Going full frame Canon 5D Mark II or 7D

[Mwilltn]

I currently shoot with a Canon 50D and I love it but plan to upgrade after the first of the year. I have been planning on going to the full fram version but have been reading rave reviews for the 7D. I think it would be silly to go to the 60D which is basically the same thing as I have. Arguments on going either way??

[candleman]

is your sigma a DG ?

IE, you will need to have the appropriate full frame glass with the 5D.
which gets expensive.

[RichardTaylor]

What do you mostly shoot?

If it is action etc, I would go for the 7D mainly because of its better focussing and higher FPS.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Mwilltn

I currently shoot with a Canon 50D and I love it but plan to upgrade after the first of the year.

WHY are you planning to upgrade? What is it about the 50D you don't like?

I have been planning on going to the full fram version but have been reading rave reviews for the 7D.

Just my personal opinion, but upgrading for the sake of getting a shiny new toy can often be a mistake, because there will always be something newer and shinier down the road. If your 50D is doing everything you want or need, maybe upgrading your glass or technique is a better option.

There's also the fact that if you move to full-frame, and you don't plan on hanging onto your crop body at the same time, you really need to re-evaluate all your glass. I thought I'd sussed this out, but with my 5D Mark II in hand, I find that I really didn't anticipate where I'd be with the glass I own. Lenses not only change FoV, but also character and performance when swapped between crop and full-frame. Corner performance, distortion, vignetting--all of this shifts. I truly wasn't anticipating how much I'd be glad I was a spendthrift and slapped a 24-105 onto my XT four years ago. Because it's a whole new lens to me on my 5D. A friend had nearly talked me into the EF-S 17-85 IS USM instead. I'm so glad I didn't listen and was bullheaded against the popular opinion that the 24-105 was "too long on a crop". I know now that popular opinion was absolutely right. But I'm so glad I didn't listen.

Look at the lenses you have, and think about whether you've got lenses you can/want to use on a 5D before making the leap. There will always be a 5D to upgrade to. But you probably want to get your lenses ironed out before you hop over. I'm eternally grateful that I only ever bought one EF-S lens (60 macro) aside from the kit, now.

I think it would be silly to go to the 60D which is basically the same thing as I have.

Why would it be silly? If the XXD line is at the pricepoint and performance that best fits what you do, swapping bodies within the same tier can be a good thing. The 60D is not the same as the 50D. It's different in a lot of ways. Aside from all the "missing"/"lowered" features, it also includes HD video capability, a better sensor response at high ISO (i.e., no banding issues), has a flash master built into the pop-up, and a twist out LCD. These features alone make it a significantly different beast from the 50D. I'm contemplating swapping my 50D for a 60D when the price comes down (or the 60D shows up on the CLP list ).

Figuring out which camera to go for depends on how much money you have to spend and what you want to shoot. Just because people around you are blowing tons of money chasing "better" gear doesn't mean you have to do the same, or that what wows them is what will wow you.

What do you need? What can you afford? Those are the first two questions you want to ask yourself.

[Murtasma]

excellent advice inkista couldn't have said it better myself.

I decided to go full frame awhile ago but I planned on this soon after I got my XTi. I didn't buy a single EF-S lens (besides the kit) for this very same reason. I wanted the better ISO performance of a full frame sensor (since I like using natural light often) as well as the change of depth of field between a full frame sensor and a crop sensor and the better wide angle lens selection for a full frame body. Knowing what you plan on shooting a lot of (portraits and landscapes is why I went to full frame) is key to understanding what body will fit your needs.

Since you haven't really told us how the 50D isn't able to fit your needs tell's me your probably not sure what your needs are yet and there's nothing wrong with that. If you have the inclination that you want to go full frame in the future I would purchase only EF lens instead of a new body so you're not stuck with lens you won't use. Trust me when you get a full frame body you probably won't touch your old crop body anymore except for telephoto shots or if you want to roam around with dual cameras like I do so I don't have to swap lens often.

I think the best investment for you at this point will be a nice EF Telephoto lens instead of a new body. You could use a lens like this regardless of what body you decide to go to in the future. I see you already have an ultra wide sigma lens that would be useless on a full frame body. I wouldn't bother getting a EF lens that's wide yet since on your crop bodies it just won't be wide enough for you. When the time comes if you decide to go full frame I would sell the sigma lens and get a Wide EF lens like the 17-40 F4 L.

[inkista]

One more word of advice.

Let's take two pieces of gear I bought. My Canon XT body, and my EF 135mm f/2L USM.

My Canon XT kit cost $900 new. Taking off $100 for the lens, let's say the body cost me $800. When it died four and a half years later, it was worth $300 to me as a trade-in on the Canon Loyalty Program. It was probably also worth roughly the same amount on eBay, had it still been working. Realistically, it was probably only worth about $100 for parts.

So, let's say my net cost was $600, and at the end of it, I no longer have the XT to use and play with.

My EF 135mm f/2L USM cost me $900. I've used it for three years now. And I can continue to use it on my 50D. And my 5D Mark II. I plan on keeping it for as long as I can use it. But if I were to give it up, it would go for roughly $$850-900 on the used market (it sells new for about $1000 right now). So, essentially, if I gave it up, my net cost would be $0-$50. In the meantime, I still have the use of it for a good long while, yet.

Which was the better buy? Which money lasted longer?

Camera bodies are digital electronics. People treat them as disposable commodities: upgrading and discarding within three to five years (or sometimes more frequently than that). And they depreciate from the second you take them out of the box. Lenses can last decades. And if you buy L glass, depreciation is glacial in comparison to what happens to the bodies.

You really think a 50mm f/1.8 II is going to look good enough on a 5D Mark II sensor?

[Mwilltn]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

What do you mostly shoot?

If it is action etc, I would go for the 7D mainly because of its better focussing and higher FPS.

Thanks for all the feedback! Good points all. I shoot a good bit of football and baseball (Grandson) but mostly landscapes, nature, childrens parties and a couple of weddings.

The reason for buying another camers is to have the 50D as a back up/additional camera for the parties and weddings.

[RichardTaylor]

If you are happy with your 50D's performance at sport I would go for the 5DII, however as others have said you will need good glass" otherwise go for the 7D

[inkista]

+1. If you're going to hang onto the 50D, and use that for the action/sports shooting, then a 5D Mark II is going to help you out with the landscapes, parties, and weddings. But I still think boosting up your glass or getting a flash and learning how to use it first might be worth considering given the lenses you currently own. While the 28-105 and 50/1.8 will do fine on full frame, they may not give you what you really want--the glass is the other half of the camera, and getting a $2500 body only to slap a consumer-grade lens on the front feels a little like false economy: like buying a supercar and then putting economy tires on it.

And you'll want to look into swapping your 10-20 for the Sigma 12-24.

Another possibility you may want to consider is to spend money on glass now, and wait for the 5D Mark III to arrive. The Mark II is already two years old, and it was three years between the Mark I and the Mark II. Chances are good, the Mark III will shadow the 1DsIV's arrival, which is expected to be within the next six months (some feel it's already overdue). While the Mark II is a damn fine camera, the 7D does have usability features and refinements not found in the 5D Mark II: pop-up flash master, electronic level, LCD overlay in the viewfinder, sophisticated AF system, sensor tweaks, etc. Some of that may find its way into the Mark III (although I doubt the same AF system will and less than 50% on the flash master, given that the 5D has never had a pop-up flash). If any of those features are must-haves for you, it may be worthwhile to wait and see, especially if you're relatively happy with what you've got now.

[karen_s]

I checked CanonRumors recently and they did have a few whispers about the 5d MKIII and what it might have ...

5D Mark II Replacement Canon Rumors

Of course, they are only rumors.