According to DPreview's review of the Mark 2, The 5D Classic's per-pixel sharpness exceeds the M2s - and, I would think, every other camera's. It's got the biggest pixels in the valley.
This is exactly why I hope Canon comes out with a new, updated 12-16 mp full frame camera. I want amazing IQ, not huge megapixels. So funny, too, that a friend of mine who owns a busy studio has just reported that he is really hurting because of this 5D2. Looking like they'll have to update computers just to keep up with the large file size.
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.
As someone who loves landscapes and portraits, I bought the 7D to upgrade from a 350D that I've taken all over the world. (FWIW, the old Digital Rebel XT has over 50,000 actuations on it and has been in dust, rain, mud, sand, salt spray, etc., and still performs just as the day I bought it, so I don't whine about "partial weather sealing" on certain bodies).
I took a series of test shots all over the place at various ISOs, and couldn't believe that I liked better at ISO 100-200 what I got out of my 350D! Maybe it was pixel pitch, or diffraction, or whatever, but it was a serious increase in visible noise on the 7D shots. And diffraction is a real issue for landscape shooters that you can't fix in software. At F/11 it was clearly visible softening of images.
The 7D is a DREAM to use. Handling, the LCD, everything, are just awesome. But the IQ for what I like to shoot just wasn't what I was looking for. And, sadly, being that I get a lot of income from shooting stock images, the noise at 100% just couldn't work for me (stock agencies do NOT tolerate noise anymore of any kind, artistic or not!).
Long story short, I bought a used 5D classic from Adorama and was blown away by the on screen results! My 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 F4 L really came to life. The shallow DOF with both lenses alone was worth it for me. There is a place for the 7D, but don't be fooled into "upgrading" to it just for IQ as I did.
andydidyk wrote:
As someone who loves landscapes and portraits, I bought the 7D to upgrade from a 350D that I've taken all over the world. (FWIW, the old Digital Rebel XT has over 50,000 actuations on it and has been in dust, rain, mud, sand, salt spray, etc., and still performs just as the day I bought it, so I don't whine about "partial weather sealing" on certain bodies).
I took a series of test shots all over the place at various ISOs, and couldn't believe that I liked better at ISO 100-200 what I got out of my 350D! Maybe it was pixel pitch, or diffraction, or whatever, but it was a serious increase in visible noise on the 7D shots. And diffraction is a real issue for landscape shooters that you can't fix in software. At F/11 it was clearly visible softening of images.
The 7D is a DREAM to use. Handling, the LCD, everything, are just awesome. But the IQ for what I like to shoot just wasn't what I was looking for. And, sadly, being that I get a lot of income from shooting stock images, the noise at 100% just couldn't work for me (stock agencies do NOT tolerate noise anymore of any kind, artistic or not!).
Long story short, I bought a used 5D classic from Adorama and was blown away by the on screen results! My 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 F4 L really came to life. The shallow DOF with both lenses alone was worth it for me. There is a place for the 7D, but don't be fooled into "upgrading" to it just for IQ as I did.
Its simple ...
the 7D with those tiny 4.3 micron pixel pitch are just too small for quality images.
The sweet spot remains at apx 7 microns and in most equations 5.5 and below is quite negative.
Its all about signal vs noise and tiny is too much noise.
The below link will in short put complex semiconductor engineering into more edible terms ...
See http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html
A lot of the IQ stuff will only make a difference if you make large, careful prints - very large in fact. If you don't other factors besides IQ may be far more important to your choice.
elfanucchi wrote:
Its simple ...
the 7D with those tiny 4.3 micron pixel pitch are just too small for quality images.
The sweet spot remains at apx 7 microns and in most equations 5.5 and below is quite negative.
Its all about signal vs noise and tiny is too much noise.
What Dan said
A comment about a particular pixel size being too small can only make sense if it's referred to some specific print size and or print ppi - can you tell us your frame of reference for those statements?
abqnmusa wrote:
My 7D nature pics spank anything my 5D could do. Not even a contest.
At least using the same 400mm F5.6 L lens on both cameras.
The images from the 5D just do not have the detail of the 7D.
The 5D images have to be interpolated up too much to print.
How big do you print. I can print very detailed landscape shots from a 5D to 16x20 and still hold beautiful detail. Do you print larger? I too have the 7D and compared to the 5D for my landscape shots, I get better results with the 5D.
elfanucchi wrote:
Its simple ...
the 7D with those tiny 4.3 micron pixel pitch are just too small for quality images.
The sweet spot remains at apx 7 microns and in most equations 5.5 and below is quite negative.
Its all about signal vs noise and tiny is too much noise.
The below link will in short put complex semiconductor engineering into more edible terms ...
See http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html
I'd love to know what kind of film you shot prior to digital. This is just insane.
Even taking into account the difference in pixel size, I wouldn't have guessed the 5D classic would still hold up versus a several-generations-newer sensor. It seems to be doing very well.
I'd have thought that the newer technology and the extra pixels would have allowed a downrezzed 7D image to show pretty well against the 5D.
Difraction, can't view at 100%, needs the best glass, needs just right conditions, shows lens flaws more, needs higher shutter speed. Those are the comments I see regularly when referring to the 7D images. Those all might be correct but pointing out why the image lacks does not correct it. Its seems to me that Canon focused more on MP instead of putting IQ first. They did this to show a higher MP specification than the competing Nikon body that is in the same class.
Might rub some people the wrong way but there it is. I kept my 7D past my return period hoping to see something that changed my mind but it hasnt happened. I have been a life long Canon user and for the first time find myself regretting a purchase and actually hunting for an older body to replace it.
If you really need a lightweight sports body with video and a nice AF system get a 7D.....otherwise, if you care at all about IQ get a 5D. The 5D blows doors on the 7D in the IQ department, they're not even in the same league.
Another reason to but the 7D: If you want to spend a ton of time in post processing to produce clean images. Yes, I've taken mine to canon in an attempt to fix it, and yes I've shot with my two friends 7D's which produce the same results.
Look at the hundreds of posts already about IQ issues on the 7D...it's no secret folks, accept it and deal with it. On the flip side, I don't believe I've ever heard a complaint about the 5D in the IQ department....the 5D is magical.
If you are on a limited budget and want the best of both worlds get a 5D/40D or 5D/T1i (if you want video) for the same price.
abqnmusa wrote:
My 7D nature pics spank anything my 5D could do. Not even a contest.
At least using the same 400mm F5.6 L lens on both cameras.
The images from the 5D just do not have the detail of the 7D.
The 5D images have to be interpolated up too much to print.
+1
I own both and agree, 100%. Spank is not the right word, (the 5D spanks the 20D or 300D, a better analogy, IMO). But the 7D easily exceeds the 5D with good glass. No question. I don't know what people are smoking when they say the 5DI exceeds the 7D at 100-200 ISO range (where I shoot 80-90% of my work)
5DI vs 7D, my findings shooting landscapes, architecture and general subject matter (family, animals, ect):
ISO: 100, 200: 7D, no question it has more resolution, clean files on both cameras
ISO: 400 about even, but maybe slight edge to 7D in resolution, 5D has edge in cleaner files ( I would estimate around ISO 640 that the files are truly equal)
ISO: 800 slight edge to 5DI in resolution, certainly delivers cleaner files
ISO: 1600 and up, no question, 5D is cleaner and delivers more resolution
1) 5D is much better than 7D
2) 7D is much better than 5D
Very conclusive.
7D can reveal crazy amounts of detail if you nail the shots, more than my 5D could which itself was very good. In it's sweet zone the 7D is superb, but that zone is smaller than the 5D's. I would not hesitate to use the 7D for landscape work. If I didn't have a 5D II (even better than the 5D) I would get a 10-22 or equivalent for the 7D. As it is it'll have to slum it with the 17-40L for landscape work.
so true. 