Reading mode: Light Dark

How to compare my 7D to my 5D (old one)??

Go to last post
Why you continue digging here, is this anything to do with OP? Continue looking for a fight? I am not interested. English is your first language or if you born in US has nothing to with photography, and doesn't make you more correct and be more civilized. Let me repeat again (can you read words out of my mouth? LOL) I understand very well and my English is good enough. I have no interests to continue exchange with you. So zipper your mouth and not to reply my post anymore, is that OK? I have zero interests to continue read your words, and please not trying to teach me how to read your twisted mouth.
Keith Z Leonard said:
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.
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
"So zipper your mouth and not to reply my post anymore"

Didn't we discuss how you have no right to demand anything of me? I'll reply to inform you of being a liar any time that you post lies about me.
 
You stating I had no experience with full frame cameras AFTER I posted that I was shooting with the 5d2 EARLIER in this thread! I'm pretty sure that is the definition of a liar, actually. I'm fairly sure you have no evidence or standing to call me a racists though.

btw, I don't consider this a fight, this is a bit of a semantic issue, of course. I have fought full contact Muay Thai, THAT'S fighting! This is an argument, and one filled with fallacies on your part.
 
Keith Z Leonard said:
You stating I had no experience with full frame cameras AFTER I posted that I was shooting with the 5d2 EARLIER in this thread! I'm pretty sure that is the definition of a liar, actually.
Click to expand...
I said you don't own FF and have virtually none experienced in 5D/5D2. Shooting with a friend's 5D2 for a few minutes or even a few hours will suddenly gain experiences? No mention you missed AF from 5D2 quite a bit on relative still subjects as you said that further proved you have virtually none experiences. Is that wrong and ground you an excuse calling me a liar? Calling someone a liar is a serious personal attack and doesn't require someone to born in US to understand the severity level of accusing beyond a reasonable doubt.
Keith Z Leonard said:
I'm fairly sure you have no evidence or standing to call me a racists though.
Click to expand...
Since you keep questioning my English skills that leading me to believe it's what in your heart. Sure I don't born in USA, but so what? My twin brother who also an emigrant and English is obvious is not his native tongue taught American students English in the college as his T.A. job after his first arrival and he is a senior lawyer now, while I am good at math and computer.
Keith Z Leonard said:
btw, I don't consider this a fight, this is a bit of a semantic issue, of course. I have fought full contact Muay Thai, THAT'S fighting! This is an argument, and one filled with fallacies on your part.
Click to expand...
It's already a personal level attacking that nothing to do with OP. You're in my Ignore List and really no interests to continue to exchange with you.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
You don't even know what "race" I am! Yes, I question language skills when someone is arguing with me as the meaning of words is highly relevant in those instances. I also question my Honduran sister-in-law's language skills, but still love the girl. That would be a personal attack, your lack of understanding the meaning of words in a discussion is not personal unless you make it so.

I never said that I have "virtually none experienced" shooting full frame. In fact I shot "full frame" for decades before digital came around. I have shot the 5dm2 on a number of occasions, but you don't have to believe me, you can read every comparison between 5dm2 and 7d about which has better AF performance.

Your arguments are incredibly self-centered, breaking down to the notion that if you do not agree with someone's conclusions you feel free to lie about them or attack them in an ad hominem manner. I doubt you will sway anyone's opinions with those tactics. Please feel free to "ignore" me.
 
You own me an apology to call me a liar, seriously! No further explanations needed and wanted. By the way, racism is not specific to a specific skin color, language or birthplace.
Keith Z Leonard said:
You don't even know what "race" I am! Yes, I question language skills when someone is arguing with me as the meaning of words is highly relevant in those instances. I also question my Honduran sister-in-law's language skills, but still love the girl. That would be a personal attack, your lack of understanding the meaning of words in a discussion is not personal unless you make it so.

I never said that I have "virtually none experienced" shooting full frame. In fact I shot "full frame" for decades before digital came around. I have shot the 5dm2 on a number of occasions, but you don't have to believe me, you can read every comparison between 5dm2 and 7d about which has better AF performance.

Your arguments are incredibly self-centered, breaking down to the notion that if you do not agree with someone's conclusions you feel free to lie about them or attack them in an ad hominem manner. I doubt you will sway anyone's opinions with those tactics. Please feel free to "ignore" me.
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
qianp2k said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are the joke qianp2k. Your comparisons have been revealed to be dishonest. Your claims have been thoroughly disproven. Your arrogance and fallacies have cost you any respect you had. And your ignorant comments about Keith's sample photos just confirm that you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's not surprising that you have failed to produce anything comparable to Keith's photos. But keep imagining that your 5D gives you some great edge. Maybe if you repeat yourself a few dozen more times in this thread, and post a few more samples where you handicap the other cameras, you will actually believe it.
 
I will not apologize for you claiming falsehoods, ie lying, that makes no sense.
 
Your integrity is intact. Your peers respect you on this forum. And your samples show that you know what you're talking about.

It doesn't even matter if he lies about you because nobody here believes him any way.

He's not worth your time.
Keith Z Leonard said:
I will not apologize for you claiming falsehoods, ie lying, that makes no sense.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Daniel, the support is appreciated, honestly I would have let this die until he started to tell me to shut up and zipper my mouth. That just inspires me to continue to reply to him as it clearly bothers him for some reason.

I hold no anger towards him either, but I will "shut up" for no one. A moderator could, of course, stop me from posting, but I try not to give reason for them to do so. :)
 
Keith Z Leonard said:
I will not apologize for you claiming falsehoods, ie lying, that makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Don't bother wasting your time on this troll. Him and another fellow that goes by Amobi seem to be on some kind of crusade. Everything they post has to be true. If you post an image that shows otherwise....you've lied somehow. I even offered to redo a test I did last year and Amobi claimed my new test was flawed....before I've even posted the results or described my test at all. When I challenged him to describe how my test was flawed....he challenged me to a wedding photo contest.....as though that was going to be on topic with what was being discussed.

With logic like that, there is no reasoning with these type of trolls.
 
qianp2k said:
Listen, Keith Z Leonard, you are the liar ....
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah.

And still you haven't explained why your 7D samples were so clearly doctored to show differences that simply don't exist.

This type of behaviour is dishonest at best - trolling at worst.

Once again ..

The 7D ISO400 image you used for your assertions ...



The 7D ISO400 image I got from IR ...



The 5D ISO400 image I got from IR ...



Now, clearly, two of these images are very close - and one is very different. Your attempt to widen the difference between these camera (as far as image quality is concerned) is so completely transparent that it makes you, frankly, a bit of a laughing stock on this forum.

If you had any point at all you'd have taken up the IR ISO400 image challenged I issued you. But you completely skipped the only opportunity you had to actually show any difference the 5D might show in a studio or landscape context. And that leaves us all to assume you have nothing - no point - no conviction in your assertions.

Instead, you just argue without substance and then end up placing people who disagree with you on your ignore list. Head-in-the-sand stuff. Not interested in learning because you apparently already know it all. Trouble is, what you think is fact is actually pure hogwash.

Oh, and by the way ...
qianp2k said:
schmegg said:
I'm certainly not disputing that FF sensors have advantages in low-light!
Click to expand...
That’s enough and effectively end of dispute between us.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't!
qianp2k said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet another one of your misunderstandings about judging image quality!

Well, my definition of "fine detail" is "clarity and sharpness" in the final image - which is infinitely more sensible than per-pixel performance!

It's continually amazing to me that the ability to view images at 100% is so effective at allowing some people to display their ignorance!
 
schmegg said:
And still you haven't explained why your 7D samples were so clearly doctored to show differences that simply don't exist.
Click to expand...
Not true. An objective rather subjective test as IR and DPR do should not apply artificial changes rather default on original raw files. No matter you use which processor, that still show 5D1 is better at per-pixel level in entire ISO ranger, sharper, less artifacts and better clarity.
schmegg said:
This type of behaviour is dishonest at best - trolling at worst.
Click to expand...
You're also a known 7D fanboy so you're biased. You have to check who is doing trolling by provoking words and calling someone liar first. This is exact trolling and already show desperation and losing the debate.
schmegg said:
Now, clearly, two of these images are very close - and one is very different. Your attempt to widen the difference between these camera (as far as image quality is concerned) is so completely transparent that it makes you, frankly, a bit of a laughing stock on this forum.
Click to expand...
This is twisted and your processing of 7D ISO 400 image clearly show it's over processed, over sharpening and show noticeable artifacts. IR Image comparison tool clearly show 5D1 is better in every ISO stop at per-pixel basis.
schmegg said:
If you had any point at all you'd have taken up the IR ISO400 image challenged I issued you. But you completely skipped the only opportunity you had to actually show any difference the 5D might show in a studio or landscape context. And that leaves us all to assume you have nothing - no point - no conviction in your assertions.
Click to expand...
As said above, your one is over processed. I'd suggest you also try on 5D1 samples in the same effort you did. If you're objective you will see it's natural sharper and still a bit of more finer details particular obvious in some shadow areas or on fibers (obviously on red fiber). When ISO arising, it becomes more and more obvious.
schmegg said:
Instead, you just argue without substance and then end up placing people who disagree with you on your ignore list. Head-in-the-sand stuff. Not interested in learning because you apparently already know it all. Trouble is, what you think is fact is actually pure hogwash.
Click to expand...
That exactly opposite. I quoted the credited IR (other credited sites have the same results) samples that show the case. Numerous persons who actually use both said so. It's necessary to ignore the persons only interested in trolling and name calling when they cannot win on the merits, because there will not conduct a constructive discussion anymore.
schmegg said:
Oh, and by the way ...
Click to expand...
Yah, right. bring up.

Here is the test result from another credited site by comparing 5D1 and 60D (that has even very slightly better 18mp APS-C sensor from 7D) by using 5D2 as a bridge.

















So only your 7D fanboys are right and all these credited review sites are wrong.
schmegg said:
qianp2k said:
schmegg said:
I'm certainly not disputing that FF sensors have advantages in low-light!
Click to expand...
That’s enough and effectively end of dispute between us.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't!
schmegg said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet another one of your misunderstandings about judging image quality!

Well, my definition of "fine detail" is "clarity and sharpness" in the final image - which is infinitely more sensible than per-pixel performance!

It's continually amazing to me that the ability to view images at 100% is so effective at allowing some people to display their ignorance!
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Those samples are ISO3200 and ISO1600 yet you keep on saying that the 5D image quality is superior for studio applications. Do you regularly shoot at ISO1600 in your studio? LOL - perhaps that tells us more than all your other posts put together!
 
My experiences of all three cameras I own in the studio at base ISO 100 clearly show 5D1 and 1D3 are better on faces and skin. When view at 100% that is no comparison. Even after downsampling my 60D to the same size, they look a bit of mushy and lacking of creamy and milky smooth look from 1D3 and 5D1. If my 60D can do the same work, I have no reason to use 5D1 (that only center point is reliable) or 1D3 (that is bulky and only has 10mp but it's big enough for me). What agenda I'd have as I also own 60D? I just don't get your 7D fanboys holding your gears as the holy grail and simply unwilling to face the fact despite numerous Pro said so and so upset and take personal when someone has a gut to tell the truth in this forum. 5D1 or 1D3 taking better studio portrait in general is nothing to do that your 7D also can take good portraits as I have seen some really good from M43 or Nikon 1 or G12.

Just face it that 7D at base ISO 100 is not clean at 100% and you even see clear grains in shadow areas such as in blue sky, right? Just comparing DPR 7D and 5D1 outside-lab samples and you will clearly see which one is cleaner and better at 100% crop level. You really have to reduce the size (downsampling) to see better photo even at base ISO 100, therefore I virtually never crop my 60D photos more than 50% while I don't have this issue in 5D1 and 1D3 files.
schmegg said:
Those samples are ISO3200 and ISO1600 yet you keep on saying that the 5D image quality is superior for studio applications. Do you regularly shoot at ISO1600 in your studio? LOL - perhaps that tells us more than all your other posts put together!
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
qianp2k said:
Not true. An objective rather subjective test as IR and DPR do should not apply artificial changes rather default on original raw files. No matter you use which processor, that still show 5D1 is better at per-pixel level in entire ISO ranger, sharper, less artifacts and better clarity.
Click to expand...
No - it doesn't - and you've failed at each hurdle to show this is the case.
qianp2k said:
This is twisted and your processing of 7D ISO 400 image clearly show it's over processed, over sharpening and show noticeable artifacts. IR Image comparison tool clearly show 5D1 is better in every ISO stop at per-pixel basis.
Click to expand...
I have not sharpened the 7D image in any way. But, so what! Are you suggesting that the best way to compare the image potential of each camera is to process the images in a less than optimal way?

That's just pure crazy talk!
qianp2k said:
As said above, your one is over processed. I'd suggest you also try on 5D1 samples in the same effort you did. If you're objective you will see it's natural sharper and still a bit of more finer details particular obvious in some shadow areas or on fibers (obviously on red fiber). When ISO arising, it becomes more and more obvious.
Click to expand...
My image is straight from IR with levels adjustment to match (by eye) the overexposed 5D image (perhaps there is an issue with the 5D's metering?)

And, in any case, these are 100% (or slightly reduced in the case of the 7D) - this is not a guide to final image quality unless you're printing extremely large prints - larger than almost anyone who uses these camera would.
qianp2k said:
That exactly opposite. I quoted the credited IR (other credited sites have the same results) samples that show the case. Numerous persons who actually use both said so. It's necessary to ignore the persons only interested in trolling and name calling when they cannot win on the merits, because there will not conduct a constructive discussion any more.
Click to expand...
Still no explanation from you regarding the obvious "degradation" of the 7D images in your comparison. You say you used IR, but your images are not representative of the actual IR images for the 7D. You are being either incompetent or dishonest with your sample presentation.
qianp2k said:
qianp2k said:
Oh, and by the way ...
Click to expand...
Yah, right. bring up.

Here is the test result from another credited site by comparing 5D1 and 60D (that has even very slightly better 18mp APS-C sensor from 7D) by using 5D2 as a bridge.

















So only your 7D fanboys are right and all these credited review sites are wrong.
Click to expand...
Exactly how do these relate to image quality obtainable in a studio?

(that's rhetorical BTW - I already know they don't relate in any way at all, and that, once again, you've failed to back up your claims).
 
schmegg said:
No - it doesn't - and you've failed at each hurdle to show this is the case.
Click to expand...
Rather I show clearly and comply with all credited reviews without a subjective artificial twisting as you did.
schmegg said:
I have not sharpened the 7D image in any way. But, so what! Are you suggesting that the best way to compare the image potential of each camera is to process the images in a less than optimal way?
Click to expand...
Come’on that you obviously did. Anyone by simply imported IR ISO 400 CR2 file into the LR3 or PS5 and export by strictly using the default will not generate that obvious sharpening and artifacts. I applied the same default on 5D1 and 7D files and their result and difference are on the similar respective level. No way your 7D default will be better than my 5D at default as everyone knows 5D1 is well known very sharp (and probably still the sharpest at per-pixel basis in all DSLRs due to its very weak AA filter) and very clean at per-pixel level.
schmegg said:
That's just pure crazy talk!
Click to expand...
Let’s face the fact that IR samples show 5D1 is better in every ISO. You even don’t admit 5D1 is still better than 7D at per-pixel or even after downsampling at ISO 400.
schmegg said:
My image is straight from IR with levels adjustment to match (by eye) the overexposed 5D image (perhaps there is an issue with the 5D's metering?)
Click to expand...
5D is not overexposed but its sensor is more sensitive that is well known which is an advantage that means it can use less shutter speed at the same real ISO or less ISO to achieve the same exposure. Maybe it’s 7D is a bit of underexposed.
schmegg said:
And, in any case, these are 100% (or slightly reduced in the case of the 7D) - this is not a guide to final image quality unless you're printing extremely large prints - larger than almost anyone who uses these camera would.
Click to expand...
That what I am keep saying that you will only see at very large such as 100% crop or print large such as 30x20”. I print many photos from both my 5D1 and 60D so I clearly know the difference at this size. Did I say there is no much difference in regular photos at smaller size so many times?
schmegg said:
Still no explanation from you regarding the obvious "degradation" of the 7D images in your comparison. You say you used IR, but your images are not representative of the actual IR images for the 7D. You are being either incompetent or dishonest with your sample presentation.
Click to expand...
This is the export by default w/o or minimum sharpening and any PP. Is that the way DPR or IR do their test? Why you cannot check in IR comparison tool to compare photos from two cameras. I certainly know how to process and I apply the same default on both cameras, at least I shown results from both cameras in most my samples unlike you seem only giving special treatment to 7D files as you're biased and already set a mind. My photos including from 60D certainly approve I am quite competent :)
schmegg said:
Exactly how do these relate to image quality obtainable in a studio?
Click to expand...
I have said that many times the difference even at base ISO is much more obvious on a person’s face and skin that by somehow shows the extreme of clarity.
schmegg said:
(that's rhetorical BTW - I already know they don't relate in any way at all, and that, once again, you've failed to back up your claims).
Click to expand...
I suggest you rent and own 5D1 and take many studio shots and compare to your 7D, I bet you will know.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
schmegg said:
qianp2k wrote:

I have not sharpened the 7D image in any way. But, so what! Are you suggesting that the best way to compare the image potential of each camera is to process the images in a less than optimal way?

That's just pure crazy talk!
Click to expand...
You just summarized every one of his posts in this thread :-P
schmegg said:
Exactly how do these relate to image quality obtainable in a studio?
Click to expand...
Even if they did, I don't see more noise in the 60D samples. Any appearance of greater noise is related to greater magnification. But that's too deep of a concept for qianp2k to grasp.
 
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