40D owner considering move to 7D - thoughts?

Good Morning everyone.

I am probaly going to regret this but....

I have a 40D and am considering moving to the 7D. I am aware of all the benefits of the 7D but....

I don't have a clear idea whether or not, with the same lens, printed at, say, A3, I would see any better image quality from the 7D?

For the sake of argument, lets say the 15-85 and the 50mm f1.8 nifty fifty. Using these lens on these 2 cameras, will I see the difference when printed out? Or would you only see the difference at huge print sizes of 30" x 45" or somesuch?

I would love to hear from anyone who has used both cameras!

Even if the answer is "no" there is no noticeable difference, I know the video capability and improved AF may still give me a reason to upgrade. Or it may give me a reason to buy more lenses!

Thanks again for your time.

Based on my experience with a 10mp Nikon D200 and a 12 mp Sony a700 I doubt that you'll see a noticeable difference. When you start cropping though ....
--
Gary

I went from a 40D to a 7d. I did see a big difference in the amount of detail in an image. There is a lot of difference between 10 mp and 18 mp. It gives you the ability to crop if you need to for composition or if you are a birder and can't get close enough.

I am very happy I switched and can tell a difference between two images of the same subject taken under the same conditions.

Well that is a promising start! Thanks!

Have you found any problems with camera shake due to the finer pixel pitch?

So you would say you COULD see the difference on an A3 print?

Thanks again!

With a good upscaling algorithm you can already get stunningly sharp A3-size images from a 6MP image (that is sharp to begin with). We have great wedding pictures from our daughter, taken with a Minolta D7D.

To see the difference between 10MP and 18MP in print you need to print very large. Yes 18MP with a good lens contains more detail than 10MP but that won't really come out in an A3 size print yet. And in still larger prints you are unlikely to see the difference at normal viewing distance but like with 100% crops you can always see the difference when you look up close.

If image quality and not speed is your main concern you might just want to wait a bit and get a 60D and save quite a bit of money. Same processor (but only one) same or very similar sensor, same resolution...

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

Have you considered the 5D mkii?

I went from 40d to this and really happy I went full frame. The most pleasing thing for me was to be able to shoot at 800iso with almost no noticable noise....love it!

Kind regards

geoantmcc said:

Good Morning everyone.

I am probaly going to regret this but....

I have a 40D and am considering moving to the 7D. I am aware of all the benefits of the 7D but....

I don't have a clear idea whether or not, with the same lens, printed at, say, A3, I would see any better image quality from the 7D?

For the sake of argument, lets say the 15-85 and the 50mm f1.8 nifty fifty. Using these lens on these 2 cameras, will I see the difference when printed out? Or would you only see the difference at huge print sizes of 30" x 45" or somesuch?

I would love to hear from anyone who has used both cameras!

Even if the answer is "no" there is no noticeable difference, I know the video capability and improved AF may still give me a reason to upgrade. Or it may give me a reason to buy more lenses!

Thanks again for your time.

Click to expand...

I upgraded from 40D to 50D two years ago, and have a 7D on order to replace the 50D. I bought a 7D for my wife some time ago, so I am already familiar with the camera. I use a dual-format kit with the 5DII as my FF body, and a range of high-end lenses.

You can make an excellent A3 print from the whole of a shot taken with the 40D, but if you start cropping then you will notice progressively more difference between a 40D shot and a shot taken with a higher-resolution body.

However, that's only one part of the question you should be asking, which is whether in similar shooting situations you will get more keepers with the 7D than the 40D. AF, which you mention, is only one aspect of this, although a very important one in many circumstances. Contrast-detect AF in Live View, AF microadjustment, better viewfinder, wider ISO range ... there's quite a long list, and just about the only downsides I can think of offhand are the need to handle larger files and the requirement to use noise reduction thoughtfully to exploit the higher ISO settings. Of course, if you were using lenses with mediocre image quality, the 7D would expose their weaknesses more readily if you pixel-peep (or perhaprs even without that on an A3 print), but the lenses you mention should give you no problem. So, assuming you are staying with 1.6-factor, affordability is the only reason for hesitating over the upgrade.

A move to FF is a different matter. For sheer image quality, the 5DII is still clearly ahead of the 7D, although in many respects the 7D is a more advanced camera many of whose features will no doubt appear in the next FF body. FF makes rather different demands on lenses from 1.6-factor. Performance needs to be good across the fiull frame – there's no "sweet spot" effect of the kind you get by using a high-end EF lens on a 1.6-factor body – although you don't need quite so high a resolution over the area of the crop frame as you do for a 7D – 5DII photo sites are about the same size as those on the 20D/30D. As you move into the telephoto range, to get the same angle of view you need a larger, heavier, and typically much more expensive lens on FF. Both formats have their advantages, which is why I have a dual-format kit.

Would love to go the 5D mkII, but the cost is just a bit much.

Anyway going from 10D to 40D to 7D. Not just the resultant size that is important it is also the added benefits with a newer technology camera.

My eyesight without glasses isn't that great, so I need a very good autofocus system. My wife wouldn't let me use the film camera because I kept missing focus even with a split screen.

The larger range of focus and exposures settings will keep me happy just learning them let alone using them.

--
my 2 exposed flashcubes worth.

Ian the pbase supporter.
http://pbase.com/ianm_au

Please check my profile for equipment list.
An amateur with dreams of being a good to excellent photographer.

geoantmcc said:

Well that is a promising start! Thanks!

Have you found any problems with camera shake due to the finer pixel pitch?

So you would say you COULD see the difference on an A3 print?

Click to expand...

This issue has come up over and again and is really a misunderstanding. The only time you might see a difference is if you blow the image up to 100% in both cases. The effect is not a consequenece of pixel pitch; the increased size of the image at 100% is what allows you to resolve more detail and therefore resolve more camera shake. With the same lens and the same magnification size print you wont see a difference.

An analogy would be to take two handheld pictures with the same camera fitted with a 400mm or a 300mm lens. Then crop the 300mm to the same image size as the 400mm. The effect of camera shake will now be the same (although the 400mm image will show greater resolution)
neil

I did this upgrade and am getting better photos. However, my photos are not better because of megapixels. I find that the faster fps gives me a better chance of a sharp handheld photo at a low SS. In extreme cases, I just take 20 and 1 will be good! The improved AF is not something that helps me day-today, but it has come in handy a few times.

It took me a few months, but I've also started using off camera flash with it, and that has taken my photography to new places and is allowing me greater creativity, which, for me, is what it is all about.

I know this isn't exactly what you were asking, but I feel they are important considerations.

Well even if the IQ is not much different (which I think it would be a bit better, especially on larger prints), you can crop more which significantly improves the quality of your images if you crop and blow up. I did this recently with a museum shot where I cropped in maybe about 50% of the image and then blew it up 20x30. It looks fantastic and this is with a 50D but you get the idea. More pixels equal better adjustment later on. Also you will have significantly better ISO abilities. If these few things do not seem to justify such a high price, look at the 60D which will give you these same features at about $500 less in price. At least where I am at, that is the difference and I am considering it. Good luck.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

10mp to 12mp not much of a difference.... 10mp to 18mp is a lot. It will be seen in cropping and maybe large prints.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

Thanks to everyone who replied.

All good points and plenty of food for thought. The cropping issue is the one which is the most compelling I think to me.

I will let you know (eventually) what my decision will be.

What lens were you using that gave you such high quality? Was it the type of image where "tack sharpness" is an issue?

IQ depends on more than only lens sharpness and sensor resolution and noise control. It depends on getting sharp focus, reducing or eliminating motion blur, and catching action, among other things.

The 60D's sensor will be as good in terms of resolution and noise control as the 7D's, from what I read, but the AF capability won't be as good. The 550D's sensor is as or nearly as good, too; but its AF capability is one more step down from the 60D's, from what I read.

The main reason I get more keepers with my 7D than before is largely a function of the superior AF. It's also a function of the better high-ISO performance than my previous camera--so I can use faster shutter speeds--but that doesn't distinguish the 7D from the 60D and the 550D.

FF

geoantmcc said:

For the sake of argument, lets say the 15-85 and the 50mm f1.8 nifty fifty. Using these lens on these 2 cameras, will I see the difference when printed out? Or would you only see the difference at huge print sizes of 30" x 45" or somesuch?

Click to expand...

The difference between 10 MP and 18 MP is huge, but that may or may not mean you will see it in a given situation. If you view two equivalent images on screen at 100%, the difference is very clear (believe me - very clear). But if you made a 4"x6" print from each they would be essentially identical. Somewhere in between is a point where you begin to get the benefit of the 7D's resolution - but how can we quantify it?

The printing industry has long accepted that there is little or no benefit in printing at resolutions higher than about 300 dpi. This is for 'magazine quality' printing viewed at normal reading distances, say up to arm's length. For fine art printing it would be a bit higher but I think we can ignore that. So, if your 40D image (3888 x 2592 pixels) is printed at 300 dpi that's near enough a 13"x9" image, which means at this size the extra resolution of the 7D will be wasted as it will not make any significant difference. But if you print larger, or if you print from a cropped image, you will start to see a benefit.

By A3 size a full frame from the 40D is printing at 235 dpi while the 70D (5184 x 3456) can still manage almost 315 dpi - and that sort of difference is visible assuming you have a high quality printer.

It's not uncommon to see it claimed that "you won't notice the difference on an A3 print". Well, that may be true of certain subjects such as portraits where the eye doesn't crave as much detail, especially if it is viewed hanging on the wall. But a landscape printed as a centre spread in a magazine will look very different at 315 dpi and 235 dpi.

Steve Balcombe said:

geoantmcc said:

For the sake of argument, lets say the 15-85 and the 50mm f1.8 nifty fifty. Using these lens on these 2 cameras, will I see the difference when printed out? Or would you only see the difference at huge print sizes of 30" x 45" or somesuch?

Click to expand...

The difference between 10 MP and 18 MP is huge, but that may or may not mean you will see it in a given situation. If you view two equivalent images on screen at 100%, the difference is very clear (believe me - very clear). But if you made a 4"x6" print from each they would be essentially identical. Somewhere in between is a point where you begin to get the benefit of the 7D's resolution - but how can we quantify it?

The printing industry has long accepted that there is little or no benefit in printing at resolutions higher than about 300 dpi. This is for 'magazine quality' printing viewed at normal reading distances, say up to arm's length. For fine art printing it would be a bit higher but I think we can ignore that. So, if your 40D image (3888 x 2592 pixels) is printed at 300 dpi that's near enough a 13"x9" image, which means at this size the extra resolution of the 7D will be wasted as it will not make any significant difference. But if you print larger, or if you print from a cropped image, you will start to see a benefit.

By A3 size a full frame from the 40D is printing at 235 dpi while the 70D (5184 x 3456) can still manage almost 315 dpi - and that sort of difference is visible assuming you have a high quality printer.

It's not uncommon to see it claimed that "you won't notice the difference on an A3 print". Well, that may be true of certain subjects such as portraits where the eye doesn't crave as much detail, especially if it is viewed hanging on the wall. But a landscape printed as a centre spread in a magazine will look very different at 315 dpi and 235 dpi.

Click to expand...

Great explanation Steve, another point worth mentioning is that for an equal sized print, you will notice less noise with a 7D. In fact I often don't use any noise reduction on my pics unless I'm pushing the ISO, just convert from RAW to JPEGs, a little sharpening and tweak the lighting.
Neil

Thanks Steve, I guess that was the kind of detail I was looking for.

To summarise your point, if you don't mind, is that yes, at A3, the difference will noticeable, using the same lens (eg 15-85)?

geoantmcc said:

I would love to hear from anyone who has used both cameras!

Click to expand...

I have a 40D and a 7D. I like the 7D a lot more. But the 40D makes good images too. To get all of the added IQ benefit from the 7D it is necessary to have good lenses (or stop them down to their sweet spot), to nail the focus and to have good technique. A very small amount of motion blur will negate the resolution advantage of the 7D. But when all is well there is a clear benefit (for cropping or going extra large). When all is not well the benefits of the 7D are primarily better high ISO performance (less noise) and of course the better feature set (higher fps, better preview screen, better viewfinder, improved AF, accurate battery gauge and longer batter life, more durable shutter, slightly better build quality, etc.).

If you have the money without crimping your retirement account, I say go for it. If you are still building your retirement account to get it where you want it, I say keep shooting the 40D.

--
Mike Mullen

Well in my case there was a lot going on in the picture as far as contrast and different colors. It looked sharp to me though some people see things differently. I used the 24-105mm lens.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.