7D and 5D II that different?

[Richard8971]

I have both and while I love the image quality and colors in the 5D2, I find myself grabbing my 7D more. The 7D, for the money (I have seen it new for as low as $1300.00 ~ $1350.00 @ B&H recently) is one heck of a camera. It is fast, responsive and the image quality is outstanding. For the best rounded out camera that gives you a good mix of balanced features/quality for a great price, you cannot beat the 7D.

D

[helpful]

The 7D and 5D II are way different. Extremely, extremely different.

The 7D somehow ends up being the most useful camera to me. I am sorry to put down a good camera like the 5D II, but the 7D seems to do everything better except for the sensor. Even the shutter sound of the 7D is professional, while the 5D II sounds like a plastic toy.

Academics (and I'm one myself) might say that the sensor is the essence of a camera. But if a camera can do everything better like the 7D can versus the 5D II, except for the sensor, it just makes it much more easy to use as a machine for taking photographs.

And in the conditions where a low-light sensor would be needed, oftentimes the 5D II's shortcomings (like a focus tracking system that is actually allergic to focus tracking) prevent its better sensor from having a chance to shine. A picture that isn't in focus on a 5D II sensor is much worse quality than the same picture with a bit of noise on the 7D's sensor, but in focus. That's just an example.

[dtaylor]

To the OP. These two canon cameras are exact opposites to each other. If you cannot tell the difference you should be looking for a point and shoot or a rebel/mirror less and put the extra money to your kids college fund.

Way to start off your post by making a statement that is both false and insulting. The reason the question comes up so often in forums all over the Internet is precisely because these cameras are not "opposites", but are relatively close in terms of IQ and features.

But the 7D sensor sucks when there is low light. Dont care what other tell you it sucks.

Here are two ISO 3200 crops presented at roughly the size they would appear on 24" prints. Does either one "suck"? Can you tell me which cameras they came from?

[dtaylor]

Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence?

The original comment was that a 5D2 lets you stop down more before diffraction impacts sharpness. This is false. When shooting equivalent landscapes (FoV and DoF) diffraction does not impact any format more than any other. You cannot get "more DoF with less diffraction" with FF. This is true across the spectrum, from 4/3 to large format.

I'd rather shoot a 5DII at ISO 3200 in a dark auditorium rather than a 7D at ISO 3200.

For me it would depend on other factors. Again I'll point out that if you need more DoF then you can get with a wide open prime on FF, then you've lost the sensor ISO advantage. f/1.4 is not a sweet spot for FF, it's hardly usable. And I have more trouble nailing focus with a fast prime on the 5D2 then on the 7D, aggravated by having the lens wide open.

Now if we're talking f/2.8 zooms where f/2.8 offers sufficient DoF, then yes, I would pick up the 5D2 for the dark auditorium. The f/2.8 zooms make complete sense on FF for, say, wedding and PJ work.

The same lenses will also result in higher resolution (lp per image height) on a larger sensor.

A false meme caused by a general misunderstanding of lens testing. The same lenses will result in higher detail contrast (sharpness). If these were the film days, that difference would be a big deal. In the world of PS it's inconsequential between these two particular sensors, except at higher ISOs where sharpening increases the noise differences.

[briansquibb]

Here are two ISO 3200 crops presented at roughly the size they would appear on 24" prints. Does either one "suck"? Can you tell me which cameras they came from?

Right hand is 7D

They both are suffering from noise

[dtaylor]

It will be interesting to see how the next 1-2 generations of FF cameras develop.  If the pixel density of the 7D is about the limit of good sensor performance (Airy disk, etc.), then a FF camera that is about 46 MP will match it, and there would be no advantage of a crop camera besides price and file size.

I imagine we will see higher resolution sensors than that. But at today's tech level, I would love to see a 45 MP 5D. For all the hand wringing and discussion over IQ differences between the 5D2/5D3 and 7D, I see very little difference between them at low to mid ISO, even while pixel peeping. I see a much more significant difference between Canon anything and the D800. Fine details and surface textures really stand out on the D800. Granted, this isn't going to matter unless you make large and very large prints. But it does matter there, a lot more than any difference between Canon's APS-C and FF sensors.

Put three 30" landscape prints side by side, and the 7D/5D2 prints will look the same. The D800 will be noticeably better.

I don't care to try and support two lens systems, so I hope Canon's high resolution FF comes out soon.

[dtaylor]

They both are suffering from noise

They're both ISO 3200 and the presentation size is roughly 24". There's some noise, but neither "sucks", and there really isn't much at all to choose between them. (And some of the roughness you consider "noise" would disappear in a print where all pixels can be laid down on the paper instead of scaled down by algorithm.)

[mibu]

hello guys. I have a 7d for about 3 years and got a 5d a month ago, just before I have gone to croatia in vacation. there I have done lots of tests with both cameras. what I have found out is that with the 5d the images have more clear fine details than with the 7d, especially with a very good lens. for example, I took landscape photos of pine trees on a mountain and the needles are much clearer on the 5d. the lenses I tested with there were a tamron 48-75mm, f/2.8 and a zeiss planat t 50mm, f/1.4. with both the details are better on the 5d.
actually this is the case even in the photo of the bottle label published here. I think a little more contrast should not be misunderstood as better image quality...

[marekjoz]

hello guys. I have a 7d for about 3 years and got a 5d a month ago, just before I have gone to croatia in vacation. there I have done lots of tests with both cameras. what I have found out is that with the 5d the images have more clear fine details than with the 7d, especially with a very good lens. for example, I took landscape photos of pine trees on a mountain and the needles are much clearer on the 5d. the lenses I tested with there were a tamron 48-75mm, f/2.8 and a zeiss planat t 50mm, f/1.4. with both the details are better on the 5d.
actually this is the case even in the photo of the bottle label published here. I think a little more contrast should not be misunderstood as better image quality...

I found similar differences between 7d and 5d2. But I think sometimes it's a matter of technique. 7D requires better technique and it forgives much less than 5d2 with the same lenses (if they are good of course and don't blurr the image too much in the corners and don't provide much more CA), like 70-200. I found out after some longer time, that on 7D you really need to setup everything more accurate. I think that the correct ISO setting in 7D is more crucial than in 5D2. Also 7d has really big pixel density in comparison to 5d2 and crop 1.6, so it requires higher shutter speed.
My observation are:
1. If you crop 5d2 image cutting off 1.6 factor to achieve the same image as in 7d (so having less pixels in that image than in 7d) - the image on 7d will be better as there are "more pixels in the duck", than on 5d2.
2. If you manage to take two photos having "same pixels in the duck" on images from both cameras (without any cropping), so using longer focal on 5d2 (or coming closer to target), but not 1.6 longer because of resolution differences - you will see better picture quality on 5d2.

7D is a great black teleconverter for use with any lenses

[tomscott]

But also the 5D MKII is a step backwards. AF system is so old and ruins the camera really, is it still worth £1600 I don't think so, if it were £1250 £1300 then I would say yes. But then the 5D MKIII is that worth another £1000 premium again no, but this is a frustrating time as a buyer for Canon so you did right pulling the trigger I just won't! It would be my luck to pull the trigger on one and it be dropped in price by a big margin or this consumer FF camera would be released. Also still shooting a 40D and spending £1600 on a camera with the same AF system would be counter productive IMO.

Sold my old 5D2 and got one for $1899 brand new not that long ago, canon auth. dealer+freeS&H (that's about £1212 right?).

Doesn't work like that here in the UK cheapest atm in around £1600 second hand the 5D MKII are about £1250. The 5D MKIII is £1000 more here than it is in america..

That offer from adorama on the home page for $4299 with a 24-105mm and the grip. Well it is $4299 body only in the UK or £2800, prices are ridiculous over here.

[briansquibb]

They both are suffering from noise

They're both ISO 3200 and the presentation size is roughly 24". There's some noise, but neither "sucks", and there really isn't much at all to choose between them. (And some of the roughness you consider "noise" would disappear in a print where all pixels can be laid down on the paper instead of scaled down by algorithm.)

I wouldn't be happy with that noise - there is some ugly stuff in the left image

[mibu]

yeah marek, you’re absolutely right! so the main point in the choice between 7d and 5d can be the final printed image. and that means if you want to print large, then the 5d is a better choice.

[paul13walnut5]

Unless you are trying to get a keeper out of a very fast moving subject.

A 7D may exhibit more (but perfectly acceptable) noise, but in some situations you might want a choice of 24 frames taken over 3 seconds rather than 10 or 11.

You might also want to have more of those shots in focus.

In which case BETWEEN A 7D AND 5D2 you would want a 7D.

I am not knocking the 5D2, or blind to any of the shortcomings of the 7D, but they are different cameras optimised for different users.

[mibu]

exactly!

[Random Orbits]

Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence?

The original comment was that a 5D2 lets you stop down more before diffraction impacts sharpness. This is false. When shooting equivalent landscapes (FoV and DoF) diffraction does not impact any format more than any other. You cannot get "more DoF with less diffraction" with FF. This is true across the spectrum, from 4/3 to large format.

What does this have to do with my comment that you cited?   

For me it would depend on other factors. Again I'll point out that if you need more DoF then you can get with a wide open prime on FF, then you've lost the sensor ISO advantage. f/1.4 is not a sweet spot for FF, it's hardly usable. And I have more trouble nailing focus with a fast prime on the 5D2 then on the 7D, aggravated by having the lens wide open.

Now if we're talking f/2.8 zooms where f/2.8 offers sufficient DoF, then yes, I would pick up the 5D2 for the dark auditorium. The f/2.8 zooms make complete sense on FF for, say, wedding and PJ work.

Yes, you would lose the speed advantage to maintain the same DOF but it wouldn't be any WORSE than the crop sensor.  The FF sensor gives you add option of shallower DOF, and that can be traded for shutter speed.  I like having that option.  A crop sensor does not give you that option.

The same lenses will also result in higher resolution (lp per image height) on a larger sensor.

A false meme caused by a general misunderstanding of lens testing. The same lenses will result in higher detail contrast (sharpness). If these were the film days, that difference would be a big deal. In the world of PS it's inconsequential between these two particular sensors, except at higher ISOs where sharpening increases the noise differences.

I don't understand what you're saying.  I'm saying that the enlarging process will affect details when printed at the same size and that higher density crop sensors will require better optics to resolve the same level of detail when printed at the same size.  Are you saying that it's not true or that it doesn't matter?  Interpolation (uprezzing) can not create more detail.  I don't mean to sound petty but I'm genuinely curious.  I recently printed an image from a 5DII 24in x 36in.  I was happy with the print.  Would the 7D have provided the same print quality?