Canon 7DMKII vs Canon 5D MKIV - Image quality

[Photog82]

I know that the new 5D is not out yet but generally speaking, does the 5D have better image quality? So far for the most part I am happy with the 7DMKII and typically get very sharp photos and can zoom in a bit and still have good quality photos, depending on the lens. I've never used a full frame camera and am wondering if I should go for the 5D. Are there are side by side image comparisons of real photo situations of the 2?

I shoot portraits and scenics.

I shoot a lot of the Canon 35 1.4 MKII and love it; this may be an ignorant question but I'm assuming with full frame, I would need to get close to my subject to get the same affect as I would on my 7DMKII?

[clemmb]

I shoot a lot of the Canon 35 1.4 MKII and love it; this may be an ignorant question but I'm assuming with full frame, I would need to get close to my subject to get the same affect as I would on my 7DMKII?
The 35mm on your crop sensor is basically a standard lens. No magnification. On a full frame it is a medium wide angle lens. A 50mm on the full frame would give you a similar angle of view and the 35mm on your 7D. When I say similar I mean approximately, not exact. :)
The 5D would have better IQ especially in low light. Both are amazing tools in the hands of a good photographer. Rent one and see what you think but you may do better spending money on a lens or other gear to improve your tool kit.

[Kayaker72]

I know that the new 5D is not out yet but generally speaking, does the 5D have better image quality?

Yes, but you may not see it in every circumstance. I jumped from the 7D to the 5DIII. At times I miss the 7D/EFS 15-85 combination. Smaller, lighter and produced some very nice images. But I have little doubt that the IQ coming off my 5DIII is better. However, if you were to line pictures up side by side, you will not notice the difference in every circumstance.

A quick list of what I expect to be better about 5DIV over the 7DII in terms of IQ:



The 5DIV should follow the 1DX II and 80D with on chip A/D converters. By transitioning from analog to digital signal sooner, these sensors are generating less noise and more dynamic range at lower ISO.
The 5DIV appears to have a ~0.5 stop improvement in noise over the 5DIII. This would put it a full 2 - 2.5 stops better than the 7DII.
The FF sensor should also outperform the APS-C sensor in terms of tone and color sensitivity (~1-1.5 stops...ie, where you might be limited to ISO 1600 on the 7DII you can go to ~ISO 3200-4000).
Right away I noticed that this translated into more latitude when manipulating RAW files from the 5DIII compared to my 7D Mk 1.
5DIV starts being diffraction limited at f/8.6 while the 7DII at f/6.6.
I've always considered the FF bokeh to be much better. This is difficult to compare due to the 1.6x crop factor, but even with the same lens, I thought it was better.
Pixel peeping, I thought the 5DIII was sharper than the 7D. Here is a look at the EF 200 f/2 IS @ f/5.6 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=792&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=458&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4). And you can see that the 5DIII is a bit better. But I think the better comparison is when you have a lesser combination, so here is the 100-400 II with 1.4x TC (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2).
HDNitehawk and others on different forums have played with the true "reach" benefit of crop sensors and I keep seeing that it is 1.2x and not 1.6x due to the pixels not being as good. The 5DIV has 1.17x higher linear resolution to the 5DIII. I am very interested to see if that correlates to a true 1.17x benefit.
Final benefit is lens selection. Bottom line is that most EF lenses were intended for FF. So there are more options that make more sense for a FF sensor than crop for different conditions.


As I recall, you shoot professionally. I do suspect that you will not only see a difference in the files during PP, but might see a difference in larger prints. That said, all these differences are very incremental, if not a bit underwhelming. Great photos are being taken on APS-C sensors. Better images can be taken with FF sensors. Where you really start seeing the benefit, as Mark already mentioned, is when you start pushing ISO.

As for comparative images, I would start with imaging resource's "comparometer (http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM)"






I shoot a lot of the Canon 35 1.4 MKII and love it; this may be an ignorant question but I'm assuming with full frame, I would need to get close to my subject to get the same affect as I would on my 7DMKII?

Yep, as Mark mentioned, just apply the crop factor. A 35 mm lens on the 7D II will be equivalent to a 56 mm lens on the 5DIV.

[Photog82]

I think the hardest thing for me to get my mind around is this. I use the Canon 35 1.4 II for many of my portraits as well as the Canon 24-105 L. I realize that with the 35 it's basically a 50; but, if I put that on a FF, will I just need to get closer to my subject than I normally do to get the same effect? I have never used a FF so I just don't know what to expect.

Not sure if it would help, but I am normally 4-5' away in this type of photo.
http://www.jrogdenphotography.com/img/s7/v165/p78405304.jpg

[Kayaker72]

I think the hardest thing for me to get my mind around is this. I use the Canon 35 1.4 II for many of my portraits as well as the Canon 24-105 L. I realize that with the 35 it's basically a 50; but, if I put that on a FF, will I just need to get closer to my subject than I normally do to get the same effect?

Yes.

Say your composition is 4 ft wide and 6 ft high, with the 35 mm on a crop sensor you would stand ~6.2 ft away. With a 35 mm on a FF sensor you would need to stand ~3.9 ft away. Basically, with a cropped sensor, you will be standing 1.6x the distance further away than FF sensor to get the same composition/framing. Of course, other factors (perspective, bokeh, etc) will be different.

[Photog82]

Hmm, I understand what you're saying. I think the best thing to do is test one side by side. I'd consider the 50 or 85 series primes but they are so old and was not happy with the 50 1.2 when I rented it. I like shooting at 1.4 - 1.6 with these types of shots. Thank you for your help so far.

[Sean Setters]

There are a couple of solid third-party full-frame options to consider. First, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art is fantastic in the f/1.4-1.6 aperture range. Second, the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC out-performs the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 from an image quality perspective and gives you the benefits of VC (though VC won't likely be beneficial in-studio while using flash/strobes).

Of course, both come with a small caveat regarding focus consistency. However, I've owned the Sigma 50 Art ever since it's release and I'm quite happy with it. It seems to be one of the better performing Art lenses from an AF perspective. And of course, focus accuracy & consistency issues can be mitigated by using Live View for focusing (which uses the actual sensor data to achieve focus).

One more thing to consider - the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is now listed as discontinued at B&H. That could mean an Art version is on the horizon.

[HDNitehawk]

The benefit of the 7D II is speed and just a little bit of reach when you are using your longest lens and having to crop.
In about every other situation the FF will give you better results.

The 35mm f/1.4 L was my walk around lens for years, until the release of the 24-70 II. It can produce very magical pictures on a FF body and IMO FF opens up its full potential. You probably will not be disappointed in the lens but may want to add a 50mm.

[conropl]

If you like to shoot at f/1.4 to f/1.6, it is usually because you like the blurred background and subject separation. It will be better and typically more pleasing with a FF. I think if you like to shoot wide apertures, it only gets better with FF.

As for the difference just being the same as stepping forward... it was mentioned the perspective may be different. Well that can be a big difference. The angles are different, and may emphasize facial features completely differently. Which is why many like the 85mm focal length... because it portrays the facial features in a more pleasing natural way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

[Photog82]

If you like to shoot at f/1.4 to f/1.6, it is usually because you like the blurred background and subject separation. It will be better and typically more pleasing with a FF. I think if you like to shoot wide apertures, it only gets better with FF.

As for the difference just being the same as stepping forward... it was mentioned the perspective may be different. Well that can be a big difference. The angles are different, and may emphasize facial features completely differently. Which is why many like the 85mm focal length... because it portrays the facial features in a more pleasing natural way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Good points; I'm hoping that Canon will release a new version of the 50 1.2 L and or the 85L at some point. I had a Sigma Art lens but did not get the same results as I do with the 35.

[conropl]

Good points; I'm hoping that Canon will release a new version of the 50 1.2 L and or the 85L at some point. I had a Sigma Art lens but did not get the same results as I do with the 35.

Just out of curiosity, why are you looking for a new version of the 85L? What needs improving? It is a lens I have been contemplating, and it sounds like most are very pleased with it. Looking at shots taken with it... it seems to be a lens that produces real interesting results.

The 50 1.2 L I understand it is not the sharpest... which could be improved (but some users would disagree with that and think it is part of the look it produces). But other than slow focus on the 85L, I have not read much bad about it.

Just wondering what your thoughts are on it.

Beautiful shot above, by the way. You do an excellent job and can get a lot out of what you have (probably more than your typical competition). There is no real compelling reason for you to upgrade given your current results. However, maybe a FF may allow you to push your creativity a little further than the crop body. I think that would be the business decision here, and the FF may help give a slight edge to separate you from the competition and compete at a higher level.

Good luck

Pat

[Photog82]

Hi, thank you for the compliments- cake smash sessions are our favorite sessions.

The 85 1.2 II does produce some excellent images, however, for toddlers, I need a fast auto-focus and that's where the 35 1.4 really shined for me. It's possible the the 85 would fair better on the MKIV, I suppose I could wait for someone else to test it out or rent it again.

[Photog82]

I thought that I'd update the thread. I kept the 5DMKIV when it came in, I really liked the IQ and FF. Down side is, my favorite portrait lens (35 1.4II) isn't my favorite anymore and have been using the Canon 100 2.8 L macro lens as a substitute right now.

I rented the 85 1.2 and really liked it but am wondering if a version II is coming out? I'd like to get a 50 1.x or 85 1.x lens (Canon, not Sigma) but don't want to invest in the older lenses as the 85 took great shots, just the contrast was off a bit (I can fix that but takes time) and the AF was slower).

I'm looking at the Canon 24-70 2.8 II lens, but may need to rent it first, I like prime's for portraits but having the zoom capabilities is nice. Why does Canon have to give us so many options? ;) If I went with the 24-70 would I still want my 24-105 f4 for landscapes? I need to see if I shoot a lot @ 70+ for my landscape photos to determine that.

Everyone was right, the bokeh/background blur is much much better on FF. One thing I never realized was on a crop, if you're using a 1.4 lens it's actually 2.24.

The first two photos are examples of the nice background on FF, just playing around with the frost cover we had:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5588/30389306695_4ea64acbd4_k.jpg (https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5588/30389306695_4ea64acbd4_k.jpg)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8601/30303196341_5d33219d1d_k.jpg

This was taken with the 24-105 f4 L on FF:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8411/30096702031_88af3368a7_h.jpg (https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8411/30096702031_88af3368a7_h.jpg)

This was taken with the Canon EF35mm f/1.4L II USM @ 1/4 for 10 seconds and 1250 ISO.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8271/30389743925_39ff539e92_h.jpg (https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8271/30389743925_39ff539e92_h.jpg)

[Kayaker72]

James....congrats. :)....and I am sorry.:(

I am glad to hear you like the 5DIV so much. The 5DIII is already a remarkable camera and it seems Canon made many improvements for the 5DIV.

Regarding lenses. If you loved the 35 L II on crop, I would really think about 50 mm. You could start with a less expensive and very capable 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4. I've owned both. I found the 50 f/1.8 to be remarkable from about f/2.8 on, but it was the AF that lost me (which is now improved). I upgraded to the 50 f/1.4 and was very happy shooting it from f/2.0-2.2 and up. Crazy good sharpness. But I decided I wanted more sharpness down to f/1.4 and got the Sigma. Bigger, heavier, but a remarkable piece of glass.

Granted, it sits a lot as the 24-70 II is on my camera pretty much all the time.

Regarding your dilemma, let me assure you, it is a real one. I have starred at and pixel peeped enough images to have convinced myself that I can see a slight improvement with prime lenses over the 24-70 II. But it is very slight with the most significant difference being vignetting (and associated adjustments in LR) at f/2.8-f/4 (other than having f/1.4-2.8), distortion, and I also like the "rendering" of primes a bit better in some instances.

But, are those slight differences worth the investment in a full prime lineup? Honestly, I can see people going either way...prime or high end zoom. I think both groups will take some amazing images. I think the high end zoom will be for those that want to ultimately pay less and prefer convenience, less weight and flexibility. For those that go with a primes, I think they'll ultimately spend more (~2-3 primes vs 1 zoom), packing the kit will take more room and weigh more, but there will be a slight benefit in IQ and they'll have apertures faster than f/2.8.

Both great, just different.

As for me and the way I shoot.....the convenience and portability of high end zooms far outweighs the benefits of multiple primes. So I have taken to a philosophy of basing my kit on high end zooms and supplementing with primes where there is a definite need.

[jamsus]

Can I make an observation about a point?

"One thing I never realized was on a crop, if you're using a 1.4 lens it's actually 2.24."

That is not correct. The f aperture of a lens doesn't change with the sensor.

If I use a f1.4 lens in a scenery that resolves a 1\1000 - 100 ISO - f 1.4 on a FF Camera on my APS-C Camera the numbers are still the same, i found this concept a bit confusing on internet sometimes.

If i take a picture and i crop it, the light remains the same.

The DoF changes because of the "circle of confusion" (i dont know how do you call it in English sorry!) calculated via Focal Range \ Lens Aperture \ Distance from Subject \ Sensor Size.

;)

Edited after a "terminology" check

[peety3]

I thought that I'd update the thread. I kept the 5DMKIV when it came in, I really liked the IQ and FF. Down side is, my favorite portrait lens (35 1.4II) isn't my favorite anymore and have been using the Canon 100 2.8 L macro lens as a substitute right now.

I rented the 85 1.2 and really liked it but am wondering if a version II is coming out? I'd like to get a 50 1.x or 85 1.x lens (Canon, not Sigma) but don't want to invest in the older lenses as the 85 took great shots, just the contrast was off a bit (I can fix that but takes time) and the AF was slower).

I'm looking at the Canon 24-70 2.8 II lens, but may need to rent it first, I like primes for portraits but having the zoom capabilities is nice. Why does Canon have to give us so many options? ;) If I went with the 24-70 would I still want my 24-105 f4 for landscapes? I need to see if I shoot a lot @ 70+ for my landscape photos to determine that.



Hi, thank you for the compliments- cake smash sessions are our favorite sessions.

The 85 1.2 II does produce some excellent images, however, for toddlers, I need a fast auto-focus and that's where the 35 1.4 really shined for me. It's possible the the 85 would fair better on the MKIV, I suppose I could wait for someone else to test it out or rent it again.
You're confusing the daylights out of me. Canon released an 85/1.2 II back in the mid-2000s, and you even acknowledge that it exists.

If you need fast AF, get the 85/1.8. That's why it exists in the lineup.

On the 24-x topic, I started with a 24-105 (on 1.3x crop, actually). I followed with a 70-200/2.8IS, then a 16-35/2.8 II. Once I rented a 24-70/2.8 (old model), I was instantly sold and picked up one shortly thereafter. The 24-105 became a hand-me-down to my wife (bumping out her 28-135), and it has become extremely rare that I reach for the 24-105 except as a remote camera lens or to be able to have one camera set up for "BYOL" studio flash and another for natural light. Now that I've added a 24-70/2.8 II, I'd reach for the old 24-70 before I'd reach for the 24-105 in almost all cases. However, I do think my whole perspective is based on having a 70-200 or other long option; the 24-105 was a great first lens, no doubt.

[peety3]

Just out of curiosity, why are you looking for a new version of the 85L? What needs improving? It is a lens I have been contemplating, and it sounds like most are very pleased with it. Looking at shots taken with it... it seems to be a lens that produces real interesting results.

The 50 1.2 L I understand it is not the sharpest... which could be improved (but some users would disagree with that and think it is part of the look it produces). But other than slow focus on the 85L, I have not read much bad about it.
As hinted in my other reply above, I want to ask these same questions: what on earth is so bad about the 50/1.2L or the 85/1.2LII? We've had an 85/1.2 II for about 2.5 years, and my only complaints would be the sheer size and weight: it forces a distinct caution when using, and only works in limited slots in my bag. We added a 50/1.2L and a 135/2L in March, and I find both to be absolutely fantastic. Since both are lighter and easier to hold than the 85L, they seem to get more use than the 85 does (at least for me...maybe it's the novelty of new lenses?).

[Photog82]

Can I make an observation about a point?

"One thing I never realized was on a crop, if you're using a 1.4 lens it's actually 2.24."

That is not correct. The f aperture of a lens doesn't change with the sensor.

If I use a f1.4 lens in a scenery that resolves a 1\1000 - 100 ISO - f 1.4 on a FF Camera on my APS-C Camera the numbers are still the same, i found this concept a bit confusing on internet sometimes.

If i take a picture and i crop it, the light remains the same.

The DoF changes because of the "circle of confusion" (i dont know how do you call it in English sorry!) calculated via Focal Range \ Lens Aperture \ Distance from Subject \ Sensor Size.

;)


Edited after a "terminology" check


I've read several articles on this and this video goes over it as well, it makes sense but could be wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY

peety3: It was a typo, I meant version 3 of the 85 1.2.

Basically what I'm trying to do is get some good portrait lenses. My 100 Macro is good but I really want a good 50 1.2 lens from Canon. I could go with the 85 1.2 II but it is a little slow on the AF side. I may have to rent the 24-70 2.8 II lens for portrait use. I found that I do use the extra reach for my landscapes. I found that the majority of the focal length for the 24-105 is at 24-35 and 85-105.

[peety3]

Basically what I'm trying to do is get some good portrait lenses. My 100 Macro is good but I really want a good 50 1.2 lens from Canon. I could go with the 85 1.2 II but it is a little slow on the AF side. I may have to rent the 24-70 2.8 II lens for portrait use. I found that I do use the extra reach for my landscapes. I found that the majority of the focal length for the 24-105 is at 24-35 and 85-105.

IMHO, you're absolutely dreaming if you think an 85/1.2L III would actually be "fast" to focus. IIRC, v2 has eight elements, and seven of the eight elements move for focus (that rear element is quite obviously parked in place; I can't imagine trying to make it move so close to those contacts).

Back to the use case, it already is a good (err...great) portrait lens. I use mine in AI Servo and although I can hear and feel it constantly tweaking focus as I breathe and so does my subject, it's spot-on once it's in the general zone. What is so bad about the 50/1.2? What's bad about the 85/1.8? What's bad about the 100/2, 135/2, 70-200/2.8 non-IS, 70-200/2.8 IS II, or heck, either of the 70-200/4 variants? Heck, both the "old" Zeiss 85/1.4 and new Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 include electronic focus confirmation, as do both variants of the Zeiss 100/2 Makro, the Zeiss 135/2 variants, and apparently the TS-E 90 as well.

With all of those great options on the market, we own several (50/1.2, 85/1.2 II, 100/2.8 IS Macro L, 135/2, 70-200/2.8IS v1, 70-200/4IS, 70-200/4), and yet, for my new passion in headshot work, I'm using the lowly 70-200/4 non-IS at f/5 and about 90mm for essentially all of it.

[jamsus]

I've read several articles on this and this video goes over it as well, it makes sense but could be wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY


It doesn't have too much sense.

If you "sum" the total number of photons that are captured by the sensor, obviously the result will be higher - the sensor is bigger - but the aperture of the lens is still the same.

If you shoot f2, 100 ISO and the time for a +0 exposition is 1\100, if you go on an APS-C camera the result is still the same.

That is a common misconception that i found a lot of times on the web.

The depth of field obviously changes.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/

The aperture of the lens is still the same

[Photog82]

IMHO, you're absolutely dreaming if you think an 85/1.2L III would actually be "fast" to focus. IIRC, v2 has eight elements, and seven of the eight elements move for focus (that rear element is quite obviously parked in place; I can't imagine trying to make it move so close to those contacts).

Back to the use case, it already is a good (err...great) portrait lens. I use mine in AI Servo and although I can hear and feel it constantly tweaking focus as I breathe and so does my subject, it's spot-on once it's in the general zone. What is so bad about the 50/1.2? What's bad about the 85/1.8? What's bad about the 100/2, 135/2, 70-200/2.8 non-IS, 70-200/2.8 IS II, or heck, either of the 70-200/4 variants? Heck, both the "old" Zeiss 85/1.4 and new Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 include electronic focus confirmation, as do both variants of the Zeiss 100/2 Makro, the Zeiss 135/2 variants, and apparently the TS-E 90 as well.

With all of those great options on the market, we own several (50/1.2, 85/1.2 II, 100/2.8 IS Macro L, 135/2, 70-200/2.8IS v1, 70-200/4IS, 70-200/4), and yet, for my new passion in headshot work, I'm using the lowly 70-200/4 non-IS at f/5 and about 90mm for essentially all of it.

I just found that in certain situations the 85 1.2 II lens AF was off more than the new Canon 35 1.2 II that I own. Granted, I did capture some excellent photos with the lens, I just thought it was a bit off in some cases- some of which could have been my fault.

As for the 50 1.2, that thing is so soft in 90% of the photos that I took when I rented it, focus was super slow too. When they release a newer version, I'll be in line to order if the reviews are good.

[peety3]

As for the 50 1.2, that thing is so soft in 90% of the photos that I took when I rented it, focus was super slow too. When they release a newer version, I'll be in line to order if the reviews are good.
What aperture were you at? It's known to create quite a love/hate relationship, as the plane of focus tends to bow a bit between f/1.4 and perhaps f/4 (if for no other reason than DoF is taking over at this point). Admittedly it's a pain to ONLY shoot wide-open or f/4 and beyond, but I find the results are so visually pleasing that it has become a really fun lens for me. I think Bryan is the one who originated the "love/hate" comment, though I see it (or think of it) more often when I read Roger's Take on this lens at LensRentals.com.

[Photog82]

Anywhere from 1.2 - 2.8. It may have been a bad copy, it was a rental.

[Kombi]

Anywhere from 1.2 - 2.8. It may have been a bad copy, it was a rental.

The 85 is my goto lens. -- focus is slow no doubt in my mind ---

I don't know what the lighting was like when you were using the lens, but since you were used to shooting the 35 something that may have been overlooked is shutter speed.

As a general rule for crisp handheld images double the inverse of the focal length.

At 35mm you can goto 1/60 and get a clean image, with the 85 you'd need 1/160 to get an image equally as blur free.

In poor light , I often get caught shooting to slow.

Just another variable.

Congratulations on the 5Div

[Busted Knuckles]

Shutter speed is really key - I noticed when I rented the 5Dsr I had to both bump the speed AND be very precise in my technique otherwise those tiny pixels would blur right up.

[Photog82]

Thanks for the tips. I'm deciding between the 70-200 2.8 and the 85 1.2; I want both but need to buy one first and save up for the other. I really think that the 85 would be best first.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks for the tips. I'm deciding between the 70-200 2.8 and the 85 1.2; I want both but need to buy one first and save up for the other. I really think that the 85 would be best first.

Going with either is probably a "win" in that they are both remarkable lenses. But my bias takes over here, the 70-200 II on FF is an absolute dream. Unless you really want less than f/2.8, and at those focal lengths f/2.8 already has pretty narrow DoF, I would get the 70-200 II and not even think twice about it.

[Jonathan Huyer]

The 85 f/1.2 is great for single-person portraits, assuming you are buying it for the wide aperture. Operating any wider than f/2.8, I'd think it would be nearly impossible to get two or more people in focus at the same time. And yes even though f/2.8 does have a pretty narrow DOF, when you go wider than that it's easier to make the background completely disappear into a buttery-smooth bokeh.