I have a 5d mark II and a 5d original. I read the image quality of the 5d mark II is better than the 7d, but how does it compares to the original 5d ? I want the features of the 7d, but I don't want to lose any image quality (low ISO noise, high ISO noise, dynamic range, etc). Based strictly on the quality of the files, is it logical to sell the 5d original to get the 7d ?
"File quality" is rarely, if ever, a reason to go from a larger format to a smaller one. There are reasons for moving in that direction, but the choice involves quite a few other factors.
Are you just looking for "better image quality?" If so, how do you define that and what do you do with your photographs?
gdanmitchell wrote:
"File quality" is rarely, if ever, a reason to go from a larger format to a smaller one. There are reasons for moving in that direction, but the choice involves quite a few other factors.
Are you just looking for "better image quality?" If so, how do you define that and what do you do with your photographs?
He did specify ISO performance and DR so I'm assuming those are the major factors other than format/sensor size. As for the question, I do not know but from what others have been reporting it seems as though the 7D performs similarly to the 5D at high ISO although I haven't seen any direct comparisons for myself.
AnthonyR wrote:
Based strictly on the quality of the files, is it logical to sell the 5d original to get the 7d ?
No. Well, maybe if you like to pixel-peep >100% on your monitor. But for printing the differences will hardly be noticeble. It is more logical to choose the right cam based on functionality.
Same sensor vs. sensor mix, that's the question for me. I would continue shooting with the 5Ds. There is not much the 7D offers wedding shooters that isn't available with your present full frame cameras, if your web photographs prove anything.
i own both, and have shot both under the exact same situations, with the same lens. the 5d still produces better high iso images, at both 1600, and 3200.
the 5d is also much sharper at the pixel level. but that said, it's close, and in print, i'm not sure you'd notice much? haven't compared that though.
CarpeyBiggs wrote:
i own both, and have shot both under the exact same situations, with the same lens. the 5d still produces better high iso images, at both 1600, and 3200.
the 5d is also much sharper at the pixel level. but that said, it's close, and in print, i'm not sure you'd notice much? haven't compared that though.
If you've got the time and would like to put forth the extra effort perhaps you can whip up a quick comparison test in a controlled environment--something along the lines of ISO100, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200. If not I'd understand, but it would certainly be nice to see If you do decide to perform one remember to equalize resolutions.
I shoot weddings and I would like a camera with better AF with at least the same image quality of the 5d original. I would use it as a second/back up camera, so I don't want to invest 5100$ on a 1d mark III.
AnthonyR wrote:
.... I want the features of the 7d, but I don't want to lose any image quality (low ISO noise, high ISO noise, dynamic range, etc). Based strictly on the quality of the files, is it logical to sell the 5d original to get the 7d ?
Your going to have to wait for the "3D" I'm afraid.
If you need the speed and AF then getting a 7D makes sense to me. If your shot is missed or out of focus then the IQ difference doesn't matter.
I have a 5D (original) and am very happy with the IQ
5D only good for focusing with center focus point, or AI Servo with assist points
With the 5D I am focal length constrained with a 400mm lens.
I cannot afford a lens longer then the 400mm F5.6
I want a 7D for birding in decent light.
So if the 7D is good noise wise from 100-800 with better focus I will be happy.
ok, here's a very quick comparison. sorry, i don't have the patience, discipline, or desire to set up some very controlled experiment between the two cameras.
what
this is what the framing was for both cameras. both were shot at iso 100, 24mm on the 7d, 40 mm on the 5d, so the framing is comparable. defaults applied to both in lightroom, put them side by side and exported them as jpgs, uploaded to flickr. this is my best "real world' comparison, sorry it's not "controlled."
bottom line, in my experience: 5d is sharper, but has less resolution. 7d file seems punchier in color renditon, but not as sharp at the pixel level. i'll see if i can get some high iso comparisons done this evening. i haven't printed either, or reduced the 7d down to a 5d resolution to directly compare. i looked at the individual blades of grass in each file, and decided that the 5d resolves just as many as the 7d, and they look sharper. take it for what it's worth...
now, when it comes to general enjoyment using the 7d vs. 5d, it's no contest. the 7d is light years ahead. viewfinder, controls, live view, LCD, etc... no contest, 7d is a beauty.
Not much signs of extra resolution with the 7D, just more noise.
Diffraction is no greater with a 7D than a 5D just that the 7D would hopefully resolve its effects more clearly which it obviously doesn't in these crops.
I presume the weak AA filter of the 5D is making it look sharper too. Just shows how sweet the 5D IQ is.
Matt Leitholt wrote:
Wow, the 5d is clearly better in the IQ department. However, we must also consider that diffraction is kicking in on the 7d at f/8.
And the difference between 24mm and 40mm. And maybe a difference in focus. The ISO1600 crops are much less distinguishable when it comes to fine detail...
If you do decide to perform one remember to equalize resolutions.