dSLR decision - 7D & 5DII

[celluloidprop]

Received a Canon 7D & 17-55/2.8 IS in trade - original plan was to sell them, but I'm starting to think that a dSLR (particularly with quality LiveView) could be useful for me. Definitely selling the 17-55/2.8 (no love for zooms, even though this one seems great), but now I'm seeing (at least) two paths:

Keep 7D, sell 17-55, buy 24L II. That gets me a 35-40mm FOV @ f/1.4, fast AF, quality body. Noise and DR aren't D700-quality, but are pretty good overall. Out of pocket cost, ~$500. Upside: I already have the 7D, AF should be good enough to capture some kinds of action if necessary. Downside: APS-C sensor limits wide-angle choices, smaller viewfinder.

Sell 7D & 17-55, buy 5D II while they're (relatively) cheap and pick up a 50/1.4. Pair that with a 24L down the road when I can afford it. Out of pocket cost, ~$700. Upside: bigger VF, potentially superior DR for B&W work. Downside: slower AF, the 50/1.4 won't be the equal of the 24L.

Leaning 7D+24L - having the 24L already would make it easier to justify buying a 5D III in a year if I wanted to.

Or I could sell them both as initially intended and continue on with my X100 as my sole digital body and see what the Fuji mirrorless system looks like in a few months.

I wish I were dumb enough to just mortgage a kidney and get a M9 (not that getting a M9 is dumb - it just would be for me).

 

[filmtwit]

Keep your 17-55 f2.8l
Pick up the Sigma 30mm f1.4
You're now set.

 

[redisburning]

Id go 5D over 7D 100 out of 100 times.

I know we all have our own take on FF vs APS-c but the word I would use to describe the latter is "garbage" personally.

I dont see the need to have marginally better AF either; afterall the 7D still isnt a 1 body in terms of that.

if you already have a digicam you like sell both and keep the x100.

 

[ark8012]

One more vote for 5DII. 7D is really great camera, but go for 5DII if you like wide angle.
And you might not need $700 to change your 7D kit to 5DII kit you mentioned.
I think the different value between two kit might be less than $500 now.

 

[sparrow6224]

5D MkII. 5D MkII. 5D MkII. Can I say it one more time? 5D MkII. Being a Nikonista I had a D300 and finally got a D700 and the difference is like getting a full breath of air after coming up from the mines. And every pro I run into using the 5D MkII absolutely loves the thing. I want one myself for my M42s and R-Leica lenses.

 

[huntjump]

What kind of work will you be using this camera for?

 

[KarlG]

As someone with a 5DII, 24LII & 50/1.4, I can't recommend this combo enough. The size is the only thing that I don't like, but otherwise it's a pretty awesome setup!

 

[Frank Petronio]

Convert it to cash, or better yet, appreciating Leica gear.

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.

 

[PatrickCheung]

if you're selling the entire system (7D + 17-55/2.8), then why not consider the Nikon D700 which, as you said, has better dynamic range and noise control, not to mention a slightly more accurate (at least that's how I felt when I compared Nikons to Canons) AF system, and the opportunity to use a superior wireless flash system (Nikon CLS is great, used it lots for my paid work)?

Plus, there are a ton of nice Nikon manual focus primes that deliver great images at a fraction of the cost of an L, or even a gold ring Nikon!

Just a suggestion.

 

[celluloidprop]

I had a D700 for several years and sold it earlier this year. Great camera, but no video (which is a toy for me, but an interesting toy) and the LiveView didn't work that well for me. The extra megapixels of the 5D II are a bonus for cropping.

Other thing is that if they can be found, D700s are still running ~$500 more than 5DII bodies. System costs favor Canon as well - the 24L/24G is ~$400 difference or more.

re: use - pretty much all-purpose, I have a few projects I want to start working on (after a year floundering without any). A couple of those ideas would lead me to using it like I used to use medium-format - tripod work, some at night. I want to try to document more public events in my area - the Stock Show coming up, the State Fair next fall, sporting events - my concept is that I'm too tied down to pack up and move to a hovel in Brooklyn and become Winogrand Jr., so I need to work on an idiom that's more appropriate to my life and my surroundings. I see that as encompassing documentary/street but also urban landscapes and architecture.

 

[celluloidprop]

The original 5D is an interesting idea. I borrowed one several times and the files I have stand up well. I may look into that (even though it loses video and Live View).

 

[gavinlg]

Just get full frame. A million times over - go a 5d II or if you want to save money, a 5d classic. The difference between full frame and aps-c is night and day.

 

[gavinlg]

Convert it to cash, or better yet, appreciating Leica gear.

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.

On a related note I would rather have a 5d with a 35mm f2 or 28mm f1.8 than a 7d with a 35L. The full frame cameras are so much kinder to lenses.

 

[Matus]

Frank is onto something here. Unless you can profit from the 1.5 crop factor of the 7D (sports, wildlife) than I do not see the advantages. The camera is as big as the 5D I/II is.

I expect that 5D III will hit the market relatively soon (the 5DII is getting of age) and once it will the II will go down with price, the older 5D not really.

So unless you need 24 Mpix a plain 5D seems to be a good choice.

 

[Fraser]

Even if a 5d111 comes out soon the 5dmk11 won't drop that much in price, the original 5d secondhand is still about £800 for a decent one and they were only £1100 new!
Get the 5d you can't go wrong, a 5d and 35mm f2 perfect!

 

[useless generation]

How about the HD video between the 5DII and the 7D? Does the 7D
Come out on top!?

 

[DamenS]

Keep the 7d for the moment, unless the need to change cameras is so obvious to you that you do not need to ask the question of other members on a forum. Both the Canon 5d II and Nikon D700 are well overdue for replacement. The Nikon "D800" may very well have great video. The Canon 5d Mark III will cause the prices of used Canon 5d Mark II's to drop dramatically. This means you could then sell your 7d and pick up a used Canon 5d Mark II at dramatic discount, decide to pay the extra for the Canon 5d Mark III because of its improved AF etc, or decide to go for the new Nikon. The Canon 7d should not depreciate in price by quite as much as the Canon 5d Mark II you are considering buying by the time you go to sell it to buy the "new" camera (or second hand 5d Mark II).

 

[lynnb]

Is shallow DOF important to you? If so, go for a larger sensor -> 5D.
Bigger, brighter viewfinder? 5D.
Not overly concerned about the weight of your camera bag and shoulder strap? 5D.
I use a classic 5D and a 550D. There's not a huge difference between them in IQ, but the 5D files are definitely more malleable in post.
I understand the 5DIIs files are even better, particularly for large prints.
Frank's suggestion is sound. Decide what is "good enough" for your purposes - the 5D classic might be all you need, and you can then afford better glass.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Haha and I hate Canons in general -- I find their build quality, AF, and metering to be atrocious. But I do give good advice ;-p

Let me rephrase that. I hate Nikon digitals less. I don't love any of them, I think the manufacturers are brain dead to create these cameras that are 90% "there" and then mess them up with stupid interfaces and dumb "features" that inhibit their proper use. They frustrate me to the point that I rather give up their easy color and high ISO performance and go back to film. If I need a digital for grunt work then I'll just use the cheapest, last generation product that I can get away with - tying money up in digital is silly.

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!

I'm sure the next 5D3 and D800 will be amazing but even if I dropped and bought two bodies and a rack of fast primes, there would still be a host of niggling issues I'd hate about them. I rather use a classic film camera, even with the hassle of film, because amazingly, they worked out 99% of the interface issues over the 170 years of R&D ;-p

(OK if I needed good color at ISO 3200 I'll concede that digital is vastly superior to any film. But I don't need that capability at the moment, and if I ever do, then I'll get the proper state-of-the-art gizmos.)

 

[Eric T]

I am so happy with the Panasonic G3 and the m43rds lenses that I am seriously considering selling my Canon 5D Mark II and Canon lenses. I find that I rarely use the Canon gear.