7D, 550, T2i: What are the main differences?

These are no professional tests, besides they have been linked in this forum about a hundred times before. Big yawn.
Please ydgmdlu, no more posts in this thread, this is about a different level. No offense. Thank you.

What is really needed are some professional chart tests comparing the dynamic range of 7D and 550D.
 
daktulus said:
These are no professional tests, besides they have been linked in this forum about a hundred times before. Big yawn.
Please ydgmdlu, no more posts in this thread, this is about a different level. No offense. Thank you.

What is really needed are some professional chart tests comparing the dynamic range of 7D and 550D.
Click to expand...

lol , you are taking this way to serious. Basically the 7D and T2i shoot the same , why or how in the world would a chart make you feel better?


What will it prove? If the 7D wins in test or if the T2i wins in test it means nothing , the point is they are both excellent cameras. Go out out there and work and I think it's you who needs to stop posting in this thread. It's like trying to slam a revolving door with your constant way of thinking :nads:
 
daktulus said:
These are no professional tests, besides they have been linked in this forum about a hundred times before. Big yawn.
Please ydgmdlu, no more posts in this thread, this is about a different level. No offense. Thank you.

What is really needed are some professional chart tests comparing the dynamic range of 7D and 550D.
Click to expand...

Maybe you might need to buy them both and run the tests yourself otherwise you will always be wondering.

ydgmdlu has answered your original post exactly and so have I and others.

Telling someone not to post on a public thread is little bit rude and dismissive IMO.
 
Last edited:
daktulus said:
These are no professional tests, besides they have been linked in this forum about a hundred times before. Big yawn.
Please ydgmdlu, no more posts in this thread, this is about a different level. No offense. Thank you.
Click to expand...
You have some nerve. Thanks for the condescension. Real professional.

You are the one who keeps insisting that there seems to be a difference in dynamic range, and you base this belief on unscientific sample videos that don't prove a thing. But now you demand only "professional tests" to prove you wrong? You know, there's a word for saying one thing but doing the exact opposite, and it begins with the letter 'h.'

What is really needed are some professional chart tests comparing the dynamic range of 7D and 550D.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand your attitude at all. It's certainly not reasonable, and it sounds rather characteristic of someone who has OCD. (I should know; I genuinely have OCD myself.) Now please tell me this: If the two cameras are tested side-by-side, shooting the same subject with the same lenses, settings, lighting conditions, and the resultant images are indistinguishable from each other, then why do you need to go a step further and shoot a test chart? It's like the germaphobe who obsessively and compulsively washes his hands over and over and avoids what he perceives to be contaminated surfaces: The difference is only in the mind, not in reality.

So don't you see what you're doing here? You're prioritizing test charts over real-world shooting. Do you honestly believe that, after trying both a T2i and a 7D, you would be able to clearly spot a difference in dynamic range when doing real-world shooting? Do you honestly believe that a 7D would enable you to shoot better footage, and not just because of a placebo effect?

Look, I don't care if you buy a 7D instead of a T2i. The 7D is a better camera. There, I said it. To quote Barry, it better be superior, since it costs so much more. I only care that you have correct information. And the fact is that the video performance of the T2i is identical that of the 7D. The only differences between the cameras come down to software features and body design. That's all.
 
daktulus said:
These are no professional tests, besides they have been linked in this forum about a hundred times before. Big yawn.
Please ydgmdlu, no more posts in this thread, this is about a different level. No offense. Thank you.

What is really needed are some professional chart tests comparing the dynamic range of 7D and 550D.
Click to expand...

Go rent them both and test for yourself.
 
And, for the record, the ONLY kind of tests that matter are scientific tests. Anything other than a scientific test leaves too much room for subjective interpretation or contamination of the results by uncontrolled or too many variables.
 
Interesting - these tests give a slight edge in dynamic range to T2i ove both 7D and 5D mark II!

It also puts into question the results of the 7D on the Zacuto shootout where it was much more contrasty than the 5D. I've always wondered whether there was a mistake on that shot. It looked like too dramatic a change from the 5D. its so easy for a mistake to be made in tests.

Thanks for the tip barry.
 
Barry_Green said:
Scientific test of t2i/550d dynamic range:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page16.asp

Scientific test of 7D dynamic range:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page17.asp
Click to expand...

Those are for JPEG stills though, using the inbuilt picture styles? My understanding was that using custom built picture styles you could increase the dynamic range by opting for a flat low contrast look, which can be manipulated in post.

Sorry if I'm wrong about this.
 
Thanks a lot Barry!


It´s hard to believe there are people out there who don´t want to know the truth. Very strange.
And wonderful there are people who keep looking for scientific evidence. Thanks again Barry.
 
Last edited:
studio1972 said:
Those are for JPEG stills though, using the inbuilt picture styles? My understanding was that using custom built picture styles you could increase the dynamic range by opting for a flat low contrast look, which can be manipulated in post.

Sorry if I'm wrong about this.
Click to expand...


Nop, custom profiles won´t give you any increase in dynamic range, the gamma curve in canon picture profiles just remaps values into different positions as well as changing the colour space slightly (to get extra green satuaration or softer skin colours), but the dynamic range remains the same.

People spending time using supermegahyperflat custom profiles are... well, just wasting their time if what they wanted was to achieve more detail in the higlights/shadows.
 
macgregor said:
Nop, custom profiles won´t give you any increase in dynamic range, the gamma curve in canon picture profiles just remaps values into different positions as well as changing the colour space slightly (to get extra green satuaration or softer skin colours), but the dynamic range remains the same.

People spending time using supermegahyperflat custom profiles are... well, just wasting their time if what they wanted was to achieve more detail in the higlights/shadows.
Click to expand...

Have you seen this:

http://vimeo.com/7256322

It seems inconsistent with what you are saying. There is definitely more detail in the highlights and shadows with these profiles.

Also a raw still image has much more dynamic range than a jpeg out of the camera, so it makes sense that with the right custom profile you could utilise this with a low contrast profile for video?
 
The reason for this is that the profiles are applied after the conversion from raw-rgb is fully done. Therefore the input and output levels (white-black input points) are fixed and by playing with the tone curve you won´t recover any more detail in the highlights. Yes it can help to achieve slightly less compression artifacts if you shoot with the tone curve that resambles most your final grade, but the changes are minimal. Shooting with contrast all the way down reverses the standard Scurve.

Do your own test. Shoot a picture in standard mode and then bring the "contrast" all the way down and take another. Then reverse engineer that Scurve in your grading system and you´ll end up with the same exact image. Not a single stop more in highlight detail.

Or even simplier, load a high contrast raw image in the canon profile software editor, and check by yourself that no matter how much you modify the tone curve you can´t gain any extra DR. Of course you can actually lose DR if you deliverately clip the values. And also try fixing those horrible skin tones after you shot with one of those hypermegasuperflat profiles. Good luck...

Raw has more dynamic range than the jpeg. Sure, but you are not shooting raw video. It would make sense that by choosing different tone curves you could achieve better DR. That´s the case in a Varicam or a F35. But not in the case of Canon DSLRs.

Belive me I know very well what I´m talking about, it´s not like I´m making these things up.
 
macgregor said:
The reason for this is that the profiles are applied after the conversion from raw-rgb is fully done. Therefore the input and output levels (white-black input points) are fixed and by playing with the tone curve you won´t recover any more detail in the highlights. Yes it can help to achieve slightly less compression artifacts if you shoot with the tone curve that resambles most your final grade, but the changes are minimal. Shooting with contrast all the way down reverses the standard Scurve.

Do your own test. Shoot a picture in standard mode and then bring the "contrast" all the way down and take another. Then reverse engineer that Scurve in your grading system and you´ll end up with the same exact image. Not a single stop more in highlight detail.

Or even simplier, load a high contrast raw image in the canon profile software editor, and check by yourself that no matter how much you modify the tone curve you can´t gain any extra DR. Of course you can actually lose DR if you deliverately clip the values. And also try fixing those horrible skin tones after you shot with one of those hypermegasuperflat profiles. Good luck...

Raw has more dynamic range than the jpeg. Sure, but you are not shooting raw video. It would make sense that by choosing different tone curves you could achieve better DR. That´s the case in a Varicam or a F35. But not in the case of Canon DSLRs.

Belive me I know very well what I´m talking about, it´s not like I´m making these things up.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the extensive reply.

I did have a look at the curve tool in the picture style editor, and you are right that the standard picture styles already seem to cover all the input values. As you said, the input values must therefore be less than the range of a raw still image.

Bit of a shame really :cry:

Personally, I don't actually use the flat profiles anyway, I prefer to get it as near to right as possible in camera if I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top