EOS Bodies - The ultimate duo & why

[Bombsight]

Whats your idea of the perfect combo of EOS bodies?

I like the 7D because I shoot a lot of sports in the water. The size of the 7D is much easier to handle compared to a 1 series in a water housing.

Topside, I wish I had a 1 series sometimes ... but the 5DMKII does a superb job at everything that doesnt move fast.

Cant help but wonder how my relationship with my 5DMKII will be affected when the 5DMKII is available.

I just dont see myself parting ways with the 7D anytime soon .... especially when new models are rumored to have the same AF system.

 

[ronderick]

IMHO, the best combo for EOS bodies would be a 7-series with 5-series body.

I think the division of labor is pretty much straightforward here, with one handling the speed shots and the other handling the high MP shots.

Of course, you can also save a lot of room in your gear pack when carrying around standard-size bodies as opposed to the pro bodies...

PS: I always believe that there's a reason why Canon make these two models use the same battery With the exception of the 1D/D's, I don't think there's a shared battery for two seperate lines of product.

 

[prjkt]

IMHO, the best combo for EOS bodies would be a 7-series with 5-series body.

I think the division of labor is pretty much straightforward here, with one handling the speed shots and the other handling the high MP shots.

Of course, you can also save a lot of room in your gear pack when carrying around standard-size bodies as opposed to the pro bodies...

PS: I always believe that there's a reason why Canon make these two models use the same battery With the exception of the 1D/D's, I don't think there's a shared battery for two seperate lines of product.

60D also uses the same battery, and the 20D-50D used the same battery that the 300D and 5D (mark 1) used as well...

 

[Loswr]

IMHO, the best combo for EOS bodies would be a 7-series with 5-series body.

That's my opinion as well, and that's why I have that setup. Together, the combination runs a little less than the 'hybrid' 1DIV, and avoids the compromises of APS-H. If the only thing I shot was birds or sports, I'd be more tempted by the 1DIV, but as one who likes to shoot a little of everything, I appreciate the flexibility of a top APS-C camera with a high frame rate and very good AF performance, coupled with a FF body for portraits and landscapes, as well as excellent ISO performance for low-light use.

A 1DIV would mean no ultrawide shots, and for the price of a 1D + 1Ds, I'd rather have the 7D + 5DII and a 500L (although I can see having a 1DIV and a 5DII - the weight/size aren't an issue for me, as I have battery grips on both bodies already).

 

[ronderick]

IMHO, the best combo for EOS bodies would be a 7-series with 5-series body.

I think the division of labor is pretty much straightforward here, with one handling the speed shots and the other handling the high MP shots.

Of course, you can also save a lot of room in your gear pack when carrying around standard-size bodies as opposed to the pro bodies...

PS: I always believe that there's a reason why Canon make these two models use the same battery With the exception of the 1D/D's, I don't think there's a shared battery for two seperate lines of product.

60D also uses the same battery, and the 20D-50D used the same battery that the 300D and 5D (mark 1) used as well...

Sorry, my mistake. I should have checked the batteries for those cameras.
Didn't realize that the older XXD series, 5D and other models use the BP-511 series battery.

 

[Steve Todd]

I guess I have already let my feelings be known about this subject (see the "not many EOS-1s sold" posts). I have all three sensor size bodies (1D4, 7D, 5D and 5D2). I find that I carry my two 1D4s almost exclusively, one with either a 20-35 or 24-105 mounted on it and either a 70-300L or a 100-400L on the other body. If I only carry one body because of weight concerns while hiking for instance, then it's one of the 1D4s with my ole 28-300L attached. If I'm just out for a walk around town, it will be with the 24-105. On road trips where I have the luxury of having the car to carry the load, I'll sometimes take one of the 1D4 bodies along with my 5D2. However, when I look through my past images, I can see that even with the 5D2 and 20-35 attached, I tend to use the 35mm end more than the 20mm end of the scale. The same is true of when using the 1D4 bodies, I tend to use something more than the widest settings even for landscapes! The 7D, 5D and 5D2 bodies are great cameras, but for me and the types of shooting I do, the 1D4 is king. Eliminating the 1.3 crop sensor in the Flagship line doesn't make since to me! To me, it's all about personal choice and taste...use whatever works best for you, stay open minded and have FUN!

 

[aldvan]

I added a 7D to my 5D MkII, since the 5D MkII can't fully support an extender for my 100-400 IS L. The idea was that the APS-C 1.6 factor would extend the maximum focal lenght to a virtual 640. On the paper the Mpx ratio (0.85) should outperform the FL factor (0.65) that I could obtain just by cropping. By the way, in the real world things go in a different way. The pixel quality of the 5D MkII is in an other league, and the best you can obtain by the 7D+100-400 is very similar to the same image cropped on the 5D MkII...
So, according to me the best duo is a pair of 5D MkII (or to have the patience to wait for a MkIII)...
I found the 7D an overestimated camera...

 

[Loswr]

By the way, in the real world things go in a different way. The pixel quality of the 5D MkII is in an other league, and the best you can obtain by the 7D+100-400 is very similar to the same image cropped on the 5D MkII...I found the 7D an overestimated camera...

Based on some previous empirical testing, comparing the same test scene shot with a 7D and 5DII, with the images from the latter cropped to the 1.6x FOV (resulting in an 8 MP image from the 5DII), the outcome boiled down to the 7D delivering images that were a bit sharper but a bit noisier than the 5DII.

The other issues are AF - for fast moving subjects, even if the pixel-level IQ is similar, if the 5DII's AF system can't lock on and hold, the resulting images will be useless. Likewise, the faster shutter and shorter shutter lag and VF blackout duration on the 7D can help get shots the 5DII would miss.

Thus, I think the 7D and 5DII complement each other very well. Yes, you can shoot action/wildlife with a 5DII, and portraits and landscapes with a 7D, but neither use is a strong point of those bodies. I'm a firm believer in using the right tool for the job at hand.

 

[aldvan]

Based on some previous empirical testing, comparing the same test scene shot with a 7D and 5DII, with the images from the latter cropped to the 1.6x FOV (resulting in an 8 MP image from the 5DII), the outcome boiled down to the 7D delivering images that were a bit sharper but a bit noisier than the 5DII.

That's exactly the point. The 7D has a lot more noise than the 5DII. I shoot just raw and processing by LR3 the 7D always needs NR, also at low ISO, where the 5DII, in good light condition is virtually noise free.

Thus, I think the 7D and 5DII complement each other very well. Yes, you can shoot action/wildlife with a 5DII, and portraits and landscapes with a 7D, but neither use is a strong point of those bodies. I'm a firm believer in using the right tool for the job at hand.

I agree with you. But, for my taste and my own style, a picture letting me to discover the finest detail, at every enlargement, is the right starting point. And since I always prefer to focusing only by the center point, the better AF of th e7D is quite useless. I have concluded that I'm a FF guy...

 

[Loswr]

...a picture letting me to discover the finest detail, at every enlargement, is the right starting point.

But, if you have to crop your 5DII image to the framing of the 7D's sensor to achieve the desired FOV, the 7D would provide more fine detail than the 5DII in that situation.

The 7D is noisier, but honestly, the difference is pretty much what the specifications would predict - the FF sensor receives 1.3 stops more light at a given aperture, and since noise is determined primarily by total light hitting the sensor, the ISO noise on the 5DII is ~1.3 stops less than on the 7D (e.g. ISO 200 on the 7D looks like ISO 500 on the 5DII). I confirmed that myself with yet another set of empirical tests.

 

[WarStreet]

I added a 7D to my 5D MkII, since the 5D MkII can't fully support an extender for my 100-400 IS L. The idea was that the APS-C 1.6 factor would extend the maximum focal lenght to a virtual 640. On the paper the Mpx ratio (0.85) should outperform the FL factor (0.65) that I could obtain just by cropping.

This is not perfectly true. An important part of the resolving power comes from the lens, and one of the main advantages of the FF camera is the ability to use all the glass of the EF lenses, while the 7D will use a fraction of it. So in your examples you are diminishing the resolving power of the 5DII, but the 7D will still resolve more detail than the 5DII for the same FOV.

To find out the resolving power of the 5DII over the 7D you need to compare them with lenses attached. This is done by DXO. As an example, comparing these 2 cameras with the 100mm L @ 2.8 in the center of the frame, the 5DII gives 60 lp/mm and the 7D gives 49 lp/mm. This means that the 5DII resolve 1.22 times more, which is less than the 1.6 needed to get the same FOV of the 7D.

I find it confusing to use the reciprocal ratios as in your examples, the lp/mm ratio of 0.82 (7D over 5DII) is greater than sensor height ratio of 0.62 (5DII over 7D)

The results varies by the performance of the lens/aperture/focal length/field position

 

[aldvan]

I fear that we are, and I for one, getting lost in a sea of numbers. My superficial and naive idea was that the ratio of the total pixels of the 5DII and 7D (21/18) was lower than that of the respective FOV (1:1.6), allowing me to get a virtual 640 mm with a comparable quality. But, as a matter of fact, the real problem is that the area of ​​FF is 2.6 times higher than APS-C and that the single pixel has a size approximately double (5DII 24 400 pixels/mm to 7D 53,900 mm pixels/mm), and a phisically small pixel isn't any good for image quality. Beyond the numbers, all the tests I made ​​on the two cameras, and with the same microadjusted lenses (100-400 and 100 macro IS II), confirmed less details and more noise for the 7D in the real scene.

 

[WarStreet]

I like numbers since they help you out, but as you say, the important thing is the end result, after all, FF gives other advantages in image quality instead of just resolution and noise, and when you are not cropping for the same FOV, there is no competition.

When cropping , the noise 'increases'. One needs to compare the same print size equivalent, not 100% crop since this is what gives real life results on print or monitor. From neuroanatomist tests, In real life, the 7D will continue to perform the same as before, but the 5DII will be noiser than usual in this particular situation, but still better than the 7D.

For detail, we need to see the same print size equivalent too, but with the downsampled example, you might not see all the advantages of the more detailed image when viewed on a monitor since both images might be too detailed for the monitor. I think that the upsampled example is a better measurement for detail when viewed on monitor, but then there is the upsampling algorithm step involved in this comparison. The best is to compare it on a print.

on the same theme, using a TC is better than cropping on an FF camera. Unfortunately, there is no data on DXO with TC. It would be interesting to see.

 

[aldvan]

I fully agree with Warstreet on everything except on one point. You can appreciate the quality of detail on a monitor, it is sufficient to consider the two tests in a particular small enough for the monitor's pixels are sufficient to show all the pixels recorded by the sensor ...

 

[Loswr]

on the same theme, using a TC is better than cropping on an FF camera.

In some ways, if you need the additional reach, the 7D is a perfect 1.6x teleconverter. It doesn't add any additional aberration, it doesn't slow down (or stop) autofocus, and it doesn't make the viewfinder any darker. Using a crop sensor with a higher pixel density will magnify the flaws in your lens, but with excellent lenses, that's a minor effect.

So, the bottom line is that if you have to crop your 5DII image to the 7D field of view, the 7D will produce better IQ. But, if you can move closer, or use a longer lens, the 5DII will trounce the 7D.

The problem for me is that with small subjects like birds, achieving the FOV of a 400mm lens on the 7D, but using a FF body, would require spending $9K on a 600L (and I'd still need to crop a bit, or move a bit closer). Even at the 640mm FF equivalent, I find I often need to crop the 7D images a bit.

 

[WarStreet]

The problem for me is that with small subjects like birds, achieving the FOV of a 400mm lens on the 7D, but using a FF body, would require spending $9K on a 600L (and I'd still need to crop a bit, or move a bit closer). Even at the 640mm FF equivalent, I find I often need to crop the 7D images a bit.

A friend of mine like to take bird photos, and I told him more than once, that he has an expensive hobby

I think using the 7D for bird photography is a great choice, as you say, it is the best TC, and great servo for the BIF too.

 

[epsiloneri]

In some ways, if you need the additional reach, the 7D is a perfect 1.6x teleconverter. It doesn't add any additional aberration, it doesn't slow down (or stop) autofocus, and it doesn't make the viewfinder any darker. Using a crop sensor with a higher pixel density will magnify the flaws in your lens, but with excellent lenses, that's a minor effect.

Just to be complete, there is one way in which a true TC might be better than higher pixel density, and that is when you aim for high dynamic range. With a TC you spread out the light over a larger area, and since the DR of a sensor scales with area, you should get higher DR with a TC + physically larger pixels (with the equivalent solid angle per pixel). This is in theory, I haven't tried it out in practice... do you know of any test where they compare e.g. a 5D2+1.4x TC combo to a straight 7D for various lenses? I'm curious to see if the drawbacks/advantages are as we expect or different. It would guide the choice of camera for various situations (as you point out, there are still ergonomic/AF advantages to 7D which could be more important than minor IQ differences). A specific application I have in mind is photographing a total solar eclipse, where the DR is important while AF is a non-issue, and FPS is not as important (but resolution could be).

 

[Loswr]

Just to be complete, there is one way in which a true TC might be better than higher pixel density, and that is when you aim for high dynamic range. With a TC you spread out the light over a larger area, and since the DR of a sensor scales with area, you should get higher DR with a TC + physically larger pixels (with the equivalent solid angle per pixel). This is in theory, I haven't tried it out in practice... do you know of any test where they compare e.g. a 5D2+1.4x TC combo to a straight 7D for various lenses?

I'm not sure about 'the DR of a sensor scales with area'. Looking at the DxOMark scores, both the 7D and the 5DII have a higher DR than the original 5D. Larger pixels have a higher full well capacity, but DR is not determined solely by full well capacity (dark noise and in-sensor processing also play major roles).

I don't know of any test like this (TDP has sharpness and some distortion tests with/without extenders). But, when I did this test, I looked at DR (a backlit Stouffer step wedge with exposure adjusted so the lightest step was just below clipping). There was essentially no difference between the 7D and 5DII in terms of DR - both gave about 9 stops usable range. That's consistent with the DxOMark results, where the 5DII is only 0.2 stops better than the 7D (in their description, they mention that differences below 0.5 EV are not noticeable). So, I doubt using a TC would make a difference in DR.

 

[Admin US West]

Just to be complete, there is one way in which a true TC might be better than higher pixel density, and that is when you aim for high dynamic range. With a TC you spread out the light over a larger area, and since the DR of a sensor scales with area, you should get higher DR with a TC + physically larger pixels (with the equivalent solid angle per pixel). This is in theory, I haven't tried it out in practice... do you know of any test where they compare e.g. a 5D2+1.4x TC combo to a straight 7D for various lenses?

I'm not sure about 'the DR of a sensor scales with area'. Looking at the DxOMark scores, both the 7D and the 5DII have a higher DR than the original 5D. Larger pixels have a higher full well capacity, but DR is not determined solely by full well capacity (dark noise and in-sensor processing also play major roles).

I don't know of any test like this (TDP has sharpness and some distortion tests with/without extenders). But, when I did this test, I looked at DR (a backlit Stouffer step wedge with exposure adjusted so the lightest step was just below clipping). There was essentially no difference between the 7D and 5DII in terms of DR - both gave about 9 stops usable range. That's consistent with the DxOMark results, where the 5DII is only 0.2 stops better than the 7D (in their description, they mention that differences below 0.5 EV are not noticeable). So, I doubt using a TC would make a difference in DR.

Agreed. A TC will not improve DR, it just increases the apparent focal length of a lens. If that were true, the DR of a 10mm lens would be horrible, and for a 600mm lens, it would be extremely high.

 

[epsiloneri]

I'm not sure about 'the DR of a sensor scales with area'. Looking at the DxOMark scores, both the 7D and the 5DII have a higher DR than the original 5D. Larger pixels have a higher full well capacity, but DR is not determined solely by full well capacity (dark noise and in-sensor processing also play major roles).

Dark noise is important for long exposures (second or longer), for shorter exposures read-out noise is more important. Read-out noise depends on the electronics, but usually scales with the number of pixels - the read-out noise per pixel is usually similar for similar-generation cameras. E.g., 7D has 2.7 electrons/pix and 5D2 2.5 electrons/pix in read-out noise.

For well-exposed images the full-well capacity is far more important, however, since the Poisson noise will far out-weight the read-out noise. The full-well for a 7D pixel is 24800 electrons, while the 5D2 can accommodate 65700 electrons/pixel (i.e. close to the ratio of their pixel areas: (6.4/4.3)^2 = 2.22 while 65700/24800 = 2.65, so the 5D2 is actually doing a little bit better per area). For a full well, the Poisson noise contribution is thus sqrt(24800) = 157 photo-electrons for the 7D and 256 photo-electrons for the 5D2 (much higher than their read-out noise).

In general, the signal-to-noise (S/N) per pixel is S/N = P / sqrt(P+R^2), where P is the number of photo-electrons and R is the readout noise. So the 5D2 gives higher S/N per pixel than 7D. That's why the 5D2's pixels are thought to be "cleaner" or "higher quality" than the 7D pixels.

I don't know of any test like this (TDP has sharpness and some distortion tests with/without extenders). But, when I did this test, I looked at DR (a backlit Stouffer step wedge with exposure adjusted so the lightest step was just below clipping).

It's a great service to the community you do by making those tests, I thank you for it. I don't think it is directly related to what I'm aiming at here. The test where you compared 5D2+135/2.0 to 7D+85/1.2 comes closer, since the 135/2.0 is almost like using a 85/1.2+TC1.4x (but not quite of course - there's a ~14% difference). What matters is the S/N per solid angle, and if the 5D2 provides a larger well for a solid angle, then it should provide higher DR. It should of course also take a longer exposure to fill that well, so exposure times would not be equal.

Just to be clear, my question is: for a given lens (say 400/2.8 ) and otherwise perfect conditions (no motion blur, good manual focus, well-lit scene etc) what combination would give the best S/N per solid angle for an optimally exposed image (no high-light clipping): a 7D, or a 5D2+TC1.4x?

It sounds like this test should be easy to make, I'd be tempted to try it myself if you don't beat me to it.

(I pulled read-out noise and full well data from Clarkvision)

A TC will not improve DR, it just increases the apparent focal length of a lens. If that were true, the DR of a 10mm lens would be horrible, and for a 600mm lens, it would be extremely high.

Funny that you give this example, because I believe it to be exactly true. The DR of a 10mm is horrible compared to a 600mm if you look at the DR per solid angle. Just think of it this way: The total number of photo-electrons of a scene in a well-exposed 10mm lens image should equal the total number of photo-electrons of a 600mm lens image. But the solid angle ("field of view") of the 600 mm lens image is much smaller than the 10 mm image - thus the number of photo-electrons per solid angle is much higher in the former case. Since DR in the high-photo-electrons limit is determined by the number of photo-electrons recorded, the DR is also higher.

Or, think of producing the 10mm image by making a huge mosaic of 600mm images. Then it becomes obvious that the latter should provide a higher DR.