Better pixels vs more pixels on subject

I am currently using a 1d4 for birds, but was thinking of trading in my camera for either the 7d2 or 1dx. I decided against the 7d2 as I really would like to use this camera for both birds and landscape/street scenes. I have heard arguments that I should stay with the 1d4 as it has farther reach for birds with the 1.3 crop, and it puts more pixels on the subject. Then I hear that with the 1dx, you can crop much more and still retain a good picture because the pixels are much better. I have heard the larger pixels are better for lower light with the 1dx, which gives more shooting opportunities. I dont want to get stuck in the "Paralysis by analysis" mode, but I think I am falling into that trap. What are peoples real world experiences with this subject. Thanks.

The 7D2 is a very light hungry camera. My 5D3 under the same conditions when in overcast or darker environments produces cleaner files. As long as you expose the 7D2 correctly it is excellent. You only need that fine detail for wildlife and most of the time that will be during the day. For low light with street scenes ETTR and some NR and the 7D2 can produce very acceptable inages.

Technically the reach is the same for 1.6, 1.3 or FF. You just have to crop more from a FF if you shoot at bird at the same distance than you would have to with a 1.3.

http://digital-photography-school.com …r-which-is-right-for-you/

I can't tell you if the 1DX crops better than the 7D2. I have never tested my 5D3 against my 7D2 on a bird at the same distance but my 7D2 can hold it's own.

toothtango wrote in post #17986880
I am currently using a 1d4 for birds, but was thinking of trading in my camera for either the 7d2 or 1dx. I decided against the 7d2 as I really would like to use this camera for both birds and landscape/street scenes. I have heard arguments that I should stay with the 1d4 as it has farther reach for birds with the 1.3 crop, and it puts more pixels on the subject. Then I hear that with the 1dx, you can crop much more and still retain a good picture because the pixels are much better. I have heard the larger pixels are better for lower light with the 1dx, which gives more shooting opportunities. I dont want to get stuck in the "Paralysis by analysis" mode, but I think I am falling into that trap. What are peoples real world experiences with this subject. Thanks.

It is not a fair comparison as the 1D4 is an older generation camera, the 1DX is newer tech and the 7D2 is newer again!
However, as an ex 1D4 owner and current 1DX and 7D2 owner, these are my observations - for what they are worth.

1. Buy a 1DX
2. Buy a 1DX
3. Buy a 1DX Mk2?

You might have guessed that I am a little biased
More realistically they are all great cameras with different strengths and weaknesses and a lot depends on how you like to use your camera.
In the reach department the 7D2 wins in good light - it just does! But not by much. I find that I cannot crop images much (with the 7D2) before they fall apart - but then they don't have to as they have a narrower field of view. The 1DX images can be cropped with a large axe and still hold up well - but if you are looking for reach then you will have to crop significantly more due to the larger field of view. The 1D4 is sort of in the middle here but I feel that the 1DX has slightly more reach due to it's better "cropability".
All three bodies have very good AF. The 1D4 is the simplest to set up and use. The 7D2 and 1Dx are a bit more of a learning curve. For my uses (wildlife, birds) I rate the 7D2 and 1D4 roughly equal. The 7D2 is more versatile but the 1D4 just works well for me. The 1DX scores better than either especially in adverse conditions.
ISO. The 1D4 and 7D2 seem about equal on high ISO. They both produce very usable files at 3200 ISO or higher depending your PP skills. The 1DX is, at least, a stop better - I think a little more - and has good high ISO DR.
I have little experience of street photography but I do prefer the larger sensor cameras for landscapes - though much will depend on which lenses you have.

One point against the 1D4 is that you cannot use EV compensation in manual mode with Auto ISO. That may sound pretty irrelevant - but putting your camera into this mode turns a complicated DSLR into a simple point and shoot with all your controls still available without taking you eye from the viewfinder. I find this VERY useful - I rarely use any other mode!

I hope some of the above helps.

toothtango wrote in post #17986880
I am currently using a 1d4 for birds, but was thinking of trading in my camera for either the 7d2 or 1dx. I decided against the 7d2 as I really would like to use this camera for both birds and landscape/street scenes. I have heard arguments that I should stay with the 1d4 as it has farther reach for birds with the 1.3 crop, and it puts more pixels on the subject. Then I hear that with the 1dx, you can crop much more and still retain a good picture because the pixels are much better. I have heard the larger pixels are better for lower light with the 1dx, which gives more shooting opportunities. I dont want to get stuck in the "Paralysis by analysis" mode, but I think I am falling into that trap. What are peoples real world experiences with this subject. Thanks.

Heya,

Bigger, better pixels will often have the overall better look. More pixels can matter a lot when it comes to ultra-fine-detail, but unless you're working at less than 4MP, I would probably not stress this very much. I shot an 8MP 1D2 for a long time and the feather detail was awesome, and my 18MP images didn't have "better" detail really even though they had more pixels on the feathers. In some cases, more pixels on target will matter. But from my experience, I really feel bigger, better pixels ultimately are better to have compared to just having more resolution.

If a 1DX was in my reach, I'd get it over a 7D2 or 1D4 any day.

Very best,

toothtango wrote in post #17986880
I am currently using a 1d4 for birds, but was thinking of trading in my camera for either the 7d2 or 1dx. I decided against the 7d2 as I really would like to use this camera for both birds and landscape/street scenes. I have heard arguments that I should stay with the 1d4 as it has farther reach for birds with the 1.3 crop, and it puts more pixels on the subject. Then I hear that with the 1dx, you can crop much more and still retain a good picture because the pixels are much better. I have heard the larger pixels are better for lower light with the 1dx, which gives more shooting opportunities. I dont want to get stuck in the "Paralysis by analysis" mode, but I think I am falling into that trap. What are peoples real world experiences with this subject. Thanks.

For "reach" to really mean anything, it's not about "crop/sensor size". It has to be about "Pixels on subject" or Pixel density.

With more pixels packed tighter, arguably, one gets more reach. (this is a subject of debate in real use, but on paper, it is pretty rock solid)

By order of overall MP
5D3 and 7D2 tied @ 22MP,
1Dx @ 18MP,
7D (60D etc) @ 18MP.
1D4 @ 16MP,


By order of Pixel density;
1- 7D2 puts 22MP into it's field of view.
2- 7D puts 18 into the same area

Now the numbers start to drop,
3- A 1D4 is putting 10.5MP into that 1.6x crop area.
4- A 5D3 is only putting 8.5MP into that 1.6x F.O.V
5- A 1Dx only 7MP

So for long lens work, for overall detail, the order above is what SHOULD = the best "reach"


Now, there is another school of thought that larger "pixels" ( photo sites or sensels ) = better light gathering = better image quality.

All else being equal this may be true, but the largest pixels/sensels ever dropped into a Canon body also happen to be very poor at low light gathering, as "all else is not equal" and that would be the original "Classic" 1D @ 4.5MP. Those were some big photosites!

Here is a contrary school of thought from an engineers view point, stating that more smaller pixels are better;
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=747749
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=706255

Of course, the fact is that the entire history of digital has been moving constantly towards more smaller pixels at higher densities. Every time we think they've gotten too small, they get smaller the next year and despite the idea of larger pixels being better, we get better and better image quality along the way

The "large pixels" school of thought is based on the fact that the larger pixels will actually hold more electrons ("well capacity") and therefore gives you potentially more dynamic range after digitization. They don't actually gather more light - that's entirely a function of the solid angle captured by the lens, and the physical aperture size of said lens. It's like a bucket under a hose - if you put an obstruction over both a large bucket and a small bucket with the same size hole cut in it, the larger bucket will get the same amount of water in the same amount of time, but it will hold more water given a longer "exposure". As Jake notes above, Canon's larger (older) pixels are less efficient at light gathering due to the physical design, so they don't even capture as much light as should be possible.

The real goal is to put as much light onto the pixel site as possible, which means a longer lens and/or a larger physical aperture. I've done informal tests with my 7D (2009) and my 5D3 (2012), and by putting the same number of pixels on the target and giving the sensor as much light as possible (ETTR with the 7D to fill the pixels as much as feasible) I got images that were hard to differentiate visually. In practice, users tend to underexpose the images to avoid blowing out the highlights, and the small pixel sensors don't fare so well (fewer values to digitize) in that situation. The fact of the matter is that we do not subconsciously take this into account (I'm guilty of it myself) and the larger pixels give us more exposure latitude in situations where we don't have time to obsess over exposure.

The 7D mk II is actually a newer, better sensor than the 1Dx; if it had similar electronics internally, the image quality would be even closer than it is (there are numerous reasons why the 1Dx costs 4x as much). Even now, the thermal noise and banding of the 7D2 are better than the 1Dx - which is important if you're taking low light exposures or stacking as in astrophotography. Again, the 1Dx larger pixels are more forgiving, but if you stress both sensors to the limit the 7D2 acquits itself very well.

Here is a good analysis of the 7D mk II with comparisons to the 1Dx and 6D sensors. Used properly, it's an amazing camera; the strengths of the 1Dx go far beyond mere sensor differences though, so don't take this as in any way disparaging of the Canon flagship.

I did a comparison the jet was the same size on the sensor of my 1dx and my 5dsr the insert is 100% crop 5dsr top and 1dx bottom

Rob.

Edit.
I could not get any closer to the jet, shots were taken with a 600f4mkII + 1.4TC .

I agree Rob the 5DSr is a detail monster and produces excellent files.
I did give one a try not long after they came out and was very impressed, though I felt that it wasn't quite the camera for me - but you never know????

I would love the 5DS for my aviation photography. Plenty of pixels, once the focal length is limited, but plenty of sensor area for when it's not. At the moment probably the only camera in that format that I would consider. Even with a 600mm lens I still find that I am cropping so that I am only using about 15×10mm of sensor area on a regular basis (that is a 1.5× crop of an APS-C sensor), and I really don't think an 18 to 22 Mpix 35mm sensor is going to handle that sort of cropping. Unfortunately getting closer to the subject is not possible, since trespassing on an airfield is a criminal offence in the UK. Here trespass is normally a civil not a criminal matter, unless you are armed.

Alan

I've been happy with the crop ability of my 5DSR, it did take me a while to appreciate it though.