From 7D to 5D MkII yes or no??

rickp

I few months ago I upgraded to a 7D and to be perfectly honest I'm not too impressed with the sharpness of the images. As a result I'm contemplating the idea of upgrading again but this time going to a 5D Mk II.

The biggest change I'm looking for are sharper images. I checked out Canons site and did a bit it noise comparison between the 5D and the 7D at ISO 100 through 800 and the IQ was very surprising. What I will miss if the change does happen will be the features of the 7D, but even then all the features in the world are useless if I'm not happy with the images.

So what I'm looking for here are some comments, what do you guys think?

BTW all I'm really doing with the camera at this point is personal use. I wont be making large prints or shooting at very high ISO's etc...

Also if anyone has images that I can compare that would be highly appreciated.

Thanks
R.

ziggy53

If you have the Canon 7D and you are using the lenses:

EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM
EF 70-200mm, f2.8 IS USM
EF 24-105mm, f4.0 IS USM
EF 85mm, f1.8 USM

... you should be capable of wonderful images to 20" x 30" on a pretty consistent basis. I guarantee that at smaller image sizes and ISOs to 800 the 7D is "extremely" competent. (Referring back to your comment, "I wont be making large prints or shooting at very high ISO's etc...")

Please share some of your full resolution images so that we can help resolve your problems.

rickp

I'm off to Yellowstone tomorrow with the family. It will be the first real test since I got the camera back from Canon after fixing the AF system. (The camera was 3 weeks old when I sent it in. I knew something was wrong with it).

I agree with you. I just feel like the images don't pop. I don't look at them and say "that's nice" or " amazing detail"

We'll see how it behaves.
When I get back I'm planning on renting a 5D MkII body. I'm really curious to see the images that comes out of it.

R.

borrowlenses.com

Can you post some pictures so we can see what is going on?

rickp

this is what I was hoping the 7D would do.
Scroll down to the 5D image comparison

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eos-7d-review/

R.

Awais Yaqub

Some days ago a client asked me for 20x30 prints for 3 landscapes here is secret about them.

One was slightly blur due to motion which can be seen in 100% view
2nd was soft
3rd main subject was OOF
2nd and 3rd due to poor AF of my 10mp 400D camera but client was so happy with results(printed with EZ prints). Client was Art gallery.

Now i have 7D which is 18mp, just think 10MP were enough for me to print up to 20x30 i have extra 8mp reserved for noise and blur if things go slightly wrong i can simply downsize the 18mp file to 10mp (if required) and make cool 20x30 print, if you downsize any file from any camera lots of distortion won't be visible.

7D's AF system really made difference in my photos my keeper ratio has dramatically improved, only reason which compels me to move to FF is superb lenses which i cannot afford but i will surly love to buy Full frame with 7D capabilities.

Awais Yaqub

Also i see LR3 shows much more detail and better color in 7D Raw files compared to PS CS4 and DPP.. but don't know what others experienced

Awais Yaqub

Orignal

Download image and see detail on faces of two guys sitting hundreds of meters away from me, and background mountain was another 50 meters or more from the subject and it was hazy too.

It was shot with 50mm 1.8 on 7D, Auto focused the main tree at f8. Processed in LR3 and PS saved at 11 to upload on smugmug.

Downsize to lower mega pixels i.e 15, 12 and 10 and see how good it gets...

Hackbone

All cameras will give you soft results if you don't use a tripod, focus appropriately, and use the proper shutter speed for the lens being used. Been there and done that.

Scott_Quier

Hackbone wrote: »

All cameras will give you soft results if you don't use a tripod, focus appropriately, and use the proper shutter speed for the lens being used. Been there and done that.

Haven't we all

On the other hand, there are times when the equipment will make the difference. For "most" people, doing casual shooting and professionals shooting "professionally", the 7D (or even the 50D, BTDT) will be a most competent camera.

CynthiaM

Awais Yaqub wrote: »

Orignal

Download image and see detail on faces of two guys sitting hundreds of meters away from me, and background mountain was another 50 meters or more from the subject and it was hazy too.

It was shot with 50mm 1.8 on 7D, Auto focused the main tree at f8. Processed in LR3 and PS saved at 11 to upload on smugmug.

Downsize to lower mega pixels i.e 15, 12 and 10 and see how good it gets...

New 7d owner here and I find the detail on these faces nothing short of amazing.

davev

Hackbone wrote: »

All cameras will give you soft results if you don't use a tripod, focus appropriately, and use the proper shutter speed for the lens being used. Been there and done that.

I don't agree with the tripod part of this.
I've had soft shots with a tripod ... forgot to turn off the i.s. (even with lenses that say it will work on a tripod with i.s. on)


Rick, if you end up cropping the heck out of your shots, you won't like the 5DMKII.
It's pixel size is the same as a 8 MP crop camera. It just has more of them. (wider, taller)
If you're cropping most of the shots you take with the 7D, the 5DMKII will just be like standing further away from your subject.

This is a shot where I placed a shot from a 30D (8MP) on top of a 5DMKII shot.
as you can see, the pixels line up very well.

The white line was added to the 30D shot so it would be easier to see what's going on in this composite.

Matthew Saville

Awais Yaqub wrote: »

Orignal

Download image and see detail on faces of two guys sitting hundreds of meters away from me, and background mountain was another 50 meters or more from the subject and it was hazy too.

It was shot with 50mm 1.8 on 7D, Auto focused the main tree at f8. Processed in LR3 and PS saved at 11 to upload on smugmug.

Downsize to lower mega pixels i.e 15, 12 and 10 and see how good it gets...

Awais, that is a GORGEOUS 7D image, and a great example of the resolution capabilities of even the most dense sensors.

Honestly, the 7D is capable of amazingly stunning, sharp images. Especially at lower ISO's, and a good aperture, the differences will be almost non-existent. Try shooting both cameras in a studio, on an 85mm f/1.8 lens at f/5.6, with a studio strobe lighting a subject at ISO 100. I bet you the images would look nearly identical, considering how close 18 and 21 are in terms of surface area.

But hey, if you shoot hand-held a lot, at lower ISO's in low light where your shutter speed starts to cut it close, then yes you can see an advantage in a full-frame sensor, or to be more specific, an advantage in lower pixel density. Which, if you're really having issues, then to be honest (and admittedly a bit argumentative) ...you should buy a D700 or a D3s, which completely rock anything from Canon because of their low pixel density. (which decreases the effects of camera shake, and allows for better high ISO performance.)

I'm just voicing my opinion, of course...

=Matt=

ziggy53

Awais Yaqub wrote: »

Orignal

Download image and see detail on faces of two guys sitting hundreds of meters away from me, and background mountain was another 50 meters or more from the subject and it was hazy too.

It was shot with 50mm 1.8 on 7D, Auto focused the main tree at f8. Processed in LR3 and PS saved at 11 to upload on smugmug.

Downsize to lower mega pixels i.e 15, 12 and 10 and see how good it gets...

Awais, I've been avoiding posting in this thread because it's gotten a little silly, but I have to tell you how much I appreciate you sharing that wonderful example of how great the images can be from the Canon 7D body. Thanks for the image, it is indeed beautiful and the detail is stunning. thumbclap

Brett1000

Awais Yaqub wrote: »

Orignal

Download image and see detail on faces of two guys sitting hundreds of meters away from me, and background mountain was another 50 meters or more from the subject and it was hazy too.

It was shot with 50mm 1.8 on 7D, Auto focused the main tree at f8. Processed in LR3 and PS saved at 11 to upload on smugmug.

Downsize to lower mega pixels i.e 15, 12 and 10 and see how good it gets...

yes, amazing you can see the faces clearly !

chrisjohnson

davev wrote: »

I don't agree with the tripod part of this.
I've had soft shots with a tripod ... forgot to turn off the i.s. (even with lenses that say it will work on a tripod with i.s. on)


Rick, if you end up cropping the heck out of your shots, you won't like the 5DMKII.
It's pixel size is the same as a 8 MP crop camera. It just has more of them. (wider, taller)
If you're cropping most of the shots you take with the 7D, the 5DMKII will just be like standing further away from your subject.

This is a shot where I placed a shot from a 30D (8MP) on top of a 5DMKII shot.
as you can see, the pixels line up very well.

The white line was added to the 30D shot so it would be easier to see what's going on in this composite.

On my totally uncalibrated monitor I prefer the picture for the 5D. It seems richer in the detail and the colors - and what I would expect from an upgrade to 5D. Both cameras are sharp, but then so are most P&S cameras with the right technique.

ChrisRPhoto

Brett1000 wrote: »

yes, amazing you can see the faces clearly !

Yes, agreed, I downloaded the image to my desktop and the shot looks full of detail and clarity, an excellent image from the 7D

Chris

Ric Grupe

I had both and kept the 7D.

You need more time to become familiar with the camera and processing techniques associated with it's files.

Because of the abilities of the 7D I no longer feel the need for a pro body for wildlife images.

Now...if I needed wider shots or did landscapes or portraits on a regular basis then the 5D II would be the one to have.

If you can afford it...have both!

rickp

to be honest, landscape and structures are what I enjoy the most.
I agree, having both would be the best of both words.
I got a 5D that I rented coming in on Friday so I'll get a chance to play with it this weekend. I guess we'll see how I feel about it by weekends end.

R.

rickp

Here are a couple of the images from my recent yellowstone trip taken with the 7D. I have done some PPing on this image. The eagle picture was taken hand held while floating down a river in a inflatable white water raft type boat.
The other on a tripod using a 17-55mm f2.8 lens.
The rest of the images are being uploaded to photobucket as I write this.
It seems that I've lost the EXIF data after I edited the images, because I can't pull it up in LR or Bridge.

All comments are welcome.

The rest of the images are here:
http://s357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/rickp1/Yellowstone%202/


Camera:7D
Lens: Canon 100-400mm f4.0


Canon 7D
17-55mm f2.8

Overfocused

rickp wrote: »

this is what I was hoping the 7D would do.
Scroll down to the 5D image comparison

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eos-7d-review/

R.

Good review. Although this irritated me:

"I do not know why the 5D Mark II images look sharper, but if I were to guess, I think maybe the 5D Mark II has a significantly weaker anti-aliasing filter than the 7D and that could be the reason why the 5D Mark II images looked sharper."

Kind of a "DUH" answer.... full frame chip. Hes trying to validate/equalize the 7D over the MK II a bit too much if you ask me. No question the 7D is an amazing camera. I'm not dissing, but its also not as top-notch amazing as the MK II in the IQ department.

rickp

Well the 5D MkII rental came in yesterday and I did a bit of shooting with it and the 7D.
There's definitely a difference in sharpness. It's the type of sharpness I would expect from most bodies to tell the truth. Especially when one pays $1500+ for a body.
Here are some shots I took with both. I did nothing but crop for posting purposes and nothing else. All images are cropped at 50%.
All images where shot at ISO 200 and a 70-200mm f2.0 lens.


7D
5D


7D


5D

GadgetRick

Not really a fair comparison. First of all, as has been discussed, the 5D should be a little more sharp. More importantly, in your comparison, the first one (the roof tiles?) are so different it's not much of a comparison. Your exposures are different, WB is different and, more importantly, your focus point is different. Hard to tell.

Your second comparison is not a very good shot to compare period.

It's obvious you just want the 5D so go for it. No matter what you think, the 7D is an excellent body and is quite sharp (as you've seen in various examples). You have to be happy with what you shoot with so go with what makes you happy.

rickp

I agree, the WB is a setting that I missed when setting both cameras to match, but either way that would not make a difference on what I'm comparing, the sharpness. In this case all it would do is give it a warmer or cooler look. The focus points are exactly the same. They might not look like they are but they are.
Both images were taken from the exact same spot. It's a simple comparison of sharpness, nothing more. I really don't know what else is needed to make such a comparison. I have more images and they all show more or less the same thing.

I agree with you though on shooting what makes one happy. I'm just a bit dissapointed with the 7D. I think canon missed the boat on what really could have been a great body, not just a very good one. Again all the features on the world might be cool but if the camera doesn't take great pictures, then what's the point. I personally, don't like spending hours and hours PPing just bring up IQ.
Even when I was in Yellowstone using a tripod, the IQ was sub-par IMO, can't blame camera shake at that point.

ront

Boy call me a bit of a novice still if you want, but what is wrong with the 2 pics posted from Yellowstone? The one of the mountains seem to be a bit on the cool side (WB) on my monitor, but the Eagle looks pretty good. The comparison shots are not enough of a comparison to make a real judgment call IMHO.

Ron

rickp

Because the yellowstone images have quite a bit of PPing. The comparison ones don't. All I wanted to show was the lack of sharpness and what I consider a nice virgin image for the most part. I don't think spending a bunch of time behind the computer is the answer to great IQ at least not initially. I think the camera should do a good amount of the work not the other way around.
I'm not saying the 7D is a good camera, what I'm saying is that the images lack that pop when I first download them into the computer and I review them. Aside from doing all the fancy stuff one can do to an image the image should be tack sharp out of the camera. IMO my 7D doesn't do that.

R

Awais Yaqub

Straight out of camera example, just exported JPG from Raw file using dpp at default settings. Added text in photoshop saved at 11.
Just checked sharpness was set on 2 (usually i set it on 5) and portrait picture style, DPP will show you previews with settings you applied in camera no matter you shoot in Raw.

Click to view original




Water drop had dust particles on surface in motion, you can see that dust on surface.

I think if shot within diffraction limits this camera pumps out reasonable resolution.

GadgetRick

rickp wrote: »

I agree with you though on shooting what makes one happy. I'm just a bit dissapointed with the 7D. I think canon missed the boat on what really could have been a great body, not just a very good one. Again all the features on the world might be cool but if the camera doesn't take great pictures, then what's the point. I personally, don't like spending hours and hours PPing just bring up IQ.
Even when I was in Yellowstone using a tripod, the IQ was sub-par IMO, can't blame camera shake at that point.

Sorry but you're missing the point. The 7D is absolutely a GREAT body as evidenced by the many photogs getting great SHARP photos out of theirs. Is it better than a 5D? Well, it all depends on what you want. In many ways the 5D is a superior camera (also a bit more money), however, you are still making it seem like the 7D is junk and, honestly, I just don't know how you can insist this after seeing what others are doing with a 7D.

Again, you have to be happy and you seem happier with the 5D. That's fine. For me, a 5D wouldn't cut it because I do a lot of action sports and I understand the AF isn't as good as the 7D. I don't own a 7D (at least not yet) but I know lots of people who do and my very good friend owns one and I've shot with it. I have nothing but good things to say about it and I never noticed a sharpness (or lack of) issue.

rickp

Please dont' get me wrong I'm not saying the 7D is junk and I certainly don't think that either. All I'm saying is that my 7D and IMO the sharpness lacks. Now can you get the image sharp after PPing it, sure, but virgin files could have better IQ, again IMO. Also, maybe what you consider sharp is not what I consider sharp, who knows. All I know is that I'm not happy with mine camera's results.

R.

ziggy53

If you're not happy with what you have and you are able to demonstrate to yourself that you can do better by renting a target camera, then I think you are approaching the change correctly.

Go with what works for you.

rickp

Thanks. Being able to rent the gear is invaluable IMO and a great advantage in the education process.

I just got back from shooting the 5D at moving traffic. I wanted to see how well or not well the 3.9 fps works, and I kid you not, IMO those images were sharper than some of the virgin 7D images I've shot on a tripod. Again, just looking at a virgin image straight from the camera to bridge and then photoshop (so I can zoom in and out at different percentages). I look at those images and think "not bad at all" even for a moving subject.

The more I play with this 5D the more I'm leaning towards the change. Now my next decision is do I get rid of the 7D to help pay for the 5D or do I keep it as a back up. I'm a backup kind of guy but that's a lot of money we're talking about.

R.