p.2 #1 · 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 →
+1
Thank you Scott for testing - it is usefiul.
Your results are in line with my recent field shooting results; however 5D3 proves its value in tracing moving objects. I had > 25% higher success rate from 5D3 than from 7D while shooting running dogs.
The real worry is that 5D3 makes some birds to disappear
p.2 #3 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
AJSJones wrote:
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
Just cropped to equivalent view that I chose for 7d w 1.4x. No resizing.
p.2 #4 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Scott - thx for your work.
There will always be those who say ... " a more useful test is ..."
but your test says not much difference between a $3500 5D MKIII
and a $1800 - $2000 5D MKII. Not enuff to justify anyway.
Note we use now prices because thats what they are.
If someone wanted to bias towards a camera you could have tried AF in single and AI w center and edge. Static and Moving.
I think your comparison was valid and it tells what everyone should know.
p.2 #5 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
elfanucchi: You are welcome. I agree that the difference seems to be small. However, I bought it for fps, more bracketing option, weather sealing, lighter shutter touch.... I still want the best I can get in Canon - and 5d3 is it until they put out a higher pixel camera.
So I agree that the $ difference is large for the difference in quality/iso, but if you are shooting inside for sports/wedding. Or if you were a hdr intensive guy, it would be worth it.
p.2 #6 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Scott Stoness wrote:
Just cropped to equivalent view that I chose for 7d w 1.4x. No resizing.
OK I'm feeling dumb (jetlag from Japan might be a factor ) , but I don't get how the test was conducted.
The posted pics are all 1000x1000 and have only been cropped (therefore these must be the originally acquired pixels, right?) yet all show essentially the same FoV.
Either the camera moved or the FL changed or something was resized after the images were acquired.
Or not?
Sorry to persist but my mind won't settle...
p.2 #7 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
AJSJones wrote:
OK I'm feeling dumb (jetlag from Japan might be a factor ) , but I don't get how the test was conducted.
The posted pics are all 1000x1000 and have only been cropped (therefore these must be the originally acquired pixels, right?) yet all show essentially the same FoV.
Either the camera moved or the FL changed or something was resized after the images were acquired.
Or not?
Sorry to persist but my mind won't settle...
All pictures were taken from the same distance with a tripod and mirror lock up and waiting 1 s. Big gitzo with wimberly sidekick.
I then checked for motion blur and rejected if ocurred. [Big lens with is turn off]
I also checked to satisfy that microfocuss was not needed (quickly)
All were focussed on the same centre point to the left of the zero line
All were same shutter speed except 1.4x where I did approximately 2x exposure to normalize for f5.6 vs F 4
I cropped the highest magnification one.
Then I cropped the others to an equivalent fov.
Then I saved them as 1000x1000 pixels with the same round of sharpening. This resulted in them being downsampled more for 7d 1.4 than 7d than 5diii or 5dii.
So in retrospect I guess I did downsample, to post them on the site, at the same relative size.
p.2 #8 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
scott. thanks. I am not sure what 1.4 crop means. does that mean you cropped the 7d, and they downsized both by same amount? or just that you downsized 7d by a 1.4x factor? I always felt downsize gives an unfair advantage to the full frame.
Its a nice comparison just the same.
p.2 #10 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
So all shots are from the same distance with same lens and different cameras. This represents are FL limited scenario as I see it.
In this case 7D is still a great camera and natively has a reach effectively 1.55x 5D II and around 1.5x 5D III. So even with 1.4x TC the 5D II and 5D III can't match the pixels per banana of the 7D.
What would be nice is the non FL limited scenario where the cameras are moved so FF has same FOV as APS-C and thus 5D III/II make full use of their pixels. This might require a more detailed subject say a stuffed toy with fine fur to see the differences.
p.2 #11 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Scott Stoness wrote:
All pictures were taken from the same distance with a tripod and mirror lock up and waiting 1 s. Big gitzo with wimberly sidekick.
I then checked for motion blur and rejected if ocurred. [Big lens with is turn off]
I also checked to satisfy that microfocuss was not needed (quickly)
All were focussed on the same centre point to the left of the zero line
All were same shutter speed except 1.4x where I did approximately 2x exposure to normalize for f5.6 vs F 4
I cropped the highest magnification one.
Then I cropped the others to an equivalent fov.
Then I saved them as 1000x1000 pixels with the same round of sharpening. This resulted in them being downsampled more for 7d 1.4 than 7d than 5diii or 5dii.
So in retrospect I guess I did downsample, to post them on the site, at the same relative size.
The 5dii fov is posted on the previous page.
Sorry if I was confusing.
Scott ...Show more →
Thanks for the explanation - I'll be able to sleep now - or at least when my biological clock says I can
p.2 #12 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Why isn't the 7D much worse than the two 5Ds? Everybody has been saying it has terrible IQ, noise, AF and the girls won't look at you if you have one..
p.2 #13 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
kevindar wrote:
scott. thanks. I am not sure what 1.4 crop means. does that mean you cropped the 7d, and they downsized both by same amount? or just that you downsized 7d by a 1.4x factor? I always felt downsize gives an unfair advantage to the full frame.
Its a nice comparison just the same.
1.4 means 1.4x - so 7d 1.4 meant 7d with 1.4x plus 500 F4
p.2 #14 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Ferrophot wrote:
Why isn't the 7D much worse than the two 5Ds? Everybody has been saying it has terrible IQ, noise, AF and the girls won't look at you if you have one..
I should get all the girls with my 5dii, 7d, and 5diii hanging off my neck I will warn my wife.
p.2 #16 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
So all shots are from the same distance with same lens and different cameras. This represents are FL limited scenario as I see it.
In this case 7D is still a great camera and natively has a reach effectively 1.55x 5D II and around 1.5x 5D III. So even with 1.4x TC the 5D II and 5D III can't match the pixels per banana of the 7D.
What would be nice is the non FL limited scenario where the cameras are moved so FF has same FOV as APS-C and thus 5D III/II make full use of their pixels. This might require a more detailed subject say a stuffed toy with fine fur to see the differences....Show more →
I don't get why landscape/wildlife guys would care about this comparison. We already know that ff is better than crop, when you can zoom with your feet. If you want the best quality you should be using a 7d (or idiv) for wildlife and 5diii for landscape. The question I was trying to address was whether the new 5diii cropped was as good as the 7d uncropped.
But for you, I will try to find the time to test with a stuffed toy and zoom with the feet.
p.2 #17 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Thanks for doing these tests Scott. I had promised to do something of the same but never got around to it. You can never win in these types of tests. There will always be criticisms no matter what you do in your tests.
The question I'm trying to answer is if it is worth it to keep my 7D for focal length limited situations. My gut keeps telling me to let it go and I never seem to want to bring it out and mount it on my 100-400 now that I have the 5D3. I'm fairly happy shooting the 5D2 with my 17-40 or 24-105 and the 5D3 with my 100-400 for the time being. However, I know deep down that when the wildlife is far or too easily scared off that the 7D will still probably net me the best results.
What I really need I guess is longer glass or a 1D4
p.2 #18 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks for doing these tests Scott. I had promised to do something of the same but never got around to it. You can never win in these types of tests. There will always be criticisms no matter what you do in your tests.
The question I'm trying to answer is if it is worth it to keep my 7D for focal length limited situations. My gut keeps telling me to let it go and I never seem to want to bring it out and mount it on my 100-400 now that I have the 5D3. I'm fairly happy shooting the 5D2 with my 17-40 or 24-105 and the 5D3 with my 100-400 for the time being. However, I know deep down that when the wildlife is far or too easily scared off that the 7D will still probably net me the best results.
What I really need I guess is longer glass or a 1D4...Show more →
Keep it. The 7d is way cheaper than buying the 600 f4 II. For wildlife reach is everything.
I think in good light, the 7d is better than 5diii. Its rare that you have enough reach. I have the 100-400 70-200 2.8 and 500 f4. I am going to yellowstone at the end of the month and I assure you that I will have 100-400 on 5diii and 500 with 1.4x on 7d, when I drive through the park. And as it gets darker I will switch to 7d on 500 F4 and 5diii on 70-200 2.8.
p.2 #19 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks for doing these tests Scott. I had promised to do something of the same but never got around to it. You can never win in these types of tests. There will always be criticisms no matter what you do in your tests.
Ditto to that. Some of these critics should just do their own bloody testing.
What I really need I guess is longer glass or a 1D4
I just ordered my demo 1D4 from Vistek in Calgary.
p.2 #20 · 5d3 vs 5d 2 vs 7d vs 7d with 1.4x (ISO 100 and ISO 6400)
Thanks for posting these. I'm not sure where to look for the most detail so it's a bit tough to make comparisons. Except for the noise, I don't see much difference between them. The last test really isn't fair to the 7D either - the shutter speed is 1/320 instead of 1/125 for the 5D.
Generally, I did this test (along with others (Ajay for example)) and find that the results are pretty close but the 7D wins if focal length limited. I think the 1D IV is probably the best compromise to be honest. You can cover everything well and make up for the lost focal length with the 2x on a 500L. I am hoping the new 500L is as good w/ the 2x as the new 300 and 400. They are very sharp, although there are of course AF considerations.
