Advice: Upgrade to 7D or 5DmIII

[Fatshark]

I'm a serious amateur who started my EOS usage back in '87 with a 650. I picked this up again 6 years ago with a 30D and the majority of my time is spent shooting poorly/inconsistently lit sporting events - ice skating, evening football, basketball and mountain biking. My typical set up is 30D + 70-200 2.8L IS. I have been watching and waiting for the next 7D but I'm now reconsidering and wondering whether going to the 5DmIII makes sense.

The 30D has been a wonderful teaching tool for the last 6 years (I feel like I learn more every time i release the shutter) but I know I could be getting more out of my shots if I had:

1) Improved ISO range with less noise - 1600 in an ice rink with flickering fluorescents (frankly) stinks
2) Improved auto-focus (I typically work with a single focal point and track the action to the center of the frame - thus missing some of the high speed action with figure skating)
3) Additional frames per second capability - both from a number images per second and buffer size perspective.

I'd really rather not give up the cropped sensor, if only because I lose the magnification, but I'm open to making the move to full frame if there are benefits that outweigh a little less length.

I'd love some advice.

 

[MRLinVA]

Given that you shoot primarily action, I would go with the 7D. I shoot a lot of hockey and the 7D is super on the ice. I had tried shooting with my 5D MkII and missed the high fps. The 5DMkIIIwill give you better ISO performance, but the fps is still not where I would want it for fast action sports. Also, you will find that your 70-200 will perform better on the either camera than on your 30D. Hope some others will chime in as well.

 

[danthephotoman]

I would say if speed and a cropped sensor are more important, the 7D would be for you. If you think you would benefit from full frame along with a much superior low light ability, the 5Dmk3 would be for you. Honestly though, the 7D is only 2fps faster than the mk3, so would those two frames really mean that much to you? In my opinion, I would choose a better low light ability over the speed. I saw some test shots from the mk3, and even at ISO 6400 they looked beautiful. Hell, they were even useable up to 12,800 (not that I would suggest portrait shooting with an ISO that high or anything, but it's useable for every day work). I see it like this: I would rather be able to bump up my ISO to use a faster shutter speed and not sacrifice image quality than have a faster camera that would give me a lower quality image at a faster rate in a low lit condition. Note that I do not mean the 7D is low-quality by any means (I own one and I absolutely love it), I'm just simply comparing it to the specs of the mk3. As far as the full frame vs cropped though, that is going to be sheer personal opinion and factored mainly by what you shoot.

Hope this helps!

 

[rpt]

I would say if speed and a cropped sensor are more important, the 7D would be for you. If you think you would benefit from full frame along with a much superior low light ability, the 5Dmk3 would be for you. Honestly though, the 7D is only 2fps faster than the mk3, so would those two frames really mean that much to you? In my opinion, I would choose a better low light ability over the speed. I saw some test shots from the mk3, and even at ISO 6400 they looked beautiful. Hell, they were even useable up to 12,800 (not that I would suggest portrait shooting with an ISO that high or anything, but it's useable for every day work). I see it like this: I would rather be able to bump up my ISO to use a faster shutter speed and not sacrifice image quality than have a faster camera that would give me a lower quality image at a faster rate in a low lit condition. Note that I do not mean the 7D is low-quality by any means (I own one and I absolutely love it), I'm just simply comparing it to the specs of the mk3. As far as the full frame vs cropped though, that is going to be sheer personal opinion and factored mainly by what you shoot.

Hope this helps!

He is right! He is so right! So you need to go back to all the ice hockey shots and see if you ever needed the 8 fps or was it ISO higher than 3200 that you needed. I suspect it will be ISO. Besides, if you have the cash, I believe that 5D3 is better.

However, there is one important thing to note. What is your framing like? How much do you crop? See, with the 7D, to have an equivalent pixel/mm level, a FF would need to be 18*1.6 = 28.8 Megapixels and 5D3 is not...

So you will end up having a little less "reach". That is something to consider.

Hope this helps...

 

[Juvenall]

I had to make this choice recently and found myself with a 7D. I picked one up brand new for $1200. That gave me another $1800 to bank up and my current plan is to use it to pick up a 5D MkII to add a full frame to my bag for those times when better noise performance is more important than speed.

 

[thepancakeman]

Others have given lots of specifics, so I'll just throw my experience in there: I shoot sports with a 7D (and a 40D) and am saving for a 5d3. I will miss the extra reach from the crop sensor (and hope to keep at least one for a back-up body), but have never been overly excited about the IQ on the 7D and am looking forward to both improved IQ and better low-light options with the 5D3.

 

[Random Orbits]

I have a 20D (similar to your 30D) and I borrowed a friend's 7D to see how the two cameras compared, and I was surprised to see that the high ISO capability of the two were more similar than different when comparing RAWS in LR3. The 7D noise performance at 800 and 1600 were only marginally better (less than 1 stop) than the 20D's when looking at the two at the same picture size and even less than that at 100%.

I was waiting for the dust to settle before choosing between the 5DII and 5DIII. With the current sale at the Canon store, I decided to get a 5DII at less than half the price of the 5DIII, but in your case, the AF and improved high ISO performance might be worth the extra bucks. The 5DII seems to have at least 1 stop advantage in noise to the crop bodies, which is great in low light. The 5DIII might have another stop advantage at high ISOs than the 5DII. If you are unsure, you might consider borrowing/renting a 5DII. It'll perform better than the 30D, and then you'll have a better sense of whether or not spending 3.5k for a body is worth it.

The cameras now how much more MP than the 30D, so you can afford to crop to compensate for 1.6x factor and still have more pixels than the 30D. You can also use a 1.4x TC, but you would be losing 1 stop, so the advantage between the FF and the crop body would be lessened.

 

[liubros]

I have 7D, and recently picked up 5D mark III. 5D3 is huge improvement in image quality, iso performance, and auto focus. The new auto focus I would say is twice as fast as 7D. The only thing good about 7D is 10fps, but most likely you don't have to use it unless you shoot sports mainly. My suggestion is go for 5D3.

 

[liubros]

It is hard to get use to the lose of 1.6x magnification. The 50mm prime on 5D3 all of sudden looks too wide, and 24mm on 5D3 looks way too wide, and 200mm isn't zoom enough, etc. I do feel a little funny switching from 7D to 5D3. but I will get used to it.

 

[iMagic]

My 2 cents. I had a 7D and loved all the features except the ISO over 800. Just was not good enough and that limits the ability to use it in a lot of circumstances at an acceptable IQ. Now getting a Mark III and the loss of reach to get better ISO is a livable compromise. So reach versus ISO. I would look at what you intend to shoot over the next couple of years and see which is more important.

 

[liubros]

My 2 cents. I had a 7D and loved all the features except the ISO over 800. Just was not good enough and that limits the ability to use it in a lot of circumstances at an acceptable IQ. Now getting a Mark III and the loss of reach to get better ISO is a livable compromise. So reach versus ISO. I would look at what you intend to shoot over the next couple of years and see which is more important.

Yeah, I am worrying about iso on my 7D all the time. And lots of time I cannot use AV mode, or TV mode with iso set to auto. I have to watch iso carefully, making sure it doesn't go beyond iso1600... so much trouble. Now with 5D3, I don't even worry about iso 12800. And you can program iso, set your max allowed iso, then in auto iso mode it won't go beyond that. It is great.

 

[kirispupis]

I currently own both a 5D3 and a 7D. To be honest now that I have the 5D3 I find the 7D of limited use. When I used to have a 5D2 and a 7D, they complemented each other well. I used my 7D when I cared about reach, AF, and frame rate. I used my 5D2 when I cared about wide angle and image quality.

Now that I have the 5D3 the 7D is much less useful. The 5D3 beats it in AF and in terms of image quality they are on different planets. With the 7D, I do not feel comfortable going past ISO 800. With my 5D2 I felt comfortable up to ISO 3200 and now that is ISO 12800 with the 5D3. That is a huge difference.

Even at low ISO the 5D3 blows away the 7D in terms of quality though. I was surprised at the quality from some shots I took at ISO 400 of a bird this weekend with the 5D3. Even at low ISO the 7D suffers from diffraction - simply fitting too many MP on that small sensor.

The only advantage the 7D has now is the reach. With resolution factored in it has a 1.44 crop over my 5D3. Still, this is likely much less when image quality is taken into account. Therefore, I now keep my 7D as only a backup body - and a rarely used one at that. I have a feeling before the year is over I will sell the 7D to help purchase a large telephoto.

Therefore, if you have the money I would buy the 5D3 hands down.

 

[Fatshark]

Thanks for the feedback. Since my primary objective is sports I keep thinking about this in terms of FPS and reach, but I really appreciate the iso comments. I'm leaning heavily toward the mark 3 based on the ISO feedback and thinking I'll have 3x the pixels to work with (compared to my 30D) with less noise and that the "reach" I lose can be made up for post-production.

If i ship my 2.0x teleconveter back to canon for correction (it's extremely soft - unusable actually) perhaps I lose nothing in the conversion to FF?

 

[dooboo]

I think if your budget allows for you the get 5d3, then yes.

But if you have certain budget to work with, and/or would like to add more to your glass collection, 7D is the right choice.

Price difference between 5D3 and 7D is about $2000 (if you get refurbed unit from Canon that balloons to $2400)...now, what can you get for $2400 by getting 7D?

Only you can answer that question. At least you can pick up possibly couple of nice L series lens to your collection...

But if you have basically unlimited budget, 5d3 is the way to go (today's technology vs 3 years old tech of 7D)

 

[Random Orbits]

Thanks for the feedback. Since my primary objective is sports I keep thinking about this in terms of FPS and reach, but I really appreciate the iso comments. I'm leaning heavily toward the mark 3 based on the ISO feedback and thinking I'll have 3x the pixels to work with (compared to my 30D) with less noise and that the "reach" I lose can be made up for post-production.

If i ship my 2.0x teleconveter back to canon for correction (it's extremely soft - unusable actually) perhaps I lose nothing in the conversion to FF?

You'd lose a bit of dynamic range due to the higher ISO required (more noise). It looks like the 5DIII will suit you, so give it a try with your 2x, and decide based on that. Maybe the 1.4x would be a better fit, but you won't know that until you try it.

 

[AnselA]

kirispupis,
When did you get your 5D M III and how much shooting have you done of the type Fatshark is doing?