Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[Don Haines]

Weirdly, despite the overwhelming evidence of crop superiority presented in this thread, both Canon and Nikon insist on putting full frame sensors in their pro level action/sports/wildlife cameras. Hmmm.

One is superior under one set of conditions, the other is superior under another set of conditions, and for other conditions it is a wash.

The general rules of thumb are if you go wide, get FF.... if you go long, go APS-C, unless you are going long in poor light where the increased ISO capacity of FF cancels out the higher density sampling of APS-C... but only in the limits of what you can afford.

What you shoot with depends on what your needs are and what your budget is.

For example, if I have $2500 and want to take pictures of distant birds.... I'm going to grab a 70D and the Tamron 150-600.... If my budget is $25,000 I am going to grab a 1DX, a 600F4, and a 2X teleconverter.

 

[Loswr]

For example, if I have $2500 and want to take pictures of distant birds.... I'm going to grab a 70D and the Tamron 150-600.... If my budget is $25,000 I am going to grab a 1DX, a 600F4, and a 2X teleconverter.

^^THIS^^

The main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. (I think may have said that once or twice.)

 

[privatebydesign]

Do you see a detail difference between these two? They were shot with the same aperture diameter.

What did you shoot the second image with... and what settings?

First image is with a 20D @ 280mm, f/6.3, 1/200s, ISO400
Second image is with a T2i @ 560mm, f/11, 1/20s, ISO200

I wouldn't count on the EXIF data as the teleconverter stacks were different and only the first one reports.

I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF. With regards the question of comparing a crop capture to a FF one cropped whilst using AF and handholding I can't think of a more irrelevant post. Well done.

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF.

The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII. Both were handheld, both were with AF.

 

[jrista]

Do you see a detail difference between these two? They were shot with the same aperture diameter.

What did you shoot the second image with... and what settings?

First image is with a 20D @ 280mm, f/6.3, 1/200s, ISO400
Second image is with a T2i @ 560mm, f/11, 1/20s, ISO200

I wouldn't count on the EXIF data as the teleconverter stacks were different and only the first one reports.

I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF. With regards the question of comparing a crop capture to a FF one cropped whilst using AF and handholding I can't think of a more irrelevant post. Well done.

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison. It's impossible to get images that can be compared when doing it hand-held. I think that's purposely creating a scenario where a comparison CANNOT effectively be made. It is possible to defocus, and use AF to lock onto a subject, then trigger an exposure remotely (tethering or remote shutter release), shoot the same subject from the same location at the same distance, and get results that are eminently comparable.

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...as even if someone did gather some images using hand-held equipment, there is no logical, objective way of comparing them. It's an unnecessary requirement as long as the cameras are used identically, as long as AF is always employed before each shot, etc.

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all. I honestly don't know why we see different things, perhaps it is a monitor quality issue, perhaps it is a vision issue, perhaps it is simply psychological. I don't know, however even your very own example data, from where I stand, demonstrates the point: The 7D has a resolution edge over sensors with larger pixels. The 70D would have an even bigger edge...it isn't nearly as soft as the 7D was, it has better IQ overall (FWC of ~26ke- vs. 20ke-, an increase of over 30%!). If the 7D II hits the streets with the 24mp sensor that uses new technology, the resolution edge will increase even more for crop cameras. Hell, there are other brands that have 24mp APS-C cameras that use Sony Exmor and Toshiba sensors, both of which produce better IQ than Canon APS-C sensors...I'd love to see a comparison between them and any Canon FF.

I agree that Lee Jay's use of two APS-C cameras is invalid in this context...the request was for a comparison of FF and APS-C cameras. I have both a 5D III and a 7D. I'll see if I can find a decent enough real-world target that has a useful amount of detail that can be compared in the way you want. I have personally never claimed that the difference between a 7D and any Canon FF was "super significant" or "clear as day"...however the difference does exist, and it's enough to be meaningful. My 7D is handicapped compared to modern APS-C parts...there have been a good number of new APS-C sensors released since the days of the 7D, which has a stronger AA filter than pretty much any modern APS-C. Further, Canon APS-C sensors have fallen behind the competition just like their FF sensors, so comparing a Nikon APS-C camera to a Canon FF camera would demonstrate an even greater resolution advantage for the smaller sensor.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF.

The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII. Both were handheld, both were with AF.

So pixel size is the only factor here? Nothing to do with AA filters, age of design, etc etc etc.

If you are using fooling AF on a multi TC setup at night at a minimum of f11 then that, again, is not the test I am asking for, that is not how most people use their lenses most of the time.

If you can't come up with the specific images I asked for, even though you said you had "many" and "every test ever" demonstrated it, then there is no point in us going through this.

The stuff you are showing is 100% irrelevant to the challenge to "Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage." To do that you need a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/1Dx/6D, and a lens. If you don't have those then you cannot do what I ask.

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF.

The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII. Both were handheld, both were with AF.

So pixel size is the only factor here? Nothing to do with AA filters, age of design, etc etc etc.

The 5DII's pixels and the 20D pixels perform almost identically. And, yes, pixel size is by-far the primary driver of resolving power.

 

[Loswr]

The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII. Both were handheld, both were with AF.

So, it is your contention that the 20D sensor will give the same IQ (sharpness, noise, etc.) as an APS-C sized patch of the 5DII sensor? Things like the AA filter, CFA and microlens design, amplifier circuitry, etc., have no impact on image quality?

 

[Lee Jay]

The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII. Both were handheld, both were with AF.

So, it is your contention that the 20D sensor will give the same IQ (sharpness, noise, etc.) as an APS-C sized patch of the 5DII sensor? Things like the AA filter, CFA and microlens design, amplifier circuitry, etc., have no impact on image quality?

I didn't say they have no impact, I said they are almost the same between the two cameras and that the pixel size is the primary driver (not the only factor).

 

[privatebydesign]

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

 

[Lee Jay]

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think a 500mm lens will out-resolve a 300mm lens, at the same aperture?

 

[privatebydesign]

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think a 500mm lens will out-resolve a 300mm lens, at the same aperture?

Even though you haven't answered mine? Sure.

There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.

 

[Lee Jay]

There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.

Your test isn't a test, it's a random number generator. I provided controlled tests that demonstrated the point.

Let's say the two lenses are identical in optical performance (perfect). Will a 500/6.3 out-resolve a 300/4 under your conditions?

 

[yeahright]

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think a 500mm lens will out-resolve a 300mm lens, at the same aperture?

Even though you haven't answered mine? Sure.

There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.

by insisting on a hand-held comparison, is your point essentially that when shooting hand-held, nobody can hold steady enough for an APS-C camera to show its resolution advantage over a FF and that therefore, the higher resolution is useless anyway in those (=most) situations?

 

[privatebydesign]

There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.

Your test isn't a test, it's a random number generator. I provided controlled tests that demonstrated the point.

Let's say the two lenses are identical in optical performance (perfect). Will a 500/6.3 out-resolve a 300/4 under your conditions?

If they are both "perfect" they will both resolve infinitely.

Stop trying to break down a simple system test to a series of theoretical concepts you think you can prove, system tests don't work like that and you can't supply "evidence" to support your position.

 

[Lee Jay]

There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.

Your test isn't a test, it's a random number generator. I provided controlled tests that demonstrated the point.

Let's say the two lenses are identical in optical performance (perfect). Will a 500/6.3 out-resolve a 300/4 under your conditions?

If they are both "perfect" they will both resolve infinitely.

Oh, so diffraction doesn't exist where you live?

And you know darned well that I meant on the same camera.

Stop trying to break down a simple system test to a series of theoretical concepts you think you can prove, system tests don't work like that and you can't supply "evidence" to support your position.

Yes, I did. You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.

 

[privatebydesign]

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think a 500mm lens will out-resolve a 300mm lens, at the same aperture?

Even though you haven't answered mine? Sure.

There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.

by insisting on a hand-held comparison, is your point essentially that when shooting hand-held, nobody can hold steady enough for an APS-C camera to show its resolution advantage over a FF and that therefore, the higher resolution is useless anyway in those (=most) situations?

My request for a resolution comparison done as most people use theirs cameras will demonstrate that we do not, 99% of the time, realise the resolution the sensors are capable of in ideal bench test type scenarios.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes, I did. You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.

I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF.

The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII. Both were handheld, both were with AF.

Lee Jay,

This is my last comment to you unless you can actually supply the images you said you could.


You have now said the same images were shot both on a tripod, and handheld, you have no credibility.

 

[jrista]

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

I'd disagree that most people handhold in situations where you would need the added reach. In those situations, I believe most people are going to be using a tripod. I mean, that's what were talking about, here. Reach-limited situations where smaller pixels are going to show their advantage. Use of a tripod is a great normalizer...I shoot the 7D and 5D III on a tripod, with the same lens, in the same light. Usually, my entire goal is to maximize the lighting on my subject, get the right angle on my subject to minimize DR, etc. So I disagree that it's impossible to fully realize the advantage the 7D, or any other crop camera with high pixel count, has in real life.

I'd also disagree that you always have to be at a "non-optimal ISO" when using a cropped camera. I shot my 7D at ISO 400 all the time, and ISO 400 and 800 were the two optimal ISO settings for birds and wildlife. The whole notion that crepuscular hours are the only valid hours to shoot wildlife and birds in is also patently false. I have been photographing both for years now...my best photos are from the hours before sunset or after sunrise, when light is excellent, good color, and from an angle to the side of my subjects.

Your narrowing the parameters that are acceptable for this comparison as far as they can possibly be narrowed. Sure, full frame cameras have advantages. That doesn't change the fact that in common photographing situations, be it birds or wildlife during well-lit hours, sports with a well-lit field, macro with flash, whatever, "optimal" ISO settings, good shutter speeds, etc. are all viable use cases.

Cropped sensor cameras have two advantages. First, and foremost, is cost. They tend to be FAR more cost effective...someone in here already mentioned that they are eminently more capable of buying a $2,500 crop kit than a $25,000 FF kit that would be necessary to maximize the potential of a FF camera and ensure it kicks the crap out of FF in every situation (even reach limited...and I speak from experience, I've SPENT the near $30,000 on my kit, and I really had to in order to get the kind of focal length I needed to make the 5D III really surpass the 7D for distant birds...now it does...but, ouch! That's a LOT of money!!)

The other advantage is reach. Cropped sensors, and I'd argue newer cropped sensors are MUCH better at this than the 7D is these days, given how old it is, do indeed have improved resolving power. The 70D and pretty much any Nikon APS-C released in the last couple of years will demonstrate the benefit of crop-sensor reach better than the 7D can.

In any other situation...filling the frame more in a FF than a crop, when AF system counts more (until maybe the 7D II hits...if it really has a 65pt all-cross type AF system, it might, for a while, have a better AF system...generally FF AF systems are better), when you need to use REALLY high ISO settings, etc. Full frame obviously wins. But that's not the situation were debating here. Were debating reach-limited situations, where a tripod is highly likely, and if you know what your doing, with the ability to use an optimal ISO for either camera....

We don't need to convolute this to the point of absurdity.

 

[Don Haines]

Stop trying to break down a simple system test to a series of theoretical concepts you think you can prove, system tests don't work like that and you can't supply "evidence" to support your position.

Yes, I did. You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.

The tripod/handheld argument is a bit of a red herring. How good is the tripod? how well does it control vibrations? And shooting without a tripod depends a lot on the person, how stable their stance is, and are they leaning up against a tree/rock/building/??? for extra stability. I can hand-hold steadier than the typical tripod, but a good tripod is steadier than me.....

and yes, I can shoot the moon at 600mm, handheld, with nothing to lean against and still get a sharp picture...

The point is, that "handheld" is a nebulous standard that can never be defined, so therefore it can never be a controlled variable in tests...