Which camera..Canon 7d mark ii or Canon 5d mark iii

Messages
830
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
I'm hoping if anyone reply's to this question it could point me towards the right choice of camera.
I have been thinking of an upgrade to my camera for quite a while now, my current camera being a canon 7d.
My main interests in Photography are Wildlife and landscapes, with the interest being a fifty, fifty split.
The question is do I go for the 7d mark ii..... Or do I go Full frame with a 5d iii I have only one EF'S lens all the rest being L glass so swapping lenses from crop factor fit, to full frame is not an issue. I would buy the 7dii from new, but would only be able to afford a second hand 5diii.
I have pondered this question for a while and perhaps I have over thought it. so I would appreciate what a few of you out there think, which I would hope brings to light things I have not considered or I have found irrelevant.
Looking forward to any and all of your point of views.
John
 
I upgraded from my 7d to a mark iii as I hated the ISO performance from my 7d. Not sure if the new 7d is better tho?
 
What exactly is your 7D not doing for you?

Depending on what wildlife you shoot, you may regret upgrading to the 5D3 as you will loose reach significantly. Do you fancy keeping your 300mm f4 as an effective 480mm f4, or spending another £5000 on the Canon 500mm f4 to get similar reach?

If you can afford it, go with Gary's suggestion. Second hand prices on 7Ds are low at the moment so it may not be worth selling yours. If and when I get the 7D2, I'll more than likely keep my 7D1.

I would suggest the 7D2 because it will cover both your interests better than the 5D3.
 
A lot depends on available cash in the future I guess. As has already ready been said, you will lose quite a lot of length by moving to the 5D3, which will be expensive to replace, however wide angle efs lenses to a 7d2 for landscape will be considerably cheaper.

Having gone from a 60d to 5d3, I miss the extra reach of the 1.6 crop, so much so Santa will be bringing me a shiny 7d2 this year.
 
I was just recently pondering the same thing for a replacement to my 7D. Then I saw some images (low light) taken with the 6D and I was blown away.

Now I'm leaning towards a 6D and a 7D Mk2. I suppose it'll be a bit more than the 5D Mk3, but not by a lot.
 
Some very interesting thoughts, thank you all for the replys. Keep them coming.
 
same as above really, image quality i utterly love on my 6d but then again my 70-200 appears tiny on the full frame as opposed to my 60D
 
That's a debate I've been having with myself since the 7DII was confirmed. I've pretty much decided that getting a 5DIII as a compliment to my current 7D would be a better idea than a 7D2 as a straight replacement. In part as a response to covering the red deer rut with a 7D and 500mm combo and decided that a bit less reach would be ideal. I can still reach for the 7D when reach is more important than high iso.

(or win the lottery, get both a 1DX and a 7D2)
 
I can see the benefits of keeping the 7d and then getting another body be it, the 5d mark iii, or the 6d, The problem is. I would end up carrying the two bodies just in case I needed either of them. that would increase the overall weight.
My main concern was weather to go full frame or stay as I'm, with an updated 7d. I think from the wildlife angle that makes more sense than buying bigger and more weighty lenses at vast expense
I'm getting to the stage in life whereby I need to think about a decrease in weight, and that is hard to do as I always think if I leave items at home I will need them. I also accept that with the release of the 7d mark ii, my original 7d is not worth a great deal. However at this point, I think I'm leaning towards a straight swap, old model for the new model, I would then, for a token price give my old 7d which is in excellent condition to anyone that wants it,
 
Last edited:
Well, you'll have the same reach with the 7d2, but better IQ at higher ISO (if all the images we've seen so far is to be believed), so the 7D2 may be the best option for you to avoid carrying 2 bodies. it's not going to give you FF IQ though.
 
In reply to LC2. Do you think that image quality is so much better in full frame?. I have never used a full frame camera so I'm possibly a bit naïve about it's image quality.
I am interested in better image quality but like so many of us I have a budget, my concern is the lack of reach and the possible need to buy a longer lens, which will go pass any budget I had by miles.
I will be interested in any replies on the comparison of the image quality of both the cameras.
 
Whilst I don't have a 6D (yet), everything I've seen or read indicates that the FF IQ is better than crop. The 6D is supposed to be marginally better than the 5D3 for IQ and tonal range (though the 5D3 has better focusing, speed etc.)
I don't think any of us have seen enough from the 7D2 yet to know just how much better it is than the current crop of crop sensor cameras, how far it pushes into FF IQ territory, and whether you'll still be frustrated with noise etc. in low light.
 
The ultimate 2-body combo is a 7D2 and a 1DX but that is probably too expensive unless you are a professional with steady income.

It's too soon to tell for certain yet, but the 7D2 is promising to be as good as a 'little brother' to the 1DX and is purpose built for wildlife and sports action. I expect there will be some 7D2 versus 5D3 reviews/videos online in the next month or so. But, as always, it's horses-for-courses.
 
I have to agree, 6D for low light + 7D (mk1) for action is where my mind is at.

Do you mean 'low light' or 'high ISO' ?

7D (mk1) for action - the light may not be low but for action you still want to be able to crank the ISO up to retain the required shutter speed.
 
Back
Top