And man does the 7D have more reach than either. Those who claim the better pixels of the 5 series mean the 7D doesn't really pull much extra reach are wayyyy wrong. I used to think that much above ISO1600 the reach advantage went away. It actually doesn't. Even at ISO6400 the 7D pulls in noticeably more detail then 5D2 or 5D3 at least if the bird or whatever gets exposed well enough and is light enough in coloration to be well away from any shadow or darker shades and is much towards the brighter end.
ISO100, Neutral Profile, +4 sharpening, 0 NR in cam jgs:
5D3 actually pulls in crisper and more detail with less moire than the 5D2, at least for areas of detail with strong contrast, surprising enough, definitely looks better (I didn't test areas of lower contrast, the in cam 5D3 processing might well blur those out worse though).
ISO100 but using ACR with all sliders to 0, Adobe Standard, Lens Profiling turned off, all other settings 0 or standard, etc.:
The 5D3 detail crispness advantage some claim was not apparent to me. OTOH the oh no the 5D3 is soft claims didn't seem apparent either. Honestly, using ACR, with sliders set as stated (and who knows how it cooks the books for each and what the true raw RAW story is), I really can't say either one delivers more detail or reach. It really seems the same to me.
The 7D pulls a heck of a lot more reach than either.
At ISO6400 when all are re-sized to 8MP just using a simple bicubic and without any pre-filter which ideally would be done etc. and without matching for exposure differences due to different gains, etc. etc. i.e. a bit sloppy:
5D3 looks cleanest then 5D2 then 7D although 5D2 shows most signs of banding uglies. The biggest difference is in the darker shades and most of all in the uglies in the super dark shades the 5D3 looks a bit cleaner in the dark shades and is free of the uglies in the super dark shades that the 5D2 has. Where the 5D2 has some banding going on in the darkest tones the 5D3 is totally free of that.
If 7D gets scaled even smaller yet to make the target appear the same size then it renders the target with more detail and less artifacting than either 5D2 or 5D3 although with a little more noise than the 5D3 but with a bit less noise and less uglies than the 5D2. 5D2 definitley has the most uglies in the deep dark parts of the three.
7D clearly is better for reach limited scenarios than the 5D2 no matter what the scenario, low or high iso, etc. you simply never do worse whatever you end goal or priority is. (non-reach limited it's a different story)
To late now but will post the sample images tomorrow.
pretty darn clear the 7D reach advantage is VERY real, i sure can pick out a lot more detail in that bill (target and lens on tripod were left in same locations only the bodies attached to the lens were changed, i used a sharp lens at f/3.5, the 300 2.8 IS, to make sure advantage was not lost)
Contrary to various rumors, assuming ACR isn't cooking them way differently (which it could be), the RAW files from the 5D3 appear to be neither sharper nor blurrier than from the 5D2. Whatever difference certainly looks too small to really be much noticeable either way to me.
so no need to fear selling a 5D2 because the 5D3 might deliver soft results in comparison as some rumors went (even if it had by a trace, the 5D3 still offers lots more)
otoh there may be a real fear of selling a 7D if you will need to shoot distance limited stuff often, ahhh now i'm second guessing my plans to put both 5D2 AND 7D for sale... arrrrrrr (shoulda never done this test! )
at ISO6400 it seemed that the 5D3 in cam jpgs, neutral, no NR, had at least as much detail (At least in high contrast areas, not sure about medium or low) and noticeably less noise than 5D2's
The moiré and resulting false colour in the shots from the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III is a bit disappointing, but you're using a super-sharp lens and photographing a worst-case subject. I suppose Canon believes the weak antialiasing filter is appropriate for general use, often with softer lenses and easier subjects.
(Look at the facade of Independence Hall, or the arcs of fine lines printed in the sky area above the trees; compare to the 7D photos to see how these features should look.)
I notice that the 5D Mark III does a better job of suppressing the false colour while retaining detail in the JPEGs, compared to the 5D Mark II. That's the new DIGIC in action, I suppose.
Now I'm wondering how the 7D would look if you shot that banknote again, this time from about 1.6× farther away.
I had a 5D3 for testing in the past week and I 'll have it again next week. I had the chance to make a fast comparison between that and my 5D2. So far my initial impression is that the in-camera jpgs are clearly superior on the 5D3. Especially when going up the ISO range. When comparing raw files however, and using DPP for the conversion, the 5D2 has better micro-contrast at ISO 100 and 200 resulting in better sharpness/clarity compared to 5D3. At ISO 400 there is a tie between the two and from ISO 800 and up the 5D3 is the tool for the job. The 5D3 wins hands down at every other area. The question for me now is if its worth to sell both my 5D2's or one 5D2 and my 7D plus the 17-55/2,8 in order to buy the 5D3. In both cases I will loose some flexibility (I can currently have one 5D2 with the 70-200II and one 5D2 with the 24-105 attached and my 7D with either the 17-55/2,8 or 100-400 depending on the situation VS a scenario with the 5D3 and a 5D2 or a 7D). And it is not easy for me to answer...
p.1 #10 · 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise:
Dreamliner wrote:
When comparing raw files however, and using DPP for the conversion, the 5D2 has better micro-contrast at ISO 100 and 200 resulting in better sharpness/clarity compared to 5D3.
Make sure you're using the most up-to-date version of DPP. The version that came on the disk included with my 5D3 was v3.11.10 and I didn't like the low ISO results from it compared to the 5D2. I downloaded the latest version v3.11.26 and IMO it's much better and using that for processing I felt both cameras looked very similar (until high ISOs where the 5D3 is a bit better). I like the results from LR4.1 too. Also be careful to compare with the same sharpness algorithm...DPP defaults to the 'Sharpness' method for the 5D2 and 'Unsharp Mask' for the 5D3.
p.1 #11 · 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise:
skibum5 wrote:
Finally did some quick comparisons.
And man does the 7D have more reach than either. Those who claim the better pixels of the 5 series mean the 7D doesn't really pull much extra reach are wayyyy wrong. I used to think that much above ISO1600 the reach advantage went away. It actually doesn't. Even at ISO6400 the 7D pulls in noticeably more detail then 5D2 or 5D3 at least if the bird or whatever gets exposed well enough and is light enough in coloration to be well away from any shadow or darker shades and is much towards the brighter end.
ISO100, Neutral Profile, +4 sharpening, 0 NR in cam jgs:
5D3 actually pulls in crisper and more detail with less moire than the 5D2, at least for areas of detail with strong contrast, surprising enough, definitely looks better (I didn't test areas of lower contrast, the in cam 5D3 processing might well blur those out worse though).
ISO100 but using ACR with all sliders to 0, Adobe Standard, Lens Profiling turned off, all other settings 0 or standard, etc.:
The 5D3 detail crispness advantage some claim was not apparent to me. OTOH the oh no the 5D3 is soft claims didn't seem apparent either. Honestly, using ACR, with sliders set as stated (and who knows how it cooks the books for each and what the true raw RAW story is), I really can't say either one delivers more detail or reach. It really seems the same to me.
The 7D pulls a heck of a lot more reach than either.
At ISO6400 when all are re-sized to 8MP just using a simple bicubic and without any pre-filter which ideally would be done etc. and without matching for exposure differences due to different gains, etc. etc. i.e. a bit sloppy:
5D3 looks cleanest then 5D2 then 7D although 5D2 shows most signs of banding uglies. The biggest difference is in the darker shades and most of all in the uglies in the super dark shades the 5D3 looks a bit cleaner in the dark shades and is free of the uglies in the super dark shades that the 5D2 has. Where the 5D2 has some banding going on in the darkest tones the 5D3 is totally free of that.
If 7D gets scaled even smaller yet to make the target appear the same size then it renders the target with more detail and less artifacting than either 5D2 or 5D3 although with a little more noise than the 5D3 but with a bit less noise and less uglies than the 5D2. 5D2 definitley has the most uglies in the deep dark parts of the three.
7D clearly is better for reach limited scenarios than the 5D2 no matter what the scenario, low or high iso, etc. you simply never do worse whatever you end goal or priority is. (non-reach limited it's a different story)
To late now but will post the sample images tomorrow.
+ 1. My findings just from using them. The 1.6 makes more a big difference. The reason I still want a 1DIV. But afraid I will miss the size of the 7D. The size and reach are why I just can't seem to let it go.
p.1 #12 · 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise:
It would be nice to crop the FF (aka 5DII and 5DIII) with the 1.6x to compare to 7D...What you actually try to do is to see if you can sell your 7D and keep 5DIII only right? To do so, take the same pic using the same lens with both bodies. Crop the FF to match the 7D and compare where you find more details...looking forward in reviewing this comparison!
p.1 #13 · 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise:
Online comparisons of differences between cameras using different sensor formats are fraught with problems. A few examples:
Comparing 100% crops is equivalent to comparing flim/or slides at different - sometimes very different - magnifications.
Normalizing important aspects of the post-processing workflow is extremely difficult - if not actually impossible - when your output will be on-screen images. Do you crop the full-frame image to use only an APS-C size section? If so, how do you account for the loss of photo sites that a photographer will have available in actual photography? If the cameras have different numbers of photo sites, do you interpolate one, both, or neither of the samples?
How do you account of the difference in lens performance on the different format cameras? A lens (at FL and apertures you select) will have X line pairs/millimeter resolution - but the two systems have different line pair per picture width resolution as a result. (All else being equal, the larger format system always has the potential to resolve more detail.)
In the end, there are great cropped sensor systems and great reasons for many photographers to choose them. There are also great full frame systems and wonderful reasons for some photographers to chose them. (The fact is that the large majority of people buying DSLRs today will get better results than they need with either format.)
Rather than getting into the impossible "Crop is better than FF! No it isn't! FF is better than crop!" silliness - which never leads anywhere useful in the end - it is a whole lot more useful to understand the ways that the two systems operate and the objective facts regarding their different performance, at least if you are doing a sort of photography in which it even matters.
For example, some benefits of cropped sensor cameras can include: lower cost for a camera with otherwise equivalent features, faster burst rate in lower cost cameras, the potential to use smaller and (in some cases) less expensive lenses for the same tasks, excellent image quality that exceeds the needs of almost all DSLR photographers, the potential to "fill the frame" more with small or distant subjects, etc.
Some benefits of full frame sensor cameras can include: a larger range of usable apertures (more exposure options and potentially narrower DOF), more options for ultra wide angle lenses, potentially higher image resolution in line-pair/picture width terms.
There is no "better" in a general universal sense, any more than a truck is better than a compact car or vice versa. It is a question of which tool is most suited to the tasks at hand.
p.1 #15 · 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise:
garydavidjones wrote:
For action 1D4 is superfluous now.
Frame rate is higher which might matter to some.
The approximate sale value of $4000 for 1D4 is tempting to help
finance purchase of 1DX, which has gotten rave reviews implying the 1DX
is dramatically superior in AF and otherwise to the 5D3.
I have not read anything that says that the AF is dramatically superior.
p.1 #16 · 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise:
garydavidjones wrote:
The approximate sale value of $4000 for 1D4 is tempting to help
finance purchase of 1DX, which has gotten rave reviews implying the 1DX
is dramatically superior in AF and otherwise to the 5D3.
If I had a choice -- I don't -- whether to purchase a 1DX or a 5D3, the 1DX would win with without even a second thought....
Your situation seems like this:
1. Sell the 1D4, buy the 5D3 and pocket a few hundred bucks... end up with a camera that is better at some things, and not as good at others. You have to decide whether the things you are losing matter to you.
2. Sell the 1D4, chuck in another $2.5-3K, and get a 1DX -- no compromises.... the 1DX is better in every respect. Question then becomes... is that worth $3 grand
Unfortunately for me and the shooting I do... I can't see whether an upgrade from my current 7d and 5D2 bodies would increase my income enough to justify the expense. A 1D4 might be justifiable in terms of speed over my 7D.... just might. Maybe I'll pick up a used one when the 1DX becomes plentiful and the 1D4 price drops some more. For the things I use FF for, neither the 5D3 or 1DX would do anything significant enough to justify their cost.
As for IQ... I too agree with the OP that shooting with a crop yields better IQ than shooting FF and cropping. A FF camera would need close to 30mp to yield an APSC sized crop that would compare to a 7D's. My friend just got a FF D800 (36mp) and we're going to run some tests against his 1.6 D300 and my 7D to see what happens. We're going to use the same lens (IDK which one yet, but NIkon, of course since you can't mount EF lenses on Nikon bodies) for all 3.
p.1 #18 · 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise:
garydavidjones wrote:
Check out this post on Fredmiranda: "1DX AF is stupendous, fantastic"
by stanj. His comments got me interested in getting the 1DX. I already
have the 5D3 and am very pleased with the improvement in IQ AND AF
performance compared to the 1D4 and 5D2, both of which I use.
Are you saying the 5D3 has faster AF than the 1D4? What about the loss of 4 FPS?
Not trying to start a this-is-better-than-that discussion... honestly want to know since I don't own either.
I have used both the 5D3 and 1D4 and the 1D4 seems to be faster at everything with the 5D3 having better IQ only when you are able to zoom with your feet..... just anecdotal observations over a couple of days of shooting which DID NOT include ISOs over 3200.
p.1 #19 · 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise:
Regarding resolution:
This corroborates my own theoretical surmises as well as field tests comparisons between the 7D and 5DIII. The higher pixel density of the 7D sensor is hard to beat with "cleaner" pixels if one cannot get close to, or zoom in on, the subject. I spent a few weeks with the 5DIII in the field and in a sort of controlled environment at the Bird Show at the local zoo. The 5DIII autofocus ability surpasses that of the 7D but feather detail is generally much better with the 7D. So I am considering these camera as complementary to each other. One doesn't replace the other.
Db
skibum5 wrote:
Finally did some quick comparisons.
And man does the 7D have more reach than either. Those who claim the better pixels of the 5 series mean the 7D doesn't really pull much extra reach are wayyyy wrong. I used to think that much above ISO1600 the reach advantage went away. It actually doesn't. Even at ISO6400 the 7D pulls in noticeably more detail then 5D2 or 5D3 at least if the bird or whatever gets exposed well enough and is light enough in coloration to be well away from any shadow or darker shades and is much towards the brighter end.
ISO100, Neutral Profile, +4 sharpening, 0 NR in cam jgs:
5D3 actually pulls in crisper and more detail with less moire than the 5D2, at least for areas of detail with strong contrast, surprising enough, definitely looks better (I didn't test areas of lower contrast, the in cam 5D3 processing might well blur those out worse though).
ISO100 but using ACR with all sliders to 0, Adobe Standard, Lens Profiling turned off, all other settings 0 or standard, etc.:
The 5D3 detail crispness advantage some claim was not apparent to me. OTOH the oh no the 5D3 is soft claims didn't seem apparent either. Honestly, using ACR, with sliders set as stated (and who knows how it cooks the books for each and what the true raw RAW story is), I really can't say either one delivers more detail or reach. It really seems the same to me.
The 7D pulls a heck of a lot more reach than either.
At ISO6400 when all are re-sized to 8MP just using a simple bicubic and without any pre-filter which ideally would be done etc. and without matching for exposure differences due to different gains, etc. etc. i.e. a bit sloppy:
5D3 looks cleanest then 5D2 then 7D although 5D2 shows most signs of banding uglies. The biggest difference is in the darker shades and most of all in the uglies in the super dark shades the 5D3 looks a bit cleaner in the dark shades and is free of the uglies in the super dark shades that the 5D2 has. Where the 5D2 has some banding going on in the darkest tones the 5D3 is totally free of that.
If 7D gets scaled even smaller yet to make the target appear the same size then it renders the target with more detail and less artifacting than either 5D2 or 5D3 although with a little more noise than the 5D3 but with a bit less noise and less uglies than the 5D2. 5D2 definitley has the most uglies in the deep dark parts of the three.
7D clearly is better for reach limited scenarios than the 5D2 no matter what the scenario, low or high iso, etc. you simply never do worse whatever you end goal or priority is. (non-reach limited it's a different story)
To late now but will post the sample images tomorrow.
p.1 #20 · 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise:
S Dilworth wrote:
The moiré and resulting false colour in the shots from the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III is a bit disappointing, but you're using a super-sharp lens and photographing a worst-case subject. I suppose Canon believes the weak antialiasing filter is appropriate for general use, often with softer lenses and easier subjects.
(Look at the facade of Independence Hall, or the arcs of fine lines printed in the sky area above the trees; compare to the 7D photos to see how these features should look.)
I notice that the 5D Mark III does a better job of suppressing the false colour while retaining detail in the JPEGs, compared to the 5D Mark II. That's the new DIGIC in action, I suppose.
Now I'm wondering how the 7D would look if you shot that banknote again, this time from about 1.6× farther away....Show more →
It also depends upon the converter too. ACR is among the most prone to color moire of all. DPP has very little of that in comparison. OTOH DPP has more luminance channel aliasing and it's own artificats. Pick your poison.
It's also possible that using a little chroma NR in ACR might help remove the look a bit, I just set everything to zero.
)
-- whether to purchase a 1DX or a 5D3, the 1DX would win with without even a second thought....
