I have no money, but I plan to have a whole lot some day! That being the case, I like to dream. Right now, I am really feeling the desire to get a better camera body. Not being greedy in my dreams, I am not looking at the 1D. So the question comes down to the 7D or the 5D Mark II. The 7D is like $1,000 cheaper. As far as I can tell, it has some advantages over the 5D Mark II, but mainly just in video. The 5D is a full frame sensor, which seems neat.Video doesn't really matter to me, as I would probably only use it for quick documentation of shoots or something. So is a full frame sensor worth $1000? Are there any other drastic changes that make the 5D better or worse?
Do you have EF-S lenses? If so, they won't work on the 5D. If all your lenses are EF lenses then the 5D may be a good option for you. Otherwise, I'd go with the 7D. Unless you're interested in replacing your lenses as well.
+ in reply to...
Fortunately, I have no lenses really. I have the old 18-55 kit lens that comes on the 350D. If ever I needed something more, I rented it. I couldn't bring myself to buy big fancy lenses that may or may not function properly on my next body.So lenses aren't much of an issue at all, except I do shoot wide a lot. That is one thing that is tempting with the full frame sensor, however I am not sure how big of a deal that is when shooting wide (not fisheye. I pretty much don't like fisheye)
Morty, with the kind of shots that you do you should seriously look at the 5D. The full frame can really help with wide angle shots. Look at the availability of wide angle lenses in the EF and EF-s range and take into account the 1.6x crop factor of the 7D. Do you like wide angle shots? I know a lot of really awesome snowboarding photos are taken with wide angle lenses. If you like the look of these you may have more luck getting the wide angle look with a full frame sensor. Also consider *noise*. It should be lower with the larger sensor, especially at higher ISO, and you like night photography too dont you?One advantage of the 7D is that its more compact and lighter (I think).
Oh boy. I wish I had not seen this thread. I just looked up the 7D. I want one. BUT, I just read that camera raw and Light Room dont support the raw files on the 7D!!! WTF??? The article says eventually they will. Eeeek! Maybe by the time I can afford one of these bad boys, all that will be resolved.
If you can afford the 5D don't even think twice. A full frame sensor makes a huge difference. Just remember it does not have a built in flash(not sure if the 7D has one), not that it is needed but it is something to keep in mind.
I like all sizes of camera small and large, each and every format has it's pro's and cons.Except one format, which I hate. I am talking about cropped sensor SLR's. I hate them because they are a kludge, when your normal lens is allready a telephoto then all your regular photos are done through crippled optics! OK, true, I do use them myself, as do the major part of serious shooters these days, but that is because it is the only option for high quality pictures at realistic prices. And a lot of professional shooters, even Canon and Nikon ones, have no intention of moving away from cropped sensors, the D300s and 7D are aimed at a solid market. And yet despite the evident viability and enconomics of cropped sensor cameras, every time I use one (particularly at the wide end) something in the back of my mind is telling me 'this is a kludge'. I still shoot film occasionaly, so the difference between cropped and full frame is continuously hammered home!To tell the truth even full frame is far from perfect, the 50mm mormal lenses are still a bit long in the tooth and you only have to look at the most popular focal lengths for rangefinders to understand that they survived the SLR by being so much better for wide angle shooting. So, if I had any pretentions of doing any sort of commercial photography I am sure I would be using a full frame, allthougth probably a D700 rather than a 5D MkII as I think the former has the edge.But I'm not, photography for me is a hobby and 3000 for a full frame system is just too much to justify! But, the original MkI 5D's are now selling second hand for less than 1K, and that is getting very tempting....very tempting indeed!
hmm...now I know what it must be like when non-physicists watch "big bang theory"
Just as a rough indication, the 7D is more suitable for sports and wildlife photographers, mainly due to its cropped sensor and the fast fps (frames per second). The 5D is more suited for landscape work and anything where a narrow depth of field is important. Also, the high iso performance of the 5D Mk II is somewhat better than the 7D.
solipsism saidnow I know what it must be like when non-physicists watch "big bang theory"
I'm thinking all those men and women going up and down.....What do physicists think?
This really does amount to a difficult decision. I do shoot wide so full frame is tempting, especially with how you guys are saying it's a pretty solid difference (I am going to go look for direct comparison shots). But on the other hand, I HATE the 3fps of my 350D, and 3.9fps is a pretty small upgrade. The 8fps of the 7D is mighty exciting. Guess I need to get both!
I am guessing adobe will be on the update to ACR pretty quickly since the 7D is a popular body. New bodies have always had support issues and adobe is pretty well on top of the updates.
Stadsman saidAlso, the high iso performance of the 5D Mk II is somewhat better than the 7D.
Which could translate to higher shutter speeds ;-) Methinks of this:http://www.davidbergman.net/blog/2008/09/03/no-sports-illustrated-cover-jinx-for-me/ Good point about wildlife and the crop factor, I guess cropped sensors make a lot of sense where you need to be with long lenses all the time.
mortalwombat saidI do shoot wide so full frame is tempting, especially with how you guys are saying it's a pretty solid difference
These days you can pick up film SLR's for less than the cost of a roll of film, why not try one out ;-)
That being the case, as soon as you buy a roll of film you have just doubled your investment. :pOk, that is a silly reason, but cost is a big part of it. I can get 1,000 shots in a day of shooting, and it costs me nothing. It scares me to think of how much it would cost to shoot and develop that many shots on film. And I don't have time, space, or the desire to develop myself. I have a huge appreciation for film photographers. It is a beautiful art that I hope never dies completely, but it's not an art I personally want to get into.
When the main advantage is at the wide angle end, and his 18-55mm kit lens wont work on a film camera, hed have to buy a lens too. Thatll put the price up a fair bit. Of course he could hire an appropriate lens.
I would definitely be buying a nice 14mm, f2.8 lens if I were to get a decent body. I am actually really tempted to get one now. I think it will work ok with the 350D, short of the crop sensor.
I only shoot the odd roll of film here or there, rest is digital ;-)I was suggesting it for experience, not to do your normal photography with.
the 7D is niiiiiiice. I got to play with one at a Canon rep's booth last week. But the 5D is also nice (mk I or mkII) and the full-frame consideration is something indeed . . . but, the AF on the 7D is OUTRAGEOUS and is at least 2 generations better than the 5DI/5DII . . . so, if high FPS is your thing then the 7D is the obvious choice.If accurate AF is your thing, the 7D also has the edge
mortalwombat saidI have no lenses really
Given that, why not add the D700 to your list? As a 20D shooter, I waited for what seemed like forever for the 5DMk2, and finally realized that since I didn't have lenses either, I really didn't have a good reason to stick with Canon. With a D700, you'd get better low light performance, better fps, and a way better autofocus system. And save money. That all being said, it's not really a totally seamless thing to switch. After almost two years, I still think Canon's ergonomics are better (I doubt one is really better than the other, but it's hard to change what you're used to). You'd need a new speedlight. Nikon's processing software is junk, and worse they charge you for it. Lens selection is more limited (though I'd rather have the Nikon 24-70 than anything in Canon's lineup). If I had to choose now that the 5DMk2 is finally out, I'd still prefer the Nikon, though of course the Canon's also a great camera.As for full-frame vs. crop, another full-frame advantage is a brighter viewfinder. Full-frame sharpness is generally better in the center of the frame (since the pixels are larger, the lens doesn't need to resolve as well). However, sharpness in the corners can be worse.Happy dreaming...
arodrix saidAs for full-frame vs. crop, another full-frame advantage is a brighter viewfinder. Full-frame sharpness is generally better in the center of the frame (since the pixels are larger, the lens doesn't need to resolve as well). However, sharpness in the corners can be worse.
The 7D's viewfinder's brighter than the 5dmkII's and it's 100% coverage . . Soemthing only 1D cameras have had.
ChronicPest saidThe 7D's viewfinder's brighter than the 5dmkII's and it's 100% coverage . .
The 5DmkII is 98%, so that's almost equal.I don't see how the 7D can be brighter. It's a smaller viewfinder than the 5DmkII, but not enough to make it brighter.There's just more light to play with in a full-frame. With a crop sensor, don't you either you magnify it and make it dimmer or keep it as bright but smaller?
There's more light for a fullframe viewfinder but there's more surface area over which it's spread :)Viewfinder brightness is also a function of focusing screen and pentaprism design. The 7D's is more 1D like than the 5D's so it's higher performance. The 7D's 1.6 crop viewfinder is *larger* than the 1DmkIII's 1.3 crop due to the differences in magnification, Reviews are calling it brighter, and having played with both I have to agree. Even amongst 35mm viewfinders there's varriation. They say the Sony Alpha full frame camera has the most luxuriously large and bright viewfinder of any 35mm DSLR . . .
As far as brightness is concerned it is not the coverage that counts but the magnification.The 7D is 1.0X (so 24mm wide) whilst the 5D is 0.71, hence 25mm wide, then adjust for the 98% coverage and they are almost exactly the same size. But the light intensity in the 5D will be nearly twice as high <b>assuming the optics have the same transparency</b>. Whilst you don't expect them to save money on the focusing screen or pentaprism, remember that the biggest loss of light is in the mirror where some light gets let through for the metering, but according to DPreview specs they are both 40/60.So there we have it, the 5D should theoretically be brighter.As far as viewfinder sizes are concerned, I have a full frame with a 1.0X viewfinder (film!), and I find it is too big, I have to kind of move my head to see into the corners! Whilst some viewfinders can be a bit too small (like 0.7x mag on a cropped sensor), viewfinders can be too big as well!
Buy both and give me the one you don't use :-PPersonally, I've drooled over the 5D Mark I for years...And now the Mark II is like icing on the already over-iced cake...My numbers keep getting progressively smaller in my quest for 5D'ness: 350, 30, 20...Heck, I'd even settle for a 6.5!For me, video is non-issue - It's like the tootsie roll in the middle of a lolli-pop...Nice surprise, but not my favorite. But I see how that could be an important deciding factor for others. As far as full-frame goes, the cropped bodies are a waste, it's sad and I do miss the MMs that get inconspicuously shaved off with the cropped sensors I currently own...But I'd still take the Mark II over the 7 even if it was cropped...Chalk it up to idol worship.