Canon 5D mark ii, 5D mark iii or 7D
- Thread starter icekiddo
- Start date
Ding5678 said:
Is the built-in flash really that important?
I dunno abt you, but it seems a lot of Canon 7D users tend to 'gravitate' to the L lenses, so your point about the full-frame cameras using more expensive EF lenses isn't really so relevant in Singapore context at least.
Uh, no.... most of them will gravitate towards the 17-55, since that's a really good EF-S lens that gives the appropriate effective FF range of the 24-70 while being fast, providing IS, and great image quality. The L lenses that 7D users hold are more on the long end, like the 70-200, since, for such range, non Ls can't compare.
Getting the 8-15 L for crop is not wise, neither is the 17-40 (since the 17-55 is more convenient). The 24-70 would give a good reach, but if you want reach you'd get a 24-105 (it gives IS too). If you're talking about primes, then I suppose you could say they'd go for Ls, but that's because you'd want to maximise your IQ, and any user would do so, regardless of crop or not.
I guess your observations and mine differ 
Anyway I'm not saying that 7D users only use L lenses, but that they tend to own L lenses as well, therefore no cost savings compared with owning the 5DM2 and M3.
You gotta read my post in the context it was written.
Anyway I'm not saying that 7D users only use L lenses, but that they tend to own L lenses as well, therefore no cost savings compared with owning the 5DM2 and M3.
You gotta read my post in the context it was written.
I guess your observations and mine differ
Anyway I'm not saying that 7D users only use L lenses, but that they tend to own L lenses as well, therefore no cost savings compared with owning the 5DM2 and M3.
You gotta read my post in the context it was written.
I partially agree with you regarding the owning of L lenses, but my point is that for the same coverage, 7D users would pick the good EF-S lenses instead of L, because, due the crop factor, there are no L lenses that cover the desired range. Take for e.g. a UWA lens. For FF users, they'd consider 16-35 king. But mount that on a 7D and that's not UWA really... that's just, wide. To get the same effective view, crop users will have to use the 10-22, which, like it or not, is much cheaper. Which is why I said that they'd only get L lenses for the longer end, which, most people would do anyway, since non L telezooms are quite terrible.
I would also like to add on what I mentioned on the first page:
The point I'm trying to make is that, regardless of owning L lenses or not, for the same effective coverage, crop users will inevitably spend less (whether they like it or not), because longer lenses tend to be more expensive, and thanks to some EF-S lenses being great quality, and cheaper at the same time, despite owning L lenses (or not), overall, it IS cheaper to own a crop sensor camera body compared to an FF.
I guess somewhere along the line, the point I was trying to make got convoluted.
I am not disputing the point that using an APS-C system (with the appropriate lenses) is likely to be cheaper than a FF system. In fact I am in agreement
We're sort of 'disputing' from 2 different viewpoints, so let's just leave it at that.
True, but a lot of the time the flash is just not high enough to avoid shadows caused by longer lenses, or not wide enough when used with a UWA.
