7D vs. 5DmkII

[nathangardner]

<p><a href="../search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=7D+vs+5D+II+inurl%3A%2Fcanon-eos-digital-camera-forum%2F&qx=7D+vs+5D+II&sa=Search+This+Forum#1610">http://www.photo.net/search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=7D+vs+5D+II+inurl%3A%2Fcanon-eos-digital-camera-forum%2F&qx=7D+vs+5D+II&sa=Search+This+Forum#1610</a></p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<blockquote>

<p>I always get a chuckle at the "obviously the 5D2...it's a no-brainer" comments.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, I have to disagree with you, from my experience a crop camera does not produce as good a quality image as a FF, I have gone the Gamut of 20,30,40D, 5D and now with the 5D2 and good glass, I am very happy, much happier than when I shot film and the overall quality of an image from the 5D2 as compared to a 7D is better and I believe pretty much undisputed amongst reviewers of these cameras. Not saying the 7D is bad, just that the IQ edge goes to the 5D2 and you have better wide angle options, like the 24 t/s lens which is really not very wide on a 7D and its edge sharpness is great.</p>

<p>Ross</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Feel free to disagree Ross. When I made print samples, even those who were rabidly full frame supporters, couldn't tell the difference in print. The problem is, believe it or not, most people on forums compare only 100% pixel views. Any differences there just vanish in print. I may be old fashioned, but I use a camera for prints....not for 100% screen tests.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Speaking in terms of the D700 and the D300s (I'm a Nikon shooter), I can tell you that it really comes down to ISO, print size, and focal length. If you regularly shoot at high ISOs, or you regularly make prints over 8x10, then the full frame sensor is worth the extra money. If you don't do either of those often (if you mostly shot school sports for instance), then the extra reach and lower cost of the 7D actually make it a better camera, even objectively.</p>

<p>I've taken gorgeous and crappy shots with both the D300s and the D700. Even though the full frame sensor might be strictly better, I can tell you than unless you're printing big or using high ISOs, your clients won't be able to tell. And if you're fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to regularly have clients than can see the difference, then you ought to be buying a 1DS or even a Mamiya anyway.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>I also print Dave, using an IPF 6100 and still prefer FF, thing is, printing may not be around forever with e-paper soon to replace those framed prints, technology marches on.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Dave Luttmann is correct. I am convinced that those who disagree have either a) never once performed this test, or b) have performed it using the exact same settings they would use on a FF camera. Crop, including the 7D, admittedly needs a bit more local contrast enhancement and sharpening, and the 7D in particular benefits significantly from RAW processing in ACR instead of DPP. Even with optimum processing you might still see tiny differences in noise and detail which favor the 5D2 at 100% screen views. Those differences do not make it to print. Therefore they aren't worth getting hung up over and are certainly not worth $1,000.</p>

<p>Dave and I aren't the only people to come to this conclusion. Amateur Photographer came to the same conclusion in their March 6, 2010 article comparing crop and FF cameras. They saw no difference between large prints from both cameras.</p>

<p>The repeated advice to mate the 5D2 to the 17-40L is particularly troubling as this combination cannot touch the 7D + Tokina 11-16. Why spend $1,000 more hoping for ultimate image quality only to end up with softer corners and edges than you would have gotten with the lower cost combo? To mach the 7D + Tokina combo you need to pick up the 16-35 f/2.8L II, which increases the price difference even more.</p>

<p>Unless you regularly make larger prints from high ISO images and/or use certain specific lenses which really benefit from a 35mm sensor (i.e. fast wide primes and T/S lenses), the 7D is the better camera and the better buy.</p>

<p>While I'm at it, I consider the 85 f/1.2L to be bad advice as well. It's a great lens. But unless you absolutely need that last stop of light or that razor thin (think one eyelash) DoF, the 85 f/1.8 is the better choice. It's much cheaper, lighter, faster focusing, with the same bokeh qualities and darn near equal IQ. (The L is better wide open, but not by a huge margin. The non-L is very good and easily usable wide open in its own right.) The L version is a specialty lens. If you don't already know for certain that you need it, you don't need it. If the Sigma 85 f/1.4 offers performance similar to its 50 f/1.4 cousin, than that's another good, lower cost option. (I haven't used the Sigma 85 yet, but the Sigma 50 is excellent so long as you get one without focusing issues.)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Ross - <em>the overall quality of an image from the 5D2 as compared to a 7D is better and I believe pretty much undisputed amongst reviewers of these cameras.</em></p>

<p>I have yet to see a professional reviewer come to this conclusion based on prints. I have, however, seen the opposite:</p>

<p><em>When A2 (42x59.4cm) prints are required, the resolution of the EOS 5D Mark II's images must be dropped to 240ppi, while those from the EOS 7D must be printed at around 223ppi. <strong>At lower sensitivities it is impossible to distinguish between images from the two cameras when they are enlarged in this way.</strong></em> - APS-C vs full frame, Amateur Photographer, March 6, 2010 edition. (Emphasis mine.)</p>

<p>I found the same exact thing in my tests.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Agreed Daniel. That is pretty much how I see it. I considered the 5D2 for a while, but when I looked at the results on print....where it matters....it made no sense. I agree that if you like to print 24x36 at iso 6400, then yes, you'll get a slight advantage on the 5D2.</p>

<p>The funny thing though for me, I've been using the 7D in wedding receptions at 6400 iso. In Lightroom, the NR is so advanced at maintaining detail, the I get clean 8x10, and very, very good 11x14 prints for albums.</p>

<p>The part I find odd though, is how the same incorrect information gets repeated....despite the test being so simple to perform. Like I said, I had photographers that would have bet their left arm that the 5D2 would cream a crop sensor....only to find on a 16x24 print that they were struggling to see differences. I find if they can, it's because the person who made the print applied the same global settings on the crop body as the FF....when the crop body will need a bit more sharpening....and used DPP to convert the raw.</p>

<p>On a 16x24, it's a difference between a 234ppi print and a 216ppi print....it doesn't show, no matter how much pixie dust you sprinkle on them ;-)</p>

[w_t1]

<p>http://tinyurl.com/3ac38eb</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I can only say that I own both and that the 7D IQ even at low ISO is not as good as the 5DII. In theory the 7D has better metering but in the real world there is little to choose between them. Both cameras need good glass and the 17-40 is not a great lens on full frame. so the suggestion that the 11-16 Tokina (which I do not own and have not used) may be as good and cheaper may well be true. The real issue on 5DII vs 7D image quality is what are you prepared to accept. By any objective standards the 7D produces very good images. However, the 5DII clearly produces better images. I am unsure why this is so contraversial (or indeed if the people who object to this actually use both systems!). The simple fact is that the 5DII and it's lenses costs significantly more than the 7D but lacks the high frame rate and faster AF. If the 5DII did not take better shots I suspect that it would not sell as well as it does.<br>

I actually think that it is hard to compare these two cameras - for most purposes the 5DII is the better camera. For specific applications e.g. sport the 7D is the better bet. One thing that I would suggest is that the 24-70 is not a great lens on the 7D. I rarely use my 24-70 on my 7D but it gets used a lot of the 5DII. My 7D is basically used with my 16-35 II and my 70-200 lenses (I have the F4 LIS and the F2.8 non IS)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Philip - <em>However, the 5DII clearly produces better images.</em></p>

<p>Photo.net won't allow uploads of images produced by other people, even crops of test images published on the web. But I don't think they care if a link to an off site photo is posted. So...</p>

<p>Can you please look at the link below and tell me, without going to the original test sites and looking for telltale clues like minor exposure or magnification differences or glare, which crops come from which camera? Since this is a 100% screen view and since the 5DII clearly produces better images it should be a cinch.</p>

<p>Can you print that link at 187 ppi (20x30" equivalent) and see if anyone else can tell you which came from which? How about 234 ppi (16x24" equivalent)?</p>

<p>https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bz1sfHfXHVDCNWM0NjAyNGEtZDI5Zi00MTZhLThmNWItMjI3YmI5NmJmYTMx&hl=en</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Good link Daniel. It should be an eye opener for the people who haven't actually compared, but are convinced that on is still better over the other on print.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>However, the 5DII clearly produces better images. I am unsure why this is so controversial</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not "controversial", but saying it doesn't make it so.</p>

<p>As Daniel and David have amply indicated, the <em>evidence</em> out there supports their position extremely robustly; whereas, aside from a lot of folk <em>saying</em> that the 5D Mk II has better IQ, there seems to be very little actual proof that this is the case.</p>

<p>So no: not "controversial", <em>disputed</em>: and not supported by the actual evidence that exists.</p>

[ilya_e]

<blockquote>

<p>As Daniel and David have amply indicated, the <em>evidence</em> out there supports their position extremely robustly; whereas, aside from a lot of folk <em>saying</em> that the 5D Mk II has better IQ, there seems to be very little actual proof that this is the case.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not evidence but an opinion. There have been numerous threads about it here and on other forums and the above opinion is in minority. I would say wishful thinking. I might reconsider my opinion if you point me in direction of a controlled test. The link above is a joke.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>This is not evidence but an opinion.</em></p>

<p>I'm not sure you understand the difference. The controlled tests performed by DPReview, Imaging Resource, and Amateur Photographer are <strong>evidence</strong>. The mere statements of the majority of people in a thread are <strong>opinion</strong>.<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em>I would say wishful thinking. I might reconsider my opinion if you point me in direction of a controlled test. The link above is a joke.</em></p>

<p>The link above pulls crops from controlled tests at the two sites mentioned above. Both sites control the parameters of their tests to a much higher degree than you are likely to experience in the field. I've noticed that none of the people here with strong opinions that the 5D mkII is significantly and clearly better are able to tell me which crop came from which. If the 5D mkII offered superior IQ to the degree claimed, this should be a simple matter.</p>

<p>The controlled tests from three professional sites and numerous blogs confirm the tests and personal experiences of Dave and I. At low to mid ISO the 5D mkII is sharper out of camera and offers a bit more local contrast. It's also a bit cleaner. But out of camera they are already very close. Optimum processing (settings in camera for JPEG or work in post) brings them so close that the differences are not detectable in 24" and typically even 30" prints, much less significant.</p>

<p>At high ISO the 5D mkII walks away in terms of both noise and detail retention. That's the remaining clear FF advantage given today's technology level, though I do anticipate that higher resolution FF sensors in the future will restore some of the lost IQ advantage at lower ISOs.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>The <strong>evidence</strong> collected by collating the history of a particular commentator’s previous efforts, lends itself for one to form the strong <strong>opinion</strong> that the understanding of the written English Language and the meaning of English Words: is not their strongest suit.<br>

Neither, it seems, is scientific method nor controlled testing understood . . . argument out of context, however, still appears rampant.<br>

Oh well . . . maybe time for JDM to pop in again?</p>

<p>BTW, Michael - have you made any decisions yet?<br>

WW</p>

 

[ilya_e]

<p>Go to Google and search for: canon 7d vs 5d mark ii. That is my evidence. Most tests say that 5DII wins the IQ battle. And this is exactly what I've heard from actual owners of both 7D and 5DII on FM. Apparently this is a heated debate and I think it not very smart to state that tests prove that 7D is as 5DII when there are many other controlled tests that state otherwise. Again, this is an opinion and not a fact. So please stop forcing your opinion on everybody. We will talk more when you can afford 5DII and able to do your own tests</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>@Willian W<br>

Hey idiot, nobody asked your opinion thats for sure. Keep your stupid comments for your wife.</p>

 

<p>

<b>This is unacceptable and, since it's not the first such comment this user has made, it has resulted in "Mr. E" being removed from the site</b>

[William Michael]

<p>Nice! The tone of the conversation sure steps down a peg or two quickly. I'll place my opinions when and where I like, Honey: The opinion was based on research and collating the data provided, that's all.<br>

What’s your evidence and premise for your classification of “idiot”?<br>

One might conclude it is merely your own inadequacies and failures?<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p><a name="00XhqZ"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5609780">Ilya E</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 18, 2010; 04:39 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Go to Google and search for: canon 7d vs 5d mark ii. That is my evidence. Most tests say that 5DII wins the IQ battle. And this is exactly what I've heard from actual owners of both 7D and 5DII on FM. Apparently this is a heated debate and I think it not very smart to state that tests prove that 7D is as 5DII when there are many other controlled tests that state otherwise. Again, this is an opinion and not a fact. So please stop forcing your opinion on everybody. We will talk more when you can afford 5DII and able to do your own tests</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilya,</p>

<p>That is not evidence....it is more opinion like we see in this thread. The fact that under controlled tests completed by respected reviewing sites shows that you cannont tell the difference on screen, let alone print, is the evidence.</p>

<p>Feel free to show me some side by side tests that I can print to confirm your opinion. At present, all you have is an opinion. It is quite clear to see in the samples that there is no difference. I've done the comparisons myself at 16x24 and no one could see the differences....you know, all the blather about "more 3D look" and "better contrast" and "better color" and "better detail"....that comes up in threads....but is NEVER supported in test images.</p>

<p>Gee, I wonder why that is?</p>

<p>If you're happy with the 5d2, that's great. I think it's a superb camera. But if someone is going to state that the differences are "Obvious," then it should show in the test images. The fact that it doesn't is evidence....not opinion.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5609780">Ilya E</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 18, 2010; 04:43 p.m.</p>

 

<p>@Willian W<br />Hey idiot, nobody asked your opinion thats for sure. Keep your stupid comments for your wife.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>Wow, it appears this forum would be better off without the like of you.</p>

 

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Ilya<em> - Go to Google and search for: canon 7d vs 5d mark ii. That is my evidence. </em></p>

<p>From search result #1: <em>However, the difference in noise and image quality will only be visible at higher ISO’s and comparatively large magnifications or in very large prints or if you need to severely crop the image.</em></p>

<p>http://www.sandrophoto.com/2010/03/17/canon-eos-7d-vs-5d-mark-ii/</p>

<p>From search result #2: <em>I will say that at ISO 400 and under, in normal lighting scenarios, the 2 look fairly similar, and with 18 megapixels, file sizes aren’t even that far apart.</em></p>

<p>He goes on to talk about differences at higher ISOs but his crops actually betray his words as being two strong. I could have used his own crops at ISO 800 and you still wouldn't have been able to tell me which was which.</p>

<p>http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-7d-vs-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-iso-comparison-2/</p>

<p>From search result #3: <em>While the differences aren't HUGE, the 5D Mark II's full-size sensor definitely made a difference at ISO 3200 and beyond. Of course that means both cameras were fairly well matched up through ISO 1600, not an easy feat for an 18MP cropped-sensor camera.</em></p>

<p>http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/</p>

<p>Ilya, did you even look at the Google results before making your statement? I searched on your exact terms and didn't cherry pick among the results, I simply opened the first three. All three, to one degree or another, support what Dave and I are saying. The crops in result #2 show the same thing I see in test images from DP Review and Imaging Resource: small differences that are not print observable (24") through at least ISO 800.</p>

<p><em>Most tests say that 5DII wins the IQ battle. </em><br>

<br />Technically, yes, the 5D mkII at any ISO is a little bit better. But the differences are so small at lower ISOs that they are either a) easy to process away, or b) don't make it to print.</p>

<p>Feel free to post your tests for discussion. I would be very interested in determining why you are getting different results from all of the above such that you see a huge difference in IQ.</p>

<p><em>Apparently this is a heated debate </em></p>

<p>Apparently, judging from your comment to William. Can we please stick to tests and facts? Have you decided which crop belongs to which camera yet?</p>

<p><em>and I think it not very smart to state that tests prove that 7D is as 5DII when there are many other controlled tests that state otherwise. </em></p>

<p>Could you please link to them since the Google search turned up more supporting evidence for my position?</p>

<p><em>Again, this is an opinion and not a fact. So please stop forcing your opinion on everybody. </em></p>

<p>Translation: please stop posting evidence that contradicts what I previously believed.</p>

<p><em>We will talk more when you can afford 5DII and able to do your own tests</em></p>

<p>Oh, was that an attempt at an insult? A burn? Sorry to disappoint you Ilya but both when I bought my 7D and today I have the cash on hand to buy a new 5D mkII. No credit cards or loans, just slap down the debit card. It's 5 minutes away at Fry's. I had access to one and checked them both out and I went with the 7D.</p>

<p>The 5D mkII is a fine camera and is certainly superior for certain uses (low light; T/S work). It does not, however, offer such an increase in IQ as to be discernible in 24" prints.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Ilya,</p>

<p>Did you even read the searches in Google you told everyone is your evidence? Because what I'm reading as your evidence, actually supports what Daniel and I are saying...and contradicts you. </p>

<p> </p>

[photos of hans koot]

<p>The risk of putting a question here is to end up more confused......</p>

[photos of hans koot]

<p>But i will give my small contribution. My partner and I own both and for us the 5dMKII is the one we like more, no doubt there for us.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>What differences do you see in print Hans?</p>