Suggestions for a difficult choice

[Loswr]

As long as you work under good light conditions and the higher light gathering capability of a FF sensor can be neglected (from what I have seen on the 7d up to maybe ISO 1250) the camera stays competitive to a 5d MKII as the 7d acts like a (theoretical) 18MP x 1.6^2 = 46MP FF camera for the croped part if would be scaled up to FF sensor.

It's a complex issue, no doubt. True, there's no real magnification involved - only angle of view is cropped, and the lens projects exactly the same sized subject onto the image plane regardless of sensor format. But, there is apparent magnification, in that the smaller, higher-density sensor has a lot more pixels covered by that equivalently-sized subject. To turn your argument around, if you don't have that 600mm supertelephoto lens for your FF camera, and need to crop your resulting 21 MP image to the 7D's AoV, you end up with an 8 MP final image (and cropping also exaggerates the effect of ISO noise, meaning that FF advantage is lost). So, to achieve what an 'affordable' 400mm lens (400/5.6, 100-400) on a 7D will deliver, you need a 600mm lens (i.e. $9500 or more), and if you want AF performance that's better than the 5DII (which you'd need for moving subjects like birds/wildlife), you'd also need a 1Ds FF body. Granted, a 1DsIII + 600mm f/4L IS will produce better IQ than a 7D + 400mm f/5.6L - but, is the difference worth >$13K?

In general, I agree with the point that in good light (outdoors on a bright day), the IQ of the 7D isn't less than the IQ of the 5DII (yes, there's a 1.3-stop difference in noise, for example, but as low ISOs, that doesn't have a significant impact). So in those conditions, the main advantage of a FF body is the shallower DoF (for equivalent subject framing).

However, even outdoors in daytime, ISO noise can become an issue in some circumstances. For example, when shooting birds in flight a fast shutter is often required, usually at least 1/1600 s, and on a cloudy day, it may take ISO 1600 or 3200 to achieve that shutter speed at f/6.3-8 (even with an f/4 lens, you'd want to stop down for sufficient DoF to get the whole bird in focus). I'd not want to routinely shoot BIF with the 5DII's weak AI Servo, no matter the focal length, so for that application the 7D is preferred as I'll take a noisier but in-focus shot over a noise-free but OOF shot any day.

 

[mihazero]

all depends how far away you are.... the 7d has the 1.6 crop factor so for distance will boost your 70-200 to a max of 320mm... 5dmk2 no crop factor, so that'd be the decision maker for me.

i do hope that visitors of this forum realise that crop factor does not mean one can multiply crop factor with focal lenght of lens. 55mm is 55mm regardless of crop factor. so when 200 mm is put on 1.6 crop factor camera image is no closer, just croped because it is being projected on smaller sensor, so more detail is being lost then on ff sensor. that means 200 mm on 1.6 crop sensor is still 200mm lens. it will never become 320mm because it does not zoom in more, it just crops image.

As long as you work under good light conditions and the higher light gathering capability of a FF sensor can be neglected (from what I have seen on the 7d up to maybe ISO 1250) the camera stays competitive to a 5d MKII as the 7d acts like a (theoretical) 18MP x 1.6^2 = 46MP FF camera for the croped part if would be scaled up to FF sensor. The question I would be more concerned here is with the theoretical limit of lenses if it really comes down to this. if higher ISO capabilities become important that is of course another story ...
However in reality I guess few ppl look at pictures this way, so I guess the 1.6 magnification that the 7d delivers is good enough for most persons who just want to have a longer Telephoto range for eg occasional wildlife without spending a fortune on a 500, 600 or 800mm lens

but there is noooo magnification whatsoever. none.

 

[awinphoto]

all depends how far away you are.... the 7d has the 1.6 crop factor so for distance will boost your 70-200 to a max of 320mm... 5dmk2 no crop factor, so that'd be the decision maker for me.

i do hope that visitors of this forum realise that crop factor does not mean one can multiply crop factor with focal lenght of lens. 55mm is 55mm regardless of crop factor. so when 200 mm is put on 1.6 crop factor camera image is no closer, just croped because it is being projected on smaller sensor, so more detail is being lost then on ff sensor. that means 200 mm on 1.6 crop sensor is still 200mm lens. it will never become 320mm because it does not zoom in more, it just crops image.

As long as you work under good light conditions and the higher light gathering capability of a FF sensor can be neglected (from what I have seen on the 7d up to maybe ISO 1250) the camera stays competitive to a 5d MKII as the 7d acts like a (theoretical) 18MP x 1.6^2 = 46MP FF camera for the croped part if would be scaled up to FF sensor. The question I would be more concerned here is with the theoretical limit of lenses if it really comes down to this. if higher ISO capabilities become important that is of course another story ...
However in reality I guess few ppl look at pictures this way, so I guess the 1.6 magnification that the 7d delivers is good enough for most persons who just want to have a longer Telephoto range for eg occasional wildlife without spending a fortune on a 500, 600 or 800mm lens

but there is noooo magnification whatsoever. none.

The best way to think of it (for those who ever used crappy digital PS cameras)... it's like digital zoom... it will crop the image so it appears to be closer but really isn't... in all reality. The lens doesn't magically get extra elements and magnify an image just because it senses it's on a crop camera... It outputs the exact same info it would send to ANY camera but depending on if the camera see's all of the info or not will depending on how the camera "sees" the image.

Also keep in mind given the high density of the 7D, it can produce stunning images but it will require stunning lenses. If you use the 7D with the kit lens 28-135 at high ISO, it's going to look like crap. If you use the 7D with L primes at high ISO, it will yield more usable images. At then end of the day, I still say between the two, get the 7D or 60D, get some awesome glass, and then later if the 5d m3 comes out, then all means sell the 7D and get it. Glass will be as big if not bigger factor in overall image than the camera will be in most situations.

 

[Loswr]

... it will crop the image so it appears to be closer but really isn't... in all reality. ...It outputs the exact same info it would send to ANY camera but depending on if the camera see's all of the info or not will depending on how the camera "sees" the image.

Also keep in mind given the high density of the 7D,

But that higher pixel density does result in apparent magnification. For example, if you choose FF vs. APS-C with the same pixel size/density, e.g. comparing a 200mm lens on a 5DII vs. a 20D (21 MP vs. 8 MP, but same pixel size), and take pictures of the same subject at the same distance then view them 100% on your computer monitor, that subject will be the same size in both images (although the 20D image will show less of the background). But if you do something similar with the 5DII vs. the 7D, the subject at 100% will appear much larger on your computer monitor, because that subject projected onto the 7D's sensor will cover a lot more pixels.

 

[awinphoto]

... it will crop the image so it appears to be closer but really isn't... in all reality. ...It outputs the exact same info it would send to ANY camera but depending on if the camera see's all of the info or not will depending on how the camera "sees" the image.

Also keep in mind given the high density of the 7D,

But that higher pixel density does result in apparent magnification. For example, if you choose FF vs. APS-C with the same pixel size/density, e.g. comparing a 200mm lens on a 5DII vs. a 20D (21 MP vs. 8 MP, but same pixel size), and take pictures of the same subject at the same distance then view them 100% on your computer monitor, that subject will be the same size in both images (although the 20D image will show less of the background). But if you do something similar with the 5DII vs. the 7D, the subject at 100% will appear much larger on your computer monitor, because that subject projected onto the 7D's sensor will cover a lot more pixels.

It appears as magnification the same way a digital P&S applies digital zoom... (but digital P&S sensors are not as sophisticated and up to date in processors) so the digital zoom looks crappy as a result.

 

[awinphoto]

... it will crop the image so it appears to be closer but really isn't... in all reality. ...It outputs the exact same info it would send to ANY camera but depending on if the camera see's all of the info or not will depending on how the camera "sees" the image.

Also keep in mind given the high density of the 7D,

But that higher pixel density does result in apparent magnification. For example, if you choose FF vs. APS-C with the same pixel size/density, e.g. comparing a 200mm lens on a 5DII vs. a 20D (21 MP vs. 8 MP, but same pixel size), and take pictures of the same subject at the same distance then view them 100% on your computer monitor, that subject will be the same size in both images (although the 20D image will show less of the background). But if you do something similar with the 5DII vs. the 7D, the subject at 100% will appear much larger on your computer monitor, because that subject projected onto the 7D's sensor will cover a lot more pixels.

Actually thinking of your comparison, you are wrong in your analogy and i'll tell you why... The 20D despite having the same density will be slightly cropped than the 5D taken at the same distance and same focal length and settings... Now assuming you are shooting a 20D and 7D at the same settings... If you take that file and PRINT it as is at 8x10 for each file adjusting DPI so you are printing the full frame within the 8x10, there will NOT be any magnification, they should be the same because the SIZE of the sensor has not changed. The 7D vs 20D SHOULD show more overall detail and you could in fact take the 7d file, crop it tighter (just like additional digital cropping effect) and have a similar quality of print of a 20D vs a cropped picture from a 7D and you'll be able to see detail you couldn't see from a 20D because of size of sensor density, BUT the overall image should still be the same, you just have more detail and information to work with.

Now if you take the 7D vs 5D mII and use different lenses or compensate so they are the same perspective and relation, the image overall, printed the same way at 8x10 within the same restraints will still be the same image, no magnification. Level of detail maybe a lot closer because the effective resolutions are so similar 18mp vs 21mp and in theory you should have a hair more detail from you 21mp than the 18mp. If you do NOT correct for the Focal length effective "digital crop" then yes, you will have magnification as far as the crop is concerned.

 

[lbloom]

While the 5DmkII will surely offer better ISO performance, you can achieve great shots without it. I've been shooting some concert scenarios with my 60D and a 24mm f/1.4 (at f/1.8 or higher usually for reasonable DOF) and if you're good at your settings and with a little light, the 7D should be great. Luckily, the venue I shot was also filming the event so lighting was fair.

You can view my flickr set of images taken on my 60D in a concert scenario and see what a little post processing can do:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganbloom/sets/72157627074427445/

 

[Loswr]

... it will crop the image so it appears to be closer but really isn't... in all reality. ...It outputs the exact same info it would send to ANY camera but depending on if the camera see's all of the info or not will depending on how the camera "sees" the image.

Also keep in mind given the high density of the 7D,

But that higher pixel density does result in apparent magnification. For example, if you choose FF vs. APS-C with the same pixel size/density, e.g. comparing a 200mm lens on a 5DII vs. a 20D (21 MP vs. 8 MP, but same pixel size), and take pictures of the same subject at the same distance then view them 100% on your computer monitor, that subject will be the same size in both images (although the 20D image will show less of the background). But if you do something similar with the 5DII vs. the 7D, the subject at 100% will appear much larger on your computer monitor, because that subject projected onto the 7D's sensor will cover a lot more pixels.

It appears as magnification the same way a digital P&S applies digital zoom... (but digital P&S sensors are not as sophisticated and up to date in processors) so the digital zoom looks crappy as a result.

I disagree with your analogy - they're different. With digital zoom on most P&S cameras, the apparent angle of view is narrowed (that part of the analogy holds true), but then the cropped image is interpolated back up to the pixel dimensions of the whole sensor (i.e. a 10 MP P&S with digital zoom applied will still give you a 10 MP image). It's the interpolation that degrades the image, not the cropping. Processing power of the camera is a factor, in that your computer can use better algorithms (e.g. bicubic in PS) than the weaker in-camera processor can support at sufficient speed. But even done with the best possible algorithms, upsampling is going to negatively impact IQ, whereas cropping without upsampling does not affect IQ.

Note that some P&S cameras can apply digital zoom by cropping only, i.e. that 10 MP image with digital zoom yields an 8, 5, or 3 MP final image instead of the full 10MP. Canon calls it 'safe zoom,' others call it by other names. If the rumors of a merging of 1D/1Ds lines are true, and a FF sensor has a 'crop mode' for APS-H and/or APS-C simulation, that's how it would work - you'd get a cropped image with equivalent IQ (unless you upsampled it in post).

Actually thinking of your comparison, you are wrong in your analogy and i'll tell you why... The 20D despite having the same density will be slightly cropped than the 5D taken at the same distance and same focal length and settings...

Slightly cropped? I'd say more than slightly - it will be cropped by a factor of 1.6x. I was assuming that the subject chosen for the scenario was small enough to fit within the APS-C portion of the image circle.

Now assuming you are shooting a 20D and 7D at the same settings... If you take that file and PRINT it as is at 8x10 for each file adjusting DPI so you are printing the full frame within the 8x10, there will NOT be any magnification, they should be the same because the SIZE of the sensor has not changed.

Sure, but you'd have downsampled the image from the 7D. Here, you're comparing APS-C to APS-C - obviously no optical magnification, but yes, apparent magnification in that the higher resolution image will display 'larger' at a given % size on a computer monitor.

Now if you take the 7D vs 5D mII and use different lenses or compensate so they are the same perspective and relation, the image overall, printed the same way at 8x10 within the same restraints will still be the same image, no magnification. Level of detail maybe a lot closer because the effective resolutions are so similar 18mp vs 21mp and in theory you should have a hair more detail from you 21mp than the 18mp.

I've actually done that, both with the 5DII + 135mm f/2L vs. 7D + 85mm f/1.2L II (same picture, different body and lens) and later in that thread, with both bodies and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, using the zoom to compensate for the crop factor. The upshot was that the 5DII wins (no surprise), but it's never going to be an apples-to-apples comparison (the 85L is softer than the 135L with both shot wide open, even with the same lens the anti-aliasing filters on the two sensors are different meaning differential sharpness even with the same lens, etc.).

 

[awinphoto]

Neuro, if you were to take the 7D sensor dimensions and apply that to the same 7D sensor dimensions, that is what I was applying with the "digital zoom" affect... P&S uses a smaller portion of the sensor to create that affect and with their processors, interpolates it to appear to be a normal size file, but in some P and S cameras, the physical size of the camera cannot interpolate it, such as entry level P and S and camera phones, the file is cropped and left as that. It displays on the LCD as zoomed but in raw information, all it is, is cropped. I suppose if you take similar density cameras, 20d and 5d mii, compare file size and effective resolution, it would be similar proportions to what I am describing...

"Slightly cropped? I'd say more than slightly - it will be cropped by a factor of 1.6x. I was assuming that the subject chosen for the scenario was small enough to fit within the APS-C portion of the image circle."

-Exactly what I was getting at... in order to compare magnification and overall image between the cameras they needed to be equaled out so they can be as apples to apples as possible... however the 5D in most situations SHOULD out-resolve the 7D in that situation. In your original post you were comparing the 5d to 20d and 5d to the 7d... I was getting that the 7D and 5D should be very similar in magnification and the 5d should have more "magnification" because of effective resolution assuming everything is equaled out. I was also getting that even if you compared the 7D to the 20D, the magnification would be identical in perspective, but you can "zoom" into the picture more because the 7d has more than double the MP than the 20D hence more detail and more room to crop in post. Most people assume when talking about magnification, the overall image is somewhat altered or different perspective overall but I'm just confirming the 7D and 20D will have the same perspective/image/overall magnification... the 7D will just have a ton more information to work with and you can zoom in a lot closer.

 

[UncleFester]

Hello everyone,

I'm a firsttime poster on this forum, yet I've been lurking a while. Right now I'm working for a month (as a student) and I will be using the money earned for new gear. I have recently started shooting concerts as a hobby, and I enjoy it a lot. My current equipment won't cut it for much longer though:

- Eos 1000D (Rebel XS for non-Europeans)
- Ef-s 18-55 3.5-5.6 (no IS)
- EF 50 1.4
- EF 70-200 2.8 (no IS)

The latter two work somewhat, but even with the 50mm shooting wide-open I have to crank up my ISO to 1600, which on the 1000D, looks horrible.
Now with my budget - I'm guessing around 2200 euros - I see two choices.

- Eos 7D + 17-55 2.8
or
- Eos 5DII

If I bought the latter however, I would be without standard zoom or wide-angle. The rest of the money (depending on which I take) would be spent on accessories.

Any suggestions as to which I should take and why?

Thanks in advance,

Janne

P.S.: I also own a 580EXII, but usually at concerts, flash is not allowed.

"Shooting concerts"? or photojournalism? If it were me I'd be more concerned with where I was standing than what I was using as "shooting concerts" can be done with any good p&s.

If it's photojournalism , I'd start with a 5DII for (1)full frame- for wide shots on stage(2) high Iso capability. - the 5d leaves the 7D in the dust here. Like Neuro and others, I have both.

Then, get the 7D and learn to use your flash if you haven't already. The 7D performs exceptional with a 580exII.
That set-up you could use back stage, on or off camera flash, without a transmitter.

If you get your chops down you could easily pay off a 7D with a couple of good photos at the right concert.

 

[Flake]

I'd like to make an slightly off topic comment which some on here probably won't like. Few professional photographers will touch concerts with a barge pole. Hundreds of kids who would like to break into photography shoot concerts for free, some of them are better than others. I beg you, your images are vaulable, the kit to shoot them costs a lot of money, do not give away your images for free, not for any amount of stupid worthless excuses like "it'll help your portfolio" because it won't. When the groups or the venues start letting you in for free then they might value your work, but until then your just another free image source.

 

[dr croubie]

Few professional photographers will touch concerts with a barge pole. Hundreds of kids who would like to break into photography shoot concerts for free, some of them are better than others.

I've known a guy who complained about that exact thing. He said he used to get invited to a lot of gigs, take decent photos (i hope he won't mind me sharing a link to an example that i quite like), and got paid decent money.
Then a few years ago, that all changed, kiddies with new cameras were promising to take photos just to get into the gigs for free, and his work dried up. Ironic thing is, that now he's getting more invites now, because those kiddies had no talent, they were 'just fans' (to quote from Almost Famous) who wanted to see the gig free, and the promoters have realised they have to pay for really good work...