There might be perfectly fine reasons to get a 7D vs 5D Mk II but depth
of field for landscape shots will not be one of them. Although shorter
focal lengths lead to greater depth of field, the larger magnification
required from the smaller sensor leads to lesser depth of field.
Diffraction also places limits and tends to be the equalizer.
On a 7D with its 18MP 1.6X sensor you are limited to an aperture of
approximately f/6.3 to maintain full resolution before diffraction sets
in. On a 5D Mk II with its 21MP full frame sensor you can use
approximately f/10 before diffraction starts rearing its head. If you
use a 15mm lens on a 7D at f/6.3 and a 24mm lens on a 5D Mk II at f/10
both have exactly (well, within rounding error) the same hyperfocal
distance of 5.7 feet and nearest focus of half that. Obviously, DOF for
other distances will be the same as well. Unless the 15mm lens on the
7D is exceptional I think the advantage goes to the 5D Mk II. It's much
larger pixels mean the lens doesn't have to be as precise. But the
pixel density on even the 5D Mk II will be a challenge for lots of glass
and the 7D very much more so.
I'm hoping for maybe a 5D Mk III which might have 7D-like features and
hope it doesn't have too many more pixels. But I wouldn't blame anyone
for getting a 7D. Smaller lenses would be a good benefit. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
>
> As I am usually working for the opposite of Dawid's shallow plane of
> focus, I've be wondering if a 7D might not be a better step for me
> than 5DII. The 15-85/3.5-5.6 (24-136 eq.) appears to be a very fine
> lens for it.
>
> Multi Mode Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|