Which body Canon 5D mark 2 or Canon 7D

[Cheesyman]

Hey guys and girls, basically i am looking at getting a second body and debating between the canon 5d mark 2 or the 7d. Currently at the moment i have a Canon 450D and im looking at getting into sports photography. Im set on the 7D at the moment with the 8FPS compared to the mark 2's 3.9FPS but i wanted to see what you guys think. And if anyone has either of these cameras could you tell me pluses and minuses that you have discovered while using them, cheers

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I love the 5dmkii. But iwanted a full frame. I don't shoot sports or action, but have had a couple instances that I wish it had faster burst. So for you, I would recommend the 7d for sports. The burst rate would be most important to you.

 

[rufus5150]

Hey guys and girls, basically i am looking at getting a second body and debating between the canon 5d mark 2 or the 7d. Currently at the moment i have a Canon 450D and im looking at getting into sports photography. Im set on the 7D at the moment with the 8FPS compared to the mark 2's 3.9FPS but i wanted to see what you guys think. And if anyone has either of these cameras could you tell me pluses and minuses that you have discovered while using them, cheers

The 8FPS (and that speed will degrade in less than optimal light) isn't nearly as important as the state-of-the-art AF system in the 7D over the 5DmkII. Your high ISO performance will be better with the 5D, but I've found with a good noise program, the 7D produces quite usable images at 3200.

 

[Sam6644]

7D

 

[gsgary]

For sports photography the lens is more important than the body any camera will shoot sports, what lenses do you have no good getting a better body if you don't have good lenses because the shots with 7D and 5D will look bad if you don't have top quality lenses

 

[Overread]

Gary raises a very important point regarding lenses and camera bodies. This point is especaily more important with cameras like the 7D and 5DM2 because putting poor glass on them the camera sensors will quickly pick up on those imperfect lenses and show up even more errors and lens problems than before.
These camera bodies need good glass to perform well - in addition a good quality lens makes a lot more difference overall than a good quality camera body.

So the first question is what kind of gear do you have currently?

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Both?




7D gets delivered tomorrow... :blushing:

 

[gsgary]

I would forget both and get a 1Dmk2, fast focus, good high iso, and stronger

 

[Cheesyman]

Hey guys cheers for replying, about the lenses, currently i have 2 lenses that i know aren't good enough for sports photography, but with my student grant i am planning on buying the canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and a fish eye lens. This bring me onto the point, i notice most sports photographers have this lens but with a 2.8 not a 4.0. Do you think the f4 will be adequate for sports photography? as currently at the moment the 2.8 is far out of my price range, or should i wait and save for a 2.8?

 

[gsgary]

Hey guys cheers for replying, about the lenses, currently i have 2 lenses that i know aren't good enough for sports photography, but with my student grant i am planning on buying the canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and a fish eye lens. This bring me onto the point, i notice most sports photographers have this lens but with a 2.8 not a 4.0. Do you think the f4 will be adequate for sports photography? as currently at the moment the 2.8 is far out of my price range, or should i wait and save for a 2.8?

I use the F4, a few months ago i helped out another photographer to shoot wrestling, we were using flashes on stands, i started with the F4 and he said he had a spare F2.8 so i tried it out. I shot both at F4 and i could not believe the results the shots with the F4 were better not sure why
I once spoke with a fashion photographer that shoots at London fashion week who uses a 70-200F4 instead of the F2.8 because he is shooting for 12 hours every day and the F4 is lighter
I tried out my 70-200F4 on my 1Dmk2 to shoot Paul Carrack and was very pleased with the results
ISO1600

with 200mm you will struggle with some sports, this shot is 70-200F4 on an old 10D but i could get close with a press pass other camera had a 300mmF2.8lL on it

 

[Overread]

It is an interesting point that the f4 does often come out sharper than the f2.8 when both are shot at f4. I've heard it many times before however I think that the important point to remember is that when shooting at f2.8 the f4 version loses out
However both lenses are already very sharp so (in my view) the difference is of less importance - its not like comparing either lens to say a $/£100 70-300mm.

My side is to say go for the f2.8 version - you can put a 1.4 teleconverter on and get a reasonable reach out of it with little image quality degradation whilst still having a fast aperture to work with. Also a fast working aperture is important if you come to shoot indoor sports or in low lighting conditions.

 

[gsgary]

It is an interesting point that the f4 does often come out sharper than the f2.8 when both are shot at f4. I've heard it many times before however I think that the important point to remember is that when shooting at f2.8 the f4 version loses out
However both lenses are already very sharp so (in my view) the difference is of less importance - its not like comparing either lens to say a $/£100 70-300mm.

My side is to say go for the f2.8 version - you can put a 1.4 teleconverter on and get a reasonable reach out of it with little image quality degradation whilst still having a fast aperture to work with. Also a fast working aperture is important if you come to shoot indoor sports or in low lighting conditions.

I have the 200F2.8L and it's pin sharp at F2.8

 

[Overread]

I'm now debating if I want to get a 300mm f2.8 oneday or just a good gun and your address! *thankgods its not the Canon 200 f/1.8 L - now that is a sick sick lens in what it can do Juza Nature Photography

 

[gsgary]

I'm now debating if I want to get a 300mm f2.8 oneday or just a good gun and your address! *thankgods its not the Canon 200 f/1.8 L - now that is a sick sick lens in what it can do Juza Nature Photography

Actually it was the 200F1.8 or 300F2.8

 

[Cheesyman]

cheers for your help gsgary and overread, certainly helping me

i could just afford the 2.8 lens but it would be without image stabilisation, which when zoomed in fully on a subject may result in dodgy images ( if that makes sense). I notice you guys are from the UK, do you know of any other good camera stores or websites to buy lenses, currently i am just surfing Jessops website, which is where i am basing my prices on.