7D vs. 5D Mark II...I know it's been done to death...but...

[zvia_shever]

<p>Nadine - I appreciate the advice. I think I do have a tendency to underexpose, especially in the gym. I think it goes back to always being told to expose for the highlights, so it's out of habit. I may rent a couple fast primes for the first few games of the volleyball season (doesn't start again until the Fall) and see how that goes. Eventually, I would like to add a couple primes to my lens selection especially if I sell my 17-55 2.8 IS to purchase a 24-105 f/4 IS. Then I'd be left with 2 f/4 lenses, neither of which is great for indoor gym lighting. I will definitely practice with my 40D. I really like that camera, it's just that with the trips I'm taking this year (and hopefully in the future) I'd like to spend more time on landscapes and travel photography. </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Dave - <em>Do you have a 100 iso comparison image for us? Anything? Appears not.</em></p>

<p>We're not going to get one from anyone who claims the 5D mkII is significantly better at low to mid ISO. That's because they don't have any and can't produce any. We're at page 23. I guarantee you they've tried by now but have come up with the same results we have.</p>

<p>All we're going to get is more talk, more fallacies, and more pointless debate about irrelevant side topics.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scott - <em>Here is a 100% crop from the above image, only a fool would argue the two images, Keith's lion and my horse, are in the same league.</em></p>

<p>Only a fool would try to draw any conclusions from two radically different images. (Different light, subject, exposure, processing, etc.) Your underexposure claim is a huge sticking point because without a gray card and spot meter readings from both scenes we really have no idea how the light levels and exposures compare. I'll note that the gray background in your 100% crop has less noise than similar gray patches in Imaging Resource's ISO 3200 test shots with the 1Ds mkIII, which leads me to believe your exposure estimates are not quite what you think they are.</p>

<p>Regardless, I would expect a 1Ds mkIII to be cleaner than a 7D at high ISO when all other variables are controlled and equal. And that is absolutely irrelevant to the claims Dave and I have been making.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>That would be a no then, you don't?</p>

<p>Despite your very strongly held beliefs, the truth is when people actually try both cameras most can see the difference. Including our OP, Zvia.</p>

<p>I am not scared of any challenge, surely you have realised that by now, I'll stick my neck out. I don't have any 7D files with me, but I get another loaner on the 9th Feb for a couple of weeks. I'll happily post anything people would like to see then. If you want a specific image and or settings then just say. I'll have a limited selection of lenses, but it will include at least the 100 L macro, the 17mm TS-E and the 60mm EF-S macro. I can do a post like my crop factor thread if you like.</p>

<p>Until then I'd love to see the files that convinced you there was no difference, you know the ones you took and worked on that printed out no better than a 7D's files. In fact, please do share these images, I'd love to print them out to see if you are right.</p>

[squareframe]

<p>my images suck no matter what camera I use. if only I had less noise, a new lens, a nicer bag and camera-strap, and the latest Photoshop. Canon isn't working for me ... perhaps Nikon. I wonder what lenses Arthur Morris is using these days ... hmm</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>No rocket science involved, I dialed in -2 stops of exposure compensation on the camera then put +2 stops back in in post, that was the exposure, it wasn't hard!</p>

<p>With regards noise and the EV, you told me in a previous thread that it doesn't matter too much, so I don't see why you are raising the issue now.</p>

<p>I realise this 6400iso image is not the primary issue you have but I only posted it as a reply to Keith's image. He was clamouring for somebody to post an image, so I did, the only way I could today.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><br />"I think I do have a tendency to underexpose, especially in the gym."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A sample of a 20D used at ISO3200 and no fancy Noise Reduction Post processing: <a href="../photo/10738830&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10738830&size=lg</a></p>

<p>A 40D, shooting in poor Gym Light: correct exposure and a few $'s for a good Noise PP programme, will do much better.</p>

<p>Noise also looks worse on the screen: the 14" wide Glossy of this is more than "Good Quality"</p>

<p>WW</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scott - <em>No rocket science involved, I dialed in -2 stops of exposure compensation on the camera then put +2 stops back in in post, that was the exposure, it wasn't hard!</em></p>

<p>I can place a gray card in the middle of a scene and depending on what I put around that gray card get a matrix meter/AE system to under or over expose it by more than 2 stops. Your assumption that your exposure was equal to Keith's is naive. If I had to guess by comparing areas of gray and the noise they contain, I would guess your shot got more exposure than IR's ISO 3200 test samples.</p>

<p>This kind of uncontrolled nonsense is why I turn to and rely on publicly available, professionally executed, 3rd party test samples in these debates. You seem to think doing so is in some way detrimental to my argument, which is also naive. Such test data is outside any possible influence or bias on my part, and is tightly controlled and documented as to variables. It doesn't get any better. The fact that I can point to test samples from multiple sources and use any of them to make my point speaks volumes.</p>

<p><em>With regards noise and the EV, you told me in a previous thread that it doesn't matter too much, so I don't see why you are raising the issue now.</em></p>

<p>I have no idea what you're talking about or what the context was. The amount of light reaching the sensor certainly does matter when it comes to noise, especially at higher ISOs.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Despite your very strongly held beliefs, the truth is when people actually try both cameras most can see the difference. Including our OP, Zvia.</em></p>

<p>The truth is both Dave and I have said that out of camera you can see some differences. The point is that after proper post processing the differences are so tiny that it's impossible to tell which image came from which camera, something you proved yourself by being unable to tell us which crop came from which camera. And in print at 24" there are no differences to see. Some people are infinitely bothered by things they see while pixel peeping. I'm far more concerned with prints.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Daniel - I am still wondering where you extensive 5DII experience comes from. By the way I did post RAW crops from the 5DII and 7D on page 11 of this post. The 5DII at ISO 100 looks a lot better to me!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>You really do just argue for the sake of it, anyway, here is where you told me that <a href="00W0Bj"><em>"A properly exposed ISO 3200 test shot is a properly exposed ISO 3200 test shot regardless of scene EV,".</em></a></p>

<p>Now, show us some real world, non test bed images.</p>

<p>Whilst I appreciate your focus is big prints, getting them from<a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00VoPr"> Costco</a> is probably not the best way of doing comparisons for ultimate quality. As I have said so many times, if the 7D outputs the quality you need then all power to you, for my work, it does not.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Here's the 7D with the 500mm f/4L IS at ISO 6400. NR is minimal to try to maintain feather detail</p>

<p><a title="Northern Harrier by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5358337232_ec88e0f470_b.jpg" alt="Northern Harrier" width="683" height="1024" /></a></p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Wow, another turn it up to 11. Why do Canon put a 6400 iso setting on it?</p>

<p>David I hope you posted it to show how bad the 7D is, your larger version on <a href=" </a>really puts it in perspective.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Daniel - <em>I am still wondering where you extensive 5DII experience comes from. </em></p>

<p>I'm still wondering why you won't admit defeat rather than try to argue irrelevant points.</p>

<p><em>By the way I did post RAW crops from the 5DII and 7D on page 11 of this post. The 5DII at ISO 100 looks a lot better to me!</em></p>

<p>LOL! <strong>They're both blurry</strong>, and neither one is quite frankly better than the other. Neither is representative of what the cameras are capable of.</p>

[Brad_]

>>>Daniel - I am still wondering where you extensive 5DII experience comes from.

 

>>>> I'm still wondering why you won't admit defeat rather than try to argue irrelevant points.

 

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. All a game on another internet camera contest. That's been ongoing on more than a year.

 

I'm curious, do you have any photos?

[dcstep]

<p><strong><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=657840">Scott Ferris</a> </strong><a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><strong> </strong></a><strong>, Jan 15, 2011; 08:18 p.m. said:</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wow, another turn it up to 11. Why do Canon put a 6400 iso setting on it?<br>

David I hope you posted it to show how bad the 7D is, your larger version on <a href=" target="_blank">Flickr </a>really puts it in perspective.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once again, it's an invititation for those interested to see what the 7D can be in a real world situation. Look at the Medium, Large and Original sizes and decide if you might be able to use such an image.</p>

<p>The NR is not 11, in fact the NR is very low, like a 3, trying to show feather detail in internet sizes. The crop is fairly small, like 10% to balance the bird in the frame.</p>

<p>I find it curious that the whole defense of the 7D is arguing about detectible differences in various print sizes, but when we look at any of my images, 5D2 or 7D, then we switch to looking at it at 100%. Perhaps that's all the more reason to go with the 5D2' superior high-ISO performance.</p>

<p>As I said, pages back and early on in this thread, the obvious differences between the 5D2 and the 7D that I notice are when looking at 100% and higher, as part of the processing.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

Scott - <em>anyway, here is where you told me that <a rel="nofollow" href="00W0Bj">"A properly exposed ISO 3200 test shot is a properly exposed ISO 3200 test shot regardless of scene EV,".</a></em>

 

<p>Really Scott? Is your knowledge of exposure really so poor that you cannot understand the quote or how it applies to your sample vs. Keith's?</p>

<p>Spot meter a gray card in a scene with bright light and a scene with dim light. Use shutter speed and aperture to control exposure so that the card is middle gray in each shot using the same ISO. With the exception of situations where you have to get into long (i.e. >1 second) exposures for one of the shots, noise on the card will be the same regardless of the scene brightness because you controlled exposure so that the same amount of light hit the sensor. (If the rest of the scene is identical and the light source is diffused and even in each case then this will be true for everything in the scene.)</p>

<p>Hence a properly exposed ISO 3200 test shot is properly exposed regardless of scene EV.</p>

<p>Is that even close to the situation with your sample and Keith's? Nope. You set your ISO to 1600, set EC to -2, and now assume that your matrix meter and AE program exposed the sensor with the same amount of light as in Keith's ISO 6400 shot. This is of course an absurd and naive assumption. <strong>Depending on what's in the scene a matrix meter and AE program can under or over expose by more than 2 stops.</strong> You cannot assume your sensor received the same exposure, the same amount of light, as Keith's did. You can't even assume you were within a +/- 2 stop range!</p>

<p>We can't know at this point how the exposures compare because neither of you took precise readings of the scene using a calibrated target, a gray card. But from what I can see in your shot, and how it compares to calibrated test shots at IR, I'm certain it received more exposure than a properly exposed ISO 6400 shot.</p>

<p><em>Whilst I appreciate your focus is big prints, getting them from<a rel="nofollow" href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00VoPr"> Costco</a> is probably not the best way of doing comparisons for ultimate quality.</em></p>

<p>Wow, you really are a dishonest debater, aren't you? For starters I've stated in this very thread that I now own an Epson 3880, and even made a point of the fact that I consider the differences between the 3880 and Noritsu photo printers to be greater than any difference between the 5D mkII and 7D. But beyond that you assume things when you should ask, as my local Costco also has an Epson 7880 for large prints. It's one of the reasons why when my R800 died I looked to Epson's professional line for the replacement.</p>

<p>But more to the point, what difference would it make what printer I used to compare 7D and 5D mkII photographs <strong>when you can't tell the difference while pixel peeping 100% unlabeled screen crops?</strong></p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Brad - <em>I'm curious, do you have any photos?</em></p>

<p>I'm curious: do you honestly want to see some of my work? Or do you simply hope to engage in a childish personal attack because you don't like my position or the evidence I've offered?</p>

<p>I suspect the latter, but I am open to the possibility that it might be the former.</p><div></div>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Sorry David,</p>

<p>The 11 reference is an old one, it means if a scale goes from 0 to 10, if you put an 11 on the dial it is magically better, clearly it is not. It is not about the amount of NR you have used, it is about the fact that Canon put a 6400 iso setting on the 7D when they really shouldn't have done.</p>

<p>I linked to the original size on Flickr. There is no feather detail at all, I couldn't use this image for anything at any size, even your 100kb inline image shows horrific noise. The original size shows even worse luminance and colour noise, in ACR I couldn't remove a good enough amount of noise even with the sliders all the way to the right. What can you do with the image? Have you printed it?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Or do you simply hope to engage in a childish personal attack because you don't like my position or

the evidence I've offered?

 

 

Why so defensive? You haven't offered "evidence," but simply refuse to value opinions of others that

have actually used both cameras and have made informed choices. You can't see the difference, fine. Others can.

[dcstep]

<p>Very funny Scott, you're not the only one that's seen <em>This is Spinal Tap</em>.</p>

<p>So what's "11" about that image, the ISO 6400 or the very low level of NR? I'm a little confused about your reference.</p>

<p>I think it can be used up to 1024 pixels on the largest size. Hopefully some others will look to see if they agree with me or you, at:<br>

<a href="

If you go to the Original size (this is 100%), you'll see the noise remnants. I couldn't get rid of that without sacrificing what I thought was too much detail. Look here for Original:<br>

<a href="

Remember, I'm one of the ones that said that the 5D2 has significantly better high-ISO performance. The object here, with this image, is to show what the 7D can do in really tough circumstances. Yeah, it's not pretty at 100% and the 5D2 would likely do better in this exact circumstance, but an effective image is possible without "perfection."</p>

<p>Scott, you must have some stunning images. How 'bout a link to them?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Brad - <em>Why so defensive? </em></p>

<p>Because your intentions were obvious.</p>

<p><em>You haven't offered "evidence," </em></p>

<p>A tremendous amount of evidence has been presented by Dave, Keith, and myself. The other side has offered none.</p>

<p><em>but simply refuse to value opinions of others that have actually used both cameras and have made informed choices.</em></p>

<p>No one is entitled to have their opinions valued above hard evidence. And I am one of the people who has actually used both cameras and made an informed decision btw. So has Dave. So have a few other people who have posted pretty much the same opinion we have. But I've noticed their opinions are not "valued" any time Scott or Philip say "all of us who have used both think X instead of Y."</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>But, Daniel, they are both correctly exposed. You said "<em>regardless of EV</em>" then you argue that "<em>You cannot assume your sensor received the same exposure, the same amount of light, as Keith's did.</em>", you can't have it both ways. My image is correctly exposed, after I under underexposed then overdeveloped, I pull processed the file and ended up with a correctly exposed effective 6400iso image. Keith's is correctly exposed too. According to your <em>regardless of EV</em> comment it doesn't matter that the EV, the amount of light hitting the sensors, is different. So which is it?</p>

<p>The reason you are failing here, the reason you get into these arguments and end up contradicting yourself, is because the only experience you seem to have with the 5D MkII is to download a few bench test images then print 8x10 crops from 16x24 image files. The problem with that, and with your entire position, is that those image files are not good representations of real world shooting image files, for the reasons I have outlined many times. We know you have lots of 7D files, we also know you seem to have no 5D MkII files, certainly none that you shot. Unless you can accept that your much vaunted test site images are completely different from real world ones this is an impasse. You think that your references, and your 100% reliance on them, make your case, they don't, the seeming fact that you never effectively used a 5D MkII, if you had you could produce the files, make this all just bluster.</p>

<p>You really do need to produce some of your own comparison files to maintain your position, I can't until the 9th Feb. The surfer is pretty cool, shame it is over exposed :-)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>David,</p>

<p>Again the 11 reference is to the fact that Canon should not have put a 6400iso setting (an 11) on the 7D, if that is the kind of image it produces then it is not worth having.</p>

<p>I do have a few reasonable images, you may not have a link to them though, unless you are interested in me doing some work for you.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>You are getting a little forgetful <em>"A tremendous amount of evidence has been presented by Dave, Keith, and myself. The other side has offered none."</em> You and Dave have both put up one image each that neither of you took and it has been suggested why they are a meaningless comparison anyway, you have never addressed that. Keith put up one image that I embarrassed by offering a fairly similar image of much higher quality, rather than accept that you chose to question the methodology getting yourself in terribly contradictory knots.</p>

<p><em>"No one is entitled to have their opinions valued above hard evidence. And I am one of the people who has actually used both cameras and made an informed decision btw </em><strong>[Please prove it by offering up one of your 5D MkII files]</strong><em><strong>.</strong> So has Dave. So have a few other people who have posted pretty much the same opinion we have. But I've noticed their opinions are not "valued" any time Scott or Philip say "all of us who have used both think X instead of Y."</em><br>

I have still seen no "hard evidence" from anybody to support your assertions, early on in the thread I did a pole of posters, 8 of the 10 people that said they owned both in this thread preferred the 5D MkII, the number of owners of both cameras is very much against your and Daves opinions and you and he do not own both. Just on the numbers game, of the owners of both, 4 times more people say the 5D MkII is noticeably better than the 7D. Are they all wrong? Really?</p>