Canon 7D vs Canon 60D - Can't decide which to upgrade to.

[Tcapp]

Don't know if its been suggested, but I'm always all for FF. Find a good used 5d2, keep your rokkinon, sell your other two lenses and body, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and maybe a 85 1.8.

That what I would do!

 

[!Xabbu]

Don't know if its been suggested, but I'm always all for FF. Find a good used 5d2, keep your rokkinon, sell your other two lenses and body, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and maybe a 85 1.8.

That what I would do!

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

 

[Tcapp]

Don't know if its been suggested, but I'm always all for FF. Find a good used 5d2, keep your rokkinon, sell your other two lenses and body, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and maybe a 85 1.8.

That what I would do!

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

Very true!

Although shoot both at 6400 iso and FF does magically make the photos better.

But I totally agree. 7d is a FAR better choice for sports and animals. Even if just for the crop. Or just for the frame rate. Or just for the AF. But I would, personally, still take the 5d for its iso to freeze motion of the kids. But thats just me.


Of course, the 5d3 is basically the best of both worlds.

 

[briansquibb]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

 

[rj79in]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

It would still depend on what your requirements are ... trying to take pictures of kids running around is something I wouldn't try with the 5DM2, I know it is possible but the 7D definitely beats it hands down

 

[plutonium10]

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

Yeah, fair point. If AF is a large enough factor for you not to consider the 5D II, the 7D is the clear winner out of the 2 crop cameras mentioned.

 

[briansquibb]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

It would still depend on what your requirements are ... trying to take pictures of kids running around is something I wouldn't try with the 5DM2, I know it is possible but the 7D definitely beats it hands down

Kids are no problem with the 5D2 and you end up with terrific action portraits

 

[Tcapp]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

It would still depend on what your requirements are ... trying to take pictures of kids running around is something I wouldn't try with the 5DM2, I know it is possible but the 7D definitely beats it hands down

Kids are no problem with the 5D2 and you end up with terrific action portraits

Totally agree. And guess what? If you know what you're doing, you can even get photos of the kids with manual focus! Hard to imagine, I know. It's silly how much people hate on the 5d2's auto focus. I've used it for years with zero problems. It focuses as fast as I can compose the photos.

 

[rj79in]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

It would still depend on what your requirements are ... trying to take pictures of kids running around is something I wouldn't try with the 5DM2, I know it is possible but the 7D definitely beats it hands down

Kids are no problem with the 5D2 and you end up with terrific action portraits

You could be right. Maybe I never tried working on my technique with the 5DM2 once I had the 7D.

 

[Ew]

5d2 for kids works fine... But you have to work a lot harder and you loose many moments. Dropping down on knees, running around little ones on a trike, kids on swings, etc - they are quick - and the 7D w AF & Fps advantage really help a great deal to get more keepers. But as soon as we're indoors in the afternoon or evening, 5D2 takes over as I find noise over 1600 on 7D just too much to deal with.

Previous post bout the 5D3 being the best of both worlds is probably correct.

 

[bycostello]

i'd always put glass first... and a lens u keep for life, bodies come and go....

 

[!Xabbu]

If you mention the 5D II you should also mention it's stone-age AF. So, it really depends on the use - if someone is a studio/ portrait focused photographer, the 5D II is clearly the better choice. If someone is a sports/animal/kids photographer he will be much happier with the 7D. To me these are two cameras, which are not targeting the same kind of people and FF doesn't just make all pictures better.

I guess that you have never owned a 5DII or a ff for that matter. I have yet to find a ff that doesn't give a better image than a 1.6 of the same era.

As for the AF - stone age is incorrect - it is still a class leader in low light AF (on the centre AF point). It may have its limitations - about as good as the AF on a 60D.

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition, but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures, but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance). I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids... And just to take this point out of the way (I almost know that someone will bring it up) - the 5D III and 1D bodies are in a very different price segment, which means that they are not the real competition to any of the above named cameras.

 

[briansquibb]

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition, but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures, but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance). I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids... And just to take this point out of the way (I almost know that someone will bring it up) - the 5D III and 1D bodies are in a very different price segment, which means that they are not the real competition to any of the above named cameras.

The camera that I use most is the 1.3 crop 1D4 followed by the ff 1Ds3. I owned the 5D and 5D2 at the time I had the 40D, 50D and 7D.

The AF of the 5DII is surpisingly good - contrary to its reputation. True, BIF was harder work with the 5DII than the 7D but still possible. Moving animals/kids and sports were no problem with the 5D/5D2.To me the big difference between the 7D and 5DII is the burst rate.

The real beauty of ff is the quality of the bg blur which on the 1.6 quickly fell to pieces when cropping.

 

[rj79in]

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition, but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures, but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance). I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids... And just to take this point out of the way (I almost know that someone will bring it up) - the 5D III and 1D bodies are in a very different price segment, which means that they are not the real competition to any of the above named cameras.

The camera that I use most is the 1.3 crop 1D4 followed by the ff 1Ds3. I owned the 5D and 5D2 at the time I had the 40D, 50D and 7D.

The AF of the 5DII is surpisingly good - contrary to its reputation. True, BIF was harder work with the 5DII than the 7D but still possible. Moving animals/kids and sports were no problem with the 5D/5D2.To me the big difference between the 7D and 5DII is the burst rate.

The real beauty of ff is the quality of the bg blur which on the 1.6 quickly fell to pieces when cropping.

On an entirely personal note, I got the 5d2 only after I had used the 7d and the AF felt like such a let down. Maybe if i had got the 5d2 prior to the 7d i might have worked at it but in my circs i really couldnt be bothered when taking photos of my kids.

Photographers who are really got at it will push their cameras to the limit, but for the average hobbyist /student it's probably asking too much

 

[elflord]

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition,

They have an easier time obtaining shallow depth of field. An f/2.8 zoom on full frame has comparable depth of field to an f/1.8 prime with the same field of view. For portrait shots, this is important.

but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

Full frame is your best choice for shooting in low light. Current versions of MF cameras don't go past ISO1600 at all and to get the most out of them you really want to shoot at low ISO. They are designed for producing gallery size prints, not low light shooting. Same with film -- what type of film performs well at ISO6400 ?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures,

The 5DII does have a servo mode. It might not be as good as that on the 7D, but it is quite a bit better than manual focus.

but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance).

The outer focus points are reasonably usable in one shot mode, especially if you are working with decent light. There is also focus and recompose, of course. Most of the cropping I do with my 5D shots is to make post hoc revisions to composition. But I do not find that the AF system dictates my composition, when I need to make such revisions, it's either because I made an error, or because I was unable to get the composition I wanted (e.g. distance limited)

I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

Sure, I don't think anyone is claiming that the 5D is a sports camera.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids...

You keep hammering away at this fallacy that the 5D is only usable for subjects that are either stationary or posing, but there are huge numbers of 5D series users photographing weddings and family pictures who would beg to differ.

For example, with kid shots -- you might get fewer keepers with a 5D series camera, but the keepers you get will be priceless. Again, having control over depth of field is very useful, especially shooting in busy (uncontrolled) environments where you can't stage the background to your liking.

And while kids do move around a lot, they also do sit still (sometimes), and when they are moving, they are not always running directly at the camera. The only knock against using a camera like the 5DII for taking shots of your kids is that it does perhaps seem like a massive overkill for that task.

 

[Tcapp]

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition,

They have an easier time obtaining shallow depth of field. An f/2.8 zoom on full frame has comparable depth of field to an f/1.8 prime with the same field of view. For portrait shots, this is important.

but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

Full frame is your best choice for shooting in low light. Current versions of MF cameras don't go past ISO1600 at all and to get the most out of them you really want to shoot at low ISO. They are designed for producing gallery size prints, not low light shooting. Same with film -- what type of film performs well at ISO6400 ?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures,

The 5DII does have a servo mode. It might not be as good as that on the 7D, but it is quite a bit better than manual focus.

but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance).

The outer focus points are reasonably usable in one shot mode, especially if you are working with decent light. There is also focus and recompose, of course. Most of the cropping I do with my 5D shots is to make post hoc revisions to composition. But I do not find that the AF system dictates my composition, when I need to make such revisions, it's either because I made an error, or because I was unable to get the composition I wanted (e.g. distance limited)

I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

Sure, I don't think anyone is claiming that the 5D is a sports camera.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids...

You keep hammering away at this fallacy that the 5D is only usable for subjects that are either stationary or posing, but there are huge numbers of 5D series users photographing weddings and family pictures who would beg to differ.

For example, with kid shots -- you might get fewer keepers with a 5D series camera, but the keepers you get will be priceless. Again, having control over depth of field is very useful, especially shooting in busy (uncontrolled) environments where you can't stage the background to your liking.

And while kids do move around a lot, they also do sit still (sometimes), and when they are moving, they are not always running directly at the camera. The only knock against using a camera like the 5DII for taking shots of your kids is that it does perhaps seem like a massive overkill for that task.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[briansquibb]

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition,

They have an easier time obtaining shallow depth of field. An f/2.8 zoom on full frame has comparable depth of field to an f/1.8 prime with the same field of view. For portrait shots, this is important.

but in general it's very hard to distinguish a modern crop from a FF in good light. Yes, in low light a crop will have no chance compared to a FF. But then the question is why don't you use MF or even 4'x5' film?

Full frame is your best choice for shooting in low light. Current versions of MF cameras don't go past ISO1600 at all and to get the most out of them you really want to shoot at low ISO. They are designed for producing gallery size prints, not low light shooting. Same with film -- what type of film performs well at ISO6400 ?

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures,

The 5DII does have a servo mode. It might not be as good as that on the 7D, but it is quite a bit better than manual focus.

but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance).

The outer focus points are reasonably usable in one shot mode, especially if you are working with decent light. There is also focus and recompose, of course. Most of the cropping I do with my 5D shots is to make post hoc revisions to composition. But I do not find that the AF system dictates my composition, when I need to make such revisions, it's either because I made an error, or because I was unable to get the composition I wanted (e.g. distance limited)

I bet that a pro with a 7D will get much superior sports pictures than a pro with a 5D II.

Sure, I don't think anyone is claiming that the 5D is a sports camera.

So, in the end I still believe that these cameras have different target audiences - 5D II for studio/portraits and 7D for sports/ birds/ moving animals/ moving kids...

You keep hammering away at this fallacy that the 5D is only usable for subjects that are either stationary or posing, but there are huge numbers of 5D series users photographing weddings and family pictures who would beg to differ.

For example, with kid shots -- you might get fewer keepers with a 5D series camera, but the keepers you get will be priceless. Again, having control over depth of field is very useful, especially shooting in busy (uncontrolled) environments where you can't stage the background to your liking.

And while kids do move around a lot, they also do sit still (sometimes), and when they are moving, they are not always running directly at the camera. The only knock against using a camera like the 5DII for taking shots of your kids is that it does perhaps seem like a massive overkill for that task.

+1 I had two great years with the 5DII and 1 year with the 5Dc

Now moved on to the 1DS3 which better features than the 7D (for AF) and the 5DII (for IQ).

I still have the 7D and it is a handy little camera - especially in good light.

Here is a picture from this morning to whet your appetite

 

[!Xabbu]

It somewhat seems like you FF-guys are like creationists. If someone questions your "FF is better in every condition" religion you seem to forget the facts. I try it one more time.

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition,

They have an easier time obtaining shallow depth of field. An f/2.8 zoom on full frame has comparable depth of field to an f/1.8 prime with the same field of view. For portrait shots, this is important.

OK, I pretty clearly stated in my post that the 5D II is the better camera for portraits. So, I don't know why you think you have to repeat it. MF is probably the best choice for portrait. So, if you're a portrait only photographer, MF might be the way to go.

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures,

The 5DII does have a servo mode. It might not be as good as that on the 7D, but it is quite a bit better than manual focus.

but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance).

The outer focus points are reasonably usable in one shot mode, especially if you are working with decent light. There is also focus and recompose, of course. Most of the cropping I do with my 5D shots is to make post hoc revisions to composition. But I do not find that the AF system dictates my composition, when I need to make such revisions, it's either because I made an error, or because I was unable to get the composition I wanted (e.g. distance limited)

The 5D II has a servo mode, which is nowhere as good as the 7D's. This means that two photographers with the same capabilities will get more in focus shots with the 7D. Sounds to me like the 7D is the better choice in these conditions.
The outer focus points are fine for non moving objects on the 5D II, but I was speaking about action shots, where you still might to have an off center composition - again the 7D will give you much more flexibility.

You keep hammering away at this fallacy that the 5D is only usable for subjects that are either stationary or posing, but there are huge numbers of 5D series users photographing weddings and family pictures who would beg to differ.

For example, with kid shots -- you might get fewer keepers with a 5D series camera, but the keepers you get will be priceless. Again, having control over depth of field is very useful, especially shooting in busy (uncontrolled) environments where you can't stage the background to your liking.

And while kids do move around a lot, they also do sit still (sometimes), and when they are moving, they are not always running directly at the camera. The only knock against using a camera like the 5DII for taking shots of your kids is that it does perhaps seem like a massive overkill for that task.

Please show me where I said that the 5D is only usable for non-moving subjects. I just said that these cameras target different audiences. If someone shoots mainly sports or animals, he will most likely be happier with a 7D than with a 5D II. However, if someone is mainly into studio or portrait, he will be much better of with the 5D II.
I do believe that both cameras are capable of the other use, but they have their shortcomings - i.e. you can use a 7D as a studio camera and get good results and of course you can use a 5D II as a sports camera and get good results.

 

[Tcapp]

It somewhat seems like you FF-guys are like creationists. If someone questions your "FF is better in every condition" religion you seem to forget the facts. I try it one more time.

Brian, I know how much you love FF cameras. And yes, I never owned a FF, but I know enough people who own FF and who are amazing photographers. However, do their ISO 100 - 400 pictures look much better than mine? Only when they have a better composition,

They have an easier time obtaining shallow depth of field. An f/2.8 zoom on full frame has comparable depth of field to an f/1.8 prime with the same field of view. For portrait shots, this is important.

OK, I pretty clearly stated in my post that the 5D II is the better camera for portraits. So, I don't know why you think you have to repeat it. MF is probably the best choice for portrait. So, if you're a portrait only photographer, MF might be the way to go.

However, and coming back to the topic - it is as true that for action the 5D II (which has an AF comparable to the 450D not the 60D) can't hold a candle to the 7D. Of course, if you are the perfect photographer and use MF on action shots and get everything right you still will get good pictures,

The 5DII does have a servo mode. It might not be as good as that on the 7D, but it is quite a bit better than manual focus.

but the 7D will have more keepers and get more interesting moments because of the highly superior burst rate. And not everyone wants everything centered in the picture (of course I can crop in post production, but with a 7D I can use an outer AF point and still have great performance).

The outer focus points are reasonably usable in one shot mode, especially if you are working with decent light. There is also focus and recompose, of course. Most of the cropping I do with my 5D shots is to make post hoc revisions to composition. But I do not find that the AF system dictates my composition, when I need to make such revisions, it's either because I made an error, or because I was unable to get the composition I wanted (e.g. distance limited)

The 5D II has a servo mode, which is nowhere as good as the 7D's. This means that two photographers with the same capabilities will get more in focus shots with the 7D. Sounds to me like the 7D is the better choice in these conditions.
The outer focus points are fine for non moving objects on the 5D II, but I was speaking about action shots, where you still might to have an off center composition - again the 7D will give you much more flexibility.

You keep hammering away at this fallacy that the 5D is only usable for subjects that are either stationary or posing, but there are huge numbers of 5D series users photographing weddings and family pictures who would beg to differ.

For example, with kid shots -- you might get fewer keepers with a 5D series camera, but the keepers you get will be priceless. Again, having control over depth of field is very useful, especially shooting in busy (uncontrolled) environments where you can't stage the background to your liking.

And while kids do move around a lot, they also do sit still (sometimes), and when they are moving, they are not always running directly at the camera. The only knock against using a camera like the 5DII for taking shots of your kids is that it does perhaps seem like a massive overkill for that task.

Please show me where I said that the 5D is only usable for non-moving subjects. I just said that these cameras target different audiences. If someone shoots mainly sports or animals, he will most likely be happier with a 7D than with a 5D II. However, if someone is mainly into studio or portrait, he will be much better of with the 5D II.
I do believe that both cameras are capable of the other use, but they have their shortcomings - i.e. you can use a 7D as a studio camera and get good results and of course you can use a 5D II as a sports camera and get good results.

I think our friend elflord was just trying to get the facts out there without confusing the thousand amateurs who are reading this and might not know. You are correct that the 7d is great for action.

I think if we say the 7d is easier to use in just about any situation, and the 5d2 has better image quality in just about any situation, no one can argue that. All settled.

 

[briansquibb]

It somewhat seems like you FF-guys are like creationists. If someone questions your "FF is better in every condition" religion you seem to forget the facts. I try it one more time.

ff only relates to the image from the sensor

It is the camera that takes the picture.

Look at my equipment line to see which technology I prefer.