Upgrading camera and lenses. Opinions are welcomed

[gomer89]

So i am upgrading my Canon Rebel XSI in a couple months to the 7D and need to purchase a new lense as well. The two i am looking at are the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. I'm leaning towards the 24-70. I wouldnt mind a few opinions or testimonies. Thanks

 

[shortpballer]

Cough* Cough* Get a Nikon instead.

Not but seriously, I would get a full frame camera like a 5D over the 7D anyday. 5D classic out performs 7D and it is cheaper! As far as lenses I think the 24-105 is better than the 24-70.

Hope this helps...

 

[usayit]

One thing that needs to be included when asking that type of question is what are you intending to shoot.... photography drives equipment not the other way around.

If you are looking for a low light zoom (wedding photographers for example), the 24-70 f/2.8L on full frame or the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for crop. If you are looking for a walk around general use lens, I would recommend the 24-105L.

I too would jump on a good condition 5D MI at reasonable prices rather than a new 7D.

 

[Derrel]

The original 5D, the 12.8 MP full frame is a great sensor and a fantastic anti-aliasing filter in a very mediocre body, with a weak AF system. This year, my son started soccer. I shot a few games and practices,using the 70-200/2.8 L-IS USM and the 135 f/2-L lenses. I was amazed at how weak and crappy the AF system was compared to my old Nikon D1,D1h,and D2x cameras. Just a lame AF system, with lenses comparable,or better, to what I have for Nikon. But, for slow-paced, very deliberate work, where light metering is done by external meter, the 5D is okay. I took it on a multi-day fishing trip,and allowed my fishing partners to use it some--my Lord, what a weak metering system it has...under bright,marine sunlight at ISO 800 at 11:00 in the afternoon, the meter was repeatedly fooled into severe over-exposures when those guys ran the camera in APerture Priority mode....color-blind metering and green saltwater lead to horrifically slow shutter speeds,like 1/160 second when the speeds should have been significantly higher...IMHO, for a beginner, Canon's cameras with color-blind,dumb light metering suck. The 7D is Canon's first camera with color-aware light metering...it's got some potential as an "action" camera.

What do you need a camera to do? How expert are you? Consider a Nikon with color-aware RGB light metering if you want to use it fast and or have your friends or SO use it...

 

[Sam6644]

Cough* Cough* Get a Nikon instead.

Not but seriously, I would get a full frame camera like a 5D over the 7D anyday. 5D classic out performs 7D and it is cheaper! As far as lenses I think the 24-105 is better than the 24-70.

Hope this helps...

No... no it does not.

The 7D is a fantastic camera. Everything about it is comparable or better than the rest of the xD series of Canon cameras.

I have one and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
It's a very good pair, but I'm currently juggling trying to decide if I want the 24-70 or the 16-35.

I'll probably get the 16-35 f/2.8 L

 

[Derrel]

5D-original model: DxOMark - Canon EOS 5D
Overall Score 71
Portrait 22.9 bits
Landscape 11.1 Evs
Sports 1368 ISO
Ranking out of all tested cameras, 20th



EOS 7D DxOMark - Canon EOS 7D

Overall Score 66
Portrait 22 bits
Landscape 11.7 Evs
Sports 854 ISO
Ranking out of all tested cameras, 34th

 

[shortpballer]

Thank You 5D is better!

5D-original model: DxOMark - Canon EOS 5D
Overall Score 71
Portrait 22.9 bits
Landscape 11.1 Evs
Sports 1368 ISO
Ranking out of all tested cameras, 20th



EOS 7D DxOMark - Canon EOS 7D

Overall Score 66
Portrait 22 bits
Landscape 11.7 Evs
Sports 854 ISO
Ranking out of all tested cameras, 34th

 

[Derrel]

One of the biggest problems the 7D has is the high-density, 17.8 megapixel sensor. It puts extreme demands on the lenses, and the high MP sensor delivers its image lower down on the Modulation Transfer Function curve of most lenses, so the images you get are lower in contrast AND are often well into the diffraction-affected apertures when shooting landscapes, or using "normal" flash exposures outdoors, or using "normal" apertures with studio flash,etc,etc. There is a "sweet spot" between sensor size, pixel size, and real-world lens performance. Canon hit a home run with the full-frame 5D sensor at 12.8 megapixels; Nikon feels that 12.2 megapixels in the D3,D3s,and D700 are a "sweet spot".

The reason the 5D's sensor out-performs the 7D's sensor is that it is MUCH LARGER sensor. Closing in on three times larger than a 7D sensor. A bigger sensor, with larger pixels can yield higher total resolution with "real-world" lenses. The highest resolution figures Canon cameras deliver ALL come from their full-frame cameras. The bigger sensor has lower noise, and works better at elevated ISO settings than a smaller sensor.

BUT, the body and sub-systems of the 5D and 5D-II are pretty pedestrian...the AF module is highly center-weighted,so the edges of the frame have very poor AF tracking and very poor off-center AF acquisition, and the focusing module is kind of weak overall. The 7D has a smaller sensor, and the same, exact size of focusing pattern, but with the smaller frame, that gives the 7D better off-center focusing capabilities. The 7D is a better BODY than the 5D is, and it is faster, smaller, and less costly too. The 7D is Canon's mid-priced sports/action APS-C body--it really does have a place in the lineup. For many uses, the 7D is going to be *the* Canon body for people who want a fast-handling,light camera that is not a 1D-series camera.

I'm just trying to point out that higher megapixels, like 12.8 million versus 17.8 million (but with a 2.7x size [area] advantage to the lower-count sensor !) does NOT actually translate automatically into better performance for the higher-MP count camera. In fact, the bigger sensor cameras do some things quite a bit better than the crop-body cameras.

 

[Sam6644]

I know all about the relationship between sensor size and density, but the 7D does just about everything better than the 5D, including high iso performance. The original 5D is an awesome camera... for 2005, but I don't think it stands up to 2010 standards.

Better focusing, better body, better metering, better noise control, higher fps all equate to me a better camera.

The original 5D is great, but it's not better than the 7D.

I've been shopping for a second body for a couple months and came down to the 7D or 5DII and still decided the 7D is the better buy. If they come out with a new 5D with better metering and focusing, I might change my mind but the 7D offers a lot of the best technology Canon has to offer right now.

 

[shortpballer]

I'd disagree. The only thing I would say the 7D has over the 5D is focusing. But depending on what you are doing, that shouldn't matter. I've owned a 5D, 7D, and 5D2 and the 7D was the worst. Worst picture quality, worst iso performance. It may go higher, but I felt like there was far more noise in the 7D at higher iso then there was in the 5D classic.

I know all about the relationship between sensor size and density, but the 7D does just about everything better than the 5D, including high iso performance. The original 5D is an awesome camera... for 2005, but I don't think it stands up to 2010 standards.

Better focusing, better body, better metering, better noise control, higher fps all equate to me a better camera.

The original 5D is great, but it's not better than the 7D.

I've been shopping for a second body for a couple months and came down to the 7D or 5DII and still decided the 7D is the better buy. If they come out with a new 5D with better metering and focusing, I might change my mind but the 7D offers a lot of the best technology Canon has to offer right now.

 

[Derrel]

The original 5D is a better imager. With a big viewfinder. And a big sensor.

The 7D is a better body. With a tiny viewfinder and lousy manual focusing ability. And a small 1.6x crop sensor.

For studio work, the 5D is amazing, even in 2010. I shot the 7D during a product/company personnel shoot I helped a friend with a month ago, and was appalled by how bad the finder image is for manual focus work on studio still life AND portraiture. The camera has more noise at the low end of the scale than I thought possible.

In terms of LOW NOISE and rich color at lower ISO values, the 7D is woefully behind even the Nikon D2x, or the 5D. The 5D is a much better studio camera than many others because of its low-end ISO range; the 7D's low ISO results are quite sub-par compared to the 5D or D2x, which are two very good cameras for studio work at lower ISO values.

Right tool for the job...I'm sorry, but for some uses, the old,original 5D is a better tool to select. That's why they took it and slapped a higher MP count sensor in the same old body, and added Medium-RAW sized capture...10.8 megapixels on Full Frame is a better-looking image than a tiny 1.6x sensor gives...for some subjects...the depth of field looks different, the camera-to-subject distances are all different, the way lenses render is ALL different on Full Frame cameras. On a FF, a 70-200 is wonderfully useful indoors, but on a 1.6x body, it becomes something else.

Not trying to belittle the 7D, just pointing out that the "best technology Canon has to offer right now" does not make a crop-body camera the best choice for all things...and to me, the 7D's absolute weakness is the viewfinder system, followed by its poor color and high noise at lower ISO settings compared to even an "old" full-frame sensor.

 

[icassell]

Again, it matters what you want to shoot and how much you're willing to spend. I love my 7D, but the high ISO performance, while excellent, doesn't equal that of the 5D II. On the other hand, it is an easily hand-holdable camera, affordable, and lightning fast accurate focus. As a wildlife imager, I felt (and still feel) it was the better choice for me over the 5D II. It is EXTREMELY demanding on the glass you use with it. I noticed a big difference when I bought my 400mm f/5.6L over my Sigma 100-300mm EX f/4. This difference is not as apparent when I shoot with my 30D.

As for lousy manual focusing ability, Katzeye (katzeyeoptics.com) now does make a focusing screen for the 7D which should improve that for those interested. I don't find the viewfinder woefully small, but that becomes a matter of taste. It is a 100% viewfinder.

Here is a relatively high ISO image

Canon 7D
Canon 400mm f/5.6L
1/1000 sec f/6.3 ISO 3200 Handheld

 

[gomer89]

Thank you everyone for your input.

A few things i didn't mention was my budget for now is $2500 so i can't afford the 5D. And I'm going to school right now to be a photojournalist so if that changes anyone's mind on what to recommend please continue to discuss.

And now i am looking at the 24-105L...all i want for my first lens with this camera is a general purpose and from what I've read is the 24-105 is the real deal when it comes to general purpose.

 

[shortpballer]

The 5D classic is really affordable. You can get one used from 750-900 all over the place. I'd buy that and spend the extra money on some lighting or glass... I'd do a shoot with a 5D over a 7D ANYDAY...

Thank you everyone for your input.

A few things i didn't mention was my budget for now is $2500 so i can't afford the 5D. And I'm going to school right now to be a photojournalist so if that changes anyone's mind on what to recommend please continue to discuss

 

[DrongoPhoto]

I feel like the word "Video" should be thrown into this conversation. There's no denying that photography and video are merging and ignoring the latter will probably cause you some pain in the long term. Based on your budget, the 7D gives you the option to get into whatever you want and still buy a nice piece of glass to go with it. Personally, I'd go with the 24-70 over the 24-105, and I own the 24-105. I like the range but I find myself constantly wishing for faster glass when I use it.

Not a fan of video? I understand, but why limit your long term options right out of the gate?