AJay wrote:
Here's a comparison of images from the 5DM2 (no cropped sensor), the 1D Mark IV (1.3x) sensor and the 7D (1.6x). In this test, a pheasant feather was photographed from 40' using the Canon 600mm f/4 lens. As in the real world of bird/wildlife photography, you cannot move closer to the subject and must shoot from a set distance. (All three images were taken at ISO800. Results were the same at other ISO settings.)
In my work flow, after I photograph a bird, I use Photoshop to reduce the noise, crop the image and then apply a bit of sharpening. I took all three images and ran them through my normal workflow, just as if these images were an actual bird. Each image was cropped identically at 300 ppi. The 5DM2 image required the most cropping, while the Mark IV required moderate cropping and finally the 7D's image required very little cropping since its image is "precropped" the most because of the 1.6x sensor.
As I stated in my earlier post, all three images are virtually identical. The 1.3x and 1.6x sensors are precropping the image, not giving you greater reach.
Thanks for sharing this. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised the 5D MKII looks the best. I wonder the 600L just doesn't have the resolving power. In either case, it sounds like I should just get a 1Ds MKIII and a 800L.
According to Europe CPN, the 1dIV and the 7D shares similar AF architecture design. Pretty neat to know. 1d4 AF is completely redesigned to distinguish itself from previous 1d-cameras. Not sure what does that really mean in real life.
This thread just solidifies that the 7D is a great bang for the buck mini-1D4. Pretty cool.
dbehrens wrote:
[Brian] Your chart is fundamentally wrong - that is unless the bird is actually further away from APS-C camera.
Precisely! The bird fills the frame when it's further away on the crop-body, compared to when it fills the frame on the full-frame body.
"Further away" = "More reach."
AJay wrote:
...In a focal-length-limited scenario in which you cannot move closer to your subject, all three cameras produce almost identical image quality once the images are cropped to the same field-of-view.
Please remember that I very clearly said "more reach at the time of capture." Of course one can enlarge a portion of an image after the fact, but that's not the same thing. We're then getting into a discussion of pixel density, pixels-per-duck, and other factors that are not related to the topic of "reach" with a given lens. That's like saying a 50mm lens isn't a wide angle lens on a view camera because you can crop out a narrow section from the center of the film.
So, why would at-capture "reach" matter, when one can crop an image later and get the same or larger magnification? Among other things, this:
Schlotkins wrote:
...in a crop body it's also easier to keep the AF point on your target since it appears bigger in the VF.
Of course, full-frame cameras have larger viewfinders, but I think the point stands.
To the OP:
I am not sure how long you have been into bird photography. Take a look at our own Nature &WL forum and see how many breathtaking images have been made by 7D and 500L combo(that you have right now) also one of the BIF super-stars Jody uses only 1D2N and EF400/5.6L to generate those fantastic images. Some of the best avian photographers of our time post their images at birdphotographers.net and naturescapes.net and you will realize, reach is not everything. I also know many pro photographers who had led many bird photography related workshops all over the world shoot 7Ds. Nikon shooters are making beautiful bird images by 12MP FF camera paired with 500/4+1.4TC. You have to understand your subject, habitat and ready to travel long distance. Yes, 1D4 will help you to get a few more keepers at the peak of action situation but that 1D4 alone can't overcome/compensate your weakness. BTW you do not have to shoot all the time for the sake of shooting...when light is low...bird is too far away..just go home..and come back next time when conditions are better.
BrianO wrote:
Precisely! The bird fills the frame when it's further away on the crop-body, compared to when it fills the frame on the full-frame body.
"Further away" = "More reach."
Please remember that I very clearly said "more reach at the time of capture." Of course one can enlarge a portion of an image after the fact, but that's not the same thing. We're then getting into a discussion of pixel density, pixels-per-duck, and other factors that are not related to the topic of "reach" with a given lens. That's like saying a 50mm lens isn't a wide angle lens on a view camera because you can crop out a narrow section from the center of the film.
So, why would at-capture "reach" matter, when one can crop an image later and get the same or larger magnification? Among other things, this:
Of course, full-frame cameras have larger viewfinders, but I think the point stands....Show more →
Don't bother. If folks really can't see both sides, you may as well be talking to a wall.
Scott Stoness wrote:
I don't own a idiv but I have a 7d/500f4/5dii and have wondered about the same. One thing in addition to the above that you should take note of is - if you look at resolution capabilties of lens on 7d vs idii, for example you will find that idiii make 55 lines whereas 7d makes 50 line resolution with the same lens. Check on Dxomark. So what gives.
.
Just read their protocol for testing - I generally didn't have a problem with their data, just how they aggregate it into an overall rating! But now, I'm not so sure
Do you understand the following statement from DxO?
"We plot MTF as a function of the spatial frequency for the different channels, expressing frequencies in lp/mm on 24x36mm."
Why do they specify "on 24x36mm"? Aren't the relevant mm just mm whatever sensor they're on? Or do they do some sort of "normalization"?
Elsewhere, they say
"DxOMark reports lens performance Scores for five Lens Metrics, each having its own unit of measure: Resolution ( lp/mm scaled on a 24x36mm sensor)"
It seems, therefore, that they do actually do some scaling because the 300 2.8 lens (as an example, because the 500f/4L mk 1 is no longer there!) shows 49 lp/mm on both 5D2 and 1Ds3 while only 38 for the 7D. Even the 5D yielded "44 lp/mm" and it has pixels almost twice the size of the 7D (so its linear resolution can't possibly be higher)!! We should be multiplying the 38 by 1.6 to undo this "scaling" if we want to find out about the optical properties of the lens. This would yield 60 line pairs per something.
Did you do the 1.6x when comparing the 55 and 50 values in your post?
Until I get to the bottom of this, I'm not trusting their resolution numbers
A DPP test of the 7D vs 5D2 (using MTF50 - not the 20 used by DxO, and probably using not quite as "precise" measurements but nonetheless...) showed that the improved resolution from the 7D was closer to 90% of "theoretical" based solely on pixel size. So not only do I object to DxO normalizing this figure, but I'm not sure I believe the actual number either...
ruhikant wrote:
To the OP:
I am not sure how long you have been into bird photography. Take a look at our own Nature &WL forum and see how many breathtaking images have been made by 7D and 500L combo(that you have right now) also one of the BIF super-stars Jody uses only 1D2N and EF400/5.6L to generate those fantastic images. Some of the best avian photographers of our time post their images at birdphotographers.net and naturescapes.net and you will realize, reach is not everything. I also know many pro photographers who had led many bird photography related workshops all over the world shoot 7Ds. Nikon shooters are making beautiful bird images by 12MP FF camera paired with 500/4+1.4TC. You have to understand your subject, habitat and ready to travel long distance. Yes, 1D4 will help you to get a few more keepers at the peak of action situation but that 1D4 alone can't overcome/compensate your weakness. BTW you do not have to shoot all the time for the sake of shooting...when light is low...bird is too far away..just go home..and come back next time when conditions are better.
This statement and especially the bolded part is the full truth of the matter. I drool over the shots at birdphotographers.net and lots are taken with gear that I own (7D and 100-400L) but the majority of my shots don't even compare. Why?.... well its because I don't have the same access and opportunities like a lot of these guys do by say living in Florida (just one example). However, my shots from the Galapagos islands and locally with Bald Eagles can rival the type of work seen on BP.net. And its because I did have amazing access and could shoot at 400mm at or close to MFD with the birds not caring what I was doing (especially in the Galapagos, heck anyone with any type of SLR was getting stunning shots, one guy just bought a Nikon 3100 and 50-200 before he came, kept it in auto and his shots were great!). If you can't get close and you don't have good light then pack it up and try again tomorrow. If you have good light and access then the difference in gear starts to become less meaningful.
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
I tested a 7D against my 40D...I prefer the 40D. When I bought the 40D I compared it with the 5D....I still preferred the 40D...so I bought it......just a comment on the above post....will now continue reading the thread...
jcolwell wrote:
P.S. I never had any "real trouble" getting accurate focus on rugby, soccer and ice hockey players with 30D and 40D cameras. If your comment about this is based on personal experience, then maybe you had a broken camera.
Yes, l think I am to blame because Canon cameras focus AMAZINGLY well in all conditions.
I figured it's me because nobody ever complained about Canon focusing issues.
I also had issues with 5DII outer focus points,but I am a noob. I hear those are stellar!
anthonygh wrote:
I tested a 7D against my 40D...I prefer the 40D. When I bought the 40D I compared it with the 5D....I still preferred the 40D...so I bought it......just a comment on the above post....will now continue reading the thread...
What did you prefer about the 40D?
I have both a 550D and have owned 4 5D's (and still own one plus a 40D, amongst others) and I would place the IQ of both well, well above that of the 40D in every way. I'm genuinely interested what you found that was better. Not high ISO I wouldn't think and not dynamic range or noise-free-ness?
anthonygh wrote:
I tested a 7D against my 40D...I prefer the 40D. When I bought the 40D I compared it with the 5D....I still preferred the 40D...so I bought it......just a comment on the above post....will now continue reading the thread...
40D is one of the best crop canon has made - some mid range iso sample
I find there is definitely some extra detail in 7D images compared with 1DIV but it is offset by being more difficult to achieve consitently and other aspects of 7D IQ which aren't quite up to 1DIV standards.
I certainly don't believe a 5DII shot can be cropped to 1.6 crop w/o losing detail relative to the 7D. The difficulty is getting a really sharp shot with maximum IQ from a sensor with the 7Ds pixel density. You need a good lens, optimal aperture, lowish ISO, good camera support and optimal exposure to fully realize the detail advantage. I would choose a 1DIV over a 7D every time but not because of any advantage in its resolving power. The 7D is fantastic bang for your buck.
dolina wrote:
I like the 7D for being smaller, lighter and cheaper.
I like 1D4 for having all the technologies.
+1, there is no free lunch in canon land
IMO the 7D isn't a serious tool for professional bird photography. It has nothing to do with the amount of noise or resolution capable from the sensor. The 7D simply doesn't have trhe dynamic range of the 1D4 (and 1D3). It is very difficult to extract fine details from the bright areas of a bird (whites, yellows, etc.) with RAW files from the 7D.
R Royse wrote:
IMO the 7D isn't a serious tool for professional bird photography...
What pure unmitigated bullshit. Perhaps all those with problems extracting detail or getting reliable AF with the 7D have a technique problem? I shoot all kinds of things that move exceedingly fast and I've never had a problem with OOF images, dynamic range, or any other cork-sniffing spec-sheet crap.
The 7D is an incredible bang for the buck and is incredibly flexible. I came to the 7D from a long line of Nikons (D200, D300, D3, D3s, D700). Prior to that I used Canons (D60, 10D, 20D, 1DMk2). NONE of these cameras gave me significant issues with autofocus shooting sports, birds or race cars. On the other hand, I think the ergonomics of the 1D series suck. Canon needs to move some of their UI stuff from the 7D, 60D and 5DMk2 up the line to the 1D series stat.
And oh how I wish I could get a Canon sensor and video functionality in a Nikon D4 body.
jbregar wrote:
What pure unmitigated bullshit. Perhaps all those with problems extracting detail or getting reliable AF with the 7D have a technique problem? I shoot all kinds of things that move exceedingly fast and I've never had a problem with OOF images, dynamic range, or any other cork-sniffing spec-sheet crap.
The 7D is an incredible bang for the buck and is incredibly flexible. I came to the 7D from a long line of Nikons (D200, D300, D3, D3s, D700). Prior to that I used Canons (D60, 10D, 20D, 1DMk2). NONE of these cameras gave me significant issues with autofocus shooting sports, birds or race cars. On the other hand, I think the ergonomics of the 1D series suck. Canon needs to move some of their UI stuff from the 7D, 60D and 5DMk2 up the line to the 1D series stat.
And oh how I wish I could get a Canon sensor and video functionality in a Nikon D4 body.
It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools....Show more →
If you're happy with your 7D, that's great. I'm just giving my 2 cents and there's no need for that response. I wish that someone had told me about the issues with details in the whites and yellows of birds before I wasted my time and money with a 7D. I am not "blaming" it for anything. Even though the time I spent with the 7D was brief, I have sold numerous photos taken with it including one in the current issue of Audubon magazine.
I use 7D on stationary and slow moving targets when I anticipate a need for major crop enlargements, and I have no problem with the camera performance under those conditions.
For anything else, I use 1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII, primarily because of better AF.
Pixel density and crop factor mean squat on a poorly focused (or misfocused) image.
