Rebel t2i vs 5D vs 7d, Why.

Ok,

I know this will probably start a heated debate. I have been a professional photographer for more than 25 years. I currently shoot with a Rebel t2i, just upgraded a week ago from a XTi, have a 80-200 L lens that is at least 15 years old, a 50 mm 1.8, and a 85mm 1.8. I also use the 18-55 kits lens.
So now that you are laughing hysterically, I will tell you that I went digital when the Olympus E-10 was introduced, and moved rapidly to a 30D.
Now, realistically, between 1987 and 2005, I photographed over 9000 models, actors, professionals, musicians and normal people. Most had a minimum of 36 shots per session most 3 rolls (thats 36 exposures per roll for you youngters)
Bear with me.....Im really giving all this info for a reason. From 1980-1987 I was the lead medical photographer for the VA medical Center in Atlanta. We had 4 of the most expensive nikons at the time, all motor driven and probably close to every lens nikon made, plus full hasselblad system (your tax dollars at work.) Thank god for this experience because I was able to play with all the camera goodies and get the "I got to have it" attitude and turn it into "why do I need it" attitude.
My point is everyone always trashes the rebels on this board. Well now that I have given all this info, I have a simple question. In real life shooting what do you use on your high end cameras that you could not do on say a t2i or for that matter a XTi? I know FF may be one thing, but most of us shoot people, so the crop camera gives you a great advantage IMHO for the "extended telephoto lens" for nicer backgrounds. So in real life photography what camera functions do you use you could not do with a Rebel, remember this is in real life photography.
Don't get me wrong but I just think a lot of people buy a expensive camera thinking they will be a better photographer, and never use any of the features that make this camera expensive. Bottom line is 99% 0f the clients will never be able to tell or probably care if you use a Rebel or a 5D. And I bet at least 90% on this board could take 99% of their photos with a Rebel and get the same results.
I shot film before digital(obviously) and shot all those film clients on Canon AE-1s. I would occasionally get a client into photography that could not understand why I charged so much and used such a cheap camera. I could have used more expensive ones, but why? Ego? I submit that sometimes we forget that the main thing is the eye behind the camera, not the camera. And I never skimped on quality glass.
Just something to think about....bottom line is it all about shutter speeds and f stops, has been for years.....

Hate me yet, give me a reason to get rid of my Rebel (currently t2i) and buy a 7D, 5D or better.

Just realized should have posted this in camera section, sorry, moderators feel free to move it...

Wish I could help convince you, but I am a guy who bought a 450D. thinking, "when I get my 5DII this is going bye bye". Guess, what, I still use and love my 450D. I have auxiliary uses for it that play to its strengths.

For example-it is my go to informal event/party camera, even extending to some paying clients.

Here is an example from a shoot I did for a church:

http://anscochrome.zen​folio.com/p934036524

It was the perfect camera for that event-people were more natural around that camera, letting me get some fairly intimate shots. I plan to use it until it falls apart in my hands

I wouldn't count on it falling apart! though they dont want you to know it, the plastic body of rebels actually absorbs shock alot better than the magnesium bodies! that being said I like the feel of the magnesium more

no1photo wrote in post #10592418
I know FF may be one thing, but most of us shoot people, so the crop camera gives you a great advantage IMHO for the "extended telephoto lens" for nicer backgrounds. So in real life photography what camera functions do you use you could not do with a Rebel, remember this is in real life photography.

If by "nicer backgrounds" you mean shallower DoF, enabliung more out of focus backgrounds, better bokeh and subject seperation, you have it the wrong way round. A crop camera does NOT give you a longer lens, focal length doesn't change simply because you only record a part of the image a lens projects. Therefore, to get the same framing and composition, you use a longer lens on the FF camera and so THAT is the one that gives nicer backgrounds.

I do agree with you that a better camera will not make you a better photographer, however it can produce great results in situations that the Rebel will struggle in, regardless of the photographers ability. For what YOU shoot, the Rebel is probably fine. In a studio setting where you control the lighting, have time to alter settings through a clunkier menu and control system, don't need fast AF systems and lots of AF points, nor do you need a high fps rate, the Rebel is all the camera you need. It will produce results on a par with most cameras.

However, if you shoot other subjects such as action, wildlife, birds etc. etc., then a camera from further up the range will perform better and give a better keeper rate. If you regularly shoot in inhospitable conditions, weather proofing becomes more important too.

5 years ago guys were shooting the covers of magazines with 20Ds, nowadays guys would laugh at that but do the covers of magazines really look any better than they did in 2005? Your T2I has better IQ than an old 20D but if you posted here that you planned on doing a Sports illustrated shoot with it here guys would say you were crazy.

When was the last time you seen an old magazine or whatever from 5 or so years ago and thought "wow, photography has come so far.... On one had it is fun to test the limits of technology and watch it progress, but on the other hand it is all secondary and pretty irrelevant compared to the actual art form itself.

no1photo wrote in post #10592418
Ok,

Hate me yet, give me a reason to get rid of my Rebel (currently t2i) and buy a 7D, 5D or better.

Took about 10,000 shots in June at several low light dance recitals and rehearsals. About half with the 5D classic, the rest with a T1i and a T2i. Interchanging lenses among the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 85 f/1.8.

The T2i and the T1i photos were indistinugusihable.

The 5D files were clearly superior. In low light, I want the full frame. The Rebels were used for experiments and as backups.

Processing the 5D files in Photoshop Elements 8.0 was a pleasure. The Rebel files did not get much better through the Elements processing.

So I guess this represents the 1% you are talking about.

We need more tests and examples such as this. Quite often we hear a bunch of breast-beating about a FF body from someone with a Flickr link of family holiday snapshots.

slaonbj = funny + true.

I have a lowly XSi and figure it will be *many* years before my abilities as a photographer exceed the capabilities of my instrument.

I'll play.

I started photography in 2005 with a Rebel XT (350D here in Australia) and no plans to go pro. Since then I've moved through a lot of different Canon gear and now have 3 full-frame bodies and a bunch of nice primes. I'm also a full-time working photographer (and have been for just over 12 months).

Here's why I love full-frame:

* I shoot weddings and prefer available light for the documentary side of things. I regularly work at ISO3200-6400, f/1.2 or f/1.4. Lesser gear would not deliver useable results at those extremes; the extra light-collecting ability of full frame sensors means the difference between acceptable and unacceptable photos.

* The focal lengths of Canon's fast primes aren't oriented around 1.6 crop. For example, there is no 24/1.4L equivalent for crop. A big part of why I went full-frame was so that the L primes I had collected would make sense.

* Full frame makes shallower DOF possible. This is easy to over-use and makes it harder to hold focus on the things you want in focus, so it's by no means a deal-maker (or breaker) IMO, but it can be useful to shoot wide and shallow in ways you just can't do on crop.

* Other benefits like larger viewfinders, more configurable bodies etc. (this is less true now with the 7D, but there is still a bit of a difference).

I don't feel that I would EVER need a 1D or 1Ds series camera for my needs. I would LIKE a 5D(mark whatever) to have the shallow DOF and awesome higher ISO performance (in wedding photography it's always a good thing!) but as far as the bells and whistles go I'm very happy with my 30D and 40D, no urge to get a 7D.

I do miss my Rebel XTi sometimes, it was a nice smaller camera to take places and took just as good shots (IQ) as my 30D/40D do. In fact, if Canon made a plastic full-frame sensor camera with the xxD controls (like a Nikon D90) I would be very interested...

I still shoot with an XT after almost three years of owning it. I want to upgrade at some point and that upgrade path is Full Frame. With that said, I'm milking as much IQ as my Rebel can give and I haven't felt behind the curve when it comes to shots in workable light.

I've been shooting my XSi for a bit over a year now. It simply can't keep up with my demands anymore. As I get better at wildlife and nature photography (and the occasional airshow), the FPS, AF, and ISO performance simply aren't good enough to get the shots I could be getting. If you don't shoot such demanding subjects, sure you probably don't need such a high performance camera. But there certainly are subjects that DO require a more expensive camera body, or at the very least expand the photographer's ability to shoot that subject.

Is it my friend's ego that kept her 50D shooting while my XSi's RAW buffer filled? Is her ego what caused her to mention that my FPS weren't ideal for capturing a landing osprey? No.

There's a 7D in my future. Though not because of my ego.

I started with a 50D (quite similar to the 7D) and it was an excellent body. ISO performance wasn't all that bad and servo focusing was quick. I later went for the older 1D II body for the improved focusing ability. ISO performance of the older body is worse but the larger sensor and focus speed helped a lot for what I like to shoot. I wish I had a full frame sensor sometimes to get the large blurred out backgrounds from fast lenses, but I feel a 1.3x compromise is good for me.