Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 26 Apr 2016 (Tuesday) 22:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Nikons new D500 vs the Canon 7DII

 
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,901 posts
Likes: 427
Joined Jan 2010
     
May 01, 2016 13:31 |  #46

PNPhotography wrote in post #17989478 (external link)
Not bad at all teamspeed for 16000.Usually when I'm over about 4000 I grab the 6D.

I have the 7D2 and 6D, and the only time I choose the 6D is when I want to shoot very wide angles, or get the most light with fast lenses, wide open, because smaller pixels lose extra light below f/2.8.

I find that there is no significant noise benefit to the 6D in focal-length-limited situations, or in equivalence (same FOV and DOF).

When I had the original 7D and the 6D, the story was different. The 6D clearly had less noise in all situations.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,901 posts
Likes: 427
Joined Jan 2010
     
May 01, 2016 13:46 |  #47

EricJrSax wrote in post #17991165 (external link)
Thanks Bianchi,... I will. Not a big fan of TC! With the the D810 it's easier to crop and fill a frame. And on those occasions when a TC would be nice, you can easily flip the D810 into DX mode, which is essentially a built in 1.5 converter that'll take you to 750mm and won't steal as much light or focus points!

Pure fantasy. Cropping can not replace a TC. You might be examining your images for pixel-artifact acuity; not real subject detail.

It does cut down on your effective resolution tho. What I'm anxious to explore is mounting the 200-500 f/5.6 onto the D500 and flip it into its 18:12 mode, which is a 1.3 crop factor on top of the DX mode's already 1.5 crop factor. This will take the 200-500 f/5.6 to 975mm.

No it won't. You're still at 500mm, but throwing away much of the original frame.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PNPhotography
Senior Member
Avatar
800 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 54
Joined Sep 2007
Location: central PA
     
May 01, 2016 13:48 |  #48

John Sheehy wrote in post #17991966 (external link)
I don't have the files I need to do a direct comparison, but the character of 7D2 noise is top-notch, and that counts for something. It isn't perfect, but it is very fine noise with little low-frequency content, or banding. If the character of the D500 noise is anything less at high ISOs, that small difference in the graph at high-to-medium ISOs shrinks, and the 7D2 takes the lead at ISOs like 25,600 and above.

From the graph at the beginning of this post, it is clear that the 7D2 has less read noise at the photosites themselves, and only has more post-gain system noise.

Sorry John,I was referring to John Koerner's post


6D|7D|7DMKII|Nikon D750|Nikon 85 F1.8|Nikon D5500|G15| Gripped|300F4|35F2IS|8​5 F1.8|135L F2|200L F2.8|17-55 F2.8|70-200L F2.8 MKII|430EX|
https://www.facebook.c​om …2755174446/?ref​=bookmarks (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,901 posts
Likes: 427
Joined Jan 2010
     
May 01, 2016 13:48 |  #49

Bianchi wrote in post #17991172 (external link)
Interesting, I didn't know you can add 1.3 to the already 1.5 to give you even more reach.

Cropping does not improve anything, except getting unwanted stuff out of your composition. How do you figure that throwing away pixels improves those that are left in some special way?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,901 posts
Likes: 427
Joined Jan 2010
     
May 01, 2016 14:05 |  #50

EricJrSax wrote in post #17991758 (external link)
I know that,... I think we all know that gjl711! And I think that's the advantage of crop mode over actually trying to extend the lens optically. By letting the camera do the crop,... you're not exploding pixels with software.

You have some very strange ideas about pixels and software. There is no difference in final IQ between the camera doing the crop, and you doing the crop. Cropping in software does nothing to the pixels that remain after cropping. they are totally unchanged.

Yes,... you're losing resolution because you're using the center of the sensor. On the D810, FF is the full 36 mp of the sensor; at 1.3 crop, you're using 30 mp starting from the center of the sensor; and at 1.5 crop (DX mode), you're the 24 mp starting from the center of the sensor.

Wrong numbers. 1.3x crop divides pixels by 1.69. 36MP/1.69 = 21.3MP. 1.5x crop divides pixels by 2.25. 36MP/2.25 = 16MP.

The other advantage of these crop modes is you don't lose a ton of light

The only benefit of crop vs TC is that the f-number doesn't go up with the crop, allowing faster AF, or AF at all. The amount of subject light is the same with the same shutter speed.

and your AF focus points operate as usual, that is if they remain in the cropped area of the sensor. Not a problem with most Nikon bodies as their focus points aren't stretched to the edges of the sensor like on the D810 and especially on the D500!

On most Canon bodies, you put a 1.4x or 2x TC on them and you're left with half the light and only your center focus point remaining at cross type! Which in some cases turns your auto-focus into a joke!

So yeah,... if my body allows me switch modes and accomplish the same mission you'd accomplish by sticking a TC between your body and your glass. Well let's just say I'd opt for the mode switching ability. I've looked closely at the files from the D810 in 1.5 crop mode, and they look just fine,... hard to tell which mode the camera was even in when I took the shot. I look at some old files from my old 5D3 and Canon's older version 1.4 TC, and it's easy to tell the TC was at the party!

That does not prove that cropping is superior. It proves that cropping gives sharper pixels, but sharp pixels are not subject details. I 'm not sure you understand what an equitable comparison entails. To compare without a TC to a 1.4x TC, you need to upsample the non-TC image to 141.4% before engaging in a 100% pixel view comparison.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by John Koerner.
     
May 01, 2016 20:28 |  #51
bannedPermanent ban

PNPhotography wrote in post #17991988 (external link)
Sorry John,I was referring to John Koerner's post

Noise and color aren't the same thing.

Think of it as an sRGB monitor vs. a color-calibrated, full Adobe RGB monitor.

A wonderfully-timed image, in good light, looks beautiful in either monitor ... it just looks a little better in the Adobe RGB monitor.

Just because the 7D2 has less color potential than the D7200 and, I assume, the D500 does not make the 7D2 incapable of taking colorful images.

To underscore a point, I took this image with the original 7D:

IMAGE: http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000480_medium.jpg

Nice and colorful :-)

However, just because the image is pleasing and colorful, does not put my 7D in the same class as my D810.

Posting images that are pleasing does not prove anything.
(Like I said, a nice image shown in an sRGB monitor is still a nice image.)

My 7D had a color range of 105 compared to a 1073 color range of my D810.

The 221 color range of the 7DII is twice that of the original 7D, but not really where I wanted to be with my upgrade, when I knew that there were cameras out there with much more potential.

I don't know why the truth offends people.

sRGB monitors are everywhere. I would venture to say most people on this site are looking through sRGB monitors, not color-calibrated 98% Adobe RGB monitors. It is possible to enjoy images on cell phones, sRBG monitors, and fully-color-calibrated monitors.

However, just because you can enjoy looking at an image on sRGB monitors and cell phones does not make these devices the best possible viewing tools.

In the same fashion, there are many cameras out there that take perfectly-fine images that everyone can enjoy, but not all of them are at the high-end of the potential scale, if measured against each other. Some simply have more potential than others.

It is pretty much spelled out, on many different sites, which cameras fall where: at the high, middle, or low-end of the spectrum.

I could post pleasing photos from my 7D, all day long, but when RAW files are viewed 100% at home, the difference in quality is major.

This isn't meant to offend anyone, just to keep it real.

Jack



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EricJrSax
Member
Avatar
206 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 51
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Baltimore
Post edited over 3 years ago by EricJrSax.
     
May 01, 2016 23:19 |  #52

John Sheehy wrote in post #17992008 (external link)
You have some very strange ideas about pixels and software. There is no difference in final IQ between the camera doing the crop, and you doing the crop. Cropping in software does nothing to the pixels that remain after cropping. they are totally unchanged.

Wrong numbers. 1.3x crop divides pixels by 1.69. 36MP/1.69 = 21.3MP. 1.5x crop divides pixels by 2.25. 36MP/2.25 = 16MP.

The only benefit of crop vs TC is that the f-number doesn't go up with the crop, allowing faster AF, or AF at all. The amount of subject light is the same with the same shutter speed.

That does not prove that cropping is superior. It proves that cropping gives sharper pixels, but sharp pixels are not subject details. I 'm not sure you understand what an equitable comparison entails. To compare without a TC to a 1.4x TC, you need to upsample the non-TC image to 141.4% before engaging in a 100% pixel view comparison.

Well it's clear I'm not communicating my thoughts well. You guys keep attributing assertions to me I've never made,... and then arguing about it. It's like you've not heard a word I've said,... and just simply committed to hearing what you want to hear.

I've never used the words superior or better, or any other similar descriptive word. What I did say was that for me, using the cropping feature of the D810 was easier and preferable to sticking a TC between my body and glass! But if you guys want to keep arguing with yourselves thru me,... then God bless you, have at it.

You're right John with the math. I didn't completely follow thru all the way in my posts. In fact, in the view finder of the D810, it shows two numbers when you enter each crop mode, the actual sensor pixels used and the effective pixel resolution of the shot: FF: 36 - 24; 1.3x crop: 30 - 20; & 1.5x crop: 24-16. Your #'s are just about dead on!

Look guys,... I'm not advocating having the U.S. Army deployed door to door collecting all TC's in the interest of National Security. I'm merely stating that for me, if I in need of a little extra reach outta my glass, I'd rather have at my disposal, a pro level dedicated crop sensor body, like the D500 or the 7D2 and stick my glass on it to gain that extra reach. And if a crop body wasn't available to me,... having a FF body that was fitted with an internal DX mode that I could select for those moments when I need the extra reach, would be a plus. There's a reason why sport and wildlife shooters prefer crop bodies over the use of TC's. In more cases than not, what TC's bring to the table can quickly be offset by what they take away from the table.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2loose
Goldmember
Avatar
1,179 posts
Gallery: 192 photos
Likes: 1054
Joined Apr 2011
Location: I Heart NY & T-Dot
     
May 01, 2016 23:21 |  #53


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Body:Canon EOS-5D Mark IV, Fuji X-T2
Lenses: Canon EF 85mm f1.2L II, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5L II, Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L II, Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II, Canon TC 1.4X III, Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 R, Fuji XF 35mm f1.4 R

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PeterAlex7
Member
159 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2015
     
May 24, 2016 02:18 |  #54

Why white lenses always dominating in every single football match i watch? Those lenses are used by pros. Is the camera did a better job, or the lens? :)

Does nikon used their own sensor to their d7200? D810?

Just wondering




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,381 posts
Likes: 2366
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
May 24, 2016 09:02 |  #55

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18017140 (external link)
Why white lenses always dominating in every single football match i watch? Those lenses are used by pros. Is the camera did a better job, or the lens? :)

Does nikon used their own sensor to their d7200? D810?

Just wondering

That definitely use to be the case but lately it seems that the mix is much more evenly distributed.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fourfa
Member
Avatar
185 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by fourfa.
     
May 24, 2016 09:26 |  #56
bannedPermanent ban

Team Canon!

The 7DII is amazing even though I have not shot with it yet.


“Photography for me is not looking, it’s feeling. If you can’t feel what you’re looking at, then you’re never going to get others to feel anything when they look at your pictures.”
— Don McCullin

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cormac
Goldmember
Avatar
1,035 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Likes: 1144
Joined Jan 2014
Location: Indiana
     
May 25, 2016 19:04 |  #57

For me, the d500, is out. If I were to spend 2k on a camera body, it would be the D750. At 2k, it doesn't make sense to buy less than a FF body. To my own mind that is. To each their own in that regard.

I've shot with the canon 7DII, was very enjoyable. I rented it as it was one I was considering purchasing anyway. And I wanted something with better low light capability than my current T3 for a wedding I was doing. Mind you it was more or less shot as a favor for a co-worker. But I got to play with a different camera for the whole weekend!

Here at the end of june I'm planning to rent the D7200 w/either the sigma 150-600 or nikon 200-500. As this is the other camera I'm considering purchasing. Figure I may as well try both in real world situations before I chose which to buy. I'll be birding, mostly with this one.

Clearly I have some canon glass. Nothing to fancy, and it leaves me short when I need more reach. I enjoyed the 7DII, and I'm sure I'll like the 7200 as well. Those scores on DXO mark, and whatever other website, are meaningless to me. Yes the nikon has better DR, on paper. But so what? This is a hobby, nothing more. I may find myself in position to make a few bucks here and there, sure. But at the end of the day, with my current skills, will likely produce the exact same photo on either the canon or nikon brand. I can't tell the difference in IQ between various brands of camera. If I want to have a photo with crazy DR, I'll bracket 5 or 7 shots and combine them for a nice HDR photo!

As for my T3, I do feel as though I've reached the limits of this camera. The ISO performance is horrible beyond 800. Even at 800, it's still sketchy. I don't like having to do a lot of NR in post. The burst firing, for action/birds is to slow. 3 fps, just won't cut it. And, frankly after using the 7DII, feels like a toy to me now. A heavier camera just feels better in the hands!

Between the nikon and canon cameras I'm looking at, and will soon have actual real world shooting experience with. I'll decide which to get based off how each felt in my hand. And ease of use. Right now, it's the 7DII. I've messed around with the nikon at the store and don't really like how it feels. Unless I'm just completely blown away by the quality of the images I get out of the nikon. I follow the thread here for the 7200 photos and the 7DII photos. Both are full of equally stunning shots.

Also, lets not forget, it's not the camera that takes the photo.


I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather.
Not screaming, terrified, like his passengers.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by John Koerner. (2 edits in all)
     
May 26, 2016 22:04 |  #58
bannedPermanent ban

The new DP Review of the Nikon D500 (external link) is in.

Result = Gold Award
"The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested."

In a nutshell, the D500's image quality is only a hair above the finest ASP-C cameras, but its overall handling, rugged durability, and ability to AF and handle "live action" utterly destroys the competition. Notice I said "the finest," in regards to image quality, which means it's only a hair above the D7200 and Sony a6300 (the 7D II's image quality isn't even in the Top 10).


Other notable quotes:

  • "Cameras such as the Canon EOS 7D Mark II and Sony's a6300 appear to offer comparable capabilities on paper, but these appearances prove deceptive in real-world use: the D500's autofocus and continuous shooting performance is noticeably better."

  • "Autofocus is the D500's great strength: along with the D5 it's the best we've ever used. Just as mirrorless cameras appear to be closing the gap when it comes to following simple subjects, the D500 comes and blows them (and its DSLR rivals) all out of the water."

  • " ... as an APS-C sports and wildlife camera, the D500 is without rival, and that puts in on the top of our awards podium."


Enjoy,

Jack



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by John Koerner.
     
May 27, 2016 09:07 |  #59
bannedPermanent ban

The real problem here is this place used to be called "The Canon Forums," and 99% of the people here shoot Canon.

If our pursuit here is "the truth," it has to be admitted that even when the Canon 7D II first came out, it was eclipsed in image quality by many other APS-C cameras, let alone how the 7D II stacks up today. By contrast, no APS-C camera eclipses the D500 in any category upon its release, except the Sony's 4K is better. (Which is how it should be when a flagship camera is released.) In everything else, the D500 is superior to the Sony, and it is superior the the 7D Mark II in every measurable way except price.

Nikon D500 Advantages:

  • Slightly higher resolution (albeit negligible);
  • Better Dynamic Range (best in class);
  • Better Color Sensitivity (best in class);
  • Better high ISO performance (best in class);
  • Nikon's ISO stops at 51,200, but extends up to 1,640,000. The 7D II stops at 16,000 and expands to 51,200, which is still D500’s native speed;
  • Nikon has 153 AF points vs the Canon's 65AF points, 99 of which are cross-type (making the Nikon faster and more accurate in tougher conditions);
  • Nikon's AF tracking is better than any camera's in any class (except its big brother the D5);
  • The Nikon has a larger LCD screen, it is a touch-screen, and the LCD articulates;
  • Nikon's LCD also has better resolution (best in class);
  • Nikon's optical viewfinder is better (best in class);
  • Nikon has 4K video, whereas the 7D II has only yesterday's HD;
  • The Nikon also has lighter body, being made made with a carbon fiber composite, over titanium, that is stronger than steel, yet lighter;
  • The Nikon has 1240 vs 670 shots of battery life;

Every possible qualitative advantage is with the Nikon. The mounting points of the 7D II are even plastic.


Canon EOS 7D Mark II Advantages:
  • $500 cheaper.

That is the only thing you can say about the Canon 7D Mk II, "it's cheaper." Qualitatively, it doesn't possess a single advantage over the D500.

If these facts "stir the bees' nest," and make me a "troll," so be it. But the truth is, the D500 is an exciting camera :-D

The most positive thing that can happen (and I hope it does) is that the 7D Mk III comes out, soon, and re-establishes Canon with a foothold in the quality department.

Let's face it, we all like to get excited about new products ... and the 7D II was a letdown (for me at least), coming up short in many areas, even when it was first released.

The 7D was so much of a letdown, that it made me switch brands.

By contrast, the D500 most definitely is something to look forward to, in every category in its class, upon its release.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2loose
Goldmember
Avatar
1,179 posts
Gallery: 192 photos
Likes: 1054
Joined Apr 2011
Location: I Heart NY & T-Dot
     
May 27, 2016 10:23 |  #60


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Body:Canon EOS-5D Mark IV, Fuji X-T2
Lenses: Canon EF 85mm f1.2L II, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5L II, Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L II, Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II, Canon TC 1.4X III, Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 R, Fuji XF 35mm f1.4 R

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

27,563 views & 66 likes for this thread
Nikons new D500 vs the Canon 7DII
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rsturboguy
831 guests, 334 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.