The 7D or the 5Dmk III for birding.

Hiya everyone, been a long time member here, and I have a question. I'm a bird photographer(among other things) I have a canon 300mm 2.8L, which is a great lens but not enough for birding. I also use the 1.4 Canon extender, that helps a lot. My question is, should I use my Canon 7D with the 1.6 crop and with the burst rate of8fps, or should I which to my full frame (non crop) 5D mk III? Now I already know that if I had a larger lens that would solved that, but it's not in my budget. I've been trying to decide for a year which is better.
The 7D disadvantage is of course it's 5184x3456 vs the MkIII 5760 x 3840. The disadvantage of the 5D is not having that 1.6 crop that is needed by the lack of a long lens. What's your thoughts? Thanks

Ricky

For bird photography I'd say 7D every time. No matter how long your lens it's never long enough

Unless you can routinely get the subject framed so it occupies the whole of the FF frame so you can actually use all the 21MP, the 7D will capture more details with its smaller pixels. More pixels per duck is that particular mantra - all other things being equal, of course...

If I understand it correctly, the OP is a bird photographer and already have both the 5D Mark III and the 7D, right?

If that's the case and he still doesn't know/see the difference, then actually I don't think it matters.

I have owned the 7D and now own a 5D mk3. The 7D IQ is not in the same league as the mk3. I've got several galleries of birds taken with each and it's night and day. The ONLY reason to go 7D is the burst rate.
Have you considered a used 1D mk4? Prices are about the same as the 5D mk3 and you get a 1.3 crop plus 10fps. Faster focusing and better battery system plus balances the large lenses much nicer. Buddy of mine uses that with the 300 f2.8 and extender with amazing results. Still a very bada$$ camera!

I own both a 7D and a 5D3, and have used both for birding (although it's not a primary activity of mine). I have been happy with the results from both, so I will use the 7D when I need more "reach", and the 5D3 when I do not.

Here are similar shots from each camera during a single outing:

7D

artyman wrote in post #16244428
For bird photography I'd say 7D every time. No matter how long your lens it's never long enough

Yeah that's what I've been using, I just feel bad for not using my 5D. Thanks Artyman!

AJSJones wrote in post #16244450
Unless you can routinely get the subject framed so it occupies the whole of the FF frame so you can actually use all the 21MP, the 7D will capture more details with its smaller pixels. More pixels per duck is that particular mantra - all other things being equal, of course...

That's what I read, but so many birders are talking down the 7D, I thought maybe I was making a mistake by keep using the 7D. Thanks AJSJones!

apersson850 wrote in post #16244455
If I understand it correctly, the OP is a bird photographer and already have both the 5D Mark III and the 7D, right?

If that's the case and he still doesn't know/see the difference, then actually I don't think it matters.

Well that's kinda it, when I crop my 5D picture to match that of the 7D, it's about the same. Thanks apersson.

yipDog Studios wrote in post #16244461
I have owned the 7D and now own a 5D mk3. The 7D IQ is not in the same league as the mk3. I've got several galleries of birds taken with each and it's night and day. The ONLY reason to go 7D is the burst rate.
Have you considered a used 1D mk4? Prices are about the same as the 5D mk3 and you get a 1.3 crop plus 10fps. Faster focusing and better battery system plus balances the large lenses much nicer. Buddy of mine uses that with the 300 f2.8 and extender with amazing results. Still a very bada$$ camera!

Thanks yipDog StudiosI will think about that, great gallery BTW.

Scott M wrote in post #16244732
I own both a 7D and a 5D3, and have used both for birding (although it's not a primary activity of mine). I have been happy with the results from both, so I will use the 7D when I need more "reach", and the 5D3 when I do not.

Here are similar shots from each camera during a single outing:

7D

5D3

Beautiful examples, I've been kinda doing the same thing, using the 5D when I can, but using the 7D when I need to. Just seem like this should be easier. I do also have a 2x extender but the quality of the shot drops off fast. Great shots Thanks!

RLJSlick wrote in post #16244852
Thanks yipDog StudiosI will think about that, great gallery BTW.

Thanks!
And one other consideration...the 5D mk3's AF system is much more advanced than the 7D.

I'm very familiar with this dilemma.

When I tentatively bought my first digital SLR, to see if I thought it gave me reasonable quality, compared to the color slides I was used to, I bought the cheapest 10 Megapixel camera there was. The then recently introduced 400D.

I liked shooting digital and found 10 Megapixel in an APS-C camera was fine for my subjects. But the camera was small, slow and lacked a lot of other stuff, which I had become used to, since I earlier used top or second tier models from Canon.

So I acquired the 40D. No more Megapixels than the 400D, but in almost every other aspect twice as much as the 400D. The at the same time released 1D Mark III I considered a bit overkill, costwise.

Then Canon decided to modify their model lineup, by creating a model with a lot of capabilties and features from the 1D Mark IV, plus a number of features of its own. The 7D. I got one almost as soon as they came out. Wore it out last year, but have a replacement 7D, so that's no issue.

Then, as it always is with boys and toys, I finally came to peace with the thought of spending a pretty ridicuolus amount of money by not "just" finally bying a full frame camera, but go for the 1DX.

I had a lot of thinking and being for and against prior to actually buying it. Now when I have, I have only one verdict.

Easily the best camera I've ever had. Not a moment of buyer's remorse.

I'm not sure what I want to proove with this, except that good equipment makes photography funnier!

5D3 hands down. Superb AF and high-iso performance are much more important than "reach" IMO. In the end most likely you will end up cropping your pics regardless what body you use. Besides 5D3 has much better IQ than 7D.

I used to have 7d then upgraded to 1d4 and later acquired 5d3. I owned both 5d3 and 1d4 for a while and sold 1d4 because it's just sitting collecting dust. The IQ of 5D3 is just hard to beat and for me 6fps is all I need. The most important thing is learn the birds behavior, and try to get to birds as close as possible. Most of my bird pics were shot using 5D3. You will benefit "the reach" from crop body if you shoot mostly static-non moving birds, but if you shoot BIF, it's useless, you just cant predict where it comes or goes. It can be really far, which even using 1.6x crop body will not help or coming really close.

The reason you need high iso performance is because sometimes you have to go inside the woods where light is limited or when the weather is ugly. If necessary I would use iso 10000 and up and still get good quality pics, something I would never do with 7D.

Some samples using 5d3 and 300mm 2.8L IS II bare lens and not so much cropping, because those birds were pretty close to me.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/26237927@N02/8​983507819/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/26237927@N02/9​461616653/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/26237927@N02/8​701156818/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/26237927@N02/8​595460397/

apersson850 wrote in post #16245088
I'm very familiar with this dilemma.

When I tentatively bought my first digital SLR, to see if I thought it gave me reasonable quality, compared to the color slides I was used to, I bought the cheapest 10 Megapixel camera there was. The then recently introduced 400D.

I liked shooting digital and found 10 Megapixel in an APS-C camera was fine for my subjects. But the camera was small, slow and lacked a lot of other stuff, which I had become used to, since I earlier used top or second tier models from Canon.

So I acquired the 40D. No more Megapixels than the 400D, but in almost every other aspect twice as much as the 400D. The at the same time released 1D Mark III I considered a bit overkill, costwise.

Then Canon decided to modify their model lineup, by creating a model with a lot of capabilties and features from the 1D Mark IV, plus a number of features of its own. The 7D. I got one almost as soon as they came out. Wore it out last year, but have a replacement 7D, so that's no issue.

Then, as it always is with boys and toys, I finally came to peace with the thought of spending a pretty ridicuolus amount of money by not "just" finally bying a full frame camera, but go for the 1DX.

I had a lot of thinking and being for and against prior to actually buying it. Now when I have, I have only one verdict.

Easily the best camera I've ever had. Not a moment of buyer's remorse.

I'm not sure what I want to proove with this, except that good equipment makes photography funnier!

That 1DX is amazing camera! I would love to own one, but my next toy will be either the 500mm or the 600mm lens, both well into the $10,000+ range. Thanks again apersson!