1d MKIII or 7d for wildlife???

Hello group,

I'm interested in upgrading my main wildlife camera body. (I currently own a 40d).
I can afford either a 1d MKIII or a 7d, so here is where I need your help.
How do these two compare in AF tracking accuracy, AF speed and IQ?? (these features are my only concern)
Unfortunately there is no option for me to rent those two bodies and do the comparioson myself (no local store renting photography equipment), so any help is greatly appreciated (especially from those that have previous experience with both bodies).

Thanks in advance
Teo

I have both and I tell you, get 1Dmk3
I am selling my 7D because it cant compare to 1D body.

If you're focal length limited with your 500 then a 7d otherwise a 1d3.

Perhaps this can help.

http://www.dxomark.com …/Canon/%28brand​2%29/Canon

This is the conundrum my friend is facing. She's noticed that I seem to get better images from my 7D than she gets from her MkIII when the image needs to be cropped (and, with wildlife, cropping is often necessary).

1DMKIII will outlast and outbattle the 7D.

Raw files from the 7D need to be over sharpen since the IR filter is strong and makes the files softer.

I own both of these cameras and the nod definitely goes to the 1D III as far as AF performance and general handling goes. It's a heck of a lot of camera for the price they are secondhand nowadays. I'd go the 1-series without the slightest doubt.

Strongly recommend reading this:

http://iwishicouldfly.​com …0vs%201D%20Mark​%20III.pdf

Wildlife is a tricky subject, where you almost always have limitations of how close you can get. That's why in wildlife photography the otherwise potentially superior camera does not always win.

i seem to be noticing time and time again photographers comparing other cameras to a 1-series. its not a snobby thing, i used to not be a believer either, but just use a 1d for a day or two and the 7d will not compare. on the spec sheet they are not as different as they are in the field. obviously my pick goes to the 1diii, i had a 7d, sold it the day i got it, and picked up a used 1diii, and i do primarily wildlife in the everglades. aside from my medium format gear, the 1diii cannot be beat.

i haven't shot with the 7d but recently faced the same dilemma. i am currently using a 50D and went with the 1DIII over the 7d. Compared to the 50D there isn't any and i actually like the fact that it is intermediate between ff and 1.6. pick one up, shoot with it. if you don't love it sell it, you can sell it for what you pay for it. can't do that with the 7d unless you find one used.

I would say 7D unless you can walk right up to your "wild life". The af abilities of the 7D are not below the 1D3, the increased crop factor and almost double the resolution will allow for better reach and cropping.

Those who recommend the 1D3, can you give some reasons why it is a better choice other than "build" or "feel" or "it is just better" or "Once you use a 1D nothing else compares"? From a shutter delay point of view, the two cameras are nearly identical, and unless you need the full blown 10fps, I see minimal benefits of the 1D3 over the 7D.

I have a 7D and 1D3 and feel they each have advantages depending on the precise shooting circumstances. As far as AF performance is concerned I find them to be close enough to equal to not have a preference one way or the other. The big difference is in pixel density and the per pixel IQ that results. The 1D3 has nice big, fat, juicy pixels that produce rich tones and are naturally sharp at the pixel level. It is easy to produce files from the 1D3 that look good even when viewed at 100%.

The 7D, on the other hand, has the potential to pull out a lot more subject detail, but only if the shooting conditions are sympathetic. By sympathetic I mean in good light, permitting low ISO, and from a stable platform such as a tripod, ideally with a good prime lens and a sedentary subject, when neither shake nor blur will be an issue. It only needs the tiniest amount of shake/blur/misfocus/di​ffraction or noise to neuter the reach advantage, and all you end up with is larger files that may need a bit more work to tweak them for the best possible results.

My 7D is beginning to grow on me, but it needs great skill and technique to get the best from it. If I fail to shoot perfectly then the 7D will expose my failings with ease, failings that the 1D3 might well conceal. I think the bottom line, if you want one, is that if you can fill the frame of the 1D3 then that will give you the best results overall, but if you are focal length limited and needing to crop to APS-C or smaller then the 7D is probably the better choice...... unless you need 1 series build and weatherproofing etc..

If it helps, I have an album of shots taken at the zoo recently with my 7D and 100-400. They are best viewed full screen on a monitor with at least 1920x1200 resolution. Anything less will mean the website will resize the images, reducing IQ. There are plenty of examples of BIF against tricky backgrounds and backlighting. I've applied minimal PP (no sharpening and no NR) and only a rough global adjustment to white balance. I've tweaked levels a little to deal with lost contrast when shooting through glass, but that's about it. They are also uncropped, so you can get a feel for how the AF performed with subjects off centre.

http://picasaweb.googl​e.co.uk …hkey=Gv1sRgCO-zsJ3YrIXnfQ

In my defence of the first orangutan picture I should say that it was shot at 6400 ISO through thick, tinted, angled glass.

p.s. It's worth noting that the 5D2 actually has a little more reach than the 1D3, and if you can fill the frame and the AF and frame rate are good enough for your needs, which in my experience they often are, then it too can make a very fine wildlife camera.

^ I thoroughly enjoyed your album fantastic shots

Lore wrote in post #10113344
^ I thoroughly enjoyed your album fantastic shots

+1, nice shots!

I also had a 40D for wildlife and I just upgraded for a 1D Mark III. Great ISO performance (never used over 400 on the 40D, now i use is up to 1600), it is massive, and perfect with my 300L 2.8 IS. BTW i feel the difference from the 1.6 crop, and it is real heavy!

The increase of the DR was really noticeable and it gives great blur:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.