IQ question

While modern cameras strive to make usable photos at huge ISO numbers, am I completely wrong in thinking that if used within reasonable lighting conditions older DSLRs can produce better images? I know old is relative so there are really no old digital cameras but I recently bought a 1ds and I think the images look nicer than from my 7d. Am i seeing something not there or do the files just look different? Any opinions?

jaomul wrote in post #15273047
While modern cameras strive to make usable photos at huge ISO numbers, am I completely wrong in thinking that if used within reasonable lighting conditions older DSLRs can produce better images? I know old is relative so there are really no old digital cameras but I recently bought a 1ds and I think the images look nicer than from my 7d. Am i seeing something not there or do the files just look different? Any opinions?

Mostly wrong. The 1Ds simply has a lot more surface area to capture light, so it will produce a superior image.

ISO performance per surface area hasn't progressed much since the 20D era (with the exception of the 1D4/1DX). The older cameras are less color blind than the newer ones, but the new cameras have solved Canon's electronics issue leading to horizontal banding noise at high ISO.

I don't know if they can produce better images than the newer cameras - much has to do with proper exposure to begin with, which is a major factor, and how the file is processed. Many exceptional images were created with the dSLR's from the late '90's.

Not doubting that. I kind of compare assuming exposure has been correct in the newer or older models

jaomul wrote in post #15273047
While modern cameras strive to make usable photos at huge ISO numbers, am I completely wrong in thinking that if used within reasonable lighting conditions older DSLRs can produce better images? I know old is relative so there are really no old digital cameras but I recently bought a 1ds and I think the images look nicer than from my 7d. Am i seeing something not there or do the files just look different? Any opinions?

Personally, I think most bodies render better looking images than the 7d. I use a 1DsII and 1DIII and prefer them both to the 7d. The files from my old 1 series bodies are much more malleable and, with proper PP, the 1DIII is good for at least 20"x30" prints with excellent results, while I haven't discovered the limits of my 1DsII yet. I also feel that the files (from the 1DIII - just got the 1DsII, so can't comment yet) are "richer" in terms of color and contrast.

You know, I saw some work from a guy who shoots exclusively with a 5dc and a 24-105 and his work was stunning. Not only on an artistic level, but technically too. I agree with the OP that at low ISOs the difference between modern DSLRs and those of the 20d/5Dc era are minor.

I also agree with twoshadows that the 7d's rendering is not great. I know lots of people at this point will jump up and foam at the mouth, but that's the way I see it! The 7d is fantastic in nearly every other way, but the IQ just isn't up to most other Canon DSLR bodies. Maybe it's the anti-alias filter?