7d mkii vs 5d mkiii

Hi Everyone,

I have both of these bodies, bought new and taken well care of. With a recent purchase of a Tamron 150-600 G2 and shooting birds I noticed the 7d mkii doesn't render details quite as well as the 5d mkiii. I honestly have not been using the 7d mkii much since the 5d mkiii came in about 9 months ago. But with the new Tamron the additional reach of the 7d mkii is desired.

I understand there are some differences with the sensors:

Crop vs. Full Frame
20.2 mp vs. 22.3 mp


I did a quick side just now trying to keep framing the same with the 1.6x difference. These are straight out of the camera.

I also checked it with my Canon 70-200 2.8 Vii with similar results.

Has anyone else notice a difference in detail rendering or am I having an issue with the body?

A denser apsc will tax the optics more than a less dense ff sensor. You are likely seeing the effects that the lense is unable to resolve the details, or your shutter speed might have to be a bit higher if you want to drill into the pixels that way.

I should mention these we're tripod mounted.

Were these done via manual focus or autofocus? If AF, try doing some micro-focus adjustment w/ the 7DII. Certainly looks like the lens and body are slightly out of kilter with each other

I lean towards doing a micro focus adjustment on the 7D2 with that lens. Looks soft to me, my 7d2 is very sharp with most of my lenses, but I did mfa my Sigma 150-500 to get it sharp and my Canon 100-400 needed it when the 1.4x converter was on, but not without it.

Another trial today:

This is:
5d mkiii vs 7d mkii
Canon 70-200 2.8
Tripod Mounted
Manual Focused live view
Shot in live view mode so no mirror vibration
Remote shutter release

I hope I don't get in trouble for 2 more images, this time the Tamron 150-600 G2 again.

Same set up as above just minutes later.

Shaun Liddy wrote in post #18637494
I hope I don't get in trouble for 2 more images, this time the Tamron 150-600 G2 again.

Same set up as above just minutes later.

Manually focused, I see no appreciable differences aside from general crop vs full frame differences to background blur, perspective, etc.

This would add to the evidence that you need to perform some MFA with the lens and your 7DII.

Shaun Liddy wrote in post #18636876
I should mention these we're tripod mounted.

What practical application is making you compare? There are many ways to compare, and some are purely academic in some contexts. It looks like you were trying to achieve FOV equivalence, but with exposure equivalence rather than DOF equivalence. Is that what you are interested in? It is generally true that with a zoom lens, zooming out for a smaller sensor with approximately the same MPs (or less) gives inferior results, for both optical and noise reasons.

You could have also compared for full FOV/DOF equivalent frames (1.6x the f-number and 2.56x the ISO for the 5D3), and you could have also compared focal-length-limited usage with all the settings the same, and just the cameras different, and upsampled both, or various common subject sizes. The 7D2 is superior in every IQ aspect to a 5D3 cropped 1.6x, at every ISO and tonal level, just so long as you magnify them the same (the images or the subject; not the pixels).

IMO the 5d mkiii resolves fine details a bit more with all else being the same (ISO, Shutter, Aperature. Only variable being focal length to frame similar).

That being said, DOF I'd different between the two yes. But I would think since the 5d mkiii has a shollower DOF the 7d mkii should in a sense have the upper hand (IE more area in focus, thinking that should resolve dtail better) but I don't think it does.

Looking at the hairs on the trunk, I think the 5d mkiii is a bit cleaner.


The question of why I am looking at this. It was more an observation while shooting BIF. Every image from the 5d mkiii just looked tighter, assuming the frame was filled equally or very near too.

I get the advantages of the 7d mkii (FPS, Crop).

I wanted to see if others saw similar differences when at 1:1.

I will say that when I can fill the frame with the 7d mkii yes, it is better than the 5d mkiii cropped to the same.

I have always thought my FF's had better detail than my crops. I have a 7D2 and 5D4. I just got a 400 DO II and recently posted comparison shots with at 2X TC on both. A few people mentioned the 5D4 shots looked crisper. Everything was MFA'd using FoCal.

Shaun Liddy wrote in post #18638050
IMO the 5d mkiii resolves fine details a bit more with all else being the same (ISO, Shutter, Aperature. Only variable being focal length to frame similar).

That being said, DOF I'd different between the two yes. But I would think since the 5d mkiii has a shollower DOF the 7d mkii should in a sense have the upper hand (IE more area in focus, thinking that should resolve dtail better) but I don't think it does.

Looking at the hairs on the trunk, I think the 5d mkiii is a bit cleaner.


The question of why I am looking at this. It was more an observation while shooting BIF. Every image from the 5d mkiii just looked tighter, assuming the frame was filled equally or very near too.

I get the advantages of the 7d mkii (FPS, Crop).

I wanted to see if others saw similar differences when at 1:1.

I will say that when I can fill the frame with the 7d mkii yes, it is better than the 5d mkiii cropped to the same.

In general, I concur with those and agree that taken as they are, the 5DIV results look cleaner. However, the size of the gap between the two samples is suspicious to me; being a primarily 7DII shooter. I think your results out of it could/should be better more consistently than what is being shown here. Hence the question/suggestion about MFA'ing the lens body combo. Your manually focused shot should be the difference you see between the two any time, but that first sample set looked worse than the second.

Cleaner is also a good reference. In heavy overcast I don't even bother with the 7D2. I call it the muddy look. The 7D2 as its predecessors is a light hungry sensor. It has it's job and it does it best in good lighting conditions.

I tested the 7D2 it against my 5D3 once in heavy overcast. Same exposures and when viewed at %100 you could see how much cleaner the 5D3 was.

I see a bit more detail with the 5D4 (and with the 5D3), but never have any real complaints about the 7D2. This is from the SL2 at 6400 from an inside aquarium in Texas, but the 7D2 is nearly identical in high ISO performance and low light. I don't find it muddy at all, and noise management is pretty good.

The most impressive images with the long zooms (Tamron and Sigma) I've seen are with 5DIV, definitely better than my 5DIII. I do plan on getting 5DIV one of these days and still waiting for 7DIII and wonder what it'd be like with one of these long zooms when and if it comes out.