Canon 7D vs Canon 60D - Can't decide which to upgrade to.

[OldSalt]

Id choose a 7D. high burst rate, 19 AF points, and weather sealing who could ask for more from canons crop sensor dslr lineup.

These were some of the main reasons I choose the 7D over the 60D back in Jan when I upgraded from my 450D.  I also got it brand new with the 28-135 kit lens for $1052.00 out the door! making the price a real bargain and pretty much sealed the deal.  I am exceedingly happy with my decision as I'm sure you will be with the 60D they are both awesome cameras. Enjoy!

[Tcapp]

Don't know if its been suggested, but I'm always all for FF. Find a good used 5d2, keep your rokkinon, sell your other two lenses and body, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and maybe a 85 1.8.

That what I would do!

[!Xabbu]

Don't know if its been suggested, but I'm always all for FF. Find a good used 5d2, keep your rokkinon, sell your other two lenses and body, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and maybe a 85 1.8.

That what I would do!

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

[Tcapp]

Don't know if its been suggested, but I'm always all for FF. Find a good used 5d2, keep your rokkinon, sell your other two lenses and body, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and maybe a 85 1.8.

That what I would do!

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

Very true!

Although shoot both at 6400 iso and FF does magically make the photos better.

But I totally agree. 7d is a FAR better choice for sports and animals. Even if just for the crop. Or just for the frame rate. Or just for the AF. But I would, personally, still take the 5d for its iso to freeze motion of the kids. But thats just me.


Of course, the 5d3 is basically the best of both worlds.

[briansquibb]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

[rj79in]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

It would still depend on what your requirements are ... trying to take pictures of kids running around is something I wouldn't try with the 5DM2, I know it is possible but the 7D definitely beats it hands down

[plutonium10]

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

Yeah, fair point. If AF is a large enough factor for you not to consider the 5D II, the 7D is the clear winner out of the 2 crop cameras mentioned.

[briansquibb]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

It would still depend on what your requirements are ... trying to take pictures of kids running around is something I wouldn't try with the 5DM2, I know it is possible but the 7D definitely beats it hands down

Kids are no problem with the 5D2 and you end up with terrific action portraits

[Tcapp]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

It would still depend on what your requirements are ... trying to take pictures of kids running around is something I wouldn't try with the 5DM2, I know it is possible but the 7D definitely beats it hands down

Kids are no problem with the 5D2 and you end up with terrific action portraits

Totally agree. And guess what? If you know what you're doing, you can even get photos of the kids with manual focus! Hard to imagine, I know. It's silly how much people hate on the 5d2's auto focus. I've used it for years with zero problems. It focuses as fast as I can compose the photos.

[rj79in]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

It would still depend on what your requirements are ... trying to take pictures of kids running around is something I wouldn't try with the 5DM2, I know it is possible but the 7D definitely beats it hands down

Kids are no problem with the 5D2 and you end up with terrific action portraits

You could be right. Maybe I never tried working on my technique with the 5DM2 once I had the 7D.

[Ew]

5d2 for kids works fine... But you have to work a lot harder and you loose many moments. Dropping down on knees, running around little ones on a trike, kids on swings, etc - they are quick - and the 7D w AF & Fps advantage really help a great deal to get more keepers. But as soon as we're indoors in the afternoon or evening, 5D2 takes over as I find noise over 1600 on 7D just too much to deal with.

Previous post bout the 5D3 being the best of both worlds is probably correct.

[bycostello]

i'd always put glass first...   and a lens u keep for life, bodies come and go....

[!Xabbu]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition, but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures, but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance). I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids... And just to take this point out of the way (I almost know that someone will bring it up) - the 5D III and 1D bodies are in a very different price segment, which means that they are not the real competition to any of the above named cameras.

[briansquibb]

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition, but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures, but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance). I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids... And just to take this point out of the way (I almost know that someone will bring it up) - the 5D III and 1D bodies are in a very different price segment, which means that they are not the real competition to any of the above named cameras.

The camera that I use most is the 1.3 crop 1D4 followed by the ff 1Ds3. I owned the 5D and 5D2 at the time I had the 40D, 50D and 7D.

The AF of the 5DII is surpisingly good - contrary to its reputation. True,  BIF was harder work with the 5DII than the 7D but still possible. Moving animals/kids and sports were no problem with the 5D/5D2.To me the big difference between the 7D and 5DII is the burst rate.

The real beauty of ff is the quality of the bg blur which on the 1.6 quickly fell to pieces when cropping.

[rj79in]

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition, but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures, but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance). I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids... And just to take this point out of the way (I almost know that someone will bring it up) - the 5D III and 1D bodies are in a very different price segment, which means that they are not the real competition to any of the above named cameras.

The camera that I use most is the 1.3 crop 1D4 followed by the ff 1Ds3. I owned the 5D and 5D2 at the time I had the 40D, 50D and 7D.

The AF of the 5DII is surpisingly good - contrary to its reputation. True,  BIF was harder work with the 5DII than the 7D but still possible. Moving animals/kids and sports were no problem with the 5D/5D2.To me the big difference between the 7D and 5DII is the burst rate.

The real beauty of ff is the quality of the bg blur which on the 1.6 quickly fell to pieces when cropping.

On an entirely personal note, I got the 5d2 only after I had used the 7d and the AF felt like such a let down. Maybe if i had got the 5d2 prior to the 7d i might have worked at it but in my circs i really couldnt be bothered when taking photos of my kids.

Photographers who are really got at it will push their cameras to the limit, but for the average hobbyist /student it's probably asking too much