Eyvind Ness wrote:
For anything higher than about ISO 100, Yes, it would appear so, with the current sensor and processing technology.
What are they doing wrong, they who get more resolution out of the NEX 7 than the NEX 5N at ISO 400 and 800? Or more FL limited detail out of the 7D than the 5DII?
Go with the MarkIV. If you need extra reach, just crop to the same filed of view you would have had with the 7D. With the improved IQ of the Mark IV you will stay be better off.
OK, So I reran the feather test quickly here with my setup. I have a 500L bare on both cameras and shot at f4.5 on both at ISO400. This was on a nice tripod setup as well. This is a very sharp lens at f4.5. Camera #1 is a 1Ds MKIII. Camera #2 is a 7D that just came back from Canon.
I focused on the blower. Everything was shot RAW. I processed in CS5 bridge with sharpening set to zero on both files. I Cropped to 100% on the 7D and then make the same crop on the 1Ds file. I then 'uprezzed' the 1DS file to the same resolution as the 7D file. Without any sharpening:
The bottom line is the 7D shot definitely has more detail. With that said, the resolution advantage is probably less than expected. I'd imagine if I stuck at 1.4x on when shooting with the 1Ds that shot would have more detail than the 7D shot.
Chris
PS - Interestingly, when I went to uprez the 1Ds shot, it showed the 7D as a 1.48x crop. So either the 1Ds isn't really full frame or the 7D isn't quite a 1.6 crop. I'm sure I'm off on the crops a tick but not by that much.
EDIT: Feel free to download the shots and play around if you want.
No surprises but the fact that the 7D is a 1.6 crop has nothing to do with its ability to capture more detail. In fact I'm somewhat surprised the results are so close.
The 7D uses a 4.3 µm size pixel with a 5.4MP/cm2 pixel density. The 1DsMk3 uses a 6.4 µm size pixel with a 2.4MP/cm2 pixel density. That gives the 7D over twice the pixel density of the 1DsMk3! Compare the 1DsMk3 to a 20D and you should get near identical results.
Also f/4.5 is still within the resolving power of the 7D pixels. Its diffraction limits are at f/6.6. The 1DsMk3 limits at f/10. Therefore shooting wide open telephotos with fast shutter speeds or stable platforms play right into the 7D's strengths.
However, you cant compare the 7D to the ruggedness of a 1D series body. Its like comparing an Infinity G37 to a Hummer. Both have their own strengths - be it pavement or off-road.
DmitriM wrote:
With all due respect...You ARE joking right?
I don't want to sound like an ass hole,but there's nothing in those images a PS camera won't do.
In fact, a PS camera will make them even better because those images will be processed better and will show even better colors.
There's more to photography than that sir.
I have never tried 7D/1D4 so don't know much about them. But 40D is no more than p/s cam Hmm, maybe my eyes is longer work like the way they're used to be:
DmitriM wrote:
What the heck was that about? A $100 PS camera can provide absolutely the same images. ...there's nothing in those images a PS camera won't do.
In fact, a PS camera will make them even better because those images will be processed better and will show even better colors.
mttran wrote:
I have never tried 7D/1D4 so don't know much about them. But 40D is no more than p/s cam??
I'm sorry, mttran, but that's not what Dmitri said. He didn't say a 7D was no better than a point-and-shoot; he said the images you posted (the first set) could have been done with a P&S, and possibly be better done with one.
I know this isn't a critique thread, but I have to agree; the Disney photos you posted don't show the 7D in its best light -- literally. The backgrounds are exposed well, but the subjects are too dark. Also, the subjects are well focused, but so are the backgrounds -- just like most P&S cameras would do; with a 7D you could have -- and should have, in my opinion -- used shallower depth of field to isolate the subjects against the busy BG.
The second set of images you posted are, I think, a better example of what a good DSLR is capable of; I think they're very nice.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
That 7D shot looks a little soft to me. Was live view used to focus precisely on the blower?
I did this very quickly so I just took 3 with each camera. I was a bit lazy because they all looked close but I have now chosen the best shot of each camera. I can't imagine a little adjustment would matter as I have about 10 feet of DOF. Same conclusion as before - the 7D is a bit better but it's pretty close.
After this test, I am still leaning toward the 1D IV. The IV has better sensor technology than the 1Ds III so I'd imagine it would be a bit better than the 1Ds in this test, but maybe not as good as the 7D still. In either case it would be close enough for government work as I like to say.
Schlotkins wrote:
I did this very quickly so I just took 3 with each camera. I was a bit lazy because they all looked close but I have now chosen the best shot of each camera. I can't imagine a little adjustment would matter as I have about 10 feet of DOF. Same conclusion as before - the 7D is a bit better but it's pretty close.
After this test, I am still leaning toward the 1D IV. The IV has better sensor technology than the 1Ds III so I'd imagine it would be a bit better than the 1Ds in this test, but maybe not as good as the 7D still. In either case it would be close enough for government work as I like to say.
Thanks,
Chris
...Show more →
If you look at these as 100% views, it is advisable to use a much smaller CoC to calculate DoF - there is logic to using the dimensions of a pixel for peeping DoF
Hmm, maybe my eyes is longer work like the way they're used to be: