7D or 5D Mark II? Advice appreciated!

Ok, so you're probably all hating on me since there are a lot of threads like this - but I can't seem to find one where someone is in the same boat as me!! so if you have some time and have some suggestions for me i'd appreciate it!

Last winter i had a job doing shots for a band (not a well known band, just a local one) so all their gigs were in very awful lit bars. I have an XTi currently and had a hard time with trying to shoot with just 2 small spotlights in the whole room. i really don't like using flash but sometimes just don't have a choice. i'm still learning when it comes to photography - i've had my XTi for a little bit now but i'm by no means an expert! But the manager of this band told me she had some other bands who were looking for photos too, so i'm assuming that this winter I will be doing a lot more of this!

Lately, I find myself using my camera in non-well lit places more than in well lit places, and my XTi just isn't cutting it anymore! ISO 1600 IMO isn't that usable. I do all kinds of photography tho - sports, landscape, wildlife, concerts - so this is where my confusion comes in. I was fully set on the 5d Mark II, but now i see the 7D is out and is $1000 cheaper. I am realllly picky when it comes to image quality tho - i will say that. The 7D i've seen some amazing shots with, and of course some shots that def. didn't make me want to buy it, but it all depends on the photographer so I won't judge too much yet! But shooting wildlife and sports i'm not sure i want to go from a crop to a full frame. The longest lens i have so far is the 70-200. But i've also heard the 7D is a lot better for shooting moving objects. I like to take pics at my sister's basketball games and my dad raises birds so i also like to get shots of them.

Should I go full frame and just keep my XTi for the crop (even tho it's not really usable in low-light)? or should i get the 7D and sell my XTi? If the 7D does really well in low-light then i think it's safe to say i'd go for that until i actually figure out what my specialty will be and then go from there, because i'm sure that would be a lot better than what I have now! I would like to do concert photography but as of right now i'm doing a little of everything. I also would like to get into doing some senior portraits and stuff like that for extra money, so the 5D Mark II would probably be nicer for that, but if i can save $1000 to put towards another lens then that would def. help! I just don't want to get the 7D and be disappointed and wish i had just gotten the 5D Mark II tho. That right there is my biggest issue since i'm so picky!

Does anyone have BOTH the 5D Mark II and a 7D that could offer me some advice? I def. can't afford to buy both. Or maybe post some shots comparing both under the same circumstances that would help me decide? (or even point me to where there are some?) Thanks in advance!

The 7d is a crop body. (oops, posted too quick)

I shoot bands in clubs and bars and it's tough, and I shoot w/a 40d. Noise is tough to bear when it gets up there on mine, but the 7d has way more pixels and can handle the higher iso much better. I would prefer the 7d over the 5d2 bc of the FPS, focusing/metering/trac​king system, and higher MP. I love the pics the 5d2 puts out, but I LOVE even more the ability for high FPS. Something about catching fast action.

I think they have a comparative review online at dpreview.com (not sure tho). I also like having the reach of the crop for shows if the stage is far away. I'd go with the 7d. I'm about to upgrade from my 40 asap lol

yes, i know that's why i'm debating - whether i want to stay with a crop body or go to full frame

you need to rethink the glass you currently have if you went the 5DII route.

From what I have read the 5d2 still uses the same focus system as the older 5d which from reviews don't work well in low light. So you may want to consider the 7d and some fast glass.

I don't think the 7D will do any better focusing in low light than the 5D2. That's just not really where the better AF of the 7D comes into play. Action, servo, yes.. low light, not so much.

If you don't have the money to re-work your glass in addition to the 5D2, then I'd say go for the 7d instead.

However, that said, you would be in pretty good shape with the 5D for low light and the XTI for your sports stuff.

Gliderparentntn wrote in post #8956333
From what I have read the 5d2 still uses the same focus system as the older 5d which from reviews don't work well in low light. So you may want to consider the 7d and some fast glass.

i have no problem in getting the 7D and getting something fast - since i'll be saving the $1000 from not getting the 5D Mark II.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #8956384
I don't think the 7D will do any better focusing in low light than the 5D2. That's just not really where the better AF of the 7D comes into play. Action, servo, yes.. low light, not so much.

If you don't have the money to re-work your glass in addition to the 5D2, then I'd say go for the 7d instead.

However, that said, you would be in pretty good shape with the 5D for low light and the XTI for your sports stuff.

are you saying the 7D does really bad in low light? or its just not better than the 5D but not a lot worse? if i bought the 5D2, i wouldn't really have the money to spend another $1,000+ on some better glass to be honest. was planning on getting the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for christmas, so that would replace the 18-55.

7D AF blows 5D II AF out of the water.

maverick678 wrote in post #8956645
7D AF blows 5D II AF out of the water.

i think you just made my mind up for me, thank you

maverick678 wrote in post #8956645
7D AF blows 5D II AF out of the water.

after using my buddy's 5DmkII a couple weeks ago for my brother's soccer game I agree.

For the price of the 5DII, you could get a used 5D classic and a 7D.

5D for low-light stuff, 7D for action and "reach".

If the 7D turns out to be as good as it looks right now, I might end up with one myself.

I use both. Yes, the AF of the 5D2 is pokey compared to both 50D and 7D.

On the other hand, 5D2 is still the king of the hill for really high ISO work. And a full frame sensor will always deliver more detail than a crop sensor can, which is most notable in big enlargements or when cropping a lot.

7D appears to have about a one stop high ISO advantage over 50D. Other than that, I'd suggest you might want to save $700 and just get 50D instead.

$700 would be useful toward some lens upgrades, which would be your best investment of all.

Crayons15 wrote in post #8956596
i have no problem in getting the 7D and getting something fast - since i'll be saving the $1000 from not getting the 5D Mark II.

are you saying the 7D does really bad in low light? or its just not better than the 5D but not a lot worse? if i bought the 5D2, i wouldn't really have the money to spend another $1,000+ on some better glass to be honest. was planning on getting the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for christmas, so that would replace the 18-55.

Well I'll be frank here you need to look at fast glass such as the 17-55 2.8 IS or a 24-70 2.8 if you are shooting low light conditions.
I have a sigma 50 1.4 and using it on my mkIII it hunts a lot in low light I haven't heard of any sigmas that perform well in little to no light.
Its just a thought and suggestion to save you money in long run

First, the opportunity to shoot some bands kind of came out of the blue. I hope you have followed up with the woman who "had some other bands who were looking for photos too" . If you can firm up those plans a little, talk to the bands themselves, ask about and maybe visit the clubs to see what the lighting is. I haven't shot bands myself, but from what I've read it's harder than it looks with lots of things working against the photographer. If you can do it successfully, it might take you far.

Anyway, gear. Others have said and I agree you really need to get some 'L' glass. Canon's premium lenses usually are snap crackle pop with their focusing.

I shoot a 5D Mk II and a 7D. The full-frame sensor of the 5D Mk II produces image quality that no crop camera can match, IMO. Even so, the 7D is right there a notch behind the Mk II, and the new AF system is superb out of the box, and the options for customizing AF are serious.. You get 8FPS with 18mp files with stellar high ISO performance.

My recommendation is you sell your XTi and get a 7D. You should keep your 70-200. You won't get much for your other 2 lenses, so I would keep the 50 1.8 just because it's so small and light. Sell the kit lens with the XTi.

Then so some intelligence on the band shooting environment as I mentioned above and beg, borrow or beg some more to get a fast, high quality lens in the 17-85 range. The 24-70 on the 7D might no be as wide as you would like for some stage/crown shots. I hven't shot a 17-55 f/2.8 IS myself, but you will find tons of discussion on it here.

As you said in your post, you have been looking at some good/bad samples from the 7D, but are (wisely) leaving them out of your buying decision. Stick to that. You don't need sample images from each body here, you know enough by now to make your decision without running around looking at meaningless jpg's from other photographers.

If you guys will re-read my post, I said that the 7D is not really any better AF than the 5D in LOW light. Especially using the center point.

I'm not saying that the 7D isn't better in all other ways, for AF, but in low light there isn't that much difference.