"Real world" 5d2 vs 7d comparison

versedmb wrote in post #11737437
One thing I want to make clear here - I'm certainly not trying to bash the 7d - its an amazing camera and in some ways I like using it more than the 5d2. The 7d allows me to get shots that the 5d2 would definitely struggle to get. IQ is meaningless if you can't get the shot or if its oof.

I'm just praying for a 5d3 with 7d AF.

Thanks for sharing the results. I agree, the 7D is an excellent camera and is better than the 5D in some ways and vice versa. I was going to wait for the next 5D before making the switch to FF, but I said screw it and just got the 5D2 in addition to my 7D as well; so now I own both. The 7D has some nice features that make it such a joy to use. Different cameras that excel in different areas.

Sorarse wrote in post #11737516
I find it amusing at just how many "5DII v 7D" type threads there are, given how different the cameras are, and that they each have their own areas of excellence and weakness. I feel that both make great all round cameras, and that the choice of either should be based on picking the one that has its strong points in the area that is of most interest to the individual.
...

The problem is that many of us shoot a bit of everything. If Canon had just put a real AF in the 5d2 there would likely be a Hell of a lot less of these "amusing" threads.

hieu1004 wrote in post #11737624
... but I said screw it and just got the 5D2 in addition to my 7D as well; so now I own both. ....

I was never planning on owning both, but the Canon loyalty program put me over the edge.

The 5D definitely has better noise control in both cases which makes it's images appear sharper. Its more noticeable in the first shot, but to me the last 2 shots of the birds seem pretty equal.

I do think the crop vs FF image quality can be over-played quite a bit these days.
Especially when 90% of people probably don't view their images any larger than their computer screen... so a lot of the time you can't see the difference between a T2i and a 5D2

Obviously there's tons of reasons for people to buy a FF camera, but I do think people expect too much out of it. A lot of people would be just as happy with a t2i and put a nice L lens on it... Albeit with a smaller e-penis

benesotor wrote in post #11737741
I do think the crop vs FF image quality can be over-played quite a bit these days.
Especially when 90% of people probably don't view their images any larger than their computer screen... so a lot of the time you can't see the difference between a T2i and a 5D2...

You make a good point. The difference in most image in terms of resolution and sharpness between FF and 1.6X crop would be fairly small.

But the time when I really appreciate FF is when I want to shoot fast and wide. My 35 f/2 is a cheap lens that weighs nothing and works wonders on FF....

benesotor wrote in post #11737741
I do think the crop vs FF image quality can be over-played quite a bit these days.
Especially when 90% of people probably don't view their images any larger than their computer screen... so a lot of the time you can't see the difference between a T2i and a 5D2

I'd wager that the majority of the regular contributors to this board are not within your 90%.

...at least I hope they're not.

Also, I don't think that these comparisons are a direct attack on the crop vs FF argument, though it's certainly a factor, but I have to ask - which is worse, to pay too much attention to the differences or to over-diminish the differences? I think that this is what gives birth to the most heated discussions.

WhyFi wrote in post #11737785
I'd wager that the majority of the regular contributors to this board are not within your 90%.

...at least I hope they're not.

Also, I don't think that these comparisons are a direct attack on the crop vs FF argument, though it's certainly a factor, but I have to ask - which is worse, to pay too much attention to the differences or to over-diminish the differences? I think that this is what gives birth to the most heated discussions.

Well I just think people could spend their money more wisely. Rather than a beginner portrait shooter buying a 5D2 and using a mediocre lens.. they'd probably be better off buying a cheaper camera but a very good lens.

benesotor wrote in post #11737803
Well I just think people could spend their money more wisely. Rather than a beginner portrait shooter buying a 5D2 and using a mediocre lens.. they'd probably be better off buying a cheaper camera but a very good lens.

If they can afford it, I have no issues with "beginners" buying a 5D2. Using a mediocre lens with it? Well I can't really control that. But if anyone has a problem with beginners buying nice gear, they should stop being so jealous.

benesotor wrote in post #11737741
I do think the crop vs FF image quality can be over-played quite a bit these days.
Especially when 90% of people probably don't view their images any larger than their computer screen... so a lot of the time you can't see the difference between a T2i and a 5D2

Are you strictly speaking about noise levels? If so, then sure, you can't really see a huge difference in web sized images. Or are you talking about other things like DOF differences? IMO, there's a tangible difference in that department.

benesotor wrote in post #11737741
Obviously there's tons of reasons for people to buy a FF camera, but I do think people expect too much out of it. A lot of people would be just as happy with a t2i and put a nice L lens on it... Albeit with a smaller e-penis

You are free to use what you want or need. Some of us buy equipment that will help us get the shot and get paid for it. Granted, I can shoot a wedding with a T2i, but there are better options out there that would help me do my job even better than the T2i both from an IQ and performance standpoint. There's are very real differences in that regard.

benesotor wrote in post #11737803
Well I just think people could spend their money more wisely. Rather than a beginner portrait shooter buying a 5D2 and using a mediocre lens.. they'd probably be better off buying a cheaper camera but a very good lens.

Advise them and move on. Anything more, as nicksan rightly says, will be interpreted as jealousy. Besides, if someone has the means to buy a 5D MkII, I don't think that they're skipping a rent payment to do so. They'll get an appropriate lens sooner rather than later.

Thanks for sharing.

benesotor wrote in post #11737803
Well I just think people could spend their money more wisely. Rather than a beginner portrait shooter buying a 5D2 and using a mediocre lens.. they'd probably be better off buying a cheaper camera but a very good lens.

Why care what other people buy? This applies to pretty much everything else, not just photography. I've gotten some of my best shots with a Rebel, but it doesn't mean it's the ideal tool for the job. As long as these "beginners" understand the fundamentals and how to leverage their tools to help them get the images they want, it really shouldn't matter. Even if they didn't, who really cares?

Actually, my first year of shooting I owned an XT (350D), the 18-55 "kit" lens and a 50mm f/1.8 II - best thing I ever did - forced me to learn how to shoot rather than focusing on gear.....and it helped me to learn what I really wanted in terms of future gear.

As you can see, I own both cameras.

I believe the photos made for the comparison in this thread are not of an appropriate subject for comparison in general. Yes, I understand you shoot mostly landscape, so it works for you.
If the comparison was of the side of a brick building or some similar object, without as much weather to contend with, I believe one would see less of a difference in the image, especially with the lens (one of my favorite) shot with.

Both of these cameras have great resolution/clarity/sha​rpness/etc... with high quality lenses
The 5D does edge the 7D when compared with the whole image, especially the difference in color. But that may be a personal choice.
Both are great cameras and I am glad to be the owner of both. I will aslo just state that I use the 5D a lot more than the 7D for landscape type images.

we own both as well and honestly, there is a lot of stuff that i like to shoot besides what we do in our business. Bald Eagles and birdies come to mind here in Minnesota. I have really been thinking about jumping on a 1DMKiV REFIRB,, when they are available you can get one for about 4200.00. BUT, everytime we go do something and put that 7D to work with a 17-55 or a 10-22, you look at the results and say,,why?

all of our ring shots are done with the 60 macro and i would really hate to not have that 17-55 around on the 7d. It does an exceptoional job. So in my mind, the 2 bodies, 5d2 and 7D, are a better way to go than 0ne 1dMKIV, especially with 2 shooters working out of the same kit. Everytime i think im going to make the jump to a 1d, my wife comes back with some really great shot with her 7D and i just go,,,HMMMMMM,,why do you need a 1d again