<div>
</div>Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Hey Rick-
Daniel's word is nearly law in these parts, but if it would help I'd be happy to shoot the same scene from a tripod with the lens of your choice (listed in my profile) and both the 7D and 5DII, at a couple of ISOs (perhaps 100 and 3200), and send you the RAW files. Let me know...
FWIW, I love my 5DII for portraits and landscapes, but when I'm heading out looking for birds and wildlife, it's the 7D over my shoulder every time.
--John
John
I would be very appreciative if you would do that.
The two lens I see that would be a good comparison would of course be the 100-400mm L
or
The 100mm F2.8L Macro. The prime might give more accurate results than a zoom for the comparison, but it would have be at a F stop narrow enough to get rid of the vignetting this lens has on full frame when wide open and it would need to be some farther distance from the camera (not macro).
Thanks for the offer.
I have a feeling I am getting ready to spend $1600
Rick
[quote=neuroanatomist]I'd be happy to shoot the same scene from a tripod with the lens of your choice (listed in [url="/members/neuroanatomist/default.aspx]my profile[/url]) and both the 7D and 5DII, at a couple of ISOs...[/quote]
Ok, here you go. Sorry for the uninteresting subject matter - somehow I doubt plastic farm animals can be considered 'wildlife'. [:P]
All of these images were shot RAW and converted to JPG using DPP, with no adjustments applied. The 100mm images were shot with theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LMacro IS and the 400mm images were shot with theEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LIS. All of the shots were exposed as identically as I could make them - they are all at 0.3 s and f/6.3. I compensated for the 4-stop difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 with ND filters because I wanted to keep the exposure time the same to match the read and shot noise contribution - but maybe that wasn't the best approach (Daniel - comments?).
The first composite is the full size images, with the 5DII's images cropped down to match the FOV of the 7D. The second set of images are 100% crops from each image - the 7D shows a smaller field because of the much higher pixel density (the 5DII crops are 8 MP vs. the 18 MP of the 7D images).
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/5DIIvs7D.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/5DIIvs7D_2D00_100pct.jpg[/img]
Looking at the 100% crops, I'm not sure if this is a fair way to display the images - the smaller FOV of the 7D makes direct comparison difficult, since the pixels are different sizes. So in addition to straight 100% crops, I put together the following composite, where the 5DII crops are the same as above, but the 7D images are less than 100% crops since I took the same field as the 100% crop of the 5DII (about 2.2x as many pixels) and downsampled those crops to match the size of the 5DII crops.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/5DIIvs7D_2D00_100pct_2D00_scaled.jpg[/img]
There are a lot of ways these image can be interpreted, I think. I have to say, it's hard for me to conclude that the 7D images 'blow away' the cropped 5DII images. The 7D images seem a bit sharper, and the noise is a bit more evident at high ISO. But it does seem safe to say that a 7D image is definitely not a significant IQ downgrade compared to a cropped 5DII image. When that fact is added to the faster frame rate and better autofocus system, the 7D is the clear winner for wildlife/bird/sports shooting.
Rick, let me know if you want the RAW files - I can email them to you via yousendit (assuming the address in your profile is usable).
Yeah, "blow away" might not be too strong, but I do think it has significantly more detail (everything that's entailed in an upgrade from 8 MP to 18 MP). I don't think downsizing the 7D makes sense in this context, because that is throwing away a lot of the 18 MP advantage. It's like going form 7D to 20D.
Rather than downsize the 7D, I upsized them both to the same resolution:
Here is the 5D2:
7D ISO 100:
To me, the 7D has a lot more detail, and it can be improved by sharpening a lot. Of course, the JPEG artifacts are pretty obvious here too. Doing the same from raw and adding a realistic amount of sharpening would make the difference even more I think.
I'd like to take a crack at them. You can put anything you want in the email address and post the link here if you want.
John
I would appreciate that if you could email the link and yes the email in my profile is correct.
Thanks for putting the effort in to this
Rick
Glad to help - it was an interesting exercise! I've been wanting to compare the two in this way for a while now. Actually, once I get the 135mm f/2L (next on my list), I'll be able to empirically settle the debate Jon and I previously had, about IQ of 7D+85L vs. 5DII+135L (which, with the crop factor is the same FOV and DoF; for that test, I'll move the camera rather than crop the images).
Rick and Daniel, I have sent both of you links to the RAW files (.zip archives of two RAW files per link). Rick, yours went to your email address and Daniel, yours are in a PM.
Please let me know if there are issues with the files.
--John
John
I received the files and thank you very much. I have to say you did a good job at setting the test up, all the samples are what I would expect off a tripod controlled set up.
I ran some tests and this is what I am seeing so far. I will be going over them a little closer as I think of more ways to check the files to see what I can do with the 7d.
While not by any means scientific this is what I have done so far:
I took the 100mm files did a quick look and from first perception they are very equal.
Next I took the file and reset the files to original camera settings. Which was Standard.
I then did a crop. I free handed the crop of just the outline of the book. My logic here is that if I were taking a picture of say a deer at 100 yards, I would crop just the things I wanted out of the picture. Being equal distance from the deer with either camera, I would most likely want the same crop out of either camera.
Next I did a white balance. I cheated on this one. Knowing my grandkids toys, I would bet the nose of the sheep is very close to 18% grey. Even if it isn
Thanks again, John. Very useful test!
Oooh, I'm looking forward to that. I think the 135 will trounce it soundly.
Personally, I would be too lazy to move the camera -- I would probably just figure that the angles of view are "close enough". []
Thanks! I processed the first batch. Here are my results:
Full results for 100mm ISO 100
And here are a few crops from there:
100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-sharpened-5DII.png
100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-sharpened-7D.png
In order to make sure the demosaic and post processing was the exact same, I used dcraw and imagemagick. Here is the shell code I used to generate the crops programatically:
<pre>dcraw -v -b 4 -A 2350 2662 32 32 -H 1 -o 1 -q 3 -T 100mm-ISO100-5DII.CR2
dcraw -v -b 2.716 -A 2350 2662 32 32 -H 1 -o 1 -q 3 -T 100mm-ISO100-7D.CR2
convert 100mm-ISO100-5DII.tiff -crop 208x69+3540+2700 100mm-ISO100-crop1-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-7D.tiff -crop 310x102+3516+3070 100mm-ISO100-crop1-7D.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop1-5DII.png -resize 620x204 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop1-7D.png -resize 620x204 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-7D.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-5DII.tiff -crop 269x98+2362+2380 100mm-ISO100-crop2-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-7D.tiff -crop 396x144+1760+2598 100mm-ISO100-crop2-7D.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop2-5DII.png -resize 792x288 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop2-7D.png -resize 792x288 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-7D.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-5DII.png -sharpen 0x2 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-sharpened-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-7D.png -sharpen 0x2 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-sharpened-7D.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-5DII.png -sharpen 0x2 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-sharpened-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-7D.png -sharpen 0x2 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-sharpened-7D.png
</pre>
Overall, I think it does show a visible contrast/detail benefit to the 7D, but it's not as large as I would expect when comparing 8 MP vs 18 MP. Perhaps my expectations are too high?
John and Daniel
Just an FYI for whoever reads this in the future to see the outcome
I just did the final test to see if the 7D would and could produce IQ equal to the 5D Mark II crop image. The test here was to see how my limited post process skills would fit in with the 7D compared to the 5D Mark II
I took the ISO 100 shot that John gave us using the 100-400mm from both cameras. I made an equal size crop of each picture after I had reset to camera settings.
Here is what I found: I had to play with and adjust the 7D picture quit a bit more to get the maximum out of it. The hardest things requiring the most play were contrast, shadows and color. Once I finished I saved the picture as a max JPG.
The 5D required less work, and some sharpening. Once complete I saved the JPG.
Once comparing on the full screen, I could easily see the 7D was still lacking in contrast and color against the 5D version. The 5D version was just not as sharp. I tried resharpening the 5D version and took it as far as I could. I deleted and started over with the 7D version probably 5 times then compared. Finally I felt I had taken both as far as I could.
In the end this is what I decided, much the same as I had found before. The 7D delivered a sharper picture. The 5D was superior in color and contrast, but through much more extensive PP I was able to get the 7D up equal to the 5D. I believe it will take more work in PP with the 7D but in the end it can match and pass the 5D by just a little.
Final test was to print two 13x19 prints off with each camera. The 7D won slightly because of sharpness.
All in all this puts it to rest in my mind. The 7D quality is sufficient, but it is not so much better over the 5D Mark II that it would be the motivating factor to switch. The AF and Frame rate would be the factors as already stated.
Here are the two pics that I generated if any one is interested. They are marked on the pictures 5D and 7D. Thanks again for the help
[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/]
[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/]
OK, I finished the second batch of analysis, this time using the 100mm ISO 1600 files. Here is one of the crops from the ISO 1600 comparisons:
Please see the rest of the crops here:
http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...5d2-7d-part-2/
I looked at the 400mm files but I don't think they're useful for this comparison because they don't contain any fine detail. The fine print on the book is the smallest detail I could find, and those were at least 20 pixels tall. (Ideally, the finest detail would be less than a single pixel, so we can see how much aliasing occurs.)
In order to do this comparison, I did the following:
- Exact same raw conversion / demosaic on each
- Increase brightness to the same level on both
- Crop 5D2 down to same angle of view as 7D
- Upsize both to the same dimension (so both are equally affected by upsizing)
- Use the exact same sharpening on both.
I think it shows that the 7D has more contrast and detail, with far fewer aliasing artifacts. The 7D image looks noisier, especially when both are upsized. Here is an example from the above comparisons where I downsampled the 18 MP 7D image to the 8 MP level of the 5D2:
That makes it more similar, but still a little noisier, I think. Take a look at the rest of the comparisons for yourself:
http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/2010-11-5d2-7d-part-2/
I definitely prefer the 7D image in this circumstance.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
