How much difference is there ISO performance wise between the 7D and 5d mark 2?

[steve_johnston9]

<p>How much difference is there ISO performance wise between the 7D and 5d mark 2?<br>

Theres some comparisions on the web but I know a lot of you wedding pros have real life experience of both. How much difference is there ISO performance wise between the 7D and 5d mark 2? Are we talking 1 stop difference here or two?<br>

I have heard that the 5d Mk2 is much more tolerant noise wise to underexposure. Can anyone comment on this? </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>It's not as simple as one stop or two because the gap is practically non existent at low ISO, but grows as the ISOs go higher.</p>

<p>ISO 100-800: no practical difference. The 7D has a bit more noise while pixel peeping but it's not an issue in print. I will sometimes apply a bit of NR (Noise Ninja with their 7D profiles) if the 7D file was underexposed or if there was heavy tonal manipulation in post (i.e. lifting shadow detail).</p>

<p>ISO 1600: 5D2 starts to show an advantage observable in larger prints. If you apply Noise Ninja then use Smart Sharpen to bring back some of the sharpness lost to NR, you end up with a 7D file which is pretty darn close to the 5D2 file in terms of noise and sharpness, but the 5D2 file has a touch more fine detail. You won't see the differences at, say, 8x10 or 11x14. They will be visible at 16x20, but the 7D print will still be very good.</p>

<p>ISO 3200: 5D2 widens the gap. Careful use of NR and sharpening can close the gap a bit, but in larger prints the 5D2 file will stand out as better (sharper, more fine detail, less noise). That said, the 7D is quite capable at this ISO, especially for portraits and wedding shots which simply do not present the fine detail challenge of, say, a large landscape print. To put it in perspective, I think ISO 3200 7D shots look as good as enlargements from 35mm portrait films at much lower ISOs (i.e. 160 and 400).</p>

<p>ISO 6400: 5D2 shows a large advantage here. You can eliminate a lot of the noise in the 7D file using NR, but the file doesn't have as much detail to begin with and the NR required eliminates more, so no matter what processing you do the 5D2 file just looks better. The 7D is usable at 6400 if you're making smaller prints (8x10, 11x14), but if you consistently need large prints at this ISO the 5D2 is clearly the winner. And the 5D2 file will look better even at the smaller sizes. It's at this point that there's a clear 1 stop or better difference. You have to back the 7D off to 3200 to get a file that looks as good as the 5D2 at 6400.</p>

<p>I haven't really used 12800 enough to comment.</p>

<p>As for underexposure tolerance: the 5D2 has a bit more DR, and FF is more tolerant of underexposure than crop in general. Having said that I am regularly impressed by how much shadow detail can be recovered in a 7D file using ACR. I do a lot of exposure blended landscapes and do some pretty heavy tonal manipulation at times. In normal use at a wedding you would have to grossly underexpose a 7D shot to make it unrecoverable.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>What Daniel said! My primary digital gear for wedding work is a Pentax K20D and Canon 7D. The 5D2 can be better than the 7D....but I pretty much never see it in print. Yes, their can be a DOF benefit....but rarely useful.</p>

<p>Where the difference will reside is in the 7D AF performance and speed. The AF module slaughters the 5D2. A higher rez photograph of something out of foucs isn't anything to shoot for.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>I borrowed a 7D to see what the performance was like. At base iso, despite others opinions and constant referencing seemingly irrelevant tests, with a decent crop and then print I could see a difference, above 400 iso the 7D was too noisy for me. Now that does not mean the 7D is unusable, it is not, it is a very very good camera, but it has a narrow niche, with low level light shots being more and more important I decided not to get one.</p>

<p>It really depends on your shooting style though, the choice is far more fundamental than iso performance. I could easily shoot weddings with a 7D, but choose the 5D MkII sensored cameras, for me they are better enough, for many, they are not.</p>

<p> </p>

[caleb_santos]

<p>I have both. I am not comfortable going over 1600 on the 7D. I will use 3200 on the 5Dmk2 in a heartbeat. So, yes, definitely 1 stop and then some. </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Steve - check out the following link: http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/amy_7t/</p>

<p>The two shots on the right are ISO 3200 shots. Granted they are very well lit and exposed shots of a subject with predominantly light tones. Still, they are gorgeous and would make 24" and even 30" prints with no further processing and no significant noise.</p>

<p>The ISO 3200 Imaging Resource test shot ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DhSLI03200_NR_2D.HTM ) is a better representation of what you can expect with an average, well exposed scene. Certainly more noise than the 5D mkII when pixel peeping. But try applying Noise Ninja with the 7D profiles (default settings except smoothness at 5 and no sharpening) then apply Smart Sharpen to taste. You'll end up with a comparable file that can make an excellent 13x19 and a good 16x24 print.</p>

<p>There are plenty of other samples on the web if you care to investigate yourself.</p>