7D v. 5D II in Low Light

<p>Hi. I've followed the discussions and I'm familiar with the specs, and I have a quick question:</p>

<p>Which of the two would be better in common low light/high ISO situations, or does it matter? I've discovered that a lot of my shooting falls into that category.</p>

<p>Many thanks.</p>

 

<p>If you take focus out of the equation, the 5D II wins easily (~1.5 stop advantage in noise). </p>

<p>However, if we leave focus in the equation, things get a bit more difficult. For relatively still subjects with predictable patterns of movement (say people at a wedding), the 5D II still has the edge. However for moving subjects with less predictable patterns of movement (say wildlife), the 7D is going to have the edge thanks to its superior AF and more of your shots will be in focus... and this matters a whole lot more than ISO performance</p>

<p>Since you mention "common" situations, the 5D II is probably the best bet for you. However, if you were a wildlife shooter or a nighttime sports guy, I'd recommend the 7D. </p>

<p>I'd have the 7D any day - it's near as dammit as good as the 5D Mk II for noise (there's <em>nowhere near</em> a 1.5 stop difference - more like half a stop, which can be rendered utterly irrelevant with good conversion and PP decisions - <em>and</em> you don't get high ISO banding from the 7D); and in every other respect the 7D is far and away a better camera <em>unless</em> you need to go really wide.</p>

The minimalist version:

 

Up to 1600 the differences are negligable.

3200 is ok with the 5dii.

Higher is less good with both cams.

 

So... Do you habitually need 3200? 5dii.

Otherwise all other differences are more important.

 

M.

<p>Keith, mathematically I see about a stop and a half difference.</p>

<p>Now as for a subjective comparison, it really depends on print size and subject. My main problem with the 7D is that for compositions with a high dynamic range (i.e. black and white birds for me or a wedding party for most of us), the 7D is completely out of steam at 1600 while the 5D Mk II keeps chugging to 6400, giving it a 2 stop advantage. However, for compositions with a lower dynamic range, the two cameras are more equivalent provided the print size isn't enormous, and I find that when comparing subjectively, the advantage is on the order of about a stop, assuming 11x14ish size prints, with the advantage accruing to the 5D II as print sizes increasing and the advantage disappearing as print sizes decrease. At ISOs lower than 1600, there are no real-world difference unless you a printing very, very big.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that any PP you can do to render the 7D images as good as the 5D II can also be applied to the 5D II images to make them better than the 7D images.</p>

<p>Personally I love my 7D and I have no trouble driving the 7D to 3200 and making publication quality images so long as the overall dynamic range is low or I can control the lighting with adequate fill. However, if I was forced to deal with mainly high dynamic range compositions, I'd use the 5D II in a heartbeat. </p>

Low light? 5DII. Not even close. Speaking from experience...

I shoot with both the 7D and 5D2. Yes, for action and speed the 7D whips the 5D2 good. For most of my photography--

landscape, travel and macro--I reach for the 5D2 and AF is good enough and, in fact, rarely misses. My impression after

using both cameras for over 2 years is the 5D2 center point is slightly better than the 7D whereas its outer points are not

nearly as good. The 7D has adjustable AF tracking response and many other tweaks the 5D lacks. A moot point for

landscape but a big deal for sports.

 

For landscapes I find the blue channel of the 7D needs a lot of NR even at ISO 800 whereas the 5D2 is really clean and

needs little or no NR up to ISO 1600. Of course, if you don't shoot a lot of twilight skies the noisy blue may not be a big

deal. The image quality of the 5D2 is so good PP is fast and needs few tweaks. 7D RAW requires a lot of careful PP

(color and noise) looks great if you put in the time. Topaz Denoise 5 applied selectively to skies and low mids makes a huge difference in IQ.

<p>Thanks, guys. I was trying to convince myself to settle for a 7D because it would be so much cheaper for me to upgrade, but now I think I'll wait until I can swing a 5DII or its follow-on. </p>

<p>You'll be waiting a long time for its follow-on for either body and the 5D II prices are going to go up soon once the rebates expire. </p>

<p>The 7D is an outstanding camera and as long as you use good technique, it'll produce excellent images. I find that it's an awesome all-around camera that does an excellent job in every situation, provided I use it properly. There's no doubt that the 5DII is better in certain situations, but that's true for both cameras. We'll be adding a 5DII to our arsenal soon just to cover all of the gaps, but I feel confident using only my 7D for everything. Buying a 7D is certainly not "settling".</p>

<p><em>Thanks, guys. I was trying to convince myself to settle for a 7D because it would be so much cheaper for me to upgrade, but now I think I'll wait until I can swing a 5DII or its follow-on.</em></p>

<p>You haven't said what you already own, what specifically you want to shoot, or what you intend to do with what you shoot (i.e. display size), but a budget almost always calls for the 7D or 60D vs. the 5D2. The differences through 800 are virtually non-existent (i.e. a little extra post work to make equal 20x30 prints), and through 3200 are small indeed unless you're making large prints or, as Craig points out, really pushing DR by lifting shadows in post. If money is no object, by all means, pick up a 5D2 if it's slightly better for your needs. If you have to wait and save and hope, but you could pickup a 7D or an even cheaper 60D today, buy today and shoot some photos.</p>

<p>Don't forget that fast glass can easily eclipse sensor differences. You don't say what you have, but as an example let's say you have a typical zoom (f/3.5-f/5.6) and can afford the 5D2 or a 7D plus Sigma 30 f/1.4. Do I even need to say which one will do better in low light? A 60D will leave you spare cash for a couple fast primes. Just something to consider.</p>

<p><em>Also, keep in mind that any PP you can do to render the 7D images as good as the 5D II can also be applied to the 5D II images to make them better than the 7D images.</em></p>

<p>Not necessarily. Sharpness, contrast, saturation, and even NR are not unlimited goods. Past a certain point increasing them either goes too far and wrecks the image, or in the case of NR has no benefit even if you avoid excessive smoothing of detail.</p>

<p>NR at high ISO is one area where you could say that the 5D2 will always be one step ahead for a given level of processing, but whether or not it's noticeable depends on print size. The 5D2 will exhibit more fine detail at high ISO and, as you point out, greater DR at high ISO. Those are differences you can't really eliminate in post, though again whether or not they matter depends on subject matter and print size.</p>

Leaving the one, two or whatever stop differences between the two aside, as well as arguing the point of what is good

enough for each individuals uses, Daniel raises an interesting point about lenses. I wrote a comparison on equivalent

lenses for full frame and crop cameras and the results are surprising. Generally, because ff lenses can be slower to

achieve the same dof as crop camera lenses true equivalents are often cheaper for full frame cameras.

 

Here is the comment I made for the other thread,

 

"That is a totally spurious argument, if you are trying to talk equivalence, meaning getting exactly the same images, angle

of view and depth of field, from the same position by using different lenses on different formats, between systems you

can't compare the EF-s 17-55 f2.8 IS to the 16-35 f2.8 or the 24-70 f2.8 on FF.

 

The true FF equivalent to the EF-s 17-55 IS is the EF 24-105 f4 IS, f4 on full frame gives the same depth of field as f2.8

on a crop camera, 17-55 on 1.6 crop equals 27-88 on FF, a poor range compared to the 24-105. Both have IS, The 25-

105 is weather sealed. As for price, well the 17-55 is $1,120 the 24-105 is $999. Any way you look at it the 24-105 on FF

is a better buy than a 17-55 on a crop camera.

Not when you compare actual equivalent lenses.

10-22 on crop is 16-35 on FF, and it is a variable aperture, the 17-40 is the FF equivalent, giving a wider range, less

depth of field, constant aperture and again being cheaper. The EF-s is $820 the 17-40 is $797. What there isn't is a crop

camera equivalent of a 16-35 f2.8 on FF, it would need to be a constant aperture 10-22 f2.

It seems, and is a surprise to me, if you want a camera and good three zoom kit, apart from the body price and weight,

there is little to favour the crop camera route. Having said that for the vast majority of users a 7D is a more capable

camera than the 5D MkII."

<p>Incidentally, if you wanted a Sigma 30 mm f1.4 for your crop camera you would pay $490 ish, for the 5D MkII equivalent (well they don't make a 48 mm f2) the Canon 50 f1.4 at $340 is a fantastic lens and gives you an effective one stop aperture advantage.</p>

<p>Grated Daniels point was overall cost of lens and body, but once you have the body you will save money getting equivalent lenses for full frame. And with the dramatic price reductions on the 5D MkII at the moment the price differences have never been smaller.</p>

<p>Scott - low light/high ISO calls for light gathering ability. Dave would not be trying to match an arbitrary measure of shallow DoF. A more shallow DoF can actually work against you in low light situations. For example, you said:</p>

<p><em>Incidentally, if you wanted a Sigma 30 mm f1.4 for your crop camera you would pay $490 ish, for the 5D MkII equivalent (well they don't make a 48 mm f2) the Canon 50 f1.4 at $340 is a fantastic lens and gives you an effective one stop aperture advantage.</em></p>

<p>From a shallow DoF standpoint there's a slightly greater than 1 stop advantage to the 50mm on FF. From a light gathering standpoint the 50mm has no advantage. If the DoF is too shallow at the aperture you might use on crop, forcing you to stop down on FF in a low light situation, then the crop lens has a >1 stop light gathering advantage. I have to sometimes stop down shooting bands with crop and a fast prime, so a FF shooter would be stopping down even further and killing any sensor based high ISO advantage.</p>

<p>The "equivalent images" argument presumes that a) FF has ideal characteristics (i.e. FoV and DoF) and b) they must be matched exactly or crop "fails." Both presumptions are false. For many compositions, a (roughly) 1 stop difference in DoF and background blur doesn't matter much either way. When it does matter, more shallow DoF can work for or against you depending on the situation.</p>

<p>This isn't relevant to Dave's question, but it caught my eye: <em>What there isn't is a crop camera equivalent of a 16-35 f2.8 on FF, it would need to be a constant aperture 10-22 f2.</em></p>

<p>The rough equivalent is the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It doesn't have the same zoom range, but is at least as good in terms of IQ and light gathering ability. As for shallow DoF, nobody cares at those focal lengths. If anything you want more DoF and the crop lens gives you more light gathering ability for a given DoF.</p>

<p>I own the 7D and the 5D2. For night street photography I take the 5D2 and for wildlife, up to ISO 6400, I take the 7D. They're both good. If you're not cropping, the 5D2 is the handdown winner, but maybe an f/stop or a little more; however, the 7D yield more detail, particularly when cropped.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>" From a light gathering standpoint the 50mm has no advantage."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends on the low light situation, if you are talking about point light sources, night skies and star trails etc. then the 50 f 1.4 does have a light gathering advantage as absolute aperture opening size is more important than f stop. A 50 f1.4 at f1.4 is over one stop faster than a 30 f 1.4 at f1.4.</p>

<p>Your defense of crop camera additional dof is predictable but misguided. The crop camera is never "better", for want of a better word. If you want the dof of the crop camera stop the ff one down one stop and bump the iso up one stop, this gives you true equivalence, but if you do want the additional light gathering capabilities of the ff it is there to use. </p>

<p>My point about equivalence is not that FF is always ideal, I make no assumptions on that account, it is just a simple way of leveling a playing field. I use the same equation to make ff match a crop camera as to make a crop camera to match a ff one. They are both just tools to be used when appropriate.</p>

<p>As always I am not saying the 7D is not a great camera, it is, but like all cameras it has limits. If you are in a shooting situation where you are hitting those limits with a crop camera then a ff camera might get you a bit further.</p>

<p>I only wanted one body and I wanted the additional capabilities of the ff sensor for the occasions I need them. In truth i was disappointed when I used the 7D in comparison. YMMV.</p>

<p>Beyond the question of which camera and lens and in the interest of best outcomes: if a lot of one's shooting "falls short" in the High ISO range then it would be sensible to reckon into the equation how accurately the "best" exposure for the situation is being nailed each time, or not.<br />i.e. how good is the low light metering technique?<br>

<br />(I do neither assume inaccuracies nor poor technique) - Mine is merely a comment that, from my observation, many low light shots "fall short", because they are initially underexposed.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i dont have either.. but for what it's worth dxo mark ranks the 5Dii highest among tested canon bodies for low light iso performance, and the 7d tenth.. with iso indexes of 1815 and 854 respectively...</p>

<p>Tarek,</p>

<p>DxO is drivel.</p>

<p>Anybody with eyes in his head <strong>who has actually taken the time to figure out 7D and 5D Mk II files for themselves</strong>, knows that whatever DxO is telling us, it's nothng whatsoever to do with <em>Real World</em> image quality or noise performance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DxO is drivel</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I second that. It's so far removed from real world shooting that there is no point looking at their results.</p>

>>> Also, keep in mind that any PP you can do to render the 7D images as good as the 5D II can also be

applied to the 5D II images to make them better than the 7D images.

 

That's true and an excellent point. What I really like about my 5DII is the robust image files it produces. Because of that

I rarely spend more than a minute in post - even in low light capture situations - compared to other cameras I have used

where more routine screwing around is need to get best results.

 

But once in a great while, for some situations where additional improvement is needed, or exposure wasn't

nailed, particularly in low light high ISO situations (what the OP's post is all about), it's very easy to go deeper in

post and quickly produce photos with more quality. And even then, the additional effort required is minimal due to the

latitude of the files produced.

<p>I use the 7D and D700 for weddings. The advantage of the 5D2 I found to be about 1 stop. This was rendered invisible with minimal noise reduction in Lightroom. In other words, both will be fine....but the 5D2 is a bit better right out of the box. At 100% screen view, easily visible. On prints, pretty much invisible below 12x18. If you need 6400 on a regular basis, the 5D2 is for you. </p>

<p><em>You haven't said what you already own....</em></p>

<p>I have a 40D with an EF-S 17-55/f2.8 that I really like. It will fit on a 7D, but not on a 5DII, which is another reason upgrading to the 7D would be so much cheaper for me. I also have a 70-200/f4 which would fit on both.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a 40D with an EF-S 17-55/f2.8 that I really like. It will fit on a 7D, but not on a 5DII, <em>which is another reason </em><strong><em>upgrading</em></strong><em> to the 7D would be so much cheaper for me</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Re "upgrading" and the composition of the final kit:</p>

<p>If you do NOT intend keeping the 40D then, it would be assumed that the EF-S 17 to 55/2.8IS would also be sold if you bought for the 5DMkII.<br>

In this case, what? > maybe something like a 16-35 or 17-40?<br>

OTOH, if you DO intend keeping the 40D and you buy the 5DMkII then still it's still possible that a 16-35 (or a 17-40) is in the offing to facilitate wide on the 5DMkII.<br>

OR it could be that you do not want the extra wide on the 5DMkII then implied something like the 24-70/2.8<br>

My point of making this post, is that in either case, whilst buying a 5DMkII implies more cost for another lens (as well as the extra cost for the camera):</p>

<p>1. There is also an added compass of FL gained with the 16mm (or 17mm) on the 5DmkII than what you had on the 40D and the 17mm with it.</p>

<p>2. BUT - in either case of the 5DMkII: you CANNOT get IS across that wide and normal range of Focal Lengths and loosing IS might be more relevant to your Low Light work, than gaining the extra IQ at High ISO.</p>

<p>Perhaps all this has been already reckoned - but if not, it's there for thought now.</p>

<p>WW</p>