Whats better for Wedding and Portrait Photography...Canon 7D or 5D Mark II

[skieur]

I found a net reference but it does not download side by side to this software even with the link. You might have to exit first before trying it.

The link directly to the comparison does not work but it is in
www.imaging-resource.com . Go into the comparometer and look at 100 ISO both 5DM11 and 7D side by side with attention to the left white collar and necklace on the manikin. Look also at the print on the back of the book held up by the manikin too in shots for both cameras.

skieur

 

[flea77]

I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame).

Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF. That being said, only you can say if there is enough difference between the two to make it worth the money. In Nikon's line at the moment that would be the D7000 vs the D700, and for me, not enough difference to justify the price.

Next you have the crop factor's effect on lenses. While the 1.5x may be really nice on your 70/80-200 for shooting from the back of the church, that same crop factor is a serious pain in the rear when you are squashed in the corner of the bathtub shooting the bride in the bathroom putting on her makeup. So do you go for the FF so you are not squeezed into the soap dish but you have to be mid-church to get shots of the kiss? Or do you comfortably shoot from the back once you get someone to scrape you off the bathroom wall with a spatula using your CF?

My choice? I went for the crop and spent the savings on nice glass.

Allan

 

[skieur]

I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame).

Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF.
Allan

Even Popular Photography magazine has said repeatedly that a full frame camera does not automatically produce better image quality than the crop frame.

The only real difference was wide angle on the CF but with a 10mm to 20mm zoom getting cramped in a bathroom is no longer necessary.

skieur

 

[Buckster]

I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame).

Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF.
Allan

Even Popular Photography magazine has said repeatedly that a full frame camera does not automatically produce better image quality than the crop frame.

Well, that's kind of like saying a medium format camera does not automatically produce better image quality than a 35mm. True, I'd put my old Nikon F up against an old Diana any day.

But, generally speaking...

 

[flea77]

I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame).

Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF.
Allan

Even Popular Photography magazine has said repeatedly that a full frame camera does not automatically produce better image quality than the crop frame.

The only real difference was wide angle on the CF but with a 10mm to 20mm zoom getting cramped in a bathroom is no longer necessary.

skieur

As Buckster said, generally speaking, all other things being equal, FF will provide better results than CF. But as I already said, the difference may be minimal and not worth the cost difference.

As for the 10-20, as long as you can deal with the f3.5 or worse, the f4-5.6, I suppose it would work. I usually cram myself back with a 24-70 2.8, or 24 2.8 to get not only the extra light, but the narrower depth of field as well.

Allan

PS. And I am not too sure I would use Pop Photo as a reference either, but that is just me :lmao:

 

[rikerjc]

Right now I can afford the 7D, I want to get into Wedding and Portrait Photography as that seem to be where the money is. I'm presently shooting with a Canon T1i and assorted L series lenses. My dilema, do I spend the money now on the 7D and sacrifice getting a full frame 5D Mark II later (much later) or take a leap of faith and get the 7D now...I also shoot a lot of nature and Fine arts so it would have to cover that arena also..I would love to have the Full frame but it's a lot of money to spend. especially if the 7D is comparable...any thoughts are GREATLY appreciated ..PS..In other forums I have had a lot of well meaning people who have no experience with either camera offer their opinion. I really appreciate their intentions but please answer ONLY if you have first hand experience with both camera's..Peace.

The 5D MK II is far superior to the 7D. I owned a 7D and was dissapointed with the level of noise it had so much so that I sold it soon after, losing money in the process, and upgraded to a 5D MKII. The 7D crams 18MP onto a crop sensor and the result is noise. Sometimes this noise is confused with sharpness cause noise adds a grainy appearance which at first glance presents a seemingly sharp picture. Even at ISO100 there is noticable noise. Infact prior to the 7D owned a 10MP Canon 1000D which was producing better image quality than the 7D. This was devastating when you consider the difference in cost but after researching the issue it all came down to how many pixels are thrown on a image sensor and both the 1000D and 7D have the same size sensor but with vastly different number of pixels. Canon employ a filter on the 7D to counteract this noise but the result is quite often softer images. Its a bandaid solution. Go full-frame. Go the 5D MKII. I ran my own tests with the 5D MK II and the 7D and quite frankly there is no comparison. The 5D is clearly superior in image quality. At weddings quite often you need to crop and if you start cropping with a 7D's noise-ridden images you're gonna be dissapointed.

 

[laurabnt]

Thanks for the information guys.

 

[jaymitch]

Ive been using my 7d's for wedding and portraits for awhile now and I have no complaints. They have always done a really nice job for me. If you pair the 7d with a quality lens it will give you amazing results.
Im not saying its better then the 5d, it was just a better fit for me. I always tell people in your position, if possible get your hands on both and see what you think.

 

[skieur]

I own neither, and personally can't stand to use Canon at all. I have however had the chance to play with both. This mainly boils down to FF vs CF (full frame vs crop frame).

Only an blind man (in my opinion) would ever say a current model CF matches the image quality of a current model FF.
Allan

Even Popular Photography magazine has said repeatedly that a full frame camera does not automatically produce better image quality than the crop frame.

Well, that's kind of like saying a medium format camera does not automatically produce better image quality than a 35mm. True, I'd put my old Nikon F up against an old Diana any day.

But, generally speaking...

No, Let me put it another way. The lens and the overall IQ/megapixels make the difference between cameras NOT whether it is full frame or crop frame.

skieur