Reading mode: Light Dark

7D image quality better than a 5DmkII

Go to last post
All those tips below are indeed useful, but that's not what the OP was wanting to know. Technique won't help you when you need that extra bit of forgiveness a better sensor provides. The 5DMkII has a significantly better sensor hands down. The 7D is one heck of a noisy sensor even at ISO 200 when the exposure isn't perfect. Silly me thinking that if I bought a new 7D, there would be improvements to the image over a 2 year old version. I was wrong. In fact the new 7D has just as poor AF, just as poor noise and in fact a few new artifacts, vertical banding and in video mode, rolling hum bars! Yup, DPP knows how to get rid of the vertical banding but sadly, there goes the image definition. Gee whiz, I must have got another dud!




mbaginy said:
Use a sturdy tripod.
Use a cable release.
Use mirror lockup.
Use the proper aperture.
Use the proper shutter speed.
Focus properly.
Shoot in best light.
Use good lenses.
Clean your filters.
Clean your sensor.
Clean your lens.
Use a lens shade.
Expose properly.
Sharpen properly (for the dedicated output).
Understand and use color management.

And a dozen other, seemingly obvious, details. Following such technique will be far more beneficial than choosing between those two excellent camera bodies.

Tutorials can be found in abundance on the web. Not all are correct. Not all will pertain to your images. My favorite tutorials are available at luminous-landscape. I'm more comfortable with video tutorials than books. Video first, then books - that works for me.
Click to expand...
 
Le Kilt said:
Rupert Bottomsworth said:
MAC said:
5dc is used on many forums I am on because of a few reasons

Several people use the term 5d when they mean 5d2, so our c suffix is to distinguish the two
Click to expand...
What's wrong with using 2?

Honestly, there must be some real morons out there if they can't tell that 5D means the first generation of the camera and 5D2 is the second.
Click to expand...
It's when the real morons use the term 5D that people aren't sure which they mean.

There are also some morons that can't tell what 5Dc means despite having been told.
But you're not one of those, are you?
Click to expand...
Nope. But I have no problem with the correct names of the respective cameras.
 
Teila Day said:
But Canon folk have to add "classic" to a non-classic for some infantile reasons that don't make sense to begin with?
Click to expand...
Obviously not...

Some "Canon folk" might feel the need to big-up a camera to the extant of renaming it, but many of us consider it to be pathetic and pointless.

Obviously.
 
These are DPR and DXO test results from two most creditable test sites, not mine. You mean they are wrong? Do you own 5D2? Answer is a big NO.

Who are "we"? obvious not those who actually own and use both FF and crop in the real world but a few 7D zealots, and you are known one of them.
Keith Reeder said:
We've proven time and time again that you're wrong about this, with Real World images.
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Keith Reeder said:
We've proven time and time again that you're wrong about this, with Real World images.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what you show this guy....you're simply wrong. It's like arguing with someone about religion. You ask them to prove it and they go on an on about "faith."

I believe in proof....not blind faith. Qianp2k can't seem to back up his statements....but we're all to believe him.

Even more people are posting tests in my two test threads showing Qianp2k to be incorrect (he may not know because he's trying not to post in them)
 
Rupert Bottomsworth said:
gdanmitchell said:
Rupert Bottomsworth said:
Honestly, there must be some real morons out there...
Click to expand...
I think you have demonstrated that most effectively.

Now tone it down, please.
Click to expand...
How about you jump off a tall building.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. You have already demonstrated your point about "morons." No need to continue offering more evidence.

I'd take your lovely suggestion, but darned if I don't live in a one story building. ;-)

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/u/0/102554407414282880001/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
 
Le Kilt said:
Rupert Bottomsworth said:
moron
Click to expand...
... morons... ... morons
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what DPR can descend to if we aren't careful.

If you (either of you) cannot make your point without personalization and name-calling, perhaps a) you might try editing a bit or b) perhaps your point doesn't need to be made.

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/u/0/102554407414282880001/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
It doesn't matter what you show this guy....you're simply wrong. It's like arguing with someone about religion. You ask them to prove it and they go on an on about "faith."
Click to expand...
It's not about what your zealots to "show" us. No we don't need. DPR, DXO, IR etc the most creditable sites have already provided the most scientific and undisputed test results for whoever need to check. Does anyone should care your twisted "tests"?
Faintandfuzzy said:
I believe in proof....not blind faith. Qianp2k can't seem to back up his statements....but we're all to believe him.
Click to expand...
What we care is our own eyes with our own experiences. I own both 5D1/5D2 and 60D. I generated thousands from them, so I am among many who actually own and experience both know so clearly. One common in your 7D zealots is that you even don't own and experience 5D2/5D1 (Fuzzy claimed he experienced but so far we have not seen any proof), that itself already making your arguments so irrelevant.
Faintandfuzzy said:
Even more people are posting tests in my two test threads showing Qianp2k to be incorrect (he may not know because he's trying not to post in them)
Click to expand...
Right, I have posted these two snapshots many times and still have not seen 7D can match them at 100% or per-pixel, even you downsampling to the same 12.8mp. If you claim you cannot see difference or boasting your 7D 18mp "resolution", bring up or shut up.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573239/canon-eos-5d_img_0119?inalbum=5dvsothers

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573238/canon-eos-5d_img_3308?inalbum=5dvsothers

Everyone knows that APS-C advantage is really only 1.6x effective reach. So in the case of birding if you don't have long enough lens, 7D is better than FF as latter has to crop severely. But in the cases that you can fit the subject into the frame such as in portraiture and landscape, larger sensor such as FF always wins over smaller sensor. Only zealots are disputing that as those M43 zealots disputing its IQ can match to APS-C. If you don't care or cannot see the difference, it's only matters to you, keep to yourself rather broadcasting in many threads in many forums that only show you're stupid and dumb and a joke in forums as you already earned this reputation.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Dosquattros said:
I am getting ready to buy a new DSLR and am down to the 5DmkII or 7D. The dpreview review of the 7D shows it to take better quality images than the 5DmkII but habe a difficult time believing it. How can this be true? I will use this camera for travel, and by doing so it may be subjected to some hard use and weather. I want the best images possible so they can be enlarged. Thanks in advance for your input.
Click to expand...
I have both cameras (7D + EF-S17-55f2.8IS and 5D2 + EF24-70f2.8 IS) and I assure you my 5D2 image IQ is definitely better. In ideal lighting at ISO 100 the difference may not be a a matter of life and death esp with print sizes below 12x18. But when light levels drop and ISO increases, or exposure is off by a stop or two (or more) -happens in the real world from time to time - my 5D2 enters a different world. This is not to say my 7D IQ is poor. It isn't, its image IQ is very good. It's just that I've found my 5D2 that much better.

My advice for what you shoot? No-brainer, buy a 5D2. The day you shift to heavy duty sports/action you might want to add the 7D....fantasic AF system...!

Brgds

P.S. If you're in doubt, walk into a shop, shoot with both and compare the images on a computer screen. One glance will put the 5D2 in your bag...I assure you.
 
Virtually all who actually own and experience both Canon FF and APS-C have this unanimous opinion that FF IQ is much better.

5D2+ 24mm TS-E II at 3000 pixel wide. All hand-held. Check edge to edge sharpness, fine detail and smooth rendition. Can anyone show similar shots from 7D or any Canon APS-C at this size? I heard someone said 7D+Tokina 11-16/2.8 can match this combo in details and sharpness, or really just a wishful thinking? If not, bring up.

1) Took cloudy today after the first snow in this winter yesterday.





You can view 3000 pixel full size by clicking 'original' size tab

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1693069/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii_img_0471

2) Took on NYD in St. Patrick Cathedral in Manhattan





You can view 3000 pixel full size by clicking 'original' size tab

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1650208/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii_img_0214
ok55 said:
Dosquattros said:
I am getting ready to buy a new DSLR and am down to the 5DmkII or 7D. The dpreview review of the 7D shows it to take better quality images than the 5DmkII but habe a difficult time believing it. How can this be true? I will use this camera for travel, and by doing so it may be subjected to some hard use and weather. I want the best images possible so they can be enlarged. Thanks in advance for your input.
Click to expand...
I have both cameras (7D + EF-S17-55f2.8IS and 5D2 + EF24-70f2.8 IS) and I assure you my 5D2 image IQ is definitely better. In ideal lighting at ISO 100 the difference may not be a a matter of life and death esp with print sizes below 12x18. But when light levels drop and ISO increases, or exposure is off by a stop or two (or more) -happens in the real world from time to time - my 5D2 enters a different world. This is not to say my 7D IQ is poor. It isn't, its image IQ is very good. It's just that I've found my 5D2 that much better.

My advice for what you shoot? No-brainer, buy a 5D2. The day you shift to heavy duty sports/action you might want to add the 7D....fantasic AF system...!

Brgds

P.S. If you're in doubt, walk into a shop, shoot with both and compare the images on a computer screen. One glance will put the 5D2 in your bag...I assure you.
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
The advantage of a larger negative has always been a constant in photography, since the day it was invented. In film days, formats tended to jump in size much more than they do in digital. 645 was quite a bit bigger than 35mm, and 4x5 was a large jump from 6x7. In digital, the sizes are not as drastic. It's a huge jump from P&S sensors up to even the smallest DSLRs (4/3) hence why the IQ is such a drastic change. But the same physics are at work between even APS-C and FF, just to a smaller extent.

The gap may have narrowed some in digital, but it's still there. I'll always take a larger sensor, regardless of pixel counts. I wish I could afford a used Phase One P25 back and a MF system to mount it to :)
--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
 
Well said Gipper51 !!
gipper51 said:
The advantage of a larger negative has always been a constant in photography, since the day it was invented. In film days, formats tended to jump in size much more than they do in digital. 645 was quite a bit bigger than 35mm, and 4x5 was a large jump from 6x7. In digital, the sizes are not as drastic. It's a huge jump from P&S sensors up to even the smallest DSLRs (4/3) hence why the IQ is such a drastic change. But the same physics are at work between even APS-C and FF, just to a smaller extent.

The gap may have narrowed some in digital, but it's still there. I'll always take a larger sensor, regardless of pixel counts. I wish I could afford a used Phase One P25 back and a MF system to mount it to :)
--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
Click to expand...
--
Image's In Light
http://rossmurphy.zenfolio.com/
http://imagesinlightnw.blogspot.com/
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
Keith Reeder said:
We've proven time and time again that you're wrong about this, with Real World images.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what you show this guy....you're simply wrong. It's like arguing with someone about religion. You ask them to prove it and they go on an on about "faith."
Click to expand...
This looks like Proof to me!!! hard to belive that you cannot believe this, I think that you have never shot you 4x5 Camera, it must have been a prop?





Fuzzy, where are your own samples of landscapes showing blue skies without grain and blacks that are silky smooth, You Don't Have Any Proof!!!

Its the size of the sensor Bigger is Better!
Smaller pixels are less efficient than larger ones!
Dynamic range is better with larger pixels!

FF = Better! at-least if you have the talent to take the picture in the first place otherwise you could use a disc camera? or in your case a a Holga 120 with a plastic lens.

ROLFLMAO!!!

the Fuzzy concept smaller is Better? Twisted logic sounds like a radical that cant let go!
Faintandfuzzy said:
I believe in proof....not blind faith. Qianp2k can't seem to back up his statements....but we're all to believe him.
Click to expand...
Bigger is Better
Faintandfuzzy said:
Even more people are posting tests in my two test threads showing Qianp2k to be incorrect (he may not know because he's trying not to post in them)
Click to expand...
--
ershotz
 
A few 7D zealots have these common characters,
  • They don't own or experience 5D2/5D1;
  • They don't respect the most creditable test sites such as DPR, IR and DXO that show FF IQ is better than crop;
  • And the bottom line is that they simply don't have their own photos to support their claims except pure empty talks.
This is also the reason why I picked up a used 1D3 instead of a new 7D in Oct/Nov 2009, never regret. It has been echoed by those who actually use and experience both as said in this link,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=40146994

Try 7D under these lights, you will know, in addition 1D3 AF and speed are in a different league. 1D3 only have pity 10mp while 7D has mighty 18mp. It's not quantity of pixel but the quality of pixel matters here.









You can see their 2000-pixel wide full size at

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1693911/canon-eos-1d-mark-iii_831c3579

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1691248/canon-eos-1d-mark-iii_831c3773
Ershotz - said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
Keith Reeder said:
We've proven time and time again that you're wrong about this, with Real World images.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what you show this guy....you're simply wrong. It's like arguing with someone about religion. You ask them to prove it and they go on an on about "faith."
Click to expand...
This looks like Proof to me!!! hard to belive that you cannot believe this, I think that you have never shot you 4x5 Camera, it must have been a prop?





Fuzzy, where are your own samples of landscapes showing blue skies without grain and blacks that are silky smooth, You Don't Have Any Proof!!!

Its the size of the sensor Bigger is Better!
Smaller pixels are less efficient than larger ones!
Dynamic range is better with larger pixels!

FF = Better! at-least if you have the talent to take the picture in the first place otherwise you could use a disc camera? or in your case a a Holga 120 with a plastic lens.

ROLFLMAO!!!

the Fuzzy concept smaller is Better? Twisted logic sounds like a radical that cant let go!
Ershotz - said:
I believe in proof....not blind faith. Qianp2k can't seem to back up his statements....but we're all to believe him.
Click to expand...
Bigger is Better
Ershotz - said:
Even more people are posting tests in my two test threads showing Qianp2k to be incorrect (he may not know because he's trying not to post in them)
Click to expand...
--
ershotz
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Ershotz - said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
Keith Reeder said:
We've proven time and time again that you're wrong about this, with Real World images.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what you show this guy....you're simply wrong. It's like arguing with someone about religion. You ask them to prove it and they go on an on about "faith."
Click to expand...
This looks like Proof to me!!! hard to belive that you cannot believe this, I think that you have never shot you 4x5 Camera, it must have been a prop?





Fuzzy, where are your own samples of landscapes showing blue skies without grain and blacks that are silky smooth, You Don't Have Any Proof!!!

Its the size of the sensor Bigger is Better!
Smaller pixels are less efficient than larger ones!
Dynamic range is better with larger pixels!

FF = Better! at-least if you have the talent to take the picture in the first place otherwise you could use a disc camera? or in your case a a Holga 120 with a plastic lens.

ROLFLMAO!!!

the Fuzzy concept smaller is Better? Twisted logic sounds like a radical that cant let go!
Ershotz - said:
I believe in proof....not blind faith. Qianp2k can't seem to back up his statements....but we're all to believe him.
Click to expand...
Bigger is Better
Ershotz - said:
Even more people are posting tests in my two test threads showing Qianp2k to be incorrect (he may not know because he's trying not to post in them)
Click to expand...
--
ershotz
Click to expand...
All the 'proof' shown by the die-hard crop shooters has shown is that in a few very limited circumstances the smaller format can come close to a FF sensor. "Come close" being the key words. Not better than FF, not equal to...but close. And this is in very limited circumstances (tripod, ISO 100, top shelf lens, best apertures).

If that's how they shoot 100% of their photos fine, save the money and wallow in their own joy of how much smarter they are than FF shooters who wasted their $$. If they want to hang on this rationale as reason a smaller format is 'better', well I say let 'em have it...it's no sweat off my back.

--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
 
The review compares the 7D and the 50D, and the 7D is much better than the 50D. But that is not the 5D Mk II.
--
~K
 
kb2zuz said:
The review compares the 7D and the 50D, and the 7D is much better than the 50D. But that is not the 5D Mk II.
--
~K
Click to expand...
the title of the forum below...

Forum Canon EOS-1D / 1Ds / 5D
Thread 7D image quality better than a 5DmkII (100 messages)
Started by Dosquattros
Date/Time 10:01:51 PM, Wednesday, January 18, 2012 (GMT)
--
ershotz
 
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