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

[scott_ferris]

<p>William,</p>

<p><em>7D vs. 5DMkII is only a skirmish.</em> No, it is war, the just shall prevail!<br /> <em>If you buy the 24 to 105/4L then ask if you should have bought the 24 to 70 instead.</em> 24-70, only a fool buys the 24-105, it is ONLY f4 for goodness sake!<br /> <em>And then ask if you need to put a UV filter on it, for lens protection . . . </em>Only a philistine would dream of using a filter on a 24-70, if you insist on asking stupid suggestions then I will start SHOUTING!<br /> <em>Then ask if IS is really necessary . . . </em>IS IS necessary, it should be provided for all at birth!<br>

All done with tongue firmly in cheek...........<br>

Take care William :-)</p>

[William Michael]

<p>yeah but . . . F/4 . . . minus "4 stops of IS" makes it an F/1.0 lens, and that's fast for a zoom.<br />Anyway - if the 24 to 70 is soooooo good . . . how come yours is in for repairs . . . again.</p>

<p>:) back at ya.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>PS - Bob, Nikon was better, but it isn't any more.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ah, I think I am just clumsy, I took it out the bag one day and the zoom has jammed, I now have a 3lb 70mm f2.8. C'est la vie.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>no, not clumsy, I think you just over work the poor thing . . . it has probably had three "normal" lifetimes in your hands, already.<br>

With your new 70/2.8, perhaps you now will see the superiority of . . . <em>Primes over Zooms.</em><br>

Ah! A thought for another thread topic.<br>

I am now out of here lest we have too much idle chatter off topic and get reprimanded: I trust Zvia is deep contemplating and decision making - apologies to Zvia for any disturbance.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>But I am sincerely sorry to hear sad news 'bout you fav. lens.</p>

 

[dogbert]

<p>I don't own either the 7D or the 5D mark II and have never used either. Based on my experience, my strong advice is to get the 5D Mark II.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>F/4 . . . minus "4 stops of IS" makes it an F/1.0 lens, and that's fast for a zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aha! Yes, but it's only an f/1.0 lens for your HANDS. It's still an f/4 lens for your moving subjects. :-)</p>

<p>That said, I love IS and count it as one of the great technological breakthroughs in photography.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no doubt a more comprehensive wide-angle line up exists for full frame. That does not mean that all of these lenses produce stunning images, make a huge impact on photography, or sell for a reasonable price either. If true wide angle is what you wish, then (D)SLRs are a far cry from what you should be really shooting: Large format, and rangefinders- to a certain extent.<br>

I have the 16-35II and 17-40 L-lenses. They good for what they do at f/2.8. No, they're not as good as Nikon's offerings (14-24 and 16-35). But there's a little Sigma (8-16) that sells for half their price and provides for four times the impact, and it does so on APS-C. Naturally, you're losing light and you get questionable future upgrade paths... but that is a price I was willing to sacrifice to get 8mm FOV on APS-C.. with stunning color and sharpness. Don't believe me? Why don't you get a copy yourself and try it out.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Don't believe me? Why don't you get a copy yourself and try it out.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not a matter of believing you; nor the 8mm WA compass of the Sigma lens and its native effect - nor is it a matter of what you or I are prepared to sacrifice, or not. Nor is it a matter of if <em>I</em> want as a true wide angle - I still have a 5x4 View Camera, for example. <em>I</em> wouldn’t buy the Sigma Lens because it is too slow (aperture). And I am happier using a 16 35 . . . or a fast 24. But I am fine that you like 8mm on an APS-C.<br /><br />A careful re-read my commentary should make all those points obvious and none are points of argument, which you seem to want? Maybe I am mistaken.</p>

<p>Rather my commentary was addressing the assertion that the Sigma lens <strong><em>"is the best" and etc,</em></strong> which is what I quoted.<br />And "the best" is often guided by <strong><em>as mentioned</em></strong>, what <strong><em>“I </em></strong><strong><em>was willing to sacrifice”</em></strong> and for some others that might not be: Aperture; 135 Format capacity; weather sealing – just as some examples of the sacrifices made.</p>

<p><strong><em>“Impact”</em></strong> also has a lot to do with behind the lens – though yes, 8mm on an APS-C can be visually impactful – I have seen some results.</p>

<p>But please post some examples of yours in your portfolio here, or link to them, as I (and others I am sure) am interested to see some or some more at 8mm with the Impact of which you speak.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Zvia - <em>Thanks Daniel...so which is which?</em></p>

<p>The fact that you have to ask is the point :-) If the 5D mkII were significantly better at low ISO there wouldn't be a question. And if it's not obvious while pixel peeping, you certainly won't see it in print.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scott Ferris<em> - Oh a challenge, I missed this before, I am certainly not scared to "guess". My guess for Daniels 7D vs 5D MkII files? I say the 7D is the right hand column.</em></p>

<p>Wrong. They're mixed.</p>

<p><em>What I love about these threads is that people who actually own, or use, both camera formats all state that they can see quality differences between FF and crop cameras. </em></p>

<p>I've used both. So did Amateur Photographer. I know Dave Luttmann is very familiar with the 7D and Canon's various FF bodies. None of us agree with your assessment.</p>

<p>But more to the point: why can't the people who <strong>say</strong> the 5D mkII is clearly better actually <strong>demonstrate</strong> it with samples? I'm well aware of human psychology and bias. There's a reason why medical studies are performed in a double blind fashion. Properly processed I don't think anyone could tell 5D mkII from 7D files in a double blind study, given low to mid ISO files. At high ISO, yes, it starts to become apparent.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scott Ferris - <em>However, of the declared owners of both 7D and 5D MkII, you are in the extreme minority in not seeing IQ differences in good sized prints, all power to you and your printing technique.</em></p>

<p>Who are the "declared owners"? Where are they surveyed, and what are their numbers that I might determine the size of the "minority" Dave and I are in?</p>

<p>Better yet, let's dispense with opinion. Where are the samples which illustrate so clearly the 5D mkII advantage that anyone can discern between them?</p>

<p><em>Nobody knows how much print comparison anybody has done, certainly Daniel does not own a FF digital.</em></p>

<p>That's because after borrowing one and using it for tests and sample prints I decided it wasn't worth it at this time. That may change with the release of the 5D mkIII. We'll see.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>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, </em></p>

<p>I don't think Dave ever intended to imply that I shot them. Let's not beat an irrelevant point to death.</p>

<p><em>his post processing is weak in the extreme, </em></p>

<p>LOL! Is this your backup excuse for why you can't tell which came from which? I only applied a very slight Smart Sharpen to the 7D squares. No other "post processing." You would be hard pressed to tell even if I didn't touch them except to mix them up with no labels.</p>

<p><em>bench test samples are quite different from real world ones.</em></p>

<p>Perhaps you can provide some real world ones that demonstrate clearly the claim of a large 5D mkII IQ advantage?</p>

<p><em> Why do you insist that others that have different opinions from yours and are not kowtowed have to be wrong?</em></p>

<p>I don't wish to answer for Dave. But for me I debate this point because it's a testable point. And I have yet to see a single test back up the claim that the 5D mkII is significantly, noticeably better in print.</p>

<p>I always qualify my statement. The 7D does need a bit more sharpening and sometimes needs more NR, so when you first open the files the 5D mkII can look a bit better. The 5D mkII clearly pulls ahead at high ISO. (Though the 7D is very, very good there as well.) And the 5D mkII, with about a stop more of DR, is more forgiving of exposure errors.</p>

<p>But those are small differences considering the $1,000 price difference, the much better feature set on the 7D, and the fact that corner-to-corner sharp glass is considerably cheaper for crop in certain segments such as UWA.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>One thing I learned many moons ago is how people jusge differences. I remember being impressed by the sharpness of some yachting pictures until one member showed what <em>he</em> considered acceptable for his photos - a completely different league altogether. And when you see the outcome of a professional's shoot you get to understand the increasingly small differences that (to them) mean the difference between a very good and an excellent photograph. Very often, to me I would be delighted with any of them, but the person who shoots them has a different frame of reference.</p>

<p>To go back to my ealier post, when two cameras are so similar in performance (if they weren't then this post wouldn't be 4 pages long!) then the decision is emotional as much as it is rational and I think you will be happier knowing you had bought the 5DII.<br>

But let us know how your comparison goes.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>I remember that too :-)</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Daniel, I think it's become painfully obvious that those of us who have really used both, clearly know the differences are not striking at all. The fact that Scott couldn't tell the difference in a 100% screen view clearly shows this to be the case. As well, the fact that some people try to derail the topic to tangents about who posted what, etc, shows their case to be a weak one.</p>

<p>It appears that the only people who claim large differences either haven't used both, don't really own both cameras, or simply parrot back what they've read from other forums. Reputable test sites confirm this to be the case. And for those that wish to believe the difference is striking, you can test this for yourself. Go to the Imaging Resource test site. Go to the 5D2 and 7D tests and go to the samples page. On the right near the top their is a "Thumbnail" link. This will have Raw files from their tests that one can download. Loom at their still life images at 100 iso for example.....where you'd shoot a landscape. Download the Raw, process them in Lightroom for example. Apply sharpening to taste. And the final point, make a print. Interpolate both for a 16x24 print at 240 ppi. Make an 8x10 crop from the middle (unless you really want 16x24 papers used up) and compare.</p>

<p>Everyone here claiming striking differences will soon fall silent. Happens all the time.</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>This site did a controlled print comparison of aps vs. ff, and found a noticeable difference:</p>

<p>http://www.wyofoto.com/EOS_IQ_shootout_2008/EOS_shootout_2008.html</p>

<p>That's also been my experience. I have the 5DII and have owned aps cameras (have a t1i now) and have gotten the best image quality from full frame.</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>Start saving your pennies, and wait for the 5D Mark III. It should be out soon.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00Y0yo"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=550912">Ron Hartman</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jan 12, 2011; 09:15 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This site did a controlled print comparison of aps vs. ff, and found a noticeable difference:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.wyofoto.com/EOS_IQ_shootout_2008/EOS_shootout_2008.html">http://www.wyofoto.com/EOS_IQ_shootout_2008/EOS_shootout_2008.html</a><br>

That's also been my experience. I have the 5DII and have owned aps cameras (have a t1i now) and have gotten the best image quality from full frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ron, that was for the 50D. This discussion has really moved towards a comparison of the 5D2 and the 7D at 16x24.</p>

 

 

[ronhartman]

<p>Dave,<br>

They did include the 5DII and did make 16X20 prints. If a 7D had been used instead in the comparison, I don't think the results would have changed much, 15mp to 18mp.</p>

<p>It's still physics. If a larger image can be captured in the camera, film or digital, it needs less magnification to make a given size print. I think the comparison does a great job of showing at what sizes and viewing distances the differences are apparent.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Ron, they would have improved a fair bit. The 7D sensor is quite different than the 50D. Better noise floor, improved DR, better tonality.</p>

<p>Regardless, as I said, after comparing the 5D2 and 7D, at 16x24 there was no difference. Do the test yourself with the Raw files at the Imaging Resource. I'm amazed at how many people will scan the net for posts.....and refuse to try the comparison themselves. If they dead, these threads would never start.</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>I looked at the Imaging Resource review of the 7D, and they say that the image quality of the 5DII and Nikon D3X are "clearly superior thanks to their full-size 35mm-equivalent status".<br>

And to my eyes, with the detail they show, the 5DII does look better then the 7D.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Odd Ron, I'm looking at the Raw files in Lightroom and there is no difference. Can you post an image that shows this huge difference? As an aside, the site describes the higher quality based on all settings....high iso included, where the FF are indeed better.</p>

<p>At iso 100, there is no difference at the size I stated.</p>

<p>Have you run the print test as I described? I presume not.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> The 7D does need a bit more sharpening and sometimes needs more NR, so when you first open the files the 5D mkII

can look a bit better. The 5D mkII clearly pulls ahead at high ISO. (Though the 7D is very, very good there as well.) And the

5D mkII, with about a stop more of DR, is more forgiving of exposure errors. But those are small differences considering the

$1,000 price difference, ...

 

That's prob a decent assessment. But for those that have more demanding requirements, the extra $1K is definitely worth it.

 

 

>>> It appears that the only people who claim large differences either haven't used both, don't really own both cameras, or

simply parrot back what they've read from other forums.

 

Oh please... You've got a 7D and it meets your needs. I'm very happy for you. I tried one for a week and it didn't meet mine

with respect to IQ, for what and the way I shoot. The 5DII clearly does. You can't see the difference, that's fine, you made

the right choice and saved a lot of money in the process. You want to spend time getting worked up defending your choice,

that's fine too. There's a reason Canon has the 5DII in their lineup, and why people are willing to pay more for the impoved

IQ they get.

[ronhartman]

<p>Dave, I was looking at this page of the 7D test, about 2/3's down. They compare crops from 6 cameras at 3 different iso's.</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DA.HTM</p>

<p>I actually shot my own little comparison test this morning, t1i vs. 5Dii, 100L macro, raw. viewed in Photoshop. There is just a little more detail in the FF shot, in the text on the books in a bookcase. A subtle difference, but I could see it. The images displayed 16" across on my monitor. </p>

<p>So I don't plan to download and print the IR pictures. As I said, I've already seen a difference. The question is how big of a difference, and is it really going to be visible in the pictures people take/post/display. I guess everybody has to answer that for themselves.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have both and they are both very good cameras. In tersm of size weight and design they are almost identical. The 7D has a separate video / LV control and a button for previewing all the settings on the LCD (the 5DII you just press the joystick) and the 7D has a built in flash. <br>

In terms of image quality the 5DII produces the better images - even at low ISO and clearly at higher ISOs.</p>