Comments on: Canon EOS 7D vs. Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Low Light ISO Comparison

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:53:32 +0000

The 7D is much better suited for capturing sports, and the prints are pretty close in size. The issue I see is “night” games. I don’t know what kind of ISO you’d be shooting at, but I suspect ISO 3200 and higher-based on my experiences. I really didn’t want to push the 7D to ISO 3200 and 6400 too often for sports, as the noise takes away from some of your sharpness. If your lens is f/2.8 and you want shutters over 1/1000 you’ll see what I mean, you know you should put the camera at ISO 3200 or 6400, but you won’t want to because of ISO. So the 5D gives better low light, more than stop worth, but slower fps and a less agile AF, meaning likely less keepers than the 7D. So I guess I’d say the 7D. Though the real solution is probably the D700 and battery grip (or D700 replacement when it comes).

By: Dave Meredith

Dave Meredith — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 04:46:01 +0000

I’m wanting to upgrade my 40d, I do high school sports photography, night football games and such. Between the 7d and the 5dmII which would be a better choice. I’m looking for higher quality of shots when blown up to small poster size. Lighting is a problem with the football games, shooting fast enough to freeze the picture…I shoot with a

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:46:36 +0000

It does a good job for sure, which one could also expect from the T2i I would assume. I wish they’d go with bigger pixels by having less megapixels, but at least their NR tricks in-camera keep it competitive.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:44:43 +0000

h1,
the samples are from RAWs, but of course converted for the web to JPEG. Both were set to 0 sharpening in-camera, though that doesn’t mean one is equivalent to another. The additional noise on the 7D files is additional noise, it’s noisier for sure than the 5D2 which even though it is softer, still provides more detail–.

By: Fils-de-Daguerre

Fils-de-Daguerre — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:38:48 +0000

The fact that the EOS 7D fares so well in comparison is remarkable, considering that the EOS 5D Mark II has pixels that are 2.240654 times as large.

By: h1

h1 — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:16:25 +0000

Are the samples in RAW format, or it’s JPEG?
Looks like jpeg. I think 7D has more aggressive post image processing. 7D’s shots looks over-sharped, whilst Marks shot are quite soft. IMHO, additional noise on the 7D shots is nothing but jpeg artefacts caused by sharpening. My guess is rest upon evident blotchy artefacts tipical for jpeg compression.
Does anyone agree with me?

p.s. sorry for my poor english

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:47:17 +0000

Dev,
A wise decision. I loved the 7D, in many ways superior to the 5D2. Except IQ, which is what the 5D2 is all about. Sounds like a good deal too…

By: Dev

Dev — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:44:21 +0000

I was in the same boat and I was interested in very nice all around lens also I wanted to buy nice printer (pro 9000 mark ii). I had 2 choices. 7d + 17-55mm (f2.8) or 5dii + 24-105mm. 7d+lens package was costing approx 2700 and
5d kit was available for 3500 ($400 rebate for printer). Considering printer rebate, the difference between both system was 400 (12%) so picking up 5dii was no brainer.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:03:23 +0000

gurbally,
I love the D700, if I did sports or more dynamic subjects, I’d probably have one. Since I do more landscape, street, still life type work, I prefer the 5D2’s resolution.

By: gurbally

gurbally — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:24:23 +0000

If I bring D700 into picture, which one will you go with?