which camera and lens combo do you like?

I ordered a 5d mark2, and as I'm waiting for it in the mail, I'm having second thoughts and reconsidering the 7d. I'm looking for a camera/lens combos mainly used for landscapes/portraits/events (birthdays, weddings, small concerts). I will also be using video fairly extensively, so video capabilities do matter here.


Here's the 2 different camera/lens combos I'm debating:





option1- 5dm2, 24-105L, 135L


option2- 7d, 17-55 2.8 IS, 85 1.8





Here's a couple of specific questions I have.


Can you still take stills on the 5dm2 while recording video like the 7d?


Which performs better in low light and IQ considering 5dm2+135L vs 7d+ 85 1.8? How much of a difference is it?


Which body is easier to use for video? (layout etc)





Is there anything else anyone would like to throw out there? Thanks!

If you are mainly shooting landscapes andportraits, the 5D Mk II is what you want. It's got better IQ and is better in low light. The 7D has a better AF system and the 1.6x for the focal length is much better for sports, birds in flight, and wildlife.


I would say that the 5D Mk II is what would work better for you.


Regarding your questions:


You can take stills with the 5D Mk II. There is a slight discontinuity in the video as the frame is taken.


I like the image quality of the 5D Mk II better. In marginal lighting conditions, there is quite a bit more noise in the 7D shots in the shadow areas. I can't tell you how much better the 5D Mk II is because I haven't done much low light shooting lately. I haven't done much videos with either body but in low light conditions, the 5D Mk II should be better with the FF sensor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdN

There is a slight discontinuity in the video as the frame is taken.

---

Just to clarify there is the same discontinuity in the 7D as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cozen

Which performs better in low light and IQ considering 5dm2+135L vs 7d+ 85 1.8? How much of a difference is it?

---

The biggest difference in IQ comes from cropping. That is, just imagine you start with a picture taken with the 5DII and you crop away 60% it. You'll be left with an image with similar IQ to the 7D (except that the cropped 5DII picture has less resolution, of course). Or similarly, imagine you have a 1.6x extender glued permanatly to your 5DII. In terms of low light performance and IQ, your lenses will now perform as they would on the 7D.


In other words, in terms of IQ and low light performance, the 135L + 5DII will easily outperform the 7D + 85 1.8.


The 7D has several clear advantages over the 5DII (foremost among them, better af and higher pixel density), and is a better choice for some uses. But you're talking about landscapes and portraits, and asking about low light IQ. These are the strengths of the 5DII. It sounds like you bought the right camera.

Landscapes: 5D2 (wider field of view with available lenses)


Portraits: 5D2 (smoother bokeh for equivalent framing)


Events: 5D2 (better low-light performance)


Sports/Action: 7D (faster frame rate, superior AF)


Wildlife: 7D (greater pixel density enabling narrower angle of view)

Thanks for all your input everyone. Seems I did make the right choice afterall. It's a hard decision when you know you'll be stuck with the body you buy for numerous years. I guess what was appealing to me about the 7D was being able to use the 17-55 IS for video and having the built in flash + speedlite controls, as well as 60 fps video and updated video controls. Well, and the lower costs of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Wildlife: 7D (greater pixel density enabling narrower angle of view)

---

At the expsense of magnifying lens defects.A full-frame with a exentender is superior to a 1.6 crop body. You do crop out the corners but it magnifies the rest of the frame more and overall looks softer.


Here is bryan's link to show what I am talking about, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp= 0&Lens=116&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI =0&API=0&LensComp=116.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Here is bryan's link to show what I am talking about

---

The difference is even bigger than that. To make a fair comparison (same DOF and photon noise), you should stop down the 5DII to f/5.6.


And I suppose we should zoom to 45mm, too, but maybe that's beside the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

The difference is even bigger than that. To make a fair comparison (same DOF and photon noise), you should stop down the 5DII to f/5.6.


And I suppose we should zoom to 45mm, too, but maybe that's beside the point.

---

Here you go, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=474&Sample=0&am p;FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=116&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2.


Here is another comparison with the 17-40mm the 28-135mm, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=100&FLICom p=0&APIComp=2&LensComp=116&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&Camera=474


What I was trying to show was the differance if you were to use the same lens at thesame apeture which is typical in birding. But you are also right because when you use a general perpose lens you have to zoom in to maintain the same framing and stop down for DOF.


Full-Frame rocks!


John.

The 7D, if I understand correctly, is better for video than the 5DII. It also has a dedicated video switch, so no menus are required to start shooting video.

I am a minority here, but I love the 7D/300 f/4 IS combination.


EDIT:


For portraits and landscapes, the 7D with 10-22 and 17-55 is nice, the 5D2 with 16-35 and 24-70 is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan

The 7D, if I understand correctly, is better for video than the 5DII. It also has a dedicated video switch, so no menus are required to start shooting video.

---

The controls are more convenient. That is an advantage, but I would not say it makes the 7D categorically "better for video". The usual full frame advantages (more control over DOF, better low light performance) still apply to video, do they not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

I am a minority here, but I love the 7D/300 f/4 IS combination.

---

I use the 7D with a 300 F4 L IS and 1.4x for wildlife and it's a great combo. I like the 5D for the better IQ when I don't need the reach.

You are going to love the 5D MKII. For weddings and portraits, it is the best tool available.

The 85 1.8 is a great lens on the 5D MK II. It is not comparable to a 135mm L lens which is a big step up.





I bought a 7D to have as a 2nd camera to my 5D. Before my 2 weeks of ownership expired, I returned it.I only used it a few times and then always reached for the 5D. I eventually replaced the 7D with a 1d MKIII. I've been using it 80% of the time.


I've done very little video, each camera has strong points. The 7D has a dedicated button, and the HDMI output is 720P. The 5D has better low light performance, shallow depth of field, and, with the latest upgrade, more options. Neither will autofocus while shooting, and is not useful for action like a soccer or basketball game, just static scenes where you can prefocus. The video is really for those willing to dedicate themselves to serious video and spend more $$$ for accessories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Wildlife: 7D (greater pixel density enabling narrower angle of view)

---

At the expsense of magnifying lens defects.A full-frame with a exentender is superior to a 1.6 crop body. You do crop out the corners but it magnifies the rest of the frame more and overall looks softer.


Here is bryan's link to show what I am talking about, [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp= 0&Lens=116&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI =0&API=0&LensComp=116]http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp= 0&Lens=116&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI =0&API=0&LensComp=116[/url].


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

---

Of course it will. I never said it wouldn't.


But you are misconstruing the reason why I put the 7D above the 5D2 for wildlife, and that is purely because in many shooting situations, you simply cannot get close enough to your subject. It's not justifiable to compare 5D2+TC against 7D alone, because you can put the same TC on the 7D. You will squeeze more information out of a high-density sensor than you will with a low-density sensor. It may not be as good on a per-pixel basis, but it gets you more reach when you are limited in how close you can approach and you don't have the focal length to fill a full frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

in many shooting situations, you simply cannot get close enough to your subject.

---

I'm not sure what you are getting at. If a full-frame with extenders is better than a 1.6 or a 1.6 with extenders than why would you want the 1.6 for reach sake? If you are already using a 2X extender and need more reach and put a 1.6 crop body, you would be better of using a 1.4Xon top or as many as it takes to get the shot because the full-frame will be sharper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

It may not be as good on a per-pixel basis, but it gets you more reach when you are limited in how close you can approach and you don't have the focal length to fill a full frame.

---

All you are doing is buying a maximum focal length that you are will to except because of IQ or because you can't afford it. Whether I get to my maximum focal length of 1,600mm with a full-frame or a 1.6 crop camera I will be just as limited in the field with either one. But the full-frame will be sharper.


John.

You're still not getting my point.


Say you have a 500/4L + 1.4x II. Lens-wise, that's all you have. You are in the field. You see a bird in a tree and you are unable to get any closer due to physical blockades. On a 5D2, the bird occupies 30% of the linear width of the frame. On a 7D, the bird occupies 48% of the linear width of the frame. The 7D has a higher pixel density such that at 100% crop, the bird appears 47.7% times larger in linear dimensions on the 7D than on the 5D2.


Which do you choose? If you say "get an 800/5.6 or 2x extender," you're missing the point.


Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the per pixel image quality is lower on the 7D than on the 5D2, but not so much lower that it fails to outresolve detail compared to the 5D2. You are partially lens-limited but the sensor density is a stronger limiting factor except in very high noise situations. Ask Daniel Browning if you don't agree.


The bottom line is that if you were to downsize the 7D image so that the bird reproduces at the same per-pixel dimensions as the 5D2's image of the bird, or you upsize the 5D2 image to match, the 7D will win. You need to use the proper basis for comparison.


I am not arguing in favor of the 7D over the 5D2. I own the 5D2. I wouldn't trade it for a 7D, even though I like to shoot wildlife, because wildlife is not the end-all and be-all of what I want to accomplish photographically.

1D Mark IV with the 70-200 f2.8 II L IS USM....it's so sharp and the AF is fantastic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cozen

Which performs better in low light and IQ considering 5dm2+135L vs 7d+ 85 1.8? How much of a difference is it?

---

At the same angle of view and f-number, the 5D2 is 1.3 stops better in low light. So if the 135L is 1/3 stop slower than the 85mm, that means the 5D2 gives you a one-stop difference in noise. In other words, you would have to cut the ISO in half on the 7D in order to match the same noise level you get from the 5D2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cozen

Which body is easier to use for video? (layout etc)

---

I think the 5D2 is much better for video because it allows use of the Magic Lantern firmware. Other than that, they are the same ease-of-use, which is to say that both are hard to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

You are partially lens-limited but the sensor
density is a stronger limiting factor except in very high noise
situations. Ask Daniel Browning if you don't agree.

---

Let me admit that most of my pictures look best when viewed at less than 1-1. If I'm not viewing them at 1-1 anyway (either because my screen isn't big enough or, when I crop heavily or pixel peep, it doesn't look good at 1-1), doesn't that mean more pixels won't help much? I realize that more pixels help for post processing and that a very high pixel density can give modest improvements in prints, but I feel like I'm usually *more* limited by other factors.


On the other hand, I don't really think I'm usually limited by lens quality either. Today I think focus is the #1 limiting factor for me (I shoot a lot of pictures of objects with very narrow DOFs), but I change my mind a lot :)


Anyhow, in a sense this is all silly because my sharp pictures look good
when viewed on a 24" monitor or printed at say, 11x14. But usually not
when viewed 1-1.


Either way, you make good points wikerprints. Many of us make arguments based on an
assumption that "X" is the limiting factor, and start arguing
(discussing, I should say, this is a very polite forum) with someone
arguing based on the assumption that "Y" is the limiting factor, and
they get nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Say you have a 500/4L + 1.4x II. Lens-wise, that's all you have.

---

Now you are really not making any sense. Who is stopping you from getting a 2X. All you doing is buying a very expensive extender with a 1.6 crop camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Which do you choose? If you say "get an 800/5.6 or 2x extender," you're missing the point.

---

I think you are missing the point. I doesn't matter how you get to your maximum focal length, you will be just as limited in the field with a 1.6 crop body. When I am buying a lens for birding or wildlife I will be buying the longest focal length I can afford, whether it bea 1.6 crop body or a extender it does not make any differance. Your point is that you get the longest focal length for as many extenders you are using, but it does not make it any moreversitile in the field because I will be buying that focal length anyway. Like Daniel Browning said, "It doesn't matter how many cylinders it takes to make a 200 HP engine".


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Say you have a 500/4L + 1.4x II. Lens-wise, that's all you have.

---

Now you are really not making any sense. Who is stopping you from getting a 2X. All you doing is buying a very expensive extender with a 1.6 crop camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Which do you choose? If you say "get an 800/5.6 or 2x extender," you're missing the point.

---

I think you are missing the point. I doesn't matter how you get to your maximum focal length, you will be just as limited in the field with a 1.6 crop body. When I am buying a lens for birding or wildlife I will be buying the
longest focal length I can afford, whether it bea 1.6 crop body or a
extender it does not make any differance. Your point is that you get the
longest focal length for as many extenders you are using, but it does
not make it any moreversitile in the field because I will be buying
that focal length anyway. Like Daniel Browning said, "It doesn't matter
how many cylinders it takes to make a 200 HP engine

---

John- I agree wickerprints on this. While an extender can give you more effective pixel density, in this case it *does* matter how you get your proverbial 200HP. Extenders are not the same as cropping. They cost money, they make your camera autofocus worse (or not at all) and do degrade the image beyond simple magnification of flaws in the original lens (I have no idea how much they do this, but they certainly aren't perfect optically).


Wickerprint's point is that if you can't even fill the whole 7D sensor, then having an even larger 5DII sensor doesn't buy you anything, and in fact, if pixel density is limiting your IQ (even a little), then the 7D sensor will be the better choice. (That is, until they start making optically perfect extenders that don't hurt autofocus performance and giving them away for free [:)])

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Say you have a 500/4L + 1.4x II. Lens-wise, that's all you have.

---

Now you are really not making any sense. Who is stopping you from getting a 2X. All you doing is buying a very expensive extender with a 1.6 crop camera.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Okay, so say you get that 2x extender. You can either use 1000mm on the 5D, or 1000mm on the 7D. Or say you buy the LONGEST focal length possible, the EF 1200/5.6L IS + 2X extender, for a whopping 2400mm. Now say you need to image an object that, again, you cannot get close enough to, and it only fills a fraction of the frame on the 7D, even at 2400mm. You would rather take the 5D2 instead? The full frame confers no additional advantage, and the lower pixel density is a disadvantage.


John Ruyle said it better than I could--if you find yourself in a situation where you are focal-length limited, and you cannot get the subject to fill your frame, your only option is to crop to the desired composition. You don't always have the luxury of buying a longer lens, and even if you could, you could just as equally put that same lens or lens+extender combination on an APS-C body.


You keep talking about the lenses and using extenders. And what I'm trying to explain is that whatever (EF) lenses you have can be used equally on both bodies, so there's no point in saying you can use the extender on the 5D2 to get comparable FOV. You could just as easily use the extender on the 7D, and your subject would render in even greater detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Your point is that you get the longest focal length for as many extenders you are using,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

you could just as equally put that same lens or lens+extender combination on an APS-C body.

---

All you are doing is buying ainferior 1.6X extender. If I came to you with a3rd party1.6X extender with worse IQ and costed a lot more than Canon's exenters would youbuy it? Of course not. Nobody said you couldn't put a 1.6 crop camera on your existing lenses and extenders, except that would be equivalant of using ainferior 1.6X extender. My point is you have to stop somewhere in thisquest for reach and I would rather stop there with a full-frame. If you want to get nit picky the 5D II has three more megapixels than the 7D for more croping headroom once you have the same equivalant focal length. To say that *use all the focal length you can get andhang a 7Dto make the most out of it* is like saying "use all the focal length you can get and hang ainferior 1.6X extender*. Itwould be the same thing. That's what makes no sence to me. It's like saying there is an advantage in using a lesser 1.6X extenderover a better one.


With a 1.6 crop body you are cropping the image andlossinglight, with an extender you are optically cropping out the image circle and losing light. Except you do it with a better overall resultwith extenders.


Now the 7D is got it's advantages in terms of other photograpic quality's which make it sutible for birds and wildlife. But I am talking about reach only right now.


Either the full-frame with extendersis better or the 1.6 with extendersis better, you can't have them both. You have to choose between the two.


I do not want an argument here, just a civalised debate.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

My point is you have to stop somewhere in thisquest for reach and I would rather stop there with a full-frame.

---

Just curious - if your 'quest for reach' stops at FF, where did it start?? Unless you started with medium format or a view camera, it was a pretty short 'quest'. [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Crop

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

FF

---

Ouch - you guys are making my head hurt! [:S]


I think we can debate endlessly about these issues, but fundamentally it's about getting the types of shots you want. It's not about reach only, nor about IQ only.


The choice between the 5D2 and the 7D is a compromise. Cozen made the right choice forlandscapes/portraits/events by getting the 5D2, just as Brendan made the right choice for birds by getting the 7D. For those of us who want to shoot all sorts of subjects, from sweeping seascapes to sprinters to sparrows, it's a matter choosing which features will give the most benefit. The 5D2 can shoot wildlife and sports, just not as effectively as the 7D; likewise, the 7D can shoot landscapes and portraits, just not as effectively as the 5D2.


Compromise. Even if you spend a few thousand $ more on your camera body, you can't escape the need for this compromise, although scale of the compromise is reduced. There will be some trade-offs in the (forthcoming) FF 1Ds4 vs. the1.3x crop 1D4, similar to the trade-offs in the MkIII versions of those top-of-the-line bodies, namely, sensor size and resolution vs. frame/burst rate - the former being favored by studio/landscape photographers and the latter being favored by photojournalists/sports photographers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Crop

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

FF

---

Ouch - you guys are making my head hurt! [img]/emoticons/emotion-7.gif[/img]

---

I laughed out loud at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

similar to the trade-offs in the MkIII versions of those top-of-the-line bodies, namely, sensor size and resolution vs. frame/burst rate - the former being favored by studio/landscape photographers and the latter being favored by photojournalists/sports photographers.

---

Yeah, but... 1D vs 1Ds is a different debate. I mean, frame rate and *slightly* higher pixel density vs full frame? In this case, we've got less compromise on the FF side. I'm not saying the 1D isn'tpreferredby some, but price aside, I think a far larger proportion of people would prefer full frame in this case.


The 5DII vs 7D thing has far more going in favor of the crop side. The pixel density difference is far greater, the 7D is more responsive and has a better af, the 7D can use EFs lenses, etc.

Canon is a very succesful company.


Canon charges twice as much for the 5DMKII than the 7D.


The 5D MKII is still selling like it was just introduced.... even after what? ....2 1/2 years on the market?


To me, its not hard to figure out which is the better camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bombsight

Canon charges twice as much for the 5DMKII than the 7D.


To me, its not hard to figure out which is the better camera.

---

Canon charges 50% more for the 50D than the T1i. Does that make the 50D a batter camera? Not if you need to shoot video with it.


Canon charges twice as much for the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS lens compared to the EF 14mm f.2.8L II. Does that mean the 300mm lens is the better lens? Not if I need to shoot a wide landscape...


Unquestionably, the 5D2 has a better image sensor. But overall, "better" is a relative term - it's really about getting the camera that suits your needs and budget.