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

jantzer wrote in post #10725864
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.

Historically it always has been. And crop has only just now caught up through technology. I will say that I don't blindly jump on the FF bandwagon, I just hate the thought that I'm not getting ALL that I can get from an image. If I only posted images on the web and wasn't serious about making it in the business I probably wouldn't give a cuss. Things like superior high iso ability and crop-ability matter to me though they may not matter to others.

To deviate a little bit, when is someone going to pull out a MF and do a 7D vs 5D2 vs Pentax 645D, then we can all assume that MF can be the best at everything that can ever be done vs crop or FF only to get an endless amount of threads either for or against said point.

A camera is a camera, if you can afford it go ahead, if you can't we all know a camera in a lower price range can come close given that the photographer behind knows what he/she is doing.

Time for me to go to my local car dealership, get the most expensive BMW I can get and then take it to the rally track.

MichaelBernard wrote in post #10725894
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?

Yeah but that's the thing, what makes the 5d2 the right tool for the job if the 7d is competent? Is the 7d not remarkeable? That's all you read around here, the 5d this 5d2 that, being the right tool for the job when it comes to detail/landscape. Most people I'm sure can't afford to own both to compare. And newbies rely on what they read here to make purchase decisions. What they read is "tool for the job" type stuff and are completely torn because they think their crop (which I'm sure is good enough) won't be good at landscape or whatever. Or in the same sense that a 5d2 can't do sports. It's crazy. It makes a guy need to upgrade his gear all the time to have the very best. And is that "remarkeable" that you speak of 2% better or 70% as you are lead to beleive around here.

I'm running out of popcorn. Need to cook up s'mo.

BTW, Ben, I like the picture on the right more, just because it has prettier looking swirls in the water and for that alone, it must be the 7D image.

(And from a technical standpoint, being more serious this time, ASSuming you used the 17-40 on the 5d2 (shot at 17mm) and the 10-22 on the 7D (shot at 10mm), then I say the image on the left = 5D and the right 7D. But that's because the 7D is shooting at 16mm equiv and I get to see a wider FoV. But again, it's still just a guess based on my assumptions and not based on IQ differences. Because as far as I can tell, there are none.)

Both images are fantastic. Oh, I think I hear my popcorn ready.

jantzer wrote in post #10726022
Yeah but that's the thing, what makes the 5d2 the right tool for the job if the 7d is competent? Is the 7d not remarkeable? That's all you read around here, the 5d this 5d2 that, being the right tool for the job when it comes to detail/landscape. Most people I'm sure can't afford to own both to compare. And newbies rely on what they read here to make purchase decisions. What they read is "tool for the job" type stuff and are completely torn because they think their crop (which I'm sure is good enough) won't be good at landscape or whatever. Or in the same sense that a 5d2 can't do sports. It's crazy. It makes a guy need to upgrade his gear all the time to have the very best. And is that "remarkeable" that you speak of 2% better or 70% as you are lead to beleive around here.

Better is still better to me regarding work I actually have to submit. Like I said before, it comes down to a personal choice on whether or not 'passable' or 'competent' is good enough for you...it's not for me. Hell a 20d can take good landscapes, but is a 20d what I want when I can afford my Mark II? No. Why not go with the camera with the stronger results if you can afford it?

My choice is mine, your choice is yours..both should be respected. At the end of the day though the 5d2 still beats out the 7d as much as it beats out say the 5dc. It's not a trouncing, but the results are there for those that care, or don't.

MichaelBernard wrote in post #10726091
Better is still better to me regarding work I actually have to submit. Like I said before, it comes down to a personal choice on whether or not 'passable' or 'competent' is good enough for you...it's not for me. Hell a 20d can take good landscapes, but is a 20d what I want when I can afford my Mark II? No. Why not go with the camera with the stronger results if you can afford it?

My choice is mine, your choice is yours..both should be respected. At the end of the day though the 5d2 still beats out the 7d as much as it beats out say the 5dc. It's not a trouncing, but the results are there for those that care, or don't.

If you have 7d vs 5d2 comparisons I would love to see the pics. Although, I'm sure I will value my comparisons more than yours. I understanding wanting the best, that's the reason I bought the 5d2. But fwiw, I haven't made a choice. I will be doing some extensive testing over the next week. I'm just going into it with an open mind, which most here can't say.

jantzer wrote in post #10726159
If you have 7d vs 5d2 comparisons I would love to see the pics. Although, I'm sure I will value my comparisons more than yours. I understanding wanting the best, that's the reason I bought the 5d2. But fwiw, I haven't made a choice. I will be doing some extensive testing over the next week. I'm just going into it with an open mind, which most here can't say.

I bought mine because I needed great high ISO ability at the time. I'm debating going back to a 1-series.

I must say it is hard to tell the difference between jacobsen's pictures. My guess would be the 5D on the left and the 7D on the right due to sharpness.

I think there are too many people stating that the 5D is better for landscape photography, but no one has tried to figure out which picture came from which camera. the 5D maybe king of low light, but a cropper can do just as well for landscape.

tudragan wrote in post #10726233
I think there are too many people stating that the 5D is better for landscape photography, but no one has tried to figure out which picture came from which camera.

So...you missed the other thread where everyone got it right? Basically:

wask_ wrote in post #10725129
The pictures are too small to say anything imo. They're identical.

This. But hell I can throw up an image from my 1ds and say it's from a 7d at that size. The devil is in the details, sadly most of these cameras will look similar at that size on a smaller screen.

Martin.D wrote in post #10725373
oh I forgot, you want to compare then post full res originals....

I did that last week, the link is even in this thread.

Lowner wrote in post #10725714
"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.

I'm confused, do you just crop everything? I mean I guess if you can afford a 1DsIV then go for it, it will blow 5Dii out of the water more so than the 5Dii blows a 7D out of the water IMHO because of the pixel QTY. But it will NOT beat a 7D when cropped to APS-C size...

eye2i wrote in post #10725795
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"

read last weeks thread, quite a few people throw around terms like than when saying how much better FF is over crop...

MichaelBernard wrote in post #10725894
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?

that's basically my point. IMHO the 7D is the best all around camera when concerned with money. If money ISN'T a concern, then the 1Div is probably king?

but if we're all chasing remarkable, why are we shooting 35mm based systems anyway? MF slaughtered 35mm back in the film days by a MUCH larger margin than we're looking at here....

billybookcase wrote in post #10725972
To deviate a little bit, when is someone going to pull out a MF and do a 7D vs 5D2 vs Pentax 645D.

MF will win and that's basically my point. The 5Dii isn't enough better than a 7D for this sort of work FOR ME. If you want THE BEST, it better be a 1DsIII and a set of TS-Es. If not, MF. IMHO the 1DsIII has as much of a IQ increase over a 5Dii at base ISOs as the 5Dii has over the 7D... Less noise at low ISOs.

jwcdds wrote in post #10726052
I'm running out of popcorn. Need to cook up s'mo.

Both images are fantastic. Oh, I think I hear my popcorn ready.

me too. Oh, and same lenses as last week which should help you figure out the answer. I DID use 2 tripods this week though.


My whole point with these threads guys is to show just how good the 7D is. To my eye, and from what I've seen in reviews of other bodies, it's as close to the 5Dii as the 5Dii is to the 1DsIII. It's that close. If you NEED those tiny improvements, fine, get a 1DsIII and some TS-Es and enjoy images so sharp your eyes will bleed. But for most of us, the differences are so minute once printed you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference IMHO. At that point, for landscaping, it's not much to think about. Look at the OTHER things you shoot, and pick a body based on that. The 7D has the bells and whistles and AF and FPS. The 5Dii has 21mp and FF. If canon ever makes a 3D or if the 5Diii has the FPS and AF from the 7D I'll switch back to FF, I'm not against it, I just prefer the 7D for what/how I shoot.

To those saying you could tell the difference in print? I really doubt that at normal viewing distances you could, and if normal viewing distances are not good enough for you why are you not using a Phase One 65+. Most high-end landscapers have given up on 35 and moved on to MFD.

holy crap, so you're saying you can't tell the difference between two low-res web images from two cutting-edge cameras of the same subject with the same processing with the same everything else?

what a profound discovery.

or, as han solo would say "what an incredible smell you've discovered"

"I'm confused, do you just crop everything? I mean I guess if you can afford a 1DsIV then go for it, it will blow 5Dii out of the water more so than the 5Dii blows a 7D out of the water IMHO because of the pixel QTY. But it will NOT beat a 7D when cropped to APS-C size..."

No, with landscapes and general photography, which is what I spend most time doing, I want full frame* and can compose in camera so that the only cropping I need do is to fit the image to whatever paper I'm printing on. The trouble is my wifes a petrolhead so I spend my time at F1 and MotoGP events shooting them. And thats where I know I will need to crop if I do go down the 1Ds route, even if only until I can save up for some longer glass.

* My full frame requirement is less about the image qualities of ff versus crop, more about viewfinder size/brightness and speed of the thing. My 30D is a dark and dismal snail compared to my Eos-3 and I'm assuming thats still true with current models?

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10726322
but if we're all chasing remarkable, why are we shooting 35mm based systems anyway? MF slaughtered 35mm back in the film days by a MUCH larger margin than we're looking at here....


MF will win and that's basically my point. The 5Dii isn't enough better than a 7D for this sort of work FOR ME. If you want THE BEST, it better be a 1DsIII and a set of TS-Es. If not, MF. IMHO the 1DsIII has as much of a IQ increase over a 5Dii at base ISOs as the 5Dii has over the 7D... Less noise at low ISOs.

2 places around me process MF film... That is 2 places in all of NYC that I know of. It's expensive and inconvenient if you don't develop it yourself.

And on ISO, it works the other way with the 5d2, the base and low iso is not what it seems to be geared for. 3200+ seems to be where it shines and produces what other cameras do at low iso noise wise.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10726322
My whole point with these threads guys is to show just how good the 7D is.

I don't see it that way. I feel like you left the 100% crops out and posted smaller images this round because people were quite easily picking which was the 5d and which was the 7d before. I kinda feel like you're justifying the 7d purchase and 5d2 sale in this thread at the expense of the fairness of the first thread.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10726322
To my eye, and from what I've seen in reviews of other bodies, it's as close to the 5Dii as the 5Dii is to the 1DsIII. It's that close. If you NEED those tiny improvements, fine, get a 1DsIII and some TS-Es and enjoy images so sharp your eyes will bleed. But for most of us, the differences are so minute once printed you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference IMHO.

Again at what size are you printing? Printing for a desktop 8x10 image is not the same as printing a 24x36 for a gallery hanging. I think people forget that... It's the same as the images you've posted in this thread, i.e. Useless for comparison because they are too small and have been worked.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10726322
At that point, for landscaping, it's not much to think about. Look at the OTHER things you shoot, and pick a body based on that. The 7D has the bells and whistles and AF and FPS. The 5Dii has 21mp and FF. If canon ever makes a 3D or if the 5Diii has the FPS and AF from the 7D I'll switch back to FF, I'm not against it, I just prefer the 7D for what/how I shoot.

The OTHER things I shoot don't move either, so the 5d2 works for me. If I get into stuff that moves a 1d3 would be the camera for me. Why? Not because I am against the 7d, I just hate it's af system and the fact that it's limited in view finder options.

I'm glad that you have finally found the body that works the best for you Ben, but this thread is about as close to conclusive as Ken Rockwell is to being sane. If anything it gives ammo to the fanbois.

pcunite wrote in post #10726361
To those saying you could tell the difference in print? I really doubt that at normal viewing distances you could, and if normal viewing distances are not good enough for you why are you not using a Phase One 65+. Most high-end landscapers have given up on 35 and moved on to MFD.

Yea but if you've ever been to an exhibit you'd know that people move closer. The images are fixed on the walls, the viewers are not. Unless you plan on having a line mark in front of each picture to show the viewer where to stand the point is moot. High End landscapers have moved to MFD if not Large Format is because of the detail, otherwise everyone would still be using 20d's for their billboards like it's 2004 all over again...