# Canon 50D vs 7D



## bklein61 (Jul 14, 2012)

I currently own

Canon 50D
Canon 70-300L is
Sigma 17-50 2.8
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 580 EX II

I am thinking of upgrading to a Canon 7D. Part of the reason is for the much better focusing system for action shots of wildlife.

I am also wondering if there will be any significant improvement in ISO performance from the 50D, or would a better option would be to invest in glass.

Thank you for any advice.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2012)

bklein61 said:


> I currently own
> 
> Canon 50D
> Canon 70-300L is
> ...



Ah yes. I consider the 50D to 7D one of those tough decisions. Yes, the 7D overall probably is better, but the 50D is already so good it will be very hard to justify the upgrade. No signficant improvement in ISO I'd say, just look at Bryan Carnathan's website. If you're 50D is not that old, I personally wouldn't make the move. The only improvement I'd make from 50D would be to either FF or a newer APS-C camera that has not come out yet. That's just what I would do. Get some good glass.


----------



## Menace (Jul 14, 2012)

I agree, get better glass and keep the 50d for now. I suggest investing in lens(es) that you can keep if/when you upgrade to FF as that's where you'll get much better high ISO performance. 

Do let us know what you decide to do


----------



## lol (Jul 14, 2012)

I went through that change some years ago. Of course it depends on what you want to do, but the AF of the 7D is a bit better, and to me the high ISO is a little better. At ISO1600+ the noise isn't really much different in level, but the 50D is more prone to banding when provoked which the 7D doesn't do. At low ISO there isn't any significant difference. If that is worth it for you is another matter... depends on what your weakest link is.


----------



## brianboru (Jul 14, 2012)

I just went from a 40D to a 7D a couple of months ago which is more of a jump than you are contemplating but I think is still relevant.

I appreciate:

The higher resolution that lets me crop a bit more when lens reach runs out.
The integrated ETTL controller.
The improved weather sealing - although I try not to test it. 
Much better auto-white-balance
Bummed about: 

The idiot-mode-sports-setting on the 40D set a minimum exposure (seemingly 1/500) and let auto-iso/auto-exposure settings take over. While I like the other improvements for sports, I really wish I could have that minimum-expo setting back.
The high iso-performance isn't as much of an improvement as I had hoped.


----------



## elflord (Jul 15, 2012)

bklein61 said:


> I am thinking of upgrading to a Canon 7D. Part of the reason is for the much better focusing system for action shots of wildlife.
> 
> I am also wondering if there will be any significant improvement in ISO performance from the 50D, or would a better option would be to invest in glass.
> 
> Thank you for any advice.



No significant improvement in ISO performance, so it boils down to better AF and weather sealing.

If you're thinking of this for your wildlife pictures, you can gain a stop at 300mm (more at shorter focal lengths) by getting faster glass (for example, 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4, sigma 100-300 f/4). You get a large bump in high ISO performance by going full frame but you also lose reach.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 15, 2012)

I think a 40D to a 7D upgrade would be easy to justify. I just can't in my mind, say that about the 50D to 7D upgrade. I'm liking a few of the other posts on here that are in agreement. Probably best to keep the 50D and buy a new lens. Good luck!


----------



## Aglet (Jul 15, 2012)

I use 50D and 7D (& 40D)

- 7D's noise structure is finer textured at higher ISO but at low ISO may have strong vertical shadow banding if you push your exposure in post. (My 7D really annoys me in this area and I hope the v2 firmware can address the problem)

- 50D does not have a strong vertical banding problem at low ISO like the 7D but has overall higher blotchy red noise at all ISO which can become quite noticeable if you don't use a raw converter with good noise reduction

- 7D's AF system is pretty good and adaptable for lots of purposes, you may find it an advantage for wildlife and birds-in-flight shooting. It's no panacea but it can improve your keeper rate with a given lens.
Worth reading the manual on how to use it and then experiment with it to familiarize yourself to the differences compared to 50D/40D

- 7D's faster shooting rate can provide an extra few shots/second which might be worthwhile for birding or other animal action.

Overall, I'd say the 7D is a noticeable step up from the 50D. If it's worthwhile to you depends on if you can justify the added cost and weigh that against whatever Canon may bring out next for a high performance APS-C camera. Consider that the 7D is nearly 3 years old already, it's about time for something of an upgrade - but in this case that may just be the new v2 firmware that's coming (August?) which unlocks more of the potential of the hardware already inside it. That may buy Canon another year to develop something better for a 7D replacement since they're feeling the heat from the competition.

You have some decent glass already, if it's optically up to what you need then a body upgrade may be the next hardware item to wring out more imaging performance. Honing one's photography skills, especially when it comes to wildlife, is also a prime investment.


----------



## nicku (Jul 15, 2012)

I have never worked with 50D to know the ISO difference. I had upgraded from 40D (same AF as 50D) to 7D. i will never go back to the classic 9 points AF of any Canon DSLR. In my opinion only the AF difference of the cameras is a good enough reason to upgrade.


----------



## brought1 (Jul 15, 2012)

I'll try to keep this short and sweet as many of you have posted excellent points!


Short of the overall quality of the image and possibly a touch better AF...and the Video capabilities, what can you do with the 7D that you HONESTLY cannot achieve with the 50D? 

The bump in resolution from 10.1 to 15 MP from the 40D to 50D, was significant in giving photographers a little more cropping room. However, the 50D and 7D images are nearly identical. 

IMO - you're better off saving your $ for better lenses or additional photography equipment instead of changing from one cropped sensor to another. High ISO - Banding... is even apparent in the best cameras if completely pushed to their limit. 

So, the EXTRA stuff you get in the 7D...is it worth paying the extra $ for what you can usually adjust in Post? Plus...what and when are you going to print larger than a 16 x 20? Now-a-days, people are forgoing the prints for placing the image on digital media outlets where their high resolution image is automatically scaled down to a 50-100 kb file....

Be realistic and practical! If you were looking to start photography, then I would have a completely different point of view than if you already own something that is very good! Learn to use your equipment to it's max...and just then, when you're needing more than what your current camera can offer...than make a decision to upgrade.


----------



## lol (Jul 15, 2012)

brought1, I think you're understating the differences from 50D to 7D. Considered individually they might not be massive enough on their own, but lots of small improvements do add up. The differences are not something "you can usually adjust in Post".


----------



## Sony (Jul 15, 2012)

My story:
_ I bought T1i + 18-55mm IS + 55-250mm IS years ago: wasnt happy with the outcomes.
_ Bought 10-22mm + 50mm f/1.4: better but not much.
_ Bought 50D body: improved but still unsatisfied.
_ Bought 24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS: big difference. Totally satisfied.
_ Sold T1i + 18-55 + 55-250; bought 100mm f/2.8 IS macro and Tokina 10-17mm fisheye: wow!
_ Was told by a friend to upgrade to 7D (he had 7D with same lenses almost). I didnt do after comparing the two's outcomes.
_ Just bought 5DMkiii 2 months ago: wow!wow!wow! real upgrade.
My conclusion: 50D is good enough comparing to 7D except 1 f/stop ISO and AF. Invest in excelent glasses. After that, save and be patiently waiting to jump to real upgrade with real issue: money!!!
I still keep 50D with me. Love it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 15, 2012)

This really doesn't weigh in the argument here, but I thought I'd share for some perspective. While the 7D is a great APS-C camera, actually if you look at all cameras available right now, at comparable pricing, the 1Ds Mark II actually has greater IQ than the 7D. I owned the 7D but sold it when I got the 5D Mark III, but I noticed that on ebay the 1Ds Mark II, in pretty good shape, was selling for the same price as that of a new 7D. The IQ is superior and at least in my experience, color rendition and saturation is similar to the 1Ds Mark III. However, I think it should be. It was once a flagship model retailing for $7999 in 2005. My point is that many reviews and myself seeing this, would attest to the fact that regarding IQ, the 50D to 7D upgrade is a pretty soft upgrade and not likely necessary. However, if I had the 30D or 40D, I'd upgrade in a hearbeat. 

Going to FF from a 50D would be an individual matter. Now you loose the 1.6x crop factor reach. Consider this review:


7D:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

50D:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-50D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx


----------



## gary (Jul 16, 2012)

I bought a 50d about 4 years ago and this year bought a 5d mkiii. The difference is huge, but I have kept my 50d as a back up, it still takes great pictures and gives me that extra reach when I need it. If you are looking for another crop camera and only a crop, then I would stay with what you have for the time being and invest in a lens or two. I am really glad I made the investment in EF as opposed to EFS lenses and if you ever consider the change to FF I would recommend you do the same.


----------



## Otara (Jul 16, 2012)

I had a 50D, and flooded it in underwater photography then got the 7D to replace it.

I love it, but cant really say it was night and day. Some of the things that annoyed me most in the 40D had already been fixed, ie no microadjust, and preview for RAW pictures. Video is of course something thats nice to have, and has been fantastic to have the option underwater in particular - not sure how good the magic lantern version is on the 50D.


----------



## brought1 (Jul 16, 2012)

lol said:


> brought1, I think you're understating the differences from 50D to 7D. Considered individually they might not be massive enough on their own, but lots of small improvements do add up. The differences are not something "you can usually adjust in Post".




After spending time shooting with both cameras, I do agree that the 7D is a mighty fine speciman, however, from a practical standpoint, I'm sorry, you can equally get beautiful results from either camera. And yes, eventually small improvements will make a difference, but not in this scenario. Unless you have an endless budget or absolutely must have high end gear, you'll learn that you purchase the gear you need/must in order to give you an edge or to stay current. Comparing these two to someone who already has a 50D is a moot point, andthey've probably have in an order for a full frame camera already. And in that case, they should be looking to upgrade their lenses. 

And about the "post-editing," if you wouldn't mind sharing what cannot be achieved in post. In all honesty, I try as best as I can to nail each and every exposure every time so I don't have to futz with post production, however, let's be practical, I have several weddings coming up and one just happens to be in a catholic church...poor lighting, no flash allowed, high ISO is expected. I would take a 7D over a 50D any day for that application, however, because I know the circumstances, I won't even bother with a 7d and jump straight to my 5D mk2 with my primes to offset noise and to get down to 1.2 or to extreme measures, my 50mm 1.0 to really avoid noise...but even with those components, you're still going to make small adjustments in post. 

For all that read this, please know I'm not trying to be argumentative towards anyone, just being practical. If you already have a 50d and want to upgrade, you might be better off going full frame, but this depends on your NEEDS as a photographer. If full frame is out of the question, then save your $$ and get better glass. Quick example...how much would you really get back if you sold your 50d? Not too much, believe me...or don't...go to eBay and check used prices...you will be taking quite a hit selling your 50d and end up shelling out more for the 7d with nothing left for better lenses. These little accommodations on the 7d do NOT justify a complete need to switch bodies unless your after the video feature, which then, the 7d will work just fine. 

For the original owner of this post, think of your purchases as if you run a business and have to justify your expenses instead of reading which camera has the best specs and you won't go wrong. One last point...GET WHAT YOU NEED TO BE CURRENT and WORK AT BEING A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER...

Thanks.


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Jul 16, 2012)

As a videographer, I always forget that people buy the 7D to take photos. I've probably released the shutter 200 times in the 2.5 years I've owned mine, but made around $100k off exclusively the video feature. It was a good investment. Now it's getting a bit long in the tooth video wise compared to competitors but I'm sure with the V2 firmware it will excel as a stills camera for as long as it keeps working.


----------



## lol (Jul 16, 2012)

brought1 said:


> After spending time shooting with both cameras, I do agree that the 7D is a mighty fine speciman, however, from a practical standpoint, I'm sorry, you can equally get beautiful results from either camera. And yes, eventually small improvements will make a difference, but not in this scenario.


It isn't all or nothing, but I'm thinking about maximising the chances in borderline situations. It's not that the 50D can't do some things, just that the 7D can make them easier. One less thing for you to worry about.

To me the biggest two differences are the AF and high ISO characteristic of the sensor. The original poster mentioned wildlife, which is also one of my main interest areas. Often you have conflicting needs in this type of scenario, needing a fast shutter to prevent motion blur, and using needing to stop down for adequate depth of field. Generally that means higher ISO usage. Tracking a fast moving subject is a bit easier with the 7D than 50D. No, the 7D isn't perfect either, far from it, but it does increase the chances in your favour. If the AF was off, no sane amount of PP is going to rescue that. Similarly with high ISO, I'd hesitate to use ISO3200 on the 50D due to the colour banding that appears then (similar on the similar generation 5D2), where you just don't get this on the 7D even at 6400+.

So of course I'm not saying anyone needs a 7D, but it does offer tangible improvements over a 50D when used in similar roles. It is for a given person to weigh if that is a worthwhile upgrade e.g. if a lens upgrade might achieve a better result.


----------



## skitron (Jul 18, 2012)

Otara said:


> Video is of course something thats nice to have, and has been fantastic to have the option underwater in particular - not sure how good the magic lantern version is on the 50D.



I've had pretty good luck out of it - of course no on board sound though.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 19, 2012)

bklein61 said:


> I currently own
> 
> Canon 50D
> Canon 70-300L is
> ...



Yes its worth the upgrade to the 7D, because you can down-sample the 18mp files and reduce the grain tremendously for decent sized prints.


----------

