5DSR vs 7D2 & 24-105 vs 100-400 II @ 100mm @ 3200iso

Had a few minutes on my hand.
The following test is not perfect but I wanted to do it quickly to see if anything jumped out.
I have been testing out the 100-400 II a lot on both the 5DSR and the 7D2 - it is now my favourite lens.
I have also brought back out my Canon 24-105 F4 IS to test it a bit on the 5DSR - just because and to test it because of its IS on the 5DSR to see what I can do in terms of SS.

The other idea I had was to pick the ISO that my own experience with 5D3 and the 7D2 seems to be the boundary ISO where serious degradation happens afterwards - that is 3200iso.

So, from about 15 feet, I handheld the four combinations of 5DSR, 7D2, 24-105 and 100-400. The exposure was 1/100, F4.5, 3200 iso @ 100mm.

I took a picture of some Bounty labeled paper towel
- I used center focus on the Block Of Writing in the now Bottom Right Hand Corner (see Questions? Comments?)
- it was upside down so it was rotated to be bottom right
- the paper towel is on an angle (my bad) so the rest of the lettering is progressively OOF as is is nearer to the camera

The crop for the 7D2 is very, very close to what a 1:1 LR crop would be - this required obviously a much larger 5DSR crop to get the same framing but basically the same number of pixels (and the file size confirms this) should be on the images of the both the 7D2 and the 5DSR - so, we can potentially now compare both the lenses at 100mm, F4.5 and the pixels of the 7D2 compared to similarly sized but different design 5DSR pixels.

In terms of PP, the pictures were imported into LR, they were cropped, the lens profile correction was applied and then exported - i.e. no PP was done other than LR default jpg sharpening.


What I see is:
- very very slightly sharper / more contrasty 5DSR vs 7D2
- slightly sharper at center (center focus pt was placed on writing block in bottom right hand corner) 100-400 vs 24-105 @ 100mm and more than slightly sharper in the corners of the 100-400 vs 24-105

I think what you are seeing, since the pixels are basically the same size, is the cancelling AA filter at work and comparing the lenses - that's 15 years of development and modern coatings. If I had to guess, if the 5DS (not 5DSR) was compared to the 7D2, comparing similar pixels, I would think it should be more similar.


Pictures below

7D2 with 100-400 II @ 100mm @ F4.5

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vJ6M​HE

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vJ6y​kq

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vJdL​Rz

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vJ6y​DS

hmmm interesting and reallly not much in it is there - slightly better with the 100-400 on the 5dsr but its almost the same with the 24-105 to my eyes without pixel peeping
cheers rob

you can see the combined differences if you compare:
- image 2 vs image 3
- the lower left side writing
- this is AA cancelling filter and 100-400 II vs an AA filter and 24-105
- you also have to remember that these are pretty huge crops taken from the center focus point (so the center should be the sharpest point)
- even then, looking at 2 vs 3 in the lower left corner, (and this would only be marginally outside of the center of the pre-cropped image) you can see the difference in sharpness / contrast for sure (but yes it isn't galactic but it is very noticeable)

- if I had to guess, I would say 80% in the lens and 20% is the AA cancelling filter


This little test is kind of confirming what I have seen with the 24-105 on the 5DSR when I have been using it the last 10 days but haven't been able to quantify it until now - and that is the 24-105 is a perfectly good F5.6 - F8 lens on the wide part 24-50 but at the long end and F4 it is soft - fine for portraits, sort of, but it just is not close to tack sharp anywhere at F4 and that kind of sucks - but it is good to know.

The 24-105 MKI is not a lens that should astound any one really. There is a reason it is a kit lens, one of the most available lenses, and one of the least expensive Ls. This is due for an overhaul into a MKII.

Hi TeamSpeed & all.

I thought the 24-105L was the best thing since sliced bread when I first got it when it was hot off the press.
But over the past couple of years I feel it needs a decent upgrade - it never seems to quite pack that punch, and noticeably so since my 7D2 came along. Now, Having got the new 100-400L Mk2 I am hoping the 24-105L will be upgraded soon. At the 100mm setting on both lenses there is no doubt in my mind an upgrade is needed for the 24-105 - I want one.

I love the 24-105. One of my favorites and it gets a ton of use

Hmmm that 100-400 II really does a much better job.
I would love to see a comparison of the 100-400 II verses the 70-200 II F2:8 at 200 mm F11. On your 5DS R
Please. In good natural light. Say at ISO 100.

Submariner wrote in post #17643702
Hmmm that 100-400 II really does a much better job.
I would love to see a comparison of the 100-400 II verses the 70-200 II F2:8 at 200 mm F11. On your 5DS R
Please. In good natural light. Say at ISO 100.

I did a test for you but it is only half what you want - 100-400 vs 70-200 at F11 @ 200mm
- not in natural good light however but in a controlled bad light situation
- tripod, 1/20, 10 second delay, iso 1250, then massive crop and then NR as well
- i did this on a 5DSR, 5D3 and 7D2 all for comparison

will post in different thread

More shots please...

WARNING: i found out the hard way: the raw converters for the 5dsr and 7d2 are different. this was my post, and you can read the followups:

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17656994

the 2 cameras render differently, and i don't think it's the sensor. it appears to be the RAW converter.

so, you cannot compare the contrast or colors between the 2 cameras, unless you have some way of sidestepping canon's RAW conversion. setting both cameras to "camera neutral" in LR or whatever converter you're using will help, but i think ultimately they are still rendering differently.

Raw converters and post processing technique/software used are one of the single largest differentiators between results from one body to another, more so than the hardware. Even different versions of the same software makes a difference in many cases.

Use the wrong converter, or use the wrong settings, or post process in a way that isn't beneficial, and your results will show it.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17682865
Raw converters and post processing technique/software used are one of the single largest differentiators between results from one body to another, more so than the hardware. Even different versions of the same software makes a difference in many cases.

Use the wrong converter, or use the wrong settings, or post process in a way that isn't beneficial, and your results will show it.

i was just saying that you can't compare the 2 cameras for contrast like was indicated above. same identical settings in LR, even using the same camera calibration settings, will give you different results on the 2 cameras. since sharpness is partially perceptual you also can't really make specific judgements about sharpness either between the 2.

Well, as shown, I'm liking the 5DsR contrast better, but the 7D2 does hold up. I saw a 5DsR presentation at my local camera store, came away with the impression it was nearly an upgraded 7D2, with some hardware and firmware expansions (like the sensor, obviously). But both are very nice cameras.

Completely agree also though that camera image import software (and/or techniques used) could also have salience.