7D vs. 5D Mark II - all about the glass

[LorenS]

Been shooting a lot with my 7D | sigma 50 f/1.4 | 18-55 IS kit lens combo lately (just did an interview today) and it's made me realize that more than ever it's all about the glass. Originally thought glass would make less difference for video since the resolution is lower, but resolution doesn't tell you everything. Yes, the 5D Mark II has shallower depth of field since it's full frame and better high ISO noise in a pinch, but looking at the lens options - and I'm only talking for video here - the 7D definitely seems to have the cost AND quality advantage.

For ultra-wides there are a half-dozen decent crop sensor lenses floating around in the $400-800 range. Switch to full-frame and you're looking at spending $700-2000 and for the extra $ you get lower sharpness and significantly more extreme barrel distortions. I never took barrel distortion into account when doing photo work since you can just correct it, but shooting video now distortion has become much more of a concern. Winner: most any cheap crop sensor ultra-wide.

For normal zooms most people seem to be talking about the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS vs. the 24-105mm f/4 IS. Both are great lenses, both have IS, both are sharp enough for video, and both are... expensive. The 17-55mm is sharper, $200 cheaper, and has much lower barrel distortion (noticing a trend with barrel distortion here?). Winner: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

Assuming that IS is necessary for your normal zoom if you want to go cheap you still have a few options. The $100 (lens only) 18-55mm IS kit lens is slow, but plenty sharp for the 7D. On the other hand the $400 28-135mm IS is garbage for photo and video work. Winner: 18-55mm Canon kit lens.

Tele-zooms is trickier. 70-200 f/2.8 & f/4 lenses all work great. Full frame gives you a stop shallower depth of field for the same money. For interviews / doc stuff this is a great focal length and this is the one place where I was really pulled to go with the 5D Mark II. Winner: Full-frame.

Primes... they work for everyone. Full frame gives you shallower depth of field, but there are a few crop-only primes around that are interesting including the sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (w/adapter). Winner: toss-up.



Thoughts?

 

[ASG]

Video quality with the same lens is better on the 5D according to some people. And some of the comparisons I've seen the 5D seems to have a sharper image. Other people are reporting no difference in video quality between them. Someone needs to shoot a chart 5D vs 7D

 

[dcloud]

im planning on a
-17-50 tamron bargain wide-zoom
to be used anywhere
-55-250 bargain tele-zoom
to be used just for fun

my lenses for filmmaking
30 1.4
50 1.4
85 1.8
11-16 tokie

 

[TimurCivan]

also remeber, crop sensor cameras are also using the "best" part of the lens when they record an image. they grab the nice juicy, sharp, contrasy center portion. Crop cameras in general, FOV aside, on paper, produce a "better image". But thats not to say the chip is better in terms of image quality... itsallllllll trade offs.

oh yea, forgot to add, this applies when using glass meant for a FF camera....

 

[commanderspike]

I agree totally with the OP. The difference is mainly down to glass. That's why I chose the 5D over the 7D or GH1 because of full frame. If I wanted to use only the middle crop of the lens I can still do so and use a Hasselblad lens.

But like with c-mount lenses on the GH1 which barely cover the sensor, I actually like a bit of sharpness fall off and mild vignette on the edges. It's a creative choice. I believe it simulates human peripheral vision. An image can be too sharp and too flat sometimes.

 

[Ian-T]

An image can be too sharp and too flat sometimes.

Some would see that as a plus giving you more control on how sharp/unsharp you want those edges in post production.

 

[dvollrath]

but looking at the lens options - and I'm only talking for video here - the 7D definitely seems to have the cost AND quality advantage.

I disagree. I looked very extensively at both cameras and I really wanted the 5d primarily for the glass, but for other reasons like 24p (screwed that one up) and mainly the lower cost of the camera body itself, I went with the 7d. You bring up the 24-105 to compare with the 17-55, but I think a more accurate comparison would be with canon's 24-70L. That lens is really one of the best that canon's ever made (despite the fact that it receives negative reviews in some biased online tests, it really is phenomenal). The lens is also MUCH better built than the 17-55. Because I didn't like the idea of paying over a grand for a PLASTIC lens, I opted to buy several primes instead. Believe me, I'd much rather have a walk around zoom that's well built, but it isn't available in the focal range that I want on the 7d.

Also, when you talk about saving money on super wides, your kind of talking apples and oranges here. A 14mm prime will run at least 400 for anything decent and that becomes 21mm when put on a cropped sensor. For not much more, you could pick up a great 20mm prime for the 5d.

If you don't mind using plastic EF-S lenses that won't work on a full frame if you upgrade in the future, then maybe this won't apply to you, but I personally couldn't do that.

 

[Kholi]

Been shooting a lot with my 7D | sigma 50 f/1.4 | 18-55 IS kit lens combo lately (just did an interview today) and it's made me realize that more than ever it's all about the glass. Originally thought glass would make less difference for video since the resolution is lower, but resolution doesn't tell you everything. Yes, the 5D Mark II has shallower depth of field since it's full frame and better high ISO noise in a pinch, but looking at the lens options - and I'm only talking for video here - the 7D definitely seems to have the cost AND quality advantage.

Resolving power of glass/lenses is relevant. But, you're right, it doesn't tell you everything. Micro Contrast, Color Cast, Coating, etc. All are important and will have an impact on the image, regardless of how it's being sampled from the sensor.

For ultra-wides there are a half-dozen decent crop sensor lenses floating around in the $400-800 range. Switch to full-frame and you're looking at spending $700-2000 and for the extra $ you get lower sharpness and significantly more extreme barrel distortions. I never took barrel distortion into account when doing photo work since you can just correct it, but shooting video now distortion has become much more of a concern. Winner: most any cheap crop sensor ultra-wide.

Take, for instance, the Tokina 11-16/2.8. This is a pretty rockin' Ultra-Wide zoom to own at ALL focal lengths. I've had so much fun using this lens on the RED (admittedly have not even strapped it onto the 7D yet) and I can't say enough about it. However... keep in mind that dropping a 28/2.8 on a 5D will result in an extremely wide field as well.

So, while it may be cheaper to purchase an Ultra Wide lens for the 7D, the results of even a mediocre 17-35/2.8 (Tamron makes one) on the 7D, that DOES cover the Full Frame sensor, can be pretty incredible. Although this isn't a cheap combination, if you ever get the chance to see the Nikon 14-24/2.8 on an MKii the result is jaw dropping.

Barrell Distortion? What's that?

For normal zooms most people seem to be talking about the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS vs. the 24-105mm f/4 IS. Both are great lenses, both have IS, both are sharp enough for video, and both are... expensive. The 17-55mm is sharper, $200 cheaper, and has much lower barrel distortion (noticing a trend with barrel distortion here?). Winner: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

This isn't an apples to appls comaprison, though. You must consider that a short zoom, 17-55, will more than likely yield sharper results than a full-range 24-105. Why? Because you can't optimize for both ends on a zoom. You decide which one you want to perform better and construct around that.

So while the 24mm end may suffer in comparison to the 17-55mm's 24mm mid-range, beyond 55mm on the 24-105mm may be stellar. You have to comapare within range.

Seek the 16-35L vs the 17-55/2.8 IS and come back and tell me which one is sharper. And again, I throw into question the 17-35/2.8 Nikon ED and the oh-so-terrific 14-24/2.8 ED G Nikon Zoom. Quite honestly, there's no comparing the 14-24mm to anything in it's range, prime or zoom.

Assuming that IS is necessary for your normal zoom if you want to go cheap you still have a few options. The $100 (lens only) 18-55mm IS kit lens is slow, but plenty sharp for the 7D. On the other hand the $400 28-135mm IS is garbage for photo and video work. Winner: 18-55mm Canon kit lens.

Plenty sharp you say for the Kit Lens? That's probably a matter of taste, one that I disagree with. In comparison to what glass? And by saying "sharp" what are you measuring? It's a very hairy topic, glass: you have to be aware that after a certain measure, it becomes subjective and not factual.

I still think that Zeiss ZFs and Contax yield infinitely better results than Canon glass, only dethroned by Nikon's infamous zooms. But, I know Timur Civan swears by L Series glass, and I can't say that he's wrong because after a certain point it's preference.

[qupte]
Tele-zooms is trickier. 70-200 f/2.8 & f/4 lenses all work great. Full frame gives you a stop shallower depth of field for the same money. For interviews / doc stuff this is a great focal length and this is the one place where I was really pulled to go with the 5D Mark II. Winner: Full-frame.[/quote]

Not sure what you mean here. Elaborate on this idea for discussion?

Primes... they work for everyone. Full frame gives you shallower depth of field, but there are a few crop-only primes around that are interesting including the sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (w/adapter). Winner: toss-up.



Thoughts?

I really still do not understand the obsession with hyper shallow imagery when concerning motion picture acquisition. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't purchase fast glass for the purpose of utilizing the thinnest focal plane I can.

It's strictly in the event that I run into a lowlight situation that demands it- A, and B, so that the 2.8~4 split (Where I tend to shoot) sits as the "Sweet" spot or area.

So the lenses? Toss-up? I don't think it would have to do with crop only or full frame if the topic is widest iris, it comes down to which look you prefer.

Great topic to discuss, though. I plan on covering it in my own write-up and exploring old Japanese M42 lenses for "looks". =]

 

[Kholi]

Video quality with the same lens is better on the 5D according to some people. And some of the comparisons I've seen the 5D seems to have a sharper image. Other people are reporting no difference in video quality between them. Someone needs to shoot a chart 5D vs 7D

As an owner of both the 7D and 5D I can tell you that if there IS a difference, it's probably due to the 5D having a much more abhorrent aliasing issue than the 7D. Reading Barry's Article on Aliasing explains why this is possible.

The 7D, to me, has the edge on image quality.

 

[Kholi]

Some would see that as a plus giving you more control on how sharp/unsharp you want those edges in post production.

Indeed. Also, there's a major disconnect in what "Sharpness" is and "Resolving power" is. The two are different, I thank Barry Green for educating me on the difference a few years back.

So do you want a lens to resolve more? Hell yeah. Do you need it to be Micro Contrasty or appearing "Sharper" than others? Maybe not.

 

[Kholi]

I disagree. I looked very extensively at both cameras and I really wanted the 5d primarily for the glass, but for other reasons like 24p (screwed that one up) and mainly the lower cost of the camera body itself, I went with the 7d. You bring up the 24-105 to compare with the 17-55, but I think a more accurate comparison would be with canon's 24-70L. That lens is really one of the best that canon's ever made (despite the fact that it receives negative reviews in some biased online tests, it really is phenomenal).

I can agree with you on the 24p. You know, I wasn't a major fan of the Mkii but after using it for a while and learning how to work with Full Frame, I've kept mines and I'm GLAD that Canon's doing a 24p patch. Not glad for my wallet, but glad in general.

I also agree that you have to compare apples to apples when you get into glass. The 24-70 may still be a bit off, but at least the Telephoto or "normal" end is more suited for comparison with the 17-55s.

The lens is also MUCH better built than the 17-55. Because I didn't like the idea of paying over a grand for a PLASTIC lens, I opted to buy several primes instead. Believe me, I'd much rather have a walk around zoom that's well built, but it isn't available in the focal range that I want on the 7d.

A walk-around zoom is a nice addition to the gang. I need maybe tone or two more, but I'm with you! Primes feel so much better, to me, on camera and in operation in general. Others mileage may, and probably will, vary.

Also, when you talk about saving money on super wides, your kind of talking apples and oranges here. A 14mm prime will run at least 400 for anything decent and that becomes 21mm when put on a cropped sensor. For not much more, you could pick up a great 20mm prime for the 5d.

Agreed again. Because a 20/1.8 Sigma (which I believe covers fullframe) becomes an incredible wide on the MKii. Gotta hand it to the camera, for Vistas/Wides it's quite valuable!

Great thoughts here.

 

[PerroneFord]

I really still do not understand the obsession with hyper shallow imagery when concerning motion picture acquisition. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't purchase fast glass for the purpose of utilizing the thinnest focal plane I can.

It's strictly in the event that I run into a lowlight situation that demands it- A, and B, so that the 2.8~4 split (Where I tend to shoot) sits as the "Sweet" spot or area.

Hyper-Shallow imagery is the domain of the photographer with a stationary camera, and no control of screen depth. When you spend hours in production design and get the details right, you don't mind showing your work. When you don't clean up the background you don't really want to show that.

I'd pay good money to see some of these folks running around on a shoulder-mount or stabilizer with an 85 or 105 at F2 and the subject 10ft away, and see how the focus holds up. Been there, done that, and it's why I am lighting my folks for F4 or 5.6 when we're on the move. I had to light an indoor, night for night scene for F2.8 when the camera was 3ft back and it took damn near 10 takes to get one we could print.

 

[Kholi]

Hyper-Shallow imagery is the domain of the photographer with a stationary camera, and no control of screen depth. When you spend hours in production design and get the details right, you don't mind showing your work. When you don't clean up the background you don't really want to show that.

Right. But this is moving imagery. Not still photography.

I'd pay good money to see some of these folks running around on a shoulder-mount or stabilizer with an 85 or 105 at F2 and the subject 10ft away, and see how the focus holds up. Been there, done that, and it's why I am lighting my folks for F4 or 5.6 when we're on the move. I had to light an indoor, night for night scene for F2.8 when the camera was 3ft back and it took damn near 10 takes to get one we could print.

=] How much are you paying?. Because I sure as hell do it, at 180mm at that.

And furthermore, most motion picture is captured around 2.8 ~ 5.6 anyway. This is nothing new.

We're talking motion picture, not still photography. There's another sub forum for that.

 

[LorenS]

Great points from everyone so far. A few things to add:

I stick by my normal zoom comparison. I'm comparing the 24-105 on the 5d ONLY to the 17-55 on the 7d. To clarify a bit:

(1) The 24-105's focal length in aps-c terms would be ~15-66, very close to the 17-55
(2) The 24-105 has similar DoF possibilities to the 17-55 when both are wide open
(3) Buying a 24-105 for use on a crop body (in most cases) is silly - inconvenient focal range, slower, barrel distortion, etc..
(4) The 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't have IS so I didn't include it.

To chime in again on primes - on ff / aps-c you're getting totally different focal lengths from the same lens. For instance my sigma 50 on my 7D gives me a traditional 85mm (video close-up) focal length which I love. A 50 on a full frame dslr in the same situation would give you a medium close-up. If I really needed to go wider while retaining DoF control I'd have sprung for a 5D and used a 50 f/1.4 & 85 f/1.8 combo.

The prime / sweet spot comment someone made struck me too - I'm not using primes because I'm doing all of my shooting at f/1.4, I'm using primes because they look leagues better bokeh-wise at f/2-4.

Honestly if I had a 5D and a 7D I'd probably just strap sigma 50's on both of them and switch back and forth on location :happy:

 

[Kholi]

Great points from everyone so far. A few things to add:

I stick by my normal zoom comparison. I'm comparing the 24-105 on the 5d ONLY to the 17-55 on the 7d. To clarify a bit:

(1) The 24-105's focal length in aps-c terms would be ~15-66, very close to the 17-55
(2) The 24-105 has similar DoF possibilities to the 17-55 when both are wide open
(3) Buying a 24-105 for use on a crop body (in most cases) is silly - inconvenient focal range, slower, barrel distortion, etc..
(4) The 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't have IS so I didn't include it.

You're still comparing Apples to Oranges, though.

To chime in again on primes - on ff / aps-c you're getting totally different focal lengths from the same lens. For instance my sigma 50 on my 7D gives me a traditional 85mm (video close-up) focal length which I love. A 50 on a full frame dslr in the same situation would give you a medium close-up. If I really needed to go wider while retaining DoF control I'd have sprung for a 5D and used a 50 f/1.4 & 85 f/1.8 combo.

You lost me here. A traditional 85mm Video Close up? What are we talking about? Because, as far as I know a 50's a 50 and isn't my close-up lens when shooting motion picture. If it's a Cooke S4 set, for example, it's the 75 or 100mm. A 50's a 50 until you get to Full Frame, which is naturally larger.

If you're not using wider than a 50mm, go for it.

The prime / sweet spot comment someone made struck me too - I'm not using primes because I'm doing all of my shooting at f/1.4, I'm using primes because they look leagues better bokeh-wise at f/2-4.

That's an interesting way to look at it. With SLR glass I have to be conscious of odd looking bokeh at certain stops, as I don't shoot wide open unless I have to, as well. But, it's not my first reason by any means. Although it's good to consider.

Honestly if I had a 5D and a 7D I'd probably just strap sigma 50's on both of them and switch back and forth on location :happy:

I'll inquire: Why do you not choose to use anything wider than a 50mm which isn't wide at all on either camera?

 

[dvollrath]

(1) The 24-105's focal length in aps-c terms would be ~15-66, very close to the 17-55
(2) The 24-105 has similar DoF possibilities to the 17-55 when both are wide open
(3) Buying a 24-105 for use on a crop body (in most cases) is silly - inconvenient focal range, slower, barrel distortion, etc..
(4) The 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't have IS so I didn't include it.

I did the math on that zoom conversion and you're right, the 24-105 is a better comparison by 1mm of difference. But I still think the 24-70 is a better comparison because it's a 2.8. The 24-105 isn't so I don't know why you say that it has similar DoF possibilities as the 17-55 when wide open.

 

[Jean Dantes]

What would you guys say is the most frequently used lens in professional filmmaking (i.e. Hollywood)? 50mm? (sorry if this sounds like a stupid question)

 

[Kholi]

What would you guys say is the most frequently used lens in professional filmmaking (i.e. Hollywood)? 50mm? (sorry if this sounds like a stupid question)

25ish or 35mm. Just about everything I work on our shoot, it's either of those two on the camera. That's me, though. I wonder what Dadoboy and the others think?

 

[Vascilli]

I did the math on that zoom conversion and you're right, the 24-105 is a better comparison by 1mm of difference. But I still think the 24-70 is a better comparison because it's a 2.8. The 24-105 isn't so I don't know why you say that it has similar DoF possibilities as the 17-55 when wide open.

A 24-105L on a 5D II will have similar DOF to a 17-55 on a 7D when both lenses are wide open because the 5D II has a larger sensor, giving it about an extra stop of apparent DOF.

 

[PerroneFord]

Right. But this is moving imagery. Not still photography.

=] How much are you paying?. Because I sure as hell do it, at 180mm at that.

And furthermore, most motion picture is captured around 2.8 ~ 5.6 anyway. This is nothing new.

We're talking motion picture, not still photography. There's another sub forum for that.

A. These are unpaid volunteers

B. The focus puller is flying blind. There is not screen for him

C. I know most $M productions are shot on the open end of the lenses, but there is proper support for it. Not 3 guys (DP, Director, 1AC) walking behind the talent with a shoulder mount cam looking at a 5D LCD.