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

[petrana_batik]

<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.<br /> 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.<br /> <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.<br /> 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.<br /> WW</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mr. Wu, judging from your very own portfolio, I suggest you tone down your elitist, chauvinistic views, and take a few master classes. You might choose to sell your fullframe body to pay for that. Take a close look at my replies first, and then perhaps study the Sigma lens a bit further.<br /> To satisfy Zvia's original interest (which all of us are guilty with hijacking her thread), I am including a few attachments of prior works... All shot on the <strong>Canon 40D</strong> (what she owns right now), and utilizing the 8-16 Sigma. Oh yes, they all sold.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5166/5302579742_bb1bf15b72_b.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5079677214_21b3cd8235_b.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br /><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1151/5103665559_5f6922b45f_b.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br /><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5243334192_533fa7aa41_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[acedigital]

<p>Keep the 40D, and RENT a 5DMKII (and whatever lens) for your vacation trip(s) and give it a test drive. Costco makes brilliant 16x20 and 20x30 poster prints from my 40D! <br>

Check out<br>

www.borrowlenses.com<br>

$212 for one week 5DmkII body rental</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Still waiting to get my hands on both the 7D and the 5D....hopefully this evening, then I can make comparisons tomorrow. Mark - If I don't love the 7D and decide to wait for the 5D mk3, then renting the mk 2 may be the way to go.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I'm still waiting for the images that confirm the difference Brad. Like I said, the Raw files from the Imaging Resource confirm exactly what I said....on print, you wont see it. The samples Daniel posted confirm the same...even with those that thought they could tell.</p>

<p>And yet, apparently you can see a huge difference. I'd like to see the images confirming this as it doesn't seem to agree with simple testing. I don't think that is too much to ask. What I don't need, is another 3 paragraphs tellimg me I'm wrong. As samples have been provided showing the differences won't appear in pruint, the onus is on those who think the difference is huge to provide confirming samples.</p>

<p>Notice how there aren't any posted? I wonder why.</p>

<p>I'm done with this thread. I find it shocking that someone would dig their heels in with an opinion that can't seem to be replicated in testing.....despite given every opportunity to do so.</p>

 

[zvia_shever]

<p>Hang in there Dave....I'll be doing my comparison tomorrow.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Mr. Wu, judging from your very own portfolio, I suggest you tone down your elitist, chauvinistic views, and take a few master classes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Crikey where did that vitriol come from? Seem some have bent up frustrations.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting the images: they are really a good example of what I was asking for, to show what 8mm can do.</p>

<p>As for the personal attacks – well firstly they are against forum rules - and secondly you can stick them, three quarter ways, Honey. Have a nice life. And next time, take the trouble to get the name correct and perhaps even take the time to read what my portfolio is all about, before making comments about master classes and such.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>At high ISo the difference is massive - here are two crops that represent about the same percentage of the image. Shot at ice hockey matches using the same lens.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>7D crop </p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>7D at ISO 200</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>And the 5DII</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>At lower ISO the difference is not quite as obvious but the 5DII is delivering sharper and more contrasty images than the 7D. While these are not test shots they are crops from real landscape shots taken a few days apart they show the difference between the two cameras. I am sure that some will note that the 24-70 at 24mm and F4.5 is not as sharp as the 85mm at F7.1 but they were the lenses on the camera that day. When i look at the full images on my 27 inch MAC PC the 5DII images do appear to be "better" than those from the 7D. That said either camera is capable of creating top quality images. David I hope these samples answer your question.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I've tested them both and here are some samples. First the 5D Mark II</p>

[dogbert]

<p>5D mark II</p><div></div>

[petrana_batik]

<blockquote>

<p>Crikey where did that vitriol come from? Seem some have bent up frustrations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just the usual drivel and crap I get handed with, by online photographers who can read MTF curves but can't focus, meter, or compose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for posting the images: they are really a good example of what I was asking for, to show what 8mm can do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What 8mm can do on a $500 body, mind you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the personal attacks – well firstly they are against forum rules - and secondly you can stick them, three quarter ways, Honey. Have a nice life. And next time, take the trouble to get the name correct and perhaps even take the time to read what my portfolio is all about, before making comments about master classes and such.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Save your "Honey"s for people who care, William W. And next time, when you take things to the limit, perhaps declare which limit it is: yours, or your gear's.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>and now the 7D</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Finally just a data point for Daniel Lee Taylor - taken from the DXO tests DXO Mark scores the 5DII and 85 F1.8 at 30, the 7D and same lens at 14 and the 40D and same lens at 12. In their instrumented tests the the 5DII plus 85 F1.8 resolved 66lp/mm, the 7D only managed 47lp/mm while the 40D did 39lp/mm. This would seem objective proof of the 5DII IQ. Similarly while Photozone does not have tests with the 7D they do have tests of the 85 F1.8 with the 5DII and 50D. The 50D resolves up to 2527 centre and 2405 line widths per picture height in their tests (at F4). The 5DII and same lens resolves 3426 and 3230 at F4. While the 7D is better than the 50D these two objective instrumented tests reveal the 5DII superiority. At what point you can see that superiority is a question I cannot answer. Surely the fact that almost all owners of the 5DII and 7D and the objectives tests by these types of institution should convince you there is a difference. The machines can measure it and owners say they can see it. Does that make the 7D a bad camera - NO, I even bought one to replace my ageing 1DS IIN and I am very happy with it. That said it is not my preferred body for most uses. Most SLRs (including my 1974 Canon F1) can make very good quality prints - even at 24x16 inches.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<blockquote>

<p>and now the 7D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>HAHAHAHAHAHA</p>

<p>Thanks Geoff</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Personally I have trouble picking the difference between the two at less than 16x24 magnification.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Just the usual drivel and crap I get handed with, by online photographers who can read MTF curves but can't focus, meter, or compose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perfect response. . . as previouly noted, frustrations.<br />And those then foisted onto others, by one taking irrelevant matters, such as portfolio content, for example to include via one's incapacity to both read literally and also understand the word as written and further to take every opportunity to escalate and make an argument, when there was never one, at all.<br />And all that combined with making up one's own stories to suit, such that one can initiate personal attacks - like “chauvinistic” and “elitist”, as examples.<br />Analysis of each commentary; and the flow of the intercourse reveals it.<br />Thanks for sharing. I hope the commentaries stay, as written, as they show these points entirely.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>PS Note for clarity and historical record of our parley: "Honey" is a response to "Chauvinist" and not an initiation of it.<br />Actually ‘Honey” was meant also with a tint of levity, as a pun to “Chauvinist”. <br />So therefore, accordingly it is not retracted.</p>

[john_bolton2]

<p>Buy nothing now. Start saving for a 5D3. That's what I'm doing (50D).</p>

[petrana_batik]

<blockquote>

<p>Perfect response. . . as previouly noted, frustrations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Come on William, hit me with your best shot. I'm pretty sure you can compose sentences better than images. Perhaps you could prove me otherwise? From what I gather, you (alike many others here) go to great measures to compare optics, shoot and reshoot static meaningless flat objects, ponder about godly bokeh qualifications, and reiterate resolution scores as if they are a religious chant of Zen-like proportions... and yet fail to show an image that actually PROVES the point of owning said piece of equipment you so deeply swear by.<br>

<strong>The mere truth is, that for nearly all applications (and yes, I have a few real photographers here that SUPPORT this real world assertion), the print looks the SAME. EXACTLY the same. </strong><br>

Ask me why I like full-frame? I like and use it because of the viewfinder, critical manual focusing, and heavy cropping capabilities (yes, sometimes you don't have time to careful frame an image).. but most of all: the fact that Canon professional services and insurance policies cater to 1's and 5's differently than they do with 7's. Higher ISO performance? negligible in real life. Wide angle applications? Easily an over statement. lp/mm? you must be kidding me.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_king2]

<p>This is an older review, but...</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Hit me with your best shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok. No problem. IF you want a civil conversation and can commit to simply re-reading my commentary, in order here summarized:</p>

<ol>

<li>I stated that there is a FL advantage & a FoV advantage for the OP to consider a 16 to 35 rather than either 24 to 70 or 24 to 105, if the OP is using a dual format kit.</li>

<li>I cited a specific comment relating to a sigma (APS-C specific lens) having no equivalent on FF and I expanded that (for the benefit of the OP) explaining that there are <strong><em>many elements to select what “the best” might</em></strong> be. i.e. your “best” (or most suitable) or my “best” might not be the OP’s “best” (or most suitable). Specifically, I stated that I was not arguing what Camera (and therefore lens) the OP should get, but rather there are more WA options with a FF kit.</li>

<li>There are then 3 commentaries off topic, relating to other matters, and all are in light humour.</li>

<li>Next is a specific response to my need to believe you, and your definition of “best”. There I explain that I have already seen samples (indeed I have samples in my hard drive of the 8mm lens used on a 20D and a 30D, but these are not my images), so I asked for you to post images (noted you said you had used the lens in question) to specifically show the impact 8mm can have. Note there is no mention of your photographic worth, nor mention of your ability to meter light nor mention of your ability to compose shots, nor asking if you have sold any photos. Also in that commentary I listed my priorities and what my “best” would be and why. Neither did I say that my best can take better pictures, than your best can or imply anything in that fashion. In fact at that point, I invited you to re read what I had written before, on the thread so you would establish this. And I also mentioned that even though I perceived you wished to argue, there indeed was no argument. </li>

<li>Next <strong>was firstly a question indicating surprise</strong> and then followed a direct and forceful response to: inaccuracy shown by incorrect address; personal attack, specifically: “chauvinistic” “elitist” and “attitude”; off topic debate and commentary upon a small selection my photographic work which is chosen for display here; and the suggestion that I should take classes (most funnily, rather than continue earning money from giving classes). Also I thanked you for providing the images for the benefit of the OP and I noted that they displayed impact - exactly what you (and I) previously mentioned. </li>

<li>Lastly follows my summary of what exactly happened. You made up stories rather than reading what I wrote and for whatever reason, you wanted to apply your version those stories so you could argue. </li>

</ol>

<p>Re reading carefully, we note that it is you who introduces all my abilities and disabilities and comment upon them as if they are relevant to the two simple point I have contributed to the OP.<br /><br />Those two points in summary are –<br /><br />a) If we have dual format kit and two zooms there is more leverage with a 16 35 and 70 200 rather than having either mid range zoom.<br /><br />b) There are more WA options and a wider array of element to make one’s “best” Choice if we choose from a FF kit.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Further to my response to your last commentary: it is not about creating better written work than I create Photographs, as I expect you have seen few of either and could therefore never judge.<br />Notwithstanding those facts, it was never a competition nor an argument.<br /><br /><br />But when one brings pre-conceptions or baggage to the table and then sits and makes up stories as the communion develops, then poison is the only result possible – and that is what you have provided here.<br /><br />Whether you see that and then take responsibility for that is also irrelevant for me, as it is not about me at all – in this regard this commentary was written to assist you and was indeed my best shot, but not a swipe at you.</p>

<p>QED.<br>

The end.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Okay...so back to me people ;) </p>

<p>My dear brother-in-law just handed over his 7D and 5D Mark II. It's almost 9pm here so I'll break out the tripod tomorrow afternoon and try my hand at some comparisons (and I'll throw in the 40D just for fun). </p>

<p>Thanks for all the advice and commentary and everything else that ended up on this thread. Will report back by tomorrow evening.</p>

<p>Zvia</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>You can do comparisons, but I would suggest going out and shooting just as you would with your 40D and at the end of the day decide which one worked better for you and with you. One may offer features the other doesn't that caters more to your needs. </p>