6D vs 7D

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16734706
You are going to have to crop quite a bit to get that 1.6 view back. You are going to throw away nearly 12 mpx, leaving you with something that would have to be digitally resized back up to match what you would have with the 7D. The results won't be similar.

True, but unless you're viewing at large print sizes or large monitors you'd be hard pressed to see the difference. I've cropped a few images from my 6D pretty heavily and they look just as detailed as shots from my M or previous T2i or 20D.

Here's an example of a heavy crop from my Yashica ML 50/1.4. I was standing pretty far back when I took this

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …erydaygetaway/9​274310142/

What does doing a 'heavy crop' mean? Was it 1.6? I have run side by side comparisons where I crop the ff to the view of the 7d then resized that crop up to match the 7d, the results were noticeable. Vastly? No, but they were there. Pixel density does indeed make a difference when comparing crops between any 2 differently formatted sensors, then equalizing them.

The larger sensor will give different results to the 7D, but a new FF body isn't required. The original 5D can still give amazing photos and makes a nice 2nd body along with the 7D - your lenses will give a wider FoV, the lower pixel density will means the images will generally be sharper (at least where the lens is the limiting factor), and you'll have a shallower DoF.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16735402
True, but unless you're viewing at large print sizes or large monitors you'd be hard pressed to see the difference. I've cropped a few images from my 6D pretty heavily and they look just as detailed as shots from my M or previous T2i or 20D.

Here's an example of a heavy crop from my Yashica ML 50/1.4. I was standing pretty far back when I took this

...

I'm not trying to dissuade the OP, the 7D is a fantastic camera. But I think the crop factor's "reach" advantage is a little overblown for most people's uses (though it is valid for many shooters).

Reasonably good points but a cell phone takes decent images for small computer screen viewing and 4x6 prints.

Having the ability to print big is one of the primary reasons to use a DSLR IMHO. If not, we'd all be using 4-6MP cameras still.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16735568
What does doing a 'heavy crop' mean? Was it 1.6? I have run side by side comparisons where I crop the ff to the view of the 7d then resized that crop up to match the 7d, the results were noticeable. Vastly? No, but they were there. Pixel density does indeed make a difference when comparing crops between any 2 differently formatted sensors, then equalizing them.

unless you're doing heavy heavy cropping all day long (yes 1.6 crop factor IS heavy cropping), FF IQ all day. Pixel density makes minimal difference when viewed at 100%, unless you've got a lens that outresolves the sensor.

sensor size makes a MUCH bigger difference. Consider picking a prime on nikon's system. I tried a 24mm F1.4 with D5200 crop sensor, and it scores 11mp sharpness. Switch over to D610, and sharpness goes to 17mp. That's OVER 50% improvement, but when you go from D610->D800, it still stays at 17mp, no change. So either measurement units are too large or differences minor/dont exist.

on these tests, the 5Dc routinely outresolves the 7d even though it's only 12mp compared to 18mp. Pixel density can only do so much. Top top quality optics are needed, and even then, seldom can outresolve a 20 megapixel camera. Consider a high end zoom like the 24-70 mk2. http://www.dxomark.com …nted-on-Canon-EOS-5D__176

pegs the 5Dc to 12mp, but on a 7D only resolves to 11mp..... on a 5D mark 3, it goes up to 18mp.... basically, the crop factor and pixel density is hardly ever a consideration, and very few would ever need it. These days, you can buy a 600mm zoom for slightly more than 1K.... how many photographers *need* more than that?

pixel density matters a lot more if you've got a lens like the otus that is severely outresolving the sensor. Most (by a wide margin) cannot outresolve the sensor.

Well folks,

All I know is that I have had one of each of the xxD series bodies and the 7D is tops. The 70D is close but lacks some in focus options that I would miss. I Have both currently and also the 5DIII, I would not part with any of the 3 right now. Kind of a quandary between the 7D and the 70D, each has advantages the other lacks. Now the 5DIII ain't goin nowhere! But I would need one or the other crop bodies. Guess I will now always have at least a crop and a full frame. That's my variety of uses and I am stuck with it. Just Life !
Oh yes! Comparable lens are almost if not always more expensive in full frame! S lens don't work on full frame...

Charlie wrote in post #16736247
unless you're doing heavy heavy cropping all day long (yes 1.6 crop factor IS heavy cropping), FF IQ all day. Pixel density makes minimal difference when viewed at 100%, unless you've got a lens that outresolves the sensor.

sensor size makes a MUCH bigger difference. Consider picking a prime on nikon's system. I tried a 24mm F1.4 with D5200 crop sensor, and it scores 11mp sharpness. Switch over to D610, and sharpness goes to 17mp. That's OVER 50% improvement, but when you go from D610->D800, it still stays at 17mp, no change. So either measurement units are too large or differences minor/dont exist.

on these tests, the 5Dc routinely outresolves the 7d even though it's only 12mp compared to 18mp. Pixel density can only do so much. Top top quality optics are needed, and even then, seldom can outresolve a 20 megapixel camera. Consider a high end zoom like the 24-70 mk2. http://www.dxomark.com …nted-on-Canon-EOS-5D__176

pegs the 5Dc to 12mp, but on a 7D only resolves to 11mp..... on a 5D mark 3, it goes up to 18mp.... basically, the crop factor and pixel density is hardly ever a consideration, and very few would ever need it. These days, you can buy a 600mm zoom for slightly more than 1K.... how many photographers *need* more than that?

pixel density matters a lot more if you've got a lens like the otus that is severely outresolving the sensor. Most (by a wide margin) cannot outresolve the sensor.

Every test I have run where I take a 1.6 crop of an image from a FF and compare to an 18mpx image, and I resize the cropped result up to the same resolution has yielded an inferior product. The lower the density of the larger sensor, the worst the final result. Never have I been able to make a FF crop or an APS-H crop resized up match the details of the APS-C image, using glass like the 100L, or other quite good glass. All I can state is what I have tested, regardless of theory.

Taking a digital file that has 5700 digital data points on the long side, cutting out 60% in both directions, then taking the resulting ddp's and cloning them 2 or 4 times to make a new larger file matching the dimensions of the APS-C image will result in a softer result. True, that if you use glass that cannot resolve to the APS-C sensor and you get a soft result there, and the FF/APSH can get more from the glass, then the differences may be less pronounced, but I run tests with my Ls and shy away from 3rd party glass that I know doesn't resolve well on a dense crop sensor.

Taking something like the 1D3 vs 7D, and cropping/resizing it to the 7D dimensions is an eye opener, the results are quite worse. The 5D3/6D vs 7D shows results that are pretty close, but are, in my tests, still a bit inferior (probably not noticeable on prints though, only at 100%). Adding a 1.4x to the 5D3/6D to equalize the view optically yields better results than the 7D, but cuts a stop of light off, so you have to be able to compensate with ISO, which is no problem.

Any time you take digital data and you have to resize it up (meaning 1 point of data is massaged into 2 or 4 or 8 other points), you have softened any detail you had. Sometimes it won't matter much, other times it will be very noticeable. The resizing software algorithms used make a difference too.

Examples of the 1D3 experiment:

Why bother with this, though? Just crop the FF and lose the pixels and don't upsize. The 6D and 1DX will still look better than the 7D this way with the same lens. Cleaner, sharper, better tonality.

Mike55 wrote in post #16737226
Why bother with this, though? Just crop the FF and lose the pixels and don't upsize. The 6D and 1DX will still look better than the 7D this way with the same lens. Cleaner, sharper, better tonality.

That is fine until I need to print anything larger than 12" on the long side. At this point you force a resize. So for web viewing and prints up through 8x10s, this is okay, and I agree. Go larger for fireplace or stairwell landing prints, or sports posters, and you would do better using a crop body. I print 13x19 posters of players. I print alot because my cost is around $1 per print per 13x19, and there is good revenue in bringing them to the games for kids to have the players sign.

If I am at the end of my reach with my 70-200 on my 5D3, cropping that player out accordingly and printing these posters creates an inferior product over the equivalent 7D image, even though the initial crop has more detail than the 7D.

5760 reduces to 3600 and at 300dpi, any print larger than 12" on the long end will resize on you, softening the end product. This is why I believe a 32mpx FF body would be perfect for my uses. I would never need a crop body again, because I would be able to crop out what I need, do a slight resize if needed, and the end result is as good or better still. But for now, 10mpx through 22mpx FF or APS-H don't do it for me vs 18mpx APS-Cs.

They do it for me on Alamy. I've never had a cropped 6D file bounced by QC, but plenty of 7D files, usually on the basis of noise and a watercolor effect at 100%.

The best wildlife camera in the world, the 1DX, is FF and 18mp. You can bet there are plenty of photogs selling works of art at 10mp or even less.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16737139
In summary, regardless of all the theory that has been thrown around, based on countless tests I have run side by side with 1D3s, 1D4s, 5Dc, 5D2, 5D3s and 7Ds, I have yet to find any case where a cropped FF/APS H resized up to the same resolution as the 7D has given me better results. In some cases, they were very close, and when printed, showed no discernible differences, but most of the time I could clearly see the differences at 100%. Once Canon comes out with a more dense FF body, this crop advantage certainly disappears. Based on my calculations, I would roughly need a 32mpx FF body where the cropped and resized results would be identical or even a bit better. I don't need the full 46mpx body where an APS-C cropped view would yield an 18mpx result, no sense in being greedy.

I dont disagree with your results, but even in your samples differences are minimal. So there's a double factor going here. less than 1% of all of my shots have had a crop factor of 1.6 or greater. In fact, I dont think many folks typically crop that much, and if I did, I got the wrong tool (not prepared).

In such a rare scenario, I would be better off using pixel density and crop factor, which I have done in the past. I dont have a lens over 300mm, and to me, it's not a big limitation, and I understand that if I'm stretched really thin, I'll mount my 70-300 on a crop camera like so (@300):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/charlie617/11​997643935/

Charlie wrote in post #16737357
so in summary, for the 1% of time you are starved for reach (not prepared), IQ takes a hit...... but the IQ hit is nothing near the IQ hit of the 99% of the time when you have adequate reach (prepared)... and after all of this, I didnt even address stopping down shots vs wide open

That may be your assessment for your needs, but they are not universally applicable, and do not apply to me. (ie. your opinions do not apply to me or many others). I am starved for reach quite often as I don't have the funds for longer faster glass, and I am unable to change my location relative to the target material. Bottom line is that when you have to resize your FF crops up for large prints due to lack of foot zoom or optical zoom, you are better shooting with either a 1.4x if you are able to, or just use a crop body. This is often the finding amongst the wildlife shooters even.

Mike55 wrote in post #16737298
They do it for me on Alamy. I've never had a cropped 6D file bounced by QC, but plenty of 7D files, usually on the basis of noise and a watercolor effect at 100%.

The best wildlife camera in the world, the 1DX, is FF and 18mp. You can bet there are plenty of photogs selling works of art at 10mp or even less.

Your 7D is very flawed as evidenced by your history. Let's not get into that again. Also your comments have no bearing on what I just brought up. Print large poster prints from cropped FF images, and the results are indeed worse than if taken from a crop body. It is a very easy thing to prove, and those software engineers amongst us can fully understand what is happening with your digital data to create these large prints.

Yes, the bigger the print, the higher the resolution you'll want. But that's mostly a landscape issue, which doesn't involve as much cropping as wildlife shooting.

This is why the high megapixel Nikon bodies are superior for larger landscape prints.

I don't know a single pro wildlife shooter who uses a 7D, and I occasionally shoot with some of the best in the biz. I'm sure a few songbird specialists do, but mostly what I shoot are raptors and ungulates. The guys I shoot with are even afraid to use their 1DX's over ISO 800, lol. Fur and feather detail is key for them.

Even though I love the IQ of my 6D, I'm with Teamspeed on this issue (but hey, I'm primarily a bird photographer...)

I've done certain tests with my 70D and my 6D, not yet a crop and uprez test but will do one tomorrow. The 70D and 6D have exactly identical physical file sizes, to the pixel. So this will be a fair comparison.

But just based on my close to 150-200K wildlife images I've shot, most of the time I used my 7D for the task (now it's the 70D) and not my FF bodies (with some exceptions).

Occasionally I do use my 6D, pretty much if:
1. I can get very close, reach is not an issue at that point and I want the best possible IQ.
2. light gets very low and I have to make a decision that significantly lower noise from my 6D is more precious to me than the extra reach.

But in wildlife shooting, reach is key most of the time and even then we crop almost constantly. I wish all photos could be perfectly composed during shooting, and that's the plan, but it doesn't always happen.
So when I have a bird image that I even have to crop further (happens often), I'd rather take the shot from the 70D than the same shot, taken from the same place with the 6D.

Sometimes, just for fun, I compare shooting with my 70D + Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS + 1.4x TC vs 6D + Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS + 2x TC.
The 70D combo still gives me more reach, 1 stop better aperture (although that can be compensated by the 6D's excellent high ISO), and better AF since the lens is f/4 vs being f/5.6 on the 6D + 2x TC combo. As for the reach, it's 672mm equiv. for the 70D, and 600mm for the 6D.
So in these focal length limited scenarios, the 70D + 1.4x TC is almost always better than the 6D + 2x TC combo.

But like I said tomorrow I will make a test comparing the two cameras.
I've done tests before, just shooting a studio still life scene, and the 70D's per pixel sharpness is very close to the 6D's, so I can confidently predict that the 70D's image will beat the uprezzed 6D image in my test tomorrow.

Oh, and I remember seeing quite a few 7Ds through the years at Magee Marsh in the May warbler migration craze. Dozens and dozens of serious pros gather and shoot these tiny birds (not my favorites though). I remember in 2010, 2011 there were quite a few people shooting with 7D's there; I specifically looked for it since I was shooting with one