Still can't figure why $5K and why more than mk III? Video? Btw your new picture/avatar looks cool. Is it you? It reminds me some french movie star from 60x ...
Netgarden wrote:
What I have decided to do is use the 7D mostly with my 300f4 for more length, and my MKIII on my 500mm for now. When I need more distance and in situations where focus is the big issue for a lifer BIFshot, I may switch to the 7D. In low light and landscape I will use the MKIII. A great set up!
would it make more sense to use the 500 on the 7D and 300 on the MK3?
that way you maximize reach when the bird can't be made to fill the frame on the 1D3 and yet stil get the 1D3 full image superior quality when you are close enough to fill frame?
i guess it all depends how often you end up being a certain distance away
if the 1d3 + 500 often gets you close to frame filling might as well do it that way and maximize quality but if it often doesnt fill the frame is it worth losing that reach for the few times it does when the 300 would not have?
seems like as is you are basically getting a similar FOV and reach from each, so why shoot two bodies? The other way you get one setup with max reach and the other with better FOV for the times stuff comes close
but than again i have no idea in what fashion you are shooting, so it might not make sense what i'm saying
bobbytan wrote:
Thanks for this insight, Linda. I completely agree that the 7D is quite noisy, at least compared to my 5D II .... by at least 2 stops. I rarely use NR on my 5D II images but I find that I am using NR a lot on my 7D files .... but this is also partly because I am using the higher ISOs and cropping my images more when I use the 7D. Even at ISO 200 I am having to use NR when I crop my images. Am I happy with the 7D? Yes and No. No, I am not at all happy with the noise level, but I love the AF and 18mp resolution and, of course, the reach from the 1.6x crop factor. The Mark IV will certainly give you cleaner images plus a more accurate and reliable AF system .... but $6,000 vs $1,700. ...Show more →
There must be two types of 7D on sale, those with no noise reduction control at all and those that are normal. NR at ISO 200, what the heck are you doing, shooting 3 stops underexposed? My 40D is the nosiest camera I've used at low ISO, and the 7D is noticeably cleaner, even at the pixel level it appears cleaner, let alone at the print level.
Hello, I reread my post and to clarify what I said about the ISO, this is exactly correct as stated: Is the ISO that much better on the MKIII?
Yes. What I can shoot at ISO 1000 on the MKIII is about the same as ISO400 on the 7D
I agree with Bobby, and Mark, yes, I just did have my MKIII serviced [thats when I bought the 7D, ] Canon was kind enough to fix it for free even though it was ooW.
Just to clarify the flash photo, the camera was brand new and I had not worked with it at all nor did I have the need or time for perfection. But I assure you, I shot next to about 7 point and shoots, and believe me, in that poor light they all sucked. Thats where I noticed the power this little flash had compared to my 40D, and how much better it was than a point and shoot. I had it cranked up pretty bright.
Hi Breitling65, yes practice doesn't make a fence fatter, lolol. I think I've had plenty of practice. Thats where experience comes in to view, and believe me, I know what I am talking about. But yes, I agree, the center point needs to be centered accurately.And it does help guarentee a better focus. I found the added assist points to the right and left to centerpoint on the MKIII was helpful also, especially for tracking.
And yes, I also agree, the MKIII is the superior camera which is why I decided to use it on my 500mm, and the 7D on the 300mm, which give me more reach. And yes, I may get the MKIV some day. I think the 7D is a great back up camera. My 40D was not.
The noisy prints may be fine without noise reduction. I'm just picky. ;~), But yes, I know it would print ok. I've been a little lazy about noise reduction in the past because I know prints do fine with a little noise. But in Neat image, the meter/levels are much higher for noise reduction needed from the 7D photos than those of the MKIII. I noticed that immediately.
Yes, I am going to play with full noise reduction setting on the camera when I get a chance. But Neat Image does so well with it, I hvn't taken the time to try 'in camera' out side of Standard.
Thnx everyone for your comments.
Linda Jones
OCWildlife.com
I might add, RD4tile, that yes, the ISO noise is more noticeable with blue skies than most other type photos.
And yes, I plan to use the 7D on the 500 when I think I need more reach. The teleconverter, canon 1.4x does not seem to affect the photo outcome on the MKIII, but it does with the 7D, because the MKIII+tele is sharper. So it becomes a hard decision to make on the 'reach' issue. Both cameras focus well on larger [closer] BIFs. It boils down to how far away the target is. But I will mostly use the 1.4x teleconverter with the MKIII. It may be shorter, but it's cleaner.
Yes, there must me 2 kinds of 7D. You got a normal/clean one and I got a normal/noisy one. Just my luck I guess! Compared to my 5D II, the 7D is very noisy. As I stated in my earlier post, I get noise if I crop my ISO 200 images, albeit at 100%, as I do quite often as I don't have anything longer than 400mm which is too short for smaller birds. And No, I don't under-expose my images by 3 stops. I have not made any prints from my 7D images so far.
But in spite of the relatively high noise (compared to the 5D and 5D II) I am keeping the 7D as the AF is way better than the 5D II and the extra reach is a bonus for wildlife photography.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
There must be two types of 7D on sale, those with no noise reduction control at all and those that are normal. NR at ISO 200, what the heck are you doing, shooting 3 stops underexposed? My 40D is the nosiest camera I've used at low ISO, and the 7D is noticeably cleaner, even at the pixel level it appears cleaner, let alone at the print level.
Same thoughts here, Bobby. And Skibum, I use the 7D on both lenses, but the 7D does well on the 300+tele for some reason, so I can shoot longer with that light weight set up @ 420mm IS when hiking long distances, plus a fill flash for wildlife in shade or shadows. My neck doesn't like the 500mm treks, lol. All said and done, I think I have a great set up with the two cameras. Just about the best you can hope for at the present time. The MKIII accepts the teleconverters without hunting. The 7D does hunt a little in spot point on the 500mm, and I suggest a larger autofocus area to assist it.
I compared these two cameras because the wildlife world has expressed a use for a 1.6 sensor. Not because they are equal. If someone is going from the 40D, for instance, to the 7D, IMO they will be very happy with their decision. And if one shoots in an area where they are great distances from wildlife, they now have this option over the MKIII for a longer reach, and slightly better autofocus performance.
What you will miss from the MKIII when using the 7D is the ISO performance and also the ability to meter shots in Tv in the viewfinder when you need to guarentee shutterspeed.
Netgarden wrote:
Same thoughts here, Bobby. And Skibum, I use the 7D on both lenses, but the 7D does well on the 300+tele for some reason, so I can shoot longer with that light weight set up @ 420mm IS when hiking long distances, plus a fill flash for wildlife in shade or shadows. My neck doesn't like the 500mm treks, lol. All said and done, I think I have a great set up with the two cameras. Just about the best you can hope for at the present time. The MKIII accepts the teleconverters without hunting. The 7D does hunt a little in spot point on the 500mm, and I suggest a larger autofocus area to assist it.
I compared these two cameras because the wildlife world has expressed a use for a 1.6 sensor. Not because they are equal. If someone is going from the 40D, for instance, to the 7D, IMO they will be very happy with their decision. And if one shoots in an area where they are great distances from wildlife, they now have this option over the MKIII for a longer reach, and slightly better autofocus performance.
What you will miss from the MKIII when using the 7D is the ISO performance and also the ability to meter shots in Tv in the viewfinder when you need to guarentee shutterspeed....Show more →
Netgarden,
In your opinion, is the 7D AF better than the 1D3?
I concur, Linda. In my case, I am comparing the 7D to my 5D II. There is just no argument over which is the better body for noise, AF and reach. It's horses for courses, and I need them both. The Mark IV may be a great compromise, but (a) I have a low tolerance for bulk/weight and (b) my pocket has a low tolerance for anything costing above 2 grand.
Btw your new picture/avatar looks cool. Is it you? 