When I look at what I've seen from the 7D vs what I can get from my 40D, I really don't see that much of a difference. Even with all the neat new bells and whistles of the 7D, I just can't justify shelling out that kind of money if my results aren't going to be that much better than what I can get now.
OTOH, the 5D is another story. Even when shooting at lower ISOs, I can see something special about the 5D pics over anything that can come from a cropped sensor. At this point, I'm leaning towards picking up a used 5D, hopefully by the end of the year so I can get some of that magic for myself.
Hopefully, Canon will take those cool features of the 7D and put them in the 5DIII.
CarpeyBiggs wrote:
good points daan. i make no contentions that this is a "definitive" test. just my observations, and very casual ones at that.
should be noted that the iso 1600 were shot with a 10-22 on the 7d, and a 24-105 on the 5d. so again, the image is composed very similarly, but the glass and focal lengths vary significantly, though f8 was the aperture for both...
Yikes! Shot with 2 very different lenses, and people are ready to declare a winner. Way too many variables here. As a professer was fond of saying, Premature generalization is a fault in the body mental not unlike that in the body physical.
If you only want to display them websized, then in reality a P&S will do. Printing them at 16x24, you will quickly notice the difference between a 5D and a 7D / 500D.
chez wrote:
If you only want to display them websized, then in reality a P&S will do. Printing them at 16x24, you will quickly notice the difference between a 5D and a 7D / 500D.
OMG
I thougt it was obviuos that "unscaled crop" means "100% crop"
These are the web-sized images from the same files:
The order of the crops is opposite of the order of the full images.
There was one user here, picking the camera based on the full images, color reproduction and exposure. The post was later deleted, but I can confirm to you that the pick was correct. The color reproduction is the most significant difference seen. The apparent exposure difference can be attributed to the tone curves. They were mistakenly different also for the full images posted.
PS: The intention of this is not primarily to declare one camera as a winner, but to promote the prinicple of equivalence.
Images having the same perspective, same FOV, same DoF, same diffraction and same shutter speed are extremely valuable when comparing across formats.
alundeb wrote:
There was one user here, picking the camera based on the full images, color reproduction and exposure. The post was later deleted,
After I posted the reply, I realized that I missed the information you revealed in the other thread about the two photos. Knowing the Standard and Neutral profile information, I thought my pick/guess was irrelevant. Hence, I deleted the post.
Anyway, I enjoyed the analytical process trying to figure out which is which. Thanks.
chez wrote:
If you only want to display them websized, then in reality a P&S will do. Printing them at 16x24, you will quickly notice the difference between a 5D and a 7D / 500D.
Totally agree again. I’ve argued this point in other threads before but where I see in the difference is not looking at full size or even crops on a computer monitor as is being discussed in this thread but where I see the difference is when the prints come back from the lab. I mean well processed files coming back from a pro lab. They are not bad but I see a lack of depth and tonality in prints from crop factor bodies. Flat and plasticky or like computer graphics as one other poster mentioned above. I’ve made a good deal of money off of prints from crop factor bodies, never had a customer complain but in the back of my mind I know I’m not delivering as good of a print as I could from say a 5D/5DMKII. To me the difference is very noticeable. The crop factor sensors are much smaller and the size of the pixels in the 7D are what……almost half the size of those in the original 5D. The majority of people just take photos, look at them on their monitor or the internet and don’t make high quality prints thus the reason threads like this discussion can be misleading when trying to compare two cameras…or should I say two cameras with very different types of “engines under the hood” as is the case with these two cameras. IMO this is why Canon and the other manufacturers can successfully introduce bodies like the 7D that by all accounts does not produce any better IQ over even the 50D (except for maybe improved ISO performance and ergonomic improvements and some other bells and whstles)....but certainly not from a base IQ stanpoint. I am amazed at how infrequent “print quality” discussions are even brought up when comparing cameras in threads like. To me the proof is in the prints!!!!
I see. A professional lab can extract qualities out of a file, qualities that cannot be revealed by a monitor nor a professional 17" inkjet printer. I gotta try that.
alundeb wrote:
I see. A professional lab can extract qualities out of a file, qualities that cannot be revealed by a monitor nor a professional 17" inkjet printer. I gotta try that.
alundeb wrote:
I see. A professional lab can extract qualities out of a file, qualities that cannot be revealed by a monitor nor a professional 17" inkjet printer. I gotta try that.
I shot a lot with a 5D, now a 5DII and a 7D and like I said when printing to 16x24 and larger, you definitely see a difference in those prints. Don't know what it is, don't really care what it is, but there is a difference. The term plastic is too harsh, but is in the right direction when I look at the 7D prints compared to the 5D / 5DII.
Looking at pixel level comparisons is all fun and good, but my end result is prints...and that is where the real rubber hits the road. Like I said in a previous thread, if all people ever want to do is display images onto their computers, then a P&S will probably be just as good as a 5DII.
Not saying your analysis is not interesting, and at the pixel level it shows how close things really are between today's cameras, from my experience, it just does not scale up to prints.
chez wrote:
I shot a lot with a 5D, now a 5DII and a 7D and like I said when printing to 16x24 and larger, you definitely see a difference in those prints. Don't know what it is, don't really care what it is, but there is a difference. The term plastic is too harsh, but is in the right direction when I look at the 7D prints compared to the 5D / 5DII.
Looking at pixel level comparisons is all fun and good, but my end result is prints...and that is where the real rubber hits the road. Like I said in a previous thread, if all people ever want to do is display images onto their computers, then a P&S will probably be just as good as a 5DII.
Not saying your analysis is not interesting, and at the pixel level it shows how close things really are between today's cameras, from my experience, it just does not scale up to prints. ...Show more →
You people are now bringing in the 5DII into this. Of course the 5DII looks better in large prints.
What crop bodies did you use side by side with a 5D? The 500D and 7D are much better than previous crop bodies.
And as I said, I have printed those files at 16x24. The 500D has more resolution, more depth, better tonality, less noise and different colors. How's that?
The argument that prints are the true crusade to truely display the quality of photos taken by certain cameras can be appreciable and irrelevant. Photogs who sell prints to clients will undoubtedly see the benefit of cameras with larger sensors. Non professionals are equally blessed with cameras equipped with smaller sensors at affordable prices to yield more than acceptable photos.
So, at the end of the day, it all comes down to our photographic needs. Let's enjoy whatever cameras we have at the moment, and leave the rest behind.
You are totally missing the point. Whether the print is from a pro lab, high quality inkjet, whatever……prints from full frame bodies IMO look better to my eye….period. Call it depth, tonality, or whatever other descriptive term you want to use I see a difference. Just like prints from a crop factor body look better than those from a p&s. I may be wrong but I really believe this has to do with sensor/pixel size/quality. I also agree that different people have different objectives and goals from the camera they use. Some are more interested in the “experience” of using the camera and from this point of view would probably be happier with a 7D over a 5D/5DMKII or 50D due to better ergonomics AF, etc. Others however like myself have one goal and that is the absolute best file quality you can get as our work ends up framed in homes where people pay a pretty penny for what they get. To this end a 5D/5DMKII provides a better end result.
alundeb wrote:
You people are now bringing in the 5DII into this. Of course the 5DII looks better in large prints.
What crop bodies did you use side by side with a 5D? The 500D and 7D are much better than previous crop bodies.
And as I said, I have printed those files at 16x24. The 500D has more resolution, more depth, better tonality, less noise and different colors. How's that?
I've seen these differences in prints made from the 5D...not just the 5DII. I now have both a 5DII and a 7D. The 7D is used for sports only, where I usually don't print larger than say 12x18 and the focus of the photo is the action so fine tonal details etc... are not as important. When shooting landscape where the details really count, it is the 5DII ( or 5D ) for my prints. Cannot put the difference in words, but there definitely is a difference. If you don't see any difference in prints between a crop and full frame camera, then for YOU that is great. For others like ME, I do see this difference, and so do the people who view my printed photos.
