Odds & Ends

DXO Labs erroneously reports the 7D as having 3fps.

It looks like a used 1D MK II may be much better for farless $$. I paid $600 for mine with 8000 exposures.

High ISO performance beats the D300S by a hair, which is likely what they wanted to do.

DXO doesnt take resolution as a factor.

This is gonna get the measurebaters into a knot. I wish someone would create a virus that destroys the computers of all measurebaters on the net.

+ eleventy billion

You got lucky. I doubt you can get an EOS-1D Mark II for less than 2500 USD.

If you compare the analysis between the 7D, 50D and 5DMKII, in most results the 50D stands in between the 7D and the 5DmkII.

They request that you read this page before making any comparisons:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/DxOMark-metrics

Basically, the score tells you how good a photo-site on camera A is compared to one on camera B. How many of them they have and how much better the signal processing and image processing makes them appear to be in the final image are not factors. It really makes one wonder what the point of it all is.

ROFL

the sony 550 is better than the 7d …

Their DXOmark’s look rather neck and neck. Too bad the Sony A550 is such crappy body. :/

I think it’d be fair to say that the 50D has the better overall measurements – albeit marginally.

Dynamic range is a toss-up, with the 7D having better numbers at the low end, and the 50D at the higher end. Tonal range shows the 50D with a slight edge, aside from base ISO and ditto for SNR and color sensitivity.

Are you sure you were looking at the right color in the chart?

I love the smell of fanboi tears in the morning

Rather I think it brings tears to the eyes of many 7D owners, particularly since the cheaper 50D is actually BETTER than the 7D

I might end up buying a 7D just for the video, since I have decent APS-C lenses

Not to mention per-pixel-sharpness. The 7D is one of the worst cameras I’ve ever seen with regards to this.

They sell for between $600 and $1100. There are a few who ask a couple of hundred more, but they do not sell.

After reading all these comments it’s clear I should throw my 7D on ebay and go back to film on my EOS300. Thank heavens for detailed computer analysed tonal range measurements to set me straight.

Well, you’re looking at the DxO charts. He’s looking at info from shooters. What can I say?

Then again, it is 500 dollars cheaper, better at lower ISOs, doesn’t produce garbage 18MP files.. etc.. etc..

Check the upper left hand corner…
It is there if your click the PRINT versus the standard SCREEN button. To make the comparison fair, IMHO, it should be reverse…

OH Well,

the fact that it states the 7D shoots at 3 FPS shows how professional they are….

I can’t truly correlate the results of dxo lab results with real life. No pictures, no samples. Just a bunch of numbers. They do admit that they are not measuring the whole camera system, just the sensor. What’s the use of that?

I still trust reviews like dpreview more, where there are real images to substantiate. We are photographers for goodness sake, what’s the use of a bunch of numbers without real images to back them up?

Hi.guys i need a point&shoot.Which?G11 or S90?

End image quality is what matters. DX0 is meaningless when it comes to picking which camera delivers the best picture, but it gives the Nikon fanbois a way to get some clueless Canon shooters all worked up into a conniption about noise and ISO performance.

No just look at the sensor and meditate on being free of noise in the dark.

Yep, and being that no one can really do anything with raw sensor readings, which are not the same as the RAW image file which would at least give us something reasonable to consider in comparisons, it is pretty funny to watch all the whining and crying over DX0 ratings.

I’d guess DX0 had to put the carefully worded warning that “DxOMark Sensor is NOT an evaluation of overall camera image quality or performance” after being contacted by some manufacturers legal dept. I wouldn’t be surprised if they get sued eventually just for creating the impression they are measuring overall image quality and the massive confusion and misunderstandings about how to pick the best camera they are creating.

How about because they are not even testing the actual images produced by the cameras? They are not testing 12 MP vs. 18 MP files, so there’s no way to resize them to make them even, they only test the raw sensor data, not the final image, not even the raw image file.

That was my first and last visit to the DXO website. What a bunch of who-cares-nonsense.

I can’t even comprehend the point of some of the debates in this thread. 50D, 5DII, 7D, 500D, ect. whatever… just buy the one that suits you and stop stressing over some friggin graph. They all take great photos, get over it.

I’ll have to agree with Charles Bronson!! Good on ya.

DxO says that I’m better than a 7D :-D

Pixel-peepers should get shot and run over.

10,1MP vs 18MP HELLLLOOOOO? :-)

Yes! And we love ’em.

Its when you zoom in to 100% and think “Oh, photos in the 18MP sensor dont look as sharp as the photo from the 10MP sensor”, without looking at the overall result.

I bet not a single ‘expert’ can explain this:

Their data (viewed either at the pixel OR image level) most certainly indicate the 50D high ISO performance is nearly equal to that of the 7D. Yet, they assign the 7D a score of 809 for low light ISO and the 50D only 696.

What’s going on here? Seems like they do not even trust their own analysis. :D

I am now completely done with DXOMark… they are totally unreliable.

It doesn’t verify anything about the shots of the 7D because it doesn’t test any actual image produced by it.

I pity the DXO foos! How about using a 30 or 50MP print instead of 8. 8 just negates resolution, regardless of whether or not these foos think DR will improve.

They rank the Pentax K20D over the 7D too, even though the Pentax only scored 639 in low light ISO to the 7D’s 809 score. Also, Dx0 had to assign their own subjective ranking of the importance of Color Depth, Dynamic Range, and Low Light ISO to come up with their overall score, which if they gave a little more importantance to one of those factors it would resort all the rankings – oops. Who are they tell the world how important dyanmic range is vs. low light ISO or vs. color depth? It’s just their own subjective opinion that results in which cameras get ranked higher by the tests.

You nailed it. And the reason Dx0 doesn’t match your own observations of actual photos is because Dx0 doesn’t test the actual images, not even the raw files. Their rankings are meaningless unless you pull out the sensor from the camera and just take the sensor home leaving the rest of the camera on the store counter with the packaging. Which I’m sure some data-freak Dx0 fanatic has already done.

There is a good reason NOT to test a complete camera system.

There are too many other things that could affect the image, so you do not get as good of a idea as to how the sensor is doing.

A complete system will be affected by differences and imperfections of lenses such as distortion, mis-focus, inaccuracy of aperture. And, of course, lenses from a different manufacturer such as Nikon, Sony, and Canon have substantial differences.

Then you get differences in the processing of the image, some manufacturers add more NR for example.

The list goes on and on.

So if you want to test just the sensor, you eliminate as many of the variables as possible so your result is not distorted by other factors.

There are lots of people who do tests of complete camera systems, and the results vary considerably. This is unavoidable.

There are also those who claim to have special powers to view a printed image and declare which camera is best. What they are really doing is rating images that are like the ones they are use to producing as the best, so naturally, Canon owners rate Canon best, Nikon owners rate Nikon best, and so on. It merely rates personal preference.

7D 50D terrible sharpness. why people are still saying 50D and 7D are great? yes they have advance technology but what we all want is QUALITY IMAGE not much how advance is ur technology is.

well, that’s the point though, in reality deciding what is the best camera is not as simple as looking at raw sensor data. Dx0 rankings also have a subjective aspect in that they decide what values to ascribe to the different catagories tested that produce the overall rankings. A dynamic range rated at 12.0 verses 12.2 is not likely going to ever be noticed by a photographer in the real world. The ISO ratings are somewhat useful, but Dx0 gives much more value to color depth and DR, so a .1 difference in dynamic range can outway a 300 point difference in low light ISO, according to them – as that determination of value is THEIR OPINION. So the rankings are flawed even from a raw data standpoint.

terrible sharpness of the 7D, lol, pass what you’re smoking over here dude

True, one can only research so far into a product. Graphs are an easy way to show a lot of information that is seemingly clear and straight to the point, but where exactly is the information pointing? I love reading about photography, but I also get hooked into just taking a graph at face value without truly understanding what the interpretation of the graph actually is and how does the graph related to real world shooting. The Dx0 doesn’t mean a dang thing if the images suck.
Nikon is smart to play the game the way they are. But on the other hand Canon plays the game by increasing pixels and hoping that this will be the primary factor that the typical consumer looks at when making a purchase. Higher megapixels is one of the easiest things to look at and understand that higher is always better right? Clearly not, especially if you go into deeper studies of today’s digital photography. But that takes time.
Final message……I am so freaking excited for the 1D mark IV! Whew-hoo!

SHUT UP FOO!

20×30’s are a great print size. I just got a 48 x 96 from my 5D2, stunning.

34-24-34?

imagine if there were muliple versions of 7D: 10MP-7D, 12MP-7D, 15MP-7D, 18MP-7D; which one would you buy?

in reality there is only an 18MP-7D, anyone who would rather buy one of the other lower MP versions but still buys the 18MP because s/he wants HD video or any of the other features of 7D is just lured by Canon to buy a camera that has one of its fundamental specs (megapixels) different from what s/he thinks is ideal.

i was thinking about 7D too =[ but the image quality…. sad so i was thinking 5DmkII =]

i would want a 12MP 7D =]

Or maybe people are lured to the 7D because it delivers great photos…with impressive image quality, sharpness, detail, and very good low light low noise ability?

“The EOS 7D delivers impressive image quality across the sensitivity range.”

“Class-leading detail and resolution at base ISO, good per-pixel sharpness.”

“Very good low-light performance, low noise levels and good retention of detail.”

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page30.asp

DOH!!!

Holy Crap! That’s awesome! I hope that I don’t regret not keeping my 5D2 when opting for a 1d mark IV. Do you think that the noise should be lower in the MIV compared to the 5D2? I know it’s FF vs. 1.3 crop. Isn’t the Pixel density similar? Perhaps newer technology smaller gaps in MIV?

Looking at the DXO charts.

I don’t know but I just think that 18 mp on a 1.6 crop doesn’t seem right picture quality may be affected. Oh well I will just have to wait a fried to buy one and test it my self.

There’s a lot of factors to look at beyond raw sensor data scores, such as is it recording in 12 bit or 14 bit. The sensor on the D300s might show slightly better color depth rating 22.5 compared to the 7D’s 21.9, but the D300s drops down to 2.5 fps when shooting in 14 bit, where the 7D is 8 fps in 14 bit, and doesn’t need an extra battery grip to do it. So if one is buying a D300s thinking they’re getting all that color depth and 8 fps with the extra battery grip, oops, sorry, no. You have to drop it to 12 bit to get 6 fps or 8 fps with the grip…so much for the slightly higher color depth rating from Dx0! The 7D is better despite the higher ranking Dx0 misleadingly gives the D300s.

In the first place, how reliable is DXOMark when they do not trust their very own data? Despite the 50D scoring as good as, if not better than the 7D in their various measurements (at both pixel and image level), it only received a score of 696 for low light ISO as compared to the 7D which received a score of 809. How’s that for reliability? Not a single expert who trusts DXOMark can explain this.

Sorry, I am completely done with DXOMark… they have zero credibility. All their ‘carefully’ prepared data tell a different story than everyone else : DPReview, Imaging Resource, the-digital-picture etc etc.

If DP is paid by Canon why do they give Nikon cameras good reviews too? Your view makes no sense beyond you are just believing what you want to believe regardless of the facts. What blog are you believing then? One that tested a pre-production model?

So how about photographyblog.com’s review of the 7D?

“the 7D is a fantastic APS-C DSLR”

“You may think that bumping the megapixel count to 18 on such a comparatively small sensor would only degrade the resulting photos, but thankfully you’d be wrong.”

Hmmm I see……

I agree, how can any of their tests and conclusions ever be trusted if they don’t correctly specify its frame rate in continuous drive.

:rolleyes:

You forgot “with an entry-level consumer lens”.

let’s make this the longest thread everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

My Holga is better than you.

you know, technically, from its audio measurements, every audio mixing board from the 70’s was complete crap.

therefore, why do you bother listening to songs from the 70’s?

just go to http://pbase.com/cameras and look at the results yourself. that’s the only test that matters. nobody looking at your end results in a magazine or the internet cares what brand of camera you were using.

Gusto wrote: “Despite the 50D scoring as good as, if not better than the 7D in their various measurements (at both pixel and image level), it only received a score of 696 for low light ISO as compared to the 7D which received a score of 809”.

go read their methodology before making such UNINFORMED comments. They have nomalized and non-normalized comparsions and that confuses many people like you, but they make very clear which is which. The first tab with four scores (DxO sensor mark, color depth, dynamic range, hi ISO noise) is normalized, ie based on image-to-image comparison. All or most of the other tabs are based on pixel-to-pixel comparisons, lower MP cameras like 50D (relative to 7D) may win the pixel-to-pixel comparisons but lose when you normalize by reducing the images from the two cameras to a the same megapixel size (whatever that size is), the point is if shoot under identical shooting settings by 50D & 7D the same scene, the 7D image is linerly “magnified” 1.09x compared to 50D due to 18 vs 15MP, this magnification factor magnifies noise in the 7D image among other things as long as you are looking at pixel level of 15&18MP images, it is unfair comparison so just consider the 4 scores of the first tab, 7D is slightly better than 50D.

Can you READ?

Did I NOT just say I was looking at BOTH PIXEL AND IMAGE LEVEL???

Do you know you can choose between the screen (pixel level) and print (image level at 8MP) tabs for each subheading (SNR18%, dynamic range etc etc)?

You yourself said: “7D is slightly better than 50D.”

The key word here is SLIGHTLY.

But a score difference of 809 vs 696 is HUGE. And THAT is something you cannot justify with the data they have.

I do not understand why people worship DXOMark as though it is the only metric to evaluate camera image capability. Some even get all defensive about it.

Exactly, you can’t just use a 300mm F/2.8 and expect the 7D to be sharp.

I think you mean the Nikon D300s as the Canon 40D isn’t mentioned in this article.

That’s right, don’t respond to this Catastrophile, your post shows your bias when you say the difference between 22.5 vs. 21.9 color depth or 12.2 vs. 11.7 is Canon scoring bad, yet you know very well you would never be able to see that difference in a RAW file comparison, and you don’t want to consider the fact Nikon makes you drop down to 12 bit shooting to get more than 2.5 fps out of the camera. Why don’t you compare a 12 bit raw file to a 14 bit file when you bash Canon and favor Nikon? It’s a much bigger difference than 22.5 and 21.9.

OK, so you tell us, is 12 bit Nikon’s 8 FPS as good as Canon’s 14 bit 8 FPS:

…………………..12-bit…14-bit

Brightest stop………2,048….8,192

Second brightest stop..1,024….4,096

Third stop………….512……2,048

Fourth stop…………256……1,024

Fifth stop………….128……512

Everything else……..128……512

Total distinct values..4,096….16,384

Seems 14 bit is WAY FRIGGIN BETTER THAN 12 bit. So much for Dx0’s raw sensor testing and camera ranking if you want to shoot at more than 2.5 fps!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

>> imagine if there were muliple versions of 7D: 10MP-7D, 12MP-7D, 15MP-7D, 18MP-7D

Yes, that would ideal.

Maybe not four different versions but just two: 12MP-7D and 18MP-7D.

Of course the assumption here is that the 12MP-7D will have better ISO than 18MP-7D.

In that case I’ll surely buy the 12MP-7D.

Right now I’m not buying a 7D for sure – despite the fact that I like so much the 7D’s advanced AF-system, 100% viewfinder, and advanced metering system.

>> that may have to do with 1.6x being slightly smaller than 1.5x.

No.

The 7D’s bad color sensitivity comes from a trick that Canon is applying on the sensor.

To combat noise, Canon made the 7D sensor with ‘unequal green response’.

What that means is that one of the green channels on the Bayer filter is diluted, so that it allows not just green light to hit the sensor but light from other wavelengths as well.

The overall result of this trick is that more light hits the sensor – hence, noise is minimized.

On the flip side, the sensor is more color blind, as confirmed by DxO.

The so called ‘mazing’ effect seen on 7D images is also result from the ‘unequal green response’.

Of course you see the mazing only with RAW converters that are not coded to compensate for that.

The Adobe converter had the issue but they already fixed it.

Hey if you don’t like what legit reviews say about the 7D that’s your problem. It’s funny how some people just want to dislike the 7D because of their stoggy outdated nikon propaganda opinions that it has too many megapixels, but again, that’s your problem not mine.

Yea the Print graph is the data measured off of prints made with the camera.

The lower the number, the better the camera. That’s why the 1 is the only way to go. 7 is higher than 50. 7 is better than 50. No matter what all these stupid reviewers say.

I think we agree the 7D is really MUCH better than the 50D at high ISO. And our observations are confirmed by Imaging Resource, DPReview, the-digital-picture etc etc.

The issue is that the DXOMark data under both ‘screen’ and ‘print’ tabs do NOT agree at all with our observations. That is my problem with DXOMark.

Another example: compare DXOMark data of D200 vs 40D. In this case, their actual data make sense BUT their assigned scores do NOT. This is just the opposite of what we’re seeing in the case of 50D vs 7D.

Now, do you see what I mean?

Well, in DxO, there must be some truth in it. Have you seen any quality jump in compacts lately with small sensors?

I’m not saying the raw sensor data from Dx0 is not accurate, just that their ranking whole cameras based on just those sensor readings is unfair and misleading because it doesn’t evaluate the raw image file created or factor in things like 12 bit, 14 bit, or 24 bit images, or image size – so any ranking of cameras based on just Dx0’s measurements is meaningless as to which camera is better than another.

A clear example is the D300s and the 7D, where they rate the D300s over the 7D, but they don’t tell you the D300s can only record 12 bit images to get 6-8fps, and 14 bit is only 2.5 fps, unlike the 7D’s 14 bit 8 fps ability. In fact, pull up a comparison between the 7D and the D300s in Dx0mark and it shows both cameras at 14 bit, but the fps of the 7D as 3 fps and the fps of the D300s as 7 fps, both are wrong. The D300s is only 2.5 fps in 14 bit mode where the 7D is 8 fps. The 7D even bests the D300s in low light ISO performance. They rank the D300s as #19, and the 7D way down at #31, even though the 7D is arguably better at anything over 2.5 fps, and produces a bigger image. It’s this sort of ranking with incorrect and misleading information that shows their clear anti-Canon bias.

There’s no whoops about it. Those “print” tabs are after they “normalize” the image down to 8 MP, whch is complete and total BS designed to mislead and trick the viewer into believing their rankings rather than looking at the actual RAW files and images made from them with the correct and up to date softer from the manufacturer, not Adobe who often tkaes a long time to get their raw decoding correct.

D300s shoots at 7fps, 7D at 8fps.

D300s is 8 fps with the battery grip, 7 without the extra battery, I was giving them their top possible speed.

“Continuous high-speed [CH] mode: 8 frames per second (note 1)”

“Note 1. When using EH-5a/EH-5 AC Adapter or MB-D10 Multi-Power Battery Pack”

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25464/D300S.html

D300s is 7/8 fps only in 12 bit mode though, which really sucks.

i do agree with GeorgeML your over doing it. make you look like a fool.

You obviously don’t know who Mr T is.

roflmao

Right on brotha

Thx Karl, I had forgotten about the noise pattern issues.

I’m still on the fence with the 7D. I have the 40D now. I’m sure I’d love the 7D, but I had been planning to go FF with my next camera. Now the 7D has me second guessing myself. I love the video implementation on the 7D, and the high speed performance, but I would also like to have the DOF options that the FF gives.

I have decent crop lenses: canon 17-55 2.8IS, tokina 50-135 2.8 (works at 135 on FF), and I just bought the tokina 11-16 2.8 (couldn’t resist since I’ve heard it’s very good and will work on FF). The fact that I have these lenses is also making me consider the 7D. But I still can’t get FF out of my mind.

Im rotten at taking video. However I find myself still taking a huge amount of it, and this is a case of the camera making me look better than I am.

Anyone who whines about 18MP RAW wasting storage space hasn’t had to deal with terabytes of video :)

The 17-55 2.8 IS & 100 2.8L Macro IS are the two lenses I have which work great for video. The IS is particularly helpful, and I can get decent hand held footage. Probably a video tripod head & monopod would help alot, but ive already spent enough on the camera.

Youve invested in the 17-55 as well. And its my equal favorite lens with the 100mm Macro for the 7D.

Personally ive not used FF, so cannot really comment on its DOF, however I do find that at 2.8 the depth of field on the 18-55 is already so narrow to be sufficient for my own needs.

Regarding DOF & Video, if you havent used video on a DSLR, you should give it a try, you have to manually focus. If you combine that with narrow depth of field, you have to become REALLY, REALLY good at chasing & anticipating moving subjects (or not change focus at all). I would have chucked out half my video if it wasn’t of loved ones… I find this even more difficult using liveview while recording during harsh daylight.

Generally I use F 1:4.0 or 1:5.6 and still achieve very nice effect for isolating human subjects. One also has to consider that usually a shutter speed of between 30-100 at 24p is the most pleasant for video, and so during daylight I find myself either going for narrower apertures anyway, or getting out an ND filter.

They are changing the file and therefore not testing the actual image capability of the camera. It’s very simple. You don’t get to convert a 18 MP RAW file image to an 8 MP “normalized” file and then say you are testing the RAW file capability of the camera. If you don’t understand the importance of proper RAW file decoding to evaluate the camera’s imaging ability there’s nothing more to say about it. They might as well be comparing low rez JPEGS, it’s just as meaningless as downgrading the file 8 MP and changing it to what they consider to be “normalized.”

Clear explanation.

Something I don’t quite understand.

Is this color blind sensor also more susceptible to chroma noise? I think that must be the reason Canon 50D/7D RAW files appear to have higher chroma noise than those from the D300s/D90/D5000.

This is what I understand so far about Nikon’s sensor design strategy. Let me know if I’ve got it right:

– chromatically accurate filters to reduce chroma noise

– 100% microlens coverage to improve light gathering capabilities (Canon has this now)

– Sony A/D architecture which allows for higher dynamic range at base ISO. Drawbacks include slightly poorer high ISO dynamic range (e.g. in D300s) as well as limited video (e.g. Sony DSLRs cannot record video, or only 720p in Nikon DSLRs) and 14-bit capabilities (e.g. dramatic drop in D300s frame rate at 14 bit)

– clip the black levels slightly to improve dynamic range numbers (all current Nikon DSLRs do that). Who cares about astro-photography? :)

– use on-board noise-reduction schemes on RAW files (e.g. D90/D5000). Makes drastic improvements in dynamic range of D90/D5000. The drawback is the slow down of operation speed and this is why it is not implemented in the D300s.

u claim?

So? Static objects are not going yo mean much.

i couldn’t be bothered who you are. you think your some kind high and mighty LION? no sense of manners and trying to boast. like I’m so free to look for “The A Team”. What sort of argument is this? not even clear referring to what?

You tell him Mr. T.

LOL this is too funny.

I really pity the foo.

“- 100% microlens coverage” – not true. Should be “gapless”. Microlenses are round so in gapless arrangement they cover PI/4 of total area, i.e. 78.5%.

Thanks. :)

Is there a good comparison between 7D and 5D mark II?
I have never used 7D personally… so, If I cant wait for a 5D mark III and decided to to opt for the 7D instead… will it be a worthy purchase?

Now, all my friends are using 5D mark II and the results (for assignments) were really great… so I’m really torn about IQ between these two cams.

All in all… I will stick with my 450D and save for a nice lens haha.

But I’m really curious about the pic quality… should there is a comparison please advice me as all I can see is that people tend to just saying FF is better without a legitimate proof. (I;m looking for dynamic range and harshness between shadows and lights, not sharpness… of course the 5D II will be sharper :P)

Concur with CB! my 450D takes great pics too :) (though my friend 5D II takes great pics more XD)

+1

If you’re completely new to video you might find that the video capabilities of DSLRs frustrating to use.

read reviews where they are not using pre-production cameras, or go rent one and use it

Lol.

Even my 40D smokes the D300s in terms of RAW shooting speed @ 14-bit. :) At least my 40D can sustain 6.5fps (6.3fps whatever) when shooting RAW and always in 14-bit.

Canon Sucks!

I disagree.

Debate ends.

wuuuu waaa like i believe ahaha! so this means what? im simon cowel? ahhaha