7D vs 50D dynamic range

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have a 50D and 5DII, and really appreciate the virtues of a dual format kit. But I tend to use my 50D outdoors in broad daylight, where dynamic ranges are obviously quite extreme. So I'm wondering whether a 7D would give me much advantage over my 50D with respect to dynamic range.</p>

<p>I'm quite happy with the resolution of the 50D, and am not concerned about its relatively poor high ISO performance (since I just use my 5DII in lower light anyway), but I'm not enthralled with its DR (having been spoiled by Kodak Ektar 100 film).</p>

<p>Given my needs, do you think that it would be worthwhile for me to upgrade to a 7D?</p>

[philip_wilson]

Mark,

First I should state that I have never used the 50D so I

cannot client on its dynamic range. However, I have been

shooting the 7D and 5DII since each was released. At low

ISO I find the 7D is quite good - I would guess withing a

stop of the 5DII up to 400 ISO. At 800 and 1600 ISO the

difference seems to increase and I find the 7D becomes

much more sensitive to slightly missing the exposure when

compared to the 5DII. I am sure someone will post some

test results but my own observations are that up to 400 ISO

the dynamic range of the 7D is very good and you can

shoot in most situations although you may need ND grads.

At 800ISO and above much more care is needed. I almost

never use my 7D for landscape but for outdoor and indoor

sports and wildlife I find it works well. This would include

subjects where the dynamic range is quite significant such

as ski racing (dark trees often in shadow and sunlit snow I

the same shot)

[robin_sibson1]

<p>What Philip said.</p>

<p>I too have a dual-format kit comprising 7D and 5DII bodies, but in my case the 7D replaced a 50D. My 7D is used mainly for wildlife and similar applications, often with long-ish and not particularly fast lenses, so performance at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 is very important. It is not as good as the 5DII, but much better than the 50D.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I didn't see much difference between the 50D and 7D (in terms of DR), I used them side by side for a couple weeks (years ago now), but I couldn't appreciably tell the difference in low ISO images, especially in high contrast scenes. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>The 50D is an underrated camera. I don't own one but I have seen some pictures taken with it and I'm blown away by the high DR. I own a 7D the DR is good, but not exactly great. Like any DSLR you have to be real careful not to blow out the highlights on contrasty days.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Does <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/mute_swan_marden_PN_5.jpg">this</a> have enough DR for you, Mark? (It looks completely blown off the camera, with an almost black BG).</p>

<p>To be honest, knowing how best to convert and process 7D files (and crucially, <em>what with -</em> all converters are not created equal) is at least as important as the files themselves.</p>

<p>That's true of more than just the 7D of course, but the point is that the 7D can deal with a lot more DR than some experts (and "expert" testing sites) might lead you to believe.</p>

<p>Suffice to say, I have no qualms whatsoever about pushing the top end of the histogram really hard with my 7D; and I have no concerns about digging around in the shadows, either.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg">Before</a> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows_recovered.jpg">After</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg">Before</a> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195-plus_4_ev.jpg">After</a></p>

<p>(This last was deliberately underexposed by three stops and then "recovered" by four stops).</p>

[philip_wilson]

Great swan shot Keith

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I found 50D and 7D DR to be very similar. The main difference between the two is the 7D has about a stop more of clean high ISO and is less prone to banding in low mids and shadows.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Thanks Philip - it's OK to demonstrate how much detail can be recovered from towards the top end of the histogram, although I've probably oversharpened while trying out a new sharpening technique in Photoshop.</p>

<p>It prints really nicely like this though.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Keith, in my eyes it's amazing how well rendered the details on that White swan are. I shoot with the 7D and know for a fact had I taken a shot with that much contrast it would have turned out as a white blob on a dark background as you described, and likely struggled with the post work to recover that much detail in the highs. Your post is a prime example of why people that write reviews and make detailed comparisons not only need to be technically acute, but also well versed in post processing techniques. -R </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Very kind of you to say that, Randall - and you're right, photography is much more than just what happens with the camera.</p>

<p>You make a very interesting point about reviews: I've <em>long</em> held that instead of reviews being conducted using a lowest common denominator/everything done the same way methodology (although I understand the apparent rationale behind that approach and the impracticalities implied by my preferred approach), a camera's files should be converted and processed <em>as well as possible, using whatever software best does the job. </em> </p>

<p>Nobody shoots images and then works them up in the hope that they'll be as <em>OK</em> as possible, but to make them leap out and - hopefully - grab people; and the fact is that different cameras' files respond in very different ways to the same conversion and post processing treatment, so - in an ideal world - we'd see reviews and comparisons of cameras <em>at their best</em>, not after some arbitrary average (which <em>won't be</em> "average") conversion.</p>

 

[keith reeder]

<p>Here's another <strong><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/goose_off_the_camera_2.jpg">before</a></strong> and <strong><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/domestic_goose_marden_5bf.jpg">after</a></strong> to show what can be done by being "brave" pushing of the top end of the histogram, and using a converter with excellent highlight recovery (in this case, Lightroom - the camera here being my old 40D), but as you've seen, the 7D can deliver this kind of result too.</p>

<p>The swan earlier was converted/highlights recovered in Photo Ninja (which is <em>very</em> good at recovering highlights, albeit inconsistent - it worked well with the swan though), with some additional work using the Shadows/Highlights tool in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Incidentally, my habit of using this quite aggressive ETTR approach is probably why in my experience of the 7D, it's <em>not</em> the noisy camera others find it to be - I get routinely clean darks/shadows (that respond well to lifting in PP too) because there's a decent amount of signal getting into these tonal areas - the top of the histogram largely looks after itself. There's a surprising amount of headroom available at the top, which good highlight recovery can maximise the value of.</p>

<p>One more - 7D and Lightroom again, and this one is a particularly good example of what you can get back from what might look, at first glance, like "blown" highlights.</p>

<p><strong><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_3431.jpg">Off the camera</a></strong>;<br /> <strong><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/muscovy_duck_bolam_1a.jpg">after Lr/highlights in Photoshop</a></strong>.</p>

<p>As you can probably tell, I enjoy shooting this way - but the point is, it works.</p>

<p>(This one also demonstrates that although 7D files might sometimes look soft off the camera, <em>the sharpness and detail is there - </em>you might just need to sharpen differently than you're used to in order to bring it out).</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Keith, I guess that's what makes relying too heavily on comparisons an iffy proposition. While reliable sources absolutely help, they're not the be all end all for decision making. I'm certain the manufacturers understand this concept, which is probably one of the reasons why the images used for promotion ALL look so highly polished. Matching individual files to a camera would be difficult at best at that level. <br>

Thank you for taking the time to respond in depth with examples, you've really opened a window (at least for me) on how to squeeze the most out of those files. I have countless white bird shots that are not nearly as blown out as these appear to be. I'm looking forward to more experimentation with the LR4 converter (tight schedules have somewhat dictated the current workflow with little time to explore alternatives). Also surprising is the level of detail you pulled out of that one image, I've yet to be able to do so without the use of plugins, which can have a somewhat artificial look at times. Everything I've tried using just the LR4 tools (including the brush) still leave me with the feeling I just don't "get it".</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks for your insightful responses, guys. I'd like to thank you in particular, Keith, for your illuminating examples of the dynamic range capabilities of the 7D.</p>

<p>I'm going to keep my eyes open for a nice used 7D here locally. </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Happy to help, Mark.</p>