Which set up is better?

Wonder which of the two set ups would give better overall results under similar low light conditions (going up to

ISO 6400 not a problem and centre/ corner sharpness not an issue): 5D with Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 SP Di USD VC or

7D with Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS? Thanks!

<p>Here is a comparison someone did:<br>

<a href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1119348">http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1119348</a></p>

Thanks but I'm looking for the specific and specified set ups!

<p>Maybe you can compare the performace based on this<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff?start=2</p>

 

<p>The 5D only goes to ISO 1600 (3200 with expansion enabled).</p>

<p>Define "better" in "better overall results" since sharpness isn't an issue.</p>

Not sure what you are asking. The 5D (as Bob points out) does not go to ISO 6400 and the 7D is in my opinion pretty

terrible at this ISO. Since sharpness and extreme ISO are not issues what are you looking for us to answer. If you want

ISO 6400 shots that are not very sharp then the 7D is your only choice from these two. Perhaps explaining what you are

trying to shoot would be a good idea

<p>7D by default. Otherwise, look at a newer DSLR.</p>

<p>7D, easily.</p>

<p>The 7D's "terrible" <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Lr-2047_6400.jpg">6400 ISO</a>.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Lr-2379_NR_900.jpg">And again</a>.</p>

<p>"Only" <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/_sigma/front_focus_test_2.jpg">5000 ISO</a> this time.</p>

<p>(The Exif's in all of them - they're all low light).</p>

By 'sharpness', I meant this debate about sharpness at the centre V corners! I would be quite contented with the sharpness at the centre

<p>This is a hopelessly vague. At ISO 6400 on the 7D, the noise completely sucks any 'sharpness' out of the image, at the edges and elsewhere. To get rid of the noise, your NR softens it up considerably. Keith's examples serve to illustrate this, as he's had to downrez the file so much to get rid of the noise that it's a pretty meaningless evaluative tool - though it looks reasonably acceptable at that resolution - fine for the web.</p>

<p>Of course a 5D doesn't function at ISO6400, but at ISO 3200, it's not<em> too</em> bad. The narrower DOF in this case is probably a bad thing.</p>

<p>So maybe if you explain what you are doing, we could help you more. If you are simply putting images online, then a 7D even @6400 will likely be perfectly adequate (as Keith's example shows). <br>

But there is no 'debate' since your criteria eliminate one of the contestants. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Keith's examples serve to illustrate this, as he's had to downrez the file so much to get rid of the noise that it's a pretty meaningless evaluative tool</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Some assumption, Marcus - and wrong too.</p>

What I was trying to find was that should I go for Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC to use on my 5D or 5DII for indoors low light work or buy 7D to use with my brilliant 17-55 f2.8 IS - in both cases IS is very desirable!

<blockquote>

<p>What I was trying to find</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As if it was our fault: You never mentioned "5DII" in your posting<strong>! !</strong> Obviously, go with the Tamron for your 5DII.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some assumption, Marcus - and wrong too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some assumption, yes, but also <em>obviously</em> a CORRECT ones. - Unless the 7D has a native output of 0.68 MP? (671 x 1024 is the resolution of the first linked file), or 0.58 MP (600x900 - #2), or 1.08 MP (1200x800 - #3)? - For some reason I had the impression the 7D's sensor has an effective resolution of 18-20 TIMES those sizes - somewhere around 18 MP(?) Clearly Keith,<strong> <em>I</em></strong> <em>must</em> be wrong, it apparently is a 1.1 MP sensor That has an sRAW1 & sRAW2 of .58 MP and .68 MP. *rolling eyes* please... tell me again you didn't downrez those images? Or maybe you have a 'special' 7D? I <em>did</em> also assume you were using the same 7D body everybody else in world is.</p>

<p>As we all know, downrezzing is an insanely effective way to hide image noise - which is why web and screen displayed images are so much less demanding in regards to noise. And It happens regardless of whether you want it to or not.<br>

As we all know, JPEGs shot in 'modern' DSLR cameras <em>by default</em> all have some NR applied - before it is even written to the card. <br>

And of course, we are all familiar with using a 'bump-right' exposure to help minimize shadow noise (+.3 the first time).</p>

<p>I didn't assume you 'cheated' by over exposing, or by using excessive NR (which would then be hidden by downrezzing), but simply pointed out that these images are downrezzed -which effectively hides <em>copious</em> amounts of noise. The images look decent - at their current resolution- , but there is still considerable noise <strong>visible</strong> - <em>even after</em> all that. Straight out of the camera I suspect they were mighty ugly (though feel free to <em>provide evidence </em>I am wrong!).</p>

I don't want to turn this into a 7D vs 5D II debate (I do have both body's) but from my perspective I find the 7D good a ISO

800, and acceptable (with care) at ISO1600. It is possible to use ISO3200 although I personally find the noise quite bad

here so you must be absolutely accurate with the exposure and will lose some detail when you remove the noise. From a

personal perspective I would never use ISO6400 on this body in any normal circumstance. I find that differ people will

accept different levels of image issues (distortion, softness, noise etc...)