Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 09 Jan 2011 (Sunday) 22:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7d or Mark iv

 
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,250 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Jan 10, 2011 15:31 |  #16

liquidstone wrote in post #11611608 (external link)
I use both for birding, and they're very good bodies for this application.

The 7D is cheaper, has longer reach, better video UI, lighter weight.

The 1D4 has a deeper buffer, 1 stop lower noise than the 7D (pixel level), extra 2 fps, a tad faster AF with TCs, sustained 10 fps even in lower light or when battery level gets low (the 7D's fps slows down in such conditions).

Both have very good AF for BIFs and fast frame rate.

If you have the budget, go for the 1D4 - the best action camera on the planet. Otherwise, the 7D is a good alternative.

And the 1D can AF with 1.4x and 2x TCs with certain lenses like the 400/5.6 that are MF only on the 7D.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
themadman
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
18,871 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Northern California
     
Jan 10, 2011 15:33 |  #17

K6AZ wrote in post #11612390 (external link)
And the 1D can AF with 1.4x and 2x TCs with certain lenses like the 400/5.6 that are MF only on the 7D.

Yes, but the 7D has natively a bit more reach, 1.3x vs 1.6x


Will | WilliamLiuPhotography.​com (external link) | Gear List and Feedback | CPS Member | Have you Pre-Ordered Your 3Dx Yet? | HorusBennu Discussion | In honor of Uncle Steve, thanks for everything! 10-5-2011

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
big_g
Goldmember
1,064 posts
Gallery: 418 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2188
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Lincolnshire UK, Live in Scotland
     
Jan 10, 2011 15:38 as a reply to  @ post 11611614 |  #18

The only time I have used the 7D since I got my 1D4 was when I went on holiday and didn't want to take such an expensive piece of kit to walk around with taking snapshots of the kids.

Normally I always reach for the 1D unless I am doing something where there will be little movement or portrait type stuff, then the 5D2 comes out to play.

If money is a consideration then get the 7D and some more glass as the difference isn't as massive as the cost different. It is better but not 3x better.

Its like most things, as you climb higher up the tree the improvements get smaller but the price hikes get much steeper.

In summary, you will not be disappointed with the 7D but if you really can afford it the 1D4 is an absolute brilliant piece of kit


Very lucky to have a lot of nice toys :)
Flickr Site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,250 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Jan 10, 2011 16:38 |  #19

themadman wrote in post #11612406 (external link)
Yes, but the 7D has natively a bit more reach, 1.3x vs 1.6x

Which is overcome with the TCs that won't AF on the 7D.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Candor
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
4,851 posts
Gallery: 114 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 10027
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Jan 10, 2011 18:37 |  #20

Thanks for all the replies and information folks it is a big help to me. It sounds like low iso noise with the 7d is a non-issue for the most part.

Mk1Racer wrote in post #11609739 (external link)
You won't get a new 500 f/4 for that.

To the OP, if you can swing the 1D IV, go for it. One benefit that you may not have considered is that you'll be able to put a 2X TC behind that 500 f/4 and still have it auto-focus.

Good point and something I almost forgot. Another thing to add to my deliberations. Thanks.

Shadowblade wrote in post #11609754 (external link)
Totally depends what you shoot.

If you're constantly at the long end of long telephotos, sometimes having to crop, etc. the 7D wil deliver many more pixels on target than the 1D4. Also, if you're a travel photographer, or need to save on weight where possible, the 7D is significantly lighter; it also has the advantage of sharing a battery and charger with the 5D2, with which it pairs very well as a travel/wilderness camera.

If, on the other hand, your work is more at short-medium telephoto ranges, with minimal cropping and shooting frequently in dark environments (e.g. event photography), the 1D4 will have better high-ISO performance and slightly better IQ.

AF is probably slightly better on the 1D4 (although IMO the 7D edges out the 1D3 in that regard); the extra 2fps is basically inconsequential. Neither will have any problems tracking fast-moving objects, even in dim light.

As a travel/landscape photographer, I upgraded from a 1D3 to a 7D as my telephoto, wildlife/action body with no regrets - many more pixels on target, better AF (although it is edged out by the 1D4) and a smaller form factor. As a wildlife/bird photographer, your requirements will probably be fairly similar - working with long telephotos, often needing to crop and needing a good AF system to track moving targets. Remember, the 1D4's 1.3x crop sensor is of no advantage if you need to crop it to 1.6x anyway in order to better frame a distant subject - you end up with essentially the same noise performance and fewer pixels on target.

In your position, I'd go the 7D, no question - the 1D4 doesn't really offer anything that would benefit you working at the long telephoto end, and, with the price difference, you could invest in some nice glass.

From the 7D and 100-400L (at the long end):
QUOTED IMAGE

Thank for your comments. I rarely manage to capture anything full frame so that is definitely something I am keeping mind. I'm working on getting closer but I have to admit generally I need as much ability to crop as I can get. Great shot btw. I'm excited to see what either of these cameras is capable of with high iso.

amfoto1 wrote in post #11611129 (external link)
I chose 7D and am happy with my decision. I've been using a pair of them for a little over a year now. Upgraded from 50D, and 30D before those, and am also using 5DII alongside the croppers. I prefer to combine 1.6X with 1X cameras, instead of 1.3X.

While I can't compare directly with 40D, I think you will see at least one or two more stops of usable ISO with 7D. We each have our own opinions about high ISO and noise, what we find acceptible. But, for comparison, I tried to keep 30D below 1600, would use 50D at 1600 without concern (and I think 40D are about the same, just lower rez), and now will use 3200 on 7D.

In low ISOs, if you zoom in to 100% with the 18MP camera, you are going to see more issues than your 10MP images from 40D. But I agree with the previous poster who stated that if you view them both printed to the same size, you'll be happy with the noise level of the 7D at low ISO, too.

You will find that 7D images need much more sharpening. You might feel they are "soft" at first, but once some USM is applied they will sharpen up nicely. I think the 7D just uses a much stronger anti-aliasing filter or something.

I'd much rather put money into lenses than into cameras. I think the pace of DSLR "upgrade-itis" is slowing a bit, the cameras are seeing smaller incremental changes with each new generation... however it's still a consideration. OTOH, many of my lenses have been used on four generations of DSLR now, and film cameras before that.

With 7D, if you use AI Servo, single point AF manually selected, and perhaps back button focusing with it, you won't be disappointed with 7D. BIF against a featureless sky and wide angle/small f-stop scenics might work well with Zone, Expansion and All Points focus, but are not AF modes I find to be generally useful. I do find Spot Focus (might better be called High Precision Focus) to be useful in some situations, although it's a little slower.

19 AF points can be useful, compared to 9 on your 40D and my 50D. But tests I've seen the results of do not show 7D AF significantly faster than 50D to acquire focus lock (4 or 5 hundredths of a sec faster, at best, in ideal light). In fact it appears to be slightly slower in low light (around 20 hundredths at the lowest). This isn't really noticeable, but seems to agree with my suspicions.

However, speed of focus acquistion isn't everything. You probably also will be concerned with tracking moving targets. I don't have any quantitative data or info to support it, but feel the 7D is generally better than 50D hanging onto moving subjects, after lock has been achieved. How much? Well, when editing volumes of images after a shoot, I always mark the OOF shots to be trashed. Some are undoubtedly user error, others are due to the camera. With 30D and 50D I probably tossed out 5 or 7% of shots due to camera-caused failure to focus acceptibly. With 7D that might be down to 2 or 4%. No camera is perfect! 7D seems to be to be a little better at this than 30/50D, in my opinion.

But, this is after I stopped trying to use Zone and Expansion modes for general purpose shooting (I already knew better than to use All Points). When I was experimenting with and trying to use those a lot I got really frustrated, probably had 25, 30% or more OOF that I felt were due to the camera! Those specialized AF modes do serve a purpose, but it's far more limited than I thought, initially. As soon as I scaled back to using 7D more the way I'd learned to use 50D, 30D and earlier.

My point, though, is that while the 7D has good AF in terms of speed and real world usability, it's not such a huge step up or vastly improved over earlier cameras that I've used. Better, yes... Radically better, no.

Perhaps one of the more unheralded improvements of the 7D is it's metering system. The new 63 zone system (also used in the 60D) seems a very nice upgrade to me. It appears to deal with some tough situations - such as back strongly backlit subjects - a bit better than the metering systems in previous xxD models I've used extensively. Huge difference? Again, no. I think it's just a nice, incremental upgrade and a solid improvement.

Now, I'm not "slamming" the AF performance of the 7D. It's quite good and I'm happy with it now that I've worked through it and learned what works for me, and what doesn't. Frankly, I wouldn't expect significantly better (or worse) results from a 1D series cameras. (I've only used certain 1 series lightly, so really can't comment a lot.) I do feel that even after a year I still have more to learn about the 7D's AF system, when to use certain Custom Functions, and when they might do more harm than good.

In fact I hope the 5D Mark III, whenever it happens, will share the 7D's AF system (and metering system). I really don't feel the next 5D version needs a whole lot more improvement than that - well an articulated LCD on the back would be cool, and dual compact flash memory slots would be nice. I just hope that Canon doesn't go nuts with super high resolution sensor or high frame rates or something that takes the full framer in a new direction.

The new batteries - which are shared with the 5DII and 60D - are also a nice improvement. I'd estimate they nearly double shooting potential. Of course, they cost more than widely available BP511A, too!

Great shot of the iguana above! I see it's shot at 310mm and at ISO 1600, though, so it doesn't really demonstrate the low ISO performance of the 7D that the OP was concerned about. OTOH, it speaks very well for the camera's higher ISO capabilities! So, if ISO 800 is "cleaner" than ISO 200, is that a bad thing? Only if you are wanting to shoot slow shutter speeds for some reason and need to buy a stronger ND filter in order to do it. Heck, the 5DII's ISO 50 isn't as clean or "nice" as the camera's ISO 100, either.

I would venture to guess, though, that it's just the algorythms used in the 7D that cause lower ISO to show up with more noise than middle or higher ISOs. Perhaps it will change, with later firmwares installed in the camera. I'll have to run some tests with my 7D. I'm usually more concerned about high ISO performance, than with low ISO. So I really haven't explored it at all and it's largely a non-issue for me. I use LR3 and PS CS5, which have much improved noise handling capabilities. I used to use DPP for high ISO images, for it's better noise handling, but have practically stopped doing so since LR3 and CS5 were introduced.

Thanks very much for your in depth response. I have always been of the mindset to use the lowest iso I can to get to get the cleanest shot and believe it or not it never dawned on me to raise the iso on the 7d if it is cleaner. Great point. Very interesting to hear your experience with the AF. Lots of great info.

liquidstone wrote in post #11611608 (external link)
I use both for birding, and they're very good bodies for this application.

The 7D is cheaper, has longer reach, better video UI, lighter weight.

The 1D4 has a deeper buffer, 1 stop lower noise than the 7D (pixel level), extra 2 fps, a tad faster AF with TCs, sustained 10 fps even in lower light or when battery level gets low (the 7D's fps slows down in such conditions).

Both have very good AF for BIFs and fast frame rate.

If you have the budget, go for the 1D4 - the best action camera on the planet. Otherwise, the 7D is a good alternative.

I didn't realize the buffer was deeper in the 1D4. Something that I would find useful. Thanks.

Again, thanks to all who took the time to respond. These comments have been very helpful.

If anyone has any low iso 7d shots without any noise reduction they would like to post I would love to see them.


Mike
MikesWildLife (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
themadman
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
18,871 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Northern California
     
Jan 10, 2011 19:06 |  #21

K6AZ wrote in post #11612881 (external link)
Which is overcome with the TCs that won't AF on the 7D.

Of course, I am simply pointing out the difference is not as large as one may think.


Will | WilliamLiuPhotography.​com (external link) | Gear List and Feedback | CPS Member | Have you Pre-Ordered Your 3Dx Yet? | HorusBennu Discussion | In honor of Uncle Steve, thanks for everything! 10-5-2011

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,250 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Jan 10, 2011 21:42 |  #22

themadman wrote in post #11613745 (external link)
Of course, I am simply pointing out the difference is not as large as one may think.

In reach/crop factor yes, AF performance no. The AF on the 7D was a superb improvement over previous xxD models but is no match for the 1D AF system.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bigcountry
Goldmember
Avatar
4,485 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 148
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
     
Jan 10, 2011 22:01 |  #23

if you have to ask, then you deserve the 7d.


Louisville Kentucky Wedding Photographer (external link)
Travel the World and Photograph (external link)
Find me on Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,606 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Jan 10, 2011 22:14 |  #24

I've used both and everything about the 1D4 is better than the 7D. The AF, IQ, noise, the list goes on and on. Is it $4k better than the 7D? That depends on what you are selling. I won't use a 1D4 on a daily basis unless work gives it to me.


SOSKIphoto (external link) | Blog (external link) | Facebook (external link)| Instagram (external link)
Shooting with big noisy cameras and a bag of primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,806 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 11, 2011 00:29 |  #25

Candor wrote in post #11613590 (external link)
Thank for your comments. I rarely manage to capture anything full frame so that is definitely something I am keeping mind. I'm working on getting closer but I have to admit generally I need as much ability to crop as I can get. Great shot btw. I'm excited to see what either of these cameras is capable of with high iso.

If you rarely fill the frame and often crop a 1D4 image to 1.6x crop anyway, you may as well go with the 7D.

By cropping, you've lost the sensor size advantage and will have the same ISO performance as the 7D (over the whole image - the 7D will naturally have more per-pixel noise, but compensates by having more pixels). The 7D will also let you land twice as many pixels on target as the 1D4. The 1D4 still has *slightly* better AF performance - but the 7D IMO beats the 1D3, which itself is no slouch.

Not that the 1D4 doesn't have its place, of course - if you were an event photographer, or shot stage performances, or any other demanding application which didn't require working with long telephotos and cropping, and could actually take advantage of the 1.3x sensor over the 1.6x crop, I'd suggest the 1D4 without hesitation. But, in cropping the 1D4's image to a 1.6x crop, you've effectively lost almost every advantage the 1D4 has over the 7D, while keeping the disadvantages.

Get the 7D, then pair it up with a 5D2 for occasions when ultimate IQ is a priority and you aren't cropping heavily with long telephotos. It still works out cheaper than a 1D4...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
merp
Senior Member
490 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2006
     
Jan 11, 2011 01:12 |  #26
bannedPermanently

1Dm4.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,250 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Jan 11, 2011 01:18 |  #27

Shadowblade wrote in post #11615546 (external link)
If you rarely fill the frame and often crop a 1D4 image to 1.6x crop anyway, you may as well go with the 7D.

By cropping, you've lost the sensor size advantage and will have the same ISO performance as the 7D (over the whole image - the 7D will naturally have more per-pixel noise, but compensates by having more pixels). The 7D will also let you land twice as many pixels on target as the 1D4. The 1D4 still has *slightly* better AF performance - but the 7D IMO beats the 1D3, which itself is no slouch.

Not that the 1D4 doesn't have its place, of course - if you were an event photographer, or shot stage performances, or any other demanding application which didn't require working with long telephotos and cropping, and could actually take advantage of the 1.3x sensor over the 1.6x crop, I'd suggest the 1D4 without hesitation. But, in cropping the 1D4's image to a 1.6x crop, you've effectively lost almost every advantage the 1D4 has over the 7D, while keeping the disadvantages.

Get the 7D, then pair it up with a 5D2 for occasions when ultimate IQ is a priority and you aren't cropping heavily with long telephotos. It still works out cheaper than a 1D4...

I have to strongly disagree with this assessment.

First, as I've posted many times, the AF performance is far superior to the 7D.

Second, on the crop/noise/etc. comparison that hasn't been my experience. I owned the 7D for over a year and shot with it side by side with the 1D4 for several months. When bored I shoot feeder birds here. Cardinals would fill the frame on the 7D, they don't on the 1D4. I normally post images at 1000x667. Comparing many hundreds of images down at the final posting size of 1000x667 there is simply no question that the IQ of the ones taken with the 1D4 are superior. Not major like the difference I see between the 4/3 shots I take and the 7D but the difference is there.

So again it really comes down to the OP's pocket book and what he shoots. As I've said many times here there is no question the 7D is the finest 1.6x body Canon has ever produced but it doesn't compare to the 1D4 or for that matter the 1D3 when it comes to AF performance or IQ.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,792 views & 0 likes for this thread
7d or Mark iv
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is KMT916
879 guests, 241 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.