Birds Only: 1D4 or 7d2

I know it hasn't been released yet, but from those of you who have used the 1D4, I'd like to hear some opinions on the two.

Hard to make a comparison without a lot of real world tests on the 7D. I'd wait to check out the af and make sure it's not spotty, especially after the af on the 70D when it was first released.

I'm waiting for more info as well but it looks promising if the autofocus is quick and accurate. The 1D Mark IV doesn't leave me wanting much, it's that good for birds. I'm sure the 1DX would make me see things different but until a box of cash falls in my lap I'll live contently in my blissful ignorance. I'm seriously considering the 7D II as a recommended upgrade for our camera at the office so I might get a hands on feel for it soon. If I do I'll report back in with what I find out.

As Jarvis says, one can't make decisive statements comparing the two until one has used each.

But I do use a 1D4, and have shot extensively with all 3 sensor formats; 1.6, 1.3, and full frame - so I will offer what little insight I can:

If using the body for birds only, as you say in your thread title, then your decision is not just about what body is "better", but also brings glass into question. For a few years, my primary body was a 1.6 crop. Then a year ago I "upgraded" to a 1D Mark 4. What I found was that the IQ was vastly improved, most notably when shooting in situations which were more challenging, from either low light to difficult focusing/tracking instances.

However . . . although the IQ had improved significantly over what I had been used to with my 1.6 crop body, I often wasn't able to frame the images the way I wanted to without using a 2x tele-extender, and thereby losing the very IQ that I had gained with the body upgrade. So I found that I had to make another upgrade - this time to longer glass. Many thousands of dollars later, I had a lens that "matched" my body, so that I could once again shoot birds most effectively.

With birds, number of pixels on target is a huge part of the equation, and needs to be considered when making any kind of equipment change. Shooting wide, then cropping down, is really a poor solution to the problem, unless all you want from your images are little prints (up to 16" by 24") and internet postings. But if you want truly nice images that can be enjoyed at generous sizes, then you really do need to match your focal length to your sensor format in order to achieve the very best results.

I agree with Tom and Steve,
BUT

I don't consider 16x24 a little print. LOL That's bigger than I do on any of my stuff.
But I agree. I have to crop upwards of 50% on most of my images. I do a good job but
longer glass would be great.

Im eagerly awaiting real world testing of the 7d2. If it performs like a 1d4 it will be a no brainer to get. I have a friend with a 1d4 and has pre ordered the 7d2 so I will see side by side test for myself very soon. I will let you all know what I find out.

This is the question isn't it?

The 1D4 can easily be argued to be Canon current best birding camera.

The fact that a 1,700.00 APS-C could possibly beat it at this game is impressive! (and awesome!)

At least one respected birder that regularly shoots the 1D4 and has been shooting the 7D2 has already weighed in on this,
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1402115

.. and he appears to be saying 7D2.

Given that a new 7D2 is less $$ (currently) than a used 1D4 (though prices are dropping, largely due to the impending release of the 7D2!) I'd be hard pressed to assume that the 1D4 is the way to go.

I would be surprised if the 7D2 equals the 1D4 - but only time will tell!
I would have thought that AF might be slower due to the lower voltage battery but tracking may be as good or possibly better? I prefer larger sensors due to their (normally) better ISO performance, however I am reading good things about the 7D2 in this department. When the original 7D was announced it got some great reviews, but later on criticisms started to appear, so I will reserve judgement for a while. Potentially it is looking very good though!
If Canon have actually produced a camera of XD size and weight that gets anywhere near the 1D4 performance then they are going to have to employ more staff!

The battery voltage trick is relegated to only a very few multi thousand (tens of thousands) lenses, and only effects the initial drive. It's effect has been highly over stated on forums.

The new 65 AF point system looks like Canon put it's next gen 1Dx system in an APS-C first. (they actually did this with the 7D too, only they only put 19 of the 61 point system in)

It really is very possible that the 7D2 will be the best AF system out until the next Gen 1D and 5D are released.

But best to get the best FL lens, however...!!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17233190
The battery voltage trick is relegated to only a very few multi thousand (tens of thousands) lenses, and only effects the initial drive. It's effect has been highly over stated on forums.

The new 65 AF point system looks like Canon put it's next gen 1Dx system in an APS-C first. (they actually did this with the 7D too, only they only put 19 of the 61 point system in)

It really is very possible that the 7D2 will be the best AF system out until the next Gen 1D and 5D are released.

Well, as regards expensive lenses, the OP was asking "Birds only".
As to the battery voltage business - this is just something I have observed and could not explain in any other way. I have noticed this on shorter lenses as well as Supertele lenses, though less so at shorter focal lengths over several generations of bodies. Also many 7D 2 cameras will end up on the back of such lenses.
Historically Canon always used to try out their latest AF and metering systems in the top consumer SLRs before putting them in their Pro models and it looks like they are going back to this practice.
Going back to the AF system, I am quite sure it has the potential to be Canon's best AF system to date, however I cannot see Canon letting it be better than their current flagship model - the marketing department wouldn't like it. The few posts that I have read from 7D2 Beta users are very promising - it looks like it's going to be very good in all departments. We will have to see how it stacks up against the flagship models when it is out in the real world.

Has anyone received their 7d2 yet?

So what do y'all now say, now that the 7D2 is out and being used.

Most reviewers/users are saying the 7D2 is an excellent camera, in some ways better than the 1D4 and some not. 1D4 still has a slight ISO advantage along with build quality and longer lasting batteries as well as retaining more detail at higher ISOs. 7d2 is cheaper (but not by much when you add the grip) with more pixels on bird, but there's some rumblings about focus issues. Whether this is caused by user error is still not determined although I have read where several people returned theirs and the 2nd copy was better. It also appears the 7D2 is demanding on lens, so you will need to MA everything you use on it and really dial them in.

Personally, the 1D4 files are more appealing to me and look a little less digital. At this time and for the foreseeable future, it shall remain the sidekick to my 1Dx.

I haven't seen anything from the 7D2 that's made me want to switch from the 1D4. At some point I will probably have to decide if I want to replace my 1D3 with the 7D2 as my backup body, or get a 1DX and use my 1D4 as the backup.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17233190
The battery voltage trick is relegated to only a very few multi thousand (tens of thousands) lenses, and only effects the initial drive. It's effect has been highly over stated on forums.

I agree with this. I have had my 7DII for 6 weeks now & have it welded to my 200 - 400. I interchange batteries with my 5DIII & TBH I wouldn't know where my 7DII battery is. They are fwd & bwd compatble with my bodies/lenses