5DII vs 7D test, part 3

jmphotocraft

http://www.jmphotocraft.com/5DII_v_7D/bill.htm

Close subject test.

chrisjohnson

Not sure what you are trying to prove.

The 5DII has better image quality than the 7D? This is what I would expect. Nevertheless I enjoy your testing and thanks.

I think the most important thing is to recognize what any camera can and cannot do. Truly great photos can be taken by a 7D or even a P&S, but you have encouraged me to aspire to a 5 as my next camera.

jmphotocraft

I'm not trying to prove anything. A lot of people seem to agonize about deciding between these two cameras, so I figured since I have both I could help. It's kind of a sad commentary on the state of "news" media that people expect to have conclusions provided for them.

Anyway, glad you enjoyed the test. I'd say this last round was a tie, no?

PilotBrad

Thanks putting all this together Jack, it's been interesting and I've enjoyed it.

Remember... no good deed goes unpunished!

jhefti

richy wrote: »

Very interesting how close they are in that test given one has twice the pixel density of the other!

Loving the tests, keep em coming! Whats next? Testing AF against oncoming cars to see how the keeper rate varies?

Thanks for the tests, I might be wrong but I think here the point isn't to prove which is best but rather which is best suited to a particular person?

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.

http://s939.photobucket.com/albums/ad232/San_Francisco_United/Fall%202010%20Favorites/?action=view&current=_MG_6451_3.jpg

Freezframe

When the days of pushing film was around you didn't split hairs!
I find them very close indeed and I for one appreciate the work it took to bring these comparison to anyone who may be interested.
The interesting issue which I believe is not sharpness but better color. I see with my HD screen that the blacks are a little richer in the MK2 images. I also see that in #4 that the 7D maybe a little sharper but this maybe focus.( If you transition back and forth looking at the numbers within the (100) the 7D may be sharper.

Brady

jhefti

Freezframe wrote: »

I find them very close indeed and I for one appreciate the work it took to bring these comparison to anyone who may be interested.
The interesting issue which I believe is not sharpness but better color. I see with my HD screen that the blacks are a little richer in the MK2 images. I also see that in #4 that the 7D maybe a little sharper but this maybe focus.( If you transition back and forth looking at the numbers within the (100) the 7D may be sharper.

Brady

It is a lot of work to do these kinds of comparisons!

I find that so much is lost when the images are transported from the full res versions on the editing monitor to the highly compressed sRGB versions seen here (or anywhere else online) that it is really hard to draw many conclusions. I just found that the side-by-side comparisons between a 1Dm4, 5Dm2, and a 50D (ok, not a great camera, but a good 1st dSLR for an enthusiastic amateur to learn on) resulted in the nicest images from the 5Dm2. That said, it is a very subjective measure...

Freezframe

jhefti wrote: »

It is a lot of work to do these kinds of comparisons!

I find that so much is lost when the images are transported from the full res versions on the editing monitor to the highly compressed sRGB versions seen here (or anywhere else online) that it is really hard to draw many conclusions. I just found that the side-by-side comparisons between a 1Dm4, 5Dm2, and a 50D (ok, not a great camera, but a good 1st dSLR for an enthusiastic amateur to learn on) resulted in the nicest images from the 5Dm2. That said, it is a very subjective measure...

I agree 100%: the only true comparison should be done in a control environment without being step on but this person made an effort so therefore I replied.

Brady

Cincojoe

Why compare a FF camera vs a crop? What's the point?

ziggy53

Cincojoe wrote: »

Why compare a FF camera vs a crop? What's the point?

Those people who are looking for a new camera and considering their options.

ThatCanonGuy

Yep, if you can only have one it's fairly easy if you know what you want/what you shoot. Good IQ from both in this test. It's just speed vs. FF, take your pick.

chrisjohnson

richy wrote: »

Very true, many people choose between the two, albeit for different reasons. The two cameras are biased in different directions but not totally out of the same price bracket. I ended up with both, they are both fairly specialised and together make a great team but if you can only have one you need to make sure you get the right one

It is nice to have both, but should you only have one then what? This "test" shows me that 5DII has distinctly better image quality when viewed on the web. This is what I expected and is reflected in the price difference. Not to say you cannot take a great picture with a 7D of course.

canoesailor

goldenballs wrote: »

It is nice to have both, but should you only have one then what? This "test" shows me that 5DII has distinctly better image quality when viewed on the web. This is what I expected and is reflected in the price difference. Not to say you cannot take a great picture with a 7D of course.

Have I missed something?

I dont have either camera so have no axe to grind and I could see very little difference between the two. From the results of this test, I would be happy to own either (or both).

TeamSpeed

richy wrote: »

There are some minor differences in image quality at low iso's. Its evident in areas such as the leaves, BUT it is pretty minor. There are other differences when the ISO is increased with noise, but its balancing easily dealt with but plentiful noise on the 7d against less noise that can be tougher to deal with on the 5d2. I have both, so like you I have no reason to be biased The differences are small but in a very large print (which is one reason you would buy a 21mp full frame sensor) on a print where detail is important like a landscape you could notice the difference.

It will be interesting when the 5d3 comes out, the 5d2 is an 'old' camera and the 7d is new, so when the roles are reversed it will be a different choice

Exactly the same as I have found, as I have both as well.

The noise is more pleasing on the 7D at high ISOs and clean up a bit better than the 5DII, but at low ISOs, the 5DII doesn't have the luminescent noise levels of the 7D. IQ is very, very similar. I have also found that some lenses that don't yield the best IQ ever on the 7D work a bit better with the 5D, and adds to my perception that I really need to feed the 7D good glass, but if I use the 5D, I can be a tiny bit more forgiving.

I did two very extensive tests with mine over on POTN, high ISO and then IQ.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=930196&highlight=mini-review
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=948879&highlight=mini-review

I really love the mouse-over of this review, I wish I could do the same with my reviews above.

Nikolai

Thanks for testing and sharing!
The two cameras are definitely different, but each has its purpose. I have (and love:-) both and not only as 7D being a backup for 5D2 (or vice versa), but intentionally both, since I use different bodies for different reasons. Granted, with what I do mostly (studio work) 7D sees less light, but when I'm outdoors for an event shooting - I can't substitute one with the other...

NeilL

DxOMark (http://94.23.12.156/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Canon) gives the 5D2 sensor an overall rating of 79, the 7D 66, and, I throw this in, the 40D 64. These tests are time independent since they are not feature dependent. They are among the most scientific available. They should give context to jmphotocrafts examples. They are about sensor characteristics, and not features like burst speed, and I think this is in line with jmhotocrafts' intentions, to separate out image quality from other camera functions.

I have said before that in practice there is little difference between the 7D and the 40D, that the differences are mainly in the market hype of specs. In addition, my impression is that many 7D users shoot with the intention to crop, and cropping plus the higher inherent noise in 7D images with the associated softening produced by the consequently necessary noise reduction treatment, largely cancel out the sensor resolution difference between it and the 40D. As well, I also get the impression that many 7D users find it easier to stick with one AF mode rather than tackle the learning curve of the 7D's new AF system, once again leveling the 7D and 40D in practice, this time with respect to AF.

divamum's current thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=183546) analysing images of hers from the 7D in which correct focus was not achieved demonstrates that the latest tech is no substitute for shooting skills - and I have every respect for dm's knowledge and skills, I have witnessed their development into excellence over more than three years! My point is that it's in the shooter-tech collaboration that IQ is achieved. To the extent that is true, sensor comparisons are more or less academic.

Neil

chrisjohnson

NeilL wrote: »

DxOMark (http://94.23.12.156/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Canon) gives the 5D2 sensor an overall rating of 79, the 7D 66, and, I throw this in, the 40D 64. These tests are time independent since they are not feature dependent. They are among the most scientific available. They should give context to jmphotocrafts examples. They are about sensor characteristics, and not features like burst speed, and I think this is in line with jmhotocrafts' intentions, to separate out image quality from other camera functions.

I have said before that in practice there is little difference between the 7D and the 40D, that the differences are mainly in the market hype of specs. In addition, my impression is that many 7D users shoot with the intention to crop, and cropping plus the higher inherent noise in 7D images with the associated softening produced by the consequently necessary noise reduction treatment, largely cancels out the sensor resolution difference between it and the 40D. As well, I also get the impression that many 7D users find it easier to stick with one AF mode rather than tackle the learning curve of the 7D's new AF system, once again leveling the 7D and 40D in practice with respect to AF.

divamum's current thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=183546) analysing images of hers from the 7D in which correct focus was not achieved demonstrates that the latest tech is no substitute for shooting skills - and I have every respect for dm's knowledge and skills, I have witnessed their development into excellence over more than three years! My point is that it's in the shooter-tech collaboration that IQ is achieved. To the extent that is true, sensor comparisons are more or less academic.

Neil

This is a really sensible post. As a 40D user I know I get a lot more from the camera now than when I bought it. My lack of skill and experience with the various lens combos is still more of a limiting factor than the camera body.

In this thread I have been a bit surprised by people saying that the images show equivalent image quality between 7D and 5DMk2. To my eye the 5D looks a bit better every time, so I guess we are all looking for different things.

TeamSpeed

goldenballs wrote: »

In this thread I have been a bit surprised by people saying that the images show equivalent image quality between 7D and 5DMk2. To my eye the 5D looks a bit better every time, so I guess we are all looking for different things.

I have both and have performed identical test shots between the two, they are very close. Most of the time, we find ourselves comparing images taken from one person vs another, or different glass on each, etc. That is no way to do a comparison, you have to try to limit the different conditions down to a manageable set.

Now another thing you have to consider is "what is IQ"? IQ means different things to different people. Here are my findings from having used both with same or different glass on the same shooting conditions.

IQ - sharpness: 5D2 and 7D are very close, they both yield the same detail, and you really do have to feed better glass to the 7D, the sensor density makes quick work at taking apart the optics quality.

IQ - ISO: The 5D2 is about a stop better, HOWEVER at higher ISOs (like 12800), where a subset of 5D2s start to show color banding, the 7D noise is more uniform and easier to clean. Now if you do the test where you keep the same DOF between the two bodies for the test image, then the 5D2 loses that 1 stop ISO advantage and becomes very similar to the 7D. I understand that test, but I am always more forgiving of DOF when I shoot and am more concerned about noise, so the 5D2 1 stop advantage is well, an advantage.

IQ - tonal transition: The 5D2 is better here, smoother due to the FF sensor and sensel density I assume

IQ - color: The 5D2 is better here, except on the red channel, which many of Canon DSLRs seem to slaughter. The 7D is a bit better on the red, but the overall colors are more muted than on the 5D2 using the same exact picture styles and/or WB points when comparing in raw

IQ - contrast: I think the 5D2 does better here as well, but only by a small margin

IQ - DOF: The 5D2 gives added capabilities to all lenses, including fast primes that I can use on the 7D, because I have to move closer to the subject and thus thin out the DOF. However, not all the time is a razor thin DOF that useful or desirable.

There are other aspects of IQ, like DR, etc, but I don't have enough experience to fully quantify those differences, or even know whether one is better than the other, the attributes above were ones I could reasonably see a difference.

NeilL

richy wrote: »

<...> I have used a 40d, I loved it, it was the best thing since the 20d and it took the 7d to marginally better it, but i think IMHO the 7d is slightly the better camera (you would hope for 3 years more of development and 400 more dollars it would be) <...>

Apart from anything else Canon (etc) is a business, and obviously will produce product with the intention, even the main intention, of generating business. Having a line of tens of cameras which they are replacing every 12 months is moving way faster than tech, even in this day and age, and way faster than the budgets of science and R&D, so improvements in new models can be more or less rhetorical-cosmetic. New models are the main way Canon can stimulate the market to keep up income. Without new models in competition with other manufacturers Canon would go broke. The specs of the 40D and 7D are different, but the different tech in the 7D is just that, different tech (more MP, two new processors, new AF). Different does not necessarily guarantee better, it only guarantees Canon income over the next 12 months. The actual real world bottom line with these two cameras, as they are used in practice, is as we have seen that they are very difficult to separate in terms of IQ. Buying the 7D is to a significant degree a donation to Canon.

Neil