Sharpness comparison from 40D to 7D or 5DII

Any camera, under the right circumstances, with perfect exposure, light, subject and distribution of tones can make a great larger print. I have a 11 x 17 on my wall taken with a SONY 707 that you could press your nose against and marvel at how good it looks. It has people, leaves, tree trunks in it just so you don't think it's a picture of a white cat rolling in the snow.

I would be the last to say they the Sony beats out any dSLR of any vintage. The thing is that in actual day to day use, I struggled to get a good 8 x 10 out of it. A couple of great images, when the bulk, suck, does not make a good/great camera.

bohdank wrote in post #11422418
A couple of great images, when the bulk, suck, does not make a good/great camera.

Hard to argue with that, but I have to assume you are not meaning to describe any of the Canon cameras under discussion here.

XFaega wrote in post #11413210
To be honest your question has been a battle between the 7D/5D MK II on who has the better IQ...

To be honest ...
curent digital cameras have high IQ - but some are better and ...
current digital photographers have low IQ - but some are better...

EL_PIC wrote in post #11424882
To be honest ...
curent digital cameras have high IQ - but some are better and ...
current digital photographers have low IQ - but some are better...

Hard to argue with that. The cameras illustrate their IQ by what they show, the photographers demonstrate theirs by what they say!

pknight wrote in post #11420491
Nothing is worse than Congress.

Wait, are we talking about the US congress? I heard some other legislatures get pretty bad, freaken fights breaking out. Wait... what about the UN? LOL

pknight wrote in post #11422131
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.

I didn't say one was better than the other,,, I just said the differences *as you have just pointed out) Are profound.

stsva wrote in post #11422139
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.

Like I stated before, if your goal is to display images on a screen...then you can use just about any camera. They all equalize in that medium. My goal in photography is to make large prints ( 24x36 and up ) and from my own experience I know that I get much nicer photos from my 5DII than I can from my 7D. The tonal depth and sharpness of a 5DII photo compared to a 7D photo tell the story for me. I still have the 7D for sports or wildlife, but for my images that will turn into large photos, it's hands down the 5DII.

I don't need to pixel peep to know which camera produces the better results. I've done my own testing with photos being the end result and I'll stick with the 5DII for my landscape shots.

Hogloff wrote in post #11425091
Like I stated before, if your goal is to display images on a screen...then you can use just about any camera. They all equalize in that medium. My goal in photography is to make large prints ( 24x36 and up ) and from my own experience I know that I get much nicer photos from my 5DII than I can from my 7D. The tonal depth and sharpness of a 5DII photo compared to a 7D photo tell the story for me. I still have the 7D for sports or wildlife, but for my images that will turn into large photos, it's hands down the 5DII.

I don't need to pixel peep to know which camera produces the better results. I've done my own testing with photos being the end result and I'll stick with the 5DII for my landscape shots.

It does produce brilliant prints...

Hogloff wrote in post #11425091
Like I stated before, if your goal is to display images on a screen...then you can use just about any camera. They all equalize in that medium. My goal in photography is to make large prints ( 24x36 and up ) and from my own experience I know that I get much nicer photos from my 5DII than I can from my 7D. The tonal depth and sharpness of a 5DII photo compared to a 7D photo tell the story for me. I still have the 7D for sports or wildlife, but for my images that will turn into large photos, it's hands down the 5DII.

I don't need to pixel peep to know which camera produces the better results. I've done my own testing with photos being the end result and I'll stick with the 5DII for my landscape shots.

As someone who makes biggish prints...up to 2m long, I'm with you on this. In the end I think it's the tonal range that does it for me, as much as the sharpness. Maybe even more, as some prints naturally have unsharp areas by design, but tonal range (or gradation) is everywhere!

Just another quick test with both cameras, dark situation, ISO 1600, same lens, changed focal length between each to try to get the same basic shot. Granted it is not a high DR situation where the 5D2 would most like have more room to do its thing, but this is a casual shot I shoot all the time.

7D then the 5D2 (7D density does tear apart the lens IQ a bit as you can see), then the crops, where I took the 7D crop and did a minimal run of Noiseware on it to clean it up a bit. Sure the 5D2 is better, I can see the DOF difference (obviously), a slight color difference (better on the 5D2), and the cleaner low ISO noise. Other than that, what I see is the ability of the 7D to rip apart the quality of a lens.

Just to put yet another pictorial to the discussions here.

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

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

Crops... 7D with the slight cleanup, and the 5D2

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

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

I am far from an expert, and I do not pixel peep.
I have and do shoot with both cameras. Depending on the lens, light and subject, both cameras can make beautiful images. But there are some distinct differences that I see between the two cameras when using the same lens.

The 7D does not produce the same tonality or sharpness. The sharpness is a very small difference, the tonality is very much different.
I also notice that the capture of light is not the same, but that may just be a personal preference that I have.
I shot with the 7D first and more often than the 5D. But for landscape photos, the 5D just seems to be easier to work with.

Also just as a side note, comparing the 24-70L with both cameras, it just seems there is no contest, the lens seem to be made for the 5D. But, I can get some awesome shots with the 135L and 50 f1.4 with my 7D.

Ask this question again in 10 years when I have improved my skills and it may be different.

I own both bodies and my experience is pretty much in line with most of the comments from those that have shot or own both.
The 7d is a better camera with regards to flexibility , you can take it and shoot just about everything but you loose a little IQ compared to the 5D II, there is grain at low ISO and needs a little more PP.

For ultimate IQ the 5D II rules when the crop factor/AF system isn't required , that's not to say the AF is that bad and is quite useable for action if you put a little more work in.

I have also owned the 40d and it was a great little camera with very good IQ , AF very similar to the 5D II but the pictures at low iso always looked cleaner than the 7d to me but that could have been due to pixel density. At high ISO the 7d comes into it's own over the 40d but the 5D II outshines both in that dept.

Not a very technical reply but simply sums up my findings.

It seems that, from those that own both the 7D and 5DII, the opinions are pretty much identical.

One thing I hope is that the next 5D does not have more pixels. I hope they really work on the electronics (lower noise). There is more than enough pixels for my use. 24 x 30 is as large as I expect to have high quality prints and the 5DII's pixel count works for me. OK, a few more pixels wouldn't hurt.

The next 7D needs considerble attention to the electronics. I think it's clear that Canon forced that sensor into a crop, sacrificing lower ISO noise levels for higher ISO performance and, imo, it's still not all that great at high ISO.