom. I really appreciate it. I agree with much of what you said. 

However, please recall why I wrote what I wrote -- it wasn't to smear crop cameras or push anyone towards a conversion to FF. It was to shed light on why the 7D/7D2 brand is thought of (right or wrong) as a wildlife/action/sports rig.

My argument, put another way (in broad strokes): anything the 7D2 can do, a 5D3 can do equivalently or better _with the exception of reach or burst._ So, the corollary to that is the 7D2 shines in areas where reach/burst is needed, i.e. wildlife/action/sports. That doesn't mean it doesn't shine elsewhere -- it just means that it's longest suit / most impressive parameters are oriented to that need. That's all.

- A


----------



## tomscott (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Negatives are all well and good but what about the positives? Lots of benefit of crop
> ...



Sorry it wasn't meant to come across as i don't agree with your points more the other aspect of the pros for the 7D.

Your not wrong and I agree but atm it doesn't do it 50% better unlike the hike in price. We are talking about a 3 year old camera vs a 6 month old one. When the new 5DMKIV comes out I think the balance will be addressed. Comparing the 5DMKIII to the original 7D was a huge huge difference.

The 7DMKII is not really any different to any of the other crop cameras in terms of its shoots the same way as a 100D does, its just much more complex, shoots 10fps and has a killer AF system. It doesn't mean you can't slow it down and shoot as if its a much slower camera, it is aimed at sports and action but theres no reason it cant be used in all other situations. Landscape its a powerhouse because of the pixel density and DOF increase etc etc the only thing its not really suited for is high end portraiture and you could say weddings, because of the look FF gives you but its a safe way to shoot weddings no worries with shooting such large apertures and missing the area you want to focus. Crop is more forgiving which leads to my next point.

Moving to FF is also a bit of a learning curve, certainly was for me 5 years into shooting professionally I went FF with a 5DMKII, relearning how your lenses behave, DOF, FOV, also ensuring to shoot fast enough to reduce camera shake which is intensified from the sensor size and then bettering technique to get back to where you were before with crop. For someone thats not as savvy and looking at the market with the money to spend going straight to FF can create disappointing results and its been seen many many a time on the forum, people aren't getting the results they expect which then leads to Canon is *£%@, throwing money doesn't always result in a huge bump in quality. The skill is always important.

5 years later after thinking I will never go crop again and growing my skill set I've come to realise that its not really one or the other its choosing the right tool for the job and essentially making the most money you can from that decision. So choosing a 7DMKII could save people money if they are shooting anything but portraiture... on the other hand FF gives such a lovely look for other subjects... its something everyone has to weigh up and for me having both is now a no brainer.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 29, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...



Thanks for link. Gotta be worth a punt at £780, even if just for the giggle of 10 fps. I've been really impressed with the 7DII IQ from what I've seen.


----------



## ksgal (Oct 29, 2015)

This whole crop vs FF frame is an old debate, that really doesn't apply to the technology as much as it use to. 

Here we go, two pictures, one is crop, one is ff. Now, can one really tell and does it really matter? I don't have a 5DIII, but I do have a 5DII and a 7DII so... tell me which is which without looking at the exif. 

If you know what you are doing, and you know your tools, then the gap between ff and crop is really zero except with extreme conditions (aperture, focal, lighting, iso, etc... ) I could make them both perform equally except in very specific conditions. Pick the right tool for you and your photography style and budget.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Oct 30, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > WHY DO PEOPLE ...
> ...



didnt know canon rumors had typing/grammar police


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Oct 30, 2015)

tomscott said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...



so u saying the 7D mark too isnt that good at high end portraits?? hmm



_W9A2331-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr


_W9A2407-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr

well i guess this isnt high end portraits


----------



## tomscott (Oct 31, 2015)

> so u saying the 7D mark too isnt that good at high end portraits?? hmm
> 
> well i guess this isnt high end portraits



I didn't say it wasn't suitable, I said it would save people money unless they are looking for a high end portraiture, specific look. 

In your images above I would say a FF camera would have been more suitable as there is a lot of DOF to the point where the bg is distracting in both images, especially in the first image with the black curtain not sure whats in the bottom right corner but at a wider aperture would have looked much more aesthetic. 

At F5 your effectively shooting the equivalent of F8 at 85mm against a flat background with a lot of texture, close range not leaving much room for a clean background. If it had been shot full frame you could have got a nicer creamier background but at the distance the subject is to the curtain it may not have made much difference unless you shot a much larger aperture. It would have also added a better bokeh effect in the second, but again he's so close to the lights it would be difficult. Changing the perspective moving the model further forward would have given a creamier look. But depends on your intended look.

But if your shooting in a studio with controlled lighting a FF camera is a no brainer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 31, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Whilst I am sure there are many people who could shoot high end portraits with a 7D MkII, I doubt any do, there are better tools for less money.

On the other hand I do agree with your second comment, they are not close to high end portraits. I'd put them in first year art school class league, certainly not higher.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 2, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > BigAntTVProductions said:
> ...



I just want to know who suggested that colour eyeshadow to go with that dress, in the first picture ???


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 2, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > BigAntTVProductions said:
> ...



You must be very new to the forum, there have been lengthy threads dedicated to grammar.

But,

That wasn't the grammar police. You were just stopped by the netiquette police for shouting.


----------



## Pixel (Nov 3, 2015)

Here's a graphic representation of the AF differences between the 7D Mark II and 5D Mark III. The points notated by the X's are the highest precision points the camera offers. 
Also, I don't know if it has been mentioned in this thread as I didn't read the entire thing, the 5D Mark III only uses one processor for camera ops and AF while the 7D Mark II has a processor dedicated solely to the AF. When I need precision AF I reach for the 1Dx first or then one my two 7D Mark II's. The 5D Mark III sits in the bag until I need an extra pretty file or quiet shutter.


----------



## geofpowell (Nov 3, 2015)

Forgive my ignorance but what is BIF?


----------



## tomscott (Nov 3, 2015)

geofpowell said:


> Forgive my ignorance but what is BIF?



Bird in flight


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Nov 3, 2015)

I SEE U DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT SMH
you were at the photoplus expo too say what needed too be done



tomscott said:


> > so u saying the 7D mark too isnt that good at high end portraits?? hmm
> >
> > well i guess this isnt high end portraits
> 
> ...


----------

