Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[Aglet]

We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult. The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

So JR, if you buy or borrow that d800, don't be drinkin' too much coffee when you're test-shooting hand held lenses.

 

[candyman]

To the Dynamic Range hunters just a small hint... the advantage of Nikon is only on the lower ISOs. If you need high ISO for sportsphotography or birds, the Canon is equal around ISO 800 with even better results on the higher ones.



Most people forget this, blame Canon but shoot with ISO1600 on a wedding.

Interesting. But a 6D for sports and BIF photography is really challenging.
A comparison with the 5D MKII or 1DX would be more logical....would it not?

 

[alistairm1]

I couldn't really care less about video, unless in the implementation they compromise the still image quality.
As mentioned above Canon have a very good offering for video producers.
I wonder if there are as many people on the video forum whinging because the C100 doesn't produce still images on a par with a 1DX?

 

[vscd]

Interesting. But a 6D for sports and BIF photography is really challenging.
A comparison with the 5D MKII or 1DX would be more logical....would it not?

I just wanted to use the newest fullframe-sensors in the comparision, you can use DXOMark with own choices:

 

[privatebydesign]

We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult. The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

Having seen your work, I doubt it.

 

[wickidwombat]

We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult. The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

Having seen your work, I doubt it.

no really dont beat about the bush tell us what you really think ...

 

[RLPhoto]

We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult. The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

Having seen your work, I doubt it.

Likewise.

 

[privatebydesign]

We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult. The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

Having seen your work, I doubt it.

no really dont beat about the bush tell us what you really think ...

I might not be very PC, or win any awards for diplomacy or subtlety, but I do like to make my comments as unambiguous as possible. ;D

 

[Aglet]

We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult. The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

Having seen your work, I doubt it.

I'l show you mine..

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22441.0

now show me yours.
BTW, the image linked above was at 1/6s, not 1/15. It'd print comfortably up to 48" high before I'd consider tweaking pixels. Oh, and there was a slight shadow lift too, as the foreground was too dark for my liking and I wanted a more gradual gradient.

 

[privatebydesign]

We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult. The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

Having seen your work, I doubt it.

I'l show you mine..

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22441.0

now show me yours.
BTW, the image linked above was at 1/6s, not 1/15. It'd print comfortably up to 48" high before I'd consider tweaking pixels. Oh, and there was a slight shadow lift too, as the foreground was too dark for my liking and I wanted a more gradual gradient.

So you are asserting that you get "crisper" shots from the D800 at 3200iso, and 1/6 second @ f4.5 handheld than you did from the Canon at 200iso, and 1/400 second @ f8 (sunny 16 exposure for "bright sunlight") with the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII? Or just over EV1 with no contrast compared to EV12 with great contrast.

That makes no sense.

Also, if you are happy to print at 153dpi I understand why we have these differences of opinion.

You can search my attachments history for some of mine if you are interested.

 

[Aglet]

So you are asserting that you get "crisper" shots from the D800 at 3200iso, and 1/6 second @ f4.5 handheld than you did from the Canon at 200iso, and 1/400 second @ f8 (sunny 16 exposure for "bright sunlight") with the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII? Or just over EV1 with no contrast compared to EV12 with great contrast.

nope, that's not what I said

That makes no sense.

that's cuz it's not what I said. You're trying to pull my statement into la-la-land to make it look absurd.

I just happened to supply a 1 stop slower shutter example at 3200iso as it's still sharp enough to print large and look good even if standing closer than "normal viewing distance" for that size print.
At base to 400 or 800 iso, and as slow as 1/15s with my 70-200 @ 200mm, I can still get very crisp images. So I'm not up to listening to anybody's nonsense that Nikon lenses can't supply enough sharpness to be used by a 36MP sensor or that there's so much vibration without using a tripod and MLU that you can't still obtain a crisp shot.

Also, if you are happy to print at 153dpi I understand why we have these differences of opinion.

what's wrong with 150 PPI (not dpi) for a 48" print?
how close do you expect to be viewing it from?
HAHA! or are you not a pixel-peeper until it's on paper?

You can search my attachments history for some of mine if you are interested.

done, jeez, I wish I'd have started from the recent end!
Aweful lot of educational (kudos t' you for that) and documentary stuff to wade thru before finding some of your T-S shots this month. Competent enough images, but subjectively, for me, they just don't tickle my art bone.

 

[Sporgon]

I've been following this debate on the FF cropped vs extra 'reach' of the denser pixel'd APS, and couldn't quite believe that the APS wouldn't be better, so I shot two quick hand held shots with AF out of the window on a 5DII and a 1100D, so after cropping it is about 8mp from the FF and 12 from the crop. Downsampled the crop to the same size and here are the results at 100%

I'm quite surprised. Going to do it again with a better lens to see if this can bring out the benefit of those extra pixels.

 

[Sporgon]

I have to say that this has really surprised me. Here's another example this time using a much better lens at optimal aperture, hand held. I have to own up and say I cheated because I ended up using live view to focus as I couldn't belief the results. 5DII cropped to APS so about 8.5 mp and a 12 mp 1100D. Just for fun I removed the data to see who can tell which is the crop camera. It should be obvious.

I'm now going to go and read up on the appropriate thread to try and understand what's going on.......

 

[Lee Jay]

Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down. Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.

 

[Sporgon]

Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down. Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.

But with more original pixels on target I would expect the higher res one to be better defined even when reduced. I'll try up sampling the lower res one, but still not go further than 100% enlargement as this seems to inevitably disadvantage the lower one to me.

 

[crashpc]

I highly doubt your test as it is still not very clear to me what did you do, and why we see about 1170px wide images. You wrote something about 8,5Mpx So please explain your acting in a way so we understand what all have you done to these images. Also your situation with 1100D and 5DII is not general situation. While new 1200D has over 80% of 5D IIIs resolution, 1100D has only 60% of resolution compared to 5D II. I expect it to be not so close even when I can imagine why would someone sacrifice this difference for good 5D III...

 

[Sporgon]

Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down. Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.

As I said I don't really see this as an accurate comparison unless you are going to enlarge beyond 100%, but anyway I up sampled the lower px file in photoshop, and here is the result, shown at a 50% crop.

Down sampling from a higher resolution - more pixels on target - should give more definition just as 10 mp sRAW in the 5DII results in more definition than the 5D 12.7 mp RAW.

I agree that a 12 mp 1100D is not an 18 mp 7D, but even so I would have expected to see some difference.

 

[Lee Jay]

Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down. Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.

As I said I don't really see this as an accurate comparison unless you are going to enlarge beyond 100%,

You aren't. You're keeping all the smaller pixels instead of removing them. The larger pixels have to be enlarged because they don't have all the smaller pixels.

but anyway I up sampled the lower px file in photoshop, and here is the result, shown at a 50% crop.

Where you have now eliminated half the resolution, so there should be essentially no difference.

 

[Sporgon]

but anyway I up sampled the lower px file in photoshop, and here is the result, shown at a 50% crop.

Where you have now eliminated half the resolution, so there should be essentially no difference.

OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference. Both on Digic 4 but I agree the 5DII will have the more advanced sensor etc. Also 12 mp is not the same as an 18 mp 7D, but even so this surprises me.

 

[Loswr]

OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference.

Your methodology is horribly flawed. You need to test using the real world techniques that anyone who cares about image quality understands and uses for all of their shooting.

[list type=decimal]
[*]Put the camera* on a massive tripod.
[*]Weigh the tripod down with a load of bricks or cement.
[*]Manually focus with 10x live view.
[*]Engage mirror lockup.
[*]Shoot 8-10 shots of the same scene so you can pick the sharpest.
[/list]
* Camera must be a D810 for best results.

Follow those steps, and the differences will be obvious.

</sarcasm>