# Whats better for Wedding and Portrait Photography...Canon 7D or 5D Mark II



## mysticman_57

Right now I can afford the 7D, I want to get into Wedding and Portrait Photography as that seem to be where the money is. I'm presently shooting with a Canon T1i and assorted L series lenses. My dilema, do I spend the money now on the 7D and sacrifice getting a full frame 5D Mark II later (much later) or take a leap of faith and get the 7D now...I also shoot a lot of nature and Fine arts so it would have to cover that arena also..I would love to have the Full frame but it's a lot of money to spend. especially if the 7D is comparable...any thoughts are GREATLY appreciated ..PS..In other forums I have had a lot of well meaning people who have no experience with either camera offer their opinion. I really appreciate their intentions but please answer ONLY if you have first hand experience with both camera's..Peace.


----------



## Buckster

I own and have worked with both. I choose the 5DMKII for almost all my shooting.



> *do I spend the money now on the 7D* and sacrifice getting a full frame 5D Mark II later (much later) *or* take a leap of faith and *get the 7D now*


 
You seem to have already made up your mind.

That's actually not unusual. Lots of people ask this question here every month and, after getting everyone's opinions, announce that they've actually already decided. Turns out, they just wanted affirmation from the crowd - a "go ahead".

We get folks who take us around this merry-go-round for a few days or a week, then say, "well, I don't really have the money for the top one anyway, so I'm just going to get the less expensive one."

Then, why ask?

Or, "I NEED 8 FPS!, so model X is out".

Then why ask?

You get the idea...

If anything like that is cooking here, just know: You don't need our permission. Just get it if you want it.

Surely, you've researched them. You know what each offers; the pros and cons. So, what's the real question?

Is the opinion of anyone here more important or worthy toward you spending a few thousand dollars than your own research and opinion about it? What could possibly sway you, one way or the other?

No offense intended, but the search function on this forum is fantastic. There's gotta be hundreds of this exact thread on this forum already that you could have read every response to, and gotten all the same feedback that you might get in this one (yet again).


----------



## cfusionpm

Speedy burst and AF performance are about the only advantages of the 7D over the 5DmkII. For weddings and portraits, the 5DII will outperform the 7D nearly every time, especially in image quaility.

I own a 7D and have used a friends 5DII a number of times. I would love a 5DII, but don't have the motivation drop the extra money on one, especially considering the need to replace my 10-22 and 17-55 with FF equivelants.


----------



## skieur

In a side by side comparison the 7D produces sharper shots than the 5D Mark II.  Newer technology is the simple answer as to why.

skieur


----------



## cfusionpm

^ wow what? :lmao:


----------



## Derrel

cfusionpm said:


> ^ wow what? :lmao:



Yeah, what's up with that Matt? I thought the 7D was the best d-slr ever made?And the best value in a d-slr? And the best crop-body ever made? Did you change your mind about those things Matt?


----------



## cfusionpm

Best value? Best crop? Before the D7000, it was; and if you shoot Canon, it still is. Best DSLR ever? Hm.... I don't remember ever saying that.  

Unquestionably, the 5DII has better image quality than the 7D.  And until just now, I don't think I've ever seen or heard that argued otherwise.


----------



## Gruen Photo 7 Design

5Dii is worth the money.  I shoot weddings with it & a 5Di.


----------



## thingsIsee

whatever camera you have or can afford to get would be the best camera for weddings, after all a camera is only a tool and yes you need good tools to do the best job you can do, but the best tool in the world in incompetent hands will still turn out lousy products.

With the proper experience and ability you can use ether and turn out exceptional work.


----------



## mysticman_57

Well Buckster , Actually no, I haven&#8217;t made up my mind. If I had I wouldn&#8217;t have posted this thread now would I. I have tossed about the idea of saving for the Mark II for a year now but as I stated in the original post "I would love to have the Full frame but it's *a lot of money* to spend. *Especially if the 7D is comparable*..Which I have no idea other than what I&#8217;ve read since I have had neither camera. Hence the post&#8230; I guess when I said any thoughts are GREATLY appreciated I should have have been more spacific and said any *constructive thoughts* &#8230;And no I don&#8217;t need a &#8220;Go ahead&#8221; from you or anyone else&#8230;the first sentence of your post was appreciated. As that pertained to my question. The rest I could have done without as it was totally unnecessary &#8230;.. If I get enough positive feedback on the mark II that&#8217;s probably the one I&#8217;ll go with..If it turns out people who have used it think I can get pretty much the same quality product from the cheaper 7D then &#8230;..yep you guessed it, Ill probably go with the 7D. &#8230;.as for the rest of you guys ,thanks for the feedback


----------



## burgo

I use both: a 7D and a 5D mark II...so my answer is either does a great job


----------



## Buckster

mysticman_57 said:


> Well Buckster , Actually no, I haven&#8217;t made up my mind. If I had I wouldn&#8217;t have posted this thread now would I


You might have. As I said, others have. Try the search function. It's awesome.



mysticman_57 said:


> I have tossed about the idea of saving for the Mark II for a year now but as I stated in the original post "I would love to have the Full frame but it's *a lot of money* to spend.


Common knowledge, especially if you've researched it, as I said. Nothing newsworthy there. WHY do you think it's an extra thousand bucks or so?



mysticman_57 said:


> *Especially if the 7D is comparable*..


WHY do you think it's an extra thousand bucks or so if it's "comparable"? We could compare it with a Holga, for that matter.



mysticman_57 said:


> Which I have no idea other than what I&#8217;ve read since I have had neither camera. Hence the post...


Hence my suggestion to use the search function here, where you will find more threads and posts and answers and suggestions pertinent to that than you probably have the time or inclination to even read.



mysticman_57 said:


> I guess when I said any thoughts are GREATLY appreciated I should have have been more spacific and said any *constructive thoughts* &#8230;


I tried. Sorry if you needed a gentler hand.



mysticman_57 said:


> And no I don&#8217;t need a &#8220;Go ahead&#8221; from you or anyone else&#8230;


If you say so...



mysticman_57 said:


> the first sentence of your post was appreciated. As that pertained to my question.


Glad to be of service.



mysticman_57 said:


> The rest I could have done without as it was totally unnecessary &#8230;..


Thanks for your opinion.



mysticman_57 said:


> If I get enough positive feedback on the mark II that&#8217;s probably the one I&#8217;ll go with..


"Enough" eh? LOL! If I were a betting man, I'd put down a dollar that you won't get "enough" to make that choice.



mysticman_57 said:


> If it turns out people who have used it think I can get pretty much the same quality product from the cheaper 7D then &#8230;..yep you guessed it, Ill probably go with the 7D. &#8230;.


Consider the fact that most people with experience with either one, don't have experience with both. People then tend to clap their hands and swoon over whichever one they have experience with. How does that do you any good?



mysticman_57 said:


> as for the rest of you guys ,thanks for the feedback


Yeah, thanks guys, especially those of you who own and shoot both, and therefore have an objective opinion to share. :thumbup:


----------



## Dao

Is there any place out there you can rent the cameras for a day? Try it yourself and see.

I do not own nor have use neither of the cameras. (Canon 40D owner) But I think camera gears are just quite personal things.  I love full frame while others like crop.  I like Canon, but others may prefer Nikon.

But from what I see/read/heard, full frame cameras (in DSLR world) were used more often than cropped body.    I guess the reason maybe .....  For the same framing, the full frame camera maybe able to make the out of focus blur background blurrier.  In the same low light environment situation, the full frame camera often out perform the cropped body in term digital noise level .  

Well, if I going to shop for the next camera body now, I will look for a full frame body.   It could even be the 5D classic.  But that is just me.


----------



## skieur

cfusionpm said:


> Best value? Best crop? Before the D7000, it was; and if you shoot Canon, it still is. Best DSLR ever? Hm.... I don't remember ever saying that.
> 
> Unquestionably, the 5DII has better image quality than the 7D. And until just now, I don't think I've ever seen or heard that argued otherwise.


 
Depends on how you define image quality. Overall colour on test images shows that the 5DII has warmer colours than the 7D. Some photographers like that for portraiture.  Sharpness however is still slightly better at all ISOs on the 7D, again in looking at images side by side.

skieur


----------



## cfusionpm

skieur said:


> cfusionpm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best value? Best crop? Before the D7000, it was; and if you shoot Canon, it still is. Best DSLR ever? Hm.... I don't remember ever saying that.
> 
> Unquestionably, the 5DII has better image quality than the 7D. And until just now, I don't think I've ever seen or heard that argued otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you define image quality. Overall colour on test images shows that the 5DII has warmer colours than the 7D. Some photographers like that for portraiture. Sharpness however is still slightly better at all ISOs on the 7D, again in looking at images side by side.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...

I remember an old thread where a visual comparison was made regarding sharpness (below). I own a 7D and it is definitely not known for its sharpness. In fact most revewers (and users) note that its very soft by default.  After sharpnening it (using post production or the JPG settings in camera) it's... better, but nothing I have seen has led me to believe it is in any way better than the 5DII with regard to sharpness.  What tests are you referring to? 

7D: 






5DII:





From: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...5106-7d-test-images-taken-today-high-iso.html


----------



## skieur

I found a net reference but it does not download side by side to this software even with the link. You might have to exit first before trying it.

The link directly to the comparison does not work but it is in
www.imaging-resource.com . Go into the comparometer and look at 100 ISO both 5DM11 and 7D side by side with attention to the left white collar and necklace on the manikin. Look also at the print on the back of the book held up by the manikin too in shots for both cameras.

skieur


----------



## flea77

I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame). 

Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF. That being said, only you can say if there is enough difference between the two to make it worth the money. In Nikon's line at the moment that would be the D7000 vs the D700, and for me, not enough difference to justify the price.

Next you have the crop factor's effect on lenses. While the 1.5x may be really nice on your 70/80-200 for shooting from the back of the church, that same crop factor is a serious pain in the rear when you are squashed in the corner of the bathtub shooting the bride in the bathroom putting on her makeup. So do you go for the FF so you are not squeezed into the soap dish but you have to be mid-church to get shots of the kiss? Or do you comfortably shoot from the back once you get someone to scrape you off the bathroom wall with a spatula using your CF?

My choice? I went for the crop and spent the savings on nice glass.

Allan


----------



## skieur

flea77 said:


> I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame).
> 
> Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF.
> Allan


 
Even Popular Photography magazine has said repeatedly that a full frame camera does not automatically produce better image quality than the crop frame.

The only real difference was wide angle on the CF but with a 10mm to 20mm zoom getting cramped in a bathroom is no longer necessary.

skieur


----------



## Buckster

skieur said:


> flea77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame).
> 
> Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF.
> Allan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Popular Photography magazine has said repeatedly that a full frame camera does not automatically produce better image quality than the crop frame.
Click to expand...

Well, that's kind of like saying a medium format camera does not automatically produce better image quality than a 35mm.  True, I'd put my old Nikon F up against an old Diana any day.

But, generally speaking...


----------



## flea77

skieur said:


> flea77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame).
> 
> Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF.
> Allan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Popular Photography magazine has said repeatedly that a full frame camera does not automatically produce better image quality than the crop frame.
> 
> The only real difference was wide angle on the CF but with a 10mm to 20mm zoom getting cramped in a bathroom is no longer necessary.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...

 
As Buckster said, generally speaking, all other things being equal, FF will provide better results than CF. But as I already said, the difference may be minimal and not worth the cost difference.

As for the 10-20, as long as you can deal with the f3.5  or worse, the f4-5.6, I suppose it would work. I usually cram myself back with a 24-70 2.8, or 24 2.8 to get not only the extra light, but the narrower depth of field as well.

Allan

PS. And I am not too sure I would use Pop Photo as a reference either, but that is just me :lmao:


----------



## rikerjc

mysticman_57 said:


> Right now I can afford the 7D, I want to get into Wedding and Portrait Photography as that seem to be where the money is. I'm presently shooting with a Canon T1i and assorted L series lenses. My dilema, do I spend the money now on the 7D and sacrifice getting a full frame 5D Mark II later (much later) or take a leap of faith and get the 7D now...I also shoot a lot of nature and Fine arts so it would have to cover that arena also..I would love to have the Full frame but it's a lot of money to spend. especially if the 7D is comparable...any thoughts are GREATLY appreciated ..PS..In other forums I have had a lot of well meaning people who have no experience with either camera offer their opinion. I really appreciate their intentions but please answer ONLY if you have first hand experience with both camera's..Peace.


The 5D MK II is far superior to the 7D. I owned a 7D and was dissapointed with the level of noise it had so much so that I sold it soon after, losing money in the process, and upgraded to a 5D MKII. The 7D crams 18MP onto a crop sensor and the result is noise.  Sometimes this noise is confused with sharpness cause noise adds a grainy appearance which at first glance presents a seemingly sharp picture. Even at ISO100 there is noticable noise. Infact prior to the 7D owned a 10MP Canon 1000D which was producing better image quality than the 7D. This was devastating when you consider the difference in cost but after researching the issue it all came down to how many pixels are thrown on a image sensor and both the 1000D and 7D have the same size sensor but with vastly different number of pixels. Canon employ a filter on the 7D to counteract this noise but the result is quite often softer images. Its a bandaid solution. Go full-frame. Go the 5D MKII.  I ran my own tests with the 5D MK II and the 7D and quite frankly there is no comparison. The 5D is clearly superior in image quality.  At weddings quite often you need to crop and if you start cropping with a 7D's noise-ridden images you're gonna be dissapointed.


----------



## laurabnt

Thanks for the information guys.


----------



## jaymitch

Ive been using my 7d's for wedding and portraits for awhile now and I have no complaints.  They have always done a really nice job for me.  If you pair the 7d with a quality lens it will give you amazing results. 
Im not saying its better then the 5d, it was just a better fit for me.  I always tell people in your position, if possible get your hands on both and see what you think.


----------



## skieur

Buckster said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flea77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame).
> 
> Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF.
> Allan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Popular Photography magazine has said repeatedly that a full frame camera does not automatically produce better image quality than the crop frame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that's kind of like saying a medium format camera does not automatically produce better image quality than a 35mm. True, I'd put my old Nikon F up against an old Diana any day.
> 
> But, generally speaking...
Click to expand...

 
No, Let me put it another way.  The lens and the overall IQ/megapixels make the difference between cameras NOT whether it is full frame or crop frame.

skieur


----------

