5D MKII or 7D for my needs?

[yoak]

I´m a film/TV cameraman by trade, but lately I have taken more and more stills as well.
Usually this involves documenting interviews I´ve done and/or production stills that would later be used for publicity. Newspapers, magazines etc.
I´ve used my trusted 20D for 4 years, but I´m thinking of upgrading as the cameras have gotten ok HD capabillities as well.
I would like a FF camera, but I´m not sure it´s "necessary". I don´t won´t a kit that is too heavy as I have to bring it in addition to my HD camera and video gear.
And I don´t want to spend too much as I rather spend money on a new flash recorder for my HD camera and other video gear.
Does anyone have a suggestion of what camera would suit my needs best?
Some pros and cons of each that I haven´t thought of?

PS I realize the 7D has only been tested in Beta versions so far and we really can´t tell the IQ yet, but I presume it will be pretty good.
(I´m invested in Canon + I have access to great glass, not just my own, so a Nikon is out of the question)

 

[JFreak]

I'm not sure it is necessary to upgrade at all! If you have extra money, buy a nice L lens that you can be happy with for "decades"...

 

[wheelhot]

Hmm, what lenses do you have? And what kind of photographs are you planning to use it for?

 

[localghost]

If you are happy with the AF-performance of the 20d, and only use in addition to the video gear, 5d II (UWA, small DOF, high ISO, overall IQ). If you plan to use it for breaking-news stills a lot, I’d say 7d (tons of useful features, probably pro-grade AF, pixel density saves weight with long lenses).

Waiting a little longer might be wise, though. In a couple of month more 7d reviews will be out, prices down, availability up and we’ll probably see the 1dIV. Maybe even a low res, full frame, pro AF camera with a 7d/5d sized body (700d-style).

 

[JFreak]

Waiting a little longer might be wise, though. In a couple of month more (...) we’ll probably see the 1dIV. Maybe even a low res, full frame, pro AF camera with a 7d/5d sized body (700d-style).

We'll going to have to wait way longer than that.

Currently, all market segments are satisfied with Canon models, so there's no rush for them to release any new models. I would be surprised if there was a 5dm3 until 2011 or a 1Dm4 until 2012.

Though their marketing department could insist on a new model in *2009* to spur sales, but in that case I'd predict a xxxD (rebel) series entry-level cheapo model, and even in 2010 I'd think it was a xxD series prosumer model.

The big ones are refreshed just recently, I doubt we'll see new models very soon.

 

[yoak]

Thanks for the input guys.
JFreak; Do you think I will get more out of investing in new glass than a new body?
I don´t know how much the IQ has advanced in the latest upgrades of these cameras.
I do feel the AF struggels a bit, but I guess I can live with it

 

[anubis]

Hope you don't plan on stopping down past f/5.6 with the 7D. The pixel density is so high that at f/5.6 you're already diffraction limited, and that's taking into account bayer mask antialiasing.

No one listens to me in the 7D debate though : /

 

[OreoCookie]

If you're using your 20D in a normal ISO range (say, between 100 and 400), you will likely notice only a larger dynamic range (up to 9~10 EV under optimal conditions). Regarding size and weight, the 7D and the 5D are about the same.

I also wouldn't buy either of them for their video capabilities, they are dslrs with video bolted onto the feature set. Especially if you're a professional, I'm not sure they're up to your standard. (Although that's also me talking, video features generally leave me unexcited.)

You don't sound as if you need the extra resolution in the stills, from your post I get the vague desire it may be time for something new. If you have spare money lying around, I'd think about investing it into a nice lens instead.

 

[peskaa]

We'll going to have to wait way longer than that.

Currently, all market segments are satisfied with Canon models, so there's no rush for them to release any new models. I would be surprised if there was a 5dm3 until 2011 or a 1Dm4 until 2012.

Rubbish. The 1D segment of the market wants a new model soon - Nikon's offering better with the D3/D3x, and the 1D/1Ds III are using out-of-date AF, image processing (DiGiC III still), lack video and other new LiveView functionality and whole rafts of features on the new 7D (horizon levels etc).

Most of my colleagues (myself included) are buying 5D Mark IIs over the 1Ds III as the 1Ds doesn't offer enough to justify the very very large premium currently being asked. Canon need to release a 1Ds IV that will clearly surpass the 5D Mark II in every regard (5-6fps, 30mp etc), and enough to justify the price tag. They then need a 1D Mark IV that will shoot at 10-11 fps, at circa 16mp on either a FF or APS-H sensor (I personally don't mind APS-H as the III typically has telephotos on it, and some level of crop is useful) with killer AF.

So yeah, there's demand for a new camera.


OP:
Personally, sounds like you don't need a 5D Mark II. I'd personally spend it on a 7D depending how they pan out, and get some decent lenses if you don't have any already. The 5DII is a great camera, but expensive and probably overkill.

 

[toxic]

T1i or 7D. I don't see what you gain from a 5D...i'm not even sure why you'd need a 7D.

then grab a few manual focus lenses (more precise focusing ring than AF lenses) and an adapter to fit them on EF mount. just about any mount will work except Canon FL or FD. another plus for APS-C cameras is you won't have to worry about mirror clearance.

Hope you don't plan on stopping down past f/5.6 with the 7D. The pixel density is so high that at f/5.6 you're already diffraction limited, and that's taking into account bayer mask antialiasing.

The diffraction cutoff frequency

and here's another good read, if you're up for it: The understated utility of smaller pixels

 

[yoak]

I find my self quite often in low light situation and was hoping to gain some from the newer cameras.
I´m not sure when I see the pixel count these days though, but I have read that the sensors have improved.

The video function I don´t think I´ll use much as the ergonomics of a stills camera dosen´t lend it self well to "filming" I think.

I have a set of FD primes that I don´t think I´m able to use as the mount has changed, or can I get an adapter for them? (doubt it)

 

[ralphbu]

I've got a 5dMK II and a 20D and...

The 20D is a nice camera, but the 5D is massively better. Massive too. But the low light performance is way better and the video is extremely impressive, very good color that is in my opinion significantly better than the Canon HV30. It's not nearly as convenient to use, because of its bulk, but it seems way better except for 15 min approx length of shot limitation. Good lenses are not going to make nearly the difference that you would get upgrading to the 5D. The 7D looks extremely interesting too, that may be the winner for you.

 

[wheezy]

The diffraction cutoff frequency

and here's another good read, if you're up for it: The understated utility of smaller pixels

I feel stupid now. That Daniel dude is a physics master. At least when it comes to photography technology. Geeeeeees.

-------

I too am anxious to upgrade from the 20D. It's a very solid performer, but it's also 4 years old. A lot has changed in 4 years. I'll be on the 7D on release day, pretty sure I was the first person in my area to get on the waiting list at the camera shop, and they're big enough that they'll have it on game day.

 

[Phrasikleia]

The diffraction cutoff frequency

Interesting read. This is the most relevant part for this thread:

"Even at f/11, the 7D offers *some* improvement over the 40D. Diffraction will never cause the 7D to have *worse* resolution. But in extreme circumstances (e.g. f/22+) it will only be the same, not better. At f/11, the returns will be diminished so that the 7D is only somewhat better."

 

[BigSky20]

I am also running into the same decision. I just bought the 5D Mark II last month and now I am thinking about selling it to buy the 7D.

I usually shoot landscapes, cityscapes, indoor low light situations, some sports, and some nature shots. My reason for changing would be for the new focusing system, the exposure system, the 8 fps, and the 24p video option. My problem is I absolutely love the 5D Mark II and I am still in awe over its low light capability. I just wish it had the same features as a camera $1000 less. So, the question I guess is $1000 more worth it for a full frame camera?

I am trying to work this question out before I put the 5D Mark II on EBay. I almost say yes because of the amazing low light ability and the sharpness of the images I have shot so far. I am not using alot of L lenses, but mainly a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens and the images look amazing!

I do not think you will make a bad decision either way. If anyone has advice for the best best camera for my needs, please let me know.

Thanks!

 

[localghost]

I find my self quite often in low light situation and was hoping to gain some from the newer cameras.
I´m not sure when I see the pixel count these days though, but I have read that the sensors have improved.

The video function I don´t think I´ll use much as the ergonomics of a stills camera dosen´t lend it self well to "filming" I think.

I have a set of FD primes that I don´t think I´m able to use as the mount has changed, or can I get an adapter for them? (doubt it)

Low light + EOS = 5d II
My private camera is an old 5d, about the same noise on pixel level as the 20d (albeit because of the increased resolution it’s a lot less noticeable). The 1d III I use at work is lot better (1-2 stops). The 5d II (co-worker) seems to top that _at the pixel level_ (about twice the resolution, files hold up very well in PP).

As far as I can tell with the few online samples, the 7d is very good for a crammed crop sensor, but nowhere near the 5d II. I believe it’s save to assume that canon will implement this technology in a new low res full frame sensor, the rumored „lord of the darkness“. If you have to buy the bulky 1-series (due for a refresh first half of 2010) to get that sensor, remains to be seen.

FD primes only work 100% with an optical converter. The original one from canon is very hard to get, and only works with a few lenses. So you’d either have to put up with a heavy loss of IQ (third-party converters) or you lose infinity focus (without optical converter). Another problem is that none of the converters can stop the lens down, you have to do that before you mount it or shoot wide open.

 

[toxic]

I usually shoot landscapes, cityscapes, indoor low light situations, some sports, and some nature shots. My reason for changing would be for the new focusing system, the exposure system, the 8 fps, and the 24p video option. My problem is I absolutely love the 5D Mark II and I am still in awe over its low light capability. I just wish it had the same features as a camera $1000 less. So, the question I guess is $1000 more worth it for a full frame camera?

you need to answer this question: what is more important to you, the vastly improved systems in the 7D (particularly the AF), or the superior image quality in the 5DII, from base ISO all the way to 6400?

since you say you only shoot "some sports" and "some nature", I lean towards the 5D.

I almost say yes because of the amazing low light ability and the sharpness of the images I have shot so far.

just keep in mind that APS-C sensors still have a ways to go to match the high-ISO performance of the old 5D, introduced in 2005... as for of out-of-camera sharpness (as in acutance), assuming you shoot RAW, the 7D should at least be about the same. if you mean sharpness as in resolution (fine detail), you'll have to wait for RAW images, but I doubt it - the 50D from less than a year ago has only just come within striking distance of the 5D from 4 years ago.

 

[yoak]

Lots of good information coming out.
From looking at the specs, the weight and size is almost identical.
I see the 7D comes with a built in flash and that can come in handy for me. As I would prefer not to have to carry a flash with me as I have a lot of gear with me normally.
Still not sure what to do though.
Is there a release date set for the 7D yet?

 

[CrackedButter]

Rubbish. The 1D segment of the market wants a new model soon - Nikon's offering better with the D3/D3x, and the 1D/1Ds III are using out-of-date AF, image processing (DiGiC III still), lack video and other new LiveView functionality and whole rafts of features on the new 7D (horizon levels etc).

So yeah, there's demand for a new camera.

http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/H...OS-1Ds-Mark-III/Introduction-The-Matchup.html

Seems pretty even to me. Also when you're talking about demand, who is going to buy a 1dsmk4? Why would Canon release such a camera during the economic downturn, who would buy it? Pro's? Not if news desks across the country are downsizing. But I'm only guessing here for practical reasons, Nikon and Leica were criticised for releasing expensive cameras recently.

You've just said people are buying the 5D instead, so maybe Canon is okay with that until the end of next year. The 1dsmk3 was just only released like early last year? When you're talking about high frames per second as well I would go look at the 1dmk3 instead, it already does 10fps.

 

[peskaa]

http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/H...OS-1Ds-Mark-III/Introduction-The-Matchup.html

Seems pretty even to me. Also when you're talking about demand, who is going to buy a 1dsmk4? Why would Canon release such a camera during the economic downturn, who would buy it? Pro's? Not if news desks across the country are downsizing. But I'm only guessing here for practical reasons, Nikon and Leica were criticised for releasing expensive cameras recently.

You've just said people are buying the 5D instead, so maybe Canon is okay with that until the end of next year. The 1dsmk3 was just only released like early last year? When you're talking about high frames per second as well I would go look at the 1dmk3 instead, it already does 10fps.

Right, for a start, I work in the photojournalist industry, with first-hand knowledge of picture desks and the people that shoot for them. The 1Ds series have always had a "limited" market, but that market doesn't magically go away - even during an economic "downturn" (which, incidentally, is beginning to reverse). Photographers make their money off their equipment, and as such, spending on equipment is second nature and usually part of the business plan. Picture desks may be reducing their numbers of staffers, but there's also a lot of freelancers out there who fund their own equipment. Kit spend will always be there.

Why would Canon be okay with people spending a third of the money with them? People are picking up the 5D2 simply because the 1Ds isn't competitive any more - so why bother producing a camera hardly anybody wants to buy? That alone should be justification for a new model. The most common combo for Canon shooters I see is a 1D3 and a 5D2, when it used to be the 1DIIN & 1DsII.

As for the comment about "go look at the 1D Mark III", sure thing, I've got mine right in front of me. Great camera (well, once the AF got fixed), but again really showing its age (mine was purchased in August 2007) in terms of functions. 10mp is enough (read: plenty) for newspaper work, but struggles for editorial/commercial - boosting to 16mp and retaining the FPS would make a true killer camera with a very wide range of uses.


Oh, and the 1DsIII was launched on the 20th August 2007, with the 1D III on the 22nd Feb 2007. Not early 2008.

 

[CrackedButter]

Right, for a start, I work in the photojournalist industry, with first-hand knowledge of picture desks and the people that shoot for them. The 1Ds series have always had a "limited" market, but that market doesn't magically go away - even during an economic "downturn" (which, incidentally, is beginning to reverse). Photographers make their money off their equipment, and as such, spending on equipment is second nature and usually part of the business plan. Picture desks may be reducing their numbers of staffers, but there's also a lot of freelancers out there who fund their own equipment. Kit spend will always be there.

Why would Canon be okay with people spending a third of the money with them? People are picking up the 5D2 simply because the 1Ds isn't competitive any more - so why bother producing a camera hardly anybody wants to buy? That alone should be justification for a new model. The most common combo for Canon shooters I see is a 1D3 and a 5D2, when it used to be the 1DIIN & 1DsII.

As for the comment about "go look at the 1D Mark III", sure thing, I've got mine right in front of me. Great camera (well, once the AF got fixed), but again really showing its age (mine was purchased in August 2007) in terms of functions. 10mp is enough (read: plenty) for newspaper work, but struggles for editorial/commercial - boosting to 16mp and retaining the FPS would make a true killer camera with a very wide range of uses.


Oh, and the 1DsIII was launched on the 20th August 2007, with the 1D III on the 22nd Feb 2007. Not early 2008.

Who said the market will magically go away? Most people are fickle minded anyway, people buy the 5dmk2, then see the newer 1dsmk4 down the line and will want to upgrade, from Canon's perspective they will have bought 2 cameras. You only have to look on here to see that some people are wanting to sell their 5dmk2's for the newer 7d.
People just don't buy bodies either, they invest in lenses, try switching just because Canon are going to release a camera a little later than planned.

You can tell me how much you're 'into' the industry but it doesn't count for squat unless you're in the know with Canon. Time will tell whether Canon release it during the downturn or not.

Since you're in the industry you would also know that freelancers rates are being cut because of the economy , why buy new equipment if the margins are getting smaller? There is also the fact that any joe off the street with a camera phone will submit an image of an incident to a news desk for free. Free lancers are getting bitten both ends.

I wouldn't upgrade from my 1dsmk2 until I could see a real reason to. I've submitted work to newsdesks, the money they offer is a pittance. I've made more shooting weddings.

The release date isn't important otherwise I'd have looked it up on wikipedia like you did, the point was it is still relatively new as a camera. In any case, since the 1D series operate on a 3 year cycle, the most likely time would be 2010 anyway.

The comment regarding 'go look at the 1Dmk3' isn't what you thought I meant. Why would Canon release a 1dsmk4 with a fps so high it matches the 1dmk3? The 1d has always had lower megapixels but a higher frame rate than the 1ds series, would Canon break those characteristics between the 2 models?

 

[OreoCookie]

http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/H...OS-1Ds-Mark-III/Introduction-The-Matchup.html

Seems pretty even to me.

There are other reviews out there, this one didn't strike me as particularly scientific. In any case, I do agree with the basic criticism the reviewer has had with both cameras actually:

These failures pale in comparison to the major disappointment: neither camera brings anything new beyond pixel count to the market.

It would make sense if they'd make the cameras cheaper and a bit faster while keeping the feature set the same (after all, Canon has put a similar, probably more advanced sensor into the 5D Mark II). The price is the universal criticism to both cameras.

 

[peskaa]

Who said the market will magically go away? Most people are fickle minded anyway, people buy the 5dmk2, then see the newer 1dsmk4 down the line and will want to upgrade, from Canon's perspective they will have bought 2 cameras. You only have to look on here to see that some people are wanting to sell their 5dmk2's for the newer 7d.
People just don't buy bodies either, they invest in lenses, try switching just because Canon are going to release a camera a little later than planned.

This forum is in no way indicative of the general "pro" market - you'll find it is mainly the "prosumers" (I hate that word) and keen amateurs who constantly chase the latest gear just because they can. Most of my colleagues keep a camera until it breaks (usually from abuse mind), which right now seems to be loads of the original 5Ds and the 1Ds/1DIINs, pushing them into upgrade territory where the 1Ds doesn't hold much appeal.

Since you're in the industry you would also know that freelancers rates are being cut because of the economy , why buy new equipment if the margins are getting smaller? There is also the fact that any joe off the street with a camera phone will submit an image of an incident to a news desk for free. Free lancers are getting bitten both ends.

Freelancers are indeed getting bitten, hard. However, they still need the kit to do their job - might take longer to save up for something, but they still end up buying it. The downturn in payments is also helping to push the 5D2 over the 1Ds3 - after all, it is a third of the price, so Canon need to offer something special to entice people back.

I wouldn't upgrade from my 1dsmk2 until I could see a real reason to. I've submitted work to newsdesks, the money they offer is a pittance. I've made more shooting weddings.

Bingo. The 1Ds3 doesn't offer a real reason. No video, no horizon-levelling, etc. etc. Needs updating, badly - if only to a 1Ds3N which keeps the sensor and adds the newer processors with video etc.

Oh, and yeah, weddings always pay better. Always have done, always will.

The release date isn't important otherwise I'd have looked it up on wikipedia like you did, the point was it is still relatively new as a camera. In any case, since the 1D series operate on a 3 year cycle, the most likely time would be 2010 anyway.

People said that about Nikon too, and that they wouldn't go full frame - whoops. Release cycles are all well and good, but they have to be broken now and then if needs must.

The comment regarding 'go look at the 1Dmk3' isn't what you thought I meant. Why would Canon release a 1dsmk4 with a fps so high it matches the 1dmk3? The 1d has always had lower megapixels but a higher frame rate than the 1ds series, would Canon break those characteristics between the 2 models?

You missed my point. They need two cameras, 1DsIV & 1DIV. The former with the high resolution, lower FPS (24mp+, circa 4-5fps) as usual, and the latter with the high FPS (12-16mp, 10fps). However, they need to step up the game - Nikon offer FF across the professional range, just with different sensor sizes/FPS.



Anyway, this is drifting miiiiles off topic

 

[JFreak]

JFreak; Do you think I will get more out of investing in new glass than a new body?

Yes, definetely. Use your old body until its shutter dies or when you already have great glass *and* the new models offer something substantial for their price, for example, when you really feel the need to go full frame or shoot high frame rate for sports.

Great glass will serve you for "decades", new body only few years (if you always keep buying new body for little improvements).

 

[JFreak]

I find my self quite often in low light situation and was hoping to gain some from the newer cameras.

Seems you want to be buying fast glass instead of new body. Consider f/2.8 the slowest you think of buying, and that means sticking to very best (L) zooms or couple of primes that have useful focal length for your needs.

Perhaps the 16-35 f/2.8L would serve you best?