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

Lowner wrote in post #10724991
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.

so you're saying the 7D is better than every full frame camera out there except the 1DsIII and 5Dii then? And 21mp over 18mp makes that much of a difference to you?

let's assume the 1DsIV has 32mp (since the s has always had 2x the pixels as the sports version, and the 1Div has 16mp). 32mp on FF cropped to 1.3 is 18mp (so slightly MORE than the 1Div) but cropped to 1.6 it's only got 12.5 mp in the same area as the 7D has 18mp... So again, if all you care about is pixels on target, the 7D will still win. For the 1DsIV to beat the 7D in terms of pixels/inch it'll need ~46mp!!!

Hmmm, the first set of pics has a size of 335 KB.

My 5D II can produce raw files in the order of 30,000 KB for one image.

Reducing a 30,000 KB CR2 file to a 335 KB jpeg doesn't leave anything for quality let alone enough for comparison. Perhaps that's why we can't tell the difference on the screen - they're both bad in terms of quality.

I think the comment by Lowner/Richard is right on. It's impossible to make an informed decision based on the images posted here.

Glenn NK wrote in post #10725225
I think the comment by Lowner/Richard is right on. It's impossible to make an informed decision based on the images posted here.

funny, last week people had much less problems when the EXIF was intact.

I dont see what this topic proves? You have a 7D, great stuff it's a sweet crop camera....

So all of us who take landscapes should sell our 5D Mark II and go buy a 7D and save a few bucks..?

I like my full frame and I like the pop effect it makes when using large apertures.. something my 50D could not compete with!

oh I forgot, you want to compare then post full res originals....

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10725287
funny, last week people had much less problems when the EXIF was intact.

But you posted full res files last week.

Very nice pictures, regardless of camera!

The left is from the 5D Mk II

"let's assume the 1DsIV has 32mp (since the s has always had 2x the pixels as the sports version, and the 1Div has 16mp). 32mp on FF cropped to 1.3 is 18mp (so slightly MORE than the 1Div) but cropped to 1.6 it's only got 12.5 mp in the same area as the 7D has 18mp... So again, if all you care about is pixels on target, the 7D will still win. For the 1DsIV to beat the 7D in terms of pixels/inch it'll need ~46mp!!!"

True if my only subject was motorsport. As I also shoot landscapes, it's more complicated.

Downs Photography wrote in post #10724978
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.

I am/was kinda in this boat as well. I am soo undecided on which one to go with. I think Im just going to buy ANOTHER 7d as my main walk around and find a good conditioned 5dc to use for landscapes and ultrawide automobile/portraiture work.

First, your landscape is great!

Second, your comparison is interesting because it calls into question something which is almost gospel in these circles: that full frame is superior in essentially every aspect to crop bodies.

Now, we all know that full frame gets a DOF advantage, and that full frame sensors tend to exhibit less noise at high iso. But what we also now know is that full frame is NOT superior in all circumstances. At base ISO, and adequately stopped down, a 7d can produce images that are indistinguishable from a 5d2.

I tend to agree with the full-frame advocates in this thread when they say that viewing 2 resized pictures does not a fair comparison make. However I vehemently disagree with their assumption that viewing the 7d and 5d2 pictures unresized, side by side WOULD be fair. Too many people seem to be concerned with how their image looks under a 200% microscope than what the image looks like hanging on a wall, or viewed in a photo book.

I do find the results especially interesting because to my knowledge, nobody has really done a fair and exact analysis of the image quality of crop versus full frame, as you have today. I suspect this is because they found that a $1300 piece of hardware could deliver 95% of a $2300 piece of hardware, but were too scared or embarrassed to publish the results, especially not on a forum where people would react to the results so poorly.

I think you're exaggerating a little bit. I never read any post(s) here from members claiming "full frame is superior in essentially every aspect to crop bodies"

Martin.D wrote in post #10725373
I dont see what this topic proves? You have a 7D, great stuff it's a sweet crop camera....

So all of us who take landscapes should sell our 5D Mark II and go buy a 7D and save a few bucks..?

I like my full frame and I like the pop effect it makes when using large apertures.. something my 50D could not compete with!

oh I forgot, you want to compare then post full res originals....

You're large aperature, pop effect, 50d mumber jumbo has nothing to do with this thread. He also said nothing about crop being superior to full frame for landscape. Don't try and make this out to be something that it's not.

If you read part 1 and part 2, you should understand his point is that there is a common understanding around here that full frame is far superior at landscape shots than crop. If a guy has a 7d and 5d2, sometimes it's hard to justify owning both, especially for a hobbyist. In doing his own testing to try and justify both bodies, the op found the 7d combo seems to put out acceptable results in comparison, good enough so that he may be willing to part with his 5d2.

Personally I appreciate the results being posted, even though full frame advocates will always jump in and argue the results, in spite of never doing a thorough comparison of their own and posting it. It's because the full frame must be better attitude around here. Which indeed it may be, but the terms used around here are kill, destroy, not in the same league etc. I know because as a newbie to this forum some months ago, I picked up this conception myself and thus have a 7d and 5d2 I just picked up for landscape/detail shots. And now I have to determine for myself how much of a difference there really it.

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.

Yeah but how much better? Can you provide unbiased comparisons with a 7d?

bobfather wrote in post #10725786
Second, your comparison is interesting because it calls into question something which is almost gospel in these circles: that full frame is superior in essentially every aspect to crop bodies.

Now, we all know that full frame gets a DOF advantage, and that full frame sensors tend to exhibit less noise at high iso. But what we also now know is that full frame is NOT superior in all circumstances. At base ISO, and adequately stopped down, a 7d can produce images that are indistinguishable from a 5d2.

I tend to agree with the full-frame advocates in this thread when they say that viewing 2 resized pictures does not a fair comparison make. However I vehemently disagree with their assumption that viewing the 7d and 5d2 pictures unresized, side by side WOULD be fair. Too many people seem to be concerned with how their image looks under a 200% microscope than what the image looks like hanging on a wall, or viewed in a photo book.

I do find the results especially interesting because to my knowledge, nobody has really done a fair and exact analysis of the image quality of crop versus full frame, as you have today. I suspect this is because they found that a $1300 piece of hardware could deliver 95% of a $2300 piece of hardware, but were too scared or embarrassed to publish the results, especially not on a forum where people would react to the results so poorly.

I don't think ANYONE said that FF is superior in ALL aspects to crop..because that would be silly.

Also several people were able to pick out the 5d images at a glance. It's not hard to do, they have more detail.

Your post assumes A Lot. Any reviewer worth anything has nothing to fear from giving an honest comparison. I think it has more to do with people that have both not giving a *Bleep* about which is best, because they have both. The 7d would be my choice for sports shooting outside of a 1dIII. Anything still I am going to go for max detail via the 5d2.

It's about using the right tool for the job. It comes down to personal preference, i.e. is 'Good Enough' really good enough for me or do I want remarkable?