7D vs. 5DmkII

[nuno_saldanha]

<p>Hi everyone... I dont want to add some fuel to the fire that is already burning in this discussion... wich I thing is more retorical, or plain academic... I know what you're going to say (or write), but just look at the DxOMark sensor comparisons:<br /><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/483%7C0/(appareil2)/619%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/483%7C0/(appareil2)/619%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon</a><br />As you can see, there's some noticeable differences. Anyway, I dont think this discussions are really helpfull to the people that are merely asking an opinion. Usually people starts making a statment based on theyr own preferences and choices, instead of pointing out the advantages of each choice. Surely, 7D and 5DMKII are 2 diferent cameras, and is like compare oranges with apples. Some prefear oranges, others apples. The choice will depend on several issues (mostly private ones), wich i think were plain and correctly explained in the first 2 pages of this discussion. And who cares about reviews, tests or charts, or whaterver? I think what Michal was wanting, was you're own opinion, since he also can have access to those tests. And I also think he should rely more on people who realy has the experience of both cameras.(I'm not one of those, by the way)</p>

[songtsen]

<p>Interesting thread. 7D looks pretty good for the price. Have to read Michael's earlier thread about 60D vs 7D now. </p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>Its the same phenonena thats starting now with the D7000. Real world prints are so impressive that some are saying they are close to the D700 output. Its agreed they are better than the D300.<br>

Ergo, the same arguments are here comparing the "new" 7D producing better prints than the 5D2. And there are those out there who still stand my the original 5D for landscape work.<br>

And you know, it takes a mighty good photographer to wrest the best out of a sensor any way.<br>

What I also wanted to say was that landscapes might be better shot with a wide prime rather than a slower zoom? </p>

[bob_king2]

<p>So does that mean that the IQ of the 550D (T2i - same sensor as the 7D?) is close to the IQ of the 1DsIII (same sensor as the 5DII?). Hmmm.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Image quality at normal ISO's hasn't really improved in the last five years. Go back to some reviews from that time and read comment's such as "breathtaking images". Nothing's changed, and the price of a 1DsMkIII isn't based on its image quality. Sure high ISO has improved, and according to Nikon and Canon, we all should be shooting at 12 800, but for most images that most people take, a 20D is just fine.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p>Nuno wrote:</p>

<p>The choice will depend on several issues (mostly private ones), wich i think were plain and correctly explained in the first 2 pages of this discussion. And who cares about reviews, tests or charts, or whaterver? I think what Michal was wanting, was you're own opinion, since he also can have access to those tests. And I also think he should rely more on people who realy has the experience of both cameras.(I'm not one of those, by the way)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The choices may have been correctly explained on the first two pages, but I find it rather odd that one would state that they don't care about tests....when the tests show plainly and simply that the differences explained on the first two pages are pretty much imaginary.</p>

<p>Probably to make it clear, from someone who has tested both.....is that under the overwhelming majority of image taking situations, there is no visible difference on prints as large as 16x24, and sometimes larger.</p>

<p>Comparison images on print show this to be the case.....vacuous opinions don't.</p>

[photos of hans koot]

<p>@Dave..<br>

The prints. The difference starts for me especially in the less exposed parts, where the 5 dmkII seems to be capable to capture more data then the 7d. the 7d gets more and more easy ' muddy' there. With even and carefully exposed subjects it may be hard to find a difference indeed. Though these situations occur (a perfect and especially even lit scene) , they are not the daily practice for landscape photography. Also I find noise control is better in the darker parts of the image with the 5dmkII. I imagine though anyone can work on that if required to some extent. In practise I find the 7d requiring a more perfect exposure and the 5dmkII more 'forgiving' in that. (yes I know all should be proper exposed of course !, but again sometimes I am happy to be able to recover some data available in raw). In general the 5dmkII gives me more data to be able to work on an image (bright and dark parts). As addition I have the impression the real iso of the 7d is about 1/3 stop less then proposed, meaning you have to overexpose some to get good noise behavior, at some more risk of overexposing.<br>

Just my findings,& opinions from how those camers behave in practice in my situation and by no means a law for everybody!<br>

Cheers!</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Well said Hans.</p>

<p>Yes, I would expect the 5D2 to be more forgiving. When I use the 7D for landscapes, I must admit I'm pretty much always at iso 100 and don't see any noise even in the shadows...but I normally don't venture larger than 16x24 to 20x30, and that on HM Photorag 308....which is going to to be a little more forgiving than a lustre paper for example.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>I have both cameras, and the 5dII is clearly the best. The autofocus on the 7d is more modern, but not much more functional. It is even a little to confusing for some people. The 5dII obviously has less noise at high ISOs. The 7d has the the built in flash that will control your EX Flashes off camera. It has a much higher burst rate than the 5dII. I guess you probably know all the features of both cameras.<br>

With that said, for me, the 5dII clearly gets higher quality images. If I could only keep one, I would definitely keep the 5dII, and I would hardly miss the 7d.<br>

P.S. If you get the 7d, you might rethink the 85mm f/1.2L. It's pretty tight on a cropped sensor in my opinion for portraits (equal to 136mm on a full frame), and it is HEAVY. Rent it first, and see for yourself. Besides, if you get the 70-200mm, that will work great. Instead, consider a fast 50. Always get the fastest glass you can afford, so you don't regret it later. Consider renting all of this stuff before you buy.<br>

P.P.S. A 5D Mark III is likely to come within a year.</p>

[nuno_saldanha]

<p>Thanks Mark! That's the kind of opinion Michael needed to read. By the way, what are your lens recomendations for the 5DMkII? I'm about to buy one and needed some advice. I've eard that some lenses (FF not croped ones) create some shadows in the corners (vigneting). Shall we start with what? A 50mm F/1.4 or the F/1.8? (read some reviews saying oposite things about them)</p>

[petrana_batik]

<p>If your subject involve extreme wide angle compositions, there's a small lens that tips the favor towards the 7D, and it's not even made by Canon. I've been using the Sigma 8-16 on my APS sized cameras for over half a year now, and it simply delivers-- _much_ better than the 10-22 Canon variant in its overlapping range, and MUCH wider, this lens is EF-S only and its FF counterpart (Sigma 12-24) isn't as good.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Petrana, the 8-16 is very sharp and controls CA extremely well. It is a bit prone to flare, but that is kind of normal for these ultra wides. And yes, it is much better than the 12-24 option on a FF body.</p>

<p>Mark, could you post a sample for us of a scene that shows the 5D2 being clearly better than the 7D. Low iso and high iso would be nice. The reason I ask is that when I did it, one wasn't clearly better all the the time....and other test sites that provide raw samples simply don't show this "clearly" difference on any normal size print....at least not below a 2 foot wide print. I'd be interested in seeing what some people perceive as being "clearly better", and how that translates into a print.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>I use and recommend for the 5DII and the 7D:<br>

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L<br>

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mark II<br>

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG<br>

These lenses give an excellent combination of ranges for both camera bodies, and vignetting is minimal and easily corrected in camera JPEG's or post processing RAW's. I don't shoot much wide angle, but I recommend Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L for the 5D. The 10-22mm f/3.5 - 4.5 EF-S is excellent for the 7D and half the price. I've used both, and in my opinion, the 10-22mm gets more distortion. Vignetting is more of a concern with the wide angles, but everything is a compromise.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<blockquote>

<p>Petrana, the 8-16 is very sharp and controls CA extremely well. It is a bit prone to flare, but that is kind of normal for these ultra wides. And yes, it is much better than the 12-24 option on a FF body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All I'm saying that this lens makes extreme wide angle viable on a 7D; it outdoes any FF camera out there. It is of course much slower at f/4.5, but its top notch wide open. Flare? it is better than my 14-24/2.8 on my Nikon FF, and costs 1/2 as much.</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>Dave, I don't have examples of shots that I have made with both cameras at the same time in the same conditions with the same lenses to make a fare comparison. These two images are very similar. The 5d was at 145mm, and the 7d was at 200mm. Generally though, while pixel peeping (which I don't recommend), noise is more apparent in the 7D photos compared with the 5DII at the same ISO. The 7D is very very good, and I love it, but I think the 5DII is better, and the difference is pretty obvious if you really really magnify the dark parts of the images. The noise is corrected very well with NIK's Dfine 2.0.</p><div></div>

[marcsharp]

<p>Here is the 5d</p><div></div>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>Its good discussion...I think there are three points here:<br>

1. For those who don't delve into the advanced capabilities of Photoshop and who may never print larger than A3, the difference would be marginal.<br>

2. For pixel peepers and high ISO chasers, the choice would be the 5D2.<br>

3. Then there are the new generation of digital shooters who want the final product to come out of the camera, not the computer, and who do not want to be bothered with much post other than minor tweaking and cropping perhaps, then the 5D2 might be the best if set up properly.<br>

My personal opinion is that digital has become far too complex. When it can produce the same output as say velvia, straight out of the camera, then the game is won over film.<br>

I went on a landscape photography workshop a few months ago. There were 8 of us...6 with pretty good DSLRs and two with film cameras. It was amusing in the field when we came to set up on a rocky headland at dawn and the film guys set up on tripods the same as the digitals guys. For the next hour the digital guys were hammering off dozens of shots and examining the rear lcd (one with a loupe) and the film guys got busy having some coffee, waiting for the decisive moment. Then, just when the right moment came, the film guys just walked up to their cameras and shot one frame with +1 and -1 exposure bracketing. Done. The digital guys just stared....<br>

To me, when it can be this easy to get pro results on a digital camera, then I will buy the best, but not until then.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Hi everyone... I dont want to add some fuel to the fire that is already burning in this discussion... wich I thing is more retorical, or plain academic... I know what you're going to say (or write), but just look at the DxOMark sensor comparisons:</em></p>

<p>No thanks. DxOMark ranks medium format digital backs as being below the 5D mkII, A900, and in one case the D90! This is laughable to anyone who uses those backs and makes very large prints from them (or has seen very large prints from them). DxOMark scores are not calibrated for resolution differences and are easily thrown by things like in camera RAW NR or differences in AA filters (or the lack of an AA filter).</p>

<p>In some cases I'm not even sure what they're measuring. Take DR for example: their DR ratings for every camera I've checked are off by 2-4 stops and easily disproven with a Stouffer transmission step wedge test.</p>

<p>DxOMark also recently made the claim that manufacturers bump ISO at wide lens apertures to compensate for light loss at the sensor. That's true. But what DxO failed to grasp is that most of this light loss occurs in the lens itself and is not unique to or caused by digital sensors. Any college student in photography, photographer with a technical reference, or especially a film maker could have told them that. (T-stop vs. F-stop.)</p>

<p>Their scores only rarely coincide with the test results of their peers, test results which are, by comparison, pretty difficult to misread. DxOMark is a horrible source of information.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Hans Koot - I would agree with you that the 5D mkII is a more forgiving camera with better shadow noise and contrast/separation, and also wider total DR. That said, I have been amazed at what I can pull out of the shadows with the 7D using ACR and a little local contrast enhancement plus noise reduction.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Marc - I copied both crops to compare in PS and got a phone call. When I turned back to my monitor I had to switch back to the web browser to identify which was which. No joke. This is how small these differences are that we're debating.</p>

<p>Once you equalize the black points there's not any real difference between them. The black area in the 7D image is not noisier in this case so much as it is lighter. Equalizing the black points also makes the 7D's noise/grain appear about the same. I'm assuming this is a lower ISO test.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore...</p>

<p>This takes me back to the heady days of my hifi obsession: there are the measurebators who talk about specs and electronic physics, there are the subjectivists who want to believe that their thousands spent on top nothc gear have been worthwhile and end up exaggerating the importance of minor changes; and there are those who go out, use the gear in the real world and are very happy, but occasionally (<em>very</em> occsasionally) they stop and ponder to look at/listen to the hyper detail but generally are not that obsessed.</p>

[nuno_saldanha]

<p>Marc<br />Thanks for the tips. I saw some tests of the Sigma 50 F71.4 and it looks excelent, far much better then the Canon 50 F/1.8 or even the F/1.4. The 24-70, it's too heavy, and too expensive for me, any alternatives?<br />Stephen<br />I loved that story about the film and dslr shooters! I have to tell it to my students. I use film for 30 years, and one of the reasons i want to go for FF is because i always felt disapointed with digital dslr's results! So the 50D MKII seems a good choise (can't afford the Canon 1D MKIV or MKIII, or the Nikon D3, and the D700 is about to be replaced next March). And this way I can have just one set of lenses for both cameras, Film and Digital</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Good call Mike. Reminds me of something a speaker and cable rep told me years ago. He told me that if a speaker costs $50 on the shelf, it probably cost $25 to make. If it's $100, they probably made it for $60. If it's $500, they probably built it for $200. If the speaker is $2,000, they probably made it for $500. He actually went as far as telling me that even if your stereo system is top-notch, it's not worth spending more than $4,000 or so a pair for speakers, unless listening to music is your only hobby. He claimed that beyond that, you have to spend roughly double to get 105% the audio quality of the 'cheaper' set.</p>

<p>He also said that they often price things higher based on what people will pay instead of what it costs - in other words, a speaker that could be sold for $5,000 with a good amount of profit to both manufacturer and store might be priced for $10,000, for no other reason than because that's what audiophiles are prepared to spend.</p>

<p>I strongly suspect cameras to be the exact same. While I'm not debating the extra quality of the full-frame sensor, I wouldn't doubt that the 5D is 90% the camera of the 1Ds, and that they 1Ds is priced over three times the amount only because people think they need to pay that.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I am still curious to know what Michael decided.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I'll extend your question Dave, if I may:</p>

<p>"<strong>What differences do you see in print - <em>or not</em> - that can't easily be "equalised away" into irrelevance simply by making trivial workflow changes?</strong>"</p>

<p>I ask this because - in my experience of many files from each camera - it takes precious little "effort" indeed to render 7D files, at any ISO, essentially identical in terms of IQ to 5D Mk II files.</p>

<p>Which is the whole point: the <em>end results</em> of which each camera is capable are of such high quality that any observable differences between the two are likely to be down to conversion and PP decisions made by the photographer, rather than to any inherent superiority of one body's IQ over another...</p>