PhotogDave
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #13 · Image Quality: 7D vs 1D Mark III? | |
One thing for sure, PhotogDave is very passionate about his 1D3.
No its not that. The OP asked how the 7D measured up in terms of noise IQ to the 3yr old 1D3. It doesnt. I made the point and then others started trying to convince him that the 7D was as good or better than the 1D3. And its absolutely nonsense. Its not even possible mathmatically.
There are some things I hate about the 1D3, but noise control and image quality is definitley not one of them. You can see that from the images I posted. It in NO way lacks there.
1D MkIII, F2.8, ISO5000 (ISO3200 -2/3 ec), 1/30s
I have a 1D MkIII and only considered a 7D as a step down, or a back up. The 1.6x crop, ISO noise, toy like build (relative to 1D), small Raw buffer, 1/4 battery life, lack of dual memory cards slots, are all reasons though that I won't even consider a 7D. However, it's still a nice camera for somebody coming from a non 1 Series for sure, or somebody wanting to do video.
A friend of mine who had a MkIII, then sold for a 50D, and then got a 7D still misses his 1D MkIII a lot (although, not quite as much as when he had a 50D) for it's build, AF response and IQ. Somebody else on here posted nearly the same thing. Once you go 1 Series, it's really hard to go back to anything else. But then again, the 7D is a lot cheaper.
The 7D is in no way shape or form better than the current 1D series, it's just a cheaper option with video (the same way the 20D/30D/40D/50D were in the past). Btw, I wonder with they didn't call this camera a 60D? It does seem though the new naming scheme really has people thinking this is a whole new kettle of fish from the old xxD series. Good marketing on Canon's part, but they surely are running out of names/numbers, and making it a bit confusing for consumers. ...Show more →
Exactly my point. The 7D is a nice camera, but it has its place and thats it. To say that its better than the 1D3 in terms of image quality, nonsense. The only thing the 7D does betetr is it has more resolution, though I still dont see how better, casue the images I am seeing in no way show more detail than the 10MP 1D3.
Example: Timbops' dog pics. Here we are again, these are 50% crops, not 100% and even the 50% crops dont show as much detail, sharpness etc. The hair doesnt look like hair, it looks like artifacts/mush. This looks liek it was taken with a 18-55 kit lens on rebel. Not what I expect from prosumer camera with good lens and 18mp.
My 40D makes sharper more detailed images than this.
HERE is another link to more photos. BUT, here is the kicker, these are ISO 1600 shots from my 1D3, BUT using a Tamron 200-500 POS. And look at the detail. You can count individual hairs. The dog pics, the hair looks like mush.
I like the 7D as a camera and its price range, I'm just not impressed with its image quality, and I think when comparing the IQ of a D3 to the 7D, you can see, its not whats its cracked up to be. I know the 1D3 wont always have the best IQ, sooner or later, Canon will do better, but so far, their "Low ISO" claims arent actually getting better IMO, they are getting worse. The 7D ISO 200-400 images are pretty good, but I am still seeing smeared detail even in those images.
|
Smaller, lighter bodies have a place, even if they are "inferior" in so many other ways. That's why I have the 5D2 next to the 1Ds3. Money has nothing to do with it.
What's a Kinglet for the non-birders? Think of a bird smaller than the size of a ping pong ball that won't stand still for more than 2 seconds hopping around from one branch to another.....underneath dense foliage. In upside down, right side up positions and orientations...
