I have some camera money burning a hole in my pocket. I am trying to decide between upgrading my Canon 20D to a 7D or possibly a 5D Mark II, vs. upgrading my 70-300 lens (a Canon low-end that cost me maybe $200) to L glass, and maybe picking up one other lens, probably a wide-angle. (Currently I have the 24-70 f/2.8L.)
My reasoning in preferring the body upgrade is to get a better-quality sensor, as well as possibly a full-frame sensor. That would get me a better quality bump than an incremental improvement in glass, but I’m not certain (which is why I’m asking you).
(The counter guy at the store in Sint Maartin last week while I was on vacation directly contradicted my logic, telling me flat out that the sensor in the 7D is the same as the one in my 20D, which I thought was a bald-faced lie. I didn’t buy anything there.)
I don’t think you’re really going to get a lot of IQ advantages upgrading in the same family. There is going to be feature improvement, more MPs, and maybe better low light performance, but straight IQ not too much. I looked at this in the Rebel line, and I couldn’t see a difference in dpreview’s test images from from the 350D to the current 600D. I assume it’s going to be the same in the higher end lines. It seems that improvement in processing and manufacturing go to the higher MPs and not necessarily image performance.
I think an important point is that by going to FF you might be able to avoid buying a wide angle lens. You’re getting 40% more wideness simply by losing the 1.6x crop factor. That might be enough, and the Canon 10-22 is half the price of a 5d mk II already, so it makes a lot of sense money wise as you get two upgrades for one change. Plus, you can avoid carrying around another lens.
Yeah, that’s bullshit. The 7d is 18 mp vs 8 for the 20d to start with. Maybe he just meant the same sensor size.
Part of the equation is what kind of photography you do. If you’re very interested in shooting sports or other fast moving subjects (kids, dogs) then the 7D will likely do better than the 5D II. If you’re shooting in low existing light, or want to make big enlargements from tightly cropped images, then the full frame camera gets the nod.
(I’m a Nikon guy, mostly relying on info from DP Review and Imaging Resource for the above judgments.)
If you’re not routinely shooting at 1600, shooting sports, or making enlargements of tightly cropped pictures, then your pictures from your D20 will be as good as pics from a newer camera. (And you should treat yourself to a new lens.)
Going by the samples I’ve seen the 5D II at 3200 is about equal to the 7D at 2000. (In graininess and image detail.) However the samples I’ve seem are taken in good light, and the full frame camera might do better than that in marginal light.
Yeah, the conventional wisdom is go for lenses, but in this case, I’d say without hesitation to get the 7D or 5DII, and I’d go for the 5DII, given that you have such a choice piece of glass as the 24-70 f/2.8L which, in my opinion, is a focal length best realized on a full-frame camera.
The difference in image quality between a 20D body and a 5D Mark II body is remarkable. Don’t get me wrong, the 20D is a formidable body, but technology has progressed in leaps and bounds since its heyday. If you do low light photography, you have, in my estimation, about a 2 stop advantage with the 5DMarkII over the 20D. Here’s a good website for a scientific comparison. (That website suggests just under a two-stop advantage for the 5D.
If you deal mostly with well-lit subjects, you’re still going to see significant improvements with the 5DII (or 7D). First, significantly higher resolution and secondly, about an extra stop of dynamic range. If you shoot landscapes, both these should be very important considerations for you.
The only reason I would get the 7D over the 5DII is if I were shooting a lot of action. The 5DII is a sluggish camera at just under 4fps. The 7D is 8fps, which is perfectly suited for sports. Also, if you do shoot a lot of sports, that 1.6x focal length multiplier will prove useful.
Finally, both these cameras also have the ability to record HD video. This may or may not be important to you.
So, it’s up to you, but since you already have a kick-ass piece of glass in that 24-70, upgrade your body. You’ll also discover how much nicer it is to review your images on a 3-inch LCD screen, where you can actually make judgments about an image’s sharpness.
At the start of the year I upgraded my 30D to a 60D and I’m very happy with it.
The 60D will be a very similar camera to your 20D so you won’t have to learn how to use the camera all over again. You will have loads of money left over for new lens.
Oh, very good point. If the 5D Mark II drops out of the running (and it is significantly more expensive than the 7D), between the 60D and 7D, it’s pretty much a coin flip. The 60D runs at about $700 less than the 7D ($1700 vs $1000), and isn’t really all that much different spec-wise. The 60D is a bit slower at 5.3fps, and has fewer AF point (9 vs 19), but it has a higher resolution LCD that also articulates. The 60D is also built a little bit less ruggedly than the 7D, but if you’re fine with the 20D, you’ll be fine with the 60D.
So, unless you really want to shell out for that 5D Mark II, Zerba’s suggestion of a 60D and another lens is fine one.