7D vs 5DII ISO test

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

• Crop users can use faster lenses for less DoF. The Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon 85 f/1.8 are both affordable and have fantastic shallow DoF and bokeh. MAC preaching to people about the DoF of the 24-70 f/2.8 is ridiculous when a crop user with a faster lens has less DoF than he does.

Click to expand...

I respond with all due respect, and as a former 30D and 40D owner with thousands of wonderful images to their credit. I was a single crop-body user for several years.

You make a valid point, but primes simply aren't as versatile as walk-around lenses. I do love that my walk-around lens is true 24mm to 70mm at f/2.8. Using a prime or three as a walk-around can be great, but it is simply a fact that they're not as versatile.

photog7320 said:

• If you want to get down to it, an f/2.8 lens is not like a f/4.5 lens when on crop. The DoF may be equivalent to f/4.5 on FF, but details well outside the plane of focus will be equally blurred on both.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing this. Check out this 7D/5DII test. The first pair of images are taken at eqivalent DOF - f/3.5 on the 7D and f/5.6 on the 5DII. The second pair of images are taken at the same aperture, f/3.5. The details outside the plane of focus are quite a bit more blurred on the 5DII.

http://jmphotocraft.com/5DII_v_7D/

the 85 f1.8 is the FF equivalent of 136 f2.8(dof equivalent)

Jack has some of the sharpest f2.8 in the world --and he has it 70 -200 in his IS II lens and he has modern IS to boot.

so except for a bit more weight -- Why would Jack want an 85 f1.8 on his 7d as opposed to his 70 -200 f2.8 IS II on his FF

He has some of the sharpest f2.8 effective dof on earth
He has modern IS
He has the best

for that matter -- I will take the new 100 f2.8 IS L on FF any day over the 85 f1.8 on crop. Consider that the 85 does not have IS and one needs to use
1/(focal length 1.6) ss -- that makes it tough in low light

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

JackM - the 70-200 f/2.8 can certainly be used as a portrait lens. Dave has a point regarding compression at longer focal lengths, that's a choice you either want or don't want.

My intent originally was not to knock any particular f/2.8 lens for portrait use. But rather to point out the silliness of MAC constantly telling people that crop cannot be used for portraits because f/2.8 on crop is "like f/4.5" on FF.

This is stupid for him to keep repeating for two reasons:

• Crop users can use faster lenses for less DoF. The Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon 85 f/1.8 are both affordable and have fantastic shallow DoF and bokeh. MAC preaching to people about the DoF of the 24-70 f/2.8 is ridiculous when a crop user with a faster lens has less DoF than he does.

• If you want to get down to it, an f/2.8 lens is not like a f/4.5 lens when on crop. The DoF may be equivalent to f/4.5 on FF, but details well outside the plane of focus will be equally blurred on both. Some would prefer to use an f/2.8 zoom on crop, or prefer to use it in certain portrait situations, because it would be easier to get the entire subject in focus while having a diffused background. If you've got a couple people and want them tack sharp regardless of depth differences between them, yet want a completely blurred backdrop and that backdrop is well off in the distance, it is easier to achieve on crop. You'll end up with a more blurred background because the FF user will end up stopping down and detail blur well outside the plane of focus is controlled entirely by physical aperture size.

That last technical detail completely eludes MAC. Then again, so does the first simple observation. It gets tiring to see him make the same rant every time the 7D is mentioned.

JackM said:

Dave Luttmann said:

The 70-200 is a good lens...but for portraits, many tend to zoom in and you end up with a lot of lifeless, flat looking compressed images. The bokeh is average. I'd use the 50 f1.2 and 85 f1.2 for portraits. I always found the 135 a bit long and two dimensional in comparison. The 50 and 85 have gorgeous bokeh and a lot of character.

Click to expand...

I read somewhere that 135mm is supposed to be the most flattering fl for portraits...?

The 50L and 85L are too expensive and too specialized for me. And 50mm is so often either too long or too short. I get a lot of value out of my 70-200/2.8II.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JackM said:

I'm not seeing this. Check out this 7D/5DII test. The first pair of images are taken at eqivalent DOF - f/3.5 on the 7D and f/5.6 on the 5DII. The second pair of images are taken at the same aperture, f/3.5. The details outside the plane of focus are quite a bit more blurred on the 5DII.

Click to expand...

What does the background look like on the 7D if you don't resize it up to the same size as the 5D2? They should look the same I would think.
Regards Rod

rodbam said:

What does the background look like on the 7D if you don't resize it up to the same size as the 5D2? They should look the same I would think.
Regards Rod

Click to expand...

The 7D image was not resized. The 7D shot was taken at 85mm, the 5DII shot was taken at 135mm. Which, umm, you would know if you had read the test.

The thing I've pointed out to you daniel is the same thing Jack has pointed out to you. The zoom is more versatile than the primes for equivalent effective dof.

If Dave has long canon AF lenses that get low light on 7d he hasn't responded to others when they ask what gear he has -- I've stated what he has responded. Otherwise he talks about longer primes on film. They use to do weddings this way before digital. It is my opinion that I wouldn't want to use that technology today. No one around my parts does for pj work. We shoot 2000 pics in 10 hours from 2 photographers and 5 dslrs

A film forum would be perfect for Dave. This is a digital forum

All he needs to do is quit following me around and calling me names-- ignore me as he said he would -- and I'll ignore him.

Hopefully he hears the call of the new pentax. Looks like a great camera. Just that my focus is glass not body. Canon has the glass imo

MAC said:

The thing I've pointed out to you daniel is the same thing Jack has pointed out to you. The zoom is more versatile than the primes for equivalent effective dof.

Click to expand...

You make this out to be more than it is. At least at the weddings I've shot I was more often worried about getting enough DoF than getting too much. There are certainly shots where you want the background out of focus but that's easy to achieve with either format. You act as if shallow DoF is something that is always needed and always noticeably better even in small additional increments. That's no where close to being true.

MAC said:

If Dave has long canon AF lenses that get low light on 7d he hasn't responded to others when they ask what gear he has -- I've stated what he has responded.

Click to expand...

Enough! You don't own, nor have you even touched, the camera bodies being discussed. This thread isn't about what Dave owns. He owns a 7D which makes him more qualified to comment about 7D vs 5D mkII high ISO prints than you, and that's the actual topic at hand.

jm67 said:

I've never investigated it myself to find concrete numbers but have read of numbers between 4-7 for print, around 9 for LCD monitor and of course we all know what the cameras are capable of. Almost seems a shame to print the pic, doesn't it? I still hear people (friends, not clients thank goodness), complaining of how their prints just don't 'pop' (I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing that buzzword) after looking at them on screen. Being able to see the image on a screen may be a small contributing factor in the trend of people printing less. Or maybe it's because people (in general, not the photogs here) point their cams at anything and shoot and it's not print worthy, even at 15 cents a pop. But that's another discussion.

Click to expand...

I think your 4-7 is pretty close to the estimates I've studied. Bronxbombers helped me select my monitor. He has the great NEC 24 inch $900 model that does both wide gamut and srgb emulation very well. I have the new $400 HP ZR24W e-IPS. He taught me what to look for. It is nice to get help in these forums from knowledgeable folks when you need it.

One of the things I had to do was tone down the brightness and contrast on my HP so that when I develop photos on the screen they are less bright looking "at my development screen settings". But when I print them, they are brighter and pop more than if I have my screen set at factory web viewing settings -- which is overly bright for print development.

jm67 said:

jm67 said:

But I see print as being shot lived anyway.

Click to expand...

(I don't know...I still like the tactile sensation of holding a photo in my hand and looking at the image without having to find an electrical outlet but that's me.)

Click to expand...

me too -- but I've only sold two designer zookbook albums in 12 weddings. Most want the prints to put in their own albums and also the disks.

jm67 said:

jm67 said:

We'll have bigger wall screens where couples display their wedding albums in the future front and center in slide show format -set to music - where you can see all the nice dynamic range. So I want better dynamic range out of my digital. I enjoy my 24 inch HP 1200 x 1920 IPS. More and more people will migrate away from print that smashes dynamic range and takes up too much wall space and gets buried in bookshelves. Front and center --all digital -- that is what we will see in the future. Get ready for it.

Click to expand...

See above. Yes, I have to wonder as there seems to be a trend to printing less when it comes to the general public from what I gather from photo shops in my area. I don't know about other parts of the world but you could go into any store and buy a slew of photo albums but there are fewer and fewer now. Maybe people are still printing but what are they putting their prints into?

I think my wife would like to have our wedding slideshow I made playing on a wall but I know she'll forgive me when I say watching the DVD I made of it once in a while on the tv is enough for me.

Click to expand...

I tell couples -- if you ever have a bad day in the next 60 years-- just pick up your wedding photos and smile again.

My thought is in the next few years you'll see bigger automated wall frames where you program in dozens of slideshows. Couples just push the button of the slideshow they want played that week. What would be nice is if we wedding photogs could market and develop for these large wall frames when they come out. I'm anticipating this will be the big hit in the future versus the costs couples pay for my zookbooks. Maybe there will be bigger margin in it for wedding photogs.

ok Daniel, let's see yours....

Here is my best portrait in the last week. I shot it 40d 50 f1.8II, f4.5

hint -- I'm not all about FF and I'm not all about shallow dof

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

MAC said:

The thing I've pointed out to you daniel is the same thing Jack has pointed out to you. The zoom is more versatile than the primes for equivalent effective dof.

Click to expand...

You make this out to be more than it is. At least at the weddings I've shot I was more often worried about getting enough DoF than getting too much. There are certainly shots where you want the background out of focus but that's easy to achieve with either format. You act as if shallow DoF is something that is always needed and always noticeably better even in small additional increments. That's no where close to being true.

photog7320 said:

If Dave has long canon AF lenses that get low light on 7d he hasn't responded to others when they ask what gear he has -- I've stated what he has responded.

Click to expand...

Enough! You don't own, nor have you even touched, the camera bodies being discussed. This thread isn't about what Dave owns. He owns a 7D which makes him more qualified to comment about 7D vs 5D mkII high ISO prints than you, and that's the actual topic at hand.

Click to expand...

JackM said:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

• Crop users can use faster lenses for less DoF. The Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon 85 f/1.8 are both affordable and have fantastic shallow DoF and bokeh. MAC preaching to people about the DoF of the 24-70 f/2.8 is ridiculous when a crop user with a faster lens has less DoF than he does.

Click to expand...

You make a valid point, but primes simply aren't as versatile as walk-around lenses. I do love that my walk-around lens is true 24mm to 70mm at f/2.8. Using a prime or three as a walk-around can be great, but it is simply a fact that they're not as versatile.

Click to expand...

Are we talking about shallow DoF portraits or walking around? The 17-55 and 15-85 zooms are versatile walk around lenses for crop. I'm sorry, but the DoF differences between the 17-55 on crop and 24-70 on FF are way overplayed by MAC. We're talking a couple inches DoF and a few fractions of a mm in blur size on the print.

JackM said:

JackM said:

• If you want to get down to it, an f/2.8 lens is not like a f/4.5 lens when on crop. The DoF may be equivalent to f/4.5 on FF, but details well outside the plane of focus will be equally blurred on both.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing this. Check out this 7D/5DII test. The first pair of images are taken at eqivalent DOF - f/3.5 on the 7D and f/5.6 on the 5DII. The second pair of images are taken at the same aperture, f/3.5. The details outside the plane of focus are quite a bit more blurred on the 5DII.

Click to expand...

Well outside the plane of focus. See: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html

JackM said:

rodbam said:

What does the background look like on the 7D if you don't resize it up to the same size as the 5D2? They should look the same I would think.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JackM said:

The 7D image was not resized. The 7D shot was taken at 85mm, the 5DII shot was taken at 135mm. Which, umm, you would know if you had read the test.

Click to expand...

I just look at the picys mate or is this like Playboy magazine where I have to read the articles.
Regards Rod

The girl looks very cute like that. Here's one of mine where I wanted enough DOF to get him all in focus. I don't know how to do frames or logos to make it look more professional like yours so here it is, as is.





Regards Rod

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

Are we talking about shallow DoF portraits or walking around?

Click to expand...

Haha, touche. In a studio or a park where you can zoom with your feet, sure, use a prime. My on-location portraits have all benefited from my zoom lenses.

I'm no zoom fanboy either, I hope to get an L prime or two in the near future.

photog7320 said:

The 17-55 and 15-85 zooms are versatile walk around lenses for crop. I'm sorry, but the DoF differences between the 17-55 on crop and 24-70 on FF are way overplayed by MAC. We're talking a couple inches DoF and a few fractions of a mm in blur size on the print.

Click to expand...

I had a 17-55 on my 40D. I didn't have an "OMG look at the DOF!" moment when I switched to FF. I do like the VF a lot better, and getting back to a more film-like approach to focal lengths.

photog7320 said:

Well outside the plane of focus.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the point though? It's a pretty average scene.

MAC said:

Jack, ignore him. here is why...rant up... in response to his rant...

He doesn't own a canon AF lens. Nada. zero. He doesn't own a 50 L or an 85 L. He is all talk. And most of all -- he doesn't own a 70 -200 f2.8

And, I can point to the thread -- he is trying to sell out of his 7d and go pentax as his sidekick to film.

Now who should we name call and who belongs in the canon forum and who does not.

70-200 f2.8 used for many years by masters of portrait art in photography. So where does he think his art is without a 70-200 f2.8?

You will not get a clue reading this film claims. He doesn't have a digital AF lens longer than 50 mm to take into a wedding. All he owns is a sigma 10 -20 and a tamy 17 -50 for his 7d. Yikes. That is it for his digital arsenal Af lenses So when the lights go down, and the minister sets you in the back
(like Jm67 and I get set back in the back and not allowed to use flash)

Click to expand...

Well, truth be told while I've put on a big white one during some "banished to the balcony" events, I've had many great shots around the 55 range on crop. I know you haven't forgotten the fact but do remember that while it's beneficial to get the shot at the focal length you want, the 7D and 5DII give some crop leeway. As long as the exposure and lense is a good quality, the crop will still give you good detail and no one would be the wiser but you that it's a portion of the original.

MAC said:

, he is shooting film or wide or 50 mm angle digital.

My brides would cry if I used that

Read Jm67's relief that he now has digital versus film for hi iso situations and zooming in -- eg -- ring exchanges.

Click to expand...

Yes, it helps. It's so convenient to turn a dial and suddenly I'm at 3200 then back to 400. And of course that along with IS helps when I do have to put longer lenses on. And what I'm not sure of is how the heck I went to using mostly primes to mostly zooms. Well, it's convenient for the most part where I can't move, am not allowed to move, don't want to move. And isn't it nice not to have to do shot counts in your head? As long as the card is big enough, you can shoot away. How's that for freedom? Seems like forever ago I gave up the film for digital so really, my hat's off to anyone who still has to think and deal with all the extra effort that goes along with it.

But, you know on the other hand, it doesn't mean it can't be done (weddings/events with primes or no long white zooms). It's just harder to do and maybe a shot is compromised but the photographer is hopefully skilled enough to compensate with some other great shots and Brides are still happy. I've seen Dave's shots and there are some good ones. Looks like some nice post work too, processed with nice effects that enhance the shot.

MAC said:

Using a 50 in the back of a church? Or using noisy film in the back of a church? Not a wedding ceremony I want to be in with that digital gear and film in low light when flash is not allowed. High volume he claims -- not in this day and age -- what a joke.

Click to expand...

MAC said:

way way out there with these behaviors and claims.

yep -- my assistants carry better digital stuff into the main event than he has-- particularly the inside ceremony.

rant made in response to his rant....rant down...

JackM said:

Dave Luttmann said:

The 70-200 is a good lens...but for portraits, many tend to zoom in and you end up with a lot of lifeless, flat looking compressed images. The bokeh is average. I'd use the 50 f1.2 and 85 f1.2 for portraits. I always found the 135 a bit long and two dimensional in comparison. The 50 and 85 have gorgeous bokeh and a lot of character.

Click to expand...

I read somewhere that 135mm is supposed to be the most flattering fl for portraits...?

The 50L and 85L are too expensive and too specialized for me. And 50mm is so often either too long or too short. I get a lot of value out of my 70-200/2.8II.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Looks good even without any frames or logos.

"cover the scenarios..."

"work smarter not harder"

don't put too many eggs in one basket...

we even need dual card slots in the next iterations - even the d7000 has that feature

white glass better covers the scenarios from my view

I think MAC is just obsessed with stalking me to any forum about the 7D. As an owner of one, I feel like I can post with confidence the ins and outs of using one. And I don't see what my interest in Pentax has to do with anything. Currently, I still own a 7D, 10D, and D30 DSLRs from Canon.

....and it seems someone still doesn't know what lenses I have.....and why would anyone care ;-)

I don't see any brides of mine complain, or cry, when they see the results from film shots.....they don't care what lens I use.

I've been doin this long enough that I don't let internet forum trolls (what I refer to someone who has none of the gear mentioned in a thread, but will post a million times anyways) bother me. Eventually, they learn the ropes and their posts become more "normal" as opposed to being "out there."

And thanks for kind words!

Regards,

...As to MAC, yes, he has become obsessed with trolling any post I make, or any thread mentioning the 7D that I post in. The amusing thing is that he admits to not having done many weddings, yet he tries in vain to talk down people doing this professionaly for about 2 decades.

As to lenses, between the 7D and Pentax gear, I use a Sigma 20 f1.8, a Sigma 30 f1.4, a Pentax 50 f1.4, a Pentax 77, a Canon 85 f1.8, a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, a Sigma 10-20, a Tamron 24-135, a Pentax 50-135 f2.8, a Pentax 16-50 f2.8. I'm looking at adding a Sigma 8-16 as well as a Sigma 85 f1.4....I'm not counting my old Konica Primes, Voigtlander Primes, or old Canon FD mount primes....nor any of the lenses for my Nikon F5, Mamiya RB67, or 4x5 systems. I've got a lot to choose from.....I don't need the 70-200 ;-)

I've used the 50 f1.2 and 85 f1.2 and find them superb lenses. As I've processed hundreds of weddings for other professionals, I get to see images output from many lenses....including these two.

Yours truly,

The Out There Photographer ;-)

Jack --there is little truth to the story that was just posted by Dave. Maybe he'll finally quit flaming me. If it continues that he flames me, I will continue to complain to the moderator and start posting his past posts

Dave -- I know you will read this. Quit flaming me. Quit following me around. Quit posting below me. Flame the 70 -200 if you want but I'll flame back. Ignore me -- maybe I should point to the threads where you said you would ignore me before you started following me around and flaming me.

I will not be bullied -- and you will not last with your behavior to follow me - if it continues.

The truth is -- part timers like Jack and I have put film shooters out. It is hard for you, but the first decade of two decades where film was used doesn't matter anymore. Some of us don't worship film anymore. Either film shooters have adapted to digital -- or they have been put out.

Dave -- regardless if you have something better to show us -- don't talk down to someone who has been here almost since the forum has begun. For that matter, be polite to the new folks. It will get you farther and maybe some business as well as you practice better behaviors

Post some pics Dave. Show us what you get from digital (body and glass) in this digital forum. Here are some of my recent digital 1 hr gigs (selection galleries) with my 40d and 5d. Digital - and taking a whole bunch of shots skillfully will get you invited back.

http://digi-pictures.com/harper22/index.html

http://www.digi-pictures.com/harper/index.html

Do you have the K5? How would you rate its AF against the 7D? Pentax interests me.

My friend have a 7Dit looks like the 5DII at ISO 1600 equals the 7D at ISO 400