Canon EOS 7D Mark II Is Sharper And Has Less Noise Than EOS 5D Mark III

Well this will probably cause some discussion. I am assuming that matching the size of the crop cameras image is what has hurt the 5DIII's IQ? It might answer a question I have had about getting a FF and coping to enlarge an image though. See linky below

http://www.canonwatch.​com/test-4/

It comes from the article below, so I am not sure if it is a repost or an update to that thread as it is from a Blog, (I know the original link to this Blog is on POTN already, but I don't recall this latest GIF part being on it at the time of that threads inception) If the GIF images were already on Arthur M's thread, I'm quite happy for a Mod to delete this tread.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com …ht-that-it-would-be-easy/

.

It is an interesting article, everyone wants high iso performance, so no one is looking much at anything lower than 1600 iso.

Here I remember when we didn't have any film labeled higher than 1600 - that was all she wrote for the mass public!

He also did a focus/recompose which could affect things. Very subjective test and there is so little difference that it's a wash. I'd rather have a full frame still.

Thread title should say "... in focal length limited situations" A very serious omission in my opinion.

I am bird photographer too and I am excited about the 7DII. Currently I shoot wildlife primarily with my 70D as opposed to my 5DIII because the 1.6x crop factor helps me in those focal length limited situations (basically shooting the same distant bird with both cameras from the same spot.). Yes, if I upscale the 5DIII image to match the subject (bird) size of the 70D image, sharpness suffers and noise increases. Simple physics.

But, without the right context, the title statement is not true. Only in focal length limited scenarios.
Would I go shoot portraits, or events with my 70D as opposed to my 5DIII, basically situations where I can achieve the same framing by taking the 5DIII photo from a closer range? No. I'll always use my 5DIII in those situations, because it is sharper and has less noise than my 70D (which is very very close in IQ to the 7DII).

Same lens on crop and ff will, obviously, result in different FOV. His (her?) 100% crops are the same size. Impossible. You either have to upres the 5D3 shot, killing detail, or downres the 7D2 shot, hiding flaws. The comparison is completely invalid. A blatant plea for traffic from someone with nothing valid to say. I'd guess you could compare a 450D to the 5D3 with similar results.

Numenorean wrote in post #17235477
He also did a focus/recompose which could affect things. Very subjective test and there is so little difference that it's a wash. I'd rather have a full frame still.

I'd also rather have an ef600 f/4L IS II to use with my (hypothetical) full frame camera, but that's not gonna happen.

gabebalazs wrote in post #17235500
I shoot wildlife primarily with my 70D as opposed to my 5DIII because the 1.6x crop factor helps me in those focal length limited situations (basically shooting the same distant bird with both cameras from the same spot.). Yes, if I upscale the 5DIII image to match the subject (bird) size of the 70D image, sharpness suffers and noise increases. Simple physics.

That's what I thought. It seemed odd to me that a professional chap would compare the two as he did, but figured as he knows more than me, there must be a reason for it (assuming he isn't being paid to demonstrate these things?)

Geordie Amanda wrote in post #17235768
That's what I thought. It seemed odd to me that a professional chap would compare the two as he did, but figured as he knows more than me, there must be a reason for it (assuming he isn't being paid to demonstrate these things?)

The reason is when you are shooting birds and wildlife getting closer in most situations is difficult or will startle your subject. So what he was demonstrating was when printing large you are better off getting more pixels on target then just cropping and upsizing the FF image to end up with the same framing. This is really important to me because I often print large 24 x 16 and 20 x 30. This equation assumes you have a lens capable of resolving maximum detail. The results confirm for me I will be adding the 7D II to my 1D4 for birds and wildlife. To capture shy birds and wildlife it is best to be at a distance where they are not worried about your presence so you can capture their natural behavior and expressions. It is just another example of using the best tool for the job. The purpose is not to say one camera is better than another it just points out the most appropriate tool.

I'd assumed that as a pro birder, that AM was showing that inho, the 7DII was a better camera for his profession and that cropping a FF image was inferior. But wondered why he would post this, as I thought it was received wisdom that cropping something like a 5DIII wouldn't improve IQ over something like a 7D with it's greater pixel density on target (at least for birds and some sports). Someone on here nearly always pops up and says "yes, but you have to consider .......and take into account ......." etc and so explains why it was a refreshing point of view or that received wisdom is wrong in this situation. Doesn't seem to be so in this case .

I like my 7D as I shoot a lot of water based sport and getting close to my subject is pretty difficult (and wet), but I have oft wondered about cameras like the 5DIII producing better shots with the Tamron 150-600mm I own and then cropping in PP. A couple of users of this FF combo seem to rate them together, so I had considered that the end product of FF and Tamzooka might be better than 7D and Tamzooka. I'm not yet sold on this idea, as is often pointed out, more pixels on target is often a winning combination. This is the main reason I found AM's blog of interest.

you would think that a 600mkII on full frame would be enough for birds if not add a 1.4 tc even that is often still not enough.
Here in the UK most Birds hate people getting to close .
A 2xtc is ok gives 1000mm but centre point only and f8
The 7d mkII will give 1344mm and f 5.6 with a 1.4tc fov and more points to play with
Rob.

ksbal wrote in post #17235448
Here I remember when we didn't have any film labeled higher than 1600 - that was all she wrote for the mass public!

Polaroid had 3,000 ASA film since the 1960s, probably earlier too. Heck there was even a 20,000 ASA instant film aka Polaroid 612. http://en.polaroid-passion.com …-type-100-films.php?id=29

gabebalazs wrote in post #17235500
Thread title should say "... in focal length limited situations" A very serious omission in my opinion.

He could have said it more explicitly, but it is good that he went there. Too many people seem to think that bigger sensors and/or bigger pixels are analogous to "bigger antennas" picking up more signal, but that is not necessarily the case.

.

The crop factor may affect the magnification in the viewfinder, but it is not responsible for the greater maximum detail of your subject in the capture; that is due to the pixel density alone.

For some people, that is 99% of their photographic world, and very relevant. Perhaps we should create an acronym, "FLLP" for focal-length-limited photography, so people are more likely to mention it. Spelled out, it is a lot of work. Also, DxOMark should have something like "Surface" in addition to "Screen" and "Print", describing the measured noise qualities of the sensor surface, for those choosing cameras to use with FLLP.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17236665
He could have said it more explicitly, but it is good that he went there. Too many people seem to think that bigger sensors and/or bigger pixels are analogous to "bigger antennas" picking up more signal, but that is not necessarily the case.

.

The crop factor may affect the magnification in the viewfinder, but it is not responsible for the greater maximum detail of your subject in the capture; that is due to the pixel density alone.

For some people, that is 99% of their photographic world, and very relevant. Perhaps we should create an acronym, "FLLP" for focal-length-limited photography, so people are more likely to mention it. Spelled out, it is a lot of work. Also, DxOMark should have something like "Surface" in addition to "Screen" and "Print", describing the measured noise qualities of the sensor surface, for those choosing cameras to use with FLLP.

...and since we're talking about 2 specific cameras here, pixel density is already defined. 7DII, 20mp APS-C, 5DIII 22mp FF. This was not a general vague discussion without any specific cameras. But you're right, if we don't know what cameras we're talking about, only that one is APS-C, the other is FF, then the question is impossible to answer.

"FLLP" is a very good idea.

hmmm interesting observation that one - but ill take the 5 d mk 3 thanks - perhaps the pre delivery orders for the 7 d mk 2 is not quite up to canon expectations and a bit of marketing push has been called for !!!

GyRob wrote in post #17236532
you would think that a 600mkII on full frame would be enough for birds if not add a 1.4 tc even that is often still not enough.
Here in the UK most Birds hate people getting to close .
A 2xtc is ok gives 1000mm but centre point only and f8
The 7d mkII will give 1344mm and f 5.6 with a 1.4tc fov and more points to play with
Rob.

I occasionally take the odd shot of a bird and as I like to take pictures hand held, I struggle with f8, 600mm and a crop camera, but 1344mm!! Wow. I cant even imagine how you line that up. Do you use a very expensive ball head? and also an extremely stable tripod (possibly weighed down with large blocks of lead on each leg)