7D for 5D2?

I have a 7D. Pretty happy with it, but I'd like to go full frame. Problem is, I can't keep my 7D and have the 5D2--and I can't afford the 6D (as much as I want it).

I don't shoot birds. I don't need the extra range that comes with a 1.6x sensor. As much as I absolutely LOVE the 7D viewfinder and AF, I have no practical need for it either. I just shoot hipstery, artsy stuff--and then portraits, and weddings. Oh, and landscapes. I basically shoot everything except sports. Concerts especially.

Should I trade my 7D (with a few hundred bucks extra) for a 5D2, or keep my 7D?

Why full frame?

(also, just as an aside, for the sake of completeness, any "reach" advantage you get with the 7D is not due to its smaller sensor, it's due to the high sensor density putting more "pixels on target". Don't believe me? Look through a smaller window and see if your view becomes magnified.)

xarqi wrote in post #16578515
Why full frame?

(also, just as an aside, for the sake of completeness, any "reach" advantage you get with the 7D is not due to its smaller sensor, it's due to the high sensor density putting more "pixels on target". Don't believe me? Look through a smaller window and see if your view becomes magnified.)

Shallower depth of field looks prettier, especially at wider angles.

As far as the extra "reach" is concerned, I don't know the *specific* technicalities, but I get the idea for the most part. Haha.

quadwing wrote in post #16578520
Shallower depth of field looks prettier, especially at wider angles.

oooo k...
You are better off looking to control DoF with aperture or focal length than with format, especially when you consider that FF will give you GREATER DoF for the same FL/f ratio/distance than APS-C, albeit with the image from the FF encompassing more of the scene.

The real reason many claim that FF gives shallower DoF is the tacit use of a longer FL to achieve comparable composition. If want wide AND shallow, maybe a TS lens is what you need.

Apologies in advance if I've opened a can of worms here.

The 6D used goes for about as much as a used 5D2. I'm in this same situation myself. Love my 7D, but I want better high ISO.

It sounds like you're a good candidate for a FF body. Get one at a good price and try it. If you don't like it, sell it.
Oh and your lenses are EF so they'll all work. They'll just be wider and shorter looking.

Don't ever try medium format, it will make things worse if you think you want full frame.

quadwing wrote in post #16578520
Shallower depth of field looks prettier, especially at wider angles.

Just bear in mind a shallow DOF can cause you to miss focus. Especially a problem if you're doing weddings. A full days shooting at wide apertures won't be so great if when you get home and upload the pictures you find the brides eyes fuzzy. There's nothing pretty about that. The 5D2 ( and the 6D ) outer AF points aren't great at capturing movement accurately. Having had that on your 7D, you may find that troublesome.

h14nha wrote in post #16578745
Just bear in mind a shallow DOF can cause you to miss focus. Especially a problem if you're doing weddings. A full days shooting at wide apertures won't be so great if when you get home and upload the pictures you find the brides eyes fuzzy. There's nothing pretty about that. The 5D2 ( and the 6D ) outer AF points aren't great at capturing movement accurately. Having had that on your 7D, you may find that troublesome.

Use of servo mode is a rare event for me.

Wouldn't the bigger sensor make it less of a big deal to stop down the lens anyway?

quadwing wrote in post #16578757
Wouldn't the bigger sensor make it less of a big deal to stop down the lens anyway?

I'm not sure where you're going with this sentence, Maybe you could rent a 1.4/1.2 aperture lens to see if that satisfies you your thin DOF cravings.

I was more so saying that the larger sensor in the 5D2 would mean that I'll have more light entering the sensor at, let's say, 24mm f/2.8, ISO400, 1/100th, vs., on my 7D at the same settings, it may be about a stop of light less. Correct?

quadwing wrote in post #16578806
I was more so saying that the larger sensor in the 5D2 would mean that I'll have more light entering the sensor at, let's say, 24mm f/2.8, ISO400, 1/100th, vs., on my 7D at the same settings, it may be about a stop of light less. Correct?

Well, the same light will come through the lens, but the sensor will intercept less of it in total since it is smaller, but every point on either sensor would be illuminated with equal brightness so there are very few consequences, if any. Does that help?

Depending on your shooting environment will you be using high ISO's ? ? ? Typically what is your ceiling on the 7D ? If you shoot at lower ISO and don't print large then there will not be much difference between these 2 bodies.
If you use 6400 regularly and are struggling, or print 20" plus then you may benefit. If not, maybe a Sigma 35/1.4 and/or and a Canon 85/1.8 maybe a better option for you.
Are you aware of what going to FF will bring to the table ? If all you want is thin DOF do you know camera distance to subject, and lens focal length come into play too ?

The 7D is a better general purpose camera, it does everything good. Where the 5D2 does some things brilliantly and other things terribly. If image quality for landscapes and portraits is everything, get the 5D2. Otherwise stick with the 7D, for most shots you won't notice a difference. With good glass the 7D is not too far from full frame in quality.

Kwirk wrote in post #16578552
The 6D used goes for about as much as a used 5D2. I'm in this same situation myself. Love my 7D, but I want better high ISO.

Get a 6D then, the ISO performance is a good 2 stops better. If you find you can shoot fine at ISO 3200 on the 7D, you'll find ISO 12800 is quite usable on the 6D. Another benefit is less noise in shadows and highlights and generally richer colour and great sharpness for landscape.
That being said though, the ISO difference is the only difference significant enough to make or break a photo. Otherwise the 7D does a fantastic job and often is pretty close to the 6D or 5D3 in quality.

If both cameras are set to 1/100, F4, ISO 1600 then the exposures for the photos will be the same - one image will not be "brighter" then the other. What will be different is the amount of noise and rendition of the image. It sounds like you would benefit from a full frame camera if you mostly shoot still images (landscapes, portraits, etc.). While the AF system in the 5D2 / 6D pale in comparison to the 7D, the center point is very sensitive and very accurate. Even with moving subjects and tracking it is pretty accurate if you only use the center point. Generally speaking, I doubt that depth of field changes will cause you any difficulty by going to full frame. The 5D is stronger in some areas of photography and the 7D in others. One isn't necessarily better than the other despite what others may say. Both have weaknesses and strengths. It sounds to me like full frame is more suited to your type of photography. There is a reason the 5D2 was the standard for wedding and landscape photographers until just recently.

However, if I were you I would save and get the 6D. High ISO is significantly better than the 5D2 and has more modern controls. The 5D2 is also known to have more banding in the shadows I believe.