# Canon 7D vs Canon 60D - Can't decide which to upgrade to.



## Synomis192 (Mar 16, 2012)

I'm looking to upgrade my Canon T1i after 2 years. I'm not sure which one I should upgrade to though. I'm not thinking about going full frame either, it doesn't really suit me. 

My approximate budget for these two cameras is around $1700:
-If I purchase the 7D, I'd only be able to get the body. It's not that much of a big deal seeing that I already have some lenses (Canon 18-55, 55-250, and a Rokinon 35mm) But I'm worried that having a 7d with kit lenses, isn't going to really benefit me, seeing that most people say it's the glass that really makes the images. But I do like the 8fps burst rate, fast AF, and the amazing low light performance. 

-If I purchase the 60d body, I'd be left with about $500-ish, which means that I could save a bit more and get the Canon 15-85mm lens. But to me, I honestly don't see it as a full upgrade from a Rebel camera. It's more like a SUPER Rebel. I just don't know if it will be worth it in the end.

Can I get everyone's opinion to help me figure out which camera to get?

(My main focus is portraits, landscapes, group events, and occasional basketball games)


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 16, 2012)

The 60D and the 7D are pretty similar except that the 7D has better AF, a higher burst rate and more weathersealing. The sensor is the same, but most of you photo interests would not make use of the 7D's capabilities except for the basketball games. If you must upgrade now, then I vote for the 60D and saving for a better lens (15-85 or 17-55). If you can wait, I suggest getting the 17-55 or 15-85 first, and then waiting to upgrade the body once the next generation crop cameras come out.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 16, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> If you can wait, I suggest getting the 17-55 or 15-85 first, and then waiting to upgrade the body once the next generation crop cameras come out.


this is the best option i think as once the new models are announced the price of the current 7D and 60D are going to drop nicely. curently you have a camera so just keep using that one and save up, get the better lens now to scratch the gear accquisition itch either of the above mentioned two lenses wll be good then see what rolls out with the next announcements. 
I think the next rebel will be better than the current 60D anyway and I think the 7Dmk2 will see the same AF as the 5Dmk3 with the 70D getting the 7D AF as a minimum possibly better with rebels getting a much improved AF (possibly the current 60D AF as a bare minimum but i think it will be better)
Canon have realised they have to pick up their game regarding AF to compete with Nikon who put great AF systems even into their low end models


----------



## solarpos (Mar 16, 2012)

*What I'm pleased with after upgrading*

I went from the T2i to the 7D. What I like:
Weather Sealing
Feel (large hands)
FPS
AF points and selection
Wheel on rear
CF Card as opposed to SD Card

Whatever you choose they are both great camera bodies.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 17, 2012)

I have the 60d and like that its lighter than the 7d and like the flip out screen for video or taking a shot over a crowd. I
Also have both the 17-55 and 15-85. I primarily use the 17-55 for low light but i did a christmas trip to disney for 7 days and over 5k pics with just the 15-85 and a 270ex ii. Great travel setup and bot have fast focus.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 17, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> I'm looking to upgrade my Canon T1i after 2 years. I'm not sure which one I should upgrade to though. I'm not thinking about going full frame either, it doesn't really suit me. (My main focus is portraits, landscapes, group events, and occasional basketball games)



* "amazing low light performance" on the 7d )) ??? Whoever told you that? The 7d has got the same sensor as the 550d/600d/60d, and it's main drawback is that above iso 800, noise reduction will blur you picture at crop sizes noticeably. And af is determined by the lens' light capability, too, so for fast phase detect af in low light you should have a 2.8 or better open aperture.

* weather sealing: The 60d is weather resistant, too, much more than the cheaper rebels. But that won't do you any good: your *system* isn't sealed if you use non-sealed lenses, and all of yours aren't! And you could think back of how often you were tempted to shoot in the rain anyway.

* I try to be not in the habit of recommending my own gear (60d), but I cannot resist: It's drawbacks over the 7d are less weather sealing (see above) and much worse af (do you track moving objects often? for "occasional basketball games" it'll do, too) and 8fps instead of 6fps (if you're not into pro event photography, do you think that'll make a difference)? And the 7D doesn't run magic lantern, which is a must for video and has great value for still shots, too.

* My recommendation: 1. get better lenses. 2. get more better lenses. 3. get the 60d if you must upgrade now and need more megapixels to be able to crop more... did I say better lenses do make the difference? Now I wouldn't recommend anyone to go over the top and buy a 24-70ii for a 1000d, but your current lenses are crappy, the 15-85 is worlds better, not to speak of a good macro (like the 100L as a combined portrait lens), fast quality primes or L tele lenses.


----------



## nesarajah (Mar 17, 2012)

7D . better feel.


----------



## D_Rochat (Mar 17, 2012)

It sounds like you already know which one you want. I agree that getting good lenses first is more important, but why buy a 60D if ultimately you aren't going to be entirely happy with it? I'd go for the 7D as well. Here are some options to think about.

1- Keep the T1i a little longer and upgrade at least one lens

2- Assuming you're in the US, B&H has a 7D with 28-135mm for $1799. Sure it's a little over budget, but something to consider

3- Buy used. It won't be too hard to find a 7D plus lens for $1700 or under right now.


----------



## D_Rochat (Mar 17, 2012)

Something else to keep in mind.

http://youtu.be/hk5IMmEDWH4


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 17, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Something else to keep in mind.



Totally agree. Any modern body will give excellent images.

I started digital with the 40d and added the 17-40f/4L, 24-105 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L (no IS)

Even today the 4 year old body delivers excellent images - which is why I still have the 40d (and use it) as a backup/walkabout/street camera. It was the lens that unleashed the potential of the body. 

Not sure why the OP is wanting to upgrade though looking at the lens I could see that upgrading those would bring big benefits. If reach is paramount then a 70-300L would be a good start


----------



## loudpictures (Mar 17, 2012)

Great - I really like the crazy DigitalRev guys. 




D_Rochat said:


> Something else to keep in mind.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 17, 2012)

D-Rochat that video is always good value


----------



## ruuneos (Mar 17, 2012)

60D is better for video and 7D better at sport photography.
I chose 7D and never thought that choice could been mistake.


----------



## Physicx (Mar 17, 2012)

Please dont fall into the trap of upgrading "just because". 

Your camera is good enough there is little reason to upgrade. You are probably just doing it to make urself feel a bit better. am I right? 

Your camera almost has the same sensor as the 60D and the 7D ( if you had the T2i, Id just wont bother). The cameras are not going to get you better images qualities by very much. ( in fact none if you had the T3i as they all share the same sensor). As you dont want to go Full Frame then why change? 

Put all your money into better lenses. Then 2 more years later, you are able to change a body with a bigger difference and more value for your money, esp. now when the 60D and the 7D has been out for some time, you are better waiting a few months for the newer releases. I mean maybe even the 650D might be better value for money and a better improvement than the current 60D/7D.


----------



## bbasiaga (Mar 18, 2012)

I agree with the sentiment that upgrading glass would do you much better than upgrading bodies right now. Of your 1700, spend half on good glass mentioned above, then save for another year. Buy a 7d or 60D second hand then after their replacements are out and used prices drop some.

-Brian


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 18, 2012)

I have a 7D and love it, but cannot believe the price difference from a 60D to a 7D. I think the 60D is definitely the better buy, and if the savings got to better glass, it's almost certianlly going to deliver better photos for you.


----------



## elflord (Mar 18, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> I'm looking to upgrade my Canon T1i after 2 years. I'm not sure which one I should upgrade to though. I'm not thinking about going full frame either, it doesn't really suit me.
> 
> My approximate budget for these two cameras is around $1700:
> -If I purchase the 7D, I'd only be able to get the body. It's not that much of a big deal seeing that I already have some lenses (Canon 18-55, 55-250, and a Rokinon 35mm) But I'm worried that having a 7d with kit lenses, isn't going to really benefit me, seeing that most people say it's the glass that really makes the images. But I do like the 8fps burst rate, fast AF, and the amazing low light performance.
> ...



Upgrading the body won't make a substantial impact on image quality, the sensors are all neck and neck. Low light performance won't be any better than the Rebel you currently have. The main advantages are the faster burst rate, better autofocus, weather sealing, micro focus adjustment, better build and ergonomics. So I'd say get some better glass. The 7D really will be reduced to a "super rebel" if you cripple it with substandard optics. 

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/663|0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28appareil2%29/619|0/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28appareil3%29/586|0/%28brand3%29/Canon


The T1i is positioned as an entry level model, but it still capable of producing some stunning images if paired with good glass. My inclination would be to spend as little as possible on upgrading the body and put it into glass. For example, you could sell the T1i and get a 40D and more or less break even.


----------



## Synomis192 (Mar 19, 2012)

Whooops. I forgot to say that I'm upgrading not because I want a new body. It's because my T1i has a scratched senor. It happened quite a while back and the scratch doesn't show unless I'm at about f/8 - f/6.3. It gets quite bothersome haha.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 19, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> Whooops. I forgot to say that I'm upgrading not because I want a new body. It's because my T1i has a scratched senor. It happened quite a while back and the scratch doesn't show unless I'm at about f/8 - f/6.3. It gets quite bothersome haha.


If you are willing to consider a refurb, you might be able to squeeze out a 7D plus a lens. The Canon CLP (customer loyalty program) will let you trade in your old broken powershot or film slr for a nice discount. off the price of a refurb body. I did that when I bought my 7D, and its a wonderful camera. I use it as a companion to my 5D MK II for situations where I need two bodies, need the accurate autofocus, or am focal legnth limited. I also use it for product photography.


----------



## tuankid (Mar 19, 2012)

I would recommend the 7D. more solid built and better AF.


----------



## RC (Mar 19, 2012)

I waited for 60D to be released before I made my decision to purchase a body back when the 60D was announced. I chose the 7D for various reasons. AF, AF micro adjustment (which I think is huge), FPS, build, and so on.

If it were I, I'd sell both lens and see if you can get anything out of the body, and put it towards a 7D, and good lens depending on what your needs are--15-85, 17-55, or maybe a 50 1.4 or 8. Check refurbs and CLP. 

If weather sealing is truly important, you will need a sealed lens. In my case it wasn't until I was in a rain/sleet storm that prevented me from shooting when I decided to sell my 15-85 and replace it with a 16-35. Now all my lens are sealed. So maybe pick up something like a 50 1.8 (or just keep your 18-55) for now and save up for a sealed lens. 

Aside from a damaged sensor, I think upgrading your body for ergonomic reasons is also a good valid.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 19, 2012)

If you are serious about a 7D, PLEASE do your due diligence and research it first.

Google the following phrases:

"7d vertical lines"
"7d soft focus"
"7d AF issues"
"Canon 7d lemon"

Don't get me wrong... I own a 7D and use it as a backup. However, when it was my primary body, it almost made me want to give up photography entirely. I had so many problems with it that I never used it. Went about 6 months without taking a photo because every shot I got out of it was garbage. The shots my 40D gave me were works of art compared to what the 7D crapped out. And now, with rumors that Canon may not even update the 7D (ie, discontinue the line after one version), it makes you wonder what Canon figured out with this unit.


----------



## RC (Mar 19, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> If you are serious about a 7D, PLEASE do your due diligence and research it first.
> 
> Google the following phrases:
> 
> ...



Bummer about all your problems, that definitely sucks. Maybe you had a lemon. I suspect you could google "anything lemon" and get all kinds of negative info. My experience is the 7D is a fantastic camera On the other hand I'm not expecting 5D image quality. Also there are equal rumors the 7D II is on the horizon--time will tell.


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 19, 2012)

RC said:


> Bummer about all your problems, that definitely sucks. Maybe you had a lemon. I suspect you could google "anything lemon" and get all kinds of negative info. My experience is the 7D is a fantastic camera On the other hand I'm not expecting 5D image quality. Also there are equal rumors the 7D II is on the horizon--time will tell.



Honestly, I don't know what my problem was... I was incredibly unlucky with my 7D. Had every problem under the sun, from AF to the notorious "black lines". I had it into Canon Irvine so many damn times (I think 8 or 9 at this point) that Canon went so far as to replace the sensor on its last trip in. 

That solved the banding issue for the most part, but AF is still hit or miss. I don't mind the "softness" much anymore - I realize an 18MP crop-sensor (that is now almost three-years old) is gonna have heck of an AA filter on it - but the missed focus is still what chaps my ass.

It's infuriating seeing images that look sharp on the LCD, only to pull them up in Lightroom later to find the focal plane is 5-6" off where it should be. It's not a deal breaker, I've just developed an "understanding," shall we say, for my 7D. I don't shoot it wide open, I don't point-and-shoot (I really have to take care to make sure my AF is spot-on), and I don't use anything but L glass on it. With those rules I can get some great shots out of it... just sucks that a $2,000 camera-body has "rules" for getting good keepers from it.

Meh.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Mar 19, 2012)

Dear Synomis, let me tell you about my recent experience, it might help. I myself is on a very tight budget and I do not earn a single cent from my photography. My interest in photography is very recent (just one year or so old). First I bought a canon G12 and started learning about photography. Soon I discovered that I needed "something more" to satisfy my growing expectations and ideas. But being on a tight budget I could only afford a second hand EOS 40D with a 50mm 1.8II (the lens was new of course). Yes it was a four year old camera, "only" 9 AF points, just 6.9 FPS, powered with a Digic III (I think), no video and no swivel screen. But 40D was the best I could do. I could have gone for EF-S 18-55 but I chose not to after reading about the image quality (in relative terms) vis-a-vis 50mm 1.8II. So I was happily snapping along and learning. Then a few months down the line I bought the EF 85mm 1.8. And now I had two, but both prime lenses. So I planned and started renting lenses from a local lens rental place. Coming to that later. Meanwhile, I went back home and met a friend of mine who had bought a EOS 50D with your exact lenses (18-55mm and 55-250mm). I was excited about EOS 50D and when I was buying my 40D I spent many hours drooling over 50D (microadjustment being one plus for it). I grabbed my friend's camera and started shooting photos. But I was not very happy with the images somehow. So I took out his 55-250mm lens and put it on my camera. I figured that I must not be able to handle his "better" camera because it was new to me. But when I snapped some more photos with his glasses on my camera (which I know how to handle) I was still not happy. Soon I understood it was not the camera but the lens (No disrespect to your or my friend's glasses). After being accustomed with my 50mm and 85mm I was, for something in the photos with those other lenses, not satisfied. Let's comeback to my lens rental story. Till now I have rented these lenses, EF-S 10-22mm, EF 100mm L2.8 macro, EF-S 17-55, EF 24-105. On my same 40D, I think (personal opinion) the EF 100mm L2.8 macro (used as a short/medium telephoto) gave me even sharper images than my EF 85mm. So what is the point of such a long story to reply to your question? My point I personally believe to make the investment in a camera body really worth it one needs to spend a lot on the glasses as well. Otherwise, as many have said, you can get better pictures with the same "mediocre" camera but with vastly superior lense. So my 2 cents will be with buying better glasses. At least if you have the opportunity, then rent out some very good glasses, mount them on you "old" camera and see if you see the difference or not. You can do the same thing with camera body as well, if you have that opportunity and can afford to spend that money for renting alone. See for yourself, but at least you will have your own judgement to back your decision. Last word, why buy 7D in 2012 if you want a "great" camera just for the sake of it? 7DII will probably come out soon. May be 70D. The body upgrade circle always goes on. Good and wonderful glasses not so much.
_______________________________________________________________
EOS 40D, EF 50mm 1.8II, EF 85mm 1.8, EF 22-55mm, some extension tubes


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 19, 2012)

I have the Canon 7D, upgrading from the Canon 350D (so yes, it was a huge upgrade). Image quality of the 7D is superior, but moreso the AF, handling, and advanced capability of the 7D were bigger improvements than 'raw' image quality. Having handled a number of xxD cameras, the 7D is definitely a step up from 60D. But obviously, the 60D is a step up again from the xxxxD / xxxD lines.

Buying good glass is, however, more important in most situations than newer / better bodies. After upgrading to the 7D I now have lenses that I'm very happy with (eg 15-85mm, 100mm macro, 70-300mm L and Sigma 10-20mm EX). In recent months I've sold the 28-135mm, 100-300mm, 50mm f1.8. (I still keep the 18-55mm kit lens, 'just in case' or for a lightweight walk around on my 350D, OR to possibly give away). The only lens I'm now looking for is a new / improved Canon 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 (which doesn't have to be an L... but I must be true USM for me)! 8)

So I agree with the advice you've received about getting a new lens first (eg the 15-85mm) and waiting till the 7DmkII or other new xxD (eg 70D) might come round, to make your decision. The 15-85mm IS USM is just SUCH a great, versatile, sharp lens - the USM and IS are fantastic too. So seeing what the next round of Canon 'mid range' cameras have to offer in terms of handling and AF is important, to ensure that you can have a suffiently powerful AF for 'basketball games' and 'group events' - as this very important in my opinion and experience.

All the best. 

Paul


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 7, 2012)

Sorry for hijacking this post, but I'm facing a very similar decision. I currently own a Canon 450D and I really want to upgrade it. Mainly for two reasons - one being ergonomics and the other being the AF system. I think that I occasionally will take advantage of the faster FPS, but this will not be my main concern.

So, I'm split between 60D and 7D. I am aware that the 7D would fit all of my needs, but I wonder if the higher price point is really justified. I will not be shooting sports and just want a faster and more accurate AF (in other words, I don't need an almost pro grade AF).

On the lens side, I own the Tokina 11-16mm, the Tamron 17-50mm, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 and Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L. I'm pretty happy with my lens setup and currently don't feel like I have to upgrade any of these lenses (I'm thinking about extending my setup).

So, is it really worth spending the extra money for the improved AF (and micro-adjustment) or would it make more sense to go with the 60D and wait for the 7D Mk II?


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> Sorry for hijacking this post, but I'm facing a very similar decision.



I like my 60d and it runs magic lantern in contrast to the 7d. But if you really have completed your ef-s lens collection I'd say get the 7d because of better af (the 60d's af is mainly for static scenes), afma (since you already have the lenses and cannot return them if focus issues arise) and better ergonomics that fit a larger hand. And the 7d's price has dropped a lot since its release. Getting a 60d now and waiting for the 7d replacement - if it ever arrives - doesn't make much sense to me, except if you're unhappy with the 18mp sensor and want to wait for an improved aps-c version.


----------



## picturesbyme (Apr 7, 2012)

As many already said it:
#1. (Awesome) Lens
#2. (Good) Body
Sold my 5D2 and 7D and got a 60D plus L lenses. Never looked back. Of course - as a next step - I will get the 5D3 as soon as I can but the above combo gave me a lot of keepers. (Actually now that one can pick up a 5D2 in excellent cond. on ebay for 1500 or less, I might get one to hold me over until the 5D drops under 3K.)
Btw, I don't do sports but did a few portraits lately and many with the 60D you can see plenty here: http://atlanticpicture.com/f328067798


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 7, 2012)

There is currently an awesome deal at Adorama on a 7D kit with a 24-105/f4 lens. The kit in the link is $2995 and includes lots of goodies including and extra battery and a battery grip.

Add the following coupon: S0401201 ... and save an additional $400.96. It's really an excellent price.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2012)

picturesbyme said:


> Sold my 5D2 and 7D and got a 60D plus L lenses. Never looked back.



Now that's very is interesting because most people do it the other way around and even I am thinking - driven by general aps-c FUD - about getting a 5d2 as a replacement or addition to my 60d. And people who got a 5d always say it's a smart move just like you always say it was a great holiday even if it was raining 24/7...

* Which L lenses do you use on the 60d? Did you have any issues due to the missing af micro adjustment?

* What things - if any - do you miss from the 5d2?


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 7, 2012)

With your current lenses, both 7D & 60D will NOT do much improvement- in term of IQ.

In your case, I would go for better lenses now, and wait for newer crop bodies.

The lens I highly recommend is 17-55mm f2.8 IS. I rented it for the weekend and try out on my 60D, the IQ is AMAZING - razor sharp - great for indoor shooting, no flash of course.

If I didn't upgrade to 5D III, the 17-55 will be my #1 choice for cropped sensor. I will take this lens over 24-105L.

*BOTTOM line is*: Keep your current camera. Sell all your other lenses and use that money to buy 17-55mm f2.8 IS & 70-200mm II f2.8 IS in the future  I use these two lenses very often on my 60D.


----------



## cookie (Apr 7, 2012)

I have a 7d and would recommend it over the 60 for as mentioned better AF weather sealing programs.Be aware as mentioned better glass is required to get the most from it.I bought mine with the 15/85 lens while is good espealiy as wide angle I bit the bullet and now have a 70/200L 2 which really showed the limitations of the standard lens.Pro quality photos are now but click away??Also the 60 is often referred as a super rebel for reason.Final point,if you aspire to getting great photos and take the time to learn how go 7d


----------



## BlueMixWhite (Apr 7, 2012)

Definitely 7D with 24-105mm to start with. 




Blissful Wedding by adrlow, on Flickr


----------



## UrbanImages (Apr 7, 2012)

Funny that you posted this as I just sold my 60D to buy a lightly used 7D. While much of the guts may be the same, the 7D is more solidly built camera and the AF blows away the 60D IMHO. I use L glass so the need for microadjustment was another factor as well as having a PC connector so I could hook up to my lighting systems. The 8 fps is going to come in handy with some of the work I have coming up. Keep in mind that this is my 2nd line camera behind a 5D II. I plan on buying a 5D III by the end of the year, so this is going to fill my needs better than the 60D. I am a firm believer that glass and creativity are more important than a body in many respects. It took me a while to sort through which glass works for me, but investing in quality lenses will be one of the smartest moves you can make. Just my 2 cents


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> With your current lenses, both 7D & 60D will NOT do much improvement- in term of IQ.



... but in cropping power which is useful for - well, cropping, macro, larger prints and modifying aspect ratio to square or 16:9.



cookie said:


> I have a 7d and would recommend it over the 60 for as mentioned better AF weather sealing programs.[...] Also the 60 is often referred as a super rebel for reason.



Great, it's super rebel time again  ... actually, the 7d is often called a "dressed up rebel" because it uses exactly the same sensor as the 550d and is near the price range of a full frame body. It's really the usual question "is af and afma worth it to you?".

Btw: Weather sealing requires a sealed *system* and not even all L lenses are sealed let alone ef-s ones, so the existing sealing of the 60d over the 600d should be on par with the ability of most lenses or flashes to withstand light rain - if you are set to take pictures in these conditions.


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 7, 2012)

Get a 70D! 
At least you won't be stuck with some 3 years old technology.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2012)

dichiaras said:


> Get a 70D!  At least you won't be stuck with some 3 years old technology.



But at the same time, Canon will make sure the 70d will have so many little annoyances that you will want to upgrade to the 5d3 or 80d - *then* you'll be able to take these real pro shots


----------



## elflord (Apr 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> picturesbyme said:
> 
> 
> > Sold my 5D2 and 7D and got a 60D plus L lenses. Never looked back.
> ...




FWIW, I used some fast glass on a Rebel XS -- the 50mm f/1.4 and the 35mm f/1.4. Didn't miss AFMA and I did shoot at f/1.4 with both lenses. With the 50, I took a lot of shots with ridiculously shallow dof (e.g. f/1.4 with subject within 1m). 

I now have the 5DII. 

The main thing I would miss if I used the crop is the focusing screen (I have the brighter EG-S screen for the 5D), better viewfinder and the thumb wheel on the back (but I think the 60D has this), and extra ISO reach. The full frame sensor does obviously allow for shallow dof, but one thing I find with some lenses is that I'm bumping up against the minimum focus distance of the lens -- to put it another way, APS-C will generally give me a shorter minimum focus distance for the same framing. 

I find generally there's a tendency to overemphasise the importance of the body (versus the glass) in this forum. For a lot of the posts where people are contemplating upgrading bodies, I think the posters would be better off upgrading or acquiring more glass. I'd much rather shoot with fast glass on an APS-C body (especially a decent one like the 50D or the 7D) than a slow zoom on the 5D. 

BTW, if you really want AFMA, I believe the 50D has it (?) that would make it a bargain alternative to the 7D.


----------



## dichiaras (Apr 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> But at the same time, Canon will make sure the 70d will have so many little annoyances that you will want to upgrade to the 5d3 or 80d - *then* you'll be able to take these real pro shots


 

Sure, it's a little silly to wait always for the next model, because that's going to be "the one" that will make you a great photographer. But in this case it's an upgrade only (probably) a few months away (not years), which should feature a new sensor (better IQ). Since the guy has already a T1i, there are no missed shots to worry about during the wait.


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 7, 2012)

dichiaras said:


> Sure, it's a little silly to wait always for the next model, because that's going to be "the one" that will make you a great photographer. But in this case it's an upgrade only (probably) a few months away (not years), which should feature a new sensor (better IQ). Since the guy has already a T1i, there are no missed shots to worry about during the wait.



From what I read here it seems like the 70D is most likely still quite a way in the future (i.e. not in stores before christmas).

I currently own a 450D (I'm happy with my lenses) and think about upgrading to 60D. Do you think that the improved AF and better ergonomics are enough to justify the upgrade?


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> I currently own a 450D (I'm happy with my lenses) and think about upgrading to 60D. Do you think that the improved AF and better ergonomics are enough to justify the upgrade?



Absolute standard reply  ... nobody knows if it's worth it except yourself. One very big advantage (did I mention "very big"?) of the 60d is the ability to run magic lantern which considerably extends your photographic options. You know about the ergonomics the second you take the 60d in your own hand in some shop (the 7d is even better for larger hands) and the lcd display and back dial are a must for me. I don't know about the af advancement 450d->60d, but the 60d af is ok for static objects and has an extra sensitive center point for lenses of f2.8+.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 7, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> (My main focus is portraits, landscapes, group events, and occasional basketball games)



I'm full of opinion.  (with data to back most of it up)
60D will do all of your major topics tho might struggle a bit more with indoor basketball than the 7D's AF would.
IQ on both are about the same for hi ISO and I'll take the 60D every time for 100-800 ISO work. They both have similar noise levels at all ISO but the 60D doesn't show banding noise like the 7D.


----------



## picturesbyme (Apr 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> picturesbyme said:
> 
> 
> > Sold my 5D2 and 7D and got a 60D plus L lenses. Never looked back.
> ...



Used these on the 60D: 24-70L, 100L, 17-40L, 200 2.8L, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 60 2.8, S 8-16 I sold the 100 and the 17-40 but never needed MA on any of them. Actually I had a few more Sigma, Tokina, and non-L Canon but I settled with these, I guess I was lucky b/c my 24-70 is sharp, my 200 has amazing color, the 85 and 60 are also sharp to the last pixel. Now I am trying to justify the 70-200 2.8 II vs my 200 prime but not sure about it..

Missed the ISO capabilities from the 5D2 a little but I'm better now  Actually I wanted to keep the 5D but I think I did the right thing. The setup worked well for my needs - according to ExposurePlot I barely ever I shot above 400 - and now when I'll buy one will save $6-700 on it what I can spend on another lens or on pistachios...


----------



## nicku (Apr 7, 2012)

I had the same dilemma 7D vs 5D2. I chose 7D despite the fact that 5D2 have better IQ. the much better AF, weather sealling and 8fps made the difference. for what i do 7D IQ is pretty good (commercial use). 5D3 was/is the perfect tool, but $ 3800 (where i live) is a high price for me at this time.


----------



## sanjosedave (Apr 7, 2012)

I went with the 60D because of the articulated screen. I fell for the articulated screen on the G11 and found that I was always using it for waist level and lower shots. I didn't need the faster fps of the 7


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2012)

nicku said:


> 5D3 was/is the perfect tool, but $ 3800 (where i live) is a high price for me at this time.



And the 5d3 really presents a challenge to the Canon aps-c line: the 7d is really a super rebel now as it only qualifies as poor man's 5d3 with built-in 1.6x tc. I wonder if Canon has something in the queue to re-establish a top aps-c model again.


----------



## nicku (Apr 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > 5D3 was/is the perfect tool, but $ 3800 (where i live) is a high price for me at this time.
> ...



In my opinion 60D is the super rebel. 7D is the wildlife, traveler photographer cheaper alternative ( to the 1D3, 1D4 back in 2009). Regarding the 1.6 crop frame.... in may ocasion this feature is a biiig + .


----------



## Superka (Apr 8, 2012)

The only one important advantage of 7D is AF micro adjustment. But if you check lenses when buying, you may not worry. There were no such feature in the past.
I prefer Canon 60D or 5DM2., but not 7D. 7D is for sports and birds.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 8, 2012)

Superka said:


> The only one important advantage of 7D is AF micro adjustment. But if you check lenses when buying, you may not worry. There were no such feature in the past.
> I prefer Canon 60D or 5DM2., but not 7D. 7D is for sports and birds.



AF is very important - I would go for the 7D if there is no other overiding reason to choose otherwise


----------



## CTJohn (Apr 8, 2012)

I made the move from a T1i to a 7D last year, and have been thrilled with the quality of images I get with the 7D. And not just wildlife and sports - landscapes are phenomenal also. I did make the move to L lenses prior to the move, which I would recommend as well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 8, 2012)

nicku said:


> In my opinion 60D is the super rebel.



) ... actually, I wasn't that serious - now that the 5d3 is out all aps-c bodies are inferior except for weight, price and the mentioned built-in tc.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 8, 2012)

The 7D is the BOMB! its a real workhorse of a camera for me. Its fast, snappy AF is worth the extra $$$ over the 60D. AF expansion is awesome for tracking subjects, 8FPS, 18 Cross Type AF points and AF micro-adjustment. Sweetness..... BTW! has wireless Speedlite triggering from pop-up flash. Great feature for strobists.

The 60D has a funny thumb-wheel/directional pad that wasn't practical to me and the ergonomics just didn't feel right. The 7D feels thought out and complete with its button placement, while the 60D just feels like a mess.

The 60D is a super rebel while the 7D is what the 60D should have been.


----------



## Wideopen (Apr 9, 2012)

Id choose a 7D. high burst rate, 19 AF points, and weather sealing who could ask for more from canons crop sensor dslr lineup.


----------



## mdm041 (Apr 9, 2012)

The 7d has lens micro adjust which makes it much more valuable to me over the 60d. I would tend to agree you generally would want to upgrade glass over a camera but I'm not sure the lenses in the <500 range would really make a big difference.


----------



## Danielle (Apr 9, 2012)

The 7D has been fantastic to me too. Its reliable, its fast, its relatively weather sealed (a must for me) and the most important bit, I have been making and continue to make very good shots from it.

I looked at a 60D the other just for the hell of it. It does look and feel a lot cheaper.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

Danielle said:


> I looked at a 60D the other just for the hell of it. It does look and feel a lot cheaper.



Maybe because it *is* a lot cheaper  ... and for people with limited budget, it might be a good tradeoff to get a lenses for the price difference which will keep its value longer than the current end-of-life 7d... anyhow, since the 5d3 is out the 7d is inferior in every way except for the built-in 1.6 to, so that's something to think about too.


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 19, 2012)

My 60D is ordered and I will pick it up on Saturday - I'm really looking forward to the upgrade and will definitely report back on my experience with it.

I hope that it will significantly exceed my 450D, especially in AF performance, but possibly also in high ISO noise.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 19, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> My 60D is ordered and I will pick it up on Saturday - I hope that it will significantly exceed my 450D, especially in AF performance, but possibly also in high ISO noise.



Good you made a decision - but don't get your hopes up concerning iso noise, the 18mp sensor is good until 400, ok until 800 but everything above needs noise reduction that kills sharpness. But other than that, the 60d is a fine camera that is a good basis for more equipment (like a bounce flash like the 480ex2, be sure to get something like this sooner or later). And don't forget to install magic lantern!


----------



## OldSalt (May 4, 2012)

Wideopen said:


> Id choose a 7D. high burst rate, 19 AF points, and weather sealing who could ask for more from canons crop sensor dslr lineup.



These were some of the main reasons I choose the 7D over the 60D back in Jan when I upgraded from my 450D. I also got it brand new with the 28-135 kit lens for $1052.00 out the door! making the price a real bargain and pretty much sealed the deal. I am exceedingly happy with my decision as I'm sure you will be with the 60D they are both awesome cameras. Enjoy!


----------



## Tcapp (May 4, 2012)

Don't know if its been suggested, but I'm always all for FF. Find a good used 5d2, keep your rokkinon, sell your other two lenses and body, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and maybe a 85 1.8. 

That what I would do!


----------



## !Xabbu (May 5, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Don't know if its been suggested, but I'm always all for FF. Find a good used 5d2, keep your rokkinon, sell your other two lenses and body, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and maybe a 85 1.8.
> 
> That what I would do!



If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.


----------



## Tcapp (May 5, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know if its been suggested, but I'm always all for FF. Find a good used 5d2, keep your rokkinon, sell your other two lenses and body, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and maybe a 85 1.8.
> ...



Very true! 

Although shoot both at 6400 iso and FF _does_ magically make the photos better.  

But I totally agree. 7d is a FAR better choice for sports and animals. Even if just for the crop. Or just for the frame rate. Or just for the AF. But I would, personally, still take the 5d for its iso to freeze motion of the kids. But thats just me. 


Of course, the 5d3 is basically the best of both worlds.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.



I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> !Xabbu said:
> 
> 
> > If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.
> ...



It would still depend on what your requirements are ... trying to take pictures of kids running around is something I wouldn't try with the 5DM2, I know it is possible but the 7D definitely beats it hands down


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.
> 
> As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.



Yeah, fair point. If AF is a large enough factor for you not to consider the 5D II, the 7D is the clear winner out of the 2 crop cameras mentioned.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

rj79in said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > !Xabbu said:
> ...



Kids are no problem with the 5D2 and you end up with terrific action portraits


----------



## Tcapp (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> rj79in said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Totally agree. And guess what? If you know what you're doing, you can even get photos of the kids with _manual focus!_ Hard to imagine, I know. It's silly how much people hate on the 5d2's auto focus. I've used it for years with zero problems. It focuses as fast as I can compose the photos.


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> rj79in said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



You could be right. Maybe I never tried working on my technique with the 5DM2 once I had the 7D.


----------



## Ew (May 5, 2012)

5d2 for kids works fine... But you have to work a lot harder and you loose many moments. Dropping down on knees, running around little ones on a trike, kids on swings, etc - they are quick - and the 7D w AF & Fps advantage really help a great deal to get more keepers. But as soon as we're indoors in the afternoon or evening, 5D2 takes over as I find noise over 1600 on 7D just too much to deal with. 

Previous post bout the 5D3 being the best of both worlds is probably correct.


----------



## bycostello (May 5, 2012)

i'd always put glass first... and a lens u keep for life, bodies come and go....


----------



## !Xabbu (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> !Xabbu said:
> 
> 
> > If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.
> ...



Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition, but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures, but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance). I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids... And just to take this point out of the way (I almost know that someone will bring it up) - the 5D III and 1D bodies are in a very different price segment, which means that they are not the real competition to any of the above named cameras.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition, but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?
> 
> However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures, but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance). I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.
> 
> So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids... And just to take this point out of the way (I almost know that someone will bring it up) - the 5D III and 1D bodies are in a very different price segment, which means that they are not the real competition to any of the above named cameras.



The camera that I use most is the 1.3 crop 1D4 followed by the ff 1Ds3. I owned the 5D and 5D2 at the time I had the 40D, 50D and 7D.

The AF of the 5DII is surpisingly good - contrary to its reputation. True, BIF was harder work with the 5DII than the 7D but still possible. Moving animals/kids and sports were no problem with the 5D/5D2.To me the big difference between the 7D and 5DII is the burst rate.

The real beauty of ff is the quality of the bg blur which on the 1.6 quickly fell to pieces when cropping.


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> !Xabbu said:
> 
> 
> > Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition, but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?
> ...



On an entirely personal note, I got the 5d2 only *after* I had used the 7d and the AF felt like such a let down. Maybe if i had got the 5d2 prior to the 7d i might have worked at it but in my circs i really couldnt be bothered when taking photos of my kids.

Photographers who are really got at it will push their cameras to the limit, but for the average hobbyist /student it's probably asking too much


----------



## elflord (May 5, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition,



They have an easier time obtaining shallow depth of field. An f/2.8 zoom on full frame has comparable depth of field to an f/1.8 prime with the same field of view. For portrait shots, this is important. 



> but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?



Full frame is your best choice for shooting in low light. Current versions of MF cameras don't go past ISO1600 at all and to get the most out of them you really want to shoot at low ISO. They are designed for producing gallery size prints, not low light shooting. Same with film -- what type of film performs well at ISO6400 ?



> However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures,



The 5DII does have a servo mode. It might not be as good as that on the 7D, but it is quite a bit better than manual focus. 



> but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance).



The outer focus points are reasonably usable in one shot mode, especially if you are working with decent light. There is also focus and recompose, of course. Most of the cropping I do with my 5D shots is to make _post hoc_ revisions to composition. But I do not find that the AF system dictates my composition, when I need to make such revisions, it's either because I made an error, or because I was unable to get the composition I wanted (e.g. distance limited)



> I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.



Sure, I don't think anyone is claiming that the 5D is a sports camera. 



> So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids...



You keep hammering away at this fallacy that the 5D is only usable for subjects that are either stationary or posing, but there are huge numbers of 5D series users photographing weddings and family pictures who would beg to differ.

For example, with kid shots -- you might get fewer keepers with a 5D series camera, but the keepers you get will be priceless. Again, having control over depth of field is very useful, especially shooting in busy (uncontrolled) environments where you can't stage the background to your liking. 

And while kids do move around a lot, they also do sit still (sometimes), and when they are moving, they are not always running directly at the camera. The only knock against using a camera like the 5DII for taking shots of your kids is that it does perhaps seem like a massive overkill for that task.


----------



## Tcapp (May 5, 2012)

elflord said:


> !Xabbu said:
> 
> 
> > Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition,
> ...



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

elflord said:


> !Xabbu said:
> 
> 
> > Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition,
> ...



+1 I had two great years with the 5DII and 1 year with the 5Dc

Now moved on to the 1DS3 which better features than the 7D (for AF) and the 5DII (for IQ). 

I still have the 7D and it is a handy little camera - especially in good light.

Here is a picture from this morning to whet your appetite


----------



## !Xabbu (May 6, 2012)

It somewhat seems like you FF-guys are like creationists. If someone questions your "FF is better in every condition" religion you seem to forget the facts. I try it one more time.



elflord said:


> !Xabbu said:
> 
> 
> > Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition,
> ...



OK, I pretty clearly stated in my post that the 5D II is the better camera for portraits. So, I don't know why you think you have to repeat it. MF is probably the best choice for portrait. So, if you're a portrait only photographer, MF might be the way to go.



elflord said:


> !Xabbu said:
> 
> 
> > However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures,
> ...



The 5D II has a servo mode, which is nowhere as good as the 7D's. This means that two photographers with the same capabilities will get more in focus shots with the 7D. Sounds to me like the 7D is the better choice in these conditions.
The outer focus points are fine for non moving objects on the 5D II, but I was speaking about action shots, where you still might to have an off center composition - again the 7D will give you much more flexibility.



elflord said:


> You keep hammering away at this fallacy that the 5D is only usable for subjects that are either stationary or posing, but there are huge numbers of 5D series users photographing weddings and family pictures who would beg to differ.
> 
> For example, with kid shots -- you might get fewer keepers with a 5D series camera, but the keepers you get will be priceless. Again, having control over depth of field is very useful, especially shooting in busy (uncontrolled) environments where you can't stage the background to your liking.
> 
> And while kids do move around a lot, they also do sit still (sometimes), and when they are moving, they are not always running directly at the camera. The only knock against using a camera like the 5DII for taking shots of your kids is that it does perhaps seem like a massive overkill for that task.



Please show me where I said that the 5D is only usable for non-moving subjects. I just said that these cameras target different audiences. If someone shoots mainly sports or animals, he will most likely be happier with a 7D than with a 5D II. However, if someone is mainly into studio or portrait, he will be much better of with the 5D II.
I do believe that both cameras are capable of the other use, but they have their shortcomings - i.e. you can use a 7D as a studio camera and get good results and of course you can use a 5D II as a sports camera and get good results.


----------



## Tcapp (May 6, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> It somewhat seems like you FF-guys are like creationists. If someone questions your "FF is better in every condition" religion you seem to forget the facts. I try it one more time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think our friend elflord was just trying to get the facts out there without confusing the thousand amateurs who are reading this and might not know. You are correct that the 7d is great for action. 

I think if we say the 7d is _easier to use_ in just about any situation, and the 5d2 has _better image quality_ in just about any situation, no one can argue that. All settled.


----------



## briansquibb (May 6, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> It somewhat seems like you FF-guys are like creationists. If someone questions your "FF is better in every condition" religion you seem to forget the facts. I try it one more time.



ff only relates to the image from the sensor

It is the camera that takes the picture.

Look at my equipment line to see which technology I prefer.


----------



## elflord (May 6, 2012)

> It somewhat seems like you FF-guys are like creationists. If someone questions your "FF is better in every condition" religion you seem to forget the facts. I try it one more time.



My comments are based not on "religion" but on experience using full frame cameras. Your comments on the usability of the 5D Mark II appear to be based on some kind of extrapolation from familiarity with a Rebel body. Commenting on the usability of something that you haven't used puts you on really shaky ground (the 5D is quite a bit more usable than the Rebel)



!Xabbu said:


> Please show me where I said that the 5D is only usable for non-moving subjects. I just said that these cameras target different audiences.



You wrote "5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids... ". Someone reading your post would have taken away the message that the 5DII is only suitable for posed or inanimate subjects. If you mentioned that the 5DII was also a great camera for family photography, weddings, and events, I would not have taken issue with it.


----------

