7D vs 5D Mark II for wildlife advice wanted

[HDNitehawk]

My first DSLR was the 50D, I upgraded from it to the the 5D Mark II of which I have x2 each now. At that time there was no 7D. The IQ from the 50D to the 5D Mark II was extremly noticable. I could crop off the full frame and have better IQ than the 50d.


So what I do, I have a 500mm F4L with the Gitzo tripod and Wimberly head to go with it. And I do take alot of wildlife pictures. When I get a good print I like to blow it up on the Pixma Pro to 13 x 19, even crop if possible.


I know the specs of both so no need to rehash it. That the 7D has a faster frame rate, that it is a crop body and there is a crop factor involved with the big lens.


Here is what I do not know, and want to know. Would the 7D give me the kind of quality I want to do the large prints. Would I notice a conciderable drop in IQ from my 5D

[Sean Setters]

I just gave a family a 16x20 print created with the 7D. Honestly, the original image was soft--I was using an LCW Variable ND filter that, I

[Daniel Browning]

I could crop off the full frame and have better IQ than the 50d.

That is the same experience I have, but only at high ISO. Cropping the 5D2 to the same angle of view as the 50D results in only 8 MP (vs 15 for the 50D), but at high ISO (e.g. ISO 6400) those 8 MP have noticeably less noise. For me this is important because I do a lot at very high ISO.


However, at lower ISOs (e.g. ISO 400), I think that the 50D has significantly better image quality. The noise is about the same, and the 50D has far more detail (as expected with twice the pixel count).

Would the 7D give me the kind of quality I want to do the large prints.

Generally, yes. The 7D is almost the ideal camera for a wildlife photographer. One wildlife advantage that it has over the 1D4 is smaller pixels. It takes away the 5D2's noise advantage, so unlike the 50D, it is superior to cropping the 5D2 in every way (including noise).


That said, there are some circumstances where the 5D2 is slightly better.<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]The 5D2 will have slightly stronger contrast before you get into post, but this can usually be equalized in post processing with the right sharpening and contrast enhancement.


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]

With the crop factor I would say I am comparing a 7D non croped picture shot compared to the same lens croped down off the 5D.

In that comparison, even the 50D will blow away the 5D2 for detail and contrast, at low ISO. The 7D will blow it away at low *and* high ISO.

[bob williams]

NiteHawk, As I understand your question, you are seeking opinions regarding the 5DII vs the 7D for Wildlife photography; this is what I base my response on. For reference, please know that I own the 7D, I own the Pixma Pro 9500 (older one), have owned the 50D, I have never owned or used the 5DII and wildlife is my photographic genre of choice.-------Nor can I seem to get my fingers to work tonight which is why this is the third time I have attempted to respond to your question--[:S].


1. Wildlife photographers never seem to have enough reach. That said, the 5DII and the 500L will provide 500mm of reach. The 7D and the 500L will provide 800mm (percieved) reach.


2. Without doing the math, the general impression is that you will getbetter IQ with a 7D, than you will cropping a 5DII to the same size as a 7D.


3. With a tack sharp image, the Pixma-pro will yield a tack sharp print at 13x19----And my sharpening skills are novice at best. If you are any good at sharpening, the pixma-pro/7D combo is capable of yielding very impressive 13x19prints.


4. As I understand it, the 5DII and the 50D have a similar AF system. If this is true, the AF system on the 7D is far superior and more beneficial for wildlife photography, especially moving subjects.


5. There is a lot of difference bewteen 5 frames per second and 8 frames per second when shooting fast moving animals and BIFs--for this, the 7D is superior.


6. The 7D can't compete with the 5DII when it comes to full frame Image quality and noise managment.


Finally, for Wildlife and for the reasons stated above, I chose the 7D over the 5DII---and have never regreted it. If I was shooting in studio, weddings, portraits, low light etc, the 5DII wins, but for wildlife and sports, I think the 7D has the clear advantage.


Hope this helps,


Bob

[HDNitehawk]

Sean


Thanks for the perspective. The local store in town will not rent equipment, there a store in one of the suburbs of the city that claim they rent cameras. About a 30 mile drive but I may call them up and make the trip.


Daniel


I do not think the ISO and Noise will be an issue. I know the 5D Mark II would be superior, in those areas I do do not think it will matter that much. Even with the 5D when it starts getting dark and the ISO goes up, the images are not the quality I am looking for. The contrast difference you talked about may, I would be interested in seeing the difference.


Bob


You are right about the auto focus being superior on the 7D, this is a plus. The frame rate would be as well, as the 5D Mark II is &lt;4. The 5D autofocus is superior to the 50D however, even though it may be the same system, the 50D has a lot more missed pictures than the 5D does. Don't ask me why, I just know this by experience.


I guess when it comes down to it, its like Sean pointed out. "see if the 7Ds files live up to your (my) expectations"


It seems a lot of people think the 7D is the way to go for wildlife.





Thanks for responding guys.


Rick

[neuroanatomist]

<div>

The 7D will blow [the 5DII] away at low *and* high ISO.

</div>



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

[HDNitehawk]

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

[neuroanatomist]

[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).

[Daniel Browning]

I have to say, it's hard for me to conclude that the 7D images 'blow away' the cropped 5DII images.

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.

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).

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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).

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