5DII vs. 7D test, part 1

Why does that kid have green hair in the back? Just curious...

<p>Based on the DXO info the best camera for me (by unprocessed RAWs) is the D30. If I want more resolution then the next best is the 5D. If I want decent AF then the next best is the 1DII.<br>

I have fallen out of love with my 7d. Not because of anything its done. But because an internet thread told me to.<br>

The brillinatly sharp nature and sports pics it was taking mean nothing anymore. The D30 has less noise. The 5D (mk1) is less prone to T-stop light loss (one difference between movie cams and stills cams - handheld metering vs TTL- doh!)<br>

All I've got to do now is find a D30/1Dmk2 with a decent screen that hasn't been hammered (there goes the 1DII) or is made of plastic (there goes the D30) and has decent AF (there goes the 5D and the 5DII)<br>

Where was I?<br>

Oh thats right. I hate my 7D. </p>

<p>Don't worry too much Paul, that silly LL and DxO bit of rubbish has been fairly comprehensively debunked and shown to be the complete nonsense that it is. Just goes to show, you can make statistics say anything.</p>

<p>To illustrate that point I once sat through an aeronautics lecture that proved, totally convincingly and with very great accuracy and detail, that it was impossible for a bumble bee to fly. It was done to show us the importance of testing, however, it is a good job bumble bees don't go to aeronautics lectures :-)</p>

<p>Brad, I wonder if its green hair spray dye that made the boys hair green or maybe he has been messing with his mums food dye.</p>

<p>It is green hair spray. This was a fad this year in youth soccer in our area.</p>

<p>Thank you for taking the time to do the test and post the results. Has anyone seen any test on prototype Sigma SD 1 camera to be released early 2011<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Paul, are you serious? Or are you pulling our legs.<br>

The 7D is a fine camera. Too much pixel peeping is being done...too much photoshopping and corrections going on.<br>

I have a pro customer who has a number of brands in his bag and he tries to stay neutral. He seems to put a good slant on all this technical stuff. He prints his images with the minimum of post processing and says this: There will always be technical differences between the results obtained. But print off an image in A4 and ask yourself these questions:<br>

1. Good focus and sharpness?<br>

2. Faithful colour reproduction?<br>

3. Nice, interesting composition?<br>

4. Would I hang on my wall?<br>

Do that with the 7D and be satisfied. Sure, you might get better results with a different model or brand of camera. The 5D2 renders images beautifully...but for what you are doing, will you notice the difference "up on the wall". There is far more to consider than just dots under a magnifying glass.<br>

Of all the brands out there, you have to start spending really serious money including lenses, to get the kinds of technical results you hope for. This dissatisfaction is common to younger people who never lived with film, where the rendition of artifacts in a shot was usually only dependent on the lens and choice of film.<br>

The other thing is this, and I do feel that its sometimes a factor. Camera companies now are also software companies, and as the camera software evolves via upgrades, sometimes we are not told about subtle changes that these companies make to improve image quality. They usually only tell you about tweaking extra features. This is a factor as well.<br>

Buying and being satisfied for 2-3 years with your purchase is one of the big challenges facing the DSLR buyer. But thats the way it is. Getting yourself all wound up and worried is no place to be.</p>