Canon 7D mk ii or Canon 5D mk iii which is better all around camera?

[intown]

Hi All,

Perhaps this has been asked before, if so please point me in the right direction. I looked and did not find the comparison that fit my needs.

Which do you think is a better all around camera? 7D mark III or 5D mark III


I know this answer varies on situation, so here is what I am working with.

• Can only get one
• Price is not a major factor (since they are getting closer in price)
• Camera will be used to create basic videos for the web Think quality business video and youtube product reviews
• I am a Web Designer / Developer 1st / Photographer 2nd. Occasionally I take photos for clients, if it is real high end stuff they hire a professional photographer
• Family Camera. (Two kids 3 & 6 who play soccer, basketball, dance, go fun places, etc...)
• Maybe set up some simple video stuff with kids
• I am a former college newspaper photographer who enjoys carrying a camera and taking all kinds of shots.

I currently have a 60D with a few lenses including 70-200 f/2.8L IS version 2

Now that the 5d3 prices are dropping I was thinking of getting a 5d3 (I have always wanted one), as I researched it looks like the 7D2 might be a better fit.

To me it looks like if I go with the 7D2, I will be giving up a full frame and better low light images (not to say that the 7d2 has poor low light functionality)

Full frame might not be a big factor other than just bragging rights.


Which do you think will be a better fit?
Any reason to go with the 5D3 over the 7D2 for my situation?

Thanks in Advance! -- Steven

 

[Loswr]

Low light is mainly what you'd be giving up with the 7DII. With my daughters' indoor sports/dance/etc., I'm often higher than ISO 6400 to get sufficient shutter speed, and that's with f/2.8 and sometimes f/2 lenses.

 

[Bennymiata]

For video, the 7D2 is better because of the dpaf, but the 5D3 is better for quality stills.

 

[Sabaki]

I've just bought the 7Dii and it is a stunning performer for what it does.

The question is, is what it does, what you're looking for a camera to do?

Shooting indoors, even in well lit spaces, still requires an ISO crank and between the two, the 5D3 certainly outshines the 7Dii, not to mention that with your 70-200 f/2.8 mkii, you will get superb images.

I would say that the 5Diii would be my recommendation, even though the 7Dii's ISO performance is fantastic for a Canon APS-C body.

As a graphic designer, I'm sure image quality is a non negotiable for you.

 

[Marsu42]

Which do you think is a better all around camera? 7D mark III or 5D mark III

Imho of course the 5d3, hands down, unless you want a pop-up flash/master, fast (video) live view af or (in stills mode) af points to the frame edges. The problem is that you need the lenses that go with ff, and for tele primes that means very expensive, large and heavy. For video, I'd also advise the 5d3 as it runs Magic Lantern.

 

[East Wind Photography]

5d3 is the better all around camera. But you pay more for that all aroundness. The 7d2 is more geared for action photography. 5d3 can handle it all just not at 10fps.

 

[dolina]

I'd get the 7D Mark II, cause it's cheaper.

 

[FEBS]

The better all round camera from the 7D2 and 5D3 is without any hesitation the 5D3 for stills.

 

[Freddie]

EF-S Lenses?

EF-S lenses will not fit the 5D MK III.
7D has 10 frames per second and a bit more reach.
5D has 6 frames per second and slightly better low light quality with larger files in RAW.
Both have excellent autofocus capabilities.
Those are the only things I would consider. I have both cameras. The purpose of each is a bit different in my usage.
If I had to choose, it would be the 5D MK III.

 

[Yiannis A - Greece]

@intown:
Dear friend,
i own both cameras you mention. Go with the 7D Mk2. Up to ISO 800 they shoot the exact same quality pictures. From 800 to 3200, 5d Mk3 is 1 stop better. From 3200 to 12800, 7d mk2 is 1/3 of a stop better! Even at ISO 16000, 7D Mk2 produces usable images. I'm producing images on a professional, calibrated EIZO monitor and it never lies to me.
What blows my mind with the 7D is that, even if it has more noise in some cases, it cleans up much better and easier in photoshop. And i mean, A LOT BETTER and EASIER and this includes videos up to ISO 8000 also! The final result is better for 7D than 5D, period! I'm up to this conclusion, after shooting 771 side-by-side shots with both cameras during the previous week and spending half weeekend to compare them. The 7D has such a fine noise pattern that, clears up much easier; i'm positive, i've seen it with my own eyes! By the way, in the so-called "reviews" until now, nobody mentions how easily it "cleans up" in Photoshop, compared to other cameras, including FF.
I see you have a 60D right now so you're used to crop sensors; it will be quite difficult to lose the 1.6x magnification factor and start cropping. Don't look further, the 7D is the right camera for you.

Most of all, be lucky, be strong, keep doing well. All my best,
Yiannis

 

[FTb-n]

Both are great options. I migrated from the 60D to the 7D and now the 5D3. I shoot a lot of kid sports, but don't plan to get the 7D2. The 5D3 is an underrated sports body. If your need isn't heavily dependent upon high speed burst or extended burst in RAW (which can fill a buffer), the 5D3 does a great job.

From a sports perspective, I think of the 5D3 and the 7D2 as little brothers to the 1Dx. They are different and have their own strengths. If low light is a bigger concern than burst mode, then the 5D3 is the better choice. If burst mode and buffer is a bigger concern then the 7D2 is the way to go.

For general use, both should do well. But, full frame has some distinct benefits. You will see better low light performance and better color depth. Granted, the latter is mostly visible when comparing FF to crop directly, otherwise, you may not see it. Using a 35 2.0 IS, I also find the 5D3 can lock on focus in lower light than my 7D or 60D. I suspect it will out perform the 7D2 as well, but perhaps not as easily as the older crop bodies.

I find that the 70-200 f2.8L II performs better on FF than on crop. Images from the lens are sharper on a FF sensor. You have better control over DOF -- meaning 2.8 on FF offers smaller DOF than on crop. And, for many occasions, the 70-200 focal range is more usable on FF.

Incidentally, I was concerned about losing the 1.6 crop factor. In my experience with the 70-200 at 200 mm on both the 7D and the 5D3, a 5D3 image cropped match the 7D image is sharper than the 7D image. Hopefully, the 7D2 will be sharper than the 7D, but you won't lose any real "reach" from what you have now.

I'd go for the 5D3. Once you go FF, it's hard to back to crop.

 

[Loswr]

i own both cameras you mention. Go with the 7D Mk2. Up to ISO 800 they shoot the exact same quality pictures. From 800 to 3200, 5d Mk3 is 1 stop better. From 3200 to 12800, 7d mk2 is 1/3 of a stop better!

It appears you're serious about that. Sorry to have to say it, but physics does not agree with your assessment.

 

[East Wind Photography]

i own both cameras you mention. Go with the 7D Mk2. Up to ISO 800 they shoot the exact same quality pictures. From 800 to 3200, 5d Mk3 is 1 stop better. From 3200 to 12800, 7d mk2 is 1/3 of a stop better!

It appears you're serious about that. Sorry to have to say it, but physics does not agree with your assessment.

And neither do I! LOL

 

[wyldeguy]

I have the 7D2 and I can say it's absolutely fantastic. For what you are saying you want it for I would say the 7D2 is better for you. I have used the 5D3 and don't get me wrong it is also a fantastic piece of gear but the sports will be better shot on the 7D2 for both video and stills. The comment about the 5D3 being sharper cropped to a 7D image size is a bit of a lie. If you look at the pixel size and pixel count that's impossible. Crop 22 mp down to the 1.6 aps-c and it's now something between 8-12mp I think. I know I'm going to get flack but DxO has a nice comparison tool that shows this a little more clearly.

 

[dtaylor]

Low light is mainly what you'd be giving up with the 7DII. With my daughters' indoor sports/dance/etc., I'm often higher than ISO 6400 to get sufficient shutter speed, and that's with f/2.8 and sometimes f/2 lenses.

Agreed. But you have to think about the end goal. The 7D2 is fine to 12,800, even 16,000, for 8x10 prints as long as you don't blow the exposure.

Now if you want to print big from higher ISOs...hard to beat FF.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

IMOP, there is no better camera for what your doing, it all boils down to quality and speed, both cameras are great and more than enough for what you want to do. if you want higher quality in images 5d mark 3, if you will be shooting more journal stuff and things that are fast 7D mark 2, forget about ISO both cameras are capable of doing just that, one will be high MP over the other.

 

[dtaylor]

i own both cameras you mention. Go with the 7D Mk2. Up to ISO 800 they shoot the exact same quality pictures. From 800 to 3200, 5d Mk3 is 1 stop better. From 3200 to 12800, 7d mk2 is 1/3 of a stop better!

It appears you're serious about that. Sorry to have to say it, but physics does not agree with your assessment.

I would have to agree with you Neuro. Unprocessed RAWs show the difference clearly and at high ISO the 5D3 is cleaner with more detail even though the 7D2 sensor is newer tech. It takes a large gap in tech for crop to produce cleaner high ISO, i.e. think 7D2 vs. original 5D.

But I would agree with one point Yiannis made: the 7D2 cleans up nicely. That does not make it better then a 5D3 at high ISO. But compared to earlier Canon 18 MP crop cameras like the 7D and 60D, a processed 7D2 high ISO shot looks much better then one would guess at first from unprocessed RAWs.

This struck me during the NX1 thread. SOOC RAW the NX1 is cleaner. After applying NR in ACR, the 7D2 looks better. The character of the noise has improved quite a bit.

 

[Loswr]

The comment about the 5D3 being sharper cropped to a 7D image size is a bit of a lie. If you look at the pixel size and pixel count that's impossible. Crop 22 mp down to the 1.6 aps-c and it's now something between 8-12mp I think.

Crop the 5DIII image to the APS-C FoV and you'll have.....less MP (8.6, to be exact). Otherwise, the images are (can be made) equivalent. That means stopping the FF camera down 1.3-stops and raising the ISO 1.3-stops to maintain shutter speed. If you don't need to stop down and/or maintain shutter speed, the FF delivers better IQ, but fewer MP. If you don't need to crop all the way down to 1.6x, the FF delivers better IQ. So the question is whether 8.6 MP are sufficient for your intended output (e.g., prints up to 16x24"/A2). If so, FF will deliver at worst equivalent IQ, and in most cases better IQ.

 

[FTb-n]

The comment about the 5D3 being sharper cropped to a 7D image size is a bit of a lie.

It's no lie. EF lenses are designed for full frame bodies (film and sensor). I'm going to butcher this explanation (Neuro does a much better job explaining this and I bet he's thinking, "not this again"), but lenses have limits regarding the degree of sharpness to which they can focus the light. The larger pixels in a full frame sensor generally do a better job of rendering the edge of a sharp object (such as a fine line in a test chart) from a full frame lens. Put that line under a microscope and that edge will look fuzzy. Now, pack lots of smaller pixels close together along this edge and they will capture the "fuzz." Because the smaller pixels aren't as efficient in capturing the light as the big pixels and this fuzzy line could spill more across the tiny pixels, thus recording a less sharp image. All of this may vary by lens, with some able to focus better for the small pixels than others.

Okay, that's my stab at explaining the why. If I butchered it, I warned you. The thing that's important to me is that increasing "sharpness" requires more than simply packing more pixels into a smaller space. The lens' ability to focus the light and the pixel's efficiency in capturing the light also play a factor.

Sometimes pictures can say it better. Checkout the link to The Digital Picture's comparison tool of the 70-200 f2.8L II on a 1Ds III vs. a 60D. Those lines are softer on the 60D which has smaller pixels that are more tightly packed together.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

As previously mentioned, the bigger sensor allows for higher ISO which allows for faster shutter speeds that can reduce blur and further sharpen an image.

Again, my explanation may have some holes in it, but image sharpness isn't just about the pixel density. Much of what I shoot is high ISO (1600 and up). With the 70-200, cropping a 5D3 image will give you a sharper image than a native 7D image. Go outside in bright light and lower ISO, and this difference is less clear. Even outside, I get better results cropping my 5D3 image over my native 7D image, but we are nitpicking here. This is enough to mitigate the 1.6 crop factor for me. But, it doesn't mean that the 7D can't produce pleasingly sharp images. It does, especially in bright light.

I would love to see The Digital Picture add the 7D2 to their comparison tool to see if the Mark II version is any sharper than the Mark I.

 

[Ryan85]

Going from the 60d to the 5d3 or 7d2 I think you'll be happy either way. I love the 5d3 and paired with the 70-200 2.8 is 2 you already have is my favorite combo. To me if you're going to shoot lots of sports , action or birds in flight the 10fps will be nice. Also when you go to ff you're going to have to get use the shallow depth of field compared to crop senors like your 60d. That takes a little adjustment to get everything sharp. If your going to do lots of video I might consider the 70d because imo for video it's nice having the articulating screen. You could rent the cameras and see which you prefer. For me it'd be the 5d3, but they'll both be great for what you're wanting to do.