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.