[Stick]

So, I've been shooting with a Canon Rebel XTi (400D) since 2007. I've had a lot of fun with at and takena lot of pictures, as you can see, but it's time to trade the old girl out for something nubile, shiny and capable of shooting gorgeous 1080p through high quality interchangeable lenses.

In the last 3 years I've amassed a small collection of Canon EF glass: 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM, 50mm f1.8 II, 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM and the one lens to rule them all, my 24-70mm f2.8L. Suffice it to say, I'm sold on the Canon system and am locked in- brand loyalty, woo-hoo! Also, now that I've been shooting on a DSLR, I can't see myself ever wanting to use a point and shoot again- well, ok except this one and that's only because it's rated up to 33' underwater which is just damn cool!

Right, so bonus checks just came in, Christmas is over and I'm finally starting to see some positive growth as a result of halfing my rent by having the girlfriend move in, and so of course this means I need to burn off that extra money as quickly as possible. I will of course sell my XTi along with a lens- maybe the 50mm f1.8 and replace with the more expensive 50mm f1.4-, on top of that I got a great new all-in-one printer/scanner/copier/fax/night-light so I'll be selling off my old printer and scanner- though for that I think I'll just take 'em to the pawn shop and ask for $50 and be happy to get 30- and finally I'll also be selling off my Panasonic DVD camcorder which might get me $100. I'd sell my old Canon Powershot S30 too, but these days it would be lucky to get me $20 on Craigslist; I think my trusty old Powershot will be better served getting hacked, modded, and tested on things like the underwater camera housing made from two condoms and a used toilet paper roll.

Suffice it to say, I can afford to splurge a bit here and so I'm considering either the $1,700 Canon 7D or the $2,500 Canon 5D MkII.

What's the biggest difference between these two, you ask?

Why does one cost nearly a grand more?

Size!

No, seriously, your girlfriend's lying to you; size matters! Specifically, the 5D MkII has a full frame sensor which means more pixels, more light, more of what the lens (designed on the old 35mm film standard) can actually see. A full-frame camera gives you a wider viewing angle, better performance in low light, and bigger, cleaner, more easily printed at 30x40" or better pictures.

So, of course I should suck it up and take the big one, right?

Not so easy.

I've been shooting on the cropped APS-C frame for a while now, and I'm really quite comfortable with it. No, this isn't me afraid to take more camera, this is me measuring a trade off.

The thing is, all those lens I have- 50mm, 17-85, 70-300, 24-70- well, those focal lengths are measured on the 35mm/full-frame standard. On a smaller, cropped off sensor the proportions change and the focal length is different; my 50 becomes effectively an 80, 17 a 27, 24 a 38, etc. Essentially, all my lens are more zoomed in and I'm used to being that much closer to the action. As an event photographer for Bullshido, my 24-70mm- er, 38-112mm has served me really well cage side.

Granted, I could recoup that lost zoom by simply cropping my full-frame photos in Photoshop, but god is that going to take forever after an event where I've snapped 3,000pics (each around 10megs as mere JPEGs).

On the other hand, I could finally get some really pretty wide angle shots when I go on a photo walk in DC at night, plus whereas the 7D only goes to 12,000ISO (my puny Rebel only went to 1,600 so, yeah, 12,00 is still incredible) the 5D MkII goes to 25,000 and it does it with less noise because it's larger, faster, and just has more damn pixels.

Then there's the issue of video. The 5D MkII was Canon's first DSLR to boast 1080p video recording, and it shows; the 5D MkII shoots at a nonstandard FPS whereas the 7D can choose between PAL (European) or NTSC (American) standards as well as much higher frame rates at lower resolutions- hint, that means you could slow the footage to 30fps and get le' wicked slow-mo. From the reviews and feed-back I've heard, the 7D simply functions better as a video camera.

Finally, here's the thing that got me to scratch my head, stop and think about my previous statements of "I IS R B BUYING 5D MKII FER BIRFDAY! YAY!": frames per second in burst shot mode. For sporting events and action shots, this is vital- no matter what your sensor or lens or photoshop can do, if you didn't actually catch the moment when it was there you're SOL. The 5D MkII shoots at about 3.8 fps in burst mode, but the $1,000 less 7D shoots at 8!

To wit

Originally Posted by dpreview.com

At eight frames per second the EOS 7D is the quickest APS-C DSLR that we've seen in our labs so far. The frame rate is impressive on itself and even more so considering that with a very fast card, such as the Sandisk Extreme Pro, in JPEG format the 7D can maintain this speed indefinitely (well, we gave up after approximately 60 sec or 320 frames) and for 24 frames when shooting RAW. Surprisingly that's even better than the official Canon specification (126 frames in JPEG, 15 frames in RAW). The initial frame rate is still maintained when shooting RAW+JPEG but only for seven frames.

Whereas

Originally Posted by dpreview.com

While the 5D Mark II has a higher frame rate than the original 5D, it would never be mistaken for a dedicated sports camera (the pedestrian AF tracking puts that idea to bed anyway). Having said that, it can still be used in fast-paced situations as long as you don't rely on the machine gun approach to shooting. Notice the extra speed shown with the UDMA-enabled Lexar CF card. If you want to get the highest speed out of this camera in a continuous shooting situation, use a UDMA-enabled CF card, shoot JPEG or both. One thing to note is the large speed penalty for shooting RAW and fine JPEG; if you need RAW files, shooting only RAW is a much better choice speed wise.

So, there you have it. More or less, anyways.

What say you, those of you who bothered to read or have meaningful input?

[Ajamil]

The 7D: things move more often than not, and the high frame rate of pictures sounds nice.

[fes_fsa]

yeah. i agree with Arjuna. also... it's newer, ALOT cheaper, and it makes a really good video camera.

[billy sol hurok]

*In before f@n@l*

For me, the fps argument would be a non-starter.

Nor am I sure how much video you'll actually be shooting; the form factor of an slr doesn't really lend itself to prolonged usage that way, unless they've done some ergonomic wonders with the latest model (hint: keep the DV and forgo the $75 it might fetch).

The zoom/crop argument also doesn't hold a lot of water to me. Seems like you've got plenty of coverage even at full-frame par: from 18 through 300. (Yes, I realize that some of those lenses are surely better than others, and that the range of a favorite zoom can be crucial.)

Full-frame would be very appealing from this perspective: you only get one shot at any given photo, forever. That 1/250th of a second is never coming back.

If your original is very high quality, you can always crop it more severely, if you like. Moreover, a higher-res original may be discernable even at "normal" print sizes (5x7, 8x10).

I haven't seen comparisons in the DSLR realm, so I can't say how much of that carries over from film. But go to a museum and look at some old prints that were made straight from big honkin photographic plates; those old contact prints are often spectacular despite the primative emulsions and older lenses they used. The detail and tone are very different from prints made on an enlarger.

Now, digital is a critter of a different color, and there are many more places to fudge and tweak the image en route to a print these days. But the bigger sensor has better low-light capability, and that counts for a lot. Perhaps. It would for me, anyway. And if you plan to be shooting cageside (or elsewhere in artificial light where flash is forbidden and/or action is fast), it might matter to you as well.

OTOH, the price of the bleeding edge in digital photography is such a moving goalpost that it's hard for me to contemplate investing in anything at the far reaches . . . especially if it's not a professional tool. Thus, when buying new hobby gear, I tend to lurk in the "prosumer" sweet spot.

Besides, that $800 difference could buy you some nice glass. And you've probably figured out by now: bodies are transient, glass abides.

Keep us apprised! I'm resolutely NOT buying photo gear (at the moment), and thus will be happy to shop vicariously through you.

[cuatro76]

Since you mostly photograph action, I'd go with the 7D. If you were a table top or life style photographer I'd say the 5D.

[Nid]

I bet the brazilian humidity takes it's toll on l33t cameras.

[meataxe]

Full frame cameras are going to come down a lot in price. I'd hold off on that for a while.

Plus, the video feature is really good on those Canon's. I've seen good stuff from an even cheaper (fixed lens even) Canon.

[billy sol hurok]

Originally Posted by Oil As I Cum

I bet the brazilian humidity takes it's toll on l33t cameras.

That's why you go to a hostel with A/C: helps dry the thing out.

Or, you bring a good old mechanical film camera. The kind that advances the film using your thumb. Because intense humidity is inimical to winders -- I can testify -- and if you've no other way to advance the film (e.g., "modern" film cameras w/ built-in winders, you're SOL.

All of which is my way of saying BUMP 4 GRAET JUSTISS HAY STICK WUDJA BUY ALREADY??!?

[Stick]

I'm not going to be able to make my purchase till around the middle of march; had to buy tickets and hotel reservations for a friend's wedding in Vegas, rent, bills and my girlfriend's birthday is 4 days after Valentine's Day >_<

The more serious photographers I know won't stop singing the praises of the full frame sensor, but I've heard some good arguments for the 7D as well (save that thousand bucks for new and better lenses, camera bodies are just electronics packages that will be obsolete in a few year's time anyways). Apart from the DPreview quotes I thre into my OP, I've been reading on a few sports blogs and the D7 is getting a lot of positive attention from pros that make their living off of sports coverage (though they often provide the caveat that it's their back up to the $8,000 1D).

I can still afford either one, but I'm thinking I may be better served going with the cheaper option here, maybe use some of the saved money on a battery grip and the 50mm f1.4.

[bob]

Back in the day when I had time to be into photography a bit more and occasionally sold a photo I used to buy new equipment based on what I was getting paid for the output. Originally I had a rule that I would only ever spend what I made but greed and lack of talent put paid to that. At any rate I tried to keep it proportionate.