7D and 5DII sharpness

<p>having followed lots of debates on this forum over the last few weeks on 7D vs 5DII sharpness and noise i decided to make a few test shots. The shots are really not much use for seing noise as the subject rather masks the noise. All of the shots were taken on a Manfrotto 55 tripod using a remote release and with the same lens manually focussed. They are of a piece of a fireplace and should show detail resolution of the two cameras. The shots were taken in RAW and converted to 16 bit TIFF in DPP 3.7 with no noise reduction, sharpening are other tools applied. I will post crops in JPEG unsharpened to show what they look like. The lens used was the 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) zoom and on the 5DII was set to 200mm whereas the EXIF tells me it was 120mm on the 7D (i.e. about 192mm).<br>

here is the scene that the crops are taken from</p><div></div>

<p>Crop from 5DII at ISO 3200 8 bit JPEG from 16 bit TIFF no sharpening or noise reduction applied.</p><div></div>

<p>Shame shot from 7D</p><div></div>

<p>ISO 1600 from the 5DII</p><div></div>

<p>7D ISO 1600</p><div></div>

<p>Well the result has surprised me - the 5DII may capture slightly more detail but the 7D images look smoother. It is possible that my focus is slightly off on the 5DII so I will take another ISO 1600 shot.</p><div></div>

<p>Well it looks like my focus was slightly off on the 5DII (I have not micro adjusted the lens since I set it up almost a year ago - I guess it must change slightly over time. The last two crops show that the 5DII is sharper but not by as much as I expected. As my earlier crops of hockey shorts show the 7D is nosier. I am surprised how close the 7D gets at ISO 1600. As the last two crops show both cameras can resolve remarkable detail but the 5DII does a better job. Interestingly Canon must have a different approach to the image in the 7D as the 5DII images look a little bit grittier whereas the 7D images sacrifice detail but the smoothness of the image rather obscures the loss of detail.</p>

<p>My apologies to Angel as he is correct the 7D is closer than a subjective assessment led me to believe.</p>

<p>just to remind people these images are extreme crops (about 1.75% of the image is in the last crop). thus printed out they will be around five feet by 3'6"</p>

<p>*sigh*</p>

 

<p>Repeat after me: viewing 100% crops is the worst possible way to compare cameras. The only

truly valid way is to compare same-sized prints, each optimized for the particular camera (rather than

applying the same “recipe” to each RAW file). A close second is JPEGs re-sampled to

the same size, again with each tuned for the particular camera.</p>

 

<p>Anything else is pointless measurebation.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Repeat after me: viewing 100% crops is the worst possible way to compare cameras. The only truly valid way is to compare same-sized prints, each optimized for the particular camera (rather than applying the same “recipe” to each RAW file). A close second is JPEGs re-sampled to the same size, again with each tuned for the particular camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

I don't think you get it. Pixel level viewing of images is now more important than prints. Save a few old farts, hardly anybody prints anymore. I still do, but I'm a friggen OF. I'm guessing from your perspective you're an aging boomer and hopelessly "old skool" [sic]. The prefer medium of viewing is now the computer monitor and, like it or not, most young photogs crave their image up close 'n personal, nekid pixels in yo' face. Kickin' huh?

<p>Puppy,</p>

 

<p>I’m actually a Gen-Xer, but I suppose I <em>am</em> rather old skool…I recently

blew waaaaay too much money on an iPF8100 (and, yes, I saved up quite a while for it and paid

cash). I got the printer just before Halloween, and one of the first “real” prints I made

was of the attached photo (which I took Halloween morning). After seeing this at 36″ ×

24″, borderless, I knew I couldn’t possibly go back…</p>

 

<p>Anyway, If you get your kicks by scrolling around a 10″ window to look at a 5′

image, by all means — measurebate away!</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p><div></div>

<p>Well times really do not change. I became serious about photography in 1955 and have been avidly at it for all that time since. In the good old film days there were two kinds of articles in the photo magazines. There were those who tried to make the best prints they could by any means, as big and impressive as they could and there were those who loved to photograph high resolution test charts under laboratory conditions so they could post graphs of results from different lenses. Today the same interests prevail: fine print images and microscopic details of scientific technical comparison. May each proceed as they find meaning in what they do. Probably in the days of great oil painting some enjoyed creating meaningful images and others were concerned with paint brush materials and grinding of pigments.<br>

My regards to everyone,<br>

Jerry</p>

<p>Both the 7D and 5d2 are impressive cameras. My own quick comparison between the two reveals that my 5d2 does output slightly better IQ, but up to iso 1600, you cant really tell the difference from a 16x20 print. I cant. But compared to the others(50D and below) there really is a difference in all aspects and elements of a digital picture.</p>

<p>Ben I am not forcing you to look at the crops - you can come to Western canada and I will be happy to let you compare prints. Unfortunately I know of no way to let you look at prints on the internet and with cameras of this resolution i either link to massive files or post a crop. In previous posts i have commented that the 5DII out resolves the 7D significantly but this has been based on the method of lloking at printed output. Several posters agrred while others disagreed so I posted some crops. The crops demonstrate that the 5DII and 7D images have a different look but that the resolution gap may not be as big as I subjectively thought based on looking at prints.</p>

<p>On the subject of prints I repeatedly point out that I prefer the look of MF (especially 6x8) film - even scanned velvia printed digitally to the full digital process. In black and white I always prefer to do my own wet process. The reason I posted these images was that when I made subjective comments based on prints other people suggested that the gap was closer. I did the test partly for my own edification and discovered that they have a point. Does this mean that I will choose the 7D over the 5DII for portraits and landscapes etc... - certainly not. However, I may take the 7D out more than I was doing (I currently just use it for sports - ski racing and ice hockey).<br>

Printing creates a different image - when I compare pixel level images of a Fuji GX680 - Velvia shot scanned on a Nikon 9000 and the EOS 5DII they Fuji resolves slightly better and looks different. When i print (even a 13"x19" or similar size) print the 100 megapixel scan from the fuji prints with a different quality to the 21 MP 5DII. In theory you should not see a big difference but mopunted on the wall from 10 feet away the Fuji image exudes a sharpness and 3D quality that the DSLR cannot match - unfortunately this cannot be seen on the internet</p>

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>Why do you need to micro adjust AF if you are manually focusing?</p>

<p>I obviously do not but when I shot with the 5DII i must have inadvertently had the lens on AF so it was focusing slightly as I shot. I am not sure how I caught the switch as it is pretty small and stiff. The last 5DII shot was taken in MF - hence my micro adjust comment. I had not realized the 5DII shots were in AF as with the remote release you do not feel the lens focus and I di not have the beep on. When I checked the EXIF for the 5DII the shots were in AF not MF. It makes me look foolish but I assume as I held the lens to change bodies I caught the AF switch. Since the lens was mounted on the tripod (not the body) I held it to change body and did thsi quickly as I was trying to keep dust out of the bodies. rather a foolish mistake but this is why the first few 5DII crops look soft / OOF.</p>

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>Far from foolish, uncommonly honest was my thought, thanks for answering. I really do want to play with a 7D, I haven't even seen one yet.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>Why are you camparing the 5d2 with the aps-c sensor of the 7D? apples and oranges ppl. if you want to compare cameras in the same class the 5d2 with the 1d4 might make a better comparison. The 7D might be an 18mp camera (woohoo) but it is still not and can never be a full frame camera. even your cropped images can not be compared because the 7D already started with a 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor. The 7D is just nikons answer to the Nikon D300s </p>

<p>to all-me, i cannot be bothered to waste my time taking pics of test charts. or taking pics of anything, and examinimng them with 1000% magnification. either to me is time wasting, and takes away from the purpose of a camera:taking pics.</p>

<p>i would much rather be simply taking pictures.</p>

<p>Ditto about just taking pics. I did shoot a newspaper to test my 7D, which did need a repair. But it's fixe now and I haven't shot a test chart since. Just a few games, events, and some casual stuff. And while the images I shoot at ISO 6400 under bad lighting don't look great at pixel level, the prints the football parents get from the files make them very happy.<br>

Anyway, while I agree that the 5D II does generate a better looking image than the 7D under most conditions, the improved speed of the 7D allows me to capture football images that I would have missed with the 5D II.<br>

So there. ;-)</p>

<p>-</p>

<p>For me it is very simple. The bigger the capture either sensor or film, the better the IQ. However, I appreciate postings measuring and comparing pixel draw. This comparisons help me I believe, to make a better decision when my factors are close. Please keep on posting this kind of comparisons, even if they are oranges&apples. Strange, but sometimes comparing A and B helps decide between C and D. Just please remember that in the end, the print holds the naked truth. If you don't print, or never print big, why bother with pixel peeping? Any decent P&S is good 'nuf for the net.<br>

Best <br>

Eduardo</p><div></div>

<p>For me it is very simple. The bigger the capture either sensor or film, the better the IQ. However, I appreciate postings measuring and comparing pixel draw. This comparisons help me I believe, to make a better decision when my factors are close. Please keep on posting this kind of comparisons, even if they are oranges&apples. Strange, but sometimes comparing A and B helps decide between C and D. Just please remember that in the end, the print holds the naked truth. If you don't print, or never print big, why bother with pixel peeping? Any decent P&S is good 'nuf for the net.<br>

Best <br>

Eduardo</p>

<p>Why not get both? I eat with both a fork and a spoon. I use which ever utensil is best for the job. Although my mom makes Chili so chunky you can eat it with a fork. Point is I have several camera's film, Full Frame Digital, Fast Frame rate Digitals, Sony with night vision, 5D2 and a regual hand held HD video camera. I don't need to decide which camera is better than the next, I only have to decide which camera is best for a given situation. Just like I may change lenses, I may change camera bodies as well...</p>

<p>Because they are a damn sight more expensive than forks and spoons and some of us have to make our own chilli.</p>

<p>A few years ago there was much less choice, you went for film size, it didn't really matter what body or the manufacturer, that is why we bought into systems and the other stuff makers made for their systems was often what made your decision for you. But for your given format you had a one camera does all solution. I can understand people wanting features in one body that are in another and there is no reason why everybodies perfect body could not be made. But these companies are businesses.</p>

<p>Now we are forced to make harder choices, if you want the best AF, if you want to use your collection of EF-S lenses, if you want the best ultimate IQ. Even though we have more choice we are forced to make more compromises, or spend an awful lot of money. If you can write that off as a business expense then fine, if it is your hobby and you want to take stunning landscapes to print big and put on your wall and you want to take pictures of your kids playing ice hockey in badly illuminated stadiums that are in focus you have to choose which is more important and how much of a compromise it is in the areas that the other cameras are better at.</p>

<p>I find the vast majority of this debating and comparing process helpful.</p>