Sorry if this has been covered. Does the 7D outperform the 1dmkII?
I mostly shoot birds/wildlife. I like the 1dmkII because I can shoot up to ISO 800 and have hardly any noise problems as long as I expose correctly. This is important as I am mostly stuck in perma grey low light country.
I also will be using the 1.4x EF II extender along with the 500 f/4 will I have to tape the pins? Will AF be spotty with the 7D and the extender? How about focus on the 1dII is the center AF as good as the 1dII or for that matter the other focus points?
With the 500+1.4 you don't have to tape the pins with the 7D.
If I'm in the same boat, I'd pick the 7D. For wild life, you need more reach with the 1.6x crop. Plus the noise will be better from the 7D than 1dmkII.
4x4rock wrote:
With the 500+1.4 you don't have to tape the pins with the 7D.
If I'm in the same boat, I'd pick the 7D. For wild life, you need more reach with the 1.6x crop. Plus the noise will be better from the 7D than 1dmkII.
Live View for wildlife is pretty cool too.
Cool thanks for your opinion. Do you get to use the AF points if I use the 1.4x and the 7D with that lens?
Chupa,
I sold a 1dmk2 and upgraded to a 7d, I don't miss the mk2. Just the ISO perf (of 7D) beyond 800 and reduced weight was more than enough for me. The excellent AF modes are a pleasure to use. The high ISO noise on this camera is not bad at all, I am impressed. Image quality is similar to my 40D....but hey, at 18mp !!
Can the below images be made with a 1Dmk2 ? Sure...but I love the reduced weight of the 7D. Btw, I wasn't a birder until I picked up a 7D.
All taken with a 400 f/5.6, hand held.
They say it's tough to get this bird to look sharp, the 7D pulled it off at a moment's notice, and yea, it's a 50% crop (center AF)
PS: "ISO 800 on the mk2", am glad we both agree that images are great up to that ISO :-). ISO 3200 is very realistic on the 7D and I have used it...couldn't be happier with the results.
I was shooting with a MkIIn and got a 7D for the promise of better high-ISO performance. I was worried that the AF might be a step backwards. I've only had the 7D for two weeks but so far I think the high-ISO is at least one stop better, and there are two settings beyond what my old camera had, so that's a 3 stop win. The AF appears to be very similar, maybe just a small tad slower to lock on in A1 Servo, but certainly there is no big difference. To date I am pleased as punch with the 7D, but I still have a lot to learn about it. Only negative I have found is that the 18 megapixel files take a lot more time to handle.
If you think the 18mp stills are bad wait till you try 1080p video . I need a new computer. Mac here I come (as soon as I have the cash, 7d is a pretty penny).
I have 1DMkIIN I recently bought here...and the camera is awesome...
I am just curious...Is AF performance of 7D really up to 1DMkII series?
If it is, I'm willing to upgrade(?) my camera....
I don't really care for the video capability, better LCD, 18MP.... since I already have 5DMKII for that.
8 MP is not enough if you are focal length constrained.
For example, I have a 400mm F5.6 L as my birding lens. I cannot afford the 500mm, 600mm, or 800mm lenses. They are just too expensive. So I am contrained to 400mm.
with the 400mm F5.6 L ...
A 7D (18 MP) gives 18 MP and a field of view equivalent to 640mm.
A 5D (12.8 MP) gives 5.1 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
A 1D Mark III (10 MP) gives about 5.6 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
The 1D Mark II (8 MP) gives about 4.7 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
So when constrained to 400mm the 7D puts far more pixels on the bird.
I have found the 7D crop-ability to be excellent. I have also found noise levels to be very good.
Again, 18MP is nice to have...but my main concern is the AF performance.
I'll be mainly using the camera for outdoor school sports, and occasional nature/animal pictures.
I'm not into birding.....at least not yet....
8 MP is not enough if you are focal length constrained.
For example, I have a 400mm F5.6 L as my birding lens. I cannot afford the 500mm, 600mm, or 800mm lenses. They are just too expensive. So I am contrained to 400mm.
with the 400mm F5.6 L ...
A 7D (18 MP) gives 18 MP and a field of view equivalent to 640mm.
A 5D (12.8 MP) gives 5.1 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
A 1D Mark III (10 MP) gives about 5.6 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
The 1D Mark II (8 MP) gives about 4.7 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
So when constrained to 400mm the 7D puts far more pixels on the bird.
I have found the 7D crop-ability to be excellent. I have also found noise levels to be very good. ...Show more →
I hear what your saying but I have heard that the 1.6x is more like a multiplier "effect", which to me means it is like virtual focal length. I wonder what this would actually mean? I mean I have a hard time swallowing that a 1.6x multiplier effect would make a 500mm f/4 actually 800mm?? I think that you might get more detail out of your files and be able to print bigger. Please don't take this as an attack, I am just a little confused over the multiplier effect as canon calls it.
Also I am considering the camera for fine art bird/wildlife photography.
chupacabra31 wrote:
... I have heard that the 1.6x is more like a multiplier "effect", which to me means it is like virtual focal length. I wonder what this would actually mean? I mean I have a hard time swallowing that a 1.6x multiplier effect would make a 500mm f/4 actually 800mm?? I think that you might get more detail out of your files and be able to print bigger. Please don't take this as an attack, I am just a little confused over the multiplier effect as canon calls it.
You can find many posts here discussing the 'definition' of the 1.6x crop but basically it's this: Focal length NEVER changes regardless of the format (or 'crop') of the camera. Focal length is a mathematical formula of lens. The key word that really gets argued about is "Field of View"...Would a 500mm lens (@f5.6) on a 1.6x crop camera give the same exact image of an 800 mm lens (@f5.6). This is the point where MANY heated discussions have taken place over sementics (here for example) My short answer to you is that it will give you the same "Field of View" but other factors will be slightly different. I now assume that the 'crop/field of view vs full frame' discussions will now begin so be prepared to
omarlyn wrote:
You can find many posts here discussing the 'definition' of the 1.6x crop but basically it's this: Focal length NEVER changes regardless of the format (or 'crop') of the camera. Focal length is a mathematical formula of lens. The key word that really gets argued about is "Field of View"...Would a 500mm lens (@f5.6) on a 1.6x crop camera give the same exact image of an 800 mm lens (@f5.6). This is the point where MANY heated discussions have taken place over sementics (here for example) My short answer to you is that it will give you the same "Field of View" but other factors will be slightly different. I now assume that the 'crop/field of view vs full frame' discussions will now begin so be prepared to
You left me hanging with your short answer! Too short! Lol!
You say it will give you the same "Field of View" but other factors will be slightly different. So should I take this as yes it will give me 800mm but it will be slightly less sharp or detailed as say an actual 800mm lens?
There are sooooo many reasons why the 7D is a better camera...
So here are the things the 1D Mark II is better:
1.3x crop - I like me wide angle lenses to be wide angle lenses. I ended up picking up a 16-35L because the 24-105L wasn't wide enough anymore. Maybe that's just my justification for picking up the 16-35L :-D
Body build-quality - The Mark II is a TANK and I LOVE it. Now, the 7D is built quite well, impressive even and the grip is great, but doesn't quite compare with the complete body of the 1D series.
Voice memos - No one else seems to care that much about this feature, but it is invaluable to me. On the Mark II, I can shoot (as a PJ) people and go back and get their names, attached right to the image. There is no real reason why the 7D can't do this, as it does have a built in microphone... Canon, please activate this feature! In fact, this is the reason I still have my Mark II around, well that and its worth peanuts these days.
The 1D Mark II has dual slots for cards (CF + SD) - useful for those that need more storage in emergencies or need the peace of mind of a on-the-fly backup. I for one have never used the SD slot, so I don't miss it per-se.
well, that's pretty much it. If any of these features are show-stoppers for you, then get the 1D Mark II, otherwise the 7D wins hands down. Oh, I didn't mention AF... I find the 7D's AF to be a lot faster than the Mark II, or at least much more sensitive. I had to turn the sensitivity down to one notch above full, it was going CRAZY!
chupacabra31 wrote:
You say it will give you the same "Field of View" but other factors will be slightly different. So should I take this as yes it will give me 800mm but it will be slightly less sharp or detailed as say an actual 800mm lens?
Thanks for your response!
Yes, sometimes my 'short answers'are a little long What I mean by 'other factors' is that the appearance of DOF will be different plus the aesthetic 'look'of the bokeh is different from lens to lens as is sharpness, contrast, etc....hence why the FOV wiill be the same but the actual image will differ.
omarlyn wrote:
Yes, sometimes my 'short answers'are a little long What I mean by 'other factors' is that the appearance of DOF will be different plus the aesthetic 'look'of the bokeh is different from lens to lens as is sharpness, contrast, etc....hence why the FOV wiill be the same but the actual image will differ.
HTH,
Omar
Thanks a lot for making it clearer! I think I have a better grasp on this now.
I'm in the same situation as chupacabra31: I have the 1D mark II, but I would have a chance to change to 7D with just few hundreds...what do you think, should I do it?
I shoot mostly birds (also much BIF) and that is why I think the most important thing in a camera is AF.
Okay, with 7D I can use big ISOs and have much more reach, but I don't do anything with those features if I can't get the BIF pics sharp!
Worse buildquality, better LCD or video aren't so important, but good AF, general IQ and ISO sensivity are the priorities.
So...any new comments on the AF?
Kevin S.?
abqnmusa?
...Anyone?
I'm in the same situation as chupacabra31: I have the 1D mark II, but I would have a chance to change to 7D with just few hundreds...what do you think, should I do it?
I shoot mostly birds (also much BIF) and that is why I think the most important thing in a camera is AF.
Okay, with 7D I can use big ISOs and have much more reach, but I don't do anything with those features if I can't get the BIF pics sharp!
Worse buildquality, better LCD or video aren't so important, but good AF, general IQ and ISO sensivity are the priorities.
So...any new comments on the AF?
Kevin S.?
abqnmusa?
...Anyone?
I think that in your situation you should just stick to the 1dII. I would not discount build quality especially since you live in Finland! Doesn't it get pretty cold? I would think weather proofing would be a high prerequisite!
I'm in the same situation as chupacabra31: I have the 1D mark II, but I would have a chance to change to 7D with just few hundreds...what do you think, should I do it?
I shoot mostly birds (also much BIF) and that is why I think the most important thing in a camera is AF.
Okay, with 7D I can use big ISOs and have much more reach, but I don't do anything with those features if I can't get the BIF pics sharp!
Worse buildquality, better LCD or video aren't so important, but good AF, general IQ and ISO sensivity are the priorities.
So...any new comments on the AF?
Kevin S.?
abqnmusa?
...Anyone?
My findings so far look good for the 7D; it's noticeably better than my 40D (which is now to be sold) and looks like it might be in the 1D II league. Still have a lot more testing to do, but if it continues holds up, I'll sell my 1D II. The 7D noise is excellent, with ISO 800 very good, at least a stop better than 1D II, and the pixel density advantage is huge for birding. The IQ is excellent, better than the 1D II IMO with detail manifestly much higher.
The LCD on the 7D is superb, the build is excellent, the video is a very nice feature
. I need a new computer. Mac here I come (as soon as I have the cash, 7d is a pretty penny).
My short answer to you is that it will give you the same "Field of View" but other factors will be slightly different. I now assume that the 'crop/field of view vs full frame' discussions will now begin so be prepared to 
