7D or 5D2

[NcPhoto]

Hi everyone-

Long time lurker and first time poster.  I've been reading so much and debating the pro's and con's that my head is spinning.  In a nutshell, I need a new camera and have it narrowed down to these two.  I have some "L" lenses (3 of them) so switching to Nikon isn't an option for me. 

I'm an enthusiast who is looking at making the transition to full-time (focusing on landscapes) in the next 12 to 18 months...hopefully anyway.  I can dream right!  Currently I'm using a 60D and it is time for an upgrade.  I really want the 5D3 but not at that price.  The 5D2 would be great for my landscape shooting given that it is full frame but it does have some drawbacks that have been beaten to death.  Also, I would use the camera for other purposes (family shots, outdoor activities, some wildlife/birding) and thus am strongly considering the 7D as well. 

One thought I had was buying the 7D now and then picking up 5D3 sometime next year if and when the price comes down...but then I go another year without a full frame which would be very useful for what I'm trying to accomplish...see my dilemma?

Any advice/guidance would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[iso79]

Save up for a 5D Mark III 

[EOBeav]

Save up for a 5D Mark III 

For landscapes, you're honestly not going to see a large difference in performance between the 5D2 and the 5D3. It would be very, very difficult to justify the difference in price.  You're going to want a FF (trust me on this one), so I wouldn't consider a 7D for landscape work.

Bottom line: The 5D2 is an outstanding camera. Get it now while you can. A lot of nay-sayers on here will complain about the 4 year old technology, but a lot of photogs are creating a lot of really nice images with it. If you can't make a living with a 5D2 and L glass, it's not the equipment's fault.

[TrumpetPower!]

Since the goal is a 5DIII, I'd suggest a 5DII today. Start saving for the 5DIII, and consider the resale value of the 5DII as a down payment on said savings.

However, if you mostly shoot sports today or anything else that needs a high-performance camera more than you need the best in image quality, then get the 7D (but still plan on selling it once you've saved up enough to get the 5DIII).

Also, as EOBeav pointed out, if all you shoot is landscapes, there's really not that much difference between the 5DII and the 5DIII. Yes, the 5DIII is a better landscape camera, but probably not enough so that you'd notice in a side-by-side comparison of prints. Where the 5DIII shines is in performance (framerate, autofocus) and low light situations.

Think of the two of them having basically the same film low ISO film, but the 5DIII gets you a much better camera plus some higher ISO film. If all you want of a camera is a light-tight box with good film, the 5DII is the way to go. If you need more than just the film to get the shot, the 5DIII is the better choice.

Cheers,

b&

[cliffwang]

Save up for a 5D Mark III 

For landscapes, you're honestly not going to see a large difference in performance between the 5D2 and the 5D3. It would be very, very difficult to justify the difference in price.  You're going to want a FF (trust me on this one), so I wouldn't consider a 7D for landscape work.

Bottom line: The 5D2 is an outstanding camera. Get it now while you can. A lot of nay-sayers on here will complain about the 4 year old technology, but a lot of photogs are creating a lot of really nice images with it. If you can't make a living with a 5D2 and L glass, it's not the equipment's fault.

+1
I will say 5D2.  You don't need a good AF system for landscape photos.  FF is more important because of the IQ.  If you really consider 5D3 for landscape photos, you really should think about D800 or the new high MP Canon camera.  If you have a limited budget, 5D2 is good for you.  There is a good deal from Beach Camera for 5D2 combo today.

[scrappydog]

I will say 5D2.  You don't need a good AF system for landscape photos.  FF is more important because of the IQ...

+1.  Also, with landscape shots, you will likely be shooting at ISO 100, which does not benefit from the 5D3 ISO advantages.  Use the money saved from not purchasing the 5D3 and buy a tilt-shift lens.  The 5D2 is a great camera and is more flexible than the 60D.  For landscape shots, the 7D offers no advantages over the 60D.

[darrellrhodesmiller]

i just upgraded from a 7D to a 5dmkIII. i've been really impressed with the upgrade. i've had the 7D for 3 yrs (since it came out) and honestly i've never really been happy with it. i've gotten some good shots.. but it just always seems noisier than it should be.. even at low ISO.. maybe i had a bad copy i dunno. i got some great images out of it. but i shoot mostly landscapes and city scapes like you. your money is better spent on the 5d mk II.

[Kernuak]

From someone who shoots landscapes and wildlife and has just upgraded from the 5D MkII to the MkIII, while still owning the 7D. As has already been mentioned (and as I have said previously), for purely landscapes, the MkIII offers little benefit over the MkII, apart from better weathersealing and a negligible increase in resolution. Also, while you can shoot landscapes ok with the 7D, you really need to look at full frame. That leaves you with the 5D MkII or wait for the 6D, either should serve you well for landscapes. One other word of warning though, landscape photography is a saturated market, so it is difficult to break into, unless you are lucky, know the right people and have very good business and marketing skills. Even the established landscape photographers are looking to other means to supplement their income, usually in the form of workshops. I have sold a few prints, but it's hard work (not that I've had much time to do a huge amount of marketing).

[dtaylor]

There's no visible difference between the 60D/7D/5D2/5D3 in post processed 24" landscape prints through ISO 800. It's only at higher ISOs that the FF bodies distinguish themselves. Occasionally I've seen a small but insignificant difference at 30". 30", btw, is about the limit for these cameras for critically reviewed landscape prints.

People love to claim there's a huge difference between the formats, but then utterly fail to identify unlabeled prints and 100% screen crops. Even more telling, you can show reversed labels and get people to brag about how much better the 7D images are when they believe the images came from FF!

As for landscape lenses, the same IQ is available cheaper on crop if you will not be using T/S lenses. It's just easier to make UWA and WA glass at a specific quality level for a smaller format. If you will be using T/S lenses, you want FF because there aren't any crop T/S lenses, and the FF lenses are difficult to manipulate with a Canon crop camera's flash housing.

As for going full time pro...the only successful commercial landscape photographers I know are shooting large format film or medium format digital, and their prints easily scale to 6 feet. Also: you can be one of the most talented and visionary landscape photographers in the world and have access to $60k worth of equipment...and still go unnoticed and flat broke. Keep those points in mind while you decide how much money to spend.

[rlarsen]

The 5D MK ll has a great FF sensor. The 7D has good autofocus, fast motor drive, 1.5 crop factor. The sensor is not impressive but it's ok.

The 5DMK lll has a great FF sensor, 100% viewfinder, state of the art autofocus, silent mode, pretty decent 6 FPS motor drive.

I would save for a 5D MK lll and sign up for low-price alert on a price comparison website. The camera recently went on sale for a day or two at one dealer for a really good price.

If you want to shoot birds get a 7D. If you can do without the birds get a 5D MK ll.  Better yet, save or get a loan and treat yourself to the 5D MK lll.

[Cptn Rigo]

5d all the way 

[pj1974]

There's no visible difference between the 60D/7D/5D2/5D3 in post processed 24" landscape prints through ISO 800. It's only at higher ISOs that the FF bodies distinguish themselves. Occasionally I've seen a small but insignificant difference at 30". 30", btw, is about the limit for these cameras for critically reviewed landscape prints.

People love to claim there's a huge difference between the formats, but then utterly fail to identify unlabeled prints and 100% screen crops. Even more telling, you can show reversed labels and get people to brag about how much better the 7D images are when they believe the images came from FF!

As for landscape lenses, the same IQ is available cheaper on crop if you will not be using T/S lenses. It's just easier to make UWA and WA glass at a specific quality level for a smaller format. If you will be using T/S lenses, you want FF because there aren't any crop T/S lenses, and the FF lenses are difficult to manipulate with a Canon crop camera's flash housing.

As for going full time pro...the only successful commercial landscape photographers I know are shooting large format film or medium format digital, and their prints easily scale to 6 feet. Also: you can be one of the most talented and visionary landscape photographers in the world and have access to $60k worth of equipment...and still go unnoticed and flat broke. Keep those points in mind while you decide how much money to spend.

+1   

I've been saying the same for years... that the benefits of FF compared to APS-C are often WAY over-stated, hypothesized and a result of cognitive dissonance (ie forcing your mind to believe what you want, particularly 'post purchase').

This phenomenom is not just with DSLRs - it's often also the same with food (incl gourmet), drink (including fine wine), vehicles, clothes, etc.  While I also do know there are many cases of 'you get what you pay for' - there comes a limit when the 'expensive' is minimally different to the 'extra expensive'. 

I've seen many MANY photos from a Canon crop (eg 7D, xxD, xxxD) using EF-S or non-L lenses, and honestly, unless the photos were labelled, viewers (including other pro photographers) could not tell they were not from a FF with an L lens.  While I agree there IS some dynamic range and noise advantage to FF... but generally it's not noticable at normal viewing distance to most photos.

Go with what your budget can afford. I find crop sensors particularly good to have a less expensive general purpose, and more portable kit.  Yes, I have L glass, and I have used FF.  But at this stage I'm very happy with my 7D- and a range of lenses covering 10mm to 300mm.

Paul 

[TexPhoto]

7D now, 5D3 or 3.5, 4 when appropriate.

[TeenTog]

You certainly do have a problem......... I think It really depends on what you need most. If you are mainly shooting landscape and want a high quality, full frame camera, the 5d II is the way to go. However, when it comes to wildlife, you may want to opt for the 7D because of it's crop factor, which will get you closer without having to crop the image. If space is an issue, the 7D is a slightly smaller and laighter one, so that would be the clear option. If you ask me, I would go for the 7D, for family, wildlife, and everyday things (its not bad for landscape either). You can get the 5D III next year, as it is much more of an all around camera than the Mark II ever was. If you've lasted this long without a full framer, you can probably wait for a price drop, right?

[NcPhoto]

I'd like to thank everyone for your great feedback.  All of you have given me quite a bit to think about. 

I also appreciate the honest assessment of breaking into the landscape photography industry.  I know it is going to be difficult and realize fully that in all likelihood I will need to wear many hats if I'm going to make this career change feasible/workable.  If not, I'll still have some great camera gear...whatever it is....