HELP!! 70D vs 7D, which to buy!

Mike55 wrote in post #16691309
Very soft images,. Noisy, too. The 7D AA filter and noise really is chewing these up (something I am very familiar with). But nice captures, especially the ducklings. Cute.

I always marvel when somebody can discern the noise on an image reduced to 1024 pixel side...

I'm actually shocked that you can't see it. I'm on a professionally calibrated 24 inch IPS and it jumps right out at me.

The water in the duckling shot has what I've come to call "7D water", that is, blotchy noise patterns even at low ISO's. Water looks smooth, not rough. The noise is really chewing it up. Fortunately, I've been hearing that the 70D does not suffer from this. I have yet to verify it for myself, though.

It's why I completely stopped using the 7D for landscapes.

Mike55 wrote in post #16691309
Very soft images,. Noisy, too, as if taken by a consumer zoom. The 7D AA filter and noise really is chewing these up (something I am very familiar with). But nice captures, especially the ducklings. Cute.

Differences in AA filters ONLY come out with the sharpest lenses under ideal conditions at the lowest ISOs.
Once we go to ISO 400, 800 or above, shooting with a lens that is not super sharp, and under less than perfect atmospheric conditions (like the posted wildlife samples), AA filter differences are totally negligible, certainly not visible in photos. These factors listed will degrade your image way way more than the differences between AA filters would do.
When I shot under those conditions and at higher ISOs, it absolutely didn't matter if I was shooting with my 7D, or any other of my crop cameras the results in terms of sharpness were the same, the AA filter does not affect the images when other factors already mask any difference in AA filters.

Anyone who can "tell" AA filter differences looking at a web sized (1000 pixel) image must have some superhero x-ray eyes

Any thoughts on the low ISO noise of the 70D versus 7D?

BTW, you're saying that the considerable difference here in IQ doesn't show up at high ISO?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

I think the 70D has an advantage even at low isos, especially in the blue channel. Blue skies look better on the 70D to me.

Mike55 wrote in post #16691309
Very soft images,. Noisy, too, as if taken by a consumer zoom. The 7D AA filter and noise really is chewing these up (something I am very familiar with). But nice captures, especially the ducklings. Cute.

We are discussing AF not IQ. Please stay on topic. The 7D has no AF issues in snow, that I have ever seen personally. Where has this been documented? As to the softness, that is all lens, the Sigma is not its best in low light.

Mike55 wrote in post #16691353
I'm actually shocked that you can't see it. I'm on a professionally calibrated 24 inch IPS and it jumps right out at me.

The water in the duckling shot has what I've come to call "7D water", that is, blotchy noise patterns even at low ISO's. Water looks smooth, not rough. The noise is really chewing it up. Fortunately, I've been hearing that the 70D does not suffer from this. I have yet to verify it for myself, though.

It's why I completely stopped using the 7D for landscapes.

So JPG compression to fit POTN posting guidelines wouldn't be part of the culprit? Also, that was ISO 6400, of course the 7D has noise issues that affect images at that level.

Here is a crop that shows the noise that I am able to work with at 6400, if we want to get into that topic. I don't see blotchy water here, I see noise that can be dealt with pretty easily. The blotchiness before would be JPG compression. The lack of detail is due to the Sigma not pulling details well in less than good lighting, it has a hard time resolving detail on the dense APS-C 18/20mpx sensors. Regarding ISO and detail on the 70D, it would be about a 1/3 stop better, and it would hold a bit more detail too from the raw files I have seen. These 2 factors allow the 70D to clean up better.

Mike55 wrote in post #16691330
This feels a bit like trolling, Team Speed. I'm not interested in meta or engaging in some sort of battle that doesn't even exist except for your own mind.
And as far as "going strong", I'd look at your 22,000 posts against my 4,000 and come to a different conclusion. I don't post all that much.

This thread is about 70D versus 7D image quality. I posted evidence that indicates the 70D has superior IQ. Then someone made a comment about the 6D over the 7D, and I answered that. Not much more to it than that. Feel free to discuss the RAW crop link I posted (70D versus 7D) or talk about the use of the 6D over the 7D. But I'm not interested in melodrama and personal attacks. Thanks.

The only drama is what you have had over 3 years of going for 7D threads and stating how the entire line is broken due to your copy issues. I didn't issue any personal attacks, I simply pointed out your own history and experiences, and what others have been telling you for quite some time now. There are a majority of folks that refute your findings. It's too bad, you should have saved yourself time years ago by getting rid of your inferior equipment.

I am just supplying the new members with the history that goes behind your findings so they can make an educated assessment themselves. That really shouldn't bother you, as it is your own replies that they will be reading through.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16691388
I think the 70D has an advantage even at low isos, especially in the blue channel. Blue skies look better on the 70D to me.

Thanks!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16691390
The 7D has no AF issues in snow, that I have ever seen personally. Where has this been documented? As to the softness, that is all lens, the Sigma is not its best in low light.

Most lenses/cameras have trouble in falling snow, especially in AI-SERVO. Anyone who shoots extensively in winter/late-fall conditions knows this. In my winter use, the 7D lacks here (it's not good for winter light and/or inversions to begin with, the 7D wants to see that sunlight on your subject big time....as long as it's not an even shade of morning glow or dusk glow, because it struggles there, too.).

If those are your standards, great. But a decent stock agency isn't going to accept that much noise. Detail and noise at 100% matter for places like Alamy. I just had a sale there for a worldwide textbook run, two page spread. The image was taken with the 40D. Had it been taken with the 7D, the extensive blue sky noise might not have passed quality control there.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16691392
The only drama is what you have had over 3 years of going for 7D threads and stating how the entire line is broken due to your copy issues. I didn't issue any personal attacks, I simply pointed out your own history and experiences, and what others have been telling you for quite some time now. There are a majority of folks that refute your findings. It's too bad, you should have saved yourself time years ago by getting rid of your inferior equipment.

I am just supplying the new members with the history that goes behind your findings so they can make an educated assessment themselves. That really shouldn't bother you, as it is your own replies that they will be reading through.

It really seems to bother you, doesn't it? I notice you get riled up when other posters make critical comments about the 7D, and in some weird way, you've appointed yourself the 7D sheriff in these parts.

Mike55 wrote in post #16691308
Yeah I sort of get the feeling that not matter what I post, you'll find a way to not be pleased.




Let's just say I own both cameras and use them extensively.

I'm not trying to find a way to be displeased. I recently commented why you hadn't got rid of your 7D as you despise it so much. When I upgraded from my 450d/XSi for bird photography, the difference was so great I've never used the 450d/XSi for birding since. You said you had lots of image so prove the 6D superior to the 7D for birding, I just asked to see them.
I'm on my iPad so gave no access to exif data. What you stated was at ISO 320, SS 1/800 and F4 you weren't happy with the 6D I genuinely don't get where you're at. You seem happy Gabe rated the 70d higher than the 7D. Come on, why wouldn't it be better, it's 4 years newer It's certainly not night and day better.

Mike55 wrote in post #16691547
It really seems to bother you, doesn't it? I notice you get riled up when other posters make critical comments about the 7D, and in some weird way, you've appointed yourself the 7D sheriff in these parts.

It gets me riled when you've spent YEARS bad mouthing the 7D, but still are using it. Calling Teamspeed names weakens your argument I'm sorry..........

h14nha wrote in post #16691610
You seem happy Gabe rated the 70d higher than the 7D. Come on, why wouldn't it be better, it's 4 years newer It's certainly not night and day better.

I don't know, that crop link I posted shows a pretty big difference.

Why does it bother you so much? Shouldn't your emotions be better spent on something important?

But, I will indulge you. I haven't gotten rid of my 7D because I love shooting with it, even more than the 5D III. I like its speed, I like how it feels in my hand. I can rely on it when the weather is bad. It can really take a lot of abuse in wilderness conditions.

It's just really inconsistent and stinks in certain conditions. I don't despise it, it's the camera I want to love.

Then I suggest selling it and going with the 70D, you will be a bit happier. It won't satisfy all your complaints, but you really should get rid of the 7D. Also, I don't care about stock agencies. I sell sports photography and portraits, I am not trying to get published in books and magazines, and I wouldn't really ever shoot at ISO 6400 if I was. I just provided those shots as backing of the 7D AF working fine in much lower light than the pictures you posted where you jabbed at the 7D AF.

If stock agency shots is your goal, then undoubtedly, the 7D, especially one that you have had issues with, isn't the one for you. I am not the 7D or 60D or T2-T5i police, I am just providing a bit of history to back your claims. You shouldn't even get upset over that, it will save you time defending your findings.

Either the 70D or even the 5D3 would be a better choice based on your critiques. The 5D3 is basically an improved 7D FF, AF is better, sharper images, almost 2 stops better than the 7D, etc. You can even use a TC on your 300mm and the results would be very close, if not better than the 7D, based on my mini-review between the 7D and 5D3.

I could never get ball detail on the 7D at 12800 (and seldom at 6400), but can at 25600 on the 5D3. Sure there is noise in the OOF areas, but so far, nobody in the office has noticed. I still notice an AF inconsistency on the 5D3 I never seem to have with the 7D, but I have to chalk it up to user error/settings still at this point.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16691341
I always marvel when somebody can discern the noise on an image reduced to 1024 pixel side...

yeah...big plus one on that...

DreDaze wrote in post #16691847
yeah...big plus one on that...

Again, in Mike's defense, on an IPS monitor, the JPG compression really looks bad, and those viewing often mistakenly call that blotchy noise. The JPG is pretty compressed, like at 8 or 9 out of 12.