7D or 5D III?

[Night Hawk]

Hello, everyone!

I've been doing photography for a couple of years now, and I think it's time for me to upgrade in terms of my camera body. I currently use a Canon 1100D (T3), and it's starting to frustrate me. Namely the incredibly slow FPS, and the horrible ISO performance. I just don't know what I should upgrade to- 7D (Plus a lens, maybe), or the 5D III?

I primarily shoot wildlife photos (mostly birds), but I also love landscape shots, and some macro stuff. In short, I love nature.

The thing is, the locations where I shoot are usually somewhat dark, so I need to bump up the ISO. As a result, lots of my photos are unusable because of the noise, but I also lose loads of photos because of the dismal FPS of the 1100D. Should I get the 7D (and probably the 70-200L- or maybe something else? Any advice there?) for it's great 8 FPS, but with not-so-fantastic ISO performance, or should I get the 5D III, which has great ISO performance, but is 2 FPS slower than the 7D? I know that 2 FPS makes all the difference for pros, but will it make that much of a difference for me?

The 5D III also has a superior AF system to the 7D. Is it really THAT much of a difference?

I don't really care about the megapixel difference. I almost never print, and all of my good photos go to my Facebook page, so megapixels don't matter to me.

Also, the 7D is a crop sensor, which means that I will get more reach, but at the cost of DOF. Is that worth its ISO performance?


Thanks!

 

[Dylan777]

As an prev. owner of 7D and currently own x2 of 5D III:

1. With 5D III, you will be able shoot 6400ISO in the dark
2. 5D III AF system is much more adv and more acurate than 7D. Tracking will be much better in AI Servo - meaning more keepers

If budget is not an issue, my vote is 5D III.

 

[Kerry B]

I have both cameras and would say image quality with the 5d mkiii is far superior to the 7d. Yes you do loose reach but this is not a negative, just crop your images. When I use the 5d with my 300f2.8 lens and mkiii x 2 extender image quality is better than 7d with 300 and no extender.

If you do buy the 5d get the best lenses you can afford, this will aid image quality. I was dubious that full frame would give me the image quality I was looking for, how wrong was I, images are stunning.

ISO performance is also much better with the 5d, I regularly use iso1600 which gives me the same performance as the 7d at iso400. Both auto focus systems are very impressive with the 5d just ahead.

I will keep my 7d as backup but most shots are now taken with the 5d.

 

[Aaron78]

I currently own a 7D, have owned a 5DII, and do not own a 5DIII....but i would say the 5DIII is the all around winner of your two choices. Yes, you will loose a good chunk of reach without the crop sized sensor, but the 5DIII will retain a great amount of detail when you crop the photo. The ISO performance and the AF system are also much better, and those are kind of important for what you want to use the camera for.

 

[Sporgon]

Hello, everyone!

I've been doing photography for a couple of years now, and I think it's time for me to upgrade in terms of my camera body. I currently use a Canon 1100D (T3), and it's starting to frustrate me. Namely the incredibly slow FPS, and the horrible ISO performance.

If you think the high ISO performance of the 1100D is horrible I don't think you'll be that impressed with the 7D.

High ISO performance of the 5D Mkiii / 6D is astonishing.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've owned two 7D's, two 5D MK II's and two 5D MK III's. I thought they were all excellent cameras, they had their strong points and their weak points.

I preferred the 5D MK II over my 7D for most things, but my 7D worked really well on my 100mm L, and it does add a little reach, but this is offset by the inability to use really high ISO's. With modern raw processors, I can use the 7D to ISO 3200, the 5D MK II to 6400, and the 5D MK III to 12800 and get comparable images.

I think you will be happy with whatever you get, its a matter of learning the limitations and working around them. A happy medium is the 1D MK IV with its 1.4X crop and usability at high ISO's. They were cheap for a while, but prices have went back up.

 

[cocopop05]

Assuming budget is not a huge issue, in my opinion this one is a no brainer - 5D MkIII. 7D is too noisy in low light. Also the APS-C reach thing is a non-issue, simply crop the full frame image and you have the same reach, albeit at a lower resolution.

 

[Harry Muff]

5D3. There, that was easy. 8)

 

[ForumMuppet]

I have both the 7D and the 5DIII. I'd say about 80% of the time my index finger is pressing the shutter button I am holding the 5DIII. Especially if the situation calls for me raising the ISO above 1600. The autofocus of the 5DIII is far superior than the 7D and the frame rate is not something that I feel is lacking and most of what I shoot is motorsports. If/when the new 7DII comes out, that percentage may even out a little. But when asking about the current 7D vs the 5DIII, I would definitely give the nod to the 5DIII. I even enjoy saying 5dIII more, can you tell?

 

[RC]

Get a 5D III now and pick up a 7D down the road used or new when the price drops even lower.

 

[shashinkaman]

Nighthawk, sounds like you are 'one of those' photographers, so I would suggest you to go for two eos 1dx's!! You can fire away in the dark and not miss a shot AND look rather cool and professional at the same time 8) YEAH!

 

[jdramirez]

I went from a 60D to a 5d mkiii and the 1 fps difference is noticable. I think the 7D is a better value... but the iso performance is good, but it isn't mind blowing. I always tell people to make sure that your upgrade is just that, an UPGRADE.

I want to tell you that a good used 7D for around $800 is the way to go. That will afford you the ability to get lenses. Maybe the 200mm f/2.8L prime... plus a 1.4x teleconvertor... combined with the 1.6 crop factor and you are looking at a 450mm lens at f/4.

Do you have lightroom? If not, I would suggest getting that. The right software can really help you salvage a grainy photo and in that case, the 7D would be more than sufficient.


I don't think the fps difference will make a huge difference for you, but it will be nice to have if you lean toward the 7D. The 7D's AF system is solid... and most people rave about it. I haven't used it, but it should be as good as the 60D and I presume it is better than.

The 5D mkiii is great... love it... won't ever need to upgrade bodies again... but I think you should go with a 7D unless it is so dark that you cannot get the shot at all. I was caving the other day (tourist trap), and the 5D did a great job at 6400. I was legitimately pleased with the images before post.

 

[East Wind Photography]

My opinion is to get the 5diii now and later pick up a 70d or a 7dii when they are released. The low noise on the 5diii will let you crop more so you don't really lose much vs a crop sensor. That tide will change later when the next versions come out.

For now, the 5diii is an awesome camera and in some ways better than the 1dx but the two are purpose built for two different types of shootings. The 7d while still an excellent camera is still a 7d with sensor tech that is many years old now. I own and use both but tend to use the 5diii at higher iso and lower light conditions. 7d is reserved for daytime use only and iso 400 or less.

Hello, everyone!

I've been doing photography for a couple of years now, and I think it's time for me to upgrade in terms of my camera body. I currently use a Canon 1100D (T3), and it's starting to frustrate me. Namely the incredibly slow FPS, and the horrible ISO performance. I just don't know what I should upgrade to- 7D (Plus a lens, maybe), or the 5D III?

I primarily shoot wildlife photos (mostly birds), but I also love landscape shots, and some macro stuff. In short, I love nature.

The thing is, the locations where I shoot are usually somewhat dark, so I need to bump up the ISO. As a result, lots of my photos are unusable because of the noise, but I also lose loads of photos because of the dismal FPS of the 1100D. Should I get the 7D (and probably the 70-200L- or maybe something else? Any advice there?) for it's great 8 FPS, but with not-so-fantastic ISO performance, or should I get the 5D III, which has great ISO performance, but is 2 FPS slower than the 7D? I know that 2 FPS makes all the difference for pros, but will it make that much of a difference for me?

The 5D III also has a superior AF system to the 7D. Is it really THAT much of a difference?

I don't really care about the megapixel difference. I almost never print, and all of my good photos go to my Facebook page, so megapixels don't matter to me.

Also, the 7D is a crop sensor, which means that I will get more reach, but at the cost of DOF. Is that worth its ISO performance?


Thanks!

 

[scottkinfw]

I have the 5D3, not 7D

The low light performance/ high iso, and great iso are strong selling points. My passion is wildlife photography. I find the frame rate is more than adequate.

For my money, I would go with the 5D3 which is also a much newer body, and full frame.

sek

Hello, everyone!

I've been doing photography for a couple of years now, and I think it's time for me to upgrade in terms of my camera body. I currently use a Canon 1100D (T3), and it's starting to frustrate me. Namely the incredibly slow FPS, and the horrible ISO performance. I just don't know what I should upgrade to- 7D (Plus a lens, maybe), or the 5D III?

I primarily shoot wildlife photos (mostly birds), but I also love landscape shots, and some macro stuff. In short, I love nature.

The thing is, the locations where I shoot are usually somewhat dark, so I need to bump up the ISO. As a result, lots of my photos are unusable because of the noise, but I also lose loads of photos because of the dismal FPS of the 1100D. Should I get the 7D (and probably the 70-200L- or maybe something else? Any advice there?) for it's great 8 FPS, but with not-so-fantastic ISO performance, or should I get the 5D III, which has great ISO performance, but is 2 FPS slower than the 7D? I know that 2 FPS makes all the difference for pros, but will it make that much of a difference for me?

The 5D III also has a superior AF system to the 7D. Is it really THAT much of a difference?

I don't really care about the megapixel difference. I almost never print, and all of my good photos go to my Facebook page, so megapixels don't matter to me.

Also, the 7D is a crop sensor, which means that I will get more reach, but at the cost of DOF. Is that worth its ISO performance?


Thanks!

 

[jdramirez]

My opinion is to get the 5diii now and later pick up a 70d or a 7dii when they are released. The low noise on the 5diii will let you crop more so you don't really lose much vs a crop sensor. That tide will change later when the next versions come out.

For now, the 5diii is an awesome camera and in some ways better than the 1dx but the two are purpose built for two different types of shootings. The 7d while still an excellent camera is still a 7d with sensor tech that is many years old now. I own and use both but tend to use the 5diii at higher iso and lower light conditions. 7d is reserved for daytime use only and iso 400 or less.

Hello, everyone!

I've been doing photography for a couple of years now, and I think it's time for me to upgrade in terms of my camera body. I currently use a Canon 1100D (T3), and it's starting to frustrate me. Namely the incredibly slow FPS, and the horrible ISO performance. I just don't know what I should upgrade to- 7D (Plus a lens, maybe), or the 5D III?

I primarily shoot wildlife photos (mostly birds), but I also love landscape shots, and some macro stuff. In short, I love nature.

The thing is, the locations where I shoot are usually somewhat dark, so I need to bump up the ISO. As a result, lots of my photos are unusable because of the noise, but I also lose loads of photos because of the dismal FPS of the 1100D. Should I get the 7D (and probably the 70-200L- or maybe something else? Any advice there?) for it's great 8 FPS, but with not-so-fantastic ISO performance, or should I get the 5D III, which has great ISO performance, but is 2 FPS slower than the 7D? I know that 2 FPS makes all the difference for pros, but will it make that much of a difference for me?

The 5D III also has a superior AF system to the 7D. Is it really THAT much of a difference?

I don't really care about the megapixel difference. I almost never print, and all of my good photos go to my Facebook page, so megapixels don't matter to me.

Also, the 7D is a crop sensor, which means that I will get more reach, but at the cost of DOF. Is that worth its ISO performance?


Thanks!

The 60D and the 7D have the same sensor and practically identical iso performance. I found the iso for the 60D to be tolerable with some post production clean up at around 2500ish... The mkiii, @ 6400 it more than tolerable and I can probably even push it farther, though I don't. So we are really only talking about 2.56 ish times the light sensitivity. And as I was saying earlier... if you are shooting at f/4 with an extender, that is 2x the light v if you are shooting at f/5.6 using a 70-300L or non-L. If you don't use an extender and are shooting at f/2.8, that is 4x the amount of light v one of the variable zooms. I'm not sure what you have... but I'd rather invest in lenses than bodies personally... and especially with the way some people are practically giving away the 7D in the used market.

Again... I love my mkiii... happiest boy on earth... but I also had a full complement of lenses already before I upgraded by my body.

 

[moocowe]

Night Hawk,

You didn't say what lenses you own. No offense meant, but as a 1100D user, I can't imagine you have much fast glass. If you only own f/4 zooms or slower, then I would get the 7D and possibly 70-200 IS II.
My 7D hasn't had a battery in it since I got the 5D3, but all my lenses were already full frame compatible f/1.4 or f/2.8 before I upgraded the body.

 

[Night Hawk]

You all make good points.
And you're right, moocowe. I don't have good lenses. I've got the kit lenses (18-55, 70-300), 50 f/1.4, and the 17-40 f/4L. Now I'm starting to lean towards the 7D because of that. I do have more questions about the 7D, though:

How bad is the noise? I do have Lightroom, so how difficult would it be to fix any issues? What'd be the highest usable ISO after processing (I shoot JPEGs, by the way. Should I change that? I feel that it takes too long to render thousands of RAW photos, so I just don't bother ). I publish online, so that may allow me to take the ISO a bit higher than if I printed.

Also, how fast is the AF? I really don't need blindingly fast AF, but I'd like it to be somewhat fast (preferably not much hunting).

How would a 7D + 300mm f/4 combo go?

 

[Pi]

You all make good points.
And you're right, moocowe. I don't have good lenses. I've got the kit lenses (18-55, 70-300), 50 f/1.4, and the 17-40 f/4L. Now I'm starting to lean towards the 7D because of that.

Actually, this is good enough reason to go FF. Aside from the 18-55 which has no real resale value, your lenses will work better on FF. You would need a standard zoom though and if you do not need UWA, you can sell the 17-40 a nd get the 24-105.

 

[moocowe]

I think ISO 3200 is as high as I would go with the 7D. I do fond it quite a noisy sensor, so to get the best image quality you will want to shoot in raw. Keep the exposure as far to the right of the histogram as possible without significant highlight clipping, and then bring the exposure down in Lightroom.

If you're only posting relatively low res photos online, you might get away with ISO 12800 images in good light or converted to black & white.

I never found the AF to be lacking on mine. Any shots I missed were usually due to a problem behind the viewfinder.

I've never used the 300mm f/4, but it looks good according to the review on The Digital Picture.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[AlanF]

If you can afford go for the 5D III. The consistency of AF is just so much better. Many of us, in contrast to moocowe, have found that we have to take several shots when doing bird photography with the 7D to get tack sharp focus whereas the 5D III is spot on every time. The more consistent AF has been verified by FoCal and LensRental in proper testing. The IQ at higher iso is so much better that the D's shorter reach often gives just as good resolution (but not always) and some times much better. Also, the 7D needs better, not worse lenses, to take advantage of its smaller pixels.

Having said that, I am sure you would also be pleased with the 7D as it is still a great camera and in good light can outperform the 5D III. Like the others who have both, I don't actually use my 7D and it gathers dust as a back up in case the 5D III needs to go in for repair.