cameron12x wrote:
It's not all just about full-framed print sizes, as the OP implicitly posits when he says that he is also interested in wildlife photography (the distance of subject matter which might not fill the frame, depending on his available lenses). The 7D presumably provides a LOT of reach advantage over his 40D, due to the ability to crop from a much larger sensor (sans artifacting). That's a very practical use of the new body for the OP's purposes, including cropping in landscape photography as well.
By most accounts, there is no comparison between the 40D and the 7D when it comes to shooting action, both in terms of AF acquisition, and sustained frame througput. So, if wildlife photography is indeed one of the OPs criteria, the 7D wins easily in that practical shooting realm. His "keeper rate" would be substantially higher with the 7D. Professional or not, that is important to most of us.
I might add that there are many amateur photographers who, with good lenses, can and do at or near professional-level quality work with prosumer camera bodies, but they simply don't make their living doing so. And the choice of their camera bodies usually falls within their discretionary funds budget. ...Show more →
Agreed on all points. But one caveat, "professional quality work" and "professional quality prints" are two entirely different things. You only have to have a lot of skill and talent to produce professional quality work, but you have to have even more money to produce professional quality prints
If the field of view is the same (different focal length or subject distance), is the sharpness of your 5D mkII and 7D images comparable (accounting for 18 vs 21 Mpixel difference)? Is the sharpness of these two cameras identical in the 100-3200 ISO range?
Subject Distance - 5D II ... 21MP closer
Different FL - depends on the lenses
Forget BIF - no
Just trying to offer some input based on my limited testing with my limited set of lenses.
In the end, the 7D excelled for BIF for its improved center point AF tracking and additional detail in focal length limited shooting with the 400 5.6.
I'd choose the 5D II for everything else, today
or a 5D classic for its amazing IQ value.
Given the IV costs similar to a 5D II and 7D combo
it may be a better alternative to consider tomorrow.
I'm in this same dilemma, I have both the 7D and 5D2 and recently bought the 10-22 to do landscape photos with my 7D. I also shoot wildlife extensively and was considering selling the 5D2 and buy another 7D to have as a backup/2nd body. I haven't tested the 7D fully on landscapes, but will be doing so this weekend. Here are a couple sample images from my 7D and the 10-22.
Case 1 - I found the 7D is best for focal length limited shooting,
that is using both cameras and shooting with the same lens from the same place
assuming the subject would not even fill the 7D frame
if your using a high resolution lens.
Case 2 - If you can 'zoom' by walking closer and use the same lens the 5D II bests.
You need to be closer to the subject with the 5D II to fill the frame.
Being closer to the subject will result in more detail compared
to the 7D farther away. Also better subject /background separation .
The 18 vs 21MP difference is not key it's the shorter distance in that case.
Case 3 -Trying to compare using lower resolution zoom lenses
or different lenses only reveal the limitations of the lens not the body.
Neither camera is better just depends on the use,
generally speaking for small birds its the 7D
because of its higher pixel density (not pixel count)
For everything else landscapes included where you can fill the frame its the 5D II.
It's higher pixel count and being FF it forces you to be closer to the subject
gives the 5D II an edge
not to mention its lower noise levels, smaller d of f etc.
Its not a night and day difference, an interesting subject will look great on both cameras.
Yeah, the artifacting looks harsh at first glance on a computer monitor at extreme magnification.
Okay, so the 7D is supposed to be the D300s killer.
Is it? Does it (the 7D)resolve more detail than the Nikon and does it produce produce a better print?
I have no bias here. Like I said, I own both Canon and Nikon cameras. I'm not trying to justify one camera over the other. I'm simply trying to ascertain the print quality between the two cameras based on what I normally do to prepare one of my images for print using techniques I've perfected over 30 years.
What I did here was to take the test shots from Image Resource and import them in to photoshop and did what I normally do to enhance a photo for a large format print. This involves running noise ninja on both files, individually adjusted to achieve what I consider to be a minimum of noise (luminance and chroma), relative to each image. Not the same formula for either image. I then went back and adjusted brightness and contrast and final sharpening for as close a comparison between the two. The noise characteristics are different between the two cameras. The 7D seems to have a slight cross-hatch artifacting pattern, mostly in the luminance channel. The chroma noise is easily removed with no loss of detail. The D300s seems to be a little more blotchy in both luminance and chroma noise. Again, the D300s noise can be reduced with no loss of detail.
I Converted the images to PSD format, Adobe RGB, 16 bit.
Loaded both images side-by-side into lightroom, configured the Z3100 to print both images side by side on a sheet of 36" Epson Premium Lustre paper at highest possible quality setting for the printer.
Print resolution was set for 300 dpi, this results in a small amount of down-sampling for the 7D and a small amount of up-sampling for the D300s. Final print size is roughly 11.5 x 17.5 inches for both prints.
Side by side, to the naked eye, both prints look virtually identical. There is no hint of noise in either print. Na-daa.
When I look at both prints with a loupe, I can see that the Nikon is smearing details and losing resolution in the Proportional Scale guage in the right side of the frame, and losing a little bit of detail in the fine threads of the yarn hanging from the board. Also, the fine type on the bottles is not quite as well resolved on the D300s. It's obvious the 7D under mild magnification on a print is doing a better job holding fine details.
What is also obvious is that any perceived noise and/or artifacting from either camera when viewed on the monitor at high magnification is not reproducing in the prints. I'd be happy with either print if I had to sell this quality.
My conclusion is that based on this test, the 7D is producing prints that exceed the capability of the D300s. There's nothing wrong with the 7D files, they simply look different and in fact the larger print you make the more obvious the benefit of using the 7D over the D300s will become evident.
The real question I'm asking myself though is how good is it compared to the 50D? Did the same thing with the 50D and yep, just as I suspected. The 50D is also producing a better print than the D300s. The difference in detail between the 7D and 50D is less than the difference in detail between the 50D and the D300s. Truth be told, both Canon bodies are out-resolving the D300s and producing equal results in every other regard on large prints.
Resolution trumps noise, and analyzing noise at the monitor is inconclusive at best or even incomplete at worst...but I've known this all along. If you don't believe me, try doing the same test yourself.
So, I've decided based on my observations, I wouldn't see a need to upgrade to a 7D from the 50D. The 50D is doing darn near as good a job holding resolution as the 7D. On any intended print size of 11x14 or smaller It's really a question of features, not a question of the difference between 12 or 15 or 18 megapixals. More megapixels mean more resolution and better control over the noise in post processing. The difference in other qualities of the image from camera to camera are not discernible in print.
skibum5 wrote:
on the copies i've tried it artifacts to the point it can give you double the noise of a 50D at low ISO and even replace fine detail with fake fine artifacts; as of now ACR and DPP produce the harshest files of any canon body i have ever tried
hopefully acr 5.6 will work some magic and fix this though
Thank you both, I'm going out later today to do some more sunset landscapes, will post new photos tomorrow... I'm taking both the 7D and 5D2 and will try them both on the same subject to see what differences I can find...
mfurman wrote:
I must be intellectually challenged but I still do not understand if you are saying that 5D mkII is better or 7D is.
You talk about focus, BIF and how nice 7D is but I am just (if I may) asking which camera has higher resolution (the same FOV).
Michael, for landscape photography the 5DII all the way. Especially if you will be using wide angle lenses as the resolving abilities of wide angles just don't cut it for a high density sensor like the 7D has. You will get softer images than what you would get with the 5DII.
Gary Gray wrote:
Resolution trumps noise, and analyzing noise at the monitor is inconclusive at best or even incomplete at worst...but I've known this all along. If you don't believe me, try doing the same test yourself.
So, I've decided based on my observations, I wouldn't see a need to upgrade to a 7D from the 50D. The 50D is doing darn near as good a job holding resolution as the 7D. On any intended print size of 11x14 or smaller It's really a question of features, not a question of the difference between 12 or 15 or 18 megapixals. More megapixels mean more resolution and better control over the noise in post processing. The difference in other qualities of the image from camera to camera are not discernible in print. ...Show more →
Thanks for your analysis, Gary! Even though you didn't take the original photos, this comes closer to the "end-to-end" test (or "system MTF") which many of us have been looking for with regard to the 7D.
With regard to an overall 50D vs. 7D comparison, however, I believe there is MUCH more to consider than just resolution and making A3 prints.
The 7D offers a LOT of things that the 50D simply can't do (video, better high ISO performance, frame rate, AF performance, flash control, et al).
michael49 wrote:
That's the only issue I have is the possibility of issues in the RAW conversion......and that might be a big one.
I still don't know what to think of this review.
.....but he tested 3 different 7D's.
And it bugs me that the XSi images upsized to 18mp were still better than the 7D's??!
I don't care if he tested 10 different 7D's the results would be the same if his processing method is flawed.
mfurman wrote:
Who would do a review that may satisfy everyone these days? What has changed in the last year? Does it mean that everything is subjective and left to interpretation now?
Pretty much. To a degree, it has always been this way but I suspect that higher density sensors may be more impacted by software than in the past or perhaps it is merely that the software is becoming more refined. In either case, we are now seeing wider variations between properly and poorly PP images than in the past.
Probably the best way to compare is for someone to say that this is the best image that I can create from X camera and this is the best image from Y and then take a look and see which seems better.
cameron12x wrote: Thanks for your analysis, Gary! Even though you didn't take the original photos, this comes closer to the "end-to-end" test (or "system MTF") which many of us have been looking for with regard to the 7D.
With regard to an overall 50D vs. 7D comparison, however, I believe there is MUCH more to consider than just resolution and making A3 prints.
The 7D offers a LOT of things that the 50D simply can't do (video, better high ISO performance, frame rate, AF performance, flash control, et al).
+1 Cameron. Extra credit goes to Gary for comparing both samples in print I do have to wonder though, did both files undergo optimal processing? Usually one camera will take processing differently from one case to the next using different software and technique. For instance using multiple processing techniques/steps/software and printing each to compare against each other--narrowing down three or four prints to the best of the batch for each camera AND THEN comparing the best of each to each other. Am I making sense here?
Hrow wrote:
Probably the best way to compare is for someone to say that this is the best image that I can create from X camera and this is the best image from Y and then take a look and see which seems better.
I've been advocating that for ages: stuff the idea of ACR as a supposedly level playing field (which - as clearly evinced by the 7D - it is not), let's see each camera's output as good as it can possibly be.
If that means wading through a bunch of converters until the best one for that particular body is found, then so be it.
chez:
Especially if you will be using wide angle lenses as the resolving abilities of wide angles just don't cut it for a high density sensor like the 7D has. You will get softer images than what you would get with the 5DII.
I do have to wonder though, did both files undergo optimal processing? Usually one camera will take processing differently from one case to the next using different software and technique. For instance using multiple processing techniques/steps/software and printing each to compare against each other--narrowing down three or four prints to the best of the batch for each camera AND THEN comparing the best of each to each other. Am I making sense here? 