do crop sensors really add reach?

[jrista]

I'm confused about most the comments here.
Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.
The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

Simply put, the 7D and the T2i, all other things being equal (i.e. ignoring other quality attributes such as the AF system), in a focal-length limited scenario, DO offer better IQ (mathematically, which can be seen in the real world when used right). The 7D will produce images with 225% the amount of detail as the 5D II for any given focal length. No amount of upscaling of the 5D II image, regardless of whether they still look good, can compare to that. The quality of the image sensor is not dictated by the quality of the camera body it is housed within. The 7D is a professional-grade camera, even if it is Canon's cheapest professional-grade camera. The exact same sensor in the 7D is also used in the T2i, as well as in every other 18mp APS-C camera Canon makes.

If you are getting a mere 1% of keepers with a camera like the 7D or even the T2i, then the problem is not the camera...it's the user.

 

[PackLight]

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

Nice!

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

Camera shake? Tripod shake? The 7D has one of the smallest DSLR pixel pitches, only surpassed by Sony's 24mp APS-C sensors (which are actually 1.5x crop, so the difference is not as much as it sounds.) Like people have been saying about the D800: It really shows the lack of quality in your glass. Same goes for the 7D, only more so. At 100% crop, while the 7D WILL have more detail than the 5D II, unless you have the best glass money can buy that offers an MTF to match, it'll appear a bit soft. I don't think it has anything to do with an overly strong low-pass filter. I think it is simply that you need an order of magnitude better camera stability (along with a great lens) to produce ultracrisp 100% crop output like the 5D II can. The 5D II, with its 2.25x larger pixels, is somewhat forgiving. The 7D is entirely unforgiving. Normalize image size, either direction, in a focal-length limited scenario and the benefits of the 5D II IQ will largely disappear (although not entirely...it definitely has better very high ISO performance...i.e. ISO1600+ performance).

I own the EF 100-400mm lens and use it for my bird photography. I also rented the new EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS a couple months ago. Even with a 2x TC attached, the 300mm lens (@ 600mm w/ 2x) blew my 100-400 to smithereens. There was zero contest...Canon's latest glass is almost an unholy level of good. With the 1.4x TC for 420mm, it was like a match made in heaven with the 7D. The results were unbelievable. I used to blame the 7D for my IQ problems. Now, I blame the 100-400mm lens. Don't get me wrong, it is a great lens, but its an old lens, and its age most definitely shows when used on the 7D. I'd say any lens not a recently released (post-2009 release) and a Mark II generation with 4-stop IS at least (if it has IS) will show its age with a 7D.

It is up to each individual to decide if THAT particular trait of the 7D, its unbelievable demand on lenses, is a positive or a negative. The 7D has the potential to trounce even the 1D X for reach and detail, but you would need a kit so expensive you'd probably feel like a twit using the 7D with that kit. ;P

Well, actually I wasn't that serious.

But you are correct about the supertele's. While the new II versions are super sharp, so were the old versions. The improvement with the new 2x convertor is great as well. I have the version I 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4. The 100x400 can't even be considered in the same class with these lenses. Just like the difference you saw with the lenses, the 7D and 5D II are not even in the same class with the 1D IV, not just in AF but in many other ways.

The 7D and all crop bodies do have draw backs when photographing wildlife, because it seems we always give up something to gain something. We gain some resolution and AF ability over the 5D, (Not 4.5 times the resolution though and not a full 2.25 either ). Then we loose some some of the range we have with DOF. We loose some of our light which makes it a harder battle when trying to get enough speed and keep the ISO low. Our range of ISO is much tighter because of noise, most wildlife moves in the early morning or evening and this makes those times tougher. The 7D picture files tend to have a flatter appearance than the 5D II and most certainly the 1D IV's, creating that illusion of depth (the 3D look everyone talks about) is much harder to create with the 7D than the other two bodies. Then there is the Post Processing, with a 7D file I have to work it to make it all it can be where the 1D IV I almost have to do nothing.

Here is probably a big reason that the 7D isn't all that the specs make it out to be. I believe the 7D sensor is a fine sensor however I also believe that Canon has purposely dumbed down the files from the 7D with their firmware so that it would not produce files that initially come out looking better than the high end bodies. Notice the 1D X vs 1D C debate going on in another thread, and the complaints that they feel Canon is charging $6 to $7K more for just firmware.

 

[jrista]

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

Nice!

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

Camera shake? Tripod shake? The 7D has one of the smallest DSLR pixel pitches, only surpassed by Sony's 24mp APS-C sensors (which are actually 1.5x crop, so the difference is not as much as it sounds.) Like people have been saying about the D800: It really shows the lack of quality in your glass. Same goes for the 7D, only more so. At 100% crop, while the 7D WILL have more detail than the 5D II, unless you have the best glass money can buy that offers an MTF to match, it'll appear a bit soft. I don't think it has anything to do with an overly strong low-pass filter. I think it is simply that you need an order of magnitude better camera stability (along with a great lens) to produce ultracrisp 100% crop output like the 5D II can. The 5D II, with its 2.25x larger pixels, is somewhat forgiving. The 7D is entirely unforgiving. Normalize image size, either direction, in a focal-length limited scenario and the benefits of the 5D II IQ will largely disappear (although not entirely...it definitely has better very high ISO performance...i.e. ISO1600+ performance).

I own the EF 100-400mm lens and use it for my bird photography. I also rented the new EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS a couple months ago. Even with a 2x TC attached, the 300mm lens (@ 600mm w/ 2x) blew my 100-400 to smithereens. There was zero contest...Canon's latest glass is almost an unholy level of good. With the 1.4x TC for 420mm, it was like a match made in heaven with the 7D. The results were unbelievable. I used to blame the 7D for my IQ problems. Now, I blame the 100-400mm lens. Don't get me wrong, it is a great lens, but its an old lens, and its age most definitely shows when used on the 7D. I'd say any lens not a recently released (post-2009 release) and a Mark II generation with 4-stop IS at least (if it has IS) will show its age with a 7D.

It is up to each individual to decide if THAT particular trait of the 7D, its unbelievable demand on lenses, is a positive or a negative. The 7D has the potential to trounce even the 1D X for reach and detail, but you would need a kit so expensive you'd probably feel like a twit using the 7D with that kit. ;P

Well, actually I wasn't that serious.

But you are correct about the supertele's. While the new II versions are super sharp, so were the old versions. The improvement with the new 2x convertor is great as well. I have the version I 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4. The 100x400 can't even be considered in the same class with these lenses. Just like the difference you saw with the lenses, the 7D and 5D II are not even in the same class with the 1D IV, not just in AF but in many other ways.

The 7D and all crop bodies do have draw backs when photographing wildlife, because it seems we always give up something to gain something. We gain some resolution and AF ability over the 5D, (Not 4.5 times the resolution though and not a full 2.25 either ). Then we loose some some of the range we have with DOF. We loose some of our light which makes it a harder battle when trying to get enough speed and keep the ISO low. Our range of ISO is much tighter because of noise, most wildlife moves in the early morning or evening and this makes those times tougher. The 7D picture files tend to have a flatter appearance than the 5D II and most certainly the 1D IV's, creating that illusion of depth (the 3D look everyone talks about) is much harder to create with the 7D than the other two bodies. Then there is the Post Processing, with a 7D file I have to work it to make it all it can be where the 1D IV I almost have to do nothing.

Here is probably a big reason that the 7D isn't all that the specs make it out to be. I believe the 7D sensor is a fine sensor however I also believe that Canon has purposely dumbed down the files from the 7D with their firmware so that it would not produce files that initially come out looking better than the high end bodies. Notice the 1D X vs 1D C debate going on in another thread, and the complaints that they feel Canon is charging $6 to $7K more for just firmware.

While I agree about the 7D photos looking a bit drab right out of the camera, I wouldn't go so far as to blame canon directly for explicitly making it so. The 1D IV has about twice the maximum saturation point as the 7D, and the 5D III has about three times the maximum saturation point of the 7D. That leads to a much higher S/N, which leads to richer results and less noise at all ISO settings. I also believe the 7D has a slightly weaker CFA than the 1D IV (although the 5D III also has a weaker CFA), which is more about improving S/N as much as possible with those tiny pixels than purposely drabifying the output.

Personally, when I've used a 5D II, I felt it's color output was also a little drab too, although not quite as much as the 7D. The 1D IV RAW files I've played with all felt much richer, in every aspect (especially tonality, shadow falloff), than any other Canon camera I have used, by a significant degree. Canon intentionally puts more effort into the 1D series of cameras, so it should be expected that they would put more effort into every aspect, including IQ, over the cheaper relatives. I suspect that the lower quality of Canon's non-1D cameras is more a facet of their cheaper cost, and less intensive per-camera quality control and fine craftsmanship than you get with the vastly more expensive 1D bodies. I have not used a 5D III, but from what I can tell, its native camera output is more becoming of its price tag, so maybe Canon is starting to put more effort into their second-ranking cameras now (and I wouldn't be surprised, given the kind of competition they are experiencing from all sides).

 

[PackLight]

While I agree about the 7D photos looking a bit drab right out of the camera, I wouldn't go so far as to blame canon directly for explicitly making it so.

Who would we blame other than Canon. I blame Canon, they are responsible for all of our camera woe's.
It is about product placement, if you owned a camera company wouldn't you have a staff that combed over your newest bodies IQ to make sure it fit in its slot and didn't outperform the cameras above it?

 

[Loswr]

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.


How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

(Said the guy who's 7D is gathering dust...)

 

[jrista]

While I agree about the 7D photos looking a bit drab right out of the camera, I wouldn't go so far as to blame canon directly for explicitly making it so.

Who would we blame other than Canon. I blame Canon, they are responsible for all of our camera woe's.
It is about product placement, if you owned a camera company wouldn't you have a staff that combed over your newest bodies IQ to make sure it fit in its slot and didn't outperform the cameras above it?

But there are so many other ways the 1D-series bodies outperform. Canon doesn't NEED to "protect" their flagship line like people seem to think they do. It is a matter of workmanship. If you want the supreme, creme of the crop, hand-picked, hand-crafted quality, you have to pay for it, no which way about it. I would offer that the 7D is largely automated in manufacture, where as all of Canon's highly expensive products, like the 1D series bodies and all of their high end L-series telephoto lenses (as well as many of their other telephoto lenses, like the TS-E line) are meticulously hand crafted and hand tested. That's why there are so few of them on the market...they are CRAFTED, rather than simply MANUFACTURED. You get what you pay for. If the choice is between $7000 or $1300, of course the $7000 camera is going to outperform on every level, in significant and nuanced ways. That doesn't mean the $1300 camera can't or won't do some things better, though.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm confused about most the comments here.
Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.
The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

you'd be surprised.... filter and re-scale them to put the same pixels per bird or use NR until detail is even on both and the 7D makes a nicer file than the 5D2 when distance limited in terms of noise and errors, you end up with a tiny bit BETTER SNR and less de-bayer artifacts and moire and such, i may be able to dig up my examples

now the 1DX has such superb SNR that even scaling the 7D to the same detail you will still end up with a bit worse SNR there (although again less de-bayer artifacts and such) but when noise is not a really major issue the 7D will pull in a lot more detail than the 1DX give same subject, subject distance, lens, shooting location and proper shutter speed and focusing to get the most out of each system.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 7D has majorly split greens on the CFA so there is a trace of softening during debayer in order to avoid severe mazing artifacts (remember all the mazing artifact complaints the first few weeks of the 7D release before the raw converters were updated to take into account the large degree of green split). It is amazing that the raw developers found a way to only barely pinge resolution and not massacre it considering how split the greens are, as it, it's just a tiny bit of micro-contrast lost compared to what a non-split green 18MP aps-c sensor could deliver.

 

[jrista]

I'm confused about most the comments here.
Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.
The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

you'd be surprised.... filter and re-scale them to put the same pixels per bird or use NR until detail is even on both and the 7D makes a nicer file than the 5D2 when distance limited in terms of noise and errors, you end up with a tiny bit BETTER SNR and less de-bayer artifacts and moire and such, i may be able to dig up my examples

now the 1DX has such superb SNR that even scaling the 7D to the same detail you will still end up with a bit worse SNR there (although again less de-bayer artifacts and such) but when noise is not a really major issue the 7D will pull in a lot more detail than the 1DX give same subject, subject distance, lens, shooting location and proper shutter speed and focusing to get the most out of each system.

To date, I've been blown away by 1D X upscales. DR aside, people have been comparing 1D X upscales to D800 natives, and the 1D X still seems to take the sharpness and detail crown as frequently as the D800. Not sure if a 1D X would hold up as well to say double the D800 size...if you really need massive enlargement capabilities, the D800 (or whatever 40mp+ camera Canon releases in the future) are really the only way to go if you can't afford MFD. But it is surprising it maintains its sharpness and detail to literally double it's size.

 

[PackLight]

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.


How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

(Said the guy who's 7D is gathering dust...)

I didn't know how bad I really was till today.

You do realize that the 7D has a pixel density 2.58 times that of your 1D X. This of course will make it 2.58 times better.

 

[PackLight]

While I agree about the 7D photos looking a bit drab right out of the camera, I wouldn't go so far as to blame canon directly for explicitly making it so.

Who would we blame other than Canon. I blame Canon, they are responsible for all of our camera woe's.
It is about product placement, if you owned a camera company wouldn't you have a staff that combed over your newest bodies IQ to make sure it fit in its slot and didn't outperform the cameras above it?

But there are so many other ways the 1D-series bodies outperform. Canon doesn't NEED to "protect" their flagship line like people seem to think they do. It is a matter of workmanship. If you want the supreme, creme of the crop, hand-picked, hand-crafted quality, you have to pay for it, no which way about it. I would offer that the 7D is largely automated in manufacture, where as all of Canon's highly expensive products, like the 1D series bodies and all of their high end L-series telephoto lenses (as well as many of their other telephoto lenses, like the TS-E line) are meticulously hand crafted and hand tested. That's why there are so few of them on the market...they are CRAFTED, rather than simply MANUFACTURED. You get what you pay for. If the choice is between $7000 or $1300, of course the $7000 camera is going to outperform on every level, in significant and nuanced ways. That doesn't mean the $1300 camera can't or won't do some things better, though.

You are half right, the super telephoto lenses are hand crafted by master craftsmen in japan. They have to be because of the nature of the process.

However the 1D bodies do not have to be hand crafted by expert craftsman. They are not custom fitted and individually made. They are a collection of pre made parts that can be assembled by several pre-teens working 16 hours a day on an assembly line. If you go to Canon's corporate's website they list an Affiliate that assembles their camera for them.
No doubt they have a higher level of QC on the 1D X, it is not hand crafted. One of the reasons it is better is the firmware, it has 2 main processors rather than 1. Two processors you can pack in twice as much work for your firmware.

 

[natureshots]

The aps-c sensors do not give you more reach but they do have a much higher pixel density than most full frame cameras. Pixel density= crop factor x MP of the sensor. If you are cropping all the time and have atleast some decent glass you're going to get better results with the sensor with the most pixel density assuming decent light. When you are cropping RAW pics this way (JPEG is a completely different story) you will get virtually the same result of a cropped pic with any of the canon sensors (in a bunch of earlier FFs worse results) so you might as well get a 7d, t2i, t3i, t4i, 60D etc... and put some more megapixels on your image. Yeah the focus sucks but that's why if you go to Bosque to watch the profesional bird photographers there will be some guys out there who know that and will be out there with 7Ds on 800 f5.6 's or 600 f4 + 1.4x TCs. You'd see a hell of a lot more of them if canon released a crop body with decent f8 autofocus. Taping pins is a crappy workaround. One camera seems like it might be rendering everything I just said invalid: the 1dx now that they upgraded the firmware. Bastards at canon should have told me they would do that before I picked up a used 1d MkIV.

 

[PackLight]

The aps-c sensors do not give you more reach but they do have a much higher pixel density than most full frame cameras. Pixel density= crop factor x MP of the sensor. If you are cropping all the time and have atleast some decent glass you're going to get better results with the sensor with the most pixel density assuming decent light. When you are cropping RAW pics this way (JPEG is a completely different story) you will get virtually the same result of a cropped pic with any of the canon sensors (in a bunch of earlier FFs worse results) so you might as well get a 7d, t2i, t3i, t4i, 60D etc... and put some more megapixels on your image. Yeah the focus sucks but that's why if you go to Bosque to watch the profesional bird photographers there will be some guys out there who know that and will be out there with 7Ds on 800 f5.6 's or 600 f4 + 1.4x TCs. You'd see a hell of a lot more of them if canon released a crop body with decent f8 autofocus. Taping pins is a crappy workaround. One camera seems like it might be rendering everything I just said invalid: the 1dx now that they upgraded the firmware. Bastards at canon should have told me they would do that before I picked up a used 1d MkIV.

You could swap and trade up to the 1D X.
When you do Canon will announce a 7D II with the same AF system as the 1D X's and a new super improved crop sensor, and you will regret upgrading. It is...a never ending cycle.

 

[natureshots]

So the basic question -

Is the FF with some crop applied, as good, the same, or better than a 1.6 crop body shooting whole sensor.....

I think you'll find that a 5Dmk2 cropped, will be much better than your T2i. Not tested the same, but just having a feel for cropping with my own 5Dmk2.

Having said that - Profeel.com has 5Dmk2 for $1750 - not totally bad price. And they have the 7D for $1229 - which I just got from them. Both are "with shipping". They shipped my 7d the same day.

I plan on using the 7D as my crop body - mostly for the focusing and FPS, not so much for the reach. I chose it because it control layout closely matches the 5Dmk2 and because the battery is the same (and I'd have two chargers the same, to charge up a pair of batteries at once). Maybe less than spectacular reasons... but it will work for me. I didn't really want to bank on the any replacement having a totally different control layout. It matters to me that things are almost fluidly integrated, no thought to use one or the other.

I've compared my t2i crops to a bird photographer I bump into a lot with a 5d II. My t2i usually wins if I can get the damn thing in focus and find the bird with my lens which is much easier with the FOV of the 5d II. 7d gets the same results on the crop but you wont be jumping off a bridge trying to get the rare warbler in the bush in focus. I got a 1d MkIV and now he's jealous.

 

[natureshots]

The aps-c sensors do not give you more reach but they do have a much higher pixel density than most full frame cameras. Pixel density= crop factor x MP of the sensor. If you are cropping all the time and have atleast some decent glass you're going to get better results with the sensor with the most pixel density assuming decent light. When you are cropping RAW pics this way (JPEG is a completely different story) you will get virtually the same result of a cropped pic with any of the canon sensors (in a bunch of earlier FFs worse results) so you might as well get a 7d, t2i, t3i, t4i, 60D etc... and put some more megapixels on your image. Yeah the focus sucks but that's why if you go to Bosque to watch the profesional bird photographers there will be some guys out there who know that and will be out there with 7Ds on 800 f5.6 's or 600 f4 + 1.4x TCs. You'd see a hell of a lot more of them if canon released a crop body with decent f8 autofocus. Taping pins is a crappy workaround. One camera seems like it might be rendering everything I just said invalid: the 1dx now that they upgraded the firmware. Bastards at canon should have told me they would do that before I picked up a used 1d MkIV.

You could swap and trade up to the 1D X.
When you do Canon will announce a 7D II with the same AF system as the 1D X's and a new super improved crop sensor, and you will regret upgrading. It is...a never ending cycle.

Yeah, that ship has sailed already. I refuse to waste more money on cameras. Some people are focal length limited but I am bank account limited and pissed off wife limited. Next thing I know I will be trading the 1dx for a 7d II or a 1dS, canon will be rich, I will be poor, divorced and lacking testes. Now to start bothering her about the glass instead of enduring beatings about trading camera bodies. She's reading what I'm writing and isn't so happy. TTYL.

 

[Loswr]

1D X vs. 7D? No contest. ISO 12800 on the 7D = a speckled, noisy mess. ISO 12800 on the 1D X = a usable image. Comes in very handy with an f/5.6 or f/8 lens or TC combo.

 

[jrista]

You could swap and trade up to the 1D X.
When you do Canon will announce a 7D II with the same AF system as the 1D X's and a new super improved crop sensor, and you will regret upgrading. It is...a never ending cycle.

Yeah, that ship has sailed already. I refuse to waste more money on cameras. Some people are focal length limited but I am bank account limited and pissed off wife limited. Next thing I know I will be trading the 1dx for a 7d II or a 1dS, canon will be rich, I will be poor, divorced and lacking testes. Now to start bothering her about the glass instead of enduring beatings about trading camera bodies. She's reading what I'm writing and isn't so happy. TTYL.

Err... ???

 

[jrista]

1D X vs. 7D? No contest. ISO 12800 on the 7D = a speckled, noisy mess. ISO 12800 on the 1D X = a usable image. Comes in very handy with an f/5.6 or f/8 lens or TC combo.

Even in the case of upscaling, the 1D X would hold up very well to the 7D, and at twice the ISO or more. Definitely no contest.

 

[PackLight]

1D X vs. 7D? No contest. ISO 12800 on the 7D = a speckled, noisy mess. ISO 12800 on the 1D X = a usable image. Comes in very handy with an f/5.6 or f/8 lens or TC combo.

Well if we apply some good old DxO type summary evaluation (meaning it will have little to do with reality)

The 1D X processors are 4 times faster than the one in the 7D, and the 1D X has 2 of them. So that would be 8 x better.
But then you take the faster frame rate the 1D X is 1.5 x better than the 7D.
Then take the improved ISO, definitly 3 stops so 3 x better.
And finally take back the the 2.58 pixel density of the 7D.

So 8x1.5x3/2.58=13.95 The 1D X is 13.95 times better than the 7D.

Does it make sense? As much as if you think you would see a full 2.21 times increase in resolution using the 7D vs the 5D II.

 

[natureshots]

I'm confused about most the comments here.
Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

That's the problem, you never compared. When cropping a rebel or 7D (same sensor) on the same glass/FOV it beats the 5D II any day. 5D III crops are a bit better at high ISO situations but when you have a ton of light most people will like the rebel crops assuming identical FOV/glass. Either way the differences aren't huge but this is a great place to kill time and argue. The 7D/rebel crops will even beat the 1dx in some weird super crop/large print situations with lots of light and a lower contrast subject. You pretty much have to engineer those situations.