# 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)



## Hillsilly (Oct 28, 2011)

Hi. I'll probably pick up a new camera next year, and am weighing up the pros and cons of APS-C vs FF. I'm curious - why is there so much interest in the 5Diii compared with a 7Dii? A 5Diii with 7D build, AF and speed would seem to be many people's dream come true. I appreciate many of the benefits of FF - shallower depth of field, less noise at higher ISOs etc. But with all of the hype, you start to think that the only benefit of the APS-C sensor is the lower price and 1.6x crop for longer lenses, but for everything else it is an inferior product. If a 5Diii was virtually identical to a 7Dii except it had more megapixels on a larger sensor, would the joys and benefits of using a FF camera really be that noticeable in the real world? Do people who have made the switch from APS-C to FF agree that it is the best decision that they've ever made and wish they had done it sooner? Or after making the change, have you been left wondering what all the fuss is about? Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.


----------



## Fleetie (Oct 28, 2011)

Well here are a few thoughts, that pertain to the situation (as currently obtains) where the FF camera has larger pixels than the crop camera does (e.g. 5D2/1DX vs. 7D):

Advantages of FF vs. crop:

* Shallower DOF for equivalent framing, i.e. more OOF blur
* Lenses will appear "sharper" around the centre of the frame, cos the pixels are larger, so in optimum focus, any blur spreads across fewer pixels
* Better high-ISO performance and better dynamic range (DR)

Disadvantages of FF relative to crop:

* More vignetting
* Poorer sharpness and CA around the corners and edges of images; lenses' weaknesses more evident
* Less reach for a given lens; this affects telephotos most. May need teleconverters or MUCH more expensive and heavier lenses to reclaim the lost reach
* FF bodies are currently more expensive


Despite all of the above, I'll be going FF for my next camera, but keeping my 7D rather than selling it; mainly for improved low-light/high-ISO performance and increased OOF blur.

I just *wish* that there would be a camera that could see in the dark, like the 1DX, but in a 7D/5D2 style body, rather than a huge 1D style body. I can't drag a body like a 1DX around on my shoulder all day. A 1DX body is too big to carry around as a general-purpose camera, IMO. So I am hoping the 5D3 will have good low-light performance.


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Oct 28, 2011)

With my recent switch from APS-C to FF, I must say I am impressed. I sold my 60D and kept my 7D (good choice on keeping yours as well) making a 7D and 5D mk ll combo wonderful. It was difficult at first to get used to a FF, and shooting with one is certainly a different feeling. All of the lenses used on a crop sensor are suddenly renewed on a FF. I wouldn't say it was the best decision I have ever made, but it was right up there... The best decision I ever made was upgrading to L series glass!


----------



## Tonji (Oct 28, 2011)

If you are planning to buy a 7d or a 5dmk2 and you are asking which produces better images then my answer would be the 5d mk2.

I have had both of them.

I like the 5dmk2 files a lot more than the 7d files.


Good luck on your purchase.


----------



## Flake (Oct 28, 2011)

Why so much more interest in the 5D MkIII well it's because the MKII is a bit long in the tooth and a replacement is expected before the 7D MkII which is quite a bit younger.

The difference between the two might be better expressed as uses rather than technical. 5D MkII better for portraits, landscapes, and architecture, perhaps some low light work.
7D better for sports, and action, wildlife, macro, any kind of 'papping'

Some of the differences are accounted for by the sensor size, but there's also the autofocus system which is not wonderful on the 5D MkII


----------



## Cetalis (Oct 28, 2011)

FFs also have bigger viewfinders. APS-Cs can potentially weigh less and take up less space.

Diffraction hits APS-Cs earlier, though the shorter DoF on FFs runs both ways.

As for the overused fast midrange zooms, 17-55 has IS, the 24-70 is heavier but has weather sealing.

Right now, there are no light superzooms on FF and no dedicated ultrawide primes on APS-C.

Still, after all is said and done, I haven't yet heard of a single person who voluntarily left FF.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 28, 2011)

70-300L is a pretty good zoom for the ff people.

I have a 5DII and 2 7D's. The better IQ from the 5DII is clearly visible - but as said the 1.6 crop works

When out doing nature shooting I have the 2 7d's hanging from an RS2 strap - one with the 70-200L 2.8 II and the other 400 f2.8IS. 

On the other have the landscapes from the 5DII with the 400 are simply stunning.

Different tools for different jobs. The 1DX for me would replace the 5DII - not the 7D


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 28, 2011)

I am not a huge 7d fan, mainly because of the low light noise and how it ruined some of my images during last years cold snap in Eastern Europe... I used the 7d because of the weatherproofing and found it lacking due to the low light. BUT i've also had some good times with it... I'm just holding a grudge! Obviously the low light issue is because it's a different breed of sensor to the 5d2.

However it is a fantastic spare body for a 5d2 user. With same batteries & chargers, memory cards, and such a similar body it makes things very easy for a 5d2 user. They also compliment each other with the fast fps and the great AF, two areas where 5d users find their camera is not ideal.

I have noticed in signatures how many people have the 5d2 + 7d combo... I think it is a clever move for Canon to do the same similar characteristics. While a lot of pro & prosumers will not have the money to justify two 5d's they can justify a camera that can not only act as a spare but compliment their FF baby.

High chance that I'll upgrade all my bodies to their new models when they are released (assuming they follow an acceptable technological progression)

BACK TO THE OP - I find the 5d far superior in colours as well. I can take an identical shot with both cameras and just find the 5d really gives far better colours. I know it's subjective and a personal thing.

Do you know what i really love on the 5d over the 7d?.... The shutter noise... it's such a full, solid shutter noise.. and really is an addictive noise when you are shooting... whereas the 7d is a bit more of an electronic noise.... I know it's stupid.. am i the only one that loves that noise?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> A 5Diii with 7D build, AF and speed would seem to be many people's dream come true....If a 5Diii was virtually identical to a 7Dii except it had more megapixels on a larger sensor



Yes, it would be a dream come true - except that it's a dream that will go 'pop' and disappear when everyone wakes up in the morning (probably some distant morning) and sees the specs of the real 5DIII. Hey, I'd like a 5DIII with better-than-7D build, better-than-7D AF, and better-than-7D speed, still full frame, and I'd like it to cost about the same as the current 5DII. Oh, wait, except for that last little point, that's the 1D X. See the problem with comparing dreams? 

As Flake stated, people are interested in the 5DIII in part because it's been a while since the 5DII came out. The assumption that a 5DII replacement will have '7D build, AF and speed' is unwarranted, because Canon will need to differentiate the 5DIII from the 1D X on features to justify the price difference of ~$4K (or they'll minimize the price gap and charge $4K for the 5DIII but I really don't see that happeneing). So, people won't get their 'dream camera'.

Same for the 7DII - no one's talking much about that one, but it will probably not improve too much on the 7D. My guess would be more MP (21-24), maybe the articulating display, same basic AF, Digic V (likely x2), new metering sensor (which will contribute to AF, so that will be the AF improvement), and that's likely it. 

Instead, let's compare real cameras - 5DII to 7D. I think Fleetie summed up the main advantages and disadvantages. For me, the 1.3-stop better ISO noise performance is the key - on the 7D, ISO 1600 is barely tolerable, on the 5DII, ISO 3200 is decent. 



Flake said:


> The difference between the two might be better expressed as uses rather than technical. 5D MkII better for portraits, landscapes, and architecture, perhaps some low light work.
> 7D better for sports, and action, wildlife, macro



Flake is correct - it comes down to use cases, more than tech (although I disagree on the macro part, where the 5DII is a better choice than the 7D - 1:1 is the same size regardless of sensor, and I'd rather have a 1:1 image captures a 2.6x larger area).

I had the 7D before getting the 5DII. Since getting the 5DII, 90% of my shots have been taken with the FF body. The 7D has been used almost exclusively for birds/wildlife shooting. If all I did was birds/wildlife, I would have neither the 7D nor 5DII, but a 1D IV - and I'd keep it over the 1D X for that use. But like briansquibb, I see the 1D X as replacing my 5DII, and I'll be keeping my 7D.


----------



## Flake (Oct 28, 2011)

Allow me to explain the Macro comment.

1:1 is the same on both FF & crop, but that means that the frame is filled on the crop before it is on the FF, in fact to get the same apparant magnification you need to use 1.6X. Of course you can crop the image but then you run into another of the 7Ds strengths, pixel density.

If you want to preserve the image then either fill the frame at 1.6x macro and lose the depth of field, or crop and lose the resolution.

That's why a camera like the 7D is better for macro than the 5D MkII


----------



## moreorless (Oct 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Same for the 7DII - no one's talking much about that one, but it will probably not improve too much on the 7D. My guess would be more MP (21-24), maybe the articulating display, same basic AF, Digic V (likely x2), new metering sensor (which will contribute to AF, so that will be the AF improvement), and that's likely it.
> 
> Instead, let's compare real cameras - 5DII to 7D. I think Fleetie summed up the main advantages and disadvantages. For me, the 1.3-stop better ISO noise performance is the key - on the 7D, ISO 1600 is barely tolerable, on the 5DII, ISO 3200 is decent.



To me the move that would make the most sense is keeping the 7D mk2 at 18 megapixels and focusing on ISO while the 5D mk3 pushes megapixels.

Yes it would mean Canon would give ground to Sony and Nikon on MP in the crop market but ISO performance seems to the suit the 7D much better than pure resolution(indeed the crop market generally). It also sends a clear(and honiest) message "if you want high megapixels in good quality move to FF" thus potentially encouraging more crop users to upgrade.

Plus of course a high megapixel 5D mk3 will likely have inferior ISO and FPS performance compaired to the 1DX those cutting down the risk of losing sales on the latter. It would put the 7D somewhat into competision with the 1DX but I don't see that being as dangerous as having two FF bodies with specs that overlap.


----------



## Benhider (Oct 28, 2011)

Don't buy any Kingston Card... it is slow. Slower than a cheaper Lexar or Sandisk!


----------



## traveller (Oct 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> As Flake stated, people are interested in the 5DIII in part because it's been a while since the 5DII came out. The assumption that a 5DII replacement will have '7D build, AF and speed' is unwarranted, because Canon will need to differentiate the 5DIII from the 1D X on features to justify the price difference of ~$4K (or they'll minimize the price gap and charge $4K for the 5DIII but I really don't see that happeneing). So, people won't get their 'dream camera'.



I'm sure that Canon will want to find some way of differentiating between the 1D X and a future 5D MkIII, but hobbling the build an AF is likely to lead to trouble. I think that current 5D MkII owners are more than a bit annoyed with Canon that there have now been a succession of much cheaper cameras with better AF systems. In addition, the 5D MkII is not regarded overly well in terms of weather resistance compared with say, the D700 (not so great for a "landscape camera"). A 5D MkIII will be up against a D800 and I think that quite a few 5D MkII owners and potential upgraders, will be reconsidering their brand choice if the 5D MkIII fails to address some of its predecessor's weaknesses.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 28, 2011)

> To me the move that would make the most sense is keeping the 7D mk2 at 18 megapixels and focusing on ISO while the 5D mk3 pushes megapixels...
> 
> ... It also sends a clear(and honest) message "if you want high megapixels in good quality move to FF" thus potentially encouraging more crop users to upgrade.
> 
> Plus of course a high megapixel 5D mk3 will likely have inferior ISO and FPS performance compared to the 1DX those cutting down the risk of losing sales on the latter. It would put the 7D somewhat into competition with the 1DX but I don't see that being as dangerous as having two FF bodies with specs that overlap.



Partially agree. I too like the idea of keeping the next 7D at or about the same megapixels and focusing on improved image quality. In fact, I think that may be an excellent way to differentiate the 7D from the 60D and Rebels (they get the high density sensors and the 7D keeps the same megapixels, but with improved IQ -- very similar to what people expect with 1DX and 5DIII.

I disagree though, that it would put the 7D in competition with the 1DX. Rather, I see them as being complementary. Buy the 1DX for full-on full-frame, tank-like durability and highest quality images, buy the 7D to add extra reach when you need it.

Instead, I wonder if it would cause the 7D to erode 5D sales, especially if the 5D goes up to 30+ megapixels. 

Don't know. Just speculating.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2011)

Flake said:


> 1:1 is the same on both FF & crop, but that means that the frame is filled on the crop before it is on the FF, in fact to get the same apparant magnification you need to use 1.6X. Of course you can crop the image but then you run into another of the 7Ds strengths, pixel density.
> 
> If you want to preserve the image then either fill the frame at 1.6x macro and lose the depth of field, or crop and lose the resolution.
> 
> That's why a camera like the 7D is better for macro than the 5D MkII



Maybe I'm not understanding something here, but I'm still not seeing it. When a macro lens is at 1:1, it's projecting a life-sized view at the image plane, without regard to what type of sensor/film is at that image plane. Granted, there's more apparent magnification (i.e. more pixles per unit area) with a 7D vs a 5DII, but that's solely a function of pixel density, so if you compared a 5DII with a 20/30D (same pixel density), you'd have the same magnification.

I'm not sure how the "frame is filled on the crop before it is on the FF" - at 1:1, they're filled at the same distance (i.e. MFD), but the FF frame is bigger than the crop frame.

Regarding DoF, again, the 5DII is the winner. When we say that DoF is shallower on FF, that applies only when the framing is the same. So, if you're changing lenses and cameras, fine - in theory, a 60mm macro on APS-C at 1:1 and a 100mm macro on FF at 1:1 will give the same framing, but in that case, you'd need to be closer to the subject with the 60mm lens to achieve 1:1 magnification, the framing would not be the same, and for 1:1 the DoF on the APS-C sensor would actually be shallower. If you use the same lens on APS-C and FF, again at 1:1, you'd have different framing, but you'd be at the same distance - and the DoF on the APS-C would be shallower. So, at 1:1 on FF, you have a deeper DoF...and you can stop down more without diffraction. Win-win for FF, IMO.

What am I missing, other than the apparent magnification increase due to a higher pixel density when applicable?


----------



## Kernuak (Oct 28, 2011)

It is all about the apparent magnification. If for example, you take a 25mm subject, on a 1.6 crop, it will fill the sensor at 1:1 magnification, but it will only fill around 2/3rds of the full frame sensor. Now if you change the subject for a 35mm one, then at 1:1 magnification it will fill the full frame sensor, while on the crop sensor, you can stand further back to fill the sensor, which will of course give you more depth of field. You could crop the image on the 5D MkII, but then you will end up with less pixels, than on the 7D as you know. That said, I also prefer to use the 5D for macros work, partly because it gives a cleaner image (which I feel is more important on macro, than larger wildlife, as fine detail is vital), but also, I find the 5D much easier to focus manually through the viewfinder, giving me a much higher keeper rate when photographing subjects that are likely to move too quickly for a tripod.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2011)

Makes sense, was just wondering if I was missing anything besides apparent mag. Personally, I'll take _real_ mag, and if 1:1 isn't enough, I'll go to 5x with my MP-E 65mm...and if that's not enough, I'll just use a microscope.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2011)

I've a 7D, 1D MK III (Just sold), and 5D MK II. Each has their best use, but for general use, i always grab the 5D MK II because the IQ of the image looks better to me. I sold the 1D MK III because I was able to get a very good price out of it, and bought a 7D for about half the price. I use it because it and the 15-85 focal length lens fit my working area for product photography perfectly in my studio, and it uses the same battery as my 5D II. Otherwise, the 1D MK III is a much better camera.

You won't go wrong with either camera, pick the one that has strengths that match your needs and style.


----------



## Meh (Oct 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Makes sense, was just wondering if I was missing anything besides apparent mag. Personally, I'll take _real_ mag, and if 1:1 isn't enough, I'll go to 5x with my MP-E 65mm...and if that's not enough, I'll just use a microscope.



I don't have an MP-E 65mm and, just a second let me check, nope don't have a microscope either  1:1 is the same regardless of sensor size but not all subject are the size of a FF sensor and may be smaller than an APS-C sensor and in that case you get more pixels on subject with the 7D.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 29, 2011)

For macro work:

Quite simply on a ff if the subject fills the frame at 10inches then on a 1.6 the subject will fill the frame at 16 inches - hence the extra DOF. 

APS-C has a many advantages over ff - such as being further away from the subject, which is important if you not want to disturb an insect - as that you can get 1.6 magnification at the lens minimum focus distance.

Realistically you cant compare ff and crop bodies - they are tools for different jobs - you just have to decide which has the right feature mix for you.


----------



## moreorless (Oct 29, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Partially agree. I too like the idea of keeping the next 7D at or about the same megapixels and focusing on improved image quality. In fact, I think that may be an excellent way to differentiate the 7D from the 60D and Rebels (they get the high density sensors and the 7D keeps the same megapixels, but with improved IQ -- very similar to what people expect with 1DX and 5DIII.



Interesting idea although as I said I'd say that for most xxxD and xxD users ISO is probabley more important than megapixels past 18. Few of these users are going to be making prints large enough to really see a difference in 21-24 MP and many of them arent going to be doing any post processing clearly up noise.

If theres a clear divergence between Canon and the rest of the field using Sony sensors then ISO performance could well become a larger issue for the more casual market.



> I disagree though, that it would put the 7D in competition with the 1DX. Rather, I see them as being complementary. Buy the 1DX for full-on full-frame, tank-like durability and highest quality images, buy the 7D to add extra reach when you need it.
> 
> Instead, I wonder if it would cause the 7D to erode 5D sales, especially if the 5D goes up to 30+ megapixels.
> 
> Don't know. Just speculating.



I doubt Canon would worry too much about the 7D eroading 5D sales though since both bodies are in a similar price bracket, personally I wouldnt be supprized if the 7D and xxD lines were pushed up market a little this time round aswell.


----------



## ianhar (Oct 29, 2011)

moreorless said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Partially agree. I too like the idea of keeping the next 7D at or about the same megapixels and focusing on improved image quality. In fact, I think that may be an excellent way to differentiate the 7D from the 60D and Rebels (they get the high density sensors and the 7D keeps the same megapixels, but with improved IQ -- very similar to what people expect with 1DX and 5DIII.
> ...



Consumer will still buy a camera defined by its megapixel. You wont see a person without photography knowledge talks about iso/image quality/aperture. You will hear they say mine has higher megapixel it should be better. Thats how consumer has been fed with the megapixel marketing. 

Personally, a lot of my friends asked me before why is their camera cant produce great quality image whereas their camera has 12-14 megapixel. Some even go as far as why his camera cant take picture in low light as his camera is a very good high megapixel camera. 

Hence for the rebel and xxD line i will think that canon would push it megapixel pass 18 megapixel while the 7d would ace more in high iso rating and few other features.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 29, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Hi. I'll probably pick up a new camera next year, and am weighing up the pros and cons of APS-C vs FF. I'm curious - why is there so much interest in the 5Diii compared with a 7Dii? A 5Diii with 7D build, AF and speed would seem to be many people's dream come true. I appreciate many of the benefits of FF - shallower depth of field, less noise at higher ISOs etc. But with all of the hype, you start to think that the only benefit of the APS-C sensor is the lower price and 1.6x crop for longer lenses, but for everything else it is an inferior product. If a 5Diii was virtually identical to a 7Dii except it had more megapixels on a larger sensor, would the joys and benefits of using a FF camera really be that noticeable in the real world? Do people who have made the switch from APS-C to FF agree that it is the best decision that they've ever made and wish they had done it sooner? Or after making the change, have you been left wondering what all the fuss is about? Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.



Lots of people have their own preferences and reasoning around this. The problem seems to be that from the numbers I've looked into I would think that the 7D didn't sell very well. So there may not be a 7DII in that sense. 

And I personally can understand why that is since I came to the same conclusion. The price difference when buying a complete new system is not that big and at that point I figured that I'm much better off with the full frame 5DII since that is what I really wanted to begin with. The 7D in a way is really a specialty camera for wild for instance. There the (supposedly) faster AF and the crop makes sense to some degree while maintaining high enough build quality. For everything else a 5DII type camera is just a bit better. And the folks that are on a budget or not that into the technical details a good Rebel kit is a really good choice.

Just look at the usage data on flickr for instance. It's mostly Rebels, the 5DII and a bunch of older models. The 7D and especially the 60D don't fare very well by that measure.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 29, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> And I personally can understand why that is since I came to the same conclusion. The price difference when buying a complete new system is not that big and at that point I figured that I'm much better off with the full frame 5DII since that is what I really wanted to begin with. The 7D in a way is really a specialty camera for wild for instance.



I think you would be very surprised how many 5DII owners have 7Ds as well.

The cost of the 5DII is not just the body - but the lens as well. I have a 400f/2.8 IS which is a terrific super tele on the 7D. What lens for the 5DII would you suggest would match that?

Take my 70-200 f/2.8 - on the 5DII the nearest is the 70-300L - not really a match.

Move down to the 135F2 and 85 f1.2 and do the same comparison.

The 5D2 is a great camera - providing you can get the lens, the fps and the AF to match the subjects you take.

The 7D is the top of the NON specialist bodies.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 29, 2011)

ianhar said:


> Consumer will still buy a camera defined by its megapixel. You wont see a person without photography knowledge talks about iso/image quality/aperture. You will hear they say mine has higher megapixel it should be better. Thats how consumer has been fed with the megapixel marketing.
> 
> Personally, a lot of my friends asked me before why is their camera cant produce great quality image whereas their camera has 12-14 megapixel. Some even go as far as why his camera cant take picture in low light as his camera is a very good high megapixel camera.
> 
> Hence for the rebel and xxD line i will think that canon would push it megapixel pass 18 megapixel while the 7d would ace more in high iso rating and few other features.



Actually, consumers go for brand name and price. They are also a lot more savy than they are given credit for, thanks to the many on-line reviews. Certainly, there are many who are brand faithful and will always buy their favorite brand, regardless.

I don't believe that very many buy the highest megapixel camera they can find, but a lot of them take the advice of the "Camera Expert ;D " at Best Buy, and purchase the camera he recommends, which is usually the one with the highest profit margin.

some consumers do go for the highest zoom ratio they can find, so a 30X will take preference over a 10
x point and shoot


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 29, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > And I personally can understand why that is since I came to the same conclusion. The price difference when buying a complete new system is not that big and at that point I figured that I'm much better off with the full frame 5DII since that is what I really wanted to begin with. The 7D in a way is really a specialty camera for wild for instance.
> ...




Well, again, there are different approaches to this and for some people, like yourself, this is a great match. All I was trying to say is that Canon obviously did not sell such a great many of 7Ds as they might have hoped for.

And I would think that for more users your usage and use of lenses does not work that way. If you need long reach I get how you like that the 400 is even longer. And that's about it. For everything else I specifically did NOT want a crop sensor because I like it that 24mm is in fact 24mm. And that my beloved 50 is indeed exactly that. Same with the 135, which for my intentions would become rather useless given how those gems have been used for decades. And for everything else I have my fast 200 which is about the longest I have any use for under normal circumstances - and as a 320mm would become rather problematic and require a tripod. I can still always crop later if I feel like it.

For me the math on the two bodies plus one lens to start with was: 5DII kit with the 24-105 = around $3200 (Nov 2010 after discount at local dealer). 7D + 24-70 2.8L = around $3000 as separate items. That would have been roughly equivalent to achieve similarly shallow DOF (which is important to me). That plus the need to then purchase a super wide angle lens and only very expensive options to get to a fast 50mm range would have made the endeavor more expensive and likely may have entailed some buyer's remorse in the end.

That being said: I could totally see adding a 7D as a second body at some point. It is in fact a great alternative to a teleconverter in that sense. Or I may be packing away a second 5DII at a good price point once we know where the 5DIII (or whatever) is headed. 

I think we have to slowly come to the conclusion that the folks who kept predicting the end of "full frame" were maybe not right. Canon seemed to just have eliminated the old compromise of the 1.3x sensor which only ever existed because of technical limitations. The 5DII remains one of the biggest hits in Canon's history. And most people who buy cropped sensor do so because the are on a budget and buy Rebel kits. Yes, there are one or two very good EF-S lenses now, but in general the pro lens line up remained geared towards the 35mm format. I don't see any indications that this will change.

My prediction: the 7D will go away. The 60D will go away. APS-H sensors will go away. Cropped sensors will be strictly for the budget line. Canon will close the gap with one or two full frame cameras, one of which will be sort of a replacement of the 5DII (but may be a little disappointing featurewise to current users).


----------



## elflord (Oct 29, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I think you would be very surprised how many 5DII owners have 7Ds as well.
> 
> The cost of the 5DII is not just the body - but the lens as well. I have a 400f/2.8 IS which is a terrific super tele on the 7D. What lens for the 5DII would you suggest would match that?
> 
> ...



Not quite that simple -- if I do the same comparison for the 135 and the 85, the 135mm f/2 replaces the 85mm f/1.2 on full frame (at about half the price) and the 200mm f/2.8 replaces the 135mm f/2. On full frame, lenses like the 85mm f/1.2, f/2.8 zooms, and the 200mm f/2 have no replacement on APS-C that provides the same dof and fov. So if you want shallow dof, you are much better off with FF. 

In terms of the 400mm f/2.8 -- you have the 600mm f/4 which is about the same weight. 

You will generally get more reach for less $ on APS-C though (you also have access to several very good and inexpensive wide angle choices)


----------



## nesarajah (Oct 29, 2011)

I would go with the 7D .
I know everyone says how great FF cameras are and I agree, I owned a 5Dmk2 before it got stolen and replaced t with a 7D. 
FF cameras are awesome. Great bokeh, great centre sharpness, great for portraits, great for clean images in low light/high ISO. Then the fun stops. The AF on the 5Dmk2 is simply put - shit. Unless the subject is still or if you're good at manual focusing or love to prefocus action shots, you're in for a hard time. AF-ing in low light is a nightmare. 
The 7D is great for action (in the AF sense) and pretty average elsewhere. 
But What an average camera it is. That 1.6 crop is the forgiving component in shooting wide open. That extra depth is perfect for macro and adds length to already long telephotos, all without using an extender. The 7D is the camera to beat IMHO , until the 1Dx is real eased next year. 12fps on the FF 1Dx will make everyone take a second look.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 29, 2011)

elflord said:


> Not quite that simple -- if I do the same comparison for the 135 and the 85, the 135mm f/2 replaces the 85mm f/1.2 on full frame (at about half the price) and the 200mm f/2.8 replaces the 135mm f/2. On full frame, lenses like the 85mm f/1.2, f/2.8 zooms, and the 200mm f/2 have no replacement on APS-C that provides the same dof and fov. So if you want shallow dof, you are much better off with FF.
> 
> In terms of the 400mm f/2.8 -- you have the 600mm f/4 which is about the same weight.
> 
> You will generally get more reach for less $ on APS-C though (you also have access to several very good and inexpensive wide angle choices)



I might be going stupid but I dont understand how can a one stop slower lens be the equivalent? 135 f/2 is not the same as a 200 f/2.8, a 85 f1.2 is not the same as a 135f2, a 400 2.8 is not the same as a 600/f4 - please consider that there is a lot more to photography than a shallow dof - in these cases low light and speed. Shallow dof works against most photos in ff - macro, wildlife, landscapes - even street shots in poor light. When a long dof is needed then for ff you quickly get into defraction issues.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 29, 2011)

If you use the online DOF calculator you will find that one stop slower on the ff does not give a shallower dof than the equivalent APS-C. Shooting wide open at f4 on a ff does not in my experience give better bokeh than 2.8 on APS-C. 

What is obvious is that the longer lens without exception have a longer minimum focal distance.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 29, 2011)

> All I was trying to say is that Canon obviously did not sell such a great many of 7Ds as they might have hoped for.



Can you document this? Amazon lists the 7D body at #9 (5DII is #14) and indicates it has been in the top 100 DSLRs for 787 weeks (which roughly coincides with its entire lifespan) This does not include two versions with kit lenses that are ranked #29 and #34.

Granted Amazon is just one dealer, but it is sufficiently large to serve as a reasonably representative sample of the relative sales rankings of products.

If you have access to better sales figures, please share them. I have never come across anything that would indicate that the 7D has not been a very successful camera for Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> My prediction: the 7D will go away. The 60D will go away. APS-H sensors will go away. Cropped sensors will be strictly for the budget line.



...and people who are frequently focal length limited will.... ?? 

The 7D might go away or APS-H might go away, but if so, I hope Canon will still have a high frame rate, pro build, crop sensor body. They took away AF with f/8 from the 1-series, leaving 840mm as the longest possible focal length with supported AF and pro build.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 29, 2011)

.... and a 7d with 800 f5.6 is the equvalent of 1280.... cant see Canon dumping that in a hurry


----------



## elflord (Oct 29, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Not quite that simple -- if I do the same comparison for the 135 and the 85, the 135mm f/2 replaces the 85mm f/1.2 on full frame (at about half the price) and the 200mm f/2.8 replaces the 135mm f/2. On full frame, lenses like the 85mm f/1.2, f/2.8 zooms, and the 200mm f/2 have no replacement on APS-C that provides the same dof and fov. So if you want shallow dof, you are much better off with FF.
> ...



They are equivalent in fov and dof. They are not equivalent in terms of exposure because you need to bump ISO by a stop to get the same exposure. However, the larger full frame sensor will perform better at high ISO. 



> 135 f/2 is not the same as a 200 f/2.8, a 85 f1.2 is not the same as a 135f2, a 400 2.8 is not the same as a 600/f4 -



No, they are not "the same" -- the only lens that is "the same" as the 135mm f/2 is the 135mm f/2. However, that lens will behave different on a full frame body vs a crop body. If you're looking for equivalence in terms of dof and fov, then my comments are correct. 



> please consider that there is a lot more to photography than a shallow dof - in these cases low light and speed.



The full frame sensor performs better at high ISO. You bump the ISO by one stop with a 200mm f/2.8 on full frame, and your dof, fov and noise level is comparable (maybe not exactly the same, but same ballpark) as your 135mm f/2 on a crop. 



> Shallow dof works against most photos in ff - macro, wildlife, landscapes - even street shots in poor light.


Yes, but if you want a lot of dof, why are you using an 85mm f/1.2 or a 300mm f/2.8 ? 

I agree that a crop has the upper hand when you are at the other end of the aperture range.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 30, 2011)

elflord said:


> Yes, but if you want a lot of dof, why are you using an 85mm f/1.2 or a 300mm f/2.8 ?



Because sometimes I want a lot of dof and sometimes I dont. I think most people use the whole range. As I have 5DII and 7D the lens get used on both - for different situations. Try the 400 [email protected] for landscapes on the 5DII if you want to see top IQ - on the other hand the 5DII does not hack action pictures with it AF - so the 400 f2.8 goes on the 7D shooting wide open. One lens two uses - and just because I bought a $1500 7D I dont have to buy a $10,000 600f4.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 30, 2011)

unfocused said:


> > All I was trying to say is that Canon obviously did not sell such a great many of 7Ds as they might have hoped for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



a) I've heard that from a local dealer and have no specif data to back that up
b) I remember when it first came out dealers here in the area assumed that the 7D would be a big hit and would put a dent into their 5DII sales

but

c) if you look at the camera usage stats on flickr for instance you'll see that there are over 10,000 average daily users who have one of the recent Rebels. Around 4,100 have a 5DII. 3,300 have a 7D and only 1700 used a 60D.

You could argue that the 5DII has been around for longer and that the data may be kind of shaky to begin with, but given the price points and the significantly larger audience that is prone to buy more on the budget side and interested in crop sensors, Canon probably expected this to be in a different order. Especially the 60D must bum them out, though I totally understand why it may have tanked.

But then again, there is a lot of guesstimating here on my part and this is far from a scientific market analysis that people pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 30, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> c) if you look at the camera usage stats on flickr for instance you'll see that there are over 10,000 average daily users who have one of the recent Rebels. Around 4,100 have a 5DII. 3,300 have a 7D and only 1700 used a 60D.



That is a valid analysis of those who use Flickr.

Perhaps 7D and 5DII users post on to their own websites as I expect they have more money and perhaps looking to sell their images.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > c) if you look at the camera usage stats on flickr for instance you'll see that there are over 10,000 average daily users who have one of the recent Rebels. Around 4,100 have a 5DII. 3,300 have a 7D and only 1700 used a 60D.
> ...



Good points. There are so many variables that extrapolating anything meaningful from that kind of data is impossible. Some irony here in that seven's own data would indicate that there are 3.6 times as many APS-C owners using Flicker as full-frame 5D II owners. One could make an argument with equal validity that the market for full frame bodies is shrinking and they are in danger of disappearing.

I'm not suggesting this, I'm just pointing out that with statistics, like with most things, the rule of garbage in/garbage out applies.


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 30, 2011)

I, nor any of the photogs that work for me have Flickr, it isn't that big for Aus.

I don't think either of your data really backs up your points to be honest.

Amazon will obviously sell more of a lower price point camera aimed at consumers and prosumers as opposed to camera dedicated sites. It's just the nature of the website.. However it does show that clearly the 7d is not a failure sales wise.

Digi rev, adorama or bh would be a better sales comparison

Flickr may show a spread but not all purchasers and photographers have Flickr.

I personally am surprised at how many users on here have a 7d! So many posts reference that crop.

I think both models are needed in the canon lineup.

If they were to lose a crop I think the 60d is more disposable. 

1100, 600, 60, 7d - that's for consumer crops... 
1100-cheap and great to steal some p+s upgraders first timers
600-seems to be quite a seller this series (400/450/500/550).. 
60- great for video with swivel screen
7d- fast fps and weather sealed, great for birds and sports. Great backup for 5d

I think the 7 is an essential part of the lineup


----------



## x-vision (Oct 30, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> But then again, there is a lot of guesstimating here on my part and this is far from a scientific market analysis that people pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for.



I don't have any formal data either. For the past 1-2 months, though, I've been following the best selling DSLRs on Amazon - and I tend to agree with your assessments. 

Overall, my impression is that the 5DII is indeed continuing to sell extremely well (considering its price point). 
The 7D has lost steam and the 60D is definitely not selling well for a camera of its class. 

Canon just split the xxD line into 7D and 60D but in the next product cycle there will be another reshuffling, IMO. 
Can't predict what Canon will do but I think it's too early to kill off the premium 1.6x models just yet. 
Just the opposite - both the 70D and 7DII will likely go upmarket, IMO.


----------



## Meh (Oct 30, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> c) if you look at the camera usage stats on flickr for instance you'll see that there are over 10,000 average daily users who have one of the recent Rebels. Around 4,100 have a 5DII. 3,300 have a 7D and only 1700 used a 60D.
> 
> You could argue that the 5DII has been around for longer...



Regarding the numbers for 5D2 and 7D, I'm inclined to think the fact the 5D2 was released a year earlier is quite significant. At the time, the 5D2 was quickly grabbed up by huge numbers of "enthusiasts" most of whom wouldn't have bought a 7D as a second body. In other words, many/most of the enthusiast market willing to buy at the higher price points already went with the 5D2. So by the time the 7D came out the middle-market was partially saturated and a higher percentage of those that bought the 7D might have picked up a 5D2 as they progressed in their photography. I'm just guessing but that seems logical to me (because I am one of the latter  ) and if so it would partially explain the stats.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 30, 2011)

"progressed from a 7D to a 5DII" now that is a contentious statement. 

This is a presumption that APS-C is the cheaper, less worthy camera and that only 'real' photographers graduate to full frame - ie sensor snobbery.

When will people realise that Full frame and Crop bodies are just tools for different jobs. One is not better than the other - just different. 

I have both a 5DII and a 7D - so which body do I use most? If I believed in sensor snobbery then I would only use the 7D as a backup. Well reality is different - the 7D is a very good all round camera that probably gets at least 50 per cent of my use. 

The key to which one I use very much depends on the best fit lens - unless it is macro shot in which case the 7D is always used as it give more options - ie more dof, 1.6 magnification and better AF on moving insects.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Oct 30, 2011)

5dIII will be my first FF camera, i've already got a 7d so i don't see the need to upgeade to 7dII, however i'd def take a look at the spec list for the 7dII when it's availble


----------



## Meh (Oct 30, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> "progressed from a 7D to a 5DII" now that is a contentious statement.
> 
> This is a presumption that APS-C is the cheaper, less worthy camera and that only 'real' photographers graduate to full frame - ie sensor snobbery.
> 
> When will people realise that Full frame and Crop bodies are just tools for different jobs. One is not better than the other - just different.



If you're referring to my comment, then what I said was "picked up a 5D2 as they progressed in their photography" which did not imply that either camera was better than the other. I agree they have different strengths and weaknesses... the 7D is far superior for sports action photography for example but the 5D2. My point was only about the relative likelihood of the large group of 5D2 owners picking up a 7D as a second body vs. the opposite as a possible theory to explain the skew in the flickr stats and that theory was it's more likely that at this point in time, many more "enthusiasts" bought a 5D2 when it came out and did not add a 7D as a second body versus those that bought a 7D then also picked up a 5D2.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 30, 2011)

Meh said:


> If you're referring to my comment



No I wasn't - else I would have quoted your comment

I wouldn't accept that the 7D is 'far superior for sports action photography' over the 5DII. It has the edge on AF and fps - but not that much - as it then loses out on iso. From experience it is in wildlife where the 7D pulls away more.

I feel that reading something into Flickr stats would apply only to Flickr users. Not that many serious or pro togs using Flickr - they have their own websites. I bought a 5DII to go with my 50D and then added two 7D's - and I am not alone in this upgrade path - I added the 50D to go with my 5D. I know a lot people going from 40D to 7D and also having a ff - try polling the photoclubs, that is where they will be rather than on Flickr.


----------



## Meh (Oct 31, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> No I wasn't - else I would have quoted your comment



Fair enough. You'll forgive me for thinking so given that you commented immediately after me and I hadn't noticed anyone else had made a statement similar to what you put in quotations marks.



briansquibb said:


> I wouldn't accept that the 7D is 'far superior for sports action photography' over the 5DII. It has the edge on AF and fps - but not that much - as it then loses out on iso. From experience it is in wildlife where the 7D pulls away more.



Interesting view and actually I appreciate that from someone who has used the 5D2 and 7D as extensively as you have. I've used the 5D2 a few times (borrowed) but only just recently bought one since the prices are now so low and I'm glad to know it will be more useful for sports photography than I thought it would be. I don't think the general consensus (going by what I've heard and read on this site and elsewhere) is that the 7D only has a small edge on the 5D2 for AF and fps. It also has an edge over the 5D2 on weather sealing which is certainly beneficial for outdoor sports.



briansquibb said:


> I feel that reading something into Flickr stats would apply only to Flickr users. Not that many serious or pro togs using Flickr - they have their own websites.



True, stats can be misleading if applied to populations that are not well represented by the sample population. If there are few pro photographers posting to Flickr as you say then any insights can not be applied to pros. Several of the comments about the Flickr data questioned the applicability and from a statistics perspective I think that there could be a bias in the "type of user".

I just copied the Flickr usage stats for Canon into Excel and added it up for fun (fun?) to see what it looks like for all camera types. The "avg. daily users" is a one day snapshot so the numbers I have a different from what 7enderbender got and the "one day" thing is itself a limitation. Data from yesterday is a total of 47,370 members posted a photo with a Canon camera. Of those 34,218 (72%) were from a DSLR. Of those 8,617 (25%) were from a 5D, 5D2, or 7D and 25,601 (75%) were from any other Canon DSLR. 

I agree it's not something we can draw big conclusions from but it's interesting.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 31, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Hi. I'll probably pick up a new camera next year, and am weighing up the pros and cons of APS-C vs FF. I'm curious - why is there so much interest in the 5Diii compared with a 7Dii? A 5Diii with 7D build, AF and speed would seem to be many people's dream come true. I appreciate many of the benefits of FF - shallower depth of field, less noise at higher ISOs etc. But with all of the hype, you start to think that the only benefit of the APS-C sensor is the lower price and 1.6x crop for longer lenses, but for everything else it is an inferior product. If a 5Diii was virtually identical to a 7Dii except it had more megapixels on a larger sensor, would the joys and benefits of using a FF camera really be that noticeable in the real world? Do people who have made the switch from APS-C to FF agree that it is the best decision that they've ever made and wish they had done it sooner? Or after making the change, have you been left wondering what all the fuss is about? Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.



Personally I think the whole FF thing is mostly hype I have a 1D3 and a 5D2 personally i absolutely love the APS-H sensor i see it as having your cake and eat it too, faster speed and get a bit more out of the tele end, only problem is the 1 series is very heavy, i like the size of the 5D but since i was used to the 1 it is taking some getting used to the massive reduction in features on the 5D it feels really bare bones compared to the 1 series. and in low light AF there is no contest the 1 series KILLS the 5D i really think the 5D Af is utter rubbish and i hate it but I bought it for the FF sensor to shoot landscape and portraits so it does the job i got it for and the AF is fine in these tasks I just wouldnt count on being able to get anything that is moving much. I've been contemplating getting a 7D purely for the crop to use with long lenses and the faster AF I want a smaller body than the 1 and sharing batterys with the 5D seems like a nice blend for travelling.

Dont get too hung up on the whole Full frame is better than everything else thing and remember there are downsides to full frame such as loosing your long end. here is an example take a 300 f4 lens
on a full frame whack on a tele converter and you get 420mm @ 5.6 but on a 7D that lens stays f4 one full stop faster! and has the effeective reach of 480mm! then if you put that 1.4 teleconverter on the 7D with that lens suddenly you have 672mm at f5.6! and you have IS.

I wouldnt mind hearing from people with both 1Dmk3 and 7D about how they compare (I'm going to keep my 1D anyway and maybe convert it to IR down the track but with the price of a 7D so cheap now its the best bang for buck teleconverter you can get i think. I like having 2 cameras one for the wider or general purpose and one with a long lens for getting in close.


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 31, 2011)

Depends what your needs are, I have no need for reach or speed, but i need high quality and good low light performance.... 

5D2 beats the 7d hands down in that department.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 31, 2011)

Meh said:


> Interesting view and actually I appreciate that from someone who has used the 5D2 and 7D as extensively as you have. I've used the 5D2 a few times (borrowed) but only just recently bought one since the prices are now so low and I'm glad to know it will be more useful for sports photography than I thought it would be. I don't think the general consensus (going by what I've heard and read on this site and elsewhere) is that the 7D only has a small edge on the 5D2 for AF and fps. It also has an edge over the 5D2 on weather sealing which is certainly beneficial for outdoor sports.


 Most sports are (relatively) slow moving and can be anticipated so the slightly slower AF speed of the 5DII can be worked around. With wildlife the extra speed and unpredictability of the subjects places the AF speed higher up the priority list.

For sport one should be using SERVO and the tracking speed of the 5DII is not noticably different from that of the 7D. However the ability of the 5DII to happily fire away at iso3200 gives better shutter speed than the 7D, meaning less blurred contents. Unless you are planning on large prints I recommend using sRAW1 (10mps) for sports/action as it gives sharper pictures and a larger buffer for continuous shooting

Both the 7D and 5DII are good cameras and having both means the choice is pretty obvious when going out. Unfortunately people get obsessed with headline numbers and theoretical advantages without really considering the real implications in the field that they are shooting. How many people in the consumer market really consider in depth the details - like what it is benefit of 8fps over 5fps to themselves and what they are really going shoot? I believe that most people in the 7D/5DII area have cameras that can take better pictures than the owners - yet there is this continual push by them to get the latest and greatest as if the photos they take are going to magically improve. With todays cameras the best way to improve IQ is still through top lens. You can take it from me that a 400F/2.8 IS will give significantly better IQ than a 400 f/5.6 - on a 5DII the AF is noticably faster because of the use on the responsive AF point.

Just remember that AF is affected by the lens - so a quick AF lens on the front of a 5D2 is as fast as a slow lens on a 7D. So on a 5D2 always try to get a lens that is F/2.8 or faster. The 70-200F/2.8 II is ideal as a walkabout lens for the 5DII - you will have few AF problems for football, soccer, rugby etc and also get top IQ at the same time. By putting a 1.4 converter on the 70-200 turns it into a f/4 lens - which does slow the AF down.

The best single camera is still the 1D4 which has the IQ of the 5D and better fps and AF than the 7D. 

As always it is a question of money and what you plan to photograph. I am a just a photographer without speciality - I take all types of subjects. Some people specialise - such as Birds In Flight (BIF) where their requirements are much more focussed - and so is their choice of camera. The BIF togs camera is still the 1D4 followed by the 7D - they are not that keen on the 1DX as it means losing F8 focussing and the extra reach of the APS-H. Landscapers go for the 1DsIII/5DII as their subjects are static and IQ is paramount. 

Be aware of the limitations of your kit and you wont be disappointed


----------



## unfocused (Oct 31, 2011)

When I first saw this topic, I expected the usual "full frame is professional/APS-C is amateur" rants. Thankfully, it hasn't turned out that way (although there have been some, "my sensor is bigger than your sensor" postings)

Still, I'm not sure I'm any closer to coming to any clear conclusions. Granted, it can boil down to personal preferences and needs, but I still have a difficult time parsing the thread for obvious distinctions between APS-C and Full Frame. 

It sounds to me that the differences are rather subtle and seem to have as much to do with the "look" of the image and shooting style (narrower depth of field, for example) than with any clear, visible difference in image quality.

Many of those posting have indicated that they feel full frame offers superior performance for landscape and other static or semi-static subjects. But, I wonder if that translates into practical or theoretical differences. If one shoots with the idea of enlarging the images to 16x20 or larger, are the differences visible? What about 11x14 or 8x10. What about those who shoot primarily for publication? Are the differences visible once an image is translated into print?

I shoot with a 7D and to be honest, I have a hard time imagining that the practical differences would be that great with a larger sensor. But, then I don't really go for the oversize prints and my ultimate objective is to get work published in books or magazines. 

The main problems or complaints I've had about the 7D in terms of image quality has been that I do feel that certain areas of an image under certain conditions can have visible noise on-screen. (Although this does not always translate into being visible in print). For example, if I have an image with a large amount of plain, cloudless blue sky, upon close examination, some of the images will appear mottled in the sky (instead of completely smooth.) But, some of this results from the wide differences in brightness between a sky and other portions of the image (exposing for the one means under or overexposing for the other and attempting to repair in processing). 

My other frustration has been chromatic aberration. Back lit subjects with sharp edges that have significant fringing that can't always be fixed (minimize the magenta and you maximize the cyan, for example). Again, I don't know if that would be improved by a different sensor or not. 

Bottom line of this rambling post: Do those who use both a 7D and a 5d II really see a difference in the final product? And if so, do you feel the differences are visible at say 8x10. Do you feel the differences are visible at ISO 100-400 or only at higher ISOs?

Now, I know that preferences are personal and can only be ultimately decided by the photographer after having used both cameras, but I do wonder if the 5DII/7D dual body owners would be willing to give an honest assessment of the differences they can actually see in image quality.


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 31, 2011)

The 7D mk II! Maybe, at some point, I will borrow a friend's 5d II... and then, will hopefully not get hooked with even more gear greed...

Both the 7D II and the 5D III will be Uber. But, they will be for totally different purposes. And whiners will likely complain about the 7D image quality and noise levels. Whiners will also complain about the 5D one and how it isn't as good as the whatever and threaten to go to Nikon.


----------



## melbournite (Oct 31, 2011)

I own both a 5DII and 7D. For professional work I use the 5DII 90% of the time but for personal use I use the 7D 90% of the time. I have always only owned and rented full frame until I bought the 7D earlier this year. Initially I bought it out of fascination for what the 1.6 factor would do for all my lenses but soon loved the other features including the focusing system and the 8fps (something I thought I'd have no use for). 

Having both cameras I think is a great combo for me personally. They compliment each other and fill in the gaps of limitations.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 31, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Bottom line of this rambling post: Do those who use both a 7D and a 5d II really see a difference in the final product? And if so, do you feel the differences are visible at say 8x10. Do you feel the differences are visible at ISO 100-400 or only at higher ISOs?
> 
> Now, I know that preferences are personal and can only be ultimately decided by the photographer after having used both cameras, but I do wonder if the 5DII/7D dual body owners would be willing to give an honest assessment of the differences they can actually see in image quality.



There is a marked difference at high ISO. You get at least one stop more on the 5dII - I dont even stop to think about shooting at 1600iso with the 5DII whereas I wonder at 800iso on the 7D. Lets face it, both cameras give really good IQ, but it seems easier to get on the 5DII as the images from the 7D are not so tolerant of pp work - such as cropping or exposure changes.

I believe I see more detail coming through on large prints with the 5DII, but that is not backed up with a scientific study. Again more so when cropping has happened.

I agree with melbournite - they compliment each other and fill in the gaps of limitations


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 31, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line of this rambling post: Do those who use both a 7D and a 5d II really see a difference in the final product? And if so, do you feel the differences are visible at say 8x10. Do you feel the differences are visible at ISO 100-400 or only at higher ISOs?
> ...



I agree. They do compliment each other.

I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.


----------



## JAWphoto (Nov 1, 2011)

Just depends what you use it for. I have 2x 5DmkII. I shoot mostly with short prime lenses, so I need full frame to take advantage of these (they wouldn't work well with a crop). I don't shoot with telephotos, so there is no advantage of a cropped sensor for me, only a disadvantage. That said, the AF on the 5D is total garbage. It is in no way a sports camera.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 1, 2011)

JAWphoto said:


> That said, the AF on the 5D is total garbage. It is in no way a sports camera.



5DII AF is OK with the right techniques - good enough for motorsports, soccer, football etc. You have to work at it - it is accurate in reasonable light. Nobody is suggesting you would buy it for sports - just that it can be used very sucessfully in sports if pushed just as a 7D can be used as a portrait camera - I have got some really good animal portraits from the 7D just as I have got good motorsports pictures from the 5DII. 5DII AF is as good as any of the xxD range - it is just that the 7D is better for moving objects.

To say that 5DII AF is total garbage is garbage in itself - I suppose you do full time manual focussing then?


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 1, 2011)

I am in the same situation as the OP, will be getting a new camera, probably cant wait to see what happens with the 5D replacement, so im after either the 7D or the 5D2, i cant decide. Im coming from a 450D and no L lenses. (mostly use 450D and the EF-s 60mm Macro lens)

Why does everyone think shallow DOF is an advantage, its a negative point for the 5D2 for me, as I do use a smallish room at home as a home studio for stock libraries half the time. The other half of the time im out and about taking pictures. (can i mention my smugmug account here for examples?)

Its a really hard decision and i cant justify two cameras.

My main desire is clarity, IQ. I can live without many fps, i can get by with 9 points of focus, ill put up with less reach from the same lens, but i want the best looking images. Less DOF is the only thing really holding me back from the 5D.

Stock libraries want sharp images. Bigger images mean potentially selling larger images.

Are there any actual image comparisions, like for like, for the same scene, from both cameras. Can you actually see much difference? and im not on about a 8x10 print, i mean on a LARGE print.

(BTW i assuming and will be buying, great 'L' lenses with these)


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 1, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> Why does everyone think shallow DOF is an advantage, its a negative point for the 5D2 for me,



I would say you are a prime candidate for the 5DII. I dont believe DOF should be an issue - just shutdown the aperture by a stop - Shoot at f2.8 instead of f2 for example. You will find that most lens are sharpest between f5.6 and f8 so that will actually be working for you.

Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> Why does everyone think shallow DOF is an advantage, its a negative point for the 5D2 for me, as I do use a smallish room at home as a home studio for stock libraries half the time. The other half of the time im out and about taking pictures. (can i mention my smugmug account here for examples?)
> 
> My main desire is clarity, IQ. I can live without many fps, i can get by with 9 points of focus, ill put up with less reach from the same lens, but i want the best looking images. Less DOF is the only thing really holding me back from the 5D.



What exactly is shallow DoF holding you back? That's the first time I've heard that as a negative! Why? Because if you want deeper DoF, all you have to do is stop down. Stopping down by 1.3 stops will give you equivalent DoF to APS-C. With a FF camera, you can stop down even further before diffraction starts to cost you sharpness, because of the lower pixel density.

Most people like shallow DoF because it blurs out the background, isolating your subject. That's generally desirable for portraits, and other types of shooting as well. For a good example of that, see the TDP review of the 85mm f/1.2L II - about halfway down the page, step through the mouse-over aperture comparison. YMMV, but most would prefer the wider aperture shots which result in a cleaner background. The f/16 shot is close to what you'd get with a P&S in terms of DoF.

In a studio setting, a shallow DoF is often not required since you have control over the background. If you go into a pro studio, you'll find they often shoot at f/5.6-f/8 (sweet spot for most lenses, delivering the sharpest result) - they have pull-down backgrounds and monolights, the former provides subject isolation, and the latter delivers plenty of light so f/8 isn't an issue. OTOH, when you shoot an outdoor session (or even indoors with some clutter in your house  ), a shallow DoF is preferable.

Honestly, for the use you describe the 5DII seems like the optimum choice - it's excellent as a studio camera.


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 1, 2011)

I know it wasnt my topic but thanks, that makes sence, and stupidly i never even considered stopping down a little bit more. I stop down as much as i dare with my 450D (up to f11) when doing small item studio stuff to get larger dof.
For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. Thats why i like lots of dof.

Is using the 50mm prime lens on a 5D2 a good idea for this scale, as DOF will be greater that say the 100mm macro 

( i like the comment "Shoot at F2.8 instead of f2" lol, wrong end)

Cheers


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> I know it wasnt my topic but thanks, that makes sence, and stupidly i never even considered stopping down a little bit more. I stop down as much as i dare with my 450D (up to f11) when doing small item studio stuff to get larger dof.
> For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. Thats why i like lots of dof.



In that case, the best answer is not aperture, but tilt. You usually hear about the TS-E lenses in the context of architectural photography - that's a primary use of the TS-E 17mm f/4L and the 24mm f/3.5L II (I have the latter). But there are also 45mm f/2.8 and 90mm f/2.8 TS-E lenses (non-L, at least for now) - and a primary use for those lenses is product photography. 

The tilt feature allows you to increase your DoF _without_ narrowing your aperture so much that diffraction and dust become serious issues. Check out the TS-E 90mm info on Northlight, which shows some nice mouse-overs of product-type images comparing f/8 vs. f/8 with tilt, for example.

So...if product photography is key for you, consider a 45mm or 90mm TS-E lens. Used copies show up on CL/FM for $800-900 (there was a TS-E 45mm f/2.8 on my local CL a couple of weeks ago for $650), and Keh has them for around $1K.


----------



## sawsedge (Nov 1, 2011)

I hope neuroanatomist is wrong about the 5D mark III specs. ;D I do hope for a 7D body with a FF sensor. The 1D X AF is supposed to be improved over the 7D system, plus it is capable of higher fps. I think that and build quality should be enough to distinguish the lines. I personally don't want a 1D-sized body in my bag.

Also, I hope the 7D mark II remains at 18 mpix and that Canon concentrates on improving ISO performance and DR. From what I've seen of the Sony 24 mpix sensor, Sony went way too far. The noise looks bad, the details severely lacking once NR is applied, and they have a strange cross pattern.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 1, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> I know it wasnt my topic but thanks, that makes sence, and stupidly i never even considered stopping down a little bit more. I stop down as much as i dare with my 450D (up to f11) when doing small item studio stuff to get larger dof.
> For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. Thats why i like lots of dof.
> 
> Is using the 50mm prime lens on a 5D2 a good idea for this scale, as DOF will be greater that say the 100mm macro
> ...



Do you use photoshop CS5 or 5.5? I shoot product photography a good chunk of my time (what pays most my bills)... I do focus bracketing... I need sets to be sharp whether I clip out the images and shove them on the web or whether they go on magazine spreads... I focus on varying parts of the scene and then in photoshop, I usually auto align the images, then after that, auto blend them with the stack images selected... It will take the sharpest parts of the images and blend them to look like one large DOF image... It usually does a good job and gets you in the ballpark... I use it from the smallest teenie tiny bottle cap where I'm basically shooting macro distances to fill the frame to a large group shot of product. It allows me to use a small studio, optimum aperture for sharpest images, and I dont mind photoshop so it works out. If you have a flat scene or keeping backgrounds in, it may do a better job than others, but something to consider. I've gotten so used to my workflow it doesn't take me that much longer than regular 1 shot images...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Do you use photoshop CS5 or 5.5? I shoot product photography a good chunk of my time (what pays most my bills)... I do focus bracketing...



Not to muck with a successful workflow, but have you considered Helicon Focus?


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Do you use photoshop CS5 or 5.5? I shoot product photography a good chunk of my time (what pays most my bills)... I do focus bracketing...
> ...



I looked into programs such as helicon a few years ago (before photoshop started supporting focus stacking)... At that time, I proposed this option to my client however they felt that the cost I would have passed onto them for that option wasn't worth it... then CS5 came out and supported it... Since they are a regular client they pay for my software upgrades as they see fit as per our contract and so to have that option built in was an easy sell. Also I never have to leave photoshop whereas helicon i believe is a standalone program? Photoshop saves the layers under layer masks so if I need to tweak anything, a few clicks and it's good to go.. The simpler I can keep my workflow the quicker I can get stuff done and it's a win win for me and my clients.


----------



## Doc (Nov 1, 2011)

Hey all, new user to the forum 

I've been reading through this thread and there's a lot of interesting points raised, but for me, the one thing I'd like an honest opinion on would be how the 5dmk2 compares to my 550d in the area of AF and speed. I'd be happy if it was 'at least as good' in practice for the type of photography I do. I got the 550d as a first 'proper' camera and although I could have got the 7d at the time, the money I saved went towards decent glass.

Thanks, Mike.


----------



## thepancakeman (Nov 1, 2011)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the differences between FF and crop, and that being the case this question may have been addressed indirectly and I just didn't get it. 

For the same framing, do you have the same field "compression" or "expansion" between the two? What I mean is this--if you have a FF at 40mm and a crop at 24mm and you frame a portrait the same, would they have the same "make the nose bigger" effect?


----------



## K-amps (Nov 1, 2011)

niccyboy said:


> I agree. They do compliment each other.
> 
> I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.



Is this for RAW's or jpegs?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> I'm still trying to wrap my head around the differences between FF and crop, and that being the case this question may have been addressed indirectly and I just didn't get it.
> 
> For the same framing, do you have the same field "compression" or "expansion" between the two? What I mean is this--if you have a FF at 40mm and a crop at 24mm and you frame a portrait the same, would they have the same "make the nose bigger" effect?



Effectively, yes. The truth is that perspective (and the resulting 'distortions' - compression and extension) is determined solely by distance at which the image is taken. So, in your example, since you are using different focal lengths to compensate for the effect of sensor size on field of view, you'd be at the same distance from the subject for both shots, and thus the 'nose bigger' effect would be the same (although at 40mm on FF, it wouldn't be too bad unless you had the lens really close to the subject).


----------



## unfocused (Nov 1, 2011)

> For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. Thats why i like lots of dof.
> 
> Is using the 50mm prime lens on a 5D2 a good idea for this scale, as DOF will be greater that say the 100mm macro



I'll probably get this massively wrong and I'm sure the lens experts here will correct me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. 

In your example, I believe a lens with longer focal length could actually be better. Here is the way I understand it: there is a relationship between depth of field and the distance of the subject to the lens. The further you are from your subject the greater the depth of field in actual distance. To give you a gross example: when you are shooting with the lens on infinity, subjects that may be hundreds of feet apart will be in focus. On the other hand, if you are just a few inches from the subject, the depth of field is going to be very narrow.

Using your football example, a sort focal length lens that is close to the football may mean that only the stitching is in focus even with the lens stopped down because the relative distance between the front and back ends of the football are much greater. With a longer lens, (and presuming you have enough room to back up and still get the image framed) the relative distance between the front end of the football and the back end of the football is much less. So, it may be possible that by stopping the longer lens down you can get the whole subject in focus. 

To use another example, many photographers prefer a longer lens for portraits because the relative distance between, say, the subject's nose and ears is effectively compressed by the longer lens, making it easier to get the entire face in focus. With a wider lens, that relative distance increases. (There is, of course, another major advantage to the longer lens, because it flattens the facial features, making the nose less prominent, whereas the shorter lens places the nose in much closer relative proximity to the lens than the eyes, making the nose appear bigger. Since most people think small noses are more appealing, the longer lenses are preferred).

Now, as I understand it, if the camera were to remain fixed, and you switched lenses, the shorter lens would have the same depth of field as the longer lens. But, since you are unlikely to be doing that, getting further away from your subject increases the depth of field. (As I understand it, this is why a crop sensor has greater apparent depth of field, because the actual distance to the subject is greater than with a full frame camera).

Okay, that's an explanation from a guy who never took a physics course in his life. I'll let others give you a more precise or corrected explanation. (Or perhaps explain why I am completely wrong)


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 1, 2011)

niccyboy said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I think I must be more tolerant of noise than most people, as I am happy to go to ISO 1600 on the 7D and haven't had a problem with acceptance by stock agencies. That could be down to use of 400 ASA film years ago, where the grain was much more obvious. However, exposure has to be perfect and if there are a lot of blues or shadows, then noise can get too much. On the other hand, as I start to use the 5D MkII more in low light, I'm becoming happy to use it at ISO 3200, but I'm still exploring and I've even used it at ISO 6400, where noise also looks pretty low, although I may be losing detail due to the noise characteristics (or it could have been the relatively low shutterspeed). At all ISOs though, the 5D MkII is noticeably cleaner at 100%, but in prints, it isn't really obvious (or at 50%, which is often a better fit to prints). I also see significantly sharper images with the 5D, but some of that is also overcome with sharpening. Less definable, is the tonality of the 5D, there's just some indefinable quality and the dynamic range is certainly noticeable, which probably helps the tonality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2011)

unfocused said:


> For scale purposes imagine a football filling most of your frame,, try getting that all in focus and sharp as possible. I'll probably get this massively wrong and I'm sure the lens experts here will correct me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.
> 
> In your example, I believe a lens with longer focal length could actually be better. Here is the way I understand it: there is a relationship between depth of field and the distance of the subject to the lens. The further you are from your subject the greater the depth of field in actual distance.
> 
> Okay, that's an explanation from a guy who never took a physics course in his life. I'll let others give you a more precise or corrected explanation. (Or perhaps explain why I am completely wrong)



Here comes the correction...

Basically, aperture determines DoF. You're right that focus distance also affects DoF...and if you shoot from a longer distance, the DoF gets deeper. But focal length also affects DoF...and if you shoot with a longer lens, the DoF gets shallower. So, those two cancel each other out. Try plugging some numbers into DoFMaster. Let's use the example at hand - filling the frame (on APS-C) with a football. Say you're using a 50mm lens, a football is 11.25" long, so you'd be at 25". At 50mm f/11 and 25" distance on 1.6x, according to DoFMaster your DoF is 2.5" - clearly not enough for the diameter of the football, and thus the OP's problem. So, you switch to a 200mm lens. Now, to have an 11.25" wide frame at 200mm, you need to be 100" away from the football. Plug 200mm f/11 and 100" distance on 1.6x into DoFMaster and...you get exactly the same 2.5" DoF. So, as you can see increasing focal length and increasing distance have equal but opposite effect on DoF. Put another way, for the same framing (with a given sensor size), it doesn't matter what the focal length or distance are - if the shots are framed identically, aperture will determine DoF.

What will differ in the above scenario is the perspective - that is determined solely by distance. So, the shot with the 200mm lens would look more compressed, if there was more than one subject in the frame especially. But the region of the subject that's in focus will not change.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 1, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Okay, that's an explanation from a guy who never took a physics course in his life. I'll let others give you a more precise or corrected explanation. (Or perhaps explain why I am completely wrong)



Both aperture AND relation of the subject to camera will determine DOF. IF you are shooting infinity, as you mention, you can shoot at F4 and most items will be infocus (except perhaps foreground items)... Aperture will expand upon that but it is what it is. The only downside to the infinity issue is size of objects... I do a lot of small object photography so even if I have a 200-400mm lens at infinity... Even if I put that puppy at F11-22, the item most likely due to the distance I would have to be away from the subject to achieve this, it would A be impractical in a studio setting and B, the items would be teenie tiny in the frame... Now you can use, and I do on occasion, tele's to compress or achieve even shallower DOF when I know my background can be distracting or if there is a visible seam in the background that I want to blur into oblivion, But then again I've got that lens near the "macro" end of the tele in which DOF becomes razor thin. Diffraction usually isn't a problem for what I do however if I'm shooting for large output, I shoot anywhere from F8-11... Any more and I dont want to risk image degeneration, even if it's minimal. In the film days and with medium format and large format I wouldn't think twice about going to F22 and way beyond but with digital, I do have to think about shooting at the optimum apertures for my lenses.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 1, 2011)

K-amps said:


> niccyboy said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. They do compliment each other.
> ...



For sports and wildlife, I regularly use 7D ISO 500-1000. Careful noise reduction and careful sharpening can help, but frankly, mostly the images are fine without a whole lot of trouble. This is with both RAW and JPG.

Usually, I shoot RAW, bit for BIFs, sometimes JPG makes life easier... And the noise still isn't that bad!


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 1, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > niccyboy said:
> ...



ISO is a personal preference... I come from the film days where grain was fully dependent on the size of the film (35mm, MF, 4x5), the size of the output, and ISO... ISO 400 on a 35mm at 8x10 was very noticeable but you lived with it... Then digi came out and the Canon 10D and D60 and anything above ISO 800 looked like somone sneezed on the image. Now I can go up to ISO 3200 on my 7D and get grain at 11x14's as I would expect in Film at the same size at ISO 400. I am not as picky about it because If it comes down to it, I know i can always throw a filter in and wipe out most the noise. Anyone, in my opinion, not shooting a modern camera because of grain, really has too much time on their hands... It's really not the issue that it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc...


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Do you use photoshop CS5 or 5.5? I shoot product photography a good chunk of my time (what pays most my bills)... I do focus bracketing...
> ...



I have tried and bought helicon focus a few months ago, whilst it is good, you do need to fix some mistakes, and a rack for the camera would help the little size diffrences caused by refocusing.
Auto bracketing? is that a camera option i missed?

and yes i am a ps5 fan


----------



## unfocused (Nov 1, 2011)

> Here comes the correction...






> Both aperture AND relation of the subject to camera will determine DOF.



I stand corrected. Always nice to learn something new. 

So, back to the original question though. I gather that the reverse â€“ shooting with a 50mm vs. a 100mm â€“ isn't going to help with Depth of Field either?


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> mreco99 said:
> 
> 
> > I know it wasnt my topic but thanks, that makes sence, and stupidly i never even considered stopping down a little bit more. I stop down as much as i dare with my 450D (up to f11) when doing small item studio stuff to get larger dof.
> ...



Thats a big surprise! the effect on those five coins shots is shocking. I love learning new stuff! thanks
I also hate you, i now have yet another lens to consider!!


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 1, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



There's no auto focus bracketing... I do mine manually (usually around 2-8 shots depending on how macro I've got to get my lens, and how physically big it is... ) I do like in photoshop CS5 it keeps all the layers and keeps the layer masks so you can just use your white/black brushes in the layer masks to reveal and hide areas it may have missed... In the end it's a computer guessing what it thinks is sharp in relation to other files in the same area and if you have decent ram and processing power, doesn't take that long. Quick hint, if you want to play with it, use photo merge... use auto... it usually does a good job... and unclick blend images... if you dont unclick it will think it's a panorama and royally screw things up, but once it aligns it, use autoblend and that will create the stacked image and masks... 

Unfocused... in order to understand DOF better, there are tons of DOF calculators like neuro suggested... They also with any lens, a 50mm or 400mm, the closer your subjects are to your lens (minimum focus distance) the shallower your DOF will be and farther away in relation to what your lens focuses (wider lenses can reach infinity near 10-15 feet while tele's may go 40-50 meters if not more... ) Using that focus scale as a rough estimate, using your aperture to your advantage, and looking at DOF calculators if in doubt, keep in mind if you're using crop or FF, you will have greater control over bokeh and or large DOF.


----------



## EYEONE (Nov 1, 2011)

Kernuak said:


> niccyboy said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I agree. I'm not sure if I'm more tolerant of noise or not. I really don't like noise at all, it really annoys me in post. But I do what I must to get the shot. I won't put a limit on the ISO I will use. If I have to shoot the ceremony at 3200 on a 7D because flash isn't allowed then I will. If you expose correctly it really gives you a lot more to play with in post. I'd rather have a noisy shot over a blurry shot or no shot at all any day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Both aperture AND relation of the subject to camera will determine DOF.



...AND focal length. Also, for the sake of completeness and hopefully not to confuse the issue, the fourth factor is the circle of confusion (CoC, which is related to sensor size, and somewhat arbitrarily defined for various sensor formats based on a specific print size and viewing distance).

So...if you hold the other listed factors constant, you get shallower DoF with:


Wider aperture
Closer focus (subject) distance
Longer focal length
Smaller circle of confusion

The last one confuses many people (pun intended), because CoC decreases with decreasing sensor size, i.e. DoF is actually _shallower_ with a smaller sensor. But remember - the above holds true when you change one factor only. So, if you keep everything but the body constant - same focal length, aperture, and distance, the 7D will give a shallower DoF than the 5DII (try it - plug any numbers you like into DoFMaster, and change only the camera popup menu). Of course, your framing will be quite different. It's not just esoteric, though - it has real-world implications when doing an AFMA with a commercial tool (e.g. LensAlign), where you shoot at the same distance relative to focal length, independent of sensor format. In that setting, you can easily see the shallower DoF with the 7D (compared to the 5DII), and while the standard ruler is fine for 400mm f/5.6 on APS-C, the same lens on FF is marginal, and easier to calibrate with the longer ruler.


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 1, 2011)

that reminds me (T n L) comment on dust... ive never cleaned my sensor, rarely cleans my lenses tbh, since purchase in 2008. Will i still go to heaven?


----------



## Meh (Nov 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Basically, aperture determines DoF.



Correct as usual but I'll add, just in case a few people don't know, it is the actual physical size (the diameter) of the aperture that affects DoF not the f-number (although the f-ratio typically falls out of optical formulae when you end up with an f/d). If it wasn't for diffraction, a tiny aperture would render everything in focus with no need for a lens which is how a pinhole camera works. Yes, in the DoF calculators you must plug in the f-ratio but that is just used (along with focal length) to calculate the diameter (in mm) of the aperture. My turn to wait for a correction from neuro 

Question to neuro (because I just tried but quickly gave up playing with the formulas): changes in subject distance and focal have an opposite effect on DoF but is it equally offsetting for the same framing/subject size? There is an article on Luminous Landscape that demonstrates that if camera position changed to keep subject size the same within the frame, DoF remained visually equal regardless of focal length. This makes sense when one understands that the physical size of the aperture is smaller for shorter focal length lenses for the same f-number. But is it mathematically equal at least first order?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2011)

@Meh - Exactly, it's the iris diaphragm that matters. Practically, since you have to actually do simple math (eek!) to determine that from the focal length and f/number, it's more practical to use those values to determine DoF. 

LL's experiment with the gremlin is approximately correct. In fact, at the distances involved it's actually not the best approximation. I don't agree that the degree of unsharpness is identical - but it's close, good enough for approximation. I've tried an equivalent experiment, as a post hoc test, with my AFMA testing. Since I use 25x the focal length for all lenses, and the LensAlign fills the same proportion of the frame (i.e. distance and focal length are equal and opposite). With an actual distance scale on the ruler, it's apparent that f/2.8 at 16mm (16-35/2.8L II) and at 200mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), the measured DoF is the same, when distance and focal length are reciprocal. 

Actually, the reduction of DoF to dependence only on magnification holds at macro distances (and for microscopy, although we usually call it axial resolution not DoF, and use numerical apertures vs. f/numbers).


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 2, 2011)

Whoosh....


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, if you keep everything but the body constant - same focal length, aperture, and distance, the 7D will give a shallower DoF than the 5DII (try it - plug any numbers you like into DoFMaster, and change only the camera popup menu). Of course, your framing will be quite different.



I thought I was noticing shallower DOF and more background blur with an APS-C sensor (compared with film) and just assumed it was my imagination. Instead, it is probably because I'm tending to using my lenses from a similar distance and changing the framing.

Therefore, if I make the switch to FF, I'm not going to get "more" background blur with the same lens at the same aperture unless I get in closer. I'll mark this in favour of a 7D - I like my space.

But I also read the macro discussion earlier. I actually thought I was getting more magnification. But I'm not. I'm just getting a cropped image. So I'll mark this in favour of a 5D.

As far as image quality goes, at higher ISOs, it is generally agreed that the 5D is the clear winner.

For people with both cameras, comments seem to be equally divided about which camera they prefer if they're just going out to shoot general photos. While there's a slight leaning towards the 5D, the 7D fans seem more vocally devoted. From what I understand, the 7D is a better camera to use than a 5Dii, which is probably why its users are more loyal. It will be interesting to see if the feature set of the 5Diii changes this.

Clearly, there's no definitive winner and probably never will be. But leaning towards the 5Diii (if Canon ever release such a thing) as my next camera. Thanks for your comments so far.


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 2, 2011)

ok, as i was talking about my images earlier, ive included my store link in my signature, does it work?


thanks


----------



## K-amps (Nov 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> @Meh - Exactly, it's the iris diaphragm that matters. Practically, since you have to actually do simple math (eek!) to determine that from the focal length and f/number, it's more practical to use those values to determine DoF.
> 
> LL's experiment with the gremlin is approximately correct. In fact, at the distances involved it's actually not the best approximation. I don't agree that the degree of unsharpness is identical - but it's close, good enough for approximation. I've tried an equivalent experiment, as a post hoc test, with my AFMA testing. Since I use 25x the focal length for all lenses, and the LensAlign fills the same proportion of the frame (i.e. distance and focal length are equal and opposite). With an actual distance scale on the ruler, it's apparent that f/2.8 at 16mm (16-35/2.8L II) and at 200mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), the measured DoF is the same, when distance and focal length are reciprocal.
> 
> Actually, the reduction of DoF to dependence only on magnification holds at macro distances (and for microscopy, although we usually call it axial resolution not DoF, and use numerical apertures vs. f/numbers).



I thought I had this figured out till I read HillSilly's post... 

Neuro or any other Savior : Please dumb this down for me... (you have done this many times  ) : Bokeh notwithstanding.... do I get more or less OOF blur (Quantity) is APC-S or with FF. 

Ok so let say i use a 50mm f1.8 on both a 5d and 7d, subject is 10 feet away from both cameras. After capture and 100% crop (lets say we frame 1 feet on all sides of the head of the subject (to get some background) in the crop )... basically like this frame for a passport picture 

With image will show more blurring of the background?


----------



## Meh (Nov 2, 2011)

K-amps said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @Meh - Exactly, it's the iris diaphragm that matters. Practically, since you have to actually do simple math (eek!) to determine that from the focal length and f/number, it's more practical to use those values to determine DoF.
> ...



I'm no neuro but I can take a shot to rephrase it into less technical terms.... we'll see if I have this right!

If you use the same lens, set to the same aperture, and place the camera the same distance from the subject, you will get more OOF blur with an APS-C sensor compared to a FF sensor.

If you use the same lens, set to the same aperture, and place the APS-C camera 1.6X further away from the subject than the FF camera (to get the same framing) you will get more OOF blur with the FF camera.

If you use the same lens, set to the same aperture, and place the APS-C camera 1.26X further away from the subject than the FF camera you will get the same OOF blur. (1.26 is the square root of the ratio of CoC of FF and APS-C)

If you use different lenses (two different focal lengths) on the same camera but set to the same aperture, and place the camera at the same distance from the subject, the shorter focal length will give less OOF blur.

If you use different lenses (two different focal lengths) on the same camera but set to the same aperture, and place each camera at 25X (or any multiple) of the focal length, both lenses will give the same OOF blur. (This is the gremlin example on LL that keeps the subject the same size)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Neuro: Please dumb this down for me... (you have done this many times  ) : Bokeh notwithstanding.... do i get more or less OOF blur (Quantity) is APC-S or with FF. Give me some numbers in feet etc if you can... cause "framing and similar terms are relative :-\



Practically speaking, shallower DoF with FF. Meh nailed it. But to give an example: 

Head/shoulders portrait shot with an EF 135m f/2L where I want a strong background blur. With the 5DII, I'd stand about 8 feet from the subject, and since faces aren't completely flat, I stop down to f/3.2 to get a 2.3" thick DoF. If I put the same lens on a 7D, to take that same shot of the subject's head and shoulders, I need to stand 13 feet away. Now, with the 135L lens set to f/3.2 my DoF is close to 4" thick - deeper because of the greater distance, so I don't get as much OOF blur. I'd need to set the aperture to f/2 to get the 2.3" DoF.

Now, if I just switched to the 7D, and stayed 8 feet from the subject at f/3.2, I'd actually get a thinner DoF than with FF - a little under 1.5" thick, and thus more OOF blur. But then the image would cut off the subjects shoulders, hairline and possibly ears - not a very flattering portrait. So, in a contrived situation (like that example, or like AFMA testing), the APS-C has shallower DoF. But in a real-world application, DoF is shallower with FF (because you have to move further from the subject to compensate for the narrower angle of view with a crop sensor).

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Practically speaking, shallower DoF with FF. Meh nailed it. But to give an example: ...Hope that makes sense.



Sure does, thanks,


----------



## K-amps (Nov 2, 2011)

Meh said:


> I'm no neuro but I can take a shot to rephrase it into less technical terms.... we'll see if I have this right!
> ........



Perfect response Meh .... really dumbed down for me! 

You get a gold star!


----------



## Meh (Nov 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> But in a real-world application, DoF is shallower with FF (because you have to move further from the subject to compensate for the narrower angle of view with a crop sensor).



I like the way you phrased "real-world application"... unless something is preventing the photographer from moving, he/she will move forward or back to compose the shot and to get the desired framing one would naturally (without thinking about the technical aspects) move a little further away with a crop sensor camera according to what is seen in the viewfinder. And because we don't walk around with DoF calculators we might tend to choose the same aperture setting and when we look at the images we do in fact observe that the FF gave more background blur.


----------



## Meh (Nov 2, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > I'm no neuro but I can take a shot to rephrase it into less technical terms.... we'll see if I have this right!
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 2, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> ok, as i was talking about my images earlier, ive included my store link in my signature, does it work?
> 
> 
> thanks



Store link works... nice photos...


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 2, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> mreco99 said:
> 
> 
> > ok, as i was talking about my images earlier, ive included my store link in my signature, does it work?
> ...


Thanks, appreciate the feedback
also, Neuro, thanks alot, thats really helped, and after 6 months of obsessive reading (i would have anyway) im going to pull the trigger on the 5dm2 and 2 or 3 lenses, (once ive nailed down the lenses lol)


----------

