Reading mode: Light Dark

5D2 and 7D go surfing...

Go to last post
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
Now I know: you probably didn't do this yourself. Well, you probably did for the 7D shots, but not the 5D2 shots.
Click to expand...
Daniel, may I ask you - are you a college boy still suffering from an unbalanced state of mind?
Click to expand...
Are you? Because you were the one to start demanding a "full size image." We both missed a stupid setting in DPR and I'm willing to laugh and let that lay. But if you're going to use it as an excuse to make personal attacks for behavior which was no different from your own...then buzz off.
Click to expand...
It was not me, but you who stated that the images are not mine. A typical behavior of a 10 y.o. kid.
 
andy792 said:
It was not me, but you who stated that the images are not mine.
Click to expand...
Never said that. I simply made the same accusation against you that you made repeatedly against me: that the crops were not 1:1.

Look in the mirror.
 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
Faintandfuzzy said:
Considering Peter doesn't even understand how DOF works, I don't expect any breakthroughs with hin here either.

In case anyone here missed it, Peter13 thinks DOF begins to shrink as diffraction increases. If he were right, pinhole cameras would have a shallow DOF!
Click to expand...
I wonder when Peter will post a comparison between a 50 f/1.2L and a pinhole camera? I want to see that gorgeous, diffused, pinhole background blur :-P
Click to expand...
An MTF-50 test measures resolution (lw/ph -- line widths per picture height) at 50% contrast. A manufacturer MTF test measures contrast at a given resolution (lp/mm -- line pairs per millimeter on the sensor). We can convert between lp/mm and lw/ph thussly:
  • lw/ph = lp/mm x mm/ph x 2, where mm/ph is the height of the sensor in mm.
The MTF-50 unit of measurement, lw/ph, is format independent , whereas lp/mm is not. It's much the same as how 50mm on one format does not have the same effect as 50mm on another format, and how f/2 on one format does not have the same effect as f/2 on another format.

In other words, just as 50mm f/2 on 1.6x is nothing like 50mm f/2 on FF, 50 lp/mm on 1.6x is nothing like 50 lp/mm on FF.
 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
It was not me, but you who stated that the images are not mine.
Click to expand...
Never said that. I simply made the same accusation against you that you made repeatedly against me: that the crops were not 1:1.

Look in the mirror.
Click to expand...
Why deny what you clearly stated 10 min ago? A sudden memory loss?
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
Now I know: you probably didn't do this yourself. Well, you probably did for the 7D shots, but not the 5D2 shots.
Click to expand...
Stating that the images are not mine and stating that the images are not full size (I have not mentioned your 1:1 crops) are two different things. Don't you agree? Can you read your own post?

You know what, when threads change into a stupid dialog between two people who cannot understand one another, it is getting boring for everyone else.

On the final note. Your shot is very good, but doesn't prove anything, because, as I stated many times, was taken from a close distance, meaning that you don't need to take 1/15th of its size to get a crop. Small details at 1:1 - it is where we can see a big difference between the 7D and 5D2 as clearly evidenced by my samples.

Anyway, I feel tired.... Perhaps Peter may want to take my place and continue with you. Good night.
 
Great Bustard said:
In other words, just as 50mm f/2 on 1.6x is nothing like 50mm f/2 on FF, 50 lp/mm on 1.6x is nothing like 50 lp/mm on FF.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is what people fail to understand. The 400mm on a crop body, i.e. 640mm reach is not the same as a pure 600mm prime on FF. You get the same reach, but sacrifice IQ due to degrading resolution.
 
andy792 said:
What I can see is that you compare apples and rabbits (not even oranges). Your shot is taken from a close distance, that's why the face details are quite good. Try to shoot the same scene from 150m and then compare the 5D2 and 7D. Perhaps then you will see the difference.
Click to expand...
Some shots from further away. Hand held, JPEG, ISO 400, slower shutter speeds than yours. Yet they compare favorably. Now what excuse are you going to come up with?















 
...with about a minute of post processing.

Wow...those FF differences were so huge...I must be a genius with Photoshop, one of the best to ever live ;-)

I'll remove this from my gallery after a day or so since it's not mine.



 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
What I can see is that you compare apples and rabbits (not even oranges). Your shot is taken from a close distance, that's why the face details are quite good. Try to shoot the same scene from 150m and then compare the 5D2 and 7D. Perhaps then you will see the difference.
Click to expand...
Some shots from further away. Hand held, JPEG, ISO 400, slower shutter speeds than yours. Yet they compare favorably. Now what excuse are you going to come up with?
Click to expand...
You never give up, don't you? First you accused me that I posted not mine images. After that you suddenly forgot your own words and denied your own statements. Then you tossed all the facts even being unable to understand what I was stating about different distance and crop factor.

If you have difficulties of understanding what I tried to deliver to you, maybe it is time for you to ask someone else who can and then explain it to you in a more simple language that you can easily digest.

Peter was stating the same 5-6 times yet you failed to understand. I cannot repeat the same anymore. You may continue your posts, but without me. Perhaps other guys still want to continue a dialog with you.
 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
...with about a minute of post processing.

Wow...those FF differences were so huge...I must be a genius with Photoshop, one of the best to ever live ;-)
Click to expand...
And you really believe that applying NR and removing all facial details makes it look good?
 
andy792 said:
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
What I can see is that you compare apples and rabbits (not even oranges). Your shot is taken from a close distance, that's why the face details are quite good. Try to shoot the same scene from 150m and then compare the 5D2 and 7D. Perhaps then you will see the difference.
Click to expand...
Some shots from further away. Hand held, JPEG, ISO 400, slower shutter speeds than yours. Yet they compare favorably. Now what excuse are you going to come up with?
Click to expand...
You never give up, don't you? First you accused me that I posted not mine images.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that? I accused you of not posting 1:1 crops, same thing you were accusing me of.
andy792 said:
After that you suddenly forgot your own words and denied your own statements.
Click to expand...
Where did I accuse you of posting images that were not yours? Post the message link!
andy792 said:
Then you tossed all the facts even being unable to understand what I was stating about different distance and crop factor.
Click to expand...
The surfers in these shots occupy roughly the same space out of the total frame that yours do in your 5D2 shots. I would have been further away than you due to the crop factor. So what are you complaining about now?
andy792 said:
You may continue your posts, but without me.
Click to expand...
There is no better way for you to concede the argument than to run.
 
andy792 said:
And you really believe that applying NR and removing all facial details makes it look good?
Click to expand...
What facial details? Hair looks better, eyes stand out more. There was no skin texture, only some noise/grain.
 
I vote DLT as most obnoxious.
 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
And you really believe that applying NR and removing all facial details makes it look good?
Click to expand...
What facial details? Hair looks better, eyes stand out more. There was no skin texture, only some noise/grain.
Click to expand...
I have no bias with either camera or poster, but it is MORE than obvious that the 5D's pics MURDER anything that has been posted in this thread from the 7D. I own all crop cameras, "60D,7D & 1DmkiV" and would kill to have the IQ that has been shown from the 5D II's images from this forum.

Look in the hair strands and the water droplets on the face on the 5D II, then try to find anything that matches that on what you have posted from the 7D on this thread. Thank you OP for this post. You have done everything you possible can do to prove your point. You have "actual" data proving your point. All the other guy has are his delusions that his pictures have anywhere near the detail from what you have shown the with 5d's. Thank you, and might as well give up fighting with fanboy. He has tossed all rational out the window within the first page of this thread. I had my wife look at all the images in this thread at full magnification, and asked her which pictures looked better to her. She picked the 5D out EVERY time without fail.
 
scubasteve03 said:
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
And you really believe that applying NR and removing all facial details makes it look good?
Click to expand...
What facial details? Hair looks better, eyes stand out more. There was no skin texture, only some noise/grain.
Click to expand...
I have no bias with either camera or poster, but it is MORE than obvious that the 5D's pics MURDER anything that has been posted in this thread from the 7D. I own all crop cameras, "60D,7D & 1DmkiV" and would kill to have the IQ that has been shown from the 5D II's images from this forum.

Look in the hair strands and the water droplets on the face on the 5D II, then try to find anything that matches that on what you have posted from the 7D on this thread. Thank you OP for this post. You have done everything you possible can do to prove your point. You have "actual" data proving your point. All the other guy has are his delusions that his pictures have anywhere near the detail from what you have shown the with 5d's. Thank you, and might as well give up fighting with fanboy. He has tossed all rational out the window within the first page of this thread. I had my wife look at all the images in this thread at full magnification, and asked her which pictures looked better to her. She picked the 5D out EVERY time without fail.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Steve. Since I own both cameras and have no bias toward the 5D2, I've posted these tests that may help others to make a right decision not affected by camera fanatics from either camp, the 7D or the 5D2.

Several months ago, before purchasing my 5D2, we had a dilemma, what camera to buy for my wife. Since we had contemplated another 7D or the 5D2, I posted a question on the 7D forum, asking for an advice (my mistake was to post on the 7D forum!). Most people categorically recommended the 7D as a no-brainer, since the 5D2: (a) has the same or slightly better IQ; (b) not good focusing; (c) an outdated model; (d) has a worse ergonomic than the 7D etc etc. No-one actually stated that the 5D2 has a significantly better IQ that really counts. Nobody mentioned that by getting a longer 1.6x reach, we sacrifice the IQ due to degrading resolution. After reading tons of posts, I started wondering why the 5D2 costs more than the 7D, while the latter is clearly more advanced across almost all parameters.

So, we purchased another 7D for my wife. While we have no regrets about that purchase and she has been taking a lot of wonderful shots, I really hate those fanatics who force everyone to think along with their brainless lines.

Again, I have to state that the 7D is a good camera for many. However, if you consider alternatives as the 5D2 or whatsoever, never listen to everyone who wants you to think the same. Test both cameras and make your decision based on your experience, not someone else.
 
scubasteve03 said:
I have no bias with either camera or poster, but it is MORE than obvious that the 5D's pics MURDER anything that has been posted in this thread from the 7D.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's why Andy started crying about how far away I was with the very first image post, ranting and raving for a "full image", because it was clearly inferior to his 5D2 samples. Oh...wait...it was because it was better than his samples and not that much closer (i.e. surfer did not occupy that much more of the frame) despite his protests.

The shots I posted where the surfers occupy roughly the same or less of the frame than his are perhaps just shy of his best 5D2 sample, but easily equal to the rest. That's why he just shut up once they were available.

Let us remember that surfing is a FL limited scenario. A real comparison would involve Andy backing up with his 5D2, then cropping out the APS-C center to produce the same FoV and relative size of the subject. Where are those comparisons?

And to go back to the conclusions of Faint's tests: who could tell at 24" between any of these? Do you guys ever print for clients, or just measurebate online in a massive circle jerk? I've got a lot of surfing shots which are far better in terms of the actual shot, but pixel worse due to motion blur or higher ISO, yet at 24" they look perfect. Andy's own 7D shots suffer from under exposure and softness, but not one of you could pick Andy's own shots apart after being processed and printed.
scubasteve03 said:
Look in the hair strands and the water droplets on the face on the 5D II, then try to find anything that matches that on what you have posted from the 7D on this thread.
Click to expand...
Several of them do, but I don't expect you to be able to overcome your psychological biases. Most humans can't until they are faced with a double blind test and shown the results. This has been proven over and over again from photography to music to wine tasting.
 
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