Own 5D mk III and 7D, replace 7D by Mk II for sports? Dilemma....

[entropy69]

I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D but kept it as backup camera. I shoot various subjects, also a lot of sports using the 70-200 2.8 II, Sigma 120-300 2.8 sports and 1.4III converter.
The 5D mk III is really awesome but every now and then I do miss the extra reach. Extra mm for full frame are really expensive and above budget.... Would it make sense to replace the 7D for the Mk II and start using the 7D mk II for sports only? Or would I be disappointed since detail and low light performance of the 5D mk III are better than then 7D mk II anyway?

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Reasons to consider upgrading the 7D: better reach and maybe AF speed (how does it compare to the 5D III anyway??). fps, although dramatically improved in the Mk II is not my main concern. Any thoughts appreciated.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I think you answered your own question

"I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D but kept it as backup camera. "

"The 5D mk III is really awesome but every now and then I do miss the extra reach." But not missing it enough to dust off your 7D, right?

Unless you have money to burn, I would keep shooting with the 5D3 and continue keeping the 7D as a backup you don't touch. Why buy another camera, if it is likely it will be another back up camera sitting on a shelf?

Is there really something you can't get with the 5D3 that you could only get with the 7D2.. that you could not get with the 7D you already paid for?

But this opinion is coming from an old photographer who is cheap and does not suffer from G.A.S. ;D

 

[tayassu]

Hey entropy69!
You say you miss the reach sometimes and you say you never use your 7D; so why don't get a body that has got that reach and that you actually use?
I would say go for the MKII! After all I read (in this forum, in Arthur Morris' blog etc.) the 7DII will blow your mind! I read from different photographers that the AF is better than the one in the 1DX, which is considered the best in the world, and Arthur Morris even says that the resolution and noise on the 7DII is better than on the 5DIII! 10 vs. 6 fps also make a truckload of a difference...
Go for the 7DII!

 

[Loswr]

The 7DII seems to be an excellent camera, but it's main advantage over the 5DIII is lower cost, and since you already have the 5DIII.....

I suspect you'd use the 7DII for a while, then the novelty would wear off.

...Arthur Morris even says that the resolution and noise on the 7DII is better than on the 5DIII!

I sincerely doubt he meant that as a generally applicable statement. If he did, he's an idiot (and he's not). But...he's a salesman as much as a photographer, and buying a 7DII from his links means money in his pocket, so pushing the newest camera is enlightened self-interest on his part.

 

[Dylan777]

You going to miss those high ISO shots from 5D III - faster shutter and higher ISO are your friends in shooting sports.

 

[Dylan777]

Hey entropy69!
You say you miss the reach sometimes and you say you never use your 7D; so why don't get a body that has got that reach and that you actually use?
I would say go for the MKII! After all I read (in this forum, in Arthur Morris' blog etc.) the 7DII will blow your mind! I read from different photographers that the AF is better than the one in the 1DX, which is considered the best in the world, and Arthur Morris even says that the resolution and noise on the 7DII is better than on the 5DIII! 10 vs. 6 fps also make a truckload of a difference...
Go for the 7DII!

I'll save my comments on this until hand-on 7D II. But if I have to choose between the two, there is no doubt I'll pick 1DX over 7D II.

However, I do believe 7D II is loaded with great stuff in Canon crop line.

 

[tayassu]

@Neuro and Dylan:
I'm sure the 1DX performs better in the field overall... These mentions were only to illustrate the possible awesomeness of the 7DII.

 

[Crapking]

I have both 1Dx and 5d III (and had 7d till I upgraded to 7d II yesterday
Had the afternoon off so spent an hour with manual, adjusting custom controls, etc.,
Shot a high school volleyball match last PM after using to photo a few deer at twilight from my deer blind.
The pro's / con's between 5d III and 7d II will be debated / rehashed here for awhile I am sure.
From the pure practical aspect of shooting, I enjoyed the familiar Canon build, ergonomics, customizability, and wrt to the 7d II vs the 5d III, the increase in FPS was appreciated. The AF functioning (capture rate) was really no better, though the few extra AF points did make positioning the points more convenient/easier.
What I did notice from shooting within my darkened deer blind, and shooting out to an apple orchard with the 200-400, was that there was some 'focus hunting' with both bodies UNTIL I placed camera / lens out the peephole completely. The AF IR sensor was very insensitive without a direct line of sight. May seem obvious,maybe it is only with a long super telephoto, but it bummed me out that my lens had to be almost sticking out to grab focus.
Anyways, on topic for the OP, the FPS / extra reach are definite value - adds, but offset by need for higher ISO, and (subjectively) a sl drop in resolution/crispness and I'm still not sure about color rendering after only 1 shoot . I usually set custom WB, but did not yesterday
I am hoping once I AFMA my gear, and ACR is available for the RAW files, the crispness will improve, and I can set custom color profile from within LR. Too busy to set one up directly via DNG from within Color passport last PM.
I am shooting an all day tournament tomorrow so will post head - head comparisons of all 4 of my bodies next week. The hassle of DPP batch processing will delay my posting the 7d files a little as I am on a paper deadline, so will be concentrating on the 1dx files first, but as time allows I will add them to my canonrumors website (www.navb.phanfare.com/canonrumors) for your viewing pleasure

 

[Maui5150]

I am really not sure what the dilema is.

1) Your 7D is collecting dust
2) While the 5d MK III has better low light, it is not a sports camera and its AF is not as good as the 1Dx or the

The combo gives you more tool. If you are pushing low light, you may want to use the 5d MK III but you may find the trade off of AF to noise is worth the 7d MK II - only you will be able to decide which fits better.

In decent light, you may find yourself choosing the 7D MK II because of its performance

You may want some reach. Never hurts.

What do you think of the 120 - 300? I have been on the fence on this lens.

Seriously. I think the swap is a no-brainer. You still may prefer the 5D MK III to the 7D MK II but will you really use the 7D as a backup, and if you had to use it, would you really be happier if you had the MK II.

The swap is probably a net outlay of $1000 - $1100 which is not too bad for the AF and improved low light.

 

[slclick]

The 7DII seems to be an excellent camera, but it's main advantage over the 5DIII is lower cost, and since you already have the 5DIII.....

I suspect you'd use the 7DII for a while, then the novelty would wear off.

...Arthur Morris even says that the resolution and noise on the 7DII is better than on the 5DIII!

I did the in hindsight silly thing here as well. I bought a 60D after getting my 5D3 in order to have that 'reach'. Well the 5D3 crops are far better in noise, color and contrast than the crop originals by far. True, a 1.4 1D series crop would have been wiser.

It'a all about the glass (when you have a great body already)
I sincerely doubt he meant that as a generally applicable statement. If he did, he's an idiot (and he's not). But...he's a salesman as much as a photographer, and buying a 7DII from his links means money in his pocket, so pushing the newest camera is enlightened self-interest on his part.

 

[RichM]

The 7DII seems to be an excellent camera, but it's main advantage over the 5DIII is lower cost, and since you already have the 5DIII.....

I suspect you'd use the 7DII for a while, then the novelty would wear off.

I'm upgrading my 7d->7d2. I like having both a FF and Crop body, but still use my 7d more for well lit / daytime sports shooting. Given my current lens inventory, the reach is really appreciated, and despite much tweeking with the focus options on the 5d3, I seem to have at least equal or better focus success with the 7d in these situations. I'm really looking forward to improved AF and higher ISO performance as hockey season is starting in earnest.

I have toyed with the idea of selling both the 7d and 5d3 and just getting a 1dx. My experiences using the 1dx have me wanting. But I really like having 2 bodies while shooting sports to catch different perspectives.

 

[TexPhoto]

I have a 5D3 and a 7D, and can't imagine why you are not still shooting the 7D at times. The 5D3 certainly has low light advantages, but in the day, the 7D is still a very capable camera.

I had a 5D2 and 7D as a combo a few years and the 7D was the obvious choice for sports and kids, wile the 5D2 was great for landscape portrait, etc. When i moved to the 5D3, I then felt like I had 2 good sports cameras, but the 7D was my #1 in daylight.

So yes, get a 7D2, and sell that poor neglected 7D to someone who will use it.

Here look at this terrible 7D Photo….

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You going to miss those high ISO shots from 5D III - faster shutter and higher ISO are your friends in shooting sports.

Unless it is a day game or all of the shots end up so distance limited that you crop in really far.

Of course the 7D AF often performs much worse for sports than the 5D3 AF (for me the 7D AF does at least as well for surfing and very small birds up in branches of trees or birds only slightly moving around the ground, otherwise it does, often, much worse for soccer and football), the 7D2 should fix that.

 

[Bob Howland]

I have a 5D3 and a 7D, and can't imagine why you are not still shooting the 7D at times. The 5D3 certainly has low light advantages, but in the day, the 7D is still a very capable camera.

+1

 

[docsmith]

I have a 5D3 and a 7D, and can't imagine why you are not still shooting the 7D at times. The 5D3 certainly has low light advantages, but in the day, the 7D is still a very capable camera.

+1

I am a bit like the OP. I have both the 7D and 5DIII. But since I bought the 5DIII, after a series of tests, the 7D has collected dust. I really do need to sell it. This isn't meant to disparage the 7D, it really is a remarkable camera and served me well for almost 3 years. But, I get why the 7D sits on a shelf when you own both. If you are not reach limited, I would rather have the 5DIII, and, at least from what I concluded, usually even when you are reach limited, I preferred the images from the 5DIII. Even though the 7D is a great camera, I like the images off the 5DIII better. You lose 1 fps. That really can't be too much of a factor.

Anyway, I am interested in what those that own both the 7DII and 5DIII end up doing. I am considering the 7DII as a way to get that extra reach, hoping that the IQ/noise control/etc is now good enough that I no longer prefer the 5DIII images even when reach limited. So far, I have been very pleased with what I've seen from the 7DII.

Back to the OP, I, personally, haven't seen enough to have an opinion, but I am glad you started the thread. I think a number of us upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII. Some may consider going back to the 7DII or supplementing your kit with the 7DII. It is a good question. But I wouldn't expect the answer to be black and white. This is going to be about marginal differences and preferences. Right now I am trying to not get caught up in the wave and to wait for some good reviews (TDP, DXO measurements---not sensor score, sensogen, etc). I am very happy with my 5DIII and only have issues with bird photography, which is only a small part of what I shoot.

 

[dak723]

Before buying anything new, why don't you take your 7D to a game and see if the extra reach is worth it? Reach wise - you should get an idea if you would rather shoot with a 7D (or 7D II) or the 5D III for sports. If the extra reach isn't worth it, then you have no dilemma, just keep shooting with the 5D III and pass on the 7D II.

 

[slclick]

Ok, if the noise on a 7D is atrocious/unusable/too much/etc etc over 6400, what's the new acceptable limit on the Mk2?
Because the 5D3 is good to go up to 12800 and even 25k in some situations.

 

[Khufu]

Have you considered a 70D?...
I personally shoot with one alongside a 5D3 for the pixel density/reach factor. I appreciate not having the weight of 2x mag-alloy bodies and also the few extra bells and whistles: Flippy-screen, WiFi, 3x Video Crop, DPAF if ever needed.
It's a step up in resolution and ISO capabilities from the 18mp generation (60D, 7D - apparently the best sensors were in the SL1 & M2?) But Canon are claiming the 7D2 will again improve on this.
I love the simple/advanced AF system on the 70D, has been great for Birds in Flight with the 400mm f/5.6L though I do wish it had the smaller AF points like the 5D3 and believe the 7D had.

At the end of the day I think the 70D could seriously be worth considering by yourself and lots of other folk currently considering the 7D2 - it's a bit of a sideways step, a little in front of and a little behind both 7D models in different respects

 

[chasn]

Same boat as OP . Choice for me is the new ( !) 100-400 L or a Tammy or a Siggy or a 7DII. I have a 70-300L which is great. 480 in terms of reach ( and a bit of cropping now and then ) would probably be enough but I never seem to want to carry two bodies now and I'm not sure a Mark II would change that. Not helped by the fact I like the 70-300 a lot and won't sell it and while I did like the 7D before I got the 5D III the 7D is now not worth much second hand. So perhaps the answer is 100-400 L (hopefully ) plus perhaps a 1.4 TC and save the 7D for those days when you need lots of fps or looooong reach. But lot of speculation involved in my next Xmas present I recognise.....

 

[Khufu]

Same boat as OP . Choice for me is the new ( !) 100-400 L or a Tammy or a Siggy or a 7DII. I have a 70-300L which is great. 480 in terms of reach ( and a bit of cropping now and then ) would probably be enough but I never seem to want to carry two bodies now and I'm not sure a Mark II would change that. Not helped by the fact I like the 70-300 a lot and won't sell it and while I did like the 7D before I got the 5D III the 7D is now not worth much second hand. So perhaps the answer is 100-400 L (hopefully ) plus perhaps a 1.4 TC and save the 7D for those days when you need lots of fps or looooong reach. But lot of speculation involved in my next Xmas present I recognise.....

EDIT: Ah, sorry... you're looking at (lolz, in that hypothetical way we look at unicorns) the NEW (!!) 100-400mm? My bad. That may very well be worth aaall the pennies in... Narnia! Seriously though, I should be looking at that myself
For right-this-minute though BOTH a 70D and decent, used 400mm f/5.6L could possibly be had for the price of a 7D2... that's, er, good!

(My) OP: If you're wanting it for super-tele-reach and would prefer better corner to corner sharpness with a lighter and more compact build I really recommend checking out the 400mm f/5.6L prime over the zoom... I love this thing, never feel I'd have been better off getting the heavier, softer zoom