5D MkII vs 7D - Show us the difference

Well that is good to hear since I have never used the 5D. I guess will get the 70-200 F4 for the future 5D, and maybe by that time a newer version of the 5D will be out with better ISO performance...I can hope cant I?

wimg wrote in post #13534463
With the latest version of Topaz Denoise you can actually unblur, and recover detail. You can also reset the black point with it. I don't think there is currently any better plug-in out there for denoising.

And then with Nik Viveza you can get selectively colour back, if so required.

This step, or occasionally two steps, will even make a one-stop underexposed iso 800 G10 image look good.

You'll have to play a bit with it to get it perfect, and then save it as your own style/theme or whatever it is called.

Having said all this, I generally need only very little for a 5D II file, and a very aggresive technique for a one-stop underexposed 800 iso G10 file .

Kind regards, Wim

District_History_Fan wrote in post #13534500
The newer Canons are clean at higher ISO. The 5D2 is awesome in that respect, even in marginal light. I wouldn't think twice about using 3200-6400 ISO with it. Lower ISOs show more noise than they did in the past on the 5D2. The 50D is clean at lower ISO (like Canon always was in the past) and does very well up to ISO 3200. Haven't shot the 7D yet...

Stone 13 wrote in post #13496063
Here's a decent 7D vs 5DII test with 50% & 100% crops:

http://www.jmphotocraf​t.com/5DII_v_7D/ISO_te​st/

Thanks much for this link!

Laouik wrote in post #13493983
Not asking which is better. Asking people to qualify their statements, reportedly based on experience, with actual examples, not just talking. "Better" is a value judgement.

You are trying to be a smart ass. Trying being the operative word, your hostility has killed any humour you may have attempted.

I'll put in my 2 cents as one who decided on the tool that worked best for her and owned both. I liked the 5DmkII for its IQ, w/ fast primes its snappy, put the 24-105 (having had the 135L before the 24-105) on it & its like walking through mud but the photos are spectacular. Portraits & Landscapes (my vacation pictures to the desert & mountains had WOW factor) tho I had 'alot' of throw aways. Unsure if it was 'me' or the AF/FPS I did the 135L/24-105 swap to gain IS. Even in good light I wasnt happy missing the moments I 'wanted' to capture.

Thus I decided maybe FF was not the tool for for 'me' & I needed something faster. Enter 7D (this Saturday) now I have not taken it 'out' but chasing my cats around the house EVERY shot has been a hit (this has had me giggling like a mad woman and thrilled to pieces) Now just for fun I sit here shooting everything that moves... Step Mother drinking tea... every step of it... just cause I can... and its all sharp and IN FOCUS.

*I* am thrilled with this more so as I find my daughter entering dance in the new year.
a
Do I notice a little more noise while shooting indoors... sure... but I'd rather a little noise and hit the shot than have a clean OOF shot. So I do not regret my decision at all

My 2 cents. May be crazy. May not. Its what I got

harcosparky wrote in post #13490174
Damn, and here I was thinking both were designed for the same job .... TAKING PICTURES!

In all serious, when it comes to the two bodies .......

If it moves, shoot it with the 7D.

If it stands still, shoot it with the 5D2.

+1 Million

harcosparky wrote in post #13490174
Damn, and here I was thinking both were designed for the same job .... TAKING PICTURES!

harcosparky wrote in post #13490174
If it moves, shoot it with the 7D.

If it stands still, shoot it with the 5D2.

For everything else, use a Nikon...

Thorrulz wrote in post #13490078
The search function is your friend here and Google also has a pretty good search engine as well I've heard.

the search function here is anything but intuitive

You-by-Lou wrote in post #14605529
the search function here is anything but intuitive

Kind of a belated reply at this point (6 months later), and if you frequent any number of other boards, the search capabilities are fairly standardized/consisten​t. I could see how this is not intuitive if you don't frequent many other forums though.

Laouik wrote in post #13489972
I keep coming across threads where people with both bodies say one shines where the other is lacking and vice versa.

Does anyone have any pictures that creates a fair comparison to support this? There's been plenty of anecdotal evidence, but I've yet to see.

If you go to photozone.de, you can see an excellent lens tested on both FF (21 MPixel 5DII) and on APS-C (15 Mpixel 50D). Looking at MTF resolution scores, one will see that at 70mm f/5.6 is the premier performance for the newest 70-200 f/2.8L-II IS lens.
The 5DII affords 3721 line-pairs per frame height, while the 50D affords 2489 line-pairs per frame height. That is because the lens, in combination with pixel density, determines ultimate detail resolution. IOW, 5DII FF image has more TOTAL DETAIL than 50D APS-C, when we assume that the appropriate equivalent FL is used for same AOV capture with each camera located at the same position (e.g. 100mm on FF vs. 60mm on APS-C).

Converting both those numbers to line-pairs per millimeter, the 50D has 162 ll/mm while the 5DII has 155 ll/mm. So if we take a photo at 70mm FL at the same camera position for both APS-C and FF (and throw away 37.5% of the FF image!), we have in this case 5% more line-pairs on subject resolution via the 50D 'reach' advantage that birders like.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14605876
Kind of a belated reply at this point (6 months later), and if you frequent any number of other boards, the search capabilities are fairly standardized/consisten​t. I could see how this is not intuitive if you don't frequent many other forums though.

Oh I know that, very standard.........the format is the format...for someone new the search feature is tough


didn't realize belated!!!!!!!!! I did a search for 7D vs 5D mkII
thinking about moving up.

portraits is 90% of what I do

You-by-Lou wrote in post #14607092
Oh I know that, very standard.........the format is the format...for someone new the search feature is tough


didn't realize belated!!!!!!!!! I did a search for 7D vs 5D mkII
thinking about moving up.

portraits is 90% of what I do

Both do portraits just nicely, you just have to have the appropriate glass on the crop to get the view you are looking for. I like very fast primes for the 7D, and this allows me to step the lens down a bit into its sweet spot.

Portraits is a pretty broad term though.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1146910

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14608019
Both do portraits just nicely, you just have to have the appropriate glass on the crop to get the view you are looking for. I like very fast primes for the 7D, and this allows me to step the lens down a bit into its sweet spot.

Portraits is a pretty broad term though.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1146910

people in general. objects give me fits...landscapes do noting for me.
So I like candids and also studio with lighting.
Recently did a shoot in Harlem for a non profit...Believe Your Beauty....it was son nice to just be all set up and only have to raise and lower tripos and hair light plus an occasional tweak to the light power

also as my sig suggests I just go right for the face. I did a clothinig line for a friend with two models and I fought with myself for hours staying back. Great lesson for me.

but I have lens wise
35L
24-105L
100-400L
85 1.8

know my 15-85 would no longer work

think an 135L would be added if I go FF

I suppose I see all the debates back and forth on the parts of each that are better and for how I shoot...I think I'd like the 5D
of course I know nothing is "needed" but I wonder if it's just the natural progression

Perhaps pick up a 5D then? I think the images are as good, if not a tiny bit better with the classic, and if you are going to be under ISO 3200, you may not be able to tell any difference from a 5D2 anyways. This way you are only out about $700 on the used market instead of $1600. If you don't like it, you should be able to sell it at almost no loss. Having 2 different formats with great glass would be pretty versatile for a portrait shoot, I would think.

The 135L on a FF vs the 85 on the 7D probably won't yield tremendous differences in output, but I am not sure. I have used the 85, not the 135.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14608148
Perhaps pick up a 5D then? I think the images are as good, if not a tiny bit better with the classic, and if you are going to be under ISO 3200, you may not be able to tell any difference from a 5D2 anyways. This way you are only out about $700 on the used market instead of $1600. If you don't like it, you should be able to sell it at almost no loss. Having 2 different formats with great glass would be pretty versatile for a portrait shoot, I would think.

The 135L on a FF vs the 85 on the 7D probably won't yield tremendous differences in output, but I am not sure. I have used the 85, not the 135.

I had that thought in my head for the classic....then too as you say I can keep the 7D
I was going to sell the 7 and add cash for the mkII
put a couple err few pictures over in that thread you linked.

I respect your opinion thank you.

Well mr TeamSpeed...........I bought one out of the classifieds forum moments ago!

You-by-Lou wrote in post #14608885
Well mr TeamSpeed...........I bought one out of the classifieds forum moments ago!

lol, a person after my own heart, don't think, just do...