Canon 7D or 5D?

If you're comparing the 5D Mark I to the 7D, go 7D all the way. If you're comparing the 5D Mark II versus the 7D, it sums up to this: if you shoot landscapes/architecture go with the 5DMkII, for everything else go 7D. If you're comparing the video capability of 5DMkII and 7D, the 5D offer shallower depth of field and wider angles, but the 7D records better and much smoother, in several different fps and resolutions, and manages better camera panning and tilting during video recording.

Erwin Marlin

P.S.: If you were comparing it to the 5D Mark II, I'd go for the 7D, save the extra $1000 dollars the 5D Mark II costs, and buy the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

While the 5DII is an absolutely outstanding camera with superior image quality, the 7D is the ultimate all-around camera. I would recommend it over most every other camera due to its amazing versatility and capability.

The 5D, as amazing as it's IQ is , was released Fall 2005 and is pretty old school. I wouldn't buy one unless you're on a tight budget and found a great deal. If you can find new "old stock" it is likely to be priced about the same as a 7D. If you can swing it, another grand buys a 5D Mark II, a much better camera in most ways.

Both the 7D and 5DII are very similar in terms of form factor and user interface. In other words, one is not more difficult to operate than the other. The choice comes down to whether you need an APS-C gunslinging sports/birder shooter like the 7D or a slower but full frame landscape, studio and portrait box like the 5D Mark II. Of course either one can cover all this and more--just not in cutting edge fashion--and make a fine general purpose box.

Also, realize both models are aimed to semi-pro and advanced shooters and thus lack Basic Zone Icon modes like Sports, Portrait, Landscape, Macro, etc. If you think you'll miss these modes, consider a 50D or Rebel series.

My 7D review:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_eos7d.htm

If you're comparing the 5D Mark II versus the 7D, it sums up to this: if you shoot landscapes/architecture go with the 5DMkII, for everything else go 7D.

IMHO the IQ differences are not significant until you hit higher ISOs. Landscapes and architecture are often done from a tripod, which means ISO 100-400. In print there really isn't a significant difference between the two here.

So my rule of thumb is that if you often need to make large, detailed prints from high ISO shots, get the 5D2. If you won't need high ISO often, or won't need large prints from your high ISO shots, then stick with the 7D.

IMHO the IQ differences are not significant until you hit higher ISOs.

High ISO doesn't work as a "cut-off".

It's already very clear that the 7D is finding great favour as a low light sport camera (3200/6400 ISO football and ice hockey shots abound), and the 7D is obviously going to be in another league to the 5D Mk II for that kind of photography because of its excellent - and versatile - AF.

So

If you won't need high ISO often , or won't need large prints from your high ISO shots, then stick with the 7D.

just doesn't work - people are very specifically choosing the 7D because they shoot at high ISOs, something at which it excels.

The 7d is an apsc and the 5d full frame. If your composition style favors isolation and shallow dof then the 5d2. The 7d has an advantage for sports/bird photography due to the more advance/faster af system.
In a year or two there will be something newer and better so if you are a gadget junkie you will not want either in a few years.

Basically the 7d is a newer camera with all the bells and whistle. The 5d2 primary advantage is full frame and lower noise at higher iso; but the body around the sensor isn't that great.

I have the 5D and the 7D is a better choice for almost all subject matter, here are so photos taken at least 1600 ISO and a Sigma 15mm fisheye. I did use noise ninja on them. http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=943915

Erwin said it best when with the suggestion of the 7D and the 17-55 IS canon EF-S lens. Great body and the best lens made for a 1.6 cropped sensor. You will capture stunning low light indoor/outdoor photographs/videos.

Hard to make a mistake with this choice since both are great. If you want a faster focusing camera (particularly in low light), go 7D. If you want full frame sensor, go 5D MKII. IQ Will be similar with the 5D a perhaps bit better (if you are really looking at larger enlargements).

"Any suggestions, opinions, ideas?"

What camera(s) are you using now?
How is that (those) camera(s) limiting to you in regard to what you can do; and also want to do?

WW

*sigh*

There is one, and only one, determining factor between the two cameras.

How big will you print?

If your printer sits on your desktop, get the 7D — or any other APS-C camera, if it better fits your hands / budget / sense of menu layout / favorite color scheme / etc. Or the 5D if that’s more comfortable. Print quality will be indistinguishably superb amongst virtually any DSLR ever made.

All of the arguments above about which has the better image quality, though technically correct, will be either invisible or negligible at the sizes most people print at. It’s only when you start measuring the print size in feet instead of inches that they become apparent.

If you plan on buying your paper by the roll and your ink by the pint, then you should start agonizing over the camera sensor’s image quality. But otherwise, lenses and technique — especially technique — will be all that will determine print quality.

Cheers,

b&

P.S. I haven’t seen any direct comparisons yet, but I would expect the original 5D to still hold its own against the 7D in actual print performance — and perhaps even surpass it in some respects. Yes, even at high ISO. In prints, not pixel peeping. b&

> and I need to know which would be better for me since I am just starting
None of the two. I would suggest to start with a 400/450/500D until you know what you need. When you have learned what you really want you can sell it and buy the one that fits your needs. Since prices have most likely fallen by then, the price difference will be small and probably you can even save some money by going this route.

Matthias has a point. Either the 5D (I or II) or the 7D may be overkill for a beginner.

But, of course, either of the more expensive cameras can be used in pretty much automatic mode, just as easily as the "Rebel/xxxD" family. Also, although I don't mind the controls on my XTi, most of us (not all) prefer the more "advanced," two-wheel control system that you will find on either the 5D or 7D.

If the prices of the 5Ds or the 7D hurt your pocketbook, consider the Rebels. Otherwise, you can learn with the fancier ones if you pay attention to what the camera is doing and learn from it so that you can take over control when you need to.

I also agree with Metthias. If you are a beginner, save some money and start with an XSi or aT1i. (In fact, just about any modern DSLR with 8MP or more should be good enough). These are fine cameras that are fully capable of producing exceptional results. However, many budding photographers think that they must get the absolute best and most expensive equipment in order to produce decent photos. This just isn't true. You will learn that the camera is only a small part of the puzzle. The lens matters much more than the camera, as does lighting, composition, subject matter and being in the right place at the right time. You will also need to learn what camera settings produce what kind of effect. You may want to read Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Book, or one of Bryan Peterson's books. There are many others. Join a local photography club if there is one in your area. Get a cheaper camera now, then in two or three years of practice you will know what camera to buy instead of relying on the advice of others. Best of luck in your decision.

I'd be inclined to agree most with Erwin - if you shoot landscapes/architecture go with the 5DMkII, for everything else go 7D. The 5DMII is undoubtedly better for these disciplines due to its larger sensor and better dynamic range performance. Also if you ever shoot architecture seriously you'll need a full frame sensor to take advantage of canon's new outstandingly good quality ts-e lenses.
If you take some of the others advice and look for a cheaper model to start off with I'd look at a second hand body from the xxD range. You can pick up a 20, 30 or 40D second hand for a very reasonable price now and these will offer better performance than most of the rebels as well as holding their value better for when you come to sell and upgrade.

Keith - I have the 7D and while I agree that it is excellent at high ISO, it does not match the 5D2 at high ISO. I suppose I should clarify "large prints". For example: if you might need to produce a 16x24 or 20x30 wedding print from an ISO 6400 shot then you want a 5D2. An ISO 6400 sports shot for a magazine page is a different and less demanding beast and well within the ability of the 7D, where the wedding poster would be pushing it hard at that ISO. (At low ISO, no problem.)

Believe me, my post was not intended as a knock against the 7D or a recommendation against it. On the contrary, if I really wanted the 5D2 I could have saved up for another month and gotten one. I specifically chose the 7D. I haven't had it too long, but it has already thoroughly impressed me. The feature set is awesome, the IQ is FF equivalent at low to mid ISO, and the fit and finish are top notch. Canon hit a home run with the 7D.

Having said all of that: my post was basically my opinion on the 7D vs. 5D2 and why one would choose the 5D2 over the newer, cheaper 7D considering the 7D has a much better feature set. For a true beginner to photography, I think I would recommend a 40D or 50D plus some decent lenses. (I don't like the Rebel bodies and control layouts, though they're capable of great work and are fine for the budget minded.) If you're still interested in a year or two and have managed to start to hit the limits of your equipment, then invest the money for pro bodies and glass. (Unless you're wealthy and don't care what you spend.) Just my opinion, but it could take you years to exceed a 40D/50D and some good glass.

7D is your best option from what you said. You said "I don't want to get one now... and then a year from now wish I had bought the other." So I would not suggest you getting the lowest DSLR. Since you also mentioned you are getting serious about photography, one would assume you already have a budget camera. The only reason my vote is 7D is it has on-board flash, the 5D doesn't. So you will need a external flash if you went with the full frame. The auto focus on the 5D is relatively slow compared to the newer crop cameras. 7D all the way. v/r Buffdr

I am surprised that there is just one feeble voice for 5D. It is old, but it still is a FF camera, which is a significantly different style and quality.

Basically if you are into high speed shooting or need video, 7D is the clear choice. Otherwise 5D may be better (it was for me as I sold my 7D and kept the old 5D).

I did like 7D and would buy it again when I have enough extra money but for everyday landscape, nature, people shooting, I still prefer 5D. The reasons for me are its FOV and ultra clean files at low/medium ISO.

I have owned both cropped and full frame cameras and I would choose base the choice on necessary focal lengths. If your photography concentrates around focal length lenses of 105mm and shorter, I would go with he 5D (you will have a more satisfactory DOF control). If you are more into longer than 105mm shooting (sports and wildlife) than the 7D would be a better choice. Keep in mind that you can learn/master any camera and shouldn't regret either one of these fine cameras, even 10 years later. Create your best!

Corbie, until you answer some fundamental queries like the ones William W has asked as well as let us know your budget, it will be difficult to assist. It may well be that you're better suited to an xxD camera (40D, 50D?), amazing as these two machines are.

Corbie: don't get the 5D. It's missing some critical features that the newer Canon cameras such as the 7D and 5DMkII have. The new cameras have "live view" with an accurate viewing screen on the back of the camera that lets you judge how the picture will come out (including very precise focus) before you release the shutter. It's a breakthrough capability that wasn't in the 5D. They also allow you to adjust your camera to compensate for the minor unit-to-unit focus differences of lenses, which is a major reason that pictures aren't as sharp as expected, and a source of angst and complaint from beginning (and advanced) photographers. Finally, they automatically shake off dust from the sensor, which has effectively eliminated another big source of angst and complaint.

There are a couple of reasons to favor the 5D2 over the 7D: the obscure ones (you can print somewhat bigger and you can shoot in a little darker situations without a tripod) and the big, important one (you get shallower depth of field for a given perspective/field-of-view). The latter is truly important for portraits/weddings/fashion, but otherwise it's not worth worrying about too much. You can take great landscapes with either. If I were going to shoot a lot of sports I would get the 7D, since it is faster to handle and has a focusing system designed for that.

In the current Canon range if you are considering sport think 50D (best beginner option), 7D (best mid-range option) or 1D Mark III (best Pro option). Otherwise, any other body in the current Canon range will do a good job (provided the lenses and bodies are properly matched).

Ok only you must ask you. What lenses you have.
this is my opinion
if you have aps-c bunch of lenses buy 7d otherways 5d
sory of my bad english

Neither a 7D or a 5Dii can compete with the ergonomics, the AF system or the high ISO capabilities of the Nikon D700. Fact.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked. Do you have an answer to the question that was asked? Or are you just trolling?

And how. "Ergonomics" is in the habits of the user, and only a Nikon-imprinted zombie would find the D700 to be better. Maybe a clone of Ashton Kutcher? The other points are at least arguable. So much for "Fact"

Corbie, you don't tell us how you use your camera, so it's hard to tell you which way to go. In general, full frame will be better for scenics, archetecture, portratis and general photography. Crop-sensor cameras, like the 1.6-crop 7D, are better for wildlife and sports. Beside the sensor, the 7D will burst at 8-fps, which gives it a further edge for sport and wildlife.

There's a lot of discussion about the 7D's AF. I own both a 5D MkII and the 7D and find neither's AF superior for birds and wildlife. I generally keep them both on single-point for those purposes. I switch to the 5D MkII for scenics and put the AF on all sensors.

The 7D's controls are a little more intuitive than the 5D2, but it's no big deal. Both have HD video.

You said 5D, not 5D MkII. If you mainly do scenics then that'd be a great option, but you might consider buying used. A new 5D will be immediately be hurt comparatively on resale and not have the latest features and the improved high-ISO performance of the 5D2, which is truly incredible.

I'm glad that I have both. Since I'm very heavily into bird and wildlife photography, if I could have only one it'd be the 7D. I'd have to invest in a wider L-series lens than my 24-150 f4L IS, but that'd be a pretty good trade off. I'd give up a bit of IQ, but only what you could see at 100% crop sizes. OTOH, the IQ of the 5D2 shown on a 46" HDTV screen is stunning and adictive.

Please jump back in the thread and tell us your reactions.

I am hardly trolling. I vigorously tested the 5Dii and found its capabilities severely lacking compared to the Nikon. I'm a full time professional photographer and since the original poster is 'just starting to get serious about photography' it is my humble opinion he'd be better off with a D700. The AF of the 5Dii belongs in a museum and for all it's glories, the 7D still has a massive achillies heel in the form of a crop sensor. Can anybpdy seriously stand up and tell me a crop frame sensor is better than a full frame one, unless of course you're a wildlife shooter. Look at the size of the photosites on a 5Dii or a 7D compated to a D700. I've tested both systems vigorously and i'm being honest in my assessment.

Ben Goren said"

"*sigh*
There is one, and only one, determining factor between the two cameras.
How big will you print?"

That old line is getting a little out of date, IMHO. The question now is:
"How big will you view?"
Many of us now view our images on 46" and 52" HDTVs at 1080 resolution. It is complicated by factors such as viewing distance and setup, BUT you can see the differences. Comparing my best 5D2 images to my best G9 images is like going from 35mm slides to medium format with the ole projector. My 7D images are much, much closer to the 5D2, but there's a small gap, still.

Just a thought for the 21st century. "sigh"

I vigorously tested the 5Dii and found its capabilities severely lacking compared to the Nikon.

Maybe you should post on the Nikon vs Canon Forum then.

I'm a full time professional photographer

Where's your website?

the 7D still has a massive achillies heel in the form of a crop sensor

I've got a photo in a full page glossy magazine ad that I took with a 10D. I work with a lot of sports shooters who use a crop sensor, in fact almost all of them.

Can anybpdy seriously stand up and tell me a crop frame sensor is better than a full frame one, unless of course you're a wildlife shooter

I can. Me and a lot of other sports shooters use the 1DMk3, and I know one top MMA shooter who uses two 40Ds.

I've tested both systems vigorously and i'm being honest in my assessment.

Who cares? The question is on the Canon Forum and was about comparing two Canons. If you can't answer the question, you should think about posting somewhere else.

Objective testers, like DxOMark, don't concur with Mr. Williams' view about the Nikon/Canon differences.

For good reason, we have separate Nikon and Canon Forums. He obviously wandered a bit.

David, I know many happy pros using a 5D2 and while the autofocus could be better, I do not think its that bad at all. Maybe its how I use it or that I don't know any better since I always used Canon and older Nikon cameras but I have gotten many great shots with it using AI servo on fast moving objects or using 1 shot in dark settings.

I am sure the D700 is a fine camera, I have heard great things about it but the 5D2 is also very nice, in fact its the best camera I have used so far. I personally do not care for the Nikon ergonomics and that is the only real difference between Canon and Nikon as far as I am concerned. Both are more then capable

Jeff calm down. You seem highly excitable don't you? Just accept the obvious facts: (i) Canon's AF system is antiquated. Nikon D3/D700 high ISO performance betters the cannon. If you got to dxomark.com lets look at the 5Dii v D700: Every variable - color depth, low light senitivity, dynamic range, as well as overall sensor mark is better on the Nikon. Have a look Jeff if you don't believe me. Accept the facts.

You do not even understand what the real question of this thread is.
LOL. Mr. "Fact".

OK David Williams, I'll bite...

The AF of the 5Dii belongs in a museum and for all it's glories, the 7D still has a massive achillies heel in the form of a crop sensor.

I consider the crop sensor to be an advantage, and the 7D will out resolve the D700 at low to mid ISO. It's not until about ISO 3200 that the D700 shows any IQ advantage due to noise. Below that the 7D actually edges out the D700. As for the 5D2 AF, it's not as good as the 7D or D700. But it's better than what pros were using for the entire decade of the 1990's, and better than most of what was available in the 2000's. It will handle the vast majority of situations just fine.

Speaking of the 5D2, I'm sorry, but the 5D2 produces noticeably better large prints from high ISO shots. DxO pixel measurements do not tell the whole story. Visible noise in print is determined by how much you enlarge pixels, and 5D2 pixels are enlarged less for a given print size. The 5D2 retains more detail at high ISO than anything else out there, and makes the best high ISO prints. It, not the D700, is the high ISO champ. I wouldn't hesitate to go 5D2 if I regularly shot ISO 3200 and above.

Can anybpdy seriously stand up and tell me a crop frame sensor is better than a full frame one, unless of course you're a wildlife shooter.

I can. I hardly ever shoot above ISO 1600. The 7D out resolves the 12 MP FF sensors at those ISOs, makes my telephotos much more useful, and thanks to new lenses like the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 loses nothing at the wide end for my work. All things being equal a FF sensor yields higher IQ, but Canon continues to hold a sensor technology edge which means the 7D holds its own against 12 MP FF. And that the 5D2 can match both the competition's high resolution >20 MP FF sensors and their high ISO 12 MP FF sensors.
Oh yes: the 7D is $1700 while the D700 is $2400. That difference equals a pretty nice lens.

David Williams said:
"If you got to dxomark.com lets look at the 5Dii v D700: Every variable - color depth, low light senitivity, dynamic range, as well as overall sensor mark is better on the Nikon. Have a look Jeff if you don't believe me. Accept the facts."

This is a true statement, but the differences are fractional at best. If one's a 97 the other's a 96.5. They're both in the same order of magnitude and excellence. We don't need some Nikon-dweeb to come over here and tell us how to read charts.

There are Nikon people and Canon people and others in between. It make no sense to argue over two excellent camera systems on any basis other than preference of the user and how the camera will be used.

True

Personaly I don't think it will matter that much which DSLR you choose. They are all capable of great results in skilled hands. Your vision as a photographer will have much more impact on your photos than if you buy a 5DmkII or a 7D or even one of the rebels series. There have been excelent photos taken with pretty much every DSLR and SLR that has been made. Its what you do with the camera that really counts.

It is very simple in my eyes - do you want to shoot full frame or with a 1.6 cropped sensor? Nothing at all wrong with a 5D (original) - it is a brilliant camera capable of brilliant results. The MkII is of course better and I will be upgrading to them soon, but I will steer well clear of the 7D due to the crop factor which just doesn't suit my style. Also, the original 5D has plenty of pixels.... When I upgrade to the MkII I am going to have to upgrade my PC as well, given the larger files.

Interesting how this thread has evolved. Anyway, do you need the video feature? If not, how about getting a 50D or even a 40D and spend some more on better glass and some good software? The 7D will probably come down in price a little over the next few years and will be readily available whenever you want or need to upgrade. And if you get, say, a 17-40/4L (good value) or a 16-35/2.8L (pricey!) as your standard zoom -- if you want one -- you won't "waste" on crop lenses since they are designed for FF.

David Williams, Go read Thom Hogan (the Nikon man) and he will tell you why most people don't need FF. I used D300, D700 and then Canon 5D and now I also use 7D. It is a great all-round camera.

Interesting how this thread has evolved. Anyway, do you need the video feature? If not, how about getting a 50D or even a 40D and spend some more on better glass and some good software? The 7D will probably come down in price a little over the next few years and will be readily available whenever you want or need to upgrade. And if you get, say, a 17-40/4L (good value) or a 16-35/2.8L (pricey!) as your standard zoom -- if you want one -- you won't "waste" on crop lenses since they are designed for FF.

Finally, someone with more brains than gear fixation.

Corbie, you're a newbie, accept the facts (pun intended ). Aim low, get good glass -- it will last you a lifetime, a good flash (and learn how to use it), and a good tripod. Now take time and effort to maximize your skill, and stop worrying about photosite size or MTF tables. Devote time, take workshops and learn how to compose and express your own point of view.

"Finally, someone with more brains than gear fixation. . . "

Well . . .
I am still waiting for the answers to my two simple questions :)
I don't read anywhere that Corbie is worrying about photosite size or MTF tables. :)

WW

WW - You are exempted as well LOL.

Thanks heaps :)
I hate it when my gear gets fixated.
WW

Just accept the obvious facts

No response to anything.

It's called trolling.

Here's the original test of the D700 by super objective standards, well-established by someone with blinders on (link ).

Most matrix has a large matrix.

Which is nice from a potty with honey. Two pots of honey.
Winnie the Pooh.

dude... go 7d... consensus among the Canonites is that the 7d gives IQ on par. you'll only loose 3mp difference! plus you'll save money. Low light shoot'll be equal! just get over the whole full frame thing and smile... you've got candid camera. plus think of it this way... unless you got a bunch of full frame lens'... you aint loosin out on nothin!

Ok, so seems like for big prints, 5D2 is the camera. But how big is big? Is A3+ big or medium?

d.g. said:
"dude... go 7d... consensus among the Canonites is that the 7d gives IQ on par. you'll only loose 3mp difference! plus you'll save money. Low light shoot'll be equal! just get over the whole full frame thing and smile... you've got candid camera. plus think of it this way... unless you got a bunch of full frame lens'... you aint loosin out on nothin!"
I've got both and don't feel like the 7D meets the 5D2's IQ at high ISOs. The 5D2 wins by a pretty good margin moving between 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO. Not that the 7D is bad, but the 5D2 is best in this regard. FF does still matter.

Still, for birds and wildlife I use the 7D as my main camera. I keep the 5D2 slung around my neck with a 24-105mm lens on it to catch the occasional sunset, interesting scenery or a flock of geese taking off right over my head. The crop-sensor makes the 7D easier to focus precisely, thanks to the larger subject in the viewfinder.

For people that do most of their work with lenses shorter than 100mm, I think that the 5D2 is the superior camera, overall. For sports and wildlife, the 7D is an incredible bargain that comes really close to the 5D2.

Nice review Puppy. Very interesting.

My advice is not to waste your money on an expensive Canon body. Tray to find a Canon EOS 40D or failing that, one of the "Rebel" bodies and a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4 - 5.6 IS USM lens. Set the camera to ISO 400 and on Aperture Priority at f/8 and learn how to take pictures. The old addage "f/8 and be there" still holds true. Experiment by changing the Aperture between f/4 and f/11, look at the results, take lots of picture and have fun doing it. It takes years to take well composed, colourful, sharp images. Best regards Stephen

Why are there ALWAYS debates about whether to get the 5D or 7D? I don't understand it, these are 2 completely different cameras for 2 completely different types of photography. Once you figure out what type of photographer you are this should be pretty cut and dry.

I wonder where's the OP.

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

. . . where's the OP. . .
Dunno? I wouldn't wana be holding my breath for an answer to my question . . . Happy shooting back at ya. WW

One of the addages you will see in any of these discussions is "There will always be another new camera, but your lens you will keep for years". With that in mind part of your decision about Which One, should consider if you have any lens you are planning to use on this new camera or which lens you would want to use if you are going to buy new ones. Over time it's very likely you'll spend a lot more on good lens, to really utilize the resolving power of either camara , than you will on one camera.
It really is about what you are going to want to do with it and the quality of the results you want to get. A new camera won't make you a better shooter, but it could give you some new tools to help you along the way. If you are just getting into all this, take a good look at the real list of equipment you are going to want to do the kind of shooting you are interested in. Maybe the dollars will make a whole lot more sense.

>>> . . . where's the OP. . .
>Dunno? I wouldn't wana be holding my breath for an answer to my question . . . Happy shooting back at ya. WW

Exactly. All of you are talking to yourselves about the Most Common question of 4Q2009 in Canon forum. Weird question to begin with: old tech 5D or NEW tech 7D? (7D wins)

Corbie's all adios on us. "Thanks for all the fish!"

I own both the 5DMkII and the 7D. I just love the capability of going both extreme wide and and medium telephoto by carrying both camera bodies with me. Just a few zoom lenses (like the 16-35, 28-70, and 70-200) afford a tremendous versatility in shot selection. The 7D is a clear winner for action photography at about twice the fps as the 5DMkII and is $1000 less than the 5DMkII. The 5DMkII is a clear winner for wide angle photography and high ISO images. If I'm going to carry just one body, it is usually the 7D because I tend to favor telephoto shots. BTW, this thread is both interesting and informative.

"The 7D is a clear winner for action photography at about twice the fps as the 5DMkII and is $1000 less than the 5DMkII. The 5DMkII is a clear winner for wide angle photography and high ISO images."

Yes.

Stated only a few days ago on the Wedding Forum by an astoundingly experienced Photographer (Nadine Ohara - SF Bay Area/CA ) were words to the effect that a 7D + 5DMkII would be a killer Sports / Wedding Kit.

As a Generalist Kit for any working Pro, I agree, as I too favour a dual format kit, and have made many detailed comments on same.

***

“Just a few zoom lenses (like the 16-35, 28-70, and 70-200) afford a tremendous versatility in shot selection.”

With a dual format kit (APS-C and135 format cameras) the 28 to70 – (or 24 to70) is redundant apropos FoV. And the best, minimalist working set of primes is 24, 50 and 135.

***

"BTW, this thread is both interesting and informative."

Yes. I agree again.

But not he who has seemingly left the precinct - call me old fashioned but manners are still "in vogue" in our house – but one should not jump to conclusions, there might be good reason, although this occurrence of posting a thin question and then disappearing does happen often - and thus one is rather more cynical, than not – hence my previous comment.

WW

7d and "L" lenses. Though it really is the photographer and not the camera

Two thoughts:

1 - You can't put the EF-S 10-22 on a 5D

2 - I very seldom have any use for the huge volume of pixels my 40D produces. The extra that a 7D or 5D generates would do little beisdes add to my already troublesome data management issues.

I have spent so many hours looking at reviews trying to decide between the 5dmk2 or the 7d I have lost count. You are not going to get people who have bought a 5dmk2 and view images at 200% to admit the 7d is close in terms of IQ. For every review or opinion that says the difference between the two is like night and day, you will find that there are equally as many that say the opposite. The only way is to try it for yourself. This is what I did, for me the difference in IQ is small, the 5d has better ISO, but only if I were using iso 6400 and above regularly and printing big would I buy it for that reason alone. Landscape are taken at low iso and on a tripod and unless your using the image for a billboard, I think that this opinion that the 7d is only for sports and the 5d is a must for landscapes is getting a little old. For studio I admit I haven't done a lot of studio work but from what I know ISO is not that big an issue here because you're controlling the environment with artificial lighting. Weddings, yes you need good noise control in the church, but if the 5d has trouble focusing in low light all the noise control in the world won't help. For me the 7d performs well enough up to ISO 3200 and you can get away with 6400 if you use noise ninja, but with a fast lens shooting at 6400 shouldn't be a regular thing. I feel Canon rushed the 5dmk2, the Nikon d700 frightened them, some people can keep excusing the 5dmk2's lack of AF control or all the other things that are out of date on a camera that costs £2000 in todays market. But the fact is the 7d is the camera the 5dmk2 should have been.
So for me I would buy the 5dmk2 if I had a 16-35 2.8 lens otherwise you've wasted £1200 if you don't put that on anything other then a FF camera, if getting extreme shallow DOF shots is your thing ( a 5dmk2 would allow you to stop a lens down a bit and get a sharper image and still get a shallow DOF, and not use the lens wide open)
If I bought a 5d I would have to get a 300mm 2.8 IS to make up for what I would loose compared with a 70-200mm 2.8 IS and a 7d, thats a lot of money and a lot of glass to carry around. On the wide angle side of things I would be happy using a sigma 10-20 on a 7d.
When the 7d first came out and the prices were close to the 5dmk2 it was a hard decision between the two, that in it's self shows how good the 7d is that people found it hard to decide between a APS-C camera and a FF camera that were close in price. Now there is a difference of £600 it's made the decision easier to make
So I came to the conclusion that the 5dmk2 is a camera for specific needs, like a tilt and shift lens, it's worth every penny if you need what it offers, but other than that think carefully before choosing it over the 7d.

The 5DMkII is a clear winner for wide angle photography and high ISO images. If I'm going to carry just one body, it is usually the 7D because I tend to favor telephoto shots.

Do you know how the 5DMKII + 1.4x teleconverter compares against the 7D without TC? Both systems offer about the same FOV. Does the better high ISO performance of the 5DMkII make up the one f-stop lost due to the TC? How about sharpness? The 5DMkII has larger pixels and is, therefore, less demanding regarding lens resolution. How does a TC fit within this equation?

A TC on a 7d with a 70-200 will give you approximately 448mm.
A TC on a 5d with a 70-200 will give you approximately 280mm
Thats with a 1.4x TC and the 7d has a 1.6x crop factor.
200 x 1.6= 320
320 x 1.4=448
That's the way I worked it out and I think thats how it works.
I know that dosen't answer your question exactly but I'm just pointing out how much you will loose with the crop factor

Just a couple of points:
The OP may have literally been scared off by the complexity and, in some cases, intensity of some of the responses.
I'm immensely grateful for William Bray's contribution. I thought he injected some pragmatic common sense into the debate.
I've been having a similar debate myself as a long time 40D user. I'd always assumed I would just go FF as it was where the default 35mm user would ultimately head. I have the 17-40 and find it too tight on 1.6 crop. I've always held off buying the 10-22 as it wouldn't be usable on FF. I'm beginning to wonder whether the 7D heralds a new way forward in bodies and that FF may become the niche.
For now, I've decided to hold on to my 40D as the 7D doesn't take me anywhere I can't go already. Hopefully a 10-22 will hold its value if I eventually go FF for the landscape/portrait work that interests me as an amateur. I don't go above ISO 400 and I do use flash or a tripod when appropriate.
Thank you William!

It'll be interesting to see what the eventual 5D3 (or whatever) looks like. Hopefully the AF will be smarter and the pricing, here in the UK at least a little sharper. Weatherproofing is certainly an issue though I guess they'll continue to differentiate the 1 series using that as part of the mix.
Perhaps Canon have a strategic problem on their hands here?
Jim

Thanks Jim it's difficult to give you're opinions here and not upset anyone and start a war, when talking about cameras the same principle applies when talking about someones children, you can't say anything bad with out upsetting them and it's unusual they'll admit you're right.
I don't think Canon are going to give us a 5dmk3 that does everything. Sometimes we forget that being a great camera and lens manufacturer comes 2nd to being great business people, and a 5dmk3 with everything is bad business. I hope I'm wrong.
What I can't get over is how close the IQ is between the 7d and 5d. Which makes me wonder whats in the 7d thats not in the 5d, because since I started with DSLR's I was led to believe a FF camera was the holy grail of photography, and I always intended to get one. Perhaps I expect too much but I thought the 5dmk2 would put up more of a fight.
Jim about what you said about the canon 10-20 optically it's good, but I have to say the build quality is poor for the money they cost, I returned mine because of that, and that is my biggest issue with EFS lenses. Take a look at the sigma, or the tokina, lenses. The tokina 11-16 and 12-24 have had good reviews. And I haven't heard a bad thing about the sigma 10-20, I 've only heard that it didn't perform that well on a 30D, but that won't matter to you.
As Yakim say's Happy Shooting

I was reading Bob's review of the 10-22 and had found it at £460 which still seems expensive for what it is and with no lens hood etc.
The 5d2 just doesn't justify the premium here in the UK for me, and my purposes. Oddly, since my original post, I'd been reflecting on my blind sign up to just that phrase "holy grail".
My 40D is excellent but the 17-40 is tight. I'll probably hire a 10-22 over the Christmas break to have a look/feel in case I stay with crop cameras into the longer term.

Get 7D with 24 to 105L if you can affor dit if nit just get kit lens and please shoot, shoot and then shoot some more before you buy another lens.

Just about a half a year ago I was in exactly the same situation as Corbie Gomez.

I am by no means an excellent photographer, I would not even call myself a photographer.

I too had heaps of questions, read lots of comparisons between different makes, models etc. until my head spun.

My daughter has a Canon 5D. She is studying photography. She loves her camera. (I love it too!)

But:

I was 'upgrading’ from a fully manual, no battery required very old Nikon FM2 to DSLR.

A huge step!

I found the following (remember, I am a beginner):

- Most of all the technical stuff became irrelevant.

- All mid to high end DSLR from most manufacturers are very good/excellent.

- Most people do not print to larger than A4 size.

- Beginners can not tell the difference from one print to another whether taken with a Canon 5D, 7D, 40D, or a 50D, especially when done by a Pro lab (a good lab is important too).

- Most photographers end up with more than one camera anyhow, some even going back to film again!

- The best lens/lenses that are interchangeable between models are one of the best assets and more important than the first model of camera you buy. But stick with one make.

- Spend big on really good lenses. And don’t forget prime lenses.

- My daughter is a bigger girl than I and she has larger hands.

- Although I really liked the Canon 5D, it did not feel right in my small hands and handholding it for a length of time was uncomfortable. Even mounting it on the tripod was a hassle for me. With a large lens on it, it is a heavy camera.

- What I ended up buying:

- I bought the Canon 50D with the kit lens and

I am doing what Sergio Agramonte suggested:

Shoot, shoot, shoot, and then shoot some more.

- If the 40D is cheaper, buy the 40D.

- What I dislike about the 50D:

- I really hate the pop-up flash. That was the first thing I disabled.

- Coming from fully manual, I don’t use/need the basic zone modes, but they come with all consumer cameras.

- Buy a good separate instruction manual.

There is much to learn in order to take full advantage of all the features the 50D, or any other DSLR for that matter, offer.

- If I may recommend a (Canon) manual, it would be the following:

“David Busch’s Canon EOS 50D”.

Stick with one brand, though, be it Nikon or Canon, or anything else.

Just take the plunge and do not fret too much about the differences. They are all 'good'.

Buy what feels right in your hands.

Happy shooting.

Oh, one more thing: I took the brand name strap off and bought a really good non-slip generic one, including a wrist strap, like I did with my old camera years ago.
The camera is more important to me than being a billboard for a manufacturer, or to let others know from miles away what kind of camera I have. For a while I missed the full frame sensor of the 5D, but one gets used to it and if you haven't known full frame before you'll adjust your way of thinking.

jim, william: the reason i chose canon when buying my first dslr was the 10-22. i've not been disappointed. it's really fine.

personally, i'm not concerned about canon obsoleting aps-c so i don't mind buying ef-s lenses