1DX vs 7D2 my little observation

I've been running 7D2's for nearly 3 years and have just picked up a used 1DX, I thought I'd head into my back yard and take a few photos with both bodies across all of my lenses just to see how they compare.

In every situation the photo on from the 7D2 was better when cropping the 1DX photo to the same size
Note: this test was done in good light with iso set to 100.

I guess my simple observation is this,
when shooting in good light i'll be running the following combinations

7d2 - 300 f2.8
1dx - 70-200f 2.8
7d2 - 24-70 or 8-15

In poor light I'll probably go for this combo

1dx - 300 f 2.8
7d2 - 70-200 f2.8
7d2 - 24-70 or 8-15

I'd be interested to hear others opinions if you have both bodies

I have found that my 7D2 can outcrop my 1DX - but those occasions are rare and then only on my 300 F2.8 L IS and 800 F5.6 L IS not my other lenses. The vast majority of the time the 7D2 stays in the house, it is a great camera but can't live with my 1DX most of the time.

Note I am very focal length limited for my uses so, the vast majority of the time, I am using a the 800mm yet I still find the larger, low pixel count, sensor better nearly all the time. The faster AF lock and better tracking of the 1DX help as well.

Having said that the 7D2 is a very much cheaper camera so still represents excellent value IMO.

Just my thoughts.

Past ISO 400 I think you would find that cropping the 1DX will yield better results than the 7D2. I did not have a 7D2 for long. I can't really remember the last time I shot a sporting event at less than ISO 800 or so. My experience was that the 1DX files even heavily cropped were better than a mildly cropped 7D2 file at most all ISO's.

Well, the 1Dx has only 144 pixels per millimeter, while the 7DII has 244 pixels per millimeter. Given the fact that the same lens on both bodies puts an IDENTICAL size image of a subject on both sensors, the same object gets captured with 70% more pixels in each direction, leading to 'more detail' in the capture by the 7DII. The APS-C image would 'win'. This is the proverbial 'reach advantage' said to exist between APS-C and FF-- depending upon which two bodies you are comparing!

If you put format-appropriate FL on the two cameras, a 100mm lens on the 1Dx and a 60mm lens on the 7DII, the same subject will be 67% larger on the 1Dx sensor.
If the object image were 6mm tall on the 7DII sensor the image would be 10mm tall on the 1Dx sensor. So the same object would be captured with 6mm*244pixels vs 10mm*144pixels, or 1464 pixels tall on the 7DII and 1440 pixels on the 1Dx which is a negligible difference in quality from the standpoint of image resolution of the sensor, and ignoring the optical resolution delivered by the lens. draw

If the two lenses both delivered 100 line-pairs per millimeter of detail resolution to both sensors, the 7DII would be capturing 600 line-pairs of detail across its 6mm tall subject image on sensor, while the 1Dx captures 1000 pine-pairs of detail across its 10mm tall subject image on sensor. The FF image would 'win'.

The above ignores the issue of signal vs. noise content, where one would be superior to the other with regard to freedom from noise at high ISO, or when the image is 'push processed' to bring up details in the shadow areas.

Milutiche wrote in post #18579299
...
In every situation the photo on from the 7D2 was better when cropping the 1DX photo to the same size
Note: this test was done in good light with iso set to 100.

...

Primarily because the 7D2's whole frame is already a crop of the scene framed by the 1DX; so you're not throwing resolution away by doing the crop after capture.

Since you're shooting a relatively controlled environment, frame the same shot between cameras (set your 1Dx closer to the subject) and then compare those. Especially above ISO 800.

That said, proper exposure and some NR in post is *plenty* to make it so that I have no need to have a 1Dx for anything. The images out of the 7D2 are well more than enough for anything needed outside of truly extreme/demanding conditions.

I, too, got my first used 1dx this week. A 7dii is my main camera, usually on a Sigma 120-300 Sport. A 5diii was my second camera, usually with a 70-200.

When I first used the 5diii, I assmed it would be better for night time and low light sports. What I found was that the most important factor, aside from nailing the exposure, was pixel density.

In cases where I could fill the frame, the 5diii/70-200 2.8 did have an advantage at night. But an uncropped or minimally cropped photo off the 7dii was usually better than a heavily cropped photo from my 5diii.

Your plan sounds good.

I used it for Rugby for the first time this weekend and played around with different combinations,
I've settled on the 72d + 300 & 1dx + 70-200 for daylight, that 1.6x crop is just too hard to give up on the big lens, I might see if I can try out a 1.4x extender paired with the 1dx and 300 at some stage

Im using the 1Dx2 as my main body and to be perfectly honest I can barely stand to use the 7D2 anymore on moving objects. The 1Dx2 with a TC on my 300 F/2.8 will rarely miss a moving object where the 7D2 with a 300 F/2.8 is hit or miss.

I can track in servo with a BIF and will get several misses through out the bursts where is the 1Dx2 I will get 10-12 bursts with every one being tack sharp....Not so with the 7D2

So I use the 7D2 for more stationary things or things that are about to move and much bigger subjects. It worked great for bear outings and at Yosemite. The 7D2, with a TC and a 300F/2.8 is a heck of a lot of reach. A 7D2 with a 150-600 is hard to beat for a walk around set up, If you can accept the limitations of its servo performance. And when I say Limitations, I mean limitations as compared to the 1Dx or 1Dx2. Servo performance on both these bodies is indeed much much better. I have used all 3 bodies a ton. Nothing is going to touch a 1Dx or 1Dx2 for servo performance. I loves the 1Dx for this and did not think they could improve it...They definitely did with the 1Dx2.

The 7D2 is a good camera. I use one in or wedding with the 17-55. But it is not any way in shape any forms near as good as a 1Dx1 or 1Dx2 for AF performance.....I have both bodies. If its going to move...im using the 1Dx2 and getting closer when ever possible

Thanks for your reply, are you using the version 1 300 f/2.8 L is? Also which TC do you use?

Milutiche wrote in post #18583347
Thanks for your reply, are you using the version 1 300 f/2.8 L is? Also which TC do you use?

yes version 1 300. I need to check the TC. Its an older one

My 300 F2.8 L IS Is the Mk1 as well. If you are thinking of a 2 x extender then get the Canon Mk3. Even on older bodies/lenses it produces sharper images and does AF a wee bit better though Canon do not advertise this latter point.

With the 1.4 extender there appears to be little, if any, advantage of the Mk3 over the Mk2 unless you are using the latest lenses (Mk2 SuperTeles etc) and bodies like the 1DX2/5D4 etc.

Good to know, there is a 1.4x ii going really cheap at the moment locally so I should just get it and compare it with the 2x iii that I've ordered

I found a 2x iii rather cheap used so I've ordered it, hopefully I'll see it in the next couple of days, if I don't like it, i'll just sell it and consider it a learning experience

Having just received my 5D4 this morning and doing some quick and dirty 'side by side' shots w/ my 7DII and 1.4x III, I find that the difference between bare lens on the 7DII and the same lens + 1.4 on the 5D is pretty negligible. I suspect you'd find that the 1.4 + 300 works fairly well for you on the 1Dx. That said, it sounds like your setup is pretty good anyway.

Milutiche wrote in post #18584202
Good to know, there is a 1.4x ii going really cheap at the moment locally so I should just get it and compare it with the 2x iii that I've ordered

there was a 1.4x MK II that went for NZ$250 on sunday...

I'm betting dollars to donuts that you'll use a 1.4x more than a 2x TC...