Is this true regarding 7D vs D300?

The 7D has better image quality than the D300......because at equal image size a 7D gives you 50% more detail. True or False?

Obviously, the 7D has 50% more pixels..........what about detail? 50% more? Or 22.47% more detail (square root of 18/12)?

If you "pixel peep" then yes...you will notice the difference. Most people will never do that so it's pretty much a non issue. 12 million pixels is enough to crop or print almost anything....however, you could crop the 7D files more if you wanted.

Pixel density and size and other factors come into play here also.

All things being equal, (lighting, lens, conditions, etc...) then yes, the 7D can capture more details due to more pixels. Is it significant enough to give you that "OMG WOW" factor? Probably not. A good photo is just a good photo (doesn't need 18mp, doesn't need 12mp). If it's a lousy photo... we it's 12mp worth of crap vs. 18mp worth of crap.

The D300 is no slouch at all. IMO, you need to look at what lenses you currently have (and if you don't have any) or what lenses you would like to buy down the road. And then decide on what works best for you.

D300 was (2 years?) old when the 7D hit the market. A better comparison would be between the D300s vs. 7D. And if you're not shooting video at all... then you could also consider the 50D and D300 as other viable options.

Just remember... camera bodies come and go, but the quality lenses are good essentially forever.

Well - there we have it!

David

Can someone explain the percentage of extra detail you get going from 12mp to 18mp? Are detail and resolution equals?

More pixels do not necessarily make them better pixels.

Glass is where it's at IMHO.

I have grown to hate the pixel density of the 7D, to the extent that i'm trading it for a 1D IIn. I constantly get grainy faces (when they're a small percentage of the picture, but still) and no where near the clarity I'd expect. With perfect lighting, yeah, it's pretty good, but the lower density sensors seem to work better for what I do. If you look at my lenses, i'm not exactly using crap, either.

Erik_L wrote in post #11322434
I have grown to hate the pixel density of the 7D, to the extent that i'm trading it for a 1D IIn. I constantly get grainy faces (when they're a small percentage of the picture, but still) and no where near the clarity I'd expect. With perfect lighting, yeah, it's pretty good, but the lower density sensors seem to work better for what I do. If you look at my lenses, i'm not exactly using crap, either.

I am happy with crops on the 7D. Here is a crop not with small face. I would never go backwards and get 1D IIn. The 7D has is the most responsive and fastest camera Cannon makes under 5K. I think you have great camera body combination. From what I can tell 85mm is your longest lens,try the 70-200 IS 2.8 II on the 7D it amazing.

This is crop of more than 50%

snoop99 wrote in post #11322528
I am happy with crops on the 7D. Here is a crop not with small face. I would never go backwards and get 1D IIn. The 7D has is the most responsive and fastest camera Cannon makes under 5K. I think you have great camera body combination. From what I can tell 85mm is your longest lens,try the 70-200 IS 2.8 II on the 7D it amazing.

This is crop of more than 50%

Simply stunning - Well done!!!

Erik_L wrote in post #11322434
I have grown to hate the pixel density of the 7D, to the extent that i'm trading it for a 1D IIn. I constantly get grainy faces (when they're a small percentage of the picture, but still) and no where near the clarity I'd expect. With perfect lighting, yeah, it's pretty good, but the lower density sensors seem to work better for what I do. If you look at my lenses, i'm not exactly using crap, either.

Would you have some examples? Here is the 17-55 on my 7D at ISO 1600, raw to jpg, no post processing. It was a bit to the right (no clipping though), and I brought it back a bit. There is indeed grain in the shadows, which is annoying, but it cleans up alright. What you see in the areas coming out of shadows and into the highlights (around the Pacific ocean north of the equator), I believe, is where you use a high sharpening value and DPP/7D firmware butchers this up and you get that mosaic noise. This is why I keep the camera and DPP settings at 2-4 tops for sharpening. Then I can sharpen during post processing. I shoot with low sharpening values and EC +1/3 at about everything I shoot now.

Is this what you are seeing? However, given the 100% crop, I am definitely happy with the details, considering this is wide-open with a 17-55 that has a few bad scratches dead center on the element.

The 2nd image is a quick little action that removes noise and sharpens a bit. It helps quite a bit, I think, for the IQ, but then again viewing the overall image, you don't see much of a change, you have to zoom in.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The extra megapixels only help if you are printing or viewing at sizes that demand the higher pixel dimensions.

frule wrote in post #11321939
The 7D has better image quality than the D300......because at equal image size a 7D gives you 50% more detail. True or False?

Obviously, the 7D has 50% more pixels..........what about detail? 50% more? Or 22.47% more detail (square root of 18/12)?

False.

Image quality is not a well defined word. More pixel only benefits when printing huge prints or cropping. If you are pixel peeping, when viewed at 100%, pictures with lower pixel count appears sharper. Thereotically, pixels are like money, the more the merrier. In reality, after 10mp, the benefit of more pixel diminishes quickly, unless you have special needs for those added pixels.

pasm365 wrote in post #11322908
False.

Image quality is not a well defined word. More pixel only benefits when printing huge prints or cropping. If you are pixel peeping, when viewed at 100%, pictures with lower pixel count appears sharper. Thereotically, pixels are like money, the more the merrier. In reality, after 10mp, the benefit of more pixel diminishes quickly, unless you have special needs for those added pixels.

For there to be a theoretical ceiling of "10mpx is good enough for almost anything", you have to establish what those baseline needs are, like a certain print size or less.

Personally when I had the MKIII, it did not have enough resolution when I needed to crop, and it was 10mpx. I want to be able to crop a little bit anyways and still have enough for a 20x30 poster, but those were my needs, and they may not align well with others.

I have a 7D, my friend has a D300.

They have many more simalarities than differences.

Both need decent exposure to look their best, the 7d definatly can resolve more detail ( about 20-30% in reality) and can crop more, and I personaly prefer canons colour renditions but theres not much in it.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #11322930
For there to be a theoretical ceiling of "10mpx is good enough for almost anything", you have to establish what those baseline needs are, like a certain print size or less.

If you read the whole sentence, there is no contradiction. I've read somewhere 10mp is when digital matches film. People live with film for a long time.