Sharpness comparison from 40D to 7D or 5DII

Persian-Rice wrote in post #11413756
It's the same with the 5D but you will definitely produce a finer product OOC and you get the added bonus of real focal lengths.

Elwood and I are on a mission from God, which is the only reason I am saying this for the second time this week.

A focal length is a focal length. It is not real on one body and phony on another. The body has no effect on the focal length, which is a property of the lens. Period.

Plus, there is nothing magic about the 35 mm format that would make it more "real" than any other format.

Obviously the 5DII will give you the best image quality out of the choices you have given... Whether it is worth the money to you is a whole other matter... The law of diminishing returns is a Bit%&.

pknight wrote in post #11420531
Elwood and I are on a mission from God, which is the only reason I am saying this for the second time this week.

A focal length is a focal length. It is not real on one body and phony on another. The body has no effect on the focal length, which is a property of the lens. Period.

Plus, there is nothing magic about the 35 mm format that would make it more "real" than any other format.

It's all semantics really... 50mm is 50mm, I think everyone realizes that,,, but the sensor size certainly has a profound effect on the final image.

@blackandwhitekeys

I can answer you from my point of view.
I had 40D than I upgraded to 7D. There was not much IQ difference between them. I was not happy with ISO performance of 7D. So I decided to buy 1Dmk2N. I must tell you that was a whole new word to me when I saw the pictures of 1Dmk2N and compared them to 7D. 1DMk2N was much better in my eyes.
Then I sold 1DMk2N and buyed 1DMk3. IQ and ISO performance was a lot better then 7D, so I decided to sell the 7D.
I buyed 5Dmk2 and I can tell you there were a world of difference in IQ between 5Dmk2 and 7D.
I dont wanna tell you how much better ISO is in 5Dmk2
I sold 7D, and I also sold 1Dmk3 and buyed 1Dmk4

Perfect combo in my eyes 5Dmk2 + 1Dmk4

Tadaaa wrote in post #11420573
It's all semantics really... 50mm is 50mm, I think everyone realizes that,,, but the sensor size certainly has a profound effect on the final image.

I've been around here long enough to know better than to assume that "everyone realizes that."

Also, if we are talking about any use of digital images beyond pixel peeping (e.g.., prints, screen images at normal resolutions, etc.), the effect is anything but profound. Noticable, perhaps, in a small percentage of images, but not profound.

If I were a full-time pixel-peeper, especially if I didn't understand the effects of pixel density on images at 100% crops, I would most certainly want a 35mm sensor. It would make me very happy.

Cicero wrote in post #11420763
@blackandwhitekeys

I can answer you from my point of view.
I had 40D than I upgraded to 7D. There was not much IQ difference between them. I was not happy with ISO performance of 7D. So I decided to buy 1Dmk2N. I must tell you that was a whole new word to me when I saw the pictures of 1Dmk2N and compared them to 7D. 1DMk2N was much better in my eyes.
Then I sold 1DMk2N and buyed 1DMk3. IQ and ISO performance was a lot better then 7D, so I decided to sell the 7D.
I buyed 5Dmk2 and I can tell you there were a world of difference in IQ between 5Dmk2 and 7D.
I dont wanna tell you how much better ISO is in 5Dmk2
I sold 7D, and I also sold 1Dmk3 and buyed 1Dmk4

Perfect combo in my eyes 5Dmk2 + 1Dmk4

There is about 1 to 1.3 stops better ISO in the 5D2 vs the 7D. I have had every camera you listed (except the IIN and IV) and your experiences do not match mine, along with several others here, especially comparing them side by side with the same lens and same conditions/settings. But hey, if that path ultimately led you to the 1DIV, congrats!

@TeamSpeed

Sorry, but 1 - 1.3 stop in ISO performance is a lot.

In one German test they have camera comparison. IQ for 5Dmk2 is 96% and for 7D only 71%
And what I learned during using those cameras ,I can only say there are worlds between 5Dmk2 and 7D in IQ!

The problem with the 7D is that the noise seems to be hard to remove without removing detail, contrary to what most say. It also seems to be quite noisy at mid ISO's, in comparison. This is aggravated by the softer output of the 7D which requires more sharpening, which means the noise also gets sharpened.

It does not seem to capture as much DR when underexposed. The 7D doesn't tolerate underexposure very well. On paper, that may not make much sense but that is the feeling I get when I pp 7D images. Maybe I am not attributing the correct reasons for the images it produces but they require a lot more pp than 5D/II images and suffer in the process.

Except for the DR, this doesn't matter much until you start to get to larger prints. Whereas 5D/II images can be both smooth and sharp, I find I often have to trade one off for the other with the 7D.

Comparing to the 5D Classic, I would choose the 5D for ISO1600 and under. Over that, I haven't too many ISO3200 images in my library to get a good feeling for the 5D relative to the 7D.

The 40D, in hindsight (I had one) holds up quite well to the 7D. I haven't processed 40D images in quite awhile and my memory is not that great; it's not like I am comparing cameras in the back of my mind when I am doing post. I don't recall it being as aggravating as the 7D, maybe only due to the expectations of the 7D.

XFaega wrote in post #11414091
You have to remember the 7D has Dual Dig! 4 processors so the 7D should have the slight edge compared to 5D MK II Single Dig! 4 processor.

And how exactly does that equate to a better 24x36 print? Don't get caught up in all the marketing hyperbole.

pknight wrote in post #11421366
I've been around here long enough to know better than to assume that "everyone realizes that."

Also, if we are talking about any use of digital images beyond pixel peeping (e.g.., prints, screen images at normal resolutions, etc.), the effect is anything but profound. Noticable, perhaps, in a small percentage of images, but not profound.

If I were a full-time pixel-peeper, especially if I didn't understand the effects of pixel density on images at 100% crops, I would most certainly want a 35mm sensor. It would make me very happy.

I shoot with both cameras and in print, there is a very noticable difference when the prints get to be larger than say 11x14, certainly at 16x20. Not only can you see this difference in resolution or sharpness of fine details, but also in the range of tones. The 5DII produces a much nicer finished photo that takes a lot less post processing work.

If all people want to do is pixel peep on their monitors and then make an 8x10 print, stick to a 20d and save a bucket of money.

pknight wrote in post #11421366
Also, if we are talking about any use of digital images beyond pixel peeping (e.g.., prints, screen images at normal resolutions, etc.), the effect is anything but profound. Noticable, perhaps, in a small percentage of images, but not profound.

A picture being magnified 1.6 times is pretty darn profound in my opinion,,, not to mention other things like the changes in depth of field and low light performance.

pknight wrote in post #11420531
Elwood and I are on a mission from God, which is the only reason I am saying this for the second time this week.

A focal length is a focal length. It is not real on one body and phony on another. The body has no effect on the focal length, which is a property of the lens. Period.

Plus, there is nothing magic about the 35 mm format that would make it more "real" than any other format.

That pretty much says it all. The large and medium format folks thought the 35mm format was a toy when it was first introduced.

Hogloff wrote in post #11421679
Not only can you see this difference in resolution or sharpness of fine details, but also in the range of tones. The 5DII produces a much nicer finished photo that takes a lot less post processing work.

Daniel Browning recently posted examples that showed just the opposite. It seems that a lot of the claims being made here might be specific to the workflow and shooting practices of individual photographers.

Tadaaa wrote in post #11421806
A picture being magnified 1.6 times is pretty darn profound in my opinion,,, not to mention other things like the changes in depth of field and low light performance.

I prefer to think of 35mm as reducing the image .625 times, and destroying any chance of deep enough DOF with open lenses. These things are not disadvangates, just differences. For my uses, the "apparent" magnification and greater DOF are advantages. For others, perhaps not.

pknight wrote in post #11422110
Daniel Browning recently posted examples that showed just the opposite. It seems that a lot of the claims being made here might be specific to the workflow and shooting practices of individual photographers.

jacobsen1 also posted some wonderful landscapes in this thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=913638 comparing the 7D to the 5Dii, and has others in the 7D thread, that should stand up well compared to just about anything.