Dave Luttmann Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Maybe those claiming a large difference, or "striking" difference can explain why the sample Daniel has posted, and many others here as well never seem to show this "striking" difference. They always seem so close that we need 100% screen views to see the most subtle difference.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_ducey Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p><a href="00Y06d">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Y06d</a><br> Check the bird photo done at ISO 800 with a 7D by David Stephens. I think the Canon 7D is adequate for the type of photos you are taking. Good glass and knowledge of the camera are more important than sensor size. When I started taking pictures no "real" photographer would be caught using a 35mm film camera, a medium format was a 4 X 5. that students were required to use or larger. What percentage of photographers use todays medium format cameras? Most cant afford them. I do think having a backup camera is important, you never know when you will need it and its hard to redo vacations. <br> Good luck whatever you get<br> Jim</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>It's high-ISO performance is at least 2-stops better than my 7D.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not a chance, David - and your "Absinthe" example demonstrates only that a ton of NR kills every hint of detail - even at way 100% it looks (appropriately enough, I guess) like a Post-Impressionist painting.</p> <p>High ISO performance is about a damn' sight more than just crushing<em> every last scrap of noise and detail</em> <em>out of the file</em> with DxO Optics, and the 7D will perform a helluva a lot better than that if you convert and process properly.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Check the bird photo done at ISO 800 with a 7D by David Stephens.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not sure what that's telling us, Jim - 800 ISO isn't high ISO.</p> <p><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/020111/goldfinch_amble_5a.jpg">This</a> for example is 1000 ISO: I shoot birds with the 7D at well north of 1000 ISO regularly, and it's trivially easy to do - and without any problems keeping details in the feathers either.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>What has your direct experience been using both cameras? Could it be that perhaps you were doing something wrong having used both?</p> </blockquote> <p>I've had enough experience of both to have come to the exact same conclusions as Daniel and Dave L...</p> <p>And you'll be hard-pushed to find anyone as fussy about IQ as me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_ducey Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Keith you are absolutely right 800 is not high ISO, but I dont find myself using ISO above 800 very often on my 7D. I guess the point I was trying to make is buy the camera that is best suited for your use, not the other fellows.<br> Jim</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_ducey Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Keith you are absolutely right 800 is not high ISO, but I dont find myself using ISO above 800 very often on my 7D. I guess the point I was trying to make is buy the camera that is best suited for your use, not the other fellows.<br> Jim</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p ><a name="00Y0eW"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=528518">Dave Luttmann</a> <a href="../member-status-icons">said:</a></p> <p > </p> <blockquote> <p >"Maybe those claiming a large difference, or "striking" difference can explain why the sample Daniel has posted, and many others here as well never seem to show this "striking" difference. They always seem so close that we need 100% screen views to see the most subtle difference."</p> </blockquote> <p > </p> <p >I think that those differences are observed at 100% and higher on our computer screens, which happens often in pre-processing and post-processing.</p> <p > </p> <p >The argument that for most internet posting and most printing and most viewing of the finished product, the 7D file is adequate, is very valid. If you think that viewing technology will never move forward and that HD TV viewing will always be limited to 1080p and that you may never have need to make a truly large print, then you would never need the 5D2 if you're also happy with the 7D's high-ISO performance, or you never use it.</p> <p>I think that our OP's approach for deciding is the very best that she could hope for, try both and buy the one that you prefer. Don't worry about the anti-fullframe camp or the pro-fullframe camp, just try them and go with the one that emotionally connects with her and her photography.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 >>> And you'll be hard-pushed to find anyone as fussy about IQ as me. I'm happy for you that you are fussy and the 7D met your needs for IQ. For me it simply didn't. Night and day - heh literally... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Keith Reeder said:</p> <p>"Not a chance, David - and your "Absinthe" example demonstrates only that a ton of NR kills every hint of detail - even at way 100% it looks (appropriately enough, I guess) like a Post-Impressionist painting."</p> <p>I merely invite the OP and/or anyone interested to click on the image to follow it to Flickr and then select "View in All Sizes" then select "Original" to see what we're talking about here. I don't think that it looks Post-Impressionist or Cartoonish. Look at the beads on the light, the lettering on signs, etc. The OP might or might not like that, but that's why I threw it up as an example of what the 5D2 does with little or no special effort. I spent about 30-seconds processing this example.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrana_batik Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 For nearly all applications, the 7D and 5dMk2 are indistinguishable. It might sound harsh, but so far, I have learned that all of those who claim the 7D doesn't cut it- have no idea how to exploit their tool (pun intended) to full potential. The 5dmk2 is an admirable camera. The 7D --- no less. What you WILL be losing is the 17-55/2.8 IS, which has no equivalent in full frame. The 24-105 is a VERY nice lens, but it's an f/4. Zvia, don't become a casualty of measure-bating. Get the 7D, a good wide angle lens (the best, btw, has no equivalent in full frame land on Canon, and it's actually a Sigma!), and killer 300/4 IS. This trio will have a much greater impact on your photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p ><a name="00Y0fX"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 11, 2011; 02:18 p.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>>>> And you'll be hard-pushed to find anyone as fussy about IQ as me.<br> I'm happy for you that you are fussy and the 7D met your needs for IQ. For me it simply didn't. Night and day - heh literally...</p> </blockquote> <p>Brad,</p> <p>Do you have a comparison file like Daniel to show the vast difference between the two. Itr's appearing more and more that people who have used both, and review sites that compare, can't seem to get the "striking" difference that you claim to see.</p> <p>I'd like to see the comparison you made that differs from the rest. Thanks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Er I don't get that impression Dave. Pretty much everybody in the thread that actually owns both says that there is a noticeable difference, most who have used the two also say that.</p> <p>The numbers<br> 8 people own both and say get the 5D MkII,<br> 3 people claim to have used both enough and say get the 5D MkII,<br> 2 people own both and say get the 7D<br> 2 people claim to have used them both enough to say get the 7D (that is you and Daniel).</p> <p>Please stop referring to "Daniels crops", they are not his, he did not take them, he had no control over how they were taken, they are bench test examples, his post processing is weak in the extreme, bench test samples are quite different from real world ones.</p> <p>Why do you insist that others that have different opinions from yours and are not kowtowed have to be wrong? Why should your opinion be any more valuable, or right, than Brad's, or mine, or Peter E's or Marlon's, etc? If I claim to not like the results from the 7D as much as from the 5D MkII I am not writing that for my own amusement, it is not imaginary. Just like Peter E, I can see the noise in 7D images at 100 iso, actually I can see it in my 1Ds MkIII (5D MkII) sometimes too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p ><a name="00Y0hI"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2379241">Petrana Batik</a> said:</p> <blockquote> <p >... It might sound harsh, but so far, I have learned that all of those who claim the 7D doesn't cut it- have no idea how to exploit their tool (pun intended) to full potential. The 5dmk2 is an admirable camera. The 7D --- no less. What you WILL be losing is the 17-55/2.8 IS, which has no equivalent in full frame. The 24-105 is a VERY nice lens, but it's an f/4. Zvia, don't become a casualty of measure-bating. Get the 7D, a good wide angle lens (the best, btw, has no equivalent in full frame land on Canon, and it's actually a Sigma!), and killer 300/4 IS. This trio will have a much greater impact on your photography.</p> </blockquote> <p >No one claimed that the 7D "doesn't cut it."</p> <p > </p> <p >The 17-55mm on a 1.6-crop sensor equals a 27-88mm on a full-frame sensor. That's not wide enough for many of us. Either the 24-105mm or the 16-35mm f/2.8L will be wonderful on the 5D2. With the current stunning high-ISO performance of the cameras we're talking about, what's wrong with f/4?</p> <p > </p> <p >Zvia is going to try both and decide for herself, thank goodness, but you make it sound there are no good wide-angle zooms for Canon's full-frame cameras and that's just not the case.</p> <p > </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock-Photos Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Did anyone ask what you expect / need the 7D to do for you that the 40D will not? </p> <p>Your initial post indicates you want FF. Let that quest guide your choice. A used 5D original might be a wise choice for now.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arie_vandervelden1 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Either camera will do a great job of capturing vacation snaps and kids. You can't go wrong.</p> <p>Prints should be virtually indistinguishable up to 12"x18", but at 16"x24" the full-frame camera will start to pull ahead.</p> <p>Whether this is worth the extra money or whether it's beyond the point of diminishing returns is up to you. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Yes Scott....and none of them can provide a comparison showing the "striking" difference. None of them can explain why the samples given, like Daniels, from test sites disagree. Can YOU explain why the test image provided doesn't show a striking difference?</p> <p>And I never said they were his photographs....they are from a test site. That actually weakens your position by the way.</p> <p>I'm still waiting for all these people who have both to expalin why the differences are invisible? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthias_meixner2 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>What you WILL be losing is the 17-55/2.8 IS, which has no equivalent in full frame. The 24-105 is a VERY nice lens, but it's an f/4.</p> </blockquote> <p>You forgot that the crop factor not only affects field of view but also the other parameters. The 17-55/2.8 on a crop camera is equivalent to a 27.2-88/4.48 lens on full frame, i.e. the 24-105 on a FF camera gives you shallower DOF if that is what you want. <br> You can check this yourself using a DOF calculator like e.g. http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html#calc</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrana_batik Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>You forgot that the crop factor not only affects field of view but also the other parameters. The 17-55/2.8 on a crop camera is equivalent to a 27.2-88/4.48 lens on full frame, i.e. the 24-105 on a FF camera gives you shallower DOF if that is what you want. </p> </blockquote> <p>I'll leave you alone with the "27.2-88/4.48 equivalent DOF" -- if you knew what DOF actually relates to, you'd be laughing at this false definition yourself.<br> I'm not contesting that the 24-105 is a wonderful lens. I own it myself, and shoot it myself, on both Mk2, Mk1, 1DsMk3's, 7D and 40D. I also own the 17-55/2.8 IS. All wonderful glass. What I am saying is-- that for nearly all applications, the 7D (or even 40D, for about 95% of still work), provides the same deliverables. Does it make sense to splurge 2x for a full frame? It's up to the OP to decide. <br> If you REALLY want a 5dMk2, you'll coax any excuse to own one. If you have the money-- why not? Is it REALLY that different? No it isn't. All my camera bodies sell their images- on the same RATE. my 5d images don't get downloaded more, or sell more often than my 7d's. Why? because there's much more than megapixel and ISO.<br> Oh yes, DOF only comes to play on actual printed size.. it's entire essence is based on magnification. That's photography to you, as it has been for a century and a half.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zvia_shever Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>Wow....i didn't realize I was starting WW3, but thanks for all the suggestions. </p> <p>I guess I'm in a weird predicament; I'm not in any way, shape or form a pro. I have never and probably will never sell my images. However, I don't just take "vacation and kid pics" either. I have taken many photography classes and try to use what I've learned to create photos that I and others can enjoy and I can be proud of. <br> I love to travel and was tired of coming home with "snapshots" that entailed my husband or kids in front of various monuments/attractions. So now when I travel I research the special places to photograph and what times of day are best. After coming home, I spend weeks editing etc...and create photo books of our travels that become keepsakes and are pretty darn good. <br> Good pictures of my kids in action are important to me too. During my younger son's volleyball season, all the other parents' point and shoots just yielded blur so they counted on me to take photos of their kids in action...it really meant a lot to them and I was happy to do it. For their tennis season, the issue is much the same except instead of blur, they get a dot on the court....I have the focal length and fps.</p> <p>I guess my point is that I'm not a wedding photographer and I'm never gonna be in National Geographic so no, I don't "need" a 5D, or a 7D, or anything better than probably my 40D, but my photography is important and I'd like to utilize the tools I can afford to help me get the most out of the whole experience.</p> <p>I will get my hands on the 5D II and the 7D tomorrow and will post <em>my thoughts </em>after I take some comparable raw and jpeg shots.</p> <p>Thanks again for all the input....lots to think about1</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Get the 7D, a good wide angle lens (<em>the best, btw, </em><strong><em>has no equivalent in full frame land on Canon</em></strong>, and it's actually a Sigma!).</p> </blockquote> <p><br />The “best” has many meanings it would be expected, that in concluding “the best” one would more often than not include <em>FL coverage; lens speed; build; robustness </em>as well as <em>image quality</em>; <em>notification of aberrations</em> and also <em>specialty of use</em> applicable when required.</p> <p>In regard to accumulative: FL Coverage; Aperture speed; build; robustness and specialty of use, there seems to be few, if any, equivalent wide angle Sigma or EF-S lenses for use on a 7D, which will equate to the below listed lenses, when used on a 5D:<br />EF: 14/2.8; 20/2.8; 24/1.4; 28/1.8; 35/1.4; 16-35/2.8<br />TS-E: 17; 24(both)</p> <p>I ma not arguing what camera for the OP to get, but merely pointing out that looking at the reciprocal of the statement quoted, the 5D (and all "full Frame" cameras) have more WA options and most arguably many BETTER choices, than any APS-C camera.</p> <p>As one stipulation of the OP was the need and use of Wide angle, these facts should be taken into consideration, whether or not the "best" WA lens <strong><em>for an APS-C camera</em></strong> is a Sigma or not - the BEST and most COMPREHENSIVE Wide Angle solutions arguably reside within a "Full Frame" system.</p> <p>WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_king2 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p><em>I will get my hands on the 5D II and the 7D tomorrow and will post my thoughts after I take some comparable raw and jpeg shots.</em></p> <p>Don't forget to take the 40D along too!</p> <p>Cheers, Bob</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>"Wow....i didn't realize I was starting WW3"</p> </blockquote> <p>7D vs. 5DMkII is only a skirmish.<br> If you buy the 24 to 105/4L then ask if you should have bought the 24 to 70 instead.<br> And then ask if you need to put a UV filter on it, for lens protection . . .<br> Then ask if IS is really necessary . . .<br> Then you will get closer to war.</p> <p>WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_king2 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <p>or which is better - Canon or Nikon?</p> <p>Cheers, Bob</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>"Yes Scott....and none of them can provide a comparison showing the "striking" difference. None of them can explain why the samples given, like Daniels, from test sites disagree. Can YOU explain why the test image provided doesn't show a striking difference?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes I can, and I have in several of these threads before, read on.</p> <blockquote> <p>"And I never said they were his photographs....they are from a test site. That actually weakens your position by the way."</p> </blockquote> <p>But you didn't repeat that they were from a test site, you kept referring to <em>" the sample Daniel has posted"</em> or <em>"comparison file like Daniel"</em>. Why not say DP Review test crops that Daniel has reworked badly? The fact that they came from a test site does not weaken my case, I am not making a case, I am offering my opinion. My opinion of test sites is low, but they can turn out reliable comparisons sometimes, of course if you then "adjust" the results of one camera it kinda makes it all irrelevant, do you not think the 5D MkII images would sharpen up even better? What Daniel did was take two similarly worked files that were provided to show a fair comparison, and try to make the poorer one equal the better one, he did not try to make them both as good as they can be. Anybody who doesn't believe that a 5D MkII image at 100% can't be made better than a 7D image at 100% is, quite simply, wrong. Do you feel your house built on sand starting to sway?</p> <blockquote> <p>"I'm still waiting for all these people who have both to expalin why the differences are invisible?"</p> </blockquote> <p>They are not invisible, they are far from invisible even in this very controlled instance. But see above as to why this example is irrelevant, you have to work both files to their optimum to get a fair comparison, not just try to make the worst one look like the best one! But, outside the test lab, I have an explanation/theory as to why I didn't get the results from my 7D that compared well with my 1Ds MkIII (effectively a 5D MkII). Test site images differ from real world images in that they have very controlled lighting and the cameras are really really locked down, no tripods here, proper test rigs. Now that is all well and good until the image quality of your sensor is not realisable in real world use due to vibration and or lighting, even the small vibration when the camera is MLU'd on a very sturdy tripod does not seem to be good enough, I know I tested it. Add into that inconsistent lighting and you have a very good reason why bench test samples and real world images look different.</p> <p>I can very well believe people who say they can see a difference, in my images I did see enough of a difference to not buy the 7D. I also believe people who say they can't see a difference in <strong>their</strong> images. Both cameras are superb tools, either will do almost anything with aplomb, but there is a difference in outright image quality, for some people that difference is enough to prioritse a purchase, for others it is outweighed by AF or other features.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now