Canon 650D vs 7D

[Dr Croubie]

The 650d sensor is newer, with a newer processor, so theoretically it should give better response. except for certain websites that shall remained unnamed by me, saying that the 650D actually turns in slighty worse IQ than the 7/60/600D. Of course, if you're looking *that* closely at images from any of these, you should look for a good deal on a used 5d2 instead.

The biggest selling points for the 7D when I bought it were the fps and the AF, it's much more 'sports' oriented. 'sports' doesn't have to mean people running around a field, or birds flying overhead, kids running around a house can be just as challenging for an AF system.
Of course now that I've got it, there's other benefits that I wouldn't have thought of. I tried a friend's 550D the other day. Man, it is tiny. I've used rangefinders which are also small, but they fit my hands better. If it's an slr it's gotta be big for me.
And i don't like the 550d viewfinder, too small and dark. Pentraprism ->>> pentamirror. once you get used to it you can't go back.
Electronic level, very useful for tripod-landscapes, especially pano-stitching.
And custom-functions. I know lots of people who have C3 set to "OMG, look, a bird!" mode.
I love the wheel/joystick combo, I can't live without it. But that's more of a baby-duck syndrome, if you're used to buttons you may find it hard to switch to wheel. ditto touchscreen, if you like it and use it, you may miss it...

[Squidy]

Well, the fear I have is going from the touchscreen. For example I like the ability to tap on the screen and have it focus on that spot. People have said I can do the same with AF points but I've never done it.

I've heard the 7d is far more advanced etc, and the weatherproofing sounds good, but if the image quality is the same... Is it actually still a more advanced camera?

I was looking into the 5dmkiii but I'd need new lenses and the body itself even second hand is still over $1k more which is not with lenses and still out of my budget.

[conropl]

... I like the ability to tap on the screen and have it focus on that spot. People have said I can do the same with AF points but I've never done it.

As you know, the 7D does not have a touch screen, but in live view you can move the focus area around with the little joy stick. When looking through the view finder, you can use the joy stick to choose the focus point or even the set of focus points if you are not using single point.

[andnowimbroke]

The 7d can give you sharper shots using AFMA. If you have a camera that doesn't have it, you can send it in with your stacks of lenses and have Canon adjust everything to match. Would I get the 7d over the other camera? Yep. That's me. My hands can't curl around the smaller body and touch the buttons I need to. I would have loved it to fit (they're cheaper and give similar output), but it didn't. The 7d size is still a little small but right enough.
I'd give up using the touchscreen for a week and see if you can live without it out it. You prolly will get used to the auto focus points. Upgrading for possible image improvement is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down just yet. Every six months to a year a "better" one comes out. That could get expensive.

[Black_Dog]

Absolutely incorrect.

The 7d, 600d 550d all share the same sensor and Digic Processor - impossible to have any IQ difference.

Not true, my friend. There's more that impacts image quality than just the sensor and processor. Look at the difference between the photos taken in this review between the 60D and 7D. Compared to the 7D, the 60D clearly has better image quality due to better noise suppression, color rendition and exposure. From other reviews I've seen, the 650D controls noise slightly better than the 60D.

That said, I would only consider the 7D if I were a sports photographer and needed the speed of the dual Digic 5 processor and superior AF system. Otherwise, the 60D does everything as well or better than the 7D (e.g. video). I would not buy another Rebel (XXXD) body. I've previously owned two of them. They take decent photos and have proved to be surprisingly durable, but they are too small for my large hands, look and feel like cheap plastic, have comparatively dark viewfinders, and they lack the top LCD and rear command dial. Given the small price difference between the 650D and the 60D, I would choose the 60D.

[neuroanatomist]

Not true, my friend. There's more that impacts image quality than just the sensor and processor. Look at the difference between the photos taken in this review between the 60D and 7D. Compared to the 7D, the 60D clearly has better image quality due to better noise suppression, color rendition and exposure. From other reviews I've seen, the 650D controls noise slightly better than the 60D.

Do be careful with interpretations. For the review site you linked, I checked their How We Test description, and no where in there can I find a statement that RAW files are used as the basis for comparisons. For example, if you look at the ISO 6400 images for the 7D vs. the 60D, you're correct in that the 60D has less noise - but the much of the fine detail has been lost. You used the term 'noise suppression' and that's exactly what's going on in the comparison, the 60D has more NR applied, trading noise for detail. If you compare the RAW image output from the two cameras, there's no meaningful difference since the sensor is the same. In the review you're linking, I think you're seeing the effects of the JPG conversion process. The default settings of the 7D are definitely 'tuned' to be less processed - lower NR, lower color saturation, etc. It's a camera that benefits a lot from RAW shooting and good post processing technique. The 60D and the Rebel/xxxD line are 'tuned' to be more 'consumer friendly,' much like most computer monitors - the default calibration gives a bright, 'punchy' image with lots of saturation and contrast. If one plans to shoot JPGs in green square mode, a JPG-based comparison is helpful. If one plans to shoot RAW and convert images during editing, a JPG-based comparison is not terribly useful.

[Squidy]

Well, colour detail is what I'm mainly after. The sharpness of my current camera shocks me with how good it looks (to my eyes at least) but the colours don't seem right... or maybe I'm just used to seeing landscapes that have been pumped through Lightroom and had a load of saturation added.

Maybe it's not the camera that's the problem? Maybe it's post processing I'm failing at?

[ahab1372]

Sometimes adjusting the Levels just slightly makes a huge difference in contrast and colors will come out much nicer, even before you even touch the saturation or vibrancy slider.

[Busted Knuckles]

As having both T3i i.e. the 600d and the 5dIII. I am stunned at the IQ I can pull out of the T3i. Fiddle a little more and it will suddenly all make sense how to manage the settings.

Shooting RAW lets me focus on the exposure when I am shooting and fiddle w/ the color balance, etc in post.

Well, colour detail is what I'm mainly after. The sharpness of my current camera shocks me with how good it looks (to my eyes at least) but the colours don't seem right... or maybe I'm just used to seeing landscapes that have been pumped through Lightroom and had a load of saturation added.

Maybe it's not the camera that's the problem? Maybe it's post processing I'm failing at?

[Squidy]

Well, I use a Macbook Air with the retina display and a PC with a decent-ish Samsung 27 inch monitor and it looks bad on both. However I took a landscape shot yesterday and without barely touching the saturation or anything it looked so vibrant. So I'm thinking I must be doing something wrong :/