5D2 refurb or new 7D as backup to 5D3?

[archiea]

I currently use 5d3, 2 5d2 and a 7d shooting Weddings. I also read what David Ziser said before I purchased the 7d. Based upon my experience over the past year, I would choose the 5d2 over the 7d. You probably should exchange or return the 5d2 refurb you purchased. Get a different refurb or you can still buy a new 5d2 from b&h. I prefer the iq of any of the 5d bodies to the 7d. Iso is also an issue. Good luck!

It depends on your needs:

get a 5Dii refurb if you are looking to have a 1:1 backup to your mark 3. The IQ will be a lot more interchangeable. Get a 7D if you need the high frame rate (Spray and Pray) or if you need the 1.6 crop. Both those features are more for sports and wildlife photographers that can use the versitility of a 7D. The only thing I can think of for wedding that a 7D can offer is better tracking for AF... but thats about it...

 

[funkboy]

I gave the 6D another hard look. Anyone who own it - is the lack of thumb-multipoint control tough to get used to? I love the thumb multi-control.

It took some getting used to, but the multi-control thingy pretty much does the same thing as the old multipoint button does. I must say I prefer the multipoint button but the 6D's setup is fine once you get used to it. Switching back & forth between boides might take a little more patience though.

Oh, something that bothers me about the 6D is the 1/4000th shutter, but even more so, the 1/180's X-Sync for flash/strobes. That could be a problem as 1/200 is already rough.

yeah, I have wanted to use 8k sometimes in bright light (my 40D could do it...). I just push it down to ISO 50 instead & that helps a bit... Haven't messed with flash much but at least they only took away a little bit of flash sync. 1/125 would be really annoying but 1/180 isn't too bad. I understand why building an 8k FF shutter is hard, but I don't get why everything can't just do 1/250 flash sync though...

I am impressed with the 6D's noise vs. 5D2. Obviously, smokes the 7D.

Yep, that's why I bought one. This is really the first digital camera I've owned where I can really say that it easily handles whatever lighting conditions I throw at it. I've been shooting MRAW the whole time so I don't have to go out & buy 2 more hard drives and the files work really really nicely in Lightroom.

One thing I have noticed is that you really need to turn off the "silent shot" drive mode if you're shooting longer exposures. I haven't tested to see exactly where it starts, but so far at anything over about 1 second it doesn't get the mirror out of the way fast enough and 1/3 of the frame is black. It's not really a big deal though, just something to remember.

I've also noticed that I really use the word "really" a lot when I'm tired

 

[sdsr]

I gave the 6D another hard look. Anyone who own it - is the lack of thumb-multipoint control tough to get used to? I love the thumb multi-control.

....

I am impressed with the 6D's noise vs. 5D2. Obviously, smokes the 7D. The 5D2 'feels old' after using the 5D3 for almost three months now.

It also feels old after using the 6D, though I'm not sure the results do in decent light (I tend to prefer the colors conjured up by the 6D & 5DIII too, which look a bit more realistic to me, though there's not much in it). But much of this is rather subjective - I don't love the thumb control (not wild about pushing my thumb against that hard, rather sharp-edged plastic) and probably prefer the multi-thingy control pad on the 6D (+ front wheel for moving the focus point horizontally). You won't know until you try it; you could always rent one and find out. Either way, you might conclude that the 6D's superlative low light performance more than makes up for it. (That said, having recently acquired an Olympus OMD, whose focus points cover almost the entire image, I'm finding the focus points on any DSLR I've used rather limited in that regard.)

 

[Botts]

Thank you for your reply, but the 6D is out of my budget for a 9/(11)-point, center-only cross-type AF system and I truly need to choose between a 7D or 5D2. Plus, I don't care for the 60D-like simplified rear panel of the 6D. Just does not suit my years of Canon EOS usage.

You mention the AF performance and your need for tack sharp photos in several posts. IMO that completely knocks out the 5D2. The 7D has phenomenal AF and great IQ if you are shooting with strobes when the light gets low, and not relying on high ISO performance.

I still miss my 7D for action, and am eagerly awaiting a 7D2 to pair with my 6D. That said, the center point on the 6D beats the 7D for accuracy, but the only point on the 6D that does that is the center point.

One last consideration is focal lengths, you won't be near as wide with the 7D, but as you have a 20D I'm sure you've already experienced that.

 

[dtaylor]

its a simple fact thats not too hard to grasp that the image quality from canons full frame cameras is significantly better than their crop cameras to date especially at higher iso

If this is such a simple fact, then why is it no one ever posts proof? In the 3.5 years since the 7D was released I have yet to see even one test that showed "significantly better" IQ from the 5D2 over the 7D through ISO 800. Even at 1600 and 3200 I would only call the IQ difference "significant" for large prints. (The 5D2 is usable at 6400 where the 7D really isn't, except for small prints or web shots.)

Lots and lots of posts claiming "it's a fact!" and "everybody knows it!"...but no pictures.

I've had both. I've made plenty of prints, including plenty of 16x20's. At low to mid ISO there's no difference that survives post processing.

Now that we have the FF hyperbole out of the way...for regular professional wedding work I would be torn. Weddings often present terrible light levels where every stop counts. Then again, having one crop and one FF body, and the right lenses, can really expand your range without having to change lenses. (I've shot with crop only and with both.)

I would lean towards one of each...depending on lenses...but I would not fault someone for choosing 2 FF bodies for wedding work. OP is going to have to weigh the non-work advantages (reach; speed) against the work situation (lens collection vs. low light).

 

[Hydrogen]

its a simple fact thats not too hard to grasp that the image quality from canons full frame cameras is significantly better than their crop cameras to date especially at higher iso

If this is such a simple fact, then why is it no one ever posts proof? In the 3.5 years since the 7D was released I have yet to see even one test that showed "significantly better" IQ from the 5D2 over the 7D through ISO 800. Even at 1600 and 3200 I would only call the IQ difference "significant" for large prints. (The 5D2 is usable at 6400 where the 7D really isn't, except for small prints or web shots.)

Lots and lots of posts claiming "it's a fact!" and "everybody knows it!"...but no pictures.

I've had both. I've made plenty of prints, including plenty of 16x20's. At low to mid ISO there's no difference that survives post processing.

Thank you. I agree with this. I read review after review telling me to look at the difference in noise (even at low light levels) between the 7D and the 5D2 through ISO 800 and I just don't see a significant difference. 5% tops maybe? Yes, higher ISO's things start to deviate.

Now that we have the FF hyperbole out of the way...for regular professional wedding work I would be torn. Weddings often present terrible light levels where every stop counts. Then again, having one crop and one FF body, and the right lenses, can really expand your range without having to change lenses. (I've shot with crop only and with both.)

I would lean towards one of each...depending on lenses...but I would not fault someone for choosing 2 FF bodies for wedding work. OP is going to have to weigh the non-work advantages (reach; speed) against the work situation (lens collection vs. low light).

Your last point is something I have been 'feeling' but unable to express. I am not a full-time professional. Heck, I am not yet willing to call myself a fully-fledged part-time professional. Therefore, I keep feeling like I may want a high quality crop. I just ordered one from Adorama - Canon Refurb $969 and I am going to give it a good test when it shows up. Since I am not a full-time pro and I am not yet shooting weddings (but aspire to one day), I think I am going to likely end up keeping the 7D, wait for the 5D2 refurbs to drop in price more like the 7D did, and then grab one or even a second 5D3 at that time. If my 5D3 goes out during a shoot, a 7D is far better than the older crops or no camera at all.

Problem now is, I ordered a second 5D2 refurb from Canon as the first one that came had 2,851 actuations on it and looked a little worn. So I will be out shipping on two 5D2's once this is all said and done. Will give both 5D2's and the 7D a very good test using FoCal's multi-point AF test (which reveals AF point consistency and accuracy) and possibly still consider keeping one of the two 5D2's. We'll see. Maybe just rent a 5D2 or 5D3 whenever I have a bigger low-light commitment (i.e. Wedding). My 7D should suffice for outdoor shooting.

My lenses - I own:
24-105L, 35 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/2.8

I think if I take the money I save from buying a 5D2 and put it into a 16-35 f/2.8 II, I'd have a nice wide angle I could use for the 7D that puts me into the ~24-50mm effective range.

I also have been weighing the cost of a 1.4x II extender - $399 to $499. Half to more than half the way to the $969 refurbished 7D... Rather have the 7D (for now) plus it gives me 1.6x AND AF that still works @ f/2.8 and faster using double cross-type points...

Thanks to everyone.

 

[Botts]

My lenses - I own:
24-105L, 35 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/2.8

I think if I take the money I save from buying a 5D2 and put it into a 16-35 f/2.8 II, I'd have a nice wide angle I could use for the 7D that puts me into the ~24-50mm effective range.

I also have been weighing the cost of a 1.4x II extender - $399 to $499. Half to more than half the way to the $969 refurbished 7D... Rather have the 7D (for now) plus it gives me 1.6x AND AF that still works @ f/2.8 and faster using double cross-type points...

Thanks to everyone.

I think you made the right choice with the 7D for now. It's a great camera, with great autofocus.

I would REALLY consider renting that 16-35 first. I was all gung-ho to buy one, so I rented it and realized that I'd likely never use it. Alternatively to getting the 16-35, I'd strongly consider buying a used 17-55/2.8 IS (~$800). The lens is very sharp, it has IS, and is still a fixed 2.8. It is for crop body only, but is the best normal lens on the 7D. Then you could use either your 85/1.8 or 70-200/2.8 on your 5D3. You'd have the advantage of both focal length ranges at reach at all times.

 

[Hydrogen]

I would REALLY consider renting that 16-35 first. I was all gung-ho to buy one, so I rented it and realized that I'd likely never use it. Alternatively to getting the 16-35, I'd strongly consider buying a used 17-55/2.8 IS (~$800). The lens is very sharp, it has IS, and is still a fixed 2.8. It is for crop body only, but is the best normal lens on the 7D. Then you could use either your 85/1.8 or 70-200/2.8 on your 5D3. You'd have the advantage of both focal length ranges at reach at all times.

So my thinking was to have an UWA EF zoom that I could also make use of for even wider shots on my 5D3 (my widest lens right now is the 24-105L). I was also thinking to use the 7D as my body for family vacations and bring the 24-105L plus an UWA along with me for the wider shots, but that means carrying two lenses.

After some consideration and for the cost, I would probably go with the 17-40 f/4L instead of the 16-35. But I just compared the ISO 12233 crops on the TDP site between the 17-55/2.8 IS you have recommended and the 17-40 and have to say the EFS 17-55 wins out for resolving/sharpness, but when comparing both @ 28mm f/5.6 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2, the 17-40 clearly is brighter in the middle and corner of the frame (on even a 50D). Also, a problem I have with it is the fact that it's a crop-only lens. :-(

What to do...

 

[Krob78]

I currently use 5d3, 2 5d2 and a 7d shooting Weddings. I also read what David Ziser said before I purchased the 7d. Based upon my experience over the past year, I would choose the 5d2 over the 7d. You probably should exchange or return the 5d2 refurb you purchased. Get a different refurb or you can still buy a new 5d2 from b&h. I prefer the iq of any of the 5d bodies to the 7d. Iso is also an issue. Good luck!

I'd second that. I've used my 7d for several weddings prior to getting the 5d3. It's doable but it's a lot of extra work in post, that's for sure!

 

[RLPhoto]

I would say a used 5D2 or a Refurb 5D3 when they come back down to the 2375$ pricing. The 6D AF isn't much better than the 5D2 IMO.

The thumb-jog doesn't really matter much on the 5D2/6D/5Dc because you'll mainly be using one point.

 

[Krob78]

I would say a used 5D2 or a Refurb 5D3 when they come back down to the 2375$ pricing. The 6D AF isn't much better than the 5D2 IMO.

The thumb-jog doesn't really matter much on the 5D2/6D/5Dc because you'll mainly be using one point.

+1

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've owned two 7D's, two 5D MK II's and two 5D MK III's. My 7D was mostly useful as a studio camera with good lighting, or outdoors with bright lighting. It suffered at high ISO 800 or over, but could be used at 1600 or even 3200 if you were immune to noise or used a lot of NR.

I always preferred my 5D MK II to the 7D's. Finally, I sold the 7D's and bought a used 1D MK II. What a improvement that made.

The 7D was certainly a good crop body, it had some significant good points in adequate light and suffered in low light.


BTW, you need only look at the resolution scores at Photozone, DXO, or any lens review site to see how much sharper FF images are than images from a crop camera. Even a old 5D classic will out resolve every Canon crop made including the 7D when tested using the same lens. The reason is that FF cameras are not as demanding of a lens as a camera with a small sensor. Just because a crop uses the center portion of a lens does not overcome the FF advantage except for vignetting.

 

[Krob78]

I've owned two 7D's, two 5D MK II's and two 5D MK III's. My 7D was mostly useful as a studio camera with good lighting, or outdoors with bright lighting. It suffered at high ISO 800 or over, but could be used at 1600 or even 3200 if you were immune to noise or used a lot of NR.

I always preferred my 5D MK II to the 7D's. Finally, I sold the 7D's and bought a used 1D MK II. What a improvement that made.

The 7D was certainly a good crop body, it had some significant good points in adequate light and suffered in low light.


BTW, you need only look at the resolution scores at Photozone, DXO, or any lens review site to see how much sharper FF images are than images from a crop camera. Even a old 5D classic will out resolve every Canon crop made including the 7D when tested using the same lens. The reason is that FF cameras are not as demanding of a lens as a camera with a small sensor. Just because a crop uses the center portion of a lens does not overcome the FF advantage except for vignetting.

And if you need the fps rate with the extra low light advantage and only have modest budget resources, the 5D3 answers both of those... albeit a little slower fps rate than the 7d, the 6fps are still useful... If it wasn't for budget restraints I'd love a 1Dx!

I'm still trying to sell my 7d, just haven't been able to do it quite yet. Still reaching for it in some of my sports work... the 8fps can still make a difference between getting the money shot or getting the shot right before or after the money shot! :