My 7D vs 5D2 dilema again - much abridged

Hi All,

Some of you may have read my massive first post about this - if you did, I apologise! I'm really hoping people might venture some opinions/advice as it's getting awfully close to D-day and I'm still not 100% set on a decision.

So here's the 'short version': If, given the material available in the form of (p)reviews so far and technical specs, you were to put a percentage difference in Image Quality between the 5D Mark II and the 7D (all other things being equal in the shot - quality of lens etc.), what might you suggest it'd be? 10%, 25%, 50%? I'm just trying to gauge what people feel the difference in overall image quality might be (I'm aware-of, but not so concerned about differences in DOF in an otherwise similar shot), particularly using lower ISOs - mainly 100, but occassionally 200 and 400.

I guess that's the ultimate thing on which my quandry rests, so I'd appreciate reading about folks' perceptions/feelings on this issue.

Thanks and regards,

Rob

---------------

And here's some more background, for those who may wish to know more detail about my thinking...

I currently own a 350D/Rebel XT and a selection of average 'consumer' glass. I've been planning on upgrading for a while. I was originally chasing new glass and a 40D, then considered a 50D when it came along, and eventually turned my attention to full-frame offerings. I started to single-out the 5D Mark II as my next camera.

My shooting covers a pretty broad range of subject matter (awkwardly enough!) - I'd break down ratios as something like:

1. Landscape - 65%
   
2. Aviation (usually 'slower' moving) - 10-15%
   
3. Automotive/Motorsport - 10%
   
4. Snapshots/General/Othe​r* - 10-15&

FactionOne wrote in post #8703770
Hi All,

Some of you may have read my massive first post about this - if you did, I apologise! I'm really hoping people might venture some opinions/advice as it's getting awfully close to D-day and I'm still not 100% set on a decision.

So here's the 'short version': If, given the material available in the form of (p)reviews so far and technical specs, you were to put a percentage difference in Image Quality between the 5D Mark II and the 7D (all other things being equal in the shot - quality of lens etc.), what might you suggest it'd be? 10%, 25%, 50%? I'm just trying to gauge what people feel the difference in overall image quality might be (I'm aware-of, but not so concerned about differences in DOF in an otherwise similar shot), particularly using lower ISOs - mainly 100, but occassionally 200 and 400.

I guess that's the ultimate thing on which my quandry rests, so I'd appreciate reading about folks' perceptions/feelings on this issue.

Thanks and regards,

Rob



---------------

And here's some more background, for those who may wish to know more detail about my thinking...

I currently own a 350D/Rebel XT and a selection of average 'consumer' glass. I've been planning on upgrading for a while. I was originally chasing new glass and a 40D, then considered a 50D when it came along, and eventually turned my attention to full-frame offerings. I started to single-out the 5D Mark II as my next camera.

My shooting covers a pretty broad range of subject matter (awkwardly enough!) - I'd break down ratios as something like:

1. Landscape - 65%
   
2. Aviation (usually 'slower' moving) - 10-15%
   
3. Automotive/Motorsport - 10%
   
4. Snapshots/General/Othe​r* - 10-15&

*I'd like this category to develop somewhat - I'd enjoy moving away from 'Snapshots' and more towards 'proper' portraiture; I quite fancy taking my camera to watch some Cricket next summer, and I might be on the verge of discovering a little interest in macro photography. These plans for the future while worth consiidering, aren't really deal-breakers at this stage, but might be worth having the in back of my mind.

So, the plan for 'life in 5D' would be to buy a 5D2 + 24-105, then pretty soon after get hold of a 17-40, followed later by an L telephoto zoom, either one of the 70-200's or possibly even a 100-400 (especially as I'm used to an effective 480mm with my little 70-300). After that I could see the 24-105 becoming a 24-70, and the 17-40 becoming a 16-35.

Anyway, I was just about to place my order for a 5D2 + 24-105 kit, and I just thought I'd have a quick look at the rumours sites. Of course this was in the final week or so of speculation/leaks which led up to the 7D announcement. 9am CET 01/09 the news broke that there was a body on the way which would basically remove all the compromises which went with the 5D, and replaced them (potentially) with just one - the more cramped sensor.

I guess some (or even a lot) of the new/upgraded features on the 7D might not be of immediate relevance to me, but there's a pretty good chance I'd feel the benefit of them in the future. I guess the 'deal-breaker' is final Image Quality. If the 7D sensor (focal length and DOF characteristics aside) could deliver IQ at lower ISOs somewhere close to that of a 5D2, my choice is made. If on the other hand, the 5D2 is still going to be head and shoulders above the 7D's IQ in low ISO shots, I'll just get back-on with 'life in 5D'.

IQ = 5d II. it won't even be close.

ed rader

Will you print over 11x17 or will you crop heavily and print? Do you routinely shoot at wider than 24mm (35mm equivalent)? Do you yearn for razor-thin DOF?

If the answer is "no," the 7D is probably a better choice unless they screwed the pooch with the production version.

This probably won't help, but here goes anyway. I have the 5d2 an am very happy with it. 90% of my photography is landscapes/seascapes or shots of the night sky (stars and stuff). About 75% of my 90% of landscape shots are in the 17-24mm range. Those that are not tend to be >50mm. I can't see the IQ of the 7D being as good as the 5d2; but that's just my opinion

After all my reading since the 7D was announced if I had to make the decision again (5d2 or 7d) I'd still get the 5d2. The DOF versatility alone would probably sway my opinion.

5d no question.

nostatic wrote in post #8703855
Will you print over 11x17 or will you crop heavily and print? Do you routinely shoot at wider than 24mm (35mm equivalent)? Do you yearn for razor-thin DOF?

I hear that a lot (about razor-thin DOF). But the fact is that the 5d2 also gets the same (deep) DOF as 1.6 sensors. Anyone who says different hasn't read the right materials or used a FF camera enough So, the 5d2 has much greater versatility when it comes to DOF.

Thanks for the replies so far folks...

@nostatic - I've gone to 18" x 12" a few times, and expect to do more at this size, and possibly a little larger in future.

I don't routinely shoot wider than 24mm at the moment, but have had a few opportunities to shoot with an (EF-S) 10-22 and enjoyed it/liked the results. Ultra-wide is something I have always planned on doing more of - that's why the 17-40 was going to be the next thing on my shopping list after body and 'walkaround' lens...

Thanks,

Rob.

FactionOne wrote in post #8703770
I'm just trying to gauge what people feel the difference in overall image quality might be (I'm aware-of, but not so concerned about differences in DOF in an otherwise similar shot), particularly using lower ISOs - mainly 100, but occassionally 200 and 400.

Why stop at 400? I have no problem going 1600 and higher with the 5d2. I used to be scared of ISO > 400, but not any more. That said, 90% of my shots are on tripods so I do tend to stick with the lower ISOs, but the higher _are_ still useful even on a tripod. The noise levels of the 5d2 at 1600 and 3200 are not worth worrying about and easily 'corrected'

gcflora wrote in post #8703931
I hear that a lot (about razor-thin DOF). But the fact is that the 5d2 also gets the same (deep) DOF as 1.6 sensors. Anyone who says different hasn't read the right materials or used a FF camera enough So, the 5d2 has much greater versatility when it comes to DOF.

The larger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field you can have. If you put a 50/1.2 on a 7D you will not be able to get as shallow a DOF as you can on the 5D2. At f11 it won't really make a huge difference but at 1.2 it will. So yes, you are correct about more versatility, but it is at wide apertures.

And I've shot/own everything from p&s to FF so I have the empirical evidence to prove it

You realize these cameras have ridiculous resale value right. Just buy one. Heck if you can get your hands on a 7D youll probably make money on it if you decide to sell it.

The comparison to me is like the 5D classic vs 20D
Not much has changed.

You are asking for opinions, so here is mine.

For IQ, the 5D Mark II will be better.

5D MK II all the way for greater control of DOF and best IQ.

I think you put wayyyy too much thought into this. According to the list of what you shoot, the 5DMKII seems like the one to get.

Get one and have fun

I'd stop thinking and push the "Buy" button on a 5D Mk II. Even if I could calculate a percentage of difference between the two bodies, you're the one in control of 90% (made up percentage) of IQ. You'll drive youself nuts thinking so much and miss too many photo opportunities worrying about what you bought. You won't regret the 5D MkII. Just do it!

I suggest you go for the 7D.
Going from a 350D to a 5D Mark II, is quite the leap. Even 350D to 7D, is a bit of a jump.

Anyway; I suggest you go for the 7D and then work on building up your lenses, THEN upgrade to the 5D2 or 5D3