T
that1guy
Guest
This was the sample I had seen a while ago showing the noise difference between the 7D and the 5D mkII.
http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/
As you can see the 7D actually does pretty well. I'm not saying that it doesn't do ok (I think I might have ruffled some feathers before ), I'm just saying that I would prefer something that is better than that. Anyway, going based on arguments, more pixels are better than fewer with low noise. My thought is, why not have more pixels and less noise. I am of the opinion that if you can have less pixel density you will have a better photo. I think that is one of the reasons why the 5DmkII has better image quality. The "more pixels is better crowd" might argue that the 5DII has more pixels, but come on, it is only 3mp more (which isn't that much) and when you look at the pixel level the 5DII really is doing better.
Another problem with a more tightly packed sensor is diffraction, but that is a whole other topic. I don't know all of the technical end of it, and I don't want to start a big argument, so I'll quit w/ it here. Just wanted to show that the less density/better pixels crowd has a good point too
The other thing I will throw out there is this...we all have different needs. Some people need a camera that has a better looking image when viewed at 100% (stock photographers would be a good example), other people need a fast performing camera that will get the photo in the instant and make a nice print (wedding photographers great example here). I hope no one thinks I'm bashing one choice over another...just trying to point out why I made mine
Oh, and I just found one more thing that proved me wrong on an earlier thought I had...DxO Mark is an independent lab that tests camera sensors for all kinds of things (sn ratio, dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity, etc). The 7D actually does beat the 40D on most accounts, so that changed my mind there. A 1D mkiv (a camera that came out around the same time so technology is on a more level field) did beat the 7D by quite a margin. Is it better technology, or a less dense sensor, or both? I don't know, food for thought though. If anyone is curious, they can check the DxO site. It is pretty cool, you can compare up to three cameras side by side. Here's the link: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors
http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/
As you can see the 7D actually does pretty well. I'm not saying that it doesn't do ok (I think I might have ruffled some feathers before ), I'm just saying that I would prefer something that is better than that. Anyway, going based on arguments, more pixels are better than fewer with low noise. My thought is, why not have more pixels and less noise. I am of the opinion that if you can have less pixel density you will have a better photo. I think that is one of the reasons why the 5DmkII has better image quality. The "more pixels is better crowd" might argue that the 5DII has more pixels, but come on, it is only 3mp more (which isn't that much) and when you look at the pixel level the 5DII really is doing better.
Another problem with a more tightly packed sensor is diffraction, but that is a whole other topic. I don't know all of the technical end of it, and I don't want to start a big argument, so I'll quit w/ it here. Just wanted to show that the less density/better pixels crowd has a good point too
The other thing I will throw out there is this...we all have different needs. Some people need a camera that has a better looking image when viewed at 100% (stock photographers would be a good example), other people need a fast performing camera that will get the photo in the instant and make a nice print (wedding photographers great example here). I hope no one thinks I'm bashing one choice over another...just trying to point out why I made mine
Oh, and I just found one more thing that proved me wrong on an earlier thought I had...DxO Mark is an independent lab that tests camera sensors for all kinds of things (sn ratio, dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity, etc). The 7D actually does beat the 40D on most accounts, so that changed my mind there. A 1D mkiv (a camera that came out around the same time so technology is on a more level field) did beat the 7D by quite a margin. Is it better technology, or a less dense sensor, or both? I don't know, food for thought though. If anyone is curious, they can check the DxO site. It is pretty cool, you can compare up to three cameras side by side. Here's the link: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors
Upvote
0