5D MkII vs 7D - Show us the difference

krb wrote in post #13528241
If you're doing it right then they are hanging in the homes and offices of the people who bought them.

Oh snap.

yeah, that, then my own house for my personal favorites. Those are inches though, if that was what you're getting at. I have 4 18x27s hanging in my house as gallery/cavas wraps, then 2 framed 20x30s. Then ~4 12x18s matted and framed as well? And we have a tiny house (1100sf), I'm out of wall space.

If you're NOT printing, why the hell own a DSLR?

jacobsen1 wrote in post #13529447
yeah, that, then my own house for my personal favorites. Those are inches though, if that was what you're getting at. I have 4 18x27s hanging in my house as gallery/cavas wraps, then 2 framed 20x30s. Then ~4 12x18s matted and framed as well? And we have a tiny house (1100sf), I'm out of wall space.

If you're NOT printing, why the hell own a DSLR?

flickr friends, duh.

As for print sizes, 8x10 is a nice size for putting in albums to share with others but I generally don't waste wall space on anything that small at home. I've got a few 8x10 prints of my wife and I from back in the 35mm film days hanging on the walls, but anything else is at least 16x20 with the largest being a pair of 40x20s.

At work I don't have much space so I have some 8x10s hanging.

krb wrote in post #13529531
As for print sizes, 8x10 is a nice size for putting in albums to share with others but I generally don't waste wall space on anything that small at home. I've got a few 8x10 prints of my wife and I from back in the 35mm film days hanging on the walls, but anything else is at least 16x20 with the largest being a pair of 40x20s.

At work I don't have much space so I have some 8x10s hanging.

exactly. 8x10 looks tiny on a wall.

I have a wall with 3 11x14s in a row matted to 16x20 and they still seem small!

I gave a 16x24 print as a gift to my parents and it looks average size above a fireplace.

At a hospital I was recently at, they had a series of at least 40x60" prints going down a hallway with a couple that looked to be 60x90".

Those are big prints.

I weston I wrote in post #13529563
I have a wall with 3 11x14s in a row matted to 16x20 and they still seem small!

I gave a 16x24 print as a gift to my parents and it looks average size above a fireplace.

According to your sig line you shoot the 40D. I've done some decent looking large prints with 10mp cameras as well. The 18-21mp cameras are nice, but lower res will do for larger prints too.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #13529796
According to your sig line you shoot the 40D. I've done some decent looking large prints with 10mp cameras as well. The 18-21mp cameras are nice, but lower res will do for larger prints too.

10mp is ok for up to 11x14... Maybe 16x20, but anything larger than that the photos quickly deteriorate. if all you print is 8x10 or maybe 11x14, you are all set...for larger photos, you need to look at more pixels.

Subject matter really does matter. If there is no fine detail in the image,it can e printed larger just fine. If the original contains a lot of detail, then you'll quickly see the difference between a crop and a full frame image.

and the thread continues...

I am in the process of selecting an image for a 60" for my living room... 8 x 10's go into albums or are used for proofs (processing).

I agree with the comment about how much detail an image has. Waaay back I printed a handful of 11 x 17's from a 5 mpixel that are excellent. Other's I couldn't get an acdeptable 8 x 10.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #13529796
According to your sig line you shoot the 40D. I've done some decent looking large prints with 10mp cameras as well. The 18-21mp cameras are nice, but lower res will do for larger prints too.

Oh yeah, I've never had a problem with 10MP. obviously, for large prints at low ISO, more MP would usually be better, but it's not that big of deal for what I use it for. I had a D200 and D2h (4MP) before this, and 4MP could do 11x14 just fine, 14x18 ok, and 16x24 was a stretch, but was still good unless you looked up close.

For thsoe of you with the 5D how good is the noise at higher ISO's? I would like to be able to use the non IS version lenses because of cost savings and compensate with ISO for the shutter speeds, but if at 800 ISO it is still showing poor noise performance then I may need to go with a D700.

HDR Fan wrote in post #13534248
For thsoe of you with the 5D how good is the noise at higher ISO's? I would like to be able to use the non IS version lenses because of cost savings and compensate with ISO for the shutter speeds, but if at 800 ISO it is still showing poor noise performance then I may need to go with a D700.

Well, I shoot at iso 3200 very often, and occasionally at higher iso.

Expose well, use a denoising tool, and all is fine IMO.

If need be, you can actually find a tool that does exactly the same that a Nikon in-camera does to its RAW files: clip the lowest few bits to black - noise gone.

Kind regards, Wim

Really that sounds encouraging. If you remember what that tool is let me know. Is it a CS5 plugin? The only other noise tools I know of are from NIK and Topaz Denoise. I hate how most of these tools just soften the image too much in order to get rid of noise. If you can shoot at 3200 ISO and good good results that means I should be fine with what I am lookin for. I am just having a hard time deciding on the IS or non IS version 70-200 F4.

wimg wrote in post #13534291
Well, I shoot at iso 3200 very often, and occasionally at higher iso.

Expose well, use a denoising tool, and all is fine IMO.

If need be, you can actually find a tool that does exactly the same that a Nikon in-camera does to its RAW files: clip the lowest few bits to black - noise gone.

Kind regards, Wim

HDR Fan wrote in post #13534377
Really that sounds encouraging. If you remember what that tool is let me know. Is it a CS5 plugin? The only other noise tools I know of are from NIK and Topaz Denoise. I hate how most of these tools just soften the image too much in order to get rid of noise. If you can shoot at 3200 ISO and good good results that means I should be fine with what I am lookin for. I am just having a hard time deciding on the IS or non IS version 70-200 F4.

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

HDR Fan wrote in post #13534248
For thsoe of you with the 5D how good is the noise at higher ISO's? I would like to be able to use the non IS version lenses because of cost savings and compensate with ISO for the shutter speeds, but if at 800 ISO it is still showing poor noise performance then I may need to go with a D700.

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... BTW, I am a believer in using the "standard" NR setting in camera and DPP cleans the RAW files in an amazing, automatic manner.