Canon 5d Mark II vs Canon 7D
Which is right for you, the Canon 7D or the 5D MarkII?

Canon EOS 7D vs. 5D MarkII : Who should buy the 7D?

The Differences That Matter

The first difference worth mentioning, of course, is the price tag…. about $900 difference, if the current prices listed are any indication (7D at about $1599 at Amazon and the 5D Mark II at about $1,199.95). Since we’re looking at a couple of cameras that have the build quality for professional use, with magnesium alloy bodies, full HD video capabilities, top notch processors, and some of the most advanced CMOS sensors around, we can expect professional quality results from either camera. In fact, comparing the columns of features for the two cameras reveals that the vast majority of them are identical.  Something must justify the price difference, though.

Most obviously is the CMOS sensor difference, the 5Dii being a 21M pixel, full frame sensor, and the 7D being an APS-C size holding about 18Megapixels. The 7D has dual Digic4 processors, whereas the 5Dii has only one. Probably as a result of this, the new arrival boasts burst speeds about twice as fast as the 5D. There are many other minor differences (and perhaps a few significant ones), but I think that these are the most important to consider up front.

Pixels and Sensor Size

The practical difference between 18 and 21 Megapixels in terms of raw size is minimal.
Matthew Gore | Light And Matter The practical difference between 18 and 21 Megapixels in terms of raw size is minimal.

If all other things were equal, the pixel count between the 7D and 5D Mark II would not be a significant factor in choosing one camera over the other. I’ve illustrated the file size difference (left) with images scaled to the dimensions of each camera’s output, but just by looking at the numbers we can get a pretty good idea of how things would stand. The difference is about an inch in on each axis… not a big deal.

But of course, it’s not quite that simple. Since the 7D’s sensor is considerably smaller than that of the 5D, its receptors are also smaller and more densely packed. Traditionally, dense receptors have produced more digital noise than their larger counterparts, especially during long exposures which generate more heat. Canon has done a good job of controlling digital noise with their efficient sensors and processing in the past, and although the 7D produces relatively little digital noise, it still falls a bit short of the performance of the 5D Mark II, which has been so highly praised for its ability to produce low noise images in nearly any lighting situation. A variety of ISO comparisons are available across the internet, including mine, here, if you’d like to see how subtle the difference is.

Much more importantly, though, is how the sensor size effects resolution. Many photographers have already noted that the receptor density of the Canon 50D has already matched (in resolution) what we used to achieve with slow 35mm film. Indeed, on the 50D, the sensor density is roughly 213 pixels per millimeter, a density that would produce a 39 megapixel image on full frame sensor such as the 5D series. The 7D takes this development even further, with around 233 pixels per millimeter, at which resolution a full frame sensor would produce a 46.7 megapixel image.

Why do these numbers  matter? Because at this resolution, the image quality is frequently limited by  the lens rather than the sensor.  Even at the 15 megapixels of the Canon 50D (and certainly at the 18 megapixels of the 7D) the sensor will usually have the resolution to capture all of the detail that the lens can resolve, including the flaws in the lens performance such as chromatic aberration, corner softness, diffraction, and any manufacturing flaws; adding additional megapixels will only serve to increase file size, not detail. The same thing can be achieved with good up-sampling software, such as onOne’s Genuine Fractals.  Furthermore, since the sensor is smaller than a full frame dSLR’s, the image will have to be enlarged proportionately more to achieve the same size print… which will also enlarge the flaws from the lens. An excellent article about this effect in the Canon 50D with photographic examples can be found on the Luminous Landscape.

In order to reap any benefit from the increased resolution of the 7D’s sensor, photographers will need to use the best lenses and their best technique. Some of Canon’s “L” lenses and a few lenses from the Pro lines of other manufacturers (such as Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron) will produce quality results, but even those lenses will need to be used properly. The photographer will need to determine the optimum aperture for each lens (at which it produces the highest resolution across the full frame) before being limited by diffraction by the aperture leaves. Furthermore, tripods and remote (or timed) release will be crucial.

Another important difference due to sensor size is the depth-of-field (DOF). In general terms, the larger the sensor or film, the shallower the depth of field. The difference in DOF between a Canon APS-C sensor and a full-frame is slightly more than 1 f-stop (ie; if a 5D Mark II is using a 200mm lens and a 7D is using a 125mm to get an equivalent field of view, the 7D has to shoot at f/1.8 to get DOF as shallow as the 5D has at f/2.8). Depending what you shoot, having greater depth of field can either be a drawback or a benefit: it can be great for photographers who want as much in focus as possible, a nuisance for photographers wishing to separate their subject from a blurry background.

Who Should Buy the Canon 7D, then?

From the previous section, you might be under the impression that I would not recommend the 7D, but that’s not the case. The issue depends entirely on the photographer’s shooting style. The speed of the 7D, coupled with its new AF system and large, bright viewfinder, make it an excellent choice for sports photographers and other journalists for whom the increased (1.6x) magnification are a benefit. Wedding photojournalists may be included in this group. These photographers, who regularly hand-hold their shots and reproduce them in forums that do not necessitate the highest resolution, are not effected by the lens resolution limits.

Art and Landscape photographers, on the other hand, may benefit from the better overall resolution of the 5D Mark II. Since these photographers typically shoot for the highest resolution, with heavy tripods and excellent technique, they will notice the better image quality from the 5D, but also will get the most out of a 7D if they happen to use one.

The 7D is the best choice if you… The 5D Mark II is the best choice if you…
shoot lots of action: sports, journalism, events. shoot landscapes, macros, or fine detail work.
don’t mind getting extra depth of field. prefer shallower depth of field and traditional perspective.
frequently shoot telephoto. use full frame, wide angle lenses.
usually shoot hand-held shots. usually use a tripod or studio strobes.
expect to buy the best quality lenses and use them at their optimal settings to get the most from you sensor. use a wide range of full frame lenses.
believe that speed, responsiveness, and good resolution are most important to you. believe that excellent resolution/best image quality and good speed are most important to you.

Video Features

The 5D Mark II is ultimately better for video if you’re willing to put some work into it, by doing things like using firmware side-cars (eg, Magic Lantern), upgrading to the most recent Canon firmware, and using some less than user-friendly video controls along with film industry hardware add-ons.

The 7D is better for the casual video user due to its ease-of-use. It has a dedicated video record button, for example, and the same resolutions and frame rates as the 5D Mk II.

If you’re interested in the video capabilities of the 5D Mark II and the 7D (and Rebel T2i), please follow this link to my related article on the subject: Video Features of the Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Canon EOS 7D.

Please Comment! I’m always interested to hear whether my readers find the articles interesting, useless, or otherwise… and more importantly, I’d like to hear your opinions and additional information, even if it’s just  a tidbit. THANKS!

Editor-in-Chief
  1. Nice review but in my opinion you completely missed one of the most important advantages of having a full frame camera – shallower depth of field. I know a lot of photographers care primarily about technical image quality, but I think there’s a lot of photojournalists such as myself that care more about isolating their subjects than they do how much chromatic aberration there is or how sharp the corners are. There’s just something magical about the look of a 35 1.4 shot wide open on a full frame camera and you can’t achieve that with a cropped sensor. Personally I jumped ship and got a D3 when the 5DII was announced because of AF performance, but I still have my Canon equipment for backup. Even with L lenses the photos look like crap to me compared to the D3. You might think it’s an unfair comparison cause the D3 is a newer camera, but I recently got a used 5D (mark I) for personal use and the images have that great full frame look to them. To me, the question is not whether to buy a 7D or 5DII, but rather 5DI, 5DII, 1DS, or D3/D700. I think you had a lot of good points in your review but I’m just surprised you didn’t even mention this critical aspect of full frame vs cropped sensors or list it in the full frame advantages column!

    1. Hi Craig,

      Thanks. Looking at this article now, there are actually a couple of things that I’d like to have spent time on. This was the first article of this type that I wrote on this site/blog (back in 2009), and I suppose I wasn’t convinced that anyone would ever actually read it :)

      The topic of DOF is actually more complicated than a lot of people realize, and yes, it should have been covered here. For some people, greater apparent depth of field is an advantage, for others a drawback. Maybe I’ll edit the article now…

      – Matthew

  2. Thanks for some great, balanced information, Matthew. Reading through everything has convinced me to go 7D rather than really splashing out with the 5DII. Saving the extra bucks and getting a more modern camera feels great too!

  3. Hi Matthew –
    I just wanted to say thank you for the great article. The additional commenting has helped as well. I have been on the fence for several months regarding which camera I should use and this review has been a great starting point for my final decision. I was lucky to stumble on your blog. Thanks again and keep up the good work!

    Matthew Wehrly

  4. Thanks for the insightful article. I am currently a part-time, (mostly natural light) portrait photographer. Started a couple of years ago on the side and am now ready to take things to the next level. I’ve been shooting with the Canon Rebel XSi. I have a 50mm 1.4 lens as well as the kit lens that came with my Rebel. I also have the 580EX speedlite and Gary Fong cloud diffuser.
    I’m looking to upgrade my camera because the Rebel just isn’t really a “professional” grade camera and I’m wanting to get sharp pictures in low light situations. I do get orders for 20x30s or bigger occasionally.
    I’m looking at either the 7D or the 5DMkii. Which do you think is going to be best? I shoot mostly outdoors – families, kids, etc. but I do the occasional indoor newborn session with natural light and may eventually do an in-home studio setup.
    Also, if I were to add a lens to my collection, which lens would you recommend? I’m wondering if having a wider lens with larger aperature or a nice zoom lens would help when I’m photographing large families or busy children and don’t always have the time or space to move back far enough. My budget is $2,500 to $3,000.
    Would appreciate your thoughts on this!
    Thank you,
    Lori

    1. Hi Lori,

      The 5D Mark II is really pretty perfect for the type of work you do, especially if low-light is an on-going issue. (Incidentally, the Gary Fong Cloud is a great modifier for use indoors, but outside it’s not very effective in comparison; you’d have more luck with a more directional or a larger modifier, like a Lumiquest box or an umbrella). The 5D is still going to provide the highest resolution and best enlargements and lowest noise, and although the 7D has a better auto-focus system for action photography, the 5D will be at least as good as your XSi, and the faster frame rates of the 7D will probably not be a major concern either.

      That said, the difference in image quality between the 5D Mark II and the 18 megapixel sensors of the current Canon line is not very dramatic, so you’ll have to decide whether that extra $1000-1500 is worth it to you. My general advice is always to buy the best set of lenses possible and the cheapest camera that will meet your needs, since the lenses will last so much longer than a body will (and a body is only as good as the lens in front of it), and having a good range of lenses will ultimately improve your creativity and therefore, photography more than a slightly higher resolution sensor (and an extra couple of stops of ISO). If you had told me that you already have a great collection of lenses, I’d probably have just pointed you towards the 5D, but as is, I think you I’d lean in the other direction… in fact, I might skip over the 7D down to the 60D, which will give you an extra $5-600 towards lenses.

      I’ve put some of my favorite lenses in the “Lens Recommendation” section of this site (see tab at top of page), which might be helpful to browse through. If you’re feeling pretty settled on the 5D, I’d probably recommend a traditional portrait lens, like the 85mm f1.8, which will take the place of your 50mm with a full frame sensor, or perhaps the 100mm f2.8 macro…. or, depending on your shooting sytle, perhaps a 35 or 24mm. It would be a very hard choice to narrow down to a single lens or two with a $500 lens budget, though, which is of course why I suggest the less expensive camera :)

      Hope that didn’t just add more confusion to the issue :)

      – Matthew

      1. Matthew,
        Thanks for your thoughts.
        I’m really torn. Not sure I want the 60D. I think I’d rather add to my budget. Can you explain the advantage of a full-frame sensor on the 5D? What I want more than anything is buttery backgrounds and sharp focal points on my subject. This all in natural light settings, very much including low light situations.
        A lot of my photography friends and people on forums rave about the 50mm 1.4 as their favorite and primary portrait lens. What would the 85mm 1.8 have as an advantage? Would I need to back up even more? (I’m not sure how to consider this with a full-frame sensor as opposed to the one I currently am working with). Would the 50mm 1.4 not work well with the 5D?
        I’ve seen you recommend some other lenses like the 15-85mm – if I kept my 50mm 1.4, would this be a good add on lens? I know it is pricey – but I may have to up my budget to get what I really want. I do seem to do a lot of family portraiture but find it hard to get that buttery background AND still have all faces in focus…maybe that is why I need to reconsider my lens choices.
        As you can see I’m still a bit clueless about the techie side of photography – I’m self-taught, coming much more from the artist to photographer side of the matter. However, I do have paying clients and need to ramp things up!
        Thanks again for your help,
        -Lori

        1. Lori,

          The 50mm that you have with your current camera would equate to a 5D Mk II and the 85mm that Matt mentioned. I have both the 7D and the 5D and I must agree with Matt that you won’t sacrifice image quality with either and that the lens is the determining factor.

          I have the 85mm f/1.2L Mk II. I use this a lot with the 5D. I have used it with the 7D as well with very good results. I also shoot in low light situations which is why I use the 5D most often. You can still use your 50mm with the 5D, but the 85mm will give you a better bokeh because of compression. Which is why the 85mm lens is given the status of “portrait lens”. You should get the similar, if not the same, results with the 85mm f/1.8 that Matt mentioned. It’s also A LOT cheaper than the f/1.2!

          Here’s an example of the 5D Mk II and the 85mm f/1.2L Mk II

          http://artistrendition.com/ssp_director/albums/album-6/lg/Alfre.jpg

          1. Thanks. I’m also having someone recommend the Nikon D700. They just switched from the Canon 5D Mark ii to Nikon. Of course that would mean switching everything out but I guess I could sell anything I couldn’t use.

            Not to completely change the subject but what are your thoughts on Nikon?

            1. I haven’t played with Nikons, but I hear that the D700 is a nice camera. I’d probably compare it to the original 5D instead of the Mk II, though, but don’t quote me on that. The only thing I’ve been told (which somebody here correct me if I’m wrong) is that Canon lenses are more rugged than Nikkor lenses. I can’t validate that statement, though.

              Regards,

              Alfred

        2. There are a couple of differences between a cropped and full frame sensor; whether they’re advantages depends on your perspective. As I mentioned in the article above, the full fame sensor has fewer pixels per millimeter, which allows for less noise, and since the sensor is physically larger, the small flaws in the image produces by the lens are less significant when enlarged. Technically, the larger the sensor, the shallower the apparent depth of field (when the subject is framed the same way), but in this case, the sensors are close enough in size that the difference is minimal.

          Also because of the sensor size difference, the 50mm lens on the 5D is slightly wide-angle lens, but on a cropped sensor (which doesn’t capture it’s full image circle) the 50mm lens is a slight telephoto (equivalent to an 80mm), as Alfred said.

          There are a few things that will help give you a smoother, out-of-focus background: using a large aperure, close-focus (using the near part of your lens’ focusing range), and using telephoto lenses.

          Zoom lenses like the 15-85 have a lot of uses; I’m not a fan of that particular lens, due to the optical quality, but I’m sure you’d find a use for one. However, because they have relatively small maximum apertures, they will not produce the shallow depth of field that it sounds like you’re looking for.

          @alopez : Thanks for your input on this subject once again :)

          – Matthew

          1. Nikon and Canon both make awesome cameras. I personally wouldn’t trade a 5D Mark II for a D700; I’d also be concerned about making large portraits from the D700’s 12 megapixel sensor, but it is exceedingly good in low light, and Nikon has a very sophisticated flash system, in case you decide to go that route someday.

            The Nikon D7000 is also a good option on Nikon; much more comparable to a 7D, it has a 16 megapixel sensor and good high-ISO performance (for a small sensor camera). I’ve written a couple of articles on this site about it, if you feel like taking a look.

  5. Hello. I stumbled upon your site as I researched on which camera to get after my 500D.

    The 7D and 5DMII are on top of my list and I need some, no scratch that, a LOT of help on this decision.

    I’m looking into starting out with an events photography business (mainly engagement, wedding and children’s bday shoots) and was wondering which one was better for these occasions?

    Your input will be much appreciated.

    Chie

    1. Hi Chie,

      I think the quick answer is that either camera would be great for the job, and it takes a good bit of work to get a noticeable difference in image quality. Ultimately, the image quality of the 5D is going to be better because of the larger sensor, but, as I say, the difference is only going to be visible in large prints and only if you used great technique while shooting.

      To get a little more specific, though, I think the choice breaks down like this: the 7D is really a better camera for action, the 5D better for portrait and landscape. The 7D has a much better AF system and, of course, much faster shooting speeds (frames per second), and if you use flash, it has a faster sync speed. The 5D has somewhat better noise handling, and is generally going to appear smoother and sharper (with a little help in post).

      The tricky thing, of course, is that we work in a lot of situations that really cross the borders. Weddings and events sometimes require action shots, and the 7D excels there, especially in low light. For most action in good light, though, the 5D AF system is sufficient. I’ve rarely had trouble with it. Actually, if you have a 500D, then your camera has the same AF system as the 5D Mark II, and the camera will actually have pretty similar performance… the 5D will just have better image quality (especially at high ISO).

      My general advice, though, is this: save some money and buy the 7D now, and spend your money on some higher quality lenses to go along with it (or strobe equipment). That will make a bigger difference in your image quality.

      1. Thank you for your prompt answer. Your advice is quite helpful.

        It gets a little tricky with the choice of lenses, though. If I get a 7D then I can share a lot of lenses between my 500D and 7D, but if I get a 7D now with the thought of maybe getting a 5D later, then I lose all my EF-S lenses when I move to it.

        And, then another q comes into mind. Is the difference between a 7D and 500D so great that it justifies the second body? Or should I use the money on better lenses instead?

        As always, your informed input is much appreciated.

        1. When it comes to lenses, I think that there are two general issues. First, when it comes to EF-S lenses… if you buy professional quality lenses, then they hold their value really well, so if in the future you decide to move exclusively to full frame, they can be sold for a minimal loss, especially considering the use that you’ll get out of them. If your current lenses are high quality, then this already applies. If not… if they’re cheaper lenses, then you should probably start considering replacing them with higher quality lenses anyway.

          Alternately, you can buy primarily EF lenses for use on your APS-C sensor (there will be some gaps, of course). Certainly the 70-200 range is best covered with full frame lenses, and any low-light prime lenses are likely to be EF (85mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, etc)

          Also keep in mind that if you’re shooting professionally, you’re going to need a backup body, regardless of what you shoot… so you may want to keep your current equipment around for that. I don’t know how many times my life (well, job) has been saved by having a backup… but once is enough.

          The 500D (Rebel T1i for my fellow Americans) is a nice camera. When it comes to image quality, I doubt there will be any significant difference between the 7D and 500D based on sensor resolution; the sensor of the 50D and 500D already exceed most lenses. There will be a very significant difference when it comes to AF performance and shooting speed, and there may be some improvement in high ISO performance.The only important question is: what is your current camera NOT doing that you think you’d need it to do? Do keep in mind that the 60D and more expensive cameras can generally control off camera flash, while the 500D will not without special equipment). If there isn’t anything in particular that you’re having problems with in the camera, then yes…. it would be a great idea to just buy better glass instead :)

          – Matthew

  6. To answer Matthews question I would like to say that taking bad pictures is not usually the fault of a camera or lens and I would suggest, and I don’t say this to offend, that you look at your technique with a view to improving that first. These days there is far more control over the image making process than there was 20 or thirty years ago when the negative or slide had to be spot on from the camera, and the need to have a real understanding of the darkroom process was essential to get the best from a negative. Today, much the same applies and a good knowledge of firstly your camera and secondly the processing capabilities of a raw file are as important as owning a particular model or brand of camera. The 7d is a great camera and I have seen cracking shots taken with it. Likewise I have seen some first class images taken with a 40d and even my wife’s Panasonic LX3 point and shoot. Believe me, changing camera and lenses is only part of the trick in getting great images.

      1. I am sure you are correct… Of course me using a 10 year old camera that was low end when I bought it is not helping me either… :D

    1. Hi Matthew,

      You have been very helpful with lens decision making and was hoping you could help me. I am a facial surgery resident and looking mainly for a macro setup for clinical pics, however also want to use the camera for recreation as well (nothing special just pictures of family and some scenery) I am debating between the 7d and 5d but think that the 7D seems more me.

      I am looking at the EF-S 60 mm macro from canon with ringflash for clinical. However I know if I moved up to the 5D I would have to get the EF 100 mm macro 2.8 L. I tried the EF 100 mm, 2.8 L on the 7D since I was told you want to put your money into the lens if anything, however with magnification that the 7D already provides, I would have to stand very far away from patients to get a good shot of the face. Thought on EF-S 60 mm vs EF 100 mm 2.8 L?

      I also want to get a good general purpose lens. I was told that the EF-S 15-85 mm would be a great general purpose for the 7D. What are your thoughts on that lens versus the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM vs the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. My thought was with these two I can upgrade to full frame camera later and use them.

      I’d really like to hear what you think?

      thanks

      1. Hi Mike,

        It sounds as though you’ve had some good advice. Either camera would serve you well. For work, with the use of flash, I’d be surprised if you’d be able to tell the difference in image quality between the two cameras, even at full magnification. The ring flash is nice in that it provides very even light for macro (or general close-up) work, but keep in mind that it also provides very flat light; since the light is omnidirectional, it fills in all of the shadows that show texture and detail. If you’re trying to show more detail, directional flash may be more useful. While I was in graduate school, I took photos for one of my osteology professors, and I found that there’s a very fine balance between using diffuse and directional light to pick up detail and contour, but avoiding losing information in the shadows. Actually, Tim White’s book on the subject (of osteology) is a good guide.

        But that’s not what you asked about :)

        I’d suggest that you go with the 7D and 60mm lens, which will give you incredible detail and resolution, and better autofocus than you’ll get with the 5D Mark II, and at a significantly lower cost. The 60mm provides a good working range for human subjects, and it’s actually a newer lens design with very high quality coatings… so it’s probably a slightly better lens in absolute terms as well (though in practical use, the difference is probably not measurable).

        Unfortunately, the wide to mid-range zooms for Canon EF are a bit of a weakness at the moment. The 24-70 and 24-105 are both good for the 5D, which has lower resolution (pixel pitch) than the 7D, but perform poorly on APS-C sensors. I’m predicting that within the next year, Canon will release a 24-70 f2.8 II (to go along with the amazing 70-200 f2.8 II), perhaps with the release of the successor to the 5DII.

        In any case, you’ll get much better performance from the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 for the 7D, which is a truly excellent lens. If, in the future, you decide to upgrade to a full frame camera, then you’ll find that high quality lenses hold their value quite well, so you’ll most of the price back if you sell them on Ebay/Craigslist/etc. (Coupled with the new 70-200, you’d have an extraordinarily versatile setup with great resolution).

        Good luck, whatever you decide!

        – Matthew

        1. Thank you both for the great and very informative responses. After trying some lens on the 7D today at a store, it seems 100 mm macro is too much and I would have to stand across the OR to get a facial shot– the 60 mm looked great.

          I know they say that the limitation of not having full frame is blowing up the picture to poster size in that you start to see the drawbacks of the smaller sensor– do you find this to be true? Will I have to wait until I go full frame to blow up pictures?

          Lastly, great advice on the general purpose lens, and recommending the 17-55 mm? Is there much of a difference compared to the 15-85. I guess I am asking if its worse the price difference?

          Thanks again,

          Mike

          1. As long as you use proper technique and high quality lenses, you’ll be able to make big enlargements from the 7D; no need to worry about that.

            The issue between the 7D and 5Dii is primarily that, since the image area of the 7D is smaller, it requires higher quality, finer resolution lenses. With low quality lenses, as you enlarge the photo the flaws of the lens become apparent (the flaws still exist with full frame, but they are not as magnified for the same size print).

            With a lens like the 60mm macro, this will not be a significant issue, due to the lens extraordinary optical quality. With zoom lenses, on the other hand, you’ll want to make sure that you use the highest quality lenses possible, which is why I suggest the 17-55 over the 15-85, even though it has a reduced zoom range. Not only does it give you better image quality, it gives you as much as two stops (4x) more light to allow you to take sharp photos in less light, which is also important.

            Of course, whether the lens is worth the extra money depends on what you expect to do with it. If you’re really interested in photography, then I’d say that it is; if it’s going to sit in your closet most of the time, then perhaps not. There will certainly be a visible difference, in either case.

            – Matthew

  7. Hello Matthew.

    First let me say that I am amazed at the amount of effort that you put into your page and your replies. I was totally blown away by the depth of detail in your responses. Newbies like myself sincerely appreciate your efforts.

    On to my newbie question…. I am tired of taking bad pictures and missing once in a lifetime photos because the movement or lighting is bad and I end up with an unprintable pic. I am considering the 7D. I also want to grow as a photographer and I believe this camera will allow me to do that. My photography is all over the place, but mainly I enjoy trying to keep up with my 8 year old twin boys and all their antics. I need a camera that can take great indoor pictures, outdoor pics, photo some scenic vistas and wildlife (as I travel with my work) and which would be a great vacation cam. I feel like a photojournalist sometimes since I am often on the move to keep up with the action. Still composed shots are rare but very welcome. The boys are just always moving… I would love to set up a tripod and take some high quality portraits of them indoors and out. I believe the 7D would be a good fit for what I need. Would you agree?

    I could really use some lens suggestions as well. A “do it all” lens would be fantastic but probably unrealistic…lol. I need a good “shoot from the hip” lens for walking around with them and a good indoor lens for all that happens inside the home and school. Something with some reach would be nice as well for school concerts and baseball games. I came across a 7D “package” that includes the new Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Autofocus Lens and the new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens. What would you think of that one for my needs? Would you think the 24-105 could take care of 90% of my shooting? I would probably like something that could handle indoor lighting without always having to blaze away with the flash. Could you suggest an add on flash and filters too? I photo our labs at times and ended up with a nice lens scratch last year when I was doing a close up of a puppy. The package my be overkill and any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you in advance for your insights and help. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.

    Best regards,

    Jason

    1. Hi Jason,

      First of all, I suspect that the 7D or the even 60D would serve you well. It sounds as though either one would handle your needs nicely, though there’s certainly no harm in buying the more expensive 7D if you’d be happier with it. However, you’re probably going to get the biggest improvement over your previous photographic experience if you buy some good low-light lenses. That doesn’t need to be anything too expensive; even something like a 50mm f1.8 lens (about $100) will give you excellent performance compared to an f4 or f5.6, and makes all the difference when you’re shooting in natural light indoors. A great lens would be the 17-55 f2.8, which will give you a good wide to mid zoom range and lots of light.

      The EF 24-104 really isn’t an idea lens for the 7D; with the sensor size, the wide end of the lens is equivalent to something in the range of 35-40mm, which just isn’t very practical. More importantly, though, is that the lens doesn’t really have the resolution needed for the high resolution sensor of the 7D/60D; it’s much better suited to a full frame sensor with fewer pixels per mm.

      The 100-400mm that you mention would certainly be a lot of fun, and a great lens for wildlife and some sports, but not so much for every-day shooting.
      A much more reasonable lens would be a 70-200 f4 IS USM, which would give you awesome optical quality and cover most of the range that’s most useful, and the IS will help a lot for low light.

      A flash (with gels) would be a great addition, but only if you’re willing to spend the time to learn how to use it off-camera or bounced. As long as you use straight flash, you’re going to get disappointing results. Bounced, off camera, or used as low level fill, they can be extremely helpful.

      And I suppose that brings me back to Keith’s comment above. There is nothing that will make more difference to your photography than learning the technical side of the trade; no matter how good a camera is, it can’t improve your photography if you don’t know how to get the most out of it. That said, there is nothing that motivates a person to learn more about their craft than new equipment :) So certainly get the new camera, but do so understanding that it’s only the beginning of a long journey!

      – Matthew

      1. Hello Again.

        Thank you for the response. I have to admit that I am totally overwhelmed now. It’s great to get an unbiased opinion though. I especially appreciated the lens advice…. something a salesperson would never tell you.

        I tried a Nikon D7000 today and thought it was really cool. I also tried a 5D Mark II and it seemed great as well. Of course compared to the junk I have been using, even a W-M camera would seem nice…lol

        I absolutely want to get a camera that will let my skills grow to fit it. That is the whole idea. A year or two from now, I want to be able to proudly call myself a “Pro-sumer”!!! lol. Currently though, I am at the point where I wish someone would say, “Buy this camera, these lens, and a couple filters and go out and shoot till you learn how to use it”. I just want to cover all the bases, i.e indoor, outdoor, action, static, and various lighting and avoid too much overlap. I’d like to get it all in a bundle to get a good deal too rather than pick up a lot as I go. I am thinking Nikon D7000, or one of the two Canons I mentioned earlier…. HELP!!!!! :) I’d really like to find a lens that would cover 80-90% of what I do just so I could avoid all the lens changes and just go out a click away at whatever grabs my attention. If anybody wants to throw out some ideas to put in the shopping cart, I sure would appreciate it. Cheers. Jason

        1. Hi Jason,

          Adding Nikon into the equation adds another level of complexity. Without cost as a consideration, I’d choose the D7000 over the 60D, but the 7D over the D7000, but any one of them would be a great camera… and in fact, I’d be perfectly comfortable doing professional work with any of them, so I would not consider any of them to be limitations to your future interests in photography. The 7D is the most professional of the three, for what it’s worth.

          Lenses, I’m afraid, are like anything else in life: you either have to take compromises somewhere, or pay a lot of money. For example, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is perhaps a perfect lens: fast for sports, sharp enough for any type of work, and excellent for low light situations… but it costs over $2000. The same is true of the 17-55 f2.8 that I mentioned before; it’s an awesome all around lens, but pricey. These two lenses together would cover virtually all of your photographic needs between the focal lengths of 17-200mm, and with excellent optical quality, but at a cost of nearly $3000. On the other hand, you could buy an 18-200mm lens ( Canon, Nikon, Sigma ) and spend a lot less money and get the whole range covered by one lens, but you’d get lower resolution at the lens’s long and/or short end, softer borders, (especially at the lenses largest apertures), and poor(er) low light abilities. The optical differences might be completely academic, though, if you’re not enlarging or using good technique.

          So you see, the lens choice depends largely on budget and whether you prefer convenience (single lens) or optical quality (two lenses or more). If you’d like to tell me what your budget is, I might be able to come up with a good set of lenses for you to choose from, though :)

          I wouldn’t buy any filters. Sales people will generally try to sell you UV or Skylight filters to fit your expensive glass, but I do not use them unless I know that I’m going to be working in heavy rain or a situation where I’m likely to get mud on my lens, and I know that I’ll have to wipe it off frequently. For normal shooting, the front element of your lens has been designed to produce the least amount of flare, with micro coatings, etc, and to put a cheap, flat piece of glass in front of that is more likely to increase flare and degrade your image than protect your lens, especially if you use a hard lens hood (and you should always use a lens hood! If one isn’t included with the lens, buy one).

          The exception is the circular polarizer. This is a creative effect filter, and will reduce glare on shiny surfaces and darken blue skies. Cool filter, although I don’t use them very frequently anymore. They also work well as neutral density filters if you’re trying to get slow shutter speeds.

          I’d also recommend pricing all of the items you’re considering on Amazon or B&H (or otherwise online) and then going in to your local shop to see how closely they can match the prices. I’m all for supporting local photography shops, but not at any price :) , and sometimes, the difference can be substantial… and only buy at your local shop if the people who work there are friendly and knowledgeable. I will never buy a camera at Glazers here in Seattle because I’ve found the sales people to be so arrogant and rude when they don’t think that I’m about to spend a lot of money. There’s no excuse for poor service in a local industry that’s being driven out of business by the internet. OK, I’ll step off of my soap-box now…

          – Matthew

          1. Thank you again for another very informative reply.

            I would like to keep this whole little endeavour under $2500 if that would be possible, under 2k would suit me even better. At the same time though, I would rather fork over something that will keep me happy for the next couple years rather than go cheap and 6 months down the road, regret it and wish I had a different setup…. I’m a firm believer in quality paying for itself in the long run.

            Regarding the lens… I don’t see myself shooting huge pics. 11×15’s are the biggest pics that I have in the house. The one lens that does a lot really appeals to me. Them maybe I could pick up cheaper 35mm 1.8 or something for low light action and that sort of thing. I don’t like lugging around a huge bag of glass and like changing them out even less. It just seems that time changing could be better spent snapping away and it’s a good way to allow dust in if you’re not careful while changing them out frequently outdoors. On the other hand, I’m an engineer and the devil is in the details… How compromised would the shots be when shooting for smaller size prints?

            The filter answer surprised me. I was thinking protection more than anything. I like snapping pics of the boys and the labrador pups and a closeup of a puppy got me a nice scratch on another lens on my old camera. The thought of that on a 2000k lens makes me cringe…

            I totally agree with the local shop philosophy. I can not stand wmart and the big box stores. I paid more for my mountain bike at the local bike store, but the service was and is worth it. I don’t care for the local camera store here, they just want to sell, sell, sell and they do not seem that informed either… That is a turn off for me. I found a site called Grand Central Photo on the net. Their prices seem too good on a lot of stuff… it makes me wonder. I may go back to the local camera store after all.

            I continue to enjoy and appreciate the unbiased information you are providing. I’d hope to be able to return the favor some day. Cheers. Jason

            1. When I was in high school, I had some old manual focus cameras and some early AF cameras (the EOS 10s and A2), all film cameras of course, and I used UV filters on all of my lenses. I also rarely used a good lens hood. When I went to college to study photojournalism, one of my first professors did an experiment in class, showing the difference between a shot with a little lens flare and one using a lens hood (I should publish one here). I had never realized how dramatic the difference was (loss of shadow detail, contrast, general detail), and I’ve always used a good lens hood since. At the same time, I noticed that another instructor (Marcy Nighswander, a Pulitzer winner) never used a UV filter on her lenses, and I asked why… it seemed like such a wise choice to me. And she basically gave me the reasons that I gave you: they’re much more likely to produce flare and degrade image quality than protect your lens. Why spend thousands of dollars on the optics in a lens and then stick a $30 piece of cheap, flat glass in front of it? Your image quality chain is only as good as the weakest link. However, if you’re in a situation in which you’re very likely to need protection of your front element, buy a multi-coated filter from the lens manufacturer.

              Anyway… with a budget in the $2000-2500 range, I’d spend less on the camera, more on the lenses. In fact, that’s always my general rule. You’re going to spend a lot more on lenses in the end, and replace them less frequently… so start off with the best lenses. Personally, I’d buy the Canon 60D with the 17-55mm f2.8, and if you want a second lens, buy the 55-250mm IS. The 17-55 is such a great lens, and will cover all of the typical shooting range: it’s wide angle to short telephoto (55 converts to 88mm on APS-C, which is a nice portrait length, especially at f2.8). The 55-250mm is cheap, but optically it’s great quality, and it has IS which will help in low light. It will be great for general shooting outside or in good light, but not great for indoor sports (though there are always ways to get better performance there).

              Alternately, if you think that you’re more likely to use the long end of the zoom range more frequently, I’d get the Canon 70-200 f4 IS with the 60D, plus the 18-55 IS, which is also a cheap but optically great lens. Both of those packages will give you great image quality and quite a bit of versatility for about $2200. I’d also get a battery grip for the camera, but that’s just personal taste :)

              If you’re leaning toward the Nikon D7000, the kit lens actually isn’t bad (the 18-105mm). It’s not great in low light, and it does have some distortion and chromatic aberration issues, but they’re workable.

              I actually quite like the 18-135 non-VR lens, though I’m not sure that it’s made any more, and it’s not a good low-light lens at all. Even between a lens of moderate quality like the 18-135 and Nikon’s 18-200, the difference in image quality is noticeable at 8 x 10 print or at 50% (or less) digitally. There are plenty of photographers I know who focus almost exclusively on the artistic aspects of their work who would not care the slightest bit about a little softness in their images; and since I don’t know you, I can’t guess how much it would matter to you. I can say that most engineers (I even survived an electrical engineering room-mate while I was in graduate school) that I know are very detail oriented, though, and would not be satisfied with mediocre lens performance in the long run.

              Anyway, I hope that helps at least get you started in the right direction with some new ideas :) Good luck, and let me know if you have any questions. I expect to be on the road for some time over the next couple of weeks, so my responses may be a bit delayed :)

              – Matthew

              1. Thank you again Matthew.

                I tried the 60d this afternoon and just did not like it. I don’t know why, but it just did not click with me like the 7D. I believe the camera for me is the 7D. I’m biting the bullet and adding to my “budget” on this to get better gear right off since it just seems to make the most sense. I want to get the 7D and one really good lens, then pick up another in a month or so to cover all my bases. I just don’t see doing much of anything over the 250mm lengths. I see a lot more close up work, outdoor pics of boys and dogs, and a lot of indoor family and school stuff. The 17-55 sounds awesome. Some really sharp top notch portraits of my boys sounds really great. Which lens would you go with on the 7D to compliment the 17-55?
                I am totally taking your advice on the glass over the lens and the battery grip. Thank you for that and the other info.
                If I don’t hear from you, safe travels and I sincerely appreciate your help with this.

                Jason

                PS- Would you recommend a flash for this cam for when the 17-55 needs it?

              2. Yes, I would use it un-adorned, unless, as I say, you’re in a dangerous shooting situation. And, needless to say, with a hood.

                That said, the B+W filters are good ones, so if you really feel the need to use one, that’s a good way to go. Unless you have backlight or crosslight, it’s certainly not going to cause any significant problems.

                – Matthew

              3. Hi Matt,

                I have a B+W F-Pro filter on my 85mm f/1.2L. So you would remove the filter and use the lens as is?

                Thanks,

                Alfred

              4. Jason,

                Again, it depends on your budget. Optically, there are a few good choices, and all in different price ranges. The 55-250 that I mentioned is only about $210, and has remarkably good optical quality, but has no USM and is not particularly good in low light (due to the f5.6 at the long end). The 70-200 f4 IS USM is an f-stop better in low light, is even better optically, and of course is fast focusing (and it’s a cool looking white Canon lens, which is worth something :) ). The price seems to be fluctuating, but is generally around $1100. Even better, of course, is the 70-200 f2.8L IS II that I mentioned already, which is closer to $2200.

                A flash would be a really good idea. Although the 7D has one built in, you might as well use a point-and-shoot if you’re going to use it as a main light source. Popup flash pictures just don’t look good. You’re much better off getting a 430EX and learning how to bounce it and mix it with ambient light… or if you’re willing to endure a greater learning curve, buy any old manual control flash (I frequently use a Nikon SB-24 from 1990 and a late 80’s Sunpak 622) and learn to use it off-camera with radio triggers. That’s a lot of fun, but it’s not a great place to start :)

                Good luck :)

                – Matthew

              5. Thanks again for all the great advice. I hope you have a successful and safe trip. :)

                Jason

  8. Hi,
    I’m considering buying the 5D classic used but I can also afford the 7D through Canon’s loyalty program. The 5Dc used runs a little less though, around $800. The 7D is $1119 new. I could splurge for a used 5D Mark II on e-bay for around $1800, but then I would have to save up the next 6 months for some prime lenses. (I do have one nice EF lens already)

    This will be the only body I will own for a while, so I’m worried about buying lower technology with the 5Dc.
    (and not having video is kind of a bummer)
    I’m a little concerned about the AF problems I hear with it, and the dust on the sensor problems as well.
    But if those are minor issues, then I won’t worry about it.

    I’m a hobbyist now, but going to spend the next year preparing for professional work.
    I love taking photos of children and the outdoors. I also want a camera that performs well in low light.
    Sports will not be my focus, but I do love taking photos of insects, birds, landscapes, etc.

    I don’t plan on enlarging photos on print to more than 11 x 14, and wondering if the debate over IQ between 5D and 7D is only in extra large prints?
    Or is there something special you see with 5D images that give it an edge, even on a computer screen?
    I was so impressed by the photos of my friend who has the 5Dc (she’s an amateur just starting out), but maybe it’s the artist behind the lens and not her camera body. There seems to be something that just wows me more with those photos over the crop sensor cams.
    I don’t know what it is, but something looks slightly fake on many of the digital photos I see from the crop sensors. Maybe it’s the post processing.

    Between the 3 bodies, which would you recommend? Or would you recommend something else?
    Is the 5Dc still going to win the 7D in IQ, even though it’s older? Is it worth sacrificing the video and updates to get that special look I want? Or can the crop sensors do the same?
    Thanks!

    1. I’ve run up against this issue of 7d vs 5d (original) several times, and I haven’t really come up with a satisfactory answer. If you look in some of the older replies to this post (hidden by default, but if you click on the “Older Comments” link at the bottom left) this issue has come up before and you might glean some good information by browsing there. Unfortunately, I never shot with the 5D (I was shooting Nikon at the time), so I can’t tell you from personal experience. My inclination has always been to assume that the 7D is a newer generation of sensor technology and is higher resolution, so that in good conditions it should produce better image quality, but there has been some debate on that. Personally, I’d hesitate to buy the original 5D because a) even the mark ii is getting a little old, the mark iii is expected within a year, and b) it can be fun to play around with the video on the newer bodies every now and then :)

      There’s no doubt that the person behind the camera makes all the difference in the world… but it’s also very likely that lens quality, lens choice, as well as the post processing that you mention have made the difference. Larger sensors do sometimes produce a different look (less depth of field and minor resolution issues), but I’d be surprised if that’s what you’re noticing. APS-C sensors can achieve the same thing by using high quality, wider aperture lenses. These don’t have to be expensive; the 50mm f1.8 costs about $99, and is incredibly sharp (and is equivalent to an 80mm lens on APS-C, making it a pretty good portrait length).

      That’s all just to say that I’d probably recommend the 7D or maybe even the 60D if you’re not that interested in sports.

      – Matthew

  9. Hi Chris, Australia calling, Im a retired printer getting back into photography I used to have basic Nikon SLR in the film days, none of it left now. Im starting afresh, and planning some courses at Uni to upgrade my skills. I have had experience with early DSLR in the printing business. My quandary is the 5D Mk 2 or 7D, my objective is to photo the grand kids not to active or vigorous, hand held and then progress into landscape buildings etc which is my real interest. Im leaning toward the 5D with the kit lenses 24-105 F4 to start, with battery grip 2 filters and 430 flash and 16 gb extreme sandisk card, I already have a good solid tripod (Velbon). The economics dare I say it is not the main issue however Im not wealthy but I want the best for my objectives. My final question is can I still use the 5D for hand held shots as I will have to take shots in this mode while travelling, I donot want 2 camera bodies at this stage.
    I will be shooting mainly Raw.
    Simon

    1. Hi Simon,

      You can certainly take excellent photos with the 5D MarkII hand held. The degree of resolution that we’re talking about here (in the article above) is so fine that you really need a tripod to achieve it, but it is mostly only laboratory relevant unless you’re making very large prints, etc. If you’re not shooting with a tripod, then you’ll have diminished resolution no matter what camera you use… this isn’t something specific to the 5D; but to realize the potential of the 5D (and it’s advantage over the 7D), you’ll get the best quality using a tripod.

      – Matthew

  10. Hi I’m up grading from a 10d, I know either camera will be a big improvement but not sure about which one. The article is great and given me a lot to think about. I’m branching out into studio and portrate etc..but will also need it for family photos with kids. I’m worried about the speed of the auto focus etc.. of the 5dmkii. I haven’t got and L lens so not sure if the extra picture quality will be worth it or not. Any help would be great. Thanks

  11. Hi thanks for taking the time of this artical it has given me alot to think about. I’m still can’t make up my mind though, I’m up grading from a 10d and can’t make up my mind. I’m hoping to branching into studio work and portrates etc.. with close up too and landscape which the 5dmkii would be great for, but the rest will be hand held normal everyday stop of family. Would I be better off with the 7d if the 5dmkii wouldn’t keep up with the kids?

    1. Hi Chris,

      If you’re interested in landscape work, the 5D would be an excellent choice… and if you’re considering studio work, the 5D really is your best bet with Canon. Although the AF system on the 5D isn’t as action oriented as the 7D’s (or the 1D series), it is still a professional grade camera, and is sophisticated enough to be used by many wedding photographers and journalists around the world. I wouldn’t worry too much about being able to keep up with the kids :) And now that the 5D mark II has been on the market for a while, you should be able to find some more reasonable prices, too.

      That said, the 7D is no slouch in the studio either…. and it’s considerably less expensive. The 5D might ultimately be better there, but it may not be a significant enough difference to be worth the extra $1000 or so. It will depend on how much you’re going to be enlarging, and how much low-light photography you’ll be doing outside of the studio.

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

      1. Thanks Mathew, as i’m just starting my busness am thinking that the cheaper 7d might be the best as I have to buy other things as well. If it will do more or less the same job it the extra pixals may not be enough of a reason to pay the extra.

        1. Hi Matthew I’ve just thought, I have a sigma digital lens which is built for digital camera’s taking into account the 1.6X crop. If I got the 5Dmkii with it’s full frame sensor, any idea if it would change the anger of the lens?

          1. Hi Chris,

            If you have a lens designed for a smaller sensor, it actually just won’t work on a full frame sensor. The image area produced by the lens won’t extend to the edges of the full frame sensor, and anywhere it extends beyond the range of where your APS-C sensor would be, the quality of the image will be awful.

            So, there’s another good reason to get the 7D :)

            – Matthew

            1. Thanks Mathew, have just looked on the sigma web site and it says the DG lens are “large-aperture lenses with wide angles and short minimum focusing distances. With an abundance of peripheral illumination, they are ideal lenses for Digital SLR Cameras whilst retaining suitability for traditional 35mm SLRs.” What do you think? don’t want to spend the money and have to get another lens :(

              1. Sorry Mathew i’ve answered my own question it’s not a digital lens at all its a standard 35mm lens. Do I feel stupid. The 5dmkii seams the best now unless I use the savings to buy another lens : “

            2. Hi Matthew can’t find my last reply? anyway in answer to your question the lens is a sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG EX aspherical lens, it is a bit old but the images are great.

              1. Ahh yes, that is a pretty nice lens… I used to have an antique version of this lens back in the days of film …early 1990s (actually, it was a 28-70, come to think of it), and it the image quality was good but the AF motor was slow. I replaced it with a Tokina of the same focal length after the lens was stolen. I liked the build quality of the Tokina better. But I was doing work that wasn’t really resolution critical.

                – Matthew

    2. Chris,

      I agree with Matt’s response. I have both cameras and I’ve used the 7D for studio work with great results. I now use the 5D for that and weddings, but I sometimes fall back on the 7D because it’s such a fast and accurate camera as far as the AF is concerned. The images from both cameras are almost indiscernible in print unless you blow up the images by 200% or so. Other than that, I primarily use the 5D for weddings because of the low light capabilities, but have no problems switching back to the 7D. Get the right lens and everything will be ok!

      Regards,

      Alfred

      1. Thanks Alfred, I think I’m coming round the the idea of the 7D more the money if nothing less. I’m intersted through about how large you were talkng about blowing the images up to?

        1. Chris,

          I was thinking about 30″x20″ or larger. Though, my daughter blew up a picture I took of her for her engagement that size and you can clearly see noise (looked like a nice film grain, though). However, this picture was from an 8MP Rebel XT. When I zoom in a picture in Lightroom, for example, there is a very slight difference in image quality between the 5D and 7D, but it’s negligible in prints of 8″x10″, 11″x8″ (like some wedding books in landscape) or anything below the 30″x20″ size.

          You won’t go wrong with the 7D in any of the areas of your photography. I use it primarily for wildlife like birds or when shooting from a moving vehicle (like the “safari trips” at the theme parks) or sports. I am using the 5D more often now because I’ve been shooting models, weddings and portraits and I kinda have the “full-frame fever” at the moment [smile], but I’ve used (and continue to use) the 7D for this kind of photography as well.

          Here you’ll find pictures taken with both cameras.

          — Alfred

  12. An update on my position regarding 5dMKII vs 7d. Well I went with the MkII. I had a look at the 7d raw files side by side with the raw files from my classic 5d and there was no doubt afterwards in my mind which camera I was going for. Whilst the 7d is a great camera and worthy of praise, the MkII, now in my bag, is a cracker and I am very pleased I made the choice that I did. It was a difficult shout but you have to weigh up what it is that you need from a camera. If it’s sports, or shooting kids at play then the 7d is probably the camera for you. If you want top notch IQ with oodles of detail, especially in landscape work, then the MkII might be a little sedate, but it is second to none in delivering the goods in my view.

    1. Hi Keith, Good to hear back from you! Sounds like you ended up with the perfect camera for your needs, and that’s about the best we can hope for :)

      If you feel like it, I’d love to see some of the pictures you’re taking with it. If you register here, you can upload pictures into an album in your profile.

      – Matthew

  13. Thank you for the ballanced article. I’am considering upgrading my current 500d to one of these two cameras.

    500d is an excellent camera, which can take incredible pictures and is good enough for 90% of what I shoot, but I find it limited when it comes to the ISO noise. Sometimes I take pictures of paintings indoors and I like to take low-key pictures. Using the flash, or amateur lightning equipment, will not help, as it alters the colours.

    Can you recommend a good choice of camera in this case? I have no need for fast camera, I don’t shoot sport. I have 2 EF (50mm/f1.4, 70-300) and 2 EF-S lenses (17-55/f2.8, 18-200). I ‘am aware that upgrading to 7D will not bring me the same ISO as 5d mrkII, however 7D has other features which are handy (like the built-in flash for when travelling). The 5D is also considerably more expensive, as my EF-S 17-55/f2.8 will not fit leaving me with only the 50mm/f.1.4 and 70-300 (70-200 will be the next project), so I will probably need to invest in a new 24-70/f2.8 lens. Or is it worth waiting for the new 5D mark iii camera?

    1. There’s no doubt that the 5D MarkII has superior ISO performance compared to the 7D, although whether it’s worth nearly $1000 may be another matter. Generally speaking, you’re just not going to get great image quality at high ISO no matter what camera you’re shooting, so it’s better to plan on finding a better solution (image stabilization of 4 stops, for example, is the same as shooting ISO400 vs 6400). Although it may not seem like it, when you use flash, you’re actually going to get more reliable and accurate colors, as long as you’re controlling your color properly. Of course, you should always be shooting RAW, but it’s especially important to get correct colors. Use of flash with something like the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport will give you better colors than natural light in virtually all cases, but especially at high ISO, where chroma-noise is a big problem (introducing pinks and greens).

      But that’s not really what you asked me, I guess :) If you’re not a sport shooter, then there’s no particular reason to go for the 7D rather than the 60D, and the money you’d save would go a long way in buying either another lens or a good flash :) Beyond that, the 5D MarkII is an amazing camera and will certainly help you when it comes to high ISO, but you’re the only one who can decide whether the extra cost is worth it to you. I don’t think that the 7D or 60D will give you a very significant improvement at high ISO, unfortunately.

      As for the mark III, I’ll say what I tell everybody: the markii is a great camera and will still be a great camera in 2 years, even if there’s something out there that’s a little better. I personally wouldn’t hesitate to buy one… and despite the rumors, there’s no guarantee the mark iii won’t get pushed back until there’s a sufficient advance in technology to justify it.

      Sorry if that’s not very helpful!

      – Matthew

        1. Let me clarify; I don’t think that the 5D Mark iii is actually going to take as long to release as the next 1Ds. It will probably be announced sometime in 2011. But suppose that the mark 5D markiii is 6 months away now; it’s always possible that Canon will change their plans or run into supply difficulties, etc, and delay the release… and the photographer waiting for it will have blown nearly a year that could have been spent shooting with an awesome camera (mark ii). I’m a believer in working with what I can control, and the release of future cameras is out of my control… and there’s always going to be something better in the future.
          – Matt

  14. I really enjoy your article. It was very insightful and had me leaning on going to 5dmii. I wanted to ask a few more questions to be sure.

    I mainly shoot pictures of fast moving kids, events, and landscape. I rarely do it on a tripod. I have had a 20d since it first came out. I have very few lens since having 2kids are a big money pit. I have canon efs 10-22mm, 50mm, 85mm, and tamron 28-75mm.

    I am finally at a point where I can spend some money on my hobby again. I was leaning on getting the 5dmii since I already have the 20d. I also wanted to buy a 70-200mm lens as well.

    My choices are 7d with 70-200 f2.8 II or 5d with the 70-200mm F4.

    Or just get the lens and wait for the 5dmarkiii (q2/2011)

    Please share your insight with me.

    Henry

    I would love to get your insigt.

    1. Hi Henry,

      Since you shoot a wide range of subjects, it’s tricky to come up with a simple answer. It’s really going to come down to what is most important to you: the 7D would be better for the fast moving kids and perhaps the events, and it would be a shame not to be able to use your 10-22 on your new camera :) If you don’t frequently shoot with a tripod, some of the benefit of buying the 5D will be lost; which also makes me lean more towards the 7D. And in general, I think: when in doubt, buy the less expensive camera and better lenses… and the 70-200 f2.8II is one of the best there is (and it’s price seems to be pretty low right now).

      However, if you’re just talking about taking snapshots of your kids… and you’re not going to be enlarging them dramatically, and your real love in life is landscape photography or fine art photography, or portraiture… then there’s no sense getting the 7D, and the f4 would be an excellent lens choice.

      Unfortunately, deciding what’s going to be most important to you is something that you’ll have to do yourself. On the bright side, either camera is going to be an amazing step up from the 20D, and you’ll probably be very happy with either one. The most important thing will be to get the camera, get familiar with it (and it’s strengths and weaknesses) and learn how to make it do what you want.

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

    1. Both cameras would be great for this type of work… but the 5D Mark II will be a little bit better. The 5D Mark II generally has better image quality, but it’s not such a great sports and action camera… but unless your plants are much more active than the ones I’m familiar with, that won’t be a problem :) However, the difference in image quality for this type of work will be minimal; the really important thing will be your choice of lens. A good macro lens will make all the difference. Canon’s 60mm f2.8 macro is a great lens for use with the 7D; extremely sharp and gives you 1:1 macro focusing. With the 5D, you have a few options, including Canon’s 100mm IS macro, which is a little expensive, but also Sigma’s 105mm f2.8 macro, which is a very high quality lens for less money (but no IS).

      The other important factor will, of course, be the use of a tripod! Even if you’re getting relatively fast shutter speeds.

      I’ve done a fair amount of orchid photography with Nikon’s 105mm micro, and have had pretty good results… http://goreorchids.com/GalleryStorage/dendrobium-anosmum.jpg

      – Matthew Gore

  15. I have now had the opportunity to play around with some 7D raw files that a mate of mine took with his camera at 100 iso. I was impressed, but to be honest, and not at all biased, the full-frame raw files from the classic 5D still had the edge on my monitor (My computer was custom built for me 3 months ago and my monitor is suitable for gaming and photo editing). I guess that is to be expected though considering the difference in image area size. At 100% the 7D raw files had much more noise in the sky than the 5D classic, which ultimately reflects on image detail at larger print sizes. I think the choice between the 5DMkII and the 7D has to be down to what type of images you take and what you are going to do with them. For me the final decision has to be the 5DMkII because as a landscape camera it would be very difficult to find an APS-C CMOS sensor that can equal, or better full-frame for that purpose and most of what I do is landscape. I have also used the classic 5D for portrait and candid photography without much of a problem. At the end of the day there is no real comparison between the two cameras in my view. They are different beasts for different purposes. Most cameras can do just about anything you want from them to do, although some cameras excel over others in certain areas. It has a lot to do with glass, budget and technique rather than the ergonomics of a particular camera.

    Good luck and thanks for a great article. It will save a lot of people going nuts over this conundrum.

  16. Matthew,

    Thank you. I am so glad I found this article.It answers a lot of the questions I had and will go a long way towards saving me some money.. I hope. I have been using a 20D for years and am now going pro and need to step up. I was somewhat undecided between these very two cameras, and since I am focusing (sorry) on equine photography I think that the 7D will be the way to go. I am hoping that my Sigma 24-70 EX DG f2.8 will suffice for a while.

  17. Thanks for your reply, Matthew. My real question was: should I move to the 7d from the classic 5d, or go the extra mile for the 5d MKII? My choice is going to be down to two factors, eg, economics and the logistics of selling current gear. If I go the 5d MkII route I will need to sell only my 5d body and will have to add quite a few £s to it to purchase. If I go the 7d route I will have to sell all my gear including 24-105 and filters etc and will actually be a few quid in pocket. My biggest fear is loss of DOF if I go the 7d route, or am I being paranoid about this. I am an amateur of 30 years standing and take a vast amount of different images including b/w street. Will I notice much loss in quality between the 5d and 7d, both in prints and raw files. I have been spoilt this past four years with the creaminess of the 5d files. I am not a great lover of the video side, so this is neither here or there for me. So, when it comes to the crunch – 7d with EFS 15-85 or 5dMkII with my 24-105. Canon don’t make it easy for amateur photographers do they?

    1. Ahh, I see what you mean.

      When it comes to image quality, the 7D should still be better than the original 5D, particularly in decent light, but if you really get down to it, the 5D Mark II has better low light capabilities (when it comes to noise). The 7D does have a better auto-focus system than the 5Ds.

      As far as DOF is concerned, there’s no need to worry. Since the 7D has a smaller sensor, you’ll actually have MORE depth of field at equivalent focal lengths. (One of the reasons that the 5D is so popular with film-makers is that the larger sensor allows them to use shallow depth of field, wich is virtually impossible on the tiny chips in most camcorders in the same price range).

      As I mention in the article, though, when it comes to image quality, it’s very important with the 7D to use a high quality lens, because the resolution of the sensor captures all of the lens’ flaws, and since it’s a smaller sensor, it must be enlarged that much more to reach the same size as a full frame camera. This won’t be an issue compared to your 5D, since the 7D is higher res.

      If you’ve been satisfied with the AF on the 5D, you might actually be a good match for the new 60D. It doesn’t have the same build quality as the 7D, but it costs substantially less and is also 18 megapixels, which would give you a little extra cash for a better lens. Just something to keep in mind.

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

  18. Great article. I am about to upgrade from my original 5d and am at a rock and a hard place between the 7d and 5d MkII. I am blowing hot and cold between the two at the moment. If I go for the 7d I would like to use the EF-s 15-85 with it. What is your opinion of that lens? I use the 24-105 L with my current 5d, but this lens is not without its optical faults either and I think the only way to get the best from full-frame is to use primes. Can you help me make up my mind please.

    1. Hi Keith,

      Canon’s 15-85 is a good consumer-grade lens, but it’s not outstanding. It has a relatively high amount of barrel distortion on the wide end, and is a bit soft at the telephoto end, with some very severe vignetting at 15mm. These days, you can get really outstanding performance from zoom lenses… in fact, pretty much as good as primes, but they’re expensive. For example, on the long end, Canon’s new 70-200 f2.8 IS II (not the older model) is as high resolution and sharp as virtually any lens I’ve seen, but it has a hefty price tag. The f4 IS version is also extremely sharp, though, and costs about half as much (see Here).

      Generally speaking, you’ll get the best lens performance if you try to keep the focal length range to a minimum, and use a couple of lenses instead of a single one to cover a particular zoom range.At the wide end of things, Canon’s 10-22 is a good lens, and actually the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a really superb lens. For the mid-range, Canon’s 17-55m f/2.8 USM IS is a good option, though Sigma’s AF 17-50mm f/2.8 HSM DC EX OS is probably just as good (better in some aspects) and less expensive.

      You’ll have different options for full frame, of course… and there are too many options to consider here. Probably the best place to start would be to identify the focal lengths that you use the most and buy the best possible lenses to cover those areas. If you narrow it down to a range that I haven’t already mentioned, let me know and I’ll see if I can be of any assistance :)

      Needless to say, all of these lenses are pretty expensive… but that’s what pro quality lenses are like, unfortunately. If you don’t need the absolute highest quality, though, virtually all of the lenses made during the past few years beat the pants off of the lenses made just 15 or 20 years ago. So, in some cases, you just have to pull the trigger and get what you can afford, and then make corrections in Photoshop as necessary, or print a bit smaller. Good luck!

      – Matthew

  19. Great article – you answered almost all of my questions. My main photo subject is high school football, mostly at night. The 7D sounds like the better choice for me. I’ve been shooting with a 30D for the last four years. I use the L series 70-200 (not IS) and 580EX flash. My photos are primarily for display on the web so resolution isn’t really much of an issue. Where I hope the 7D can help is autofocus speed & reliability, and to some extent better noise performance at high ISO’s than my 30D.

    1. Thanks Frank. I agree, it sounds like the 7D would be a great choice for you… the 7D is a great camera for action. The AF on the 7D is the best that Canon has to offer outside of the 1D series… in fact, it is truly a transplant from the 1Ds.

      The CMOS of the 7D is newer technology and more efficient than that of the 30D, so it should give you better high ISO noise in absolute terms, but just as importantly, it will be less apparent at the same size enlargement because of the higher resolution of the 7D. Keep in mind that noise is a pixel-level phenomenon, and that the pixels of the 7D are much much smaller than those of the 30D.

      Have fun with your new 7D!

      – Matthew

  20. Hi, thanks for taking the time to post this article, please may i ask a question on the 5d mk 11, I do a lot of vr 360 panorama work mainly outside but i am now moving into more indoor work which requires higher resolution and less noise than my olympus e620 can provide so I am looking at the 5d Mk 11 as a full frame camera.

    This will also leave me with less shots to take because of the sensor size, I also want to do a lot more hdr as this will give me better lighting that using artificial means and i would buy a Promote Control to program these. (not available for olympus) Do you have any opinion on this camera for this type of work , Thanks Neil

    1. Hi Niel,

      The 5D Mark II is probably just about the perfect camera for this type of work… high resolution and low noise, with great detail in low light. As I’m sure that you know, noise can be a major problem with HDR, so starting out with images from the 5D will help quite a bit. If you’re doing a lot of indoor, architectural work (like real-estate photography), this will also give you access to Canon’s line of tilt/shift lenses, and at their full wide-angle capabilities. (Doing VR work, you’ll still get better, smoother transitions if you take more photos, even if you could get away with fewer, but that’s a matter for your own personal style).

      FWIW, you might want to play around with the 5D for a while before getting the Promote. Not just on the 5D, but on virtually every Canon camera that I’ve used, doing HDR is a pretty simple matter, and there’s a good amount of flexibility. I haven’t done so with Canons, but with my Nikons, I’ve also connected the camera to a laptop via USB, and that allows for even greater control… programming time lapse shots, etc. Just a thought.

      There are a couple of other cameras that you might want to consider as well. The Sony Alpha 850 and 900 both use a full frame, 24 megapixel sensor (the same one that Sony supplies for the Nikon D3x), which is well known for its great dynamic range and low light abilities… and at least around here, they cost less than or similar to the 5D mk ii. I wouldn’t recommend the Sony to everyone; I don’t think that their AF systems are as good as Canon/Nikon in general for sports and action photography, and they don’t have the greatest selection of lenses… (though their Zeiss lenses can be great) but for what it sounds like you’re doing, they might be a great option.

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

  21. which is the best cam….?
    EOS 5D Mark II or EOS 7D.
    I am totally confused, 5D Mark IIs have distortion?

    I had seen some full size 21 MPxl sample images of 5D Mark II at web… best fit View is ok, but actual size view is not impressive. You can also see this samples at http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/canon/eos-5d-mark-ii-slr/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-slr-review-19.html

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2009_reviews/canon_5dmk2/samples/IMG_0298.JPG

    1. I had a chance to look at the photo that you mention. I do see distortion from the lens and chromatic aberration, but I’m not sure what could be interpreted as having come from the camera itself. The chromatic aberration is most obvious to me in the trees in the upper right, and of course, there is barrel distortion all around from the lens. This lens would create the same effect on a 7D… and in fact, it would be more pronounced.

      I don’t think there’s any question that the 5D Mark II has superior image quality (though in cases the raw images are a little soft). There are still reasons to buy the 7D instead, as I mentioned above, however.

      – Matthew

  22. Hello Matthew ,
    Interesting article,i have the 5D (not mark ll ) and im having problems with high iso noise as im a wedding and nightlife photographer,so plz wats ur advice, should i appgrade to the 7D ? is full frame difference is an issue?and what about the auto white balance difference ?
    Thank you so much

    1. I too have a 5D and it it is great in low light but I can see how you might need more from it. Therefore you may need to go to a Nikon D700 (great at low light but not quite the image quality of the 5D). Or the king of low light cameras is the expensive and heavy D3x. Of course the 5D MkII is a step forward from the 5D and is probably the logical choice. I would expect the 7D to be noisier than all of these.
      If I am unhappy with the noise from my 5D I apply a Photoshop Noise Reduce filter at strength 5 / details 17 / color 22 / sharpen / 16. Then add 11 to 22% smart sharpen at 0.7 radius. If the noise is heavy then apply more strength. Works very well and gives a nice slightly soft focus which is great for weddings.

    2. Hi Jixou,

      Sorry for the delay; I’ve been traveling! To begin with, you should always be shooting RAW, so white balance should not be an issue. It makes a lot more sense to correct white balance after the fact than during the ever changing lighting conditions of real life. When you shoot RAW, no white balance is hard-coded into the data, so you can set the white balance just as easily after the shoot as when it’s happening (assuming that you use some kind of reference, like the X-rite passport).

      I don’t have a 5D for comparison purposes, but my guess is that the Canon 7D will be a little better than the 5D, despite the denser pixel resolution. Just as importantly, though, the extra megapixel count will allow you to use a noise reduction plugin and then down-sample to the size that you need and retain greater sharpness. See here for further explanation.

      The 5D Mark II would, of course, be a better option to get the lowest noise. However, no matter what camera you choose, if you’re shooting at the highest ISO settings, you’re not going to get the greatest image quality… you’ll still be better off creatively using off-camera flash, fast lenses, IS lenses, or any combination of the three.

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

  23. I really enjoyed your review and all the Q&A about these two camera. Like everyone else here I’m ready to purchase one or the other. Even with all the input here I still am having trouble deciding. Cost is not an issue. I have 5 L lenses starting with an old 17mm-35mm going up to 70-200m F4. I only have one lens which won’t work (10-22mm?).

    I guess my question concerns shooting hand held. Most of my shots are hand held. From what I am reading here the advantages of the 5D are lost shooting this way. Is that so?

    Vinnie

    1. Hi Vinnie,

      Thanks! When it comes to fine resolution, shooting hand-held is bad news no matter what camera you’re using, so… the resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is mostly lost when shooting hand-held, yes… although in some cases, with IS lenses, with flash, with steady hands and fast shutter speeds, you may still manage to get some of that extra resolution out of the camera, and there is always the advantage of a few extra megapixels. You also don’t lose the camera’s other advantages (lower noise at high ISO, etc).

      So, depending on the type of work you do, the 5D may not give you a very significant image quality advantage over the 7D, but it will likely give you a little bit sometimes (and potential for more). However, if the speed of the 7D would be more helpful to your work, you might consider it instead. What subject matter do you normally shoot?

      – Matt

    2. Won’t there be an equal drop in resolution from the 7D?

      The only IS lens I have is the 24-105mm and I think I’d be using the 17-35mm a lot to make up for the loss of my dear 10-22mm. So if I go with the 5D I guess I’ll have to start thinking about traveling again with my monopod. It is not always practical to travel with a tripod as well.

      It seems the advantages of the 7D are speed and AF. Since, I believe, speed here refers to burst mode then this is not important for me. I think the 5D will be fast enough for me. What I am not sure about is the implications concerning AF. I rarely shoot sports. I did shoot a Daytona 500 once, with a rebel, and got great shots one at a time. I never had trouble shooting with my 40D and I assume the 5D should be better here. So where is the advantage in the AF of the 7D for me?

      So perhaps I have reasoned myself into the 5D. Here’s a little more detail of what I shoot. Is there anything here to suggest the 7D is a better choice?

      I shoot people, places and things for my enjoyment, though these pictures end up being shown to my customer base. For work I shoot my product line for catalogs and presentations. And speaking of presentations it would not surprise me that one day I would to do these on 120″ screens. I also run slideshows at our parties on our 60″ plasma.

      Most of my shooting usually takes place on business trips. My work takes me to Morocco three times a year (central / mountains/ or dessert). During these trips I stop over in England and hit south west coastal areas for another week or two. On these trips I shoot landscapes, architecture, people, and fossils (my business).

      I spend 3 weeks a years in Italy (Alps / Coastal / City). Here I am stationary with computer and as many lens as I choose. I shoot landscapes, architecture, people.

      That’s the scope, more or less, of my shooting. I rarely travel without my camera so pictures are taken throughout my US travels as well.

      So maybe the question comes down to will the 7D shoot better hand-held than the 5D?

      Thanks for your time

      1. Hey Vinnie,

        You’re right, there would also be a drop in resolution when shooting the 7D hand-held. My point with the resolution issue was this: the level of resolution that we’re talking about (that differentiates the two cameras in question) is very fine; most photographers wouldn’t notice it under normal conditions (newspaper and magazine photographers shot with 10megapixel equipment for years). To get the kind of image resolution out of the 5D Mark II that it’s capable of, you have to use excellent technique… and that includes using a tripod. If you don’t, you’ll still get great photos… but they’ll be blurry at the finest levels of resolution. That is, the effective resolution is limited by your technique, not the camera… so it doesn’t particularly matter what camera you use, the resolution will be as good as your technique. So, if you’re paying an extra $1000 for a camera to get the highest possible resolution, it’s a bit of a waste… similarly imperfect technique on the 7D and 5D will yield the same image quality. There will still be more sensor resolution on the 5D, but as I’m sure you understand, more megapixels of a blurry image doesn’t make it any sharper.

        That said, I think your decision (or strong inclination, anyway :) ) to get the 5D makes a lot of sense for your shooting style. It sounds like you have some pretty amazing opportunities, and it would be a shame to lose any quality due to a small sensor.

        As for the AF, the 7D has multiple cross-type sensors, which means that they can pull focus in more low-contrast situations, with less light, and equally well whether your camera is oriented horizontal or vertical, with less searching. There are also more focusing points, for whatever that’s worth. Because of the dual-processors, the 7D can usually focus the lenses faster for sports photography, though even that difference is minimal. So, there’s a bit of a focusing advantage and there’s the burst advantage, and there’s a slightly higher flash sync on the 7D. But again, you’re right… unless you have trouble with the focusing system of the 40D, you won’t have trouble with that of the 5D Mark II.

        I understand exactly how you feel about the loss of the 10-22mm… it’s a great lens and a great focal length. Keep in mind, though, that it’s equivalent to a 16-35mm on a full frame sensor, and your 17-35 will replace that almost perfectly.

        One last thought… you mention showing your photos on a 60-120″ screen. Keep in mind that even the best 60″ screens are only 1080p. That’s 1080×1920 pixels, which is only TWO megapixels. You’ll only be displaying about 10% of your captured image data, regardless of which body you use. Moving up to the 120″ screen will just mean that each pixel will be displayed twice as large… not that you’ll be seeing more detail. So keep in mind that the resolution issues that we’ve discussed are really only relevant when you make large prints (or really zoom-in to your image in photoshop).

        Hope that helps! Good luck :)

        – Matthew

      2. Your comment in the third paragraph brings up a point which I do not recall seeing before concerning the two cameras. That being the 7D w/ 10-22mm lens vs. the 5D w/ 16-35mm. For me, anyway, I shoot with the 10-22mm 35% of the time. So I expect the D5 combo, hand held, should result in better photos than the D7 combo!

        Is the low light performance an issue with the 5D MII? One of the fun things I planned to explore with either camera was low light situations. I thought the 5D had the advantage here? I have a 50mm 1.4 lens and even thought of adding the 1.2L to my bag just for this reason. There are situations where I shoot and flash is not permitted. There are times when I want to take pictures without the annoyance of flash.

        1. The low light performance of the 5D Mark II is certainly better than the 7D when it comes to digital noise, although the difference is not as dramatic as I had expected. A good noise-reduction plugin will do wonders in either case, and the noise reduction in Photoshop CS5 is now pretty respectable too… but nothing after the fact will make up for good quality data to begin with, of course. :)

          If you like the 10-22 focal lengths on the 7D, you might consider selling your 17-35 2.8L and replacing it with the newer 16-35 2.8L, which is Canon’s more recent lens (the 17-35 has been discontinued). It has significantly better sharpness across the frame, and it will make a difference at 21 megapixels. If you haven’t already, you might consider going to photozone.de and taking a look at the lab test comparisons of the two lenses.

          – Matthew

  24. Thanks Matthew for the great article on a subject that I have been looking for an answer for, for a long time.
    I am trying to decide on what camera to purchase.
    I mainly shoot sports (my kids, friends and relatives), and I have done some portrait, landscape and have shot as a 2nd photographer at a couple of weddings.
    I have a canon 20d at the moment and my lenses are 50/1.8, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L, & 70-200/2.8L IS. I invested in lenses over the years as I knew then that they would be the ones I would hold on to as body’s change all the time.
    The reason I am having a difficult decision on which camera as I would consider both the 7d & 5d mk II is that I am also thinking of maybe getting just one camera and making that the 1d mkiv.
    If I was to buy only one camera between the 7d and 5d mk II which would you suggest?
    Everything is telling me that the 7d is the camera for me due to taking sports pictures but IQ points to the 5d mk II for portraits, landscapes etc.
    I must admit that the portrait shoot I did with the 20d came out fantastic as I had good light outside and put together a great series of photos so I think that the 7d would be even better than the 20d.
    I feel the 5d mk II would be too slow for sports.
    One other concern I have is how good is the weather sealing on these cameras? It has rained on me a couple of times shooting sports.
    Thanks again for the article and I am looking forward to your reply.

    1. If you primarily shoot sports photography, then I’d agree that the 7D is probably better suited to your needs than the 5D Mk II, since it has superior auto-focus, shooting speed, and you get the 1.6x crop factor to boost your lens to a 300+mm, all of which are significant advantages for sports. If you could afford the 1Ds MarkIV (or the mark III if you don’t care about video and want 21mp), they’d be superior cameras and you wouldn’t be wasting so much of your 16-35mm.

      However, there’s another way to look at it. Both cameras are going to be big improvements over your 20D. Ultimately, the 5D Mark II will give you the best image quality, and since you have a bunch of full frame lenses, they’re obviously a good fit for a full frame sensor. The auto-focus on the 5D Mark II will be better than that on the 20D, even if it’s not quite as good as that of the 7D, and the low-light / high-ISO image quality of the 5D will be better than the 7D (though it’s not a huge difference).

      So… since it sounds like your living doesn’t depend on sports photography, you can ask yourself whether AF performance similar to the 20D would be enough… and then you’d have the image quality of the 5D for all of your other endeavors. Many sports photographers don’t shoot in bursts anyway, so the the fps may not matter to you. You’d also have to think about losing the 1.6x crop factor, though.

      In the end, it all depends on your shooting style (in addition to your subject matter) and what more you feel you need from your camera. The price of the 5D Mark II has been coming down pretty steadily (on Amazon.com, anyway, here), so the price difference between cameras is only about $800 now (the 7D still at about $1599).

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

      1. Thanks for the reply Matthew.

        I do shoot in bursts sometimes, but I do try to get the shot with the 1st click of the shutter as 5fps is not much more than 3.9fps.

        I can get the 5dmkii at an incredible price which should be a no brainer then but I think that the 5dmkiii may be around the corner….. or 12 months away. If only I had a crystal ball :)

        Thanks again for the reply. I will take everything into consideration and hope to make my decision soon.

        1. Hey John,

          FWIW, the rumors that I’ve heard are saying that the 5D Mark III is still at least a year off (mid-2011), which is just fine with me. The Mark II is an awesome camera, and if they’re going to replace it, I’d rather wait until there are some serious feats of engineering rather than just a couple of minor tweaks.

          Of course, rumors are just rumors. But remember that the original 5D was announced in late 2005, and the Mark II was announced at the end of 2008. On the same schedule, obviously, that would put the Mark III at the end of 2011.

          I’d like to see the mark iii, though… if it has:
          even better noise controla true 16-bit sensor<an AF system at least as good as the 7Dhigher flash sync speedsa dedicated mirror lock-up buttonat least 40 megapixels

          Maybe I should just break down and buy a Phase One P65+ :)

          – Matthew

    2. The weight of the camera may be a factor when shooting sports. The 7D is 820g, the 5DII 810g, the 50D is 730g (all without battery). The 5D will usually need a heavier and larger lens to give the same range as a lens for an ASCP sensor. Have you considered the 50D?

  25. Hi Matthew,

    It’s so generous of you to take so much time giving advice! I’m also having difficulty deciding between the 7D and 5DMKII. One thing I am sure of is that I will be purchasing the Canon L Series 24-70 f2.8. The bulk of my shooting is pet photography and I’m now in the process of setting up a proper business with it. I’ve been shooting on the 7D and had my heart set on purchasing my own until I got hung up on the APS-C versus the full frame sensor.

    Nearly all of the pro pet shooters are on the 5DMKII. I’m now leaning toward it because of the advantages specific to this niche. I’m always shooting in natural light wide open, I love the wide angle look – the wider the better, good bokeh is very important, and my last concern is more of a future issue. Eventually I want to offer canvases as a product so optimal resolution will be crucial. But it’s not like the 7D is some kind of slouch. I like shooting on it now and it’s also got the advantage of the 19 point AF system among others.

    Starting out cost is obviously a factor and getting the 5D is going to mean I have to cut corners or go without other gear. I’m also worried about being that beginner that longs for ever more expensive gear thinking it’s going to improve their work. But I can’t escape thinking that the full frame sensor will be my best option, especially in the long run. I’d love to know what you think!

    1. Hello Gabby,

      Since you’ve undoubtedly taken some time to glance through the comments below, I’m sure that I don’t have to tell you that you’re in good company: lots of people really want to go for full frame sensors… pretty much just because they’re full frame sensors. Yes, there is some quality difference potential, and I understand the desire to think about the future when making a large purchase like this.

      That said, if you’re doing pet photography with natural light, you’re certainly going to be working hand-held, and frequently at your lens’ widest aperture (which is generally not going to give you the best performance anyway). Working this way negates the resolution advantage of working with the 5D Mark II. Yes, there’s still a 3 megapixel difference, but is that worth $1000 to you? Granted, the larger sensor will give you somewhat superior bokeh, but that can be achieved more easily by lens choice. You might try spending a couple hundred dollars on a 50mm f1.4 lens (they’re cheap and awesome for low light), and see how the bokeh below f2 grabs you. More importantly, the 7D has a superior auto-focus system, as you mention. It’s not just the fact that there are 19 focus points, it’s the number of CROSS-Type focusing points, which can full focus in a wider variety of lighting and contrast situations. This can be a huge help when working with animals (and children) who don’t always remain still for long. So, for your type of shooting, I’d really recommend the 7D.

      Finally, if you like the wide angle perspective, you should really consider trying out some of the wide angle zooms for the 7D (especially the Tokina 11-16 f2.8), and the other lenses that I mentioned to Lars, below. With a 24-70 on an APS-C camera, the wide end is disappointing in comparison. (If you’re concerned about the lens quality vs. Canon, take a look at the independent tests at photozone.de or similar test sites.)

      Purchasing this lens and body combo will save you somewhere in the range of $1200-1400, and that will give you flexibility to buy additional lenses, or if you’re just starting a proper business, it will make an important contribution to your advertising budget (or any of the other business expenses that never seem to end :) ).

      If you really want to 5D Mark II, though… go for it. There is no substitute for the satisfaction of getting what you really want! The best legitimate price that I’ve found is on Amazon.com (here), but you may be able to save a few dollars by searching further. DO make sure that you buy from a reputable website, though… there are lots of scammers out there.

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

      1. Hi Matthew,

        Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to me! I think you’re totally right about the advantage of the 7D’s AF system. All of the smart people that I keep asking tell me to just go with the 7D for my needs. Alas I’m still hung up on the sensor though.

        I’ve got a little bit of time left before I’ve got to commit. Why does Canon have to make this such a hard decision?!?!

  26. Wonderful article and thank you very much for the details on the two different cameras! Looking at these cameras, and I wish I could afford to buy 1 of each!! However, overall cost being an important consideration, I can only choose 1. Trying to decide is the dilemma I am having!!

    As for photographic style, I shoot different types. Primarily I do sports action, landscape / seascape, macro, and street photography. Thus, I can use the features of both cameras in everything I do.

    For sports action, it is not ultra critical for me to get the super fast fps that the 7D can do. When I do sports action, I take a lot of shots, but I take my time taking my shots, and this is why speed between shots is not such a factor.

    For my lenses, I only use a few having sold off some of my primes a couple of years ago. What I am using now is the Canon 70-200 F4 L zoom (non IS as I do not need IS and it saved me money!), a Canon F2.8 20mm Prime, and a Sigma 24-70 mm EX DG f2.8, which is my main workhorse! I have had the Sigma for 8 years now and bought it originally for my old EOS D60, and absolutely love it!! I am getting ready to send it in for service just to have it checked out, but it has never given me problems

    My current cameras that I use are an EOS 20D, and an EOS 3 film (I am sure that when I move up from my old 20D, I will see a tremendous difference!! ) These lenses work great with my current cameras so I am wondering how they might work with the 7D or 5D?

    I am leaning towards the 7D, but keep thinking how nice landscape / seascape photos would be with the 5D. Actually, the only reason I am considering the 5D is for that type of photography. I have actually considered buying an older use 5D instead of the 5 D Mark II. It is a tough decision, but I think I am going to go with the 7D for now and look at adding an additional lens to my current outfit.

    If you get a chance, I would really like your feedback on how my current set of lenses would work with either the 7D or 5D, and could you recommend another good zoom lens at a medium price that would compliment these cameras, but would still work nicely on my EOS 3 or 20D?

    1. Hi Lars,

      I understand your dilemma; those of us who shoot everything would really be best off with one of the EOS 1D series cameras, probably, but unless you make a considerable amount of money with your camera, they’re pretty cost prohibitive.

      I think that if I were in your position, I’d probably lean towards the 5D Mark II. It sounds as though your landscape photography is pretty important to you, and you’ll ultimately be able to get better results with the 5D. You’ll also be able to use the full field of view of your 24-70 and your 20mm, which gives you coverage from 24-200, plus the 20mm ultra wide. You’ll get better image quality from your Sigma lens on the 5D Mark II for reasons that I mention in the article (although the Sigma performs virtually as well as the Canon equivalent, so it’s not a big concern either way).

      If you buy the 7D, you’ll want to get a wide angle zoom for it, since even your widest lens will still only be the equivalent of a 32mm, which is not especially wide. Canon’s EF-S 10-22 is a good choice, but Sigma and Tokina also have quality offerings (specifically, the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is incredible, and the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM and Sigma 8-16mm f4 -5.6 are also very impressive). They’re going to be in the $700-$800 dollar range, though, which is going to get you close to what you’d be spending on the 5D Mark II.

      And, of course, if you were to buy a wide angle zoom for a 7D (such as the Canon 10-22mm), it would work well on your 20D, but it would not be compatible with your EOS 3. Going the full frame route would mean that all of your lenses would work on all of your cameras, which is always handy.

      That said… if you’re pretty well settled on buying the 7D, then there’s no doubt that it will give you incredible performance compared to your 20D, and when used well, will give you great performance in general for your landscape work. There’s really no wrong answer here.

      Incidentally, I’m a little surprised to hear that you’re still working with film! I still have my film bodies (older Canon EOS A2 and Nikon D90s), but never use them. My favorite films are not even produced anymore… Kodak Technical Pan was my black and white of choice, Agfa Ultra 50, and Fuji Velvia (still made? Probably). I love shooting black and white on film, but it’s just too expensive and time consuming compared to digital. I’m impressed that you’re still willing to put in the extra time and effort.

      Anyway, this may not have been exactly the answer you were looking for, but these are at least my initial thoughts. Let me know if you have further questions, I’m always happy to give my input.

      – Matthew

      1. Hi Matthew,

        Sorry for the slow reply back. I wanted to take a moment and thank you for the feedback and it was very helpful!! I have since ordered the 5D mark II and should be getting it any day now. I am really looking forward to it and I am already scouting out some areas to shoot!!

        I hear you on the film processing! The last time I used film for a major shoot was a Taekwondo Tournament in 2005 and I took 18 rolls using…if I can remember correctly…Fuji Press 800? Anyway…it was quite expensive!!

        That is the primary reason I like keeping my EOS 3 around, as I also love to shoot in BW. I like to use the Ilford HP5 Plus 400 as it gives me good contrast and I can use it in my street life photography. Luckily, I go back and forth to Manila Philippines about 2 to 3 times a year and I can get the BW developed for about 4 dollars a roll!!

        But your right…it is becoming more and more difficult as well as more expensive to shoot in film, but it is fun every now and then to go back to it :)

        Regards

  27. Hello Matthew,
    I have a 40d with 17 2.8, EF 50 1.4, EF 24-105, EFS 10-22 and two Leica R telephotos (135mm 2.8 and 70-200 4) I like the shallow DOF of the EF 50mm and the wide end of the 10-22 , and i,m in love of the colors, sharpness and dof of the Leicas.
    I shoot almost everything (not pro), but rarely sports or macro. If i would have one specific need it would be taking pics of my kids on the stage.
    I m not satisfied with the 40d in low light + decent shutter speeds
    I feel i need the 5dII (and i’m afraid that even completely satisfied with the 7d now, i will still want a full frame the next year) , but
    – greater financial sacrifice (maybe it will get cheaper used until the end of the year?)
    – no onboard flash (for fill flash, indoors and focus assist); i do have a speedlite 430ex
    – autofocus?
    So, please lead me in my choice

    1. Hi Lucian,

      The first thing to keep in mind is that if you get the 5D Mark II, you’ll not only have to pay a bit extra for the body (at $2399, the price is still dropping on Amazon , it’s worth checking now and then), you’ll also have to ditch your EF-S 10-22, which is a great lens… and the closest Canon relative for full frame is pretty pricey. That means you’re looking at about an extra $2k.

      The 5D mark II DOES have better low light performance than the 7D, although the 7D is also remarkably good. I published some test photos comparing the two on the site here somewhere, which you might want to check out. As for auto-focus, the 5D’s AF system is at least as good as your 40D’s system, but probably not a lot better. However, if your main concern is photographing stage performances, I wouldn’t expect the range of motion to be overly taxing on the AF system, especially if you’re using lenses with good contrast and large apertures. And I know how you feel about wanting to get a full frame SLR; it’s always tempting because of the fact that there’s a theoretical advantage that we’d all like to take practical advantage of, even though it’s not always so easy to do.

      That said, I’d still recommend the 7D. You won’t have to worry about having second-rate auto focus, you’ll get really high quality images, you’ll save quite a bit of money, and if you’re concerned about low-light performance, you can invest in a good noise reduction program, such as Topaz Denoise, which has received excellent reviews (I haven’t tested it yet).

      However, it’s always a waste of money to buy something that you’re pretty sure you’re not going to be satisfied with. If you’re not convinced that you’ll be happy with the 7D, then I’d just keep saving. You’re the only one who knows how much not having a full frame will bother you.

      – Matt

  28. Hello Matthew,
    I am just like everyone else. Trying to decide a 7D and 5DMII. I currently shoot events with a 400D, with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and a Nissin Di622 flash. I am currently doing events for free of charge to brush up my experience and skills. But organizers has expressed their concerns with my images and their own images for having a 400D guy walking around in the event. The professionals that they hired are carrying either 5DMII or D700.

    Sadly, organizers compared my pictures against the pro. So they find my pictures a bit warm and white balance seems off. So they begin to wonder whether giving me anymore chances makes anymore sense or is just a big waste of time.

    I have talked to many people. Some suggested upgrade the body, while some suggested get a EF 24-70 F2.8 and keep the tamron for wide angle work.

    I can afford the 5D Mark II but I will struggle to buy a decent lens. Similarly to 7D. I can afford the 7D but the only good lens that I can buy is the 17-40 F4L. Any advice is appreciated

    1. Hi Simon,

      This is an interesting question; sometimes everything depends on appearances rather than reality… and we would probably be out of work (as wedding & event photographers) if that were not the case.

      To begin with, I’d recommend the 7D over the 5D Mark II for event photography, especially if you do photojournalist style work, and even more so if you’re on a tight budget. If you were to go to KelbyTraining.com and watch David Zizer’s tutorial videos on wedding photography (which are good, but this is just a hypothetical), you’d see that he shoots lots of very high profile weddings on a Canon 40D. You don’t need to spend a fortune, and there should be no expectation for a particular camera… your work should speak for itself.

      Incidentally, I’ve always found that no matter what camera you’re using, people will treat you as a professional if you have a battery grip on your camera. It’s a funny thing; since amateurs rarely use them, it’s something that people simply associate with pros (and, of course, make sure that you ALWAYS keep the lens hood on your lens). Canon makes battery grips for all of their SLRs, but you can get cheaper ones on Amazon.com (like the Opteka or even the Jenis) or Ebay that will also do the job. Both jobs.

      But getting back to the point, I said that your work should speak for itself. No matter what camera you’re using, you should be able to correct the white balance and/or exposure . Perhaps you’re just mentioning an isolated incident, but you should always be shooting RAW. Doing so will allow you to correct the color/white balance after the fact, as long as you’re willing to put in the effort to do it (if you’d like tips on this, let me know). JPGs, on the other hand, can’t be perfectly corrected (even in camera raw), there are always going to be artifacts of your camera’s original settings after the corrections are made. And perhaps more important than a new camera or lens, when it comes to making prints, is having a good photo-editing monitor (with an IPS or similar panel rather than TN) and a color calibration system for it. Some of them are really inexpensive now, and they’re really necessary if you’re going to print. I’m working on a article about monitors for photo editing now, so check back in the next week or two for further information :)

      I wish that I could give you better advice when it comes to lenses. Unfortunately, there’s no easy answer. Getting professional quality equipment costs a lot, and it’s nearly impossible to work as a professional without it. These days, you really need a wide wide angle zoom, a standard zoom, a telephoto zoom, and something very fast (like a 50mm f1.4 or even f1.8). Take a look at the lens suggestions that I gave Nate, below. They were given with quality and budget in mind. Image stabilization can take the place of fast lenses to some degree if you’re not shooting fast action.

      With your Tamron, you’ve got the wide to mid range covered. If I were you, I’d look into a telephoto zoom instead, and keep using the 17-50 until you can afford a better lens in that focal length range. The Canon 70-200 IS f4L is a great lens, and not too expensive. Look for a used one, if necessary. The Canon 17-40 f4 isn’t really ideal for a camera like the 7D with an APS-C sensor. You’d be paying a lot of money for the fact that it’s an ultra-wide zoom for a full frame sensor, but you’d only be able to use it as a standard wide-mid zoom on a 7D.

      Sorry that I can’t give you more help this time. Good luck, and let me know how things turn out!

      – Matthew

      1. Hey Matthew. Just an update. I have decided to NOT to buy any new camera bodies. Having an high ISO and faster FPS is really a want than a need. Since most my pictures are taken between ISO 100 and ISO 800. I dont think I need to spent the money on a new body as the 400D is already doing well in that ISO region. The AF might not be as good but I would rather blame my skills than the AF.

        Furthermore, I have managed to hack the 400D. So it is now able to shoot at ISO 125 160 etc. I even have spot metering!

        By the way, I do need some tips on setting manual white balance. Maybe you can write about it? I have always wonder how to get the best result by using the white card and how frequent do I need to “update” the white balance, especially in the ever changing lights from the window or a hall that has a mixture of lights in different location. Or whether I need to shoot the white card with flash if I am using flash etc. I would really appreciate it if you can give some hints.

        1. Hi Simon,

          I think that I’ll write a new post here about white balance; it’s an important subject, and a more complex issue than I think I can do justice here in the comments section.

          Look for a post on the subject within the next couple of days. Of course, you can subscribe to this blog for update notifications… RSS is a good option :)

          – Matt

  29. Hi Matthew,
    I am currently caught in the middle of whether to buy the 7D or 5D markII. The photos i take mainly involve me holding the camera rather than using a tri/mono pod. Photos are mainly taken of family members both still and moving, sports and moving nature photos aswell. as landscape. My situation is this- i can afford the 5D but may struggle to get a good enough lens to get the most out of the 5D. With your experience and knowledge would you suggest the 5D or the 7D using the left money id spend on the 5D to buy a good lense to suit the 7D?

    Lastly, what would be your suggestions for lenses to suit the 7D for my needs?

    Many thanks for your time.

    Nate

    1. Hi Nate,

      It sounds like the Canon 7D
      would be perfect for the kind of work you do, since you shoot a lot of hand-held work and not primarily fine art and landscape or studio portraiture. There’s no doubt that you’d also be happy with the 5D Mark II
      , but it would probably be wasted money, since there wouldn’t be any practical benefit in image quality for the vast majority of the time.

      My general rule of thumb is always to buy the best lenses possible first, then worry about the camera. A cheap lens can ruin an otherwise great photo, and your camera is only as good as your lens allows it to be. The question is, then, what focal lengths you use the most.

      On a budget, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM is an awesome lens. It has a wonderful build quality, and is actually sharper than any other 70-200 lens that Canon makes (except for the new Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM
      , which is really spectacular, but expensive).

      If you’re looking for more of a wide to mid-range zoom, there are also a few good choices. For a full frame sensor, the 24-70 range is a great bottom end zoom, but it may not be exactly what you’re looking for for a 7D. Regardless, the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM
      is optically in the same class as the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
      , and costs considerably less.

      Perhaps a more typical zoom range for the 7D would be the 17-55, which is a good wide to mid. In this range, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is expensive, but has wonderfully high resolution characteristics, a good wide maximum aperture, and IS.

      I have some suggestions for ultra-wide zooms, too… but since it doesn’t sound like you’ll really use them, I’ll hold off for now, but let me know if you’d like further suggestions.

      Good luck, and let me know how things turns out :)

      – Matthew

      1. Hi Matthew,

        Thankyou so so much for your advice it was extremely helpful. Studying up on all the lenses you suggested im quite set on getting the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens, the resolution on alot of the samples ive seen are great which is what im looking for.

        Thankyou very much once again, and yes i will let you know how it all goes once im back from my trip, i may just post a few photos up here :D

  30. Hi. Thank you for your informative review. Looking for my first DSLR, I’ve pretty much narrowed the selection down to these two and your comparison did give me some extra points to consider before making my choice. Having said that, I still can’t seem to make up my mind. I was hoping that maybe if I give you a run-down of my style, needs and budget, that maybe you could give me your angle on my dilemma or at least point me towards some further reading material to help me better understand what the pay-offs and trade-offs are.

    I am a visual artist. I have a BA at an art and design school. For years I have been working with a film medium format Mamiya 6 camera (6×6) with Mamiya 50mm lens which produces beautiful super sharp images and medium format Holga which I really love because of it’s low-quality build which results in really interesting, unpredictable trashy interferences and light leaks which no photoshop artist could ever think up.

    The majority of my images are portraits – either full body, or from the waist up. Sometimes I crop the image to get just a head-shot portrait. Other images could be a house, a garden, an interior of a room – no vast landscapes and no extra close shots (can’t really with the 50mm Mamiya lens). 95% of my work is done in a rather controlled environment, meaning I can more or less take my time, take light readings, work with my subject and usually I can re-shoot several times if necessary. My style is not so much a “capture the moment” kind of thing where you impulsively whip out the camera and shoot something before it goes away 2 seconds later. Yet, I do feel that I am at a point where I would like to be a bit more spontaneous and cut down preparation time before shooting, while still preserving my original style.
    I use only available light and sometimes a camera-mounted flash for some fills. In fact, I kind of like over-doing the flash just a bit giving it a kind of obvious presence.
    The final product has been either a Lambda print or printed with at a specialist who does very high quality ink-jet prints. The size of the prints differs from 40×40 cm to 120×120 cm.
    The only digital camera I’ve ever used is a simple point and shoot Canon PowerShot S90 for everyday stuff.
    My reasons for wanting to get a digital SLR are (not in any particular order):
    1. An option for quicker work as opposed to my Mamiya
    2. The option to immediately see the image I shot. I work somewhat intuitively (as opposed to technically) and seeing the image could be really helpful for making small adjustments.
    3. I think that today is an era for digital images and I being one who has only worked with negatives and chemicals – I am very curious to dive into the digital realm.
    4. It’s becoming harder and harder to find high quality labs that work with film and prices for film, development, contacts and high-end scans are climbing. I am pretty sure that in the long-run having a digital camera as part of my working kit will save me money.

    I will also need to purchase a lens for either of the two Canon DSLRs and I’m also a bit undecided about that as well. Being so used to the Mamiya 6×6 frame, I’m not sure if I should stick with a 50mm lens (although the frame size will be smaller), or should I go for something like 24mm which I think should more or less give me the same diagonal field of view as the 50mm on my Mamiya. Then of course there is the option of getting the 24-70mm zoom lens which will of course give me the flexibility of choosing focal length, but at the cost of extra glass meaning losing a stop or two and loss in sharpness (not sure how significant). Plus, its another half kilo to lug around. From my research I’ve understood that I should be looking at the L series lenses.

    I’ll also need a flash to mount on the camera. I haven’t had time yet to research flashes yet. I have a Metz 32 MZ-3 which I use on my Mamiya. I have no idea if it can be used on any of the relevant Canon models.

    And finally, my budget. I have about $4000 to spend tops. If the more expensive camera is worth it, I would rather compromise at other ends – meaning possibly getting a 2nd hand or refurbished lens of flash for example (… I really need to check to see if my Metz flash is good with either the 7D or 5D…).

    Sorry for the long post :)

    1. Hi Adi,

      I appreciate all of the information!

      First of all, it seems pretty clear that the 5D Mark II would best suit your needs. In fact, you’re really the target audience for the camera. You make pretty substantial enlargements and will definitely need all of the resolution that you can get. If you had a higher budget, I’d recommend a Phase One / Mamiya digital medium format, but they’re prohibitively expensive for most photographers.

      The more difficult question is what a suitable lens would be. Depending on what frame aspect ratio you consider, a 50mm lens on a 6×6 is roughly equivalent to a 22-32mm lens on a 35mm full-frame digital camera (16-20mm or so on an APS-C sized sensor).

      All of these focal lengths are pretty wide, and with the 35mm film/sensor size, these are more likely to give you unwanted distortion. You may find that on a Canon 5D Mark II, a different lens would suit your needs better. A fixed 50mm f1.8 lens, for example, will only cost about $100… is cheap and light, and remarkably high quality (MTF over 3700 at f4). A 35mm or 24mm will cost more, but much less (at least $1000) than an L zoom in the range that you’re looking at.

      Without better knowledge of your work, I don’t think I can give specific advice on a lens, but I can offer a couple of suggestions. 1) Go to a good camera store (I know, there aren’t many left) and try on a few lenses of different focal lengths and decide which one gives you the perspective that you like.
      2) Before purchasing a lens, visit a lens testing website such as http://www.photozone.de and compare the lenses that you’re considering. Some L lenses are not as great as others, and you may find that you’ll be better served by buying a Sigma Professional lens, or another 3rd party’s lens.

      As for Flash… I don’t know the triggering voltage of the Metz that you mention, but using a non-dedicated flash on a modern digital camera can cause a lot of damage very quickly, so be sure it’s ok before trying it. I’ll give you the same advice that I gave Jean, below. I’d get a radio trigger for it, and spend some time over at strobist.com learning the ins and outs of off-camera flash. It’s really easy with digital, and it will give you an amazing amount of flexibility so you can be much more creative with your work.

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

  31. Dear Matthew
    I am an amateur having owned a EOS D40 for 3 yrs. I have the kit lense (18-55) an ef 70-300 is usm and ef 28 – 135 is. I hope you have the time to clarify my decision from your previous advice to other writers.
    I love to travel light, taking pictures on my walks, on holiday, of family etc. I will take the bag with all my photogrphic possessions if I am not walking and able to access the bag without actually carrying it for miles.
    I grabbed the shots http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=129638&id=539488252&l=d038bce2ae using my 70-300 at 300, 1000 sec at 5.6. I know they are not perfect by any means but I have them at A4 on the wall and they look attractive.
    I take the 28-135 out with me on holiday as it covers a lot of situations, and try n ot to feel too upset when I need the longer lens.
    An example of my 28-135 at 28 mm with built in flash. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4281253&l=8cecf95363&id=539488252 and the crop http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4281255&l=133f765f59&id=539488252 which looked much better printed out from the raw file.
    I want to improve my output and my final question is
    with my limited ability would I improve my output with either the 5D 11 or 7D, as I do a lot of hand held stuff, with the occasional use of a monopod I think the 7D would be the one. Do you agree?
    Thankseversomuch for your time
    Jean

    1. Hi Jean,

      Very nice photos, thanks for sharing them! I think the question that you’ll have to ask yourself is this: what is it about your photos that you’d like to improve? The 5D II and the 7D will both give you improved resolution over your current equipment… and if you mostly shoot hand-held, the 7D seems like a really good choice. The speed it will add for focusing and shooting continuous bursts will certainly be a help with photos like your lovely swan photos.

      You might also consider a couple of other options that would help improve your photography. One would be a faster lens (f2.8 or wider). If you had wanted to completely stop the motion of the wings on your swans, for example, IS will not help… you’d need a faster shutter speed. This can be done with a higher ISO (with a loss of image quality), or it can be done with a wider aperture. It would also help you get sharper images in low light situations, such as your final baby photo, though at the expense of some depth of field.

      Another option for you would be to buy a good quality flash and the equipment to use it off-camera, such as a couple Pocket Wizards or RadioPoppers, and spend some time at strobist.com, learning about off-camera flash lighting. This is something that I’ve done over the past few years, and it has made a very dramatic improvement in my photography (and at minimal cost).

      Of course, these options are not mutually exclusive :)

      Good luck, and please let me know if you have additional questions!

      – Matthew

      1. Dear Matthew
        Thanks for the reply, Just to mention the typo, the camera is a 400d. Senior moment, probably the cause of most of my problems.
        I am a bit cash strapped for one of the lovely lens, but was hoping a camera with better perfomance on higher ISO settings would make a difference and mean I could muddle along with the ones I have. Would love the occasional movie capability which I miss.
        I will try and spend time improving my technique with flash, it’s something that’s been on the list of to do’s.
        Thanks again, how on earth do you find the time to be so helpful to us all.
        Jean

  32. This is a great comparison and really helped me out. Cost is a factor for me and I want to upgrade my equipment over time. I am just a hobbyist and shoot mostly sports – outdoor family stuff on a large field (soccer/lacrosse/ultimate Frisbee) – so the body type that makes sense for me seems to be the 7d (which will save me some $$$’s :)… Should I upgrade the body – or the lens first? I currently have an older rebel XT and the main lens I use for the sports shoots is the EF 70-300 1:4-5.6 IS USM… I also have the 28-105 1:3.5-4.5 II USM for “everyday” shooting (which has been very good to me). I have been thinking of the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II USM (with an “extender” – either the 1.4X’s or the 2X’s)… so which should come first? the lens or the body?

    Thanks again for your GREAT comments and keeping it so even hobbyist can understand :)

    1. Hi Brian,

      That’s a good question… and the answer primarily depends on your needs (ie, what kinds of problems are you running into with your current setup?). These are the issues that the 7D body will help improve over your current setup:

      -Resolution. Higher resolution of the 7D will allow you to crop your photos in for better composition while retaining similar sharpness to the full frame of your current camera. That’s a big deal with sports photography. It also provides better resolution for bigger enlargements, but if you’re mostly doing sports type stuff, enlargement for its own sake might not be that big a deal.
      -Better focus tracking, faster focusing, less searching (although these also depend on the lens).
      -Higher frame rate, possibly higher max shutters speeds, and of course, HD Video
      -Better ISO range and digital noise control may allow for shooting in less light
      -Better visibility (the 7D has an awesome viewfinder).

      There may be others that I’m overlooking at the moment, but those are the first that come to mind. Now, as it happens, a higher quality lens such as the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II USM will help in some of the same ways, but will be limited by your camera.

      -Higher resolution lens will allow you to enlarge or crop your photos more while remaining sharp, but this is limited by your camera’s sensor’s ability to capture that sharpness.
      -Larger maximum aperture (at f2.8 compared to f5.6 at 200mm) will give you 4 times more light getting to your sensor (the difference between 1/250th sec. and 1/1000th sec.) This will give you better action stopping ability in a wider range of lighting situations.
      -Allows for fast focusing, less searching, and gets the most out of a camera’s focusing system
      -High resolution lenses such as this one are also excellent for fine art and landscape photography (and wildlife) if you turn your attention that direction. There’s also the fact that this lens is much more likely to remain in your photography bag for quite a few years, because it will work well on any camera body, while camera bodies themselves become outdated every 2 years or so.

      Of course, it may also come down to the fact that the 7D body costs a mere $1600 (price is dropping on Amazon), whereas the lens costs closer to $2400 (plus extender), though the lens will hold its value for many more years than the body.

      So… those are the criteria on which I’d probably base my decision. I’ll leave the decision of which ones are the most important up to you :) Good luck, and let me know if anything needs to be clarified.

      – Matthew

  33. Hi Matthew,

    I’ve purchased the 7D (waiting to arrive) and would like to know (in your opinion) which lens should I use with it. I am going to do event photography with the occasional portraiture and art photography (go to my site for samples of what I aspire to do ). I currently shoot (and you’re going to laugh) with a Digital Rebel XT. I wanted to upgrade to the 5D, but cost is a factor to purchase an upgrade in the near future (I could wait a few more month and save up for the 5D). I know that the 7D will be light-years ahead of the Rebel XT so I’m not dissappointed……yet. I just want to get the most out of the 7D before I upgrade yet again to a full-frame-esque camera.

    Regards,

    Alfred

    1. “I currently shoot (and you’re going to laugh) with a Digital Rebel XT.”

      Actually, it sounds as though you’ve already learned one of the important lessons of being a real photographer; the quality of your photos depends first and foremost on your skill and creativity… the camera that you use makes very little difference in the end (well, most of the time, anyway). Just take a look at all of those photos that David Hobby published in the Baltimore Sun Times that were shot with a Nikon D70 (6 megapixel).

      Anyway, I hate to say it, since it’s an expensive option… but my first choice right now is the new Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II USM, which has such remarkably high resolution, and consistently across the frame and focal lengths. There’s a big fat ad for it in the right column of this blog if you want to check the current price, but it’s around $2500. However, if that’s too much for you (and it is quite a bit of money), conisder the 70-200 f4 IS USM instead of one of the f2.8 models. The f4 has much higher resolution than the other f2.8 lenses, and is a pretty reasonable price. I’ve written a little comparison of some of these lenses, here, that you might find helpful.

      For an ultra-wide, you might consider the Sigma 12-24, which performs very well for the price (also a little steep).

      But those are good choices for getting the most out of your new camera.

      When I used to do more newspaper work, I’d generally carry two camera bodies (film), one with a 24-70 f2.8 and one with a 70-210 f2.8, so that I had everything covered from wide to medium-long telephoto. Doing events takes the same type of flexibility and versatility, and since you’ll be working hand-held most of the time, you won’t need to worry excessively about getting ultra high resolution lenses… so you could consider a good image stabilized full range zoom. There are lots of options there… let me know if you want some further suggestions.

      1. Thanks for the reply!

        Wow, you can sure make a guy feel emasculated!

        I currently have a Sigma DG 28-300 f:3.5-6.3 lens that I use almost exclusively aside from the kit lens. It was cheap, but it’s been good to me, though I suspected that it would be an inferior lens for the 7D. I assume you would recommend trading up.

        Thanks!

        1. Heheh, sorry about that! Of course, the Sigma 28-300 is an extremely versatile lens, which makes up for a lot. Unfortunately, the larger the zoom range, the harder it is to make a lens sharp at any particular focal length… so usually zoom lenses with a broad range have only moderately good resolution test results.

          As I mention in the article, THE limiting factor for resolution with the 7D (assuming that your camera is steady) is the resolution of the lens. The higher res your lenses are, the higher res your photos will be… which is why I suggested some very expensive lenses to get the most from your new camera.

          However, photographers rarely get the most out of their cameras, because perfect technique just isn’t a practical possibility for journalists (ie, heavy tripod, optimum aperture, cable release, scrim/hood, etc). What’s more important is that you get a lens that will do the job that you need it to do… and that includes covering the right focal length range, allowing enough light or stability (with IS), and fitting your budget.

          Again, let me recommend that you spend some time at a few lens testing sites (they all seem to have some biases) and read about the lenses that you believe will be most useful to you. Photozone.de is still probably my favorite.

          – Matt

          1. Matt,

            Thanks for the advice. I just got my 7D a few days ago and I must say that his camera has more configuration options than a Japanese car! Anyway, I was able to get the right configuration for my use. The Sigma that I have is now “worse off” because of the higher mega pixels: the softness is more noticeable now unless I’m in bright light. As an interim, would you suggest getting the kit lens (18-135mm) or should I stay with this lens until I can afford the 70-200 f2.8 bad boy that you mentioned earlier?

            Thanks again!

            –Alfred

          2. Alfred,

            The kit lens that you mention (Canon 18-135mm) is actually not going to give you satisfactory results either, probably. It has good center resolution, but the beyond the center, the results are very soft… some of the worst that I’ve seen in the corners at 135mm for most of the aperture range.

            I’d recommend that you save your money for the best quality lens that you can afford for the focal lengths that you use the most. This doesn’t necessarily rule out lenses by Sigma, Tamron, etc. The Sigma 100-300 f4 APO is a great lens, for example (though still not cheap). It’s hard to go wrong with the new Canon 70-200 f2.8 II or the 70-200 f4, of course.

            Good Luck!

            – Matthew

          3. Matt,

            Oook, so I used the 70-200 f/2.8L (not II) for 2 model shoots and a wedding. I also use the 16-35 f/2.8L. Beautiful pictures! Ok. Here’s the deal. I have some cash to buy up to three lenses: 24-105 f/4L, 85 f/1.2L II and, I’m teetering between the 100 f/2.8L Macro and the 70-200 f/4L IS.

            First question: I will be using these with my 7D. Which three would you recommend? I will be doing food photography, hence the macro lens, but would like to know whether or not I atually need the macro lens.

            Second Question: Because of budget, which TWO of the above would you recommend if I use with the 5D?

            Thanks again for all your advice!

            — Alfred

            1. Hi Alfred,

              First of all, I’d probably avoid the 24-105 if you’re going to be using it with the 7D. It’s actually a pretty average lens when it comes to image quality, and the 7D really won’t do it any favors (It has good but not great resolution, quite a bit of barrel distortion, and some softness away from the center of the image)… and with APS-C sensors, it’s not the most desirable zoom range, either.

              As for the macro, it really depends on what type of food photography you’re doing. Begin by getting out a dessert plate and focusing in as close as you can with your 200mm lens, and see if you really need a macro. If so, the 100mm might not be the best focal length for an APS-C like the 7D. Canon’s 60mm f2.8 macro is an awesome lens (optically excellent, probably better than the 100mm) and with the 1.6x crop, it becomes a 96mm lens, very much like the 100mm… and it can be purchased at Amazon or B&H right now for only $395. If you’re going to be using the 5D MkII, then of course you’ll want the 100mm. If you decide to get the IS USM version, great… it’s a really nice lens, if a little pricey. If you’re considering the standard version, you might want to look at the Sigma 105mm Macro instead. It’s optically on par with the Canon (or slightly superior), and costs about $479, with great build-quality.

              The 85mm f1.2 is an incredible lens, and probably better on the 7D than the 5D, since it is weakest around the edges… and with the 7D, you get its sweet spot. However, keep in mind that if you actually shoot it at f1.2, the depth of field is paper thin… sometimes too thin for my taste, and you’re paying a HUGE premium ($1950) for having 1/3 stop faster than anyone else. Canon’s 85mm f1.8, still giving you great bokeh and low light performance, is only $379, and Sigma’s 85mm f1.4 will also be over $1000 less, at about $899. I don’t mean to dissuade you from buying a premium lens… if you want it, then by all means, buy it (and preferably by clicking through one of my links!)… but I can’t think of a time in all my years of photography that I’d have been willing to pay $1000 to have an extra 1/3 f-stop of light.

              If you’ve read my article about the lineup of Canon’s 70-200s, then you know that I think that the f4 IS is an awesome lens, especially for the price. That said, the new 70-200 f2.8L II is the best lens on the market in this zoom range… it’s really pretty amazing. If I were you, I’d sell your older model, maybe save money on other lenses if necessary, and buy the new version, no matter what body you’re going to be using.

              So, I guess to answer your question…. for use with the 7D, I’d get the three other than the 24-105. For the 5D, it’s a hard choice, and will really depend on what you expect to be shooting the most. I’d probably drop the 70-200 from consideration since you have the range covered already. If you need a macro, then it’s an obvious choice… there’s no way to work around that. Then, to cover the wide-mid zoom range, the 24-105 seems like a good idea.

              Hope that helps a little!

              – Matthew

              PS- If you get the chance, join the community here! I’m trying to get it started, but these things take time… :) Thanks!

          4. Matt,

            Thanks again. I will consider the 85mm 1.8. I’m assuming that it’s optically on par with the 1.2? No? I just got spoiled with the the two L lenses that I rented for the shoots (I don’t own any of the 70-200mm). I just read your lens article and it looks like I will be getting the 70-200 f/2.8 (not sure if I’ll get the newest version or not). Judging by your reply, you imply that the 70-200 should serve me well for my macro photography (“mock macro” photography, I guess) so I will ixnay the macro lens. As far as the 24-105 for the 7D, I’m going to assume you would recommend the 24-70 f/2.8L instead.

            Thanks again.

            –Alfred

            PS
            I joined the community.

            1. First, let me say thanks for joining the community! I’m still testing the software, and frankly, it’s a mess. :)

              I’m not sure that I’d prefer the 24-70 over the 24-105. Unfortunately, I think that Canon’s wide angle lenses are just not their strong point. They’re both going to be great lenses, but they both have heavier barrel distortion than is ideal at the wide end. The 24-105 would probably be the better option for the 5D. For the 7D, there are quite a few additional cropped sensor options that will probably give you better performance.

              You might want to check out some of the lens testing sites (dpreview has some, but my favorite is photozone.de ), and take a look at what’s been tested and see what will work best for you.

              – Matthew

          5. Matt,

            Thanks for all your help. I wound up with the following: 5D, 24-105 f/4L, 85mm f/1.2 II, 60mm f/2.8 macro. I will be getting the 70-200 f/4L in a few weeks. On the macro lens……WOW that’s a nice lens! I’m using it on the 7D (obviously) and my wife wants to use it on the Rebel XT (she’s intimidated by my cameras). I can’t thank you enough! I’m very pleased with my purchase and that 85mm makes ANY subject look good. Even my “grande” Starbucks coffee cup on my table! :-) Though I will need to practice a bit with it.

            Again, thank you.

            –Alfred Lopez

            1. That’s an awesome haul of new photography equipment! Business must be good :) Hope it all works out for you! If you get a chance, I’d love to see some examples of shots from the 85mm f1.2. I’ve enabled an “Album” feature for members here, so you should be able to upload pictures to your album, if you are so inclined :)

              – Matthew

    2. Before investing in any camera for professional use, I would invest my money, and I did, in
      Canon L lenses. Mine are all 2.8 and up. Now I am looking at the 5d mark ii.

      1. Hi Rick,

        I agree… that’s solid advice. However, not all “L” lenses are worthy of the designation (the first version of the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM L was not very sharp and had centering issues), so it still pays to check independent resolution and performance tests. Depending on the subjects that a person shoots, they may be better off getting a good IS lens rather than an f2.8 (this was certainly the case with the 70-200 f4 before the release of the mark II of the f2.8).

        – Matthew

  34. I’ve Finally had a chance to look into the video features of each camera a bit more, and have decided that there’s enough information that I should write a brief new post on the subject rather than just adding on to this one.

    THE NEW ARTICLE IS HERE: http://www.lightandmatter.org/?p=972

    Hope that some of you find it helpful!

    – Matthew

  35. Matthew, also please suggest which camera has more flexibility. Do you see a likelihood of 5D getting firmware updated or will canon release 5D mark 3.

  36. Patil and Charlie,

    I’m afraid that when it comes to video, I can be of very little help, since I am exclusively a still photographer. I know that the 5D MarkII has recently had a firmware upgrade made available so that it can handle additional frame rates, and there are some basic frame rate differences at 1080p between the different models (I believe that the 7D is the most flexible).

    I can probably offer some analysis of the different video features, and explain how they would effect things, but that will take little time. I’ll see what I can do, though :)

    – Matthew

    1. Thank you Matthew, looking forward for your update.
      I know a lot of film projects are being done with 5d & 7d and I know 5d records compressed footage, so my main concern is its vfx possibilities.

  37. Hi,

    I currently use the Canon 40D for photos and the Canon XH A1 for video recording and I’m debating on whether to upgrade to the 7D or the 5D markII. I mostly shoot video and photography at nightclubs and concerts under low light conditions. Since I travel to various countries, I’m also looking for a camera that helps reduce the amount of equipment I take with me.

    Which one do you think is better for my work?

  38. Hi Matthew, Can you please let me know which one of these cameras (5d, 7d, t2i) are suitable for film making with vfx.

    1. PS: I meant for theatrical release, and is compressed footage very bad or is there any work around…

  39. Matthew,
    Thank you for this excellent unbiased review.
    The reason I came across your review in the first place is that I am having some second thoughts about an impulse purchase I made today and would love you opinion and suggestions.
    I am a hobbyist in the truest sense, I enjoy shooting nature, landscapes, architecture, interiors and portraits most friend especially like my close-ups making me the designated family photographer :):)
    I have been using a Rebel XSI for a while now, I have 4 EF-S lenses, normal zoom, 2 tele-zooms and a wide angle. I have been looking to upgrade the entire system for a while now: body and lenses.
    I have been thinking about the 5D2 for a while, and since i heard about the 7D I have been torn.
    Now today, in a complete spur of the moment I bought a Rebel T2i.
    The store has a 7 day return policy, so my dilemma is as follows
    I can stay with the T2i. (But i wonder if the professional quality of the L series lenses is a slight mismatch with the lighter quality of the body)
    or i can spend the extra money on the professional body.

    If your suggestion is the latter;
    Your report was so fair and unbiased that I still see no clear winner for my needs.
    After reading your review (especially the two columns at the bottom) I was leaning to the 7D. However, your reply to Joe “If cost were truly not an issue, and in the absence of a specific reason to choose the 7D, I’d recommend the 5D MarkII for the simple reason that it will ultimately provide better image quality, even if that difference is hard to measure in most real situations. It does have a significant advantage when it comes to digital noise, and a (perhaps less) significant advantage in resolution.”
    you had me all confused again.

    Please let me know what you think

    1. Hi Frans,

      Before anything else, let me mention that you might consider taking a look at my comparison of the T2i and 7D, which can be found here: http://www.lightandmatter.org/?p=757

      If your choice were simply between the 7D and keeping your T2i, I don’t see anything in your shooting style that leads me to believe that the 7D will give your superior results, although it may have a better feel in your hands and better balance with your high quality glass. I really prefer the viewfinder of the 7D, but its only really a major issue when shooting moving subjects in darker situations (like weddings). As a hobbyist, I’d probably save that $800 and buy a nice lens or good tripod, or flash equipment, or any of the other myriad things that would have a larger impact on the quality of your photography than paying for the 7D would.

      That said, the 5D2 could potentially give you better image quality than either of the less expensive cameras. However, if you don’t shoot tripod mounted (and it sounds like you don’t usually), that potentiality will go un-realized, and you won’t see any real significant difference between the images (ie, they’ll all be VERY high quality images, but not as technically sharp as they could be). So, you’ll have wasted at least $1000.

      So, unless you’re concerned about the focusing abilities of your T2i or concerned about the build quality of the body for the type of use that you’re going to give it, I’d stick with it and work on your creativity and technical skills with the equipment you have… or learn how to use basic off-camera flash, etc.

      I may be teaching some seminars here in WA later this summer, so if you’re at all interested, please send me an email and I’ll let you know what’s going to be available :)

      No no, wait! (Where’s my head?!?) What I meant to say was…… click on one of my Amazon.com ads and buy a 5D Mark II and some really expensive lenses! And perhaps a new computer system, too…

      :) Just Kidding

      – Matthew

      1. Matthew,
        once again thank you for making it very clear to me!
        I did exchange the T2i for a 7D and got a 24-70 2.8L lens.

        I ma looking forward to put it to the test!

        ps
        even at the last minute i was still thinking 5D markII but a pro photographer that I struck up a conversation with in the store, voiced the exact same opinions as yours about cameras, and discussing my photography in more detail it became much clearer that for me 7D is the way to go

        Thanks

  40. I currently use a canon 40-D, I would like to upgrade to the 7D or 5D markII, I do have 2 pieces of L-series glass24-70MM 1:28 l USM and zoom 70-200mm 1:28 L series USM glass. I don’t really shoot fast sports scenes of the kids so i don’t need lots of FPS speed. I do shoot pics of the kids playing sports though. I do shoot pics of the kids, landscapes, and architecture(buildings, etc) which camera would best suit my needs. On a recent trip to Wasington DC, did see the limitations of my current camera. I do have tri and monopods but usually shoot free hand. thanks in advance

    1. Hi Waldo,

      I’m inclined to say that the 7D would be best for you, since it will help you with the action that you do shoot and will give you better resolution than your 40D. It also sounds that the superior resolution of the 5D Mark II would be wasted most of the time since you rarely shoot from a tripod.

      However, what’s really important are what you believe the limitations of your 40D to be. The focusing of the 5D wouldn’t be much of an improvement, but the digital noise would be much better, for example. So, with some more specifics there, I might be able to offer better advice :)

      Good luck, and keep enjoying your photography!

      – Matthew

  41. Thanks Matthew for one of the better commentaries I have seen on this topic.
    I was wondering if I could get some additional feedback given the lens equipment I already own.

    I have a Canon 30D and want to upgrade to either the 7D or 5D (cost of camera not relevant)
    I own 3 lens, the Sigma EF-S 10-20, the Canon 24-70 2.8L and the Canon 70-200 f4L IS

    The dilemma I’m facing is, do I get the 7D and continue on the path I was going (adding the Canon 100-400 next year for a Safari trip) or do I go for the FF given I have 2 FF lens and add the 17-40 to get me back to the same range on the lower end. Albeit here the price is now becoming a factor.
    Also I have given up some of the crop zoom. I used exposure plot to see a little over 10% of my shots are between 200-300mm (adj for true 35mm) so not sure how much to worry about latter point especially if I get the ultrazoom (but I also need to carry it vs specific purpose events).

    Also I don’t target any specific type of photography, just a serious hobbyist, but I would say probably say sports is the least type of shot I take.

    Thanks

    1. Hi Joe,

      This is a tricky question to answer without knowing more about your needs. What is it, exactly, that you feel you’re missing the most with the 30D?

      If cost were truly not an issue, and in the absence of a specific reason to choose the 7D, I’d recommend the 5D MarkII for the simple reason that it will ultimately provide better image quality, even if that difference is hard to measure in most real situations. It does have a significant advantage when it comes to digital noise, and a (perhaps less) significant advantage in resolution. Instead of the Canon 17-40mm, you might consider the Sigma 12-24mm, which has exceptionally well controlled distortion and great resolution for about $850.

      If it were practical, you could get one of the new Canon 550D / Rebel T2i as a backup camera (here I’m thinking of your Safari). It uses the same sensor as the 7D and would give you the extra 1.6x crop factor for those telephotos, but at a substantially reduced price ($900). Or you could get the 1.4x teleconverter for the 5D, with the understanding that you’ll lose some light in the process.

      Taking a look back at your question, though… it seems that the only real deciding factor that you mention is the fact that you tend to shoot telephoto and you’re planning a photo Safari. Both of these point towards the 7D, since most (or at least a lot) of your Safari photos are going to be improved by a long telephoto. A 400mm won’t seem quite so powerful when you’re 100 yards away from an elephant; with the 1.6x crop factor and the response of something more like a 640mm lens, you’d be in much better shape.

      Hmm… I see that I’ve pointed you in both directions! If you have a chance to post again, I’d be interested to hear 1) what you do with your photos (ie, large prints, small prints, web, etc) and 2) what other types of shooting you do. In any case, good luck!

      – Matthew

      1. Thanks for your feedback.
        Reason for the upgrade from the 30D is to increase photo quality and perhaps some better autofocus technology.
        My photos are printed no bigger than 11×14 in my place (I rotate through about 10 frames), regular viewing is on a 55″ LCD and they are on a personal website.
        I do buildings and landscapes (usually travel based), portraits (wife, friends), lot of outdoor camping/hiking stuff, animal shots when I can.
        I guess I could keep the crop for safari but then that defeats getting better quality for the safari trip, although the dual camera setup may be interesting approach if got a small rebel.
        I’m removing price so that 7D doesnt come out on top over 5D but it does matter when it comes to lens replacements.
        Thx

        1. Hey Joe,

          That helps. First, regardless of the size of a TV, the resolution is still remarkably low. A 1080p HDTV has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels, which is only 2 megapixels, so keep in mind that you’ll always be throwing out around 90% of your information when you’re displaying a photo on an HDTV from a 20 mpixel original, so noise, resolution, etc, become non-issues. Instead, good post processing makes a huge difference.

          On the other hand, 11×14 is a pretty good sized enlargement for a 10 megapixel camera, and you’ll certainly see improvement moving to 18 or 20, and in fact, those would be large enough prints that you should expect to see some of the difference between the image quality of the 7D and 5D mark II, but ONLY IF you shoot tripod mounted with a cable release or timer.

          For a little perspective… when I started shooting college sports in 1994, my camera was a Canon EOS A2, and the only time that I experienced focusing problems was when I was in very low light (or sometimes when I was in very low contrast situations), and I can say that ALL of the modern Canons have superior focusing systems.

          It’s true that the 7D’s focusing system is superior to the 5Ds, but neither one is going to focus perfectly every time…. there will always be some searching and an occasional missed shot. Focusing performance is also very dependent on the lens being used, the focal length, and the motor type. You might consider taking your favorite lens to a good camera shop and trying it on both cameras, focusing out the windows on passing cars, pedestrians, etc, or whatever other test subjects are handy, and see how you feel about the difference.

          It sounds to me that all of the subjects that you’re most interested in photographing would best be served by using the 5D mark II. Certainly the landscape work, the architecture, outdoor, hiking/camping, and, at least when image quality is concerned, the wildlife. There’s still the issue of crop factor for telephoto work with wildlife, but that can be addressed with teleconverters or lens choice.

          So, at this point, I think that I’d really lean strongly towards the 5D. There’s the issue of cost, certainly, but I’m afraid that finances are an issue that I’ll have to leave up to you :)

          Good luck, and let me know how things go!

          – Matthew

  42. Nice unbiased review. I was wondering if it makes any difference if one uses EF lenses on the 7D as opposed to EF-S lenses. What I was thinking of doing is getting a 7D now but buying EF lenses so that when I upgrade later to a FF camera (perhaps a 5d mark III) I will be able to use the lenses on both cameras. Will the image quality on the 7D suffer if FF lenses are used?

    1. Hi Sarah,

      Actually, you’ll get even better image quality if you use EF lenses due to the “Sweet Spot” effect. Since lenses are typically sharpest in the center and image quality begins to fall off around the corners, and the small sensor of a camera like the 7D crops off those corners, you end up getting the best results from your lens. You’ll also get no (or very minimal) vignetting from EF lenses.

      – Matthew

  43. Now im confused after releasing the 7d , i dnt know wt to buy i m so hesitated should i buy the 5d mark II or the 7d !?

    1. I think that it’s safe to say that both of these are awesome cameras, and unless your shooting style provides a clear choice for one or the other, buy the one that you like the most and focus on your photography, not on the camera! No camera is going to make mediocre photography good (I can attest to this…), so when it doubt, spend more time taking pictures and less time choosing cameras :)

      The same is true with computers, only more so.

      – Matthew

  44. Hi Matthew,
    I usually don’t take time to write in such forums. (I have a 40D and am tmpted for an upgrade…struglling in between these 2 models as many other folks here).
    Just wanted to thank you not only for the review but also for your detailed/extensive feedback to all who raised various questions…I wish all the best !

    1. I was stuck in same dilemma. It came down to price, of course, but i still went with the 5d II.

      Also, coming from a 40d, i knew the 7d would be a more modest IQ upgrade. Will be selling my ole 40 in a few sad days. Is it possible to be attached to a camera?? sniff, sniff, boo hoo

      Haha. Anyway, the Mark II was what i really wanted with the clearly higher ISO advantage. Also, primes are normal length, meant to be used the way they were supposed to.

      The 7d is probably the best crop camera out now. But it can’t compare to this Cadillac I just bought today! A sports car or a luxury car?? Which one do you prefer? Speed and gadgets= 7d

      Not that its a inferior DSLR…but for low-light, wide angle, and DOF with my excellent primes (35L and 85/1.8) I needed Full framer. All along, it was my camera of choice. Now if they could have just updated the AF system and other aged featurers///////////////////

  45. This is an excellent article. Like other viewers, I also enjoyed reading it (learned few things as well). I am looking for equipment which can take good photos of kids in low light. 7D has good AF (fast) while 5D mark ii has superior low light performance (high ISO). It brings D700 into the equation (very good AF and excellent high ISO performance). 7D is very compelling given the features, newer technologies and cost factor. How do you compare D700 with the above (for kids photos in low light – evening home conditions)?

    I will be buying one of the above if I know which is more suited for kids photography.

    1. It really depends on what you have in mind by “low light”. If you only need a few extra stops of exposure, the 7D and the 5D Mark II both can shoot very clean photos at ISO1600 (a good 3 full stops faster than I normally shoot). If you need to push the ISO further, to 3200 or 6400, then the 5D is clearly the way to go… but the fact is that if you are shooting at such a high ISO, your image quality isn’t going to be great no matter what camera you use. You’ll get much better image quality using faster lenses (ie, f1.4 or f.2.8 rather than f4) or image stabilization lenses (which give you 3 extra stops for hand-holding, but not stopping action), or using some off-camera flash. I’m of the opinion that using off-camera flash is one of the very best ways to improve a person’s photography (at least when it comes to portraiture), especially when it is used in such a way that it appears to be natural light.

      The D700 is an interesting suggestion. It is, quite obviously, an incredible camera with very respectable low-light capabilities. It may have a very slight edge over the 5DmarkII, in fact (according to dxomark and other tests), when it comes to low-light image quality, at least at first glance.

      Keep in mind, however, that the D700 is only a 12 megapixel camera, AND that digital noise is a pixel level phenomenon. If you were to shoot 21mpixel files with the Canon 5D and down-sample them to 12 megapixels, the noise would practically disappear, and you’ve have a tremendous edge over the D700… and I’d much rather have the full 21 megapixel files for all of those other instances when I am not in very low light.

      In the end, any of the cameras would be great for what you’re doing. I’d pick the 7D or 5DmarkII over the Nikon because of the down-sampling issue that I mentioned (and cost), and the degree of darkness that you’re working in should dictate whether the 7D or 5D would work out better for you. Keep in mind that the 7D does have a slightly better focusing system for low light than the 5D, but you have potential for better image quality with the 5D.

      Good luck!

      – Matthew

      1. Thanks Matthew. I really appreciate your reply.

        I tried both 7D and 5D mark ii. They are both great cameras in their own respect.

        In the end, I bought D700. I checked so much on the internet – several reviews (I also personally held the cameras to have a feel). Your reply was very useful and it helped me to understand my main priority. I would like to shoot people and especially my kid(s). I see them mostly in the evening for the best part of the week. Autofocus and face recognition features (of course high ISO capabability) made me to decide on D700. But from my brief experience, I have a feeling that I prefer Canon’s colour tones than Nikon. I really enjoy using this camera – autofocus works brilliant (it does not hunt too much in low light). I feel more confident that I can manage good photo eventually. I still did not manage a good evening photo :-) as my son is still giving a huge challenge (it is harder with slow lens). I cant afford faster lens for a while.

        You have made a very interesting observation on down-sampling. I could observe that when I checked my friend’s landscape photo. 5D mark ii preserved amazing detail.

        In terms of my choice, I would have preferred 5D mark ii if it had better auto focusing (7D?) capability (and face recoginition feature). In most of the time, 7D should be very good.

        Once again, thanks for sharing your experience and advice.

        1. Very interesting, thanks for coming back and posting! I hope you keep checking back and let us know how you feel your decision was after you’ve spent some more time in the field.

          – Matthew

  46. Thank you for the review! Any suggestions for child portraiture photography? I want high resolution with the ability to enlarge well, but need some degree of speed for keeping up with the kiddos! I use almost entirely natural light, and mostly shoot outdoors. Thanks for your help!

    1. Sorry–meant to add: I am currently using the Canon 40d and have 3 different EF lenses, so I belive my lenses would work on the 5D mark ii. Thanks again.

      1. Hi Sara,

        That’s a good question… photographing children is right on the border between portraiture and sports/action photography :) Since you’re mostly going to be shooting with natural light (and I’ll assume that means that there will be enough light to hand-hold sharp photos), I wouldn’t worry too much about the auto-focus capabilities of the 5D Mark II; they are basically going to be about the same as your 40D (a bit better, really), and if you haven’t had major problems with it, there’s no need to worry. You will have to take a look at your shooting style and decide whether 2-3 frames per second is fast enough for you. I find that I rarely shoot bursts anyway, and when I do, I rarely shoot more than 2 or 3 shots, but I know some people really rely on their burst rate. I do sometimes for weddings, I suppose.

        Either camera should give you the resolution that you need for portraiture. Keep in mind that, unless you’re shooting outdoors with your camera tripod mounted, the resolution difference between the 5D and 7D is so minute that hand holding your camera introduces enough softness to make it insignificant at virtually any shutterspeed. Incidentally, I’ve found that even 10 Megapixel files, exposed properly and well lit, can be blown up to 16×20″ or larger without any problem, and with the use of Genuine Fractals or Blow-Up, they can go even larger. There is obviously a loss of some sharpness, but the viewing distance for larger prints is also greater, so it’s nothing to worry about.

        The 5D will have better dynamic range, if you need it, and if you do end up shooting products, studio portraiture, landscapes, etc, then you’ll certainly get better images from the 5DmkII. As I mentioned to Luke, for a professional photographer, the cost of equipment is not as bad as it seems when tax time comes around, so it may be that even the potential for shooting better images in some situation would be enough to justify the extra expense.

        I hope that helps a little, at least! Good luck :)

        – Matthew

  47. Hi Matthew,

    Great read compared to some of the comparisons out there on the 7D/5Dmk2 issue.

    Like others I’m doing my research before taking the plunge and investing in one of these bodies, however even after reading your review, I’m still at a loss as to what I prefer!

    I use my camera primarily for vehicle photography, static shots that rely on considerable detail, most of my work with that is tethered to a monopod (especially with my 70-200 f/2.8). In this case, the digital spirit level in the 7D is valuable to me, I like getting things right the first time. Aside from that style of photography, I do real estate photography, so plenty of wide angle usage and low light conditions unless I decide a flash is required for those horrendously lit rooms.

    Currently I have a Canon 50D with a 24-70 f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L and a Sigma 10-20. Obviously I’ll have to purchase an EF wide angle such as the 17-40 f/4 L. Will I really benefit that much from the jump up to full frame? I don’t really care about video that much, it will most likely never be used.

    Perhaps I’m overthinking this! Its quite a large investment and I don’t think I can go past the allure of full frame… But the $2,000 price difference between the 7D and the 5Dmk2+17-40 brings me down to earth a bit!

    What do you think :)

    1. Hi Luke,

      I received a very similar question from someone in an email yesterday… or at least, I think that you’ve reached the same point in the decision making process, which is this:

      You’ve realized that for the type of work you do, the Canon 5D Mark II will produce superior results, but you’re still not sure whether the difference is a significant enough one to justify the cost. It sounds to me as though the 5D would be great for the type of work you’re doing, and since you’ll eventually be able to write off the cost of the equipment as a business expense, you might want to look again at how much of an issue the cost will really be.

      That said, the most important factor regarding the significance of the image quality is going to be your output format. If you are producing images mainly for web advertising, for example, then your images are going to be down-sampled so heavily that there will be no practical difference in image quality. Similarly, if you normally get half page prints in magazines, the image quality difference between cameras will be pretty insignificant due to the down-sampling and the print quality. With full page spreads, though, there MIGHT be a difference, depending on the press and the paper quality. On the other hand, if you’re producing poster-size prints or other large fine art prints, you’ll certainly notice a difference.

      Perhaps it would be a useful exercise to look back at your photography from the past year or so and ask “Where has my image quality been a hindrance to my work? Where would better resolution have given me better results or gotten me another job?” Resolution-wise, the 7D probably won’t be much of an improvement over the 50D, since the 50D already has higher resolution than the lenses that you’re using. The low-light capabilities may be a little better, but it’s not going to be a huge difference. However, if there are other features that the 7D has that would make it attractive, such as the digital level, the viewfinder (which I love), the speed, the focusing, the video, etc, then it may still be worth it to you to upgrade.

      If you ask yourself these questions and can’t really come up with a practical reason, then you might think about what other things you could spend the money on that would improve your photography (ie, tilt-shift lenses, studio-strobes, training seminars/classes, etc).

      Good luck, and please post back and let me know what you decided on!

      – Matthew

      PS – As an alternative to Canon’s 17-40, which has performance problems at the wide end, you might also consider the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG IF HSM

      , which has some of the lowest distortion that I’ve seen on a lens in this range, and great resolution around 5.6-8. Canon’s EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is better than the 17-40, but costs $1450, whereas the Sigma is only $850 or so.
  48. Matthew: Enjoyed your comparitive analysis. I have been reading these reviews for some time and I rarely, if ever, hear any discussion about the fact that the cropped sensor on any camera should have better image quality in the corners since the image is passing through the “sweet spot” of the lens, and not the edge. All other things being equal. Am I missing something or is this just taken for granted? Thanks, Dale

    1. Hey Dale. Of course you’re absolutely right about the sweet-spot effect, but keep in mind that it’s only a factor when you’re using a full frame (EF) lens. When using an EF-S lens, the sweet spot is also smaller, so you lose your edge sharpness and get back some vignetting. I think that the fact is mentioned less frequently these days for that reason; people very commonly use lenses designed for smaller sensors now… but it’s certainly important to keep in mind if you’d be be using the same lens in either case (ie, all other things being equal). :)

  49. Nice article Matt! I’m torn between the 7D and 5DMkII right now. Would appreciate your opinion. I’m a budding macro photographer; 80% of my work would be macro and 20% landscape. I’m leaning towards MkII but I’m worried about: (a) only 9 point AF vs 19 point in 7D, (b) can’t use Canon EF-S lenses in MkII, and 7D can handle both EF and EF-S, (c) maybe I could start with 7D and wait for an upgrade to MKII? Thanks.

    1. Hi Monty, thanks for stopping by :) Let me begin by saying that ultimately, the 5Dmkii is going to give you the best image quality, even if it’s not a very significant difference in some circumstances. But there are a few other things to keep in mind:

      1. Working distance. If you’re doing macro photography of butterflies, insects, or any other subject that might be scared off, the 1.6x crop factor of the 7D will give you some extra working distance, which may make the difference between getting a shot and scaring the subject away.

      2. With macro photography, you’ll be working from a tripod (or should be) and at smaller apertures, so you’re going to be getting the most out of the 7D sensor. You’ll also find that fixed focal length macro lenses are among the highest resolution lenses manufactured, which will also help.

      3. Smaller sensor = less apparent depth of field from the same lens. With macro work, it’s always a challenge to get good depth of field (without combining multiple photos or other tricks), so this is a bit of a drawback for the 7D.

      4. I think that the focusing point would be a significant concern if the 19 points of the 7D covered a greater area than those of the 5D, since, again, you’ll be tripod mounted much of the time, so focusing and then re-framing might be problematic. However, they appear to cover about the same area, and in my experience, 9 points in that area is plenty (I’d rather not scroll through dozens of them).

      What I think is more important, though, is that the AF system of the 7D has more cross-type focusing points, which will allow it to pull focus on lower contrast subjects in more diverse lighting situations, at least in theory. I’ll admit that even back in the 1990s with my Canon EOS A2, I rarely had trouble focusing on anything… even when I was stacking close up lenses.

      So….

      I think the deciding factor for you will have to be what your subjects will be, how large you expect to enlarge, and how important it is for you to save the $1000 or so. That is the price of at least one high quality macro lens!

  50. Thank you Matthew. I am astounded by this review and by your personal responses. You have a very inviting writing style. This article has been more helpful (on this subject) than all the other sites I’ve looked at combined. I apologize if these questions are too amateur but can you give us some examples of lenses that would be good to use with the 7D? Would any L series IS lens be at a higher quality than the 7D sensor? By looking at the specs of a lens, how can you tell if the quality is better than the camera?

    1. Hi Thad,

      Thanks for the response! It’s always good to hear what people find useful in these posts.

      From my research over the past several months, I have not yet found a lens that truly out-resolves the sensor of the 7D, so what we’re really looking for are the lenses that are the closest to getting there.

      On that count, there are probably a few best lenses in every class, but I’m afraid that it’s too much information to get into in this venue. What I’d recommend is this: decide on the focal lengths that you’re interested in (make a short list), and then go to at least two of the top lens testing sites, and see which lenses will give you the highest resolution (and also make a note of the aperture at which they give the highest resolution).

      My first choice is usually http://www.photozone.de

      For Canon lenses, a good second stop is http://www.eflens.com/ , which is a directory of different reviews. For Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc, it’s always helpful to Google for reviews (which is why it’s important to start with a short list :) ).

      In the end, of course it’s really important to do a reality check. How are you going to be using your camera, and how large are you going to be printing? If you’re primarily going to be taking photos that are going to be enlarged to 16×20″ or beyond, but they’re going to be tripod mounted… you can always stitch together a few shots to form a “panorama”, which is essentially doubling or tripling (or more) your pixel count, which can make an enormous difference (where it’s practical).

      Sorry that I can’t be more help than that! Good luck in your own research, and let me know if you come up with any definitive answers (or more questions, for that matter).

  51. Nice and very informative article. Thank you.
    I am hoping that you could provide me with further quidance. I am not a professional photographer, just an average “good” hobbiest. I am an Architect and thus my primary subject would be buildings. I also travel around the world and like to document and photograph historical buildings, landscapes, and sometimes interesting scenes. My problem, however, has always been shooting the interiors of buildings with low light conditions. Absent travelling with elaborate lighting devices, which one cannot carry and would not be able to set up anyway, I was wondering if a full frame camera like the 5D-II would offer any advantages in low light conditions? I’ve read in some places that it does, while others say that it does not. What is your opinion?

    1. Low light is always a tricky issue. There are a variety of strategies to deal with it, but the only one that really depends on the camera body itself is the ISO and related digital noise.

      As I mentioned above, it’s generally true that larger sensors tend to produce less digital noise. It’s also true that the 5DII has one extra f-stop at the top end of its ISO range (though you’d probably be foolish to shoot that high with any regularity). In practical terms, however, it’s not clear to me that there is a very significant difference in the digital noise that the two produce. I did a brief comparison of the digital noise from these cameras (found under the “New Equipment Reviews” tab at the top of the page… but you can also find more comprehensive ones around the internet. The 5D Mark II is a little better, but by the time that you’ve increased the ISO enough that difference is significant, neither camera is going to be producing very attractive images.

      You might consider saving the $1000 and buying a Tilt/Shift lens instead, which is a must-have for an architectural photographer (and a book like Michael Harris’ “Professional Architectural Photography” to learn why it’s important). Buying professional quality lenses will give you better quality photos in low light than by shooting at high ISO with a cheaper lens. The difference between shooting at ISO 400 and ISO 3200 is only 3 f-stops, and even though there isn’t a big difference in noise between the two cameras at that ISO, there is a BIG loss in quality over shooting at ISO 400. On the other hand, shooting at f2.8 (pro lens) vs f5.6 (cheap lens) gives you two f-stops, and using an image-stabilizer lens can give you another 3 stops.

      To put that another way, if you need to get 5 f-stops more “exposure” to your sensor, you can either crank up your ISO from 200 to 6400, or you can leave it at 200 and open your aperture to f2.8 and use an IS lens to allow slower shutter speed use.

      And, as long as I’ve already gotten off topic a bit… you can also do some really amazing things by using one or two small, battery-powered flashes. Of course, nobody really likes how flash photos look… when we’re talking about using the flash attached to the top of the camera. But if you take them OFF the camera, attach a radio trigger like a RadioPopper or Pocket Wizard, you can create really dramatic, yet natural looking lighting effects. Just something to keep in mind.

      Hope that answered at least as many questions as it raised!

  52. This has been extremely helpful! I have been very confused and slightly mislead on the differences between the 5D and 7D. Thank you for your clear and concise comparison!

  53. Hi,

    Really nice article.

    I would like to know if you think that a resampled 5D file will be equal or better in IQ performance than a 7D files.

    To make an example shooting a distance subject with a 300mm 5D & 7D, the 5D file resampled to match the same resolution will be better than the 7D one?

    Best regard
    Daniele

    1. Hi Daniele, that’s a good question. In the end, I think it will depend on the lens that is being used.

      Looking at the example you provided, let’s assume for the moment that the lens in question has a higher resolution than the sensor of the 7D and that digital noise isn’t a factor.

      Since the image produced by the lens would be the same size at the focal plane of both cameras, and the pixel density of the 7D sensor is greater in the area that will be used (after scaling on the 5D Mark II), it will capture more information and produce a higher quality image. Basically, since you’re only going to be using a portion of the 5D mark II’s sensor (by cropping in), you’re comparing image quality of a 13.2 (1.6x crop factor) megapixel file vs. the 18 megapixel file of the 7D. Winner : 7D

      However… if the 7D sensor is higher resolution than the lens, the amount of improvement is diminished to the resolution of the lens. If, for example, the lens’ resolution would match an aps-c sensor at 14 megapixels, then most of those extra pixels on the 7D would be wasted; your image would be just as good on a 50D. This is actually pretty likely with a lot of lenses. Winner: 7D, but not my much.

      Finally…. what if the sensors of BOTH cameras out-resolve the lens? Then there would be NO PRACTICAL difference in image quality… only a difference in file size.

      Oh, and it would be time to buy a new lens :)

  54. I found your review EXTREMELY helpful!! I’m debating between these two cameras, but i can’t quite figure out which one to get. I’m heading to hawaii in a few months, so im doin my research now. Thanks!

  55. A very helpful review — thanks for taking the time to post. I have been going back and forth between the 7D and the 5D Mark II. I think the best for me is to do the 7D and then possibly upgrade in 1-2 years when the 5D Mark III comes out.

  56. An excellent and balanced review. I shoot a lot with a pal and we share equipment – which means I borrow his gear as he is rich and I am not! I have a 30D that I realy need to upgrade. he has a 40D, 5D & 5D2. I was looking at his 5D to buy. However, I can borrow the 5D2 if I need to take landscapes. My own style is very different than my pal. He is landscape driven where I am a hip shot – can’t be bothered with post processing, photo journalist type. I have only three lenses. 24-105L, 50m1.4 and a lensbaby. After reading your analyses the 7D is my choice – so thanks again.

  57. I particularly loved the unbiased feel of this review, and i would think for those photographers who prefer cameras to photography, or have difficulty to see the trees from the woods on the photography web, your final 2-column comparison does the trick perfectly. Well done! I shall certainly bookmark your site.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *