5D mark iii vs 7D mark ii

I'm having a bit of a dilemma. I currently have an original 7D and I'm wanting to upgrade to a new body. I've wanted the 5Diii for a couple of years, but couldn't swing the $$. It's now on sale to the point that I could get one, but I can't decide between that and the new 7Dii. I shoot high school sports, horse events, wild life and landscape while I'm traveling. I have a friend who has the 5Diii and I'm sold on the IQ, but I worry about losing the FPS and the extra reach that the 7Dii would give me. I thought about getting the 5Diii and continuing to use my 7D for the sports, but the bad lights at the night games and indoor gyms are making it difficult to capture images I'm willing to try to sell.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

I hesitate to comment because I'm not qualified to give advice. I know what I did. You can see the lenses in my signature. I had all of them except the new 100-400ii when I bought my 7D2. I totaled up what it would cost me to replace what I have, including what I'd need to get the same field of view with a full frame camera to duplicate what I get with a crop camera.

Like you, I can afford a 5D Mk III. I haven't used one but from all accounts, it's a very fine camera. What I can't afford are the long lenses for wildlife and birding. I'm doing quite well with the 7D2 and the 100-400ii along with the Canon 1.4X III. That combo is expensive but the cost pales in comparison to the 5D Mk III plus one of the
super telephoto lenses. I'm at almost 900mm with what I have. I would need a 600 f/4 with a 1.4X or a 500 f/4 with a 2X to get there with a 5D Mk III.

Then I would have to replace my 15-85 as well. I know myself. Since I would have a nice full frame camera, I would want a great landscape lens.... like the 24-70 II... End of discussion with myself. I am quite content with the 7D2 and the lenses I have. Are they the best out there? Of course not.... But neither is the 5D Mk III. I mean... there is medium format, etc.

I wouldn't have to replace any of my lenses if I went with the 5Diii, but I'm afraid that I would be disappointed when I lose the extra reach that I currently get while using my 70-200L. How has the 7Dii performed for you in low light situations?

I'm the wrong person to ask about that. I mostly shoot outside in the nice, Florida sunshine. You might want to ask that question on the 7D2 thread: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17463435

Tough decision...... both are great cameras. You might end up being better off with a two camera solution. Lots of people shoot a 5D Mk III and a 7D. Some are upgrading to the 7D2... others are not. I realize I'm waffling here. That's because though I love the IQ I'm getting with the 7D2, people rave about the differences when they get a full frame camera. As long as I can get great feather and face details with my birds, I'm ecstatic.

I'm sure those with far more experience and knowledge than I have will weigh in. The wealth of knowledge on this site is staggering.

What is so bad about the current 7D that makes you want to switch? Low light? Most sports games a well lit enough that you could honestly get by with the 7D mk I and a 70-200 f/2.8. I owned the 7D and it's not a shabby camera despite being a few years older. The 5D III is due to be replaced later this year so whatever upgrades you think you may be getting will be short lived and once again you desire to get the next best thing will again be peaked by the new offering. As for the 7D II from what I've read/seen it's only a modest upgrade from the MK I. The AF on the MK I was pretty revolutionary it the main reason I switched from a 5D mk II to a MK III since the MKIII had the same system as the 7D MK I.

Personally I would stand pat with what you have now unless you can find a reason to justify an upgrade. For sports photography I don't see any reason to upgrade from a 7D I to either the 5D MKIII or the 7D II unless you just have money you want to burn. Personally I would rather invest my money into fast lenses than try to keep up with the latest camera body.

The main reason I'm looking to upgrade is the low light performance. About half of the outdoor fields that I shoot on are not lit very well, so getting usable shots is sometimes difficult. The fields and gyms where the lighting is half decent, I don't have any issues with the 7D. Except for the $5K+ type lenses, I have all the L glass that I need.

jdunker wrote in post #17463577
I wouldn't have to replace any of my lenses if I went with the 5Diii, but I'm afraid that I would be disappointed when I lose the extra reach that I currently get while using my 70-200L.

Unfortunately, you will be disappointed with your 70-200mm if you go full frame. I had the 70-200mmL f/4 IS with my crop camera and it sure fell short when I went FF. Had to purchase the 100-400mmL

jdunker wrote in post #17463670
The main reason I'm looking to upgrade is the low light performance. About half of the outdoor fields that I shoot on are not lit very well, so getting usable shots is sometimes difficult. The fields and gyms where the lighting is half decent, I don't have any issues with the 7D. Except for the $5K+ type lenses, I have all the L glass that I need.

Your best low light performance is going to be with a full frame camera, how much better is the question. I usually like to look here: http://snapsort.com …I-vs-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II when comparing cameras. It helps me decide which features are important to me and which are not.

Good luck.

A thought - a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS might well suit you if you go fullframe and want to emulate a 70-200mm on crop sensor. It's bigger and heavier and really a monopod lens (that is to say yes you can shoot it handheld; but honestly a monopod will save your arms a lot of ache)

I have both the 5D3 and the 7D2. I used to have the 7D as well. I travel a lot so I need a backup and having both the FF and crop bodies is a big bonus. I feel your pain because it would be tough to give one of them up. What I can say without a doubt is that the 7D2 is an awesome camera. It is really heads and tails above the original 7D and it ticks an awful lot of boxes on my 5D3 'wish I had' list. As a sports and wildlife camera the 7D2 offers features and customizations that I've waited on for a long time. I shoot regularly at ISO 6400 and even that high the IQ is quite good. It is impossible to say which is categorically better than the other because it really depends on your use. One honest comment I can make is that the 7D2 appears to be a little more versatile overall. The 5D3 has the advantage in ISO performance but otherwise it would have a harder time filling the shoes of the 7D2 than vice-versa. Try to rent or borrow one and see if the IQ suits your needs.

jdunker wrote in post #17463536
I'm having a bit of a dilemma. I currently have an original 7D and I'm wanting to upgrade to a new body. I've wanted the 5Diii for a couple of years, but couldn't swing the $$. It's now on sale to the point that I could get one, but I can't decide between that and the new 7Dii. I shoot high school sports, horse events, wild life and landscape while I'm traveling. I have a friend who has the 5Diii and I'm sold on the IQ, but I worry about losing the FPS and the extra reach that the 7Dii would give me. I thought about getting the 5Diii and continuing to use my 7D for the sports, but the bad lights at the night games and indoor gyms are making it difficult to capture images I'm willing to try to sell.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

I am having a hard time making the same decision, between the 5D mark III and the 7D mark II. I also have the original 7D now. I don't want to loose the extra reach of the crop body, but when I look at the 5D mark III image quality compared to the original 7D, it makes me feel like I am wasting my time with the 7D. I am afraid that if I go with the 7D mark II that I will feel the same way. I will just have to deal with the loss of reach when shooting wildlife and high school sports. I am leaning toward the 5D mark III and selling my 70-200L 2.8 and buying the 100-400L.

3jc wrote in post #17464454
I am having a hard time making the same decision, between the 5D mark III and the 7D mark II. I also have the original 7D now. I don't want to loose the extra reach of the crop body, but when I look at the 5D mark III image quality compared to the original 7D, it makes me feel like I am wasting my time with the 7D. I am afraid that if I go with the 7D mark II that I will feel the same way. I will just have to deal with the loss of reach when shooting wildlife and high school sports. I am leaning toward the 5D mark III and selling my 70-200L 2.8 and buying the 100-400L.

Well..... I went to the store and put my 70-200mm 2.8L on the 5D Mark III, The 7D Mark II and my 7D. I just shot some random shots around the store. Believe it or not, I liked the shots from the 7D Mark II the best.

Remember, if you opted for a 1.4x teleconverter, you'd probably lose less sharpness with the 5D - but the 7DII will probably still pull in a hair more detail than that setup.

Perhaps the boost in high ISO performance on the 7DII is more than adequate for you - it sounds like it may be. You could always go around the internet and find other people's shots with both setups for more direct results... I think you may be better off with the 7DII if you're focal length limited and can live with the high ISO performance of the 7DII, then you should be happy with that combo.

So, the real question would be if you'd need more lens to run the 5DIII, and it sounds like you might.


IMO:

If you can't add a 1.4x teleconverter or get another lens, the 7DII is probably the right choice for you.

If you can add a 1.4x teleconverter, that would give you ~280mm vs ~320mm EFL with 10% more resolution and still a ~.5 stop ISO advantage, but slightly worse AF performance from the teleconverter. That's a wash, I think.

If you are NOT focal length limited and can frame shots as you please, then the 5DIII will be at an advantage. But I doubt this is the case with 200mm unless you're only shooting indoor sports.

If you're bouncing up against ISO 6400 on the 7DII a lot, you might end up wanting the 5DIII... or a faster prime lens if you're shooting indoors and don't need 200mm.

Seems like the 7DII is generally going to be the superior choice for you as long as you are somewhat focal length limited, but if you're NOT FLL, you should strongly consider the 5DIII.

Having sort of the same debate here. Sold my 5D3 + lenses a few months ago anticipating the launch of the 5D4... Of course that didn't happen, but I'm in a place right now where I'm definitely looking for a new SLR , mainly (about 99%) because I need a very good focussing camera in low light/indoors. I shoot my kids a lot indoors and my current (tide me over) camera, the Sony a6000, just doesn't cut it for that. It's a great outdoors/trip/family camera but it's not so good indoors. But the 7D2 looks pretty good too.

So my practical question is: does the 7D2 focus as good (or better) as the 5D3 indoors? And how is the ISO performance on the 7D2 compared to the 5D3. As it is now, I have the funds to get the 5D3 + 24-105/F4 (which I had before, plus the 70-200/F2.8 IS II) or I can get the 7D2 + 17-55/F2.8 (thus getting about the same DOF as the FF+F4) and even spare some money to get a nice prime. But I definitely want ISO performance that's almost on par as my 5D3 had.

Or I can wait for the 5D4...but who knows when/if that will happen. In the meantime, I'm missing too much shots of my kids where the Sony fails to AF. Again, a nice camera but not suited for this kind of shooting.

lapino wrote in post #17467391
And how is the ISO performance on the 7D2 compared to the 5D3.

5D3 has better ISO performance

I did a horse jumping show this weekend. In the Arena. A Dark Enclosed Arena.

My first time ever over fences. But I managed to get the timing down and was shooting a 2-3 frame burst..

my settings were 1/800 f 2.8 to 4.0 at 12,800 to 16000 iso (Sixteen Thousand) 70-200 2.8 L non is.

Images are decent. 8x10 would be grainy, but 5x7-4x6 is adequate, and much better than any kit camera or anything anyone gets with their cell phone. I know a 5dIII would be a 'bit' better, but I dont think by much and honestly the fps caught the horses in some very nice positions in sequence over 1 fence. The 70-200 on the crop sensor was perfect for me to stand over in the corner and be able to get any fence I wanted in the arena.

I still want and will get a 5DIII, but if I had both cameras right now, I suspect that I'd use the 7DII over the 5DIII in any over fences situation. Can't wait to get to try it out in good lighting!

Two strait out of camera jpgs, only reduced, no sharpening, no pp applied.

Image hosted by forum (717921) © ksbal THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.