# 7D or 5D III?



## Night Hawk (Aug 9, 2013)

Hello, everyone! 

I've been doing photography for a couple of years now, and I think it's time for me to upgrade in terms of my camera body. I currently use a Canon 1100D (T3), and it's starting to frustrate me. Namely the incredibly slow FPS, and the horrible ISO performance. I just don't know what I should upgrade to- 7D (Plus a lens, maybe), or the 5D III?

I primarily shoot wildlife photos (mostly birds), but I also love landscape shots, and some macro stuff. In short, I love nature. 

The thing is, the locations where I shoot are usually somewhat dark, so I need to bump up the ISO. As a result, lots of my photos are unusable because of the noise, but I also lose loads of photos because of the dismal FPS of the 1100D. Should I get the 7D (and probably the 70-200L- or maybe something else? Any advice there?) for it's great 8 FPS, but with not-so-fantastic ISO performance, or should I get the 5D III, which has great ISO performance, but is 2 FPS slower than the 7D? I know that 2 FPS makes all the difference for pros, but will it make that much of a difference for me?

The 5D III also has a superior AF system to the 7D. Is it really THAT much of a difference?

I don't really care about the megapixel difference. I almost never print, and all of my good photos go to my Facebook page, so megapixels don't matter to me.

Also, the 7D is a crop sensor, which means that I will get more reach, but at the cost of DOF. Is that worth its ISO performance?


Thanks!


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 9, 2013)

As an prev. owner of 7D and currently own x2 of 5D III:

1. With 5D III, you will be able shoot 6400ISO in the dark
2. 5D III AF system is much more adv and more acurate than 7D. Tracking will be much better in AI Servo - meaning more keepers

If budget is not an issue, my vote is 5D III.


----------



## Kerry B (Aug 9, 2013)

I have both cameras and would say image quality with the 5d mkiii is far superior to the 7d. Yes you do loose reach but this is not a negative, just crop your images. When I use the 5d with my 300f2.8 lens and mkiii x 2 extender image quality is better than 7d with 300 and no extender.

If you do buy the 5d get the best lenses you can afford, this will aid image quality. I was dubious that full frame would give me the image quality I was looking for, how wrong was I, images are stunning.

ISO performance is also much better with the 5d, I regularly use iso1600 which gives me the same performance as the 7d at iso400. Both auto focus systems are very impressive with the 5d just ahead.

I will keep my 7d as backup but most shots are now taken with the 5d.


----------



## Aaron78 (Aug 9, 2013)

I currently own a 7D, have owned a 5DII, and do not own a 5DIII....but i would say the 5DIII is the all around winner of your two choices. Yes, you will loose a good chunk of reach without the crop sized sensor, but the 5DIII will retain a great amount of detail when you crop the photo. The ISO performance and the AF system are also much better, and those are kind of important for what you want to use the camera for.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 9, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> Hello, everyone!
> 
> I've been doing photography for a couple of years now, and I think it's time for me to upgrade in terms of my camera body. I currently use a Canon 1100D (T3), and it's starting to frustrate me. Namely the incredibly slow FPS, and the horrible ISO performance.



If you think the high ISO performance of the 1100D is horrible I don't think you'll be that impressed with the 7D. 

High ISO performance of the 5D Mkiii / 6D is astonishing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 9, 2013)

I've owned two 7D's, two 5D MK II's and two 5D MK III's. I thought they were all excellent cameras, they had their strong points and their weak points.

I preferred the 5D MK II over my 7D for most things, but my 7D worked really well on my 100mm L, and it does add a little reach, but this is offset by the inability to use really high ISO's. With modern raw processors, I can use the 7D to ISO 3200, the 5D MK II to 6400, and the 5D MK III to 12800 and get comparable images. 

I think you will be happy with whatever you get, its a matter of learning the limitations and working around them. A happy medium is the 1D MK IV with its 1.4X crop and usability at high ISO's. They were cheap for a while, but prices have went back up.


----------



## cocopop05 (Aug 9, 2013)

Assuming budget is not a huge issue, in my opinion this one is a no brainer - 5D MkIII. 7D is too noisy in low light. Also the APS-C reach thing is a non-issue, simply crop the full frame image and you have the same reach, albeit at a lower resolution.


----------



## Harry Muff (Aug 10, 2013)

5D3. There, that was easy. 8)


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 10, 2013)

I have both the 7D and the 5DIII. I'd say about 80% of the time my index finger is pressing the shutter button I am holding the 5DIII. Especially if the situation calls for me raising the ISO above 1600. The autofocus of the 5DIII is far superior than the 7D and the frame rate is not something that I feel is lacking and most of what I shoot is motorsports. If/when the new 7DII comes out, that percentage may even out a little. But when asking about the current 7D vs the 5DIII, I would definitely give the nod to the 5DIII. I even enjoy saying 5dIII more, can you tell?


----------



## RC (Aug 10, 2013)

Get a 5D III now and pick up a 7D down the road used or new when the price drops even lower.


----------



## shashinkaman (Aug 10, 2013)

Nighthawk, sounds like you are 'one of those' photographers, so I would suggest you to go for two eos 1dx's!! You can fire away in the dark and not miss a shot AND look rather cool and professional at the same time 8) YEAH!


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 10, 2013)

I went from a 60D to a 5d mkiii and the 1 fps difference is noticable. I think the 7D is a better value... but the iso performance is good, but it isn't mind blowing. I always tell people to make sure that your upgrade is just that, an UPGRADE. 

I want to tell you that a good used 7D for around $800 is the way to go. That will afford you the ability to get lenses. Maybe the 200mm f/2.8L prime... plus a 1.4x teleconvertor... combined with the 1.6 crop factor and you are looking at a 450mm lens at f/4. 

Do you have lightroom? If not, I would suggest getting that. The right software can really help you salvage a grainy photo and in that case, the 7D would be more than sufficient. 


I don't think the fps difference will make a huge difference for you, but it will be nice to have if you lean toward the 7D. The 7D's AF system is solid... and most people rave about it. I haven't used it, but it should be as good as the 60D and I presume it is better than. 

The 5D mkiii is great... love it... won't ever need to upgrade bodies again... but I think you should go with a 7D unless it is so dark that you cannot get the shot at all. I was caving the other day (tourist trap), and the 5D did a great job at 6400. I was legitimately pleased with the images before post.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 10, 2013)

My opinion is to get the 5diii now and later pick up a 70d or a 7dii when they are released. The low noise on the 5diii will let you crop more so you don't really lose much vs a crop sensor. That tide will change later when the next versions come out.

For now, the 5diii is an awesome camera and in some ways better than the 1dx but the two are purpose built for two different types of shootings. The 7d while still an excellent camera is still a 7d with sensor tech that is many years old now. I own and use both but tend to use the 5diii at higher iso and lower light conditions. 7d is reserved for daytime use only and iso 400 or less.



Night Hawk said:


> Hello, everyone!
> 
> I've been doing photography for a couple of years now, and I think it's time for me to upgrade in terms of my camera body. I currently use a Canon 1100D (T3), and it's starting to frustrate me. Namely the incredibly slow FPS, and the horrible ISO performance. I just don't know what I should upgrade to- 7D (Plus a lens, maybe), or the 5D III?
> 
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 10, 2013)

I have the 5D3, not 7D

The low light performance/ high iso, and great iso are strong selling points. My passion is wildlife photography. I find the frame rate is more than adequate. 

For my money, I would go with the 5D3 which is also a much newer body, and full frame. 

sek



Night Hawk said:


> Hello, everyone!
> 
> I've been doing photography for a couple of years now, and I think it's time for me to upgrade in terms of my camera body. I currently use a Canon 1100D (T3), and it's starting to frustrate me. Namely the incredibly slow FPS, and the horrible ISO performance. I just don't know what I should upgrade to- 7D (Plus a lens, maybe), or the 5D III?
> 
> ...


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 10, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> My opinion is to get the 5diii now and later pick up a 70d or a 7dii when they are released. The low noise on the 5diii will let you crop more so you don't really lose much vs a crop sensor. That tide will change later when the next versions come out.
> 
> For now, the 5diii is an awesome camera and in some ways better than the 1dx but the two are purpose built for two different types of shootings. The 7d while still an excellent camera is still a 7d with sensor tech that is many years old now. I own and use both but tend to use the 5diii at higher iso and lower light conditions. 7d is reserved for daytime use only and iso 400 or less.
> 
> ...



The 60D and the 7D have the same sensor and practically identical iso performance. I found the iso for the 60D to be tolerable with some post production clean up at around 2500ish... The mkiii, @ 6400 it more than tolerable and I can probably even push it farther, though I don't. So we are really only talking about 2.56 ish times the light sensitivity. And as I was saying earlier... if you are shooting at f/4 with an extender, that is 2x the light v if you are shooting at f/5.6 using a 70-300L or non-L. If you don't use an extender and are shooting at f/2.8, that is 4x the amount of light v one of the variable zooms. I'm not sure what you have... but I'd rather invest in lenses than bodies personally... and especially with the way some people are practically giving away the 7D in the used market. 

Again... I love my mkiii... happiest boy on earth... but I also had a full complement of lenses already before I upgraded by my body.


----------



## moocowe (Aug 10, 2013)

Night Hawk,

You didn't say what lenses you own. No offense meant, but as a 1100D user, I can't imagine you have much fast glass. If you only own f/4 zooms or slower, then I would get the 7D and possibly 70-200 IS II.
My 7D hasn't had a battery in it since I got the 5D3, but all my lenses were already full frame compatible f/1.4 or f/2.8 before I upgraded the body.


----------



## Night Hawk (Aug 10, 2013)

You all make good points.
And you're right, moocowe. I don't have good lenses. I've got the kit lenses (18-55, 70-300), 50 f/1.4, and the 17-40 f/4L. Now I'm starting to lean towards the 7D because of that. I do have more questions about the 7D, though:

How bad is the noise? I do have Lightroom, so how difficult would it be to fix any issues? What'd be the highest usable ISO after processing (I shoot JPEGs, by the way. Should I change that? I feel that it takes too long to render thousands of RAW photos, so I just don't bother ). I publish online, so that may allow me to take the ISO a bit higher than if I printed.

Also, how fast is the AF? I really don't need blindingly fast AF, but I'd like it to be somewhat fast (preferably not much hunting).

How would a 7D + 300mm f/4 combo go?


----------



## Pi (Aug 10, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> You all make good points.
> And you're right, moocowe. I don't have good lenses. I've got the kit lenses (18-55, 70-300), 50 f/1.4, and the 17-40 f/4L. Now I'm starting to lean towards the 7D because of that.



Actually, this is good enough reason to go FF. Aside from the 18-55 which has no real resale value, your lenses will work better on FF. You would need a standard zoom though and if you do not need UWA, you can sell the 17-40 a nd get the 24-105.


----------



## moocowe (Aug 10, 2013)

I think ISO 3200 is as high as I would go with the 7D. I do fond it quite a noisy sensor, so to get the best image quality you will want to shoot in raw. Keep the exposure as far to the right of the histogram as possible without significant highlight clipping, and then bring the exposure down in Lightroom.

If you're only posting relatively low res photos online, you might get away with ISO 12800 images in good light or converted to black & white.

I never found the AF to be lacking on mine. Any shots I missed were usually due to a problem behind the viewfinder.

I've never used the 300mm f/4, but it looks good according to the review on The Digital Picture.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2013)

If you can afford go for the 5D III. The consistency of AF is just so much better. Many of us, in contrast to moocowe, have found that we have to take several shots when doing bird photography with the 7D to get tack sharp focus whereas the 5D III is spot on every time. The more consistent AF has been verified by FoCal and LensRental in proper testing. The IQ at higher iso is so much better that the D's shorter reach often gives just as good resolution (but not always) and some times much better. Also, the 7D needs better, not worse lenses, to take advantage of its smaller pixels. 

Having said that, I am sure you would also be pleased with the 7D as it is still a great camera and in good light can outperform the 5D III. Like the others who have both, I don't actually use my 7D and it gathers dust as a back up in case the 5D III needs to go in for repair.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 10, 2013)

I have both. For your purposes, I might go 7D + lens, but it really depends on the person.

I love my 5D3. With 7D, I was ok with ISO3200 but 6400 was really terrible. With 5D3, I'm happy at 6400, ok at 12k and if really needed and can ETTR the 25k is still usable.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 10, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Like the others who have both, I don't actually use my 7D and it gathers dust as a back up in case the 5D III needs to go in for repair.



Exactly. I did use it once when I needed two bodies at the same time, but 99% of the pics come from 5D.


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 10, 2013)

shashinkaman said:


> Nighthawk, sounds like you are 'one of those' photographers, so I would suggest you to go for two eos 1dx's!! You can fire away in the dark and not miss a shot AND look rather cool and professional at the same time 8) YEAH!



Another one of your helpful posts...... Somebody who has had an entry level DSLR body for a couple years asks for opinion on an upgrade path and that's the best you can offer? If this is such a gear orientated forum perhaps you should remove yourself from it and go join some real photographers? Save wasting our time and yours


----------



## moocowe (Aug 10, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Many of us, in contrast to moocowe, have found that we have to take several shots when doing bird photography with the 7D to get tack sharp focus whereas the 5D III is spot on every time.



Sorry, I should have stated I don't do any bird photography. Closest thing I've shot was an airshow, where I thought the AF performed really well. That was just after I'd stepped up from a 450D, and long before the 5D3 existed, however!

No doubt the 5D3 AF is superior, but the 7D AF should also be quite an improvement for someone coming from an 1100D.


----------



## lycan (Aug 10, 2013)

go for the 5d mark III. It's a no-brainer if you can afford it

You guys are amazing. On the 60D iso 1600 at low light is way too noisy. It's horrible. Even iso 800 is very noisy in shaded areas. And the 60D is slightly better than 7D at high iso

Also, lenses are usually sharper on FF sensors


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 10, 2013)

70-300 or the 75-300? I never thought of the 70-300 as a Kit Lens. It is soft-ish from 200-300 and a mkiii isn't going to change that at all. I've said this a few times now, but why don't you see if you can your hands on a t2i, t3i, t4i, t5i, 60D, or 7D because they have the same sensor AND SHOOT IN RAW!!!

Compare the iso values (maybe look up an article or post here about native iso's), and see if you find it tolerable. I'd also suggest tripod mounting the camera to eliminate shake as a variable. 

I personally would prefer to get a while host of lenses to go along with my $800 used 7D and spend the saved money, 2200 on really nice lenses. Maybe the 300mm f/4L, or the 70-200 f/2.8L USM plus a 1.4x teleconvertor, a 24-105 would be a nice little upgrade over the 17-40 provided you don't love the 17-24mm... though for some/many 24mm x 1.6 is a touch too long and not wide enough.

I guess the real question is... how much money do you have? Can we have some?

Everyone's definition of acceptable noise is different. It matters what your definition of acceptable noise is and you won't find that out without getting a body in hand. With lightroom, you should easily be able to shoot at 3200 with the 7D and still come away with some shots that look great viewed on faceboook. I forget what the article I read said, but raw images have significantly more information that has been captured, so it is easier to change the exposure and to bring out the colors that were originally there. It does take effort to do the post production, but you have to ask yourself whether you want your shot to look like what the camera sees, or you want it to look like what you see. And that is often a big difference. 

I'd suggest shooting in both raw and .jpg for a while... and then really GOOD ones... do some post production with and see if it is better than the .jpg.

The more light, the better the AF... more light comes from the larger aperture of the lens... larger aperture lenses usually have better motors which are faster... 

How would a 7D + 300mm f/4 combo go?

Part of the reason I suggest people buy used but in good condition is because bodies depreciate quickly. @ $800, you can probably sell the 7D in 2 years for $700 or maybe $600. So the real cost to own the body is only $75ish per year. If you buy new, you are easily looking at a $400 depreciation after you take your first shot. 

I paid around $2600 for my new 5d mkiii (I got a really good deal for a new one from an authorized manufacturer). In 3 years right before the mkiv comes out, I can probably sell it for $2000. After 7 years (around the time of the mkv), I'm maybe looking at $1400. I'm guessing at the timeframe of the new generations and the money I can get, but I'm paying about $171 to $200 a year provided it remains in good condition.

It is hard to know exactly what will be best for you, but I'm the kind of guy who likes to minimize risk... so if you get an $800 body and another $2200+ in lenses, you'll be better off than if you got a $3000 body and stayed with the 70-300 (provided it is a 70-300).

The 70-300 is about 100x better than the 75-300... and the reason I want a clarification is because very few people would suggest going out with a 75-300 and a mkiii with the expectation of getting good results.

[/quote]


----------



## sdsr (Aug 10, 2013)

Do you live somewhere, such as the US, where it's easy and not that expensive to rent camera bodies? Ideally, since only you know what you shoot and what your noise tolerances etc. are, you can answer your own questions. If you can't, what is it that you shoot that makes you believe that the difference in shots per second between a 7D and 5DIII would matter? If, as seems to be the case, the 5DIII's autofocus is more accurate, won't that more than make up for the difference? (Maybe it won't.)

Otherwise, I would say what most others have said - if you can afford it, get a 5DIII.


----------



## Night Hawk (Aug 10, 2013)

jdramirez:
My mistake, you're right. I have the 75-300, not the 70-300.

In terms of money, I have just enough to get a 5D III. So if I were to get the 5D III, I'd have to stick with the lenses that I use right now, whereas if I were to get the 7D, I'd be able to get new lenses.

This is just a hunch, but I figure that (at ISO 100) the 7D with some nice glass would be able to get better photos than a 5D III with my 75-300. However, I often shoot in dark forests, so I'm seldom able to go below ISO 800. Because I upload online, I'd probably be able to get away with ISO 25,600 on the 5D III, which would greatly increase the number of photos that I get. However, the color fringing I get from the 75-300 can be quite bad. Will this pose a real problem if I were to crop the photos taken from a 5D III?

This is a question that's somewhat unrelated, but if I did shoot in RAW, would Lightroom allow me to view all of the photos? I'm pretty new to the software, and I'm also new to RAW, so I need help with this stuff 

sdsr:

I do have a photography friend that owns a 5D III. Maybe, if he's not on vacation or something, I'd be able to borrow it and take some test shots. I don't, however, have any way to test the 7D.

In practice how different are the AF systems? Is the 5D III incredibly fast, to the point that it makes the 7D's AF system look primitive? Or is it just that little bit better that allows you to get a few more frames?


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 10, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> jdramirez:
> My mistake, you're right. I have the 75-300, not the 70-300.
> 
> In terms of money, I have just enough to get a 5D III. So if I were to get the 5D III, I'd have to stick with the lenses that I use right now, whereas if I were to get the 7D, I'd be able to get new lenses.
> ...



I'm clairvoyant yo!


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 10, 2013)

So you have about $3000. Or you have @2650 and you are going to sell the t3 for around $350 used which then brings you back up to around $3000 ish. 

I have defended the 75-300 as a first zoom lens, somewhat decent bokeh and if you have enough light, you don't need IS. But it isn't a sharp lens, it isn't good with color rendition, and contrast is also poor. It is basically a $100 lens. Simply getting a 55-250mm with IS will improve your distance photos significantly. You won't get more light because it also goes to f/5.6 at 250mm, but it really is a much better lens. 

People will fight tooth and nail saying the 70-300mm IS USM f/4-5.6 is REALLY GOOD and it isn't bad, but it also isn't nearly as good as the L version which you can afford with the cash you have and the 7D + 70-300L will blow your MIND! 

As for the 5D plus the 75-300... I don't know that those two have ever met. Seriously... people who pay $3000 for a body don't put a $100 lens on it. 

The image you will get from the 75-300 will be what you see on the t3 plus more. So the color fringing at the edges will still be there, and as you go further to the edges, it will get worse. The sensor isn't going to improve the bad image coming from the lens... it might make it sharper and more distinct, but it is there. 

You are trying to grind up pig face into a really expensive meat grinder and come out with chopped steak... NOPE! You put in pig face... you are going to get chopped pig face. But if you put in veal into a less expensive grinder, you will get chopped veal. 

As for lightroom, you can copy duplicates into your catalog. I choose to only import raw photos, but you can do that with the settings. How... I forget... but you can do it.

Also shooting in raw will fix some of the chromatic abberation and any bowing/distortion from the lens, but seriously... bad lenses don't become good with better bodies.

Like I said, t3i, t2i, t4i, t5i, 60D, all share the same sensor and overall RAW and iso performance... see if you can borrow one of those. You might even be able to rent one from a camera shop for $30 for a day. 

I had the 60D and that was the little brother of the 7D... and I was able to get my shot more often than not. 7D will be more than enough for your purposes, though the mkiii is better.

If you are doing birds in flight, you might miss it, but your retention rate/keeper rate will still be around 80% with practice and skill.


----------



## Night Hawk (Aug 10, 2013)

As long as the noise from the 7D can be fixed in post, then I'll be fine with it. I've just been hearing that it's quite a noisy sensor, so that kind of puts me off.
If I can take photos at 3200/6400 and make them significantly cleaner, than that's good enough.

Also, if the 7D's AF system is significantly better than the 1100D's, then I'll probably be happy. 

What kind of quality difference is there between FF and APS-C?

As for lenses, would it be better to get the 70-300L, 300L f/4, or the 200L 2.8 + converter? All sound like good options, but what do you think would be the best for my purposes (mostly bird/wildlife)?


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 10, 2013)

Here's how I would spend your $3000. 
Canon EOS 7D Digital SLR Camera w/ 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens + Extra - $900 (Annapolis, MD)

And I saw others in this neighborhood for the 7D... so hopefully you live near a big city.
Craigs list: I really hate to let this camera go, but I just don't get enough use out of it. I would love to see it g to a good home!

I paid over $2000 for the camera and lens just a couple years ago. There are a couple hundred dollars in extras as well, Including a very nice bag and 32g ultra fast memory card.I am asking $900.

This is an amazing deal, the camera is practically brand new with a shutter count of about 500!

Sell the 28-135 for $200 and you are at $700 for the body.

Sell the 75-300 for $100 and now you are at $2400 in cash in your pocket.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-digital-slr-camera-lenses-specials/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses-speedlites/ef-70-300mm-f-4-56l-is-usm-refurbished

Buy the 70-300 L when Canon has their 15 or 20% off sale for refurbs and you are looking at $1023 before tax. 

1300 is now left over. 

Alternatively and this is the way I would go, get a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM for 927 plus tax, and then buy a 1.4 teleconvertor for $250, the mkii version, and instead of 70-300 in reach, you now have a 98-280mm, but with the crop factor, you have a 156-448mm lens.

And the cash you have left over is 1150. 

1150 is a ton... you can get a 100mm f/2.8L macro and get some stunning nature photos, you could opt to get a 24-105 and sell the 17-40... and the 24-105 was selling the other day without a warranty for 660... which is a steal. Get a squaretrade warranty for a hundred bucks and be protected for a few years.

Seriously... the mkiii is great... but it is NOT the step you make right now.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 10, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> As long as the noise from the 7D can be fixed in post, then I'll be fine with it. I've just been hearing that it's quite a noisy sensor, so that kind of puts me off.
> If I can take photos at 3200/6400 and make them significantly cleaner, than that's good enough.
> 
> Also, if the 7D's AF system is significantly better than the 1100D's, then I'll probably be happy.
> ...



When the t2i came out, people raved about its low light performance. 6 years later, the image quality and low light performance hasn't changed, but the tech has improved and the 6D is GREAT as in the mkiii... as it sony and nikon reportedly... but the 18mp sensor isn't bad.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 10, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> As long as the noise from the 7D can be fixed in post, then I'll be fine with it. I've just been hearing that it's quite a noisy sensor, so that kind of puts me off.
> If I can take photos at 3200/6400 and make them significantly cleaner, than that's good enough.
> 
> Also, if the 7D's AF system is significantly better than the 1100D's, then I'll probably be happy.
> ...



1600ISO is my cut off for 7D in low light shots

7D AF is 2.5x better than 1100D

IQ between FF Vs crop? Once you shoot with FF, I don't think you want to go back to crop ever again. I been there, done that. Try to borrow your friend 5D III, before buy 7D.

70-200 f2.8 IS II + 7D is not a bad combo at all.

Good luck,


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 10, 2013)

I'm the guy on this forum who will gladly challenge the "FF is SOOO much better" crowd to actually prove it with tests. At low to mid ISO, after post processing, I don't see the difference in 24" prints. And the test images / IQ measurements at places like Imaging Resource and DPReview don't detect it or show it either.

I'm also a huge fan of the 7D and think it's one of the best all around small format cameras ever produced. Literally. Before the 7D you could choose high resolution IQ (i.e. 5D) or responsive, high speed sports performance (1D series), but not really both. The 7D can make a 30" landscape print shot, then turn around and track a sprinter at 8 fps. Other cameras were a little better at one or the other, but the 7D was unique in the level of both at introduction. Sensor, features, body and UI...it rocks.

That said: at high ISO the latest FF is much better. It's not that the 7D is bad. It can do 8x12 and even 13x19 at ISO 1600 and 3200. A 5D3 or 6D will do 30" at those ISOs. It's almost like you're not at high ISO yet. If you want to do some work in PS and will be printing smaller, 25,600 is usable. That's insane.

And the 5D3's AF is better. I don't think it's dramatically better as some here claim, but it is better.

Also: I don't see a crop magnification advantage unless I'm cropping even further then APS-C. A 7D shot next to a 6D or 5D3 shot cropped to APS-C...no real difference. Now if I have to crop the 7D to, say, 9 MP to get the magnification I want the FF can't keep up. But how often is that necessary?

You won't be disappointed with the 7D. But if you have the budget, the 5D3 would be the first choice.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 11, 2013)

One of my 7D @ ISO3200 photos was printed on canvas, about 5x3 feet. It looks awesome even when looking really close.

Would it have been better if I already had 5D3 by then? Actually not possible, because 5D3 wasn't released yet. But with time machine, yes. But it was still good enough. 7D is awesome, I try to keep it at max. ISO1600, but still 3200 is ok when good exposure.


----------



## Night Hawk (Aug 11, 2013)

The 70-300L seems like a great lens for me, but my problem is the weight. Would it simply be too much to carry around (with the 7D) for say 2 hours without a tripod?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> The 70-300L seems like a great lens for me, but my problem is the weight. Would it simply be too much to carry around (with the 7D) for say 2 hours without a tripod?



Not for me, but then, I have no problem carrying a gripped body with 100-400L, 70-200L IS II, or 28-300L for hours. The key is not to use the neck strap. I use either a Blackrapid strap, and if the lens has a tripod collar (I got one for the 70-300L, too), I attach the strap to the lens foot. I also sometimes use a SpiderPro Holster.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 11, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> The 70-300L seems like a great lens for me, but my problem is the weight. Would it simply be too much to carry around (with the 7D) for say 2 hours without a tripod?



Get a set of dumbells... work out your upper back, shoulders, and wrists. Neck helps too, but you can't really do that with dumbells. 

It isn't that heavy... but for the quality, you have to pay the price. 

The 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (2.89 lbs.)and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii (3.28 lbs) are both heavy-ish. But the 70-300 is lighter (2.31 lbs). 

If weight is a real issue, you might want to consider the 70-300 f/4-5.6 DO IS USM... but I have no clue if image quality is comparable to L's.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> If weight is a real issue, you might want to consider the 70-300 f/4-5.6 DO IS USM... but I have no clue if image quality is comparable to L's.



The IQ of the DO lens isn't comparable to the L, although the DO is much smaller (same size as the 24-105L) and lighter. I'll pay the size/weight penalty for better IQ.


----------



## Night Hawk (Aug 11, 2013)

Seems like the Blackrapid strap is the answer for me, but will the mount be able to take the weight? The 70-300L doesn't come with a tripod collar, so should I get one?


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 11, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> Seems like the Blackrapid strap is the answer for me, but will the mount be able to take the weight? The 70-300L doesn't come with a tripod collar, so should I get one?



I always leave my collar on, I would say it is with buying one, but it doesn't have to be oem... there are some decent knockoffs out there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> Seems like the Blackrapid strap is the answer for me, but will the mount be able to take the weight? The 70-300L doesn't come with a tripod collar, so should I get one?



Do you routinely use a tripod? Personally, I have Arca Swiss-type plates (RRS or Wimberley) on body and collared lenses, and I attached the lug for the BR strap to a Kirk 1" clamp so I can easily move the attachment point from body to lens, or remove it for tripod/monopod use. 

I routinely carry my 85L II mounted, it weighs about the same as the 70-300L, no tripod collar on the former. You might try it without, first. But I find the balance better with the collar (which Canon charges quite a lot for!). As for the BR components and the Kirk clamp, I hang a 600/4L IS II from them.


----------



## ahab1372 (Aug 11, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Night Hawk said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like the Blackrapid strap is the answer for me, but will the mount be able to take the weight? The 70-300L doesn't come with a tripod collar, so should I get one?
> ...


+1 
The Canon collar for the 70-300L is expensive. There are decent knock-offs (I use the Fotodiox with a Wimberley P20) that work well.
The camera lens mount could probably take the weight (see Neuro's example with the 85mm L), but it is much better balanced on the strap as well as on a tripod if you use the lens collar.

An alternative to a strap can be a shoulder bag that is tall enough to house camera with lens and hood attached - but you won't have the camera ready as quickly, and if you are already carrying a backpack with more gear, it is a little busy around the shoulders. I do it sometimes when I take camera and 1-2 lenses only and leave everything else at home.


----------



## ahab1372 (Aug 11, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> The 70-300L seems like a great lens for me, ...


It is a great lens, but since you mentioned wild life and birds - even on a crop body it will feel too short many times.
Consider a 100-400, or the 400 f/5.6. I'm thinking about adding the latter to the 70-300L


----------



## Night Hawk (Aug 11, 2013)

No, I usually don't use a tripod. 95% of the time, I handhold the camera for my shots.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 11, 2013)

Night Hawk said:


> No, I usually don't use a tripod. 95% of the time, I handhold the camera for my shots.



ditto with the hand holding, but I still love the collar.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Night Hawk said:
> 
> 
> > No, I usually don't use a tripod. 95% of the time, I handhold the camera for my shots.
> ...



I like that the collar is a good way for me to support the lens... The focus and zoom rings are swapped compared to other common L-series zooms, and without the collar, my hand reaches for the 70-300L's focus ring almost automatically. Supporting the lens by the collar foot places my hand so I grab the zoom ring by default.


----------



## steven kessel (Aug 11, 2013)

I have both and each has its place. That said, I use my 5Diii at least 90% of the time. I love what a crop format can give me when I'm doing nature photography. However, the 5Diii has certain advantages over the 7D and I find these to be really significant.

1. Superior autofocus. I generally use just the center point for nature photography. The 5Diii acquires the target much faster than the 7D and that's a huge advantage for subjects such as birds in flight. Its autofocus is also considerably better in low light situations than that of the 7D.

2. Vastly superior performance at higher ISOs. I routinely use my 5Diii at ISOs of 800-1600. I wouldn't dream of doing that with the 7D. For me, the 7D is a 400 ISO or lower camera. At ISOs above 400 with the 7D, noise, particularly background noise, is intolerable.

3. Better dynamic range. The 5Diii seems to capture a broader range of lighting than does the 7D. That's subjective, I know, but it just seems to do a better job. It also does a better job for me if I photograph something against a strongly backlighted background. With any camera that's often a recipe for an underexposed subject. With the 5Diii I can pull up far more detail from such underexposures than I ever could with the 7D.

I'll be curious to see whether the 7Dii catches up to the 5Diii in these areas. A crop format camera that handles low light situations as well as the 5Diii does and that has the 5Diii's autofocusing capabilities would be a nature photographer's dream camera, I think.


----------



## ahab1372 (Aug 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I like that the collar is a good way for me to support the lens... The focus and zoom rings are swapped compared to other common L-series zooms, and without the collar, my hand reaches for the 70-300L's focus ring almost automatically. Supporting the lens by the collar foot places my hand so I grab the zoom ring by default.


btw, what lens plate do you use on the 70-300? I have the P20 but find it is almost longer than necessary. With the 5D it never is front heavy on a tripod, and when handheld the plate is a bit in the way when I grab the zoom ring, so I was considering a P10


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I like that the collar is a good way for me to support the lens... The focus and zoom rings are swapped compared to other common L-series zooms, and without the collar, my hand reaches for the 70-300L's focus ring almost automatically. Supporting the lens by the collar foot places my hand so I grab the zoom ring by default.
> ...



I use the RRS L84, but it's only about 0.25" shorter than the P-20. Great idea to try the P-10 - if you do, please let me know how it turns out!


----------



## terminatahx (Aug 12, 2013)

The 7D is an excellent body for the price, but based on limitations you've experienced with your current body, the 5DIII is the clear choice. The only downside being the and fps slightly slower than the 7d.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 12, 2013)

terminatahx said:


> The 7D is an excellent body for the price, but based on limitations you've experienced with your current body, the 5DIII is the clear choice. The only downside being the and fps slightly slower than the 7d.



I'm guessing you meant to say being the "MONEY". 

I want a Porsche Cayanne... but I guess I have to settle for a Honda Pilot. But the Cayanne is the perfect car for me, except that I can't afford my house.


----------

