7D reach vs 5D MkIII

S

Set_Nights

Messages
387
Edit My Images
Yes
Apologies if there is a thread on this already.

I am probably about to reveal my newbishness but doing some basic (and probably wrong!) calculations it seems the 7D has better pixel coverage over the sensor than the 5D MkIII does. I work it out as 0.054 megapixels per mm^2 for the 7D versus 0.026 for the 5DMkIII, so basically double. Now I KNOW pixels are really not everything and that the 5D will be producing much better quality shots than the 7D but it does make it does make it difficult to answer my real question:

If I want to take far reaching shots,assuming I used the same focal length of lens, would the image quality of the 7D full sized image be better than the 5D MkIII image cropped to the same area?

This is the only thing making me cling onto the 7D versus going for the very appealing 5D MkIII as I don't need the higher fps.
 
I have both the 7D and the 5D MKIII....

I would use the 7D where I need the distance... the 1.6 is quite something to miss unless you can afford very long glass......
 
You are spot on.
The vintage 20D/30D have almost identical pixel densities to the 5DII and when I got my early delivery 5DII I did some tests to explore if there were differences.
In short, at ISO 100 there were very subtle differences (5DII was fractionally better, but only with high end glass), and at anything over ISO 100 the 5DII whopped the 20Ds backside.

It's not an easy decision you are trying to make...
Until recently, for festivals and concerts I've been using a 60D on the 70-200 for the long shots and the 5DII for the wide shots.
I need the reach...
Problem is that although the 60D (same sensor as 7D) has the reach, the high ISO isn't quite good enough for what I need; the 60D spends most of it's time at ISO 2500.

So I've swapped them around and am using the 5DII plus a 1.4TC on the 70-200.
With the 1.4TC I'm finding that the 5DII is spending a lot of time at ISO 6400.
However, I'm getting far better results this way around.

Also worth noting....
If you crop, instead of using the 1.4TC then yes, you 'only' get 9Mp;
But that's plenty good enough for printing to A3.
I guess it all comes down to what you want to use the 'reach' for.
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
You are spot on.
The vintage 20D/30D have almost identical pixel densities to the 5DII and when I got my early delivery 5DII I did some tests to explore if there were differences.
In short, at ISO 100 there were very subtle differences (5DII was fractionally better, but only with high end glass), and at anything over ISO 100 the 5DII whopped the 20Ds backside.

It's not an easy decision you are trying to make...
Until recently, for festivals and concerts I've been using a 60D on the 70-200 for the long shots and the 5DII for the wide shots.
I need the reach...
Problem is that although the 60D (same sensor as 7D) has the reach, the high ISO isn't quite good enough for what I need; the 60D spends most of it's time at ISO 2500.

So I've swapped them around and am using the 5DII plus a 1.4TC on the 70-200.
With the 1.4TC I'm finding that the 5DII is spending a lot of time at ISO 6400.
However, I'm getting far better results this way around.

Also worth noting....
If you crop, instead of using the 1.4TC then yes, you 'only' get 9Mp;
But that's plenty good enough for printing to A3.
I guess it all comes down to what you want to use the 'reach' for.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback :). I'll be honest and say that I don't use the full reach that often on my current crop sensor but I do use it sometimes and for the occasions I do use it I would certainly miss the 1.6x factor. I already know I won't be splashing out on expensive far reaching lenses. I want to get a 70-200 f/2.8 lens and that will be my "telephoto" lens. I might invest in a TC too.

Have you done any comparisons of the 60D vs 5D cropped? Is there a significant difference in quality? Any chance of you taking test shots for me :notworthy:?
 
Set_Nights said:
Have you done any comparisons of the 60D vs 5D cropped? Is there a significant difference in quality? Any chance of you taking test shots for me :notworthy:?
Click to expand...

Ha - no I haven't !
Needs more time and better weather than I have right now.
Hopefully someone else will take up the gauntlet, otherwise I'll try and get to it sometime next week.

I expect the results to be very interesting.
It's possible to take shots on the 5DII that you wonder why the zoom button on the back of the camera has stopped working because 100% looks so sharp; that never happens with the 60D, 100% always looks soft.
Even at ISO 100 it is likely that the crispness of the 5DII images will make up for the lack of pixels; I call this one as being pretty darned close.
And at ISO 2500 I expect the 5DII to gain an advantage; whether it will be significant enough to make a real world difference I'm not sure.
Gentlemen, please place your bets.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top