Canon 5D Mk iii

I presently use a Canon 7D and I am thinking about getting myself the 5D.

I know the differences between the two cameras,but the one thing I would like to know is, if I was the same distance from the subject and took an image with both cameras, then obviously I would have to crop the Canon 5D image more to obtain the same 'finished' image. Would the IQ then be the same, worse or better?

I use a Canon F/2.8 300mm Mk1 lens usually with a 1x4 TC, and if its a bright day, I would use my 2x TC.

I really dont know if I should keep the 7D or go for the 5D.

Any advice is appreciated

Thanks

In perfect light, with perfect focus and with a low ISO (like ISO 200 or ISO 400, but up to 800) the 7D will yield a higher resolution (more detailed) image. HOWEVER, the question is, will you get perfect focus with your 7D and will you be able to shoot at lower ISOs all the time. If you're shooting perched birds, in reasonable light, then you will likely gain nothing by making the switch; however, if you shoot birds in flight a lot, then your keeper rate will increase substantially (IME, my keeper rate doubled going from the 7D to the 5D MkIII). An OOF high resolution shot is worthless. The 5D3 AF is much better, particularly in AI Servo mode, tracking fast moving subjects.

I use a two-camera kit for birds and wildlife, I mount my 500/f4, with and without my 1.4x and 2.0x TC-III, on my 5D MkIII and I carry my 7D around my neck with my 70-200/f4 mounted. I could always put my 500mm on my 7D, but I'm never even tempted. For travel, landscape, portraits, etc. I prefer the 5D MkIII, but my lenses are selected around full-frame capture. You'll need to consider your lenses for those purposes, if those uses are significant for you.

Hi Stephen

Thanks for that, But, for me if i do purchase the 5D, I will be selling the 7D. So, I was just wondering, if I should go for it, or not, I do like my 7D and wouldnt want to make the change then regret it. I was just wanting to get clearer, sharper images.

Unless you are filling the frame now I suspect you might be disappointed. One of the benefits of the 5D3 is that you can focus at f8 max aperture setups. In your case it won't help you unless you stack converters and I don't think anyone would recommend that.

If you had a 500 f4, 600 f4 or 800 f5.6 then I would say go for it. A 7D with 1.4 Ext and 500f4 will have just a few percent more pixels on subject than a 5D3 with 2x Ext and 500f4. You do loose a stop of light with the bigger extender but the 5D3 is more than 1 stop better at iso plus the files seems to post process better.

Ideally you would try this combination before purchasing.

William,
I have a 7D and a 5DMKII. I've also been considering getting a 5DMKIII. I've carried both and on shoots and swapped out the cameras to take pics of subjects in the same light and have found that large crops (up to 50%) hold up quite well against the 7D. The 5D just has a better look to it for my eyes. I would think the mark III with it's improved AF and high ISO would be even better. Rachel (wildlife mod) has shot with both the 7D and the 5DMKIII and can probably give you a better, more relative comparison. I know its only a web sized image, but here's an example of a more extreme crop that I thought turned out okay and would be confident in printing up to an 8x10.

Hi William - I do have both the 7D and the 5D3. I don't shoot a lot of birds tending to shoot more larger wildlife. My style has also evolved to shooting a bit wider. The IQ of the 5D3 is excellent as is the ability to shoot in low light at high ISOs. The 7D is a much less forgiving camera, the exp has to be perfect to bump up the ISO above 800. The AF system of the 5d3 is also head and shoulders above the 7D's. There are times that if I feel I want that extra reach, or more accurately more pixels on the subject, that I grab the 7D rather the 5D3. I don't know that I answered your question but I have a feeling the answer is subjective. If I were you I would rent a 5D3 and try it for a week or two to decide for yourself.

Rachel

Between the two, my choice would be the 5D3. The 5D3 will get you much sharper and cleaner files if that's what you want. The 5D3 AF will slow down with the 2X but it is still faster and MUCH more accurate than the 7D which is lousy at best if you plan to shoot flight. Do also upgrade your TC 2X to 2X MK III for sharper images.

Your other choice is a used 1D4 which is about the same price as a used 5D3. With a 300mm lens I'd lean more towards a 1D4.

That's a cool image by Steve BTW.

Thanks for the replies guys. Now, I will have a look at the 1D4 aswell. I'll get there in the end :e3 hopefully

William, glad you posted this, as you got some invaluable advice.

Sadly the 1DMK4 is discontinued and I sold mine about 8 months ago otherwise you could have had that. I was going to suggest taking a look at Wex photographic in their used section, however I have just looked and nothing there sadly, but you could drop them a line to ask if they could let you know when one comes in? Personally I would go for the 5D because of the ISO & file capability. :w3

William, I have both the 7D And 5D3. I bought the 5D3 about 6-8 months ago and have found a significant difference in IQ and AF. 5D3 is much better, no doubt, also I now spend less time with 5D3 files than the 7D which needs more careful PP esp NR. I have the 500 II & 1.4 III and am now buying the 2X III. My 7D has become my back up body!
hope this helps.
Sanjeev

I am leaning towards getting the 5D, My 7D along with the 1x4 TC iii is good, and in clear weather conditions it is also good with the 2x TC iii. The weather here has been very dull recently, infact, it has been reported that it has been the wettest winter in Scotland for many years. I have found that i have had to boost the ISO and noise has been the problem. I know that the 5D performs better than the 7D at higher ISOs. The only thing that slightly worries me is the crop. I try to get as close to subjects as possible, but if I cant get close, will I still be able to crop a 5D image without degrading it?

Will the 5D work better than the 7D with my 2x TC attached to the F/2.8 300mm lens. As I said earlier, in bright conditions the 2x TC works well. The attached image was taken with that set up. Thanks for all the advice guys, I really appreciate it :S3:

Attachment 138707

Further to the above post, this is the original image. So, you can see how much I cropped it. If that image was taken with the 5D, and I cropped it the same amount, would I end up with an image with the same IQ? Thats the only concern I have. Hope this helps :e3

Attachment 138708

Obviously the bigger crop will offset at least some of the better IQ of the 5D3 -- maybe almost all. And with a full-frame, 600mm is rarely close enough. If I were you I'd wait till the much-anticipated 7D II is out, which should be some time this year I think.

I too often find myself teetering on the edge of not having enough light or not being able to get close enough to a subject, even though I upgraded to the new 600 II and mostly use it with a 1.4X on. This is a frustrating hobby.

William, knowing the conditions you will work in then the 5D will be fine. You can sit on the fence and wait, but time marches on and knowing Canon, release dates will slip as the 7DMKiI was talked about two years ago+, but your call. Just depends on how much that money is burning a hole in your pocket. :w3

When I'm back I can also ask Neil Mc his thoughts if you want, just let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski

William, knowing the conditions you will work in then the 5D will be fine. You can sit on the fence and wait, but time marches on and knowing Canon, release dates will slip as the 7DMKiI was talked about two years ago+, but your call. Just depends on how much that money is burning a hole in your pocket. :w3

When I'm back I can also ask Neil Mc his thoughts if you want, just let me know.

---

I've just come back from Scotland and a week with Neil and Pete Cairns, using a 7D in less than wonderful light. I lost so many shots to noise and low shutter speeds.I've just bought the 5Dmark 111 and am amazed at the quality at high ISOs. I use a 400DO and 1x4 converter. Sure, I have to crop but as the shots on this thread show, the results are pretty good! Another tog on this trip has just bought the 1Dx for exactly the same reasons (although he shoots with a bigger lens).

Time will tell whether the 7D becomes my backup but I think the writing's on the wall.
Rosie

Hi Steve,

I have thought about it long and hard, I am going to wait and see what the Canon 7D Mk2 brings, then decide :w3

BTW the sun is up here, and not a cloud in sight, so, I am off to take some pics with a low ISO, and get some practice in, using my 2x TC :bg3:

Hi Rosie

Hope you enjoyed your trip to Bonnie Scotland.

I understand exactly what you are talking about,but, with me using the 300mm usually with the 1x4 my main fear is that I wont get close enough to the subjects, and the crop would be too much to get good IQ.

I am with Diane here if you go full frame for avian subjects you need a 600 lens even here if Florida, it make no sense to me to throw away 50 to 80 percent of the capabilities of your camera by cropping away most of the frame I would want every one of those 22 mega pixels on the subject i could get. Looking at the example provided by William he would be cropping the 5D files down to about 6 to 5 mega pixels who here today would go out and buy a 6 mega pixel camera no matter how good it was at high ISO. Now if he is interested in landscapes and larger mammal photography where he could fill the frame with a 300 and extenders along with avian subjects then a 5D makes more sense. As much as I want a 1DX I can not afford to spend the additional 13,000.00 I would need for a 600 to go with it every one I know who was shooting with a 500 on their 1D4 and 3 cameras ended up selling them and buying a 600 when they switched to the 1DX after a few months.

I Have a 1D M IV a 5D M III and my wife ha a 7D that used to be mine. She has A 300 F 2.8 mark 1. On the other day I was bored out of my mind the weather was terrible so I was plying with the cameras, comparing them, using a target that had fine details like a bird would.
Then in PP cropped them to equal size and compared them visually. 5D was first 1D was second and 7D was third as per visual judgement by my wife and by me. There is no scientific data but when you look at a picture you rely on your eyes not science.

That is very interesting Karl, thanks for that. Can you tell me the distance you were from the target. The 5D Mk 3 is still on my mind, I have thought about it a lot, and i have come to the conclusion that I wont have to PP as much on my images if they were shot by a full frame sensor like the 5D. I realise that the full frame is of better quality, and it was the distance from the target that was making me think hard about getting a 5D or not. Don and Diane were against it, as I only have a 300mm lens usually with the 1x4 attached and very rarely the 2x attached. That put me against buying the 5D, but reading your post has mixed my mind up once again :e3 I will not be buying a bigger lens, as I cannot afford one.

So, the situation with me at the moment is Should i go get a 5D, or should I wait to see what the 7D Mk2 has to offer. The 7D Mk 2, will I think, still be a crop sensor, prob still 1x6 but maybe even a 1x3. But, you are saying the 5D came top on your test, even above the 1D Mk 4. And, I suppose, the distance from the target wont matter, as you said you cropped them to equal size. Can you post your test results on here if possible, that would help me a lot in making my mind up.

What would make my mind up is, (the images I posted on this thread), If, the original image was taken by a 5D, and not a 7D as what I used to take the image, was thereafter cropped to the same size as the cropped image I posted and was then of better IQ I would go for the 5D. I am with you, I rely on what my eye sees and not scientific data

Thanks again Karl :S3:

Quote:

---

I have thought about it a lot, and i have come to the conclusion that I wont have to PP as much on my images if they were shot by a full frame sensor like the 5D.

---

Why do you believe that, I have a 6D I use for landscapes and portrait work and have worked on 5D and 1DX files for friends I use the same workflow as I do for my 1D3 and 7D files and depending on the image they all need about the same amount of post processing, now the end result from those cameras are usually better but you still need to put the time in post to make them sing. Once you find yourself shooting at the higher ISO these cameras are capable you will still need to apply NR just like you did for crop sensor cameras at lower ISO.

If my longest lens option was the 300, even with a 2X, I would definitely wait to see what the 7DII looks like. That's an amazing lens, and still extremely sharp with the 2X. But the extra reach of a crop sensor would be, for me, a major factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Lacy

Why do you believe that, I have a 6D I use for landscapes and portrait work and have worked on 5D and 1DX files for friends I use the same workflow as I do for my 1D3 and 7D files and depending on the image they all need about the same amount of post processing, now the end result from those cameras are usually better but you still need to put the time in post to make them sing. Once you find yourself shooting at the higher ISO these cameras are capable you will still need to apply NR just like you did for crop sensor cameras at lower ISO.

---

Although many steps remain the same regardless of camera, amount of fine-tuning and individual adjustments is very different.

You don't need to apply much NR to 1DX files even at high ISO (by High I mean >=3200, lower than that usually NR only on BG, below ISO 800 I usually do not apply any NR anywhere). this is if you use an optimized RAW convertor such as DPP with optimized parameters. The files are razor sharp so there is no need to sharpen much either. With typical soft and grainy files that come out of the 7D it is a long way to make it look great, even for someone very competent in post processing. Sometimes it is not possible.

Typically it takes me about 45 seconds to process a 1DX file (w/o any cloning or other work), when I had the 1D4 I spent more time on average because sometimes the files were not as sharp and I had to use advanced techniques in PS to bring out the detail w/o introducing noise. With the 1d4, sometimes I had to apply different amounts of NR on different parts of the subject but since 1DX came out I haven't done that.

best

"That is very interesting Karl, thanks for that. Can you tell me the distance you were from the target."
Hi William,
I was about 20 ft from the target. I used the 300 f2.8 with the old 1.4 II extender.
When I cropped the images to look and be equal. The one taken with the 5d m iii had about 4.3 megapixels, the one with the 1D M IV had about 5.4 megapixels and the 7D had over 10 megapixels.
Despite the megapixels the 5D image looked the best to the eyes. The 7D M II would be a good option if it would be, but nobody knows when it comes out.
It is becoming like the new 400 f5.6 L with the IS. It's been on the rumors list since 2009.
I was just reading Arash's comments regarding the sharpness of the 1D X files.
I noticed the same with the 5D M III ; it hardly needs any sharpening, it comes out razor sharp.

Once you go to a full frame you won't go back. This is a heavy crop of a 5D file taken during a rain/snow/sleet storm @ 2000 iso if I remember right. 5D mkIII, 500f4 +1.4 extender. My crop bodies sat in the bag for about 4 months after I got the 5D then I just sold them off knowing there was no going back.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...66212119_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Lacy

I am with Diane here if you go full frame for avian subjects you need a 600 lens even here if Florida, it make no sense to me to throw away 50 to 80 percent of the capabilities of your camera by cropping away most of the frame I would want every one of those 22 mega pixels on the subject i could get. Looking at the example provided by William he would be cropping the 5D files down to about 6 to 5 mega pixels who here today would go out and buy a 6 mega pixel camera no matter how good it was at high ISO. Now if he is interested in landscapes and larger mammal photography where he could fill the frame with a 300 and extenders along with avian subjects then a 5D makes more sense. As much as I want a 1DX I can not afford to spend the additional 13,000.00 I would need for a 600 to go with it every one I know who was shooting with a 500 on their 1D4 and 3 cameras ended up selling them and buying a 600 when they switched to the 1DX after a few months.

---

Shooting the 500/f4 combined with the 1.4x TC-III is very practical. I haven't had the budget to go the 1D x/600-II route yet. My AF slows a bit at 700mm, but it's manageable, but not ideal. I think that if I had the 600mm, I'd still be adding the TC.

Have to echo Karl here, the 5D cropped files just look better. More examples and again with the MK II, not the MKIII (which by most accounts should be even better.) I did side by side comparisons with my 7D and 5DMKII on a series of this guy. Printed out some 8x12 and most preferred the cropped 5D shots over the 7D (including me.) Late June, early evening, hazy from smoke. Here's the original, unprocessed SOC.

Here's an actual pixel view of the above shot.

And here's one with some quick PP. I also printed out an 11x14 of a shot from this series that held up pretty good for detail for me but of course what's good is always open to interpretation. The results were good enough for me that I plan to downsize to a single camera and it'll most likely be the 5DMKIII. YMMV.

Thanks for that Steve, i am edging towards the 5D Mk3. I wish they would introduce the 7D Mk2 soon, so I can compare them :Whoa!:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Although many steps remain the same regardless of camera, amount of fine-tuning and individual adjustments is very different.

You don't need to apply much NR to 1DX files even at high ISO (by High I mean >=3200, lower than that usually NR only on BG, below ISO 800 I usually do not apply any NR anywhere). This is if you use an optimized RAW convertor such as DPP with optimized parameters. The files are razor sharp so there is no need to sharpen much either. With typical soft and grainy files that come out of the 7D it is a long way to make it look great, even for someone very competent in post processing. Sometimes it is not possible.

Typically it takes me about 45 seconds to process a 1DX file (w/o any cloning or other work), when I had the 1D4 I spent more time on average because sometimes the files were not as sharp and I had to use advanced techniques in PS to bring out the detail w/o introducing noise. With the 1d4, sometimes I had to apply different amounts of NR on different parts of the subject but since 1DX came out I haven't done that.

best

---

Arash, I agree the 1DX files do not need as much adjustments but they still need them and you shoot at a higher ISO then most so you do see a bigger advantage when processing since NR was such a large part of your workflow when shooting landscapes and general bird photography at lower ISO which is what I do my workflow is the same for full frame sensors as well as crop sensors. . I do have a question for you if you had to crop your images to the extent the original poster will have to how would it affect your workflow.

I do not disagree with the posters showing how well the 5D files look when cropped I just know for myself and the photographers I know who went full frame they all sold there 500's to move up to 600 because they wanted more pixels on the subject all of them none of them kept thier 500's. Again it would kill me to have to crop a 1DX file down to 6 mega pixels all the time I mean the Canon d60 was 6 mege pixels and that was what 15 years ago. My advice to William would be to rent, beg, or borrow a full frame camera and see for yourself if you are comfortable with the amount of cropping you will be doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Lacy

Arash, I agree the 1DX files do not need as much adjustments but they still need them and you shoot at a higher ISO then most so you do see a bigger advantage when processing since NR was such a large part of your workflow when shooting landscapes and general bird photography at lower ISO which is what I do my workflow is the same for full frame sensors as well as crop sensors. . I do have a question for you if you had to crop your images to the extent the original poster will have to how would it affect your workflow.

---

Hi Don,

It makes sense that your workflow is similar regardless of camera for landscape work and for low ISO.

I will post an example of cropping later tonight.

cheers,

Arash

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Lacy

I do not disagree with the posters showing how well the 5D files look when cropped I just know for myself and the photographers I know who went full frame they all sold there 500's to move up to 600 because they wanted more pixels on the subject all of them none of them kept thier 500's. Again it would kill me to have to crop a 1DX file down to 6 mega pixels all the time I mean the Canon d60 was 6 mege pixels and that was what 15 years ago. My advice to William would be to rent, beg, or borrow a full frame camera and see for yourself if you are comfortable with the amount of cropping you will be doing.

---

Actually for me the reason I got 600 was not lack of pixels with my 500. I got the lens way before I got the 1DX. The reason folks opt for 600 rather than 500 is that 500 and 600 are priced closely. If you can afford 500, you can probably afford the 600 too and the wight difference is small so 600 is actually better value for money given the extra focal length with any camera, whether FF or 1.3.

If you own a 500 or a 600 series I super-tele and want to upgrade to series II, the natural upgrade is 600II regardless of camera body you use. the 600II overall the best birding lens on the market now and that's why it's so hot. Most people sold their 800 to get the 600 II as well

when I still had my 500 I used it with my 5D3, I never felt it was short, but I try to go to ideal locations where I can approach my subject. If the birds are way too far usually the end result is poor, regardless of lens, camera etc....

best

Just some of my my thoughts on the 5D V 7D V 7dMk 2??? issues Today got me thinking about how close I could get to my birds to get a decent photograph. I was at a harbour area, with high cliffs where jackdaws, fulmars, starlings and pigeons were preparing to build nests in the holes in the cliff and the fulmars were flying low and quite slow so BIFs would be a good idea. I started off with my 7D F/2.8 300mm with 1x4 TCiii, and quickly discovered the focus was slow, but not slow enough, but focusing held onto target birds some 50ft away, but as they got closer, i found it difficult to focus fast. Got a few shots off but no real keepers. I thereafter took photographs with the 1x4 attached of perched birds sitting on the cliff, it was a sunny morning and got some good shots. then thought if this was a 5D the shots would be of better IQ but not as close, so I have attached a photograph which has not been cropped and I thought the 5D image would be smaller but better quality. It was getting a bit duller so i decided to take off the 1x4, then discovered my focusing was a lot faster and better at tracking. But my ISO had to be on 1250 for high shutter speed, it worked but the high ISO deterioted the image. Again I thought this is at 300mm so how better would the 5D with their ISO. And, how much better the 5D with the 1x4 attached or even the 2x on a sunny day.

If the 7DK 2 dont show face soon, I will be getting a 5D and keeping the 7D for a while to see if i need it or not




Shutter speed: 1/640 sec
Aperture: 6.3
Exposure mode: Av
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: High-speed continuous shooting
ISO: 640
Lens: EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM +1.4x
Focal length: 420mm
Subject distance: 0.640 m
AF mode: One-shot AF
Image size: 5184 x 3456
Image quality: Raw
White balance: Auto
Picture style: Standard
Color space: AdobeRGB
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: 3
Contrast: Normal
Tone: Normal
Custom Functions:
CFn II-1: Long exposure noise reduction: AUTO
CFn III-1: AI Servo tracking sensitivity: Slow

Attachment 139172

Hi William again.
It is a hard decision. You know what you shoot the most, what situation are you getting what kind of light you get.
I know my wife struggles with the 7D towards the end of the day when the available light is far less. I would crank up the ISO
on my 1D MIV to 1250 or 1600 and keep shooting BIF that needs high shutter speed. She simply stops shooting.
With the 5D M III you should be able to do the same. (I only use it since January)
I remember I was having the 7D on a 400 f5.6 L and the 1D M IV on a 500 that I left in the car for that late evening shooting.
At one point I started getting OOF images. I walked back to the car, switched cameras and I got sharp pictures again in the dimming light with 1D/400 f5.6.
So there is yet an other issue; reach versus focusing and high ISO.

Hi Karl

Thanks for your input in this thread.

I am going to wait 2 months. Hoping 7D Mk2 will be out. If not, I am going to get a 5D Mk 3

William I fully recognise your dilemma. I have been waiting and waiting for a 7D Mk11, I am almost giving up but then I notice WEX are promoting them so is that a sign that the Mk11 is on the way? Even if a Mk 11 does arrive I doubt it very much if it would have the image quality of a 5D camera. To get close I think they would need a completely different chip, I even wonder if they would go for a 1:3 as in the 1D MKIV?? This would be better but I suspect still fall short compared to a full frame chip.
As I see it your issues are similar to mine, i.e. if you went full frame would you manage to get close enough to your subject. There is no substitute for good field craft but good field craft is of value where it can be deployed. If your subjects are distant and you cannot get close enough say for example up on a dangerous cliff then it does not matter which camera you use, a painful lesson. You just have to photograph something in a safer / more practicable circumstance, if you cannot get close enough then you have to decide is it worth taking the shot. If you think you can get acceptable results by using the 7D then the 5D Mk111 will produce better results if you get that bit closer, if you cannot then you will capture inherently better image quality file but lose it instantly you crop it, so much or all of the benefit would be lost. HOWEVER it may be that that is the shot you always wanted and the light was such that you just would not have thought it possible with the 7D but it was with the 5D Mk111, so at least you would have come home with something. I have to admit I used a 5D Mk111 and took images deliberately that required cropping and I was very impressed even after cropping.
As I see it the 7D is a compromise camera it provided excellent value for money, the 5D is a better all round camera with the exception of the number of shots per second. I have nearly bought the 5D Mk 111 on several occasions but decided against it. I personally found the AF system to be far more sophisticated but I did not find it a terrific improvement over the performance of the 7D especially in areas of minimal contrast. It held focus better but I did not see much difference in focus acquisition. ( I appreciate I am out on a limb with this assessment/opinion). I am now considering the 1DX, it is an awful lot of money but I have have spoken to someone who has one and he has the 500mm f4 mk 1 as I do and he has not regretted the purchase at all. In fact his advice was to sell the house and buy a 1D X!!
I have no knowledge at all if Canon do intend to release a 7D Mk11 I have a feeling that perhaps they won't, (having said that I know an eminent wildlife photographer who thinks if it does come out it will be by about September- Photokina) maybe Canon think the 70D has filled the gap and if you want better then you have to consider the XD series - who knows?

Thanks for that Jonathan. Please dont sell the house :t3

I'm amazed so many people are willing to wait for a 7D II. The very reason the camera has been rumored for years is because of the disappointing pic quality of the original. Even if/when it does come out whos to say it's going to be that great??? Right now you got the greatest wildlife cameras every produced coming of the line between the DX and the 5D, if you can afford one buy it life is too short to wait on maybes!

I'm amazed so many people are willing to wait for a 7D II. The very reason the camera has been rumored for years is because of the disappointing pic quality of the original. Even if/when it does come out whos to say it's going to be that great??? Right now you got the greatest wildlife cameras every produced coming of the line between the DX and the 5D. To each his own but to me if you can afford one buy it life is too short to wait on maybes!

Within its DR limits, the 7D has exceptional IQ. For me, it's problems are with AF accuracy in the AI Servo mode and IQ with ISO 1600 and above. In good light, if you can get in focus and stay in focus, it's IQ, particularly detail, can be stunning for focal length limited shooting. Until the 5D MkIII came along, it was "the" choice for those that couldn't afford the 1D of the time, or didn't want that big of an investment.

It's now almost five-years old. If Canon is going to replace it ( a big "if"), then 2014 is the right time. Both sensors and processors have advanced quite a bit in the last five-years.

Saw this on Canonrumours

A few bits of information about the possible replacement to the EOS 7D are trickling in, although there’s nothing I would call concrete.
We’re told again that the camera is being tested with some kind of a “hybrid viewfinder”, no details were given. Although, it’s possible the feature doesn’t make it into the production camera. A brand new image sensor will appear in the camera, with a resolution just under 25mp.
The camera will have dual memory card slots, CF and SD. Retaining CF is a big deal and will make a lot of people happy.
The camera is said to have the most features at the software level of any Canon DSLR ever, though there were no examples of what could possibly be new. I do agree this camera will have to be extremely feature rich to be successful.
It doesn’t feel like the hype machine has started yet, so I do not think the camera is “around the corner”.

One question that was asked was the extend that one can crop a 5D3 file and retain critical IQ. The answer depends on the application the output is intended for and the quality of the original RAW. For internet presentation, the output size is pretty small (<1 Mpixel). Even for showing on larger HD screens display size is only 2 Mpixels, so you can crop quite a bit. For printing, especially at large sizes it becomes more complicated. A larger file is generally better but it also depends on the quality of the RAW. For avian subjects in particular, final output quality tends to be a strong function of critical focus/sharpness at the time of capture. A tack sharp clean 5 Mpixel file will look much better than a soft/hazy/grainy 20 Mpixel file whether in a large print or in online presentation to most viewers.

I had to look for a while to find this 5D3 example. It is a Burrowing owl taken with my 5D3 with 500 f/4 + 1.4X III, setting was f/6.3 1/4000sec ISO 1600 (setup for flight). I have cropped the original (processed with DPP), applied a very gentle NR to the BG only, then resized and sharped before saving for web.

Anyone want to give it a shot and guess what was the crop percentage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Anyone want to give it a shot and guess what was the crop percentage?

---

I'd say it's about 35% of the original? If it's anymore, I'm going shopping at the weekend :bg3:

I would not be at all surprised to read that the file was cropped to little more than twice the presented size.

It would be interesting to do a comparison between the 7D, 5D3 and 1DX, with a test target and the same lens, with everything controlled to get the max sharpness in the files -- tripod, low ISO, flash or bright sun for high effective shutter speed.... I'm pretty sure such comparisons could be found on the web.

But as David (and maybe others) pointed out, real life shooting is about more than just "base" IQ, with AF speed and accuracy -- with a moving subject, for many of us -- being a major factor. With my 5D3, I have the settings for first shot and subsequent shots to wait till things are in focus. For a still subject I get very sharp focus, But for a burst of a BIF the first shot is almost always soft and focus will search a little on subsequent ones, with some tack-sharp and some with soft focus. This happens about the same with a gliding bird with no wing movement, kept well in the center of the frame, as it does with a bird with flapping wings and a burst where I didn't hold it in the center very well. This is with AI servo and back button focus, holding the button down unless I completely lose focus. (The focus "searching" I'm describing can't be seen in the viewfinder, but only by viewing the file later at 100%.)

It happens about equally with the 300mm f/2.8 IS (not the newer II) as it does with the 300 + 1.4X and even 2X, and also with the new 600 II, and seems about the same hand holding as on a sturdy tripod with a Wimberley II. I'm convinced it's not me -- it's the camera. I think the camera has a different idea of what is in focus than I do. It seems to be trying to fine-tune the focus by jumping around. I remember there was quite a flap about this sort of thing when an earlier 1D came out -- maybe the 1D Mk III or IV, but I'm not certain.

For those of you who have used both the 5D3 and the 1DX, I assume this happens much less with the 1DX?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diane Miller

. For a still subject I get very sharp focus, But for a burst of a BIF the first shot is almost always soft and focus will search a little on subsequent ones, with some tack-sharp and some with soft focus. This happens about the same with a gliding bird with no wing movement, kept well in the center of the frame, as it does with a bird with flapping wings and a burst where I didn't hold it in the center very well. This is with AI servo and back button focus, holding the button down unless I completely lose focus. (The focus "searching" I'm describing can't be seen in the viewfinder, but only by viewing the file later at 100%.)

It happens about equally with the 300mm f/2.8 IS (not the newer II) as it does with the 300 + 1.4X and even 2X, and also with the new 600 II, and seems about the same hand holding as on a sturdy tripod with a Wimberley II. I'm convinced it's not me -- it's the camera. I think the camera has a different idea of what is in focus than I do. It seems to be trying to fine-tune the focus by jumping around. I remember there was quite a flap about this sort of thing when an earlier 1D came out -- maybe the 1D Mk III or IV, but I'm not certain.

For those of you who have used both the 5D3 and the 1DX, I assume this happens much less with the 1DX?

---

5D3 does not have such issue as you describe it, maybe your camera is defective.

The 5D3 AF is quite capable even in challenging conditions. It is not 1Dx but it's pretty solid.

Diane, if you have a bird in flight I think it is inevitable that the camera will be constantly focusing and refocusing because the relevant focal point(s) in the camera will be picking up something to focus on or not to focus on as the case may be., e.g. a wing not a wing an head or neck or tail or not a tail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diane Miller

It would be interesting to do a comparison between the 7D, 5D3 and 1DX, with a test target and the same lens, with everything controlled to get the max sharpness in the files -- tripod, low ISO, flash or bright sun for high effective shutter speed.... I'm pretty sure such comparisons could be found on the web.

But as David (and maybe others) pointed out, real life shooting is about more than just "base" IQ, with AF speed and accuracy -- with a moving subject, for many of us -- being a major factor. With my 5D3, I have the settings for first shot and subsequent shots to wait till things are in focus. For a still subject I get very sharp focus, But for a burst of a BIF the first shot is almost always soft and focus will search a little on subsequent ones, with some tack-sharp and some with soft focus. This happens about the same with a gliding bird with no wing movement, kept well in the center of the frame, as it does with a bird with flapping wings and a burst where I didn't hold it in the center very well. This is with AI servo and back button focus, holding the button down unless I completely lose focus. (The focus "searching" I'm describing can't be seen in the viewfinder, but only by viewing the file later at 100%.)

It happens about equally with the 300mm f/2.8 IS (not the newer II) as it does with the 300 + 1.4X and even 2X, and also with the new 600 II, and seems about the same hand holding as on a sturdy tripod with a Wimberley II. I'm convinced it's not me -- it's the camera. I think the camera has a different idea of what is in focus than I do. It seems to be trying to fine-tune the focus by jumping around. I remember there was quite a flap about this sort of thing when an earlier 1D came out -- maybe the 1D Mk III or IV, but I'm not certain.

For those of you who have used both the 5D3 and the 1DX, I assume this happens much less with the 1DX?

---

I had this problem with my 7D, but not my 5D MkIII. Which AF mode have you selected? Particularly with your bare 300/2.8, I'd expect consistent AF after your achieved lock on. Are you using single-point or single-point expanded. More points than that allows the camera to hunt around on various AF points that might be on different parts of the bird, even with a blue sky BG.

In the 5D3 vs. 1D X, the big difference I noted was when adding TCs, the 5D3 slows way down and the 1D X hardly slows at all. With the 1.4x TC on a 500/f4 II I could hardly notice any difference with the 1D X, while you notice a slow down with the 5D3. With the 2.0x TC-III, the 5D3 slogs to as slow as a second to grab initial focus, even with a good pre-focus, and the 1D X grabs focus in the snap of a finger. However, with the bare lens, I didn't really notice much difference.

Back to the 5D3 AF, there are so many possible settings, it's easy to have it reacting too slow or too fast.