2nd Body Choices!

[SafariMonkey]

Hi All,


First time poster here - pls go easy on me! [:D] I love this site and have read many a review here... really great work!


Keeping it short - im going on Safari in Sep for 2 weeks (in Zambia) and will bring the following along...


50D, 300/2.8, 17-55.2.8, 100/2.8 macro, 1/4x & the little S90


I am also waiting for my 70-200/2.8 to arrive which will replace my old friend, the 70-300 DO.


Now, i am wanting to get a second body and im in need of a little help! Should i stick to APS-C bodies and get the 7D given that i have a couple EF-S lenses (i also have the EF-S 10-22), or make the switch over to FF and go for the 5DmII? The majority of my photos are wildlife, followed by scenary/travel & portraits. I am concerned that if i went for the 5DmII that the mIII will come out straight afterwards!


Of course, i could always go for the 1DmIV but then i would probably end up in court with my wife rather than photographing wildlife in Zambia! [:P]


Any thoughts/suggestions/tips would be gratefully received!


Many thanks!

[mikehillman89]

I guess it really depends on what you shoot. I personally don't see an advantage for full-frame, unless you want real wide stuff (now watch the flurry of responses to my bad claim here[:P]) but anyways,


my two cents is that functionally the 7D is better than the 5D. 7D is faster, 8fps vs 3fps, and has an awesome 19pt af system vs the smaller 9pt af system.


So yeah... That's my scoop


Enjoy your trip!


Mike


ps. welcome!

[SafariMonkey]

Thanks Mike!


After i got my 50D i told myself that my next camera would be FF to get the most out of my L lenses... but i completely see your point - the 7D would definitely be the better option if i could only take 1 body with me on the trip. However i just thought that by already owning the 50D it would make the 5D the better companion.


I guess i could i get both the 7D & 5D [:)] but then i might as well go for the 1D and the divorce!

[realityinabox]

Maybe you shouldn't take my advice, as I'm the guy with the wife who had to talk him into taking the 5dII plunge. I love my 5dII, takes amazing portraits and fits my needs perfectly.


That said, there are advantages to both the 7D and the 5dII. If you put your new 70-200 on a 5D, it instantly will be shorter than what you're used to. That, paired with the fact that you're replacing your 70-300, it will feel even shorter on a 5D. The 7D is like having lenses 1.6x as long as usual.


Plus, the 7D's auto focus isapparentlybetter (never used it), and it has a higher frame rate, which is my one real complaint against the 5dII (that and the 1/200 max sync speed, but I doubt you'll be setting up studio lights to shot the wildlife).


That all said, you already have the 50D, which is a nice camera, so your EF-S lenses won't be wasted, and if you need that extra bit of reach, you can but the 70-200 on the 50D instead. That way, when you get back home, you'll have more options for shooting whatever you like, with one FF and one crop body.


Tough choice. If/when I get a second body, it'll probably be a 7D (or its replacement), but that is because I already have my FF covered.

[peety3]

Go for the 7D. I'm not a wedding shooter, which seems to be one of the markets that's most enamored with the 5D2, but regardless I have to say that the 7D is a fantastic camera and an absolutely incredible value. I liked the 7D so much I bought another 7D three weeks later. The autofocus modes just make a lot of sense to a human, and would be so beneficial on safari. Also, the metering is quite intelligent - the camera cares mostly about portions of the frame that are in focus. Objects in shade are no longer so dark, though you'll lose detail on your background (a tradeoff I happen to love). Although I've never compared it, the 7D is a very responsive camera, especially next to a 5D.


My thought, for those who started with APS-C, is to get a second APS-C camera. Third camera could be a FF, allowing the first to be sold. Fourth camera could be a FF, allowing the second to be sold along with the EF-S glass. That said, ultra-wide is just so much cheaper with APS-C that I can't see why people go for FF so quickly.

[Fast Glass]

Although a 7D makes your lenses 1.6 times longer than a full frame, you are losing light all the same. You are just cropping away the light instead of cropping it away optically. But the problem is the full-frame with an extender is better than a 1.6 crop.


So in reallity you are better off with a 2X with a 5D II on your 300mm f.2.8than a 1.4x on a 7D.


But the 7D is faster and has better AF and cheaper. So it's a toss up.


John.

[Sheiky]

I guess i could i get both the 7D & 5D /emoticons/emotion-1.gif but then i might as well go for the 1D and the divorce!





My best bet would be:


- the 50D/7D combination with 300mm f2.8/with 1.4x extender for safari's. 7D would be better in this regard for the weather-sealing it offers(dusty safari??) and the improved focussing system.


- the 5D with your 70-200 for amazing portraits and street/city shots. I guess Zambia isn't that densely build that you'd need an extreme wide-angle. You probably have plenty of room to foot-zoom. Else bring your 10-24 if you're worried about the wide angle.


The 5D just offers(besides more expensive wide-angle) better image quality period (not only at high iso), better use of depth of field, which is very attractive in portraits (that's why these cameras are often used with weddings etc [;)]) and it's just something you must see to believe. Although it's focus sisn't up to the 7D etc, I wouldn't trade my 5D2 for a 7D, not even for sports. (But I might be biased because the one time/day only I used the 7D for action-photography, it didn't serve me the way I was hoping it would do)


But that's just what I would do!


Jan


Edit: almost forget to mention: WELCOME!!! [:D] I'd love to see some footage of Zambia when you return [:P]

[Brendan7]

For wildlife, the 7D trumps the 5D2 in almost every regard. It will give you a lot that your 50D can't. The 5D and 7D are oriented for different uses and complement each other very well.


I would suggest you buy a 7D, although the best option would be to:


1. Sell the 50D


2. Buy the 5D2 AND 7D


And don't worry about a new camera. The new camera doesn't make the old one work any differently, and the 5D Mark II is an excellent camera.



Should i stick to APS-C bodies and get the 7D given that i have a couple EF-S lenses (i also have the EF-S 10-22), or make the switch over to FF and go for the 5DmII?


Canon NEEDS a FF 1D body. Right now, there is no perfect wildlife body - the 5D2 has great IQ but is too slow, the 7D doesn't have the fastest frame rates, 1D durability, or superb high-ISO performance, the 1Ds is slow and expensive, and the 1D4 is APS-H which IMO is a very awkward format. It doesn't increase your EFL much, and hurts wide-angle performance. But if the 1D4 will put you at odds with the wife, then the 7D is the body to get. And if you can add a 5D2 on, even better.


brendan

[Brendan7]

I wouldn't trade my 5D2 for a 7D, not even for sports


Then you haven't used a 7D enough [:D]


They are different cameras that complement each other, not compete with each other. The 5D2's IQ is much better, but the 7D gives you much better AF and more than twice the frame rate. A 3fps burst doesn't compare to an 8fps burst. But ISO 6400 on a 7D doesn't compare to ISO 6400 on a 5D2.

[Fast Glass]

Canon NEEDS a FF 1D body. Right now, there is no perfect wildlife body - the 5D2 has great IQ but is too slow, the 7D doesn't have the fastest frame rates, 1D durability, or superb high-ISO performance, the 1Ds is slow and expensive, and the 1D4 is APS-H which IMO is a very awkward format. It doesn't increase your EFL much, and hurts wide-angle performance.


Thats exactally why I like Nikon for speed, they have a fast FF. Actually, I am even thinking about a D700. Since I can convert all my old lenses to whatever I want.8 fps FF, yeah! You get great noise of a FF and speed of a 7D.


John.

[Sheiky]

Then you haven't used a 7D enough /emoticons/emotion-2.gif


Perhaps, read the bit behind the sentence you quoted [:P]



The 5D2's IQ is much better, but the 7D gives you much better AF and more than twice the frame rate


Not entirely true. The 8fps is 7D max and 3,9 is 5D max so it's just twice the speed.


However the output of the 7D is softer and the image quality is less great and I personally rather have 1 super sharp and great photo than 8 less appealing ones.


But of course this is pixel peeping and I think the 7D/50D and a 5D2 would complement each other very well!

[peety3]

I would suggest you buy a 7D, although the best option would be to:


1. Sell the 50D


2. Buy the 5D2 AND 7D





I'd go so far as to say sell the 50D and get two 7D cameras.


I'm not a fan of having a mix of FF and APS-C cameras unless you're willing to carry the EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 17-55 (if you like that lens) all the time. If the FF goes out to lunch, you need wide-angle and walkaround options for the APS-C body.






Canon NEEDS a FF 1D body. Right now, there is no perfect wildlife
body - the 5D2 has great IQ but is too slow, the 7D doesn't have the
fastest frame rates, 1D durability, or superb high-ISO performance, the
1Ds is slow and expensive, and the 1D4 is APS-H which IMO is a very
awkward format. It doesn't increase your EFL much, and hurts wide-angle
performance. But if the 1D4 will put you at odds with the wife, then the
7D is the body to get. And if you can add a 5D2 on, even better.





Some interpretations of the rumor mill suggest this is coming, with the 1D5 and 1Ds5 both as FF but with different pixel density and frame rates. We shall see.


As a happy 1D3 owner and one who wanted a 1D4 this spring, I've happily postponed my 1D4 purchase for at least a year. I'm very happy with a 1D3 and a 7D (knowing there's another 7D along with a 40D on our shelf if I need), and don't plan to buy another camera until I've added a 300/4, 85/1.2, and a 400/5.6. I'll buy a 1D4, or hopefully they'll have a 1D4n or 1D5 that has the 7D's AF zones/modes and the 7D's metering. :)

[neuroanatomist]

For wildlife, the 7D trumps the 5D2 in almost every regard.


I'd second this, sort of. For many wildlife situations, the 7D is the clear winner - more reach, faster frame rate, faster and better AF. But, honestly you can get great shots with either camera on a safari, depending on the setting.


For example, when I was in the Ngorongoro crater, lions and elephants walked within a few feet of the Land Rover, so optical reach wasn't needed (they were literally close enough to reach with my hand, although that seemed unwise ;). Likewise, in Rwanda the mountain gorillas were also very, very close. From that trip to East Africa, I've got frame-filling shots of lions, gorillas, wildebeest and hartebeest, elephants, giraffes, etc., all in the FF-equivalent focal range of 70-200mm. On the other hand, there were plenty of situations where more reach was very helpful.


For a safari, IMO the best combination would be the 7D with the 100-400mm zoom lens.


The IQ differences with the 5DII are by far most apparent at higher ISO settings. One problem you won't face too often on a safari is lack of available light. Also, if you don't have sufficient reach with the FF body, and have to crop your image substantially, you're cropping away the noise advantage anyway.

[Fast Glass]

1 super sharp and great photo than 8 less appealing ones.


Thats works great IF you can get that one sharp photo, if you can then FF is great. But if your keeper rate is so slow that you are cursing your camera switch to Nikon![:P] He, he. Ok, more realistically a 7D.


John.

[SafariMonkey]

Thanks all for the advice so far... very helpful!


Seems as if the 7D/5D combo would be the best bet if i can stretch it - will see what i can get for my 2nd hand 50D as that might swing it (im based in the UK and have never sold a camera before). Will probably upgrade the wife's camcorder too to soften her up! [6]


I have a few weeks to work this out (wont be buying until August) and will let you know what i decide when i do... its a tough choice to make, but a fun one too! [:D]


Of course, happy to hear any further thoughts in the meantime!


Cheers!

[Fast Glass]

Also, if you don't have sufficient reach with the FF body, and have to crop your image substantially, you're cropping away the noise advantage anyway.


Thats a problem if you don't have a enough extenders, but if you do have enough extenders they are much better than cropping. Not only IQ wise but also because you have thinner DOF which is usually preferable in wildlife photography.


But yes, if you crop a FF you are throwing away that big sensor you just paid for.


John.

[Sheiky]

Thats works great IF you can get that one sharp photo, if you can then FF is great.


Point is that I didn't miss any action-shots with my 5D yet! Apart from a few cycle-racers going downhill straight towards me, but that's asking for problems. However at an airshow the 5D gave me much sharper and so better images than the 7D. That's where I base my decision on, so it could be somewhat biased. Perhaps I wasn't using the 7D properly. Although it focussed very fast and the focus confirmation was showing red squares constantly, I didn't get real sharp images...









Seems as if the 7D/5D combo would be the best bet if i can stretch it - will see what i can get for my 2nd hand 50D as that might swing it (im based in the UK and have never sold a camera before).





You're lucky, the 40D especially, but also the 50D(perhaps because the 40D still runs great) seem to hold their value pretty well.



Will probably upgrade the wife's camcorder too to soften her up!/emoticons/emotion-14.gif


[:P]


Good luck on your decision. If you have the chance to try both cameras out, go for it!


Jan

[mikehillman89]

Join the 7D club! Them 5D shooters don't know what they're missing! [:P] hehe

[Brendan7]

Perhaps, read the bit behind the sentence you quoted /emoticons/emotion-4.gif


my bad.



Not entirely true. The 8fps is 7D max and 3,9 is 5D max so it's just twice the speed.


JUST twice the speed? That's a huge difference. And remember that the camera often can't shoot at max fps so you're often looking at 2fps vs 5fps. And there is no debating it: The 5D2 offers better high-ISO performance and overall IQ and there are many good wildlife photographers who use a 5D2 -- for static portraits. For action the 7D's capabilities are absent in the 5D2. I'd pay money* to someone who found a pro sports photographer who used a 5D2 (*maybe[:P])


I agree with peety about 2 7D bodies, but the OP said they wanted to take portraits and landscapes too, at which the 5D2 is undisputedly better.


Well just my 2¢


brendan [:D]

[Sheiky]

I'd pay money* to someone who found a pro sports photographer who used a 5D2


How much are we talking about here??? [:D]


I guess I'm indeed biased by personal experience, but I'm not the only one here [A] really you should see the image quality of the 5D for yourself...


I hope to try the 7D once again, but I'm sure I won't be paying for renting it again[:P]

[peety3]

I agree with peety about 2 7D bodies, but the OP said they wanted to take portraits and landscapes too, at which the 5D2 is undisputedly better.





I dispute that immediately. :) To get the coverage of 16-35, one can buy a 5D2 for $2500 and a 16-35 for $1520, $4020 total. Or one can buy a 7D for $1600 and a 10-22 for $720, $2320 total. IQ isn't the same and aperture isn't the same, but it'll be fairly close; are the differences really worth $1700, aka 73% more money?

[neuroanatomist]

To get the coverage of 16-35, one can buy a 5D2 for $2500 and a 16-35 for $1520, $4020 total. Or one can buy a 7D for $1600 and a 10-22 for $720, $2320 total. IQ isn't the same and aperture isn't the same, but it'll be fairly close; are the differences really worth $1700, aka 73% more money?


To be fair, one could sacrifice a whole, whopping 1 mm on the wide end (and get a much closer match on aperture) with the 17-40mm instead of the 16-35mm. Now the UWA lens for FF is actually a few $ cheaper than the 10-22mm...


But to argue the other way[6]the 10-22mm is very, very well-corrected for distortion on the wide end - only 1.2% barrel (in fact, I am occasionally surprised that the excellent EF-S 17-55mm is actually noticeably more distorted at 17mm than the 10-22mm at 10mm). Compare that to either the 17-40mm or the 16-35mm on FF, both of which have well over 3% barrel distortion at the wide end and will give you a smiling or frowning horizon line if you compose it off-center...

[Sheiky]

But to argue the other way/emoticons/emotion-14.gifthe 10-22mm is very, very well-corrected for distortion on the wide end - only 1.2% barrel (in fact, I am occasionally surprised that the excellent EF-S 17-55mm is actually noticeably more distorted at 17mm than the 10-22mm at 10mm). Compare that to either the 17-40mm or the 16-35mm on FF, both of which have well over 3% barrel distortion at the wide end and will give you a smiling or frowning horizon line if you compose it off-center...


The Sigma 12-24 has an even wider view and with less distortion even at 12mm ("http://www.photodo.com/topic_239.html)...just saying...there's no such thing as a 7,5mm wide angle for an APS-C body as far as I know...without it beying a fish eye lens [:P]

[EdN]

I've got both a 5D Mk II and a 7D. As others have said the 5D Mk II has superior IQ and this is really noticeable in shots with marginal lighting conditions. On a 7D, you can shoot decent shots that look great with good lighting but anywhere where there's shadows, you lose detail really quickly, even for ISO's as low as around 400. However, the 7D has such a great AF system that it makes up for thesuperior pictureof the 5D Mk II when you are shooting fast moving or erratically moving objects.For the 5D Mk II, you get great image quality but depending on what you are shooting, you may only get a blurred image because it can't lock onto the subject as fast. For the 7D, you have a softer picture andloss of shadow detail at lower ISO's but blazingly fast AF that locks onto moving objects better and a 1.6 x crop factor to get closer to your subject.


So here's some more points to consider:


1. If you think you will be encountering fast moving objects like birds, running animals, etc in the far distance then you might be better off with a 7D. I use a 7D for birds and it does a lot better than the 5D Mk II. You also have a 50 D that has the frame rate, the extra reach but not the super quick AF.


2. If you think that you will be encountering animals in a still life situation, like sitting under trees, not moving fast, and possibly be in relative close proximity from a vehicle, the 5D Mk II will give you WAY better high quality shots from better IQ, more shadow detail, sharper picturesand better high ISO performance.


For birds in particular, the 7D really shines with the reach and better AF. When I can get a bird with a 5D Mk II, the pictures are invaribly better. It's just that the 7D nails the focus WAY more often for fast moving birds.

[neuroanatomist]

If you think that you will be encountering animals in a still life situation, like sitting under trees, not moving fast, and possibly be in relative close proximity from a vehicle


This is the point I was trying to make earlier. In the preserves we visited in Africa, the animals were fairly accustomed to the Land Rovers and thus came quite close, or at least didn't run off as we drove up. Also, most safaris are run through the daylight hours, and at those times many of the larger animals are more sedentary. No need for the reach, fast AF and frame rate of the 7D for a shot like this (100mm FF equivalent focal length):


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4774700306_d6683411a3_b.jpg

[SafariMonkey]

Thats part of the fun of safari's... you never know what you'll need until its too late! Having been on safari's before with just the one body (originally the 20D until i gave that to my sister and bought the 50D) i would often have the wrong lens for what i wanted, and the cheeky little buggers dont wait for you to change lenses![:@]


My favourite shots are a roughly equal mix of both still and action shots, rather than leaning towards one style specifically. Also as we are going to some of the most remote parts of Zambia so the animals will not be nearly as relaxed as in places like the Kruger, but im sure i'll still get up close and personal with some of them. Hence i'll need to be prepared for both scenarios.


Would be nice to go for the 5Dm2 and 7D but then i could (for a similar price) just go for the 1Dm4 and bring the 50D as the 2nd body... i looked around for places to sell the 50D but seems as if ill only make £250 for it, which is a fraction of what i'd need to spend on either a 5 & 7D combo, of the 1D. Otherwise i might just go with the 7D for this trip (as i think its the best affordable wildlife body) and wait for the 5Dm3 for future use... decisions decisions decisions! [:D]

[Brendan7]

I agree with peety about 2 7D bodies, but the OP said they wanted to take portraits and landscapes too, at which the 5D2 is undisputedly better.





I dispute that immediately. :) To get the coverage of 16-35, one can buy a 5D2 for $2500 and a 16-35 for $1520, $4020 total. Or one can buy a 7D for $1600 and a 10-22 for $720, $2320 total. IQ isn't the same and aperture isn't the same, but it'll be fairly close; are the differences really worth $1700, aka 73% more money?





I said better, not cheaper. :)

[Brendan7]

How much are we talking about here??? /emoticons/emotion-2.gif


All the money held by the U.S. Federal Reserve! Oh wait...they're bankrupt, it's all borrowed from the Chinese [8o|] well i guess i can't pay you [:#]






really you should see the image quality of the 5D for yourself...





I have. IQ on the 5D is better and increases exponentially compared to the 7D at higher ISOs, but let's face it, The 5D II is not a good camera for action. It has the same AF and frame rate as the Rebel T2i which costs $1500 less. Just read what Arthur Morris and Juza have to say about the 7D. (BTW, the 5D is the *only* Canon camera that Ken Rockwell actually likes!!!).

[Brendan7]

I've got both a 5D Mk II and a 7D. As others have said the 5D Mk II has superior IQ and this is really noticeable in shots with marginal lighting conditions. On a 7D, you can shoot decent shots that look great with good lighting but anywhere where there's shadows, you lose detail really quickly, even for ISO's as low as around 400. However, the 7D has such a great AF system that it makes up for thesuperior pictureof the 5D Mk II when you are shooting fast moving or erratically moving objects.For the 5D Mk II, you get great image quality but depending on what you are shooting, you may only get a blurred image because it can't lock onto the subject as fast. For the 7D, you have a softer picture andloss of shadow detail at lower ISO's but blazingly fast AF that locks onto moving objects better and a 1.6 x crop factor to get closer to your subject.


So here's some more points to consider:


1. If you think you will be encountering fast moving objects like birds, running animals, etc in the far distance then you might be better off with a 7D. I use a 7D for birds and it does a lot better than the 5D Mk II. You also have a 50 D that has the frame rate, the extra reach but not the super quick AF.


2. If you think that you will be encountering animals in a still life situation, like sitting under trees, not moving fast, and possibly be in relative close proximity from a vehicle, the 5D Mk II will give you WAY better high quality shots from better IQ, more shadow detail, sharper picturesand better high ISO performance.


For birds in particular, the 7D really shines with the reach and better AF. When I can get a bird with a 5D Mk II, the pictures are invaribly better. It's just that the 7D nails the focus WAY more often for fast moving birds.






I think Ed said what I've been saying (sort of) in a much more eloquent way.

[Richard Lane]

I also have two 7D bodies, so I would definitely recommend one for your trip. I agree that the autofocus is fast and accurate and that you can't go wrong with the extra reach. It is perfect for sports, wildlife, and action photography so that you can get that shot of a Lion taking down an Antelope.


The 7D also does a very good job with portraits, landscapes and still-life. The 18MP and low-light capabilities of the 7D are more than enough for most situations. The 7D can also handle EF as well as your current EF-S Lenses, and it also has a built-in flash for your convenience.


However, when comparing non-action photos, I feel that the 5D-II takes a nicer photo with better resolution and contrast. I also agree that Canon is missing a full frame, fast autofocus camera.


Right now the best of both worlds is the 7D with the 5D-II, however since a new full frame Canon Body appears to be on the horizon I would wait to purchase a FF Camera.


If I were you and I were going on a safari, Iwould buy a 7D for the higher burst rate, quicker auto focus, longer reach, and lower price over the 5D-II, and then I would bring my old 50D as a backup.You should definitely bring 2 bodies in case one breaks.


I'm currently waiting to purchase a full frame, fast auto focus camera from Canon; perhaps it will be a 1Ds-IV or a 5D-III. When this happens I will probably buy one and sell one of my 7D's.


For what it's worth the 7D is still offering a $100 rebate for another day or so. Also, if you do buy another body, then you should buy it soon so that you can familiarize yourself with it before your trip.


Rich

[neuroanatomist]

The 5D II is not a good camera for action. It has the same AF and frame rate as the Rebel T2i


To be fair, although they share the same 9 selectable AF points with only the center one as a cross-type, the 5DII has 6 'invisible' AF-assist points that, in theory, make for better AI-Servo tracking. But, the 5DII has the same AF system as the original 5D, so I'd bet that microprocessor and algorithm improvements Canon has made in the ~5 years separating the original 5D from the T2i more than make up for the difference.


Also, the 5DII is a whole 0.2 fps faster on frame rate than the T2i. Wow. [:P]



I'm currently waiting to purchase a full frame, fast auto focus camera from Canon; perhaps it will be a 1Ds-IV or a 5D-III.


Me, too.

[Fast Glass]

and a 1.6 x crop factor to get closer to your subject.



the extra reach



the 7D really shines with the reach


The 7D has inferior reach to a 5DII, because you just put an extender to match the focal length and get much sharper results. The 7D crops the image while the 5D II crops optically and attains better image quality. You may say what if I am already using a an extender, then stack them. There is no reall limit on how many extenders you can put. Why notput a 7D on the longest you have, because there is no such thing as the longest focal length you have because you just get more extenders. Untill of course your f/number is so slow thatAF does not work anymore. Then you have a problem.


John.

[EdN]

and a 1.6 x crop factor to get closer to your subject.



the extra reach



the 7D really shines with the reach


The 7D has inferior reach to a 5DII, because you just put an extender to match the focal length and get much sharper results. The 7D crops the image while the 5D II crops optically and attains better image quality. You may say what if I am already using a an extender, then stack them. There is no reall limit on how many extenders you can put. Why notput a 7D on the longest you have, because there is no such thing as the longest focal length you have because you just get more extenders. Untill of course your f/number is so slow thatAF does not work anymore. Then you have a problem.


John.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Yes, the 1.4x works on the 5D Mk II but you will lose AF speed, loss of one stop, loss of sharpness, some more chromatic abberation, and maybe some loss of contrast depending on lighting and the shot. The quality of the shot still is probably going to be pretty good but what if you can get virtually the same thing with the 7D and no 1.4x? The shot is still going to be pretty good but you have an extra stop, your AF is full speed on the lens, and the AF is more accurate on the 7D.


So, the comparison is on using the 5D Mk II with the 1.4x and the 7D with the bare lens. In general, as you state,the IQ of the 5D Mk II is still probably marginally better but in GOOD lighting, the 7D's pictures are indistinguishable from the 5D Mk II's with the 1.4x.


What if you had a kit of a 5D Mk II, a 7D, a 1.4x and whatever long glass you use and using the 5D Mk II with a 1.4x or the 7D by itself just doesn't cut it with the distant subject you're shooting? Well, the name of the game is to get the best shot possible with whatever gear you've got. The best use of your gear would be to use the 7D with the 1.4x extender.


In GOOD lighting, the results are very good. If you can't afford a 500 mm F4L IS or longer or don't want to pack it around in the bush or have the stamina to patiently hand hold it while waiting for that killer shot, the 7D:


*allows you to get closer to the subject with the 1.6x crop factor


*gives you extra reach - with what you've got for glass


*and the 7D really shines with that extra reach - because it gives you superior AF and doesn't kill you to pack it around


Yes, the 7D is only really a crop body and since it is 18 megapixels, each of those pixels are really small. It gives extra reach in a nice small manageable package but at a compromise. My experience is that you better be prepared to practice holding your breath and holding still, even at high shutter speeds because any movement will result in loss of sharpness as the image gets "smeared" to adjacent pixels as the shutter is pressed.


Yes, the 5D Mk II has such great image quality that I want to use it everywhere but for those really long shots, it just can't pull it all in, even with the 1.4x and even with cropping of the image afterwards. This where I use the 7D and it does more than a satisfactory job. It gives me the reach I need with great AF.

[Fast Glass]

loss of one stop,


Yes, but you lose lightly more than one stop with the 7D because you are cropping away light.



some more chromatic abberation,


You will increase chromatic abbreation with a 7D also becuase you are throwing away lens resolution and magifying lens defects.



loss of contrast depending on lighting and the shot.


You also loose contrast with the 7D. The lightingdoes not affect the actual contrast of the lens, it affects the picture.



still probably marginally better but in GOOD lighting,



the 7D's pictures are indistinguishable from the 5D Mk II's with the 1.4x.


It would be significantly better, and even better in low light because the 5D II has better dynamic range and color tones.



The best use of your gear would be to use the 7D with the 1.4x extender.


Im not talking about that, what I am talking about is the fact that a 7D has inferior reach than a 5D II. If that is the case then why not just crop and why make extenders? Either cropping is better or extenders are better, you can't have amixture of both. Thats why medium format isbetter than 35mm.



My experience is that you better be prepared to practice holding your breath and holding still, even at high shutter speeds because any movement will result in loss of sharpness as the image gets "smeared" to adjacent pixels as the shutter is pressed.


That has nothing to with our conversation about reach, you need just as high of a shutter with a 1.6 or a FF.



*gives you extra reach - with what you've got for glass


The 7D is just a lower quality extender, to say "make the most of your glass with a 7D" is equivallant to saying "make the most of your glass with a lesser quality 3rd party extender". It's the same thing.


There are advantages with the 7D which make it very suitible for wildlife and birds, but I am talking about reach only. I would like to say that the 7D would not look terrible, Nate uses it and his shots are great! But if Canon made the 7D with a full-frame sensor it would be significantly better.


I do not want to get anybody mad here, just a civalized debate.


John.

[neuroanatomist]

To paraphrase, John, you're saying a FF + 1.4x extender is better than cropping the sensor. How does that jive with the fact that Canon's 1D series - their professional camera intended for use outside the studio in exactly those situations where one might want an extender - is a 1.3x crop sensor?


--John

[Fast Glass]

Whytheychose APS-H instead of 35mm is beyond me. Although, even Canon says it is inferior to 35mm. If I were to guess why, it would probabbly because of cost. It is quite a bit cheaper.


As far as reach goes, you do have more lens resolution but you don't have enough pixels to take advantage of it. So you would be better off with the 7D.


John.

[EdN]

I thought the purpose of this thread was to help SafariMonkey consider choices for gear for his trip to Africa and all my comments have been considered on that basis. To give him some facts based on experience to help him make choices. As for the 7D as an option for his trip, my comments have been based on considering the "whole package" and "reach" is one of those factors if he is looking to packing a second body for his particular application - taking photos of animals at a distance with whatever other lenses he is carrying with him. Certainly, my aim is not to have a debate on the "reach" alone as it pertains to a generic crop body.


I'm not sure if we will ever agree on a discussion of "reach" but steering the discussion back to the original question, here's some more points to consider. And as stated above, please consider them in the context of the "whole 7D" package, and how it may be suitable for use in an outdoor wildlife application such as a safari.


As you said in your last post, the purpose is to have a civilized discussion and not to get anyone upset. I think SafariMonkey will have two interesting viewpoints for consideration, yours and mine. They don't necessarily agree but should give him fodder to decide on what may be suitable for his trip. So, here we go, based on my experiences on the 7D:







loss of one stop,


Yes, but you lose lightly more than one stop with the 7D because you are cropping away light.


If you are using a lens like a 300 mm F2.8 lens, it still works at F2.8 on a 7D (with aview similar to a 480 mm lens). If you put a 1.4x on the lense for the 5D Mk II to get a similar view (420 mm), it is shooting at F4. If you already have a 5D Mk ii, a 7D does give you flexibility in your gear as a second body and something for longer shots, especially if you also want to use the 1.4x too - get up to 672 mm at F4.



some more chromatic abberation,


You will increase chromatic abbreation with a 7D also becuase you are throwing away lens resolution and magifying lens defects.


I believe chromatic abberation is a function of the quality of glass and the amount of glass that light has to travel through. You put less glass for light to travel through, including that of a 1.4x, the better off you are with your image. As far as throwing away lens resolution, the smaller pixels of the 7D gets you all the resolution you have in your lenses so it's important to use good glass. And if your glass isn't the best, you will see all those defects. Yes, you only use the center field of view of the lenses where the best quality of the image field is and you do throw out the corners, where the quality diminishes. If you also have a full frame body, you get to use it there.



loss of contrast depending on lighting and the shot.


You also loose contrast with the 7D. The lightingdoes not affect the actual contrast of the lens, it affects the picture.


Contrast is also a function of the quantity and quality of glass that light has to go through. A 1.4x extender adds to losing contrast by adding more glass for light to transmit. You probably lose contrast in the 7D with the smaller pixels for light collecting but without lots of testing, who's to know what's technically really less intrusive? My experience is that the more that I shoot with the 7D, the more impressed I am with the image quality. They sure did a nice job on the sensor. Knowing the limitations of the 7D, and using it in GOOD lighting conditions, I have no hesitation using it with a 1.4x extender and getting images as good as I would get using the same lens and the 1.4x on the 5D Mk II, only I get better close-ups when I need them.



still probably marginally better but in GOOD lighting,



the 7D's pictures are indistinguishable from the 5D Mk II's with the 1.4x.


It would be significantly better, and even better in low light because the 5D II has better dynamic range and color tones.


My experience is that in GOOD lighting, there is not that much difference. Yes, if you shoot in back-lit situations or with heavy shadows, the 5D Mk II is noticeably better. If you avoid those situations with the 7D, you can get great shots.



The best use of your gear would be to use the 7D with the 1.4x extender.


Im not talking about that, what I am talking about is the fact that a 7D has inferior reach than a 5D II. If that is the case then why not just crop and why make extenders? Either cropping is better or extenders are better, you can't have amixture of both. Thats why medium format isbetter than 35mm.


The original purpose of the thread was to give SafariMonkey and idea on what he could use on his trip. If he had a 7D, 5D Mk II, 1.4x, and a 300 mm lens on his trip, why won't he use the 7D with the 1.4x on the 300 mm lens to get a better shot of that lion in the distance, especially if there is good even lighting? What he would get would be a decent picture with more resolution than if he chose only to use the 5D Mk II, the 1.4x, and the lens and try to crop in post processing. If he does have to post process, he has more pixels to work with too.



My experience is that you better be prepared to practice holding your breath and holding still, even at high shutter speeds because any movement will result in loss of sharpness as the image gets "smeared" to adjacent pixels as the shutter is pressed.


That has nothing to with our conversation about reach, you need just as high of a shutter with a 1.6 or a FF.


You are right. This has nothing to do with reach but it is applicable for considering the "7D - whole package" as a body to take along for a safari. It's something I've noticed in my experience that I thought I'd share with SafariMonkey for his consideration of the pro's and con's of the 7D.



*gives you extra reach - with what you've got for glass


The 7D is just a lower quality extender, to say "make the most of your glass with a 7D" is equivallant to saying "make the most of your glass with a lesser quality 3rd party extender". It's the same thing.


I don't agree with you about the 7D being a "lower quality extender." As before, you have to consider the "whole package", the blazingly fast AF, the super accurate AF, the 8 fps, and even the 18 megapixel sensor. You also have to be aware of the limitations too. The image is softer, you lose shadow detail even at lower ISO's, you have to shoot at higher shutter speeds and hold still, and in average lighting conditions, your image quality will be lower than the 5D Mk II. If you take all this into account and can minimize these conditions, you will be rewarded with excellent results using the 7D. I won't hesitate using a 1.4x with it.


When I first purchased the 7D, I thought it would be an alternative to buying bigger glass, so in effect an extender like you say. In practice,my expectations were far surpassed as all the features of the 7D contributed to a great package that delivered fantastic pictures, in many respects equal in IQ to the 5D Mk II and in other shotssurpassing the 5D Mk II with the AF and 8 fps.


Back to the extender thing again. I only use Canon's 1.4x as most reviews of the 2x indicate too much loss of IQ. I've never used any third party extender either. The 1.4x is suppose to only degrade an image only slightly while giving more reach at a loss of one stop. If you want to think of a 7D as an "extender", why would you not want to use an extender that gives you 2.24x more focal length with the loss of one stop, but also provides killer AF, 8 fps, and really good IQ if you watch the lighting. To boot, it is more affordable than getting a bigger lens for the 5D MkII, a lot more light weight thanbig glass, more portable in the field, and gives you a second body.


There are advantages with the 7D which make it very suitible for wildlife and birds, but I am talking about reach only. I would like to say that the 7D would not look terrible, Nate uses it and his shots are great! But if Canon made the 7D with a full-frame sensor it would be significantly better.


As before, the intent of the thread was to give SafariMonkey advice on a second body. That was the intent of my comments - the suitability of a 7D for his safari. As far as reach goes, it's part of the features that come with the 7D. In terms of arguing the merits of reach as it pertains to FF vs 1.6x crop, I can only comment on what my experiences are. I am interested in the topic but who really as access to all the technical data on optical design and sensor design to really give a conclusive answer? I don't and can't but I can comment on my experiences of FF and 1.6x crop in the field.


I too have also pondered a 7D with a full frame sensor. To me, that would be the 5D Mk II with the 7D AF. I wondered why they never did that in the first place. That would have been an awesome package. Instead, I ending up getting a 7D to supplement the 5D Mk II. Now that I have a 7D, I do enjoy the extra reach it gives me. I have portability and don't have to pack around a really big white lens (although I would really want one sometimes though).


I do not want to get anybody mad here, just a civalized debate.


John.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I don't know if you've tried a 7D or not but if you know someone who's got one, try to borrow it or even rent one to try out. You REALLY have to try one. I'm sure you will be just as impressed as I was with it.


I hope SafariMonkey has found this thread helpful. ("Hey, are you still there?") And whatever he uses, I hope he posts some samples for us to see when he gets back.


Best Regards,


Ed

[Fast Glass]

I don't know if you've tried a 7D or not but if you know someone who's got one, try to borrow it or even rent one to try out. You REALLY have to try one. I'm sure you will be just as impressed as I was with it.



I have tried it at a camera shop. Functionly it is great for a camera for it's class. But the IQ is not in the same leage with the 5D II that I also tried. Bryan's noise cropps show about 1 1/3 stops worst noise compared to the 5D II, ex 25,000 looks better on the 5D II than 12,000 on the 7D. That's apretty big differance.


If I had to choose a camerafrom Canon itwould bethe 1D III, primarily because it unloads the buffer much faster than the 7D,has slightly better noise and 10 fps.


But if I had to choose a camera from Nikon it would be the D700. It has a full-frame sensor, 8fps, large buffer, better weather sealling than the 5D II or 7D and about 1/3 stop better noise than even the 5D II!


I am seriously thinking about the Nikon,


John.

[Sheiky]

But if I had to choose a camera from Nikon it would be the D700. It has a full-frame sensor, 8fps, large buffer, better weather sealling than the 5D II or 7D and about 1/3 stop better noise than even the 5D II!


Also to point out a few other things: it has 12MP less than the Canon, it's more expensive(about 100euro) and it's only 5FPS instead of 8 without the batterygrip (which is optional and makes it even more expensive).


Just saying [:P]


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

25,000 looks better on the 5D II than 12,000 on the 7D. That's apretty big differance.


Yes, it's a pretty big difference...except for the fact that if you're even considering shooting at ISOs of 12,800 or 25,600, things are already going to hell in a handbasket for your shot!


[:P]

[Fast Glass]

Good point Jan, but here in the US it is about $100 cheaper the D700. For a speed camera it has more than 1D III but less than a 7D but in my mind I can't even put the 5D II in the same class, it's was not intended for fast paced subjects.


To John. That is cerntainly true! LOL.


Personally I can live with the lower resolution thanwith higher noise,


John.

[btaylor]

I think you should go with the Canon Powershot SX20. 20 x zoom in a smaller body - how could you lose? [:P]


It's a pretty difficult situation the OP's in, he's got a pretty good camera already in the 50D. Let's be honest, if it's the very best of image quality that he wants then the 5D Mk II should be the weapon of choice (thousands of people can't be wrong). However there are obvious advantages with the 7D in terms of newer technology and that fantastic autofocus system.


I adore my 5D Mk II because every photo I take wow's me with the detail, dynamic range and tones. I'd take it anywhere with me, I can deal with having a little less reach.

[EdN]

I have tried it at a camera shop. Functionly it is great for a camera for it's class. But the IQ is not in the same leage with the 5D II that I also tried. Bryan's noise cropps show about 1 1/3 stops worst noise compared to the 5D II, ex 25,000 looks better on the 5D II than 12,000 on the 7D. That's apretty big differance.


But if I had to choose a camera from Nikon it would be the D700. It has a full-frame sensor, 8fps, large buffer, better weather sealling than the 5D II or 7D and about 1/3 stop better noise than even the 5D II!


I am seriously thinking about the Nikon,



Hello John,


Sidebar to the main topic of the thread:


Don't give up on Canon just yet to go over to the *dark side*. The 5D Mk II and the D700 are already in late middle age in camera body years. I'm sure that by this time next year, there will be a 5D Mk III . . . with better AF and an improved sensor. If you can wait, you may even see a lower price as occurred when the 5D Mk II came out.


As for the D700, yes it's got a nice AF system, more FPS, and maybe better high ISO performance. But it's only got 12 megapixels and it's pretty nice to have more when post processing or cropping. Also, do you REALLY need that marginally better high ISO?


I can't see how Canon can't or won't put the 7D AF into the next 5D body. As for sensor, the 7D sensor is a generation newer than the 5D Mk II and manages eke out pretty decent performance out of much smaller pixels. I think a lot of this has to do with improved algorithms in the processing of the image data as well as a more efficient sensor. I think these algorithms are optimized for outdoor use where there is good lighting. This combined with the excellent AF system and 1.6x crop factormakes the 7D a specialized outdoor/action body. That's maybe why I'm finding the IQ of 7D pictures are so good in outdoor / good lighting conditions. Perhaps the size of the firmware of the 7D, twice the size of the 5D Mk II, is an indication of the processing algorithms.


That may also be why Bryan's noise crops show the 7D to be so much poorer compared to the 5D Mk II. Those crops were taken in lighting conditions not optimized for the 7D and at higher ISO's which you would not normally use outdoors.


BUT looking forward, what if Canon applied all the technologyof the 7D sensor and then some, into the FF sensor in the next generation of 5D. You won't need any more pixels, but just think what better sensitivity and processing could do . . .


All speculative of course but who knows . . .

[Fast Glass]

Don't give up on Canon just yet to go over to the *dark side*.


Not quite yet, but it's temping!



that by this time next year, there will be a 5D Mk III


Sorry, I have been waiting for a year without a camera body.I don't want to wait another year!



But it's only got 12 megapixels and it's pretty nice to have more when post processing or cropping.


Yes indeed, but I was looking at the 1D III and it has only 10mp. Even less than the D700. I really don't like 1.6 crop cameras so the 7D is not even in the picture.1.3 is as small asI will go.I shot some film and love the DOF of 35mm and how all my lenses are sharper.



Also, do you REALLY need that marginally better high ISO?


No, but it is a plus since I shoot a lot of high ISO pictures simply because my subjects are moving alot.



the 7D sensor is a generation newer than the 5D Mk II and manages eke out pretty decent performance out of much smaller pixels.


Yes, but the 7D has not improved drastically per pixel image quallity. If you were to crop the 5D II and then downrez the 7D to the same resolution you will notice slightly better noise from the 7D, but not adrastic differance.



Those crops were taken in lighting conditions not optimized for the 7D and at higher ISO's which you would not normally use outdoors.


I know what you mean. If the white balance is off by a significant degree then the noise will be worst. But Bryan's crops are taken with 5200k daylight balance studio lighting, there should be no significant differance in real daylight.


If you take a APS-C sensor and a 35mm sensor with the same technology you will automatically be a little over a stop worst with the smaller sensor.


Build quality is also a factor for me, I won't trade IQ for it but I would pay more for it.


John.

[btaylor]

Sorry, I have been waiting for a year without a camera body.I don't want to wait another year!





Gees John, over a year!!! You're going to go bloodynuts when you get a new body mate. Good to see you're still passionate about photography even without having a body on hand.


Are you not impressed by the 1D iv or is it just a little out of your price range? - I know it would be for me. I understand you are keen on a full frame camera (fully understandable - I'll never be able to switch back).


Ben


Sorry to hijack btw.

[Fast Glass]

Are you not impressed by the 1D iv or is it just a little out of your price range?


The 1D IV would be my choice of camera but it is way out of my price range. It's got the most resolution for a speed camera with almost as good noise as a FF.


John.

[Brendan7]

If I had the money, my camera &amp; lens of choice would be the Nikon D3s and 200-400 VR. In my opinion the D3s is fully usable at ISO 25,600. Take a look at this ("http://ftp.robgalbraith.com/public_files/D3S_ISO51200_Ring.jpg). It's considered by many to be the best DSLR camera ever made.


The 200-400 VR is fast, light(er), and has 4-stop VR. It's better at 400mm f/4 than Canon's 400 DO. And did I mention it's a zoom??? I wish Canon made that lens. But then again, Nikon doesn't make a 300 f/4 VR, 85 f/1.2, 70-200 f/4, etc.


The 1D III is a superb alternative. It is better than the 7D at high ISOs, especially where it counts most (check out 1D3 images at ISO 800-2000!). It has the 1D build and sells for the same (plus or minus a few $) as the 7D. I will say that I have used every one of the 7D's 18 megapixels. I don't think the pixel density of the 1D3 is a plus -- it makes it harder to pull out the detail on some wildlife. I dislike how Nikon's D3 bodies have only 12mp. That means to get reach for wildlife it's a 600 or bust. I don't think the slight noise advantage is worth that loss of mp.


I agree w/ John #2 (fastglass) that 1.3 crop is to save money. If the 1D bodies didn't have APS-h they might sell for more. But why then are Nikon's D3 bodies FF and sell for the same (excluding the D3X)?


For portraits and still shots of animals the 5D2 can be a better body. But you get less reach and much less power ~ smaller buffer, slower frame rate... 8fps is a LOT slower than 10fps. 4fps just doesn't compare. And let's hope no one is shooting wildlife at ISO 12,800 [:P]

[Fast Glass]

That means to get reach for wildlife it's a 600 or bust.


LOL.[:D] I do have my Minolta600mm so reach is not a problem. I rarely ever crop, I'm talking about only a couple of shots in my whole porfolio.



8fps is a LOT slower than 10fps.


I have used fraps in my games and have used is to make 8fps and 10fps comparison, the differance is very note worthy to me. But I am trading alot for that extra 2 frames; extra resolution, huge noise differance,35mm DOF, much larger view finderandFFultra wide angle lenses. But one mark in the 1D III's favor is faster AF which is relavant in my choices, because Nikon made a auto-focusing 1.6x extender! And it can be made to work on newer Nikon bodies, and there is an adapter for Nikon to Canon without optics which allows focus to infinity and AF. It's not the fastest AF in the world but better than no AF and can be inproved with a faster camera body.


So here are my narrowed down choices,


John.

[SafariMonkey]

("Hey, are you still there?")


Yes I am! Sorry about the radio silence, but been out of the country with little to no internet access - can't believe how far this discussion has progressed in my absence... been a great read!


I am still undecided at present and unfortunately quite tied up with work [:(]... will hopefully have more time to properly test the various bodies in a couple of weeks. I want to have the new baby in my hand by mid august LATEST so i can get to grips with it before the trip!


Current thinking is to stick with Canon (i cant afford a completely gear change!) and to forget about the 5DII - its a great camera and i'd love to use it, but the speed/AF is just not there for my needs.


Thanks to you all for your help! Will let you know once i've decided! [:D]