Scrumhalf wrote in post #18147055
I would like to see someone who owns a 7D2 and a 5D4 shoot a series of progressively distant objects with the 7D2 and the 5D4 with a long lens say a 400mm. The test is obviously done from the same tripod, same conditions, etc., so that all nuisance variables rae removed.
In the 1st test, the subject fills the 7D2 field and does not fill the 5D4 field. The 5D4 is cropped by 1.6X linear in post to mimic the 7D2 field of view. In the 2nd test, the subject is further away, so it does not fill the 7D2 field and the same thing is done with the 5D4. The subject is progressively moved away and the test repeated.
I am curious as to when the 7D2 images become superior to the cropped 5D4 images. If a 1.6X cropped 5D4 image in the 1st test is equivalent to the 7D2, then I agree, then as long as you can get close enough that you can fill a 7D2 field, then is no need to get a 7D2. Just use a 5D4, crop in post and you are good to go. However, I suspect that for the subsequent tests, where the subject does not fill the 7D2 field, there will come a point when cropping the 5D4 image in post will yield inferior images to the 7D2 (it might even be in experiment 1). It would be great to do this test and determine this empirically instead of all the woo that goes on in FF vs. crop discussions.
Teamspeed did pretty much this test a while back with the 7D and (I believe) the 5D2 or 5D3.
I can share what my experience was in doing some tests in the house. BUT, I'll state up front for all, I'm no expert, my methodology was probably flawed, etc, etc. I was just doing it for fun.
I tested my new 5D IV vs my 7D II, using a 500 f4 II and a Canon 1.4x III. My methodology...
- shot in the house, controlled, good light
- using a sturdy tripod and solid Wimberly Gimbal
- all combos have been MFAd
- I shot 5 shots for each combo (7D II bare, 7D II with 1.4x, 5D IV bare, 5D IV with 1.4 x) and picked best one from each
- Liveview (mirror locked up) and 2 sec timer, IS on (as per manual on tripod).
- All shot in RAW, and opened in Lightroom, automatic standard adjustments only (ie I didn't touch any sliders).
And, being a bird photographer, I assumed I was always focal-length limited and cropping (it's a no-brainer that when up close and not cropping, the 5d IV will win). I shot all 4 combos, picked the best shot from each, then cropped to the same field of view (assumed I was trying to get the same composition from each), then exported to the same size, 2000 pixels on the long end. When I compared the images, the results were:
- best was 7D II with 1.4x
- second best was 5D IV with 1.4x
- third was 7D II bare
- last was 5d IV bare.
So, 7D II with 1.4x is reach king with it's high pixel density (but my experience is you need great technique and solid mount to get this result...handholding will not do), but, and maybe most interestingly, the 5D IV with 1.4x beat the 7D II bare. Not surprising, the bare 5D IV, very heavily cropped, was last.
For my part, I'm keeping the 7D II for it's long reach on sunny days, but what I actually bought the 5d IV was for overcast gloomy weather where the 7D II wont do so well. I only got the 5d IV on Friday and on the weekend, in the rain and in gloomy weather, I shot this white-breasted nuthatch at ISO 3200. Not award-winning maybe but good performance for a gloomy day. The 7d II wouldn't have been able to pull this off.
So, when sunny and reach limited, I'll take the 7D II, when overcast or shooting set-up photography up close, I'll take the 5D IV. In both cases, using a 1.4x teleconverter yields good results and is better than cropping (again, with the caveat that your technique is solid).
Enjoy whatever choice you make. Hope this helps a bit. And, BTW, in my first few quick bursts at birds in flight, the AF system appears to be better than my 7D II, which is no slouch.
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.