7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?

[jrista]

Grrr Not sure why the site thought I "forgot my password" when I quite emphatically DIDN'T forget it, but now that I've gotten my rant that is tangent to the topic out of the way....

I've owned a 7D for about a year and a half now. I find the 70D vs 7D to be an interesting comparison. When it was announced that the 70D would have "the same" 19 point AF system as the 7D, I wondered that was really the case or if its Servo accuracy would be improved. The LensRentals results showing that the new AF systems in the 1DX and 5D Mark III had massive improvements in Servo tracking, even against such heavy hitters as the 1D Mark IV, so I thought it might be likely that the 70D's system would be more accurate. Based on various reviews, and posts CR, I'm satisfied that it has been substantially improved, despite being labelled "the same." I'm definitely +1 in the camp that AF is crucial to IQ. A clean out of focus image, is still and OOF image!

In addition, I've seen some of the IQ issues with the 7D that have been reported. My 7D blows my T3i out of the water for most things. It's AF may not be equal to the 70D's and not nearly as good as the 5D Mark III or the especially AF speed and accuracy on moving subjects, but it is still a great system that beats the Rebel hands down, as one would expect. But I've seen some of the sky noise at 100 ISO in airshow pics--the T3i (used as a second body), does seem to create cleaner images that require less editing. Still, I find my 7D images clean up nicely in post (I'm just using DPP).

Based on the reviews I've read, it seems that the 70D has made some progress on both the IQ and AF fronts, making it a compelling camera. Two AF features it's missing though are AF Expansion and AF Spot mode. I have read many reviews that make light of these two modes, but I've found them very useful. AF Expansion is very useful for tracking a fast moving BIF. And I find Spot mode far more useful than I'd originally thought, when trying to get a lock on a bird through dense foliage. ....

+1 Thanks for the thoughts and perspective!

The 7D is definitely getting dated, but it is a "fine horse", as you put it. I still use a 7D for all of my work. I've put off buying a new camera for a good long while now, waiting for the 7D II. It's getting pretty tough to keep putting off a purchase, however, as the IQ race just marches on past me, and I'm always on the hunt for better and better IQ wherever I can find it.

Sometimes you need to give that fine old horse a rest from the racetrack, and put a faster, prettier, younger horse on the track instead. ;-)

For anyone just buying their first horse, I'd say skip the 7D and get the 70D.

 

[abcde12345]

Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?

Worth considering because the D7100 is cheaper than the 70D.

Honest answer: D7100 is much better than 7D, however I'm not sure about 70D. It is a no brainer: Canon is screwing its customers with the entry-level cameras. Just look at D5300 and D7100; I drool whenever I see my friends use a D7100: straight-out-of-camera-JPEG is amazing. 70D boasts a new technology, so I'm not too sure.

 

[MichaelHodges]

The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

 

[jrista]

The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

RAW:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

 

[MichaelHodges]

Thanks.

7D is going on Craigslist for a new 70D.

 

[mrsfotografie]

To be honest I prefer the results from my NEX-6 over the 7D. Even the NEX-6 high iso's have a nice 'grain' to them, while the 7D gets all blotchy... So for now it's 5Dx full frame or Sony APS-C for me.... (and I'm a little worried about Sony full frame, but the Canon bodies are ergonomically just too excellent)....

 

[Snaps]

The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

Personally, it's not THAT substantial. Yes, there's a difference, but it's not the difference between using cheap glass versus expensive glass. Just my opinion, anyway.

 

[CarlTN]

The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

Personally, it's not THAT substantial. Yes, there's a difference, but it's not the difference between using cheap glass versus expensive glass. Just my opinion, anyway.

I say it is substantial...to the point that I'm wondering if all of this difference is solely due to the AA filter and slightly higher pixel density (and newer processing)? Or is it more due to sample variation of lenses, or a bit of human inaccuracy with focusing? I guess there are a number of factors in play...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...in my opinion. Because like it or not, there is sample variation, even among the best, most expensive lenses.

 

[Loswr]

...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...

While Bryan often tests multiple copies of lenses (presumably keeping the best one, he knows about sample variation, too), the 200/2 is part of his personal collection and AFAIK it's the same copy of the lens used for all tests. I could ask him (or you could), if you're curious...

 

[jrista]

...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...

While Bryan often tests multiple copies of lenses (presumably keeping the best one, he knows about sample variation, too), the 200/2 is part of his personal collection and AFAIK it's the same copy of the lens used for all tests. I could ask him (or you could), if you're curious...

I am pretty sure it's the same lens he uses for the 200mm samples. The entire point was that they all used exactly the same lens so that lens variation could be eliminated as a variable. Bryan has always been rather meticulous, I know he's mentioned in past reviews how many times he had to send a lens back to get a good copy.

 

[CarlTN]

...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...

While Bryan often tests multiple copies of lenses (presumably keeping the best one, he knows about sample variation, too), the 200/2 is part of his personal collection and AFAIK it's the same copy of the lens used for all tests. I could ask him (or you could), if you're curious...

If it's the same copy, then that would remove a large part of what might otherwise be causing a difference (in my opinion)...that was all I was saying. I was not criticizing Bryan at all; I like his website, have looked at it for a few years now.

 

[Loswr]

If it's the same copy, then that would remove a large part of what might otherwise be causing a difference (in my opinion)...that was all I was saying. I was not criticizing Bryan at all; I like his website, have looked at it for a few years now.

It's a good point you made, that while the difference between the 70D and 7D is significant, it's far less than the difference between an excellent lens and a relatively poor lens (e.g. this comparison).

 

[Snaps]

The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

Personally, it's not THAT substantial. Yes, there's a difference, but it's not the difference between using cheap glass versus expensive glass. Just my opinion, anyway.

I say it is substantial...to the point that I'm wondering if all of this difference is solely due to the AA filter and slightly higher pixel density (and newer processing)? Or is it more due to sample variation of lenses, or a bit of human inaccuracy with focusing? I guess there are a number of factors in play...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...in my opinion. Because like it or not, there is sample variation, even among the best, most expensive lenses.

I know there are differences. I guess what I'm getting at is the differences are only really noticeable at the pixel level and by comparing side by side. Don't get me wrong, overall I would consider the 70D a better camera than the 7D (and I own a 7D), but for myself, it's not enough to warrant an upgrade. But one thing I will add is this is perhaps encouraging for the 7D Mark II, as if the 70D is a starting point to what the former will become.

Like I said, just my thoughts.

 

[CarlTN]

The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

Personally, it's not THAT substantial. Yes, there's a difference, but it's not the difference between using cheap glass versus expensive glass. Just my opinion, anyway.

I say it is substantial...to the point that I'm wondering if all of this difference is solely due to the AA filter and slightly higher pixel density (and newer processing)? Or is it more due to sample variation of lenses, or a bit of human inaccuracy with focusing? I guess there are a number of factors in play...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...in my opinion. Because like it or not, there is sample variation, even among the best, most expensive lenses.

I know there are differences. I guess what I'm getting at is the differences are only really noticeable at the pixel level and by comparing side by side. Don't get me wrong, overall I would consider the 70D a better camera than the 7D (and I own a 7D), but for myself, it's not enough to warrant an upgrade. But one thing I will add is this is perhaps encouraging for the 7D Mark II, as if the 70D is a starting point to what the former will become.

Like I said, just my thoughts.

I see what you mean. The problem is though, that the 7D2 will possibly cost almost as much as a 5D3 (recently got down to a hair over $2500). The 7D2 will only be valuable for use with extremely sharp telephoto lenses, and not much else...in my opinion. Why? Its pixels at 24 MP on a 1.6x sensor, will be very critical of a lens, and of focus accuracy. It will be a waste to use it on most EF-S lenses. So, they should just make it a 1.3x, or 1.2x crop sensor instead...with larger pixels...but still with a total of 24 MP or more. Why won't they do that? Because then it would cut into the overall performance a bit of the 1DX and 5D3, and would necessarily cost more than the 5D3 to boot. Oh well...perhaps the 1DX ii will have an in camera crop feature to accomplish something similar. It just won't have enough MP to make as much use of it.

 

[philmoz]

...
I say it is substantial...to the point that I'm wondering if all of this difference is solely due to the AA filter and slightly higher pixel density (and newer processing)? Or is it more due to sample variation of lenses, or a bit of human inaccuracy with focusing? I guess there are a number of factors in play...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...in my opinion. Because like it or not, there is sample variation, even among the best, most expensive lenses.

Oh no! Weaker AA filter! What shall we do sir? Run for the hills!

As decided by in earlier threads where it was determined that no AA filer is REALLY BAD (and by extension, a strong one is better than a weak one). this is going to ruin everyone's photos because they'll have moire and aliasing throughout all of the detail.

You picked the wrong username for this forum.

You should have used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dilbert_characters#Topper

 

[Snaps]

The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

Personally, it's not THAT substantial. Yes, there's a difference, but it's not the difference between using cheap glass versus expensive glass. Just my opinion, anyway.

I say it is substantial...to the point that I'm wondering if all of this difference is solely due to the AA filter and slightly higher pixel density (and newer processing)? Or is it more due to sample variation of lenses, or a bit of human inaccuracy with focusing? I guess there are a number of factors in play...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...in my opinion. Because like it or not, there is sample variation, even among the best, most expensive lenses.

I know there are differences. I guess what I'm getting at is the differences are only really noticeable at the pixel level and by comparing side by side. Don't get me wrong, overall I would consider the 70D a better camera than the 7D (and I own a 7D), but for myself, it's not enough to warrant an upgrade. But one thing I will add is this is perhaps encouraging for the 7D Mark II, as if the 70D is a starting point to what the former will become.

Like I said, just my thoughts.

I see what you mean. The problem is though, that the 7D2 will possibly cost almost as much as a 5D3 (recently got down to a hair over $2500). The 7D2 will only be valuable for use with extremely sharp telephoto lenses, and not much else...in my opinion. Why? Its pixels at 24 MP on a 1.6x sensor, will be very critical of a lens, and of focus accuracy. It will be a waste to use it on most EF-S lenses. So, they should just make it a 1.3x, or 1.2x crop sensor instead...with larger pixels...but still with a total of 24 MP or more. Why won't they do that? Because then it would cut into the overall performance a bit of the 1DX and 5D3, and would necessarily cost more than the 5D3 to boot. Oh well...perhaps the 1DX ii will have an in camera crop feature to accomplish something similar. It just won't have enough MP to make as much use of it.

Do we even know for sure the 7D MK2 will have a 24MP sensor though? I understand some of the rumors say that, but I'm skeptical it'll be 24MP. I actually think it'll simply be an upgraded 70D sensor with either Dual DIGIC 5+ or maybe the DIGIC 6 even. But we'll out for sure in the coming months.

 

[CarlTN]

The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

Personally, it's not THAT substantial. Yes, there's a difference, but it's not the difference between using cheap glass versus expensive glass. Just my opinion, anyway.

I say it is substantial...to the point that I'm wondering if all of this difference is solely due to the AA filter and slightly higher pixel density (and newer processing)? Or is it more due to sample variation of lenses, or a bit of human inaccuracy with focusing? I guess there are a number of factors in play...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...in my opinion. Because like it or not, there is sample variation, even among the best, most expensive lenses.

I know there are differences. I guess what I'm getting at is the differences are only really noticeable at the pixel level and by comparing side by side. Don't get me wrong, overall I would consider the 70D a better camera than the 7D (and I own a 7D), but for myself, it's not enough to warrant an upgrade. But one thing I will add is this is perhaps encouraging for the 7D Mark II, as if the 70D is a starting point to what the former will become.

Like I said, just my thoughts.

I see what you mean. The problem is though, that the 7D2 will possibly cost almost as much as a 5D3 (recently got down to a hair over $2500). The 7D2 will only be valuable for use with extremely sharp telephoto lenses, and not much else...in my opinion. Why? Its pixels at 24 MP on a 1.6x sensor, will be very critical of a lens, and of focus accuracy. It will be a waste to use it on most EF-S lenses. So, they should just make it a 1.3x, or 1.2x crop sensor instead...with larger pixels...but still with a total of 24 MP or more. Why won't they do that? Because then it would cut into the overall performance a bit of the 1DX and 5D3, and would necessarily cost more than the 5D3 to boot. Oh well...perhaps the 1DX ii will have an in camera crop feature to accomplish something similar. It just won't have enough MP to make as much use of it.

Do we even know for sure the 7D MK2 will have a 24MP sensor though? I understand some of the rumors say that, but I'm skeptical it'll be 24MP. I actually think it'll simply be an upgraded 70D sensor with either Dual DIGIC 5+ or maybe the DIGIC 6 even. But we'll out for sure in the coming months.

That's possible. But if that's the case, the 70D is going to be seen as even more of a bargain, in my opinion.

 

[TheJock]

I hope you all don’t mind me asking a question relating to the 70D here.

The image quality at the zoom end of my Sigma 150-500 is poor on my current 550D, but once I buy a 70D next month do you think the 70D will provide slightly better IQ with this lens than my 550D??? Just wondering if the very knowledgeable folks on here think that the new technology in the 70D would improve the lenses capabilities.

As always, grateful for any comments/opinions

Stewart

 

[Marsu42]

Just wondering if the very knowledgeable folks on here think that the new technology in the 70D would improve the lenses capabilities.

Yes, a bit, the 70d has a bit more resolution, a bit less weaker aa filter (= more sharpness) and a bit less iso noise (= more detail after noise reduction). But make no mistake, basically it's a wash, the 18mp sensor of your 550d isn't much different from Canon's latest incarnation... the worth of the 70d is elsewhere (better usability than Rebel, phase & lv af system, more fps).

 

[TheJock]

Thanks Marsu42, I'm just wondering if I should sell the Sigma to fund other lenses, but if IQ will improve it may serve my purposes better on the 70D, I don’t want to jump the gun and sell a lens which may noticeably improve to my untrained eye!! 8)