PDA

View Full Version : 7D vs MKII low light performance



squig
10-09-2009, 06:15 PM
I've yet to see any conclusive results so can somebody do a quick test comparing the 7D @ f/2.8 vs the MK @f/5.6. With the 7D at say ISO 640 and 1250 what ISO does the MKII have to be set at to let in the same amount of light and which camera is noisier with those settings?

The only comments I've seen on low light compare both cameras at the same aperture settings which is pointless because the DOF doesn't match on the different sensor sizes.

Kholi
10-09-2009, 06:29 PM
I've yet to see any conclusive results so can somebody do a quick test comparing the 7D @ f/2.8 vs the MK @f/5.6. With the 7D at say ISO 640 and 1250 what ISO does the MKII have to be set at to let in the same amount of light and which camera is noisier with those settings?

The only comments I've seen on low light compare both cameras at the same aperture settings which is pointless because the DOF doesn't match on the different sensor sizes.

Very pointless. Agreed.

I'd do it but my MKii went to Japan.

squig
10-09-2009, 06:48 PM
Very pointless. Agreed.

I'd do it but my MKii went to Japan.

bugga.....I thought you'd have the answer.

Kholi
10-09-2009, 06:48 PM
I still say the MKii is a stop more sensitive when matched. But I could be wrong.

And I'm still on the fence about selling my MKii. =T Stills are crazy.

squig
10-09-2009, 06:56 PM
I still say the MKii is a stop more sensitive when matched. But I could be wrong.

And I'm still on the fence about selling my MKii. =T Stills are crazy.

Me too, I want 24p but until I can get some definitive low light results and magic lantern gets ported I'll stick with the MKII. I'd have to get a tokina 11-16 too to make up for the wide shortfall, can you make aperture changes with it on the 7D?

commanderspike
10-09-2009, 07:02 PM
Kholi do you still have a GH1, or did you end up keeping hold of the 5D in the end?

I feel a lot of affection for the way the GH1 handles, but the difference in image quality is really quite alarming when it comes to colour rendering.

Can't wait for the 7D tests. That remains an option also, especially with the rather appealing new 15-85mm IS EF-S lens.

xbourque
10-09-2009, 08:43 PM
can you make aperture changes with it on the 7D?

I have the Tokina 11-16 in Canon mount, the camera has full control over the lens (AF and aperture).

It doesn't have an aperture ring though. You have to use the controls on the camera for that.

--Xavier

ryansheffer
10-09-2009, 11:13 PM
I did extensive testing last week. Sadly I don't have the footage to post, but my findings were the following.

1. The 7d with all settings identical to the 5d is about a half stop brighter.
2. The 7d does worse with underexposure (more noise and loss of detail)
3. The 7d has more noise at the same ISO level but has less banding and weird artifacting at high ISO.
4. To my eye, the 7d has much more noise but a nice "feeling" noise than the 5d mark II. It feels much more like faster film stock than weird artifacted CMOS sensor imagery.

Both look nearly identical at or below ISO 320. I even found the dynamic range to be about the same. (wish I could be more scientific)

ydgmdlu
10-10-2009, 12:01 AM
I can try to do a test and post footage this weekend, if you want.

squig
10-10-2009, 01:10 AM
cool thx

Uwe Lansing
10-10-2009, 03:21 AM
Perhaps this clip has already been posted, i donīt know... http://www.vimeo.com/6876905

commanderspike
10-10-2009, 06:54 AM
Perhaps this clip has already been posted, i donīt know... http://www.vimeo.com/6876905

5D is much sharper, look at ball 13 when it's resting against side pocket on the left. Have to download full 720p Quicktime file to tell the difference of course but quite a big difference. All to be expected from a smaller sensor I guess, with noise reduction working slightly harder. But all in all 7D is very acceptable. Clearly Canon have developed the CMOS technology further in the year that's passed since the 5D's release. A APS-C size sensor has no right to compete with full frame on such an even footing!

wjm
10-10-2009, 12:01 PM
A well intentioned but highly flawed comparison.

5D was given a PRIME lens known to be incredibly sharp - 50 1.4 stopped DOWN to F4 - sweet spot.
7D was given a ZOOM (albeit an F4 "L" lens) lens shot WIDE open at F4. Add 1.6 crop, wide open, zoom, and the test is meaningless.

This test was probably done by a Nikon shill. ;)

wjm
10-10-2009, 12:03 PM
...with regard to sharpness, that is. To be fair, the tester was more interested in low light capability, if I recall.

LorenS
10-10-2009, 03:25 PM
A well intentioned but highly flawed comparison.

5D was given a PRIME lens known to be incredibly sharp - 50 1.4 stopped DOWN to F4 - sweet spot.
7D was given a ZOOM (albeit an F4 "L" lens) lens shot WIDE open at F4. Add 1.6 crop, wide open, zoom, and the test is meaningless.

This test was probably done by a Nikon shill. ;)

Totally agree that the vimeo test is useless. A 50mm 1.8 prime at f/4 is leagues sharper than an older model 'kit' zoom wide open. Not to mention that 70-90mm is actually the weak spot for the 24-105 which falls down after you get out of the traditional standard zoom range (24-70) :violent5:. Kudos to someone for doing the test at all, but...

mhood
10-10-2009, 03:48 PM
I'm pretty confused by some of the statements being made about sharpness with respect to lenses. It seems a lens that is soft for stills might very well be plenty sharp enough for video...especially on the 7D.

Barry_Green
10-10-2009, 03:54 PM
Exactly. So if a lens is plenty sharp enough for stills, it's absurdly way sharper than necessary for video.

Hence, the idea that the lens was somehow soft and was making the video soft, is rejected. If a lens is soft enough to impact the video, it should absolutely *murder* the stills performance.

Michael Olsen
10-10-2009, 03:57 PM
Makes me wonder how one of those FD adapters would impact image quality.

Barry_Green
10-10-2009, 04:00 PM
Well, that's the thing -- what if the aliasing could be gotten rid of, by some of those AA/moire filters? Once you identify what the problem is, you're then empowered to go find a solution to that problem. And maybe an FD adapter, with its optical element, might be exactly what's needed to soften the harsh edges and get rid of the aliasing... no way to know but to try it.

squig
10-10-2009, 07:01 PM
I've used minolta lenses with an optical adapter on the MKII, wide open the edges are very soft but stepped down a couple of stops things sharpen up quite a bit. The main issue is chromatic aberrations but I've done some outdoor tests of my kid riding her bike and the footage had this real 3D effect that you don't get shooting with a sharp lens.

plasmasmp
10-10-2009, 07:32 PM
The aliasing is one of the main reasons pirata and I are stocking up on anamorphic lenses. It really decreases the amount of aliasing in the picture. Also, I'm using lots of old glass which does amazingly well on the 7D. I have this old 1985 Albinar 80-200 3.9 lens and it is a fantastic old lens to use with this camera. Moire can be fixed easily, the aliasing, well I'm still experimenting with that. I wish we could order the cam with a 2mp optimized OLPF and forget the stills performance. Heck, drop the mirror too! I want to use wide OCT-9 lenses.