5d lll or 7d

Depends on your budget and current lens collection.

If you can afford the $2000 difference, then sure. If not...and you're stuck with less-than-stellar glass, I wouldn't. I don't care how high you can crank the ISO, it's always better to shoot at the lowest ISO possible. Just like all other camera-photo-threads on POTN, there have been some stunning photos posted by new 5D3 owners. And there have been many point-n-shoot snapshots posted by other 5D3 owners as well.

Don't get me wrong. The 5D3 is a nice camera. But $3500 can get you a 7D and 70-200/2.8ii. I'd go for the latter.

stsva wrote in post #14170344
Since the 7D does not have a "crummy sensor," the OP won't have to make that choice.

I was never impressed with the 7d sensor. I'll take a ff camera and a 50 1.4 over the 7d any day

gintasr wrote in post #14170400
I was never impressed with the 7d sensor. I'll take a ff camera and a 50 1.4 over the 7d any day

Most complaints about poor results out of the 7D are either poorly exposed images or issues with AF. I've gotten some fantastic stuff out of my 7D; I haven't done as much sports/action as I'd like to do, but if I knew there was no possibility of me doing sports anymore, I'd probably still keep it, I like the quality of the images I get out of it with minimal effort.

gintasr wrote in post #14170400
I was never impressed with the 7d sensor. I'll take a ff camera and a 50 1.4 over the 7d any day

That's fine for you. It's not particularly useful, however, to someone trying to decide whether the 7D plus glass is a better deal than the 5DIII essentially by itself. If money is no object, then I'd have both the 7D and a 5DIII, but money is usually a consideration for most folks. The 7D doesn't have the high-ISO image quality of a 5DII or 5DIII, but it does very well for a crop sensor when shot using ETTR.

habenero wrote in post #14169663
Would you buy a 7d or 5d 3 if you shoot field sports, court sports and some general portrait. Not making a living at it.

The technology on both is about the same at this point, except the advantage in low light shooting for the 5D3.

I would only get the 7D if I wanted more pixels in tele shots with a long lens. If you're not shooting birds in flight or animals up close from a distance, I would most definitely go with the 5D3.

I don't see the big deal with everyone saying that you have to have better lenses. I think it's turned into a mantra that is just said even though it doesn't mean anything. I have seen fantastic photographs from old camera's with regular lenses.

I've spent money buying more expensive glass and it didn't make a hoot of difference between the shots I was taking with my old camera with it's kit 18-200 lens. In fact some of my best photo's came from that lens.

it's the craftsman not his tools that makes a project.

In "sports" there is a very nice series of Lacrosse pictures taken with a 5d 3. I sold my original 7d to get a Mk4 then of course haven't been able to find a new or refurb one. I did a CLP 7d again, but that 5d3 is starting to appear awfully tempting to me....

If I was just starting up - I'd do the 7d plus L glass. If I had glass - I'd do the 5d3

get 5d3. i am just playing with my mums old SLR Full frame FILM camera and the viewfinder, IQ craps all over my 400d

mjmackinnon wrote in post #14170738
I don't see the big deal with everyone saying that you have to have better lenses. I think it's turned into a mantra that is just said even though it doesn't mean anything. I have seen fantastic photographs from old camera's with regular lenses.

I've spent money buying more expensive glass and it didn't make a hoot of difference between the shots I was taking with my old camera with it's kit 18-200 lens. In fact some of my best photo's came from that lens.

it's the craftsman not his tools that makes a project.

Personally, I think it's a thing of 'if you don't have glass and you're picking one of the two cameras, you can pick up a nice camera (7D) and lenses for much less than what you'd be paying for just the other body alone', although I obviously can't speak for everyone.

bfleck51 wrote in post #14170117
Not even in the same league...go for the 5dlll

That's word for word what I was about to say. Unfortunately price is in a different league also.

If you have the money, get the 5d iii kit. That will solve the good glass problem. And you won't have to worry about getting the upgrade bug for a long while.

Mistabernie wrote in post #14170836
Personally, I think it's a thing of 'if you don't have glass and you're picking one of the two cameras, you can pick up a nice camera (7D) and lenses for much less than what you'd be paying for just the other body alone', although I obviously can't speak for everyone.

Exactly.

For example:

5DIII with Canon 24-105 kit. $4300

7D with Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and Canon 24-70 f/2.8. $4150

mjmackinnon wrote in post #14170738
I don't see the big deal with everyone saying that you have to have better lenses. I think it's turned into a mantra that is just said even though it doesn't mean anything. I have seen fantastic photographs from old camera's with regular lenses.

I've spent money buying more expensive glass and it didn't make a hoot of difference between the shots I was taking with my old camera with it's kit 18-200 lens. In fact some of my best photo's came from that lens.

it's the craftsman not his tools that makes a project.

So... you have the 5D3 and current collection of expensive lenses because?

krb wrote in post #14170917
Exactly.

For example:

5DIII with Canon 24-105 kit. $4300

7D with Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and Canon 24-70 f/2.8. $4150

I would normally agree to this. But the ISO is so much better on the 5diii, that you can work with the f4 and get even better results than a 7d and f2.8. Then later on maybe get a 70-200mm f4l if you need more than 105mm.

tvphotog wrote in post #14170691
The technology on both is about the same at this point, except the advantage in low light shooting for the 5D3.

I would only get the 7D if I wanted more pixels in tele shots with a long lens. If you're not shooting birds in flight or animals up close from a distance, I would most definitely go with the 5D3.

This.

jwcdds wrote in post #14170926
So... you have the 5D3 and current collection of expensive lenses because?

LOL I am waiting for his answer too.

Casual snapper + average camera gear = crap photos
Casual snapper + pro camera gear = decent photos
Pro photographer + average camera gear = very good photos
Pro photographer + pro camera gear = excellent photos