# From t1i to 7d or 5dMII



## GrantH (Sep 4, 2012)

Can someone please shove an answer into my brain and tell me what body to pick?

I am an avid car show photographer, drift events, races, rolling shots, and of course random other things like street photography.

My question lies in if I should go for the 7d or 5d based on that and the fact I will be buying a 17-40 L and possibly a 50 1.4 as well. I don't take a ton of long range shots, but saving will begin once more for a ??-300 L lens directly after buying whatever I do purchase. My thoughts are swayed towards 7d based simply on the racing aspect of what I shoot/will shoot more often, and also the huge video following for the camera. I don't really shoot low light much, aside from indoors, and I have a couple flashes for those occasions. The only thing pulling the 5d towards me is the fact that it is full frame. I don't know how much I truly care for that, or need that, but it IS a function that is bound to be enjoyed. That being said...if you never use it...you never know if it is needed! The 7d is 100% viewfinder so surely I can make do with that. 

Opinions? I realize it's 300 dollars on a potential 2600 dollar purchase...but it is a decent bit above the 7d. Just need some ideas/opinions.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 4, 2012)

Because of the type of photography-the sports end of it-the 7d. It has a better focus system and faster FPS. It's far more condusive to sports than the 5d2.
I've shot a little bit of sports with my 5d2 and I can honestly tell you that I hate it over the 7D for that situation. It isn't made for that kind of shooting. Slow FPS, crappy  focus system that's weak on anything other than the center focus point. 
You also aren't shooting night you said which is where the full frame would have the advantage in lower noise levels.


----------



## GrantH (Sep 4, 2012)

The only possible "night" shots would be a concert...something I have never done. Everything else that would be at night would be...still shots on a long exposure. 


7D it is I believe. Should I go for those two lenses or should I step up to an 85 for the prime?


----------



## fjrabon (Sep 4, 2012)

Another vote for the 7D.

We have both the 7D and the 5DII at work, and the only thing I prefer the 5DII for is portraiture work.  

the 17-40L and 50 1.4 would probably be more useful on that body than an 85mm prime would be.  

On a 7D, you'd probably do well to get the workhorse 70-200 f/2.8 L over one of the 300 L lenses.  300mm f/2.8 on a crop frame like the 7D is very expensive, and you don't often need that much reach.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 4, 2012)

I am the opposite. I shoot with the 70-200 OS by Sigma on the 7D and I WANT more reach badly. I am close to the action, but then I am also shooting people, not a full car. So, that may make a difference. I'd venture to guess that your distance from the cars would make up for the difference.  That 70-200 is my EVERYTHING lens. It is one of two 70-200 lenses that I own. I wish I had a 300 or even a 400, but it's not in the cards and there are other things that will come first.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 4, 2012)

For sure 7d for telephoto shots because of the extra reach. 5dmk2 for portraits


----------



## GrantH (Sep 4, 2012)

Done and done. Will be in tomorrow!


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 4, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> I am the opposite. I shoot with the 70-200 OS by Sigma on the 7D and I WANT more reach badly. I am close to the action, but then I am also shooting people, not a full car. So, that may make a difference. I'd venture to guess that your distance from the cars would make up for the difference.  That 70-200 is my EVERYTHING lens. It is one of two 70-200 lenses that I own. I wish I had a 300 or even a 400, but it's not in the cards and there are other things that will come first.



If you dont mind manual focus you can get 300mm, 400mm f/2.8 and 400mm, 600mm f/4.5 lenses for FD mount. Very reasonably priced on ebay. 300mm about $1000 and 600mm about $1500. The 400mm f/4.5 is under $800!


----------



## JohnTrav (Sep 4, 2012)

I would say 7D also for the auto focusing system. Mine works really fast when shooting spots. 

Also I would invest in the 70-200 f/2.8L also for what you want to do. It's a great fast lens for sports.


----------



## GrantH (Sep 4, 2012)

JohnTrav said:


> I would say 7D also for the auto focusing system. Mine works really fast when shooting spots.
> 
> Also I would invest in the 70-200 f/2.8L also for what you want to do. It's a great fast lens for sports.




I believe I am going to start saving for that...and possibly skip the 50 1.4 as I have the 1.8 already I can mess with.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 4, 2012)

3bayjunkie said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am shooting sports. I don't think manual focus is an option at this point


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 4, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> I am shooting sports. I don't think manual focus is an option at this point



Well i know you are shooting sports, but from my experience focusing with telephoto lens is much quicker and easier than with a mid focal length like 50mm. So it is doable. I would suggest manual focusing sports at close up range though.


----------



## GrantH (Sep 4, 2012)

Does the focal length itself help, or how does that differ?


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 4, 2012)

Focal Length=zoom. It's how close you can get to the action


----------



## GrantH (Sep 4, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Focal Length=zoom. It's how close you can get to the action




I know what focal length is . I meant what makes the larger lenses easier to manually focus compared to the short length lenses.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 4, 2012)

GrantH said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Focal Length=zoom. It's how close you can get to the action
> ...




Hi, yes. This is a theory that I tested with my 50mm and 200mm lenses. With the 50mm lens my moving subject was too close for me to continuously move along with him and focus manually, however when using my other lens at 200mm f/2.8 I found it much easier to track my subject since my angle of movement was less and as my subject moved around in my field of view I did not have to adjust my focus as vastly as I would with the 50mm f/1.8 at a close range. I imagine with a 300mm or 400mm lens it would improve greatly.


----------



## GrantH (Sep 5, 2012)

3bayjunkie said:


> GrantH said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



Yaaaaa its here! This thing FEELS like 2 grand LOL


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 5, 2012)

GrantH said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Focal Length=zoom. It's how close you can get to the action
> ...


:0


----------



## GrantH (Sep 6, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> GrantH said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



Maybe I misinterpreted your response, but rest assured I fully understand the concept behind what he is talking about.


----------



## sovietdoc (Sep 6, 2012)

Sell a kidney, go from t1i to 5d III thats what I did.  Not..selling..the...kidney..I...mean... GAH! Whatever....


----------

