p.1 #7 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
What is supposed to be being demonstrated here?
If you upscaled the 5D2/5D3/7D to match 7D with 1.4x TC ok but the subject matter doesn't really have any details to compare with, mostly blank walls and smooth banana. There is no fine detail anywhere.
p.1 #8 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Scott Stoness wrote:
What I conclude visually is that:
1) 5d3 is marginally better than 5d2 at high ISO.
2) If you looking for reach 7d w 1.4x outresolves 7d which outresolves 5d3 which outresolves 5d2.
3) Grain is nicer on 5d3 than 5d2 than 7d in order?
4) The advantage of 5d3 is marginal for wildlife vs 5d2 for static shots
5) The advantage of 5d3 or 5d2 is small as compared to 7d for ISO
I am still happy with my 5d3 purchase but I bought it for landscape (better ISO, weather sealing, more autobracketing, wider bracketing choices in stops etc. ) which I have not fully tested since much of my software does not work with 5d3 raw yet. sigh - early adopter. Scott...Show more →
Thanks. Your conclusions corroborate other folks' findings so I am going to bookmark this post.
Based on your set-up, you can also say something about depth of field since it's useful info for wildlife photographers.
p.1 #14 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
I did a real life lens torture test between 1D4 and 5d III
EF 300/2.8 L(non-IS) + 2X II +1.4TC III = 840mm
shooting conditions: F/10, 1/800sec, ISO 1250. Both the combo still AF but 5D III was way smother and quicker to lock the bird.
-I cropped and 50% re-sized the 1d4 image(as I generally do for my bird images).
- I cropped the same FOV and re-sized the to have the same size final image. Both images were processed in the same way.
p.1 #16 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
elader wrote:
So the 5DIII only detects one bird while the 1dIV detects both? Is that a function of the 1/3X crop?
Sure, the second one just showed up !!!
p.1 #19 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
A more useful test would actually be
1. upsizing 5d3 to 7d (1.4x) and comparing.
2. 5d3+1.4x converter at 1 stop higher iso vs 7d (they will have very similar pixel density)
The test will be useful with with stuffed animal with fine fur/ feature to compare detail.
This will show a slight edge to the 7D in detail for test 1. for test 2, I will be very interested to see the difference.
Of course all of this is for a static object. more a moving object, the extra pixels may not prove to be very useful, given in less than ideal condition (subject movement, camera movement) you can not resolve detail which is not there.
p.1 #20 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Scott Stoness wrote:
My friends on nature and wildlife asked me to do this.
The attached is a comparison of 5diii vs 5dii vs 7d vs 7d cropped to a similar size based on the same distance.
I always understood "cropped" just to mean edges cut off, but I see you and others also include optional resizing in the term. In this comparison, did the 7D images get resized (the 1.4x one even more) to yield the same approximate pixels per banana in the posted images? I don't think the conclusions will depend much on the answer but I always like to understand the details when someone takes the time and effort for such comparisons. Thanks
Andy
Scott