Which is best choice for Air Shows - 7D or 5D II

Which would be the better camera body to upgrade to when my main photography interest is air shows, the 7D or a 5D II? Does the 7D focus more quickly than the 5D II? Intend to continue with the Canon 100-400 lens, would I miss the effective 1.6 crop feature if I went for the 5D II?

Thank you.

7D is the one you want

7D has a superior AF system which is more critical for fast moving subjects.

Well the 7D has a better focussing system and a crop factor, but at airshow distances the 5D would not disappoint IMO

I took these with my 5D mark ii

http://www.f11photogra​phy.co.uk/jerseyairsho​w

No problem focusing

Years past, I've had two bodies with me ... usually the 5D with a wide lens and the 10D with a zoom and they worked out very well (considering the camera differences)

Last year, only brought the 7D and swapped lenses as I went ... in the air - zoom ... ground - wide

This year I'm bringing the 5DMKII w/24-70 and the 7D w/100-400

Whichever you decide, if you only bring one camera body, bring a wide and telephoto lens.

either will suffice, 7d has better focus, the 5d2 more cropability but each is as good for taking good shots.
these with the 5d2

7d will be a good choice to capture fast distance moving objects and plus with the 8fps will benefit as well, so you do not miss that shot.

Planes in the air ..... hands down the 7D.

Just make sure you have it set up properly .... AF tracking speed and all of that.

Planes on the ground ..... ones as good as the other more or less.

7D + 100-400mm IS L Lens = Perfect Combination ( for planes in flight )

I use my 24-105mm f/4 IS L lens for stuff on the ground.

Thank you for all the replies. Looks like the 7D is getting more votes, so I might choose to delay moving to full sized sensor for a few more years! Even with a 100-400mm lens I find a lot of my photos need cropping, so I guess if I used this lens on a 5D II, I might start running out of pixels if I was to crop an image to get a similarly cropped image taken on the 7D?

If you crop an image taken on a 5D II to produce an image equivalent to what a crop sensor captures, how many pixels would the image end up having (effectively cropping the 5D II image to get the "1.6x zoom effect" of a crop sensor)?

PS - Thanks Jayrou and Nikolas for postig example photos, did you do any post processing on those photos Nikolas and were all (the flying photos) taken with your 400mm?

if you will do a lot of tracking airborne subjects, 7D hands down. stationary subjects you can use either one.

The 60D isn't too shabby either, this is with a lowly 55-250 @ 250 on Sunday.. Personally I'd rather use a crop body, more pixels on target for crops and the extra 1.6x.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/5​776999777/

vtecsilver wrote in post #12509651
If you crop an image taken on a 5D II to produce an image equivalent to what a crop sensor captures, how many pixels would the image end up having (effectively cropping the 5D II image to get the "1.6x zoom effect" of a crop sensor)?

I may be off on the exact math, but I believe if you take the 5d2's 21mp and crop down to the 1.6 FoV, you'd only get like 8.5mp worth of image. You take a significant hit in "magnification" (due to pixel density). This is the main reason why the 5D2 has such a superior ISO noise (lack-of) advantage over crops. Where as in that same 8.5mp crop, the 7D (60D/T2i/T3i) gives you 18mp.

If you're just shooting jets (w/o care for prop blur), then I think the 5d2 will be more than sufficient if you have a long enough lens. You won't really depend on the FPS as much. However, if you'll be shooting more prop planes and want to capture prop-blur to give that sensation of motion/flight (and not just some model plane thrown up in the air), then the FPS will help provide you with higher keeper rates as you track and pan. That's been my personal experience when I'm at airshows.

7d strictly because of the crop. A 200mm on a 5D looks like nothing.

Honestly I don't think planes are that tough for AF. There's a ton of contrast with the sky, and they're not that close. Either would have no problem with the AF.

SeanH wrote in post #12510929
7d strictly because of the crop. A 200mm on a 5D looks like nothing.

Honestly I don't think planes are that tough for AF. There's a ton of contrast with the sky, and they're not that close. Either would have no problem with the AF.

I think that one is more lens AF speed - I did have some issues getting a good lock with the 55-250 b/c it's just so darn slow to focus sometimes. I'd have to get it close with manual and then let it finish. When the planes are going by quickly you don't have a ton of time to get a good AF lock.

Maybe eventually I'll decide to put the money into a better zoom with faster AF (the 70-200 f4L IS USM comes to mind), but for now it does well enough..

jwcdds wrote in post #12509714
I may be off on the exact math, but I believe if you take the 5d2's 21mp and crop down to the 1.6 FoV, you'd only get like 8.5mp worth of image. You take a significant hit in "magnification" (due to pixel density). This is the main reason why the 5D2 has such a superior ISO noise (lack-of) advantage over crops. Where as in that same 8.5mp crop, the 7D (60D/T2i/T3i) gives you 18mp.

If you're just shooting jets (w/o care for prop blur), then I think the 5d2 will be more than sufficient if you have a long enough lens. You won't really depend on the FPS as much. However, if you'll be shooting more prop planes and want to capture prop-blur to give that sensation of motion/flight (and not just some model plane thrown up in the air), then the FPS will help provide you with higher keeper rates as you track and pan. That's been my personal experience when I'm at airshows.

(I believe these two were un-cropped if memory serves me right.)

I think it is closer to 13 MP not 8.5 (21/1.6)

Great pics.