EOS 7D mk2 or 5D mk3

[alistairm1]

Had to start this as I didn't want to hijack LesC's post about the 6D and 7DII.
I have reviewed my photography over the past few years and I seem to have a bit of everything (portraits, landscape, street, night, quite a bit of theatre [where it's allowed], with some static birds, BIF, and airshows).
As you can imagine, I am in a quandary about this.
I can get a 7DII with the canon 15-85 lens for the same price as a 5DIII with the 24-105L, which doesn't help the decision-making process.

The birds and airshows don't figure as highly in my repertoire as the other stuff, but I don't want to hamstring myself by getting a camera which will not make a good stab at everything.

I have read extensively about the two cameras, and I'm struggling to find the killer feature which will inform my decision. Each have their own benefits and drawbacks, but I can't find the one feature which will make the decision for me.
Is there significantly better IQ from the 5DIII over the 7DII? Will I miss the reach that the 7DII will give over the 5DIII (I can get round that a bit by using a TC).

I think it will come down to IQ (not exceptionally bothered about DR, so no "neither of them has an EXMOR sensor", please), but I've not found anything which seems to say one way or the other.

I don't remember being this indecisive, but I'm not sure.

Anyone got any thoughts which might assist someone who has buyers remorse before actually buying anything? :-\

 

[Loswr]

Is there significantly better IQ from the 5DIII over the 7DII?

Yes, particularly at higher ISO. That doesn't just mean low light - shooting BIF in the mornings/evenings or with clouds, I'm often at ISO 6400 to get a high enough shutter speed.

The 6D vs. 7DII would a harder choice, in this case I'd absolutely say get the 5DIII + 24-105L.

 

[alistairm1]

Thanks, neuro. I had put the 6D in the original mix, but felt the number of focus points would be too much of a drawback compared to the zone focussing available on the 5DIII and 7DII

 

[DominoDude]

I'm inclined to agree with Neuro on this one. It seems like you would benefit more from a 5D Mark III. If it's at a local shop I would even try to twist their arm a little and say that you are offered to buy the 7D Mark II with the 24-105L for the same price as your locally offered 5D-combo. They are not going to sell at a loss anyway, so try to haggle a better deal and suggest that you might come back to buy more from them if they can get you a great deal.
Good luck!

 

[alistairm1]

Sadly it is two different suppliers. And I think the 24-105 wouldn't give me as wide an angle of view on the crop body as the 15-85 would. One time where the 1.6x works against you -(

 

[Dylan777]

Is there significantly better IQ from the 5DIII over the 7DII?

Yes, particularly at higher ISO. That doesn't just mean low light - shooting BIF in the mornings/evenings or with clouds, I'm often at ISO 6400 to get a high enough shutter speed.

The 6D vs. 7DII would a harder choice, in this case I'd absolutely say get the 5DIII + 24-105L.

+1 with Neuro.

@ OP, I can understand your feeling toward 7D II specs. At the end, it's about owning a camera that can handle most situation.

 

[richro]

To make things a bit interesting, what about a 6D+70D two body combo for a similar price?

 

[alistairm1]

SWMBO would make me sleep in the shed with the spiders if I came home with two bodies. Either that or she would have three bodies to dispose of ;D

 

[dtaylor]

The reason the decision is hard is because they are that close. Looking at the Imaging Resource samples...

* For ISO 100-800 I would say that after post processing it's a wash, just like with the prior generation (7D vs. 5D2). No one is ever going to tell the prints apart, not even you if the labels are removed.

* Pixel peeping ISO 3200 I see higher IQ in the 5D3 shot even after processing the 7D2 shot. At 50%? Differences are pretty small, and at this MP size (7D2 scaled to match 5D3) that's a 20x30 print. You could pick them apart, but the difference just isn't that large. (That's an improvement over the last generation. I never would have said this about the 7D vs. 5D2, not at that print size.)

* ISO 6400 is where the 5D3 really starts to pull ahead. Judging from the various sample shots around the web, I think the 7D2 will be usable for smaller prints (8x12; 13x19) at ISO 6400 and even 12800, for most subject matter (particularly the target market, sports). But the FF bodies will clearly show an advantage here, and go even higher.

So you have to decide what ISOs you shoot at, and whether you want/need better IQ at high ISOs or more fps. Keep in mind your workflow and common print sizes. SOOC the differences are larger. And if you never print larger then 8x12...I'm not sure it ever matters.

 

[Loswr]

The reason the decision is hard is because they are that close. Looking at the Imaging Resource samples...

* For ISO 100-800 I would say that after post processing it's a wash, just like with the prior generation (7D vs. 5D2). No one is ever going to tell the prints apart, not even you if the labels are removed..

So you have to decide what ISOs you shoot at, and whether you want/need better IQ at high ISOs or more fps. Keep in mind your workflow and common print sizes. SOOC the differences are larger. And if you never print larger then 8x12...I'm not sure it ever matters.

I recommend a bit of caution when interpreting static test scenes like those from IR. They keep lighting and aperture constant, while varying shutter speed and ISO. In low light with longer shutter speeds, the relative impact of noise sources is different so the results may be slightly more applicable to fast action in decent light than to true low light.

Also, ISO noise isn't everything...

portraits

One thing to consider is that the 'crop factor' also applies to DoF for the same framing. To get the DoF of an f/2.8 lens on FF, you need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C. To get the DoF of an f/1.4 lens on FF, you need an f/0.9 lens on APS-C.

 

[alistairm1]

Thank you, dtaylor, for that in-depth review of images. SOOC is good for SWMBO to post on FB, but I'm up for a bit of post to polish the product. High frame rate is not really that much of a requirement, so I would'nt miss the extra 4fps that the 7DII would bring. (I hope)
I really prefer natural light where-ever possible, so I suppose high ISO performance is probably more important to me than
I think. Particularly in theatres, where tungsten is my major challenge (although that is now being complicated by the trend to convert to LED, especially when there is a mix of the two -( ).
Still, it wouldn't be anywhere near as enjoyable if there weren't any challenges

It's looking more and more like the 5DIII will be the way to go.

Thanks again to all of you who have responded to my plea for help.

 

[scottkinfw]

Neuro hit the head on the nail. Also consider better performance regarding noise.

You do lose the crop factor however, and this is a consideration, but for your parameters, the 5DIII is your choice.

sek

Thank you, dtaylor, for that in-depth review of images. SOOC is good for SWMBO to post on FB, but I'm up for a bit of post to polish the product. High frame rate is not really that much of a requirement, so I would'nt miss the extra 4fps that the 7DII would bring. (I hope)
I really prefer natural light where-ever possible, so I suppose high ISO performance is probably more important to me than
I think. Particularly in theatres, where tungsten is my major challenge (although that is now being complicated by the trend to convert to LED, especially when there is a mix of the two -( ).
Still, it wouldn't be anywhere near as enjoyable if there weren't any challenges

It's looking more and more like the 5DIII will be the way to go.

Thanks again to all of you who have responded to my plea for help.

 

[dtaylor]

I recommend a bit of caution when interpreting static test scenes like those from IR. They keep lighting and aperture constant, while varying shutter speed and ISO. In low light with longer shutter speeds, the relative impact of noise sources is different so the results may be slightly more applicable to fast action in decent light than to true low light.

In what scenario do you think this would matter, other then astro landscapes? (FF hands down for that.) Asking because I've never noticed a difference (past gen) until the shots got into several seconds.

Also, ISO noise isn't everything...

I didn't see any differences...after post...between the old 5D2 and 7D at lower ISOs. I don't expect any between the 5D3 and 7D2. Open to evidence I'm wrong. Again, this is after post. (SOOC FF is sharper and often has more local contrast.)

One thing to consider is that the 'crop factor' also applies to DoF for the same framing. To get the DoF of an f/2.8 lens on FF, you need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C. To get the DoF of an f/1.4 lens on FF, you need an f/0.9 lens on APS-C.

Good point.

 

[dtaylor]

Thank you, dtaylor, for that in-depth review of images. SOOC is good for SWMBO to post on FB, but I'm up for a bit of post to polish the product. High frame rate is not really that much of a requirement, so I would'nt miss the extra 4fps that the 7DII would bring. (I hope)
I really prefer natural light where-ever possible, so I suppose high ISO performance is probably more important to me than
I think. Particularly in theatres, where tungsten is my major challenge (although that is now being complicated by the trend to convert to LED, especially when there is a mix of the two -( ).
Still, it wouldn't be anywhere near as enjoyable if there weren't any challenges

It's looking more and more like the 5DIII will be the way to go.

Thanks again to all of you who have responded to my plea for help.

Agree totally with your decision. IMHO it's literally high ISO vs. fps, and the 5D3 has decent fps to start. Given what you just said your answer is 5D3.

If you're open to refurbished, keep in mind the Canon loyalty program discount. You can get an old, used, no longer working Canon DSLR off eBay and net a big discount off a new DSLR.

 

[alistairm1]

Unfortunately, no CLP for us non-US customers :'-(

 

[Random Orbits]

It depends on what lenses you'll be able to afford to use or have for each camera. I use the 5DIII for everything (sports, portraits, landscapes, etc.) because it is the only camera I have. Sometimes, I wish it had a higher frame rate for shooting my kids soccer games, but that is about it (a deeper buffer would help too). And yes, I love the additional DOF control of FF.

 

[alistairm1]

I haven't got anything special by way of glass, but never really bothered as I was able to produce acceptable results, certainly in the eyes of the judges at the clubs I attend, and SWMBO.
However, I realise that the glass I have now will need to be "refreshed" to make best use of this body.
But, rather like Dr. Frankenstein, body first ;-)

Not the classic way (Glass first, body later), but the loss of my 50D leaves me with no body at all at the moment. So that's why I'm keen to get the body I need, and will serve me well in the future, first, and then upgrade the glass as and when the money becomes available.

 

[Loswr]

I recommend a bit of caution when interpreting static test scenes like those from IR. They keep lighting and aperture constant, while varying shutter speed and ISO. In low light with longer shutter speeds, the relative impact of noise sources is different so the results may be slightly more applicable to fast action in decent light than to true low light.

In what scenario do you think this would matter, other then astro landscapes? (FF hands down for that.) Asking because I've never noticed a difference (past gen) until the shots got into several seconds.

I did some testing with my 5DII where I varied ISO and light levels (constant 1/60 s and f/5.6) vs. varying ISO and shutter speed (same lighting, f/8, 'reasonable' shutter speeds of 1/30 s to 1/8000 s, they weren't long exposures). The latter is what most testing sites do. I found that when varying light levels instead of shutter speed, noise at higher ISO was more evident and there was more noticeable color desaturation in the red channel, and to a lesser extent the green channel. The differences were easily seen in testing, but I'm not sure of the impact on everyday shooting.

Also, ISO noise isn't everything...

I didn't see any differences...after post...between the old 5D2 and 7D at lower ISOs. I don't expect any between the 5D3 and 7D2. Open to evidence I'm wrong. Again, this is after post. (SOOC FF is sharper and often has more local contrast.)

One thing to consider is that the 'crop factor' also applies to DoF for the same framing. To get the DoF of an f/2.8 lens on FF, you need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C. To get the DoF of an f/1.4 lens on FF, you need an f/0.9 lens on APS-C.

Good point.

That was contiguous...ISO noise isn't everything, even if that's the same at low ISO (not personally convinced of that yet), there are other considerations when comparing FF and APS-C, DoF being a significant one for some use cases.

 

[vulie504]

Yea the 7D ii is tempting, especially at that price. I'm toying with the idea of possibly using a 7D ii as a backup camera to the 5th iii. One great thing is that the physical layout is basically the same between the 2 cameras.

 

[LesC]

Had to start this as I didn't want to hijack LesC's post about the 6D and 7DII.

Hi Alistair, wouldn't have minded you 'hijacking' my post as we seem to have pretty much the same quandary

I think if money's not too much of a concern (or you can at least get away with it without the 'financial controller' noticing), then the 5D MKIII would be my choice too although the AF for video, if that's important may be better on the 7D MKIII. My other concern would be that with the 5D MKIII, you'd want good L series glass to go with it, so what you've currently got or intend to spend on glass may come in to it too?