Canon 50D -v- 7D

[Busa_Rush]

Looking at the above, mainly from a pricing view. Image quality is most important, not interested in video and don't have any suitable lenses either. 7D is almost twice the price of the 50D so some considerable cash there for a lens.

Which will give me the best picture quality for landscapes, portraits and a bit of sports photography ? I know I can look at sensor size etc but in the real world, is it worth spending a bit more on the 7D over the 50D ? Being newer it's going to have a few more features and has two processors so a bit faster, but it's simply the picture quality I'm after.

I'll be using at least one L series lens for landscapes but the rest won't be L's unfortunately.

[jon-]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/

Compares it a fair bit to the 50d.

In conclusion, I'd spend the extra.

[Busa_Rush]

Interesting, thanks.

[jon-]

I just read your post. If you're after picture quality the 5d MKII is where your money should go, just don't expect the AF to be as good as the 7ds for sports (and you'll need longer lenses)

[Ed_P]

I make part of my income from selling prints via my website. Lots are from equestrian events. My usual combination is 5D/24-105mm F4 and 40D/70-200mm F2.8 IS. I use the 40D for the "action" shots because of its faster "burst" rate.

I regularly supply prints of 18"x12", often at quite high ISO settings. For this sort of photography, you'd be hard-pressed to tell which camera they're from. I suppose what I'm saying is that most modern cameras, even the "consumer" models, are capable of giving very good image quality, particularly when mated with quality lenses. Once you're in the 50D/7D bracket, professional-quality prints are easily within your grasp. I'm sure you would be perfectly happy with either. It's horses for courses (sorry about the pun).

I must admit though, that given the choice, I'd go for the 7D over the 50D. That's because I know I would always regret it if I went the other way. If you're competing for business, then you might just have an advantage from the higher investment. You've then got to recover the outlay from sales though. If you're a dedicated 'tog doing it for the pure pleasure then it's a mixture of of having the "right tools" combined with the undoubted pleasure of owning the most up-to-date and high-quality products.

[Busa_Rush]

jon- said:

I just read your post. If you're after picture quality the 5d MKII is where your money should go, just don't expect the AF to be as good as the 7ds for sports (and you'll need longer lenses)

5d would be nice but it's just (possibly) too expensive.

Edited by Busa_Rush on Monday 9th November 11:05

[Busa_Rush]

Ed_P said:

I make part of my income from selling prints via my website. Lots are from equestrian events. My usual combination is 5D/24-105mm F4 and 40D/70-200mm F2.8 IS. I use the 40D for the "action" shots because of its faster "burst" rate.

I regularly supply prints of 18"x12", often at quite high ISO settings. For this sort of photography, you'd be hard-pressed to tell which camera they're from. I suppose what I'm saying is that most modern cameras, even the "consumer" models, are capable of giving very good image quality, particularly when mated with quality lenses. Once you're in the 50D/7D bracket, professional-quality prints are easily within your grasp. I'm sure you would be perfectly happy with either. It's horses for courses (sorry about the pun).

I must admit though, that given the choice, I'd go for the 7D over the 50D. That's because I know I would always regret it if I went the other way. If you're competing for business, then you might just have an advantage from the higher investment. You've then got to recover the outlay from sales though. If you're a dedicated 'tog doing it for the pure pleasure then it's a mixture of of having the "right tools" combined with the undoubted pleasure of owning the most up-to-date and high-quality products.

Thanks Ed, how much slower is the 5D AF than the 40D ?

[Ed_P]

Continuous shooting is 3 frames per second on the 5D; 6.5 fps on the 40D. The 7D gives you 8 fps. That's sensational, given the file sizes involved.

The 40D's continous shooting mode is perfectly fast enough for me. I manage to fill 20Gb of cards at a weekend shoot as it is!

[gjc10212]

Picutre quality on the 5dmk2 in the example pics I've seen have all be a lot shaper than the 7D. I think the D300s pictures are slightly better than the 7D too.

Look at the examples of the 5dmk2 here against the 7d

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eo...

Look at the Nikon D300s pictures against the 7D here (less burn't out and no purple fringing.:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/out...

Edited by gjc10212 on Monday 9th November 13:06

Edited by gjc10212 on Monday 9th November 13:07

[Busa_Rush]

gjc10212 said:

Picutre quality on the 5dmk2 in the example pics I've seen have all be a lot shaper than the 7D. I think the D300s pictures are slightly better than the 7D too.

Look at the examples of the 5dmk2 here against the 7d

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eo...

Look at the Nikon D300s pictures against the 7D here (less burn't out and no purple fringing.:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/out...

Edited by gjc10212 on Monday 9th November 13:06

Edited by gjc10212 on Monday 9th November 13:07

Thanks . . . the 5Dmk2 is brilliant in that review, so much more detailed and accurate which is what I'm looking for.

Ummmmm.......... I can see the old pockets being raided a bit deeper . . .

[nick_bbb]

Given...

Ed_P said:

...you'd be hard-pressed to tell which camera they're from.

...and this...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread...

...if I were you I would consider a 5D Mk1.

Edited by nick_bbb on Monday 9th November 13:39