Sorry if this question has been asked many times. I'm thinking about adding a 7D to a 5D2 for birding. Are there good comparisons (with sample crops) comparing the effective reach of the 2 bodies with distance-limited targets under realistic shooting conditions (i.e., no tripod, no MLU, etc.)? How much more detail does one effectively resolve with the 7D with such targets?
That's a thorough review and, for the camera comparisons, resizes one sensor's output to compare to the other's. The "reach" issue for birders, however, is usually one where the 100% pixel view is the relevant one - to see all the captured "pixels per duck" - especially if one will have to crop from either camera (focal length limited situation when the original size of the sensor is irrelevant). While not overtly addressed in that review, I think the answer to the question will depend to some extent on the lens (and technique) used - the 7D's pixel pitch is now fine enough to challenge some aspects of lens performance - and the intended use of the image. Sounds like a simple question : "How much more detail does one effectively resolve with the 7D... ?" No simple answer My impression (I'm also trying to decide along similar lines) is that the extra pixels do indeed provide better detail resolution but you have to work harder (shooting techniques, PP, best lenses etc) to obtain the benefit.
Thanks for the helpful comment. Yes, my dilemma has to do with how much more effective resolution the 7D buys me, under typical shooting conditions, when the camera is not fully stabilized, when focusing is not fully spot-on, and when you are not able to stop down a lens maximal sharpness. In effect, can I get a sharper picture of a bird with the 7D than with the 5DII (holding other factors constant)?
Are your bird shots sharp at 100% with the 5D2 or do you need to reduce them to get the sharpness you like? If the latter then increasing pixel density may not help much. If the former then the 7D may improve "reach" by as much as the theoretical 50% suggested by the pixel density.
Good point. I get tack sharp pictures at 100% sometimes, but not as often as I like. The problem is that I crop virtually all my shots, and was hoping that I could crop less.
mjmyap wrote:
Thanks for the helpful comment. Yes, my dilemma has to do with how much more effective resolution the 7D buys me, under typical shooting conditions, when the camera is not fully stabilized, when focusing is not fully spot-on, and when you are not able to stop down a lens maximal sharpness. In effect, can I get a sharper picture of a bird with the 7D than with the 5DII (holding other factors constant)?
well if you are already getting hints of motion blur or OOF blur from a 5D2 then certainly the 7D won't give you much
i'm still wondering about the mazing/artifacting issues, but ignoring that, the 7D could give more reach, in practice it does seem to take somewhat noticeably more care and for sports action you'd probably need quite high shutter speeds indeed, but given care and ISO not too too high it can bring in a good deal more reach.
although downsized to 8MP to match 5D2 reach it might smooth out and sharpen up a bit more compared to a 5D2 shot, although not sure that alone would be worth the money
I decided to get a 7D to complement my 5D2. Here are sample crops for the same distance-limited target, taken under sub-optimal real-world conditions with the 400DO with a 1.4 TC. Specifically, these are handheld shots that are taken wide-open under shutter speeds between 1/1000 and 1/1250.
The 7D affords a slight boost in resolution, but it's not a day-and-night difference. However, I'm happy with the improvement, given its vastly superior AF system, and the better spread of the AF points over the target of interest. Just in case anyone is thinking of going the same route.
My impression (I'm also trying to decide along similar lines) is that the extra pixels do indeed provide better detail resolution but you have to work harder (shooting techniques, PP, best lenses etc) to obtain the benefit.