5D MkIV vs 7D MkII resolution

So you do the math and pick the mathematically superior camera and create so-so images!

That seems to be the case most of the time.

But there is much more to consider --- mainly what you are going to shoot with the camera.

Good Luck !!!!

Here, this page will either aggravate your hangover today, or cure it!


http://www.digicamdb.c​om …-vs-canon_eos-7d-mark-ii/


.

harcosparky wrote in post #18369848
So you do the math and pick the mathematically superior camera and create so-so images!

That seems to be the case most of the time.

But there is much more to consider --- mainly what you are going to shoot with the camera.

Good Luck !!!!

In this case though the math difference is going to be too great to ignore and for birds and airshows (the bulk of my shooting along with some sports) it's going to be a better solution overall (especially if I factor the FPS). It's certainly more than capable. I shot with it for over a year with stellar results. I wouldn't mind just adding the 7D2, but again at $1000 difference from a 5D3 to a 5DIV that's a fair amount. Enough so that I could add a brand new 100L for me and a brand new 70-200 f4 for my daughter to shoot with. No question I love the 5D4 though. It's fantastic.

The preceding two posts simply illustrate the fact that it is simplistic to base one's decision upon a single criteria, such as 'resolution'. Overall IQ is a convolution of detail -- resolution and contrast -- and acutance and noise characteristics.
And then you layer in other factors such as how one model handles and feels during use, as another driver in the choice of camera A vs. camera B

I do not think that looking at the resolution math is in any way assuming that it is THE number.
Folks like me have been saying "mega pickles are overrated" since 2004 or so. (and yes, I was wrong a lot of the time)

If the question is "which camera has higher resolution?" than the answer is in fact simply mathematics.

If the question is "which camera has better image quality" we start to require more than just resolution numbers to answer. In the case of this thread, the 5D4 has better image quality. No question in my mind.

If the question is "which camera is best?" we immediately need to make the question longer by adding "for me?" (ie: the person asking) in which case the answer is absolutely always positively without question exactly the same.

"It depends"

Wilt wrote in post #18370005
The preceding two posts simply illustrate the fact that it is simplistic to base one's decision upon a single criteria, such as 'resolution'. Overall IQ is a convolution of detail -- resolution and contrast -- and acutance and noise characteristics.
And then you layer in other factors such as how one model handles and feels during use, as another driver in the choice of camera A vs. camera B

I'm not sure if this is a comment in general, but to be clear, I agree. My initial question was purely a question relating to resolution only. In no way is my decision based off resolution only nor would that ever be a main consideration without taking in other factors. If it were, I'd have just bought a 5DS/R or I would presently be considering the T6i at 24MP instead of the 7D2) I've shot many pictures with the 7D2, so for me anyway, I know what it's capable of, the images it can produce and it's shortfalls and highlights with regard to quality and more specifically my intended needs. And also part of the reason I feel it's still necessary to keep something like a 5D3. (Which I have also owned before a couple times)

As Cyber posted above with regard to what is better... I just needed to get the math in my head straight so I could factor that in. That's really all I was looking for. All other factors are things I have taken into consideration already. I'm not sure where my "that's close enough" point would have been to be honest, but the difference here is significant given my experience with the IQ of the 7DII for airshows and birding. I've certainly gone over many options I could try as well like a 150-600 (also previously owned) 1.4 III, and smarter positioning and better scouting if feasible. I feel this will provide me with the highest number of keepers while still maintaining a high quality.

I went through the same dilemma - keep both 6D and 7DII or move to a 5DIV? The pixel calculation was a part of the equation. After I bought the 5DIV I get (much) better IQ of birds and wildlife than with the 7DII, even though I have to crop much more. The ability of the 5DIV to open shadows, and the dynamic range in general, are amazing.

I have both and while I lose FPS with the 5D4 I'm having trouble putting it down and using the 7D2.

I don't have either, but if I wanted to upgrade my 6D/80D combo, the 5DIV is the only body that gives me all the features of both. I don't know the specs on the 1DX2.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18370032
I do not think that looking at the resolution math is in any way assuming that it is THE number.
Folks like me have been saying "mega pickles are overrated" since 2004 or so. (and yes, I was wrong a lot of the time)

If the question is "which camera has higher resolution?" than the answer is in fact simply mathematics.

If the question is "which camera has better image quality" we start to require more than just resolution numbers to answer. In the case of this thread, the 5D4 has better image quality. No question in my mind.

If the question is "which camera is best?" we immediately need to make the question longer by adding "for me?" (ie: the person asking) in which case the answer is absolutely always positively without question exactly the same.

"It depends"

When we look only at pixel resolution, we see 5DIV has 187.7 pixels per millimeter, and 7DII has 244.3 pixels per millimeter...that catches the birder's eye for pixels 'on target'.

• With an image printed from a 14 x 21mm section of both images, shot with the same lens, the 7DII can capture more detail with 30% more pixels per millimeter than the 5DII. But...
  
• Then if we factor in lens performance, and compare 'appropriate FL for same AOV', like 300mm on 7DII vs. 480mm on 5DIV,
  assuming that both lenses could deliver a sterling 100 line-pairs of detail to the focal plane, we have 1490 line-pairs of detail from the APS-C sensor and 2400 line-pairs of detail from the FF sensor.
  On the 16x24" print, the 7DII print has 3.67 line-pairs of detail per millimeter, while the 5DIV print has 5.9 line pairs of detail per millimeter.
  The 'standard' for a print to be deemed 'sharp' has, even from the film days, been the threshhold of FIVE line-pairs per millimeter of detail.
  So the 7DII 16x24" print is 'not sharp'; the 5DIV print is deemed by the eye to be 'sharp'.
  

Wilt wrote in post #18375842
When we look only at pixel resolution, we see 5DIV has 187.7 pixels per millimeter, and 7DII has 244.3 pixels per millimeter...that catches the birder's eye for pixels 'on target'.

• With an image printed from a 14 x 21mm section of both images, shot with the same lens, the 7DII can capture more detail with 30% more pixels per millimeter than the 5DII. But...
  
• Then if we factor in lens performance, and compare 'appropriate FL for same AOV', like 300mm on 7DII vs. 480mm on 5DIV,
  assuming that both lenses could deliver a sterling 100 line-pairs of detail to the focal plane, we have 1490 line-pairs of detail from the APS-C sensor and 2400 line-pairs of detail from the FF sensor.
  On the 16x24" print, the 7DII print has 3.67 line-pairs of detail per millimeter, while the 5DIV print has 5.9 line pairs of detail per millimeter.
  The 'standard' for a print to be deemed 'sharp' has, even from the film days, been the threshhold of FIVE line-pairs per millimeter of detail.
  So the 7DII 16x24" print is 'not sharp'; the 5DIV print is deemed by the eye to be 'sharp'.
  

Wilt, can you help me understand this vs resolution when it comes to prints? I understand the math that you did here and how you got to your results, but the camera's resolution would need to be factored into what makes a sharp photo, wouldn't it? With just this would it also be true that the 3MP D30 @2160x1440 would appear sharper (negligible) with 3.71 line pairs than a 7D mkII on a 16x24 print, which would also imply that it would appear sharper on a 24x36" print as well despite the low resolution? Using that same math, a 5D IV would not produce what would be considered a "sharp" 20x24 photo. And while that size wouldn't meet that five line-pairs per mm threshold, I think most would agree that the 5D IV would have no issues with beautiful sharp images at 20x24 or even 24x30 and larger.
Appreciate the education, just wanting to understand all this a little better.

carpenter wrote in post #18375964
Wilt, can you help me understand this vs resolution when it comes to prints? I understand the math that you did here and how you got to your results, but the camera's resolution would need to be factored into what makes a sharp photo, wouldn't it? With just this would it also be true that the 3MP D30 @2160x1440 would appear sharper (negligible) with 3.71 line pairs than a 7D mkII on a 16x24 print, which would also imply that it would appear sharper on a 24x36" print as well despite the low resolution? Using that same math, a 5D IV would not produce what would be considered a "sharp" 20x24 photo. And while that size wouldn't meet that five line-pairs per mm threshold, I think most would agree that the 5D IV would have no issues with beautiful sharp images at 20x24 or even 24x30 and larger.
Appreciate the education, just wanting to understand all this a little better.

My presumption is that you are referring to the Canon D30, the 3MPixel camera on a sensor 2160 x 1440 pixels.
If both the D30 and the 7DII were printed at 3.71 l-p per millimeter,

• the D30 print would be 1440/3.71 = 388mm, or 15.27" x 22.9"
  
• the 7DII print would be 3648 / 3.71 = 983mm, or 38.7" x 58"
  

I just bought a 5D IV. I may hang onto my 7D II as well. So in the meantime, I'll be doing some comparisons when I get some free time.