ChrisMak wrote:
Nikon still has the IQ advantage, and not by a short measure i.m.o. I now use the D500 next to the 7DII, and the difference is really substantial. Not that you can't shoot beautiful wildlife images with Canon, but Nikon's raw images are simply on a different level. And that still goes for the FF bodies 5DIV/5DSr vs D850 as well.
I have heard this a few times and wonder why these substantial differences don't show in the controlled comparisons or scientific test data we have available (except for low ISO DR of the 7DII, but that is rarely relevant for wildlife), and why the people who say this don't provide images for direct comparison, showing these substantial differences.
alundeb wrote:
I have heard this a few times and wonder why these substantial differences don't show in the controlled comparisons or scientific test data we have available (except for low ISO DR of the 7DII, but that is rarely relevant for wildlife), and why the people who say this don't provide images for direct comparison, showing these substantial differences.
Using the DPR Studio comparison, the differences with high ISO noise is readily visible. A D500 ISO 3200 shot looks very similar to a 7DII ISO 1600 shot when looking at noise in the darker color patches. Also detail seen in the fine text is much better on the D500 even with a 1-2 stop ISO penalty given to the D500. Granted comparing sharpness with that widget is maybe not the best to do as they use different lenses. The 7DII's AA filter must also be a factor to keep in mind.
alundeb wrote:
I have heard this a few times and wonder why these substantial differences don't show in the controlled comparisons or scientific test data we have available (except for low ISO DR of the 7DII, but that is rarely relevant for wildlife), and why the people who say this don't provide images for direct comparison, showing these substantial differences.
Personally, I don't really care for either scientific data (although nothing wrong with taking notice and can be very informative) or for comparisons to find out which body/brand is better than the other.
All I really care about, is when a special moment arises under uncontrolled circumstances in nature photography, that the raw file allows for editing an image to taste. In this, the 7DII is much more limited than the D500. With the D500, you don't háve to get exposure spot-on, you can accidentally underexpose and it doesn't matter, you can protect the highlights in a high contrast shot knowing you can bring back the shadows. All the color information is there, also in underexposed shots. In the same way you can easily restore overexposed shots. Nature photography can present you with dificult light, unless you always go out in the golden hour, or have predictable weather and the sun always in the right place etc.
To me, the possibility of working on a raw image knowing that it is worth it, is essential. Nikon is well ahead (credits in part to Sony) in my experience, but others may have different experiences, which is fine.
arbitrage wrote:
Using the DPR Studio comparison, the differences with high ISO noise is readily visible. A D500 ISO 3200 shot looks very similar to a 7DII ISO 1600 shot when looking at noise in the darker color patches. Also detail seen in the fine text is much better on the D500 even with a 1-2 stop ISO penalty given to the D500. Granted comparing sharpness with that widget is maybe not the best to do as they use different lenses. The 7DII's AA filter must also be a factor to keep in mind.
Yes I see a noise difference, a fraction of a stop. Taking into account that the D500 is 1.5x crop and the 7DII is 1.6 crop, that difference is not substantial but rather subtle.
I also see the sharpness difference at all ISO's even 100. Agree that this could be the lens and the AA filter. It could also be the raw converter. Using the same widget, the 5DSR is sharper than the A7rII, but try to say that in the Sony forum
Anyway, I was actually referring to people who say that the noise difference between the 7DII and the D500 is much bigger in real life than in the studio. I would like to see outdoor comparisons done with the same field of view, aperture and shutter speed that could cinfirm these claims.
alundeb wrote:
Yes I see a noise difference, a fraction of a stop. Taking into account that the D500 is 1.5x crop and the 7DII is 1.6 crop, that difference is not substantial but rather subtle.
I also see the sharpness difference at all ISO's even 100. Agree that this could be the lens and the AA filter. It could also be the raw converter. Using the same widget, the 5DSR is sharper than the A7rII, but try to say that in the Sony forum
Anyway, I was actually referring to people who say that the noise difference between the 7DII and the D500 is much bigger in real life than in the studio. I would like to see outdoor comparisons done with the same field of view, aperture and shutter speed that could cinfirm these claims. ...Show more →
My issue is not so much the noise, but what is inherently there in the raw file, and how that translates to the malleability of the raw image. I should add though, that in my experience, straight out of camera the Nikon D500 images are also considerably better in many scenarios. Perhaps it is good to keep in mind that the 7DII sensor is based on old sensor tech, but still, Canon sees it as their crop flagship camera, and there is simply no viable replacement, which is dubious anno 2020.
Canon's R5 will likely reveal how far they have progressed.
ChrisMak wrote:
My issue is not so much the noise, but what is inherently there in the raw file, and how that translates to the malleability of the raw image. I should add though, that in my experience, straight out of camera the Nikon D500 images are also considerably better in many scenarios. Perhaps it is good to keep in mind that the 7DII sensor is based on old sensor tech, but still, Canon sees it as their crop flagship camera, and there is simply no viable replacement, which is dubious anno 2020.
Canon's R5 will likely reveal how far they have progressed. ...Show more →
It should be fairly easy to show a couple of images demonstrating these differences if they are so substantial.
alundeb wrote:
It should be fairly easy to show a couple of images demonstrating these differences if they are so substantial.
Yes, but I have no reason nor motivation to do so, I shoot both after all. My personal wish though is for Canon to come up with a seriously good 1.6x crop sensor body, and the first thing I'd like to see improved over the 7DII, is the raw sensor output.
RobAmy wrote:
I used the OVF yesterday the most extensive since owning the camera and just wow. I used full auto mode with me picking the AF point and it is so good. The main difference I see is the larger focus area but as far as tracking they are neck and neck. I got the most coming strait at me shots in focus then I ever did with the 1dx Mark II, this area it did struggle in. Big improvements across the boards in my opinion.
That's exciting information! So you're seeing the same AF tracking using the OVF as we've been seeing in videos while it's in LV? Sweet!
So now my question is, why would you use the hoodman anymore? I know you wont get silent shutter but your battery life would greatly improve and the ergos seem like you'd be able to do even better with your tracking for BIF work.
Unless an extra 4 fps really makes that much of a difference to you of course. Personally 16 fps is more than enough for me.
Curious about this "feel" that you mentioned when shooting silent. Is there actually some type of small vibration in the shutter button or something?
Yeah, I know you said it was hard to describe but curious minds want to know.
lighthound wrote:
That's exciting information! So you're seeing the same AF tracking using the OVF as we've been seeing in videos while it's in LV? Sweet!
So now my question is, why would you use the hoodman anymore? I know you wont get silent shutter but your battery life would greatly improve and the ergos seem like you'd be able to do even better with your tracking for BIF work.
Unless an extra 4 fps really makes that much of a difference to you of course. Personally 16 fps is more than enough for me.
Curious about this "feel" that you mentioned when shooting silent. Is there actually some type of small vibration in the shutter button or something?
Yeah, I know you said it was hard to describe but curious minds want to know.
The main reasons for me using the Hoodman is full silent, stacking extenders (does not work in OVF), almost full screen AF area and the extra frames when needed. I would not use the Hoodman just for flight but is fine for flight in smaller doses because it would get tiring handheld unless on a tripod which I used today with a Hairy woodpecker which are very skittish around here, I was using full silent mode and had success. The OVF would be my go to for only flight work unless I was using a tripod like when shooting eagles, the Hoodman in Mechanical shutter would be very nice. The Hoodman is not a holy grail but it allows one to use all the new upgrades if one wants too. At least I know if action happens when using the Hoodman it is doable for me.
The feel is just the over all feeling when it takes pictures, the screen acts a little different too with the focus dot and the outside of the frame has a white line that lights up also.
Here is the Hairy woodpecker shot. They are not easy around here, at least for me. Any sound and they are gone. I used stacked extenders in full silent mode on a tripod. The silent mode worked great for this species.
arbitrage wrote:
The 1DXIII thread is now the 7DII vs D500 thread....classic internet
I am just trying to learn something. What interests me is not which camera against any other camera, but what meaning "Not by a short measure" and "really substantial" has in potential image quality improvements. Since there is no reason or no motivation to do anything there, and since it is off topic, I will let it rest.
Rob and others on this thread who are bird shooters,
I'm following the 1dX III thread and notice little to no sports input but a lot of bird photogs. I shoot the 1DX II but I'm mostly a sports photographer. Like birds, focus is critical on long lens sports work, where we often shoot at 2.8 and often at high iso under stadium lights. I marvel at your awesome bird photos and how well they are focused. I can imagine if I went out for a day of shooting birds I would come back with a thousand deletes and 5 keepers! Briefly, what ARE your focus techniques for birds on a perch, birds/ducks flying? How do you manage to get focus on the eye and not the shoulder, etc, given that DOF is about 1/4" on the small bird closeups? I don't think they are holding still very long for you to place the Single Point on the eye, maybe you're shooting around 7.1 etc (rather than 2.4 or 4) then deleting a lot and keeping the sharp ones? Are you using Auto Point Select or are you manually placing single point for perched birds? I'm sure a book could be written about this but is there a short answer that is appropriate here in this thread? I'm hoping some of your answer will apply to my sports/long lens work. thx!
alundeb wrote:
It should be fairly easy to show a couple of images demonstrating these differences if they are so substantial.
What are you saying? Do you mean to actually post real images??
What is wrong with you? Don’t you know that on the internet, words always speak louder than actions?!
On a forum, everyone is a pro until challenged to post an image to prove it.
On another forum I challenged someone to actually walk the walk and post something and the Mods came down on me like they were Thor and told me that NOBODY has to post anything and another outbreak like that and I would be disappeared!!! LoL
John
buddy duck wrote:
Rob and others on this thread who are bird shooters,
I'm following the 1dX III thread and notice little to no sports input but a lot of bird photogs. I shoot the 1DX II but I'm mostly a sports photographer. Like birds, focus is critical on long lens sports work, where we often shoot at 2.8 and often at high iso under stadium lights. I marvel at your awesome bird photos and how well they are focused. I can imagine if I went out for a day of shooting birds I would come back with a thousand deletes and 5 keepers! Briefly, what ARE your focus techniques for birds on a perch, birds/ducks flying? How do you manage to get focus on the eye and not the shoulder, etc, given that DOF is about 1/4" on the small bird closeups? I don't think they are holding still very long for you to place the Single Point on the eye, maybe you're shooting around 7.1 etc (rather than 2.4 or 4) then deleting a lot and keeping the sharp ones? Are you using Auto Point Select or are you manually placing single point for perched birds? I'm sure a book could be written about this but is there a short answer that is appropriate here in this thread? I'm hoping some of your answer will apply to my sports/long lens work. thx! ...Show more →
I can give you some general answers but not really specific to the 1DXIII nuances. However, I would use the 1DXIII in a simliar way to how I used the 1DXII and probably more similar to how I use my D500/D850 because now the 1DXIII has an excellent Auto (All point) AF mode that works unlike the previous versions.
For perched birds I do usually use a single point or sometimes a single with expand 4 or 8. Most birds do stay put long enough to do that but you have to be quick. Usually because shooting small birds one is starved for reach you can just use the centre point and you crop later so no moving the point around too often.
For BIF I have gravitated to using more automated focus modes with Nikon and Sony. With the 1DXII I mostly used small Zone for BIF. With the 1DXIII I would be trying small zone, large zone and All point mode. With my Nikon I use Auto (basically all point) and Group (similar to a small zone). Same goes with Sony (Zone and Wide) for BIF. With Sony I can use tracking modes also, start the point on the bird and let it track from there all over the frame. Now with the 1DXIII having what seems like a very competent Tracking mode you can use All-Point mode with user selected starting point and allow it to track from there. Limited via OVF because of the constrained spread of AF points. And limited in use in LV due to the ergonomics. But still much better than what we had with the 1DXII.
However, for birds vs many sports the difficulty I think with sports is too many distractions around, especially any team sports. With birds I'm usually shooting a single bird with a distant background and therefore Auto type modes work. I don't think Auto type modes would be good for team sports. Would probably work good for shooting single athletic sports like Tennis or Golf or Track and Field etc. But not for Basketball, Football, Hockey etc. There I would think you need to be using a more constrained point like Expand or maybe small zone.
This is pretty similar to what I’ve been doing. I’ve actually been using the tracking (All AF points mode) with the center point as the first selection for stationary/perched birds, more or less just to try it out at this point. I usually focus on the head and then recompose as necessary. It’s been quite successful. I haven’t noticed any significant change in percentage of in focus photos as compared to choosing a single point and trying to keep it over the eye (like I did with all previous Canon bodies, including the 1DX2). I have not tried to use the single spot focus on the 1DX3 for perched birds yet. The camera tracks well enough to track the head of the feeder birds I’ve been photographing in this way. Quite impressive to me.
For birds in flight, I’ve been using all auto select with automatic tracking which has generally been quite good. Mostly what I’ve been shooting for birds in flight has been chummed gulls and they come rather close. I think I could probably get a bit better focus if I started with the single point in the auto mode, focus on the head, and then allow the camera to track as opposed to auto selection, but this is extremely difficult with the handheld 600 with and without teleconverters, as the birds come in very close. It could be done for more distant birds but I’m not sure that I could reliably pick the head vs the body in flying birds that are smaller in the focusing screen. For birds flying parallel to me, I occasionally get a focus on the close wing too and not the face. For birds flying directly at me, I occasionally get focus on the feet instead of the head and eyes. The closer the bird gets, the more likely this seems to be. Additionally if the birds have a flared tail with high contrast, the camera seems to like to select this to focus on as opposed to the head. I still get lots of keepers with in focus eyes, certainly more than the 1DX2, but it’s certainly not guaranteed that I’ll have 50 shots in a row with tack sharp focus on the eyes if the birds are coming extremely close. This is experience with the OVF.
I’ll have to try using my 100-400 and see if I can use the center point selection in the auto mode and see if I can zoom in/out as necessary to help maintain tracking on the head.
arbitrage wrote:
I can give you some general answers but not really specific to the 1DXIII nuances. However, I would use the 1DXIII in a simliar way to how I used the 1DXII and probably more similar to how I use my D500/D850 because now the 1DXIII has an excellent Auto (All point) AF mode that works unlike the previous versions.
For perched birds I do usually use a single point or sometimes a single with expand 4 or 8. Most birds do stay put long enough to do that but you have to be quick. Usually because shooting small birds one is starved for reach you can just use the centre point and you crop later so no moving the point around too often.
For BIF I have gravitated to using more automated focus modes with Nikon and Sony. With the 1DXII I mostly used small Zone for BIF. With the 1DXIII I would be trying small zone, large zone and All point mode. With my Nikon I use Auto (basically all point) and Group (similar to a small zone). Same goes with Sony (Zone and Wide) for BIF. With Sony I can use tracking modes also, start the point on the bird and let it track from there all over the frame. Now with the 1DXIII having what seems like a very competent Tracking mode you can use All-Point mode with user selected starting point and allow it to track from there. Limited via OVF because of the constrained spread of AF points. And limited in use in LV due to the ergonomics. But still much better than what we had with the 1DXII.
However, for birds vs many sports the difficulty I think with sports is too many distractions around, especially any team sports. With birds I'm usually shooting a single bird with a distant background and therefore Auto type modes work. I don't think Auto type modes would be good for team sports. Would probably work good for shooting single athletic sports like Tennis or Golf or Track and Field etc. But not for Basketball, Football, Hockey etc. There I would think you need to be using a more constrained point like Expand or maybe small zone....Show more →
Thanks, this is good information and all makes sense. You're right about sports where the subject gets crowded, is not isolated. Makes it hard to use Auto Point Select mode due to distractions. Until a few months ago I shot my 1DX II for almost 3 years without ever using auto point select, I usually used Single Point with 4 surrounding/expanded points. Then I discovered "Face Priority" inside Auto Point Select mode. Last fall I began working for better basketball focus (on tight shots at 2.8) and ended up using Custom Controls and assigned Auto Point Select mode to one of the 2 Multifunction buttons on the front. Now I use back button focus to place the single point (with 4 expanded) on the player's chest. If I sense other players aren't about to interfere I push the multifunction button while already tracking the subject using Single Point. When I use single point only the focus stays on the chest. But if I press the MF button to activate Auto point Select mode the focus quickly migrates to the face of the player. it allows me to instantly go back and forth from Single Point to Auto Select mode. I found this very beneficial since players' faces often are not in the same vertical plane as the chest (so without Face Priority you end up with the jersey number in focus and the face out of focus when the player leans forward at the waist). I'm doing the same thing now for baseball and girls' lacrosse. That could work with birds I think, going back and forth at the press of the button using Custom Control. Wish I had better understood and taken advantage of what the camera does with Face Priority 3 yrs ago. Hope this makes sense. Sounds like the 1DX III takes all this to yet another level...thx again for the replies.
buddy duck wrote:
Thanks, this is good information and all makes sense. You're right about sports where the subject gets crowded, is not isolated. Makes it hard to use Auto Point Select mode due to distractions. Until a few months ago I shot my 1DX II for almost 3 years without ever using auto point select, I usually used Single Point with 4 surrounding/expanded points. Then I discovered "Face Priority" inside Auto Point Select mode. Last fall I began working for better basketball focus (on tight shots at 2.8) and ended up using Custom Controls and assigned Auto Point Select mode to one of the 2 Multifunction buttons on the front. Now I use back button focus to place the single point (with 4 expanded) on the player's chest. If I sense other players aren't about to interfere I push the multifunction button while already tracking the subject using Single Point. When I use single point only the focus stays on the chest. But if I press the MF button to activate Auto point Select mode the focus quickly migrates to the face of the player. it allows me to instantly go back and forth from Single Point to Auto Select mode. I found this very beneficial since players' faces often are not in the same vertical plane as the chest (so without Face Priority you end up with the jersey number in focus and the face out of focus when the player leans forward at the waist). I'm doing the same thing now for baseball and girls' lacrosse. That could work with birds I think, going back and forth at the press of the button using Custom Control. Wish I had better understood and taken advantage of what the camera does with Face Priority 3 yrs ago. Hope this makes sense. Sounds like the 1DX III takes all this to yet another level...thx again for the replies.
