5DII vs 7D test, part 2

jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
edited November 10, 2010 in Cameras
Here is a landscape test of the two cameras, with more realistic sharpening applied to the 7D image. I'd say the 7D is holding its own.



http://www.jmphotocraft.com/5DII_v_7D/shore.htm
-Jack

An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.

Comments

  • craig_dcraig_d Registered Users Posts: 911 Major grins
    edited November 7, 2010
    No, I don't think so. The 5D2 is clearly producing better detail in the trees. This is especially clear in the last shot.
    http://craigd.smugmug.com

    Got bored with digital and went back to film.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 7, 2010
    For $1000 less and APS-C, I'd say the 7D is holding its own. Sure the 5DII is a little better, as it should be.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    What is being compared, exactly? The images in each pair are different in magnification, colour and contrast. How much can you separate out "resolution" from these by eyeballing 72ppi?!

    Also, the 24-70 is hardly the lens I would use for tests with such images (depending on the particular copy its focus can be questionable). I'd use a prime, possibly the 135, stepping to match the frame content.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • studio1972studio1972 Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    NeilL wrote: »
    What is being compared, exactly? The images in each pair are different in magnification, colour and contrast. How much can you separate out "resolution" from these by eyeballing 72ppi?!

    Also, the 24-70 is hardly the lens I would use for tests with such images (depending on the particular copy its focus can be questionable). I'd use a prime, possibly the 135, stepping to match the frame content.

    Neil

    He did focus manually, and I guess he used a zoom so that he could get a similar field of view with each lens. The exposure seems slightly different (7d more exposed). There is some colour fringing on the 7d images which may be due to the higher pixel density exposing issues with the lens?

    PS, I think the 5d would really show it's superiority at a higher iso such as 3200 or 6400.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    NeilL wrote: »
    What is being compared, exactly? The images in each pair are different in magnification, colour and contrast. How much can you separate out "resolution" from these by eyeballing 72ppi?!

    The 100% crops are different in magnification because I did 1200x800 crops of each camera. This results in a wider FOV on 18mp than 21mp.

    The color and exposure differences you see are characteristics of the sensors. Both were exposed the same (manually) and both were developed the same in DPP.

    Your monitor is probably closer to 100ppi. If not, it's time to upgrade.
    Also, the 24-70 is hardly the lens I would use for tests with such images (depending on the particular copy its focus can be questionable). I'd use a prime, possibly the 135, stepping to match the frame content.

    Neil

    As it says in the test, I used manual focus with live view at 10x.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • rwellsrwells Registered Users Posts: 6,084 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    craig_d wrote: »
    No, I don't think so. The 5D2 is clearly producing better detail in the trees. This is especially clear in the last shot.

    15524779-Ti.gif

    I have to agree here also.

    I have both camera's, and as your "test" show, even at ISO 100, the 5DMkII clearly out performs the 7D in the IQ department.

    Bump those puppies up to ISO 800 and above. One leaves the other behind fast!

    IMHO, that's why I love the 5DMkII so much. I shoot a lot at higher ISO, and for the most part, get great images without much processing work later. Unless I've shot purposely way under-exposed, even up to ISO 6400, I rarely use noise-reduction on the 5DMkII images.

    I have always found the 1.6 crop, (choose your body here), images need way more attention later than FF images.

    The two bodies are very different tools for me, each has it's strong points.

    I won't use a framing hammer to do delicate finish work that is better suited for a small finishing hammer.

    That's why I own and use different hammers, and camera's!


    YMMV thumb.gif
    Randy
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    rwells wrote: »
    The two bodies are very different tools for me, each has it's strong points.
    Agree 100%. It's why I'm a bit puzzled why someone is putting so much effort into comparing these two particular cameras. There strong points don't overlap all that much.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    I agree Bill, but I spend more time on dpreview and over there it seems that people agonizing over whether to buy the 5DII or 7D is a fairly common thing. I figured that since I own both cameras I could help out in that regard. I also find it interesting that an APS-C camera can even come this close to the 5DII.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    Either way, the images are pretty globby from both cameras xD He needs a prime!
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    Either way, the images are pretty globby from both cameras xD He needs a prime!

    You do realize you're looking at 100% crops of distant foliage, right?
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    Yep and primes make it even better :D


    xD = joke face
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    I agree Bill, but I spend more time on dpreview and over there it seems that people agonizing over whether to buy the 5DII or 7D is a fairly common thing. I figured that since I own both cameras I could help out in that regard. I also find it interesting that an APS-C camera can even come this close to the 5DII.

    why wouldn't an APS-C sensor come close? with good light and low iso an aps-c sensor can deliver on par with full frame with the exception of scenes with a large dynamoc range.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    Qarik wrote: »
    why wouldn't an APS-C sensor come close? with good light and low iso an aps-c sensor can deliver on par with full frame with the exception of scenes with a large dynamoc range.

    Too much pixel density. I think this test proves the APS-C camera is not totally "on par" with the FF camera, but it comes close.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    The 100% crops are different in magnification because I did 1200x800 crops of each camera. This results in a wider FOV on 18mp than 21mp.

    The color and exposure differences you see are characteristics of the sensors. Both were exposed the same (manually) and both were developed the same in DPP.

    Your monitor is probably closer to 100ppi. If not, it's time to upgrade.



    As it says in the test, I used manual focus with live view at 10x.

    Just a correction to my previous comment, by "stepping" I meant walking, moving the camera.

    I'm not convinced that the live view-manual focus method is such a good idea. It's typically the case that the same person making multiple focus decisions of the same subject over a series of exposures will produce a range of measurement error. Therefore it is almost certain that focus is different for each of the shots.

    I repeat that perceived resolution is influenced by non-resolution factors such as magnification, colour and contrast, and that translation of the data into a low resolution display is introducing unknown and variable effects into the viewing environment.

    Another thing to consider is that with outdoor test data such as this, incidents such as subject movement (wind in leaves), changes in light (moving clouds, movement of the sun), changes in density of air between camera and subject due to convection, camera movement caused by environmental factors, varying sensitivity of the photographer's eye as a result of being in various stages of adaptation in moving away from and into the LCD for focusing, at least - all are uncontrollable, and will produce effects in the image discernible in 100% crops.

    Standardised laboratory light bench tests and comparison of prints give a more valid and reliable result.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    Too much pixel density. I think this test proves the APS-C camera is not totally "on par" with the FF camera, but it comes close.

    okay I was about to post I don't see the difference in the 2 (1st viewing was from a laptop) but viewing from a real monitor, there is a heck of lot of difference in the 100% crops. Can it be that different? For example I see much more CA in the 7D which I assumed is a property of the lens..not the body.

    I see you sharpened the 7D image more so then the 5D2 image. I wonder if the IQ has to do with halos?

    haha..wanna reshoot with same sharpening?
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    Qarik wrote: »
    I see you sharpened the 7D image more so then the 5D2 image. I wonder if the IQ has to do with halos?

    haha..wanna reshoot with same sharpening?

    I doubt it but I can provide that for you without reshooting, I'll just reprocess the RAW file at lower sharpening. The previous test I did I was informed that the 7D required more sharpening than the 5DII in order to do a fair comparison.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    I doubt it but I can provide that for you without reshooting, I'll just reprocess the RAW file at lower sharpening. The previous test I did I was informed that the 7D required more sharpening than the 5DII in order to do a fair comparison.

    I went back to your 1st thread which I hadn't looked at before. I am a bit surprised still. Yeah..it's pixel peeping but I was expecting closer results then that. Maybe the pixel density on the 7D is approaching some cliff?
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    Qarik wrote: »
    I went back to your 1st thread which I hadn't looked at before. I am a bit surprised still. Yeah..it's pixel peeping but I was expecting closer results then that. Maybe the pixel density on the 7D is approaching some cliff?

    I believe so, with current technology. I think the APS-C sweet spot would have been 14-16mp, a la the Pentax K5 (tempting!!). I think if Canon is going to continue with an 18mp APS-C sensor or increase that mp count, they are going to have to invent a new sensor that is a quantum leap over current sensors. Otherwise if we are truly up against that cliff, they should pull back to a more realistic mp count, as they did with the G11.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    richy wrote: »
    Why pull back when they can sell you on a whole new set of L lenses :) It will be interesting to see where canon goes with this. The 7d shows me they can deliver soemthing in the 45mp ff range that its pretty good, so if they punt the 1ds4 at 30-34mp it should be amazing.

    The whole 5d2 vs 7d thing is great from an angle of helping people decide which they need or as is more often the case, which they can afford, but its like comparing a 1ds to a 1d. Neither is bad for their intended use, but their main intended use is not the same. You wouldnt carry cargo in an aston martin, you wouldnt go gt racing in a ford transit, but you can probably fit your groceries in the aston and transits have been known to be fast :)

    Its very interesting to see them head to head, the 5d2 is showing some more detail, but the 7d is using a smaller area of the glass for the same view so I would expect there to be some difference. Mentioning any shortcomings in one of the holy trinity of lenses from canon usually brings out the faithful but the 24-70 is probably being asked to do quite a bit on a 7d.

    Yes, knowing what artifacts the testing is producing so as not to read them as results (eg discriminating between independent and dependent variables, and controlling the former) is what makes doing meaningful objective (scientific) testing such a difficult thing. It's a rare enough thing in hardcore science, let alone in "backyard" projects like this.

    There's no reason not to compare the two bodies, and no reason why it cannot be done, but it is practically very difficult. What jmphotocraft is showing here might be the truth of the matter, but the doubts make what he shows basically dissatisfying. It's not clear to me what is actually being tested here (dependent variable), and what data is contaminating real data about it.

    If I am not mistaken, DxO have comparisons done in more rigorous fashion which must I think be put alongside projects like what jmphotocraft has done. One of the big insights that the scientific method has given us is that in doing tests we tend to produce the results we expect. Not to provide for this tendency leaves us gullible to our own biases. I guess it comes down to how willing we are to believe ourselves.mwink.gif

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • studio1972studio1972 Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    richy wrote: »
    Why pull back when they can sell you on a whole new set of L lenses :) It will be interesting to see where canon goes with this. The 7d shows me they can deliver soemthing in the 45mp ff range that its pretty good, so if they punt the 1ds4 at 30-34mp it should be amazing.

    Personally (on the 5D at least) I would rather them keep it to 20-25mp and increase the low light and dynamic range performance. Are there really many people clamouring for higher resolution? If they could improve the autofocus performance in low light that would be great as well.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    Neil I simply do not understand your frustration. I am not seeking any preconceived results. What is being tested here is how the 5DII and 7D compare at taking the same photograph. And by photograph, I mean not a test chart. You are welcome to draw your own comparisons and conclusions. I've given you two photographs taken at the same ISO, shutter, and aperture, with the same lens, on a tripod, manually focused with live view at 10x, then live view turned off and the shot fired with mirror lock-up and 10 second timer. I'm not sure what else to do other than use a lens friendlier to the 7D than the 24-70 for landscape. I don't think my 17-40L is any better. You seem surprised that the 7D did not produce an identical image to the 5DII. Why should it?
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    Neil I simply do not understand your frustration. I am not seeking any preconceived results. What is being tested here is how the 5DII and 7D compare at taking the same photograph. And by photograph, I mean not a test chart. You are welcome to draw your own comparisons and conclusions. I've given you two photographs taken at the same ISO, shutter, and aperture, with the same lens, on a tripod, manually focused with live view at 10x, then live view turned off and the shot fired with mirror lock-up and 10 second timer. I'm not sure what else to do other than use a lens friendlier to the 7D than the 24-70 for landscape. I don't think my 17-40L is any better. You seem surprised that the 7D did not produce an identical image to the 5DII. Why should it?

    Jack, the kind of playing around that you have been doing is fun and interesting. I have looked closely again and again at the comparison shots. It strengthens my thinking that the 7D is not the upgrade I want to commit to. At the same time I know that my thinking is likely largely irrational. The economy would fall flat on its face if everyone were to think rationally.rolleyes1.gif The 5D I or II have never excited me and the 1D series is money I won't spend just yet. I think I would go Nikon if I were going to go ff or spend that kind of bucks. What Canon has coming is very hard to judge because it's not clear where they are going with the 60D, the 7D and the 5D. There is a kind of convergence happening, which has resulted in any of these models, the 1Ds included, only being different from each other in a small number of functions and features that one has that the others don't. As if a handful of features and functions were being rationed out. So to have one model is to be mainly aware of what it doesn't have that anther model does. A lot of the discussion about the different recent bodies is focused on just these negative comparisons - full frame, resolution, speed and AF. It's just like bloody sibling rivalry!:D

    Your comparison setup is sophisticated, but I suggest not rigorous enough. There are many differences between the images from the 5D and the 7D that you have posted, some of them due to technological factors, no doubt, and others due to chance, I'm sure (that is there would be differences between repeat images from the same camera under the same conditions), but most of these differences are small and difficult to define, and appear to be somewhat amenable to post processing. The take home impression I get is that it doesn't very much matter which camera when it comes to IQ (and IQ is a pandora's box). Other things unrelated to IQ like speed, AF, video, file size are likely going to be more significant in crystalising buyers' decisions.

    So, play around, have fun, by all means. But to paraphrase Socrates, the unexamined gear comparison is not worth believing.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • billythekbillythek Registered Users Posts: 104 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    In any discussion like this, you should definitely consider the D3s. But it is a little more expensive. Especially considering that recently folks have been picking up low mileage 5D2's for about $1600 from the Canon Loyalty Program.
    - Bill
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    NeilL wrote: »
    The take home impression I get is that it doesn't very much matter which camera when it comes to IQ (and IQ is a pandora's box). Other things unrelated to IQ like speed, AF, video, file size are likely going to be more significant in crystalising buyers' decisions.

    If that's your impression then you would probably be happy with a 7D. Indeed, the IQ is probably indistinguishable at any typical print size. I own a 5DII as well for all the other reasons - the VF, the lens choices, the high ISO performance, the somewhat thinner DOF. As an upgrade from a 40D or 50D, the 7D is the best thing yet. For me coming from a 1DIIN and my 5DII it's a little less exciting, but still good.

    If you are a pro or semi-pro sports photographer, the 7D can back up a 1D, but as a main body it broke my heart more times than I thought it should. It got me lots of spectacular images too, and it paid for itself. The crop factor and 18mp allowed me to cover a good portion of the soccer field with just my 70-200. Still, I'm pretty sure I'm going to sell it and buy a used 1DIII.

    If you aren't deeply invested in Canon glass, I'd look no further than the D700. On paper it nearly has it all. As long as you can live with 12mp, which you should unless you are regularly printing large. Or if that's out of reach, the K5. Pentax makes great lenses.

    If you are invested in Canon lenses, as I am, I think if Canon does not have its head up its butt, there will be a D700 killer in the not so distant future, and it will be called the 3D. THAT should be the one camera to rule them all.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • studio1972studio1972 Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
    edited November 10, 2010
    If that's your impression then you would probably be happy with a 7D. Indeed, the IQ is probably indistinguishable at any typical print size. I own a 5DII as well for all the other reasons - the VF, the lens choices, the high ISO performance, the somewhat thinner DOF. As an upgrade from a 40D or 50D, it's the best thing yet. For me coming from a 1DIIN and my 5DII it's a little less exciting, but still good.

    If you are a pro or semi-pro sports photographer, the 7D can back up a 1D, but as a main body it broke my heart more times than I thought it should. It got me lots of spectacular images too, and it paid for itself. The crop factor and 18mp allowed me to cover a good portion of the soccer field with just my 70-200. Still, I'm pretty sure I'm going to sell it and buy a used 1DIII.

    If you aren't deeply invested in Canon glass, I'd look no further than the D700. On paper it nearly has it all. As long as you can live with 12mp, which you should unless you are regularly printing large. Or if that's out of reach, the K5. Pentax makes great lenses.

    If you are invested in Canon lenses, as I am, I think if Canon does not have its head up its butt, there will be a D700 killer in the not so distant future, and it will be called the 3D. THAT should be the one camera to rule them all.

    Which camera you require depends on your use. I think the 5D series is mainly aimed at wedding photographer like myself, and it's well suited to that with good low light performance, full frame sensor, reasonable cost, video and good enough AF. It seems to have taken over where the old 5D left off as the 'standard' wedding photography camera. I think the next version will probably be similar in most respects and I suspect they will want to keep the cost as low as possible.
  • jheftijhefti Registered Users Posts: 734 Major grins
    edited November 10, 2010
    studio1972 wrote: »
    Which camera you require depends on your use. I think the 5D series is mainly aimed at wedding photographer like myself, and it's well suited to that with good low light performance, full frame sensor, reasonable cost, video and good enough AF. It seems to have taken over where the old 5D left off as the 'standard' wedding photography camera. I think the next version will probably be similar in most respects and I suspect they will want to keep the cost as low as possible.

    I am a passionate amateur, fairly new to the dSLR world, and recently upgraded from a 50D to a 5DmII. I went back and forth between a 5D and a 1Dm4, and ultimately went with the 5DmII for several reasons. I borrowed a 1D and shot several collegiate soccer games, and found it to be too heavy and bulky. And although the 1D fps is much better (the biggest downside of the 5DmII IMHO), I rarely use continuous shooting. In my experience, good timing produces much better results than just holding down the shutter and letting her rip. Also, in a side-by-side comparison of the 1D and 5D, I liked the image quality better in the latter; nothing scientific, just subjective.

    If you can live with less fps, and like the look/feel of a full frame sensor, the 5D is great. I can't vouch for its ruggedness, as mine is new and I don't put it through the same paces as a pro.

    Attached is a pic from a night soccer game taken with my 5D and 70-200/2.8. f2.8, 1/500, ISO 6400. No content has been altered; just CS5 noise reduction, cropped, WB and exposure corrected.?action=view&current=_MG_6451.jpg

    http://s939.photobucket.com/albums/ad232/San_Francisco_United/Soccer%207%20November/?action=view&current=_MG_6451.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.