And man does the 7D have more reach than either. Those who claim the better pixels of the 5 series mean the 7D doesn\'t really pull much extra reach are wayyyy wrong. I used to think that much above ISO1600 the reach advantage went away. It actually doesn\'t. Even at ISO6400 the 7D pulls in noticeably more detail then 5D2 or 5D3 at least if the bird or whatever gets exposed well enough and is light enough in coloration to be well away from any shadow or darker shades and is much towards the brighter end.
ISO100, Neutral Profile, +4 sharpening, 0 NR in cam jgs:
5D3 actually pulls in crisper and more detail with less moire than the 5D2, at least for areas of detail with strong contrast, surprising enough, definitely looks better (I didn\'t test areas of lower contrast, the in cam 5D3 processing might well blur those out worse though).
ISO100 but using ACR with all sliders to 0, Adobe Standard, Lens Profiling turned off, all other settings 0 or standard, etc.:
The 5D3 detail crispness advantage some claim was not apparent to me. OTOH the oh no the 5D3 is soft claims didn\'t seem apparent either. Honestly, using ACR, with sliders set as stated (and who knows how it cooks the books for each and what the true raw RAW story is), I really can\'t say either one delivers more detail or reach. It really seems the same to me.
The 7D pulls a heck of a lot more reach than either.
At ISO6400 when all are re-sized to 8MP just using a simple bicubic and without any pre-filter which ideally would be done etc. and without matching for exposure differences due to different gains, etc. etc. i.e. a bit sloppy:
5D3 looks cleanest then 5D2 then 7D although 5D2 shows most signs of banding uglies. The biggest difference in the darker shades and the super dark ones get some uglies going that the 5D3 is free of, zero of that banding going on.
If 7D gets scaled even smaller yet to make the target appear the same size then it renders the target with more detail and less artifacting than either 5D2 or 5D3 although with a little more noise than the 5D3 but with a bit less noise and less uglies than the 5D2. 5D2 definitley has the most uglies in the deep dark parts of the three.
7D clearly is better for reach limited scenarios than the 5D2 no matter what the scenario, low or high iso, etc. you simply never do worse whatever you end goal or priority is. (non-reach limited it\'s a different story)
To late now but will post the sample images tomorrow.
Jul 17, 2012 at 02:44 AM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #10810721 « 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D for detail/reach/noise: »
