Canon 5D mark ii, 5D mark iii or 7D


icekiddo

New Member
Jun 13, 2011
21
0
0
#1
Im in a dilemma on which one to choose, all cameras listed are awesome. But not sure whether i should go for a full frame of APS-C. And saw some reviews about the 5d mark ii compared to 7d. There are also quite a few changes made from the 5d mark ii to the 5d mark iii.

Need some advise thanks.
 

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#3
Get the best you can afford ;)

Seriously, you should know what you want first, what is the must have and what is the good to have and what you don't care for. Without knowing those, it really is difficult to get the correct camera for you.

Oh... and if I was to choose, and I have the budget, I will get the 5DmkIII without delay, because it suits my shooting style...
 

Last edited:

dennisc

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2002
2,025
2
38
Freezing Upp Thomson/Mandai!
#4
5d's and the 7d are totally different beasts, one is a slower FF another is a speedy one, u shoot fast moving stuff? landscape, portraits? 5d mk3 is between those both and the newest, I would get that
 

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#5
Oh... not to forget. 5DmkII and mkIII are FF camera, while 7D is a APS-C. In term of high ISO noise control, FF camera are better.

However if you have some Canon EF-S mounted lens already, note that you cannot mount those to 5DmkII and mkIII camera without modification to your lenses.
 

photoart

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2009
2,601
1
38
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#6
It depends on your budget and what you intend to shoot

If money is not an issue, then narrow your choice to the 5d3 and 7d

If money is issue then consider the 5d2 and 7d or even 60d

Between the two lenses, list down the pros and cons of each camera, then see if the pros & cons will affect your shooting style




You should also let us know if you are currently using any canon cameras/bodies so we can better advise
 

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#7
Ask yourself.. do you want a APS-C sensor camera or a FF first.

Between 5D2 and 5D3.. if you just want a FF..the 5D2 is good enough at very good pricing.. Else the 5D3..which is better but alot more expensive (how better..go find out yourself. Not advisable to buy just because its better though..think thru if the better specs/features works for you whether you need it or not if not no point paying more...IMO)
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,488
26
48
Pasir Ris
#8
Im in a dilemma on which one to choose, all cameras listed are awesome. But not sure whether i should go for a full frame of APS-C. And saw some reviews about the 5d mark ii compared to 7d. There are also quite a few changes made from the 5d mark ii to the 5d mark iii.
And what is YOUR conclusion so far? It is your own money that you are going to spend, do you really want 'some guys from the internet' telling you how to spend it? Define your needs. If you cannot, then any entry level camera is good enough for you, chances are you won't notice the difference.
 

Wizongod

New Member
Nov 25, 2011
120
0
0
levyxd.com
#9
...
If money is not an issue, then narrow your choice to the 5d3 and 7d
...
Remember that even if you have the money for a 5D3, EF lenses of the equivalent quality and focal length compared to those on crop cost significantly more. Overall, going FF costs alot more than the same route on crop.

Take for e.g.: the EF-S 17-55 is the general multipurpose lens for crop (and many have said this one is a hidden L lens). The equivalent is the very reputable EF 24-70 on FF. The price? 17-55 costs $1.5k new. 24-70 costs 2.1k. That's 40% more.
For UWA, you can get great quality with the EF-S 10-22 on crop, or you can get the EF 16-35 for FF for superb quality. There's a difference between the quality, but check out the price difference too: 10-22 costs 1.1k new, and the 16-35 costs 2.5k. Over double the price.

Then also, because the crop has a 1.6x "extending effect", you benefit from primes too. An EF 50 1.2L mounted on a crop gives an equivalent of an EF 85 1.2L on an FF (it's about the same field of view. Quality is great too since both are L lenses). The difference in price? 2.4k vs 3.5k. Almost 50% more.
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,929
84
48
#10
If it was me, a 2nd hand 5DII.
I can live with the acceptable AF though some complain its slow.
Its not slow, just slower than some of the faster AF cameras out there and certainly adequate for most needs.

5DII and 5DIII, main difference is AF speed, and NR algo for JPG at high ISO. Cost too obviously.
AF speed I can live with.
ISO, I tend not to use above 3200 and/or don't pixel peep anyway.
 

henry soh

New Member
Aug 29, 2008
851
0
0
#11
Go for the best 5Dmk3 and no need to upgrade further till Mk4
 

#12
Go Canon showroom to have a feel on the AF and shutter speed of each camera. pic quality wise, tons over the internet.


Im in a dilemma on which one to choose, all cameras listed are awesome. But not sure whether i should go for a full frame of APS-C. And saw some reviews about the 5d mark ii compared to 7d. There are also quite a few changes made from the 5d mark ii to the 5d mark iii.

Need some advise thanks.
 

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#13
Remember that even if you have the money for a 5D3, EF lenses of the equivalent quality and focal length compared to those on crop cost significantly more. Overall, going FF costs alot more than the same route on crop.

Take for e.g.: the EF-S 17-55 is the general multipurpose lens for crop (and many have said this one is a hidden L lens). The equivalent is the very reputable EF 24-70 on FF. The price? 17-55 costs $1.5k new. 24-70 costs 2.1k. That's 40% more.
For UWA, you can get great quality with the EF-S 10-22 on crop, or you can get the EF 16-35 for FF for superb quality. There's a difference between the quality, but check out the price difference too: 10-22 costs 1.1k new, and the 16-35 costs 2.5k. Over double the price.

Then also, because the crop has a 1.6x "extending effect", you benefit from primes too. An EF 50 1.2L mounted on a crop gives an equivalent of an EF 85 1.2L on an FF (it's about the same field of view. Quality is great too since both are L lenses). The difference in price? 2.4k vs 3.5k. Almost 50% more.
In terms of price, yes... crop do seemed to have an advantage. However... there are also disadvantages of crop sensor camera as compared to FF sensor camera...

1) FF camera would have better high ISO noise performance.
2) DOF difference (shallower DOF)

And don't think the abovementioned two is not important... depending on what you intend to shoot and what results you want, it will be very important.
 

Wizongod

New Member
Nov 25, 2011
120
0
0
levyxd.com
#14
...
1)FF camera would have better high ISO noise performance.
...
And don't think the abovementioned two is not important... depending on what you intend to shoot and what results you want, it will be very important.
Very much agreed on that. The 5D3's noise performance is absolutely stunning. My point of that post is to highlight the cost issues besides just the body. I believe many people don't realise that until they've made the upgrade.
 

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#15
Very much agreed on that. The 5D3's noise performance is absolutely stunning. My point of that post is to highlight the cost issues besides just the body. I believe many people don't realise that until they've made the upgrade.
True ;)

As of your cost analysis which I very much agreed on mostly. But we do have to fall back again on TS own needs and what he wanted to shoot.

Say, for your 17-55mm f2.8 lens being cheaper as compared to a 24-70mm f2.8L lens. But there are also other criterior that you might need to look into. For example - weather sealing. To most of us, this is not an issue, but to some photographers, weather sealing is extremely important... and well worth the money. Plus if I am not using the 24-70mm, I can still go to the cheaper 24-105mm lens which had IS and weather seal and a longer reach.

Then, to the 16-35mm f2.8L as compare to the 10-22mm lens, well, again the weather seal came into play, plus I read that 16-35mm had excellent and even better built quality as compared to 17-55mm lens (and if the 17-55mm lens are of the same built quality as the 10-22mm, then 16-35mm would have been better.):)

Of course it all boils down to TS on what works for him.
 

eleveninth

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2006
6,217
2
38
#16
Alot of money 5D3
Some money 5D2
Not alot of money 7D
 

sinned79

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2009
10,868
3
0
Singapore
www.aboutlove.sg
#17
Alot of money 5D3
Some money 5D2
Not alot of money 7D
i concur! LOL

got money to splash, just buy 5DMKIII and enjoy your full frame camera.

not much money, settle for a second hand 5DMKII and enjoy your full frame camera.

no money? Then either you save and get a full frame camera later or just buy a 7D and settle for a crop camera.
 

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#18
In the end.. back to the most important hard truth.

Money. haha..
 

icekiddo

New Member
Jun 13, 2011
21
0
0
#19
Thanks for all of your comments! I will try out the cameras before buying them!

Still have some time to think about it ! Thanks, Much appreciated
 

gunston

Deregistered
Mar 20, 2012
221
0
0
#20
as a beginner with FF 5DM2 would be very sufficient and convincing results.
 

Top Bottom