7D II vs 1D IV?

apersson850 wrote in post #17297163
As said a gazillion times before: All else being equal (and it would be, if they were designed today, both of them), then the sensor with more pixels always has an advantage.

Even though they have different size sensors and different size pixels? With your logic that should mean that a 7D2 has an advantage over a 1Dx because it has more pixels. That's how I read that.

apersson850 wrote in post #17297163
As said a gazillion times before: All else being equal (and it would be, if they were designed today, both of them), then the sensor with more pixels always has an advantage.

You are the person the marketing department is looking for!

apersson850 wrote in post #17297163
As said a gazillion times before: All else being equal (and it would be, if they were designed today, both of them), then the sensor with more pixels always has an advantage.

It may have been said many times but that does not make it true!
Using long lenses in what light is available (frequently poor) I prefer 18mp that gives me clean sharp files than 36MP that simply does not.
So I don't quite understand why you seem to think more is always better?

johnf3f wrote in post #17297435
So I don't quite understand why you seem to think more is always better?

Elementary, my dear Watson!
It's because my 5D3 trumps the 1DX in image quality.

(And no, I'm not the person the marketing department is looking for.)

agedbriar wrote in post #17298354
Elementary, my dear Watson!
It's because my 5D3 trumps the 1DX in image quality.

(And no, I'm not the person the marketing department is looking for.)

Interesting. I have not done this comparison myself as I don't have access to a 5D3 for long enough to test this properly.
However I do have a friend in North Wales who has. He was a 1D4 user but got the 5D3 for landscapes, general stuff and as a backup. Before long he was using the 5D3 for his wildlife photography, when speed wasn't the primary concern, as he preferred the IQ of the 5D3. A while later he gave my 1DX a try out and promptly bought one! So now his 1D4 was sold and his 5D3 on permanent load to his other half.
Whist I have taken a few frames with the 5D3, and was suitably impressed, I have not had the opportunity to compare them properly, as he has, though he prefers the files from the 1DX.
Obviously you would disagree with my friend Dave's findings which tells me things must be close.
Note I only sought his opinion on IQ not fps, AF speed, ISO and other whiz bang factors.
For me the 1DX is a better camera, but that is because of my specific requirements. Were I a wedding photographer I would get the 5D3 in a heartbeat, if I only did landscapes I would probably have a Sony A7R. Horses for courses?

"The 1D4 is headed for the $2K price point on the used market, I have seen many now at $2200. If there was a $200 difference between the two, I would pick up the 1D4."

Not sure where you're seeing these used prices. Two currently for sale on POTN, both with over 100,000 shutter actuations, and they are $2700 and $2800. That's in the neighborhood of $1000 more than 7D2.

Got mine for $2300 Aussie, 18k clicks

Congrats!

Paulstw wrote in post #17297239
Even though they have different size sensors and different size pixels? With your logic that should mean that a 7D2 has an advantage over a 1Dx because it has more pixels. That's how I read that.

If they have different sensor sizes then all other things are not equal.

apersson850 wrote in post #17301555
If they have different sensor sizes then all other things are not equal.

Except for older models with more read noise, the larger sensor is always going to give better IQ, if you do use the entire sensor for your final image, and are not cropping. All bets are off if you're cropping in a focal-length-limited situation. Before the 7D2, Canon had no APS-c camera that equalled the 5D3/6D/1Dx group in terms of read noise per unit of sensor area, but now the 7D2 does; about the same as the 6D, slightly better than the 5D3, and slightly worse than the 1Dx, but having possibly less banding noise than all of those.

I am not going to make many friends with the following statement, but those who like having fewer and/or bigger pixels because they give "sharp, crisp results" at 100% pixel view are engaging in self-deception, and are pleased not with real detail, per se, but with the artifacts of undersampling, which draw attention to the pixel structure of the image, rather than creating a virtually analog image. They are happier with their results also because they are magnifying their captures less with the bigger pixels when viewing at 100%.