# Suggestions for a difficult choice



## janne (Jul 17, 2011)

Hello everyone, 

I'm a firsttime poster on this forum, yet I've been lurking a while. Right now I'm working for a month (as a student) and I will be using the money earned for new gear. I have recently started shooting concerts as a hobby, and I enjoy it a lot. My current equipment won't cut it for much longer though:

- Eos 1000D (Rebel XS for non-Europeans)
- Ef-s 18-55 3.5-5.6 (no IS)
- EF 50 1.4
- EF 70-200 2.8 (no IS)

The latter two work somewhat, but even with the 50mm shooting wide-open I have to crank up my ISO to 1600, which on the 1000D, looks horrible. 
Now with my budget - I'm guessing around 2200 euros - I see two choices.

- Eos 7D + 17-55 2.8
or 
- Eos 5DII

If I bought the latter however, I would be without standard zoom or wide-angle. The rest of the money (depending on which I take) would be spent on accessories.

Any suggestions as to which I should take and why?

Thanks in advance, 

Janne

P.S.: I also own a 580EXII, but usually at concerts, flash is not allowed.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 17, 2011)

Well I think you give a good answer yourself saying that with 5dII you won't have a wide angle and standard zoom ... this will usually cost you many good shots and the 7d is not that bad ... anyway it is a strong upgrade from the 1000d ... 
while 5dII will be replaced soon and you might a used one much cheaper in the future or have enough saving to buy the whole minimum package: which is for me Wide angle zoom, standard zoom and tele zoom ...


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 17, 2011)

Personally, if I was shooting concerts, I'd go for the 7D for it's better AF, to give me longer reach on the 70-200mm and put what I saved towards a 17-55mm f2.8 to use at smaller venues.


----------



## janne (Jul 17, 2011)

Huh, interesting replies both of you, I had rather expected the contrary 
Thanks.


----------



## thejoyofsobe (Jul 17, 2011)

if the 5DmkII is off the table i think a good question would be what kind of FPS do you need and do you also shoot a lot of sports?

i ask because the 7D, 60D, t3i and t2i share roughly the same guts. they are differentiated in a number of ways but with regard strictly to the ability to take stills the primary differences between the four cameras are in FPS and AF. 

if you do most of your shooting wide open at f/2.8 or faster (i.e. like in low-light concerts) then the four cameras are on a relatively equal playing field because all of them only have one dual cross-type AF point (the center one). when shooting sports and fast moving action is where the cameras' AF systems would distinguish themselves as the Rebel's only cross-type is the dual one at the center whereas all 9 of the 60D's AF points are cross-type and all 19 of the 7D's AF points are cross-type. As a 60D owner and someone who has used a t2i to shoot sports, the 60D clearly shines in that regard as well as ergonomics. Admittedly I've never used a 7D but I would imagine the AF system would outdistance the 60D's by a similar margin. But the value in that is really if you shoot sports.

the other distinguishing characteristic with regard to stills is the FPS. the Rebel t2i and t3i will basically shoot 2 RAW files at 3.7 FPS before the buffer slows it down. frustrating as all get out. the 60D will shoot 16 RAW files at 5.3 FPS before the buffer slows it down. as an owner I am comfortable with my ability to not miss many moments. the 7D will shoot 15 RAW files at 8.0 FPS before the buffer slows it down. this is for someone who needs to capture every moment.

if it were me with that budget, existing equipment list and I'm _primarily_ concerned about my ability to shoot concerts then I'd probably sacrifice the high FPS and improved AF whose primary value is found in shooting sports and go the route of purchasing a 60D with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (3-stop IS). Use the money I saved by not going with the 7D along with the money I would get from selling the 70-200mm f/2.8 to purchase the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (the mark I with 3-stop IS or the mark II with 4-stop IS). 

That would leave me with two fast, image-stabilized zooms covering a good range along with the existing fast 50mm f/1.4. Probably would be a good set up for concerts.


----------



## janne (Jul 17, 2011)

That does sound interesting, I have to admit. Sports might, one day, be part of what I shoot. For instance, my cousin plays rugby, and I have told him I'd be shooting one of his games in the near future. 

Currently I'm studying journalism, which I might combine with photography, and I think it's good to have gear of myself. Especially since most journalists tend to work freelance, forced or not.

However, the 5DII is not yet off the table. Not by a long shot 

And to be honest I was indeed also thinking of maybe going for the IS version of the 70-200... I should be working again at Christmas for two weeks, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem by then.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 17, 2011)

Well the AF thing is also one thing I can tell you about, having a 5d MKII you def need sth with better AF for action shots. 

The strength of the 5d MKII is Landscape, architecture, portraits under controlled distances ... but really really nothing that needs a fast AF or one that works reliable when it is very dark ...


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 18, 2011)

A 7D comes with a built in flash, which is useful for getting past security guards. It also has better weather sealing, which is useful for outdoor events. But the 5dii has an advantage at high ISOs. If you're not happy with the current ISO 1600 shots, I'd give some thought to the 5Dii. 

I took a zoom to a concert recently. Once it got dark, I found it a bit tough to take sharp photos (a couple of blurry examples below to show what I mean). Am sticking with fast primes going forward.


----------



## koolman (Jul 18, 2011)

If you shoot concerts, I assume you need both long (for closeups of the performers) and possibly wide/normal for general stage shots. As far as focal lengths, your ok with your lenses, however concerts probably involve low light, and here you are a little weak on the wide normal.

I would suggest a 550d - same IQ as 7d much more cost effective - and Tamron 17-50. The 550d has great low light performance (same as 7d) and the Tammy is fast and not expensive.

For a hobby - I would see it somewhat an overkill the superior 7d which is primarily a pro sports camera.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 18, 2011)

High ISO noise is a personal issue however for my POV, and I do shoot professionally, I was able to take my 7D, 50mm 1.4 and 35 1.4 (borrowed from CPS) and shot roughly on average 1200-3200.... Noise was barely visable at 100% on most of the shots... Yes, on some of the darker shots 1.4 wasn't quite enough, but so is the life of low-light photography (especially when flash isn't allowed in the venue.)... For the most part, I was very comfortable showing these photos to clients and bands, however, my opinion is not yours so take that for what it's worth. 

Between the 7D and 5D mII, professionally, I shoot right now with the 7D. Quality, for a crop camera, is very good or up to 100% at 11x17's. Unless you are shooting primarily 3200-12800 iso and printing 11x17's and bigger, I wouldn't be too concerned about quality. That being said, I fully expect to upgrade to the 5d M3 if and when it does show it's face in the wild, however given the advantages of AF, Level, flash commander, multifuntion button, weathersealing and I fully expect the new 5D to have some if not all of those features... I cant quite stomach losing those features to get the current 5D mark II. But then again my needs aren't your needs. Do your homework and go to your local store and play with them... hold them... see which one grows on your hand better... and then make your decision.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 18, 2011)

For low light, you really need FF. I use a 5D MK II at ISO 3200 and it is just OK. I bought a 7D as a backup and found that ISO 800 was noisy, and I really would want to set the limit to 1600.

Yes, you will want to trade in your ef-s for a 35mm f/2 or 28mm f/1.8, but being able to use ISO 3200 is a big step up.

Here is a image taken in near darkness with a 5D MK II at ISO 3200 and a old Canon 50mm f/1.8 MK I. AF was fast and accurate (won't see that on a 7D).







another with just a few colored lights, very Dark. My iD MK III could not capture this, the image was so noisy as to be useless.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 18, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> For low light, you really need FF. I use a 5D MK II at ISO 3200 and it is just OK. I bought a 7D as a backup and found that ISO 800 was noisy, and I really would want to set the limit to 1600.
> 
> Yes, you will want to trade in your ef-s for a 35mm f/2 or 28mm f/1.8, but being able to use ISO 3200 is a big step up.
> 
> Here is a image taken in near darkness with a 5D MK II at ISO 3200 and a old Canon 50mm f/1.8 MK I. AF was fast and accurate (won't see that on a 7D).



I've had no problems focusing my 7D with my 17-40 with little to no light with no AF lamp assist... AF, to me, on the 7D is superior to the 5D MII any day of the week, however this is personal opinion and I will leave it at that. 

Regarding High ISO, that is why i specified print... Prints to me is the benchmark as to compare noise. Prints are a tad more forgiving and usually more standard from print to print than monitors are monitor to monitor. Monitors, zoomed into 100% depending on so many factors may either look acceptable on some and crappy on others given things such as resolution and physical size within the resolution. Pixel peeping, yes the 5D will have a more buttery smooth look than the 7D (mainly because with NR the 5d has a reputation of smearing the photo a bit to knock down noise whereas the 7d does less smearing so high iso's tend to be a bit noisier but sharper in my opinion and tests). This is also a personal opinion and only the end user can answer. I am anxiously awaiting the new 5D to get the best of both worlds, however until then, for my use and my clients needs, I will hang tight until then. 

I will agree about trading in the EF-s for a better prime... you'll be better off regardless.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm going to agree with Mt Spokane Photography on the ISO issue - the 7D is noisy, plain and simple. The 5DII is quite useable at ISO 3200, and acceptable results even at ISO 6400 in some situations. However, some of that depends on post-processing, too, and I find that with DxO (which does an excellent job at handling ISO noise) allows ISO 1600 on the 7D to be decent, ISO 3200 acceprable sometimes (although I do still prefer to keep it at no higher than 800).

But, what percentage of your shooting will be concerts, vs. rugby, vs. whatever, and what is most important to you? For sports, the AF of the 5DII is not adequate, IMO, and the frame rate leaves a lot to be desired, too.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 18, 2011)

For both neuro and mt spokane, if i'm not mistaken first had 5d's and then got the 7D's as a second camera... Those who drive porsche's will always see fords as inferior... Those who drive kias will see fords as step up... everything is regarding perspective and need. I do shoot for a living and 100% of my income is from my 7d's... I have never had clients complain with High ISO issues with my 7D and especially when printed on commercial presses for magazine shots, etc... high noise up to 1600 is barely noticeable. 

Is the 5d cleaner at high iso, yes, but is the 7D useless at high ISO, especially when the original poster is coming from a Rebel XS, No. Yes, if i pixel peep at iso 800-1600 on a 27" imac screen, I can make out some noise in shadow/midtones if I really want to nit-pick, but it's not noticeable on my home 21" 1 year old imac. That is what I'm getting at about perception and monitor to monitor variation. When i take the same file, print it on my epson at 11x17... it's probably going to fall somewhere in the middle between the two regarding visible detail/noise. It isn't anything where you should count out the 7D solely on. 

Plus when you take the featureset of the two, considering my car analogy earlier, it would be like a top to the line ford mustang vs a porsche sports car with a 4 speed automatic tranny. The porsche is still a fine car, but it leaves a lot to be desired in it's current form. Once it gets updated though, all bets are off.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> For both neuro and mt spokane, if i'm not mistaken first had 5d's and then got the 7D's as a second camera...



Actually, I started with a T1i/500D, upgraded to a 7D because the AF of the Rebel wasn't as effective as I wanted, then added the 5DII mainly for improved ISO performance.



awinphoto said:


> with my 7D and especially when printed on commercial presses for magazine shots, etc... high noise up to 1600 is barely noticeable.
> 
> Is the 5d cleaner at high iso, yes, but is the 7D useless at high ISO, especially when the original poster is coming from a Rebel XS, No. ... It isn't anything where you should count out the 7D solely on.



Agreed. All else being equal, I'd take a shot with less noise over a shot with more noise. But...the IQ is only better if the shot is in focus, and if your subject is moving, getting an in-focus shot is a lot more likely with the 7D than with the 5DII. 

AF issues aside, what you gain with the 5DII FF sensor vs. the 7D/60D/550D/600D APS-C sensor is ~1.3-stops of improved ISO performance. Noise tolerance is specific to the individual and the final use of the image, so it's all relative. But that means if you find the noise acceptable with the 7D at ISO 1600, you could be shooting at ISO 4000 on a 5DII.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 18, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, I started with a T1i/500D, upgraded to a 7D because the AF of the Rebel wasn't as effective as I wanted, then added the 5DII mainly for improved ISO performance.



Thanks for the clarification on your history...



neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed. All else being equal, I'd take a shot with less noise over a shot with more noise. But...the IQ is only better if the shot is in focus, and if your subject is moving, getting an in-focus shot is a lot more likely with the 7D than with the 5DII.
> 
> AF issues aside, what you gain with the 5DII FF sensor vs. the 7D/60D/550D/600D APS-C sensor is ~1.3-stops of improved ISO performance. Noise tolerance is specific to the individual and the final use of the image, so it's all relative. But that means if you find the noise acceptable with the 7D at ISO 1600, you could be shooting at ISO 4000 on a 5DII.



True enough... better noise is always better, but as we agreed its about personal taste and preference. In my experience dealing with print and customers expectations, I've had more customers comment on lens quality (and that's not often) than ISO... Some clients want me to use their gear for insurance purposes and then are surprised when file quality and IQ isn't far superior... That being said, for my needs the 5d II just isn't enough of a leap in improvement to make me plunk that money down now when I can wait to see what will come and plug away with my workhorse 7D now. Only the end user can determine if they need to buy FF over crop and what file quality is hence why I always suggest to test before you buy... Nobody is right or wrong when dealing with their individual needs and requirements... While I'd love a Full frame version of my camera, I just have to wait and see what happens with the next 6 months or so with the 5d m3.


----------



## akiskev (Jul 19, 2011)

I agree that a 5d mkii is hands-down a better choice for concerts because of its high iso performance (and I shoot a lot of concerts)!


----------



## bycostello (Jul 19, 2011)

all depends how far away you are.... the 7d has the 1.6 crop factor so for distance will boost your 70-200 to a max of 320mm... 5dmk2 no crop factor, so that'd be the decision maker for me.


----------



## mihazero (Jul 22, 2011)

bycostello said:


> all depends how far away you are.... the 7d has the 1.6 crop factor so for distance will boost your 70-200 to a max of 320mm... 5dmk2 no crop factor, so that'd be the decision maker for me.



i do hope that visitors of this forum realise that crop factor does not mean one can multiply crop factor with focal lenght of lens. 55mm is 55mm regardless of crop factor. so when 200 mm is put on 1.6 crop factor camera image is no closer, just croped because it is being projected on smaller sensor, so more detail is being lost then on ff sensor. that means 200 mm on 1.6 crop sensor is still 200mm lens. it will never become 320mm because it does not zoom in more, it just crops image.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 22, 2011)

mihazero said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > all depends how far away you are.... the 7d has the 1.6 crop factor so for distance will boost your 70-200 to a max of 320mm... 5dmk2 no crop factor, so that'd be the decision maker for me.
> ...



As long as you work under good light conditions and the higher light gathering capability of a FF sensor can be neglected (from what I have seen on the 7d up to maybe ISO 1250) the camera stays competitive to a 5d MKII as the 7d acts like a (theoretical) 18MP x 1.6^2 = 46MP FF camera for the croped part if would be scaled up to FF sensor. The question I would be more concerned here is with the theoretical limit of lenses if it really comes down to this. if higher ISO capabilities become important that is of course another story ... 
However in reality I guess few ppl look at pictures this way, so I guess the 1.6 magnification that the 7d delivers is good enough for most persons who just want to have a longer Telephoto range for eg occasional wildlife without spending a fortune on a 500, 600 or 800mm lens


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2011)

1982chris911 said:


> As long as you work under good light conditions and the higher light gathering capability of a FF sensor can be neglected (from what I have seen on the 7d up to maybe ISO 1250) the camera stays competitive to a 5d MKII as the 7d acts like a (theoretical) 18MP x 1.6^2 = 46MP FF camera for the croped part if would be scaled up to FF sensor.



It's a complex issue, no doubt. True, there's no _real_ magnification involved - only angle of view is cropped, and the lens projects exactly the same sized subject onto the image plane regardless of sensor format. But, there is apparent magnification, in that the smaller, higher-density sensor has a lot more pixels covered by that equivalently-sized subject. To turn your argument around, if you don't have that 600mm supertelephoto lens for your FF camera, and need to crop your resulting 21 MP image to the 7D's AoV, you end up with an 8 MP final image (and cropping also exaggerates the effect of ISO noise, meaning that FF advantage is lost). So, to achieve what an 'affordable' 400mm lens (400/5.6, 100-400) on a 7D will deliver, you need a 600mm lens (i.e. $9500 or more), and if you want AF performance that's better than the 5DII (which you'd need for moving subjects like birds/wildlife), you'd also need a 1Ds FF body. Granted, a 1DsIII + 600mm f/4L IS will produce better IQ than a 7D + 400mm f/5.6L - but, is the difference worth >$13K? 

In general, I agree with the point that in good light (outdoors on a bright day), the IQ of the 7D isn't less than the IQ of the 5DII (yes, there's a 1.3-stop difference in noise, for example, but as low ISOs, that doesn't have a significant impact). So in those conditions, the main advantage of a FF body is the shallower DoF (for equivalent subject framing). 

However, even outdoors in daytime, ISO noise can become an issue in some circumstances. For example, when shooting birds in flight a fast shutter is often required, usually at least 1/1600 s, and on a cloudy day, it may take ISO 1600 or 3200 to achieve that shutter speed at f/6.3-8 (even with an f/4 lens, you'd want to stop down for sufficient DoF to get the whole bird in focus). I'd not want to routinely shoot BIF with the 5DII's weak AI Servo, no matter the focal length, so for that application the 7D is preferred as I'll take a noisier but in-focus shot over a noise-free but OOF shot any day.


----------



## mihazero (Jul 22, 2011)

1982chris911 said:


> mihazero said:
> 
> 
> > bycostello said:
> ...



but there is noooo magnification whatsoever. none.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 22, 2011)

mihazero said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > mihazero said:
> ...



The best way to think of it (for those who ever used crappy digital PS cameras)... it's like digital zoom... it will crop the image so it appears to be closer but really isn't... in all reality. The lens doesn't magically get extra elements and magnify an image just because it senses it's on a crop camera... It outputs the exact same info it would send to ANY camera but depending on if the camera see's all of the info or not will depending on how the camera "sees" the image. 

Also keep in mind given the high density of the 7D, it can produce stunning images but it will require stunning lenses. If you use the 7D with the kit lens 28-135 at high ISO, it's going to look like crap. If you use the 7D with L primes at high ISO, it will yield more usable images. At then end of the day, I still say between the two, get the 7D or 60D, get some awesome glass, and then later if the 5d m3 comes out, then all means sell the 7D and get it. Glass will be as big if not bigger factor in overall image than the camera will be in most situations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> ... it will crop the image so it appears to be closer but really isn't... in all reality. ...It outputs the exact same info it would send to ANY camera but depending on if the camera see's all of the info or not will depending on how the camera "sees" the image.
> 
> Also keep in mind given the high density of the 7D,



But that higher pixel density does result in _apparent_ magnification. For example, if you choose FF vs. APS-C with the same pixel size/density, e.g. comparing a 200mm lens on a 5DII vs. a 20D (21 MP vs. 8 MP, but same pixel size), and take pictures of the same subject at the same distance then view them 100% on your computer monitor, that subject will be the same size in both images (although the 20D image will show less of the background). But if you do something similar with the 5DII vs. the 7D, the subject at 100% will appear much larger on your computer monitor, because that subject projected onto the 7D's sensor will cover a lot more pixels.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ... it will crop the image so it appears to be closer but really isn't... in all reality. ...It outputs the exact same info it would send to ANY camera but depending on if the camera see's all of the info or not will depending on how the camera "sees" the image.
> ...



It appears as magnification the same way a digital P&S applies digital zoom... (but digital P&S sensors are not as sophisticated and up to date in processors) so the digital zoom looks crappy as a result.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ... it will crop the image so it appears to be closer but really isn't... in all reality. ...It outputs the exact same info it would send to ANY camera but depending on if the camera see's all of the info or not will depending on how the camera "sees" the image.
> ...



Actually thinking of your comparison, you are wrong in your analogy and i'll tell you why... The 20D despite having the same density will be slightly cropped than the 5D taken at the same distance and same focal length and settings... Now assuming you are shooting a 20D and 7D at the same settings... If you take that file and PRINT it as is at 8x10 for each file adjusting DPI so you are printing the full frame within the 8x10, there will NOT be any magnification, they should be the same because the SIZE of the sensor has not changed. The 7D vs 20D SHOULD show more overall detail and you could in fact take the 7d file, crop it tighter (just like additional digital cropping effect) and have a similar quality of print of a 20D vs a cropped picture from a 7D and you'll be able to see detail you couldn't see from a 20D because of size of sensor density, BUT the overall image should still be the same, you just have more detail and information to work with. 

Now if you take the 7D vs 5D mII and use different lenses or compensate so they are the same perspective and relation, the image overall, printed the same way at 8x10 within the same restraints will still be the same image, no magnification. Level of detail maybe a lot closer because the effective resolutions are so similar 18mp vs 21mp and in theory you should have a hair more detail from you 21mp than the 18mp. If you do NOT correct for the Focal length effective "digital crop" then yes, you will have magnification as far as the crop is concerned.


----------



## lbloom (Jul 22, 2011)

While the 5DmkII will surely offer better ISO performance, you can achieve great shots without it. I've been shooting some concert scenarios with my 60D and a 24mm f/1.4 (at f/1.8 or higher usually for reasonable DOF) and if you're good at your settings and with a little light, the 7D should be great. Luckily, the venue I shot was also filming the event so lighting was fair.

You can view my flickr set of images taken on my 60D in a concert scenario and see what a little post processing can do:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganbloom/sets/72157627074427445/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



I disagree with your analogy - they're different. With digital zoom on _most_ P&S cameras, the apparent angle of view is narrowed (that part of the analogy holds true), but then the cropped image is interpolated back up to the pixel dimensions of the whole sensor (i.e. a 10 MP P&S with digital zoom applied will still give you a 10 MP image). It's the interpolation that degrades the image, not the cropping. Processing power of the camera is a factor, in that your computer can use better algorithms (e.g. bicubic in PS) than the weaker in-camera processor can support at sufficient speed. But even done with the best possible algorithms, upsampling is going to negatively impact IQ, whereas cropping without upsampling does not affect IQ.

Note that some P&S cameras can apply digital zoom by cropping only, i.e. that 10 MP image with digital zoom yields an 8, 5, or 3 MP final image instead of the full 10MP. Canon calls it 'safe zoom,' others call it by other names. If the rumors of a merging of 1D/1Ds lines are true, and a FF sensor has a 'crop mode' for APS-H and/or APS-C simulation, that's how it would work - you'd get a cropped image with equivalent IQ (unless you upsampled it in post).



awinphoto said:


> Actually thinking of your comparison, you are wrong in your analogy and i'll tell you why... The 20D despite having the same density will be slightly cropped than the 5D taken at the same distance and same focal length and settings...



Slightly cropped? I'd say more than slightly - it will be cropped by a factor of 1.6x. I was assuming that the subject chosen for the scenario was small enough to fit within the APS-C portion of the image circle. 



awinphoto said:


> Now assuming you are shooting a 20D and 7D at the same settings... If you take that file and PRINT it as is at 8x10 for each file adjusting DPI so you are printing the full frame within the 8x10, there will NOT be any magnification, they should be the same because the SIZE of the sensor has not changed.



Sure, but you'd have downsampled the image from the 7D. Here, you're comparing APS-C to APS-C - obviously no optical magnification, but yes, apparent magnification in that the higher resolution image will display 'larger' at a given % size on a computer monitor. 



awinphoto said:


> Now if you take the 7D vs 5D mII and use different lenses or compensate so they are the same perspective and relation, the image overall, printed the same way at 8x10 within the same restraints will still be the same image, no magnification. Level of detail maybe a lot closer because the effective resolutions are so similar 18mp vs 21mp and in theory you should have a hair more detail from you 21mp than the 18mp.



I've actually done that, both with the 5DII + 135mm f/2L vs. 7D + 85mm f/1.2L II (same picture, different body and lens) and later in that thread, with both bodies and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, using the zoom to compensate for the crop factor. The upshot was that the 5DII wins (no surprise), but it's never going to be an apples-to-apples comparison (the 85L is softer than the 135L with both shot wide open, even with the same lens the anti-aliasing filters on the two sensors are different meaning differential sharpness even with the same lens, etc.).


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 22, 2011)

Neuro, if you were to take the 7D sensor dimensions and apply that to the same 7D sensor dimensions, that is what I was applying with the "digital zoom" affect... P&S uses a smaller portion of the sensor to create that affect and with their processors, interpolates it to appear to be a normal size file, but in some P and S cameras, the physical size of the camera cannot interpolate it, such as entry level P and S and camera phones, the file is cropped and left as that. It displays on the LCD as zoomed but in raw information, all it is, is cropped. I suppose if you take similar density cameras, 20d and 5d mii, compare file size and effective resolution, it would be similar proportions to what I am describing... 

"Slightly cropped? I'd say more than slightly - it will be cropped by a factor of 1.6x. I was assuming that the subject chosen for the scenario was small enough to fit within the APS-C portion of the image circle." 

-Exactly what I was getting at... in order to compare magnification and overall image between the cameras they needed to be equaled out so they can be as apples to apples as possible... however the 5D in most situations SHOULD out-resolve the 7D in that situation. In your original post you were comparing the 5d to 20d and 5d to the 7d... I was getting that the 7D and 5D should be very similar in magnification and the 5d should have more "magnification" because of effective resolution assuming everything is equaled out. I was also getting that even if you compared the 7D to the 20D, the magnification would be identical in perspective, but you can "zoom" into the picture more because the 7d has more than double the MP than the 20D hence more detail and more room to crop in post. Most people assume when talking about magnification, the overall image is somewhat altered or different perspective overall but I'm just confirming the 7D and 20D will have the same perspective/image/overall magnification... the 7D will just have a ton more information to work with and you can zoom in a lot closer.


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 22, 2011)

janne said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I'm a firsttime poster on this forum, yet I've been lurking a while. Right now I'm working for a month (as a student) and I will be using the money earned for new gear. I have recently started shooting concerts as a hobby, and I enjoy it a lot. My current equipment won't cut it for much longer though:
> 
> ...




"Shooting concerts"? or photojournalism? If it were me I'd be more concerned with where I was standing than what I was using as "shooting concerts" can be done with any good p&s.

If it's photojournalism , I'd start with a 5DII for (1)full frame- for wide shots on stage(2) high Iso capability. - the 5d leaves the 7D in the dust here. Like Neuro and others, I have both.

Then, get the 7D and learn to use your flash if you haven't already. The 7D performs exceptional with a 580exII.
That set-up you could use back stage, on or off camera flash, without a transmitter.

If you get your chops down you could easily pay off a 7D with a couple of good photos at the right concert.


----------



## Flake (Jul 22, 2011)

I'd like to make an slightly off topic comment which some on here probably won't like. Few professional photographers will touch concerts with a barge pole. Hundreds of kids who would like to break into photography shoot concerts for free, some of them are better than others. I beg you, your images are vaulable, the kit to shoot them costs a lot of money, do not give away your images for free, not for any amount of stupid worthless excuses like "it'll help your portfolio" because it won't. When the groups or the venues start letting you in for free then they might value your work, but until then your just another free image source.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 23, 2011)

Flake said:


> Few professional photographers will touch concerts with a barge pole. Hundreds of kids who would like to break into photography shoot concerts for free, some of them are better than others.



I've known a guy who complained about that exact thing. He said he used to get invited to a lot of gigs, take decent photos (i hope he won't mind me sharing a link to an example that i quite like), and got paid decent money.
Then a few years ago, that all changed, kiddies with new cameras were promising to take photos just to get into the gigs for free, and his work dried up. Ironic thing is, that now he's getting more invites now, because those kiddies had no talent, they were 'just fans' (to quote from Almost Famous) who wanted to see the gig free, and the promoters have realised they have to pay for really good work...


----------

