# 5D Mark II or 7D, which one would you recommend?



## lelkola (Jun 27, 2013)

Hi ya all!

I am wishing to upgrade my photography equipment, and at the moment I am balancing with two options.

5D mark II body: about 800  with a battery grip. Already taken about 50k shoots. (Renewing the shutter would cost around 350  if someday needed.)
7D body and 35 mm + 17-85 mm lenses for 700 . No idea (yet) how many pics taken.

I have read a lot of reviews and the most of them prefer 5D mk II. I don't need a very fast camera. I'd really like to go with 5D mk II, but I only have EF-S lenses and that body doesn't support them. Of course I'd love to upgrade my lenses too, but my wallet wouldn't like it that much.

So what do you think?


----------



## Dinardy (Jun 27, 2013)

If you already have EF-S lenses that you like and don't see a logical need for full frame, I would stick with the 7D until you're financially ready to make the jump. I love both of those cameras.


----------



## ronlane (Jun 27, 2013)

What is the need to upgrade your body? It may be a better solution to upgrade your glass first (to either EF or L glass). What body do you currently have? Glass will make a hugh difference and will buy you some time to put money away for the new camera body. Just a thought.


----------



## eswebster (Jun 29, 2013)

unless you find the body you have is limiting what you want, iso performance, etc. I would agree with ronlane that you should look at glass first.  I will add that i have the 5DII and love it.  The images are amazing and I enlarge my favorites for the walls around the house, the added MP help a good deal there.  My recommendation that glass should be first comes from the fact that i have a great body but am limited currently with the lack of glass i have.  Only wide angle for landscape.  Next is a 24 70 2.8 but those arent cheap.  

Regardless of what you do you'll love it.... only you can determine how you are going to use it and what makes the most sense.


----------



## grafxman (Jun 30, 2013)

Since you already have lenses suitable for the 7D then that's the camera you should buy. I used a 7D for years before I bought a 6D. Going to lenses for a full frame camera is proving to be vexing for me. Try to get a Sigma 18-250 mm macro and a Sigma 50-500 mm for the 7D and you will be able to photograph anything your eyes can see and a lot of stuff they can just barely see.


----------



## 6kimages (Jul 12, 2013)

grafxman said:


> Since you already have lenses suitable for the 7D then that's the camera you should buy. I used a 7D for years before I bought a 6D. Going to lenses for a full frame camera is proving to be vexing for me. Try to get a Sigma 18-250 mm macro and a Sigma 50-500 mm for the 7D and you will be able to photograph anything your eyes can see and a lot of stuff they can just barely see.


what do you like better or like less between the 6D vs the 7D?


----------



## Hof8231 (Jul 12, 2013)

6kimages said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> > Since you already have lenses suitable for the 7D then that's the camera you should buy. I used a 7D for years before I bought a 6D. Going to lenses for a full frame camera is proving to be vexing for me. Try to get a Sigma 18-250 mm macro and a Sigma 50-500 mm for the 7D and you will be able to photograph anything your eyes can see and a lot of stuff they can just barely see.
> ...



Some of the advantages of the 6D:
Full frame=higher light sensitivity, better low light photography
Less high ISO noise
Has GPS/WiFi
20.9 MP vs 17.9 MP (not as important as many people make it out to be)
Larger viewfinder

Advantages of 7D:
Crop sensor gives you more reach out of your lenses (50mm on 7D=80mm on 6D) which is better for sports/wildlife photography
8 frames per second vs 4.5 frames per second
Built in flash (not as good as Speedlights obviously, but could save you some money in that regard if flash isn't incredibly important to you)
100% viewfinder coverage vs 97%
EF-S lens compatibility
Better AF system

Hope that helps a little bit. Both cameras are very different so it's important to decide which one's features better suit your photographic needs.


----------



## 6kimages (Jul 12, 2013)

thanks , yes that's driving me nuts , sports in poorly lit arenas , so better low light ,better iso performance  is needed , but faster burst rate  better reach  is needed lol , think Canon will custom make me one ? oh yes they didi 1Dx  for 6500  lol


----------



## Hof8231 (Jul 12, 2013)

6kimages said:


> thanks , yes that's driving me nuts , sports in poorly lit arenas , so better low light ,better iso performance  is needed , but faster burst rate  better reach  is needed lol , think Canon will custom make me one ? oh yes they didi 1Dx  for 6500  lol



I wish I could justify the cost of a 1DX...that camera is damn perfect. But it costs more than my car did lol.


----------



## grafxman (Jul 12, 2013)

6kimages said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> > Since you already have lenses suitable for the 7D then that's the camera you should buy. I used a 7D for years before I bought a 6D. Going to lenses for a full frame camera is proving to be vexing for me. Try to get a Sigma 18-250 mm macro and a Sigma 50-500 mm for the 7D and you will be able to photograph anything your eyes can see and a lot of stuff they can just barely see.
> ...



They're very different cameras in numerous ways. The 7D can't handle low light anywhere near as good as the 6D. However the 7D comes with a built in flash. The 6D doesn't. The telephoto zoom lens selection for the 7D is enormous. The telephoto zoom lens selection for the 6D is very, very limited. For example, there is nothing comparable to Sigma's 18-250mm macro for the 6D which I use a lot. I had to buy a Tamron 28-300mm macro which is significantly inferior to my beloved Sigma 18-250mm macro. The only other choice was Canon's 28-300mm non-macro trombone action lens which costs more than the camera. 

I had to buy a flash for the 6D, Speedlite 320EX. At least my Sigma 50-500mm fits. I've tried to use the 6D for museum photography with the Tamron 28-300mm macro however it won't focus at all in low light. That's the only lens I use on it other than the kit lens. For outdoor photography I'll continue to my Sigma 18-250mm macro and Sigma 50-500mm which focuses very close on the 7D. I'll probably just use the 6D indoors with the Canon 24-105mm and Tamron 28-300mm macro if things are bright when I photograph museums. The Tamron 28-300mm macro doesn't like low light. It just hunts and hunts.

They're 2 very different cameras with very different characteristics. Each has their own purpose and, due to the limitations of lens selections the 7D is much, much more versatile over all. The major advantage of the 6D is its stellar handling of low light situations with the Canon 24-105mm lens. Otherwise, I don't think it's all that great, at least the way I take photographs. I'm just an amateur though, not a professional. I only have 13,500 photos and videos uploaded.


----------



## Sublime1304 (Jul 12, 2013)

I figured I'd add to this since I've owned both. Really depends on what you really need. I just bought a 5D MKII, my previous camera was a 7D. I have both right now actually and I find that I enjoy the full frame IQ of my 5D and thats why im selling my 7D. 

What I like about my 5D? Excellent noise at high ISO, great image quality, shallower depth of field, true focal range (wide angles are truly wide angles)

What I like about my 7D? 19 point AF, 8fps, best movie controls.

Felt like the 7D, given that it is crop sensor, wasnt very good with ISO. But I feel like they are both great cameras. While the 5D is a little old, its no where near bad. But yea really depends on what kind of work you do and what your needs are and also your budget.


----------



## S.Pierce (Jul 12, 2013)

Maybe this guy Kai can help you out a bit...


----------

