Or does it not even compare to some of the "dedicated" still cameras in it's price range?

Well, you're talking about two different price ranges and two different cameras.

The Canon EOS 5D Mk. II is a $2500 camera while the EOS 7D is a $1700 camera.

And both of them are indeed "dedicated" still cameras in every sense of the word. In terms of photographic capability, they actually exceed their predecessors: the EOS 5D Mk. II is an even better still photo camera than the previous version, the original EOS 5D. Both of these cameras were designed from the ground up to be still photo cameras, first and foremost.

The 5D Mk. II and the 7D are just fine for wedding photography; I've known some wedding photographers that use lesser cameras for that kind of work... after all, it's not the choice of camera that makes or breaks a photographer. Hope this helps,

The 7d is a prosumer camera, the 5D is a professional camera. This goes without saying that it is the person behind the camera that matters most.

If you google Manuel Librodo, he was producing very stunning work with a Point & Shoot camera and legend has it that a popular magazine was so impressed with his work with a point & shoot and provided him a DSLR.

Why is the 7D a "prosumer" camera?

The 5D and 7D can be classed as 'semi pro'. The true fully professional bodies in the Canon line-up are all all signified by the number '1', such as EOS1D, EOS1Ds etc., and in the Nikon line-up it is the single digit bodies such as Nikon D1, D2, D3 etc.

The cheaper semi-pro cameras such as Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II are top-class cameras that are often used by professionals as second bodies or when lightweight bodies are needed. They are cheaper than the fully professional bodies, and not built to the same exacting standards.

Chris said it right, it's the person behind the camera. That said, I work at a fairly large wedding studio and the 5d is pretty much the standard for photogs on the canon side of things as most still shooters prefer the full frame. However for starters a crop body such as a 7d or 50d will do just fine as well. Your lens selections are more important than the body imho. The standard wedding "kit" I'd say around here is at least 2 bodies (most have a full frame with a cropper as a 2nd body), a good normal zoom (24-70 2.8 or 17-55 2.8 on a cropper) and a good telephoto zoom (70-200 2.8 IS) pretty much gives you everything you'll need on the day. Don't forget flashes as well. The 1d series are great however pricey and almost overkill for most wedding photogs.

Yeah, why is the 7D a "prosumer" camera? I think that designation actually belongs to the Rebel.

I honestly don not know how manufacturers designate prosumer from the professional gears. Cost? capability? Maybe someone can enlighten us.

Professionals require equipment that is built like a tank, robust and able to withstand the rigours of a daily routine where everything is chucked at it yet keep on working. This is why I prefer to pay more for professional equipment. Yes, a cheaper model is able to deliver the same results in controlled conditions, but more often we need a completely reliable and very tough tool to match the environments we work in.

This seems silly to ponder too seriously. The 7D's build quality, resolution, and 8 jpegs-a-second-for-apparently-forever shooting speed make it pro enough for anything I can imagine doing. And it isn't too shabby in low light, either.

Hi Justin, we make an effort here to take every question seriously and treat it as an education process. Some folks might not be familiar with the 7D and may have heard of it only by its model number. So it's not silly, certainly not to the original poster. Our goal is to share useful information. Thanks for understanding,

To the original poster... given that the 5D Mark II was the first digital camera ever used for the official presidential portrait, it is definitely professional enough for weddings. The 7D picture quality is not far behind. The lower cost is mainly due to the smaller sensor, but it also has some advantages, like better autofocus and a higher still shooting rate.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/eos-5d-mk-ii-sample-clips-gallery/141586-canon-5d-mk-ii-first-digital-camera-used-official-presidential-portrait.html

The 1D4 has slightly better quality and the best autofocus that Canon makes. The main reason for the higher price is weatherproofing, which isn't generally needed at weddings.

Is the 7D or 5D a professional level (wedding photography) still camera?

Yes, they are both professional level. Most of the wedding photographers I know shoot the 5D2 and 5D with a bunch primes (and a few zooms).

In some ways, the 7D is more professional than the 5D2: viewfinder, autofocus, weather sealing, frame rate, build, etc. Aside from the larger sensor, I think the 5D2 has more in common with the 500D than the 7D (even the 50D has a more advanced autofocus). But I wouldn't have it any other way: with all those extra features, Canon would probably charge more for the 5D2, and I'm happy to get full frame at the price I have it. (Though I still hope Canikon will enter a price war with Sony and their sub-$2000 full frame camera).

Personally, I prefer the 5D2 for weddings. It gives me much more control over depth of field, performance in low light, and better contrast.

In practical terms, the greatest advantage the 5DMkII would have is in its ability to make full use of wide angles. They are both more than capable for professional wedding photography.

Yeah, I think there is a wide angle lens advantage too. While there are many wide angle lenses for the 7D (At least a half-dozen ultrawide zooms and double that number of wide zooms), I think the best wide angle choices are only available on full frame (especially for primes).

To me the advantage of the 5DMKII is, as mentioned above, the ability to get wider angle lenses easier. For really wide on the 7D you have to go to something like the Tokina 11-16, which seems to get great reviews. That 11mm, of course, comes out to look a little wider than an 18mm lens on a "full frame" camera. Plenty wide enough for my needs.

I use the 7D mostly for video, and while I think the bigger chip and slightly higher resolution of the 5DMKII is very nice and can give an even better image, I prefer the chip size of the 7D for video. It's very close to Academy 4 perf 35mm motion picture film, and with those PL adapters coming on the market, a person familiar with motion picture production could go to a rental house and use high end cine lenses and end up in pretty familiar territory.

Also, I would not want even less depth of field than what I have now. I like the control over DOF I get with the 7D, but there have been times when I've had to boost the ISO to get more. An even shallower DOF would be problematic in many cases for me because I shoot a lot by myself and don't have an assistant or follow focus wireless remote system.

If I were a newspaper photographer, a military photographer, or a documentary filmmaker shooting in deserts and jungles, etc., I'd go for the 1DMKIV, naturally.

For control of DOF, the 1D4 would really rock. From what I've seen, you can push the ISO two stops higher with the 1D4 than the 5D2. That means you can narrow the aperture by two stops. Going from f/1.4 to f/2.8 - or f/2.8 to f/5.6 - lets you go for a deep field. You can still dial the ISO down and open the lens wide, if that's what you want.

Still, I'm content with the 5D2 - or at least I will be once we get 24p (and hopefully HD on HDMI and 720p60). If I want a deep field, it's just a matter of adding more light or positioning things for the effect.

On a recent shoot I was maxed out on all the lights I had at the location. I boosted the ISO o 320 and I'm still amazed that it looks as good as the rest of the footage. Some people are intercutting 640 and say it's good as well. I haven't gone that high.

Even 1250 looks very good. Give it a try.

160, 320, 640, and 1250 are the "sweet" ISOs as far as low noise goes. At 1600, the noise takes a BIG jump.