5Dii -vs- 7D for landscaping; PART 2!

in LR, same preset applied to both:

I can't tell the difference at all. But if I must take a guess, left image is from the 5D.

I hate you.

eye2i wrote in post #10724695
I can't tell the difference at all. But if I must take a guess, left image is from the 5D.

I hate you.

I would guess the same. But, that likely means it's the opposite since my guessing ability is usually pretty poor. Just ask my GPA.

I think I use the 5D2 more just because it's great with the 17-40, so wide. But the 7D is very nice, indeed. Please leave the EXIF for us even if you just post it below.

SuzyView wrote in post #10724736
Please leave the EXIF for us even if you just post it below.

5Dii was shot at ISO 100, f11 and 10 seconds.
7D was shot at ISO 100, f8 and 8 seconds.
BOTH were using AWB and RAWs.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10724766
5Dii was shot at ISO 100, f11 and 10 seconds.
7D was shot at ISO 100, f8 and 8 seconds.
BOTH were using AWB and RAWs.

Hahahaha. Nice.

not being image specific, the ff body always wins for landscapes. the 5dII has better IQ and you don't need to push wide angle lenses to get the field of view. if you don't need very wide, I suppose there's some bene to using just the middle of an L lens.

nice stuff ben

just shows how good both these cameras really are.

mcluckie wrote in post #10724784
not being image specific, the ff body always wins for landscapes. the 5dII has better IQ and you don't need to push wide angle lenses to get the field of view. if you don't need very wide, I suppose there's some bene to using just the middle of an L lens.

did you miss the thread the last time I did this? At 100% there's not much difference at all. And the 10-22 is just as good of a lens as the 17-40... IMHO if you bring a 1DsIII and 16-35II or 17 TS-E into this fight, then sure, FF wins, but on a basic FF setup, it's not nearly as clear (and yes I realize the 7D is a VERY top shelf crop body). If you go with a 5D you lose MP but gain sharpness at the sensor but save some money (5D and 17-40 is less than a 10-22 and 7D).

here's the thread from last weekend complete with 100% crops: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=913638

If all we ever did was post our images on web sites, the there would be no point in a camera that produced images bigger than the normal monitor screen. But that's a very unique and unusual circumstance.

The moment I crop hard into my little 8 MP images the quality drains away in print. That to me is more important than how the image looks on screen.

The discussion here is only about how it looks on screen and thats easy, pretty well anything looks good unless it has serious issues and because we have thrown away the excess pixels there can be no way of ever telling.

Lowner wrote in post #10724835
The moment I crop hard into my little 8 MP images the quality drains away in print. That to me is more important than how the image looks on screen.

so which are you saying wins that battle? The 5Dii puts 10mp on the same target the 7D puts 18.... So unless you just don't work on your compositions and always crop your shots heavily, cropping really isn't an issue until you get to reach, and in that case a cropper will almost always win. I guess I'm trying to say cropping is a matter of pixels, not sensor size no?

beyond cropping, website resolution images look a lot like prints at proper viewing distances IMHO. If you show them the same size on the screen and on the wall that is. Sure the sensor with the most MP will have more details, but the amount there comes down to the MP and the sharpness of the glass and AA filter. Between these 2 specific cameras, prints on the wall, even when you walk up close to check the details, will look VERY similar. Could we (photo geeks) see a difference up close? Maybe. If you only saw one of these 2 as a print, would you even question what camera took it? I'd bet not.

Nice work Ben! Make everyone second guess selling their brand new 7d's to buy a 5d mark II :P

edit: I can't tell which is which.

Pixel count will get my vote every time, all the time. But my point was that its impossible to make an informed decision based on images posted here.

I use a 30D and a 100-400L for my motorsports currently and while I could always do with more reach, its OK. But if and when I buy a 1Ds 4 this coming winter, cropping into the image will become a factor for me. Hopefully there will be enough of the little devils - there should be.

For landscaping reach is not an issue so I can retain all the pixels I can put on target.

The pictures are too small to say anything imo. They're identical.