william bray , Nov 14, 2009; 05:42 a.m.
Hi I have been shooting with a 20d for some years now and have been happy with it I can print A3 without any problems. Now I want to up grade my body,since I started I always wanted to eventually go full frame, In fact this was the major deciding factor for choosing Canon over Nikon when I bought the 20d. I have been looking at the 5d mkII, When I first saw the specifications on paper it made feel that I could order it without even trying it.
Now I have the money to upgrade I tried it out the other day. I was not impressed. I felt that if you took away the 21 MP full frame sensor, what was left was rubbish. I have a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 is, 100 macro, and some other lenses.I have found when shooting wide open, which I do a lot , I can only trust the center AF point on my 20d, so AF on a camera is important to me. The AF points on the 5d looked lost to me, cramped in the center of the frame. Canon might as well just put one AF point in the center.
The images looked soft on the 5d at high ISO, as if it was applying some in camera noise reduction. When I compared the 7d, the images were sharper with a little bit more noise. So if I used Noise Ninja on the 7d images I don't think there would be much difference with ISO performance.
Another disappointment was weather sealing. The 7d has it 5d doesn't. Not impressive for a £2000 camera.
I don't know much about the video recording side of things but from what I've read the 7d beats the 5d here as well
I been starting shooting weddings and commercial and selling some of my own work in art exhibitions over the last couple of years and it's been going well. Eventually I would like to have more income from this so I need a better body.
Please can you give me your opinions over the 7d and the 5d.I have always had it in my mind to go full frame and now I feel I'm going backwards. But my heart is telling me there's more to a camera then megapixels and sensorsize.
Scott Ferris 
, Nov 14, 2009; 06:46 a.m.
William, you are right,
There is much more to a camera than mega pixels and sensor size, there is nothing more (really) to image quality, though, than megapixels and sensor size. It is that simple.
The 7D seems to be a very good little camera, very capable and a real step up in the crop camera sensor size. I can see your dilemma. But the 5D MkII does beat it at outright image quality, so is the payoff of functionality against higher output at larger print sizes worth it to you? You really are the only one to tell. It is expensive but try renting both for a long weekend, compare your results and go from there, our opinions are nowhere near as relevant as what will work for you.
Another thought, and the route I have always gone, is to buy second hand 1 series bodies, the 1Ds MkII is a very good buy secondhand, at least you get to use your lenses as they were meant to be used. It has the the best of several worlds, cheap, first class AF, weatherproofing, FF etc etc.
Take care, Scott.
Elliot Bernstein 
, Nov 14, 2009; 07:21 a.m.
" what was left was rubbish" One man's trash is another man's ......
"Canon might as well just put one AF point in the center." Well, basically that is what they did. So what. All you really need is one. I own a body with 51 and 98% of the time only use one and most of the time it is the center one.
"The images looked soft on the 5d at high ISO" The quality of high ISO images depend on your lenses, technique, skill and post processing skills. You can compare reliable, unprocessed results here between the MKII and the 7D.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
"now I feel I'm going backwards" Get the 7D if you want a crop camera. Get the MKII if you want a full frame. Sounds like you have already make up your mind anyway.
william bray , Nov 14, 2009; 07:38 a.m.
I just took a look at the Imaging resourse site, and it comfirmed what I thought the images are softer from the 5d mkII
william bray , Nov 14, 2009; 08:03 a.m.
I,m quite suprised how little difference there is in noise between the 7d and 5d at 6400 iso. the 5d only just beats it and the 5d is slightly softer. comparing what the 7d can do with a small sensor, I think when canon bring out a 5d MK III, and if they put as much thought in to it as they obviously have with the 7d, the 5dMK III would be awsome. But that won't happen for another 2 years and you'll have to wait 1 more year for the prices to go down. 7d is looking good. Thanks for recomending that web site
Matthijs Claessen 
, Nov 14, 2009; 08:06 a.m.
Saying the 5Dii blows the 7D away in image quality is very subjective. In most circumstances nobody will be able to see
any difference. Only when shooting extremes you'll see à difference and then only when pixel peeping or printing 40" to à
side.
And the 7D seems to shoot better video's in some circumstances.
Try to rent or borrow them both and judge for yourself. You might be surprised.
Have fun! Matthijs.
Ron Hartman , Nov 14, 2009; 08:48 a.m.
When is Canon going to realize that the 5D II is rubbish and lower the price. I've been dying to get one ever since it came out!
Ben Goren 
, Nov 14, 2009; 09:25 a.m.
william,
First, viewing 100% pixel crops is the worst possible way to compare cameras. The
only meaningful way is to make same-sized prints, ideally of the same scene, and with
post-processing tuned for each file (not using the same “recipe” for
both).
That being said, how big do you want to print? At A3, I don’t think you’ll see any
difference between the 5DII and the 7D. At A2, the 5DII should be clearly but subtly better in side-by-side comparisons, and most non-critical viewers (read: the general public who’d be
buying the prints) will say that the differences aren’t all that significant. At A1, the 5DII will
likely be unquestionably better. At A0, the 5DII will be significantly better, but the 7D should still be
surprisingly good. (That’s all dependent on technique and lenses, of course.)
Since A3 is bigger than most people normally print, and since few people ever even think of
making A0 prints, the 5DII is rarely worth the extra money over the 7D. But if A1 and A0 prints are
your thing, then the 5DII is a no-brainer.
Cheers,
b&
John Crowe , Nov 14, 2009; 09:55 a.m.
I have one crop body and one full frame body so I understand the arguments on both sides. If starting now, with only one choice of sensor size, in a new camera I would select the 5D II.
If you are highly concerned about some of the issues you raise with respect to the 5D II body then have a good look at a used 1DsII.
Elliot Bernstein , Nov 14, 2009; 10:02 a.m.
William, my evaluation of the high ISO images is that they are both very, very close in IQ - I find the MKII has a slight advantage. But it is your opinion that counts. The bottom line is that it appears the two are so close to being the same that any differences could easily be balanced and corrected in post processing, both are excellent, each has its own advantages and disadvantages over the other and you won't be disappointed with either.
