7D and 5D II that different?

[hgascoigne]

Hello all,

I've been sitting on the fence between a 7D and 5D II for about 3 months now. I've been reading a lot online about the difference between the two cameras. I hear people talking about the "feel" of 5D images and how the color is better, but is it really that different or is it just pixel peeping? I'm not a professional wedding shooter, just a guy with a hobby. That doesn't mean I don't want the best, but that's a $600 difference that I'd rather not spend if I don't have to.

I mainly shoot landscapes and portraits of friends and family. Thank you!

 

[Loswr]

The 7D would be a better choice if you were going to shoot sports/wildlife, but IMO, the 5DII is the clear choice for landscape and portrait use.

• IQ of the 5DII is noticeably better.
• ISO noise is over a stop lower - if you shoot indoor portraits in ambient light, that's a big help.
• The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.
• DoF is thinner on FF, which is useful for portraits (for the same framing, for the DoF you get at f/2.8 on FF, you'd need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C).

If you're shooting in good light, you can post-process the 7D images to essentially the same quality as the 5DII (except for the DoF part, since despite the new background blur tools in CS6, you can't get the same look). But it takes a fair bit of work, and the 5DII gets it right straight out of the camera.

 

[Jamesy]

+1 to what Neuro said.

You could also get the same benefits he speaks about with a 5Dc but that is a much older rig in terms of menu systems, etc.. The images from a 5Dc have a wonderful quality about them and you can pick one up for under $800.

 

[Helevitia]

I've owned a 7D since April/May. It's a great camera, you won't be disappointed. The one huge difference that I noticed right away is the ISO noise. The 5DM2 blows away the 7D in this area. If noise is a big concern, you should really rent both cameras and look for yourself. I really believe that anything past ISO 400 on the 7D has too much noise. The 5DM2 can easily go up to 3200 and still have an usable image. Of course, noise is subjective and what bothers me may not bother you

And last, might as well wait 1-2 months and see what new Cameras Canon will announce. It looks like they might release an entry level Full Frame DSLR. It'll probably be about $2K.

 

[K-amps]

The colors of the 5Dc are considered better by many people, thats a $800 used body but only 12.8mp. The 5d2 on the other hand is a 21mp body with much better ISO capabilities. The 5Dc has ISO capabilities similar to the 7D, but again it is FF and slightly cheaper.

While the 5dii will be better for you as far as getting a shallow Dof and noise improvements, the 7D will let you buy cheaper EF-S lenses some of which are pretty good. (17-55 and 10-22 come to mind) .

Also the 7D is much faster with focussing and has a higher FPS and lots of newer features compared to the 5dii.

Your preferences may vary... it's your choice but the 2 bodies are compelling and fairly different.

 

[hgascoigne]

Thank you all for the comments. I decided to pull the trigger on the 5D Mk. II. My bank account looks a little sad, but (hopefully) it'll be worth it. I'm a college student so being poor is nothing new.

 

[chasn]

I am a pure hobbyist and have had a 7D for a couple of years and a 5DII for a couple of months ( couldn't resist trying FF). I suppose a lot of my pics are sports related but even so if I had to buy one camera it would be the 7D by a mile. Fast fps, good AF, Ef-s lens compatibilty, flash control, extra reach and much cheaper. If you are heavily landscape/ weddings/low light then the 5DII may well be a lot better ( and I have taken some nice low light shots with the Zeiss 18 mm lens) but at a price. In goodish light shooting raw pros might tell the difference but I couldn't - obviously the lens collection you have could be relevant.

 

[Dylan777]

Thank you all for the comments. I decided to pull the trigger on the 5D Mk. II. My bank account looks a little sad, but (hopefully) it'll be worth it. I'm a college student so being poor is nothing new.

5D II is good a choice if you not shooting anything fast

 

[dtaylor]

• • IQ of the 5DII is noticeably better.

  
  When making large prints from ISO 1600 and higher shots...yes. Otherwise I have yet to find a person who can tell me print from print when the prints (16x24") aren't labeled. And that's the real test because otherwise biases, both conscious and subconscious, overwhelm reason.
  
  Granted I apply a bit more processing to 7D files then 5D2 files. A little more sharpening and local contrast enhancement, and sometimes a little more NR.
  
  

  • ISO noise is over a stop lower - if you shoot indoor portraits in ambient light, that's a big help.

  
  Agreed. With that said, the 7D can reliably go to 3200 for medium sized prints (11x14). I often find nailing focus with fast primes in low light to be the bigger challenge, and the 7D is noticeably better here.
  
  

  • The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.

  
  False. Diffraction does not impact any format more than any other for a given combination of FoV and DoF.
  
  

  • DoF is thinner on FF, which is useful for portraits (for the same framing, for the DoF you get at f/2.8 on FF, you'd need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C).

  
  True. But there are caveats:
  
  1) Thin DoF comes into play for head shots. FF is really thin here shooting primes wide open, thinner then most people care for. I'm surprised how often this is cited as an advantage given how rarely I see portraits with super thin (one eye in focus) DoF.
  
  2) If you need more DoF then you get wide open on FF, then you all of a sudden lose the high ISO advantage vs. crop. If you can shoot FF wide open, then focus becomes even more critical.
  
  This is considering fast primes. If we're talking f/2.8 zooms, then FF tends to be in a sweet spot wide open. I can understand why, for example, a wedding photographer with f/2.8 zooms would want FF DoF.
  

If you're shooting in good light, you can post-process the 7D images to essentially the same quality as the 5DII (except for the DoF part, since despite the new background blur tools in CS6, you can't get the same look). But it takes a fair bit of work, and the 5DII gets it right straight out of the camera.

The work is no different. It's just different numbers in the same dialog boxes, or different settings in the camera styles.

I've owned a 7D since April/May. It's a great camera, you won't be disappointed. The one huge difference that I noticed right away is the ISO noise. The 5DM2 blows away the 7D in this area. If noise is a big concern, you should really rent both cameras and look for yourself. I really believe that anything past ISO 400 on the 7D has too much noise.

If noise >400 is too much on your 7D, then there's something wrong with your 7D. One of my favorite candid shots of a relative's baby was shot at ISO 800, pushed 1/3rd stop in ACR, and printed to 20". There is no noise.

 

[lol]

The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.

If you consider equivalence, you'd need to stop down the 5D2 shots more than on the 7D to get the same depth of field, assuming you have already use the correct focal lengths for the same field of view. So there is no benefit to the 5D2 there. If anything, if you're going pixel peeping, the 5D2 would then be worse for diffraction since it has more of them.

Even for noise, still considering strict equivalence, the 7D is generally superior to me since when you go fishing in the shadows it is less prone to show banding. The only benefit I see for picking a 5D2 over a 7D is if you need the shallower depth of field that can be attained with lenses that exist.

The other apparent advantages of a bigger sensor only come into play if you don't need or care about strict equivalence.

 

[1255]

i sold my 5d2 early on (one week prior to the official announcement) to slightly offset the cost of a 5d3, and i bought a 7d in the interim to play around with while i waited for the dust to settle (waiting for the dust to settle on the 1dx now).

loved my 5d2, so OP great choice.

must say though, the 7d has produced a few truly magical shots, wonderful. it's a great camera, and will remain in my kit.

ps always +1 for neuro. most everyone makes great comments on the site, and all are appreciated, but neuro, i see that profile pic of yours and i pay attention.

as always, thanks to all, good shooting and all that...

 

[AprilForever]

The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.

If you consider equivalence, you'd need to stop down the 5D2 shots more than on the 7D to get the same depth of field, assuming you have already use the correct focal lengths for the same field of view. So there is no benefit to the 5D2 there. If anything, if you're going pixel peeping, the 5D2 would then be worse for diffraction since it has more of them.

Even for noise, still considering strict equivalence, the 7D is generally superior to me since when you go fishing in the shadows it is less prone to show banding. The only benefit I see for picking a 5D2 over a 7D is if you need the shallower depth of field that can be attained with lenses that exist.

The other apparent advantages of a bigger sensor only come into play if you don't need or care about strict equivalence.

Indeed true. For years, people have been dogging the 7D. But, for years it has been producing me phenomenal images...

 

[paul13walnut5]

Do you need the absolute best speed and af for the cash? = 7d

Do you need the absolute best IQ for the cash? = 5d2

The 5d2 has good simple to use and understand AF, the 7D has very good image quality, especially if you are confident with slight unsharp mask and luma noise nr at the raw stage.

You can shoot sports with a 5d2 and you can shoot portraits and landscape with a 7d, but if you have a specific interest refer to the first part of my answer.

I shoot a lot of video with mf and chose the 7d as there is just that bit more focus latitude.

 

[Wilmark]

To the OP. These two canon cameras are exact opposites to each other. If you cannot tell the difference you should be looking for a point and shoot or a rebel/mirror less and put the extra money to your kids college fund.

What the 5DII have the 7D lacks and viceversa. The 7D has performance/Speed, post processing options (esp with firmware upgrades) dual digic, great auto focusing system. The 5DII have a great FF sensor for the best IQ canon has to offer (almost). But none of those things the 7D has as a matter of fact its quite poor in those points described for the 7D. But the 7D sensor sucks when there is low light. Dont care what other tell you it sucks. Like a good phone it will take great shots in good light. The 5DII will take great shots in poor light. If you want the best of both worlds go for the 5D MkIII. People bitch about the price but i think its worth it. But IMHO if you had to ask, you are wasting your money on either.

 

[hgascoigne]

For me, I believe my deciding factor with going FF was simply just that. I've had a T2i for 2 years now and have heard so much about FF being great. I don't shoot any sports and I want to give FF a go. The worst that can happen is that I decide I don't need it and sell it. I bought it used for $1550 so I feel like I got a pretty good deal on it.

 

[Random Orbits]

The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.

If you consider equivalence, you'd need to stop down the 5D2 shots more than on the 7D to get the same depth of field, assuming you have already use the correct focal lengths for the same field of view. So there is no benefit to the 5D2 there. If anything, if you're going pixel peeping, the 5D2 would then be worse for diffraction since it has more of them.

Even for noise, still considering strict equivalence, the 7D is generally superior to me since when you go fishing in the shadows it is less prone to show banding. The only benefit I see for picking a 5D2 over a 7D is if you need the shallower depth of field that can be attained with lenses that exist.

The other apparent advantages of a bigger sensor only come into play if you don't need or care about strict equivalence.

Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence? FF gives you the option for shallow DOF and faster shutter speed. Given a trade between faster shutter speed and shallower DOF versus not getting the shot due to blur, I'd choose faster shutter speed and shallower DOF. I'd rather shoot a 5DII at ISO 3200 in a dark auditorium rather than a 7D at ISO 3200. The same lenses will also result in higher resolution (lp per image height) on a larger sensor.

 

[Loswr]

Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence? FF gives you the option for shallow DOF and faster shutter speed.

+1.

For me, I believe my deciding factor with going FF was simply just that. I've had a T2i for 2 years now and have heard so much about FF being great. I don't shoot any sports and I want to give FF a go.

The 7D uses the exact same CMOS image sensor as your T2i. The benefits you'd gain with the 7D are entirely outside the area of (direct) IQ - faster frame rate, better AF especially AI Servo, more robust build, etc.

 

[hgascoigne]

The 7D uses the exact same CMOS image sensor as your T2i. The benefits you'd gain with the 7D are entirely outside the area of (direct) IQ - faster frame rate, better AF especially AI Servo, more robust build, etc.

Which is why I went for the 5D. I wanted to see what kind of image quality I would get from moving up to FF.

 

[lol]

Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence? FF gives you the option for shallow DOF and faster shutter speed. Given a trade between faster shutter speed and shallower DOF versus not getting the shot due to blur, I'd choose faster shutter speed and shallower DOF. I'd rather shoot a 5DII at ISO 3200 in a dark auditorium rather than a 7D at ISO 3200. The same lenses will also result in higher resolution (lp per image height) on a larger sensor.

I'm only using equivalence for comparison purposes, saying that in like for like output conditions, the 7D has the slight edge in theory (in practice, it is not really significant). BUT I also say if you do need to operate in the area that the 5D2 brings in which is not easily attainable on the 7D, obviously that's a benefit too. For those reasons, I have both cameras myself.

Personally, for a lot of my shooting, I don't need a shallow DoF and in fact I struggle to keep enough DoF on subjects. So overall, the 7D (or any other Canon 18MP crop sensor body) is better suited to me than a 5D2 is maybe 99% of the time. But I still got the 5D2 for that 1% of the time when the 7D reaches its sensor size limits.

As a parallel to the so called MP wars, I think too many people blindly think bigger sensor must always be better, without understanding why it might or might not be.

 

[hgascoigne]

Lol, I understand where you're coming from. For me, I shoot landscapes and from what I have heard the FF does benefit here, and I am a big fan of shallow DoF in my portraits. Therefore I think the 5D plays more toward my tendencies than does the 7D.