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

[moreorless]

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.

Interesting idea although as I said I'd say that for most xxxD and xxD users ISO is probabley more important than megapixels past 18. Few of these users are going to be making prints large enough to really see a difference in 21-24 MP and many of them arent going to be doing any post processing clearly up noise.

If theres a clear divergence between Canon and the rest of the field using Sony sensors then ISO performance could well become a larger issue for the more casual market.

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.

I doubt Canon would worry too much about the 7D eroading 5D sales though since both bodies are in a similar price bracket, personally I wouldnt be supprized if the 7D and xxD lines were pushed up market a little this time round aswell.

 

[ianhar]

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.

Interesting idea although as I said I'd say that for most xxxD and xxD users ISO is probabley more important than megapixels past 18. Few of these users are going to be making prints large enough to really see a difference in 21-24 MP and many of them arent going to be doing any post processing clearly up noise.

If theres a clear divergence between Canon and the rest of the field using Sony sensors then ISO performance could well become a larger issue for the more

Consumer will still buy a camera defined by its megapixel. You wont see a person without photography knowledge talks about iso/image quality/aperture. You will hear they say mine has higher megapixel it should be better. Thats how consumer has been fed with the megapixel marketing.

Personally, a lot of my friends asked me before why is their camera cant produce great quality image whereas their camera has 12-14 megapixel. Some even go as far as why his camera cant take picture in low light as his camera is a very good high megapixel camera.

Hence for the rebel and xxD line i will think that canon would push it megapixel pass 18 megapixel while the 7d would ace more in high iso rating and few other features.

 

[7enderbender]

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.

Lots of people have their own preferences and reasoning around this. The problem seems to be that from the numbers I've looked into I would think that the 7D didn't sell very well. So there may not be a 7DII in that sense.

And I personally can understand why that is since I came to the same conclusion. The price difference when buying a complete new system is not that big and at that point I figured that I'm much better off with the full frame 5DII since that is what I really wanted to begin with. The 7D in a way is really a specialty camera for wild for instance. There the (supposedly) faster AF and the crop makes sense to some degree while maintaining high enough build quality. For everything else a 5DII type camera is just a bit better. And the folks that are on a budget or not that into the technical details a good Rebel kit is a really good choice.

Just look at the usage data on flickr for instance. It's mostly Rebels, the 5DII and a bunch of older models. The 7D and especially the 60D don't fare very well by that measure.

 

[briansquibb]

And I personally can understand why that is since I came to the same conclusion. The price difference when buying a complete new system is not that big and at that point I figured that I'm much better off with the full frame 5DII since that is what I really wanted to begin with. The 7D in a way is really a specialty camera for wild for instance.

I think you would be very surprised how many 5DII owners have 7Ds as well.

The cost of the 5DII is not just the body - but the lens as well. I have a 400f/2.8 IS which is a terrific super tele on the 7D. What lens for the 5DII would you suggest would match that?

Take my 70-200 f/2.8 - on the 5DII the nearest is the 70-300L - not really a match.

Move down to the 135F2 and 85 f1.2 and do the same comparison.

The 5D2 is a great camera - providing you can get the lens, the fps and the AF to match the subjects you take.

The 7D is the top of the NON specialist bodies.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Consumer will still buy a camera defined by its megapixel. You wont see a person without photography knowledge talks about iso/image quality/aperture. You will hear they say mine has higher megapixel it should be better. Thats how consumer has been fed with the megapixel marketing.

Personally, a lot of my friends asked me before why is their camera cant produce great quality image whereas their camera has 12-14 megapixel. Some even go as far as why his camera cant take picture in low light as his camera is a very good high megapixel camera.

Hence for the rebel and xxD line i will think that canon would push it megapixel pass 18 megapixel while the 7d would ace more in high iso rating and few other features.

Actually, consumers go for brand name and price. They are also a lot more savy than they are given credit for, thanks to the many on-line reviews. Certainly, there are many who are brand faithful and will always buy their favorite brand, regardless.

I don't believe that very many buy the highest megapixel camera they can find, but a lot of them take the advice of the "Camera Expert ;D " at Best Buy, and purchase the camera he recommends, which is usually the one with the highest profit margin.

some consumers do go for the highest zoom ratio they can find, so a 30X will take preference over a 10
x point and shoot

 

[7enderbender]

And I personally can understand why that is since I came to the same conclusion. The price difference when buying a complete new system is not that big and at that point I figured that I'm much better off with the full frame 5DII since that is what I really wanted to begin with. The 7D in a way is really a specialty camera for wild for instance.

I think you would be very surprised how many 5DII owners have 7Ds as well.

The cost of the 5DII is not just the body - but the lens as well. I have a 400f/2.8 IS which is a terrific super tele on the 7D. What lens for the 5DII would you suggest would match that?

Take my 70-200 f/2.8 - on the 5DII the nearest is the 70-300L - not really a match.

Move down to the 135F2 and 85 f1.2 and do the same comparison.

The 5D2 is a great camera - providing you can get the lens, the fps and the AF to match the subjects you take.

The 7D is the top of the NON specialist bodies.

Well, again, there are different approaches to this and for some people, like yourself, this is a great match. All I was trying to say is that Canon obviously did not sell such a great many of 7Ds as they might have hoped for.

And I would think that for more users your usage and use of lenses does not work that way. If you need long reach I get how you like that the 400 is even longer. And that's about it. For everything else I specifically did NOT want a crop sensor because I like it that 24mm is in fact 24mm. And that my beloved 50 is indeed exactly that. Same with the 135, which for my intentions would become rather useless given how those gems have been used for decades. And for everything else I have my fast 200 which is about the longest I have any use for under normal circumstances - and as a 320mm would become rather problematic and require a tripod. I can still always crop later if I feel like it.

For me the math on the two bodies plus one lens to start with was: 5DII kit with the 24-105 = around $3200 (Nov 2010 after discount at local dealer). 7D + 24-70 2.8L = around $3000 as separate items. That would have been roughly equivalent to achieve similarly shallow DOF (which is important to me). That plus the need to then purchase a super wide angle lens and only very expensive options to get to a fast 50mm range would have made the endeavor more expensive and likely may have entailed some buyer's remorse in the end.

That being said: I could totally see adding a 7D as a second body at some point. It is in fact a great alternative to a teleconverter in that sense. Or I may be packing away a second 5DII at a good price point once we know where the 5DIII (or whatever) is headed.

I think we have to slowly come to the conclusion that the folks who kept predicting the end of "full frame" were maybe not right. Canon seemed to just have eliminated the old compromise of the 1.3x sensor which only ever existed because of technical limitations. The 5DII remains one of the biggest hits in Canon's history. And most people who buy cropped sensor do so because the are on a budget and buy Rebel kits. Yes, there are one or two very good EF-S lenses now, but in general the pro lens line up remained geared towards the 35mm format. I don't see any indications that this will change.

My prediction: the 7D will go away. The 60D will go away. APS-H sensors will go away. Cropped sensors will be strictly for the budget line. Canon will close the gap with one or two full frame cameras, one of which will be sort of a replacement of the 5DII (but may be a little disappointing featurewise to current users).

 

[elflord]

I think you would be very surprised how many 5DII owners have 7Ds as well.

The cost of the 5DII is not just the body - but the lens as well. I have a 400f/2.8 IS which is a terrific super tele on the 7D. What lens for the 5DII would you suggest would match that?

Take my 70-200 f/2.8 - on the 5DII the nearest is the 70-300L - not really a match.

Move down to the 135F2 and 85 f1.2 and do the same comparison.

The 5D2 is a great camera - providing you can get the lens, the fps and the AF to match the subjects you take.

The 7D is the top of the NON specialist bodies.

Not quite that simple -- if I do the same comparison for the 135 and the 85, the 135mm f/2 replaces the 85mm f/1.2 on full frame (at about half the price) and the 200mm f/2.8 replaces the 135mm f/2. On full frame, lenses like the 85mm f/1.2, f/2.8 zooms, and the 200mm f/2 have no replacement on APS-C that provides the same dof and fov. So if you want shallow dof, you are much better off with FF.

In terms of the 400mm f/2.8 -- you have the 600mm f/4 which is about the same weight.

You will generally get more reach for less $ on APS-C though (you also have access to several very good and inexpensive wide angle choices)

 

[nesarajah]

I would go with the 7D .
I know everyone says how great FF cameras are and I agree, I owned a 5Dmk2 before it got stolen and replaced t with a 7D.
FF cameras are awesome. Great bokeh, great centre sharpness, great for portraits, great for clean images in low light/high ISO. Then the fun stops. The AF on the 5Dmk2 is simply put - shit. Unless the subject is still or if you're good at manual focusing or love to prefocus action shots, you're in for a hard time. AF-ing in low light is a nightmare.
The 7D is great for action (in the AF sense) and pretty average elsewhere.
But What an average camera it is. That 1.6 crop is the forgiving component in shooting wide open. That extra depth is perfect for macro and adds length to already long telephotos, all without using an extender. The 7D is the camera to beat IMHO , until the 1Dx is real eased next year. 12fps on the FF 1Dx will make everyone take a second look.

 

[briansquibb]

Not quite that simple -- if I do the same comparison for the 135 and the 85, the 135mm f/2 replaces the 85mm f/1.2 on full frame (at about half the price) and the 200mm f/2.8 replaces the 135mm f/2. On full frame, lenses like the 85mm f/1.2, f/2.8 zooms, and the 200mm f/2 have no replacement on APS-C that provides the same dof and fov. So if you want shallow dof, you are much better off with FF.

In terms of the 400mm f/2.8 -- you have the 600mm f/4 which is about the same weight.

You will generally get more reach for less $ on APS-C though (you also have access to several very good and inexpensive wide angle choices)

I might be going stupid but I dont understand how can a one stop slower lens be the equivalent? 135 f/2 is not the same as a 200 f/2.8, a 85 f1.2 is not the same as a 135f2, a 400 2.8 is not the same as a 600/f4 - please consider that there is a lot more to photography than a shallow dof - in these cases low light and speed. Shallow dof works against most photos in ff - macro, wildlife, landscapes - even street shots in poor light. When a long dof is needed then for ff you quickly get into defraction issues.

 

[briansquibb]

If you use the online DOF calculator you will find that one stop slower on the ff does not give a shallower dof than the equivalent APS-C. Shooting wide open at f4 on a ff does not in my experience give better bokeh than 2.8 on APS-C.

What is obvious is that the longer lens without exception have a longer minimum focal distance.

 

[unfocused]

All I was trying to say is that Canon obviously did not sell such a great many of 7Ds as they might have hoped for.

Can you document this? Amazon lists the 7D body at #9 (5DII is #14) and indicates it has been in the top 100 DSLRs for 787 weeks (which roughly coincides with its entire lifespan) This does not include two versions with kit lenses that are ranked #29 and #34.

Granted Amazon is just one dealer, but it is sufficiently large to serve as a reasonably representative sample of the relative sales rankings of products.

If you have access to better sales figures, please share them. I have never come across anything that would indicate that the 7D has not been a very successful camera for Canon.

 

[Loswr]

My prediction: the 7D will go away. The 60D will go away. APS-H sensors will go away. Cropped sensors will be strictly for the budget line.

...and people who are frequently focal length limited will.... ??

The 7D might go away or APS-H might go away, but if so, I hope Canon will still have a high frame rate, pro build, crop sensor body. They took away AF with f/8 from the 1-series, leaving 840mm as the longest possible focal length with supported AF and pro build.

 

[briansquibb]

.... and a 7d with 800 f5.6 is the equvalent of 1280.... cant see Canon dumping that in a hurry

 

[elflord]

Not quite that simple -- if I do the same comparison for the 135 and the 85, the 135mm f/2 replaces the 85mm f/1.2 on full frame (at about half the price) and the 200mm f/2.8 replaces the 135mm f/2. On full frame, lenses like the 85mm f/1.2, f/2.8 zooms, and the 200mm f/2 have no replacement on APS-C that provides the same dof and fov. So if you want shallow dof, you are much better off with FF.

In terms of the 400mm f/2.8 -- you have the 600mm f/4 which is about the same weight.

You will generally get more reach for less $ on APS-C though (you also have access to several very good and inexpensive wide angle choices)

I might be going stupid but I dont understand how can a one stop slower lens be the equivalent?

They are equivalent in fov and dof. They are not equivalent in terms of exposure because you need to bump ISO by a stop to get the same exposure. However, the larger full frame sensor will perform better at high ISO.

135 f/2 is not the same as a 200 f/2.8, a 85 f1.2 is not the same as a 135f2, a 400 2.8 is not the same as a 600/f4 -

No, they are not "the same" -- the only lens that is "the same" as the 135mm f/2 is the 135mm f/2. However, that lens will behave different on a full frame body vs a crop body. If you're looking for equivalence in terms of dof and fov, then my comments are correct.

please consider that there is a lot more to photography than a shallow dof - in these cases low light and speed.

The full frame sensor performs better at high ISO. You bump the ISO by one stop with a 200mm f/2.8 on full frame, and your dof, fov and noise level is comparable (maybe not exactly the same, but same ballpark) as your 135mm f/2 on a crop.

Shallow dof works against most photos in ff - macro, wildlife, landscapes - even street shots in poor light.

Yes, but if you want a lot of dof, why are you using an 85mm f/1.2 or a 300mm f/2.8 ?

I agree that a crop has the upper hand when you are at the other end of the aperture range.

 

[briansquibb]

Yes, but if you want a lot of dof, why are you using an 85mm f/1.2 or a 300mm f/2.8 ?

Because sometimes I want a lot of dof and sometimes I dont. I think most people use the whole range. As I have 5DII and 7D the lens get used on both - for different situations. Try the 400 f2.8@f11 for landscapes on the 5DII if you want to see top IQ - on the other hand the 5DII does not hack action pictures with it AF - so the 400 f2.8 goes on the 7D shooting wide open. One lens two uses - and just because I bought a $1500 7D I dont have to buy a $10,000 600f4.

 

[7enderbender]

All I was trying to say is that Canon obviously did not sell such a great many of 7Ds as they might have hoped for.

Can you document this? Amazon lists the 7D body at #9 (5DII is #14) and indicates it has been in the top 100 DSLRs for 787 weeks (which roughly coincides with its entire lifespan) This does not include two versions with kit lenses that are ranked #29 and #34.

Granted Amazon is just one dealer, but it is sufficiently large to serve as a reasonably representative sample of the relative sales rankings of products.

If you have access to better sales figures, please share them. I have never come across anything that would indicate that the 7D has not been a very successful camera for Canon.

a) I've heard that from a local dealer and have no specif data to back that up
b) I remember when it first came out dealers here in the area assumed that the 7D would be a big hit and would put a dent into their 5DII sales

but

c) if you look at the camera usage stats on flickr for instance you'll see that there are over 10,000 average daily users who have one of the recent Rebels. Around 4,100 have a 5DII. 3,300 have a 7D and only 1700 used a 60D.

You could argue that the 5DII has been around for longer and that the data may be kind of shaky to begin with, but given the price points and the significantly larger audience that is prone to buy more on the budget side and interested in crop sensors, Canon probably expected this to be in a different order. Especially the 60D must bum them out, though I totally understand why it may have tanked.

But then again, there is a lot of guesstimating here on my part and this is far from a scientific market analysis that people pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for.

 

[briansquibb]

c) if you look at the camera usage stats on flickr for instance you'll see that there are over 10,000 average daily users who have one of the recent Rebels. Around 4,100 have a 5DII. 3,300 have a 7D and only 1700 used a 60D.

That is a valid analysis of those who use Flickr.

Perhaps 7D and 5DII users post on to their own websites as I expect they have more money and perhaps looking to sell their images.

 

[unfocused]

c) if you look at the camera usage stats on flickr for instance you'll see that there are over 10,000 average daily users who have one of the recent Rebels. Around 4,100 have a 5DII. 3,300 have a 7D and only 1700 used a 60D.

That is a valid analysis of those who use Flickr.

Perhaps 7D and 5DII users post on to their own websites as I expect they have more money and perhaps looking to sell their images.

Good points. There are so many variables that extrapolating anything meaningful from that kind of data is impossible. Some irony here in that seven's own data would indicate that there are 3.6 times as many APS-C owners using Flicker as full-frame 5D II owners. One could make an argument with equal validity that the market for full frame bodies is shrinking and they are in danger of disappearing.

I'm not suggesting this, I'm just pointing out that with statistics, like with most things, the rule of garbage in/garbage out applies.

 

[niccyboy]

I, nor any of the photogs that work for me have Flickr, it isn't that big for Aus.

I don't think either of your data really backs up your points to be honest.

Amazon will obviously sell more of a lower price point camera aimed at consumers and prosumers as opposed to camera dedicated sites. It's just the nature of the website.. However it does show that clearly the 7d is not a failure sales wise.

Digi rev, adorama or bh would be a better sales comparison

Flickr may show a spread but not all purchasers and photographers have Flickr.

I personally am surprised at how many users on here have a 7d! So many posts reference that crop.

I think both models are needed in the canon lineup.

If they were to lose a crop I think the 60d is more disposable.

1100, 600, 60, 7d - that's for consumer crops...
1100-cheap and great to steal some p+s upgraders first timers
600-seems to be quite a seller this series (400/450/500/550)..
60- great for video with swivel screen
7d- fast fps and weather sealed, great for birds and sports. Great backup for 5d

I think the 7 is an essential part of the lineup

 

[x-vision]

But then again, there is a lot of guesstimating here on my part and this is far from a scientific market analysis that people pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for.

I don't have any formal data either. For the past 1-2 months, though, I've been following the best selling DSLRs on Amazon - and I tend to agree with your assessments.

Overall, my impression is that the 5DII is indeed continuing to sell extremely well (considering its price point).
The 7D has lost steam and the 60D is definitely not selling well for a camera of its class.

Canon just split the xxD line into 7D and 60D but in the next product cycle there will be another reshuffling, IMO.
Can't predict what Canon will do but I think it's too early to kill off the premium 1.6x models just yet.
Just the opposite - both the 70D and 7DII will likely go upmarket, IMO.