7d native vs. 1d mark iii and 1.4tc

I am trying to plan out a future camera body purchase, so I thought I would come here for some advice. The main use of the body would be for wildlife photography, but I also shoot a lot of pictures of my son and cover events for my job as well as do occasional paid work.

I would be using the camera mostly with the 400mm f/5.6. Due to the extra "reach" of a crop camera, I am thinking that I would want to get a 1.4 tc to make up the extra focal length that I am used to. Is the tc going to degrade my image quality enough that I would be better off sticking with the 400 native on a 7D? From what I've seen, the Mark III produces nicer files than the 7D and most likely has better noise performance due to the larger sensor.

Another factor is MP's. I really like having the smaller files when using my 40D. They offer me some ability to crop with the benefit of having a smaller file to store. I also don't have to worry about my computer being up to the task of working with the files quickly.

People often say that the extra MP's add a great ability to "crop for more reach," but I have also read reports that this introduces a lot of noise. My experience would support this, but I have never shot with a high resolution sensor like what is in the 7D.

If anyone could share their own thoughts/experience I would appreciate it. Choosing to spend the extra money on the 1D is not an easy choice, but I tend to buy for the long term rather than settling for something just to get by. I would also appreciate it if responses came from those with actual experience with the cameras or lenses being discussed, or general canon experience. I don't really care to read a post from someone with a rebel xt and a kit lens that has taken 5 shots and then spent the next five years telling everyone that they have to buy L lenses...

Somewhere on the web, there's a wildlife photographer that posted his comparison between the 1D3 vs. 7D. It may be in the master 7D thread that had it's "sticky" removed recently.

In any case, if 18mp is too big, you could always shoot in mRAW to get the same 10mp of the 1D3. As far as noise, I guess that would depend on your exposure and how much you plan to crop. Although you may get some image degradation (very slight) using the 1.4x TC, the bigger issue is the hit in aperture. @ 400mm f/5.6 on a 1.6x.. you're still getting f/5.6. With the 400mm f/5.6 + 1.4x, I think that puts you at f/8. So you'd lose a stop in shutter speed.

So are you shooting static shots or do you sometimes need higher shutterspeed to freeze action?

18mp downsized to 10mp, whatever "additional noise" caused by the higher resolution sensor is pretty much nullified. That's been my experience at least.

jwcdds wrote in post #12132502
Somewhere on the web, there's a wildlife photographer that posted his comparison between the 1D3 vs. 7D. It may be in the master 7D thread that had it's "sticky" removed recently.

In any case, if 18mp is too big, you could always shoot in mRAW to get the same 10mp of the 1D3. As far as noise, I guess that would depend on your exposure and how much you plan to crop. Although you may get some image degradation (very slight) using the 1.4x TC, the bigger issue is the hit in aperture. @ 400mm f/5.6 on a 1.6x.. you're still getting f/5.6. With the 400mm f/5.6 + 1.4x, I think that puts you at f/8. So you'd lose a stop in shutter speed.

So are you shooting static shots or do you sometimes need higher shutterspeed to freeze action?

Thanks for the insight. I shoot both stationary and moving subjects. My guess is that either of these cameras would be sufficient for my needs in this area (moving toddler, bif etc.) My 40D actually gets the job done most of the time, but isn't ideal. I did consider the fact that I would have to shoot at f/8 with the mark III and tc combo. This would probably be fine for stationary (depth of field is more shallow on 1D), but I would be forced to raise my ISO more to get sufficient shutter speeds.

jwcdds wrote in post #12132502
18mp downsized to 10mp, whatever "additional noise" caused by the higher resolution sensor is pretty much nullified. That's been my experience at least.

Good to know. Thanks for sharing that.

Remember also that even if a 1D Mark III will still support autofocus at f/8, it's one linear element in the center point that's capable of that. At f/5.6, the 7D still supports AF with 38 focusing elements, making up 19 cross type points.

apersson850 wrote in post #12133245
Remember also that even if a 1D Mark III will still support autofocus at f/8, it's one linear element in the center point that's capable of that. At f/5.6, the 7D still supports AF with 38 focusing elements, making up 19 cross type points.

That's a good point. I'm leaning towards the 7D right now. Seems like a lot more "bang for your buck"

Here is an article comparing the 7D and IDmk III from a bird photographers point of view.

http://iwishicouldfly.​com …0vs%201D%20Mark​%20III.pdf

jm4ever wrote in post #12138886
Here is an article comparing the 7D and IDmk III from a bird photographers point of view.

http://iwishicouldfly.​com …0vs%201D%20Mark​%20III.pdf

Thanks for the article.

jm4ever wrote in post #12138886
Here is an article comparing the 7D and IDmk III from a bird photographers point of view.

http://iwishicouldfly.​com …0vs%201D%20Mark​%20III.pdf

Thankyou also for posting that.

I was considering the same thing for a while.

Despite being less than ideal in a few ways, if there is enough light you can make the 7D + 400 F/5.6 combo work with a 1.4x TC. If you can accept its shortcomings then it's hard to beat that much reach for the $.

phreeky wrote in post #12159396
it's hard to beat that much reach for the $.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with this. I think that I kind of fell victim to the obsession with the 1D. While it is a great tool, the 7D would probably be better for my needs. There are a few naysayers, but in general I have heard rave reviews for the 7D performance.