7D VS MARK II-III

A better question OP is what is your total budget? We can help you there.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #14061377
I don't think "everyone think(s) more reach is magically better." If you shoot birds it most definitely is. Yes, "optically" speaking a crop camera does not change the focal length of a lens, but it definitely has advantages. For instance a 7D has 18MP on a APS-C sensor, and a 5D MKII has 22MP on a full frame sensor, if you crop the image taken by the 5D to the equivelant field of view the 7D would capture on the same lens, you will have a smaller image with less pixels and less detail. Therefore for a full frame body to capture the kind of detail the crop camera can get out of a telephoto lens one would have to use a longer (and therefore generally more expensive) lens. It also is just nice for workflow not to have to crop every single picture you take.

The smaller sensor also allows more processing power to be dedicated to allowing larger image buffers, higher FPS, and better ai-servo focus systems (historically speaking anyway). That is why Canon's sports and nature cameras (7D, 1D series) have always been crop bodies, and their studio and wedding bodies (5D, 1Ds) are full frame.

If it makes you feel any better I feel the same way when I read threads from people who act like when they "upgrade to full frame" the clouds above them will open up and magical rays of sunlight will suddenly grant them award winning pictures because they have a full frame camera, as you feel then you read about "extra reach" from a crop body. I feel they are all tools for their own purposes, so I own a FF, APS-H, and APS-C body.

What a FANTASTIC explanation!!!

backblast wrote in post #14062199
I suggest that you go with the 5DII or 5DIII kit, the one that comes with a 24-105L lens. This is a good all around lens. You might as well start off with a high quality camera that you will constantly grow into, and then invest in professional photography classes to get the most out of them.

Lenses can, and will, come later so don't worry about super-duper lenses yet.

This will be money well spent.

And what is your logic there? Someone beginning in photography will take years to master any pro-sumer DSLR, even an original 5D, before they begin to "outgrow" it (honeslty I don't know that any photographer will ever NEED a camera better than say a 1DMKIII or 5D, just about anything that has come out since has been superflous improvements, but nothing that prevents you from getting great pictures out of earlier equipment). Anyway, by the time one would have learned all the features of a 5D3 who has no prior experience, if they even have a desire to learn everything there is to know, the camera would be worth half what they paid for it, and then they would have less money for lenses. Or they could buy a very good beginner body, such as an original 5D for $800, and have $3500 to get a good set of lenses that will last them their entire photographic career (the kit price on a 5D3 and 24-105 is $4,300)?

Lets say you have $4,300 to start into photography, with nothing to start with. Would you rather have:

5DMKIII $3,500
24-105- $800
$4,300

or for example (used prices)

5Dc- $800
Grip- $100
580EX- $250
17-40 F4L- $650
35L- $1,100
70-200 F2.8L- $900
decent tripod and ball head- $500
$4,300

Frankly I think that kit is overkill, and I think any beginner spending $4,300 is overkill, but they would certainly be more well served over all by the second option than just one body and lens.

In a few years time, once the owner has any real idea what they are doing, that 5D MKIII will be worth half what they paid for it, whereas with option number 2 they only stand to lose maybe a few hundred dollars in that amount of time.

The animals that I will be shooting are Cheetahs and African Servals. At my age I would rather invest in the right equipment and attempt to master it over the years. Rather than buy lower end and having to resell and invest again. I am an old timer and the chances of me changing out bodies each time something new comes out will be almost impossible. Thus the reason I would rather spend the money now and keep what I have.

I have a $7,500 budget. I have already purchased a 70-200 2.8 L IS. I am also looking at other glass. I haven't purchased the body just yet due to the fact I am not certain if I should go with the 7D or a 5D setup. Both animals are fast and super fast at that. So speed is a factor to get the right shots due to the objects moving at high speeds.

I really appreciate all the wonderful feedback and the advice. It is greatly appreciated.

You want something that "lasts" (in theory) for Cheetahs and African Servals (assuming you're shooting them in their natural environment and not at a zoo)? And that you want to "invest in the right equipment," then get a 1D Mark IV and then work on your very expensive lens collection: 500/f4, or 600/f4, or 800/f5.6 lenses.

FEATHERMEN wrote in post #14063213
I have a $7,500 budget.

Get a used 1DII and a used 600mm f4/500mm f4.

The body is not as important as the glass.

FEATHERMEN wrote in post #14063213
The animals that I will be shooting are Cheetahs and African Servals.

Have you considered a 1 series, perhaps the new 1DX, or the 1Dmk4?

Billginthekeys wrote in post #14062397
And what is your logic there?

I don't believe buying stuff twice make much, if any, sense. Buy right once, be happy.

FEATHERMEN wrote in post #14063213
Both animals are fast and super fast at that. So speed is a factor to get the right shots due to the objects moving at high speeds.

Then a 1DmkIV will fit the bill without question.

There is a big price difference in the three choices you mention? I don't think there is for the novice justification for the cost difference to jump in with a 5D III. Unless of course money is no object and you still will have plenty over for good glass.

ni$mo350 wrote in post #14060657
No offense but why are you even thinking about a 5dii or iii if you don't know what full frame is. You should be.more worried about learning the basics before spending thousands of dollars on somethin you might not even like. With that said a 7d would be the best for fast animals and the extra reach of a crop body helps

He might know jack about photography, but from the OP's first post, it could go either way.

My point is that just because someone doesn't know the difference between full frame and not full frame doesn't mean they aren't expert photographers...

full frame is a digital photography term, after all, and cameras existed loooooonnggg before digital crop bodies made users invent this differentiator.

JLai81 wrote in post #14062149


Thank God someone finally understands that crop is not an increase in reach, but a narrower field of view.

So tired of people saying crop has extra reach that I just stopped correcting them.

I'm tired of being corrected whenever I use abbreviated terms to avoid spewing paragraphs of information when trying to help people out.

Another thing people always jump on is the phrase "I like the perspective you get from a (200)mm." Yes, we know that perspective is dependent on the camera's relation to the subject (aka where you are standing), but you are usually standing in a different place when you use a 200mm than when you use a 30mm!

FEATHERMEN wrote in post #14063213
The animals that I will be shooting are Cheetahs and African Servals. At my age I would rather invest in the right equipment and attempt to master it over the years. Rather than buy lower end and having to resell and invest again. I am an old timer and the chances of me changing out bodies each time something new comes out will be almost impossible. Thus the reason I would rather spend the money now and keep what I have.

I have a $7,500 budget. I have already purchased a 70-200 2.8 L IS. I am also looking at other glass. I haven't purchased the body just yet due to the fact I am not certain if I should go with the 7D or a 5D setup. Both animals are fast and super fast at that. So speed is a factor to get the right shots due to the objects moving at high speeds.

I really appreciate all the wonderful feedback and the advice. It is greatly appreciated.

If you plan to shoot fast moving animals like a cheetah I would not be looking at a 5D or 5D MkII. In a new body I would look at the 7D or 5D MkIII, used bodies I would look at 7D or something like a 1DMkIV.

As a newbie I am, I wish someone have told me what really full frame is. I would have gone FF from beginning. After I got my 5dii I realize that hey.. 24mm is wide! and how f/4, at same focal length/distance, blurs backgrounds.

vipergts831 wrote in post #14062198
How do you know? Have you shot a 5dmkIII? If so tell us how good it is.

I have to agree. I'm getting sick and tired of reading about how great the 5DIII is when no-one out there has even got their hands on one yet.

Bananapie wrote in post #14065254
I'm tired of being corrected whenever I use abbreviated terms to avoid spewing paragraphs of information when trying to help people out.

Another thing people always jump on is the phrase "I like the perspective you get from a (200)mm." Yes, we know that perspective is dependent on the camera's relation to the subject (aka where you are standing), but you are usually standing in a different place when you use a 200mm than when you use a 30mm!

Using an abbreviated term is different than giving mis-information that crop has longer reach. Field of view is not the same as reach.