OHHH MY GOODNESS YES. One reason being diffraction starts at F/6.3 on the 7D cause of the pixel density. The MKII can go to F10 without any diffraction. As a macro freak with both cameras I will attest that it is quite noticeable with micro detail when you want to shoot at F10 and beyond! While it wont be noticed in web sized previews, it makes a difference when you want to print big - the MKII allows you to press your face on the glass while remaining razor sharp on poster sized prints ... not that I have a habit of pressing my face on glass... I get close though
The MKII gives better sharpness, higher resolution, and less noise, which multiplies the contribution to overall IQ in macro - especially if you find yourself without a flash or sunlight or want to use smaller apertures.
If your lens isn't a *true* macro lens, then it can be an advantage to use a crop sensor because it gets you a little bit closer to the subject, but for serious work with a 1x lens, full-frame will give you more versatility with apertures.
Personally, I shoot 95% of my macro shots between f/2.8 or f/5.6, and sometimes on a lens that only goes to 0.5x, so I do often use a crop sensor lens.
I believe it was either Rob Galbraith or some other semi-well-known sports shooter who tested the 7D AF system to be as good as, or even better in some cases, than the 1-series flagship AF.
I think you're thinking of the test these people did before they did this test:
Previously they crowned the 7D the new AF king before the 1DIV and D3s came out.
So I would say, put some more effort into mastering the 7D's AF system, and you'll be rewarded. Or send the camera in for a checkup... ;-)
Definitely do send it in to Canon if you suspect it's not up to speed. I sent mine in and they confirmed it was out of spec. It was not just a MFA issue. Got it back and it's a much better camera. About as good as my old 1DIIN if not slightly better.
Regarding the OP, if you want ultimate image quality, the 5DII wins, but only when you print huge or pixel peep at 100%. Sounds like your camera usage is AF intensive though, so if you need redundancy the 7D is your answer, hands-down. But if you are looking to get into different kinds of photography, then the 5DII is a great compliment to the 7D.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
"These tests are all done using the default camera settings and default custom function settings. Tests are done using the center focus point only."
I nearly facepalmed here. As soon as I read that, I have to disregard all their tests.
If you read the article, using only the center focus point for the type of test that they did makes sense. The test is not comprehensive or exhaustive.
Comparing and measuring AF speed and accuracy really does take months of testing to form an accurate sense of the autofocus properties in different situations and trying different AF setups (and potentially different metering setups too as many new AF sections couple to the metering as well.)
It's fine to read reviews like those posted in ProPhotHome as long as you understand the limits of the test(s) and relevance to your own shooting. If the test is not relevant to you and your styles "then" you can disregard some of the results, but you might want to keep the tests in mind if your needs change and your style and setup changes too.
If you read the article, using only the center focus point for the type of test that they did makes sense. The test is not comprehensive or exhaustive.
Comparing and measuring AF speed and accuracy really does take months of testing to form an accurate sense of the autofocus properties in different situations and trying different AF setups (and potentially different metering setups too as many new AF sections couple to the metering as well.)
It's fine to read reviews like those posted in ProPhotHome as long as you understand the limits of the test(s) and relevance to your own shooting. If the test is not relevant to you and your styles "then" you can disregard some of the results, but you might want to keep the tests in mind if your needs change and your style and setup changes too.
You can never be too informed.
Nikon has three modes that effects single point.
(Default) "release" You wont get many in focus, burst shooting. Camera simply doesn't care.
"release + focus" Camera tries to focus more while burst shooting.
"focus" subject must be in focus before the shutter is released.
Nikon has three modes that effects single point.
(Default) "release" You wont get many in focus, burst shooting. Camera simply doesn't care.
"release + focus" Camera tries to focus more while burst shooting.
"focus" subject must be in focus before the shutter is released.
My dad has a truck!
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Nikon has three modes that effects single point.
(Default) "release" You wont get many in focus, burst shooting. Camera simply doesn't care.
"release + focus" Camera tries to focus more while burst shooting.
"focus" subject must be in focus before the shutter is released.
I see what you're getting at. Many Nikon sports photographers do use the "Release + Focus" as the best compromise in shooting rate and AF accuracy in AF-C mode.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that the Canon camera was "optimized" for AF settings in this case either. (Canon has some "AF distraction sensitivity" settings in particular.) While the default settings may have been a fair starting point, I too would like to see further experiments with both camera's setting to see what might have been optimal in this case.
It doesn't multiply you FL, unless there is some magical tele-converter that attaches itself.
??? Crop sensored bodies have a multiplier (40D, 50D, 7D, 60D etc all 1.6x). 200mm on a FF body is 200mm but on the bodies mentioned previously its 320mm. That's the difference between filling the frame at 20 yards vs. 30 yards.
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
??? Crop sensored bodies have a multiplier (40D, 50D, 7D, 60D etc all 1.6x). 200mm on a FF body is 200mm but on the bodies mentioned previously its 320mm. That's the difference between filling the frame at 20 yards vs. 30 yards.
Yes and no. Crop bodies do exactly that - they crop the image projected by the lens, resulting in a Field of View equivalent to a lens 1.6 times longer. For a 200mm lens that is 320mm, but you still are left with all the other characteristics of the 200mm lens, such as Depth of Field, compression, sharpness, etc. Any faults or softness of the lens are also magnified. Whether these things matter to you is purely subjective. If they don't, then you can think of it as a focal length multiplier. In many cases, "reach" trumps all else.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yes and no. Crop bodies do exactly that - they crop the image projected by the lens, resulting in a Field of View equivalent to a lens 1.6 times longer. For a 200mm lens that is 320mm, but you still are left with all the other characteristics of the 200mm lens, such as Depth of Field, compression, sharpness, etc. Any faults or softness of the lens are also magnified. Whether these things matter to you is purely subjective. If they don't, then you can think of it as a focal length multiplier. In many cases, "reach" trumps all else.
I'll add that one of the faults they DON'T multiply, but often make better is vignetting. Since the 1.6x sensors only see the center of the image circle any vignetting at the edges is often avoided when using lenses that project a full image circle.
Sour grapes. Vignetting isn't a fault, it's a feature. ;-P
No sour grapes here, just making an observation. I've owned both FF and crop cameras and usually don't correct the vignetting I get on my 5D MKII. I actually will often add some if it helps the framing of the image (Lightroom makes that easy).
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited July 26, 2011
Yeah I'm not a fan of SEVERE vignetting. It is annoying that practically EVERY lens on full-frame generates noticeable vignetting when shot wide open. Sure, it works amazing artistic wonders on those low-light B&W shots. But the bright high-key images could certainly do without it.
On some of the Canon lenses, at higher ISO's you literally CANNOT fully correct the vignetting because it brings out WAY too much noise. (For example, the 16-35 mk2 shot wide open)
Comments
If your lens isn't a *true* macro lens, then it can be an advantage to use a crop sensor because it gets you a little bit closer to the subject, but for serious work with a 1x lens, full-frame will give you more versatility with apertures.
Personally, I shoot 95% of my macro shots between f/2.8 or f/5.6, and sometimes on a lens that only goes to 0.5x, so I do often use a crop sensor lens.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I think you're thinking of the test these people did before they did this test:
http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/03/01/autofocus-torture-test-updated-canon-1d-mkiv-nikon-d3s-added/
Previously they crowned the 7D the new AF king before the 1DIV and D3s came out.
Definitely do send it in to Canon if you suspect it's not up to speed. I sent mine in and they confirmed it was out of spec. It was not just a MFA issue. Got it back and it's a much better camera. About as good as my old 1DIIN if not slightly better.
Regarding the OP, if you want ultimate image quality, the 5DII wins, but only when you print huge or pixel peep at 100%. Sounds like your camera usage is AF intensive though, so if you need redundancy the 7D is your answer, hands-down. But if you are looking to get into different kinds of photography, then the 5DII is a great compliment to the 7D.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
"These tests are all done using the default camera settings and default custom function settings. Tests are done using the center focus point only."
I nearly facepalmed here. As soon as I read that, I have to disregard all their tests.
If you read the article, using only the center focus point for the type of test that they did makes sense. The test is not comprehensive or exhaustive.
Comparing and measuring AF speed and accuracy really does take months of testing to form an accurate sense of the autofocus properties in different situations and trying different AF setups (and potentially different metering setups too as many new AF sections couple to the metering as well.)
It's fine to read reviews like those posted in ProPhotHome as long as you understand the limits of the test(s) and relevance to your own shooting. If the test is not relevant to you and your styles "then" you can disregard some of the results, but you might want to keep the tests in mind if your needs change and your style and setup changes too.
You can never be too informed.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Nikon has three modes that effects single point.
(Default) "release" You wont get many in focus, burst shooting. Camera simply doesn't care.
"release + focus" Camera tries to focus more while burst shooting.
"focus" subject must be in focus before the shutter is released.
My dad has a truck!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I see what you're getting at. Many Nikon sports photographers do use the "Release + Focus" as the best compromise in shooting rate and AF accuracy in AF-C mode.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that the Canon camera was "optimized" for AF settings in this case either. (Canon has some "AF distraction sensitivity" settings in particular.) While the default settings may have been a fair starting point, I too would like to see further experiments with both camera's setting to see what might have been optimal in this case.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
Yes and no. Crop bodies do exactly that - they crop the image projected by the lens, resulting in a Field of View equivalent to a lens 1.6 times longer. For a 200mm lens that is 320mm, but you still are left with all the other characteristics of the 200mm lens, such as Depth of Field, compression, sharpness, etc. Any faults or softness of the lens are also magnified. Whether these things matter to you is purely subjective. If they don't, then you can think of it as a focal length multiplier. In many cases, "reach" trumps all else.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I'll add that one of the faults they DON'T multiply, but often make better is vignetting. Since the 1.6x sensors only see the center of the image circle any vignetting at the edges is often avoided when using lenses that project a full image circle.
Sour grapes. Vignetting isn't a fault, it's a feature. ;-P
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
It's easily the right tool for the job when AF (or budget) is the priority. I wouldn't trade it back for my 1DIIN.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
No sour grapes here, just making an observation.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
On some of the Canon lenses, at higher ISO's you literally CANNOT fully correct the vignetting because it brings out WAY too much noise. (For example, the 16-35 mk2 shot wide open)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum