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...Show more →
I'd like to know what you two guys are smoking because it's making you hallucinate...are you guys hanging out together? We're talking about image quality, not MP's.
andydidyk wrote:
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.
Obviously, there is a whole load of rubbish in this thread. Particularly the junk from Darwin Wiggett.
12 MP 450D (left) vs 18 MP 7D (right). Both at 55 mm, ISO 100, f/11, 1/25 sec. Tripod mounted. 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. Manual focus at roof shingles under 10x live view magnification. Both RAW converted and scaled to the same print size.
Even at this so-called diffraction limit, the 7D is no slouch compared to 450D. Most people must be blinded by all the internet junk.
It should be noted that 7D demands high quality optics. If you use low quality or defective stuff (de-centered elements etc), then it'll expose the weakness very clearly.
It's not 12 megapixels vs 18 megapixels. The thread has not once mentioned 450D vs 7D. The question here is 5D vs 7D. FF huge pixels vs crop and tiny pixels. Your comparison above is utterly meaningless.
Beni wrote:
It's not 12 megapixels vs 18 megapixels. The thread has not once mentioned 450D vs 7D. The question here is 5D vs 7D. FF huge pixels vs crop and tiny pixels. Your comparison above is utterly meaningless.
Sorry, I should have made it clear that my post is a response to andydidyk's post here as well as elfanucchi's post here.
Ok, summary of results
1) 5D is much better than 7D
2) 7D is much better than 5D
It has been like this for any camera comparisons, especially if 7D is involved.
It appears to me that there are at least two, completely different versions of EOS 7D
One thing that it does come back to, again and again and again, that 5D was probably the best all round chip that canon ever made, truly legendary. I have zero doubt that if that same chip was attached to digic 4 and the latest processing techniques, it could do a native 3200, optional 6400 and at least a full stop cleaner at every iso. If they made a 1 series body with that chip in it I'd buy it in a shot instead of having to pay for 21 megapixels I don't need so that I can have a modern FF 1 series body for my work.
What nonsense that is. No pro or serious amatuer has time to have to work over hundreds or thousands of files after a job and why would anyone choose a camera that needs work on each and every file (talking hypothetically I don't own a 7D) when they can take something instead that makes their life easier? This isn't the early days of DSLR's when we put up with that kind of nonsense for the convenience of digital capture over film. This is an age when if you want a camera that gives you results that don't need 3rd party noise reduction software to 'make the best of each file' then there are more than plenty options out there. A camera that makes life difficult is shooting itself in the foot, it's not a matter of user laziness.
Sorry I am in the same confusion camp as Stan. Owning all of the aforementioned mentioned bodies and more all I can say is that each body has it own primary workflow to obtain the best image. Out of camera with defaults isn't going to prove anything other than how heavy or light handed Canon was with in camera processing, AA filter, etc. The 7D image properly processed in my world would have more detail and be sharper and a bit noiser (pixel peeping only). Printed out they are virtually the same at any reasonable size and the noise goes away. To the issue of noise the 7D looks much more like film grain at high ISO in most cases where as the 5D can get tough. Not to offend but in that sense Canon when more down the Nikon type road with the 7D in camera noise control.
keithreeder wrote: Rubbish - it's trivially easy to get clean (sharp, detailed) results from the 7D.
Don't blame the camera if the user can't/won't do what's needed to make the best of the files from it.
Keith, trivially easy huh? Not everyone wants to perform hours and hours of extensive testing with RAW converters as you claim to have done in order to obtain clean files from the 7D. The fact that you have chimed in on numerous 7D IQ threads to promote your extensive RAW converter testing and cheer-leaded for Capture One should tell you there's obviously a problem with 7D IQ SOOC....if there were no issues with 7D IQ you wouldn't be involved in such discussions and everyone would be happy with their RAW converter of choice....not everyone wants to use C1, and not everyone wants to perform a ton of PP/NR to obtain clean files.
How many times do you have to defend 7D IQ before you realize there's a problem? You're a funny guy...
This is a very interesting thread, and helped me decide to stay with my 5D rather than go to a 7D as a 2nd camera. Thanks, everyone, for all comments and photos posted. These forums are most informative as well.
Thanks for the comparison! I was just wondering about the full scene-photo: was that the one from the 5D or the 7D?
Thanks.
I'm wondering about getting the 7D, or maybe a cheap 1Ds Mark II myself. The 1D I can pick up for about € 300,- less than the 7D. FF frame has my preference as I want my 17/40 to act like one, and I also like the size of the 1 series bodies (big hands). They are quite close in resolution, the 1Ds will be better in high iso's but the 7D is not too shabby either, even though I'm not interested in it now, the video might be cool and overal it has newer technology so it will be easier to sell when I will get the 5D Mark III once it's here. But that could be another year waiting, while I'm 'stuck' with the 30D...
After reading this whole topic I do not know which one is better.
I have a 5D and I love it but I would like it to have the 7D features, included digic 4 and ISO 12800,but with the sensor already has for the sake of my poor computer workload.
My pocket is half empty and needs some care, no place for a camera and a new computer in my plans.
Can someone explain to me why they compare the 5D and 7D and the same ISO and same f-stop?
It gives very different images, with respect to DoF, diffraction and noise. If you open up the aperture 1 1/3 stop and lower the ISO 1 1/3 stops, this evens out, and you get images that are entirely similar in basic characteristics.
When I use the 7D as a landscape camera, I adjust the aperture to get the DoF I want.
When I use the 5D as a landscape camera, I adjust the aperture to get the DoF I want.
When I compare the 7D and 5D for landscape use, I don't compare at different DoF. Why would I ever do that?
