zvia_shever Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 <p>I agree Nathan, I definitely plan on shooting without a tripod also. It's not just about the final print quality, I've got to find out if I'd miss the fps or the focal length, among other things. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spipaw Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 <p>Good luck Zvia. Please let us know how your test come out. I fear that during these heated debates with most having the best of intentions, you may have gotten lost in the fray. Besides, if you don't give us your conclusion, this thread may go on forever! Have fun.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>I'd suggest that you forget the tedious process of testing, but instead spend you time shooting in a variety of circumstances similar to what you normally like to do. Use one camera and then the other.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 >>> I'd suggest that you forget the tedious process of testing, but instead spend you time shooting in a variety of circumstances similar to what you normally like to do. Ah... Another breath of fresh air! Thank you! That's exactly what I did. Some people like to pour over other peoples pictures and make pixel assessments over internet forums. I like to shoot on the street and blog. Much more satisfying. As I said above, using both cameras and seeing the results it was immediately clear. Odd that someone is getting worked up over little stuff like that... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>"Okay...so back to me people ;)"</p> </blockquote> <p>Apologies for my intrusions, when addressing other matters.</p> <p>WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>here are two crops that represent about the same percentage of the image</p> </blockquote> <p>Unfair comparison - you can only judge fairly<em> at the image level</em>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Everyone here claiming striking differences will soon fall silent</p> </blockquote> <p>God, if only that were true, Dave!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>Keith if you want I can post the entire images but I am not sure that the website can handle them. I am merely trying to show that at high ISO the 5DII is less noisy than the 7D. I am not trying to make a point about which camera is "better' - merely trying to objectively show the differences. I can assure you that at the image level the 5DII is less noisy than the 7D. This should not be a big surprise as this is in line with every test I have ever seen. This link shows objective tests from DXOMark. As you can see the 5DII clearly outperforms the 7D at higher ISO with better signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, tonal range and colour sensitivity.<br> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/619|0/(appareil2)/483|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon</p> <p>Since the cameras are using the same technology generation of sensor and processor and the pixel size of the 5DII is almost twice that of the 7D this should not be a surprise. It is simply physics - the large 5DII pixel area captures more light and therefore needs less amplification.<br> What I HAVE NOT STATED is which camera should be used. THe simple fact is that at high ISO the 5DII produces better quality images. This may well not matter as the 7D has clearly better AF and the image quality of the 7D is still very good. What image quality you are looking for is a subjective measure not and objective one. The fact that the 5DII produces a technically superior image to the 7D does not mean that the 7D is a bad camera. Indeed I find the image quality of my 7D (even at high ISO) is as good as my 1DIIN produced.<br> Perhaps you can explain why two crops taken at the same ISO with the same lens from the same arena and hockey event is an unfair comparison. With two kids playing hockey I shoot a lot of ice hockey. I find either camera does the job well but I tend to favour the 7D over the 5DII. While the images are not as clean the AF is better and the focal length multiplication means that you can shoot the entire match quite easily with a 70-200 F2.8. With the 5DII you can also shoot the entire match with a 70-200 F2.8 but sometimes I like to use a 300mm lens for goal mouth shots. The problem I find with posting entire images is that the compression needed to get them on the site will obscure most of the differences between the cameras. I have similar problems when I try and compare 5DII images to scanned 6x8 medium format slides. Obviously this means that if you are just shooting to post on sites like this the 5DII and 7D produce the same effective image quality.<br> Keith have you used both cameras at high ISO?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_hitchen Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>The only comment I will make on the hockey shots is that you compare 100% crops - this means that with the higher pixel density of the 7D you are showing a smaller proportion of the image (higher magnification). How does the noise compare when the two pictures are framed the same and you look at the same extract? Does it significantly reduce the difference between the two cameras?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>Cropped to the same angle of view the differences narrow but the 5DII image is still cleaner and provides more contrast. This is not really a fair comparison in my opinion as I can change the angle of view by changing the lens. Standing by the boards I find that there is no really good lens and camera combination for ice hockey. The 7D with a 70-200 F2.8 is probably the best compromise but is a bit long when the action is close to you. The 5DII with the 70-200 F2.8 is good for most shots but a bit short for goal mouth action. In practice I tend to use the 7D more often as it has better AF and a faster frame rate. In the ideal world I would replace my aging 1DIIN with a 1DIV but I decided to hold off and see where Canon goes with the 5DIII and 1DsIV.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newland Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>I' don't think that this is very fear to put a F/F up against a cropped sensor, they are both great cameras in there own right, 7D vs D300s or 5D ll vs D700 is more realistic to me, but it makes for a good read, but serious if you can keep the 40D, then I would get the 5Dll and have the best of both wolds.... PS I have used all three, but now I use 50D and the 5Dll, Good luck with your decision Zvia...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Cropped to the same angle of view the differences narrow but the 5DII image is still cleaner and provides more contrast.</p> </blockquote> <p>All of a sudden that's starting to sound remarkably like we're talking about a <em>lot</em> less than the supposedly glaring, obvious, unequaled IQ superiority that we're being told the 5D Mk II gives over the 7D.</p> <p>I know beyond the remotest doubt that the pretty minimal noise differences between the 7D and 5D Mk II (for the record, I don't accept accept the contrast thing at all) can be made to go away trivially easily with intelligent conversion and PP decisions.</p> <p>And - just for larks - I'll just remind the class of the 5D Mk II's well-documented high ISO banding issues, <em>which are completely absent from the 7D. </em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I don't think that this is very fair to put a F/F up against a cropped sensor</p> </blockquote> <p>Sure it is - the 7D can <em>easily</em> hold its own in the contest. The only "problem" for the 7D in this match is that some people just don't know how to get the best out of it.</p> <p>But I've got 6400-12,800 ISO images from my 7D that no 5D Mk II can <em>better (</em>God knows, I've posted up enough examples in other threads) and I'll put the 7D up against the 5D Mk II any day for high ISO work.</p> <p>The world is changing, and the idea that - by definition - full frame is<em> inherentl</em>y better than crop in IQ terms (and particularly in high ISO IQ terms) is just dead.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newland Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>Well thats great for you Keith, but what about the not so good shooters, how will they get a long with the 7D....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffdr_rasouliyan Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>I have both and I sure wish my 7D could compare to my 5D mark II. I mad for paying all that money when I could have gotten another 5D Mark II. 5D all the way. v/r Buffdr</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Interesting that people are so into holding camera contests and get so worked up. Kind of funny. Reminds me of cars in high school. Is anybody putting up camera pink slips up here yet? Me, I just shoot... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zvia_shever Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>Ok, I'm finally back and ready to report! </p> <p>Just one important caveat before I start: The following are just my observations. They're not scientific, not thorough, not anything except the result of an amateur (very amateur) playing around with 3 different cameras to see which one I'm willing to throw money at. I took some shots using a tripod and some handheld. I compared my 40D to the 7D using a 17-55 f/2.8 IS and then all three cameras using a 70-200 f/4 IS. </p> <p>1. Handling: All three felt good in my hands. The 5DII seems closer to the 40D in terms of bells and whistles etc... One thing that I found a little frustrating was the 3.9 fps on the 5DII. Not sure how much difference it would make in real world usage situations, but it definitely felt slow. </p> <p>Best: 7D</p> <p>2. Focus: Again the 5DII seemed to focus about as well as the 40D. The 7D's focusing system was definitely a treat. I liked that I could spot focus or area focused around a spot. The results though, didn't show the 7D actually focus any better than the other two...they were all fine.</p> <p>Best: 7D simply for its variety of choices in focus settings.</p> <p>3. Color/tone/contrast: The 5DII and the 7D both beat the 40D. The 7D did appear a little dark though.</p> <p>Best: 5DII followed by the 7D</p> <p>4. Focal length: The difference of perspective between the full frame and the crop was huge. I can't say one or the other was better, it's just that I'm used to a crop. I got into photography with Canon's first Rebel and have stuck with them. I would miss the long range of my 70-200 on the 5DII, however I've never felt 17 on the 40D was quite wide enough. </p> <p>Best: Tie</p> <p>Noise: <strong>NOTE</strong>: When the 7D first appeared, I was still using a 30D. I took a couple hand held test shots at ISO 100 at my local photo store with their copy. I was sure I wanted one until I looked at the photos at home and saw a weird kind of noise in the blue sky. I actually posted a query about it on photo.net and <em>puppyface</em> told me that converting the RAW with ACR wasn't the best and that Aperture 3 would convert more cleanly. And also that various noiseware programs could easily fix the problem. As money was a bigger issue at the time, I decided to buy a refurbished 40D from Canon instead.</p> <p> Okay, so back to today. At ISO 100, all 3 cameras produced clean shots. The 7D still had that weird noise in the sky, but I was able to get rid of it easily with a noiseware plug in. At 400 the noise started to peek through in the 40D and the 7D, but again the photos were fine with a little noiseware fix. There was zero noise at 400 on the 5DII and wasn't even noticeable at 800. Then I got to 1600 and wow, what a difference. The 40D was not so good, but with correction, the photos were okay but soft. The raw 7D's looked horrible. The noise looked like speckling, it was weird. Again, I was able to fix it with noiseware but still had some strange artifacts left over, especially in the dark areas (basketball stand against the sky, shadow area of hubcap), that were even worse than the 40D (but sharper) and was not as sharp as the 5D. Also, the 5D noise was actually pleasant and quite even...not "artifacty."</p> <p>Best: 5D </p> <p>Overall look: Ok, so this is kinda hard to explain, but the 5D had a different look. Better bokeh and something else too....maybe depth or polish or something; not sure what to call it, but I liked it.</p> <p>I was looking for a clear cut answer, but as most of you pointed out already, there isn't one. I<em> did come to the conclusion that I'd love to own a FF.</em> I think it would be a definite upgrade from a crop as a walk around/travel/party/landscape camera (with a 24-105 or 24-70). I could also see myself using the camera more due to its "pleasant" noise at 1600+. I often leave the 40D at home when out in the evening instead of lugging a tripod around, or relying on an ugly flash. However, I'm not willing to give up the focal length advantage of the crop for sports and wildlife. So I guess that means I'll have to find a way to swing both. </p> <p>The 40D came out a few months after I purchased the 30D and it really unnerved me! So I don't want to run out and buy the 5DII knowing it's almost 2 1/2 years old and Canon will most likely bring out the III by the Fall (hopefully with the 7D's focusing system and 5fps). So right now I need to decide if I want to upgrade the 40D to a 7D and then buy the 5DIII next year when I can afford it....or....stick with the 40D, rent the 5DII for my trips and buy the 5DIII as soon as it appears. That's simply a money decision. </p> <p>Thanks so much for all your insight. The advice was great and really gave me something to think about, and the side conversations were amusing to say the least ;) Zvia</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>Keith</p> <p>Clearly you do not follow the links while you have a 7D that performs as well as a 5DII it must be a unique one. How do you know it performs as well as a 5DII - have you used a 5DII much or have you just decided this is the case. <br> If you had taken the time to follow up my links you would have noticed that it is not just my perception that the 5DII is a better performer - the machines that others have used to measure the performance of camera sensors (e.g. DXO Mark) have also recorded significant differences. Perhaps the machines have been taken in by the marketing literature!<br> Tell me why is this so hard to accept?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>Zvia,</p> <p>There is very very little focal length advantage in the 7D over cropping the 5D MkII image to match, I know because I did a series of tests on it, it was my main interest in getting a 7D. After comparing crops from a 5D MkII (1Ds MkIII) to a 7D even under the most optimal conditions, the focal length advantage is tiny, so small it is not worth bothering with. In real world use it is non existent.</p> <p>Now that is not to say the 7D is not a great camera, it is, I am not saying don't get one, what I am saying is, if your only rational for getting the 7D is a tele advantage, it is a false one. There are many good reasons to get a 7D over a 5D MkII, but not a tele advantage.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>Great observations Zvia,</p> <p>As Daniel and I, and others mentioned on the issue of testing, for us, when the prints show no difference at my normally largest size, I saw no need to go further.</p> <p>As I mentioned, I used the test images from the Imaging Resource. I processed the raw files in Lightroom, and interpolated and sharpened each to produce a 16x24 print. To get an idea as to what it looks like on print, while viewing on screen, I reduced the size by 50%....which is a good approximation when the resolution is set at 240 ppi.</p> <p>Below are two samples. As one can see, there are no glaring, striking, or otherwise huge differences as some like to claim. What is most amusing is how some people prefer to quote LP/mm, MTF curves, etc, etc, etc.....instead of simply processing the raw files themselves to see. As can be seen from these images, there is no striking difference between them. </p> <p>Reality is a hard lesson for some.</p> <p><img src="http://www.members.shaw.ca/daveandclaire/test/A.jpg" alt="" /><br> <img src="http://www.members.shaw.ca/daveandclaire/test/C.jpg" alt="" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 <p>Zvia, thanks for the report.</p> <p>Remember, the 5D2 with the 70-200mm works great with the EF 1.4x TC.</p> <p>Following is a pre-dawn shot with the 5D MkII and the 70-200mm f/4L IS with the 1.4x TC at ISO 6400:</p> <p><a title="Very handsome bull elk by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/5052103585_02e4b29fae_b.jpg" alt="Very handsome bull elk" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p> <p>Also remember that you can crop the 5D2 image so that the subject is the same size as on the 7D and there'll be approximately the same number of pixels on the subject. Hence, there'll be no loss in image quality, even after cropping.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zvia_shever Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 <p>Hi Dave and David,<br /> I know print is much more forgiving than my big mac monitor. And having looked at the differences at 50%, there are definitely no glaring issues even with the 40D. Both cameras are really wonderful pieces of work - heck even my 40D is a gem. Most of my friends take pics with their point and shoots and are amazed at my "beautiful" shots....even the ones I think are crappy, so it's all good. But if I had $4,500 in spare change laying around, I'd be out tomorrow buying both!<br> Also David...impressive shot at ISO 6400!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 <p>Cropping is one thing and I don't want to enter into a debate about whether 5D crops match 7D crops, but I find having viewfinder framing that more closely matches the final picture better for composition than a viewfinder that covers a much bigger area and then having to think what it will look like heavily cropped.<br> I guess that is one of the reasons why I like having both and APS-C and a FF camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielleetaylor Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 <p>Ron - <em>This site did a controlled print comparison of aps vs. ff, and found a noticeable difference:</em></p> <p>They also used the same processing for each file. Things like local contrast enhancement, sharpening, and NR need to be tailored to the sensor, lens, and scene. They controlled for lens and scene, but the sensors are different and still require different settings.</p> <p>I can easily process the three files in question such that at 16x24 equivalent print size it would be difficult, if not impossible, to discern the difference.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielleetaylor Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 <p>Brad - <em>That's prob a decent assessment. But for those that have more demanding requirements, the extra $1K is definitely worth it.</em></p> <p>If nobody can tell the difference in print, then how does the extra $1k serve more demanding requirements?</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