I'm considering on buying one of these camera sets for photography and filming purposes. I believe the 7D will be on stores in a week or so and I'm awared that the main difference with the 5D is the FF ,that's why I selected different kinds of lens.
My main concern is if the 7D will be good enough for magazines and big prints. What do you think? Is it worth expending more money on the 5D set?
And what do you think about the lens selection? Would you change any of them? Bear in mind that I thought on an all-purposes lens: photography and video.
On top of that I would add a rig to hold the camera while filming (do you know any cheaper than the Zacuto or RedRock??) and maybe a steadicam for nice shots!
Thanks a lot in advance!!
Javier

Camera Body Canon Eos 7D
Ultrawide Angle Zoom Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
Wide Angle Zoom Canon 17-55mm IS 2.8
Telezoom Canon 70-200mm IS 2.8
TOTAL: 4425€

Camera Body Canon Eos 5D Mark II
Ultrawide Angle Zoom Canon 15mm 2.8
Wide Angle Zoom Canon 16-35mm IS 2.8
Telezoom Canon 70-200mm IS 2.8
TOTAL: 5908€

I have a 6000 - 7000 € budget (9000 - 10000 $ aprox.). The total amount difference is about 2100$.

It should be plenty good enough for higher-end magazine work and big prints, IF you are using good lenses, solid technique, and are in the 100-800iso range, especially (though that all would apply to the 5D, too!) -- sounds like the 5DmkII is a little better 1600iso and up, but not much?

Looking at your potential lens kits, I'd say you would have a much more versatile set-up with the 7D (IS much more often with the great and longer 17-55 as your main lens, as the otherwise sweet 16-35 does NOT have IS stabilization, plus you'd have a longer tele), and then you'd still have enough money left to get a 30mm 1.4 Sigma (or Canon 28 1.8) and a Canon 85 1.8 for low light. I'm looking at the 20 1.8 Sigma, but I've read that it is quite soft at 1.8. Maybe add a Kenko Pro 1.4x and/or 2x, too.

Camera support? Here's what I have a modified version of that I will soon test on my 7D, though I might not have a proper Zacuto or LCDVF viewfinder set up for a while, not sure -- this is very affordable compared to the over-priced and unnecessary high-end ones. It should enable me to have the camera back far enough and to the middle enough:
Shoulder Brace - Mini DV Video Camera Shoulder Brace (http://www.studio1productions.com/dvbrace.htm)

Mine has an additional grip section extending below the handle-bar like one already there, and an adjustable strut with curved/padded footing coming down from between the two grips to your belly or belt. Email me if you want to see a pic.

Thanks Shaun!
That shoulder brace looks very DIY, don't you think? I think I'll try to make one myself before buying anything.
The LCDVF definitely is something more to add to the pack.
I own the Zoom H4, do you think the H4n should be an update?
Would you change the Tokina 11-16 for a Canon 10-20??
Thanks again,
Javier

I'll send you a pic of my shoulder/grip/waist support when I get home late tonight ... Though I would say the base unit is quite a bargain, has nice custom fittings and pieces, and is sturdy and ready to go out of the box -- DIY modifications (more support like mine, external batt pack on rear, or wireless mic receiver, or ?) but I'd say don't waste hours of your life trying to build from scratch something that's both good and very affordable and could be at your door in a day or so.

I had no idea what a Zoom recorder was like until I looked at a video on B&H about it today just before I picked my 7D up from the local shop -- WOW, that thing does a ton of stuff for just $299. No wonder I've seen the thing on some of Philip Bloom's set ups. I'll probably get that instead of a Rode StereoVideoMic (which is only $50 less!).
I really should, especially since I have a very compact Sennheiser MKE300 short shotgun w/ mini plug ... looking forward to testing that tomorrow.

If the Tokina 11-16 reviews are good enough for your uses (I hear it's very sharp and sturdy but haven't researched it much at all, just good B&H user reviews), then I would definitely stick with the 11-16 over the slower/variable-aperture but nice Canon 10-22.

My main concern is if the 7D will be good enough for magazines and big prints. What do you think? Is it worth expending more money on the 5D set?
Camera Body Canon Eos 5D Mark II
Ultrawide Angle Zoom Canon 15mm 2.8
Wide Angle Zoom Canon 16-35mm IS 2.8
Telezoom Canon 70-200mm IS 2.8
TOTAL: 5908€

I shoot both full frame and APS and I wouldn't consider using the 7D for magazines and big prints; the 5DII is by far the best camera for that. But another thing to consider is that the 5DII only has 30p video which can be an issue in Europe, whereas the 7D also has 25p. Not an easy choice in my mind. If you do get the 5DII you probably should also get a normal 50mm lens.

Charles, I have only some experience with a 30D and then with an old/original 1D ... and the 4MegaPixel 1D, with lower/middle ISOs and L series lenses, makes for suprsingly nice 13x19" 300dpi exhibit prints for my local shows (sharp until you get VERY close), if the focus/etc. are spot on. The 30D and even things like my cheap old used Rebel XT do great at that size, though the small format/ smaller pixel camera images aren't as friendly for sharpening and other post production, and occasionally have a little too much contrast.

For stills I'd rather have a full frame (if they were faster for photojournalism, sports, and some kinds of wildlife), or even more so just lower res and thus larger/more-sensitive pixels, but what factors make the difference for you vs. the 7D?

I've barely tried my 7D since getting it right before work here at the newspaper, filling in as a photo tech, but I am concerned that it might have substantially higher contrast in some situations, and thus be less forgiving than the 5D or the fairly mellow old 1D ... way too early to tell.

Is unquestionable that the 5D is a better choice for big prints and magazines, but would the 7D be good enough? Is it worth saving 1500€? I mean, with that price difference am I able to still create professional quality stuff??
And another thing that might help: the main use will be for portraits, some landscapes and sailing action. Not concern about low light capabilities really (not too much night stuff). Is always a good add though.
Thanks guys,
Javier

Sorry this is a little OT but the video below really echos a lot on the decision to make.

YouTube - Mr Hitler not happy about the Canon 7d... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZp9WMy4ihg&feature=player_embedded#t=254)

Is unquestionable that the 5D is a better choice for big prints and magazines, but would the 7D be good enough? Is it worth saving 1500€? I mean, with that price difference am I able to still create professional quality stuff??
And another thing that might help: the main use will be for portraits, some landscapes and sailing action. Not concern about low light capabilities really (not too much night stuff). Is always a good add though.
Thanks guys,
Javier

Javier, there are not many magazines worldwide that wouldn't except a full-rez file that originated from the Canon 7D, and it is well capable of delivering images for front covers or double-page spreads.

The majority of my digital images for worldwide publication are delivered as either 50MB or up to 200MB Tif files (many of these still originate from my 35mm film library), but I also sometimes deliver digital images that originate from DSLR cameras with less resolution than the 7D.

Yes, full-frame DSLRs such as the Nikon D3, D3X and Canon 5D will generally produce larger files with more microscopic detail (and in the D3 probably less noise in difficult light levels), but you'll find it extremely difficult to tell the difference between images produced from the 7D or 5D reproduced in most glossy mags -even when reproduced full page.

Also remember that you rarely need to tell editors the type and brand of camera used to take the images that are sent to them. The quality of the image and more importantly the impact of the image on the editor are far more important than pixel counts or whether it originated from a full-size or cropped sensor.

That's a classic Sean! I watched it last week and I was killing myself laughing.
I think Philip Bloom's article about the matter is very revealing. Is on one of these days thread.
The camera is going to be used mostly for photography so I reckon 5D will do it on this hand, but I'd like to seize the opportunity, as a cameraman of course, of using it for filming and in that other hand 7D has more features and variety of frame rates (25p!). Since I'm not going to use it in low light conditions I wouldn't worry too much about noise... and BTW, is cheaper.
Maybe isn't the best option to use a dslr for filming sports action, but sailing is not that stressing so I'm not concerned about rolling shutter.
I feel like on a dead end being me the only that have the solution!
Which are your recommendations??
Thank you!

I think you will go over budget purchasing the 5D and adding the extras.

Javier, there are not many magazines worldwide that wouldn't except a full-rez file that originated from the Canon 7D, and it is well capable of delivering images for front covers or double-page spreads.
Those'are good news Tony. Even though I don't own (obviously) any of these cameras and that there aren't many tests done with the 7D I think the picture quality must be better with a FF camera.
This link shows some samples taken at a Muse concert with the 7D 09.09.09 : Divers » Test exclusif : Canon EOS 7D (Bêta) VS concert de Muse » cas concret et samples | Le HibOO (http://www.le-hiboo.com/17066-test-exclusif-canon-7d-vs-concert-de-muse-cas-concret-et-samples)
It really looks great despite of the low light atmosphere. Shooted with the 70-200 IS 2.8 hehehe.

with that price difference am I able to still create professional quality stuff??

And another thing that might help: the main use will be for portraits, some landscapes and sailing action. Not concern about low light capabilities really (not too much night stuff). Is always a good add though.
Thanks guys,
Javier

In the late '70s and early '80s I ran my own portrait studio using Mamiya RB67, Hasselblad, and Camerz electric advance SLRs with mostly 70mm long roll film. A lot of portraits wound up as 16x20 and 24x30's from those negatives. Clean and crisp, diffuse when I wanted them that way.

Then I spent 13 years working for the air force and was in on the changeover from film/wet process photography to digital. After I retired in 2000 I was visiting one of my former colleagues and asked him if he had moved into digital yet. He pointed at his display prints on the wall, all 16x20 or larger.

Half film and half digital. He wouldn't tell me which were which, and I couldn't tell. All looked great, he was very skilled and a very good portrait photographer.

6MP camera. (Film prints were from Mamiya RB67 - 6x7 centimeter negative)

Almost anything marketed to us today will do it if you will.

I think you will go over budget purchasing the 5D and adding the extras.
You are right Don.
I've taken my decision already: I'll go for the 5D and remove the 15mm from the set. It doesn't make sense having both 15mm and 16-35mm. To fill the gap between the 16-35 and the 70-200 I had thought about the 24-70 as a good option but is too expensive (1300€) for my budget. Any other choice of your recommendation?

Bruce, that was a sweet anecdote! I know what you mean but as the camera is gonna be used mainly for photography I think, and I've being advice by a sailing photographer, that despite both cameras have about the same quality the 5D is better for wide pictures due to the FF. Maybe I'm wrong... I don't know... what a mess!! hehehe
I know what I'm missing: frame rate, "waterproof", 8fps and many other features. But, who knows, maybe I can get the 7D as a back up camera in the future.
What do you think guys?? Sounds reasonable??
Thank you!
Javier

I got a new advice from another sailing photographer:Both cameras are great and suitable for professional use.

5D for press-conferences, parties, architectures, landscapes (due to the bigger sensor it should have better low light capabilities and sharper image quality)
7D for sailing, action (8fps) Nevertheless I've seen some low light samples with the 7D and I've to say they look very decent!

The problem is that everything belongs to my working list. But I can only buy one.

Any of them will do the job, I'm sure. Maybe... should I throw the dice?

The difference in image quality between the 5D and the 7D would be the least of my concerns. Native 25p vs. full-frame field of view is the main comparison for me.

I got a new advice from another sailing photographer:Both cameras are great and suitable for professional use.

5D for press-conferences, parties, architectures, landscapes (due to the bigger sensor it should have better low light capabilities and sharper image quality)
7D for sailing, action (8fps) Nevertheless I've seen some low light samples with the 7D and I've to say they look very decent!

The problem is that everything belongs to my working list. But I can only buy one.

Any of them will do the job, I'm sure. Maybe... should I throw the dice?
Javier, yes, either will do the job. I'm the one who said the 5D2 would be better for magazines and big prints. I said this so you won't have the impression that the 7D is an equivalent still camera to the 5D2; it isn't - but it obviously is a very good camera.

A couple of other things to consider for still photography. Most still photographers are very dependent on Photoshop or Lightyear. For some reason Adobe did a poor job when they developed the RAW converter for the 50D (predecessor to the 7D); both color and noise are issues with that converter. Because of that I use the Canon DPP software to work with 50D files, which does a much better job but is a pain to use. I'm hopeful that Adobe will put the A team on the 7D RAW converter project. (And their 5D2 RAW converter is excellent.)

The other point is that the focusing system for the 7D has been substantially improved and this would definately be the camera to use for sailing photography because of that.