ADVICE REQUESTED: 7D or FF all the way?

I am certainly willing to admit it might be the user or the combination of the 7D with the 10-22, but others have reported some softness with this particular lens. My main point, toward the original poster, was that if you are going to spend the money for the 7D and then the price of the 10-22 to get UWA, then you are at the price of the 5D MK II in any case. Also, I did find myself having to change lenses quite a bit because I want to get wide then focus into something in the range above 24 mm. I think a better combination is the 5D and the 24-105L which gives you great WA coverage then zoom if needbe without changing lenses. If you really do not need the 8 fps speed then for a little extra cash you can upgrade to FF with all the benefits in lens application.

Sorry, but I don't get your point at all. The 15-85 (or if you don't need the length, the 17-55) gets you equivalent (or better) WA coverage on the 7D as the 24-105 on the 5DMkII. You'll need another lens to go UWA on either camera. And, the 7D is about $1K cheaper. Sorry, but I can't see the logic that leads to the conclusion that a 5DMkII is less expensive.

J.

Wayne Berkowitz said:

I am certainly willing to admit it might be the user or the combination of the 7D with the 10-22, but others have reported some softness with this particular lens. My main point, toward the original poster, was that if you are going to spend the money for the 7D and then the price of the 10-22 to get UWA, then you are at the price of the 5D MK II in any case. Also, I did find myself having to change lenses quite a bit because I want to get wide then focus into something in the range above 24 mm. I think a better combination is the 5D and the 24-105L which gives you great WA coverage then zoom if needbe without changing lenses. If you really do not need the 8 fps speed then for a little extra cash you can upgrade to FF with all the benefits in lens application.

Click to expand...

This may start a screaming contest, but the reality is that FF offers image quality advantages on paper, but in the real world, aps-c IQ is so high that the only practical difference is DOF.

There are many sites with comparison photos from the 7D and 5DII, and most people can't pick out which is which.

In fact, if you really want your eyes opened, read this amazing article by a pro nature photog:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

And by the way, David Ziser is America's best-known wedding photg, and he not only uses a 7D, he uses some of Canon's cheapest lenses.

IMO, it's because he lives in the real world, where wedding photos are virtually never printed larger than 8x11, and at that size, no one can tell a top-notch lens from a merely adequate one.

So if shallow DOF is of utmost importance to you, go FF. If not, you'd be wasting money that could buy you several more lenses with a crop camera.
--

Wayne Berkowitz said:

I am certainly willing to admit it might be the user or the combination of the 7D with the 10-22, but others have reported some softness with this particular lens.

Click to expand...

"Others"??? As in anonymous posters, or actual reviews of the lens?

My 10-22 is razor sharp wide open, let alone at f8. And allow me to point out that you can get a bad copy that underperforms, but if the basic lens design isn't good, you can't get an accidently good copy.

In other words, you got a bad copy. If you can't return it, send it to Canon service.

There's a thread here right now from a guy who rented a 10-22 while in NY. He posts 50 pics, and there's not a softie in the bunch.

Here's the thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=35494571

--

@ WT Jones

Hi WT, thanks for the great advice.

Yes, I am having a massive headache now trying to choose between the two cameras. That's partly because I need to get one urgently for some upcoming classes. I plan to venture into small time wedding and portrait photography, and as much as I feel that FF has the aboslute edge here, I've seen some killer stuff using the 7D as well. It even made me think what was the point of considering FF anymore, when the 7D is far more feature packed. But judging from your post, it's starting to look like FF is going to be far more helpful in the kind of stuff I need to shoot. The only thing holding me back is the potential cost of maintaining and procuring lenses for it . With that being said, I may just have to research further more before taking the plunge.

Thanks again for the really informative post. It really helps to get advice from a multi body user.

@ Michel Savage

Hi Michel, thanks for your feedback.

Looking at the pros of the 7D that you just listed, I was right to think that save for FF, the 7D is far superior to the 5D II. But it's the 'must get right exposure' statement that got me wondering, is it really that hard to use? I'm not thinking of taking the easy way out, just that I'm not experienced enough to nail the exposure so precisely at all times.

And yes, the price diff in Canada is more or less like in Malaysia where I am. That diff allows me to buy a decent all rounder lens (maybe even two!) and not have to worry about using an ext flash for the mean time as well.

@ Wayne Berkowitz

Hello Wayne, how goes? Seems like your experience hasn't been too good with UWA lenses on the 7D.That isn't much of a concern for me, since I don't do landscapes that much anymore (though I'll get one just in case). I'm more intrigued by the possibility that it doesn't work very well with 3rd party glass. All my 7D buddies are using it with Canon glass, so I can't really tell if it works OK or not. And actually, I do believe that your copy of the 10-22 may have some probs with it. A Canon enthusiast once told me that the 10-22 is an APS-C equivalent of the 16-35L, which is hard to believe but who am I to argue with a full-time Canon user, ha ha.

Actually, cost wise, if I end up buying the 5D II alone, I could have gotten the 7D with a pretty decent lens like the Tamron 17-50, and I don't even have to get a Speedlite for a while. I may have to pair it with my M42 Carl Zeiss for a while if I get the 5D, which is not such a bad thing. Cheers man, and thanks for the great feedback.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_chan/

'All men will die, but few have truly lived'

@ Dave Luttmann

Hi Dave.Yes, the 17-50 has been on my mind as well. Seems like your experience with it is not different than the praises I heard about it. It looks to be quite a cracker.

I don't print at all (for now), so the FF attraction for me so far is merely for the DOF and hi-ISO noise (not so much of a concern as well since I feel the 7D's hi-ISO is very, very good as it is).

@ Raindown

Hi Rain, I echo your sentiments as well. An OOF shot cannot be saved no matter what you do in PP, but I was wondering if the diff is really that significant with the 5D. And yes, I also like the 7D's design A LOT. It doesn't fit as well for me as the 5D, but everything else like the double action live view button (really ingenious!) and 'compact but just nice proportions' help a lot to ease the buying decision (especially when I start to consider the 550D, ugh!!!).

@ pandalee

Hello pandalee, how goes? I see that you are very much a Zeiss enthusiast as well. I also happen to be considering the 5D II just so I can pair it with Zeiss and Voigtlander glass (especially the luscious 50mm Planar f/1.4)! I am very much looking forward to the Distagon 35mm, and what shocked me a lot was sans AF, the Zeiss are actually cheaper than some of it's EF equivalents. Another reason I'd like to go FF is so I can pair it with legacy lenses like the old M42s. Gotta love the old school feeling.

As for the Sigmas, it's more about the cost factor than anything else. If only I had a better day job, I would have just swapped it all for the superior EF glass and not worry about it anymore, ha ha.

EDIT: spelling errors

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_chan/

'All men will die, but few have truly lived'

I recently went through a similar process, deciding to update my old 5D with a 7D (game the AF and FPS for ocassional sports shots) or the 5D2. I went the 5D2 as I do use it a lot for landscapes, people, and ocassionally low light situations where I help my wife with her weddings and events photography business. In your shoes, I would go with the 5D2 but the 7D is not a bad choice if you are limited on funds.

Rob Chan said:

)

5D Mark II :

-Sigma 12-24mm DG HSM
-Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 HSM
-Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS OR Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM OS
-Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro D
-a variety of Zeiss and Voigtlanders (e.g 50mm f/1.4 Planar, Nokton 58mm f/1.4)

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_chan/

'All men will die, but few have truly lived'

Click to expand...

on your lenses. I have the SIGMA 12-24, which I have used on the 5D body, and it is W-I-D-E! You may find it too wide for what your stated aims are. I would choose the Canon 17-40L which will cover 90% of your wide needs.(and cost about the same)

As someone already pointed out also the Canon 24-105L ahead of Canon's 24-70 F2.8 L, which the latter in my case has been a dissapointment (and it has been calibrated by Canon, but cannot still match our 24-105L's). If you need speed the canon primes are better options. Again the 24-105 L is about the same cost as the Sigma 24-70 F2.8

and carefully consider the 70-200 Sigma, I don't know about the OS version, but I have used the HSM version, now relegated to the crop body cameras. The keeper rate of the 70-400 F4 L has been much better. If you get the 5D2 stick to quality Canon lenses.

The 24-105L will do 95% of what you stated.
--
gustavo

http://www.pbase.com/gustabod

gustabod said:

I recently went through a similar process, deciding to update my old 5D with a 7D (game the AF and FPS for ocassional sports shots) or the 5D2. I went the 5D2 as I do use it a lot for landscapes, people, and ocassionally low light situations where I help my wife with her weddings and events photography business. In your shoes, I would go with the 5D2 but the 7D is not a bad choice if you are limited on funds.

Click to expand...

gustabod said:

on your lenses. I have the SIGMA 12-24, which I have used on the 5D body, and it is W-I-D-E! You may find it too wide for what your stated aims are. I would choose the Canon 17-40L which will cover 90% of your wide needs.(and cost about the same)

As someone already pointed out also the Canon 24-105L ahead of Canon's 24-70 F2.8 L, which the latter in my case has been a dissapointment (and it has been calibrated by Canon, but cannot still match our 24-105L's). If you need speed the canon primes are better options. Again the 24-105 L is about the same cost as the Sigma 24-70 F2.8

and carefully consider the 70-200 Sigma, I don't know about the OS version, but I have used the HSM version, now relegated to the crop body cameras. The keeper rate of the 70-400 F4 L has been much better. If you get the 5D2 stick to quality Canon lenses.

The 24-105L will do 95% of what you stated.

Click to expand...

Hello gustabod, thanks for your detailed feedback. I was under the impression that the 24-70 was THE lens to get, but seeing how costly it is + your bad experience with it, I think I'll just stay with the 24-105 once I can afford it (in Malaysia, it's STILL far more expensive than the Sigma 24-70). I've heard that the Sigma tends to misfocus a lot, so I was kind of hesitant of it 1st. Again, it's all about cost, and I don't suppose the 5D II's focus adjustment can help mend it a bit.

How is your experience with the 17-40L? I haven't heard many stellar comments on it as yet. The Sigma has been reviewed very positively, that's why I was thinking about it. Not to mention it's pretty well priced for what it does, too. Also, what sort of Canon primes would you recommend for photojournalism? I was thinking of the Zeiss Distagon 35mm, but the EF 35mm is far cheaper. Have you had experience with these MF primes as well?

Many thanks in advance for your advice. Cheers.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_chan/

'All men will die, but few have truly lived'

Wayndom said:

This may start a screaming contest, but the reality is that FF offers image quality advantages on paper, but in the real world, aps-c IQ is so high that the only practical difference is DOF.

There are many sites with comparison photos from the 7D and 5DII, and most people can't pick out which is which.

In fact, if you really want your eyes opened, read this amazing article by a pro nature photog:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

And by the way, David Ziser is America's best-known wedding photg, and he not only uses a 7D, he uses some of Canon's cheapest lenses.

IMO, it's because he lives in the real world, where wedding photos are virtually never printed larger than 8x11, and at that size, no one can tell a top-notch lens from a merely adequate one.

So if shallow DOF is of utmost importance to you, go FF. If not, you'd be wasting money that could buy you several more lenses with a crop camera.

Click to expand...

Hello sir, how goes? Thanks for the great feedback.

Yes, I am in agreement with you about the near similarity of the ISO performance between crop and FF now. When I saw how clean the 7D was at ISO1600, I was really amazed and that was a couple of brownie points for the crop camp now. Sharpness wise, with 18MP to play with, that shouldn't be too hard to achieve. So yeah, DOF is probably the only real advantage FF has, and DR as well to a certain extent.

My mind gets far more confused each day when I think about this. Part of me just wants to get a 550D and be done with it since it's so similar to the 7D (but the plasticness of it is a bloody turn off, and once you go pentaprism, you can't go back to mirrors anymore). Part of me also wants to wait for the rumored 60D, which I feel is going to be a little cheaper than the 7D. But MOST of me wants to taste the power of prime lenses on FF, hence me looking for opinions on MF lenses on it. My only regret probably is that I will not make it as a semi-pro shooter, and I will never be able to recover my finances. That's why I'm in a state of mess right now, ha ha.

Cheers.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_chan/

'All men will die, but few have truly lived'

sorry, last night I was a bit drunk and wrote something I did not mean to say.

I think the Zeiss lenses are great but not the Voiklanders.

and the 5D2 and 7D compliment each other well, rather than compete against each other , I use them as a pair.

my 35f2Zeiss lens acts like 52mm lens on a 7D ,and it saves some money because I dont need the 50L any more.

my 85L acts like 136 mm lens on my 7D and I could sell my 135L.

and they share the same battery and same flash as well.

in my area , the 7D costs a bit less than the 50L , so I could save a bit by adding the 7D to my camera collection and selling my 50L.

so, if you dont mind the cost, you should get them both , if you have the 5D2/7D +70-200f2.8LIS2 , then you wont need the 100-400L and thus, it actually cheaper than the just 5D2 + all needed lenses for it..

IOW, I think and use the 7D as a 1.6x natural extender.

I have both the 5D2 and the 7D. As others have said, they both have strong features -- I now carry a bag that's big enough for both, with a suitable lens on each so I don't have to swap.

7D: inherent extra reach, superior AF both for movement and low light, better laid out controls (in my opinion)
5D2: inherently wider, shallower DOF, better high ISO performance

For sports, I absolutely use the 7D every time. Once you learn to use the AF, it tracks movement amazingly well. And overall the 7D feels like a better bargain given its cost and access to EF-S lenses. For portraits, the 5D2 (+85LII). I don't know if it's just the shallower DOF but there's something special about the 5D2 for IQ.

The reason picking is hard is that they both are great cameras. So, just like a menu in a restaurant where all the choices look good, make your choice and enjoy it, rather than worrying too much about what you missed. Good luck!

agreed , they work best as a pair and what is the big enough bag for both bodies with some lenses you mentioend here.

I am looking for a big enough bag for both of them .

I've only had my 7D for a week, but so far have had no exposure problems that were'n't my fault or learning errors.
Jules

geoantmcc said:

Hi all,

I came across this thread by accident, but I am intrigued by some of the things being said. I have had a 5D mark 1 but for credit crunch reasons I have to step back to a 40D, which is quite a nice camera, though not a 5D!

So - what makes the 7D so much more of a handful than the 5D mark 2 or (I guess) the 40D? Is it just that exposure has to be more critical? I often tweak the RAW files from my 40D for exposure (just a little - no more than a 3rd of a stop), is this a problem with the 7D? I didn't really pick up on this in the dpreview review?

Thanks,

George

Click to expand...

--
Does Cameron look like Postman Pat or what?

I have the Canon EF-S 10-22 and it's sharp as a button on the D7
Jules

Jerry-astro said:

If you find the 10-22 to be soft then you may well have a duff lens. It should be sharp as a tack, even when very wide. I had some initial issues with mine, including softness at the edges and excessive CA. I sent it in to Canon for adjustment and it came back perfect. It's extremely sharp... similar to my 17-55.

You might consider having your copy checked before suggesting that all 10-22s have the same fault.

Wayne Berkowitz said:

I have owned the 7D for 4 months now after upgrading from the 50D. My recommendation would be to go FF with the 5D MK II. The 7D has issues with overexposure though the frame rate and autofocus are nice. However when shooting landscapes or skylines, the crop factor can be limiting. I used it with the Tamron 10-24 originally, but for whatever reason, the 7D really overexposed shots taken with this lens. I am willing to admit some user fault with this issue, but after returning that lens and going with the EF 17-40 f/4.0 the problem was gone and things reverted to the camera's own built-in slight tenency to overexpose, which is easily corrected. I think the 7D does not communicate well with off-brand lenses. However, even with the 17-40, trying to get a good wide angle shot is still problematic because the crop factor makes this 27.2 at the wide end, which is not really that wide. The only solution was to go with the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-5.5 which I have been using for the while. The only problem here is that this lens is very soft, even when stopped down to f/8.0 and below which makes capturing the inside of buildings difficult in natural light and at the same time capturing a sharp image. Also, since this lens cost $720 and the 7D is $1599, if you add the two together you equal the price of the 5D MK II, so you are not really saving any money by getting the 7D.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Does Cameron look like Postman Pat or what?

Glad to see someone else quelling these unsubstantiated rumours.
Jules

Wayndom said:

Wayne Berkowitz said:

I am certainly willing to admit it might be the user or the combination of the 7D with the 10-22, but others have reported some softness with this particular lens.

Click to expand...

"Others"??? As in anonymous posters, or actual reviews of the lens?

My 10-22 is razor sharp wide open, let alone at f8. And allow me to point out that you can get a bad copy that underperforms, but if the basic lens design isn't good, you can't get an accidently good copy.

In other words, you got a bad copy. If you can't return it, send it to Canon service.

There's a thread here right now from a guy who rented a 10-22 while in NY. He posts 50 pics, and there's not a softie in the bunch.

Here's the thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=35494571

--

Click to expand...

--
Does Cameron look like Postman Pat or what?

If there is such a closeness between these two cameras, and I have no idea never having used a 5DII, then get either!
Jules

Wayndom said:

This may start a screaming contest, but the reality is that FF offers image quality advantages on paper, but in the real world, aps-c IQ is so high that the only practical difference is DOF.

There are many sites with comparison photos from the 7D and 5DII, and most people can't pick out which is which.

Click to expand...

no problem

yes I also believed the 24-70 f2.8 L was THE lens, until I got one. As I said I had it calibrated by Canon Australia and then also compared with 2 other new samples at the shop I got it from. The calibrated version was the best of the lot, but it was still a bit "soft" on my original 5D, and is still soft on my new 5D2 body, even though I have used micro adjustment. I also have 2 copies of the 24-105 L, one used on a 1dMKIII, and both copies are better that the 24-70.

I don't have experience with the Sigma 24-70 HSM but have a look at http://www.lenstip.com where there is a good independent review. I nearly got this but the waviness worried me. (A friend uses it on a Nikon D700 and loves it, so best you try one).

The 17-40 L is fine and sharp enough. I considered upgrading to the 16-35 L but all I read says that lens is not as good. By the way the Sigma 12-24 is a brilliant lens, don't get me wrong, but I just found it too wide for anything practical on the 5D. But if you want that wide by all means it's a bloody great lens.

My primes:

Sigma 50 F1.4 HSM , it is brilliant on the 5D, my go anywhere lens, and better than the Canon equivalent, which I passed down.

Canon 85mm F1.8, another beauty

Canon 200mm F2.8 L, the original and great lens if you can find used

Canon 300mm F4 L IS, which is my main sports lens.

I have the 35mm F2.0 Canon lens, but I am looking to upgrade to the 35 L. It's OK on cropped body, but lacks contrast and has soft edges on FF.

Hope this helps.
--
gustavo

http://www.pbase.com/gustabod

sorry to say this but on a D700 all lenses are sharp because of its super low pixel density.

but the Sigma is not that sharp on the D3X ,see PZ test(they are rarely right on anything but on this one they are)......

also, see slrgear.com review on this one.

Dave said the canon is sharper and what you get what you pay for............

the Nikon is clearly the current best in thsi range.

The truth is that for the majority of photographic situations, you'll get very similar results from a 7D and a 5DII. When you compare different format cameras, it's important to compare their ability to take the same photograph , not at the same settings , because you use different format cameras differently. Let's take an example. Say we're doing one of those nice long FL low perspective landscapes. Starting with a 5DII, suppose we're using a 400mm lens, and to get the part fo the subject we want to emphasize in focus, and a bit of differential blur to de-emphasise the rest we find we need f/8. We haven't got a tripod, so we select 1/500 to minimise shake. To get the meter centred, we find we need 200 ISO.

Now lets look at taking the same photo with a 7D. We select a 250mm lens. For the DOF we want we need to select f/5.0. To get the meter centred, we find we need 80 ISO (which we'll call 100).

Now, at these settings the number of photons projected on each sensor is exactly the same , which means that the noise in the projected image is the same. The 7D sensor has a higher quantum efficiency than the 5DII, it reads more of the incoming photons, so it will display slightly less noise. The electronic noise per pixel is about the same, so in the end it is likely that the 7D image will be slightly less noisy. In terms of detail, of course the 7D has a slightly lower pixel count and a lot depends on the lenses.

The 5DII comes into its own in situations where you can get more photons on the sensor. For instance, if you can tolerate a narrower depth of field, or more motion blur then you can get less noise from the 5DII, but in practice, in normally lit, hand held photographic situations, the number of those is quite small.
--
Norbert

For most purposes the image qualities from the 7D and the 5Dii are comparable. What's not comparable is the lens range on each camera.

For example, when using high magnifications, 100mm on a crop camera is quite long for a macro lens, and in use will be quite different from 100mm on a FF body. Likewise the 50mm lenses will have rather different purposes depending on the camera format.

If you like to use wide-angle, there's more choice for FF and equivalent lenses are often cheaper.

Finally, it seems a pity to get a lens like the 70-200L and then throw away half of the image area.

So I'd say, choose your preferred focal-ranges first, and then see which lenses and camera format best matches.

Rob Chan said:

7D :

-Tokina 12-24mm f/4 DX
-Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro D
-Tokina 35mm f/2.8 Macro DX (as a walk around glass)
-Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
-Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS OR Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM OS
-a variety of Zeiss and Voigtlanders (e.g 50mm f/1.4 Planar, Nokton 58mm f/1.4)

5D Mark II :

-Sigma 12-24mm DG HSM
-Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 HSM
-Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS OR Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM OS
-Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro D
-a variety of Zeiss and Voigtlanders (e.g 50mm f/1.4 Planar, Nokton 58mm f/1.4)

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_chan/

'All men will die, but few have truly lived'

Click to expand...