# 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?



## JumboShrimp (Feb 3, 2014)

I really enjoy my 70D but wonder if the 7D would have better IQ. When I look at DxO scores for these two, it's pretty much a dead heat. Anyone out there have first-hand experience comparing the two? Thanks in advance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2014)

The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 3, 2014)

this is kind of a crazy question.

7d is NOWHERE as good. The 7d has the absolute worst iso performance of any canon ive used. Grainy skies in well exposed iso 100? No thanks.

Seriously though, there is no reason to buy a 7d anymore, especially 7 current prices. its going on 5 years old, and still north of a grand- not a good investment at all.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2014)

I have just sold my 7D and replaced it by a 70D, and compared both carefully. The 70D has slightly better IQ than the 7D. My 7D was very good, unlike the one of the previous post (and I also have a 5DIII to compare both crops). The 70D really wins out in AF and live view over the 7D.


----------



## validus1978 (Feb 5, 2014)

my opinion 70 D has better colors and gradients , more setting like digic 5+ better images on good light condition but 70D has more noise ever since low ISO


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 5, 2014)

validus1978 said:


> my opinion 70 D has better colors and gradients , more setting like digic 5+ better images on good light condition but 70D has more noise ever since low ISO




Uh oh. To clarify, you're implying the 70D has worse low ISO noise than the 7D?


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3



It also has some extra pixels and newer processing...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> this is kind of a crazy question.
> 
> 7d is NOWHERE as good. The 7d has the absolute worst iso performance of any canon ive used. Grainy skies in well exposed iso 100? No thanks.
> 
> Seriously though, there is no reason to buy a 7d anymore, especially 7 current prices. its going on 5 years old, and still north of a grand- not a good investment at all.



+1. I tried a 70D in a store. I like it much better than the 7D. The ergonomics of the larger body and grip of the 7D, are probably preferred by 5D3 lovers...but other than that, I don't see a reason to buy a 7D now.

That said, I won't be buying a 70D anytime soon...until it gets discounted as much as the 6D has been recently. That would put a body-only price for the 70D down to about $800 or less. When that happens I might bite. Probably in November or December.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 5, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> I really enjoy my 70D but wonder if the 7D would have better IQ. When I look at DxO scores for these two, it's pretty much a dead heat. Anyone out there have first-hand experience comparing the two? Thanks in advance.


DxOmark scores also don't clearly show the nature of the noise.
many 7Ds show patterned noise, especially in shadow tones
70Ds I've tested have much less pattern noise
random noise is OK, pattern noise is bad
no noise is even better but we're still waiting for Canon to catch up to everyone else on noise metrics.


----------



## daniela (Feb 5, 2014)

Hi Guys!

We own both bodies. Summed up, the 70D is really the better body. The 7D was a hit when we bought it. But, as written by others, it has no good ISO performance. Compared, the 70D is there much better. The AF comes close to the 7D´s. And the pics are a little bit sharper.
My tip: Save the plus of about 100 Euro and buy an 70D.


----------



## Steb (Feb 5, 2014)

For me it was the other way around. I decided end of last year to buy a 7D after comparing it with a 70D. I already own a 5D3 and from an ergonomic point of view the 7D body is a perfect match, the 70D clearly has a reduced feature set here. And since I only use the raw files I don't care about the better processing with newer DIGIC. Raw noise performance is no different between the two models. IMHO the only real advantages for the 70D are the new video features and the sooc picture quality. If you don't need any of those you get better build quality and better ergonomics with the 7D.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2014)

Steb said:


> For me it was the other way around. I decided end of last year to buy a 7D after comparing it with a 70D. I already own a 5D3 and from an ergonomic point of view the 7D body is a perfect match, the 70D clearly has a reduced feature set here. And since I only use the raw files I don't care about the better processing with newer DIGIC. Raw noise performance is no different between the two models. IMHO the only real advantages for the 70D are the new video features and the sooc picture quality. If you don't need any of those you get better build quality and better ergonomics with the 7D.



As I posted earlier, the big difference is in AF. The 7D's AF is far more erratic and has real difficulties on such combinations as the 300mm f/2.8 II with 2xTC. This has been corrected with the 70D, which is why I sold my 7D and bought the 70D. The other differences between the two are minor. N


----------



## canonrumorstony (Feb 6, 2014)

AlanF said:


> As I posted earlier, the big difference is in AF. The 7D's AF is far more erratic and has real difficulties on such combinations as the 300mm f/2.8 II with 2xTC. This has been corrected with the 70D, which is why I sold my 7D and bought the 70D. The other differences between the two are minor. N



But the question of this thread is about IQ, not AF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> But the question of this thread is about IQ, not AF.



Accurate focus is critical for image quality.


----------



## 100 (Feb 6, 2014)

Aglet said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > I really enjoy my 70D but wonder if the 7D would have better IQ. When I look at DxO scores for these two, it's pretty much a dead heat. Anyone out there have first-hand experience comparing the two? Thanks in advance.
> ...



You’ve tested sevral 70Ds? 
In a lab or in the field? 
Can you show some of your test results? I like to see the “real world” difference between the 7d and 70d and if there is any copy variation between the 70ds. 



Aglet said:


> random noise is OK, pattern noise is bad
> no noise is even better but we're still waiting for Canon to catch up to everyone else on noise metrics.



No noise? 
That would be great cause it would mean you could shoot in low light at iso 100 and 1/8000 second and just push the file 10 or 15 stops without any noise showing because there is none. But like all other impossibilities there is one “little” problem: it’s not possible. 

By the way, “noise metrics” do not only apply to iso’s below iso 1600. Above iso 1600 Canon is on par or preforming better.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> canonrumorstony said:
> 
> 
> > But the question of this thread is about IQ, not AF.
> ...


As I am fond of saying.... Who cares how many stops of dynamic range a blurry picture has.... Accurate focus is by far the most critical aspect in the search for better images... Nobody makes a sensor or lens that could have saved this shot....

(Shot with an SX-50, a camera which refuses to focus well on Snowy owls)


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 6, 2014)

Aglet said:


> ...no noise is even better but we're still waiting for Canon to catch up to everyone else on noise metrics.



where can you find a camera that delivers no noise? if there is one that par with 70d or 7d specs, i would pay up 10K for that even though i like noise (note: noise that i add in, not from camera)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2014)

100 said:


> By the way, “noise metrics” do not only apply to iso’s below iso 1600. Above iso 1600 Canon is on par or preforming better.



Any good DRone knows better than to let their ISO get out of the triple digits, and it's really best if the first of those three digits is a '1'.


----------



## LumenMedia (Feb 6, 2014)

I used my 7d during last 3 years and after testing 70d i sold it and never regret. Better color reproduction, greater dynamic range, better noise structure (i hate 7d noise, it often destroyed shadows and uniform color surfaces), better and more reliable focus, better low light focus, video af is amazing, touch screen and wi fi is also very useful. The only downside - lack of magnesium alloy body


----------



## Radiating (Feb 6, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> I really enjoy my 70D but wonder if the 7D would have better IQ. When I look at DxO scores for these two, it's pretty much a dead heat. Anyone out there have first-hand experience comparing the two? Thanks in advance.



That is a bit of a silly question. Comparing the 70D against the 7D is like comparing a Ferrari 458 Italia to a Brick in a race. The 70D is much better.

The 70D is a 40 megapixel camera, with almost no AA filter, compared to a 18 megapixel camera that is 4 years older. The 70D has 9% less noise and delivers images that are 15% to 20% sharper, according to back to back tests.

I have owned 3 7D bodies, and currently have a 70D body. There is no comparison between the two. The 70D is way better.

For example you'll see lenses are 10 Mpix on the 7D on DXO, on the 70D they are 12 Mpix.

The 70D also has less noise at ISO 200 than the 7D has at ISO 100 so base ISO performance is incredible.


70D = 15-20% Sharper
70D = 9% less noise at LEAST at any ISO (in many cases there is a significant difference)
70D = 50% less noise at base ISO for landscapes
70D = Way better dynamic range at high ISO (same DR at low ISO)
70D = Way better color and tone

DXO scores are about as meaningful as taking the horsepower of a car, multiplying by it's price and dividing by it's model number. They're an arbitrary choice of combining numbers that have little meaning, you need to look at the actual data.

The image quality of the 70D is much better. The only reason you buy a 7D is if you need crazy autofocus and burst speeds for sports or action or incredible weather sealing. Otherwise the 70D just obliterates it.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 6, 2014)

100 said:


> You’ve tested sevral 70Ds?
> In a lab or in the field?
> Can you show some of your test results? I like to see the “real world” difference between the 7d and 70d and if there is any copy variation between the 70ds.



This will have to suffice

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16713.0

otherwise it's $280/hr + incidentals for custom work.



> By the way, “noise metrics” do not only apply to iso’s below iso 1600. Above iso 1600 Canon is on par or preforming better.



yes, it's certainly comparable at the high end... FWIW, even compared to the MFT sensor in the -EM1.
comparison image for editorial purposes from DPreview.com

edit - oops, don't look at the Fuji results.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2014)

Typical Aglet........

But when push comes to shove.

"Sorry, I don't have the 70D"​
Reading between his, as usual, inflated lines he took a series of shots at different iso's with the lens/body cap on, in a shop, which he botched.

And why he feels +4 stops is a good place to judge noise I just don't know.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3



Wow. That is not a small difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2014)

Radiating said:


> The 70D is a 40 megapixel camera



Are all of your other numbers artificially exaggerated like that?



MichaelHodges said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.
> ...



That's true. The 7D has a particularly strong AA filter, whereas the 70D has a particularly weak one, I expect that's necessary due to the dual pixel AF. But even the EOS M is noticeably sharper than the 7D.

Worth noting that when I refer to the test above as SOOC, these aren't JPG images (so Digic doesn't really matter), they are RAW images processed identically. But it's also worth noting that with proper post 
-processing, one would likely not process the images identically - more sharpening would be applied to the 7D images.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 6, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.
> ...



Yeah the 70D is a game changer, paired with the Sigma 18-35mm, which is also a game changer it is the first Canon crop camera that I haven't loathed using over my full frame.

The first time I had to use my backup 7D and 15-85mm I threw up a little in my mouth when I saw the pictures it took. 

The first time I used a 70D and sigma 18-35mm, my impression was "wow, this is basically a lighter version of my 24-70mm f/2.8 and 5D Mark III). Tests back this up, showing that this is the first Canon normal zoom and crop camera combo that delivers full frame like detail levels.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> "Sorry, I don't have the 70D"​


why would I buy a camera I don't want?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2014)

Why would you feel compelled to give such strong views on equipment you have hardly touched?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would you feel compelled to give such strong views on equipment you have hardly touched?



What, you mean you can't just go into a shop, stick a memory card in a demo camera, take one shot with the lens cap on, go home and push that one shot 5 stops, and know enough about how that *camera* performs to make your decision to not buy it, and to bash it on the Internet?

:


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you feel compelled to give such strong views on equipment you have hardly touched?
> ...


I did go into a camera shop....
I did stick a memory card into the demo 70D....
I took several dozen shots (with the lens cap OFF)...
I decided that it was much nicer than my 60D....
I decided not to buy it as I want a 7D2 and my 60D will do quite nicely while I wait...


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 7, 2014)

Based on those test results and the feedback in this thread (and others) I'm very close to selling my 7D and picking up the 70D.


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Feb 7, 2014)

My 2 cents...
I owned a 350D, and a 400D, was dissatisfied by AF Performance so jumped on a 7D when it was released. The AF was worlds better, but I can't say that the image quality was much better for when AF speed wasn't a factor. 

I rarely had a "WOW" moment from that camera, and while I haven't used a 70D, I can't see how it would be worse than my 7D was. Maybe I had the proverbial dud, or maybe it needed adjustment, I dunno, but I was always dissatisfied with the noise. Maybe it was a function of my expectations, but I have no complaints at all with the 5D3 I eagerly replaced it with.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 7, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You'll next be deciding between waiting for a 7D2 or buying an 80D.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 7, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> Seriously though, there is no reason to buy a 7d anymore, especially 7 current prices. its going on 5 years old, and still north of a grand- not a good investment at all.



There is, it's a great second hand body! But not a smart buy if bought new, I agree. It's old and has regrettable noise performance throughout the iso range especially when you pair it with a full frame body like I did. I recently sold mine in favor of a 5DMkIII, but the new owner is overjoyed (it is a great 2nd hand body like I said).


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 7, 2014)

Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?

Worth considering because the D7100 is cheaper than the 70D.


----------



## Steb (Feb 7, 2014)

AlanF said:


> As I posted earlier, the big difference is in AF. The 7D's AF is far more erratic and has real difficulties on such combinations as the 300mm f/2.8 II with 2xTC. This has been corrected with the 70D, which is why I sold my 7D and bought the 70D. The other differences between the two are minor. N



Ahh, I don't like to hear that! 
I expected the 7D AF to be better than the 70D AF. At least the 70D lacks the spot AF mode afaik.

Is there a specific issue with the 7D and 300mm f/2.8 II? I own a 300 f/2.8 myself (the old one, not the mkII) and I am planning to invest in some converters. Do I have to prepare for problems with such a setup and the 7D? ???


----------



## Kiboko (Feb 7, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?
> 
> Worth considering because the D7100 is cheaper than the 70D.



I really hope someone answers this sensibly, because the D7100 is a camera I'm considering, as a replacement to my 7D. I can only think that the answer has simply GOT to be an unequivocal yes! I bought a D610 to replace my aging 5D Mark II, there was a humungous gap between the P/Ex. value of my old 5D Mk II and a new Mk III, however the D610 was affordable. Absolutely no regrets, the D610 is fantastic all round. Made the right decision. I'm not knocking the 5D Mk III, it would have been my obvious choice, I just couldn't afford the switch, so a compromise had to be reached but it turned out not have been a compromise. Now I'm in the same position to replace my 7D. If Canon brought out a 7D Mark II there'd be no issue but I've been waiting and waiting..... I would not consider the 70D, various reasons.


----------



## sanj (Feb 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> canonrumorstony said:
> 
> 
> > But the question of this thread is about IQ, not AF.
> ...



I was waiting for this comment from you Neuro.  Both cameras do not interest me but I scrolled through the thread just to find this comment from you.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2014)

I wish I could really believe some of the comments here, but I have a strong suspicion that a significant amount of confirmation bias is going on. 

Almost all reviews when the 70D came out indicated that there were only marginal improvements in the sensor. From reading the comments here, one could get the impression that the 70D is some super camera. I'd like a more balanced, objective perspective. (Probably a hopeless request on this forum I know.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Almost all reviews when the 70D came out indicated that there were only marginal improvements in the sensor. From reading the comments here, one could get the impression that the 70D is some super camera.



I suspect it depends on how you define improvement. DxOMark tests color depth, DR, and noise, and by those metrics the 70D is not significantly different from the 7D. Notably, they can't test 'sharpness' in their sensor test…but if you take a few lenses and compare their measure of sharpness (P-Mpix) of the same lens on the 7D vs. the 70D, you see that the 70D gives approximately a 20% sharper image - and that difference is borne out by the TDP ISO 12233 crop comparison that I linked earlier.

A confounding factor is that many review sites base their comparisons on either in-camera JPG conversions or 'default' conversions from RAW using a 3rd party converter like LR. Sensors with stronger AA filters (like the 7D) need and benefit from more sharpening than sensors with weaker AA filters - and that is likely factored into the default RAW conversions. So, whereas DxOMark test images are presumably not sharpened, and TDP's are all given a default sharpness setting of 1 regardless of camera, if you sharpen the 7D image more than the 70D image, you'll get results that are pretty similar.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 7, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I wish I could really believe some of the comments here, but I have a strong suspicion that a significant amount of confirmation bias is going on.
> Almost all reviews when the 70D came out indicated that there were only marginal improvements in the sensor. From reading the comments here, one could get the impression that the 70D is some super camera. I'd like a more balanced, objective perspective. (Probably a hopeless request on this forum I know.)


This phenomenon has occurred many times in CR. Let's remember the time of release of 5D mark iii: 

"Only 1 megapixel more than the previous model..." 
"Just a little less noise than the previous model..." 
"Only one Compact Flash slot..." 
"This should be called 5D mark 2.1 ..." 
"D800 will kill this rehashed 5D..." 

Today we see the use in the real world showed the efficiency and versatility of 5D mark iii. Now we can see some qualities of 70D that were not apparent in the spec list. But hopefully 7D mark ii has better picture quality than 70D, to assume the position of "mini 1DX".


----------



## AlanF (Feb 7, 2014)

Steb said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > As I posted earlier, the big difference is in AF. The 7D's AF is far more erratic and has real difficulties on such combinations as the 300mm f/2.8 II with 2xTC. This has been corrected with the 70D, which is why I sold my 7D and bought the 70D. The other differences between the two are minor. N
> ...



My experience with the 300/2.8 II + 2xTCIII having poor AF speed and hunting on the 7D has been duplicated by others. Many of us have found poor inconsistency of AF in general. Lensrental has somewhere on its blog showing the AF consistency of the 7D being far worse than the 5DIII. 

The series II telephotos have a different feedback loop system from the series I and required the series III TCs to be developed. I have no idea how the series I telephotos AF perform with the 7D plus TCs. By all accounts, the 300/2.8 I takes an IQ hit with the 2xTC.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 7, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I could really believe some of the comments here, but I have a strong suspicion that a significant amount of confirmation bias is going on.
> ...



Yes, if the MkIII is amazing then the MkII is still really great.


----------



## Steb (Feb 7, 2014)

AlanF said:


> My experience with the 300/2.8 II + 2xTCIII having poor AF speed and hunting on the 7D has been duplicated by others. Many of us have found poor inconsistency of AF in general. Lensrental has somewhere on its blog showing the AF consistency of the 7D being far worse than the 5DIII.
> 
> The series II telephotos have a different feedback loop system from the series I and required the series III TCs to be developed. I have no idea how the series I telephotos AF perform with the 7D plus TCs. By all accounts, the 300/2.8 I takes an IQ hit with the 2xTC.



Ok, I expected some IQ degradation with a 2x TC anyway. I think I will go with the 1.4x for a start. I hope this will still give some great quality pics.


----------



## traveller (Feb 7, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?
> 
> Worth considering because the D7100 is cheaper than the 70D.



That's a dangerous question to pose on this forum without starting a flame war, but I'll do my best! 

If people were honest, they'd admit that the D7100 has the image quality advantage; it is superior on most metrics. The point of argument would be how much better it is and how important the image quality advantage is compared to other features. I would say that the D7100 is the better all round _stills_ camera, with its weakness being buffer depth, plus a bit of build quality compared to the 7D. That being said, one doesn't buy a camera body in isolation, but as part of a system. I wouldn't say that anything that Nikon has to offer is compelling enough to offset the changeover costs, if one has a decent collection of EF mount glass. If one doesn't own any glass from either manufacturer, then deciding which lenses one is likely to need is a factor. To be honest, unless you're into wildlife or sports, I'm not sure that either manufacturer has the most compelling lens line-up for their APS-C cameras and I might be tempted to look elsewhere (e.g. m4/3rds or Fuji).


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 7, 2014)

traveller said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?
> ...



Im not sure how this thread ven got to three pages. 

7d's problems are detailed and noted across the internets. It is simply not a good buy. The Af has problems & the iso is bay far the worst of any canon camera i have seen sicne the 450d. I HAD to dispose of my 7d. i loved the body. 

Trust me, im going through the same with a SECOND 6d, and its the most frustrating thing in the world. I have yet another canon body that i cant use to to Af issues. softie images and af misses at f4...enough of this mess already.

I just joined CPS gold so hopefully they can help. If not, im scraping for a 5dmk3.


----------



## traveller (Feb 7, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



Well documented by whom? I've not come across huge amounts of material substantiating this claim. There was a bit of a hoo-ha when it first came out, partly because of the "crazy megapixel number" (note how when Nikon went to 24 megapixels, no one batted an eyelid) and partly caused by a review from Darwin Wiggett that found the 7D to produce a very soft output. To be honest, I respect Darwin and regularly read his blog, but his was the only comparison I've seen where the 7D's file looks that soft compared to other cameras; I haven't seen anyone else find this result. 



ashmadux said:


> Trust me, im going through the same with a SECOND 6d, and its the most frustrating thing in the world. I have yet another canon body that i cant use to to Af issues. softie images and af misses at f4...enough of this mess already.
> 
> I just joined CPS gold so hopefully they can help. If not, im scraping for a 5dmk3.



Plenty of people find the AF system of 6D fine, if used within its capabilities. The 5D Mk3 is very good, but I'm not sure really how necessary such a sophisticated AF system is for non-sports/wildlife specialists (myself included). I'm wondering whether I'd have been as well served by a 6D and saved the extra money; heck, even a 70D might have sufficed most of the time as all the 5D Mk3 seems to have done is made me more fussy about noise!


----------



## 100 (Feb 7, 2014)

Aglet said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > You’ve tested sevral 70Ds?
> ...



You react here claiming you have tested 70Ds (plural!) and draw conclusions based on your testing regarding the difference in noise between the 70D and the 7D. 
That might be useful information. When I ask about your test results you come up with a set of lens cap shots pushed 4 stops of a single 70D that most likely never left the shop you tried it at and no 7d results to compare them with. 
That’s a bit meager, don’t you think? 

Combined with your “no noise sensor” remark, which gives me the impression you lack any real knowledge about noise metrics and testing methods, I can only conclude (subjective as it may be, though it could very well be intersubjective looking at other reactions) that your conclusions are derived from the one thing Canon falls short at and that is low ISO dynamic range. 

It’s a bit like some parents do when their kid scores nine A’s and one C. They don’t look at the A’s, they only care about the one C. Their kid suddenly becomes a loser. The kids of their friends score a lot of B’s and some A’s so on average they are not outscoring their kid but in the somewhat twisted minds of those parents the kid with the single C is still the loser, no matter how good the rest of the performance is. 

It seems you only like to focus on the low iso part as far as image quality is concerned. I can even understand for some highly specialized photographers having more than 12 stops DR at low iso is important. If so, don’t waste your time on the current offerings from Canon. Buy a D800 or an A7R if you are on a budget or a good medium format camera if low ISO performance is crucial. 

Then I visited the website you link to in your profile where I find images like your “POLITICAL LANDSCAPE SERIES”
and I thought, just give your pushed lens cap series a fancy name like “Dark Side Perspective Series” and sell them as art. 

And guess what, you don’t even have to pay me for this great idea.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2014)

100 said:


> You react here claiming you have tested 70Ds (plural!) and draw conclusions based on your testing regarding the difference in noise between the 70D and the 7D.
> That might be useful information. When I ask about your test results you come up with a set of lens cap shots pushed 4 stops of a single 70D that most likely never left the shop you tried it at and no 7d results to compare them with.
> That’s a bit meager, don’t you think?



for the price? 
if you visited my website, you will also find a page dedicated to comparing read noise from a large number of cameras, including the 7D
I've got about 10 other bodies, 70D included, which are still waiting for me to get the time to prepare and add to that page, including some older models.

I have enough data on the 7D and 70D to satisfy my curiosity and I believe I've adequately summarized what I've found, if subjectively, in that CR post.

From all those who claimed to have a 7D (or 5D2) that does not have a pattern noise problem, none have offered or supplied a requested raw file for me to compare.

And the only way those bodies leave the shop is if I pay for them. That kind of research doesn't come cheap.
If someone wants to sponsor more testing, I'll consider it. I do enough on my own dime & time.

The web site so many love to hate, DxOmark, provides plenty of basic data for everyone to review and interpret.

www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-70D---Measurements
www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-7D---Measurements

Have a look at the FULL SNR tab and compare for yourself.
There really isn't much of an obvious difference between the two bodies, especially in the low ISO shadow region.
But DxOmark does not publish anything on the nature of the measured noise; whether it's random, or patterned.
Visualizing the noise the way I present it provides an opportunity to decide whether the camera's pattern noise characteristic might be an issue for some users.
Compare it to audio; what's easier to tolerate in a quiet music passage, a faint white noise or a discrete 60 Hz hum?



> your conclusions are derived from the one thing Canon falls short at and that is low ISO dynamic range...no matter how good the rest of the performance is.



I'll give Canon an approving pat on the head for everything else they've accomplished. Truly, I enjoy using their gear and still retain some.
But I really hope they can pull up their socks a little more on the low ISO
PATTERN NOISE PROBLEM. 
DR is NOT what I've been complaining about, PATTERN NOISE is what I've consistently had problems with from Canon's sensors and specifically, DIGIC 4 systems.

Fixed pattern noise is a direct factor in DR measurements, but they are different problems to deal with when producing a final image.



> It seems you only like to focus on the low iso part as far as image quality is concerned. I can even understand for some highly specialized photographers having more than 12 stops DR at low iso is important. If so, don’t waste your time on the current offerings from Canon. Buy a D800 or an A7R if you are on a budget or a good medium format camera if low ISO performance is crucial.



I did exactly that - because every Nikon, Pentax and now Fuji and Olympus body I've added to my inventory lacks the one thing I get only from a digic-4 Canon.
FIXED PATTERN NOISE at low ISO .. that fouls up shadow (and sometimes even midtone) areas and limits manipulation of those areas in post without requiring inordinate amounts of time and compromises to correct.
I should not have to waste time in post to fix problems that are innate to the camera; I prefer tools that don't require me to work harder to achieve something so I choose those that don't have deficiencies where it matters to me.
The newer digic 5 products have improved on the FPN issue, just not yet enough to convince me they will outperform my current tools, as either a sensor or a system.
The 70D's sensor performance is no longer much of a limitation compared to the competition, unlike previous digic-4-based canon bodies. And I say that based on the improved FPN performance, not overall DR.
The low ISO DR is still lower than competitors but, with the shadow noise now more random, it's not as much of a post-processing problem as it was when the shadows looked like a picket fence of stripes if pushed, a'la 7D.



> Then I visited the website .. you don’t even have to pay me for this great idea.



I'm fairly sure "Canon Plaid" or "Canon Stripe" will not catch on as wall art... But I've been wrong about mass market appeal before.
Do you think Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, film or Oly fans would buy large prints of that? After all, they can't produce that kind of art with their cameras.
Hmmm... Maybe you're on to something after all.


----------



## 100 (Feb 9, 2014)

Aglet said:


> From all those who claimed to have a 7D (or 5D2) that does not have a pattern noise problem, none have offered or supplied a requested raw file for me to compare.
> 
> And the only way those bodies leave the shop is if I pay for them. That kind of research doesn't come cheap.
> If someone wants to sponsor more testing, I'll consider it. I do enough on my own dime & time.
> ...



Let me be clear, I don’t claim the digic 4 bodies are free of pattern noise, nor do I have any problem with DxO *measurements*. How DxO translate measurements into scores is another subject though. 

The fact that noise exist does not automatically translate into noise being a problem. It can become a problem (at pixel level mostly) if you have to push shadows more than 2 stops. ETTR can help unless the dynamic range of the scene exceeds 11 stops. A sensor performing 2 stops better will give more latitude until the dynamic range of the scene exceeds 13 stops (I’m talking about screen DR in DxO terms). 
It all depends on the type of photography you do. If you are photographing scenes with a dynamic range between 11 and 13 stops all the time and blow highlights are a problem, Canon is not the way to go at the moment. If the dynamic range of the scene stays below 11 stops (as it does in most cases) it’s hard to see any noise difference in the end result unless you underexpose and try to recover in post. There is no real reason to underexpose low dynamic range scenes though. 

Pushed lens cap shots will show you the amount and “shape” of the noise and can give an indication of when noise may become a problem in real world photography. You have to look for specific circumstances in real world photography to show a significant noise difference in the final picture between a Canon sensor and other brands however.

So all in all (pattern) noise of Canon sensors can be a problem under specific and rather exceptional circumstances. Scenes with a dynamic range between 11 and 13 stops where bracketing (hdr) isn’t an option, you don’t want blown highlights and still need to push the shadows more than 2 stops.


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 9, 2014)

traveller said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...




If you cant find all of the discussion on 7d complaints then you are not simply looking hard enough. I admit i didnt see 'enough' of it before i bought the body. It was only after a year when the af module went wacky- all of a sudden i could find it all. When the Af worked,I was able to take some great photos.

For the 6d- sounds like your being "nice" in your description of the cameras AF. no one was happy when the af unit was announced. Ive noticed the more positive trend as more people acquire the camera (especially after the great black friday sales) but it sounds more like just being happy to have anything decent at all for this price. My Af problems have extended to things that dont move- like charts, household items, statues, etc. And its just not great.

I will tell you this- My t2i has outperformed the AF of the 7d i had +2 more recent 6d bodies. Thats sad/insane. And I use the camera with a 70-200 2.8 II to shoot moving people, urban landscape, studio portrait, etc. Its not even a comparison. 
Im now testing the 6d in the field before i send it to CPS tomorrow.

Im around other photographers with serious equipment at Fashion week- and they ask me what camera i have. 

t2i. Kicking AF ass and taking names.


----------



## Snaps (Feb 9, 2014)

So I bought a 7D second-hand from my brother and…I think the image quality is great. Sorry. 

Is it better than the 70D? I haven't used the 70D myself, so I cannot comment on it, but even if it is, does it honestly matter? And I also don't think the ISO is THAT noisy. Some of you make it seem as if it's the worst you've seen in a camera. I upgraded from the Rebel XSi to this, and ISO, and image quality for starters are better on my 7D.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2014)

Snaps said:


> So I bought a 7D second-hand from my brother and…I think the image quality is great. Sorry.
> 
> Is it better than the 70D? I haven't used the 70D myself, so I cannot comment on it, but even if it is, does it honestly matter? And I also don't think the ISO is THAT noisy. Some of you make it seem as if it's the worst you've seen in a camera. I upgraded from the Rebel XSi to this, and ISO, and image quality for starters are better on my 7D.



And you have hit the nail on the head.... You can take any current DSLR...Nikon, Sony, Canon, whatever.... And take wonderful pictures... The differences are minimal to the average user.


----------



## Marauder (Feb 9, 2014)

Grrr Not sure why the site thought I "forgot my password" when I quite emphatically DIDN'T forget it, but now that I've gotten my rant that is tangent to the topic out of the way.... 

I've owned a 7D for about a year and a half now. I find the 70D vs 7D to be an interesting comparison. When it was announced that the 70D would have "the same" 19 point AF system as the 7D, I wondered that was really the case or if its Servo accuracy would be improved. The LensRentals results showing that the new AF systems in the 1DX and 5D Mark III had massive improvements in Servo tracking, even against such heavy hitters as the 1D Mark IV, so I thought it might be likely that the 70D's system would be more accurate. Based on various reviews, and posts CR, I'm satisfied that it has been substantially improved, despite being labelled "the same." I'm definitely +1 in the camp that AF is crucial to IQ. A clean out of focus image, is still and OOF image!

In addition, I've seen some of the IQ issues with the 7D that have been reported. My 7D blows my T3i out of the water for most things. It's AF may not be equal to the 70D's and not nearly as good as the 5D Mark III or the especially AF speed and accuracy on moving subjects, but it is still a great system that beats the Rebel hands down, as one would expect. But I've seen some of the sky noise at 100 ISO in airshow pics--the T3i (used as a second body), does seem to create cleaner images that require less editing. Still, I find my 7D images clean up nicely in post (I'm just using DPP). 

Based on the reviews I've read, it seems that the 70D has made some progress on both the IQ and AF fronts, making it a compelling camera. Two AF features it's missing though are AF Expansion and AF Spot mode. I have read many reviews that make light of these two modes, but I've found them very useful. AF Expansion is very useful for tracking a fast moving BIF. And I find Spot mode far more useful than I'd originally thought, when trying to get a lock on a bird through dense foliage. I've gotten some shots with Spot mode that would probably have been impossible without it. The year prior to buying my 7D, I was trying to get images of Bald Eagles nesting in Port Colborne (a town near me in the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario, Canada) with my T3i, and I was constantly frustrated by the AF system focussing on a branch in front of the subject. The Spot AF system would have been a huge benefit! I've since used the Spot AF in tricky situations with birds and other animals, which naturally try to seek cover when confronted with a curious human armed with a large tube they keep trying to aim at them, for unknown purposes! : 

I'm a little surprised that Spot and Expansion modes are disabled in the 70D. Likely just a firmware feature, perhaps left off to give a bit of 'separation' between the xxD series 70D and the xD series 7D, which nominally sits above it. Perhaps, once the 7D is discontinued, the 70D will gain these features in a FW update! 


As compelling as the 70D is, it doesn't really bring enough to the table for me to change to it, especially since I only purchased my 7D in 2012. It's the 7D Mark II that interests me, as I want a quantum leap in AF capability, and also hope for substantial burst and buffer improvements (as well as some IQ improvements, but I'm expecting those to be more modest than the AF and burst changes). If I was buying new however, I think it would be a tougher proposition. IQ and AF accuracy favour the 70D, which is to be expected. For the Videographer of course, it's a no-brainer--the 70D beats the 7D hands down for video. The tilt-shift screen may erode weather sealing, but it can also be very useful in some shooting scenarios, where one wants or needs to shoot at odd angles, and the DPAF on the 70D can be very useful for that, although I find shooting in Quick AF mode during live view largely makes AF speed in live view a non-issue. On the other hand, the 7D does have the (slightly) faster burst mode and, more importantly, a deeper buffer. It also has the two additional AF modes which, although often overlooked, can be extremely useful for the "action" shooter. I'd be in a tough, tough place if I was buying new for the first time!!!! The 70D I think wins overall, incorporating new technology, but I'd really miss the deeper buffer and extra AF modes!

Regarding the D7100 vs 70D, vs 7D comparison, I think it largely depends on what you're shooting and in what conditions. Many have stated that the D7100 is probably the better "stills" camera, but I believe that is a statement that needs clarification and qualification. I think if I was shooting under low light, the D7100 sensor does have some advantages, which has been covered extensively. I very much agree with the earlier post however, that people often overstate the DR issue, ignoring the Canon system's other strengths. It certainly does seem to be a case of people fixating on the "C" and ignoring the A's"! Given that it is designed, like the 70D, for action shooting, I'd say the D7100's biggest downfall is the shallow buffer, even for JPEG shooting. This seems to be the biggest Achilles heel for an otherwise outstanding camera. Another interesting comparison between the 70D and the D7100 also revolves around AF systems. Many reviewers seem to fixate on the fact that the D7100 has 51 AF points vs only 19 on the 70D, and thus automatically give the D7100 the nod. However, it’s less simple that that—only 15 of the D7100s AF points are cross-type, whilst all 19 of the 70D’s are cross-type. Moreover, what really matters is how well they work in real life. 

There is an interesting review at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOM4r1gxsbs. There doesn’t seem to be much to choose from in terms of AF accuracy for side-moving subjects, but the tests definitely give the edge to the 70D when it comes to advancing or receding subjects. I think it’s interesting how Canon and Nikon appear to fluctuate when it comes to various parameters of camera design, but it does seem , from a number of comparisons I’ve read or viewed, that Canon has gained a slight edge in AF speed and accuracy over the last few years, beginning with the 1DX. The review also covers the difference in buffers. Unfortunately, the reviewer only covers JPEG and RAW+JPEG buffers. I’d have liked to have seen a RAW only comparison as well, as the 70D is reputed to be good for 15 or 16 RAW shots before the buffer fills, which is certainly not bad! 

In the end, I would say I’m happy with my 7D overall. Yes, I’d love to get something that has an even better AF system and better IQ. The 70D appears to deliver, but not sufficiently for me to consider it. The much anticipated 7D Mark II is the beast for which I am yearning! It’s possible that a 70D might end up in my bag, way down the road when the price is lower—it might make a better second body to go with the 7D Mark II than my 7D will, and give me a much better “tilt screen” camera than my T3i ( I will always want to have at least one SLR with a tilt screen!). If I was going to advise someone on deciding between the 7D vs 70D, I’d probably recommend the 70D given that it has better sharpness, noise –control and newer technology, such as DPAF. Unless of course they needed maximum durability and a much deeper buffer, in which case I’d say the 7D is still very difficult to beat. The 7D may be an “old” horse it the unforgiving technology race---but it’s STILL a damn FINE horse!!!!


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2014)

100 said:


> So all in all (pattern) noise of Canon sensors can be a problem under specific and rather exceptional circumstances. Scenes with a dynamic range between 11 and 13 stops where bracketing (hdr) isn’t an option, you don’t want blown highlights and still need to push the shadows more than 2 stops.


I don't think we're really arguing from opposite directions here. 
I have plenty of good images taken with the lower DR Canons and find I can even push shadows from my 60D a reasonable amount before banding is a problem. My 40D files can be pushed even futher if needed.
My kind of landscape shooting often requires some DR compression to make into a suitable print, especially if the print is to be displayed in low lighting conditions. FWIW, my 60D has provided me with the greatest number of excellent sunlit landscape files so far.

Banding on my 7D it was much worse and my 5d2 sometimes showed banding in smooth midtones or even slightly raised lower midtones. I just wrote the latter two off as inadequate for my needs and got rid of them. I was really disappointed with the low ISO performance of both of those cameras, to put it mildly. They were fine for high ISO.
To replace the 5d2, the d800 was the better choice for my kind of shooting at the time and I will retain them until I find some shortcoming ... none as yet unless I count the oil blobs that ended up on my sensors after a 1000+ shots.
I'm still waiting for a 7D replacement option, primarily for advanced AF and speed but also has to have good low ISO performance, if possible. The 70D almost fits that gap but I actually want a step up in AF performance from the original, and very good, 7D.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> And you have hit the nail on the head.... You can take any current DSLR...Nikon, Sony, Canon, whatever.... And take wonderful pictures... The differences are minimal to the average user.




This gets brought up in these discussions regularly, but it's not really saying anything at all, is it?

Every camera technological debate thread can end with "all cameras take nice pictures". 

But a site such as this operates within a tech-context, and tech thrives on incremental improvement. So saying "the difference is minimal" over an over in every thread along with other platitudes dilutes the discussion.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > And you have hit the nail on the head.... You can take any current DSLR...Nikon, Sony, Canon, whatever.... And take wonderful pictures... The differences are minimal to the average user.
> ...


Yes, but every now and then we should remind ourselves that we are dealing with incremental improvements, not life-and-death or earthshattering revelations.....


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 10, 2014)

I don't know about you guys, but I heartily welcome improvements in DSLR tech that pushes further away from what smart phones are capable of, regardless of brand loyalty (perceived or not). 

I cheered when I first saw the results from the Sony sensors (rather than trying to minimalize it), because in the end, it's good for all of us.


----------



## Otara (Feb 10, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > And you have hit the nail on the head.... You can take any current DSLR...Nikon, Sony, Canon, whatever.... And take wonderful pictures... The differences are minimal to the average user.
> ...



The particular tech matters though, particularly when advising on buying options to comparatively uninformed people - HiFi is dead to most people as an important thing to argue over, while CPU or videocards can be shown to have quite large differences for instance.

For most people, digital camera advances are getting smaller and smaller over time, particularly with more automated editting and the main display format being screens rather than print. Making it clear that the practical difference means you cant lose can be rather helpful for people anxious about whether they have to worry too much.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Steb said:
> 
> 
> > For me it was the other way around. I decided end of last year to buy a 7D after comparing it with a 70D. I already own a 5D3 and from an ergonomic point of view the 7D body is a perfect match, the 70D clearly has a reduced feature set here. And since I only use the raw files I don't care about the better processing with newer DIGIC. Raw noise performance is no different between the two models. IMHO the only real advantages for the 70D are the new video features and the sooc picture quality. If you don't need any of those you get better build quality and better ergonomics with the 7D.
> ...



I'll back this one up. The 7D's best and worst feature is it's AF. It was revolutionary at the time, but it has an intrinsic jitter that eats away at least 2fps from the frame rate from a keepers standpoint.

If your buying a camera today, pick the 70D. Better IQ overall, better noise quality, more stable AF system.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

Aglet said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > So all in all (pattern) noise of Canon sensors can be a problem under specific and rather exceptional circumstances. Scenes with a dynamic range between 11 and 13 stops where bracketing (hdr) isn’t an option, you don’t want blown highlights and still need to push the shadows more than 2 stops.
> ...



I normally use my 7D at higher ISO settings (between 800 and 2500), however I have done some landscape work with it. The 7D's worst performing ISO is 400. This is when the vertical banding problem shows up most, and because dynamic range is two stops lower than ISO 100, your most likely to run into it...and it DOES show up in the midtones at ISO 400.

I'm in the same boat with deciding what to do next. The 70D doesn't quite meet my needs...I'm VERY demanding on the body, and really need as much weather sealing as I can get. A better AF system, with more points, as well as a high frame rate are also very useful. I've been waiting for the 7D II, however seeing as I also do landscapes and astrophotography, I'm thinking the 5D III may be the better option. 

For those who don't need professional-grade features, the 70D is the better option than the 7D today.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Grrr Not sure why the site thought I "forgot my password" when I quite emphatically DIDN'T forget it, but now that I've gotten my rant that is tangent to the topic out of the way....
> 
> I've owned a 7D for about a year and a half now. I find the 70D vs 7D to be an interesting comparison. When it was announced that the 70D would have "the same" 19 point AF system as the 7D, I wondered that was really the case or if its Servo accuracy would be improved. The LensRentals results showing that the new AF systems in the 1DX and 5D Mark III had massive improvements in Servo tracking, even against such heavy hitters as the 1D Mark IV, so I thought it might be likely that the 70D's system would be more accurate. Based on various reviews, and posts CR, I'm satisfied that it has been substantially improved, despite being labelled "the same." I'm definitely +1 in the camp that AF is crucial to IQ. A clean out of focus image, is still and OOF image!
> 
> ...



+1 Thanks for the thoughts and perspective! 

The 7D is definitely getting dated, but it is a "fine horse", as you put it. I still use a 7D for all of my work. I've put off buying a new camera for a good long while now, waiting for the 7D II. It's getting pretty tough to keep putting off a purchase, however, as the IQ race just marches on past me, and I'm always on the hunt for better and better IQ wherever I can find it. 

Sometimes you need to give that fine old horse a rest from the racetrack, and put a faster, prettier, younger horse on the track instead. ;-) 

For anyone just buying their first horse, I'd say skip the 7D and get the 70D.


----------



## abcde12345 (Feb 12, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?
> 
> Worth considering because the D7100 is cheaper than the 70D.


Honest answer: D7100 is much better than 7D, however I'm not sure about 70D. It is a no brainer: Canon is screwing its customers with the entry-level cameras. Just look at D5300 and D7100; I drool whenever I see my friends use a D7100: straight-out-of-camera-JPEG is amazing. 70D boasts a new technology, so I'm not too sure.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3



This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.


----------



## jrista (Feb 14, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.
> ...



RAW:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 14, 2014)

Thanks.

7D is going on Craigslist for a new 70D.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 14, 2014)

To be honest I prefer the results from my NEX-6 over the 7D. Even the NEX-6 high iso's have a nice 'grain' to them, while the 7D gets all blotchy... So for now it's 5Dx full frame or Sony APS-C for me.... (and I'm a little worried about Sony full frame, but the Canon bodies are ergonomically just too excellent)....


----------



## Snaps (Feb 15, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.
> ...



Personally, it's not THAT substantial. Yes, there's a difference, but it's not the difference between using cheap glass versus expensive glass. Just my opinion, anyway.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 17, 2014)

Snaps said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I say it is substantial...to the point that I'm wondering if all of this difference is solely due to the AA filter and slightly higher pixel density (and newer processing)? Or is it more due to sample variation of lenses, or a bit of human inaccuracy with focusing? I guess there are a number of factors in play...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...in my opinion. Because like it or not, there is sample variation, even among the best, most expensive lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> ...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...



While Bryan often tests multiple copies of lenses (presumably keeping the best one, he knows about sample variation, too), the 200/2 is part of his personal collection and AFAIK it's the same copy of the lens used for all tests. I could ask him (or you could), if you're curious...


----------



## jrista (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > ...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...
> ...



I am pretty sure it's the same lens he uses for the 200mm samples. The entire point was that they all used exactly the same lens so that lens variation could be eliminated as a variable. Bryan has always been rather meticulous, I know he's mentioned in past reviews how many times he had to send a lens back to get a good copy.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > ...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...
> ...



If it's the same copy, then that would remove a large part of what might otherwise be causing a difference (in my opinion)...that was all I was saying. I was not criticizing Bryan at all; I like his website, have looked at it for a few years now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> If it's the same copy, then that would remove a large part of what might otherwise be causing a difference (in my opinion)...that was all I was saying. I was not criticizing Bryan at all; I like his website, have looked at it for a few years now.



It's a good point you made, that while the difference between the 70D and 7D is significant, it's far less than the difference between an excellent lens and a relatively poor lens (e.g. this comparison).


----------



## Snaps (Feb 20, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Snaps said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



I know there are differences. I guess what I'm getting at is the differences are only really noticeable at the pixel level and by comparing side by side. Don't get me wrong, overall I would consider the 70D a better camera than the 7D (and I own a 7D), but for myself, it's not enough to warrant an upgrade. But one thing I will add is this is perhaps encouraging for the 7D Mark II, as if the 70D is a starting point to what the former will become. 

Like I said, just my thoughts.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 22, 2014)

Snaps said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Snaps said:
> ...



I see what you mean. The problem is though, that the 7D2 will possibly cost almost as much as a 5D3 (recently got down to a hair over $2500). The 7D2 will only be valuable for use with extremely sharp telephoto lenses, and not much else...in my opinion. Why? Its pixels at 24 MP on a 1.6x sensor, will be very critical of a lens, and of focus accuracy. It will be a waste to use it on most EF-S lenses. So, they should just make it a 1.3x, or 1.2x crop sensor instead...with larger pixels...but still with a total of 24 MP or more. Why won't they do that? Because then it would cut into the overall performance a bit of the 1DX and 5D3, and would necessarily cost more than the 5D3 to boot. Oh well...perhaps the 1DX ii will have an in camera crop feature to accomplish something similar. It just won't have enough MP to make as much use of it.


----------



## philmoz (Feb 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You picked the wrong username for this forum.

You should have used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dilbert_characters#Topper


----------



## Snaps (Feb 24, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Snaps said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Do we even know for sure the 7D MK2 will have a 24MP sensor though? I understand some of the rumors say that, but I'm skeptical it'll be 24MP. I actually think it'll simply be an upgraded 70D sensor with either Dual DIGIC 5+ or maybe the DIGIC 6 even. But we'll out for sure in the coming months.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 24, 2014)

Snaps said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Snaps said:
> ...



That's possible. But if that's the case, the 70D is going to be seen as even more of a bargain, in my opinion.


----------



## TheJock (Feb 25, 2014)

I hope you all don’t mind me asking a question relating to the 70D here.

The image quality at the zoom end of my Sigma 150-500 is poor on my current 550D, but once I buy a 70D next month do you think the 70D will provide slightly better IQ with this lens than my 550D??? Just wondering if the very knowledgeable folks on here think that the new technology in the 70D would improve the lenses capabilities.

As always, grateful for any comments/opinions 

Stewart


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 25, 2014)

TheJock said:


> Just wondering if the very knowledgeable folks on here think that the new technology in the 70D would improve the lenses capabilities.



Yes, a bit, the 70d has a bit more resolution, a bit less weaker aa filter (= more sharpness) and a bit less iso noise (= more detail after noise reduction). But make no mistake, basically it's a wash, the 18mp sensor of your 550d isn't much different from Canon's latest incarnation... the worth of the 70d is elsewhere (better usability than Rebel, phase & lv af system, more fps).


----------



## TheJock (Feb 25, 2014)

Thanks Marsu42, I'm just wondering if I should sell the Sigma to fund other lenses, but if IQ will improve it may serve my purposes better on the 70D, I don’t want to jump the gun and sell a lens which may noticeably improve to my untrained eye!! 8)


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 25, 2014)

TheJock said:


> I'm just wondering if I should sell the Sigma to fund other lenses



Right, as you were talking of the long end (just read your post again) I have to correct myself: it doesn't look like the *wide end* is outresolved if stopped down to f8 and could be a *slight* improvement on 70d. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=683&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

But tbh the *long end* at 500m is extremely ultra-crappy, and an upgrade to 70d won't benefit you at all - so if you actually use it for tele shooting, do yourself a favor and buy a 70-300L, keeping your 550d.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 25, 2014)

TheJock said:


> I hope you all don’t mind me asking a question relating to the 70D here.
> 
> The image quality at the zoom end of my Sigma 150-500 is poor on my current 550D, but once I buy a 70D next month do you think the 70D will provide slightly better IQ with this lens than my 550D??? Just wondering if the very knowledgeable folks on here think that the new technology in the 70D would improve the lenses capabilities.
> 
> ...



I haven't tried that lens, but I feel comfortable my Sigma 120-400 would not run out of resolution at 400mm with a 70D mounted, based on just my experience with the 50D on it in the past. Of course, this lens at 400mm is extremely sharp, at least for everything closer than 200 feet or so. If the subject is half a mile away, then it's possible the lens might not make full use of the 70D's resolution.


----------



## TheJock (Feb 26, 2014)

Thanks for the comments guys, I like the Digital Picture comparison charts, but they just don’t drum in “real life” comparisons that I can draw from.
Do you think that keeping my Sigma back a little at the 400mm level and increasing the ISO ( like 400-800) and aperture to f8 or narrower will offer me better clarity on the 70D body? Just a thought as I think I’ll be able to get away with those settings in most cases as it’s full on sunshine here 365 days a year! 8) Ultimately I’d love to own a 300mmL prime with a 1.4X and a 2X convertor, but that’ll be next years challenge. I think you’ve answered my question regarding the 70D's IQ, I’ve set my heart on it and will be buying one next month, hopefully before I go to Berlin!! I’ve also managed to bag myself a mint condition 24-105L so I’ll be in a good place in a couple of months


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2014)

TheJock said:


> Do you think that keeping my Sigma back a little at the 400mm level and increasing the ISO ( like 400-800) and aperture to f8 or narrower will offer me better clarity on the 70D body?



Nope, the lens is already outresolved esp. on crop, the tiny sensor difference will be lost. You'll get 2mp more of blur though  ... face it - there are no good and inexpensive 400-500mm tele zooms, it's better to crop a good 300mm. Btw all I can look at are the charts, and I don't see any reasons why the conclusion shouldn't be valid.


----------



## jrista (Feb 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> TheJock said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that keeping my Sigma back a little at the 400mm level and increasing the ISO ( like 400-800) and aperture to f8 or narrower will offer me better clarity on the 70D body?
> ...



Sigh. The message just doesn't seem to sink in. 

There is no such thing as sensors outresolving lenses or lenses outresolving sensors. Output resolution, the measurable resolution of your _images_, is the RMS of the resolutions of the components involved in producing the image. Lenses, additionally, are non-linear. At some apertures their intrinsic resolving power may be less than the sensor, and at other apertures, it may be more (sometimes MUCH more) than the sensor. By increasing sensor or lens resolution, regardless of which one is doing better, will still increase output resolution. (And we are still quite far away from diminishing returns yet, so increasing sensor resolution is still the cheapest way to increase output resolution.)

As for the comment about there not being any good inexpensive 400-500mm zooms, I beg to differ. The Tamron 150-600mm has been tested and demonstrated to be quite good for it's class. It's no EF 600mm f/4 L II, but it is the closest thing your going to get, and there is really no alternative for good optical reach. Even at f/8, a 600mm lens is going to increase subject area by 2.25x relative to a 400mm lens. It would increase subject area by a full factor of 4x relative to a 300mm lens. The fact that the lens is diffraction limited at that point is irrelevant. There is absolutely no way that an upsampled 300mm crop is ever going to compare to an uncropped, unscaled 600mm image. Simply not going to happen. You can't overcome four times as many pixels on subject.



TheJock said:


> Thanks for the comments guys, I like the Digital Picture comparison charts, but they just don’t drum in “real life” comparisons that I can draw from.
> Do you think that keeping my Sigma back a little at the 400mm level and increasing the ISO ( like 400-800) and aperture to f8 or narrower will offer me better clarity on the 70D body? Just a thought as I think I’ll be able to get away with those settings in most cases as it’s full on sunshine here 365 days a year! 8) Ultimately I’d love to own a 300mmL prime with a 1.4X and a 2X convertor, but that’ll be next years challenge. I think you’ve answered my question regarding the 70D's IQ, I’ve set my heart on it and will be buying one next month, hopefully before I go to Berlin!! I’ve also managed to bag myself a mint condition 24-105L so I’ll be in a good place in a couple of months



If you have the 300mm f/2.8 L, then you already have a superb lens. Using a 2x TC is easy, and at 600mm you have four times the detail on your subject. Regarding aperture, use the aperture you need to get the necessary DOF. Don't worry too much about ISO, especially at ISO 400-800. The 70D should do quite well up to ISO 1600. It is only when you get beyond ISO 1600 that your IQ may start to degrade enough that you might need to be concerned, however the 70D is sharper than the 7D, and sharpness eats noise for breakfast. (Background blur, on the otherhand, tends to be eaten by noise for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, but blurry backgrounds are super easy to clean up, so it really doesn't matter much.)

If you need reach (i.e. you shoot birds or wildlife), then there is really no substitute for optical magnification. Raw focal length is your best friend. Backing off your focal length from longer to shorter is actually a bad idea. Instead of thinking about upsampling a crop from a shorter lens, think about downsampling the full image from a longer lens. No matter how you slice it, a downsampled image from a longer focal length will have more detail and less or equivalent noise to any image shot at a shorter focal length.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> By increasing sensor or lens resolution, regardless of which one is doing better, will still increase output resolution. (And we are still quite far away from diminishing returns yet, so increasing sensor resolution is still the cheapest way to increase output resolution.)



I admit I don't understand what you're saying, paying €1100 for 2mp has to have big effect, or it sounds like diminishing return to me. But I understand you're saying this body upgrade will have make an actually visible difference on the long end of the said Sigma lens? Well, in that case I admit I have to take back my recommendation to get a better lens instead and the op should go ahead and confidently buy a 70d, sorry.



jrista said:


> As for the comment about there not being any good inexpensive 400-500mm zooms, I beg to differ. The Tamron 150-600mm has been tested and demonstrated to be quite good for it's class.



Indeed, this lens is so recent I didn't even know it - thanks for the information, last time I looked everything above -400mm zooms was either not affordable or crappy.


----------



## jrista (Feb 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > By increasing sensor or lens resolution, regardless of which one is doing better, will still increase output resolution. (And we are still quite far away from diminishing returns yet, so increasing sensor resolution is still the cheapest way to increase output resolution.)
> ...



It sounded like the op already had the 300mm f/2.8 L and both TCs. Given that, there is really no reason to buy another lens...they already have one of the best lens setups they can get. Moving to a 70D from a 7D would indeed help IQ. It is more than just the 2mp. The FWC has been increased by a fairly considerable amount (30%!!), and because of the weaker AA filter (which could pose a problem for close up shots of birds where their feathers are super clear, but I get the feeling the OP won't be getting that close) the overall image will be sharper. Noise is at it's worst with soft detail. When detail is sharper, noise becomes harder to differentiate from real detail, so from a PERCEPTUAL standpoint, it doesn't appear as bad (even though in statistical terms, it may be just as bad or worse.) 

So yes, I really do believe the OP could see an IQ improvement by moving to the 70D from the 7D. It doesn't sound like much, but there are several improvements with the 70D that should make it worth it.



Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > As for the comment about there not being any good inexpensive 400-500mm zooms, I beg to differ. The Tamron 150-600mm has been tested and demonstrated to be quite good for it's class.
> ...



AlanF did a review here on the forums, and along with official testing elsewhere, it sounds like the lens is quite good for it's class: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.0

Still, if the OP already has the 300/2.8 L and TCs, then I see no reason to move to a different lens...he already has some of the best, period.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> It sounded like the op already had the 300mm f/2.8 L and both TCs.



Nope, the "op" I'm refering to is the one asking the question a few posts above, he's just got the Sigma: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19381.msg372844#msg372844




jrista said:


> Given that, there is really no reason to buy another lens...they already have one of the best lens setups they can get. Moving to a 70D from a 7D would indeed help IQ. It is more than just the 2mp. The FWC has been increased by a fairly considerable amount (30%!!), and because of the weaker AA filter (which could pose a problem for close up shots of birds where their feathers are super clear, but I get the feeling the OP won't be getting that close) the overall image will be sharper.



That's about what I wrote, but only before I looked at the iso crop chart and saw how crappy the Sigma really is at 500mm :-o ... but I guess we cannot really say unless someone actually takes some sample shot on both 550d & 70d with this lens.


----------



## jrista (Feb 27, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It sounded like the op already had the 300mm f/2.8 L and both TCs.
> ...



Oh. Well, that wouldn't be the "Original Post" then, as (at least as far as I know), that only refers to the "original" post that started the thread.  



Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Given that, there is really no reason to buy another lens...they already have one of the best lens setups they can get. Moving to a 70D from a 7D would indeed help IQ. It is more than just the 2mp. The FWC has been increased by a fairly considerable amount (30%!!), and because of the weaker AA filter (which could pose a problem for close up shots of birds where their feathers are super clear, but I get the feeling the OP won't be getting that close) the overall image will be sharper.
> ...



Oh, yeah. The 150-500 is definitely not great wide open. I'd sell that, and buy the Tamron 150-600 instead. FAR better results, although it still isn't going to be a 300/2.8 L + 2x TC.

If you have to shoot wide open with the 150-500, then it really doesn't matter what camera your using. The lens is so aberration limited at max aperture that your better off stopping down to f/8 for diffraction limited performance.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> If you have to shoot wide open with the 150-500, then it really doesn't matter what camera your using. The lens is so aberration limited at max aperture that your better off stopping down to f/8 for diffraction limited performance.



Good we at least agree on the conclusion and in the future I'll search/replace every "outresolved" I intent to write with "abberation limited" :-> ...

... no, really, thanks a lot for your great explanations in the forum, I'm really learning a lot around here - some urban myths just tend to stick if you hear them often enough, and I'm not engineer enough to tell one from the other.


----------



## TheJock (Feb 27, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ... but I guess we cannot really say unless someone actually takes some sample shot on both 550d & 70d with this lens.


I’m beside myself with the excitement that I might actually be able to offer you guys some factual consumer advise (with evidence) between the 550D & 70D + Sigma 150-500 in a month or 2 
Thankis for all your help guys 8)


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 27, 2014)

TheJock said:


> I’m beside myself with the excitement that I might actually be able to offer you guys some factual consumer advise (with evidence)



Oh my, looking forward towards that (please upload the raw images somewhere in any case, ideally shoot a chart on tripod with mirror lockup & contrast af in live view)! Though having some real life comparisons is a somewhat novel idea around here, we're much to busy comparing data sheets & specs


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> TheJock said:
> 
> 
> > I’m beside myself with the excitement that I might actually be able to offer you guys some factual consumer advise (with evidence)
> ...



I think manual live view focus would be better than live view AF.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> I think manual live view focus would be better than live view AF.



Actually the best option is using Magic Lantern's live view 10x zoom, and then mf


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I think manual live view focus would be better than live view AF.
> ...



Why is it better than Canon's 10x live view?


----------



## TheJock (Feb 28, 2014)

Couldn't wait, just bought it tonight, watch this space tomorrow


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 28, 2014)

Really dont know where people are coming from over AF performance on the 7d Ive never had an issue. Noise is noticable in low light and by comparision to my 6d shows not only how bad it is but how it destroys image sharpness and contrast. 
Where I work we have Canon 5D MKIII cameras and the 6d image wise cannot be seperated or I would say maybe even slightly better in low light. The 6d has been slammed over the 11 AF points with on the centre cross type but again in practise so far Ive founds no issues. Thankfully most of my lenses are full frame with only three lenses EF-S so it was not a big deal to go full frame.


----------



## TheJock (Mar 1, 2014)

This was the first image taken with my 70D, I really think the IQ of my Sigma 150-500 is better than on the 550D, the settings were a bit mad (ISO 1000, f8, 640sec at 500mm), but hey ho!!
In LOVE with the 70D  
This is a juvenile male Sunbird


----------

