Breitling65 wrote:
I don't agree about 7D, I checked tons of samples on both and mk IV is literally 3 heads above this camera in any respect.
When you're comfortable with your Mk IV, show me yours and I'll show you mine - from the 7D - and we'll see whether those three heads are really worth the huge price difference between the two cameras..!
FWIW, I have talked to people who work with several copies of Canon bodies (starting with the 7D and 1D4) who have told me that they are seen pretty big variations in the read noise numbers from different bodies of the same camera. They were surprised and re-did their testing and the results came back the same. So joy, not only do we have to contend with variations in lens quality but also sensors now.
keithreeder wrote:
When you're comfortable with your Mk IV, show me yours and I'll show you mine - from the 7D - and we'll see whether those three heads are really worth the huge price difference between the two cameras..!
You could check mine mk III shots in profile/link, I am sure mk IV will be not much worse 1D bodies are different league in everything, you will understand this by own one only. Price is price, not everything could be associated with money, Different product, different level, different everything...
keithreeder wrote:
When you're comfortable with your Mk IV, show me yours and I'll show you mine - from the 7D - and we'll see whether those three heads are really worth the huge price difference between the two cameras..!
I own both the 7D and 1D4 bodies. I also own the 1D3 and I have used most of the Canon and Nikon bodies that have been produced in the last few years. Cost and value are relative depending on your level of use and financial situation. I can tell you that the 1D4 is a much better camera in just about every way than the 7D. I would take a 1D3 over the 7D anyday and the 1D4 is large step up from the 1D3.
The 7D rocks when it works--but I had to return two bodies before I got one I can comfortably say this about. So, I'm not that surprised to see some of this disagreement.
Re. the TDP review mentioned earlier: like many reviewers, TDP misses the fact that DPP applies luminance NR to 7D RAW files even at ISO 100, and so a sharpness comparison using default DPP settings is invalid. When processed with NR disabled, the 7D RAW files are quite sharp.
thedigitalbean wrote:
FWIW, I have talked to people who work with several copies of Canon bodies (starting with the 7D and 1D4) who have told me that they are seen pretty big variations in the read noise numbers from different bodies of the same camera. They were surprised and re-did their testing and the results came back the same. So joy, not only do we have to contend with variations in lens quality but also sensors now.
That's something new. I wonder if the new manufacturing plants have anything to do with it.
garyvot wrote:
Re. the TDP review mentioned earlier: like many reviewers, TDP misses the fact that DPP applies luminance NR to 7D RAW files even at ISO 100, and so a sharpness comparison using default DPP settings is invalid. When processed with NR disabled, the 7D RAW files are quite sharp.
"RAW images were captured with auto white balance, no noise reduction (a key factor) and the "Standard" Picture Style. Sharpness was set to "1" (very low)."
I will be very surprised if TDP is not aware that DPP applies some default NR.
harrygilbert wrote:
I am surprised that, as a nature photographer, Juza says the 7D is his "main" camera. I thought the 1D4 had superior AF. I didn't see a good comparison of this feature in the review.
A Hong Kong photography magazine (DIGI) recently compared the performance of 1D4 vs 7D with regards to tracking and low light AF. Surprisingly, they are VERY similar.
Juza feels the 1.3x crop factor is handicapped by the lack of suitable ultrawide angle lenses. Besides, no one can deny the 7D have major advantages over 1D bodies when it comes to price and size/weight. A 1.6x crop body also offers him 'better reach' for wildlife shooting (he demonstrates it in his 7D review). Finally, from his comparisons, the 1Ds3 is not significantly better (maybe 0.5 stops) than 7D at high ISO. When you put the above reasons together, it's not difficult to understand why he chooses the 7D as his main camera.
thw2 wrote:
A Hong Kong photography magazine (DIGI) recently compared the performance of 1D4 vs 7D with regards to tracking and low light AF. Surprisingly, they are VERY similar.
Juza feels the 1.3x crop factor is handicapped by the lack of suitable ultrawide angle lenses. Besides, no one can deny the 7D have major advantages over 1D bodies when it comes to price and size/weight. A 1.6x crop body also offers him 'better reach' for wildlife shooting (he demonstrates it in his 7D review). Finally, from his comparisons, the 1Ds3 is not significantly better (maybe 0.5 stops) than 7D at high ISO. When you put the above reasons together, it's not difficult to understand why he chooses the 7D as his main camera....Show more →
The lack of suitable ultra wide angle lenses is more of an issue with the 7D than the 1D4, so that doesn't make much sense to me. The extra reach factor is a myth because the pro bodies will AF at F8 and the 7D will only AF at F5.6 or wider. This means you can use a 1.4x or 2x TC on your 1D3 when you can't on your 7D if your lens is F4 or F5.6. This covers evreything above 300mm except the 400mm F2.8. Thus, the extra TC ability equalizes any extra reach. The 1D4 has much better image quality at high ISO than the 7D. The only thing that the 7D wins at is price. Price and value are relative things that depend on your use of the camera and your financial situation. The 1D4 is the clear winner over the 7D for just about any application and feature of the camera. Any weight savings come at the price of short battery life and loss of vertical controls. Not to mention the more sturdy and robust build of the pro bodies.
thw2 wrote:
The Canon ef-s 10-22 provides the same angle of view as 16-35 on FF.
Which decent ultrawide lens when mounted on an APS-H camera gets you the 16 mm FOV on FF?
The quality of the 10-22mm is not comparable to the 16-35mm. The 14mm will get you within 2.2mm EFL and it's quality does compare to the 16-35mm. If you want to shoot ultra wide AND super telephoto and you are serious about both, I think you would want both a FF and a 1.3 crop pro body camera. When comparing 1D3, 1D4, 1Ds3, and 7D. The 7D is last on the list in almost every way. In this case, you DO get what you pay for. If you are looking for value, I think the 1D3 used is the way to go. If you are looking for quality, versatility, and action capabilities, the 1D4 is the way to go. If action isn't a factor then maybe waiting for the 1Ds4 is the best bet.
"RAW images were captured with auto white balance, no noise reduction (a key factor) and the "Standard" Picture Style. Sharpness was set to "1" (very low)."
I will be very surprised if TDP is not aware that DPP applies some default NR.
Perhaps, though it could also mean that the tester has simply set 'High ISO Noise Reduction" to "Off", which is not the same thing as no NR.
It's easy to miss that DPP behaves differently than other RAW converters. It's also easy to assume that no NR is applied at the base ISO setting, as is the case with the 1-series and 5-series sensors, but not Canon's recent APS-C cameras.
In any case, I don't see another obvious reason for the softer 7D results at low ISO.
Gary in this instance I'm positive that Bryan at TDP disables all Noise Reduction as far as DPP allows him to.
When Bryan reviewed the 24L II he got very soft results because the then new version of DPP automatically did NR at every ISO setting. He apologized on his website for not picking up this, corrected the results, and I'm sure since then he has gone to great lengths to disable NR in every form and iteration.
Unlike other Review sites, TDP is the only one I trust for noise comparisons because it is the only one that uses processing exactly like mine, Canon DPP, to
level the playing field, with NR totally off
(It is known that DPP applies some Noise Reduction even at 0,0 however this is the same as any other RAW converter and I daresay is weaker than ACR/LR. The user can only set both sliders to 0,0 and that's it)
You see with many other review sites like imaging resource, various blog reviews etc, they use LR or ACR or JPGs and there is always induced Noise Reduction
JimN wrote:
The lack of suitable ultra wide angle lenses is more of an issue with the 7D than the 1D4, so that doesn't make much sense to me. The extra reach factor is a myth because the pro bodies will AF at F8 and the 7D will only AF at F5.6 or wider. This means you can use a 1.4x or 2x TC on your 1D3 when you can't on your 7D if your lens is F4 or F5.6. This covers evreything above 300mm except the 400mm F2.8. Thus, the extra TC ability equalizes any extra reach. The 1D4 has much better image quality at high ISO than the 7D. The only thing that the 7D wins at is price. Price and value are relative things that depend on your use of the camera and your financial situation. The 1D4 is the clear winner over the 7D for just about any application and feature of the camera. Any weight savings come at the price of short battery life and loss of vertical controls. Not to mention the more sturdy and robust build of the pro bodies. ...Show more →
But you won't need the TC on the 7D. With such high pixel density, the 7D put's around 3x the pixels on a subject as the 1D III when FL limited. In other words you'd need a 1.8x TC on the 1D III to get the same reach. I'd rather use a bare 500 f/4 on a 7D than a 1D III + 500 + 1.4x or 2x. The advantages are numerous in this case for the 7D. Not saying the 7D is a better camera, but FL limited and you're stuck with the same lenses, 7D IMO is a much better choice.
The 7D does have an UWA option (actually several) the 1D III/IV only really has the Sigma 12-24.
