here ye go, Jerry. I won't do any more of them. I can say some were not acceptable to me, so I don't have much time right now but pulled these out of my files and uploaded them. I used to spend alot of time reviewing cameras or my lenses, but it's just not worth the time involved.
And each situation of light is different in BIFs, so you can't just set up a tripod and do a dumb tripod test at 10 ft. away. ;~) Even those can be inaccurate and like I said, different light can really misconstrue reality, when it comes to tests. You will have to judge for yourselves. I shot these hawks two days in a row one with my MKIII and one with my new 7D, and I had more quality photos with my MKIII. Keep in mind though, the lighting was different each day. So this is not to judge the camera. Getting used to a camera, it's best assets takes some time. All the cameras are excellent if you learn them well.
The first one is from the MKIII, processed, but one of the sharpest hawks I've gotten in years. Again, the light was excellent. Below they are all 7D, which I've only spent one day with on BIFs.
one from my MKIII barely processed:
A few from my 7D [different lighting] plus the links will give you full size non processed 7D photos:
hope the links to larger size work, if not copy into addybar to see full size originals:
[url]http://www.ocwildlife.com/Photography/Raptors/7DHawksBIF-029/741404294_u2xDS-O.jpg[/url]
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 →
Ditto... and my 1D3 definitely has cleaner ISO as well. However, I am not disappointed in the 7D... But it isn't "all that" with ISO noise...but tolerable and cleaned up reasonably easy.
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 →
why back in the day people used to hike 10 miles in the snow with three 1200mms dangling off of their necks.... and that was just the kindergarteners!
brainiac wrote:
Nooooooooooooo! No no no. You are not allowed to say this. You are no longer aN 133t f0tOn1nj4 in my book. You were doing so well and then you let slip that not every picture you take is an effort to win an international award for being the bestest artiste evar. How can you say this publicly. Take down that picture of the child. The 7D is not a real camera because it has a flash. All reall camoras hav no flash you id1iot. shoot me if you ever see me with anything less than the latests 1 series with professional crap interface and NO fLASH. No flash is always better. The D700 is for suxx0rs. ;-)...Show more →
gotta agree with braniac! you just revealed yourself to be the ultimate poser fraud of photographer!
Thanks for all the effort to compare these. I'm an early adopter of the 1DIII and have looked at the 7d for more reach when my 500 isn't enough length or fast enough. Having the extra reach and "cropability" while gaining one stop by not needing the 1.4X is a powerful argument for the 7D. When I tried it briefly, the noisy files scared me off. It looks like most folks are now finding ways to process the files for better results than my original attempts., so it has my interest again.
I think the OP has the right idea. Use both the 1DIII and the 7D with their strengths; both bodies have a lot going for them.
The onboard flash is very handy for long hikes, when you can't carry a ton of gear. It has it's uses, especially if you are tracking an animal in the shade and bright sun. And the 7D's onboard flash allow for 3 slaves, which is new also. It is an improvement over the previous onboard flashes. I was reporting that to those truly interested in the 7D. I don't bring my 580 flash unless I'm shooting owls or evening birds. Even in that situation, I'd have no problem trying it.
Thanks to everyone who contributed worthy info within this post. I find those comments to be very accurate also.
The comment in this post about the higher ISOs doing well [or better than previous models] is accurate as well.
Thanks for your review and insight, I found it very helpful. I shoot almost exclusively wildlife with a 50D and considering going to a 7D, but have been pondering getting a used1DM3 instead.
If Canon would only combine the iso capabilities of the 1DM3 with the focusing compatibilities of the 7D for under $2K they would have real winner!
droopy1592 wrote:
I stopped using onboard flash like 3 weeks after first using my XTi. That was back when Jesus first stopped using film.
I thought that was an odd post lol. Pro pro pro onboard flash
yuk!
i love the pop-up
i dont like flash much in general but it's awesome tohave it with you, always, when some chance macro pops up OR a little fill flash on a vacation OR just to get a shot OR to do some quick prodcut photos for ebay OR most unexpectedly a few years ago I got the chance to hold the Stanley Cup on a football field and up goes the pop up and suddenly you can see our faces against the backlighting OR the other fall I noticed some creepy old structures in a park and used some second-curtain pop-up and made some kinda cool, creep halloween type photos OR....
yes, bring on the pop-up!
yes, they can produce some fine photos at times or improve serious photos at times, not everything has to be ideal and osmetimes pop-up is ideal enough anyway and most importantly what is wrong with 'simple snapshots'? sometimes you jsut want a snapshot memory of something and there is nothing more to the scene than a snapshot anyway?
Thanks for your review and insight, I found it very helpful. I shoot almost exclusively wildlife with a 50D and considering going to a 7D, but have been pondering getting a used1DM3 instead.
If Canon would only combine the iso capabilities of the 1DM3 with the focusing compatibilities of the 7D for under $2K they would have real winner!
Dave
if you end up being reach limited, which one often is with widlife, although perhaps not with a big lens and those grizzlies in your profile pic, so it depends what/how you shoot, the 7D will outdo the 1D3, it will either toss on more detail or simialr detail but with less noise/artifacts when viewed under a normalized basis.
if you are not reach limited the 1D3 has better DR at ISO100 and so on though
Just processed an ISO 3200 shot from 7D that I had to triple check was actually ISO 3200, very tight fine grain and still plenty of detail, cleaned up very nicely. Much better than I could think possible. I would only use an ISO like this in an emergency in the past on any non FF camera.
Hi Skibum, you really think the ISO is less noisy than the MKIII? Possibly at 3200ISO, but no I did not experience better, anywhere with the 7D. Possibly downsizing the photo to MKIII size make equal them in detail and artifacts. But I seem to find a ton more artifacts with the 7D. [not a problem for me, but it's there]. My MKIII in most cases, and when it focuses properly is perfect. The 7D's need a little more processing, which is ok by me, but it's true they are two different animals in their own right.
Netgarden wrote:
Hi Skibum, you really think the ISO is less noisy than the MKIII? Possibly at 3200ISO, but no I did not experience better, anywhere with the 7D. Possibly downsizing the photo to MKIII size make equal them in detail and artifacts. But I seem to find a ton more artifacts with the 7D. [not a problem for me, but it's there]. My MKIII in most cases, and when it focuses properly is perfect. The 7D's need a little more processing, which is ok by me, but it's true they are two different animals in their own right.
not less noisy when viewed at 100% for both or if you can compose the same image on both, but if there is a small bird in the distance and you shoot it with both and then crop the bird from both and print to the same size or downsize the bird from the 7D to match the size from the 1D3 I would be pretty surprised if the 7D didn't look a little better
i've tried it with 5D2 vs. 7D and that is the case and I think the 5D2 has a tiny bit more reach than the 1D3 and does better at ISO3200 so yeah i would expect, for totally distance limited stuff, compared on a fair bases, for the 7D to do a little better
but again, if you can get the bird to fill up much of the frame on both then i wouldnt be surprised at all if the 1D3 bird looke dbetter
Netgarden wrote:
Possibly downsizing the photo to MKIII size make equal them in detail and artifacts.
Why would you do that If you downsize the 7D file then you can't zoom them both in to native 100% and completely miscompare them and report your bogus miscomparison on web sites so that your errors are proliferated in the opinions of others. Trust me, downsizing the 7D image to 10 Mpixels for comparison with the 1D3 would seriously compromise your ability to talk rubbish online, because it would get you a lot nearer to the the truth, and then you will slowly go mad because only a minority will believe you. Stick with ignorance and mass delusion. It's easier. ;-)
I agree, Pixel Peeper, the 7D does appear to do well in higher ISOs.
SkiBum, I must have just had a good day with the MKIII, and an average day with the 7D. [considering it's new, thats a given]. But yes I compared the best I could on the closest type of BIFs available, same distance, same hawks, and the close crop of the MKIII was sharper, cleaner. This is visually speaking. The distant birds did about the same to each camera, but I believe the 7D focuses fairly quickly at a distance, which is a real +. My experience so far is that the 7D does pick up on smaller targets well. [of course that could simply be because they are a tad larger].
Careful, Brainiac, you are getting close to insanity. Thou bawdy beef witted eternal devil!
Great advice there in that last sentence. I tend to trust my eyesight over the written word, lol.
Thanks for the contribution of the link. But artifacts are artifacts. [not that I care, nor do I need an audience].
back to the cameras.....
any 7D owner BIF experience would be helpful, thanks for all of your input.
Netgarden wrote:
My experience so far is that the 7D does pick up on smaller targets well. [of course that could simply be because they are a tad larger].
