A 5D mark 3 is not a good alternative to a 7d!!

jaomul wrote in post #15882944
Hi all,

Many here ask about a 7d in low light and before you know it someone recommends they get a 5D mark 3. Sure the 5D3 is great. It also costs 2.5 times the price of a 7d and wont isn't compatable with EF-S lenses, so often it really doesn't matter if the 5d will drive you to work, it is not usually an option. Fair enough if the question mentions budget as not being an issue etc etc.

The 7d has in fact Canons best crop sensor (shared with all their other crop cameras), so if thats not good enough people have to look at other brands or go ff, but to say it is poor in low light is not fully justified. 4 years ago it was probably the best on the market, so does that mean anything taken in low light with a crop previous to that is useless.

There are so many things you're overlooking in this rant. The most important is that what is right for you may not be right for someone else.

Personally, if low light is the biggest concern, I'd go for the 6D. It's got a slight edge over the 5D3. But other people have different opinions. Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has got a couple and many of them stink.

95flhr wrote in post #15883105
I own both, and both have their positives and negatives.

I love my 7D for bird photography and sports where light is great.
I love the 5D3 for portraits, lower light photography, and landscapes.

It's an Apples to Oranges comparison between the two.

You see, I feel it was an apples and oranges before the "III" when the differences between 5D and 7D (or 1D prior to the 7D release for that matter) were more significant. It used to be very hard to get a 5D to what a 1D did, and likewise when the 7D was introduced.

The lines have been blurred an awful lot with the 5DIII, it is faster than previous 5Ds in every way and now BEATS the 7D and older 1D bodies in AF. It's pixel density is no match for the 7D, but it still beats most 1D bodies for "reach" in this regard.

This is a game changer, and the landscape is no longer comparable.
Now we are comparing juice oranges to seedless Clementines. The Juice oranges may make better juice, but the clementine is better in every other way,.. easier to peel, no seeds, much more flavorful, ....and it still makes a great glass of juice that some may prefer the taste of.

h4ppydaze wrote in post #15882981
Canon does need to release a new sensor though. The 7d sensor is so far behind in tech that it's embarrassing hat they're still using it in new camera bodies.

Can you give some examples of its limitations that prevent you from accomplishing what you need to do? I'm debating on selling my mint condition 40D and buying a 5DII, but will certainly keep my 7D.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15883802
You see, I feel it was an apples and oranges before the "III" when the differences between 5D and 7D (or 1D for that matter) were more significant.
The lines have been blurred an awful lot with the 5DIII, it is faster in every way and now BEATS the 7D and older 1D bodies in AF

This is a game changer, and the landscape is no longer comparable.
Now we are comparing juice oranges to seedless Clementines. The Juice oranges may make better juice, but the clementine is better in every other way,.. and it still makes a tasty glass of juice.

I spoke with an AP staff photographer this weekend. He has two 1Dx and a 5DIII available to him. He said the only time the 1Dx bodies come out is for sports and only then because of the frame rate.

Sure the 7D is decent in low light and if you don't like FF then it may seem great. But the thing I don't like about the 7d (and its Nikon counterpart the D7000) is in fact HOW it processes the low light into the images. Skin tones get flat and I'd honestly rather have a little grain than deal with the coloration issues that come from its high ISO noise correction.
The 7D is a good option for someone who wants one camera that will do everything pretty well. The 5D3 is a better option but the way I like to evaluate my camera purchases is this "What will make me the most money?" and I think for some folks (sports photogs in particular) the 7D could save more money on the front end and make the same money on the back end.
But most people here aren't concerned with what will make them money because most folks here aren't in this as a profession. In my professional opinion I found the best cameras for me that I personally do own are a 1DS3 and a 1D4.
I have company Nikon gear that is just ok.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15883802
You see, I feel it was an apples and oranges before the "III" when the differences between 5D and 7D (or 1D prior to the 7D release for that matter) were more significant. It used to be very hard to get a 5D to what a 1D did, and likewise when the 7D was introduced.

The lines have been blurred an awful lot with the 5DIII, it is faster than previous 5Ds in every way and now BEATS the 7D and older 1D bodies in AF. It's pixel density is no match for the 7D, but it still beats most 1D bodies for "reach" in this regard.

This is a game changer, and the landscape is no longer comparable.
Now we are comparing juice oranges to seedless Clementines. The Juice oranges may make better juice, but the clementine is better in every other way,.. easier to peel, no seeds, much more flavorful, ....and it still makes a great glass of juice that some may prefer the taste of.

Good point. Either way, both are fine camera's and I won't hesitate to use either as a backup to the other.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15883829
I spoke with an AP staff photographer this weekend. He has two 1Dx and a 5DIII available to him. He said the only time the 1Dx bodies come out is for sports and only then because of the frame rate.

Certainly, it's a personal preference thing... but 1DX is so much more responsive. Minimal shutter lag, hardly any mirror blackout, faster AF acquisition. I guess if one really hate having the weight/size of the 1D body? I always shoot with a vertical grip so weight-wise, they're near identical.

jwcdds wrote in post #15883930
Certainly, it's a personal preference thing... but 1DX is so much more responsive. Minimal shutter lag, hardly any mirror blackout, faster AF acquisition. I guess if one really hate having the weight/size of the 1D body? I always shoot with a vertical grip so weight-wise, they're near identical.

I'm sure those things are a factor and certainly for sports. But for spot news coverage he says the 5DIII shines. Keep in mind he is a veteran shooter for the wire service, for those of us from a film background this ISO 6400 stuff and built in 5 frames a second is like voodoo. Not to imply that the 1DX isnt a superior camera, but just that the bar has been raised considerably by the 5DIII.

Oldschool1948 wrote in post #15883820
Can you give some examples of its limitations that prevent you from accomplishing what you need to do? I'm debating on selling my mint condition 40D and buying a 5DII, but will certainly keep my 7D.

It's certainly still a fine camera, the features are great, and it's an excellent package overall. The caveat is that when you compare the sensor to the entry level D3200 it falls flat at high ISOs... the colors especially and DR suffer greatly... Certainly it was great performance for the time, but it's getting a little long in the tooth... and it's the only crop sensor Canon is using!

It's better than the 40D for sure, but not by miles and miles... maybe 1/2 to 1 stop if you're being generous. But the noise does get a bit splotchy and unpleasant moreso than on the 40D. Not scientific observations, just my .02.

jaomul wrote in post #15882944
Hi all,

Many here ask about a 7d in low light and before you know it someone recommends they get a 5D mark 3. Sure the 5D3 is great. It also costs 2.5 times the price of a 7d and wont isn't compatable with EF-S lenses, so often it really doesn't matter if the 5d will drive you to work, it is not usually an option. Fair enough if the question mentions budget as not being an issue etc etc.

The 7d has in fact Canons best crop sensor (shared with all their other crop cameras), so if thats not good enough people have to look at other brands or go ff, but to say it is poor in low light is not fully justified. 4 years ago it was probably the best on the market, so does that mean anything taken in low light with a crop previous to that is useless.

the 1d mark IV was "the best" in that time period. the 7d is now the best by default but if you've been around and paying attention that's not saying much.

TRhoads wrote in post #15883017
I have gone back to using my 7D more...while I did not have a 5D3...I did buy a 5DII in December and used it a lot...but the FF euphoria has worn off...the 5DII is good at a couple things, but I have grown to like my 7D even more now...it is a great camera body.

5d2 and 5d3 are two different cameras entirely.

HyperYagami wrote in post #15883582

Would have been better had it been a .gif image where the bat is raised and lowered, over and over and over!

lapino wrote in post #15883662
Have both. No comparison for high iso/low light. That being said, I have a hard time letting go my 7D and am very much considering just keeping it.

I could see getting a 7d for a "teleconverter" when I need more reach in good light as well as a back-up to the 5d3. I fact I may do that after the 7d successor hits the market and 7d prices start dropping.

jaomul wrote in post #15882944
Hi all,

Many here ask about a 7d in low light and before you know it someone recommends they get a 5D mark 3. Sure the 5D3 is great. It also costs 2.5 times the price of a 7d and wont isn't compatable with EF-S lenses, so often it really doesn't matter if the 5d will drive you to work, it is not usually an option. Fair enough if the question mentions budget as not being an issue etc etc.

The 7d has in fact Canons best crop sensor (shared with all their other crop cameras), so if thats not good enough people have to look at other brands or go ff, but to say it is poor in low light is not fully justified. 4 years ago it was probably the best on the market, so does that mean anything taken in low light with a crop previous to that is useless.

"Oh no, I bought a ton of EF-S lenses. 5D3 is so now worth it; I expect 2.5 times the performance if its cost 2.5 times more"

Have you even USED a 5D3, let alone FF lenses? Or do you feel that your 7D is neglected from all the praise the 5D3's been getting?

HyperYagami wrote in post #15883582

This and....

Electronics progress at a fast rate. Buy a computer at a retail store, technically, it's already antiquated. Older technology is good....newer is better. It just depends on what you can afford at any point in time....