*UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

[TrumpetPower!]

I think cropping the full frame would still look same or better. A 300 f/2.8 on a 1DX beats same lens on 7D. Are you stating that the crop would out resolve it in terms of actually visible image quality? Not just theoretical numbers?

Have you tested this using both cameras? Not being argumentative just wondering how you know this?

It does; they are; they haven't; and they don't.

Not only does the 1DX cropped beat the 7D, but the 5DIII cropped beats the 7D, and the 1DX beats the 5DIII.

Any time anybody starts mouthing megapickle measurebator myths, it's safe to assume they've never actually done any meaningful photography with the gear in question.

b&

[jrista]

I was curious by all this discussion so I took two shots. One with the 7D and one with the 5DII to see how they compare in overall IQ. I tried to keep things constant including framing and settings. The 5D II file looked sharper and brighter. The 7D file was pretty close though. Pretty obvious test but hey, now I know for myself.

(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)

The benefit of the 7D is when you are focal length limited. In your example, you filled the frame with your subject. When you have the option of doing that, then the only thing that really matters is total pixel count. The 5D II has more pixels than the 7D, its image dimensions are slightly higher, so it does have the resolution edge in non-focal length limited scenarios.

The 7D has smaller pixels (4.3µm vs. 6.5µm). When you need to photograph something distant, such as a deer, a bird, a baseball player running for home...then the smaller pixels of the 7D will resolve more detail than the 5D II when both cameras are used with the same lens at the same distance. You could simulate that in your example by using whatever lens you used, but keep the cameras at the same physical distance from your bookshelf. The 5D II will capture a wider field. If you crop the 5D II image to the same field as the 7D, the resolution advantage of the 7D will be quite clear.

I think cropping the full frame would still look same or better. A 300 f/2.8 on a 1DX beats same lens on 7D. Are you stating that the crop would out resolve it in terms of actually visible image quality? Not just theoretical numbers?

Have you tested this using both cameras? Not being argumentative just wondering how you know this?

It is just a matter of math and theory. There is a SUBJECTIVE quality factor, and an OBJECTIVE quality factor. A lot of people think the 1D X and 5D III look more than acceptable when cropped and enlarged. That is a SUBJECTIVE measure, not an objective one. It is a matter of perception and feeling, but not necessarily of fact. The results may look great, but that doesn't prevent the 7D from outresolving them in a focal-length limited scenario. Objectively, the 7D has smaller pixels more densely packed, which means it WILL resolve more detail when shooting the same subject at the same distance with the same lens and focal length as any sensor with larger pixels. This is a matter of fact and physics, it is not a myth.

I don't have a 5D III myself, so I annot prove the point with my own data. It appears you have both the 7D and 5D III, so if you want to see for yourself...just try the experiment I described. No scaling, no post processing. Just take two photos, one with each camera, from the same exact physical subject distance and the same exact lens at the same exact focal length. The only post-process edit you should make would be to CROP the 5D III image to the same Field of View as the 7D image. Then compare. The 7D image should have more detail...as in, more finely delineated detail. This is not a noise thing, not a scalability thing, not a processing latitude thing. The 7D just plain and simply has a greater ability to resolve fine detail for any given lens and subject distance.

[meli]

I think cropping the full frame would still look same or better. A 300 f/2.8 on a 1DX beats same lens on 7D. Are you stating that the crop would out resolve it in terms of actually visible image quality? Not just theoretical numbers?

Have you tested this using both cameras? Not being argumentative just wondering how you know this?

It does; they are; they haven't; and they don't.

Not only does the 1DX cropped beat the 7D, but the 5DIII cropped beats the 7D, and the 1DX beats the 5DIII.

Any time anybody starts mouthing megapickle measurebator myths, it's safe to assume they've never actually done any meaningful photography with the gear in question.

I just like how after the 1dx-d7100 comparison img by ankorwatt which -understandably- you failed to address, since facts doesnt quite match up your beliefs, you downscaled abit now, comparing 1dx with 7d's zombie sensor, oh well...

[jrista]

d4 has fwc 117000e, 1dx 90000e
do you mean that D4 therefore is better?

The total FWC and e  for 1dx and d800 is the same.
When we are discussing picture quality we must have some criteria
signal/noise, resolution,  CFA ,  SNR 18% Dynamic Range Tonal Range etc

as here http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/814|0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/753|0/(brand2)/Canon

Sorry bub, FWC of the D800 is HALF that of the 1D X. The D800 has a FWC of 45,000. The amount of apparent noise at higher ISO settings is directly related to gain, and you need less gain when you have a greater maximum charge per pixel. The advantage of the D800 is not its photon gathering capacity, but its low read noise. The 1D X has no advantage at low ISO because of high read noise, however it has a considerable advantage at high ISO because it converts twice as much light into usable charge than the D800 does on a per-pixel basis. Scaling the D800 down to 1D X size will normalize the differences to a degree, but it will not entirely eliminate the 1D X's advantage. And that assumes anyone actually buys a D800 for the purposes of scaling its images down the 18mp (which is a fact that seems highly unlikely to me as a basis for average-case comparisons.)

[jrista]

I was curious by all this discussion so I took two shots. One with the 7D and one with the 5DII to see how they compare in overall IQ. I tried to keep things constant including framing and settings. The 5D II file looked sharper and brighter. The 7D file was pretty close though. Pretty obvious test but hey, now I know for myself.

(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)

the 7d has a strong aa- filter, the 5dmk2 has a week aa-filter therefore 5dmk2  looks sharper,  and there are a  Mp difference between them and the lens to 7d needs to be 1,6 times  better in resolution and contrast.
so it is among other things an optical question

I believe the notion that the 7D has a strong AA filter is a myth. I've used the 7D with all of Canon's top-end Mark II L-series super-telephoto lenses except the 400mm f/2.8. In every single case, the sharpness and resolving power of the 7D was considerably greater than any other sensor I've used, either my own cameras or rented cameras. The "softness" of the 7D, in my opinion, has nothing to do with a strong AA filter. It has to do with either poorer-quality glass (i.e. the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS is NOT a particularly sharp lens, but is most frequently paired with a 7D), or poor camera handling (camera shake is more likely to cause IQ-degrading softening with the small 7D pixels than the large 1D X pixels.)

I have searched high and low for some actual concrete evidence that the 7D has a strong AA filter. Like someone actually measuring the thickness of the low pass plates in the filter stack over the sensor. I have yet to actually find any REAL evidence that the 7D has a particularly strong AA filter. As such, I'm inclined to say that is just an internet myth, that has arisen from the kinds of lenses most commonly used on the 7D...things that fall into the same budget range such as the 100-400m 70-200, 70-300 L, etc. None of those lenses compare to the new Mark II Great Whites...and when you DO combine the 7D with truly top-end still photography glass, there isn't any softness to be seen anywhere.

Here is a shot with the EF 500mm f/4 L IS II with a 1.4x TC III (700mm) on the Canon 7D:



Here is the 100%, 1:1, pixel peeping crop:



^--- RAZOR-FRIKKIN SHARP!! --^


7D "Strong AA filter" == Total Myth!

[Zv]

I did a few more tests and what I found out is this - even when I cropped the 5D II image to match the 7D one the full frame image looked crisper, was 2/3 of a stop brighter, a bit colder in tone and showed less CA. Due to the effect of compression with a tele lens on the 7D the subject looked bigger in relation to background than the cropped version of the 5D II. Naturally. Though due to this its hard to determine if one is resolving more than the other. To my eye I could see tiny cracks and hairs on the books on both images. If anything I have now realized my 135L works better on my 5D II!

[jrista]

I did a few more tests and what I found out is this - even when I cropped the 5D II image to match the 7D one the full frame image looked crisper, was 2/3 of a stop brighter, a bit colder in tone and showed less CA. Due to the effect of compression with a tele lens on the 7D the subject looked bigger in relation to background than the cropped version of the 5D II. Naturally. Though due to this its hard to determine if one is resolving more than the other. To my eye I could see tiny cracks and hairs on the books on both images. If anything I have now realized my 135L works better on my 5D II!

It would be helpful if you provided full size files with EXIF. Sorry, but your findings just don't fit the facts, the math, or the theory, otherwise I wouldn't ask. Did you configure AFMA for the same lens on both bodies (it is possible the lens was not calibrated properly for the 7D.) Anyway, images w/ EXIF would be nice, as I know my stuff in this area pretty well.

I really need to just bite the bullet and buy the 5D III. I've been waiting for the 7D II to be released, to see if it would fit my needs better, but I'm tired of renting gear all the time to prove my points...

If it helps any, Roger Clark, a well respected scientists with I believe multiple Ph.Ds, has an excellent page demonstrating how much more resolving power the 7D has in focal-length limited scenarios, and the 5D II is one of the cameras tested and compared:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/index.html

The second image on the page shows the moon shot with the same lens (300mm f/2.8 L) on four different cameras. The differences in resolving power for each sensor are more than clear. The 7D moon is about four times larger than the 5D II moon, and the additional detail is very clear.

Here is another link, where Roger covers noise and high ISO:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html

To quote his assessment:

Here is my assessment:

In all the images, the 5DII images fail to show the subtle color differences that the 7D and 1D4 show. The color in the 1D4 and 7D are very close (until noise hides it).

ISO 100: 7D noise is small and detail is well above other images. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4

ISO 800: 7D noise is showing, but the detail is still well above the other cameras. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4

ISO1600: 7D noise is becoming prominent, but image detail is still very good. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4, but the difference is narrowing.

ISO3200: 7D noise is becoming objectionable and color is getting lost, in particular in Mare Serenatatis (the large circular dark area in the upper center). top=1D4, 2nd 7D. A good down sampling algorithm (like 2x2 pixel average) could improve the the image.

ISO6400: Noise is too apparent in 7D, and 5DII (which is slightly older technology than the 7D or 1D4). Top=1D4, 2nd=5DII. In my numerous sensor evaluations, I consistently see the 1D series sensors have fewer hot/bad pixels and the images here show that too: the 7D and 5DII images have a lot of "spiky" noise not seen in the 1D4 image.

In all the images, if we boost the low level, we will see that all the 7D and 5DII images have a lot of fixed pattern noise, which decreases as ISO increases. The 1D4 has a little fixed pattern noise at low ISO which quickly decreases at intermediate ISOs. The noise is illustrated below.

It is only when he reaches ISO 6400 that the 5D II even really becomes a contender. At ISO 3200 the 1D IV finally edges out the 7D. At all other settings, the 7D has a considerable resolution advantage that definitely shows. These findings jive with my own experiences...the 7D is an excellent camera that far outresolves most other DSLR cameras (with the exception of only a couple new ones from Nikon only recently released (D3200 & D5200)).

No matter how you slice it...the 7D trounces the 5D II and the 5D III in terms of spatial resolution. Assuming you are not noise bound, in any focal-length limited situation, the 7D will produce better results.

[Zv]

It's just not even worth posting the images with exif info as in the real world it makes little or no difference to me. I'm quite happy with how both cameras perform. It was for my own curiosity that I did the test. I am sure the professors know a lot more than me but when I'm out shooting portraits or weddings it will not matter one bit. The difference at the pixel peeping level is minor for an average shot of a subject 10 feet away. If I want to take pictures of the moon I shall almost certainly use the 7D as it has more reach and will likely out resolve the 5D II in that situation. (I have taken pictures of the moon with the 7D before). Right tool for the job etc etc. To me lighting and good technique are far more important things to worry about. Both cameras resolve quite enough for me!

Have a great weekend everyone and have fun shooting great pictures!

[jrista]

I was curious by all this discussion so I took two shots. One with the 7D and one with the 5DII to see how they compare in overall IQ. I tried to keep things constant including framing and settings. The 5D II file looked sharper and brighter. The 7D file was pretty close though. Pretty obvious test but hey, now I know for myself.

(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)

the 7d has a strong aa- filter, the 5dmk2 has a week aa-filter therefore 5dmk2  looks sharper,  and there are a  Mp difference between them and the lens to 7d needs to be 1,6 times  better in resolution and contrast.
so it is among other things an optical question

I believe the notion that the 7D has a strong AA filter is a myth. I've used the 7D with all of Canon's top-end Mark II L-series super-telephoto lenses except the 400mm f/2.8. In every single case, the sharpness and resolving power of the 7D was considerably greater than any other sensor I've used, either my own cameras or rented cameras. The "softness" of the 7D, in my opinion, has nothing to do with a strong AA filter. It has to do with either poorer-quality glass (i.e. the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS is NOT a particularly sharp lens, but is most frequently paired with a 7D), or poor camera handling (camera shake is more likely to cause IQ-degrading softening with the small 7D pixels than the large 1D X pixels.)

I have searched high and low for some actual concrete evidence that the 7D has a strong AA filter. Like someone actually measuring the thickness of the low pass plates in the filter stack over the sensor. I have yet to actually find any REAL evidence that the 7D has a particularly strong AA filter. As such, I'm inclined to say that is just an internet myth, that has arisen from the kinds of lenses most commonly used on the 7D...things that fall into the same budget range such as the 100-400m 70-200, 70-300 L, etc. None of those lenses compare to the new Mark II Great Whites...and when you DO combine the 7D with truly top-end still photography glass, there isn't any softness to be seen anywhere.

Here is a shot with the EF 500mm f/4 L IS II with a 1.4x TC III (700mm) on the Canon 7D:



Here is the 100%, 1:1, pixel peeping crop:



^--- RAZOR-FRIKKIN SHARP!! --^


7D "Strong AA filter" == Total Myth!

tell that to John Sheehy who have shown that that is not the case

I see...and the full resolution visual evidence I've just provided you is...what, all an illusion? LOL, you guys are INCREDIBLE!!! What exactly does it take to prove a point to you guys? Even Zv! It is obvious he sees a difference between the cropped 5D II and 7D, but no images will be uploaded because it would support the only argument that actually fits the math and the theory! That the 7D image is sharper and clearer than the 5D II image.

Zv, the argument is not whether the 5D II is good enough. If it is good enough for your work, that's GREAT! The argument was just about the simple facts and realities of things. I was not trying to make this personal, just keep things honest and factual, and I had hoped since you had both cameras, you could supply a couple images to prove the point. I've never cared for Mikael/Ankorwatt, he's demonstrated a rather astonishing ability to ignore physical evidence dangled a few millimeteres right in front of his nose. I guess I had hoped that most people were more reasonable than that, and that physical evidence would be enough to demonstrate that all that worthless theory and math was not quite so worthless after all. Instead, I just get more backpeddling and obfuscation from you, too?

What in the world happened to a little honest objectivity, ppl? Is the entire world so wrapped up in themselves that they can no longer present or even participate in a reasoned debate, or acknowledge the facts and not take it personally when those facts reach up and smack them in the face? Wow. Just...wow.

[Zv]

Very well if you insist. Here is a side by side shot. one the left is the 7D unaltered image and on the right is the 5D II cropped to look like the 7D. No other adjustments or corrections were done in Lightroom. I took a screen dump and made a jpeg of it. I used a 135L @ f4 and ISO 100, 1/25s. A tripod was used to stabilize the camera and MF via live view mode was used to achieve optimal focus on the face on the Dumas book. This is how it looks without zooming in.

[jrista]

And now lets zoom in and see. What conclusions can we draw from this?

I can only conclude the 5D II is not upscaled properly, as the books are smaller. There seems to be no doubt the 7D contains more information and detail, though...the books are quite a bit larger (which means every aspect of detail, such as the cracks, contain MORE pixels than the 5D II shot.) Anyway, I give up. Everyone seems to have an agenda, and that agenda doesn't include objective fact. Sorry I bothered you.

[jrista]

And now lets zoom in and see. What conclusions can we draw from this?

I can only conclude the 5D II is not upscaled properly, as the books are smaller. There seems to be no doubt the 7D contains more information and detail, though...the books are quite a bit larger (which means every aspect of detail, such as the cracks, contain MORE pixels than the 5D II shot.) Anyway, I give up. Everyone seems to have an agenda, and that agenda doesn't include objective fact. Sorry I bothered you.

All I did is click compare and then zoom, I dunno how LR handles its business but like I said earlier this is likely due to compression. No worries, I am not bothered in the slightest. 

Pop both of those into Photoshop, and scale the 5D II shot so it is the same image dimensions as the 7D. Stick the 5D II upscaled image in a new layer in the 7D image, and toggle it on and off. I think the difference between the two, and what I mean by "resolving power", will become quite clear then.

[Zv]

And now lets zoom in and see. What conclusions can we draw from this?

I can only conclude the 5D II is not upscaled properly, as the books are smaller. There seems to be no doubt the 7D contains more information and detail, though...the books are quite a bit larger (which means every aspect of detail, such as the cracks, contain MORE pixels than the 5D II shot.) Anyway, I give up. Everyone seems to have an agenda, and that agenda doesn't include objective fact. Sorry I bothered you.

All I did is click compare and then zoom, I dunno how LR handles its business but like I said earlier this is likely due to compression. No worries, I am not bothered in the slightest. 

Pop both of those into Photoshop, and scale the 5D II shot so it is the same image dimensions as the 7D. Stick the 5D II upscaled image in a new layer in the 7D image, and toggle it on and off. I think the difference between the two, and what I mean by "resolving power", will become quite clear then.

Wait a min I see what went wrong ... OK yeah you're right I only zoomed and it zoomed an already cropped image so it looks different. I will try the photoshop route.

[Zv]

OK here we go, upscaled on photoshop (which is destructive so .... anyway).

[jrista]

OK here we go, upscaled on photoshop (which is destructive so .... anyway).

I wouldn't necessarily call upscaling "destructive". It is distributive, for sure, as it distributes existing information and fabricates new information...but I wouldn't necessarily call upscaling destructive. It is a better way to clearly demonstrate the difference, which I think is clear now with your latest screenshot. You could downscale the 7D image to the 5D II crop size. The differences won't be as apparent, as downscaling IS definitely destructive, however the 7D shot will pick up additional clarity and sharpness, as well as reduced noise relative to the 5D II shot.

Anyway, thanks for being honest!