# Own 5D mk III and 7D, replace 7D by Mk II for sports? Dilemma....



## entropy69 (Oct 31, 2014)

I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D but kept it as backup camera. I shoot various subjects, also a lot of sports using the 70-200 2.8 II, Sigma 120-300 2.8 sports and 1.4III converter. 
The 5D mk III is really awesome but every now and then I do miss the extra reach. Extra mm for full frame are really expensive and above budget.... Would it make sense to replace the 7D for the Mk II and start using the 7D mk II for sports only? Or would I be disappointed since detail and low light performance of the 5D mk III are better than then 7D mk II anyway? 

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Reasons to consider upgrading the 7D: better reach and maybe AF speed (how does it compare to the 5D III anyway??). fps, although dramatically improved in the Mk II is not my main concern. Any thoughts appreciated.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 31, 2014)

I think you answered your own question

"I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D  but kept it as backup camera. " 

"The 5D mk III is really awesome but every now and then I do miss the extra reach." But not missing it enough to dust off your 7D, right?

Unless you have money to burn, I would keep shooting with the 5D3 and continue keeping the 7D as a backup you don't touch. Why buy another camera, if it is likely it will be another back up camera sitting on a shelf?

Is there really something you can't get with the 5D3 that you could only get with the 7D2.. that you could not get with the 7D you already paid for?

But this opinion is coming from an old photographer who is cheap and does not suffer from G.A.S. ;D


----------



## tayassu (Oct 31, 2014)

Hey entropy69! 
You say you miss the reach sometimes and you say you never use your 7D; so why don't get a body that has got that reach and that you actually use?
I would say go for the MKII!  After all I read (in this forum, in Arthur Morris' blog etc.) the 7DII will blow your mind! I read from different photographers that the AF is better than the one in the 1DX, which is considered the best in the world, and Arthur Morris even says that the resolution and noise on the 7DII is better than on the 5DIII! 10 vs. 6 fps also make a truckload of a difference...
Go for the 7DII!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2014)

The 7DII seems to be an excellent camera, but it's main advantage over the 5DIII is lower cost, and since you already have the 5DIII.....

I suspect you'd use the 7DII for a while, then the novelty would wear off. 




tayassu said:


> ...Arthur Morris even says that the resolution and noise on the 7DII is better than on the 5DIII!



I sincerely doubt he meant that as a generally applicable statement. If he did, he's an idiot (and he's not). But...he's a salesman as much as a photographer, and buying a 7DII from his links means money in his pocket, so pushing the newest camera is enlightened self-interest on his part.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 31, 2014)

You going to miss those high ISO shots from 5D III - faster shutter and higher ISO are your friends in shooting sports.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 31, 2014)

tayassu said:


> Hey entropy69!
> You say you miss the reach sometimes and you say you never use your 7D; so why don't get a body that has got that reach and that you actually use?
> I would say go for the MKII!  After all I read (in this forum, in Arthur Morris' blog etc.) the 7DII will blow your mind! I read from different photographers that the AF is better than the one in the 1DX, which is considered the best in the world, and Arthur Morris even says that the resolution and noise on the 7DII is better than on the 5DIII! 10 vs. 6 fps also make a truckload of a difference...
> Go for the 7DII!



I'll save my comments on this until hand-on 7D II. But if I have to choose between the two, there is no doubt I'll pick 1DX over 7D II.

However, I do believe 7D II is loaded with great stuff in Canon crop line.


----------



## tayassu (Oct 31, 2014)

@Neuro and Dylan:
I'm sure the 1DX performs better in the field overall... These mentions were only to illustrate the possible awesomeness of the 7DII.


----------



## Crapking (Oct 31, 2014)

I have both 1Dx and 5d III (and had 7d till I upgraded to 7d II yesterday 
Had the afternoon off so spent an hour with manual, adjusting custom controls, etc., 
Shot a high school volleyball match last PM after using to photo a few deer at twilight from my deer blind. 
The pro's / con's between 5d III and 7d II will be debated / rehashed here for awhile I am sure. 
From the pure practical aspect of shooting, I enjoyed the familiar Canon build, ergonomics, customizability, and wrt to the 7d II vs the 5d III, the increase in FPS was appreciated. The AF functioning (capture rate) was really no better, though the few extra AF points did make positioning the points more convenient/easier.
What I did notice from shooting within my darkened deer blind, and shooting out to an apple orchard with the 200-400, was that there was some 'focus hunting' with both bodies UNTIL I placed camera / lens out the peephole completely. The AF IR sensor was very insensitive without a direct line of sight. May seem obvious,maybe it is only with a long super telephoto, but it bummed me out that my lens had to be almost sticking out to grab focus. 
Anyways, on topic for the OP, the FPS / extra reach are definite value - adds, but offset by need for higher ISO, and (subjectively) a sl drop in resolution/crispness and I'm still not sure about color rendering after only 1 shoot . I usually set custom WB, but did not yesterday 
I am hoping once I AFMA my gear, and ACR is available for the RAW files, the crispness will improve, and I can set custom color profile from within LR. Too busy to set one up directly via DNG from within Color passport last PM. 
I am shooting an all day tournament tomorrow so will post head - head comparisons of all 4 of my bodies next week. The hassle of DPP batch processing will delay my posting the 7d files a little as I am on a paper deadline, so will be concentrating on the 1dx files first, but as time allows I will add them to my canonrumors website (www.navb.phanfare.com/canonrumors) for your viewing pleasure


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 31, 2014)

I am really not sure what the dilema is.

1) Your 7D is collecting dust
2) While the 5d MK III has better low light, it is not a sports camera and its AF is not as good as the 1Dx or the 

The combo gives you more tool. If you are pushing low light, you may want to use the 5d MK III but you may find the trade off of AF to noise is worth the 7d MK II - only you will be able to decide which fits better.

In decent light, you may find yourself choosing the 7D MK II because of its performance

You may want some reach. Never hurts.

What do you think of the 120 - 300? I have been on the fence on this lens.

Seriously. I think the swap is a no-brainer. You still may prefer the 5D MK III to the 7D MK II but will you really use the 7D as a backup, and if you had to use it, would you really be happier if you had the MK II. 

The swap is probably a net outlay of $1000 - $1100 which is not too bad for the AF and improved low light.


----------



## slclick (Oct 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 7DII seems to be an excellent camera, but it's main advantage over the 5DIII is lower cost, and since you already have the 5DIII.....
> 
> I suspect you'd use the 7DII for a while, then the novelty would wear off.
> 
> ...


----------



## RichM (Oct 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 7DII seems to be an excellent camera, but it's main advantage over the 5DIII is lower cost, and since you already have the 5DIII.....
> 
> I suspect you'd use the 7DII for a while, then the novelty would wear off.



I'm upgrading my 7d->7d2. I like having both a FF and Crop body, but still use my 7d more for well lit / daytime sports shooting. Given my current lens inventory, the reach is really appreciated, and despite much tweeking with the focus options on the 5d3, I seem to have at least equal or better focus success with the 7d in these situations. I'm really looking forward to improved AF and higher ISO performance as hockey season is starting in earnest.

I have toyed with the idea of selling both the 7d and 5d3 and just getting a 1dx. My experiences using the 1dx have me wanting. But I really like having 2 bodies while shooting sports to catch different perspectives.


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 31, 2014)

I have a 5D3 and a 7D, and can't imagine why you are not still shooting the 7D at times. The 5D3 certainly has low light advantages, but in the day, the 7D is still a very capable camera. 

I had a 5D2 and 7D as a combo a few years and the 7D was the obvious choice for sports and kids, wile the 5D2 was great for landscape portrait, etc. When i moved to the 5D3, I then felt like I had 2 good sports cameras, but the 7D was my #1 in daylight.

So yes, get a 7D2, and sell that poor neglected 7D to someone who will use it.

Here look at this terrible 7D Photo….



Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 31, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> You going to miss those high ISO shots from 5D III - faster shutter and higher ISO are your friends in shooting sports.



Unless it is a day game or all of the shots end up so distance limited that you crop in really far.

Of course the 7D AF often performs much worse for sports than the 5D3 AF (for me the 7D AF does at least as well for surfing and very small birds up in branches of trees or birds only slightly moving around the ground, otherwise it does, often, much worse for soccer and football), the 7D2 should fix that.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 31, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> I have a 5D3 and a 7D, and can't imagine why you are not still shooting the 7D at times. The 5D3 certainly has low light advantages, but in the day, the 7D is still a very capable camera.


+1


----------



## docsmith (Oct 31, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 5D3 and a 7D, and can't imagine why you are not still shooting the 7D at times. The 5D3 certainly has low light advantages, but in the day, the 7D is still a very capable camera.
> ...



I am a bit like the OP. I have both the 7D and 5DIII. But since I bought the 5DIII, after a series of tests, the 7D has collected dust. I really do need to sell it. This isn't meant to disparage the 7D, it really is a remarkable camera and served me well for almost 3 years. But, I get why the 7D sits on a shelf when you own both. If you are not reach limited, I would rather have the 5DIII, and, at least from what I concluded, usually even when you are reach limited, I preferred the images from the 5DIII. Even though the 7D is a great camera, I like the images off the 5DIII better. You lose 1 fps. That really can't be too much of a factor. 

Anyway, I am interested in what those that own both the 7DII and 5DIII end up doing. I am considering the 7DII as a way to get that extra reach, hoping that the IQ/noise control/etc is now good enough that I no longer prefer the 5DIII images even when reach limited. So far, I have been very pleased with what I've seen from the 7DII. 

Back to the OP, I, personally, haven't seen enough to have an opinion, but I am glad you started the thread. I think a number of us upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII. Some may consider going back to the 7DII or supplementing your kit with the 7DII. It is a good question. But I wouldn't expect the answer to be black and white. This is going to be about marginal differences and preferences. Right now I am trying to not get caught up in the wave and to wait for some good reviews (TDP, DXO measurements---not sensor score, sensogen, etc). I am very happy with my 5DIII and only have issues with bird photography, which is only a small part of what I shoot.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 31, 2014)

Before buying anything new, why don't you take your 7D to a game and see if the extra reach is worth it? Reach wise - you should get an idea if you would rather shoot with a 7D (or 7D II) or the 5D III for sports. If the extra reach isn't worth it, then you have no dilemma, just keep shooting with the 5D III and pass on the 7D II.


----------



## slclick (Oct 31, 2014)

Ok, if the noise on a 7D is atrocious/unusable/too much/etc etc over 6400, what's the new acceptable limit on the Mk2?
Because the 5D3 is good to go up to 12800 and even 25k in some situations.


----------



## Khufu (Oct 31, 2014)

Have you considered a 70D?...
I personally shoot with one alongside a 5D3 for the pixel density/reach factor. I appreciate not having the weight of 2x mag-alloy bodies and also the few extra bells and whistles: Flippy-screen, WiFi, 3x Video Crop, DPAF if ever needed.
It's a step up in resolution and ISO capabilities from the 18mp generation (60D, 7D - apparently the best sensors were in the SL1 & M2?) But Canon are claiming the 7D2 will again improve on this.
I love the simple/advanced AF system on the 70D, has been great for Birds in Flight with the 400mm f/5.6L though I do wish it had the smaller AF points like the 5D3 and believe the 7D had.

At the end of the day I think the 70D could seriously be worth considering by yourself and lots of other folk currently considering the 7D2 - it's a bit of a sideways step, a little in front of and a little behind both 7D models in different respects


----------



## chasn (Oct 31, 2014)

Same boat as OP . Choice for me is the new ( !) 100-400 L or a Tammy or a Siggy or a 7DII. I have a 70-300L which is great. 480 in terms of reach ( and a bit of cropping now and then ) would probably be enough but I never seem to want to carry two bodies now and I'm not sure a Mark II would change that. Not helped by the fact I like the 70-300 a lot and won't sell it and while I did like the 7D before I got the 5D III the 7D is now not worth much second hand. So perhaps the answer is 100-400 L (hopefully ) plus perhaps a 1.4 TC and save the 7D for those days when you need lots of fps or looooong reach. But lot of speculation involved in my next Xmas present I recognise.....


----------



## Khufu (Oct 31, 2014)

chasn said:


> Same boat as OP . Choice for me is the new ( !) 100-400 L or a Tammy or a Siggy or a 7DII. I have a 70-300L which is great. 480 in terms of reach ( and a bit of cropping now and then ) would probably be enough but I never seem to want to carry two bodies now and I'm not sure a Mark II would change that. Not helped by the fact I like the 70-300 a lot and won't sell it and while I did like the 7D before I got the 5D III the 7D is now not worth much second hand. So perhaps the answer is 100-400 L (hopefully ) plus perhaps a 1.4 TC and save the 7D for those days when you need lots of fps or looooong reach. But lot of speculation involved in my next Xmas present I recognise.....



EDIT: Ah, sorry... you're looking at (lolz, in that hypothetical way we look at unicorns) the NEW (!!) 100-400mm? My bad. That may very well be worth aaall the pennies in... Narnia! Seriously though, I should be looking at that myself 
For right-this-minute though BOTH a 70D and decent, used 400mm f/5.6L could possibly be had for the price of a 7D2... that's, er, good!

(My) OP: If you're wanting it for super-tele-reach and would prefer better corner to corner sharpness with a lighter and more compact build I really recommend checking out the 400mm f/5.6L prime over the zoom... I love this thing, never feel I'd have been better off getting the heavier, softer zoom


----------



## chasn (Oct 31, 2014)

I am so looking forward to the new 100-400 - it is a fact isn't it? But I can see the prime 400 and the 70-300 May be a good combo. Would the lack of IS be a problem do you think for a 5DIii? ( knowing this is all speculative)


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > You going to miss those high ISO shots from 5D III - faster shutter and higher ISO are your friends in shooting sports.
> ...



Looking at OP lenses, 300mm will cover many sport events.

Replacing 5D III with 7D II will take away high ISO advantage, unless, OP only shoot sports outdoor day time.


----------



## Khufu (Nov 1, 2014)

chasn said:


> I am so looking forward to the new 100-400 - it is a fact isn't it? But I can see the prime 400 and the 70-300 May be a good combo. Would the lack of IS be a problem do you think for a 5DIii? ( knowing this is all speculative)



I love the 5D3/400mm prime combo! One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned too much here is "the Full Frame look" in regards to telephoto shooting - and I can tell you it's a very real thing! This lens on FF I think gives you the kind of shallow-but-not-too-shallow look that nature photographers may stop down a little to achieve, giving you more than just one of that Great Ape's or tiny bird's eyes in focus but with beautiful bokeh and background separation - and it's not too much of a chore to lug around at ~1.25kg... to me a crop cam is secondary for reach, hence feeling the 70D is more than adequate at around 50-60% of the 7D2 price tag!

Regarding the new 100-400mm, aye, I believe CR had rumours posted about it being out in the field as we speak... hopefully in its final form and almost ready to go ;D

honestly though, I think I'm likely to grab me the Contemporary edition of the new Sigma 600mm with OS (slated at £1,099 on just 1 online store so far and still with no confirmation of weight..) aaand keep hold of the 400mm f/5.6L because, well, it's only as inconvenient as chucking a flask or drink bottle in your bag, is generally awesome and I imagine is likely to still make it out the house more often for potential impromptu adventuring! 

Oh, and: on verrrry few occasions, shooting what I do, have I felt "I wish I was exposing for longer, necessitating IS, for that shot!"


----------



## RichM (Nov 2, 2014)

Khufu said:


> I love the 5D3/400mm prime combo! One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned too much here is "the Full Frame look" in regards to telephoto shooting - and I can tell you it's a very real thing!



I agree about the "Full Frame look". For daylight field sports (soccer,football, lacrosse, etc.) I generally carry the 7d-300f/4 combo, and the 5d3-70-200f/2.8. It seems that about 60% of my shots are with the 7d, and the rest with the 5d3, providing a good mix of both. For night field sports, I've been wanting as the 7d combo is just not good enough. I'm optimistic that the 7d2 will change that.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 2, 2014)

entropy69 said:


> I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D but kept it as backup camera. I shoot various subjects, also a lot of sports using the 70-200 2.8 II, Sigma 120-300 2.8 sports and 1.4III converter.
> The 5D mk III is really awesome but every now and then I do miss the extra reach. Extra mm for full frame are really expensive and above budget.... Would it make sense to replace the 7D for the Mk II and start using the 7D mk II for sports only? Or would I be disappointed since detail and low light performance of the 5D mk III are better than then 7D mk II anyway?
> 
> 300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
> ...



So your "Dilemma" is this;

Should you upgrade a camera you have not used in three years?

If you can't find the answer inside the question itself go ahead and buy it. Nothing we say can cure this type of madness.


----------



## alexturton (Nov 2, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> entropy69 said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D but kept it as backup camera. I shoot various subjects, also a lot of sports using the 70-200 2.8 II, Sigma 120-300 2.8 sports and 1.4III converter.
> ...



+1


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2014)

entropy69 said:


> 300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
> 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II



Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2014)

RichM said:


> Khufu said:
> 
> 
> > I love the 5D3/400mm prime combo! One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned too much here is "the Full Frame look" in regards to telephoto shooting - and I can tell you it's a very real thing!
> ...



No it isn't a 'real thing', perspective is perspective and dof is dof. Shoot a ff camera 400mm f5.6 and a crop camera 250mm f3.5 (a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4TC would be close enough) from the same place for the same fov, dof etc, and the images are identical.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> entropy69 said:
> 
> 
> > 300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
> ...



The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?


----------



## Khufu (Nov 2, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > entropy69 said:
> ...



Aye, lots of folk don't seem to realise that their 1.5x crop Nikons et al have only 1/2 the coverage of FF... I need to brush up on my basic maths myself - what's 1.6x crop expressed as a fraction and/or percentage, anyone?! Cheeers 

Ps. This is reeeeally hard to Google! The industry have done a great job marketing tiny sensors with misleading terms like "1.5x crop" and "1 inch type"


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > entropy69 said:
> ...



Bob, 

You are making the classic mistake of assuming all pixels are equal, empirical results always demonstrate that they are not. It has been tested and illustrated many times.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2014)

Khufu said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Tables, diagrams, mm² figures to your hearts content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format


----------



## Khufu (Nov 2, 2014)

> > > The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?
> >
> >
> >
> ...



So you're not sure either then? 
A quick scan kinda' hasn't remotely answered my question though...

Okay, so let's try this, based on square mm area of Canon's sensors!...

329/864ths? er... help? 

329/864 = 0.38078703703

A Canon APS-C sensor captures 38% of a FF image? That's crap! Did I go wrong somewhere?!


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Fine, I'm ignorant and stupid. However, I own a 5D3 and 7D and owned a 5D/40D pairing before that and have done the testing you suggest. Now, would you provide information regarding the "empirical results". And be sure to compensate for the fact that comparisons are almost invariably made between different generations of sensors and image processing, since that's an entirely different question.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2014)

Khufu said:


> > > > The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ...



No, I know and it isn't crap.

A 1.6 crop sensor is 38% the size of a FF sensor. 

Now you realise why those that do know consider people who say "it is as good as a FF sensor" are not looking closely enough!


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



Search my history, it is a conversation I have had many times with my own empirical results from a 7D and a 1Ds MkIII, they were on sale at the same time thought truthfully the 7D was younger tech, though you wouldn't think it.

If you can't be bothered to do that here is the last time I posted the same comparison images, here two weeks ago.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453442#msg453442


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 2, 2014)

Khufu said:


> So you're not sure either then?
> A quick scan kinda' hasn't remotely answered my question though...
> 
> Okay, so let's try this, based on square mm area of Canon's sensors!...
> ...



That's about correct. It's 1/(1.6 * 1.6) except that it's typically more like 1.62. Crop factor is measured as a linear measurement and area ratios are proportional to the square of crop factor.


----------



## Khufu (Nov 2, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> Khufu said:
> 
> 
> > So you're not sure either then?
> ...



I'm trying to make sense of this but I'll be honest... you've lost me! I get literally how zoom & crop is applied via the diagonal, so 2x Zoom or Crop gives you a 1/4 panel and 1.6x evidently gives you 329/864ths  ...but this squaring 1.6 jazz, no, I have no idea where we're going with this!

So 1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56 = I have no freaking clue what this equals... 

Wait! Is that how many APSC sensors fit into the FF? Aha! 1/2.56... 100/256 = 50/128 = 25/64 = 12.5/32 = 6.25/16 = 3.125/8 blah...

This self-answering, stream of consciousness post has been brought to you by myself!
I'll still post it, incase anyone else benefits from my babysteps


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2014)

Khufu said:


> Wait! Is that how many APSC sensors fit into the FF? Aha! 1/2.56... 100/256 = 50/128 = 25/64 = 12.5/32 = 6.25/16 = 3.125/8 blah...



 I heard the light bulb go off here!


----------



## entropy69 (Nov 3, 2014)

Crapking said:


> I have both 1Dx and 5d III (and had 7d till I upgraded to 7d II yesterday


What made you buy the 7D mk II since you already have a 1Dx and 5D III? 



Crapking said:


> The pro's / con's between 5d III and 7d II will be debated / rehashed here for awhile I am sure.
> From the pure practical aspect of shooting, I enjoyed the familiar Canon build, ergonomics, customizability, and wrt to the 7d II vs the 5d III, the increase in FPS was appreciated. The AF functioning (capture rate) was really no better, though the few extra AF points did make positioning the points more convenient/easier.





Crapking said:


> Anyways, on topic for the OP, the FPS / extra reach are definite value - adds, but offset by need for higher ISO, and (subjectively) a sl drop in resolution/crispness and I'm still not sure about color rendering after only 1 shoot.





Crapking said:


> I am shooting an all day tournament tomorrow so will post head - head comparisons of all 4 of my bodies next week.


Thank you, valuable input!


----------



## entropy69 (Nov 3, 2014)

docsmith said:


> I am a bit like the OP. I have both the 7D and 5DIII. But since I bought the 5DIII, after a series of tests, the 7D has collected dust. I really do need to sell it. This isn't meant to disparage the 7D, it really is a remarkable camera and served me well for almost 3 years. But, I get why the 7D sits on a shelf when you own both. If you are not reach limited, I would rather have the 5DIII, and, at least from what I concluded, usually even when you are reach limited, I preferred the images from the 5DIII. Even though the 7D is a great camera, I like the images off the 5DIII better. You lose 1 fps. That really can't be too much of a factor.





docsmith said:


> Anyway, I am interested in what those that own both the 7DII and 5DIII end up doing. I am considering the 7DII as a way to get that extra reach, hoping that the IQ/noise control/etc is now good enough that I no longer prefer the 5DIII images even when reach limited.


+1


docsmith said:


> Back to the OP, I, personally, haven't seen enough to have an opinion, but I am glad you started the thread. I think a number of us upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII. Some may consider going back to the 7DII or supplementing your kit with the 7DII. It is a good question. But I wouldn't expect the answer to be black and white.


Since I have the 5D mk III, the lowlight capabilities are so much better than the 7D: I automaticly pick the 5D if favor of the 7D. I live in the Netherlands, not exactly Carribean light circumstances here... In the sports department I shoot mainly soccer and windsurfing. Especially with windsurfing you need al the mm's you can afford: on full frame the 120-300 with 1.4 converter is often not enough, you'll end up cropping too much. Options would be 
-keep it, save money, keep the backup body option 
-sell the 7D and save up for extra glass (dropping the backup body option). 
-invest in an upgrade from a camera (that served me well before) and get the extra reach (and will not end up being unused).

My 13yr old son did shoot with me with the 7D a few times and he did enjoy it. Taking that in consideration the saving for extra glass and keeping only one body is not the preferred option, being able to go out together is nice as well. I also kept my 24-105, despite having the 24-70II.

Still puzzeled by the AF of the 7D mk II, less than the 1Dx but better than the 5D mk III? Or just comparable to the 5D mk III? I think the 7D mk II is a nice camera for sports/wildlife but the upgrade is not as big as I expected. I really hoped they would have come up with a bit beefier update. Especially when you look at what the competition is doing now, it looks like Canon is losing it a bit. I'm not looking for video capabilities, but if even smartphones and gopro's can shoot 4K video, why can't they add it to a brandnew 1700 euro camera?!
On the other hand: if you own some glass, you do not switch brands quickly. Also, marketingwise I understand they cannot top the 1Dx or 5DIII with the 7DII, otherwise no one would buy these anymore.

Feel like I'm getting there but still miss actual info on how the 5D III and 7DII compare in real life situations....


----------

