james_in_baltimore wrote in post #9821834
Have you considered a used 1d III? That might be a good way to go, better high ISO, really good AF. I've seen them used for less than a 5d II is new.
I read in a few threads that people were suggesting that, but I must admit video does seem like a useful add-on, I may be able to sell my Canon HD camcorder for a few hundred to help recoup the losses
bobbyz wrote in post #9821847
What kind of indoor sports? Besides 85mm f1.8 you have no good glass for sports. I would get better glass over getting a new body. I would even strobe the event if allowed and use older body like 1dmk2 which you can pick dirt cheap now a days.
Mainly basketball and wrestling. I realize the only lens I have for sports is the 85 1.8, hence why I said I am planning on buying a 70-200 2.8L IS II now that spring is here.
KinoC wrote in post #9821920
Geoff... I have a 5DMII and it performs very good at high ISO. I use both my 40D & 5DMII a few weeks ago on the same event (FARA event car racing) and after seen the pics I'm leaving my 40D inside the bag as a backup. I used my 5DMII in a volleyball event held indoors and the pics came out great. I don't use the burst that often but if I needed I will go after 1DMIII which is around the same price as the 5DMII... well a little more $$$.. IMHO.
I would love to be able to have everything I need in one body, save some money too, but it doesn't seem to really be possible. I'm afraid that with the 5D II I won't be able to get in close enough without lots of cropping, unless I use my 70-200 indoors or buy a TC.
RipRap wrote in post #9821926
Long time lurker, first time poster... and a noob.
I too am wondering about the 5D II vs the 7D. I keep reading that the 5D II is superior for landscapes, but I don't get it. My brother has a 7D and uses the Tokina 11-16 and the Canon 17-40L for landscapes. I have seen nothing less than stunning images from that combination. So how is it that the 5D II is considered "better" for landscapes? Would be appreciated if someone could explain why. And when you consider that the 7D has faster fps for sports or action, wouldn't that make it the better all around camera?
Just a little confused!!!
I'm kind of the same way, I hear that the 5D II is great for portraits and landscapes. I can understand for portraits because of the DOF difference between the two, but I'm not sure about the whole landscape thing either.
drumsfield wrote in post #9821974
If you need the extra reach of a crop frame sensor than the 7D might be better as it will capture more pixels in the same frame vs a full frame.http://www.sphoto.com …lrsensors/dslrsensors.htm
The 5D will give you better low light performance and a wider field of view if you need it. But the 7D will more more of the latest features like wireless ETTL, 19pt cross type auto focus, zone AF, 8 frames burst rate and other stuff... But the 5D will give better low light performance and a wider field of view... did I already say that? It must be lunch time. Zzzzz
edit: actually the 7D is no slouch when it comes to high ISO. I find even at ISO 6400 the pictures are very usable especially if you're using them for the web.
I've read up on some 7D comparisons and it does appear to be an improvement over the 50D in terms of ISO performance. If I use even ISO400 on my 50D I can easily see noise in dark areas of the photo, I pretty much have to leave it on ISO100-200 unless I want to mess around with NR in PP.