Canon 7D with 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM vs. Canon 5D Mark II with 24-105 f/4L IS USM

[Zeno]

Hi guys!

I just got a Canon 7D with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens. I'm quite happy with it, but I was doing some research on prices and realized that I've payed $2700 for this combo while the 5D Mark II kit, with the 24-105 f/4L IS USM would cost me $3300, a $600 dollar difference.

My use for it will be street shooting, some indoor shooting and videos. For now I plan to have only one lens.

Would you guys rather get the 5D for that $600 difference? Is it a better deal? Or I should stick with my 7D and be happy?

Sorry if this has been discussed to death here, but I'm a newbie.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Compaq]

Personally I don't see why you bought that camera if you are all new to photography. Don't look at the price tag and buy the most expensive and think you will get great photos. Did you consider getting a 550d, 600d or maybe 60d?

Why did you buy the 7d?

 

[Zeno]

Well, thanks for your concern! :greenpbl:

I'm gonna start taking photography lessons soon and in my experience I've learnt that it's actually better on the long run to buy the better item to begin with. You save money in the end.
I've learnt that being a professional audio engineer.

Now, back to the topic, are you gonna be envious about it or help?

 

[penfolderoldo]

I don't think Compaq was trying to be envious, rather raising a valid point which is better to learn a bit about the basics of photography first, find out what type of photographs you like to shoot, THEN look at getting the kit to suit.

It's a rather academic question, as you've already got the 7D, - both will give you excellent results - tho my personal choice for your 'chosen' subjects would've been the 5D mk II.

 

[analog.universe]

I absolutely agree that it's best to buy gear once, and not buy gear that you expect to replace. If you have any intentions of getting good, starting with entry level kit means you'll want to upgrade almost immediately. The 7D is very nice, but to me it's not priced proportionate to the rest of Canon's lineup. I made the same observation you did essentially, that if you're going to spend that much, you may as well go for the 5D. I went the opposite direction for the 60D, as it's half the price of the 7D, but a lot more than half the camera. The 600D is actually half the camera the 60D is, and only 10-15% cheaper. That being said.. the 5D is getting quite old at this point and is due for an update. As a result it lacks a lot of the modern technology seen in the 7D.

Basically, the 7D will not disappoint you, it's a great camera. If you went for the 5D at this point, you'd be trading off a bunch of the "newer" features just to get full frame. If it was my decision, I'd keep the 7D right now. Shoot it until you want full frame, and hopefully the 5D mkIII is out by then. Who knows, you may never want full frame... the advantages of a high end crop body like the 7D are high speed and longer reach, which are great for sports and the like, if that your focus it may never be worth it to upgrade. If you find you do in fact want to go full frame, the 7D will hold its value well I think, and you can always eBay it in a couple years.

 

[Zeno]

Hi penfolderoldo! Well, I can still return/exchange it - and that's one of the reasons I'm asking.
I agree with you, it's probably an overkill for me now, but I live in the third world and it's gonna be hard to get another camera soon.

Thanks analog.universe, that's the kind of reasoning that I was after with the question.
I could also return just the lens and get an used 24-105 at Craigslist. I know about the rescale and distortion on the sides, but it seems more "future proof".
Am I gonna miss the 2.8 aperture on indoor movie shooting?

By the way, nice pictures, Compaq!

Thanks for the replies, guys.

 

[Compaq]

Perhaps I am a little envious, LOL

Anyway, I'm not judging. If you can afford it, nothing is to stop you from getting the 7D. It's a great camera! Quick, flight simulator, new buttons I'd say you would be able to sell a 7D without much loss because a lot of people want it, but can't justify the cost of it. If you sell it a little under what it goes for new...

As mentioned, the 5DmkII is getting all, and to quote DigitalRev TV "(...)whereas the 5DmkII only has full frame to boast about." Slow continuous burst, not that many AF points... It takes really sharp images, though, and is a winner at high ISOs in the Canon range, due to its large sensor.

edit: what pictures?

 

[penfolderoldo]

I'm just not convinced the 5D mark II is $600 BETTER than the 7D, however when / if a 5D mark III comes out it's sure to cost considerably more than $600 of a difference The 7D will pretty much hold its value for now, whereas if you bought a 5D mark II now its used value would nosedive on release of a mark III.

 

[Zeno]

I'm really enjoying the 7D, it's beautiful videos and super-fast focus!
I like the lens, but I wish I had more zoom sometimes. It's build quality is not amazing also.
Should I consider changing the lens for a 24-70 or for a 24-105 (L series)? And then maybe getting another one for indoors?

 

[Compaq]

I understand that you only want to bite the apple once, but being able to pick it first should be a necessity imho.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Haha, I love these ones!!

It was like when I got my Nikon D90, I got it home loved it! But then decided I wish I had got a D700 instead! Oh yeah then I remembered I couldn't afford it. Oh yeah and then I decided to go out and take photographs with my D90 instead of having buyers remorse over things I couldn't afford! haha.

All I can say is you clearly have money to throw away if your asking this question, why not trade in the 7D and get the 5D MKII then?

 

[analog.universe]

All I can say is you clearly have money to throw away if your asking this question

This is not the perception I picked up from this post at all. Sounds to me like he's trying to make sure he made the right decision. Just because someone spends a lot of money doesn't mean they're throwing it away. It is far more wasteful to me, to buy something that you know is underspec'd, with the intention of eventually replacing it, just because it's cheaper to start out. Starting with a nice body is a good idea, and if you haven't got a lot of experience, then asking around to make sure you made the right decision is also a good idea.

why not trade in the 7D and get the 5D MKII then?

This is exactly what the OP was asking, and I believe he got a few good answers.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

The only reason my response was so blunt! Was because... he's a novice photographer. So if your a novice? A Canon 7D is an amazing place to start, to get home a great camera like that and then be wanting a 5D MKII. Just gives the impression of always wanting more! To me personally, I would rather invest my money in lenses and accessories instead of getting an expensive body and ONE lens and nothing else.

This is why I got impression he clearly has alot of money to throw around if he is asking this question. If your a novice and you go out and buy a Canon 7D, which is a Pro crop body. Then clearly money is not your biggest fear in life! I started my photography mission with just a compact. I also get the feeling a novice who buys a pro camera is doing it for other reasons, I know a guy who is a hopeless photographer who has owned a Nikon D700 and now owns a Canon 1D. He buys cameras simply cos it's meant to be the best one! Even though he can't take a photograph. He does it simply for the status of having the BEST camera even though he dosent really seem to grasp the basics of photography yet. So the bodies he has had are complete overkill!

How can a Canon 7D be under spec'd for a Novice can I politely ask?

 

[analog.universe]

My point is that it doesn't matter if you're a novice... you won't be a novice forever, and eventually you will reach the limits of your body. Weighing the 7D against the 5D is a valid argument when making a long term investment, because each has its limits in different areas, and you have to choose.

And just because money isn't your biggest fear, doesn't make you automatically apt to throw it around. As I said, I find it more wasteful to spend money on things you intend to replace... If you can afford to buy gear that will last much longer before it needs replacing, then you're getting better long term value.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

You have a point I admit... but bodies really do come and go! Lenses don't. I'm just trying to inform that he would be better off spending money on lenses than the body if he's a serious learner. A body will become underspec'd when the new version comes out. Film was different in the respect you could keep the same body for years and years. Digital is not the same, I get the feeling some people just assume going and buying a 5D Mk II and only getting one lens is the best way to do it. This does not represent Long term value to me! Because when the new model comes out, it is most likely that if you are of a certain mindset you will want the new body. Where is the long term value there...

As I say, I'm making assumptions here, so I apologise to the OP if i am. But I get the feeling when a novice poses this question, it is not about getting the right long term investment. It is about having the BEST camera! So when the BEST camera gets replaced by the next BEST camera, they then go out and have to buy the new BEST camera. This makes a mockery of this being a long term investment.