7D is better than 40D is ALL aspects. There's no even a comparison. It would be a sin to compare those 2...
If you want to compare 7D, compare it to 5DII
The 40D was less expensive. Could that be relevant ?
My 40D provided image quality commensurate with my expectations. My 7D did not. Could that be relevant?
BTW, where does sin fit in this picture? Do you think that I should do what you do, because that's what you do? Do you think if I do something you think I should not do, that it's a sin?
I have compared the 7D on a one-to-one basis with the 5D, 1DsIII, 1DIII, and 1DIV. I still have the 5D, 1DsIII and 1DIV. I suspect that I'd still have my 40D, if I hadn't sold it to get a 7D. If you don't like that, then that's OK with me.
So, the bottom line is I'm not sure that I'd get much of an upgrade in AF or IQ.
The 1DIV is quite a bit more expensive than the 7D, so if the 1DIV didn't have better AF and IQ something would definitely be wrong with the price/performance ratio. To my mind, the more appropriate question is: is the 1DIV 3X the camera when compared to the 7D? That is (roughly) the price difference. I've seen many nice images of birds produced with the 1DIV, but I've been shooting birds for the last three years with the 7D -- the last year using the Canon 500mm f/4 -- and I've gotten excellent results.
The bottom line is: if cost is not an issue (and based on your posts in this thread, it appears not to be), then go with the 1DIV. But if you're trying to keep your costs down, the 7D is more than up to the task.
There's nothing particularly wrong with the 7D. It's just that the 1DIII and 1DIV are better. They have better AF and they have better 'per pixel' IQ. I sold my 1DIII and 7D to get a 1DIV - best of both worlds!
OTOH, if you don't want to pay the extra dollars for a contemporary 1D-series body, or you can't afford to pay the extra dollars, that doesn't mean that you won't be happy with a "lesser" camera.
The value of differences in price-performance doesn't have to be linear. I'm very happy to get a 1.375x improvement in IQ for a 3X increase in cost. YMMV.
kbarrera wrote:
Had a 7d which I used almost exclusively with a 500 f/4. I sold my 500 thinking I would get a 600 MK II. Well we all know how that turned out. I bought a new copy of the 500 and sold the 7 d to fund a 1D 4' but Bought a 1d mkiin just to have a body in the meantime. Well guess what! The 1d mkIIn beats the crap out of the 7d. I do a lot of handholding while shooting Bald Eagles. My keeper rate has increased dramatically. the AF is a lot faster, and you can't beat 8.2 frames a second.
Bottom line is, I'm sticking with the 500 and when I have the money will definitely get the 1d 4. Or maybe even the 1dx.
Should have got the 1D III over the 1D II. I owned the 1D II for over 5 years and thought it was brilliant. Now I have the 1D III and I forget about the 1D II. A minimum of 1 stop cleaner, even faster AF, better screen, although still low-res, better ergonomics and menu system, vastly better battery and noticeably lighter, brighter larger VF, and 10 fps is a noticeable step-up from the 8.5fps of the 1D II.
While I agree the 1 series are better at AF than the 7D, if you are getting massive increase in keepers over the 7D, you may have had a faulty 7D, as it's not much worse. What I find in AI servo, it's slower to lock and in a burst will not be as stable if you try a long sequence; better to try short controlled burst and release AF button and then press again to reacquire the focus. 1 series are more stable in burst mode. Spot AF feature of 7D is brilliant.
Jan 20, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
7D is better than 40D is ALL aspects. There's no even a comparison. It would be a sin to compare those 2...
If you want to compare 7D, compare it to 5DII
The 40D and 7D is much much closer to each other, than comparing the 7D against the 1D4
dhphoto wrote:
So you measured the performance of the camera by how well it managed to survive a fall off a tripod. Novel approach.
Okay - I'll spell it out.
While you can compare things like IQ, AF, buffer, etc. there is no comparison between the two bodies on ruggedness and mitigating the risks associated with harsh environments.
jcolwell wrote:
The 40D was less expensive. Could that be relevant ?
My 40D provided image quality commensurate with my expectations. My 7D did not. Could that be relevant?
BTW, where does sin fit in this picture? Do you think that I should do what you do, because that's what you do? Do you think if I do something you think I should not do, that it's a sin?
I have compared the 7D on a one-to-one basis with the 5D, 1DsIII, 1DIII, and 1DIV. I still have the 5D, 1DsIII and 1DIV. I suspect that I'd still have my 40D, if I hadn't sold it to get a 7D. If you don't like that, then that's OK with me. ...Show more →
7D blows 40D in image quality. You had a broken camera.
Additionally, to get "quality" your camera have to focus on a subject first. 40D and any XXD models had a real trouble with that.
A couple of points... the crop factor of a sensor does not mean more "reach". It just means the image is precropped when compared to a full frame sensor. The Mark IV precrops the image by 30%, the 7D by 60% versus that of a full-frame sensor.
My comments below are based on photographing birds/birds-in-flight using both cameras in a focal-length-limited scenario. This means I cannot move closer to the subject. I must photograph it from a set distance. This really levels the playing field when it comes to image quality. If I could move closer to the subject, the Mark IV would be the clear winner.
IMAGE QUALITY:
If you are photographing in a focal-length-limited scenario, which you are when you are photographing wildlife/birds, you will need to crop more heavily with the Mark IV than with the 7D to obtain the same field of view.
I have done side-by-side tests of both the Mark IV's image quality and the 7D's. The tests were done from a fixed distance. The end results after cropping the subject identically, applying noise reduction and sharpening are so close that you cannot tell them apart at 100% magnification. Yes, the 7D reveals more noise before processing, but it does not require as much cropping as the Mark IV's image and has higher resolution.
AUTOFOCUS SYSTEM:
As far as the autofocus systems, the Mark IV is slightly better and a tad more responsive, but they are VERY, VERY close.
FPS:
As far as frames-per-second, the Mark IV wins here with 2 fps faster than the 7D.
FIELD-OF-VIEW:
Another advantage of the Mark IV is the 1.3 cropped sensor. There is a larger field-of-view compared to the 7D's 1.6 cropped sensor. This means there is less of a chance that you may clip a wing out of the frame when photographing birds-in-flight with the Mark IV vs the 7D. (The 1DX will even be better from this standpoint since it is a full-frame sensor.)
BATTERY LIFE: I have found the 7D's battery life to be about 70-75% of that of the Mark IV.
WEIGHT: The 7D is obviously lighter than the Mark IV. If you plan to do a lot of hand-held photography (especially with Canon's newer 500mm and 600mm lenses), you will be less fatigued using the 7D.
SENSOR DUST: I am not sure why, but I find myself cleaning the Mark IV's sensor more often than with the 7D.
MOVIE MODE: I like the layout for recording movies better with the 7D than the Mark IV. Just a personal choice.
All things considered, the 7D is a much better dollar value compared to the Mark IV. If money is no object, the Mark IV is a better choice, but the 7D is no slouch and I consider both cameras more than capable of getting action shots of wildlife and birds. If I missed the shot, it's me at fault the majority of the time, not either of these cameras.
AJay wrote:
A couple of points... the crop factor of a sensor does not mean more "reach". It just means the image is precropped when compared to a full frame sensor. The Mark IV precrops the image by 30%, the 7D by 60% versus that of a full-frame sensor.
My comments below are based on photographing birds/birds-in-flight using both cameras in a focal-length-limited scenario. This means I cannot move closer to the subject. I must photograph it from a set distance. This really levels the playing field when it comes to image quality. If I could move closer to the subject, the Mark IV would be the clear winner.
IMAGE QUALITY:
If you are photographing in a focal-length-limited scenario, which you are when you are photographing wildlife/birds, you will need to crop more heavily with the Mark IV than with the 7D to obtain the same field of view.
I have done side-by-side tests of both the Mark IV's image quality and the 7D's. The tests were done from a fixed distance. The end results after cropping the subject identically, applying noise reduction and sharpening are so close that you cannot tell them apart at 100% magnification. Yes, the 7D reveals more noise before processing, but it does not require as much cropping as the Mark IV's image and has higher resolution.
AUTOFOCUS SYSTEM:
As far as the autofocus systems, the Mark IV is slightly better and a tad more responsive, but they are VERY, VERY close.
FPS:
As far as frames-per-second, the Mark IV wins here with 2 fps faster than the 7D.
FIELD-OF-VIEW:
Another advantage of the Mark IV is the 1.3 cropped sensor. There is a larger field-of-view compared to the 7D's 1.6 cropped sensor. This means there is less of a chance that you may clip a wing out of the frame when photographing birds-in-flight with the Mark IV vs the 7D. (The 1DX will even be better from this standpoint since it is a full-frame sensor.)
BATTERY LIFE: I have found the 7D's battery life to be about 70-75% of that of the Mark IV.
WEIGHT: The 7D is obviously lighter than the Mark IV. If you plan to do a lot of hand-held photography (especially with Canon's newer 500mm and 600mm lenses), you will be less fatigued using the 7D.
SENSOR DUST: I am not sure why, but I find myself cleaning the Mark IV's sensor more often than with the 7D.
MOVIE MODE: I like the layout for recording movies better with the 7D than the Mark IV. Just a personal choice.
All things considered, the 7D is a much better dollar value compared to the Mark IV. If money is no object, the Mark IV is a better choice, but the 7D is no slouch and I consider both cameras more than capable of getting action shots of wildlife and birds. If I missed the shot, it's me at fault the majority of the time, not either of these cameras.
Consider myself really a relative novice in wild life/bird photography. however, i have shot with both Bodies. I own the 7D. shot with a friends 1d4.
As for focusing, Arash is right one on his article he linked to. 7D, though far better than my 5d2, and 60D in tracking, does have trouble against busy background in tracking. the 1d4, was in a different league.
However, for a stationary birds, the spot focus is awesome, and for raptors in flight against sky/water, the autofocus is very good.
As for pixel quality, I did shoot side by side with my friend. he was shooting with his 1d4 and 400 5.6, and I was shooting with my 7d and 100-400. he is also more experienced and skilled than I am.
for shots that we were focal length limited, and he had to crop, I often got better results. If not focal length limited, the 1d4 is always better. If focal length limited, under ideal condition and technique, the 7D will outresolve the 1d4. say what you want about pixel quality. the ideal conditions however, involves very fast shutter speed (with high pixel density, long lens, and cropping, you need fast speeds), a sharp lens to resolve the detail, and good autofocus, a 1d4 image cropped to the size of 7d and then uprezed to equivalent MP, will resolve less detail than 7D. in reality, how often does that happen? not sure.
corndog wrote:
Hey Bri, are you working right now? I bet it's chaos up there!
I got off at 7PM (my usual time) today. Most of the snow on the main roadways has melted. Yesterday and the day before was another matter.
galenapass wrote: . Those who have never lived in Seattle during a good snow will have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah, and this was one of the worst in a long time. As some may know, my full-time job is transit supervisor...field supervisor. Which meant when buses slid of the road and into a field of snow, I was the first one on scene to try to get them out.
My agency actually did pretty well, because we handle the inter-county commuter service, which is mainly driven on arterials. Once they got into the hills downtown, though, it got trickier. The county was doing their best to keep the bus routes plowed, but it wasn't always enough. Three King County Metro buses got stuck on one block that's a single lane in one direction, and I had to block traffic from the other direction to get my buses around in the on-coming lanes during rush hour.
Did you know that some automobile drivers think a bright yellow-green jacket with reflective stripes is a target?
. Those who have never lived in Seattle during a good snow will have no idea what you are talking about. 