Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
The Sigma 12-24 has an even wider view and with less distortion even at 12mm...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]
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdN
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/...683411a3_b.jpg
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]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
I said better, not cheaper. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
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 [:#]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
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!!!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdN
I think Ed said what I've been saying (sort of) in a much more eloquent way.
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