7D or 5D1 for portraits/landscapes?

I don't see many comparisons with the 7D and the original 5D.

I cannot put the decision off much longer. I am expecting a small insurance payment and I will be able to spend around a thousand dollars to 1,500 or so. I currently have a 450D and 500D set of bodies. I will sell the 450D and that will give me an extra 300 or so since it only has 6000 shutter clicks and a long life in front of it.

My big thing is portraits mainly, and the problem I have with the 450d and 500D is the non cross type outer points, so I have to focus and recompose and when the lens is fairly wide open this throws my focus off. So, i need all cross type points and that's my main issue.

Now, I could go for a 50D or 60D as well i guess, since they both have cross type, but one thing the 7D has is all the extra focus points. So, considering the advantage of having all the 7D points, is it a good portrait body because you should be able to keep from focusing and recomposing with so many points to choose from?

Does the original 5D have all cross type points? And since I can get a used one for around 700 would that be my best option?

Since the 50D and 60D have the same number of points as my current crops, but all cross type, one of them may be my best option as I don't really have too much problem using the outer 8 points and keeping from recomposing much, it's just that the 7D with all those focus points sure seems like it would take some seriously sharp portraits with almost zero recompose.

Literally, I have a week or two to make this huge decision. The FF 5D has a great following and I can't help thinking that for portraits and landscapes it too would be very sweet as long as all it's points are cross type

As for lenses, I can sell a couple of mine to change over to EF so that all my lenses would work on my 500D and a FF 5D if i went that route. I have the Sigma 301.4, just weeks old, haven't even filled out the warranty, and it's a sharp copy, so that will be no problem to sell and won't have to add anything to get the EF 28 1.8 if I want and that will work with the FF and 500D. I have the EF-s 60mm Macro, and it's also in perfect shape so i could sell it and grab maybe the older EF 50 macro which people seem to love just fine.

Then i have the EF 100mm F2 so that will already work on FF and my 500D. So switching my Sigma and my EF-S 60 macro over to EF lenses won't be a problem and won't cost me anything.

So, what would you guys do if you were mainly in to portraits?

1. Classic 5D, (if it has all cross type points) and switch my two non EF lenses over

2. 7D because of all the extra focus points meaning not nearly as much recomposing for getting eyes sharp

3. Maybe a 50D (which has Micro adjust) and I can get a refurb unit for around 750 to 800 I see on Ebay (cost even more than a 60D refurb, why?) Or a 60D?

Thanks for any help

I have the 5D and have no complaints for portrait and landscape work. Obviously its an older camera and I would like to have a better LCD, dust shaker, and in camera flash control, but I still wouldnt trade it for a 7D.

I vote for a 5D classic. Now for lenses, I don't see any that you'd enjoy for landscape and portraits. If you're doing landscape, you want a wide lens and none of those would be wide enough, IMO.

Have you looked at something like a 17-40 f/4L? Around $600 used and that will cover you on the wide end. For portraits, it might not be the best. I would say something like a Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.2 (f/1.8 if you're on a strict budget), Canon 135 f/2, or even a 70-200 f/4 non-IS used.

I am biased of course and would select the 7d. The ability to micro-adjust along with the other updated tech would far outweigh the size of the sensor the 5d has.

The 5d classic is still a good value but even the rebel bodies made today can match or exceed the 5d classic in image quality.

If you care to look at my smugmug link below you can see some of my portraits I've taken with the 7d.

As i said, I have the EF 100 F2, and that's basically a sister lens of the 85 1.8 (with even less CA as I understand), and really it should be wonderful for FF portraits, shouldn't it? well, I guess it would be better for out doors portraits cause it would still be a bit long.

I possibly could sell the 60MM macro and get a Tamron 28-70 that would work on the FF. That's a fairly well liked lens

Was just thinking, I might be able to go for a 5d MK2. I could sell the Sigma 30 and have basically 450 dollars to put with my money. That would allow me to get a used 5D MKII with fairly low shutter count.

Then, I could sell the 60MM macro and get a Tamron 28-70 that would work with the 5D MKII, and I would still have my 100 F2 for longer out doors portraits. So, basically, I could go from three lenses down to two and use the extra money to get the 5D MKii, and the Tamron 28-70 would still cover the loss of the 30 mm Sigma and the 60mm Macro, hmm, what about that idea?

maatt wrote in post #14752404
I vote for a 5D classic. Now for lenses, I don't see any that you'd enjoy for landscape and portraits. If you're doing landscape, you want a wide lens and none of those would be wide enough, IMO.

Have you looked at something like a 17-40 f/4L? Around $600 used and that will cover you on the wide end. For portraits, it might not be the best. I would say something like a Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.2 (f/1.8 if you're on a strict budget), Canon 135 f/2, or even a 70-200 f/4 non-IS used.

Thorrulz wrote in post #14752435
I am biased of course and would select the 7d. The ability to micro-adjust along with the other updated tech would far outweigh the size of the sensor the 5d has.

The 5d classic is still a good value but even the rebel bodies made today can match or exceed the 5d classic in image quality.

If you care to look at my smugmug link below you can see some of my portraits I've taken with the 7d.

That is not true. For pure image quality straight out of the camera, the 5dc is still one of the kings. My 7d requires a lot of post processing ( massaging ) before I get anything truly usable from it.

For landscapes and portraits, the 5dc all the way.

guitarjeff wrote in post #14752377
1. Classic 5D, (if it has all cross type points)

The 5D only has a cross type sensor for the center point. The other points are horizontal or vertical depending on the point. This isn't a problem with a bit of practice as the focus points are marked in the viewfinder for their orientation. The cross point is square. The horizontal points have a vertical rectangle, and the vertical points have a horizontal rectangle.

Make sure that your line of contrast that you are using for focusing on cuts the long side of the focus rectangle and the focus point will work great for autofocus. If the line of contrast is parallel to the rectangle, ie cuts the short side of the rectangle, then the AF will hunt and won't work well.

As for image quality, if you are looking way too closely, and don't care about the other camera features, then the 5D is considerably better than the 7D and the bit of extra vignetting from the 5D often helps portraits.

Hogloff wrote in post #14752648
That is not true. For pure image quality straight out of the camera, the 5dc is still one of the kings. My 7d requires a lot of post processing ( massaging ) before I get anything truly usable from it.

For landscapes and portraits, the 5dc all the way.

I've noticed lots of grain in the oof areas of the 5d sensor that some individuals say is more pleasing than the noise look in the oof areas of the 7d. Truth be told the grain of the 5d is still there after printing while the 7d images look remarkably clean by comparison.

As far as massaging an image more from one body to another in post production, the 7d gives you more raw data to manipulate so that should come as no surprise to the lesser mp 5d. The statement is true that the newer rebel bodies hold their own and can surpass the original 5d's images.

If you have a 7d and 5d could you post a raw image from each that everyone can download so we can make a fair comparison. I have a friend that had a 5d and can tell you the 5d's images did need a fair amount of post processing depending on the lighting conditions, depth of field and iso used.

Of the cameras mentioned...the 5dc stands out at the apex. I used to have one now I shoot with a 5dmkII, a 50d and soon to have (In transit) a 1dmkIII. Most portrait photographer friends of mine shoot with soft focusing lenses or soft focus in pp so that should not be an issue. Now landscapes is a different animall altogether and that equals 5dc bar none.

Amazing how gut-wrenching this decision is. I am seriouly also considering the 50D. Refurb for 800, has all cross type points, micro adjust, and then I could affor to buy a EF-s 1020mm as well for wide landscapes.

This would give me the %0D and 500D, both refurbs with basically under a thousand shutter clicks, and five lenses. I would have

EF-s 10-20mm
Sigma 30 1.4
EFS 60mm macro
EF 100 2.0
and my Nifty 250

Hard to pass all that up since I could spend about 1,300 on all that. and even less cause i would be selling my 450D for 300, so basically a thousand bucks for all that, and the 50D would have all I need with the cross type points and micro adjust as well.

So i am thinking that or just get a 5D MKII, the Tamron 28-70 and have my EF 100 F2 (so two lenses for the 5D FF, and the Nifty 250 for my T1i body

Darn, so tough.

Loved the 7D portraits you gave the link to, some nice ones.

The 18mp cameras (7D, T4i, T3i, T2i, 60D) all use basically the same sensor. The chief difference (at least in terms of picture quality) is the AF. For a non moving subject, like a landscape or portrait, all should produce the same image quality. For sports or moving subjects the 7D and 60D will produce more sharp keepers.

If the goal is just a sharp shot, nearly any camera can do it. My 40D made images as sharp as my 5D under good conditions. An 18mp Rebel with 10-22 lens should make a landscape at least as good as a 5D with 17-40.

The main differences are depth of field, lenses, and low light. If you want to shoot wide, the 10-22 is a good lens but the only crop option. On FF you have 17-40, 16-35, a ton of primes, etc. If you want shallow depth for portraits, FF makes it much easier. The newer crops are newer sensor technology than the 5D and hence go to higher ISO sensitivity. However, with larger pixels, the laws of physics make the 5D often cleaner at the same sensitivity, although the max sensitivity is lower.

For portrait or landscape the 7D is overkill. A 60D or T2i should be enough. I would take a 5D hands down.

The 7D equals or exceeds the 5D at ISO 3200 and up. I like the 5D for images under ISO 3200, the 7D for above.

ISO 3200 is pretty clean with very minimal PP.

IMAGE LINK: http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …301380&k=J6cvHq​N&lb=1&s=O

well, the T2i is not an option because it doesn't have the cross type points and that is the biggest problem I have with portraits on the 500D and 450D, when I use the outer points so that i don't have to recompose my focus is not nearly as accurate, an when I use the center point and recompose I am also having trouble when I am using a lens fairly wide as the dof is so shallow.

Yes, I am satisfied with even the 450D and 500D for actual image quality, and going through the forum and looking at many crop camera sample pics I see fine quality and really don't see much of a difference between that and FF besides the better dof on the ff

I have plenty of flash units and won't be using high ISO for portraits so the need for FF for that reason doesn't exist for me really. So I am realizing that the crop sensors are just fine for portraits and landscapes if you are using flash and good light outdoors. I have found that good lensesseem to make far more difference in image quality than the difference between crop and FF. I find that my Sigma 30, the 60 macro, and the 100 F2 are very sharpe, fine, fast lenses, and it's there that I see the real jump in image quality and also the same thing in the camera threads with the samples. I see FF pics that don't look too nifty when taken with a lens like a nifty fifty, yet I see awesome 450D pics that have been taken with an L lens. So I think that the lens makes more difference than going from crop to FF, unless the low light thing is the reason you want FF.

So I have boiled this down to the 50D (because of MFA) with five lenses, or the 5D MKII and just a Tamron 28-70 and my 100 F2. if i do the %D MKII I will have to wait until a later time to get a really wide lens for landscapes, but I should have my portraiture needs handled right from the start.

saintz wrote in post #14753696
The 18mp cameras (7D, T4i, T3i, T2i, 60D) all use basically the same sensor. The chief difference (at least in terms of picture quality) is the AF. For a non moving subject, like a landscape or portrait, all should produce the same image quality. For sports or moving subjects the 7D and 60D will produce more sharp keepers.

If the goal is just a sharp shot, nearly any camera can do it. My 40D made images as sharp as my 5D under good conditions. An 18mp Rebel with 10-22 lens should make a landscape at least as good as a 5D with 17-40.

The main differences are depth of field, lenses, and low light. If you want to shoot wide, the 10-22 is a good lens but the only crop option. On FF you have 17-40, 16-35, a ton of primes, etc. If you want shallow depth for portraits, FF makes it much easier. The newer crops are newer sensor technology than the 5D and hence go to higher ISO sensitivity. However, with larger pixels, the laws of physics make the 5D often cleaner at the same sensitivity, although the max sensitivity is lower.

For portrait or landscape the 7D is overkill. A 60D or T2i should be enough. I would take a 5D hands down.

Hogloff wrote in post #14752648
My 7d requires a lot of post processing ( massaging ) before I get anything truly usable from it.

Would you care to post a before/after ?? I am always curious as what others do to get the best from a 7d. I'm always looking to improve..........

Thorrulz wrote in post #14752435
The 5d classic is still a good value but even the rebel bodies made today can match or exceed the 5d classic in image quality.

This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on here.