7d, landscapes and portraits taboo

[joescrivens]

So I was wondering why so many people bash the 7d when it comes to portraits and landscapes over the 5d.

Now I understand why the 5d is a better tool for portraits and landscapes given the full frame, larger sensor and higher dynamic range.

But is the 7d worse at taking portraits and landscapes than the 20d, 30d, 40d, 50d, 350d, 400d 450d etc?

you rarely see someone saying that these cameras aren't cut out for taking portrait and landscapes but you often hear it about the 7d and I wondered why that is.

Is it because the 7d is comparable in some ways to the 5d whereas the others aren't? I guess I'm just wondering is there something missing from the 7d that is found in all the lower models that makes it worse for taking portrait and landscapes then they are? and if the answer is no then why don't we mention that the 5d is better for this type of photography than all the other models too?

curious

[Spiritflier]

Hi Joe,

That's an interesting set of questions... Difficult to answer dispassionately as well 'cos I've got one! :)

In some ways, I think Canon made a mistake by sticking 18 megapixels on the 7D. Personally, I'd have been happier with 12mp with Canon placing more emphasis on low light performance in the same way that Nikon have. Let's face it, there's not many occasions when you're going to print massively.

I also think that having 18mp means you have to be more careful about your exposures. I've had some absolutely impeccable portrait and landscape shots with mine but if you screw things up - especially if you underexpose, the noise becomes noticeable over the likes of the 5D (and 5DMKII).

It's a very versatile camera when all's said and done and I'm more than happy with mine. Could I have got better performance if I'd bought a different camera? Most definitely but the trade-off would have been cost. At some point in the future, I'll pick up a 5DMKII to complement my 7D but at the moment, I have no complaints.

I put the 7D through its first wedding at the weekend and the results are very impressive... Lots of the shots in the church were taken at ISO3200 and I'm happy with the way they've come out (so are the bride and groom from the ones they've already seen). :)

Si

[raider2727]

5d has a full frame sensor which is more suited to landscapes and cropped portraits.
7d better at wildlife, sports than the 5d, just different cameras for different jobs.

[grumpybadger]

I've got some portraits and landscapes off my 7D that I am very pleased with, as I did off my 10D (the last APS-C camera I owned)

5DII will give you more ultimate resolution but up to A3, I reckon you'd be hard pressed to tell which print came from which camera - assuming the photographer had got the technicalities right

[Nifkin]

So I was wondering why so many people bash the 7d when it comes to portraits and landscapes over the 5d.

Now I understand why the 5d is a better tool for portraits and landscapes given the full frame, larger sensor and higher dynamic range.

But is the 7d worse at taking portraits and landscapes than the 20d, 30d, 40d, 50d, 350d, 400d 450d etc?

you rarely see someone saying that these cameras aren't cut out for taking portrait and landscapes but you often hear it about the 7d and I wondered why that is.

Is it because the 7d is comparable in some ways to the 5d whereas the others aren't? I guess I'm just wondering is there something missing from the 7d that is found in all the lower models that makes it worse for taking portrait and landscapes then they are? and if the answer is no then why don't we mention that the 5d is better for this type of photography than all the other models too?

curious

Well Joe, I think it's kind of an accepted thing that the 5DMkI/MkII are better than any of the xxxD/xxD/7D bodies for portraiture/landscapes simply due to, as you have already pointed out, the 5D range having FF sensors, where as all the others are APS-C. I don't think that the 7D gets bashed any more than the others; it may look that way just because the 7D is far more talked about than any other APS-C at the moment, and is also intended to be a professional-level APS-C (where the others are consumer/prosumer), so is going to be compared to the 5DII directly. Like comparing the 1D to the 1Ds range, these bodies are for different markets, but are on a par status-wise in the Canon range; each is stronger in it's own specialist areas.

1DIV for sports/wildlife, 1DsIII for portraiture/landscapes

7D for sports/wildlife, the 5DII for portraiture/landscapes

Anyway, if you're enjoying using your 7D for portraiture and landscapes, then it doesn't really matter what other people think, does it? :thumbs:

[grumpybadger]

Again these "rules" don't always work. I've shot most of my wildlife on 1DsII until recently - and that's FF. I'm not the only one either.

[Nifkin]

Again these "rules" don't always work. I've shot most of my wildlife on 1DsII until recently - and that's FF. I'm not the only one either.

I wouldn't call them rules; more target markets. Of course there's nothing inherent in the design of an FF that stops you from shooting wildlife, and nothing with an APS-C that stops you from shooting landscapes; just that each sensor size tends to have an area where it excels. I think talk of there being any kind of taboo is a bit dramatic ;)

[joescrivens]

5d has a full frame sensor which is more suited to landscapes and cropped portraits.
7d better at wildlife, sports than the 5d, just different cameras for different jobs.

I said this in my first post, what I was asking was why is the 7d categorized this way but none of the xxd or xxxd are.

the 7d is better than the xxd and xxxd for wildlife and sports but is it any worse than them for portrait and landscapes?

[joescrivens]

Well Joe, I think it's kind of an accepted thing that the 5DMkI/MkII are better than any of the xxxD/xxD/7D bodies for portraiture/landscapes simply due to, as you have already pointed out, the 5D range having FF sensors, where as all the others are APS-C. I don't think that the 7D gets bashed any more than the others; it may look that way just because the 7D is far more talked about than any other APS-C at the moment, and is also intended to be a professional-level APS-C (where the others are consumer/prosumer), so is going to be compared to the 5DII directly. Like comparing the 1D to the 1Ds range, these bodies are for different markets, but are on a par status-wise in the Canon range; each is stronger in it's own specialist areas.

1DIV for sports/wildlife, 1DsIII for portraiture/landscapes

7D for sports/wildlife, the 5DII for portraiture/landscapes

Anyway, if you're enjoying using your 7D for portraiture and landscapes, then it doesn't really matter what other people think, does it? :thumbs:

at least someone understood what I was asking :lol: EDIT - and also grumpybadger for answering it 9 posts from now - I came back from the future to make this change :thumbs:

So you are saying that because it's new and it's a semi pro model thats why it is compared to the 5d and the others (xxd, xxxd) arent even though they are no better for portraits and landscape than the 7d.

no doesn't matter what others think I'm just curious why the comparison only seems to be drawn here and not on others. I want a 5d soon now that it does 24p, that was a strong reason for me getting the 7d at the time

[Les McLean]

There are some features on a 7D that make it better for landscapes than a 5D, the viewfinder grid for example for composition, the electronic 'spirit level' are both excellent aides for landscape shooting, and the ability to change the manual focal point automatically as you tilt the camera from horizontal to vertical can help portrait shooting.

The only downside (for me) is that it's a crop body, therefore a FF is generally suited to landscape photography.

[joescrivens]

There are some features on a 7D that make it better for landscapes than a 5D, the viewfinder grid for example for composition, the electronic 'spirit level' are both excellent aides for landscape shooting, and the ability to change the manual focal point automatically as you tilt the camera from horizontal to vertical can help portrait shooting.

The only downside (for me) is that it's a crop body, therefore a FF is generally suited to landscape photography.

ok, but again, in answer to my question. why is this comparison made with the 5d and 7d and not the 5d and 50d or 40d or 450d etc?

[grumpybadger]

Probably because they are more comparable in price - why do you care?

[Nifkin]

So you are saying that because it's new and it's a semi pro model thats why it is compared to the 5d and the others (xxd, xxxd) arent even though they are no better for portraits and landscape than the 7d.

I'm just saying that there may be a trend in the forums over the last 5 months or so for comparing the 5DMkII to the 7D more than any other APS-C, but that's going to happen considering it's the most recently launched and most advanced APS-C body Canon make. If you look back to the end of 2008 you'll find plenty of threads/articles comparing the 50D to the 5DII, and, I'm sure, when they launch the 5DMkIII there'll be threads comparing the 7D to that. To be honest Joe, I think your deduction that the 7D is somehow criticised more for it's portrait/landscape abilities than other APS-C bodies, purely based on what you've read in this forum, doesn't really have legs. No disrespect, but, judging by this and other threads you've started, you do tend to let gear criticism get to you a bit too much! :D

[joescrivens]

Probably because they are more comparable in price - why do you care?

why does anyone care about anything?

I'm just curious... is that ok? :suspect:

[joescrivens]

I'm just saying that there may be a trend in the forums over the last 5 months or so for comparing the 5DMkII to the 7D more than any other APS-C, but that's going to happen considering it's the most recently launched and most advanced APS-C body Canon make. If you look back to the end of 2008 you'll find plenty of threads/articles comparing the 50D to the 5DII, and, I'm sure, when they launch the 5DMkIII there'll be threads comparing the 7D to that. To be honest Joe, I think your deduction that the 7D is somehow criticised more for it's portrait/landscape abilities than other APS-C bodies, purely based on what you've read in this forum, doesn't really have legs. No disrespect, but, judging by this and other threads you've started, you do tend to let gear criticism get to you a bit too much! :D

Do I?

what other thread have I started about gear criticism?

[IanC_UK]

Cant say ive been aware of criticism of the 7D as a landscape camera, with a EF-S 10-22 its quite capable of producing excellent landscape images and with any lens decent portraits. The lenses for portraits will have to be shorter focal length than a full frame camera would need to get the same field of view though. Its noise can be slightly higher due to the fact there are more pixels (hence smaller pixels) on its smaller sensor than a full frame camera would need, so it can if not careful produce more noise on an image. Its purely down to technique to get the exposure correct and then noise is less of an issue.

At the end of the day, if a 7D is what you got, you just need to plan the lenses you have and it will produce an image just as good as a 5d Mk2, unless you are a major pixel peeper or print massive images. For web etc, i doubt you would see any difference at all really.

[grumpybadger]

why does anyone care about anything?

I'm just curious... is that ok? :suspect:

Words like "taboo" impy a pretty strong opinion. All I posted (before you said that I had failed to answer your question) was that I don't see it that way and I find, in the right context, a 7D to be a competent landscape and portrait camera.

And I then went on to say that the direct comparison between 5DII and 7D is probably on the basis of price. Very few people would be considering a trade off between a 450D and a 5DII.

I genuinely believe the 7D to be the best APS-C camera made by Canon to-date.

[joescrivens]

Cant say ive been aware of criticism of the 7D as a landscape camera, with a EF-S 10-22 its quite capable of producing excellent landscape images and with any lens decent portraits. The lenses for portraits will have to be shorter focal length than a full frame camera would need to get the same field of view though. Its noise can be slightly higher due to the fact there are more pixels (hence smaller pixels) on its smaller sensor than a full frame camera would need, so it can if not careful produce more noise on an image. Its purely down to technique to get the exposure correct and then noise is less of an issue.

At the end of the day, if a 7D is what you got, you just need to plan the lenses you have and it will produce an image just as good as a 5d Mk2, unless you are a major pixel peeper or print massive images. For web etc, i doubt you would see any difference at all really.

you haven't? I've seen many many threads which say the 7d is primarily a wildlife and motorsports camera and I do understand why the 5d performs better in landscape and portrait.

This basically comes from me going back and forth with whether to upgrade to a 5d or not. Essentially I bought the 7d because I wanted a camera that took video as well, the 5d was a good £500+ more and it didn't do 24p at the time. I also had my eyes on some ef-s lenses so wasn't looking at full frame. I also didn't fully understand what a full frame camera would do at the time.

All I take is portrait and landscape really so after I became more knowledgeable and read more about the differences I started thinking perhaps I had bought the wrong camera. Now the 5d has had a firmware upgrade to do 24p I'm toying with the idea of upgrading some time in the future.

But then I started thinking about the other models that people use for portrait and landscape (xxd and xxxd series) and I was thinking if the 7d was as good as those for portrait and landscape then perhaps I'm looking too much into it, perhaps it's all the posts I've read that are telling me the 7d isn't what I should be using for portraits and landscapes thats making me want a 5d.

I guess if I upgrade I want it to be for the right reasons.

[Nifkin]

Do I?

what other thread have I started about gear criticism?

Well, one that springs to mind was where you were banging the drum for the Apple iPad rather zealously, even before it had been released; you didn't seem to appreciate any descenting comments on that occasion! :) Maybe you didn't perceive it as such, but I'm sure many would disagree with you! Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate about that; here you just seem to be looking for reassurance that your camera is better than the other APS-C models, simply because you have a heightened awareness of negative comments aimed at the 7D, a camera you happen to own. I think the 7D fares extremely well in reviews and in comments here, and you should take it as a plus that it routinely gets compared to the 5DII, which is essentially meant to be a step above. As was said earlier, why do you care whether the xxxD/xxD lines get dragged into debates comparing FF to crop sensors or not? I don't really see what this thread is trying to prove either way, to be honest (except reasure you that you've made the right purchase).

BTW, if you remember, I was on your side the other day when some Nikonites started having a go at you for bragging about your L-lens; I thought they were being a bit unfair to you :thumbs:

[joescrivens]

Words like "taboo" impy a pretty strong opinion. All I posted (before you said that I had failed to answer your question) was that I don't see it that way and I find, in the right context, a 7D to be a competent landscape and portrait camera.

Where did I say this to you?

taboo was just something I put in the title on a whim, I don't think the use of a 7d as a portrait and landscape camera has been considered as taboo.


And I then went on to say that the direct comparison between 5DII and 7D is probably on the basis of price. Very few people would be considering a trade off between a 450D and a 5DII.

I genuinely believe the 7D to be the best APS-C camera made by Canon to-date.

[joescrivens]

Well, one that springs to mind was where you were banging the drum for the Apple iPad rather zealously, even before it had been released; you didn't seem to appreciate any descenting comments on that occasion! :) Maybe you didn't perceive it as such, but I'm sure many would disagree with you! Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate about that; here you just seem to be looking for reassurance that your camera is better than the other APS-C models, simply because you have a heightened awareness of negative comments aimed at the 7D, a camera you happen to own. I think the 7D fares extremely well in reviews and in comments here, and you should take it as a plus that it routinely gets compared to the 5DII, which is essentially meant to be a step above. As was said earlier, why do you care whether the xxxD/xxD lines get dragged into debates comparing FF to crop sensors or not? I don't really see what this thread is trying to prove either way, to be honest (except reasure you that you've made the right purchase).

BTW, if you remember, I was on your side the other day when some Nikonites started having a go at you for bragging about your L-lens; I thought they were being a bit unfair to you :thumbs:

yeah essentially this is the point of the thread. As said in the post above I take portrait and landscapes and because of the things I have been reading I've been considering if I want a 5d instead and that I bought the wrong camera.

Bringing in the other models is me questioning myself and saying "well the 5d can't be the only camera for portraits and landscapes since other models are used extensively for this, so it's not that the 7d is bad for these types of photography, it's just that the 5d is the best"

so I'm asking if this assumption is right and that there isn't something lacking in the 7d over the other models for these types of photography to help inform my decision if I do need to upgrade or not

[trencheel303]

Do I?

what other thread have I started about gear criticism?

He probably meant the lensbaby thread.

The general problem I find these days is that people seem to think that you can't take a decent photo with anything but a 5D or a 1D(s) (and the other manufacturer equivs.), yet, these are usually the same people who are far too quick to come out with remarks like 'its not the gear its the person behind the camera!!1'

I personally use a 450D for landscapes, interiors, portraits, just about anything except fast paced action and I'm pretty sure my images look fine. If I had a 5D or a 1D(s) I probably couldn't do any better.

[grumpybadger]

Where did I say this to you?
Here...
at least someone understood what I was asking :lol:

taboo was just something I put in the title on a whim, I don't think the use of a 7d as a portrait and landscape camera has been considered as taboo.

Yes but it was the word you used and hence the wording I responded to.

If video is important to you, I still think the user interface for it is better on the 7D than anything else. If that isn't as important as ultimate image quality on portraits and landscapes (and you intend to produce A2 prints and not just look at images on screen) then get the 5DII.

But, there are a lot of people going on about ultimate image quality when they only produce 1000px images for digital use. As I said earlier - I'd challenge anyone to identify the camera used on that size of file so you have to ask how much quality is enough.

That was the rationale for me getting a 7D rather than a 5DII.

Other things - is the inbuilt flashgun important to you? Is the remote flash contol important?

A camera is actually about more than ultimate image quality, which is why in the film days there were several cameras available...

[grumpybadger]

so I'm asking if this assumption is right and that there isn't something lacking in the 7d over the other models for these types of photography to help inform my decision if I do need to upgrade or not


I genuinely believe the 7D to be the best APS-C camera made by Canon to-date.

[Nifkin]

so I'm asking if this assumption is right and that there isn't something lacking in the 7d over the other models for these types of photography to help inform my decision if I do need to upgrade or not

Joe, I think it's been pretty much conclusive for some time, as a result of reviews and real-world usage, that there certainly isn't anything the 7D lacks that the other Canon APS-C cameras have.

[Nifkin]

He probably meant the lensbaby thread.

No; I meant the iPad thread :p

Anyway Joe, there's nowt wrong with thinking about the pros and cons of the 7D when compared to the 5DII, but what they have to do with the 50D, 40D, 450D, 500D etc I don't know; I mean, even if we confirm that the 7D is 100 times better than all those other crop sensor bodies put together, is that really going to stop you from hankering after a 5DII??? :thinking: :eek:

[trencheel303]

Didn't see it sorry.

[joescrivens]

No; I meant the iPad thread :p

Anyway Joe, there's nowt wrong with thinking about the pros and cons of the 7D when compared to the 5DII, but what that has to do with the 50D, 40D, 450D, 500D etc I don't know :eek:

the thing it has to do with them is that I keep reading the 7d being compared to 5d for portrait and landscape and people saying it's for wildlife and motorsport but I don't read the same about the other models.

perhaps I'm not explaining this very well. It's to do with the fact that the impression I have been given is that I should only own a 7d if I take motorsport and wildlife but the other models (xxd and xxxd) don't seem to have a genre attached to them. So I'm just checking that the interpretation I have taken is a wrong one.

[joescrivens]

Here...



That was in a reply to Nifkin, not to you :suspect:

[grumpybadger]

Yes and you thanked him for answering the question and therefore implied no-one else had. Is it so difficult? And now you refuse to acknowledge my repeated answer to your specific question.

I'm out...

[Nifkin]

the thing it has to do with them is that I keep reading the 7d being compared to 5d for portrait and landscape and people saying it's for wildlife and motorsport but I don't read the same about the other models.

perhaps I'm not explaining this very well. It's to do with the fact that the impression I have been given is that I should only own a 7d if I take motorsport and wildlife but the other models (xxd and xxxd) don't seem to have a genre attached to them. So I'm just checking that the interpretation I have taken is a wrong one.

JOE! STOP CARING SO MUCH ABOUT WHAT YOU READ IN THE FORUMS!!!! So what if other people, when making a choice between the 7D and the 5DII, decide that the 7D is a good choice for sport and wildlife???! It doesn't mean it can't do everything else! What is YOUR opinion of the camera's performance? You own one! Why do you have to get your impressions of your own camera validated by others?

[joescrivens]

Yes and you thanked him for answering the question and therefore implied no-one else had. Is it so difficult? And now you refuse to acknowledge my repeated answer to your specific question.

I'm out...

well at the point when I said that, nobody but him had answered it. Your reply up to that point was:

I've got some portraits and landscapes off my 7D that I am very pleased with, as I did off my 10D (the last APS-C camera I owned)

5DII will give you more ultimate resolution but up to A3, I reckon you'd be hard pressed to tell which print came from which camera - assuming the photographer had got the technicalities right

I don't see an answer there as to why the 7d is compared to the 5d but not the 20d, 30d, etc etc as was my question.

[grumpybadger]

And I then went on to say that the direct comparison between 5DII and 7D is probably on the basis of price. Very few people would be considering a trade off between a 450D and a 5DII.

I genuinely believe the 7D to be the best APS-C camera made by Canon to-date.

[joescrivens]

JOE! STOP CARING SO MUCH ABOUT WHAT YOU READ IN THE FORUMS!!!! So what if other people, when making a choice between the 7D and the 5DII, decide that the 7D is a good choice for sport and wildlife???! It doesn't mean it can't do everything else! What is YOUR opinion of the camera's performance? You own one! Why do you have to get your impressions of your own camera validated by others?

Essentially I want to make sure I have the right tool for the job, it's as simple as that.

All the things I've been reading about the niche of the 7d have made me question whether I bought the right camera and if I need to change it. I'm asking other peoples opinions to help make my decision and make it for the right reason instead of having the wrong impression formed by myself.

[joescrivens]

Originally Posted by grumpybadger
And I then went on to say that the direct comparison between 5DII and 7D is probably on the basis of price. Very few people would be considering a trade off between a 450D and a 5DII.

I genuinely believe the 7D to be the best APS-C camera made by Canon to-date.

that was post 18 grumpy, I made the statement to nifkin thanking him for answering my question at post 9.

Holy cow I can;t predict that you are going to answer it further down the line can I. I've edited post 9 to appease you... chill out my friend!!

[Arkady]

That was in a reply to Nifkin, not to you :suspect:

ummm...it's an open forum - so we all get to play if we feel like it...

[joescrivens]

ummm...it's an open forum - so we all get to play if we feel like it...

I realise that, grumpy seemed to think I was deliberately isolating him out and saying he hadn't answered my question. That wasn't the case, somewhere along this thread something has been hugely misinterpreted

[grumpybadger]

that was post 18 grumpy, I made the statement to nifkin thanking him for answering my question at post 9.

Holy cow I can;t predict that you are going to answer it further down the line can I. I've edited post 9 to appease you... chill out my friend!!

I understand that but I have now proferred my opinion three times (Post #17, #24 and #33) since but you want to argue semantics.

For clarity - my points that you should consider are:

1. Does the 7D have any features a 5D doesn't that you wouldn't want to live without
2. What do you do with your images - do you need the IQ offered by a 5D
3. Does the 5D offer you value for money

and

1. If you are only printing to A3, I don't believe you could correctly tell the camera the image has come from (I can't)
2. I genuinely believe the 7D to be Canon's best APS-C camera yet
3. The 7D isn't compared to the 20D/30D/40D/450D etc as they are all half the price
Only you can answer those questions and make up your own mind what to buy or not.

[Nifkin]

Joe, both Grumpy and I have given you different takes on your query, both of which are valid. Not sure what else can be said beyond what's been discussed already, to be frank. :shrug:

[joescrivens]

I understand that but I have now proferred my opinion three times (Post #17, #24 and #33) since but you want to argue semantics.

For clarity - my points that you should consider are:

1. Does the 7D have any features a 5D doesn't that you wouldn't want to live without
2. What do you do with your images - do you need the IQ offered by a 5D
3. Does the 5D offer you value for money

and

1. If you are only printing to A3, I don't believe you could correctly tell the camera the image has come from (I can't)
2. I genuinely believe the 7D to be Canon's best APS-C camera yet
3. The 7D isn't compared to the 20D/30D/40D/450D etc as they are all half the price
Only you can answer those questions and make up your own mind what to buy or not.

excellent advice and questions!

I'd have to say:

1. Does the 7D have any features a 5D doesn't that you wouldn't want to live without - possibly the flip up wireless flash capabilities, but I haven't explored that extensively yet.
2. What do you do with your images - do you need the IQ offered by a 5D - I don't need it, no. It's more a want - I can see the difference in the dynamic range from the 5d
3. Does the 5D offer you value for money - I don't think the body is too expensive, it;s more the fact that three of my lenses are ef-s so I'd have to replace them.

I think perhaps I'm good with the 7d for now, perhaps in a few years when the 5d mk3 comes out and I have a full wallet I could make the jump

[joescrivens]

Joe, both Grumpy and I have given you different takes on your query, both of which are valid. Not sure what else can be said beyond what's been discussed already, to be frank. :shrug:

I agree. :thumbs:

[Nifkin]

Woot! :banana: We got there at last! Spot on, badger. See? The 40D etc had very little to do with it after all :lol:

[joescrivens]

Woot! :banana: We got there at last! Spot on, badger. See? The 40D etc had very little to do with it after all :lol:

lol, well they still do to me, because my original question is why aren't these compared to the 5d when it comes to portrait and landscape and the answer you have both given makes sense:

The 7D isn't compared to the 20D/30D/40D/450D etc as they are all half the price

the 7d has just come out

the 7d is considered a semi-pro/pro camera

see you were answering my q without even realising :thumbs::thumbs:

[grumpybadger]

And one final bit - Joe, I'd sit tight for now. I'm hoping the 5DIII has the 7D AF and a flash squeezed in as well. Then I may jump back to FF again...

[joescrivens]

And one final bit - Joe, I'd sit tight for now. I'm hoping the 5DIII has the 7D AF and a flash squeezed in as well. Then I may jump back to FF again...

indeed! wonder what kind of price point we'll be at

[Nifkin]

see you were answering my q without even realising :thumbs::thumbs:

:eek: Joe, my whole intention was to answer your initial question, which was entirely to do with why the 7D is compared unfavourably with the 5DII for portraits/landscape stuff, whilst other APS-C bodies don't seem to be compared in such a way; you didn't actually ask in what ways the 7D could be compared positively to 5DII (although grumps answered the 7D/5DII comparison bit more than adequately), and by answering this initial question of yours I tried to point out what little relevance it bore to the question you really had on your mind, namely, is the 7D really that much worse at portrature/landscapes than the 5DII:


Anyway Joe, there's nowt wrong with thinking about the pros and cons of the 7D when compared to the 5DII, but what they have to do with the 50D, 40D, 450D, 500D etc I don't know; I mean, even if we confirm that the 7D is 100 times better than all those other crop sensor bodies put together, is that really going to stop you from hankering after a 5DII??? :thinking: :eek:

Anyway, I hope they pull their fingers out and bring out the 5DMk3 by the end of the year; will make the Mk2's price plummet, and then I'll snap one up!

[zooxanthellae]

If you have the 'eye' for what makes a good landscape shot you will take a great picture with either. Look at the technology of yester year if you at all concerned, didnt stop photographers then,if you are creative you could probably get away with a point and poke and a little PP lol,i think we are just spoiled for choice.

[POAH]

I suppose people don't think the 7D is a portrait/landscape camera because canon choose to put 18mp on an APS-C chip which (from what I've seen) is far too much. images are soft because of NR and then sharpening introduces jaggy artifacts. Had they incorporated the current sensor technology with less MP it would have produced better quality images.

The is how ever nothing to say you can't shoot portraits or landscapes with the 7D its just the 5D2 does it better just like the 7D has a more capable focusing system than the 5D2 for action.

Personally I think the 40D was the best crop camera made by canon to date. well priced and a good mix of functions with IQ better than that of the 50D and 7D.

[LCPete]

I suppose people don't think the 7D is a portrait/landscape camera because canon choose to put 18mp on an APS-C chip which (from what I've seen) is far too much. images are soft because of NR and then sharpening introduces jaggy artifacts. Had they incorporated the current sensor technology with less MP it would have produced better quality images.

The is how ever nothing to say you can't shoot portraits or landscapes with the 7D its just the 5D2 does it better just like the 7D has a more capable focusing system than the 5D2 for action.

Personally I think the 40D was the best crop camera made by canon to date. well priced and a good mix of functions with IQ better than that of the 50D and 7D.

Is that right 40D has better IQ than the 7D ?
I have a 40D and am well pleased with it but will eventually upgrade to a 7D because of the ability to crop
I understood that the 40D was better for noise at lower ISO on screen images but when the images were printed the noise disapears anyway and the 7D shots show more detail
Pete

[joescrivens]

Is that right 40D has better IQ than the 7D ?
I have a 40D and am well pleased with it but will eventually upgrade to a 7D because of the ability to crop
I understood that the 40D was better for noise at lower ISO on screen images but when the images were printed the noise disapears anyway and the 7D shots show more detail
Pete

I've never had a 40d so I can't compare, perhaps someone with both could. I think no body would disagree with POAH that the 5d produces better quality images for portrait and landscape, but not for the reasons POAH suggests.

images are soft because of NR and then sharpening introduces jaggy artifacts.

The 5d is better because of the increased dynamic range the full frame sensor offers. Unless you consider the following images are soft and/or have jaggy artifacts

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4462828866_d429782538.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4292263781_da47d0d6d0_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2685/4282372571_e214ae8509_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2602/4195302146_65d38eba31_o.png

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2541/4186838733_e8f68d3ffc.jpg

[woof woof]

I'm confused by the 7D pictures I've seen.

Some on the net seem to have a very unpleasing "look" to them and there are many with high levels of noise, particularly in the background. Others seem to have been processed waaaaaaaay beyond the point at which I'd be screaming STOP!!!

But then again some 7D images look great.

I suppose that the only way to be sure is to try a 7D and see if it suits me and that should be the same for others too and if anyone thinks that a 7D is fantastic for landscape and portrait work and their results back up their opinion that's the proof.

[joescrivens]

I'm confused by the 7D pictures I've seen.

Some on the net seem to have a very unpleasing "look" to them and there are many with high levels of noise, particularly in the background. Others seem to have been processed waaaaaaaay beyond the point at which I'd be screaming STOP!!!

But then again some 7D images look great.

I suppose that the only way to be sure is to try a 7D and see if it suits me and that should be the same for others too and if anyone thinks that a 7D is fantastic for landscape and portrait work and their results back up their opinion that's the proof.

I don't know where this noise issue has come from to be honest, I've not seen the noise problems that some people report, I know there was one user on here who sent their 7d back due to the noise and it seemed to be a fault, perhaps those people who have noise issues also have this fault but just assume its normal for the 7d

[woof woof]

There are plenty of both amateur and professional images on the net. As I'm a bit of a gear fan I've read reviews and threads on the usual sites but I haven't gone hunting to obscure sites. Links and reviews from the Northlite Images site show a whole range of images from great to what I think are simply awful.

I do realise though what I see as the extreme and very unattractive over processing of some shots is just a personal taste thing. Mostly I like a more natural looking result but some would say that some of my pictures are flat and boring but if that's what the scene and lighting was then that's what I'd probably be aiming to capture.

[trencheel303]

jaggy lines only comes from oversharpening anyway, no?

[trencheel303]

Mostly I like a more natural looking result but some would say that some of my pictures are flat and boring but if that's what the scene and lighting was then that's what I'd probably be aiming to capture.

I agree with that 100%.

[Nifkin]

There are plenty of both amateur and professional images on the net. As I'm a bit of a gear fan I've read reviews and threads on the usual sites but I haven't gone hunting to obscure sites. Links and reviews from the Northlite Images site show a whole range of images from great to what I think are simply awful.

I do realise though what I see as the extreme and very unattractive over processing of some shots is just a personal taste thing. Mostly I like a more natural looking result but some would say that some of my pictures are flat and boring but if that's what the scene and lighting was then that's what I'd probably be aiming to capture.

99% of anything floating around on the internet is poorly conceived rubbish. This is due, of course, to there being no universal filter that selects and advocates only the best examples of pictures, commentary, opinion, etc for publication on the web. Therefore, you will get plenty of images taken by novices (and some pros) that are no better than camera-phone snaps even from the best cameras (and no, calling them 'ironic' doesn't save them!). But, from those same cameras, you're likely to find amazing stuff also. This is one of the pitfalls of over-researching on the internet; it is very hard to make an objective critical appraisal with the over-abundance of poor data available. Not least the huge amount of meandering threads like this, which start out with one specific question, but end up evolving into a series of very loosely related comments that, for anybody looking for specific information, would probably leave them even more confused than when they started! :lol:

The only real way of knowing whether a particular body or camera is right for you is to get out there using it; If comments by other users (too often not even based on their own experience) are enough to make you question your choice of equipment, more so than your own experimentation with the kit you've got, then you may never end up with the set-up that really suits you. Joe, are you really disappointed with the baby pictures you've posted here? Do you find them lacking? I don't think you do. I just think you've got gear lust, and are just looking for an excuse for another upgrade. Shame, *** I think cameras like the 7D (or the 40D and 50D even) are sophisticated enough to outclass even some professionals, so when you get amateurs declaring within months of buying their latest body that they need to upgrade to something bigger and better due to the need for increased dynamic range, blah blah, I think they should spend a bit more of their time and energy really learning the craft of photography and pushing themselves and their equipment to the limit, than taking - and pixel-peeping at - endless test shots of dog turds and the like (saw a test shot of exactly that, to my horror, on the POTN forum earlier this month :gag:) :thumbs:

[micloi]

Do not pay so much attention on reviews and other people's photos and most importantly bare in mind that the lens is going to play a more important role at the end on the results than the body.

In comparison I have been using an 1DsII with the Canon 17-40 L for landscapes and after changing to the 7D (for wildlife purposes) I do not see any disadvantages in using the crop body with the Tokina 11-16 to the 1DsII+17-40 combo.

[joescrivens]

Joe, are you really disappointed with the baby pictures you've posted here? Do you find them lacking? I don't think you do. I just think you've got gear lust, and are just looking for an excuse for another upgrade. Shame, *** I think cameras like the 7D (or the 40D and 50D even) are sophisticated enough to outclass even some professionals, so when you get amateurs declaring within months of buying their latest body that they need to upgrade to something bigger and better due to the need for increased dynamic range, blah blah, I think they should spend a bit more of their time and energy really learning the craft of photography and pushing themselves and their equipment to the limit, than taking - and pixel-peeping at - endless test shots of dog turds and the like (saw a test shot of exactly that, to my horror, on the POTN forum earlier this month :gag:) :thumbs:

No I'm not disappointed at them at all. I do have gear lust for sure, it's a case of the three things I use my camera for are:

portrait
landscape
video

Now that the 5d has 24p video it's made me question whether I have the right camera, since we can all agree that the 5d does all three of those things better. The parts of the 7d that make it really useful, I don't take advantage of ... that's all.

[Spiritflier]

Wow, this thread really did go off at a tangent! :)

I guess the comparison comes simply from the fact that the 7D is in many ways, a far superior camera. In terms of outright image quality though, I'd be very disappointed if the 5DMKII wasn't better.

Personally, I find the 7D to be very 'unforgiving'... Get your exposures right and you're rewarded with incredibly detailed and high quality images. Screw it up however and all those so-called 'problems' that have been reported will surface - especially with regard to noise.

Si

[joescrivens]

Wow, this thread really did go off at a tangent! :)

I guess the comparison comes simply from the fact that the 7D is in many ways, a far superior camera. In terms of outright image quality though, I'd be very disappointed if the 5DMKII wasn't better.

Personally, I find the 7D to be very 'unforgiving'... Get your exposures right and you're rewarded with incredibly detailed and high quality images. Screw it up however and all those so-called 'problems' that have been reported will surface - especially with regard to noise.

Si

Si, I notice you have a 7d and a 40d, perhaps you could comment on POAH assessment of which has the better IQ and is the better camera?

[matty]

i agree wth Si, its a camera that reqards good practice, and punishes sloppy. Me being sloppy 99% of the time means im really having to think about what im doing.

[Nifkin]

No I'm not disappointed at them at all. I do have gear lust for sure, it's a case of the three things I use my camera for are:

portrait
landscape
video

Now that the 5d has 24p video it's made me question whether I have the right camera, since we can all agree that the 5d does all three of those things better. The parts of the 7d that make it really useful, I don't take advantage of ... that's all.

If you're not disappointed at all, why are you questioning whether you have the 'right' camera? :thinking: Admitting that you've got gear lust is admirable of you, but you need to separate what you desire from what you really need, The real question is, Joe, are you going to be able to do those three things (portrait, landscape, video) any better than you can with your 7D just because you gone and spent more money on a more expensive camera?

[Nifkin]

Personally, I find the 7D to be very 'unforgiving'
Si

Same could be said of the 50D too, and I think too many users of both cameras don't take the effort to really master them before deciding that their so-so results must be due to the need for a more expensive camera! :bonk:

[joescrivens]

If you're not disappointed at all, why are you questioning whether you have the 'right' camera? :thinking: Admitting that you've got gear lust is admirable of you, but you need to separate what you desire from what you really need, The real question is, Joe, are you going to be able to do those three things (portrait, landscape, video) any better than you can with your 7D just because you gone and spent more money on a more expensive camera?

I think that I'll be able to do the exact same thing but the result will be better, in this instance just because there is more dynamic range. So when you jump from an aps-c sensor to a full frame sensor and take the exact same photo with exactly the same level of skill the result should be that the clarity, colour of the photo with the full frame sensor would be better.

Correct me if I'm wrong though because that's just my understanding

[CT]

In all honesty, I think that the real answer to the OP's original question is that the 7D is the latest thing in high density crop sensors from Canon, pushing the boundaries even further than they have before, and for this reason I think it's treated with the mistrust which until recently was reserved for the 50D, which now appears to be gaining acceptance compared to the 7D.

People just don't seem to accept that sensor technology is moving forward and considerations which applied even a couple of short years ago with regard to pixel density have changed, and will change even more dramatically in the near future no doubt.

The advantages of the 7D far outweigh the disadvantages for those who need it and those are the people who will appreciate it. All too often we hear opinion from people who wished it had less pixels or a full frame sensor, missing the point entirely, or trotting out some opinion they've read on a web site or review done by a reviewer who doesn't 'get' the purpose of the camera either becauuse it isn't aimed at them.

Of course the 7D is capable of high quality landscape, wedding and portrait work, but if you want to specialise in those fields you go full frame and get the camera for the job. If on the other hand you're looking for an all round camera to tackle wildlife, weddings, portraits and everything else, the 7D should fill the bill nicely.

[Dudie]

People just don't seem to accept that sensor technology is moving forward

Spot on.

Odd bunch photographers - on one hand craving the latest technology. On the other, suspicious and dismissing of the latest technology.

[alastairb]

the main problem i have with the 7D is it makes my bank balance hate me as you HAVE to have top quality glass or it really shows up with the high resolution, and that you also can't get away with missing the focus even slightly.

that said however i love mine and have not had an issue using it for landscapes/portrature, just don't stop it down too much past f/12 or if you can avoid if f/8

[woof woof]

"The advantages of the 7D far outweigh the disadvantages for those who need it..."

I'd agree with that but those who have different priorities or who for whatever (and possibly misguided) reason don't want what they see as too high a mp count camera have no Canon upgrade path.

Even though I like camera gear I think that we sometimes get too worked up about it. We should maybe take a colder look and see the gear less as objects of desire and more as photographic tools. If they do the job, it's job done, regardless of the model number.

[Nifkin]

In all honesty, I think that the real answer to the OP's original question is that the 7D is the latest thing in high density crop sensors from Canon, pushing the boundaries even further than they have before, and for this reason I think it's treated with the mistrust which until recently was reserved for the 50D, which now appears to be gaining acceptance compared to the 7D.


Very well said, CT; was what I was actually saying with:

I'm just saying that there may be a trend in the forums over the last 5 months or so for comparing the 5DMkII to the 7D more than any other APS-C, but that's going to happen considering it's the most recently launched and most advanced APS-C body Canon make. If you look back to the end of 2008 you'll find plenty of threads/articles comparing the 50D to the 5DII, and, I'm sure, when they launch the 5DMkIII there'll be threads comparing the 7D to that.

...but you did it far more eloquently ;)

[CT]

Even though I like camera gear I think that we sometimes get too worked up about it. We should maybe take a colder look and see the gear less as objects of desire and more as photographic tools. If they do the job, it's job done, regardless of the model number.

Well you don't need to expound that mantra to me - a camera is a tool as far as I'm concerned. I might be in play if we were talking about some cool film camera, but as far as digital cameras go, they're just lumps of plastic, albeit very technologically advanced ones, and they'll date quicker than your dad's demob suit.

I sold a brand new 1DMK2n at a pretty substantial loss when it quickly dawned on me that my 20D was beating it hollow for reach. The 40D, 50D and 7D have only built enormously on that adavantage and that's based on my experience of using those cameras. A 1 Series camera is no object of desire for me for what I mostly do.

The new Canon 1DMk3 however raises the bar a lot for the 1.3X crop format - with 16 million pixels it gains a lot in cropping ability and reach compared to earlier versions. I can certainly see it's attraction for many wildlife photographers as a pretty good all rounder.

As for you having no upgrade path I'm struggling to see your problem - there's the 40D, 50D and 7D, two versions now of the 5D, and that's not counting earlier 1 Series bodies which are becoming very affordable, and the XXXD range. The 40D would be an enormous upgrade on your 20D - without flogging the family silver either.:shrug:

[CT]

Very well said, CT; was what I was actually saying with:

...but you did it far more eloquently ;)
Thanks - I still have my lucid moments. :D

[woof woof]

I didn't know that the 40D was still in production, it's not on my local camera shops web site, and I not sure that it'd be an "enormous" upgrade to my current camera. Reviews I've read are certainly less than emphatic on it being an enormous leap over the 20D. The 50D has to an extent been subject to the same criticisms the 7D has so I've sat the last three xxD updates out in the hope that the next update will grab me a bit more and be more than the rather predictable bigger screen and more mp's. The 5DII isn't really on my radar at the moment as I've got used to APS-C and it lacks a built in flash which every SLR I've ever owned has to date had. The 1D cameras are simply too big and are also beyond what my conscience would allow me to spend on a camera and I prefer the controls and handling of the xxD line to the xxxD line. So, IMVHO, :shrug::bang:

[trencheel303]

I'm pretty sure a 1d2 can be had for roughly the same price as a 50d... correct me if I am wrong but I'm sure I've seen ones going for 600 quid.

[CT]

I didn't know that the 40D was still in production, it's not on my local camera shops web site, and I not sure that it'd be an "enormous" upgrade to my current camera. Reviews I've read are certainly less than emphatic on it being an enormous leap over the 20D.,

The 40D is no longer in production. You may be able to find one in stock somewhere if you're lucky. Failing that look for a nice used one.

There you go again quoting reviews you've read. I upgraded from a 20D to a 40D and the difference is enormous - more colour saturation (due to the later Digic processor) Greater cropping ability and reach (due to the increase in pixels) better frame rate, hugely improved preview screen and other improvemnnets making it afar better camera

You could see a quantum leap in the quality of images being posted here from everyone who made that upgrade to the 40D at the time.

Read the reviews by all means - I do, but I take them with a large pinch of salt - for every good review you'll always find a bad one.

If you got a procession of users on this board saying they think their 40D is crap, then that would be a different matter entirely, but somehow I don't think you will. ;)

[woof woof]

I mentioned reviews as I don't like making reference to individual people. Anyway, reviews and other peoples opinions are just to be considered and I always make my own mind up but I have to think that it's worth my time and effort and so far the updates to Canon's APS-C range haven't grabbed me enough.

I haven't said that I think that Canon's newer APS-C's are crap, they just haven't inspired me to go into town and try one let alone buy one, yet. I live in hope.:)

[Simon-Australia]

Sorry, I think I am going to offend owners of the 5D MKII's here, but this is my personal experience. I am an electronic engineer by trade and photography is a hobby. I purchased a 5D MK II and regretted it as soon as the "Flaring" issue was found. It's like buying a brand new Porsche and the factory recalls it because there's a "Slight Hiccup in the Engine Management system, it's really not the engine, Honestly". As an engineer, as soon as I heard of the Flaring issue, I couldn't wait to off load the camera. As soon as the 7D came out I dropped the 5D MII like a hot potato ! All Canon did was use smoke and mirrors to cover up an inherrent problem the "Engine" has. They used the FW to "Cover up" the fault. I Guarantee if you take a picture with the original FW and then take the same picture with the "Fixed the F#^$^ng flaring issue" firmware, you will see a large degradation in the picture. I have seen it with my Digital CRO. These type of problems MAY have gotten picked up on earlier models like the 40D, 1D etc BEFORE they released them to the market so consumers NEVER know about problems built into the Cameras, but because they want to beat the opposition, the Sales people try to get the product to market B4 us engineers can iron out all the problems. The time span from development to Retail is getting shorter and shorter to the detrement of the poor consumer. The 5D MKII is a classic example of BEAT Nikon to the market with a more fully featured "Gimmicked" camera. I can just imagine the Engineers pulling their hair out saying "We need another 4 or 5 months testing ! So for me, the MK II was tainted from day one and I couldn't wait to off load it.

I did (Thank goodness) and grabbed 2 x 7D's instead. As for the 1.6 crop factor, I love it. I have all L series Lenses and the pictures I get from the 1.6 factor KILL full frame sensors. Don't forget, the BEST, SHARPEST part of the lens is the centre. By using the smaller CMOS sensor, the image comes from the prime meaty part of the lens rather than the sinewy edges (Excuse the analogy, but I am passionate about this fact). The bonus is a 100 - 400mm becomes a 160 - 640mm. A 16-35mm becomes a 25-56mm, so what ? Move further back or get a 10-22mm ! FF owners, try cropping a picture by 1.6 and closely inspect toward the edges of the photos. Is the focus / Sharpness better ? Is the Chromatic Abberation less ?

It's amazes me when I see people in forums touting "Full Frames" as being the be all and end all and as an Electronics engineer it makes me laugh.

To all the 5D MK II owners I know you are happy with them but have a look at this, it says it all;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7ERMu825m4

Need I say more !

I have had / Have the following cameras and the 7D / L Series kills them all;

350D x 2 (Gone) My Rating 7/10
40D x 2 (Gone) My Rating 8/10
50D x 2 (Going Going....) My Rating 7/10
5D MkII (Gone !) My Rating 2/10
1D Mk II (Gone !) My Rating 9/10
1Ds MK II (Gone!) My Rating 8/10
7D x 2(Keepers !) My Rating 10/10

3.9 FPS VS 8FPS..........mmmmmm now which do I prefer, or which do you prefer ?

It's not the camera that take the photo's, it's the person behind the camera.

Simon

[trencheel303]

If you got a procession of users on this board saying they think their 40D is crap, then that would be a different matter entirely, but somehow I don't think you will. ;)

He never said the 40D was crap. I also doubt it would be as big a move to go from a 20D to a 40D as say, a 450D to a 40D.

[trencheel303]

Sorry, I think I am going to offend owners of the 5D MKII's here, but this is my personal experience. I am an electronic engineer by trade and photography is a hobby. I purchased a 5D MK II and regretted I did as soon as the "Flaring" issue was found. It's like buying a brand new Porsche and the factory recalls it because there's a "Slight Hiccup in the Engine Management system, it's really not the engine, Honestly". As an engineer, as soon as I heard of the Flaring issue, I couldn't wait to off load the camera. As soon as the 7D came out I dropped the 5D MII like a hot potato ! All Canon did was use smoke and mirrors to cover up an inherrent problem the "Engine" has. They used the FW to "Cover up" the fault. I Guarantee if you take a picture with the original FW and then take the same picture with the "Fixed the F#^$^ng flaring issue" firmware, you will see a large degradation in the picture. I have seen it with my Digital CRO. These type of problems MAY have gotten picked up on earlier models like the 40D, 1D etc BEFORE they released them to the market so consumers NEVER know about problems built into the Cameras, but because they want to beat the opposition, the Sales people try to get the product to market B4 us engineers can iron out all the problems. The time span from development is getting shorter and shorter to the detrement of the poor consumer. The 5D MKII is a classic example of BEAT Nikon to the market with a more fully featured "Gimmicked" camera. I can just imagine the Engineers pulling their hair out saying "We need another 4 or 5 months testing ! So for me, the MK II was tainted from day one and I couldn't wait to off load it.

I did (Thank goodness) and grabbed 2 x 7D's instead. As for the 1.6 crop factor, I love it. I have all L series Lenses and the pictures I get from the 1.6 factor KILL full frame sensors. Don't forget, the BEST, SHARPEST part of the lens is the centre. By using the smaller CCD, the image comes from the prime meaty part of the lens rather than the sinewy edges (Excuse the analogy, but I am passionate about this fact). The bonus is a 100 - 400mm becomes a 160 - 640mm. A 16-35mm becomes a 25-56mm, so what ? Move further back or get a 10-22mm ! FF owners, try cropping a picture by 1.6 and closely inspect toward the edges of the photos. Is the focus / Sharpness better ? Is the Chromatic Abberation less ?

It's amazes me when I see people in forums touting "Full Frames" as being the be all and end all and as an Electronics engineer it makes me laugh.

To all the 5D MK II owners I know you are happy with them but have a look at this, it says it all;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7ERMu825m4

Need I say more !

I have had / Have the following cameras and the 7D / L Series kills them all;

350D x 2 (Gone) My Rating 7/10
40D x 2 (Gone) My Rating 8/10
50D x 2 (Going Going....) My Rating 7/10
5D MkII (Gone !) My Rating 2/10
1D Mk II (Gone !) My Rating 9/10
1Ds MK II (Gone!) My Rating 8/10
7D x 2(Keepers !) My Rating 10/10

3.9 FPS VS 8FPS..........mmmmmm now which do I prefer, or which do you prefer ?

It's not the camera that take the photo's, it's the person holding it.

Simon

I am speechless.

[Nifkin]

I am speechless.

Simon-Australia, reading your post was like watching a Cillit Bang advert :lol::lol::lol:

Welcome to the forum, Simon! :thumbs:

[trencheel303]

BANG and the 5D's gone

[Mr_Sukebe]

To my knowledge, there's three key reasons for FF:
1. Shallow DOF. This is one of the tools that some photographers user to really emphasise the key element of the photo. When comparing a Canon FF to crop, the DOF is roughly 40% less on an FF camera.
2. If you're principle tools at prime lenses, it's easier/possible, to get a wider shot with an L series prime than it is with a crop camera.
3. Lower pixel density and typically better performance at higher ISOs.

Mix all of the above together and it's fairly obvious that an FF camera has some advantages for portrait work, whilst it's also completely obvious that if you need reach for motorsport or similar, that going crop is the right answer. Either camera can take photos of the other type, but won't be quite as well optimised as a tool.

[Nifkin]

Sorry, I think I am going to offend owners of the 5D MKII's here, but this is my personal experience. I am an electronic engineer by trade and photography is a hobby. I purchased a 5D MK II and regretted it as soon as the "Flaring" issue was found. It's like buying a brand new Porsche and the factory recalls it because there's a "Slight Hiccup in the Engine Management system, it's really not the engine, Honestly". As an engineer, as soon as I heard of the Flaring issue, I couldn't wait to off load the camera. As soon as the 7D came out I dropped the 5D MII like a hot potato ! All Canon did was use smoke and mirrors to cover up an inherrent problem the "Engine" has. They used the FW to "Cover up" the fault. I Guarantee if you take a picture with the original FW and then take the same picture with the "Fixed the F#^$^ng flaring issue" firmware, you will see a large degradation in the picture. I have seen it with my Digital CRO. These type of problems MAY have gotten picked up on earlier models like the 40D, 1D etc BEFORE they released them to the market so consumers NEVER know about problems built into the Cameras, but because they want to beat the opposition, the Sales people try to get the product to market B4 us engineers can iron out all the problems. The time span from development is getting shorter and shorter to the detrement of the poor consumer. The 5D MKII is a classic example of BEAT Nikon to the market with a more fully featured "Gimmicked" camera. I can just imagine the Engineers pulling their hair out saying "We need another 4 or 5 months testing ! So for me, the MK II was tainted from day one and I couldn't wait to off load it.

I did (Thank goodness) and grabbed 2 x 7D's instead. As for the 1.6 crop factor, I love it. I have all L series Lenses and the pictures I get from the 1.6 factor KILL full frame sensors. Don't forget, the BEST, SHARPEST part of the lens is the centre. By using the smaller CCD, the image comes from the prime meaty part of the lens rather than the sinewy edges (Excuse the analogy, but I am passionate about this fact). The bonus is a 100 - 400mm becomes a 160 - 640mm. A 16-35mm becomes a 25-56mm, so what ? Move further back or get a 10-22mm ! FF owners, try cropping a picture by 1.6 and closely inspect toward the edges of the photos. Is the focus / Sharpness better ? Is the Chromatic Abberation less ?

It's amazes me when I see people in forums touting "Full Frames" as being the be all and end all and as an Electronics engineer it makes me laugh.

To all the 5D MK II owners I know you are happy with them but have a look at this, it says it all;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7ERMu825m4

Need I say more !

I have had / Have the following cameras and the 7D / L Series kills them all;

350D x 2 (Gone) My Rating 7/10
40D x 2 (Gone) My Rating 8/10
50D x 2 (Going Going....) My Rating 7/10
5D MkII (Gone !) My Rating 2/10
1D Mk II (Gone !) My Rating 9/10
1Ds MK II (Gone!) My Rating 8/10
7D x 2(Keepers !) My Rating 10/10

3.9 FPS VS 8FPS..........mmmmmm now which do I prefer, or which do you prefer ?

It's not the camera that take the photo's, it's the person holding it.

Simon

Oh, and one thing: 7D uses CMOS, not CCD :D

[joescrivens]

Oh, and one thing: 7D uses CMOS, not CCD :D

thats such a nit pick :lol:

[Nifkin]

thats such a nit pick :lol:

Aww I was only kidding! No offence Simon! :)

[Simon-Australia]

Oh, and one thing: 7D uses CMOS, not CCD :D

Hi Simon,

Good pickup ! In my business I deal with CCD / CMOS all day, every day. I only wish Canon could combine their technology with Sony's SUPER HAD (Hole accumilation Diode) technology and you would see noiseless ISO's up to 50K. But alas sadly, this will never happen ! Simon

[trencheel303]

I was always under the impression that Sony's cameras are behind the times as far as noiseless high ISO images go.

[Simon-Australia]

I was always under the impression that Sony's cameras are behind the times as far as noiseless high ISO images go.

Hi Norma,

Sorry I was not clear, not Sony still Cameras, I was talking about Sony's SUPER HAD CCD sensors used in CCTV / Vision control cameras. They are the ultimate. At midnight, a CCTV camera fitted with a Sony SH CCD and DSP (Digital Signal Processing) with only 1 x dim street light on, it turns night into full blown colour daylight, LIVE Moving Video ! This technology is not compatible with CMOS and Still cameras I am sad to say, if it was, this would be the ultimate (Low power / Ultra low light). See http://www.cascadiadvrt.com/downloads/general/SONY%20Super%20HAD%20CCD%20II.pdf

As for Sony Still Digital cameras, don't get me started :) That would be another thread for another time. There are only two contenders, Nikon & Canon.......Just as Beta was superior to VHS. Nikon optics are marginally superior, Canon just feels right in your hands like VHS tapes over Beta. Look at the many Photographer scrums at Soccer matches, The Oscars, the Olympics,,,,It's a Sea of White lenses and Black lenses with Red rings :) MORE than 70% I will post some links to back me up after I count the lenses in the pictures.....

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42713000/jpg/_42713741_photographers.jpg
http://www.projo.com/photos/20090218/LB0218_oscar_02-18-09_3KDBPEK.jpg
http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/files/2008/02/fred_spirit-awards.jpg
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/81398510.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548AE78A0075EDEB6AA A5C8837844F16D0CE1989E74590FCD39

All I did was do a google search for "Photographers Olympics", Photographers Oscars, Photographers Olyimpics.......... Try it yourself

Simon