5D MKIII vs 7D (70-200 2.8)

[Apop]

Hi, i was wondering if someone did or can make the following comparison, either real life or theoretical :

Canon 5dmkIII with 70-200 , crop the image to 2x equivalent (leaving about a 5.5mp picture)

vs

Canon 7d with 70-200, cropped 1.25x equivalent (leaving about a 11.5mp picture)

This should provide the same object size for both setups
At ISO's up to 1000 is what i am interested in

How would noise compare when you view it on a +-5.2 mp screen(macbook pro retina) ( almost pixel to pixel for the 5d3 image)

Alternative how would the 5d3 noise compare to 7d when cropped to same fov? ( again up to iso 1000)
(8.7 mp 5d3 against 18mp 7d)

 

[Loswr]

I haven't done this specific comparison, but what I can tell you based on many comparisons between 7D, 5DII and 1D X, at ISO less than 1000, you're giving up only MP, not IQ. The noise would appear similar. So if the 5.5 MP is sufficient for your desired output, you're losing nothing with FF. But if you need more MP for a large print, the 7D is the better choice.

Once you get above that ISO 800-1000 range, the cropped FF image will give you better IQ.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

It just so happens that, over in this thread here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13837.0

I posted comparisons between a 400 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) on a 5DIII cropped to the same field of view -- that is, the exact 2x cropping you describe.

As neuro points out, if you're left with enough megapickles for your porpoises, the cropped results hold up quite well. Head-to-head with a Great White, the cropped medium telephoto is going to lose. Of course! But it's still pretty good.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Apop]

Thanks for the responses,

I can understand that having more pixels will give more detail, and maybe my question is a bit weird and vague

but i would like to know

5dIII cropped to 1.6 fov (so 8.7mp there ,then downsized to +- 5mp (like when you set a wallpaper on your pc it adjust to your screen resolution)

vs

7d downsized to +-5mp

up to iso 1000 max, would the 5dIII still be well ahead?

It just so happens that, over in this thread here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13837.0

I posted comparisons between a 400 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) on a 5DIII cropped to the same field of view -- that is, the exact 2x cropping you describe.

As neuro points out, if you're left with enough megapickles for your porpoises, the cropped results hold up quite well. Head-to-head with a Great White, the cropped medium telephoto is going to lose. Of course! But it's still pretty good.

Cheers,

b&

 

[TrumpetPower!]

downsized to +- 5mp (like when you set a wallpaper on your pc it adjust to your screen resolution)

First, a 2560 x 1440 display is well under four megapickles, smaller even than you're indicating.

And, at such a low resolution, assuming good technique, there's not going to be a significant difference in sharpness regardless of the source.

You can get a feel for that in the images at the thread I posted to. The 100% crops from the 70-200 are noticeably softer than the 100% crops from the 400, but not overwhelmingly so. But, once the image gets scaled down to the whole frame picture, the only differences between the two are the depth of field.

You might want to play around with this for yourself. With a bit of Googling, you can find full-size images from practically any combination of lens and camera you might care to consider. Crop and scale as desired. (And be sure to perform suitable post-processing, especially sharpening, after modification!)

What you'll find is that the scenario you're describing is the second most forgiving one in all of modern photography, right after regular Web photography. And both are about as forgiving as old school newspaper photography, which is notoriously forgiving. You'll have to work hard to find something that doesn't excel at what you're describing.

Hell, even an iPhone would do a pretty good job. And, no, I'm not kidding. With good technique and good light, you could make a stunning full-desktop photo with an iPhone.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Apop]

Macbook pro retina : 2880*1800 =5.184

A little different than 1920*1080 (2.073mp) or 1280*720 (0.922mp)

But thanks for the tips

downsized to +- 5mp (like when you set a wallpaper on your pc it adjust to your screen resolution)

First, a 2560 x 1440 display is well under four megapickles, smaller even than you're indicating.