would a EOS 2Ti be better than a 5D mark ii for photographing birds?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by ioan_sergiu_luculescu, Jun 29, 2010.

  1. I own a 5D Mark II and my longest lens is a Canon L 100-400mm. I need sometimes a longer lens and I wonder if my 100-400 mm on a EOS 2Ti would not be a better solution. I need auto focus and I cannot use an extender.
  2. Why can you not use an extender such as the Canon 1.4X TC?
    Is there some limitations with the 5D Mark II that makes use of the TC's incompatabile?
    I have the 100-400L and the 1.4X TC. Granted they work the best on my EOS3 film body, and I do not often use the extender on my 50D, but I have used it although I have to manual focus, it still performs well.
    Basically I think a "small sensor" body more desirable for bird photography, and I personally prefer the xxD's because of the feel in my hands. But then again, I have never owned a Rebel.
  3. I would say yes the T2i would be a better solution, because of the crop factor, 18mp v 21 mp. The 1.4 will work but auto focus will not work with the 1.4 x, it will work on a 1D body on single point, according to what some friends who own both pieces of equipment have told me.
  4. Certainly the T2i will put more pixels on the bird - about 50% more linear pixels, so if the 5D2 framed a bird 1,000 pixels high, with a T2i you'd frame it 1,500 pixels high. Not an insignificant difference. The 7D would do the same though, and if it's within your budget it's probably worth the extra money.
  5. Some argue that lens on a crop factor camera does not become magically longer, and it does not provide any magnification or reach.
    This is true for full frame 35mm sensor cameras that may also have a built-in crop factor mode, but not true for true smaller sensor cameras.
    The greater pixels density of the smaller sensor provides the extra magnification or reach. That is, the 400mm lens is always 400mm, but when mounted on a small sensor camera, the camera sensor density provides the magnification, so the lens and camera together behave like the much longer lens, longer by the crop factor ratio.
  6. I own a 7D (similar sensor to Ti2)and from my experience / opinion, my 5D has better image quality over the 7D, especially if noise reduction is left turned on on the 7D.
    The Ti2 will certainly get you a closer perspective.
  7. J. Harrington,
    No it won't. It will give you exactly the same perspective. Same lens, same place, different bodies, still equal the same perspective. Will looking through the 7D give you impression that the magnification is greater with a crop camera, yes. But the reproduction ratio (the size of the subject on the sensor) is exactly the same.
    Now the real question should be "Does the full image from a 2Ti give me more resolution and image information than a cropped image from a 5D MkII?". My experience has been that from same generation cameras the crop camera, even though it has more pixels, does not give you more information hence better images. Truth is only somebody with both cameras can test it for you and tell, but even if there is a difference it will be small either way and shouldn't be the highest priority for choosing a body.
    I have a week off in four weeks, I have a 7D and 1Ds MkIII and a 300mm, I am going to test them to see if my previous findings still hold up.
  8. I'm sorry Frank but greater pixel density does not create greater reach. Only the lens does that. A small sensor is simply
    enlarged more to make an 8 by 10.
  9. Scott, if you do those tests, please post the results.
    Leaving aside all the bs about crop factors and focal lengths, it's indisputable that - given a particular lens, particular subject, and particular distance to subject - a 7D can put more pixels on the subject than a 5D2 can. Whether the pixels are useful will depend on many things, including technique and the resolving power of the lens. But it seems insane to say it will never give more detail. It would mean, for example, that the 7D is never capable of actually resolving more than 8.2 megapixels - less than half the resolution it claims. I find that hard to believe.
  10. Alan,
    I will do the tests and I will post, I'll start a new thread with them though because I want to have enough time to redo things the way people would like to see them. ie different apertures, center crops, corner crops etc, whatever anybody would like to see I'll post.
    Many people don't find it hard to believe, they find it impossible to believe, but in previous generations it has been the case, technique, or lack of it has easily been able to level any "advantage" one might have over the other. But as a perfect example of pixels aren't everything, ponder this, my Canon G10 has a far higher pixel density than the 7D or 1Ds MkIII, it doesn't make more detailed images though, and that is not because of the lens. Diffraction is the P&S killer, it affects crop cameras way more than FF ones too.
  11. "I'm sorry Frank but greater pixel density does not create greater reach. Only the lens does that. " - you may not see any greater reach, depending on camera viewfinder optics.
    However, after you take the picture, the greater pixel density provides the magnification in the picture file, regardless if you enarge it or not.
    You do not have to "enlarged more to make an 8 by 10", since the enlargement is already embedded in the picture file, taken with the small sensor crop camera with greater pixel density.
    This is the major practical benefit of using crop sensor cameras for wildfile photography, where longer reach is benefitial, and lenses cost much less.
  12. Frank,
    The subject is reproduced exactly the same size in both cameras. The question is does the 2Ti's greater number of smaller pixels on the subject translate to an appreciable and practical real world improvement in image quality over the smaller number of larger pixels the 5D MkII has for the same copped area.
  13. The 7D would be a better choice with the superior AF and faster burst rate. For a similar price to a new 7D, a used 1D III is also a choice. Its only a 1.3x crop instead of 1.6x, but has the 1D pro AF with 45 AF points that can be clustered for better accuracy. It also shoots 10fps.
  14. Scott,
    For best quality is to use long lenses on full format cameras. This is usuaally very expensive, and the crop sensor camera provides economical solution, and stays as formidable contender to full frame cameras, at least for the application where long reach is needed. The difference in solutions could be a number of thousands of dollars.
    Perhaps the quality with crop camera could be sufficient? or not?, all depends, as there are too many variables for a single answer.
    If one can afford full sensor long lenses then this is the best quality solution.
    Otherwise the 1.6x cropped image from full frame 21 MP is far smaller (perhaps around 5 MP?) than the 18 MP from 2T1 or 7D image. Depending on ISO used and intended print size, the 2Ti and 7D seems to have clear economical advantage.
  15. if someone could post test results that would be awesome. i have a 1d iv, iii, and t2i...the t2i never gets used.
  16. Frank,
    Now you are talking about a different point. I well understand all this stuff. But this question is, and remains, "The question is does the 2Ti's greater number of smaller pixels on the subject translate to an appreciable and practical real world improvement in image quality over the smaller number of larger pixels the 5D MkII has for the same copped area.". Which gives you the better shot, and by how much?
    For instance, if somebody owned a 5D MkII and wanted to go birding and only had a 300mm lens, how much IQ difference is there if they got a 7D, or if they used a 1.4 TC on the 5D MkII and cropped, or if they just cropped their 5D MkII image anyway? Every-bodies automatic answer is the 7D will be much better, I don't believe this to be the case, better probably, but much better, I doubt, I think the differences will be slight and that technique would be a greater leveler, IQ wise. A real world example could be birds in flight hand held, just from an image quality standpoint the differences would be very small, however from a usability stand point the cameras are very different.
  17. I really look forward to the comparisons!
    There is a precedent in the DLSR world - Nikon's D3. There's a format switch on it where you can switch the camera into DX mode from FX. That same sensor in DX mode is 5 MP from 12.
    So, with the same MP density of the 7D, what would a FF sensor's MP be? 36MP?
    Like I said, the only real way to tell is to run tests.
  18. Why is this so hard to understand? It should not even be up for discussion, it is fact that the Rebel T2i will put more pixels on the subject than a 5D Mark II and it will have a ton more detail when you are focal length limited by your lens.
    Let's use the example of a wildlife photographer with a 5D Mark II, Rebel T2i, and a 400mm 5.6 Canon L lens. If he shoots the same subject at the same distance using that lens on both cameras, and then crops the 5D Mark II by 1.6 to equal the T2i reach, he will only have 8.2 megapixels left. And yes, you can absolutely see the difference between 8.2 and 18 megapixels of detail. If he wanted to approximately equal the detail of the T2i in the same situation, he would need to use the 600mm F4 L on the 5D mark II.
    In this same (focal length limited) situation, the Canon 1.6 crop cameras that only equal the 5D Mark II, are the 20D and 30D. All 3 will put the same number of pixels on the subject using the same lens.
  19. Why is this so hard to understand? It should not even be up for discussion, it is fact that the Rebel T2i will put more pixels on the subject than a 5D Mark II and it will have a ton more detail when you are focal length limited by your lens.​
    Not all pixels are created equal. The individual pixels on the T2i are smaller than those on the 5D II, and thus won't create as clean of an image. So the arguement that less 5D II pixels may create a better image than more T2i pixels holds water. In logic it sounds simple, but we're comparing apples and oranges here and its not as cut and dry as it sounds. That's why its so hard to understand.
  20. Thanks Nathan,
    Pat don't forget the example I gave earlier, my G10 has a far higher pixel density than any DSLR, but it can't resolve more detail. It is not just about pixel numbers, it is a far more complicated equation that includes how you shoot, how good the pixels are and many other factors.
    I don't believe the 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII's cropped image will be better than the 7D/2Ti's, but I don't believe there will be much in it, certainly not as much as most people would expect, and, what differences there are would be insignificant if bad technique were used.
  21. It is confusing but Ill wait for some sample photos, which should reveal more to us. I think however, in technical terms, resolution (number of bytes interpreting data, more is better and finer) is a big factor in electronics and the number of bytes in a file would make a difference. When the sensor for the T2i is seeing the image, the rendering of that image has more/finer details than the cropped 1.6 image from a 5D full frame.
  22. I did some very basic compares of my XTI and my 5DII. The 5DII was a little better when it was cropped to match the image size of the XTI. Since the XTI is 10mp, I'd think the 7D/T2I could be a little better. But, like Scott said, technique will be a much bigger influence on IQ.
    Now the 5DII with a teleconverter may be better. I'm thinking of buying one.
  23. Scott, I'm intrigued by your comment re: G10 (which I have as well). It has a zoom range of 6.1-30.5mm (FF FOV approx equivalent 28-140mm)
    Say we have a 5D mk II with 28mm lens and the G10 at approximately 28mm zoom. If we compare the 2 pictures you think the G10 might not outresolve the 5D mark II?
    The G10 has approx 4.6 crop factor. To get the the same angle of view from the 5D, we need to crop very heavily to get about 4.56 MP. While native resolution of the G10 is 14.7 MP.
    I know not all pixel are created equal but 14.7 vs 4.6 MP?
    I might have to test it myself too.
  24. A Novisto,
    That is not quite what I am saying, but I can make nice detailed 12x18 prints from my G10, I can make nice detailed 12x18 prints from my original 1D at 4.2mp, after that size they both need prodigious software help. I could make nice 20x30 print from my 1Ds MkII's 16.7mp, three times the area of the G10's 14.7mp 12x18's.
    You have the cameras, try it. It doesn't work out anything like the numbers say it should, I know I am not the only person to notice this.
  25. We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I don't want to offend anyone but for me this is not in question. I also understand and believe that not all pixels are created equal, but the T2i is no slouch, and certainly not far enough behind the 5D Mark II to forget about it's 10 megapixel advantage in focal length limited situations. I've tried to explain it the best way I know how, and for some who have not tried it I understand the need to see it with your own eyes. By all means try it for yourself. Just make sure you are in a focal length limited situation, otherwise none of this applies.
  26. Ioan,
    I think buying a T2i wouldn't be a good use of your money for the following reasons:
    1. There are very few commercially available lenses that will provide enough resolution to get the full benefit of the T2i's pixel density. I know of a few telephoto lenses that approach that level of quality- the 85 1.2L, the 100 macro 2.8 L, the 135 2.0L, the 300 2.8 L IS, the 70-200 2.8 L II, and perhaps one or two more exotic lenses like the 400 2.8 L or 600 4.0 L.
    2. The 100-400 L doesn't fit in this category. At its best aperture the resolution doesn't exceed the limitations of the 8.5 MP sensors of the 20D/30D generation of cameras. You can check this out on the photozone.de website or a few other online test sites if you are curious. Even the Canon EF 400 5.6 L doesn't seem to outresolve 8.5 MP on an 1.6 crop sensor.
    3. Images cropped from the 5D Mk II to match the 1.6 factor of the T2i or 7D will leave you with the equivalent of about 8.5 MP, which still yields very nice prints in the 20-30cm size.
    4. Your 5D Mk II at ISO 800 will have similar image quality to the T2i at ISO 400, so you can operate at your lens' best resolution by stopping the lens down to achive more sharpness, or have the advantage of a higher shutter speed for birds in flight.
    5. The autofocus performance and frame rates of the 7D are probably a big advantage if you shoot a lot of sports or wildlife, however the T2i has similar performance to the 5D in both frame rates and autofocus, so this wouldn't help you.
    6. The T2i might be a good backup body - however you could probably find a nice condition 20D or 30D with adequate resolution for your 100-400 with more features, better build quality, and a higher fps for less money.
    My advice would be to save your money and rent either the 400 2.8 L IS USM (and use it with the 1.4x L and 2.0x L teleconverters) or the 600 4.0 L IS when you need the reach. This will set you back about $300 a week, but it will be worth every penny if you need more than you can get from your current gear. Oh - and buy a sturdy monopod or tripod with gimbal mount to support the 5.5 kg of glass.
    Good luck with your selection.
  27. for me this is not in question. I also understand and believe that not all pixels are created equal​
    Obviously you don't understand or believe that all pixels are not created equal. If you did, you wouldn't be so closed minded about the debate. I'm not saying the T2i won't hold its own against a 5D crop or even be better, but you won't even consider the possibility of a lower MP image standing up to a higher MP image, even if they're taken on different cameras with different sensors.. You just assume that there is no question b/c the numbers are what they are. I guess under that logic, I should be using my nieces 12MP Kodak P&S instead of my 10MP Canon 40D because it would obviously produce better, sharper images. This is exactly why camera companies are having a huge MP race.
    I'm not trying to argue with everything you're saying, but I don't want someone to read this post that is actually trying to learn something to get the idea that MPs are the biggest factor in image quality and the only thing that matters in a camera.
  28. some pixels are more equal than others...
  29. We could stop this argument and say he should probably get the 7d.
    It's in the middle of the road budget wise.
    It has faster AF. Bird fly sometimes, so that might be handy.
    If you wanted to do a landscape or a portrait, I'd tell you to get a 5dii.
    If you considered affording a 5dii, then you shouldn't think about the T2i. The 7d is in budget, get that for birds. (or the 1d3)
  30. Faysal,
    Read the original post again Ioan already has a 5D MkII, his question was "I own a 5D Mark II and my longest lens is a Canon L 100-400mm. I need sometimes a longer lens and I wonder if my 100-400 mm on a EOS 2Ti would not be a better solution. I need auto focus and I cannot use an extender."
    Andrews summary is spot on, the 2Ti is unlikely to be a cost effective useful addition.
  31. some pixels are more equal than others...​
    Yes, they are, Hans. Get yourself a pumped-up, pixel-filled point-and-shoot and see what crowding pixels together in a small surface area really does to the signal-to-noise ratio.
    The real question is whether the added pixels with their noise will, upon down-sizing to make the noise less visible, actually give higher resolution at the same image size. There is no a priori answer to that. Surely someone can present some examples of bird shots with Rebel series cameras and long lenses to answer the question in a good practical kind of way.
    I suspect that lens quality might indeed be the deciding factor in many cases. If my cropped-sensor 50D is any indication, then, yes, I have gotten pretty good resolution when I have stuck it on a telescope to shoot the moon:
    Would I have gotten better results with my 5DII? Good question. Next month I will have to try and see.
  32. @Scott,
    Very right sir. I shouldn't read these posts at the end of a 18 hour shift!
    In that case, I will go and say, no need for the T2i and no need for the 7d.
  33. I would like to thank all of you for answering my question. I tried to be as short as possible when formulating the question but this was not a good idea.
    Let me add: my 5D Mark II with the 100-400 L lens gives excellent results. Birds being small and always on the move make the use of a tripod (recommended for birds in a recent article) impossible. The use of an extender would preclude autofocus (for this specific combination of camera/lens). More often than not I use 1000 ISO and the largest aperture (5.6) trying to have a 1/1000 exposure or shorter. I only use a single AF point to focus and aim at the bird's eye. I had no problems with noise or lack of sharpness but I do post process carefully in RAW and CS4. However, there are times when either the distance to or the small size of the subject calls for a longer lens as the resulting image needs to be cropped substantially (to retain the interesting part of it). My print size is SuperB.
    Buying a longer than 400 mm lens is a matter of money but also of weight and I would like to avoid. The cheapest solution seemed to me the 2Ti.
    After reading the replies I believe that only by testing the lens on the two bodies would give a complete answer.
    Am I wrong?
  34. would the bigger pixels of the 5DII or the more pixels of the T2i give a better image of a subject?
    This question could be answered easily by Canon and they could also claim that when the cameras came out. But Canon would never make such a claim because the answer, either way, may reduce the sale of either model. Maybe you should buy them both
    But according to arguments of many people here, I think you should consider options like the very low priced Kodak Easyshare Z980 with 12mp and 26-624mm zoom. Easy calculation shows that Kodak 12mp at 624mm can beat Canon 5DII 21mp at 400mm.... and the Kodak is a lot easier to carry around,
    I believe no one here have both the 5DII and the Z980, so we cannot know for sure which one is better. Why not support an American company Kodak?
  35. Easy calculation shows that Kodak 12mp at 624mm can beat Canon 5DII 21mp at 400mm....​
    John, has anyone found a way to quantify or calculate image quality? Resolution, yes; image quality, no. I see no way to make a judgment without actually seeing 100% crops from actual files shot by the cameras in question.
    With a sensor size of 6.13x 4.6, do you really think the Kodak is going to beat the 5DII?
  36. Even with resolution comparisons, there are problems with comparisons made a priori. Lenses may resolve better than sensors, and vice versa. There really is no alternative to actual test shots and visual comparisons of the results.
    Google "optical resolution" and see what you get. Here is one brief section of the Wikipedia article (which is not a bad article):
    A common problem among non-technicians is the use of the number of pixels on the detector to describe the resolution. If all sensors were the same size, this would be acceptable. Since they are not, the use of the number of pixels can be misleading. For example, a 2 megapixel camera of 20 micrometre square pixels will have worse resolution than a 1 megapixel camera with 8 micrometre pixels, all else being equal.​
  37. Ioan,
    Yes you are right, the only way you can tell for your use with your lenses is to test both bodies. The numbers game is irrelevant, this crop factor nonsense has gone on far too long. I can do test images, but not until 25/26 July. That is the first time I'll be off work with both cameras in a place I can repeat any tests anybody wants.
    To reiterate my opinion from earlier generations of cameras when comparing cropped sensor images to crops of larger sensors, there is very little difference in IQ. The cropped cameras do normally have a small edge, but nothing like most people assume and at a pixel peeping level that is only relevant if you use tripod, mirror lock up, remote release etc, certainly not in the hand held birds in flight type shooting situation.
    Take care, Scott.
  38. There really is no alternative to actual test shots and visual comparisons of the results.​
    Do you really need actual test shots to compare results from a 5DII and a Kodak Z980? Too bad, none of us here has both cameras and serious reviewers don't bother to do the tests. I just love to hear an answer from Canon to the original question to solve the problem once and for all.
  39. John, why are you posting references to a P&S from Kodak to a Canon EOS forum?
  40. Landrum Kelly [​IMG][​IMG], Jul 01, 2010; 01:56 p.m.
    John, why are you posting references to a P&S from Kodak to a Canon EOS forum?​
    Because I didn't remember any Canon camera that has such a long zoom and that is so cheap. I would have picked the G10 or G11 if they had such a long zoom. I just need an example of a dirt cheap and tiny sensor that can give a higher pixel count with a far away subject. Also, the challenge is no one ever has a chance to compare them or read a test report comparing them. That is a case that you can not reason with your eyes either. (I heard that a lot of people prefer the G11 over the G10 which has more pixels)
  41. John, this is getting increasingly off-topic and is more appropriate for the Point-and-Shoot forum, but let me try to finish the tangent that we have started. The real issue here is how much noise you are going to get as you reduce sensor sizes even below those of the cropped sensor DSLRs. The Kodak you mention is no doubt a good camera for what one pays for it, but it has an even smaller sensor than the G10 or G11. The signal to noise ratio is going to be miserable as one packs more and more pixels onto smaller and smaller surface areas. Interference occurs increasingly at such high pixel densities, and this interference is what digital noise is really about. Just because one can pack the pixels on there does not mean that the results are going to be usable for serious work.
    The three point-and-shoot cameras you have mentioned all have much smaller sensors than any DSLR made, way smaller than the 2Ti which the OP was comparing to the 5D II.
    Comparing any of the P&S cameras to his 5D II for serious birding just would not make any sense. I'm not saying that you will never get any usable bird pics with a P&S, but the odds are really not very good--even with a very long zoom. With the 2Ti, on the other hand, there is a real possibility that it can match or even beat the 5D II in terms of resolution at very long focal lengths. That is the kind of comparison that Scott is talking about in comparing the 7D to the 5D II--and that I was talking about in comparing my own 50D to my 5D II.
    I don't have a Rebel series DSLR at present, but they are really pretty good cameras. Comparing them to a full-frame DSLR would be an interesting test at long focal lengths. I don't think, however, that anyone would go to the trouble of making comparisons of a full-frame camera with a P&S for serious birding. It really would be no contest, sort of like putting a little league pitcher up against a MLB hitter.
    We don't have to run a test to see what would happen.
  42. We don't have to run a test to see what would happen​
    Exactly my point, the T2i and 7D and 50D are obviously inferior to the 5DII unless I hear Canon says something in reverse. Why? exactly your arguments above
  43. Most of us that own both the 5D2 and the 7D use the 7D for birds and other wildlife. The cropped images of the 5D2 vs the uncropped of the 7D are not the real issue, since they're very close. The 7Ds 100% viewfinder, showing a view closer to the final product and the resulting great ease of focus on a deer's eye or a bird in flight make crop-sensor camera's the ones to grab for birds and wildlife. The OP was asking about a lower quality camera than the 7D, so, the 5D2 cropped might be preferable for IQ, but the useability of the crop-sensor is hard to deny for this usage.
  44. My copy of the 100-400 clearly out-resolves the 10MP sensor on my old XTI. However, it does not out-resolve my 50D. Thus, there is going to be some *resolution* advantage in using the higher pixel density of the crop sensor T2i so long as 1) You could not change your framing by moving, 2) we are working at ISOs less than 800 where losses due to noise may begin to favor the 5Dii, and 3) the lens in question out-resolves the 5Dii.
    If these three constraints are met, the T2i images ipso facto have a *resolution* advantage over the 5Dii, regardless of whatever technical mumbo jumbo people come up with. Now of course, resolution hardly defines image quality as contrast, color, and dynamic range also matter, so this matter does require a test.
  45. Hi Landrum , nice :) we, my partner and I, used the 100-400 on 7d and it sucks. We also used it on the 5dmkII and we have a really great combo with that. Maybe other, more expensive lenses it will do the trick, i don't know. With 2Ti maybe different as well. Better first check by renting to see if you have your winning team.
    I see there are many different experiences, and the problem is they may be true. For me the bigger pixels indeed make a difference in less exposed areas, the darker parts or some underexposure.
  46. Thanks, Hans. When I see the problems I got into (that is, approaching the limits of resolution) with the 50D on the moon shots, I don't know if I was at the end of the resolving power of the sensor, or of the lens (in this case, the 80mm objective lens of a refracting telescope):
    I thought at the time that running up against the limits of resolution was a result of the lens (the telescope objective). Increasingly I wonder if it was in fact the limits of the sensor. (That is not to say that I was disappointed with the performance of the 50D. I think that it did pretty well.)
    I think that I will try a similar shot with the 5D II and see what I get.
  47. Scott it will be interesting to see you comps. I suspect it will be very close (a lot closer than many people think). I suspect that the 7D may marginally outperform the 1DsIII as I think that in similar situations my 7D slightly outperforms my 5DII. The real reason I use my 7D for birds in flight not my 5DII is the AF and frame rate - this is one area where the 7D beats the 5DII. If the 7D had the ability to perform as well as the 5DII at high ISO then it would be a clear winner - unfortunately the 7D somethimes has to be at very high ISO to get the shutter speed I need so in these circustances (early morning / evening) the 5DII is a better camera.
    In the case of the OPs question the t2I is unlikely to be of help as it lacks the AF and frame rate of the 7D.
    I look forward to your posts
  48. Thanks Philip,
    I'll definitely do them, and whilst I expect the results you suggest I slightly fear the comments it might receive should the test show that to be the case :)
    Take care, Scott.
  49. I know the OP was talking about the Canon T2I, but the 7D is similar (same pixel count and sensor size - APS-C).
    I was birding with a 7D & 400mm F5.6 lens. Now I am using a 5D mark II and the same 400mm F5.6 lens.
    Yes, the 7D did put more pixels (resolution) on the bird then the 5D II due to the pixel density of the 7D.
    At low ISO (100-200) the 7D produced some excellent images. But as ISO goes up the smaller pixels of the 7D start to show noise or a grainy look. The 5D II maintains a cleaner image as ISO is increased.
    I get bird images from the 5D mark II that have fewer pixels but are cleaner for noise or grain. As ISO is increased the difference favors the 5D II even more.
    I am not bashing the 7D. It is a good camera, but like all APS-C cameras the smaller sensor has its limitations. It simply does not produce as clean of images as the 5D mark II.
  50. With the same lens, the 7D and the 5D2 put about the same pixels on the subject (once you crop the 5D2 to the same perspective. To take advantage of the 5D2's great pixels on the sensor "advantage" you have to use a longer lens. If you put that same lens on the 7D, then the advantage goes away once again.
    I own both the 7D and the 5D2 and use the 7D almost exclusively for birds and wildlife because what I see in the viewfinder is closer to I want in the final image and a 500mm f/4L IS was about all the lens that I could afford and want to carry.
    For subjects, like landscapes, where you don't crop much in post, the 5D2 is superior to the 7D and it's pretty easy to see at 100%. They're two different tools for two different jobs; however, just one will cover the other's terriotory pretty well, with the right lenses.
  51. All these last answers (for which I am grateful) are interesting but do not fully relate to my original question.
    I know how good 5d II is (I have one). I cannot afford a longer lens and its weight and the EOS 2Ti with my 100-400 mm lens seemed to me an inexpensive alternative.
    As previously mentioned I will rent a 2Ti (it will be delivered on July 15th) and test the combination (two cameras/same lens). I do not doubt the 2Ti will have more noise but maybe I can handle this in postprocessing.
  52. Ioan, I believe that David, above, answered your question as the T2i as the 7D have the same number of pixels.
  53. For anybody still interested.

Share This Page