jackm1

<p>Scott, I'm not sure I followed your experiment, but my shots taken with the 5DII and 7D both at 135mm and the same distance to the subject show a huge amount more detail resolved by the 7D. That said, this is only meaningful if you are focal-length limited. Which I was, this past soccer season, with only a 70-200 at my disposal.</p>

<p>Ed, look under the 100% crops section, there is a crop from a 7D shot at 135mm. There is no mouse-over effect on that image, but you can compare that to the crop of the 5DII shot taken at 135mm. As they are both at 100%, that should tell you what kind of resolution the 7D ultimately has.<br>

<br /> At the same focal length, of course the 7D resolves more detail, but that is kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison (even more-so than a FF vs. APS-C comparison already is). Basically you're talking about comparing an 8mp image to an 18mp image.<br>

<br /> For field sports or anywhere you are focal-length limited, the 7D is the better choice, of course. I shot youth soccer this fall with my 7D and my 70-200/2.8II and was able to cover a good portion of the field. One day when I was not "on the clock" I shot my son's team again with my 5DII just for grins, and the 70-200/2.8II wide open. When I was within reach of the players, the results were dramatic. I liked the vignetting.</p>

<p>DPP most certainly does have clone. It's called the stamp tool, check it out. Also the crop ("trimming") tool has rotation capability, down to fractions of a degree. It's great.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Here is an image quality test I've done between these two cameras. Thanks for looking.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.jmphotocraft.com/5DII_v_7D/">www.jmphotocraft.com/5DII_v_7D/</a></p>

<p>Any thoughts on these two SMC-M lenses? Someone is selling an f/3.5 claiming it was soooooo superior to the f/2.8, true?</p>

<p>Thanks again, this is good to hear. I felt my Pentax kit was something special, but my uncle made me second-guess it. No worries, Uncle P.!</p>

<p>Thank you all for the very candid and refreshingly honest replies. I promise this was no grenade! I think I should concentrate on how nice and green the grass is here on this side of the fence! I will look into that 31mm lens too.</p>

<p>I normally shoot a 5DII, but when I want a change of pace and that film look, I'll go to my old Pentax MX and SMC-M lenses (28/2.8, 50/1.4, 135/3.5). I've been very happy with it, but then my uncle planted this seed in my head that has me wondering. He said that back in that era, Nikon was considered the gold standard, then Canon, Minolta, Olympus, then Pentax. I'm 36, so I wouldn't know. Is this true? I get great results from my Pentax film gear:<br>

<img src="http://www.jmphotocraft.com/ellie_beach1.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="670" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.jmphotocraft.com/lobsta1.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="670" /><br>

How much better could a Nikon be? I'm thinking of getting a Nikon FM2 to find out. I can't imagine the 50/1.4 could be any better at all, but I think I use my 28mm more than the 50, so that is a major consideration. The Pentax 28/2.8 has a 5-blade diaphragm, so I think it's a mid-grade lens. Seems sharp though. Does the Nikon 28/2.8 blow it away?</p>

<p >Thoughts?</p>