I have owned a 5d2 and a 7d. My 7d if I focus correctly and use the correct af settings is tact sharp on. Have you checked the following:
1. Checked the focus points using the cameras lcd display?
2. Made sure your lens is not front focusing (hard to tell by the images shown)
3. Turned off completely noise reduction i
on the 7d (even low makes things not as sharp.) Some people say if you shot raw this will make no difference. I tried it both ways and it does.
4. Check your af settings on the 7d (such as tracking priority vs shutter priority).
These aren't the issues. He's just making a mountain out of an ant hill.
How much difference is there really between 1189 and 1265? Not any difference in resolution that I can find. 1189 is more grainy, but it also has less exposure. On that point, brightness and contrast are
huge in human perception of IQ apart from any of the things we typically measure and argue about (resolution; noise; etc). But Andy chose images with significant differences in exposure.
1174 and 1205 (especially) also received less exposure than any of the 5D2 shots. 1174 has plenty of detail and could be saved, but 1205's exposure killed detail in the face and made noise far worse than it should have been. I've got cleaner, more detailed ISO 800 shots than 1205!
Never the less, 1362 resolved less than 1189 as far as I can see. And 713 is as noisy in the ocean as 1189. So much for the FF advantage.
I can't help but laugh at all the "hurr durr FF is great!" comments. Erase Andy's memory, then show him his own shots while telling him they are from the same camera (5D2 or 7D). He wouldn't doubt you for a minute. Neither would anyone else in this thread. They would probably pick the brightest (i.e. best light/exposure) as the "best", but would correctly identify why. Along those lines give me a pair of the RAW files and 15 minutes and I could easily make one look head and shoulders above the other. They're decent shots but have plenty of room for processing.
But do we discuss exposure or processing? Nope. We discuss the smallest possible factor in final IQ. I feel like posting a face palm jpeg. But I would have to produce two, one from FF and one from crop, so that we could all argue about it.
That out of the way...Andy did make the point that FF vs. crop can be a small or nonexistent issue for reach. I've said this in the past. The crop reach advantage is not what it is sometimes made out to be. It's there if you have to crop even further and print large, particularly for a subject with less motion and more fine detail (i.e. bird feathers). But it's just not the end of the world.
