A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Bodies > 7D and 5DII sharpness

Featured Equipment Deals

Interview with Environmental Photographer: Peter Essick Read More

Interview with Environmental Photographer: Peter Essick

A conversation with National Geographic photographer, Peter Essick, author of Our Beautiful, Fragile World.

Latest Equipment Articles

Sun Position Tracking Apps Read More

Sun Position Tracking Apps

These 5 apps, ranging in price from free to $8.99, are our top picks for tracking sun (and moon) light. Also ranging in complexity, some help you keep tabs on the ideal lighting of the day while...

Latest Learning Articles

25 Exhilarating Photos of Airplanes Read More

25 Exhilarating Photos of Airplanes

By land and by air, photo.net members have captured stunning shots of airplanes at soaring heights, performing incredible stunts, and in breathtaking locales.


7D and 5DII sharpness

Philip Wilson , Nov 13, 2009; 01:11 p.m.

having followed lots of debates on this forum over the last few weeks on 7D vs 5DII sharpness and noise i decided to make a few test shots. The shots are really not much use for seing noise as the subject rather masks the noise. All of the shots were taken on a Manfrotto 55 tripod using a remote release and with the same lens manually focussed. They are of a piece of a fireplace and should show detail resolution of the two cameras. The shots were taken in RAW and converted to 16 bit TIFF in DPP 3.7 with no noise reduction, sharpening are other tools applied. I will post crops in JPEG unsharpened to show what they look like. The lens used was the 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) zoom and on the 5DII was set to 200mm whereas the EXIF tells me it was 120mm on the 7D (i.e. about 192mm).
here is the scene that the crops are taken from


5DII at ISO 6400 heavily compressed JPEG

Responses


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Philip Wilson , Nov 13, 2009; 01:16 p.m.

Crop from 5DII at ISO 3200 8 bit JPEG from 16 bit TIFF no sharpening or noise reduction applied.


5DII 6400ISO unsharpened crop

Philip Wilson , Nov 13, 2009; 01:20 p.m.

Shame shot from 7D


7D at ISO 6400

Philip Wilson , Nov 13, 2009; 01:26 p.m.

ISO 1600 from the 5DII


5DII ISO 1600

Philip Wilson , Nov 13, 2009; 01:29 p.m.

7D ISO 1600


7D ISO 1600

Philip Wilson , Nov 13, 2009; 01:40 p.m.

Well the result has surprised me - the 5DII may capture slightly more detail but the 7D images look smoother. It is possible that my focus is slightly off on the 5DII so I will take another ISO 1600 shot.


Focus check

Philip Wilson , Nov 13, 2009; 01:56 p.m.

Well it looks like my focus was slightly off on the 5DII (I have not micro adjusted the lens since I set it up almost a year ago - I guess it must change slightly over time. The last two crops show that the 5DII is sharper but not by as much as I expected. As my earlier crops of hockey shorts show the 7D is nosier. I am surprised how close the 7D gets at ISO 1600. As the last two crops show both cameras can resolve remarkable detail but the 5DII does a better job. Interestingly Canon must have a different approach to the image in the 7D as the 5DII images look a little bit grittier whereas the 7D images sacrifice detail but the smoothness of the image rather obscures the loss of detail.

My apologies to Angel as he is correct the 7D is closer than a subjective assessment led me to believe.

Philip Wilson , Nov 13, 2009; 02:00 p.m.

just to remind people these images are extreme crops (about 1.75% of the image is in the last crop). thus printed out they will be around five feet by 3'6"

Ben Goren , Nov 13, 2009; 04:44 p.m.

*sigh*

Repeat after me: viewing 100% crops is the worst possible way to compare cameras. The only truly valid way is to compare same-sized prints, each optimized for the particular camera (rather than applying the same “recipe” to each RAW file). A close second is JPEGs re-sampled to the same size, again with each tuned for the particular camera.

Anything else is pointless measurebation.

Cheers,

b&

Puppy Face , Nov 13, 2009; 04:57 p.m.

Repeat after me: viewing 100% crops is the worst possible way to compare cameras. The only truly valid way is to compare same-sized prints, each optimized for the particular camera (rather than applying the same “recipe” to each RAW file). A close second is JPEGs re-sampled to the same size, again with each tuned for the particular camera.

I don't think you get it. Pixel level viewing of images is now more important than prints. Save a few old farts, hardly anybody prints anymore. I still do, but I'm a friggen OF. I'm guessing from your perspective you're an aging boomer and hopelessly "old skool" [sic]. The prefer medium of viewing is now the computer monitor and, like it or not, most young photogs crave their image up close 'n personal, nekid pixels in yo' face. Kickin' huh?

    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses