7D or 1Dmk III

I'm wanting a camera to augment my 40D primarily for wildlife photography. I'm torn between the new 7D and a good used mkIII (about $1000 additonal). I want the crop factor or I would buy a 5D II. Lenses frequently used will include a 70-200 f/4L IS, 300 f/4L IS and a 500 f/4L IS plus various non-tele lenses. While usually using a tripod with the 500 for bif, I often hike around wildlife areas with the 300 + 1.4x TC used hand-held or sometimes with a monopod. So, I want something that is quick, portable, not too heavy, with excellent focus, clarity and color. I often print my images for sale so IQ is very important to me. Your helpful suggestions/observations about these two cameras will be appreciated.

If IQ are important, want a fast camera, need a free 1.3X converter, go with the 1D3. If you like your 40D IQ, the 1D3 it's just better. An image at 1,250-1600IsO with the 1D3 it's like a 800 ISO image on the 40D. The 5D 2 are tempting and is image quality very high, but To myself this is a studio camera; the AF are not better than the 40D one and you have burst of only 3fs, no wheater sealing, etc...

Hi Roger, If you haven't seen this thread if might help some.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=51950

If image quality and the occasional use of high ISO is most important for you, the 1D3 would be a good choice. If getting close to birds is a major problem in your area, the 7D might come in quite handy.

I chose the 7D over the 1D III

This is a picture from Sunday. 7D & Sigma 50mm F1.4 lens. Rock climbing in the Sandia Mountains.

http://cid-5cc40c3b7ccad3c6.skydrive...01-10-1521.jpg

Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to provide comments. This decision is a tough one for me - high image quality or less weight and greater "reach" with the 1.6x sensor. I don't have the advantage of getting in the face of my subjects as do some of you from places like Florida. Many images require large crops - particularly of smallish birds. In addition, my wildlife lenses are all f/4's so I often have to boose the ISO to get the required ss or aperture. This often creates noise which I'm hoping to dimish with the new camera. I'm uncertain about how the 7D compares with my 40D with regard to IQ and noise and I clearly want improved performance. I also wonder if the image quality of the Mark III is so much better, it will permit even heavier crops than images made with 1.6x sensors due to its decreased reach.

I'm awaiting Artie's report on the 7D on his current trip. And, so on and so on. Sorry to babble.

Roger -

I'll weigh in here because I have both a 7D and a 40D.... and I got the 7D by trading in a poorly functioning 1D Mk3. IMHO, the 7D is Canon's best foray into APS-C sensor cameras yet! The quality of the images I get from the 7D are superb and have even less noise than the 40D at ISO's of 400 and 800. I couldn't be happier with the images I get from the 7D and my 100-400, and my 400 DO with and without a 1.4x... Honestly, once I can afford to, I'll get another 7D body and retire the 40D.

Thanks for your comments, Chris. Its very helpful to hear from someone having both the 40D and 7D as a basis for comparison. BYW, nice images on your website.

Thanks for the compliments, Roger! I always appreciate comments from my peers...

I like ethe 7D a lot and may (not decided yet) pass the 1d4 in favor of it.

Based on the conditions you describe (far and small subjects) I believe the 7D is a better choice for you, it has way more reach than MKIII and many new features. Also remember that buying a used 1DMKIII is a gamble due to the reported AF issues unless you get to field-test before dropping the $$$ :D. 7D is a great camera and I may actually keep it along with my 5DMKII and pass on 1D4 unless the AF is phenomenally better...

A few things to consider:

Crop factor is not the metric. There is no "greater reach of a crop sensor" For example, your 40D and the 7D are both 1.6x crop sensors. The metric for pixels on subject is pixel pitch. See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/cropfactor

Noise: If you compare two camera, both with the same sized sensor, the one with more pixels will have greater apparent noise per pixel. But with more pixels the image could look beeter, especially at lower ISOs. As you push ISOs, the smaller pixels may show so much apparent noise that you do not like the image. Most of the noise you see in digital camera images is due to photon noise and as you chop the images up into smaller pixels, there are less photons in each pixel, so the signal to noise ratio gets worse and dynamic range drops.

Smaller pixels require better lenses and better methods to acquire sharo images. You have the good lenses so no problem there.

These facts all point to larger sensors giving better performance, all else being equal (like AF performance). That points to the 1DIII (assuming you can get a goof AF version).

But if you need more reach, the smaller pixels of the 7D will give more pixels on subject, but they will be noisier. You will have to decide.

See Figure 9 for my apparent image quality metric and note how much higher the 5DII is over the 7D and 1DIII:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ary/index.html

I have the same lenses as you (70-200 f4L IS, 300 f/4 L IS, 500 f/4 L IS) and 300 f/2.8L IS. I also have a 1D II (I chose to skip the 1DIII as I didn't think it was much of an upgrade from the II). I have had/used several other cameras 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D. I also have the 5DII. Given a new choice I would go with the 1DIV (but will wait to see if the performance is really there). Ignoring the 1DIV, choosing between 1DIII, 7D and 5DII, I would choose the 5DII. I am continuing to be amazed at the 5DII. The full frame sensor and large pixels have great high ISO performance. I have used it all over the world in the last year from hot humid environments to dusty deserts and the Serengeti, to oceans and waterfalls. It consistently gives me better images than my 1DII and is my camera of choice for all conditions. I just returned from Florida where I took one and only one image with my 1DII and many excellent images, including many BIF with the 5DII and 500 f/4. It is has been my main camera for all conditions and is 3.9 frames per second not 3 as stated earlier in this thread. Lower frames/second teaches one to frame for the peak action and not simply lay on the shutter and hope. I'll be posting BIF images from the trip soon.

Roger

Roger brings up good points. I have both the 5D Mark II and 7D. The 5D Mark II is an outstanding camera from a image quality standpoint, unfortunately the low fps and slow/so-so autofocus takes away from this camera when used for bird photography. Not to say you can't take great bird photos with the 5DM2, but the ratio of keepers would be better with the 7D.

On the Mark III front, if you could get one with good autofocus, that might trump the extra resolution of the 7D. Image quality on the Mark III is supburb.

I hope to do some side-by-side comparisons (7D, 5DM2 and Mark III) this weekend. I'll post some samples here if that would be helpful.

Alan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Stankevitz

The 5D Mark II is an outstanding camera from a image quality standpoint, unfortunately the low fps and slow/so-so autofocus takes away from this camera when used for bird photography. Not to say you can't take great bird photos with the 5DM2, but the ratio of keepers would be better with the 7D.

---

While I don't have a 7D to compare, but I do have a 1D Mark II. I get about the same in perfect focus action images with the 5D2 as I do with the 1D2, including BIF. But because of the 21 megapixels, the image quality blows away the 1D2 (8 megapixels). But cameras have large pixels with good high ISO performance. I'm not sure where people get the idea that AF performance is so poor (perhaps a custom function setting?). Further, the pixel pitch is the same as the 8-megapixel 30D so you can crop to a 1.6x sized sensor and still have plenty of megapixels for large prints. And when the subject comes close, you don't clip the wings. See the attached egret in flight image, a full height image, cropped horizontally to 4x5 proportion.

Canon 5D Mark II 21, 500 mm f/4 IS lens plus 1.4x TC, at f/5.6, 1/2000 second at ISO 200, manual metering, Jan 12, at the Venice rookery.

Roger

Again, thanks to all for your thoughtful comments. Roger, I always enjoy reading your technically-based explanations and have learned a lot about the dynamics of digital photography from them. I'm sure others have as well. Given your response, I have decided to more seriously consider the 5D2 as opposed to the Mark III. I've heard/read nothing but rave reviews of the 5D2. And, Alan, as an owner of both cameras, I appreciate your thoughts based on first hand experience. You have the ideal situation - owning both of them, and that's something for me to consider. I appreciate your offer to post comparative images taken over the weekend. All information is helpful at this stage. Finally, lovely egret image, Roger.

One more issue. I've heard that 7D images must be processed with an update to ACR (5.6 I believe). Apparently, I cannot get that update with my current CS3/ACR 4.6 version. Does that mean I have to upgrade to CS4?? Is that also true of 5D2 images?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Williams

One more issue. I've heard that 7D images must be processed with an update to ACR (5.6 I believe). Apparently, I cannot get that update with my current CS3/ACR 4.6 version. Does that mean I have to upgrade to CS4?? Is that also true of 5D2 images?

---

Roger,
Yes you will have the same issue with any newer camera. You could use the canon software to do raw conversions. I was pretty annoyed with I got the 5D2 and found that I had to upgrade to CS4. After a year of CS4 use, I still see nothing in it that I need for my work flow. But I really like ACR since CS3, so I did the upgrade.

Roger

Hi Roger,

I've took some images last night from all three cameras: 5D Mark II, 7D and the 1D Mark III. The 7D had the best resolution of all three with noise level quite similar between all three cameras at ISO 1600 -- Note: All three images were taken from a set distance and cropped accordingly to frame the image identically, similar to a typical scenario when photographing birds in the wild.

It's a tough call between the 7D and Mark III, both cameras are more than capable of giving you great images.

The Mark III does have the advantage of slightly faster frame rate and a lesser crop factor. I find this useful when photographing birds-in-flight. There's a smaller chance of clipping a wing off frame with a 1.3x sensor vs. 1.6x sensor.

As far as image quality, I'd give a slight advantage to the 7D with higher resolution. You'll get better feather detail with the 7D.

I have not seen anything too different with regards to color and dynamic range. There probably is some, but not enough to make that much of a difference.

They're both winners in my opinion.

Maybe tomorrow or Monday I will post images when I have more time.

Alan

Again, thanks so much for your thoughts and opinions. Your (our) continuing willingness to share information with each other makes this site an incredibly valuable resource. After due consideration, I've decided on the 7D for now, with the possibility of a 5D2 in the future for macro and landscapes.

I've got the 7D and the 5D2, but don't own the 500mm f/4L IS...yet. For BIF, I always go to the 7D because of the larger image in the viewfinder, making it easier to track a bird, it's higher fps rate that increases the odds I'll get the wing position I want and it's good noise performance up to ISO 1600. (The 5D2 blows it away at ISO 3600).

When I do get a 500mm f/4L IS I will try it on the 5D2, particularly with the 1.4TC, but I think that the higher frames per second and quicker AF of the 7D will continue to make it my choice for BIF.

Dave