Just personal thoughts here ... I chose a 7D over a used 1D Mark III
10 MP is not enough if you are focal length constrained.
For example, I have a 400mm F5.6 L as my birding lens. I cannot afford the 500mm, 600mm, or 800mm lenses. They are just too expensive. So I am contrained to 400mm.
with the 400mm F5.6 L ...
A 7D (18 MP) gives 18 MP and a field of view equivalent to 640mm.
A 5D (12.8 MP) gives 5.1 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
A 1D Mark III (10 MP) gives about 5.6 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
The 1D Mark III is awesome if you can use longer lenses.
But when constrained to 400mm the 7D puts far more pixels on the bird.
I have found the 7D crop-ability to be excellent. I have also found noise levels to be very good. The 1D Mark III might be cleaner at some ISO's but it is of little use if I do not end up with enough pixels on my subject.
I remember when I first came to this forum, the general consensus was "once you've used a 1 series you can't go back" yet recently it's like some people are abandoning the 1 series and treating cameras like the 7D and 5D Mark II as viable substitutes. It's like the 1 series has lost it's class. I guess it's just differing natures and priorities. Some people complain about the 1.3X yet others are more than happy to be with the 1.6X
I purchased a 1D Mark III earlier this week, I had a play with a 7D but wasn't too impressed to be honest...the 1D Mark III just feels like a different class of camera...well except maybe the LCD
I picked up IIN just before the 7D was announced and have no regrets and no plans to ever go back to a non 1D body. Also you can crop well exposed images from the IIN a surprising amount. @ low ISO there's not a huge difference in detail. The 1.3x sensor is awesome. Best of both worlds.
Eagerly following this post as I'm in the same dilema--7D or MKlll. HAve had a llN and it has been great. Shoot mainly sports but also birds. The Hi ISO on the 7d seems nice for those darl football stadiums. But, do ya really need 12,000 plus ISO? Don't need the 1.6 reach as I'm not FL challenged. Maybe just get another llN? Rick
More than likely, I'm in the minority but, until very recently, I owned a Mark 3. Up until that point I had 2 40Ds which I was very pleased with. But a unique opportunity came along, and I was able to purchase a refurb Mark 3 in April. I bought it primarily to get the 10fps, and the almost limitless imaging controls. Over the course of the last 6 months and about 10K frames, I found that I missed not having 1.6x magnification factor on both bodies, and I also came to the realization that it was just too much camera for me so I sold it with the plan to get another 40D. When the 7D was announced with its 8fps and new AF system, I figured why not? Although I've only had it about 10 days, I'm very pleased with its functionality but mostly am just blown away by the quality of the images! I expect to get a lot of use from this camera, and IMHO, it's one of the best engineered cameras that Canon has made.
RKuebel wrote:
Eagerly following this post as I'm in the same dilema--7D or MKlll. HAve had a llN and it has been great. Shoot mainly sports but also birds. The Hi ISO on the 7d seems nice for those darl football stadiums. But, do ya really need 12,000 plus ISO? Don't need the 1.6 reach as I'm not FL challenged. Maybe just get another llN? Rick
What is the highest ISO usable on the MKIII?
jmikes955 wrote:
It ain't always user error. The Mark III (or at least a very large number of them) is notorious for being unable to differentiate between a target and a busy background on a sunny day.
I don't think above is true statements based on mine mk III body:
abqnmusa wrote:
Just personal thoughts here ... I chose a 7D over a used 1D Mark III
10 MP is not enough if you are focal length constrained.
For example, I have a 400mm F5.6 L as my birding lens. I cannot afford the 500mm, 600mm, or 800mm lenses. They are just too expensive. So I am contrained to 400mm.
with the 400mm F5.6 L ...
A 7D (18 MP) gives 18 MP and a field of view equivalent to 640mm.
A 5D (12.8 MP) gives 5.1 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
A 1D Mark III (10 MP) gives about 5.6 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
The 1D Mark III is awesome if you can use longer lenses.
But when constrained to 400mm the 7D puts far more pixels on the bird.
I have found the 7D crop-ability to be excellent. I have also found noise levels to be very good. The 1D Mark III might be cleaner at some ISO's but it is of little use if I do not end up with enough pixels on my subject. ...Show more →
I prefer better pixels not how many of them per fields
I got my 2nd hand 1D3 (now with canon cause the mirror box is filthy) and I took it out. For some reason I couldn't get a frame out of focus...I was expecting AF problems, but unlike the 5D2 which you sort of had to spray and pray, the 1D3 just stays on the target
