Going from a 40D - to a 60D or a 7D?

sbattey wrote in post #13010237
My point when I said astronomically, was that the 40D max ISO is 3200, so if you compared ISO 6400 on the 7D to ISO 6400 on the 40D, the 7D will obviously win since the 40D can't go that high.

Well, it can, but you have to do the work yourself, by pushing the image in post.

As it happens, it seems the 40D can do fairly decent ISO 6400, from what I've seen. The noise reduction in postprocessing software like Lightroom makes the 40D look even better.

But it's certainly not as good as the 7D, which (as Teamspeed has demonstrated on numerous occasions) produces amazingly good images at ISO 12800.

Actually only the last of the 3 images are 12800, the first two are at low ISO to show DOF control, but who's counting?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13010427
Actually only the last of the 3 images are 12800, the first two are at low ISO to show DOF control, but who's counting?

Aha.

The noise on the 7D is so bad that you can't tell the difference between an ISO 12800 shot and a low ISO shot!

jonneymendoza wrote in post #13010476
So in anutshell 7d has better iq and iso then any canon crop body and FF bodies offer small IQ improvements and small ISO improvements. right so far?

Close! Very close.

Actually, the situation is that the T2i, T3i, 60D, and 7D have roughly the same IQ and ISO performance, since they share very similar sensors. However, they are better than previous crop bodies in that regard.

Full frame gets you about one-and-a-third (hereafter, 1.3) stops better ISO, but you have to use a shallower depth of field (by 1.3 stops) or a slower shutter speed (again, by 1.3 stops) to get it. It offers the potential for somewhat better out of-of-the-camera sharpness in part because the photosites are bigger (so the lens doesn't need as much resolving power as on the crop to achieve the same sharpness) and in part because it probably has a weaker anti-aliasing filter. Finally, full frame usually has a modest dynamic range advantage (usually around a stop), but precious few people actually make use of that, since the 5Dmk2 has a problem with pattern noise in the deep shadows, and you're not making full use of the camera's dynamic range unless you're pushing your shadows hard.


In practice, however, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between properly* postprocessed images of the same subject at the same distance, angle of view, depth of field, and shutter speed taken by two cameras, one being full frame and one being crop. The primary difference you'd see would be due to the sheer resolution difference between the two. With the current generation of cameras, that would be 18 megapixels on the crop side versus 21 megapixels on the full frame side -- hardly a difference worth talking about, really, as it's less than 10% difference on a side.


The next round of full frame cameras is likely to change the resolution situation again, but at some point more megapixels simply won't help you, because there will always be a size beyond which you won't print, and the linear resolution improvement increases as the square root of the total resolution increase (so, if you have a 4x improvement in total resolution, you'll only see a 2x improvement in linear resolution, i.e. resolution on a side).

* "properly" here means that the images are postprocessed in such a way that they account for the idiosyncrasies of the camera. For instance, a 7D image will probably require more sharpening than a 5D2 image would.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #13010476
So in anutshell 7d has better iq and iso then any canon crop body and FF bodies offer small IQ improvements and small ISO improvements. right so far?

As to IQ and real-world events, here is a band competition where I shot both bodies with the same glass at the same event. I didn't shoot as much with the 5D2, because I found that I wanted the cropped images for "reach", so most of the event ended up being with the 7D.

http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …8_DK7HhM#106172​1941_eRfKz

Here was an indoor basketball game, where I shot both as well, this time at high ISO, same type of scenario, but this time I switched it around, the first 19 of 52 are with the 7D.

http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …9_BNNXGK#110321​2327_LTfHw

kcbrown wrote in post #13010518
Aha.

The noise on the 7D is so bad that you can't tell the difference between an ISO 12800 shot and a low ISO shot!

lol, I don't know about that

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13010595
lol, I don't know about that

I was, of course, exaggerating for humor effect...


Seriously, though, you did such a good job on the ISO 12800 shot that it is not so obviously different from the rest. Certainly not as much as one would expect, at any rate.


Why is it that you picked up a 1Dmk4 again?

picturecrazy wrote in post #13002894
Honestly, unless you need video, I would personally stick with the 40D and get better lenses.

I agree with picturecrazy... I shot with my 30D and 40D for a long while and teamed up with top-line glass (see my sig) I believe that these two cameras can produce very nice IQ see my China smugmug galleries below.

However since I always shoot with at least two bodies, I like to have a spare body waiting in the wings in case of a failure. When my 10D died, I decided that I had enough glass and picked up a 7D through the Canon Loyalty Program at a very good price.

I really love my 7D but, I don't think that the 60D is enough of an upgrade (it is a downgrade in the # of user controlled modes available) over the 40D. In fact, if the 60D had been the only "upgrade" option, I would have bought a used 40D.

Among the bells and shistles of the 60D that everyone seems to be going GaGa about is the articuating LCD which totally leaves me flat. I NEVER USE THE LCD. When I need to shoot at an awkward angle, I use a right angle finder. When I am forced to use the LCD as in shooting video, I convert it to an eye-level finder using a loupe http://www.cameratown.​com …s/dslr_cinemato​graphy.cfm

I think the 60d offers great capabilities for the money and with the money you save you can buy yourself a nice lens... Perhaps a nice prime. It can be had for about 1/2 what the 7d sells for.

hannibal31 wrote in post #13001815
What would be the better choice. I have had a 40D for 3 years now and would like to upgrade. I am looking between a 60D or a 7D. I am just a hobbyist/enthusiast - not a professional.Are they both equal as far as IQ?

I had a 40D and purchased a 60D because I wanted to check out the video functionality. Although that feature is largely a disappointment to me, I kept the 60 and sold the 40 because of better high ISO capability and better/faster AF. And I really liked my 40D. I thought it delivered better IQ than two different 50Ds I owned. The 60D just seems noticeably better to me. Not really what I expected.

MODERATOR ADMONITION.

Many of you will notice that there are several posts missing. We will not allow personal atacks and name calling here. Not all the missing posts were personal attacks but were collateral damage due to post quotes.

Thank you Skip Souza.

Back on topic thanks all for the info. cant see a point getting a full frame over a 7d then

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #13003287
What is it about your 40D that you feel is lacking?

...it's no longer new!
i personally would keep your 40d until it falls apart and is no longer functioning. I do not own any of the cameras you have listed but as far as I know that they all share a similar sensor, which will produce almost identical images.

good luck with your decisions and enjoy

jonneymendoza wrote in post #13013254
Thank you Skip Souza.

Back on topic thanks all for the info. cant see a point getting a full frame over a 7d then

There are going to be some cases where you really want the extra depth of field capability that full frame provides.

In particular, full frame is capable of depths of field with zooms that crops can get only with primes. If shallow depth of field is your thing, that'll be a real benefit.

Similarly, if you really need every ounce of high ISO performance you can get, full frame is likely the way to go, because you'll be perfectly willing to use a shallower depth of field to get it. Of course, crop sensors continue to improve in that area, so eventually that will become a specialty requirement (indeed, one might be able to argue that it already is).

Anyway, if crop gives you the depth of field control that you need, then in general you're not likely to see a significant difference when going to full frame, at least with the current set of cameras that are available (and, indeed, it's probably gotten to the point where crop cameras have enough resolution that printing larger than what their resolution will support is something of a specialty requirement in its own right. But that's something that others in the field are likely to be able to speak about with much greater authority than I).