dSLR decision - 7D & 5DII

[MCTuomey]

If you need a digital, buy a $900 5D and the less expensive 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 primes.

You'll get the big viewfinder and image quality. Nobody is ever going to look at your photos and tell you that you should have used a better camera or lens. And you'll have gear that is already depreciated to a base price so you're not pissing your money away.

If you're not shooting wildlife or sports, why keep the 7D? +1 Frank's advice - with the 5D you'll be able to print well at reasonable sizes for least cost. I'd pair the EF 35/2, 50/1.4, and 100/2 with it (all 3 used under $1000). Or if you need a zoom, the older 28-70L or 28-80L. Or even better, put a Zeiss ZE on the 5D ... now we're talking.

 

[f16sunshine]

The 5D/5Dii is the camera if you are invested in lenses from Leica R, contax, or zuiko. I am a longtime Zeiss Contax user. When digital slr's came about I bought the original 5D to extend my contax system to digital. I tried a 20D and hated the crop factor. The 5Dii is an improvement from the original in a few ways. The live view is useful in studio for product work and such. The auto sensor cleaning works quite well. High ISO is much better than Internet chatter. The raw files are often overly big full res but you have 2 smaller raw files to choose from if you are doing work for use online only. Also with the 5Dii you can micro-adjust af for each lens to the camera. This works even for adapted lenses that have the latest CPU. It is a very useful feature if you use fast lenses especially.

I can't give you advise but, there is my experience or a small bit of it anyway.

 

[pachuco]

Andy (f16sunshine) knows what he is talking about and was the one that turned me on to putting older manual focus lenses on EOS digital bodies.

My 2 cents... Between my business partner and I we use a 5DmkII, 60D, 7D, and a 20D for wedding and hell if know what camera took what image. I prefer the 60D for everyday shooting because of it's size and features but I would still use the 20D if it used the same batteries as the others. Good luck and I really don't think you can go wrong with either the 7D or 5DmkII.

P.S. - anyone that gets "garbage" out of a crop sensor may want to return it to the manufacture 😀

 

[gavinlg]

If you buy a 5D2 today in a year it will be worth 60%. If you buy a film M body it will probably be worth more in a year!

Depends. I bought my current most used 5d in 2007ish for $1800 brand new. If I was to sell it now, I'd probably get about 1100-1200 for it.
The cheaper DSLRs are the ones that are worth nothing after a few years - a 500d is worth like $250 down from 1000 just 2 years ago.

It doesn't matter if you use them though - the original 5d is good enough so that you don't really need to sell it unless you specifically need something like live view. I'm keeping mine and will be retiring it to backup and rough conditions camera when the 5d III comes out sometime next year. Even then, I don't expect the 5d III to be much more of a 'real world' improvement. There's really no need to sell them and 'upgrade' to newer models. This in contrast with the lower end DSLRs which improve a LOT every generation - for instance the panasonic g1 vs the g3 is a BIG difference in IQ.

Add to that brilliant lenses like the 24L and 35L lose their 'sparkle' on aps-c cameras (35L becomes massive 50mm f1.4 on crop canon - still retains 35mm field of view which makes things a little weird).

 

[Rogier]

There is no substitute for sensor size.
The only excuse for buying a dslr with a smaller than full frame sensor is if you are into shooting long lenses.

 

[Jobin33]

Iv had both as well as the legendary 35L. Full frame makes all the difference in the world. Crop factors give you awkward focal lengths and terrible low light quality. Both cameras are awesome in their own right but if you can swing the 5d, why not?

 

[redisburning]

P.S. - anyone that gets "garbage" out of a crop sensor may want to return it to the manufacture 😀

I would love to send my 40D back to Canon; maybe they can send me a note back apologizing for how bad the colors, detail, low iso shadow noise and viewfinder are.

all I can say is Im glad I bought used; the camera sucks. enjoy your APS-c camera, Ill never buy another one again unless it costs less than a meal at a fast food joint.

 

[Paddy C]

I was looking at DSLRS recently and if I was going to buy one it would have to be full frame. I'm not going to for the foreseeable future.

Aside from all the other "pluses", it's the viewfinder that does it for me. Even the high-end crop cameras have IMO crappy viewfinders. I would not want to spend my time framing the world with them.

You can get a 5D II for $2,000 CDN right now (don't know what they go for down south). Seems like a good time to buy.

And just ignore Frank. He's become too sensible. 😉

 

[celluloidprop]

Nearly ordered a 5D II from B&H last night for $1999. I've been weighing the pros and cons and decided that there weren't that many downsides at that price. But I just can't convince myself that I'm going to enjoy shooting with a big ol' dSLR again.

The X100 I have isn't the fastest-focuser and I miss having the option of 21/24 or 50 sometimes, but I feel like it's enough camera to be my main body until I find out what Fuji has in store with their interchangeable system, or what else might be coming down the pike.

 

[Paddy C]

Ordered a 5D II from B&H last night for $1999. I've been weighing the pros and cons and decided that there weren't that many downsides at that price.

Good call. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

 

[celluloidprop]

Ha, I had to edit. Brain froze somehow when typing.

$2k is a fantastic deal, but when I started weighing the lens costs and how much I wanted to go from the two small bodies I've been using (M4 and X100) back to a dSLR, I decided against.

Thankfully I'm still holding the mental line on selling a kidney to buy a M9.

 

[Paddy C]

Ha, I had to edit. Brain froze somehow when typing.

$2k is a fantastic deal, but when I started weighing the lens costs and how much I wanted to go from the two small bodies I've been using (M4 and X100) back to a dSLR, I decided against.

Thankfully I'm still holding the mental line on selling a kidney to buy a M9.

Good call. 😉

The cost of buying lenses is what held me back from making a FF purchase as well. (picking up a NEX 5N this week).

I realize the M9 is a sort of holy grail for many, but IMHO it is not worth the investment, both in the body and the now exceptionally expensive lenses. That's just me so don't flame.

 

[emraphoto]

There is no substitute for sensor size.
The only excuse for buying a dslr with a smaller than full frame sensor is if you are into shooting long lenses.

i looked at the 5d and 7d very closely recently. there were other reasons i was looking at the 7d (it would have been the canon i bought if i bought canon). it is a much faster camera in operation. fast af, faster frame rate etc. for photojournalism this is most certainly a consideration.

the 7d also has more alternate frame rates for video, including NTSC standard rates so less work converting and PAL options. there is no need to convert to 24p as the 7d shoots it.

the 7d output for external monitors is not compressed/condensed so much better for manual focus with externals.

the 7d has a 100% coverage finder with 1x magnification.

the 7d's af is very, very advanced and the user can customize their brain sout. 19af points that can be clustered to your preference.

the 7d has a shutter design from the 1d series. rated to 150,000 and very quick.

i know there is more but i don't have my moleskin with me.

as mentioned earlier, what the camera is for will determine the end choice.

if you are just looking for a great stills set then sell, as Frank has mentioned, and pick up the 35 f1.4L and an original 5D

 

[celluloidprop]

I realize the M9 is a sort of holy grail for many, but IMHO it is not worth the investment, both in the body and the now exceptionally expensive lenses. That's just me so don't flame.

I agree, that's what stops me every time I think about it. $7k for a camera that suffers at higher ISOs, carries a less than stellar service reputation and has a shortage of available quality lenses (even Zeiss ZMs being fairly difficult to locate). The joys of being the only game in town, I suppose.

I'm not married to the existence of the rangefinder patch - so I'm eager to see how mirrorless systems mature (better and better built-in EVFs, fast lenses in the traditional equivalents, etc.).