# canon 7d vs canon 5d Mark 2



## cfaulds (Dec 28, 2009)

I swear the spec of the 7d is better (except megapixels) but the 5d mark 2 is so much more expensive?

Can someone clear this up for me?


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 28, 2009)

The 5DII (as well as the 5D) has a 'full frame' sensor.  That's why it's more expensive.  Plain & simple.

The benefits of a full frame sensor are improved image quality, especially at higher ISO levels.  Also, you get a shallower DOF with a larger sensor.


----------



## icassell (Dec 28, 2009)

The 5D MK II is a full-frame camera vs. the crop-sensor of the 7D.  The 5D will have higher resolution and better ISO performance than the 7D -- and you pay dearly for it.  I have heard it said that the 5D does not have as good an AF system as the 7D and does not make a great action-photography camera, but there are many who are happy with it.  I love my 7D, but wish they had made it a full-frame body.


----------



## cfaulds (Dec 28, 2009)

Ahh makes sense - so basically it takes larger picture - higher resolution.

Thanks,
Callum


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 28, 2009)

> Ahh makes sense - so basically it takes larger picture - higher resolution.


Not neccesarily true. 

More resolution & mega pixels don't necessarily mean better.  In fact, sometimes more resolution can be worse because the 'photo sites' on the sensor are too close together.  On a larger sensor, the photo sites can be more spread out which can improve their light gathering ability and also keeps the sensor cooler which can result in less noise.

It's not quite the same, but think back to the days of film.  Your image was recorded on a piece of film and had to be enlarged to the size of whatever print you wanted.  The bigger the piece of film, the less enlarging had to be done, which meant that the fine details were easier to see.  The same principle still holds true in that 'bigger is better' when it comes to the recording medium in your camera.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 28, 2009)

In terms of digital what is important to make a clean noise free image is the amount of light you capture vs the amount of noise you generate. There's a physical limit to how low noise can be and it's an incredible challenge to design your way around these limits. One thing that can be done though is the actual photosites can be of variable size. 

The current leader in noise performance is the D700 / D3 / D3s (the latter being the most recent and best, and the first two have pretty much the same recording hardware). These cameras have 12 megapixels on a 35mm sized sensor. Compare that to the D300 which is far noisier, also a 12 megapixel camera, but an APS sized sensor. This sensor is 1.5x smaller in every direction, and thus there's 1.5^2 = 2.25x less surface area to use for catching light. 

The D300 and the D700 have the same resolution on screen, however the D700 produces a better image, and when pushed has far higher limits in terms of low-light photography.


----------



## chip (Dec 28, 2009)

at high ISO the 5D2 is far superior to the 7D. At low ISO would agree the 7D is better mainly being a newer release. Also if you shoot telephoto a lot, the 7D is better as you get that 1.6x factor. If you shoot wideangle a lot, the 5D2 is way better because wide is really wide. So if you have lots of cash how about getting *both*?


----------



## jbylake (Dec 28, 2009)

I'm so confused. I've been a member here for a little while. I'm strictly a film shooter, but have been planning to buy a digital this year. I really don't want one, but circumstances are pretty much forcing me into it. (Not that I have anything against digital), just the convienience of it, is becomeing an overwhelming factor.

I've not been asking any questions, just trying to read what's in the forum and draw my own conclusion. I was just wondering about 35mm Sensor size vs. other today.

It also seems that this camera is better suited to this and that one that.
The choices are overwhelming. 

I can practically do anything that _I need(note the emphasis on I Need)_, using one of 4 Canon film bodies, and an assortment of about 8 or so lenses. Seems I need an arsenal of expensive digitals to do the same. 

Can someone slap me into reality? I need a camera that will take great shots of bikes for a website, great for outdoor photography, landscapes, buildings, and people shots. Macro, and a (little portrait, least significant), Rocks, cliffs, trails, rusty tractors, you name it. 

I can't possibly afford 2 or more bodies, and another 8 or so lenses. What to do, what to do...the more I search the thread, the more confused I get.

Is Nikon better than Canon ****(just kidding, please don't start that one)**** BUT, I would probably rather stay with Nikon or Canon, only because that's all I've used since the 70's.

Maybe I should just forget it all and stick with film?

Anyone dare jump in here.

Thanks ahead for your help.

J.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 28, 2009)

jbylake said:


> I'm so confused. I've been a member here for a little while. I'm strictly a film shooter, but have been planning to buy a digital this year. I really don't want one, but circumstances are pretty much forcing me into it. (Not that I have anything against digital), just the convienience of it, is becomeing an overwhelming factor.
> 
> I've not been asking any questions, just trying to read what's in the forum and draw my own conclusion. I was just wondering about 35mm Sensor size vs. other today.
> 
> ...



Huh...I just assumed you had gone digital already. I switched away from film nine years ago, back when the Nikon D1 was king,and Canon had no digital SLR on the mass market. I've worked my way through a number of d-slr cameras, Fuji S1,S2,S5, Canon 20D, XT,5D, Nikon D1,D1h,D70,D2x, a little bit of experience with my wife's Nikon D40, a couple borrowed Canon's in there 10D, 40D. There have been a number of advances over the last few years, but honestly, we hit a plateau not too long ago, where the cameras finally became mostly mature. In the period 2001-2006, I think each,new generation offered real,significant improvements in IQ and functionality.

During that time frame, I feel that Nikon's lower-end and mid-level cameras were, in some ways, behind Canon cameras; at one point, the Fuji S2 Pro was "the" wedding and people camera. at one point the Fuji S3 Pro and S5 Pro were "THE" absolute leaders in wide dynamic range and the ability to tailor JPEGs straight out of camera to an extent simply not possible with single-photo site sensors. But with the Canon 5D, Full Frame and 12.8 megapixels, and later the Nikon D3 then Nikon D700,also full frame with 12.4 total MP, 12.2 effective Megapixels, I think the "image quality", "high-ISO quality" and the "pixel-level quality" was quite well-satisfied for almost anybody except those making very large prints.

In terms of autofocusing and camera response time, camera handling, the pro-level Nikon D3 and D700 are all you'd need, probably for quite some time; thsoe two cameras have the sweet spot of sensor size and MP count, plus pro-level autofocus,pro-level build, etc.

The EOS 5D-II, I see as lacking in autofocus compared to even the old Nikon D1h...it's a low-cost Elan body, with an AF System that's not really suited to FF,having been lifted from the 30D. The 5D-II offers the high megapixel count many people want, at around $2700; the Nikon D700 offers better handling, and a pro-capable body for the same price. Canon went with image quality on the 5D series, but the body is woefully behind the pro-grade of the Nikon D1-D2-D3 or D700 series cameras. The full-frame cameras allow a seamless transition from film to digital, with all of the advantages of 24x36 capture area, and none of the drawbacks of the smaller sensors--narrowed FOV, small viewfinders, etc,etc.

JB, if you want just ONE digital SLR Camera, and you're still a film shooter, I would never consider an APS-C camera. My choice would be the Nikon D700 as the all-around, only camera choice, at this time if I were switching from film to digital TODAY. Canon just does not have a comparable camera until you get to the 1D series...just my opinion.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 28, 2009)

Thanks.  No, I never do digital, just film. Except for my P&S that I use in the shop for quick photo's to go onto the website.  But, well...it's finally time.  The myriad of camera's (digital) is mind boggling, and everyone has their favorite.  I've searched the forum, but the threads are not written like a book, in a logical order, so I've been trying to piece together enough info to make an informed choice.  It's really been a stressful journey, for a pretty laid back guy. Just too much information overload, I guess.  
Wanna suggest a couple o' lenses?

Thanks,
J.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 28, 2009)

Lenses depend on your desired budget, weight and size tolerance, and the type of work you want to do. There are a bunch of different lens kit strategies; Nikon writer Thom Hogan's site has a couple of good articles like one called Rationalizing Lenses at Nikkor Lens Assessment by Thom Hogan

There are "economy" kits, "lightweight" kits, "let's go pro" kits,and a complete discussion of the "best lens" at each focal length discussed in that article, which should be of immense help for a person trying to gain some insight into lenses for Nikon. His specialty is travel/nature/landscape.

The D700 will accept lenses made from 1977 to 2009. FX requires/allows different lenses than a DX body. The D700 has a high-torque, high-speed in-body focusing motor and the current top-level AF module and algorithms, so it can and will accept older AF lenses and will deliver top-level focusing performance with any AF Nikkor lens, so some of the older lenses like the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D or the 28-70 AF-D are very viable options,along with the newer 24-70 AF-S.

Some of the "classic" Nikon AF lenses like the 24/2.8 AF-D, 85/1.4 AF-D, 105mm f/2 D.C. and 135 f/2 D.C. are really nice lenses,with good optics.
The 300 f/45 AF-S is a good lens. The 70-200 VR is a good lens. Some of the 3rd party lenses like Tamron 17-50 2.8, Tamron 28-75/2.8, Tamron 90mm macro also have a big following among Nikon shooters. The Nikon 24-85 AF-S G is a pretty good lens too, recently discontinued. I don't want to divert this this thread any more.

I wonder if there is an equivalent Canon web site to Hogan's Nikon site? A place where people can go to for good,sound info on the 7D and 5D-II and other Canons from a working professional photographer/writer who really,really knows his stuff?


----------



## Garbz (Dec 29, 2009)

jbylake said:


> I'm so confused.



You're asking a question of why a camera with seemingly better spec is cheaper than a professional model, you're likely to get confused. It's a complex discussion involving a lot of fine details of various features of which only the surface was scratched in this thread.

You need a simpler question.



jbylake said:


> Can someone slap me into reality? I need a camera that will take great shots of bikes for a website, great for outdoor photography, landscapes, buildings, and people shots. Macro, and a (little portrait, least significant), Rocks, cliffs, trails, rusty tractors, you name it.



Now that's a simple question. And the reality is pleasing. Any camera will do that. Outdoors, landscapes, buildings, people, Macro, sports, you name it can all be done on my D200, and that is now a 4 year old camera. I highly doubt you would be disappointed with any modern camera body, it is just a question of price, and really some people would prefer the cheaper lighter models. What you need to focus on is lenses. 

If you're after large depth of field with everything in focus then pretty much every lens will do too. However the lens quality is a limiting factor on many cameras. Derrel has mentioned some good choices for the Nikon camp, and Canon has an equivalent on most of those too. But again focus on your topic:

Outdoors, landscapes, buildings, rocks, cliffs, trails, rusty tractors, this is all served by the standard kit lens, I.e. a lens where you don't necessarily need a large aperture for thin depth of field, or some fancy close focusing kit.
Macro: Dedicated lenses are about all I would suggest. There are other cheaper ways but looking around I picked up a Nikkor 105mm Macro for $500 A dedicated macro lens will get you that elusive shot.
People: Lets face it small depth of field is a killer feature for people shots. A standard 50mm f/1.8 will serve you well. Or an 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 will serve you even better but it all comes down to money. 

You didn't mention sport or nature, that's where the 200mm + lenses will come into play nicely.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 30, 2009)

Wow!  Looks like I'll need to spend $2500 - 3500, just for a "full frame" sensor body, then at least 1500 for a lens or 2.  $5000 for a hobbiest, just dosn't make sense to me.  I mean, it's doable, but not sure that it's the right move for me.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## icassell (Dec 30, 2009)

jbylake said:


> Wow!  Looks like I'll need to spend $2500 - 3500, just for a "full frame" sensor body, then at least 1500 for a lens or 2.  $5000 for a hobbiest, just dosn't make sense to me.  I mean, it's doable, but not sure that it's the right move for me.
> 
> J.:mrgreen:



Welcome to the club :lmao:  Life is made of compromises. This is why I don't own a 1D series. Get the best glass you can afford to spend on your hobby and don't worry as much about the body.  Just remember, although expensive equipment may make life easier, people have done excellent work with simple P & S cameras.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 30, 2009)

icassell said:


> jbylake said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! Looks like I'll need to spend $2500 - 3500, just for a "full frame" sensor body, then at least 1500 for a lens or 2. $5000 for a hobbiest, just dosn't make sense to me. I mean, it's doable, but not sure that it's the right move for me.
> ...


 
It's not that I can't afford it, IC, but right now I have 4 mint canon film cameras, and 8 lenses that cover about every need that I have. 

If I were a pro, then it would be an investment.  As a hobbiest, it's a "toy".  I'm just not sure that I want to spend 5K, just to get started.  The reason I wanted to go digital(I didn't really), but it's just a matter of convience.  I'm pretty much (from what I've been able to read) wanting to go with the full frame sensor, but I'm only finding them in the 2500 -3500 buck - range. (body only).  Guess I'm just going to have to give it some serious thought.

Thanks,

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## Garbz (Dec 30, 2009)

Wait what? At what point did anyone say you need a full frame camera to get started? Heck most of the time people try to talk others out of full frame cameras as a first digital. 

A Nikon D90 with a nice lens like an 85mm f/1.4 is a heck of a lot cheaper than a Nikon D700 and will take much nicer portraits. Don't missfocus your directions. Just because everything below a 5D or a D700 are not a full frame doesn't mean they don't take exceptional images. Heck some people even prefer the APS sized cameras since they effectively extend the perceived reach of telephoto lenses (200mm looks effectively like a 300mm lens). D700 + 300mm f/2.8 for $1200AU or you could have a D300 + 70-200mm f/2.8 for $5400AU. Unless you shoot late evening at ISO6400 you would be very hard pressed telling the images from both these sets apart.


My advice to you is go into the galleries subforum and have a look at all the fantastic work some people on this forum do with equipment that costs about $3000 less than what you "need to spend". Heck Nikon didn't even have a full frame camera body till very recently. Didn't stop hordes of people making a professional living taking fantastic photos with their equipment. 

Your lenses can always be carried on to your new full frame body if you go pro or suddenly have an onrush of disposable income.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 30, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Wait what? At what point did anyone say you need a full frame camera to get started? Heck most of the time people try to talk others out of full frame cameras as a first digital.
> 
> A Nikon D90 with a nice lens like an 85mm f/1.4 is a heck of a lot cheaper than a Nikon D700 and will take much nicer portraits. Don't missfocus your directions. Just because everything below a 5D or a D700 are not a full frame doesn't mean they don't take exceptional images. Heck some people even prefer the APS sized cameras since they effectively extend the perceived reach of telephoto lenses (200mm looks effectively like a 300mm lens). D700 + 300mm f/2.8 for $1200AU or you could have a D300 + 70-200mm f/2.8 for $5400AU. Unless you shoot late evening at ISO6400 you would be very hard pressed telling the images from both these sets apart.
> 
> ...


 
Good advice...I told you I was confused
I'll look at photo's, and if they list it, the camera equip used to take the photo's.  I'm still overwhelmed with information overload, but I'm getting some well informed advice.
thanks,

J.:mrgreen:


----------

