5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)

[Hillsilly]

Hi. I'll probably pick up a new camera next year, and am weighing up the pros and cons of APS-C vs FF. I'm curious - why is there so much interest in the 5Diii compared with a 7Dii? A 5Diii with 7D build, AF and speed would seem to be many people's dream come true. I appreciate many of the benefits of FF - shallower depth of field, less noise at higher ISOs etc. But with all of the hype, you start to think that the only benefit of the APS-C sensor is the lower price and 1.6x crop for longer lenses, but for everything else it is an inferior product. If a 5Diii was virtually identical to a 7Dii except it had more megapixels on a larger sensor, would the joys and benefits of using a FF camera really be that noticeable in the real world? Do people who have made the switch from APS-C to FF agree that it is the best decision that they've ever made and wish they had done it sooner? Or after making the change, have you been left wondering what all the fuss is about? Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[Fleetie]

Well here are a few thoughts, that pertain to the situation (as currently obtains) where the FF camera has larger pixels than the crop camera does (e.g. 5D2/1DX vs. 7D):

Advantages of FF vs. crop:

* Shallower DOF for equivalent framing, i.e. more OOF blur
* Lenses will appear "sharper" around the centre of the frame, cos the pixels are larger, so in optimum focus, any blur spreads across fewer pixels
* Better high-ISO performance and better dynamic range (DR)

Disadvantages of FF relative to crop:

* More vignetting
* Poorer sharpness and CA around the corners and edges of images; lenses' weaknesses more evident
* Less reach for a given lens; this affects telephotos most. May need teleconverters or MUCH more expensive and heavier lenses to reclaim the lost reach
* FF bodies are currently more expensive


Despite all of the above, I'll be going FF for my next camera, but keeping my 7D rather than selling it; mainly for improved low-light/high-ISO performance and increased OOF blur.

I just *wish* that there would be a camera that could see in the dark, like the 1DX, but in a 7D/5D2 style body, rather than a huge 1D style body. I can't drag a body like a 1DX around on my shoulder all day. A 1DX body is too big to carry around as a general-purpose camera, IMO. So I am hoping the 5D3 will have good low-light performance.

 

[Leopard Lupus]

With my recent switch from APS-C to FF, I must say I am impressed. I sold my 60D and kept my 7D (good choice on keeping yours as well) making a 7D and 5D mk ll combo wonderful. It was difficult at first to get used to a FF, and shooting with one is certainly a different feeling. All of the lenses used on a crop sensor are suddenly renewed on a FF. I wouldn't say it was the best decision I have ever made, but it was right up there... The best decision I ever made was upgrading to L series glass!

 

[Tonji]

If you are planning to buy a 7d or a 5dmk2 and you are asking which produces better images then my answer would be the 5d mk2.

I have had both of them.

I like the 5dmk2 files a lot more than the 7d files.


Good luck on your purchase.

 

[Flake]

Why so much more interest in the 5D MkIII well it's because the MKII is a bit long in the tooth and a replacement is expected before the 7D MkII which is quite a bit younger.

The difference between the two might be better expressed as uses rather than technical. 5D MkII better for portraits, landscapes, and architecture, perhaps some low light work.
7D better for sports, and action, wildlife, macro, any kind of 'papping'

Some of the differences are accounted for by the sensor size, but there's also the autofocus system which is not wonderful on the 5D MkII

 

[Cetalis]

FFs also have bigger viewfinders. APS-Cs can potentially weigh less and take up less space.

Diffraction hits APS-Cs earlier, though the shorter DoF on FFs runs both ways.

As for the overused fast midrange zooms, 17-55 has IS, the 24-70 is heavier but has weather sealing.

Right now, there are no light superzooms on FF and no dedicated ultrawide primes on APS-C.

Still, after all is said and done, I haven't yet heard of a single person who voluntarily left FF.

 

[briansquibb]

70-300L is a pretty good zoom for the ff people.

I have a 5DII and 2 7D's. The better IQ from the 5DII is clearly visible - but as said the 1.6 crop works

When out doing nature shooting I have the 2 7d's hanging from an RS2 strap - one with the 70-200L 2.8 II and the other 400 f2.8IS.

On the other have the landscapes from the 5DII with the 400 are simply stunning.

Different tools for different jobs. The 1DX for me would replace the 5DII - not the 7D

 

[niccyboy]

I am not a huge 7d fan, mainly because of the low light noise and how it ruined some of my images during last years cold snap in Eastern Europe... I used the 7d because of the weatherproofing and found it lacking due to the low light. BUT i've also had some good times with it... I'm just holding a grudge! Obviously the low light issue is because it's a different breed of sensor to the 5d2.

However it is a fantastic spare body for a 5d2 user. With same batteries & chargers, memory cards, and such a similar body it makes things very easy for a 5d2 user. They also compliment each other with the fast fps and the great AF, two areas where 5d users find their camera is not ideal.

I have noticed in signatures how many people have the 5d2 + 7d combo... I think it is a clever move for Canon to do the same similar characteristics. While a lot of pro & prosumers will not have the money to justify two 5d's they can justify a camera that can not only act as a spare but compliment their FF baby.

High chance that I'll upgrade all my bodies to their new models when they are released (assuming they follow an acceptable technological progression)

BACK TO THE OP - I find the 5d far superior in colours as well. I can take an identical shot with both cameras and just find the 5d really gives far better colours. I know it's subjective and a personal thing.

Do you know what i really love on the 5d over the 7d?.... The shutter noise... it's such a full, solid shutter noise.. and really is an addictive noise when you are shooting... whereas the 7d is a bit more of an electronic noise.... I know it's stupid.. am i the only one that loves that noise?

 

[Loswr]

A 5Diii with 7D build, AF and speed would seem to be many people's dream come true....If a 5Diii was virtually identical to a 7Dii except it had more megapixels on a larger sensor

Yes, it would be a dream come true - except that it's a dream that will go 'pop' and disappear when everyone wakes up in the morning (probably some distant morning) and sees the specs of the real 5DIII. Hey, I'd like a 5DIII with better-than-7D build, better-than-7D AF, and better-than-7D speed, still full frame, and I'd like it to cost about the same as the current 5DII. Oh, wait, except for that last little point, that's the 1D X. See the problem with comparing dreams?

As Flake stated, people are interested in the 5DIII in part because it's been a while since the 5DII came out. The assumption that a 5DII replacement will have '7D build, AF and speed' is unwarranted, because Canon will need to differentiate the 5DIII from the 1D X on features to justify the price difference of ~$4K (or they'll minimize the price gap and charge $4K for the 5DIII but I really don't see that happeneing). So, people won't get their 'dream camera'.

Same for the 7DII - no one's talking much about that one, but it will probably not improve too much on the 7D. My guess would be more MP (21-24), maybe the articulating display, same basic AF, Digic V (likely x2), new metering sensor (which will contribute to AF, so that will be the AF improvement), and that's likely it.

Instead, let's compare real cameras - 5DII to 7D. I think Fleetie summed up the main advantages and disadvantages. For me, the 1.3-stop better ISO noise performance is the key - on the 7D, ISO 1600 is barely tolerable, on the 5DII, ISO 3200 is decent.

The difference between the two might be better expressed as uses rather than technical. 5D MkII better for portraits, landscapes, and architecture, perhaps some low light work.
7D better for sports, and action, wildlife, macro

Flake is correct - it comes down to use cases, more than tech (although I disagree on the macro part, where the 5DII is a better choice than the 7D - 1:1 is the same size regardless of sensor, and I'd rather have a 1:1 image captures a 2.6x larger area).

I had the 7D before getting the 5DII. Since getting the 5DII, 90% of my shots have been taken with the FF body. The 7D has been used almost exclusively for birds/wildlife shooting. If all I did was birds/wildlife, I would have neither the 7D nor 5DII, but a 1D IV - and I'd keep it over the 1D X for that use. But like briansquibb, I see the 1D X as replacing my 5DII, and I'll be keeping my 7D.

 

[Flake]

Allow me to explain the Macro comment.

1:1 is the same on both FF & crop, but that means that the frame is filled on the crop before it is on the FF, in fact to get the same apparant magnification you need to use 1.6X. Of course you can crop the image but then you run into another of the 7Ds strengths, pixel density.

If you want to preserve the image then either fill the frame at 1.6x macro and lose the depth of field, or crop and lose the resolution.

That's why a camera like the 7D is better for macro than the 5D MkII

 

[moreorless]

Same for the 7DII - no one's talking much about that one, but it will probably not improve too much on the 7D. My guess would be more MP (21-24), maybe the articulating display, same basic AF, Digic V (likely x2), new metering sensor (which will contribute to AF, so that will be the AF improvement), and that's likely it.

Instead, let's compare real cameras - 5DII to 7D. I think Fleetie summed up the main advantages and disadvantages. For me, the 1.3-stop better ISO noise performance is the key - on the 7D, ISO 1600 is barely tolerable, on the 5DII, ISO 3200 is decent.

To me the move that would make the most sense is keeping the 7D mk2 at 18 megapixels and focusing on ISO while the 5D mk3 pushes megapixels.

Yes it would mean Canon would give ground to Sony and Nikon on MP in the crop market but ISO performance seems to the suit the 7D much better than pure resolution(indeed the crop market generally). It also sends a clear(and honiest) message "if you want high megapixels in good quality move to FF" thus potentially encouraging more crop users to upgrade.

Plus of course a high megapixel 5D mk3 will likely have inferior ISO and FPS performance compaired to the 1DX those cutting down the risk of losing sales on the latter. It would put the 7D somewhat into competision with the 1DX but I don't see that being as dangerous as having two FF bodies with specs that overlap.

 

[Benhider]

Don't buy any Kingston Card... it is slow. Slower than a cheaper Lexar or Sandisk!

 

[traveller]

As Flake stated, people are interested in the 5DIII in part because it's been a while since the 5DII came out. The assumption that a 5DII replacement will have '7D build, AF and speed' is unwarranted, because Canon will need to differentiate the 5DIII from the 1D X on features to justify the price difference of ~$4K (or they'll minimize the price gap and charge $4K for the 5DIII but I really don't see that happeneing). So, people won't get their 'dream camera'.

I'm sure that Canon will want to find some way of differentiating between the 1D X and a future 5D MkIII, but hobbling the build an AF is likely to lead to trouble. I think that current 5D MkII owners are more than a bit annoyed with Canon that there have now been a succession of much cheaper cameras with better AF systems. In addition, the 5D MkII is not regarded overly well in terms of weather resistance compared with say, the D700 (not so great for a "landscape camera"). A 5D MkIII will be up against a D800 and I think that quite a few 5D MkII owners and potential upgraders, will be reconsidering their brand choice if the 5D MkIII fails to address some of its predecessor's weaknesses.

 

[unfocused]

To me the move that would make the most sense is keeping the 7D mk2 at 18 megapixels and focusing on ISO while the 5D mk3 pushes megapixels...

... It also sends a clear(and honest) message "if you want high megapixels in good quality move to FF" thus potentially encouraging more crop users to upgrade.

Plus of course a high megapixel 5D mk3 will likely have inferior ISO and FPS performance compared to the 1DX those cutting down the risk of losing sales on the latter. It would put the 7D somewhat into competition with the 1DX but I don't see that being as dangerous as having two FF bodies with specs that overlap.

Partially agree. I too like the idea of keeping the next 7D at or about the same megapixels and focusing on improved image quality. In fact, I think that may be an excellent way to differentiate the 7D from the 60D and Rebels (they get the high density sensors and the 7D keeps the same megapixels, but with improved IQ -- very similar to what people expect with 1DX and 5DIII.

I disagree though, that it would put the 7D in competition with the 1DX. Rather, I see them as being complementary. Buy the 1DX for full-on full-frame, tank-like durability and highest quality images, buy the 7D to add extra reach when you need it.

Instead, I wonder if it would cause the 7D to erode 5D sales, especially if the 5D goes up to 30+ megapixels.

Don't know. Just speculating.

 

[Loswr]

1:1 is the same on both FF & crop, but that means that the frame is filled on the crop before it is on the FF, in fact to get the same apparant magnification you need to use 1.6X. Of course you can crop the image but then you run into another of the 7Ds strengths, pixel density.

If you want to preserve the image then either fill the frame at 1.6x macro and lose the depth of field, or crop and lose the resolution.

That's why a camera like the 7D is better for macro than the 5D MkII

Maybe I'm not understanding something here, but I'm still not seeing it. When a macro lens is at 1:1, it's projecting a life-sized view at the image plane, without regard to what type of sensor/film is at that image plane. Granted, there's more apparent magnification (i.e. more pixles per unit area) with a 7D vs a 5DII, but that's solely a function of pixel density, so if you compared a 5DII with a 20/30D (same pixel density), you'd have the same magnification.

I'm not sure how the "frame is filled on the crop before it is on the FF" - at 1:1, they're filled at the same distance (i.e. MFD), but the FF frame is bigger than the crop frame.

Regarding DoF, again, the 5DII is the winner. When we say that DoF is shallower on FF, that applies only when the framing is the same. So, if you're changing lenses and cameras, fine - in theory, a 60mm macro on APS-C at 1:1 and a 100mm macro on FF at 1:1 will give the same framing, but in that case, you'd need to be closer to the subject with the 60mm lens to achieve 1:1 magnification, the framing would not be the same, and for 1:1 the DoF on the APS-C sensor would actually be shallower. If you use the same lens on APS-C and FF, again at 1:1, you'd have different framing, but you'd be at the same distance - and the DoF on the APS-C would be shallower. So, at 1:1 on FF, you have a deeper DoF...and you can stop down more without diffraction. Win-win for FF, IMO.

What am I missing, other than the apparent magnification increase due to a higher pixel density when applicable?

 

[Kernuak]

It is all about the apparent magnification. If for example, you take a 25mm subject, on a 1.6 crop, it will fill the sensor at 1:1 magnification, but it will only fill around 2/3rds of the full frame sensor. Now if you change the subject for a 35mm one, then at 1:1 magnification it will fill the full frame sensor, while on the crop sensor, you can stand further back to fill the sensor, which will of course give you more depth of field. You could crop the image on the 5D MkII, but then you will end up with less pixels, than on the 7D as you know. That said, I also prefer to use the 5D for macros work, partly because it gives a cleaner image (which I feel is more important on macro, than larger wildlife, as fine detail is vital), but also, I find the 5D much easier to focus manually through the viewfinder, giving me a much higher keeper rate when photographing subjects that are likely to move too quickly for a tripod.

 

[Loswr]

Makes sense, was just wondering if I was missing anything besides apparent mag. Personally, I'll take real mag, and if 1:1 isn't enough, I'll go to 5x with my MP-E 65mm...and if that's not enough, I'll just use a microscope.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've a 7D, 1D MK III (Just sold), and 5D MK II. Each has their best use, but for general use, i always grab the 5D MK II because the IQ of the image looks better to me. I sold the 1D MK III because I was able to get a very good price out of it, and bought a 7D for about half the price. I use it because it and the 15-85 focal length lens fit my working area for product photography perfectly in my studio, and it uses the same battery as my 5D II. Otherwise, the 1D MK III is a much better camera.

You won't go wrong with either camera, pick the one that has strengths that match your needs and style.

 

[Meh]

Makes sense, was just wondering if I was missing anything besides apparent mag. Personally, I'll take real mag, and if 1:1 isn't enough, I'll go to 5x with my MP-E 65mm...and if that's not enough, I'll just use a microscope.

I don't have an MP-E 65mm and, just a second let me check, nope don't have a microscope either 1:1 is the same regardless of sensor size but not all subject are the size of a FF sensor and may be smaller than an APS-C sensor and in that case you get more pixels on subject with the 7D.

 

[briansquibb]

For macro work:

Quite simply on a ff if the subject fills the frame at 10inches then on a 1.6 the subject will fill the frame at 16 inches - hence the extra DOF.

APS-C has a many advantages over ff - such as being further away from the subject, which is important if you not want to disturb an insect - as that you can get 1.6 magnification at the lens minimum focus distance.

Realistically you cant compare ff and crop bodies - they are tools for different jobs - you just have to decide which has the right feature mix for you.