this is interesting, one with the 5Dii and 24L, the other the 7D and 10-22 (exif intact, but can you see a difference?):


exposures are as close as I could get them juggling 2 cameras, 1 tripod, 1 filter set and some changing light.

full res links (JPEGs out of LR with similar processing, shot RAW):
http://benjacobsenphoto.com/blog/wp-...i-full-res.jpg
http://benjacobsenphoto.com/blog/wp-...d-full-res.jpg

I also have this exact post up on PotN here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=913638

the images in this post have some editing on them that isn't EXACT shot to shot, the full res linked JPEGs both have identical processing on them in LR (my typical landscape workflow of +10 shadows, highlights, vibrance, saturation, then 50 clarity and then the profile set to landscape on RAW files).

Are there differences? Yes. Anything major? Not really to my eye. They both have some noise, they both have pretty good detail considering, IMHO the camera really isn't making a huge difference here. The PotN guys all seem to think so though. They're seeing more detail here, better colors there, etc. Not sure if they're being nit picky on TINY differences, or if they're defending their cameras or what. It's pretty interesting though. The 7D can certainly hold it's own. As mentioned in the PotN thread though, the 5Dii has one lens available that makes it a MUCH better landscaping option, the 17mm TS-E....

top seems to have more detail in the rocks than the bottom, but thats really looking for differences...

that could be the lens though...

very nice! I agree, not much of a difference for these shots. Surely not a 150% better difference (comparing rough prices)

5d seems to have much more detail and range in the rocks. could be the lens.

#2 (7D) is slightly more exposed, less shadows, thus giving the impression it is lacking the detail that #1 (5D MK II) has.

also detail is better in the greens as well on the first as well, im thinking more lens though.

As I pointed out in the Sachuest thread I do see a bit more detail in the rocks in the 5Dii shot. BUT, it really is such a small difference that I had to go back and forth between them a bunch of times to even notice it.

Green/Cyan fringing on the 5DII, but definitely better detail. Also if your shots here were side by side, it'd be easier to see the differences, but for me the big rock center bottom to the left of the patch of pebbles shows the biggest difference. Light changes so I'd say they are similar enough to make it a none issue. Additionally how much of this has to do with LR3? I mean better rendering for a specific camera will result in better final product right? Especially when shot in RAW.

Either way, you're right.. 7D it does what you need it to do.

Originally Posted by PhatheadWRX

very nice! I agree, not much of a difference for these shots. Surely not a 150% better difference (comparing rough prices)

and in this case it's ~$2200 -vs- ~$3300...

Originally Posted by Dragicon

5d seems to have much more detail and range in the rocks. could be the lens.

more detail, sure, but MUCH?

Originally Posted by thomps6s

#2 (7D) is slightly more exposed, less shadows, thus giving the impression it is lacking the detail that #1 (5D MK II) has.

are you going by histograms or EXIF? Because the exposure changed in the time between the shots just in fumbling with 2 cameras and the filter stack. Ideally I'd do this with 2 tripods next time and maybe even 2 sets of filters (or none).

Originally Posted by brian1971

BUT, it really is such a small difference that I had to go back and forth between them a bunch of times to even notice it.

yeah, that's what I'm getting at. Is it even worth it to own both for me? I'm keeping the 7D for sure, I'm just torn on the need for the 5Dii -vs- using that money elsewhere. The 17mm TS-E is a temptation though, having a TS-E wide enough that I don't NEED to shift would be so rad. But I'd have to sort filters out for it all over again and it's a $2200 lens.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

are you going by histograms or EXIF? Because the exposure changed in the time between the shots just in fumbling with 2 cameras and the filter stack. Ideally I'd do this with 2 tripods next time and maybe even 2 sets of filters (or none).

Just by looking at them, the 7D image looks brighter. It has brighter shadow areas all around and the whites are much whiter.

get the 17 TSE

Such a sexy lens...

Originally Posted by thomps6s

Just by looking at them, the 7D image looks brighter. It has brighter shadow areas all around and the whites are much whiter.

says the amateur...

Originally Posted by subimatt

get the 17 TSE

Such a sexy lens...

$2200 and the filter issue? Otherwise I would. But that means that cash for the lens AND I have to tie up MORE cash on the 5Dii.

the though of selling the 5Dii for the 17mm TS-E had crossed my mind though, then grabbing either a 1Ds or 5D (cheapest FF options). But even then it's a ton of money to tie up and TS-Es are massive and clunky to shoot with.

Ill try to do an engagement comparo tonight... I wanted to try it at yesterdays wedding but the 7d never left the bag.

I like the clouds in the 5D picture better.

Wait, didn't you switch back to Canon because of a $2000+ lens that you would use MORE than a TS-E???

Just sayin'.....

Originally Posted by Mr.Boobie

Still splitting hairs I see.

nope, just seeing if there's a good reason to keep the 5Dii. I want the 7D to be the answer all by itself.

Originally Posted by jjswee

I like the clouds in the 5D picture better.

Originally Posted by Markitos

Wait, didn't you switch back to Canon because of a $2000+ lens that you would use MORE than a TS-E???

Just sayin'.....

yeah, and I totally get that and agree. The only difference is that the $2200 nikon lens isn't anything special, it's available for $1100 and $1600 for the canon, but also, I don't make any money with that lens. The TS-E is something I'd use for 2 of the subjects I actually MAKE money with, so it'd be easier to justify, but just as unlikely. TS-E lenses are expensive, period. Their optics are huge and their bodies expensive to build. Plus there's not much demand. So their costs make more sense to me, but again, I don't see myself doing it. Especially because it means I'd need a FF camera to go with it further increasing the cost.

But I will admit I have a list for movements. Always have. I just wish they weren't so expensive. I'd go the alternative route but there aren't many/any wide options there.

Yeah, I want at least one of the TS-Es, and will get one eventually, but it's kind of like the FE was for me--something that is fun sometimes, but just won't get used very often.

Momma said if I have nothing good to say, to just keep mah mouth closed.

Originally Posted by Mr.Boobie

It's like you are comparing a two identical apples trying to figure out which one is better.

The one without half a worm

You should sell them both and get a D700...

Originally Posted by Markitos

Yeah, I want at least one of the TS-Es, and will get one eventually, but it's kind of like the FE was for me--something that is fun sometimes, but just won't get used very often.

exactly.

except when I think about the 17mm TS-E, I've always wondered about primes for landscaping, and the 17mm would be wide enough on it's own, but then shifting it'd get crazy wide... But it's got filter issues.

I didn't like HAVING to stitch to get wide shots when I had the TS-Es before, but it was very nice to have the option... 17mm gives you both options.

Originally Posted by Mr.Boobie

IMO the only reason to keep the 5dii is if you are broke and need cash or you need additional wideness and the 7D can't give it to you.

one of those sounds like a reason NOT to keep it?

yeah, dude, I agree with how close they are. I'm sharing the shots to show this to other people who might also be on a similar fence. A LOT of people say you need FF to landscape, I tend to disagree, at least in this setting. If you open it up to TS-E use, then sure the FF format is better, but that's 1% of landscapes guys at most?

Originally Posted by jciotti

You should sell them both and get a D700...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

If you open it up to TS-E use, then sure the FF format is better, but that's 1% of landscapes guys at most?

What are your saying is I'm weird, right?

What you NEED is a 5D MKII and a 24mm TS-E!

If I didn't fall in love with Nikon bodies I would have done that setup and thrown in a 1D MKIV for everything else.

You like 24mm and with a TS-E that is WAY wide enough on a FF when shifted..

I like 24mm for around the house shooting, for landscaping it's not nearly wide enough. I'd go with a 17mm TS-E as it gives you the best 17mm landscaping lens available and also gives you ~12mm if you stitch. But filters would be yet another creative DIY unfortunately... Stitching is cool, but I don't want to HAVE to stitch ever shot to get something remotely wide. I've been down that road before.

I think you need to switch back to Nikon, stat.

wait. ben bought ANOTHER 5dmkii? i guess that's not really surprising anymore...

Originally Posted by case sensitive

wait. ben bought ANOTHER 5dmkii? i guess that's not really surprising anymore...

not bought, swapped the broken one for a refurbed one via loyalty.

ah. very nice!

I find that the 16-35 is usually To wide with most landscape stuff. I cant imagine a 17mm on a FF stitched. sheesh
Youd really need a lot of stuff to look at in front of you to make it worth it. I want a 17TSE, dont get me wrong but not for landscapes, typically.

that's the thing, you don't ALWAYS have to stitch with it... The bigger issue for me would be when you need longer, the TS-Es work with TCs, but what if you need something between?

right, but i can see a 17 being to wide and not using it. It would be damn near perfect for landscape on a 7d though.

You are one Surly dude, dude.

I am a little surprised this thread is still going on, but I'll toss in my 2 cents now that it is heating up a little. I am not up on your everyday camera choices, so what I understand from reading this is that you own both a 5dmrk2 and a 7d, and you are trying to figure out which one to use?

I agree that the pictures up top do not yield much of a difference. The same can be achieved with a d90 & d300(s). In that case, the sensors are the exact same, and when used on a tripod at a low ISO, the results should be pretty much identical. I use a d300 because I like the feel, the controls, the functions, the better autofocus, the FPS for wildlife (and hdr), and the better tracking on the d300 when compared to the d90. To me, if you are trying to really compare the two, it would be best to do such pros and cons for both cameras (through each test you feel is important to your shooting), instead of a tripod test at low iso, and then choose which one suits you better.

Personally, I have used my dad's 5dmrk2, and aside from the FF sensor, I was not impressed at all. I greatly prefer my d300 over the 5dmrk2. From everything that I have read about the 7d, it is a great camera, and beats the 5dmrk2 in categories that I feel are important to me. So I would choose the 7d, but maybe you can choose which ever one suits your style better, because from the pictures at the top, the difference is small.

^ well the D90 and D300 comparison is more like the T2i and 7D no? I don't want to get into how the cameras compare to each other across brands too much, but they both have the same sensors? Then the 5Dii has a big old FF sensor...

but I couldn't agree with you more on the 5Dii being a bit clunky. After shooting the D700 for a year then the 7D for 2 months it felt very slow/clunky now and the AF points seemed TINY... It's got amazing IQ for sure, which is obviously a LARGE part of photography, but it's a very slow/clunky body in comparison. I really hope they address some of the issues with the 5Diii whenever they make it.

but they wont, the 5D is made to be a prosumer camera, with a FF sensor. If they made it all whizbang with 45 AFpoints, and 6 FPS, or even threw the 7D AF in it, it would cannibalize a good portion of the 1 series cameras. The reason its clunky, is because its designed that way. Im sure the people that bought the 5d and 5dII wouldnt have bought a 1D/s but if the 5d was a 7d with ff, then 1ds buyers wouldnt spend the coin on the 1D/s

so now that they made the 7D, 1DIV sales have completely tanked, right?

I do see what you mean, but to me I see room in there for a FF camera that's also quick, but it can't be the same sensor as the 1DsIV IMHO. That's where all these 3D rumors come in. A cheap FF option also makes some sense, look at 5D sales ~5 years later... But we won't see both, that's for sure. Look at the D700 and D3? They sold side by side for over a year with a massive price difference and a very small spec difference. Hell, the D700 even has some features the D3 DOESN'T because it's newer.... People who "need" pro bodies need pro bodies regardless of the value available in a smaller lesser option. People who collect gear are in the same boat. Those that don't need it or are on a smaller budget want options.

I agree with Ben that you could offer a lower light, ~12-15mp FF body that is smaller and has 7D features and market that towards PJ or as a sports backup, and then keep your 1-series for those who want/need it. I think the 1-series is like 1% of Canon's DSLR sales, anyway. I'm sure the D700 has cut into D3 sales somewhat, but Nikon doesn't seem to be hurting too much.

so, Nikon's not making a 12mp body now with all the bells and whistles? And in the time it's been on the market, it doesn't cost them less now -vs- 3 years ago when they started making it?

Yes making a new 12~16mp FF sensor costs money in R&D. And I'd imaging the pixel count in a sensor doesn't drive the cost as much as the area (since they're fighting for wafer real estate)... But if they take what's already working in the 7D and slap a FF sensor in it it'd be a rad camera for sure w/o a ton of new stuff for them to make. The original 5D was just that, a 30D with a FF sensor put in it and what, a few extra helper points? Remove the flash and the flash commaneder for more savings?

and just as you said, incentives for lesser models drive what they'll make. But look at the used 5D market. The prices have INCREASED in the last year or so... That tells me how much of a HR that camera is in terms of IQ for the money. If they made it again, or stripped it a bit and made it again, they could sell tons of them IMHO. If they were to make a 7D with a FF sensor, it'd be a ~$3k body though IMHO, NOT sub 5Dii price. People will pay for less MP on FF with the speed w/o a doubt.

If canon re-released the 5D now for <$1500 they'd sell tons of them.
If they made a FF 7D for ~$3k, maybe even ~$4k, they'd still sell a ton.

They won't do both, they might not do either, but the 5Diii will most likely have better AF it in at this point...

Originally Posted by jm2e

B. What if you had something with the features of a D3000 with a FF sensor in it? Nothing different except the sensor. Slow FPS, no live view, no video, no bells, no whistles. Just a really nice sensor and very basic SLR features. How much would it cost?

yeah, people have been saying that in canon's line forever. drebel with a FF sensor. But then of course people bitch about the lack of a wheel so it becomes a 20D with a FF sensor and guess what...... That's EXACTLY what the 5D is/was.

but I see a market there. People have switched to sony for the a900 and a850 as the cheapest FF option w/o going used. If canon were to redo the 5D with a newer 12mp sensor (or even the same one?) and just update the processor(s) so it's got the noise performance of the newer bodies (it wouldn't even need to beat them even though it easily could) I think it'd sell. Most people don't need FPS, crazy AF, ISOs or any of that crap. That's why the 5D did so well and still does. It's a HELL of a sensor in a very inexpensive body...

Is that why you see so many people slapping battery grips onto their D90 and T2i bodies? Instant 'pro' setup?

they all say it's because they have big hands (everyone online must have massive dicks too right?) and they "need" it for a better grip, plus that it "doubles the battery life" as if I can't carry a spare if they've got a grip... I've had ONE grip and it was for my D700 to get the FPS for skiing... But yeah, I DO think a lot of people ARE influenced by the status a camera brings, at least on PotN....

again, that's why I think the 5D has this cult following. It gave people the sensor they always wanted for the cheapest price possible. And photographers that KNEW what FF meant use it and love it. I remember switching from my 1Dii to a 5D and asking on PotN if it was the right move. ~85% said no way? Ask them again now with the same two cameras and see which way that poll would go now.... They put the current 1 series on this pedestal but otherwise FF is on a similar pedestal.