which camera

Ok so, I need some input from people. I am looking at getting a new camera...I have been looking at the canon 5d mark ll, and the canon new 7d. I have been looking at all of the reviews and such, full sensor on the 5d etc. I don't do much video but, may be one day I will get more into that. So people, please give me some input, and thx in advance!

hconstante wrote in post #11925514
Ok so, I need some input from people. I am looking at getting a new camera...I have been looking at the canon 5d mark ll, and the canon new 7d. I have been looking at all of the reviews and such, full sensor on the 5d etc. I don't do much video but, may be one day I will get more into that. So people, please give me some input, and thx in advance!

Gotta know what you're going to be photographing before we can make any reasonable recommendation.

Also would be useful to know the budget. The 5Dmk2 will get you somewhat better image quality, but at a relatively steep price compared with the 7D.

What lenses do you currently have? What do you shoot?

What sort of camera are you coming from? Is this your first DSLR? I'd have to recommend the 7D from those two choices.

I have the canon rebel xti, I use canon glass 70-200, I shoot portrait, families etc. I know that the 5d is an excellent camera for that type of shooting, I'm just wondering how good this 7d really is? I know it can be very fast and I wish I could afford both! Is the 7d going to be the next top dog?

I have a 7d myself and it's speed is certainly a great feature over the 5d. Personally I'd just buy a 7d body and use the money you saved to get a nice lens from day one. You can't go wrong with either choice though.

hconstante wrote in post #11926898
I have the canon rebel xti, I use canon glass 70-200, I shoot portrait, families etc. I know that the 5d is an excellent camera for that type of shooting, I'm just wondering how good this 7d really is? I know it can be very fast and I wish I could afford both! Is the 7d going to be the next top dog?

Anyone who claims the 7D can't do portraits really well is full of it.

These were taken with the 7D, by Stephen Eastwood when he was testing the camera: http://stepheneastwood​.com/Canon/amy_7t/. Note that a couple of those were shot at ISO 3200.


Yeah, I think it'll work for you just fine.

Like all of the above comments, it's hard to say what's best in a generic sense. Frankly, a portrait taken with a 5DMKii, 7D, 60D, T2i can all be excellent. The differences between these are in the subtle (and some not so subtle) differences. I have the 7D and it's an excellent camera. But using it with, say, the EF-S 50-250 (~$200) vs the EF 70-200 F4/L (~$600) would render very different results. In fact, putting the "L" lens on a T2i that has the same sensor the 7D has would give you the same picture the 7D would for $700 less.
But if you're doing sports photography you might need the faster FPS of the 7D.

As far as image quality goes, the 5D can produce some very excellent, low-noise photos. But being full-frame, you aren't going to be able to use the EF-S lenses on that camera - not that you'd want to in the long run. You'll be spending much more money on lenses than you'd ever imagine.

Have fun with whatever you choose!

tjmcnamara wrote in post #11927239
Like all of the above comments, it's hard to say what's best in a generic sense. Frankly, a portrait taken with a 5DMKii, 7D, 60D, T2i can all be excellent. The differences between these are in the subtle (and some not so subtle) differences. I have the 7D and it's an excellent camera. But using it with, say, the EF-S 50-250 (~$200) vs the EF 70-200 F4/L (~$600) would render very different results.

Very different in that you get a shallower depth of field with the 70-200 at the longer focal lengths, yes. Very different in that the autofocus of the 70-200 will be quicker and more accurate, yes (although the 55-250 isn't ultra slow or anything).

Very different in terms of sharpness, contrast, detail retention, etc.? No. Yes, the 70-200 will be better, but it won't be night and day better.

The 55-250 is a lot better than you'd think, given its price point.


It used to be that there was an immense difference in the quality produced by the inexpensive lenses versus the expensive ones. But that appears to have changed in the last couple of years, with the introduction of the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS. Both of those are much better optically than their predecessors. The main differences between the more expensive lenses and their inexpensive brethren these days are things like depth of field control and optical quality at the extreme edges and corners. In other words, either things where getting the improvement requires putting a lot more glass into the lens (making it bigger, heavier, and more expensive to construct), or things that tend to matter only to the most critical of applications.

Thx for tha input guys!!!!