Birding: 1DX or 7D2

Let us consider for a moment a hypothetical guy, who for a fleeting instant has a little more money than sense.

He likes to shoot birds and wants an upgrade from his 70D just because he can.
His glass arsenal consists of a 500 f4 II with a 1.4 III, a 70-200 2.8 II and a push pull 100-400.

In his clouded mind, he sees $1799 as 2K and reasons for another bit he could be shooting that 1DX which he sampled for a week or so. Needless to say he was impressed with it if not a bit overwhelmed. Perhaps he should never have picked the bloody thing up.....

Knowing it's not a miracle cure, he still wants every edge he can get to enhance his results while he works hard on improving his overall general skills. Like others, this guy lusts after fast FPS and AF acquisition.

He still does not understand all the benefits and pitfalls of FF over 1.6 crop given his chosen subjects and wonders if anyone here would care to guide him through this fantasy exercise and share some advise, ideas and experience.... maybe even talk him down off the ledge if you think he needs it

What sayeth you ?

Please forgive and ignore my signature when I say for $2,000, perhaps the camera you seek is a Mark IV. 10 FPS, 1DX build quality, 1.3 crop factor, pixel peeping pixel density (I'll leave that to the experts to suss out).

You could probably get into, and then out of a Mark IV, without much of a loss over the next few months while waiting for the 1DX replacement. This way, you can have a feel for what a full scale pro body is like to work with, before you commit two to three times that much for a 1DXx.

I recently learned that Canon follows a Japanese custom for numbering products... in that 1 always denotes the top. The fewer digits, the better. Hence we have 1D, 5D, 6D, & 7D. On the tier below that we have two digit models... 60D, 70D. And the tier below that are three digit models... 600D, 700D, and the tier below that are four digit models 1100D, or whatever they are. Again I just recently read that somewhere, but forgot where, so I can't point you to it. It seemed credible when I read it. And also seemed to explain why Canon always names their flagship camera with the number 1.

Remember the 1V film camera? It was still in a performance tier above the EOS3 even though the latter had "eye control focus". It still wasn't top rank like the 1. Or how about the AE-1? In a recent interview at Photokina, the Canon head of camera engineering said that they only put their most proven and well vetted technology in their professional 1 series cameras. If it isn't proven, they will remove it from the 1 series. Sometimes, the latest thing ends up being introduced in a lesser "prosumer" body before full implementation in a 1 series body.

Anyway, none of the foregoing means anything when it comes to making pleasing pictures. Neither the model number, nor the build quality, nor the features matter as much as the light, the subject, the lens, and the photographer's eye. But this is a camera vs camera subforum.

There are higher megapixel bodies (with higher model numbers ) that offer better resolution than both the 1D4 and the 1DX... but if you want the 10+ FPS to capture just the right wing shape or fish snatch of your BIF... then these pro camera capabilities, including focus acquisition and accuracy, are all worthy of balanced consideration.

7D2 has 10 fps, the AF from the 1DX, AND the crop factor.. making your lenses seem longer. I'd say get the 7D2 + extra glass.

1dx or 1dmkIV or even 1D MKIII they all have clean file IMO. I only have the 1D MKII but I am considering 1DmkIV or III after I get the EF500mm mk1.

Even with a 500L and 1.4x TC, most of the time, when shooting birds, you'll be limited by focal length rather than sensor size. That is, you won't be able to fill the entire frame of an APS-C sensor with the subject matter (doubly so if going for a portrait of a bird or part of a bird, rather than the entire bird) and would have to crop anyway, so you wouldn't gain any additional benefit out of a full-frame sensor.

In this case, pixel density is more important than sensor size - the higher the density, the more pixels you can land on the target and the more detail you'll get. Canon's best sensor for this is the 7D2 (20MP and 1.6x crop) but the Nikon D7100 and Sony A6000 (both 24MP and 1.5x crop) are even better. However, the 7D2's AF is no doubt better than the D7100, the former being a pro body and the latter being consumer-grade (but still good). The Nikon 500 is equal to the Canon 500L II, so there's no difference in that regard.

If you mostly shoot birds, I'd probably stick with crop rather than going full-frame; you can always add a full-frame body later for other subjects and still use the same lenses on it, since the long lenses used for birding aren't APS-C-specific.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17303250
.......
In this case, pixel density is more important than sensor size - the higher the density, the more pixels you can land on the target and the more detail you'll get..........

Doesn't this rely on the lens combination being capable of supplying enough resolution to be able to make use of the pixel density?
I really doubt that a 500/4, with or without a 1.4x T/C, can get anywhere near to resolving detail equal to the 7D2's sensor resolution.

Bob

EchoShotz wrote in post #17303213
7D2 has 10 fps, the AF from the 1DX, AND the crop factor.. making your lenses seem longer. I'd say get the 7D2 + extra glass.

For the Crop factor i agree! It is really useful!

But is not exactly the same AF, it lacks something important in my eyes

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …5D-III-AF-Comparison.aspx

More money than sense? The only logical answer is to get both the 7DII and the 1Dx.

To me the question is 1D4 vs 7D2. The 7D2 is going to have a bit more reach, the 1D4 a bit better build, maybe. If you can find a used 1D4 for say $2500 from someone you trust, then that is a consideration.

For me, having used a 7D for five years, and having thoroughly checked out a 7D2 for a week, the choice is the 7D2. It has about 2/3 f-stop iso advantage over the 7D, the AF system works very well with f/8 max aperture so you can even consider a 2X extender if you can reliably handle 1000mm true focal length, the silent shutter mode is really nice ( no more birds snapping their heads around to look at you ), and the build is an upgrade over the 7D.

If I came from using 1-series bodies, I would probably lean more to the 1D4. I think you really want to preserve as much reach as you can. With the 1Dx you are giving away 60 per cent reach, so putting less than 1/2 the pixels on target. They are better pixels, but there are significantly fewer of them and that will come into play. This is less of a consideration with the 1D4.

Canon Bob wrote in post #17303705
Doesn't this rely on the lens combination being capable of supplying enough resolution to be able to make use of the pixel density?
I really doubt that a 500/4, with or without a 1.4x T/C, can get anywhere near to resolving detail equal to the 7D2's sensor resolution.

Bob

The 500L is one of the sharpest lenses out there - it can easily resolve enough for a 7D2. The Nikon version can also resolve enough for sharp images on a D7100, which is an even more demanding sensor.

1Dx in a heartbeat. if the 1.4xiii isnt enough, then the 2xiii. And if that's still not enough, time to rethink the 500F4 in favor of the 600F4/800 5.6

Reach rules when it comes to birds. While the 1DX has better IQ out of the box, once the image is cropped or a teleconverter is added to match the FOV of the 7D MkII that advantage disappears. Plus, if you have gone the teleconverter route to match the FOV, autofocus slows, again giving the 7D MkII the advantage. Another issue is depth of field. At equivalent focal length the 1DX's depth of field will be shallower by about a stop, i.e. 7D MkII DOF @ f/5.6 = 1DX DOF @ f/8. With long lenses the issue is generally getting enough depth of field so again the 7D MkII is the better choice.

Don't forget that, in focal length limited (FLL) scenarios, the discussion isn't just about how well a shot stands up to being cropped from a FF sensor to match a base, crop sensor shot. That just gets you to the starting point of the source image. In most cases, with wild birds, you are not JUST taking the shot with that crop sensor body; but, are instead cropping even further. This is the thing that most discussions about FF vs APS-C leave out when discussing uses for birding or other FLL shooting.

So, sure, you can take an 18mp, FF image and crop 60% of the image away to get to the same image as was produced by the 20mp APS-C sensor, and frequently still have a decent quality image...however, when the subject is STILL too small/indistinct in the frame, you're going to have to crop even further. With the APS-C shot, you still have a full, 20mp image to work with and can crop fairly aggressively. That FF shot, however, means you're already, nearly, down as far as you can go while retaining a decent amount of detail, so you're sort of stuck with a poor to mediocre image.

IF, for whatever reason, you manage to shoot a ton in non-FLL situations, then that 1Dx is going to be the winner....but, after 5 years of shooting birds, the situations in which I've been able to shoot WILD birds (i.e non-feeder, non-park, etc) in non-FLL situations have been very far and few between. So, the APS-C bodies still remain my go-to hardware; especially with the 7DII now on the scene.

For some (me included) one would have to consider travel aspects. How does one fly with a 500mm or 600mm (plus the laptop, tripod, and other photo gear)? For this reason I would much prefer a 400mm on a crop body to a 500 or 600 on FF for birding.

Beachcomber Joe wrote in post #17304789
Reach rules when it comes to birds. While the 1DX has better IQ out of the box, once the image is cropped or a teleconverter is added to match the FOV of the 7D MkII that advantage disappears. Plus, if you have gone the teleconverter route to match the FOV, autofocus slows, again giving the 7D MkII the advantage. Another issue is depth of field. At equivalent focal length the 1DX's depth of field will be shallower by about a stop, i.e. 7D MkII DOF @ f/5.6 = 1DX DOF @ f/8. With long lenses the issue is generally getting enough depth of field so again the 7D MkII is the better choice.

TS is dealing with the cream of the crop lens right here. 500 F4 + 1.4x + 1Dx > 500F4 + 7D2 IMO. I find that TC's are MUCH better than "crop factor".

with a 2xiii, TS can get 1000mm out of that lens. I understand that even that isnt enough for some really small birds, and if TS specializes in really small birds, then no sense in a 1Dx, however, not all birds are tiny like that, and 1000mm on tap is quite substantial.