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.....

I think that if you are happy with your Rebel T2i and you are making money with it, well more power for you

I had the t2i... very happy with it except:

7d has more fps
7d has a better af system, especially for moving subjects. since your models aren't swing bats and running bases the t2i is a capable camera.

so i sold my t2i (shamefully made a little profit from it) and picked up the 7d. very happy with my decision.

Onboard flash controller.
19 focus points.
100% viewfinder.
top LCD.
7d remembers different focus points for the 3 different shooting orientations. (Maybe even upside down, but I haven't tried that)
Buffer.
7d is a monster and it will just keep taking photo's, I know with my XS that is not possible. Now I'm not saying that the 7d all of a sudden makes me a better Photographer, I am just saying that it is so much easier to do the job.

for me ... the body size + grip.
100% view finder
ergonomics while shooting.
AF performance in low light
build - magnesium body.
customization of button functions.

no1photo wrote in post #10592481
Ok,
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.

I shoot a lot of sports in poor lighting, and so for me the features of the 1D Mark IV that I use that are not good enough on the Rebels are:

1. AF speed, accuracy and potential for user configuration.

2. Burst rate. The decisive moment works for a lot of sports, but for some things a 10 fps burst will get a shot that the decisive moment won't. Not everything can be anticipated.

3. Ability to make large prints at ISO 6400. This in turn allows me to use slower and cheaper lenses. A 1D Mark IV with a 100-400L is not only more convenient, but it is also cheaper than a T2i with a 300/2.8L + 400/2.8L set.

I could make do with a Rebel, but I would get less usable shots per outing, I would have to quit in light levels that don't bother me now, I would need faster glass, and I would spend more time processing images. I've used a lot of other EOS bodies (in digital - XT, XTi, 30D, 40D, 5D, 5D2, 1D3 and 1D4) and I know the differences pretty well. I choose to use the 1D4.

JeffreyG wrote in post #10592620
I shoot a lot of sports in poor lighting, and so for me the features of the 1D Mark IV that I use that are not good enough on the Rebels are:

1. AF speed, accuracy and potential for user configuration.

2. Burst rate. The decisive moment works for a lot of sports, but for some things a 10 fps burst will get a shot that the decisive moment won't. Not everything can be anticipated.

3. Ability to make large prints at ISO 6400. This in turn allows me to use slower and cheaper lenses. A 1D Mark IV with a 100-400L is not only more convenient, but it is also cheaper than a T2i with a 300/2.8L + 400/2.8L set.

I could make do with a Rebel, but I would get less usable shots per outing, I would have to quit in light levels that don't bother me now, I would need faster glass, and I would spend more time processing images. I've used a lot of other EOS bodies (in digital - XT, XTi, 30D, 40D, 5D, 5D2, 1D3 and 1D4) and I know the differences pretty well. I choose to use the 1D4.

Those are all good points. Sports photography is definately not the use of a rebel. But the vast majority on here do not shoot sports, however I am constantly amazed at how many people get anal about FPS for normal traditional photography. In your case FPS is a definate need. Also sports photography is a whole different class as far as lenses.
This is exactly what I am looking for, real world uses that you need the high dollar cameras for...thank you.

I have to manually focus each shot because there is no micro adjustment on my XSi, so i would update to a 50d just for that

Dooms_day wrote in post #10592675
I have to manually focus each shot because there is no micro adjustment on my XSi, so i would update to a 50d just for that

The t2i has a better metering system than the 50D, also a much better sensor. Reviews claim the t2i focusing system is almost identical to the 7d (of course exactly how many focus points do you need, 63 on a t2i and 7d I personally think is overkill.

Whoever said the focusing system is almost identical doesn't know jack... let me know who posted that review so I can make sure and never read anything of theirs again . The two cameras are so far apart when it comes to focusing it is amazing anyone could say that seriously.

Now if you meant to say METERING then yes they use the same metering.

you are talking about metering... not focusing. the t2i has 9 focus points with the center point cross type. The 7d has 19 cross type focus points with additional focus flexibility.

In my own use the biggest distinction between a T2i and a 7D would be the body and how the buttons are laid out. Function wise they are similar but the T2i is missing a lot of crucial buttons that I use on a daily basis such as the multi-direction controller.

no1photo wrote in post #10592654
Those are all good points. Sports photography is definately not the use of a rebel. But the vast majority on here do not shoot sports, however I am constantly amazed at how many people get anal about FPS for normal traditional photography. In your case FPS is a definate need. Also sports photography is a whole different class as far as lenses.
This is exactly what I am looking for, real world uses that you need the high dollar cameras for...thank you.

I also (of course) use the 1D4 as well as my older 5D for my regular family shooting. I almost never use the high burst for this, as 10fps simply generates a bunch of redundant shots that I have to discard later. If one is really looking through the viewfinder then most of the time a good sense of timing is plenty for getting a shot.

One nice thing about a Rebel in some cases is the small size. I currently use a Panasonic GF-1 for those many times in life when carrying a small camera is what is needed. I'd use a Rebel (it would actually be cheaper) but I know myself too well. Instead of carrying the Rebel with a Sigma 30/1.4 or the EF-S 18-55 I'd be tempted to bring too many of my too large EOS lenses. The GF-1 solves this. Plus my wife likes it.

I shoot my sons playing HS soccer and Lacrosse and decided on the 7D for the 8 fps, advanced AF and weather sealing. I also liked the solid feel of the bigger metal 7D versus the XSi that I once had.

Could I get everyday photos including landscapes and portraits with a T2i, heck yeah it's a great camera, but I couldn't have gotten many of the sport shots I pulled off with the 7D so I'm very happy with my choice!

jase1125 wrote in post #10592722
you are talking about metering... not focusing. the t2i has 9 focus points with the center point cross type. The 7d has 19 cross type focus points with additional focus flexibility.

I stand corrected, you are right. focusing on 9 points or 16, how does it know what YOU want it to focus on, telepathy perhaps. I select it to focus on only one point anyway, and usually its the eyes since most of my subjects are people. Tried the "smart focus" before and it sometimes focuses on hair, bangs and other things in the multi focus zone. One focus point, on the eye at wide open, that's my system, but I can see where multifocus systems have their place.