rattydaddy Loc: Harrisburg, NC

I need some feedback. I currently use a Canon 7d and really like it but its getting old. I was waiting to get get a 7D Mark iii, but no such luck. Right now alot of folks have the 5D Mark IV on sale for $1999.00. Here is my question. The Canon 90D is the replacement for the 7D Mark ii. Anybody have dealings with the 5d IV and 90D or the 7D ii. I know that there are 3 totally different price points. Just looking for different view points than my own.

Thanks & Merry Christmas.

I will add that I shoot about everthing, Sports, Wildlife, Landscape, Street.

whitehall Loc: Canada

I am a faily advanced photographer and I have the 5dmkiv , 7d mkii and 80D. The 5d is used for landscape with the wholly trinity lenses, the 7d for wildlife with a 150-600 Tamron and the 80D for tourist type photography with a 18-200 and 70-300 lens. I hope this helps

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You didn't tell us about your shooting needs nor your lenses. If you shoot wildlife / sports with longer Canon L lenses, you'll give up the crop factor of the 7D / 90D, while obtaining higher 1-to-1 quality images of the full 30MP full-frame 5DIV sensor, with the potential need for much more cropping. If you have a majority of EF-S lenses, you'll have a full-frame body of little use until you invest more money on FF lenses.

The 90D is a high-quality model and logical replacement to your original 7D that doesn't generate potential follow-on issues for full-frame lenses. The 7DII gives you a heavy, water-resistant, high FPS-rate body, with an image sensor the industry has passed on by now in late 2019.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I have a Canon 7D Mark II, and while the 90D betters it in some significant ways, it is not really a replacement for it. The 7D Mark II has a significantly better build, 2 card slots, 65 focal points and a number of professional level features and controls not present in the 90D. However, since there's little likelihood there will be a 7D Mark III, the 90D may be the better Canon upgrade choice if you still want a crop camera with their latest sensor.

The 5D Mark 4 is a much better camera then the 90D in many ways. Besides being a professional level camera it's also a full frame camera which is why it's significantly more expensive than the 90D. If it were me, and if I had the money, I would go for the 5D Mark IV myself, but, the 90D is still a very fine camera, and would be a very major upgrade in most respects to your original 7D. What lenses you have, and what you shoot will be important determinants of which body to buy.

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

I have used the 7d2 and 5d4 extensively for bird photography. You are right-different cameras. While the controls and menus are very similar, which minimizes the difficulty in switching if you use both, the results of the cameras are different. The 7d2 is a crop camera, which has the effect of magnifying a small subject compared to the full frame 5d4. In my hands, the detail and IQ gathered by the 5d4 is much better than the 7d2. If I can get close to my subjects, I would much rather have the 5d4 in my hands.
You will often hear about better low light performance with the full frame camera, but I think that is overrated. Here is a link to Glen Bartley's observations in the real world (not lab testing) concerning that.
http://www.glennbartley.com/Canon5DmarkIVSetupReviewandSettings.html

I think a lot would depend on the type of photography that you do. Right now you can buy a low shutter count 7d2 for about $800. The 5d4, at $2000, is 2.5x more expensive.

James Van Ells

I have both cameras in my kit and use them both for wildlife and birding. I was at this same decision point several years ago and chose the 5DIV. I have never looked back and while I have taken both bodies to AK on shoots, the 5DIV with the larger sensor wins on landscapes and birds. I am selling my 7DII to get my wife a Canon mirrorless camera.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I had a 7DII. After I got a 5DIV the 7DII sat on the shelf until I finally sold it. Looking at a quick comparison of all three I think the 90D would be your better choice if you shoot wildlife or action sports regularily. The 90D has a much higher frame rate, a newer processor and higher pixel density. The 90D is not built as robustly as the other two, but, it is still a very durable camera. The conditions and treatment that would set the other two apart are rarely encountered by the average photographer. The 5DIV has better low light performance which is why I started using it for basketball games instead of the 7DII. With a 70-200 f/2.8 lens I didn't have to do much cropping so pixel density wasn't an issue. Even at auto races I came to prefer the 5DIV, but that's just me. Many people prefer a crop sensor for sports and wildlife. Plus, if you have any EF-s lenses they will work on the 90D but not the 5DIV.
A lot of it depends on what you shoot. The 5DIV is excellent in just about every area but the 7DII and 90D do have an advantage in some capabilities. I started with a T3i, 70D, 6D, 7DII and then a 5DIV, which was my favorite of all of them. Excellent image quality and low light performance. Will auto-focus at f/8 so my EF 100-400 L II had full auto-focus with a 1.4x extender, something none of the others could do. It was my favorite right until I sold it. Yup, sold that one too, along with most of my EF lenses. Bought an EOS R and a bunch of RF lenses. Which brings up another point. If you think full frame is how you want to go take a look at the EOS RP. With the adapter you can use every lens you currently have plus the excellent RF lenses. It's quite reasonably priced and very capable.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

The 90D is not the replacement for the 7D M II (Canon does not have one), it "replaces" the 80D!

BebuLamar

I think the 5DmkIV is a good choice. People bought them for over $3000.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

Excepting the comment on low light, I agree with the above. I've had material issues with crop frame cameras in low light situations that do not occur with full frame cameras of otherwise similar age and specifications

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

I sold my 7D Mk2, very good camera, BUT so much happier with the 6D Mk2. Spent 2 years with the 7D and now two years with 6D, to me comparison in ease of use and quality is really there for the 6D Mk2.
Realize many poopoo 6D Mk2, but really great camera, best I've had and that's going back 50 years of photography....

ggab Loc: ?

I upgraded from my 7D to 7D II, however I use them exclusively for sports and wildlife. The menus and controls are literally identical.
I am not concerned about a higher resolution sensor, the 7D II is a great sports/action camera.

The fact that you shoot street and landscape as well suggest you need two cameras.
How happy were you with your 7D shooting landscape and street shots? If you were, get the 7D II. It's price point is reduced and it will be very familiar to you.
Then sell your 7D and get a 6DII either refurb or used. Don't discount that product, it is a very capable Full Frame Camera.

Good luck.

Just a different perspective. There is no need to ever be cutting/leading edge as an amature.

HTG

Hi. Here in Israel the mk 4 is VERY popular by wedding photographers. I think it's a worthy opinion because we do during one event studio pics, outdoor ceremony and the party. So we use it for multi purples photography.
It's popular because of a good balance between fair price and stability and performance. And... it is FF . It also uses 2 card simultaneously.very important !! Mark 4 (!!!) Wasn't born for no reason...

ggab Loc: ?

The EOS 7D Mark II focus's at f/8, at least mine does.

larryhav Loc: Charlotte, NC

I purchased the 5D Mk IV when it first came out about 3 years ago. I attached a couple of photos from my trip to the Pantanal in Brazil. The Jaguar was shot from a small 8 passenger motor boat. The Jaguar was about 150 yards from the boat. It was shot at ISO 5,000, f/11, 1/2,500 at 400mm. The River Otters were also shot from a moving boat about 100 yards away. They were shot at ISO 6,400, f/6.3, 1/1,250 at 400mm. Both were heavily cropped to make them appear closer than they actually were. I am not a professional photographer and only a novice with Photoshop and Lightroom. I am sure they could have been processed better but for my use, I thought they came out pretty good considering how far away I was from the subjects. I don't have experience with the other Canon bodies you mentioned so just trying to give you some results from a relatively inexperienced photographer with the 5D Mark IV camera using the Canon 100 - 400mm II lens.

(Download)


(Download)