6D vs 7D

The reason why the pros have gone to 1DX and 5D III is noise, noise, noise. The images are just cleaner, and you don't have then problem of noise chewing away detail. If you are getting magazine covers, this matters.

I have to admit, I was in the "reach at all costs" camp. And then I shot full frame wildlife in low light, and I realized the error of my ways.

I'd like to get my hands on a 70D, but I'm not sure the machinations are worth it.

Magazine covers are easy task for a 7D or 70D, of course as long as the photo isn't shot at ISO 6400

But seriously, not all wildlife photos are or need to be shot at dusk or twilight. Certainly there are quite a lot that are, but not all of them. I mean I shot about 2000 photos in Florida in December, 90% of them with my 70D even though my 6D was there too. I shot mostly at 420mm f/4.5, plenty of light to shoot between ISO 200-400. That is insignificant noise for a magazine cover sized photo.

example, a magazine cover shot with a 7D. (this is a low quality photo of the cover, obviously not the actual original image)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​677982859/

The only thing I don't like about my 6D is the outer focus points suck in low light, almost worthless. On the other hand the low light image quality blows the 7D away AND even in sports I get a lot more keepers with the 6D than I ever did with the 7D.

Yeah, I saw your other thread.

Have you ever wondered if your 7D may be defective? There have been a few (quite a few?) 7Ds that had AF problems. My first one was one of them... Lots of unexplainable misses, even in simple situations that don't challenge the AF. My second one was great. My 70D is fine too.

jdouglas003 wrote in post #16737811
The only thing I don't like about my 6D is the outer focus points suck in low light, almost worthless. On the other hand the low light image quality blows the 7D away AND even in sports I get a lot more keepers with the 6D than I ever did with the 7D.

Yep.

I've shot with several different 7D's, and they all had that issue. And man, the noise even at ISO 400. Just unreal.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16737777
Magazine covers are easy task for a 7D or 70D, of course as long as the photo isn't shot at ISO 6400

But seriously, not all wildlife photos are or need to be shot at dusk or twilight. Certainly there are quite a lot that are, but not all of them. I mean I shot about 2000 photos in Florida in December, 90% of them with my 70D even though my 6D was there too. I shot mostly at 420mm f/4.5, plenty of light to shoot between ISO 200-400. That is insignificant noise for a magazine cover sized photo.

example, a magazine cover shot with a 7D. (this is a low quality photo of the cover, obviously not the actual original image)

*Photo edited out for space reason*

Great shot. I've always wanted to get into water birds like that.

For what I shoot, FF is just the much better option. The big guys come out at dawn and sunrise, where the 7D utterly fails. It especially has trouble with even light, or "monotone" light during those transition periods.

I've also found that the 6D, despite less reach, is superior for raptors in flight. Cleaner feather detail, better croppability while retaining sharpness. The combination of noise and that blur AA filter really does a hammer-job on the 100% IQ.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16737828
Yeah, I saw your other thread.

Have you ever wondered if your 7D may be defective? There have been a few (quite a few?) 7Ds that had AF problems. My first one was one of them... Lots of unexplainable misses, even in simple situations that don't challenge the AF. My second one was great. My 70D is fine too.

So what did you do with the first 7D? I should have returned mine when I had the chance but I didn't really realize how much of a problem it was until too late. It's OK but not what I expected when I bought it.

Mike55 wrote in post #16737767
The reason why the pros have gone to 1DX and 5D III is noise, noise, noise. The images are just cleaner, and you don't have then problem of noise chewing away detail. If you are getting magazine covers, this matters.

And because they're not focal length limited. Not many of us have that luxury.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16735568
What does doing a 'heavy crop' mean? Was it 1.6? I have run side by side comparisons where I crop the ff to the view of the 7d then resized that crop up to match the 7d, the results were noticeable. Vastly? No, but they were there. Pixel density does indeed make a difference when comparing crops between any 2 differently formatted sensors, then equalizing them.

Honestly can't remember, but it was at least a 1.4 crop. I goofed up and deleted my LR edit gallery when I was clearing space on my HD and just started a new one, I only have a handful of pics from the 6D in it, mostly just X-E1 shots.

My point stands though, unless you're printing big, pixel density advantage doesn't matter much, which you clearly agree with...

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16737264
That is fine until I need to print anything larger than 12" on the long side. At this point you force a resize. So for web viewing and prints up through 8x10s, this is okay, and I agree. Go larger for fireplace or stairwell landing prints, or sports posters, and you would do better using a crop body. I print 13x19 posters of players. I print alot because my cost is around $1 per print per 13x19, and there is good revenue in bringing them to the games for kids to have the players sign.

5760 reduces to 3600 and at 300dpi, any print larger than 12" on the long end will resize on you, softening the end product. This is why I believe a 32mpx FF body would be perfect for my uses. I would never need a crop body again, because I would be able to crop out what I need, do a slight resize if needed, and the end result is as good or better still. But for now, 10mpx through 22mpx FF or APS-H don't do it for me vs 18mpx APS-Cs.

So I'm not sure why you quoted me... did you read the point I was making?

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16735402
True, but unless you're viewing at large print sizes or large monitors you'd be hard pressed to see the difference. I've cropped a few images from my 6D pretty heavily and they look just as detailed as shots from my M or previous T2i or 20D.

I'm not trying to dissuade the OP, the 7D is a fantastic camera. But I think the crop factor's "reach" advantage is a little overblown for most people's uses (though it is valid for many shooters).

If I were a wildlife shooter on a budget, I'd absolutely shoot crop. Actually, you can scratch the budget part, I'd shoot crop just for the weight savings if I were a wildlife shooter! But if wildlife or sports is something you only do on occasion (like me), you're better off just cropping the image most of the time in my opinion.

Crop sensors have come a long way and will continue to do so. The X-trans sensor in my X-E1 has completely surpassed all of my expectations and if it weren't for the fact that I really like to play with shallow DOF sometimes, I'd seriously consider using one as my main system... that X-T1 is soooooo sweet

Mike55 wrote in post #16737853
Great shot. I've always wanted to get into water birds like that.

For what I shoot, FF is just the much better option. The big guys come out at dawn and sunrise, where the 7D utterly fails. It especially has trouble with even light, or "monotone" light during those transition periods.

I've also found that the 6D, despite less reach, is superior for raptors in flight. Cleaner feather detail, better croppability while retaining sharpness. The combination of noise and that blur AA filter really does a hammer-job on the 100% IQ.

Yeah, I understand that totally. I don't shoot deer very often but I know that they like the dawn hours and come out again at dusk. Although we have a huge park here in Toledo where the deer are like squirrels; they're everywhere, any time of day, and are super tame.

phreeky wrote in post #16738054
And because they're not focal length limited. Not many of us have that luxury.

These are all wildlife photogs, who in many cases are focal length limited. They just crop instead.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16738341
Yeah, I understand that totally. I don't shoot deer very often but I know that they like the dawn hours and come out again at dusk. Although we have a huge park here in Toledo where the deer are like squirrels; they're everywhere, any time of day, and are super tame.

What's the deal with the 70D? The Digital Picture comparison shows a huge difference in sharpness with the 7D. Do you see this in real world use?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

Mike55 wrote in post #16738632
What's the deal with the 70D? The Digital Picture comparison shows a huge difference in sharpness with the 7D. Do you see this in real world use?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

Not really. There are so many factors (lens used, atmosphere, etc.) that often limit the IQ more than the difference between the 7D and 70D.

I actually compared them myself, set up a carefully "designed" still life scene, lit it well, and took photos with the 7D and 70D, same lens, setting, tripod, timer, etc.

My results were a bit different from Bryan's; I didn't see nearly as big difference in sharpness and resolution between the 2 cameras. BUT, I process them through ACR and not DPP. I did notice that DPP processes different Canon cameras differently, even when you set everything the same in DPP.
There is for example my T4i (my wife's actually). That camera is set sharper in DPP than any other Canon I've had (like 14 of them). In ACR there isn't as much difference.

So I suspect that the difference is not only the AA filter in the 7D but some processing difference too, even though Bryan may have processed them the same way with the same settings.

Interesting. I wouldn't use DPP to compare images, either. There seems to be a bit of noise removal applied there behind the scenes.

I process all my images in LR, and only use DPP for viewing on the road.

Thanks for the heads-up on the 70D. I guess there's not much point in upgrading from the 7D unless you need the video AF.

I'm using a 7D and a 6D and recently took both on my Holiday to Victoria Falls and Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe for a 5 day safari.

I'm very much an enthusiast photographer and amazed at the quality of the shots Pro's can get from a 7D.

I've had some good shots with it, but not as many as I find I am now getting with my 6D.

On safari, I had the 100-400 L on the 7D and the 70-200 f4 L on the 6D. The 7D certainly got the shots where I needed a little extra speed or reach but don't look as nice as those I took with the 6D.
Happily, my wife and I had a 4x4 and Guide all to ourselves and I had my kit spread out on the seats next to me and swopped between cameras at will. As someone who really enjoys photography, it was the perfect holiday!

In summary, I'm saving to replace the 7D with a 5D mk III. The 6D is great and I'll keep it too.