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

[Brad_]

Realistically, some people aren't as fussy as others, or need the extra quality. That's fine. Everyone has a

threshold they're trying to reach. In the end, it makes no sense to pay for more capability than is needed. That's

an excellent trade-off. And as an engineer, I respect that. Why would I pay for and shoot 4x5 or MF if I don't

need that level of quality? But I still respect people who do rather than insisting my camera is "just as good."

 

What's really bizarre is that the people who have made the right choice for what they do, and can *see* the

difference, are still slagged by others whose needs aren't as great or can't see the difference - even stating so.

Even though their less expensive, and actually smarter optimal choice was ideal for their needs. But then for whatever

reason, they feel the need to aggressively defend that position in the form of demanding everyone else engage

in a my-camera-is just-as-good-as-yours camera contest. Camera technicians. I'm more into shooting.

 

It is amusing watching this evolve and seeing it get so heated. I'm surprised pink slips haven't been demanded to be

put up.

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Brad,</p>

<p>You refer to those that "can see the difference." Looking at the samples I posted, what differences are you referring to? Just curious.</p>

[Brad_]

Dave, I was referring to the fact that almost a year and a half ago trying the 7D (and wanting to like it for its better AF) and ultimately buying the

5DII, *I* (and others on this thread with their own assessment) could see a difference.

 

Simple. Just really odd that that bothers people. In the end, I respect peoples work, rather than their camera assessments.

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I don't think it's simple Brad. I think the differences people see are because they don't know how to process images from different cameras. My samples prove the point. No difference when processing Raw correctly for print. And that's at 16x24. The differences you see on screen that i posted are actually even less....but the screen sample is a pretty good indicator.</p>

<p>As I've shown there to be no difference, the onus is upon you to show there is. But like many forums, I'm certain that all we'll get is a bunch of opinions that cannot be replicated through testing.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Let me address the other side of the coin a little. Lest anyone think that I "hate" my 7D and can barely stand to use it vs. my 5D2. This white tail doe image was shot with the 7D/500-f4 combination on a tripod at ISO 400 and +1/3EV, to yield 1/100th second at f/5.6. Only default NR was applied in DxO and that painting-like background is bokeh. For every shot that I take with my 5D2 I probably take 100 with the 7D because I'm mostly shooting birds and wildlife and need high fps often, but not always, like in this shot. I had my 5D2 slung around my neck with the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 1.4x TC mounted and I could have grabbed this shot more easily than what I did here. There was a young buck harassing these young ladies and had any "action" broken out involving more than one deer, I would have raised the 5D2, even though it has a slower fps, but it had the right lens for that possibility.</p>

<p>I really do believe that these two cameras make a close to ideal two-camera system. Not all can afford that, so when anyone asks, "Which one" I ask, "How will you use it" and then give an answer based on their response. I've got around 27,000-clicks on the 7D and 15,000-clicks on the 5D2. (I bought the 5D2 a year earlier and it was my primary bird and wildlife camera until I bought the 7D). They're both great cameras and no one will go wrong buying either, IME.</p>

<p><a title="White tail deer doe in morning light by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5151159539_780c55e0e6_b.jpg" alt="White tail deer doe in morning light" width="1024" height="1024" /></a></p>

[Brad_]

>>> I think the differences people see are because they don't know how to process images from different

cameras. My samples prove the point.

 

No, they *only* prove that to you. Saying others don't know how to process is just a cheap shot. Please...

 

Just be happy with your choice. You clearly made the best decision for your needs and saved a lot of

money. That's a smart choice.

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Brad, they don't just prove it to me. That is a ridiculously ignorant statement. The raw files are there for everyone to try processing. Funny how when confronted with a real image, excuses crop up.</p>

<p>Feel free to describe the "striking" differences between the two. Oh, and if you aren't willing to discuss the samples, I'm not really interested in hearing another diatribe of opinion. I prefer dealing in the real world of fact.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[Brad_]

Honestly Dave, I just don't care.

 

What you're trying to imply through your "proof," is that anybody who has more demanding needs for IQ

is not very smart, because you have clearly proven to the world that Canon is pulling a fast on people with greater

demands, extracting an extra thousand dollars because the 7D is just as good. A lot of ill-informed people out there apparently, with more money than sense.

 

My camera works for my needs, the 7D clearly didn't. Don't worry about it. I'm extraordinarily happy your choice works for your

needs! Be happy with your decision and stop trying to beat people over the head...

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dave and Daniel,</p>

<p>If you refuse, or can't, see the differences between a test image shot in totally optimum conditions with a locked down camera and a real world image shot without either, then you should be happy in your myopia.</p>

<p>All of the owners of both the cameras in this thread can see a difference in real world use, that you can't in a couple of test images means less than nothing. Find me some real world images where the cameras are shot side by side, look at the sky, look in the shadows, can you really not see a difference? If not then be happy in your choice.</p>

<p>As a completely different aside for those that think a two camera solution is an attractive route, carrying the 7D and the 5D MkII makes little sense unless you really really need a backup camera (ie shooting weddings) or if you want video. For less money than the two you can get a 1Ds MkIII, that is where my money went and it is the most complete camera I have ever owned, a truly amazing tool.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I was wondering when it'd get to this: we're either blind or have low standards because we know how to process 7D files well...</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Yes, you misunderstand. I was suggesting taking the full 5D2 file and cropping so that the subject is the same size as in the original 7D image. Some call this, "digital crop." You'll end up with essentially the same number of pixels on the subject.</em></p>

<p>Could you please explain? Because it still sounds like you are suggesting cropping out the APS-C center of a 5D mkII frame, in which case you will not have any where near the same number of pixels on the subject.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Keith,</p>

<p>And there are just a select few of you 7D owners that are the only ones who can process a file? I'm wrong because I have higher standards? Your 7D breaks the laws of physics?</p>

<p>That your 7D is good enough for you is fine, for most of my work it would be good enough for me, but for a good bit of it it is not, why is that so hard for a few 7D owners to accept?</p>

<p>Now where are your real world images Keith, Daniel and Dave? Do you understand the differences between bench test images and real world ones? Do you accept the reasoning behind why the two "proofs" posted so far are irrelevant and not worth debating? Do you understand why it is utterly pointless to have two similarly processed comparison files and then change just one to optimise it without accepting that the other, better image, could be improved upon as well? Do you believe that all the posters in this thread that own both cameras that say they can see the differences are all lying? Do you realise the only "evidence" you, Daniel and Dave have posted have not been taken by any of you?</p>

<p>Be happy in your choice and accept that others are happy in theirs, even if they are different. I shoot MF film too, it is really funny that Daniel said <em>"3 stitched 7D frames will produce a file equal to or better than 6x7 MF film on a high end scanner, and will yield beautiful, detailed prints at very large sizes" </em>because I know that my 1Ds MkIII files are the equal of most of my 6x7 negs. Go figure!</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>What you're trying to imply through your "proof," is that anybody who has more demanding needs for IQ is not very smart, because you have clearly proven to the world that Canon is pulling a fast on people with greater demands, extracting an extra thousand dollars because the 7D is just as good.</em></p>

<p>Dave isn't trying to imply anything. He is simply showing that the claimed differences between these two sensors do not exist. You, on the other hand, are implying that those who shoot 5D2's are "more demanding" of their photography, and I think revealing part of the psychology behind this debate which is excessively long despite the fact that the evidence is so clearly one sided. How many posts in this thread boiled down to "get the 5D2 because you'll feel better"?</p>

<p>Canon is not trying to pull any fast ones. They brought out the 5D2, made advances in technology, and brought out the 7D. The 5D2 still has an edge in certain use scenarios. It just doesn't have the edge claimed whenever these threads come up. As a side note full frame was never going to maintain the gap seen in early comparisons (i.e. 5D vs 20D) because Moore's Law works in favor of crop.</p>

<p><em>Be happy with your decision and stop trying to beat people over the head...</em></p>

<p>Showing evidence is not beating someone over the head. Making endless claims without evidence is.<br /><br /></p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>If you refuse, or can't, see the differences between a test image shot in totally optimum conditions with a locked down camera and a real world image shot without either, then you should be happy in your myopia.</em></p>

<p>Why do you refuse to show us those differences if they do indeed exist?</p>

<p><em>All of the owners of both the cameras in this thread can see a difference in real world use, </em></p>

<p>Both false (not all who own or have used both agree with you) and a fallacy (appeal to common belief).</p>

<p><em>Find me some real world images where the cameras are shot side by side, look at the sky, look in the shadows, can you really not see a difference?</em></p>

<p>Have we not said that we've made real world prints, shown them to others, and could not find the differences?</p>

[Brad_]

If your personal "evidence" works for you that's fantastic. <P>

 

Again, be happy with your choice. You're clearly smarter than hundreds of thousands of people that canon

has fleeced an extra $1K out of their wallet. We apparently just don't know any better nor are able to make

our own informed choices with respect to what's needed for what and the way we shoot.<P>

 

Me, I'm not much interested in "evidence" photos put forth in forum camera contests. But rather, I'm far more

interested in photos of subject matter I shoot and post every day. Such as what can be found <a href=

"http://calibersf.com/2011/01/14/shooting-portraits/">here</a> and <a href=

"http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">here</a>.

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>And there are just a select few of you 7D owners that are the only ones who can process a file? </em></p>

<p>Amateur Photographer didn't seem to have a problem as they reached the same exact conclusion we have. (Using real world images for their tests I might add.) Though I will admit that it surprises me how often people make the mistake of rigidly using the same LCE / sharpening / NR settings despite differences in sensors, lenses, and scenes (the wyphoto test for example).</p>

<p><em>I'm wrong because I have higher standards? </em></p>

<p>You only have higher standards if you can prove the large IQ difference claimed. I've seen no proof thus far.</p>

<p><em>Your 7D breaks the laws of physics?</em></p>

<p>What law of physics would that be Scott? I know of no law which states a smaller sensor cannot match or even out resolve a larger one, or even offer superior high ISO, allowing of course for differences in design and technology. The human retina beats both APS-C and FF in resolution and sensitivity, yet is smaller still.</p>

<p><em>That your 7D is good enough for you is fine, for most of my work it would be good enough for me, but for a good bit of it it is not, why is that so hard for a few 7D owners to accept?</em></p>

<p>Why is it so hard for you to show work where an IQ difference is visible within the parameters we've given, where the 7D is not "good enough" for your "higher standards"?</p>

<p><em>Do you understand the differences between bench test images and real world ones? </em></p>

<p>Do you understand that a bench test designed to push resolution and fine detail is more likely to reveal differences in IQ than real world scenes? If we can't see it in a bench test we're not likely to see it in the real world.</p>

<p><em>Do you accept the reasoning behind why the two "proofs" posted so far are irrelevant and not worth debating?</em></p>

<p>I've seen no reasoning to that effect. Indeed, I see very little in the way of reasoning from the crowd claiming that the 5D2 is "so much better."</p>

<p>And if there is anything irrelevant and not worth debating, it is the many appeals to common belief and emotion we've seen from the other side.</p>

<p><em>Do you understand why it is utterly pointless to have two similarly processed comparison files and then change just one to optimise it without accepting that the other, better image, could be improved upon as well? </em></p>

<p>No one is doing this. Each file should be optimized to look its very best in any such comparison.</p>

<p><em>Do you believe that all the posters in this thread that own both cameras that say they can see the differences are all lying? </em></p>

<p>I believe I don't have to explain their claims in order to demonstrate they are wrong. But to humor you there are plenty of possible explanations. Maybe they're not controlling all variables. Maybe they're biased and couldn't actually pass a double blind test. Maybe their post processing skills are lacking with respect to the 7D, which is admittedly a bit more demanding in this department. Maybe they're shooting under conditions (i.e. high ISO) or in a manner (i.e. exposure errors) where the 5D2 is better and/or more forgiving.</p>

<p><em>Do you realise the only "evidence" you, Daniel and Dave have posted have not been taken by any of you?</em></p>

<p>I would prefer to use a source that anyone can review, a source which has nailed down every last possible variable because they professionally publish test results for comparison. This strengthens the results, it does not invalidate them.</p>

<p>And you have not posted a single shred of evidence of any form.</p>

<p><em>Be happy in your choice and accept that others are happy in theirs, even if they are different. I shoot MF film too, it is really funny that Daniel said "3 stitched 7D frames will produce a file equal to or better than 6x7 MF film on a high end scanner, and will yield beautiful, detailed prints at very large sizes" because I know that my 1Ds MkIII files are the equal of most of my 6x7 negs. Go figure!</em></p>

<p>It has been conclusively demonstrated in at least two film vs digital threads on this board that properly scanned MF film out resolves current FF sensors. In those same threads I showed that a 3 frame stitch of 7D files is capable of matching or out resolving MF film. IMHO the differences are small or even unnoticeable, depending on subject matter, unless you are printing larger than 20" or 24". But as you go larger they very quickly become significant. I should also note that it's very easy to get a MF scan which has lower IQ than a modern DSLR. MF is demanding of both equipment (particularly the scanner) and technique.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Brad - <em>You're clearly smarter than hundreds of thousands of people that canon has fleeced an extra $1K out of their wallet. </em></p>

<p>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html</p>

<p>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html</p>

<p><em>We apparently just don't know any better nor are able to make our own informed choices with respect to what's needed for what and the way we shoot.</em></p>

<p>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html</p>

[keith reeder]

<p><em>Sigh...</em></p>

<p>They're all talk.</p>

 

[marcsharp]

<p>Wow! This has been a long heated debate, and I haven't read ALL of it. I don't want to fan the flames, but I will say that I have both 7D and 5DII, and straight out of the camera, if you look really really close, the 5DII gets consistently less noise at higher ISOs than the 7D. I don't care about all the math and technical mumbo jumbo, I'm just looking at the images. (I always shoot in RAW. I will not post examples, so don't ask.) I am comfortable shooting both cameras at 1600. I'm OK with 3200 on the 5DII, but skeptical with the 7D above 2000. Other than that, the 7D is better than the 5DII in many ways. I don't really care about noise that much, so it doesn't bother me, but if I know I will be shooting at a high ISO, I use the 5DII. When I use the 7D the noise is obvious on the computer, but not in the prints. Noise with the 5DII is less obvious. You can pixel peep all you want, but using the camera is where you WILL see the difference.<br /> The difference is so unimportant though. Both cameras produce prints at high ISO that are way better than the grain from film at equal ISOs. I sometimes ADD grain in post processing because I like the effect.<br /> To answer the poster's question, if you feel that you are heavily invested in EF-S lenses, get the 7D. If you can spare the change, (wait for the 5D Mark III or) get the 5DII because full frame is very cool, and you still have your 40D. I'm afraid if you get the 7D, you will still want the 5DII because you want full frame.<br /> To further make people argue, consider this advantage to full frame... If you use the same lens on both cameras (Let's say a 135mm prime), and you compose the same shot, with full frame you will be closer to the subject and have to focus closer than you would with the cropped sensor. That is going to give you less depth of field, a blurrier background, a nearer hyperfocal distance, etc. (These are usually considered desirable effects).<br /> The two cameras essentially have very different optical characteristics, even though everybody is talking like pixels are the issue. On that note, smaller sensors have a higher pixel density which creates more noise in the image because each pixel feels the heat generated by it's neighbors more than it does when there is more room between the pixels like on a full frame sensor.<br /> I hope this doesn't confuse things even more. These are both superb cameras, so just get what you really want so that you don't still want it after you buy the camera that you didn't really want. The 40D is still an excellent camera. I would just keep it and get the 5DIII when it comes out later this year.<br>

I will also add that it wasn't long ago that talking about shooting digital at ISO 3200 was like science fiction.</p>

[xavier_henri]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2129602">Daniel Lee Taylor</a> said :</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Your 7D breaks the laws of physics?</em><br>

What law of physics would that be Scott?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only intrinsic superiority of FF would be with shallow depth of field around 50 mm. Which happens to be a focal length I favor. To get the equivalent shallow depth of field of a 50 mm lens say at f/1.6 you would need a 31 mm lens at f/1 that just does not exist.<br>

Furthermore, a 5D² plus a 135mm f/2 lens weights much less than the equivalent 7D plus a 85mm f/1.2 lens for about the same field of view and shallow depth of field.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>DLT see:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/">http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/</a></p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Do I get a prize for starting the longest thread? Or for being the cause of an amazing amount of vitriol?</p>

<p>Anyhow:</p>

<p>Marc said: </p>

<p>"But I will say that I have both 7D and 5DII, and straight out of the camera, if you look really really close, the 5DII gets consistently less noise at higher ISOs than the 7D. I don't care about all the math and technical mumbo jumbo, I'm just looking at the images."</p>

<p>Looking at the raw images on my screen I saw more noise at all ISOs on the 7D vs. the 5D. It was slight at low ISO's but once it reached 800, the difference was apparent. I understand that once corrected properly for each type of camera, the noise issue up to ISO 1600 essentially becomes a non-issue. The problem here for me is that my least favorite part of photography is post-processing. Just playing around with the raw images I took, it was pretty easy for me to eliminate or reduce the noise from the 5D without getting the 'over-processed' look. On the 7D however, not so much. I felt I over processed those photos to fix the noise and speckling. I know that if I practiced and put the time into finding the ideal way to process the 7D raw images, that issue would be eliminated...but I just find that frustrating. I also understand that the printed images will not show the noise that my computer screen does...but I spend a lot of time in front of the images on the computer and the noise simply bugs me and I'd always be trying to "fix" things. I guess I must be one of those people who can't post process properly.</p>

<p>As I said before, I love the focusing system, reach and other bells a whistles on the 7D and if I didn't have the 40D, I'd probably buy the 7D as it can do everything very well, and be done with it. But I do have the 40D and can't afford to upgrade to the 7D <strong>AND</strong> purchase the FF, so the best option for me is probably to keep the trusty 40D and get the 5D III when it comes out. </p>

<p>Again, thanks for all the advice,</p>

<p>Zvia</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Just playing around with the raw images I took, it was pretty easy for me to eliminate or reduce the noise from the 5D without getting the 'over-processed' look. On the 7D however, not so much. I felt I over processed those photos to fix the noise and speckling.</em></p>

<p>My guess is that you're overshooting the target so to speak. Noise which is visible or intrusive on screen is often nothing in print. For high ISO shots I had to adjust my expectations. I found that working the file past a certain point in terms of noise made no difference because the noise wouldn't show in print any way.</p>

<p>I agree that if you try to remove every last bit of noise at high ISO you end up with a plastic, over processed look. But you don't have to process that hard for print.</p>

<p>No prize though because this isn't actually the longest thread. There are film vs digital threads which make this seem like nothing ;-)</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Holy cow, the film vs digital ones can go on at least twice this long. This one has been pretty civil compared to a lot. </p>

[squareframe]

<p>fifteen minutes wasted that I can never recover ...</p>