^^^ reach is about the only thing I can think of. The 7D allows you to put a lot of pixels on a far away subject. It may not be important to all, but there are people who are either unwilling or unable to get closer to their avians and wildlife and in those cases if the light is adequate such that the detail does not get lost in the noise, the higher pixel density of the 7D can yield a better file.
thedigitalbean wrote:
^^^ reach is about the only thing I can think of. The 7D allows you to put a lot of pixels on a far away subject. It may not be important to all, but there are people who are either unwilling or unable to get closer to their avians and wildlife and in those cases if the light is adequate such that the detail does not get lost in the noise, the higher pixel density of the 7D can yield a better file.
That point has nothing to do with 7D, it is related to any 1.6 crop camera.
thedigitalbean wrote:
It has nothing to do with the fact that a camera is a 1.6x crop and everything to do with the pixel pitch of the camera.
Same reason a 1Ds3 gives more reach than a 1D3, etc...
Exactly. I think the point a lot of people are missing is that the 7D's performance to price ratio is far better than that of the 1DIV. Not only that but not every photog is the same, some covet certain aspects more than others. Like size, weight, and pixel density for example--if these are all essential factors to you its easy to see why some people would prefer the 7D to the 1DIV, especially given the price differential. Its proven the 7D can perform up to standards as far as wildlife/action photography is concerned.
I think the results speak for themselves. Without NR, the 1DIV is pretty unusable at the super high ISOs (25K and higher), while the Nikon body clearly is. I suspect this is the result of superior sensor engineering *and* of build in NR. Some may prefer this and others may not, but careful examination of the images shows me that the Nikon is just better at really high ISO - any way you slice it. If the 1DIV would have been full frame, the story might have been different. Sorry Canon.
Now, with that said...
The percentage of shots that need to be taken at these super high ISOs is relatively small. For most people, most of the time, the noise performance of either one of these cameras is going to be more than adequate. Let that sink in for a minute. While it's good trivia fun to compare these cameras at the pixel level at ISO104k, that just doesn't reflect how users of these cameras are going to use the images. This is an extreme fringe example and should not be taken for typical usage.
At reasonable ISOs where most people do most of their shooting, I suspect the 1DIV's extra resolution will be more of a benefit to most users than noise performance above ISO 25k will be a hindrance. Because of this, I believe the 1DIV will be the more versatile of the two cameras.
deepbluejh wrote:
At reasonable ISOs where most people do most of their shooting, I suspect the 1DIV's extra resolution will be more of a benefit to most users than noise performance above ISO 25k will be a hindrance. Because of this, I believe the 1DIV will be the more versatile of the two cameras.
Do you believe that in terms of IQ the 1DIV has an advantage ?
I don't disagree, i just haven't seen that yet in reviews
Orestis.Ch wrote:
Do you believe that in terms of IQ the 1DIV has an advantage ?
I don't disagree, i just haven't seen that yet in reviews
At ISOs 1600 and lower, I believe that the 1DIV will generate a more preferred image file (all things considered) than the D3s. At ISOs 3200 and higher, the tables turn somewhat.
Orestis.Ch wrote:
Do you believe that in terms of IQ the 1DIV has an advantage ?
I don't disagree, i just haven't seen that yet in reviews The option not to lug around heavy and expensive lenses because you have enough megapixels to crop with and not worry if there is enough light is a big plus in my book. I am glad I stuck by Canon and not switch.
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.
SNIP
Well I love my 7d, it has produced some nice images; better than I expected at hi ISO. But in even with less than a week with my 1d4 it seems to beat the 7d in both tracking and low light; and I will bet as I get more use to the 1d4 this gap will only increase.
For some time my shooting style was to keep a 1.6 crop body (like my xti) on the back of a Sigma 300-800 on top of a tripod with a gimbal head in the back of my SUV with a 7d on a 500/f4 on a monopod on the front seat for quicker shots, and a 1d2 on a 400/5.6 for closer and even faster action.
I will probably change and put the 7d on the Sigmonster, the 1d4 on the 500, and the 1d2 on a Sigma 120-300.
The point is that both the 7d and the 1d4 have strengths. You can view them as competing with each other or view them as complementing each other; I choose the latter.
ragebot wrote:
The point is that both the 7d and the 1d4 have strengths. You can view them as competing with each other or view them as complementing each other; I choose the latter.
Absolutely and thats the way Canon likes it, they want us to buy multiple bodies. A 1Ds3 (1Ds4 when it comes out), 1D4 and 7D can all be part of the same kit complementing each other with their relative strengths. If you can only choose one camera though, one will choose whose strengths fit one's needs the best and whose weaknesses one can live with the most. This naturally implies that different people will select different bodies. Why this simple notion escapes so many people is beyond me.
Each of these camera has its strengths. Contrary to what one poster says I shoot most of my stuff @ ISO 6400-12800 (D3s) and ISO 3200 (1Ds MK III 5D II). I am a specialist but then so are the BIF people. So the discussion reverts to "What's best for Me."
Yes the 7D is pixel advantaged and a performance bargain. But that's, equivalent, 47Mp FF density which defies most any lenses' resolution at the lowest ISO. At higher ISOs the pixel advantage is smeared over with noise.
So if you shoot in strong light with medium F stops (avoiding diffraction), a fine tripod, good IS lens and ideal conditions you MAY get most of the benefit of 18 APS "C" Mp. The same could be said (using different limitations) of other bodies. But, generally, with FF there's more THERE, there and I seem to notice it.
Breitling65 wrote:
What an argument, as usually. Canon 1000D should be even better based on this and also 1.6 crop for reach...
It IS a valid argument. The 7D offers 1D-like AF, 1D-like build and various other features that make it a top performer all at $1700, as opposed to 5K. How you don't understand that isn't a surprise to me as it seems you're never able to grasp even the simplest of concepts.
M Vers wrote:
It IS a valid argument. The 7D offers 1D-like AF, 1D-like build and various other features that make it a top performer all at $1700, as opposed to 5K. How you don't understand that isn't a surprise to me as it seems you're never able to grasp even the simplest of concepts.
M Vers wrote:
It IS a valid argument. The 7D offers 1D-like AF, 1D-like build and various other features that make it a top performer all at $1700, as opposed to 5K. How you don't understand that isn't a surprise to me as it seems you're never able to grasp even the simplest of concepts.
Sorry but you don't seem to grasp the concept that the 7D really isn't in the same league as the MKIV. This is my opinion of course but it is based on owning both.
rd4tile wrote:
Sorry but you don't seem to grasp the concept that the 7D really isn't in the same league as the MKIV. This is my opinion of course but it is based on owning both.
Based on shots I saw it is not even 1D mk III league too, it is improved 50D with video nothing more than this. From same league I would prefer 20D/40D even better. Less mpx, better larger pixels, great IQ and same 1.6 crop.
My car also red like Ferrari ...