for someone even don't know how to compare in a honest way but know very well in how to twist 
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How to compare my 7D to my 5D (old one)??
- Thread starter KENTGA
- Start date
Actually you just shoot your own foot bloody to show who's a real idiot even don't know how to use IR image comparison tool, haha.
resort into name calling that already show you in desperation.
You're in my Ignore List now, enjoy yourself, bye!
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
resort into name calling that already show you in desperation.
You're in my Ignore List now, enjoy yourself, bye!
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
photog7320
Senior Member
You purposely manipulated one set to destroy the 7D's advantage. Your 7D samples were so poor that they looked like they came from a different camera against the 7D samples opened in ACR with default settings.
That makes you a troll.
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/canon_eos_7d_studio_version/
Which is why his shot exhibits more fine detail then your parade shot. Oh, wait, that's the opposite of your claims (again).
No, he's mocking you. You're just too clueless to get it.
Keith Z Leonard
Veteran Member
Wait, weren't you comparing 5d vs 7d? Now you are changing it to 5d2 vs 7d because you didn't like the resolution discussion? I'm afraid but you cannot determine for other people whether or not they are embarrassed, by the very nature of "feelings" you cannot experience them for other people, unless you are claiming to be a god.
"You just embarrassed yourself by jumping here." Does this sentence even make sense?
I am done discussing this with you, as it has been shown that you have an agenda here from your other posts on this thread, so it's pointless as there is very little "discussion" going on. You can make up labels like calling me a "7D fanboy" when I've posted repeatedly that the 5dm2 is better in some situations, or that MF is better than 5dm2 in some situations, I'm also quite sure that 1dx will be better than either 5dm2 or 7d in just about all situations. Your ad hominem approach devalues your arguments.
The fact that you own a 60D in no way changes how I view your opinions.
"real pros", I'll keep that in mind when talking to the "fake pros", I'll inform them that they are not made of matter, but only of some artificial substance not yet known to science.
"Can you dispute this in 1D/5D forum and I guess tons of real pros can show you stunning portrait that beats yours into water. Your samples even after cleaning that cleaner but also lose finer details."
None of this makes any sense, or even has meaning. These fragments cannot be parsed, they lack the required elements to be sentences.
"Now you quickly yield to downsampling LOL, no mention upsampling against 21mp 5D2. You got kidding that you cannot tell difference between 5D2 and 7D as said from another well known 7D fanboy here. It's amuse to watch 7D fanboy shows from time to time who disputing 7D can compete 1D3/1D4 in sports and wildlife, 7D can compete FF 5D/5D2 in studio and portraits. Yah, I'd suggest you check real pros not among your 7D fanboy club itself "
What are you talking about? I mentioned that the 7D would look worse if upsampled to 21mp, isn't that what you want a FF fanboy want to hear?? (it's also true) I did not "yield" to downsampling, downsampling the 7D or upsampling the 5d would be the only meaningful way of comparing images between the two cameras. You know this, of course, and are now just searching for something with which to insult me. Now I am embarrassed...for you.
bye bye now, have a nice life...
"You just embarrassed yourself by jumping here." Does this sentence even make sense?
I am done discussing this with you, as it has been shown that you have an agenda here from your other posts on this thread, so it's pointless as there is very little "discussion" going on. You can make up labels like calling me a "7D fanboy" when I've posted repeatedly that the 5dm2 is better in some situations, or that MF is better than 5dm2 in some situations, I'm also quite sure that 1dx will be better than either 5dm2 or 7d in just about all situations. Your ad hominem approach devalues your arguments.
The fact that you own a 60D in no way changes how I view your opinions.
"real pros", I'll keep that in mind when talking to the "fake pros", I'll inform them that they are not made of matter, but only of some artificial substance not yet known to science.
"Can you dispute this in 1D/5D forum and I guess tons of real pros can show you stunning portrait that beats yours into water. Your samples even after cleaning that cleaner but also lose finer details."
None of this makes any sense, or even has meaning. These fragments cannot be parsed, they lack the required elements to be sentences.
"Now you quickly yield to downsampling LOL, no mention upsampling against 21mp 5D2. You got kidding that you cannot tell difference between 5D2 and 7D as said from another well known 7D fanboy here. It's amuse to watch 7D fanboy shows from time to time who disputing 7D can compete 1D3/1D4 in sports and wildlife, 7D can compete FF 5D/5D2 in studio and portraits. Yah, I'd suggest you check real pros not among your 7D fanboy club itself "
What are you talking about? I mentioned that the 7D would look worse if upsampled to 21mp, isn't that what you want a FF fanboy want to hear?? (it's also true) I did not "yield" to downsampling, downsampling the 7D or upsampling the 5d would be the only meaningful way of comparing images between the two cameras. You know this, of course, and are now just searching for something with which to insult me. Now I am embarrassed...for you.
bye bye now, have a nice life...
Keith Z Leonard
Veteran Member
GAH! Silly keyboard
"
I mentioned that the 7D would look worse if upsampled to 21mp, isn't that what you want a FF fanboy want to hear??
"
should read...
"
I mentioned that the 7D would look worse if upsampled to 21mp, isn't that what you want to hear as a FF fanboy??
"
btw, fanboy here is a label that I assume you want for FF when making claims about your 6 year old camera being "better" than the state of the art in APS-C. I put "better" in quotes as it is very subjective at this point.
"
I mentioned that the 7D would look worse if upsampled to 21mp, isn't that what you want a FF fanboy want to hear??
"
should read...
"
I mentioned that the 7D would look worse if upsampled to 21mp, isn't that what you want to hear as a FF fanboy??
"
btw, fanboy here is a label that I assume you want for FF when making claims about your 6 year old camera being "better" than the state of the art in APS-C. I put "better" in quotes as it is very subjective at this point.
I think you're joke. We have seen tons of 5D/5D2 portrait that are critical sharp. This statement shows you're a real 7D fanboy and not much experienced in FF.
Make sure you know what you're talking about. This is very stupid statement.
It's you to twist my words, where I ever said that? I simply say in studio portrait, FF is obvious better which echoed by many Pros and who actually use both. But I never said other way around. It's your twisting.
On your logic that completely ignore the purpose of each crop factor and camera, I can say the same that your 7D cannot shoot 10fps as my 1D3 does, your 7D cannot use 15mm f2.8 fisheye and 17 and 24mm TS-E lenses and inferior in high ISOs (don't deny that) compared to FF 5D/5D2.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
I'm certainly not disputing that FF sensors have advantages in low-light! That much is obvious - they gather much more light for a given exposure. But what this has to do with IQ at what many would consider commonly used ISO's is beyond me. And what it has to do with IQ in a studio is also beyond me.
You have had to completely switch your claims to high ISO image quality in an attempt to save your claims from ridicule! The samples you've posted here are clearly "cooked" somehow (and I suspect Daniel nailed your methodology).
Can you please explain this for us ...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=39925534
... because that's exactly what I'm seeing here too. The 7D samples you've used for your comparisons are not what appears on IR - they have been butchered somehow. And this is what you seem to build you claims around.
You haven't explained this at all - which makes you look like your just trolling or attempting to be dishonest in your assertions.
I, and others, have posted the same comparisons and they show completely different image quality for the 18MP sensor when compared to yours. Your answer to this so far has simply been to feebly discredit our examples and then move on.
Now, I, and others I suspect, have no problem with you convincing yourself that the world isn't as it actually is - you are free to live in denial or a fantasy world as far as I'm concerned. But to then start espousing your fantasies as fact is something that should not go unchallenged IMHO.
So, please explain why the 7D samples you've used here ...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=39923318
... to back up your claims are so obviously not what an 18MP sensor with even rudimentary sensible post processing is capable of producing, and why you consider this is a sensible way to compare the two for image quality. Because, as it is, you look like you either don't have a clue what your doing, or have an agenda and have purposely ruined those 18MP samples in an attempt to support your own claims.
And just to help you ...
Here's the image you used as representative of the 18MP sensor at ISO400 :-
... and here's mine ...
Explain away
photog7320
Senior Member
Clicking All did not change the drop down menu for me. Restarting my browser, returning, and clicking All fixed the problem.
It was an honest mistake, unlike your RAW processing designed to dumb down the 7D samples.
My complaint regarding altered lighting still stands. There is a good 2/3 stop difference in lighting in these two tests, maybe more. That dwarfs sensor differences and gives the 5D the advantage in this comparison. Over time their studio lights were moved or otherwise altered. The low light / Dave box test is more carefully controlled over time and the 7D clearly does better there.
Aside from that, there aren't large differences except in the red leaf fabric where NR destroyed the detail. Of course one can make different camera / RAW choices to better preserve red channel detail.
It was an honest mistake, unlike your RAW processing designed to dumb down the 7D samples.
My complaint regarding altered lighting still stands. There is a good 2/3 stop difference in lighting in these two tests, maybe more. That dwarfs sensor differences and gives the 5D the advantage in this comparison. Over time their studio lights were moved or otherwise altered. The low light / Dave box test is more carefully controlled over time and the 7D clearly does better there.
Aside from that, there aren't large differences except in the red leaf fabric where NR destroyed the detail. Of course one can make different camera / RAW choices to better preserve red channel detail.
Keith Z Leonard
Veteran Member
How? I see that I have made you angry, but you should make your arguments with logic, you could just say that I've made you angry and people would be fine with that, but at least think about what you say when you deny my statements. The one eye sharp remark is regarding a photo shoot from this week where for fun we took a head and shoulders at f1.2 with the 85L on the 5Dmk2 and had 1 eyelash sharp in the resulting photograph. Why would you assume that I have experience shooting FF?!? You do you realize that film cameras are "full frame" rights? And a good one can be had for 50$ at this point.
Again this is a compliment to FF cameras and very true, so I don't see why you deny it. Lenses are typically better at f4 than f2, but for equivalent images the crop would be around f2 or so and the full frame at f4, so the lens will perform better on the FF for the equivalent images, talk to Joseph James about it, you can argue with him that he's wrong.
No, the implication of your statements that "real pros" only use full frame make the point. I am not "twisting" your words, you just need to learn how to use them to clearly communicate your intentions.
Canon has never said the 7D is "a wildlife only" camera, nor did they say the 1dmk4 is "a football only" camera. The purpose of ALL of these cameras is to take pictures. If you wish to take a lawyer-esc approach to assigning specific purposes to each camera in existence, then you should buy a large format camera for landscape, because nothing else could possibly be used for it.
As to the 15mm f2.8 fisheye and TS-E lenses, I'm pretty sure they will all mount and function on my 7D, XTi, as well as 5Dmk2. They certainly don't work the same, but they can be used. You really need to stop trying to tell me what I can and cannot say, I live in a country where I am allowed to argue that 7D's high ISO is comparable to 5D's, though I will absolutely concede that the 5dm2 is better. Note: This concession has NOTHING to do with you telling me what words I may or may not say.
That’s enough and effectively end of dispute between us. Rest of others are simply your twisting beyond default that all credit review sites do. By simply using the IR Imaging Comparison Tool, you can see 5D is cleaner and better in finer details in every ISO and gap is getting bigger and bigger when ISO rising. I don't think you understand what fine detail means which is different from resolution. My definition of fine details is the clarity and sharpness at per-pixel basis. Yes 18mp has larger resolution than 12.8mp 5D1 but not really much in real world. No matter how you twist, you cannot gain details lost particularly in some shadow areas such as on red pepper and on green leaves. Because of 5D's superior in finer details, ironically it's less resolution 5D shows better IQ when view and print in large size where FF 5D maintains fine details noticeable better than mushy 18mp APS-C sensor. After 50% of cropping, the difference becomes quite obvious particularly beyond ISO 400. Anyway I just quoted credited IR lab samples and with my own experiences. No interests to dispute anymore as credited review sites did undisputed tests. Another credited DXO site clearly shows 5D is better in SNR cross entire ISO range. SNR is the fine details I am talking about here, details vs noises.
I don't care what you say or not. You might also want to dispute to IR, DPR and DXO test results that all clearly shows 5D is better in fine details. That is nothing to do if 7D can do good photos or not, certainly it can as my 60D has shown enough
I am just don't understand anyone ignore the fact and credited lab test and interpret thru their own ways. My experiences tell me as echoed by many who actually use both, larger sensor 5D and 1D3 take better studio portrait in general, that's it. You can show whatever your 7D portraits but that doesn't mean the same lens such as 85L on FF 5D cannot do better, actually 85L is one of the best fast prime particularly shine on FF. You can find tons of stunning 5d/5D2 with 85L in you search. You even has not tried yet. I have tried the same fast prime 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 macro or f/4 zoom lenses that I owned on all my 3 crop cameras so I clearly know what I am talking about at least, larger sensor simply win in finer details and sharpness with my own experiences that is particularly obvious in portrait.--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
photog7320
Senior Member
Looking right now at ISO 100 I see...
- No noise in either.
- More fine detail in the 7D image.
- Roughly the same sharpenss, perhaps a slight edge to the 7D.
- More contrast in the 5D image. (This could be due to the same lighting differences that mess up the high ISO samples.)
- Very similar color / saturation, with differences clearly due to lighting.
Note that this is looking at the comparator JPEGs. With a little work in ACR the 7D advantage grows.
I'm pretty sure from that statement that you do not understand.
Clarity and sharpness have far more to do with camera and RAW settings than these sensors. That said, when viewing a shot with equal lighting and exposure at equal display size (which is not 100% for both) the 7D is sharper than the 5D. The sensor improvements trump the normal FF advantage in MTF.
But again, camera/RAW settings and post work easily trump inherent sensor differences on these points. What you can't trump with settings is the 7D's resolution advantage. Print a landscape from both at 30" and it's clear which is better.
There are no lost details, simply lighting differences. But you're too stubborn to learn.
Keith Z Leonard
Veteran Member
qianp2k wrote:
"
You even has not tried yet.
"
I can only assume that English isn't your first language, so I can certainly forgive some of our communication issues there, but....WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? Did I not JUST STATE that we were shooting with the 5dm2 + 85L last week?!? Also, when did I ever say that wasn't a fantastic lens? And when did I ever say that wasn't a fantastic combo? And when did I ever say that the 5dm2 wasn't better in detail or ISO performance than 7D? You need to stop making things up here, while I am indeed free to say whatever I want, you sir are NOT free to ascribe whatever you want to my statements.
I don't lump 5D and 5D2 together, they are very different cameras. I honestly see very little difference between 7D and 5D1 image quality. The 5D is FF, so you get thin DOF and your FOV is what it should be for your lenses. The 7D, well...superior AF, faster, sensor cleaning, faster, flash controller, faster, video, faster...and...um...faster. Obviously the 5D1 SHOULD trump 7D for light gathering, mostly it doesn't because image processing tech and sensor tech have come a long way.
I also don't think the differences between 5d2 and 7d for portraits are as great as you are making them out to be. If you put them both in a test where I can maximize the quality of the output of both, you see the difference, but in real life shooting there are so many other variables that make a far larger difference, the camera is often not the biggest issue. Clearly people differ greatly in this debate.
The vast majority of customers couldn't tell you what camera took what picture either, they care about how they look, was their hair mussed up, etc. If they notice the difference in high ISO performance, you probably should have used better lighting. Obviously this changes in wedding/event shooting if you can't/won't be controlling the lighting. Note, people do use the 7D for weddings as well. http://www.photoerrant.com/canon-7d-for-wedding/
If I were exclusively shooting weddings, I'd always use FF, to be honest, if I were exclusively shooting pro sports like my buddy's roommate does, I'd probably have the 1d3 and 1d4 he uses. I find the 7D quite good at the variety of shooting situations, and affordable compared to the 1 series. Though I'll be considering 1DX if I can justify the price (probably can't for a while), as that's a camera like the 7D (multi-purpose) only better at everything than the 7D is.
"
You even has not tried yet.
"
I can only assume that English isn't your first language, so I can certainly forgive some of our communication issues there, but....WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? Did I not JUST STATE that we were shooting with the 5dm2 + 85L last week?!? Also, when did I ever say that wasn't a fantastic lens? And when did I ever say that wasn't a fantastic combo? And when did I ever say that the 5dm2 wasn't better in detail or ISO performance than 7D? You need to stop making things up here, while I am indeed free to say whatever I want, you sir are NOT free to ascribe whatever you want to my statements.
I don't lump 5D and 5D2 together, they are very different cameras. I honestly see very little difference between 7D and 5D1 image quality. The 5D is FF, so you get thin DOF and your FOV is what it should be for your lenses. The 7D, well...superior AF, faster, sensor cleaning, faster, flash controller, faster, video, faster...and...um...faster. Obviously the 5D1 SHOULD trump 7D for light gathering, mostly it doesn't because image processing tech and sensor tech have come a long way.
I also don't think the differences between 5d2 and 7d for portraits are as great as you are making them out to be. If you put them both in a test where I can maximize the quality of the output of both, you see the difference, but in real life shooting there are so many other variables that make a far larger difference, the camera is often not the biggest issue. Clearly people differ greatly in this debate.
The vast majority of customers couldn't tell you what camera took what picture either, they care about how they look, was their hair mussed up, etc. If they notice the difference in high ISO performance, you probably should have used better lighting. Obviously this changes in wedding/event shooting if you can't/won't be controlling the lighting. Note, people do use the 7D for weddings as well. http://www.photoerrant.com/canon-7d-for-wedding/
If I were exclusively shooting weddings, I'd always use FF, to be honest, if I were exclusively shooting pro sports like my buddy's roommate does, I'd probably have the 1d3 and 1d4 he uses. I find the 7D quite good at the variety of shooting situations, and affordable compared to the 1 series. Though I'll be considering 1DX if I can justify the price (probably can't for a while), as that's a camera like the 7D (multi-purpose) only better at everything than the 7D is.
What an arrogance! You play low to mock my English to make your point, pathetic. It’s just a typo and usually I don’t check before posting. My English is lots better than you thought. True I am not good in writing with any languages
But I don’t see you are good either. English is your first language doesn’t make you more reasonable nor making you a better photog. English is my first language or not is nothing to do with the debate we having now - does FF 5D is better in studio portraiture. My extensive experiences of all three Canon crop factors cameras clearly tell me it’s true, that it that echoed by many Pros. You are arguing something you don’t own and virtually don’t have much experience. I'd suggest you to get a FF and take at least thousand photos before jumping into this debate.You’re a master of twister that fabricates “what I say” to make up your points and make stupid statements. What I said is that 85L is an excellent lens that works even better on FF which is very true. And I said you must be an idiot and don't know how to shoot that cannot tell difference between your 7D and 5D2 in portrait with this lens.
Neither I. I don’t argue someone in this thread how much difference in IQ but if it’s actually any better particularly in high ISO and studio portrait. 5D1 is better in studio portrait not only in finer details but in its trademark milky silky smooth skin tone and rendition. The files from 5D and 1D3 have that creamy look that my 60D (and certainly your 7D) lacking of. That creamy look missing a bit in higher pixel density 5D2 and 1D4 with Digic 4 according to some portrait photogs such as JoseB (yes I read he said such once).
Which is nothing to do with studio portrait. I use Pocket Wizard and studio strobe lights that are lots better than flash controller. It also doesn't need burst speed to shoot studio portraits. If I ever need speed, my 1D3 is faster with much deeper buffer.
Yes 5D1 is better than 7D in finer details and particular in low light according to the all credited reviews. I will suggest you also check IR samples that show it’s true.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Now it’s you to switch to 5D2, not me here, LOL. Although I don’t own 5D2 but from what I have seen, many top studios, wedding photogs and professional magazines use 5D2 that with top fast prime can make lots better than mushy 7D in areas that demands top grade IQ. And don’t forget FF 21mp 5D2 can withstand cropping to print big lots better than 1.6x crop 7D. Sensor size is a decisive factor in this particular area. At 30x20” or larger printing, it’s no comparison from what I have seen.
Quite true, finer details from FF will play a key role here. It’s not a matter of quantity of pixel but quality of each pixel. I am a believer of large sensor and less pixel density.
That is what I said multiple times in this thread that you don’t see much difference in regular photos but will see a difference if print large and in studio portrait.
It depends what kind of customers. I see P&S and M43 in wedding. But I know Vogue, ELLE etc magazines will not use 7D, even not 5D2/1D3 FF everytime but Medium Format cameras. Bigger sensor simply generate better IQ in the areas demanding the best fine details.
Very true. 5D1 is a great bargain now and I have read many posts that they tried 5D1 and found “WOW” factor. If you don’t print large, 5D2 is not really better than 5D1 in studio where there is no high ISO issue. In addition 5D2 high ISO is not really much better than 5D1. As I read, 5D1 is actually still shaper per pixel and still have slightly better creamy look.
Very true, 1D3/1D4 in sports and BIF beat 7D easily with much better IQ, cleaner with creamy look that become more obvious in low light.
Not best in every category. It’s only a budget compromise. I believe different cameras and different lenses serve different purposes, not all-in-one that not good in each area.
1DX certainly will be lots better than 7D in every aspect. Personally I am waiting the rumor 6D (or whatever name), 18mp 1DX sensor in 60D-like plastic body, articulated LCD, 9-cross AF points that very simple but very reliable, no fuzzy and sell $1999 or below
Or 5D3 but only if it’s less than 24mp. I don’t need big pixel but quality of each pixel. I will only buy a small body 7D2 if it's 1.3x crop (with 1.6x crop support that I don't care), otherwise I will wait to get a used 1D4. I hope Canon continue commit to 1.3x (APS-H) format as it's the best compromise between reach and IQ on many photog's opinions including me.--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Keith Z Leonard
Veteran Member
And here I was upset by your rather extreme arrogance....you are sad...and have my pity, but no longer my attention, I'm not bothering to read the rest of what I am sure is a long bit of rant with logical fallacies and grammatical errors galore.
You jumped into this thread without a substance. You are arguing on value of FF in portrait that you don't own nor experienced. Then show off some portraits that not impressive at all besides the size. That only making you a joke. I am giving my opinions to OP and got his thank. What are you doing here besides engaging into a mouth war?
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Keith Z Leonard
Veteran Member
You should really consider learning to read.
I thought you have ignored me as said in your last post, LOL. I read very well and didn't misunderstand. But you jumped into this thread does nothing more than a trolling and confrontation. 85L is an excellent lens that can do very well on any Canon DSLRs even on an old Rebel. But it's beyond me that you challenging if 5D or 5D2 can do noticeable better in portrait while you don't own FF and virtually have none experiences in 5D/5D2. I have used my existing lenses on all three Canon crop format DSLRs extensively and clearly know 5D1 and 1D3 do much better serious portrait than my 60D, that's it! I also read many who actually use and own both said the same in portraiture photog.
Don't show your arrogance here that is totally unnecessary but only provoking such as by using words "forgive" and "pity" and questioning my English skill to justify your point. Pathetic really.
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Don't show your arrogance here that is totally unnecessary but only provoking such as by using words "forgive" and "pity" and questioning my English skill to justify your point. Pathetic really.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Keith Z Leonard
Veteran Member
No, you should REALLY learn to read, I said I had no intention of reading your entire post. Nor did I read this last post beyond the first sentence. I don't need to read your posts in which you blatantly lie about me.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum