Reading mode: Light Dark

7D vs 5DII ISO test

Go to last post
JackM said:
Do you have the K5? How would you rate its AF against the 7D? Pentax interests me.
Click to expand...
Haven't bought one as yet. I have just this last weekend held one in hand a worked it up for about 20 minutes. The AF is better than my old K20D. I say that based upon the feel, it's pretty close to the 7D. I'd still rank the 7D better....but I couldn't say for certain that in real world use, it would make any valid difference.

I'm very attracted to the in body IS though. Having IS for an f1.4 prime lens is nice. Unfortunately with Canon, we're stuck having IS on slower f2.8 zooms. You loose the quality of the prime to get the IS.

I'd say that in real world use, the K5 is pretty much every bit as good as the 7D. Each has the odd strength over the other.
 
Vibrio said:
JackM said:
MAC said:
Hey Jack -- can't read "Paris" at iso 3200 in good light -- it would be much worse in poor light

I guess someone is going to tell me it doesn't matter...
Click to expand...
Let us know the next time you make a 50" print from an ISO 3200 pic. ;)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think the sample sizes give us a good idea as to the image quality. The real issue though was simply that we don't see many people requiring 6400 iso for 50" prints. Most of the 3200 and 6400 iso shots are being printed much smaller. When comparisons are done in print, say for an 8x10 or 11x14, the differences that some people go on about, simply vanish. Of course, typically, these people don't own or use either camera.
 
I had a number of people email me discussing this post. It's been funny. Let's start with your comment to Jack about there being little truth in the post. Let's see:

I said you don't own either a 7D or 5D2. That's correct.
I said the original 5D is irrelevant in the discussion. That's correct.
I said you think your 70-200 zoom is a portrait lens. That's correct.

I said you thought someone using a crop camera shouldn't be hired. That's correct.

I said you thought anyone using film for a wedding is "out there." That's correct.

I said you have limited experience in weddings. As a part timer, you do. That's correct.

I said you can get a shallower DOF with a prime 1.4 or 1.2 lens than a 2.8 zoom. That's correct.

I said that someone like yourself with limited experience tries to shout down experienced working pros despite only being a short term part timer. Correct again

So, no truth in my post??? Sorry MAC. It appears the real truth hurts.

As to part timers like yourself putting films users out of business....LOL. If you actually believe us film users are in the same market niche as a weekend warrior like yourself, you're far more naive than I ever imagined. We are attracting totally different clients at a vastly different price point.

As to flaming....we'll if you didn't post such ridiculous, misleading information, then maybe some of us wouldn't bother responding to it at all. But, as long as you do post false information based upon your very limited experience, then I'm sorry, I will respond to correct it. And you can threaten the complaint button all you like. Maybe instead of trying to be an expert when your not, you could spend more time listening those of use who have been doing this for a long time.

Unfortunately, your drivel shows in quotes of other correcting you....so I still have to endure your nonsense despite the ignore setting. But, it does give a lot of us the option of correcting your misinformation so others don't get mislead.
MAC said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Dave,

Do you really want me to find the posts where you called me a webtard?
And the multiple posts where you call me a troll?

Just a short time ago when you were asked by another forum user what lenses you had for a 7d, you had a chance to list them all, and you just reported to the forum that you had a sigma 10-20 and tamy 17 -50 for your 7d.

Maybe you have bought an 85 f1.8 since this short time ago.

But then do you want me to point to the post where you are talking about selling out of your 7d for the pentax k5? So what would be the reason for buying an 85 f1.8 so recently if you are selling out? btw -- it might make sense for you if the pentax works better with your lenses.

Clear it up for us Dave -- and tell the truth this time.

So I'm a part time pj shooter that does more than weddings. I hire assistants from time to time. My style is pj shooting -- just like one experiences in a wedding environment when people move or you are landlocked. Primes are good when people are static -- but framing can be off when people move or you are landlocked - I see this in a shot or two in your link in this thread. That said, the 100 L looks great at f2.8 on FF for static portraits -- great bokeh and good blur. Image stabilization to boot. Why would I want f4.5 on crop? I want IS -- like you want with Pentax k5 body

If an assitant had enough crop lenses, and longer lenses for digital --and 2 -40d's I'd hire an assistant with that. But I don't want the film noise in iso 1600 conditions without flash in the back of the church where flash is not allowed in some ceremonies. JM67 even said what a remarkable difference digital has made at hi iso versus film.

I want an assitant who has pj glass for modern digital (including a 70 -200 f2.8 or at least longer primes) and enough modern digital bodies.

After that I want someone who can shoot and get good candid shots with smiles.

dave -- I showed a closeup of ring exchange in this thread -- at back of church in iso 1600 conditions -- f2.8 -- with 40d -- on monopod -- low ss -- where flash was not allowed -- please post yours -- you've been at it for 20 years.

And belonging in these threads-- my points have been it is more about the glass than the body. You said to Jim in this thread, why would anyone care about what glass you have. Well -- the experienced care more about glass than body.

Many FF pros will tell us that glass for FF is the difference. JM67 says this glass statement in this thread - like many others have said in the 1d forum -- glass makes the difference in FF shooting

I've shot weddings for 4 years parttime with two crop bodies. Glass made the difference. For the last year I've shot with 5d and 40d and glass again makes the difference but now I have more flexibility and more control of DOF.

These are standard comments being made by many pros across the forum who own both formats -- FF and crop

Why don't these comments belong in a 5dii vs 7d thread? A body cannot take a picture on its own. Isn't the system the important thing?

Don't call me names Dave -- and you can post all you want in the threads I post in. Otherwise, I'll go back and locate those posts of yours.
 
Keith Z Leonard said:
http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/full_frame_vs_crop_sensor_-.html
Click to expand...
First sign you should have closed that window instantly was when he referred to full frame cameras giving "more" depth-of-field. People who do not understand the definition of the word "depth" need to be ignored, and they have no business talking about cameras.

Secondly, comparing images of different field-of-view is stupid. Yes, putting the same prime lens on any camera will give you the same DOF at the same subject distance. But chances are excellent that you will step closer to your subject with that lens on a FF camera, and guess what happens then.... yes, your DOF decreases.

What a moron.
 
you can make a crop of a smaller image thus showing it at a resonable size.
Dave Luttmann said:
Vibrio said:
JackM said:
MAC said:
Hey Jack -- can't read "Paris" at iso 3200 in good light -- it would be much worse in poor light

I guess someone is going to tell me it doesn't matter...
Click to expand...
Let us know the next time you make a 50" print from an ISO 3200 pic. ;)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think the sample sizes give us a good idea as to the image quality. The real issue though was simply that we don't see many people requiring 6400 iso for 50" prints. Most of the 3200 and 6400 iso shots are being printed much smaller. When comparisons are done in print, say for an 8x10 or 11x14, the differences that some people go on about, simply vanish. Of course, typically, these people don't own or use either camera.
Click to expand...
 
Vibrio said:
you can make a crop of a smaller image thus showing it at a reasonable size.
Click to expand...
not only cropping power of larger iso1600, 3200, 6400 images to normal sizes, but when folks talk about sports and the focus system, are we talking BIF (which the 7d is better tracking), or are we talking bigger mass motorcycles where the six assists kick in.

As Bronxbombers and others have found in bball and other sports, and I predict Jack will find also after receiving his 7d back from service - "reach is there for field sports", but action focus on some subjects ain't what it is cracked up to be.

late model --1diii or blue dot Jack - or if you can afford -- 1dIV; or wait for next iterations; if it is not in focus, you missed the opportunity and moment. Read this thread from a long time photographer - he'll wait for 5diii -- like me ;)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=37014535
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top