sublime LightWorks, you have claimed to have images that prove otherwise. Please show them. Please show images taken in identical conditions: amount of light, shutter speed and aperture. Also use cameras with similar technology, don't compare technology separated by years of development.
NotABunny, please re-read and take a few mins to comprehend what I posted:
DPReview has examples of this in their 7D review and analysis. And since I own both the 5Dmk2 and the 7D, I can tell you in the real world, the 7D cannot hold a candle to the 5Dmk2 at ISO 1600 or above.
As I stated, comparing real world
images, in similar circumstances (shot same day, same conditions, same ISO), you can clearly identify the 5Dmk2 image when placed next to the 7D image. This is not just me, its observed by several who looked at the shots taken, including clients and other photographers.
This was not some test, not some scientific analysis, not Consumer Reports labs. There was no claim to have images that "prove" anything other than that simple observable fact...equivalent images from both cameras show the 5Dmk2 looks superior to the 7D. If that result is more from the 5Dmk2 sensor size than the pixel size, as several have indicated in replies, then that is helping me to understand the specifics of the physics and optics involved in the image produced by the camera.
Just as others here have observed that, to them, the D800 images look as good or better than the 5Dmk2, it's currently by observation of that effect. There has been no RAW comparison to date to prove this. Your demand that I produce such images that "prove" fails to understand my statement: when shown side by side, the 7D images appear "grainier" and "noisier" at ISO's 1600 and 3200 than a similar photo taken by the 5Dmk2.
The IQ in the 5Dmk2 simply looks superior to a given equivalent shot on from a 7D. If the reasons for this apparent image superiority are not due to pixel size/pixel noise and that pixel size has little to contribute the actual noise levels witnessed, then that knowledge is educating me and is most welcome.
Further, your request to "Please show images taken in identical conditions: amount of light, shutter speed and aperture. Also use cameras with similar technology, don't compare technology separated by years of development" seems to indicate there is something to prove here and you're out to "win" this discussion. Wrong my friend, for one I don't have a plethora of equipment available to me to satisfy your adhoc conditions and I seriously doubt you could do the same. Second, I could care less about "proof" when all the proof I personally require is what my client sees when comparing a couple of images. It's their cash, satisfaction, and job referrals that is the proof enough for me.
I don't view this as some contest to see who is right and who is wrong. It's an attempt to foster a discussion and in the process, understand the underlying technology, how it's applied, and how to make better purchasing decisions when considering the various options in the marketplace. If you're looking for a forum discussion trophy by "winning" something, you're engaging the wrong person and I suggest you go elsewhere to find a deer to mount on your wall. Homie don't play dat.**** To all the others who have replied on this topic
, I greatly appreciate your time, efforts, and willingness in describing the physical principles and technologies involved. While I have a BSEE (1984), I don't get to use the damn thing these days, my BSCS and MBA play a much bigger role in my IT director position. But I still fully understand the technical details of the discussed (and much more).