making a case for that crop body camera

[Plamen]

Most of the time, it puts less

Oh really...take a picture of a ruler with the same lens on each camera then crop out a 1" segment of the ruler...you will have more pixels with the crop camera.

Most of the time, you do not use the same lens (same FL) to shoot the same object.

 

[FatDaddyJones]

Yes, I realize the FF equivalency. This is getting off topic from the OP's original post, but I've read numerous times online that the 17-55 is sharper. I don't have a 24-105 to compare it to. However, I've never been disappointed with the performance of the 17-55. Coupled with the extra reach (my 70-300 for instance becomes a 112-480mm and faster frame rate... and no, I can't afford the 1DX's 14fps) it was enough to convince me to keep my 7D as a second camera. I now shoot with both, and they make a great combo. The similar interface and body style makes switching between the two a seamless experience.

Bottom line is that if you can't take a good picture with a crop camera, then you can't take a good picture with a full frame camera either. As far as equipment goes, they're both excellent.

 

[Plamen]

Crop body = 1.6x extra reach. Talking about the 7D, you also get 8fps. That's just awesome. After buying the 5D Mark III, I was planning on selling my 7D and EF-S lenses, but I decided against it. Other than the first two reasons listed, the main reason I couldn't part with it was my EF-S 17-55. I love that lens so much that I had to keep a body to use it with.

The 17-55 is a great lens, indeed, I used for several years. But ... the 24-105 on FF is even better, and not much different in weight and price.

 

[Plamen]

Yes, I realize the FF equivalency. This is getting off topic from the OP's original post, but I've read numerous times online that the 17-55 is sharper. I don't have a 24-105 to compare it to.

I do. The 17-55 is sharper on the same crop body. What is even more amazing that it compares well to the 24-105 even at f/2.8 (and the 24-105 at f/4).

But the 17-55 on crop is softer than the 24-105 on FF. Not a huge difference, but it is easy to see. I have one comparison on my site, and of course, there is also TDP, PZ, etc.

 

[Loswr]

Yes, I realize the FF equivalency. This is getting off topic from the OP's original post, but I've read numerous times online that the 17-55 is sharper. I don't have a 24-105 to compare it to.

I do. The 17-55 is sharper on the same crop body. What is even more amazing that it compares well to the 24-105 even at f/2.8 (and the 24-105 at f/4).

But the 17-55 on crop is softer than the 24-105 on FF. Not a huge difference, but it is easy to see. I have one comparison on my site, and of course, there is also TDP, PZ, etc.

I also had both, and Plamen is absolutely correct. That's why I sold my 17-55.

 

[FatDaddyJones]

Neuro, what do you use as a standard zoom on your 7D? Or do you use a standard zoom on the 7D now?

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, what do you use as a standard zoom on your 7D? Or do you use a standard zoom on the 7D now?

I would probably use the 16-35 II...if I needed a standard zoom for the 7D. But since I don't use the 7D at all anymore, it's a moot point.

 

[pdirestajr]

Even if I had a 5DIII & a 1DX, I'd take the 7D to work because I can fire Speedlites off camera without any other equipment. I also don't need to even use a tripod cause the built-in viewfinder level features allows me to frame my shots easily. It's a simple and quick setup with minimal gear.

I'm shooting toys that are then masked out from the background and dropped onto packaging, sell-sheets, instruction manuals, web sites, etc. In this case, I really don't think the sensor size matters at all. If anything, the smaller sensor probably helps me with a little more DOF.

This camera is the right too for my job.

 

[Plamen]

If anything, the smaller sensor probably helps me with a little more DOF.

Smaller sensors do not have more DOF. You get the same DOF with equivalent settings; and if you push it too far, you get a very soft image due to diffraction anyway.

Not that I disagree that the 7D can be better for what you are doing.

 

[pdirestajr]

If anything, the smaller sensor probably helps me with a little more DOF.

Smaller sensors do not have more DOF. You get the same DOF with equivalent settings; and if you push it too far, you get a very soft image due to diffraction anyway.

Not that I disagree that the 7D can be better for what you are doing.

I haven't done a test, but wouldn't I have a shallower DOF if I used my 5DII with my 100mm macro with the same framing- ie: I'd have to be significantly closer with the 5D?

I always thought focus distance was part of the factor in DOF. Again, I'm not a lab tester of this stuff, I was only assuming another benefit to the amazing APS-C sensor

 

[RMC33]

I see a lot of people complain about the AF on the 7d for subject in motion. Is it erratic un-predticable or just motion in general?

I do a lot of skiing/snowboarding work with my 7D and 5d3 and have no issue on the AF with either through a 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 mk II. Most of the motion I am capturing is smooth and fluid which lends to the ease of capture. I assume that the complaints come from BIF or such?

 

[Loswr]

I haven't done a test, but wouldn't I have a shallower DOF if I used my 5DII with my 100mm macro with the same framing- ie: I'd have to be significantly closer with the 5D?

Yes, at the same f/stop, the DoF would be shallower with FF. But when you consider diffraction (you can stop down the lens more on the FF sensor before diffraction costs you sharpness), there's no 'APS-C gives deeper DoF' benefit. Both formats can achieve the same deepest DoF for a given amount of diffraction, but the FF can achieve shallower DoF if desired. Just another benefit to the amazing FF sensor.

 

[pdirestajr]

I'm just joking mostly. FF images are beautiful. I would have purchased the 5DIII over the 7D if that was the offering I had at the time. I just wish it had a pop up flash then!

I might have to write an open letter to Canon threatening to switch to Nikon! That will surely do it.

 

[moreorless]

If you need a larger image in a landscape scenario...photomerge is a no-brainer, just use a longer lens.

I see this arguement alot but honiest to me the majority of merged pics look like exactly that, merged pics with fairly uninteresting composition.

 

[Plamen]

If anything, the smaller sensor probably helps me with a little more DOF.

Smaller sensors do not have more DOF. You get the same DOF with equivalent settings; and if you push it too far, you get a very soft image due to diffraction anyway.

Not that I disagree that the 7D can be better for what you are doing.

I haven't done a test, but wouldn't I have a shallower DOF if I used my 5DII with my 100mm macro with the same framing- ie: I'd have to be significantly closer with the 5D?

I always thought focus distance was part of the factor in DOF. Again, I'm not a lab tester of this stuff, I was only assuming another benefit to the amazing APS-C sensor

My remark did not include changing distance. After all, you could use the EF-S 60 macro, which is excellent.

 

[AlanF]

The 7D came out in 2009. It is still a remarkably good camera. The fair comparison with FF as far as crop sensors go would be a 7D II vs 1D X or 5D III as they have 3 year newer technology in focussing and sensor. A 7D II with the focussing of the 1D X/5D III and an improved sensor would be an incredible beast.

 

[comsense]

I haven't done a test, but wouldn't I have a shallower DOF if I used my 5DII with my 100mm macro with the same framing- ie: I'd have to be significantly closer with the 5D?

Yes, at the same f/stop, the DoF would be shallower with FF. But when you consider diffraction (you can stop down the lens more on the FF sensor before diffraction costs you sharpness), there's no 'APS-C gives deeper DoF' benefit. Both formats can achieve the same deepest DoF for a given amount of diffraction, but the FF can achieve shallower DoF if desired. Just another benefit to the amazing FF sensor.

+1 In addition, for the same DoF, infinity background blur (dependent on physical size of entrance pupil in an imaging setup) would be more with FF format as it allows larger entrance pupil. Could be little to significant depending on other parameter. In simple words, it can provide better subject isolation with right setup and object distance.