50D -> 7D (maybe not 1D4 or Nikon D3s)?

I have rented a Canon 1D4 for a week. I took a lot of test photos, but the conditions were not great. The camera handled well, but it had more noise than I was expecting.

I have also been thinking about a Nikon D3s and have downloaded some reference files for that camera.

The Canon 1D4 seems to be getting some negative comments with regard to its noise capability (especially in comparison with a Nikon D3s) and some focusing issues.

The Nikon D3s seems to be somewhat limited in pixels, especially if one is going to do a very large center crop. Also, it too is getting some negative remarks with regard to focusing issues.

I am beginning to think that maybe neither is worth the cost to upgrade at this point in time and that maybe I should wait for the next round of releases.

Would anyone that has used both the 50D and 7D please give me their opinions on if and why I might want to consider getting a 7D to replace the 50D for wildlife? Or other options I should consider?

Thank you.

Mike

IMO, the 7D is better than the 50D in every way. IQ, AF, body, viewfinder.

Regarding the 1D4 IQ, I suspect the negative comments come from people who don't know how to effectively compare images from cameras with differing pixel densities. For the focal length limited shooter, the 1D4 will produce the superior final image at ISOs up to and including 12,800. The 1D4 produces a respectable image at ISO 25,600. Things get worse at ISO 51,200 and ISO 102,400 is a joke and Canon should be embarrassed at even making it an option.

Now if you aren't focal length limited (i.e. you can fill the frame with your subject) the D3s gains a bit of advantage. The D3s high ISO performance is indeed stellar with not only super clean files up to ISO 25,600 but also files that maintain excellent color accuracy.

Can't comment with regard to any focusing issues on either the 1D4 or the D3s.

A couple of points...

A) The D3s has superb AF but nothing is perfect. Personally, I haven't even seen anything which focused better.

B) The D3s is megapixel limited if you're going to shoot primarily birds. If you shoot a 600, have unlimited access for approach or live in an area where your subjects are larger / more acclimated to humans, then you can get away with it some of the time.

C) From the files I've seen, the 1DIV images are great, It is rather close to the same pixel size as the D300s, but it is cleaner.

D) I have yet to see anything from a 7D that honestly impresses me for IQ, especially over ISO 640.

More megapixels is not always better.

For me this was a no brainer going from the 40d to the 7D; the 50D is not a great leap from the 40D.

The advanced AF system of the 7D - love the camera - makes it an easy choice for wildlife if you are not gong to purchase the 1D4.

Since you have suggested the D3s I guess you need to look at the D3. There are certainly lots of threads/posts here discussing the D3 and lots of advocates from the Dark Side. Have a long chat with James Shadle for the Nikon side and so many - Jim Neiger, Artie Morris and on and on for the Canon side.

I am biased; I have a 1D4 on order.

i think the 7d is the best value birding camera out there, iv had one 4 months and not used my mk3 since i got the 7d .
I do intend getting a mk4 at some stage for better high iso but more than happy with the 7.
Rob.

As 7D owner, I suppose that the 1DIV and 7D with newer sensor, show different kind of noise.

At 100% it will seem a little high, but you have to remember that the 100% crop of an 7D's image is larger that any Nikon DSRL.

The noise grain on the new Canon (probably 550D included) are not visible after a resample or a little NR (is a lot smaller), and not noticeable in medium format Print.

Thanks all. I appreciate the comments. I think I will let the dust settle for a bit. Since I already have the 50D, maybe a better choice for me is the 1D4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Vanecek

Thanks all. I appreciate the comments. I think I will let the dust settle for a bit. Since I already have the 50D, maybe a better choice for me is the 1D4.

---

If your main goal is to photograph wild birds, the Mark IV's noise level is better than the 7D but you also will have to do more cropping with its 1.3x sensor compared to the 7D's 1.6x sensor. This basically equalizes image quality between the two cameras. After post-editing cropping, the Mark IV's images have a tad less noise and a tad less resolution vs. the 7D in this scenario.

The Mark IV also has faster fps (10 vs. 8) and better build quality but is over-priced in my opinion. The 7D is a much better value. But if $$$ is not an issue, the Mark IV is a better option but not by much.

As I have stated on other posts, this comparison only applies to photographing birds from a set distance..something photographers are commonly faced with photographing animals in the wild. If the birds are tame however, walking closer to the bird with the Mark IV wins hands-down.

I cannot speak for Nikon, but from what I have seen their cameras have less noise but lower resolution. I'd rather have the higher resolution and apply noise reduction where needed in an image.

I've owned/own 40Ds, 50D, 1D Mark III, 5D Mark II and of course the 7D. The 7D is currently my camera of choice for bird photography and is the best out of the bunch.

Alan

Alan,

Thank you for your comments. I am going to rent a 7D and Canon EF 400mm DO f/4 for a week and see how they do. The 1.6 multiplier is nice to have.

One thing I forgot to add in favor of the 1D series is that they will focus with lens/teleconverters up to f/8 vs. f/5.6 on the 7D. Of course adding an extra TC or 2x TC comes with a price...a little less light and it does degrade the image slightly. Usually the image degradation is made up by the greater magnification however.

I think renting the camera/lens is a great idea. Be sure to shoot images in RAW and I'd suggest converting them with Canon's DPP software or the latest Adobe ACR software version 5.6.

Alan

Mike -

My long lens/camera combination of choice is the 7D and the 400DO with & without the 1.4x. IMHO, it's a fabulous combination capable of delivering superb images. I'd be very surprised if you didn't love it!

I think it is clear that the D3s will give a better high ISO performance than the 1D IV as it has less pixel and a considerably larger sensor.
Canon should introduce a 12 MP FF camera with similar qualities.

As for the 7D, I love mine. The AF alone is worth the upgrade from my 40D (the 50D has a very similar AF as far as I know). It is very good (not D3s good, probably but that one costs 4,500 Euros) and I have a lot more sharp flight shots than with the EOS 40D (which was not bad for it's class, either).
The 8fps are also a bonus.

Markus

Markus do you think that a 7D with a 300 2.8 + TC could be a good choose for wildlife and bird photography?

p.s. atm I can't afford a 500 F4

For the 1DMK4 and D3s we talk about pro camera in the $5,000.00 price (or around, as some like very precise affirmation, I don't). compared to 7D and 50D those are in other league. For the price the 7D are very good, the AF are fast and precise. The 63 zone metering are very good and the automatism are close to excellent, but handle less the extreme compared to the 1D3. The Aps-c lack the finesse, light and 3D feeling of a bigger sensor, but the image quality are very high and better compared to the 50D one. Noise? yes there are, but you don't see it in the printing. You ended with a very fine image print with tons of details. I ususaly don't like too much Mpx. And I was very desapointed with the 50D, but this time Canon make change my mind. I try the combo 7D and 300mmf2.8 +tc1.4 yesterday on very fast car at the end of the day. the Af are very nervous and precise. all shot in focus. when I change fastly of target, the AF grab close to instantly and follow the target. I don't have anymore a 1D to compared, but from memory it is on par, if not better.
(AF: basic Ai servo, center point, no expension,at f5.6 iso 800)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniele Morasca

Markus do you think that a 7D with a 300 2.8 + TC could be a good choose for wildlife and bird photography?

p.s. atm I can't afford a 500 F4

---

I love my 7D + 300 2/8 + 2.0X!!

Would not the 400 DO be an acceptable alternative:

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 537pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=717 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 86pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4205" width=115><COL style="WIDTH: 53pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 2596" width=71><COL style="WIDTH: 49pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 2377" width=65><COL style="WIDTH: 56pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 2742" width=75><COL style="WIDTH: 80pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 3913" width=107><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" width=64><COL style="WIDTH: 165pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 8045" width=220><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl68 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; WIDTH: 86pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=115 height=17>400mm f/4 DO IS</TD><TD class=xl66 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; WIDTH: 53pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=71 x:num="5300">$5,300.00</TD><TD class=xl65 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; WIDTH: 49pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=65>5.0 inch</TD><TD class=xl65 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; WIDTH: 56pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=75>9.2 inch</TD><TD class=xl65 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; WIDTH: 80pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=107>4.3 lbs. (1940g)</TD><TD class=xl65 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64></TD><TD class=xl65 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; WIDTH: 165pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=220>52mm Drop-in</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD class=xl68 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>300mm f/2.8L IS</TD><TD class=xl66 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="4599">$4,599.00</TD><TD class=xl65 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">5.0 inch</TD><TD class=xl67 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">9.9 inch</TD><TD class=xl65 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">5.6 lbs (2,520g)</TD><TD class=xl65 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">8.2 ft</TD><TD class=xl65 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">52mm Drop-in</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You put a 1.4TC on the 300 and you have a 420mm f/4. I have never used the 300/f2.8, but the 400 DO is lighter and a bit smaller?

And one stop less light when needed. That said, Artie and many love the 400 DO. If I had to do it over I am not sure what I would do; however, there have definitely been times when I shot the 300 at 2.8.

Having said that you can push the ISO to make up for the loss of an f/stop and if you have the 1D4 you have even more latitude than with the 7D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Stankevitz

As I have stated on other posts, this comparison only applies to photographing birds from a set distance..something photographers are commonly faced with photographing animals in the wild. If the birds are tame however, walking closer to the bird with the Mark IV wins hands-down.

---

Alan,
Note that with a 1D camera you can also have AF at f/8, effectively allowing you to get closer than the difference in pixel pitch. So for example, with a 500 f/4 + 1.4x TC on a 7D, versus 500 +2x TC on 1D IV, I would take the 500+2x.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniele Morasca

Markus do you think that a 7D with a 300 2.8 + TC could be a good choose for wildlife and bird photography?

p.s. atm I can't afford a 500 F4

---

I have never used a 2.8/300 but I think this would make a great combination. Many photographers use a 2.8/300 + 1.4x and 2x for wildlife photography.

BTW, I just come accross this blog post about what is the best investment by Moose Peterson. A very interesting read and a great fit for this thread:

http://moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=12697

Markus

Hey Mike sent you a PM about ETL posting, check it out.

Thanks to all for the feedback.

At the moment only have the 300mm, I will buy a TC 1.4x or 2.0x really soon, before the next trip in Azores.

I hope to post some shoot soon :)

I don´t understand how you can compare the 1D4 with D3/D3s when the D3 is fullframe! Especially when you compare the noise!??

/M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

Alan,
Note that with a 1D camera you can also have AF at f/8, effectively allowing you to get closer than the difference in pixel pitch. So for example, with a 500 f/4 + 1.4x TC on a 7D, versus 500 +2x TC on 1D IV, I would take the 500+2x.

Roger

---

Hi Roger,

Yup, I forgot to write that and did so on a follow-up in the thread. You will lose a bit of light however.

Thanks,

Alan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnus Thornberg

I don´t understand how you can compare the 1D4 with D3/D3s when the D3 is fullframe! Especially when you compare the noise!??

/M

---

Actually, you can compare them. Take a series of photos at different ISO's from a set distance with cameras, then take the originals and crop them to frame the subject identically using either 300ppi or 400ppi or whatever as long as the ppi is the same. Depending on the crop, some images may be upsampled or downsampled. Not a big deal as long as the framing/cropping is identical.

For more fun, you can do a side-by-side-by-side comparison of the 7D, D3s and Mark IV by downloading the images found here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hirokik/sets/

Hiroki has taken all sorts of night comparison shots with all three. "NR-" indicates no noise reduction was applied. "NR" indicates noise reduction was applied. Make sure you compare them with the same -NR or NR.

Download the original images and then crop them in Photoshop using 300 ppi or 400 ppi, whatever you prefer. Be sure to crop them identically so they are framed the same. Why would you do this? This would be similar to what a photographer would do after photographing a bird from a set distance with all three cameras.

Compare the final output and post your findings. I'd be curious as to what you find.

Alan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay Gould

I love my 7D + 300 2/8 + 2.0X!!

---

I also shoot with this combo and like it very much - the 300/2.8 +2x makes a nice 600/5.6 and if you use one of the focus limiter settings on the lens the AF is very good with the 7D.

I have a 1D MKIII and a 7D and borrowed a MKIV from a friend from Hong Kong and took them all out for a day on the birds at our local Treatment Plant.

I noticed NO difference in the focus abilities between the MKIII and the MKIV the 7D was a LITTLE more likely to lose focus that the other two when tracking fast moving birds.

High ISO noise was slightly better on the MKIV than the MKIII BUT low ISO noise on the MKIII seemed much better that the MKIV.

All things considered and being that I can't get a definite date on my pre ordered MKIV I have cancelled the order and am buying a 2nd 5DMKII and a new MKIII still in stock for the same price as a MKIV if they ever get them in at my dealer.

The 7D is the best bang for the buck apart from the 5DMKII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

Alan,
Note that with a 1D camera you can also have AF at f/8, effectively allowing you to get closer than the difference in pixel pitch. So for example, with a 500 f/4 + 1.4x TC on a 7D, versus 500 +2x TC on 1D IV, I would take the 500+2x.

Roger

---

1120mm 7d combo v 1300mm mk4 combo but the 7d has 2mp more would there be any diffrence in image size .
also the 7d combo imo would be sharper and i think would focus faster .
Im just wondering why you would pick the mk4 combo .

I ask as i was going to buy a mk4 but finding it hard to get one over the 7d and 500f4isL i have now ,i also have the mk3 btw.
Rob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Hardy

1120mm 7d combo v 1300mm mk4 combo but the 7d has 2mp more would there be any diffrence in image size .
also the 7d combo imo would be sharper and i think would focus faster .
Im just wondering why you would pick the mk4 combo .

I ask as i was going to buy a mk4 but finding it hard to get one over the 7d and 500f4isL i have now ,i also have the mk3 btw.
Rob.

---

(For those jumping in, the above refers to 7D+500mm+1.4xTC versus 1D4+500mm+2xTC.)

I see you've applied crop factors. Crop factors only apply to field of view, not resolution on the subject. For example, a bird small in the frame, which camera gives more detail on the bird.
The key metric is true focal length and pixel pitch: 7D = 4.3 microns, 1D3 =5.7 microns

Angular size of a pixel (smaller is finer resolution): pixel pitch / focal length.
Convert pixel pitch to mm (= microns/1000):

7D+500mm+1.4x: 0.0043/700 = 0.0000061 = 6.1 microradians

1D4+500mm+2x: 0.0057/1000 = 0.0000057 = 5.7 microradians.

So the 1D4 setup will get more pixels on the subject (6.1/5.7 = 1.07x).

More on crop factor myths:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/cropfactor/

Personally I think the 1D4's larger pixels will produce better images, plus it has better high ISO performance, and the 45 point AF, more rugged, etc.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

(For those jumping in, the above refers to 7D+500mm+1.4xTC versus 1D4+500mm+2xTC.)

I see you've applied crop factors. Crop factors only apply to field of view, not resolution on the subject. For example, a bird small in the frame, which camera gives more detail on the bird.
The key metric is true focal length and pixel pitch: 7D = 4.3 microns, 1D3 =5.7 microns

Angular size of a pixel (smaller is finer resolution): pixel pitch / focal length.
Convert pixel pitch to mm (= microns/1000):

7D+500mm+1.4x: 0.0043/700 = 0.0000061 = 6.1 microradians

1D4+500mm+2x: 0.0057/1000 = 0.0000057 = 5.7 microradians.

So the 1D4 setup will get more pixels on the subject (6.1/5.7 = 1.07x).

More on crop factor myths:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/cropfactor/

Personally I think the 1D4's larger pixels will produce better images, plus it has better high ISO performance, and the 45 point AF, more rugged, etc.

Roger

---

Many thanks and i agree the mk4 should produce a better image moreso at higher iso's but it really is close regarding the image you end up with given the cost of the mk4 over the 7d .
Rob.