Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
Perhaps, read the bit behind the sentence you quoted [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
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. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
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.
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SafariMonkey
You're lucky, the 40D especially, but also the 50D(perhaps because the 40D still runs great) seem to hold their value pretty well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SafariMonkey
[:P]
Good luck on your decision. If you have the chance to try both cameras out, go for it!
Jan
Join the 7D club! Them 5D shooters don't know what they're missing! [:P] hehe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
my bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
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]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
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]