I need a new body: 7D or 1D Mk III?

I'm sure this is a topic that gets posted here relatively frequently but search didn't help and the only comparison thread I saw in the last few months was 1d4 vs 7d. I am in need of a new body; my 40d just isn't cutting it anymore and I've been looking to upgrade. I don't have the cash or open credit line to afford a 1d4 so that's out of the question but second hand 7d's and 1d3's are pretty close cost-wise and I'd like some advice on which way to go. I still feel a bit of regret for getting the 40d when I found out I could have just got a 1d2 for about the same money and I'd like to avoid the same mistake. I'd be shooting primarily birds, natch, and I'm mostly looking at better low-light performance. Is the iq, f/8 focusing and 45pt AF worth paying a bit more for, or is the reach, expanded ISO range, more modern processor and extra pixels a better deal?

Related question about lenses: I currently have a 400mm f5.6 prime and have been thinking of selling it and replacing it with a 300mm f2.8 + extenders. Is this a good option for someone with a relatively limited budget? It seems like a good combination of versatility and reach but I don't know if IQ would suffer greatly with the tele's.

Hi Steve- The 7D and 1DIII are quite different animals as you are probably aware. The 7D will lay more pixels over your subject than any other current DSLR, whereas the 1DIII is equivalent to a 6.4 mp camera with the same crop factor. That's a big difference which will limit your reach. Plenty of super images have been made with both cameras but you have to ask yourself why you would go with the 1DIII over the 7D. Do you need the 3 fps extra speed? Do you need the extra ruggedness and weatherproofing of the 1DIII? Do you want the extra weight?

If you really want a pro body I would be on the lookout for a used 1DIV. They should be available when the 1Dx starts shipping. I am biased because I own one, but I think the 1DIV is the best all-round camera for wildlife photography out there right now, and this situation is unlikely to change in the short to medium term, given what is coming down the pipe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveYoung

I'm sure this is a topic that gets posted here relatively frequently but search didn't help and the only comparison thread I saw in the last few months was 1d4 vs 7d. I am in need of a new body; my 40d just isn't cutting it anymore and I've been looking to upgrade. I don't have the cash or open credit line to afford a 1d4 so that's out of the question but second hand 7d's and 1d3's are pretty close cost-wise and I'd like some advice on which way to go. I still feel a bit of regret for getting the 40d when I found out I could have just got a 1d2 for about the same money and I'd like to avoid the same mistake. I'd be shooting primarily birds, natch, and I'm mostly looking at better low-light performance. Is the iq, f/8 focusing and 45pt AF worth paying a bit more for, or is the reach, expanded ISO range, more modern processor and extra pixels a better deal?

Related question about lenses: I currently have a 400mm f5.6 prime and have been thinking of selling it and replacing it with a 300mm f2.8 + extenders. Is this a good option for someone with a relatively limited budget? It seems like a good combination of versatility and reach but I don't know if IQ would suffer greatly with the tele's.

---

Steve,
I agree with John. I currently own a 1DIV, 5DII, 1DII and 7D. The 7D was my most recent purchase (after the 1DIV). In my opinion, the 7D is the next camera to get for those needing telephoto reach and can't afford a 1DIV. I also own a 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 (both L IS). I turn more and more to the 300 f/2.8 over the 500. The 300 is a great lens and works well with TCs. The 300 was my lens of choice for my last African safari and will be on my next one (along with 7D and 1DIV). The 7D is a much more modern sensor with higher image quality over the 1DIII. If I had to choose between a 1DIII and 7D, I would choose the 7D. If I had to choose between 7D and 1DIV, I would choose the 1DIV. When I'm on safari and I need more reach than the 1DIV+2x + 300, I'll turn to the 7D +2x + 300.

Roger

Thank you both, that is incredibly helpful. I had myself convinced on the 7D up until I went to buy one and then started second-guessing myself. Looks like I'm gonna stick with the 7D and start saving my pennies for a 300mm 2.8. Another question for you, Roger - does the AF suffer much on your 300 + 2x tele on the 7D? I've noticed considerable slowdown on focus speeds when I've used an extender but I'm not sure if its the 40d, the lens I was using or both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveYoung

Thank you both, that is incredibly helpful. I had myself convinced on the 7D up until I went to buy one and then started second-guessing myself. Looks like I'm gonna stick with the 7D and start saving my pennies for a 300mm 2.8. Another question for you, Roger - does the AF suffer much on your 300 + 2x tele on the 7D? I've noticed considerable slowdown on focus speeds when I've used an extender but I'm not sure if its the 40d, the lens I was using or both.

---

Hi Steve,
First the 300 f/2.8 is one of canon's fastest lenses for AF speed. Adding a TC does slow down the AF. My tests of AF speed on 1DII, 7D, 5DII show them to be the same within hand timing,with only the 1DIV showing significant improvement. As the 40D is newer than the 1DII, I would expect the 40D would be similar. So, you'll not likely see a huge difference in AF speed with your current lenses. But AF speed with the 300 f/2.8 should show improvement, and the f/2.8 f/ratio will deliver more accurate focus.

Roger

Hi Steve love your question..I have the 50D and 400.5.6 love the combo but whant more also..and i use the 1.4 with it..I dont think upgrading to the 7D will be that much difference from a 50D.. SO ime waiting for the 8D...and hopping for more megapixels and faster frame rate..expecting the 7D to be replaced soon..as for a 300 2.8 +2x tc or was that a 400 .f4+1.4..lol

Steve you mentioned that you were mostly looking for improved low light ability compared to your 40D, you have been given all the advantages of the 7D but I am thinking if low light shooting is your main priority you might prefer the 1DIII.

The 1DIII also offers 2 card slots, built in vertical controls, faster frame rate, longer shutter life expectancy, more bracketing options for HDR, buttons for mode switching rather than dials that may be moved inadvertantly.

I would just be little carefull buying a 1D lll....Many many reports of AF problems..E.J.Peiker says.. He whent through 9 mark lll bodies all with autofocus issues....I beleive you have to find a body with serial #54 or greater and the box should have a blue round sticker near the bar code...Used prices in montreal quebec...7D- 900$..5D mkll-1600$...1Dmklll-1700$...Ime very tempted for a second hand full frame 5Dll..I may be getting less pixels on the subject but they are larger cleaner? pixels....Roger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brian simpson

I would just be little carefull buying a 1D lll....Many many reports of AF problems..E.J.Peiker says.. He whent through 9 mark lll bodies all with autofocus issues....I beleive you have to find a body with serial #54 or greater and the box should have a blue round sticker near the bar code...Used prices in montreal quebec...7D- 900$..5D mkll-1600$...1Dmklll-1700$...Ime very tempted for a second hand full frame 5Dll..I may be getting less pixels on the subject but they are larger cleaner? pixels....Roger?

---

True but .. I bought a used one from Adorama about 2 years ago that works fine, no issues....I have posted many images here that you can check.

I recently traded my old 40D for a 1d MKIV but I kept my 1d III .... I like the images it produces and I suspect it will have less noise at high ISO than a 7D so if that were the primary concern I would recommend the 1d III over the 7D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

Steve you mentioned that you were mostly looking for improved low light ability compared to your 40D, you have been given all the advantages of the 7D but I am thinking if low light shooting is your main priority you might prefer the 1DIII.

---

This is a common misconception (that larger pixels produce better low light ability). People often confuse pixels on subject and noise. The 7D with its finer pixels, delivers more pixels on the subject with a given lens, but like slicing up a pie, there is only so much light (as only so much pie). If one needs low light ability, take off a TC so there is more light per pixel. When one compares the same number of pixels on the subject, the 7D will come out ahead because of the more modern, more efficient sensor compared to the 40D, 50D, 1DIII etc. I've written extensively about this subject here on BPN, and more details at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...m.performance/

See Figure 10 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...x.html#DENSITY
and note how low the 1DIII plots compared to the 7D (and 1DIV).

Roger

Not trying be argumentative and I don't know a fraction of the science that Roger does .... I said nothing about pixel size or pixels on subject, merely that the 1D III as a whole camera system may offer better low light performance than a 7D and the original post described that as the main priority.....if that is wrong I apologize:S3:

I can talk only my personal experience. I got convinced by NSN shoters to buy a used 1D Mark III and I did.
I used it for a year and hand excellent eperience with it.
I would shoot at ISO 1250 and the noise still wasn't an issue. I always used it on the 500 f4.0 lens.
Then I bought a 7D to be used on the 300 f2.8 for BIF shooting. (lighter package)
I returned the 7D in less then 14 days. (noise issue above ISO 400) I'm very picky about noise.
Then I bought the new 1D Mark IV and the Mark III stayed home most of the time, so I sold it.
I have a second copy of the 7D that I virtually never use, it is a backup.
If you can afford it, go for the MarkIV, even used. It is such a sweet camera.
If you can't then 7D is a good one if you keep the ISO at around 400.
The replacement of the 7D should come out pretty soon.

I can't get the quote function to work on this forum for some reason? Anyway -

Joel - "The 1DIII also offers 2 card slots, built in vertical controls, faster frame rate, longer shutter life expectancy, more bracketing options for HDR, buttons for mode switching rather than dials that may be moved inadvertantly."

These were some of the reasons I was having second thoughts about the 7d, along with the f8 AF which would let me use my current 400 f5.6 with a 1.4x tele. Turns out, there's a reason Canon disables AF on non-pro bodies with lenses smaller than f4 :) But Roger's incredibly detailed examination that he posted makes me think that the 7d, which I can get second-hand with a grip for a little less than a 1d3, is probably the best way to go for now, at least until I can save up for what seems to be the universally adored 1d4. Although Karl's got me worried again; the main issue I'm having with the 40d is noise at relatively low ISO's like 400 even with perfectly exposed images. I don't mind running NR on backgrounds and such but I want my subjects to be clean.

Here are some basics.

1DIII: 7.2 micron pixels
7D: 4.3 micron pixels, but collects about 1.5 times the light per square mm as the 1DIII

Given a subject (e.g. bird) that is 1000 pixels tall with a 1DIII + 1.4x TC, then use the 7D with no TC and you get 1000 * (7.2/4.3)/1.4 = 1196 pixels on the subject. The 1DIII is doing AF at f/8 (slow), the 7D at f/5.6 (faster), and with the more efficient pixels the 7D gets more light per pixel in the same exposure time. The 7D produces the better image.

I do agree that the capability of a 1D series camera is better (more AF points to select from, weather sealing etc.) but the sensor quality of older generation models is simply not up to the level of the newer sensors.

Many comparisons I see use the same lens parameters (e.g. same lens, same focal length, same ISO, same shutter speed) but that is not an equal test as the pixels on subject is then different. To equalize pixels on subject, on would need a (7.2/4.3=) 1.67x TC. Any test should be about equalizing the image. The image is what matters, not the lens parameters. Think of it this way: the 7D has a built in 1.67x TC compared to a 1DIII. So any test, add a 1.4x TC to the 1DIII and shoot the subject with the same aperture (lens diameter to get the same amount of light) same exposure time, and then one would see that the 7D gives a few more pixels on subject and better noise than a 1DIII. (!!!)

A 1DIV, has 5.7 micron pixels, so the 7D is like having a (5.7/4.3=) 1.33x TC. So a 1.4x TC on a lens with the 1DIV gets slightly more pixels on subject than a 7D with no TC. The sensor efficiencies are about the same, so the signal-to-noise ratios are about the same. I show that in the Etendue thread I referenced above.

Photography is neck deep in confusing ratios. Even ISO is a ratio (and ISO has nothing to do with sensitivity). The ratios just cause confusion. It is kind of like saying I have two bank accounts and the ratio of the money in the accounts is 8. That doesn't tell me the true story of how much money I have. Same with ratios in photography (f/ratios, ISO, crop factor). Digital photography is exposing the problems with all these ratios.

Roger

Hi Steve
I am sure you have enough from the very informative and thoughtful posts above to make your decision, and for sure, I believe that the best solution for you would be a used 1dmk4, but it might be worth your while to hire a 1D3 and a 7d for a day, and just get an idea of how they compare, both in the hand, and imagery, as only you can ultimately decide which is best suited to your needs.
My wife and I have owned 30,40,50D bodies, as well as 3X 7D bodies. We currently shoot with a pair of 1Dmk3 bodies, a 5Dmk2 and a 1Dmk4, which is the best wildlife and bird camera I have ever used.
Grant Atkinson
www.grantatkinson.com

Steve,

As a past owner of a MKIII, and current owner of the MKIV and 7D, my thoughts.

I bought the MKIII new when it first came out. AF problems galore and one plus year back and forth to Canon for all the fixes. And I was still never satisfied with AF the way I was with my previous MKIID. When I purchased a 7D (upgrade from the 50D) and used its new AF system, I thought MKIII with 7D AF, that would be killer camera.

MKIII noise to ISO 1600 is great. I used to shoot it at ISO 800 all the time. I fret going over ISO 400 with the 7D. Its sweet spot for me is ISO 200 which is more then fast enough for most daylight photography of birds so serves my purposes well. AF wize, this is one killer camera.

MKIV is great at high ISO. I made images at ISO 3200 with it last weekend and noise correction there was on par with the 7D and ISO 800.

Personally speaking, I would go with the 7D and learn how to deal with the noise. If you exposure to the right, it is mostly luminance noise in the BG's that is an issue. The difference in the AF systems, too me, make that an easy recommendation. Later on move up to a used MKIV. I sold the MKIII and purchased a used MKIV.

A few years ago, I did a side-by-side image comparison between the 1D Mark III and 7D, photographing birds. Here's a link to the pdf:

http://iwishicouldfly.com/iwishicoul...Mark%20III.pdf


Also, don't downplay the use of video. The 7D has excellent HD video capability whereas the Mark III does not have video capability.

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com

Robert - "Personally speaking, I would go with the 7D and learn how to deal with the noise. If you exposure to the right, it is mostly luminance noise in the BG's that is an issue. The difference in the AF systems, too me, make that an easy recommendation. Later on move up to a used MKIV."

This is the plan. I just purchased a 7D + BGE7 grip on ebay last night ($1150 shipped for the curious) and I'm planning on upgrading again to a 1D4 in around a year or so once the new generation bodies are out and saturating the market. I had been considering potential AF problems with the 1D3, too. Another frustration with my 40d has been the poor AF performance. I had to throw away about 75% of my shots from yesterday for soft focus that should not have been an issue. Very annoying.

Alan - That's a great field comparison! I wish I'd seen it before I bought the 7D but luckily it confirms my purchase. I don't see myself using video much, but who knows, maybe having that availability will make it more enticing.

Roger,

I've tried my best( on several ocassions) to understand your points and I probably not "completely get it" but "sorta get it" :-) When you say, people change different things, compare noise and attribute it to small pixels....I think this is what you say

Here is how a bird photographer does a test:

1. 7D. 500mm. f/8. 1/2000. iso 800
2. 1D mark IV. 500mm + 1.4x. f/8. 1/2000. iso 800.

bird photographer's conclusion: exposure is same. noise is better in #2. Hence, 1DmarkIV has better ISO performance than 7D.

What you say is that that is not the right comparison. In #1, the aperture is 62.5mm. In #2, the aperture is 87.5mm. Photons-per-pixel is better in #2. Hence, noise is less. Most photographers think about f-ratio and not aperture. Am I on the right track understanding you?

You'd do the test as follows:

1a. 7D. 500mm. f/8. 1/2000. iso 800. aperture is 62.5mm
2a. 1D mark IV. 500mm + 1.4x. f/11. 1/2000. iso 1600. f-stop is f/11 because that is needed to make the aperture close to 62.5( 700/11 = 63.63). ISO had to be increased to 1600 so as not to overexpose.

And then in 1a and 2a, you contend that noise is similar. That is because exposure time and aperture are same. Is my understanding correct? I know we had a big thread on this topic a while back. There was some back and forth on how can we apply this in field, etc. etc. For now, I am just trying to make sure I understand both sides.

Roger,

I think wide-open might be better to understand your position.

Is this how you would test and compare noise?

1b. 7D. 500mm. f/4. 1/2000. iso 400. aperture is 125mm

2b. 1D mark IV. 500mm + 1.4x. f/5.6. 1/2000. iso 800...increased to prevent underexposure. aperture is 125mm.

In your opinion, noise would be similar in 1b and 2b?

Or am I doing a bad job of dumbing this down? From what I understand, you are saying keep aperture( not f-stop)/SS combination same and compare the noise...rather than f-stop/SS/ISO combo that most people keep same in their tests.

just to clarify...we are only talking about situation where you cannot get closer. question is 'Does '7D+bare lens' give same noise-level as '1DmarkIV+lens+1.4xTC' ?'

Roger, let me add a practical situation to try and understand how to apply this theory.

Say, I am sitting at the edge of the pond and I have the opportunity of photographing a wood duck in flight.

option A: use 1D mark IV + 500 +1.4x. light is such that I will need 1/2000, f/5.6, iso 800. wide-open.
option B: use 7D + 500. 1/2000. f/4. iso 400. that will give me same exposure and DOF.

In your opinion, the noise levels should be pretty similar in both shots?

option C: use 7D + 500 +1.4x. 1/2000. f/5.6. iso 800. that will give me same exposure and DOF. bird larger in frame and more pixels-per-duck, of course.

option C will have more details and also more noise. correct?

let us assume BG is not tricky and AF in both camers is able to nail the situation.

I can see that there are many fans of the 7D.
As I couln't sell mine despite of the very low actuation count, I decided to keep it and give it a good work out every once in a while.
I'm just not willing to squander it.
I'll use it at ISO 200-400 and I'm pretty sure it'll work just fine.
I know my wife uses her and comes up with amazing BIF shots of even small birds like Swallows and Red-winged Blackbirds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande

Roger,

I think wide-open might be better to understand your position.

Is this how you would test and compare noise?

1b. 7D. 500mm. f/4. 1/2000. iso 400. aperture is 125mm

2b. 1D mark IV. 500mm + 1.4x. f/5.6. 1/2000. iso 800...increased to prevent underexposure. aperture is 125mm.

In your opinion, noise would be similar in 1b and 2b?'

---

Hello Kaustubh,
Yes, 1b and 2b would produce close to identical results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande

Or am I doing a bad job of dumbing this down? From what I understand, you are saying keep aperture( not f-stop)/SS combination same and compare the noise...rather than f-stop/SS/ISO combo that most people keep same in their tests.

just to clarify...we are only talking about situation where you cannot get closer. question is 'Does '7D+bare lens' give same noise-level as '1DmarkIV+lens+1.4xTC' ?'

---

Yes, an excellent example. I would note however, that ISO plays a minor role. ISO only changes the range of signal level to digitize, and it does not change how much light is collected.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande

Roger,

I've tried my best( on several ocassions) to understand your points and I probably not "completely get it" but "sorta get it" :-) When you say, people change different things, compare noise and attribute it to small pixels....I think this is what you say

Here is how a bird photographer does a test:

1. 7D. 500mm. f/8. 1/2000. iso 800
2. 1D mark IV. 500mm + 1.4x. f/8. 1/2000. iso 800.

bird photographer's conclusion: exposure is same. noise is better in #2. Hence, 1DmarkIV has better ISO performance than 7D.

What you say is that that is not the right comparison. In #1, the aperture is 62.5mm. In #2, the aperture is 87.5mm. Photons-per-pixel is better in #2. Hence, noise is less. Most photographers think about f-ratio and not aperture. Am I on the right track understanding you?

---

Yes, perfect!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande

You'd do the test as follows:

1a. 7D. 500mm. f/8. 1/2000. iso 800. aperture is 62.5mm
2a. 1D mark IV. 500mm + 1.4x. f/11. 1/2000. iso 1600. f-stop is f/11 because that is needed to make the aperture close to 62.5( 700/11 = 63.63). ISO had to be increased to 1600 so as not to overexpose.

And then in 1a and 2a, you contend that noise is similar. That is because exposure time and aperture are same. Is my understanding correct? I know we had a big thread on this topic a while back. There was some back and forth on how can we apply this in field, etc. etc. For now, I am just trying to make sure I understand both sides.

---

Correct again. Note, however, in 2a, the camera could be ISO 800 too (it will not change the photons collected and the noise, e.g. on an 18% gray card, would remain the same).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande

Roger, let me add a practical situation to try and understand how to apply this theory.

Say, I am sitting at the edge of the pond and I have the opportunity of photographing a wood duck in flight.

option A: use 1D mark IV + 500 +1.4x. light is such that I will need 1/2000, f/5.6, iso 800. wide-open.
option B: use 7D + 500. 1/2000. f/4. iso 400. that will give me same exposure and DOF.

---

Yes, these two images would be very close in pixels on subject, DOF and noise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande

In your opinion, the noise levels should be pretty similar in both shots?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande

option C: use 7D + 500 +1.4x. 1/2000. f/5.6. iso 800. that will give me same exposure and DOF. bird larger in frame and more pixels-per-duck, of course.

option C will have more details and also more noise. correct?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande

let us assume BG is not tricky and AF in both camers is able to nail the situation.

---

Yes, the images would be nearly identical. Exception: the fixed pattern noise in the shadows will be much less in the 1DIV image so would be judged the better image. While the 7D has more fixed pattern noise than the 1DIV, it still has less fixed pattern noise than older generation sensors.

Roger