CANON 7D VS 5D MARK II which will give better results for wild life and birds in fligt

[billbutcher]

I was wondering how much of a difference there is between the 7d and 5dmii when it comes to IQ and prints . Will the IQ be fairly close . I am interested in birds , birds in flight and wildlife mostly . Low light performance may be a plus do to early day light i shoot with a 20d now and find i generally end up shooting at iso 800 or higher to maintain a fast enough shutter speed . i use a 300 L 4.0 , until i can get a 400 5.6 L .
I was contemplating upgrading my camera body in an attempt to get sharper shots , and a higher keeper ration of shots taken. Will noise be a huge down factor for the 7d, or is it something that you can deal with without loosing to much IQ i print in a 11x14 size most of the time . i know with the 20 d it seems like the birds look sharp in the view finder but that the focus is slightly soft all the time and tracking moving birds is tough , especially smaller birds. I have heard so many bad reviews about the noise and IQ of the 7d and it makes me nervous . maybe there is a better camera that i should upgrade too . I have even considered the D300S nikon as its supposed to have a superior focus system .

[Jamie Douglas]

Hi Bill, I dont want to tackle all your questions but I am curious about this sentence...

"I was contemplating upgrading my camera body in an attempt to get sharper shots , and a higher keeper ration of shots taken."

Upgrading your camera wont give you sharper shots, I got sharp perfectly good shots with my rebel xti but moved to a 7D because I needed the fps, AF, and ISO performance. When you say you want to upgrade because you want to increase your "keeper" shots what in the past has made them not good enough? Sharp shots come from practice and good technique not camera body.

People say the 70-200 with a 2x extender gives bad results but this is my effort taken from a boat at F5.6 1/80 ISO 800 using an xti... http://jmdouglasphotography.zenfolio...d4ca#h1d5ed4ca

If your shooting wildlife in low light then the IQ and ISO of the Mark II is superior from the results I have seen of slow moving and stationary subjects (this comment isnt suppossed to provoke a new discussion ;) )

[billbutcher]

in reply to sharpness issue ,it is in my humble opinion that the 20d images do not come out of the camera sharp but require post process to achieve this . I am looking for a camera that gives results like what you see in the view finder when you take the shot .
When i refer t o poor image qaulity i amreferring to lack of fine details like in feathers etc or sharp clear eyes . Now i have found that by upping the shutter speed significantly has helped a lot , and the purchase of my first L lens a 300 4.0 has really helped . when i used my used tamron lens the images were way softer . like the focus was off or something . Now with the L glass i see the objects sharper in the view finder as well as get much sharper images , with less sharpening in PP . i am trying to increase the number of sharp images I get and was thinking that an upgrade to a slightly newer body may also improve the focus tracking and IQ especailly at iso like 1600, and 3200 which is what i generally use when trying to use hgher shutter speeds early and late in the day . My goal with upgrading the body is to have better ability to get the most out of the lens by being able to better focus track birds in flight etc. Maybe there isn't much of an improvement from the 20d ,and technique makes a difference but i was hoping the 7d or maybe a 5d Mark II .might improve upon what i am currently getting

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Bill. If your main concern is IQ at higher ISOs then I would definitely go for the full-frame body. If AF tracking is the main concern, I think the 7D would win out. Maybe tomorrow Canon will announce a new full-frame body at Photokina that would give us both of these things in one camera!

Cheers,
Greg

[Doug Brown]

I think you'll find a 300mm lens on a FF body to be a little short on reach. I know a few people who use a 5D II for BIF, but they've all got longer glass. The 7D will give you what you're looking for more than likely. That said, I don't think you'll be thrilled with ISO 1600-3200 on the 7D; I'm usually packing up my gear by the time I hit those kinds of ISOs. Why don't you post an average BIF shot in this thread, along with your EXIF data. Technique has everything to do with the quality of BIF shots you get.

[billbutcher]

I just shot some shots of song birds in my back yard and i realized that if i shoot at ISO 200 , or say 400 or lower with my 20d it appears that there is more fine details in the feathers , but its harder to maintain a fast enough shutter speed to keep beaks and eyes tack sharp. It seems when you go over 400 iso you see less and less fine details in the feathers . So i started ?ing whether or not i would have better luck with a newer camera body , especally after looking at fred miranda and seeing shots taken with a 1mark iv , which i know is way out of my price range but wow the humming birds he shot the feathers you could see all the fine veining , they were awesome . not sure i could get that with my 20d , unless i am missing something ? maybe i need to set up artificial lights to more fully illuminate the area then try shooting at iso 200 or 400 and see what happens .
i use a 300 4.o L LENS . All in all most of my shots with the 20d seem to lack that very fine details. i saw a guy with a D300S and his shots of bald eagles were absolutly stunning using a tamron 200-500 i think , the fine feathering was incrediable am i missing something? Sure most of his shots were from a tripod mine are from a mono pod or hand held with IS , but even on a tripod i don't seem to get those fine details.
so which camera under $3000 would produce better fine feather details fur details etc ? or is it lens or software that makes this happen .i realize most people do a lot of PP to achieve this . the nikon guy with the D300S were straight out of the camera .
i also need a camera that would be able to focus track a moving bird .The 20d is ok but tends to miss focus some what ,and i heard that with a newer body i would get better tracking results ?
I am thinking Nikon D300S as i have only heard praise for this camera , but have some canon lens . am i missing something ? I also would love to be able to shoot in raw so a frame burst of more than the 5 or 6 that the 20d gives before the buffer fills would be a huge plus . thanks Bill B

[Roger Clark]

Bill,

Look at the pixel size of the cameras. The 20D has 8.2 micron pixels, the 7D 4.3 microns. So the 7D will give you 8.2/4.3 = 1.9x more pixels on a subject (linear dimension) than the 20D (or a 1D Mark II). But because the pixels are smaller, they get
1.9*1.9 = 3.6 times less light (like slicing a pie into smaller pieces). Sensor efficiency has been improved about 1.4x, so the 7D records about 2.5 times less photons per pixel with the same lens, ISO and exposure. But more pixels gives more detail, like having 1.9x longer telephoto reach (570 mm compared to your 20D and 300 mm f/4 L lens). So yes, there will be more noise, but a lot more detail. And newer AF has better performance. And the blur filters have been improved, so the images should appear even more detailed than 1.9x over the 20D. If you are still in doubt, photograph a fixed target with your 20D, then move closer by about 2x and increase the ISO 2.5x and image again. Which image (where the images overlap--crop to the same view) do you like better? I'll bet on the 7D equivalent.

Roger

[billbutcher]

How does the noise compare between the 20d and 7d and 5MarkII?
i guess what i mean is i reviewed lots of my old shots and it seems when i shoot the 20d at less than 800 iso and keep a higher shutter speed with say an aperature of 8.0 -or stopped down say to f11 or so the images have a lot more detail especilaly if i shoot them in raw .if i shoot them in Jpeg they look less clean ,as my wife puts it . L glass definatly made a huge difference in IQ and keeper ration of pictures. The lower the ISO the better , but you sacrifice shutter speed so its a huge give and take.9
Now if the 7d has similar noise at say ISO 1600 as the 20d at 400 then maybe it would work . Because i find that i shoot at ISO 1600 and 800 a lot .
the meter is also not as accurate on the 20D inmy opinion ,but i need to learn more about setting it right to get more details but without loosing or blowing highlights . it helps when i turn down the contrast .

Now i love the fact that the 7d has such good focus tracking and metering ,but will the noise drag down the IQ to much ?
I know you can use noise reduction software but it tends to soften the details a little as well.
to see some of the pictures go to
http://billbutcherwildlifeandbirdpho....blogspot.com/

so does the 7d compare with the D300S ? I am trying to create better prints than what i get with my 20d .

[Roger Clark]

Bill,

I'm not sure anyone can answer your question except you. People have different reactions to noise. For example, I personally don't like the noise levels from any digital camera above ISO 200, and don't like the noise at ISO 200 either. I thought velvia 50 had too much grain. But I will use high ISO as needed (800, 1600, etc). So you need to decide for yourself if the noise levels arre OK for you. Try my test above.

For reference, I have 1DII, 5DII, 1DIV and have used/owned 7D, 40D, 30D, 20D, 10D, 60D as well as compact cameras, See also my sensor performance page at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...mance.summary/
I have not used a 7D for bird photography. Images I've taken and seen from 7Ds are noisier but more detailed. In most cases I think the detail would be worth the noise, but others may have a different opinion.

Roger

[billbutcher]

Wow Roger you have really researched this .I looked at your link for noise .
I am lost with all the science .
To try to explain what i am referring about noise and my 20d is ,maybe its not so much noise .
Lets say i am shooting a woodpecker in my back yard at my feeder i am about say 20 feet away using my 20d EF300 4.0 L
i set my ISO to maintian a high shutter speed say 1/1000- 1/1600 so as to not get motion blur from the birds quick albeit small movements . If my ISO goes above say 400 , it seems to me that i loose details in the feathers and eyes and beak , almost like they are soft or as my wife says dirty . now if i shoot in jpeg this is even worse . SO i shoot in raw which opens up a whole differnent can of worms as the buffer fills and stops after 5 shots and sometimes if you are trying to capture the bird in flight or as he skips about you click off those 5 shots pretty quick . anyhow if i shoot at iso 400 or less it seems to me that the images have more fine details in the feathers especially in raw . I am now realizing a lot of this has to do with getting an exact or correct exposure as well. But with the 20d its a very fine line between to much highlight (getting them blown and to dark of shadows etc.)
The noise that i notice most when shooting above 400 and especially over 800 ISO is in the back grounds like if there is a blue sky you can see the noise . now this is easy to clean up with noise removal software , how ever its a fine line between cleaning the back ground and color noise to loosing some of those fine details you are trying to keep.

For me it is becoming more and more important to capture the fine feathering details ,get sharp eyes,beak etc ,and i find that most of the time i end up shooting at aroudn 800iso to 1600iso do to time of yeart and light, over cast etc.

So i am trying to capture as much detail as i can i print ususally to 11x14 sometimes a bit larger depending .

so if i lined up my 20d and the 7d with the same lens ,and shot a subject would the noise be the same at the same iso or is the 7d cleaner ,or given it has more details noise is a non issue . in the end which would give the better printable image of say a birds feathers ,beak ,eyes at iso 800, 1600, 3200? I have seen images from a D300S and they were shot with a cheap tamron 200-500 lens and were awesome tack sharp great details . so maybe it also has to do with focusing as well , as the 20d just seems to be a tad off ,not as noticable with L glass as much as with tamron lens when i used them. So i started thinking it was the glass ,and to be honest my shots are better with L glass , but still lack the details i seek .
if the 7d can produce images as good as the D300S well then i would say that would be awesome .
anyhow i appreciate your help and feedback its greatly appreciated .
owe i shot some humming birds at like 1/2500 iso 800 and the feather details were non existant , then i read an article about shooting them and found that they use flash to stop the action which i also do , but that they use extension tubes with the 20d to fill the frame which from the images i saw seemed to make the difference in gathering the feather details as long as you keep the ISO at 800 or below .so i am going to pratcice and pratice and see if i get anything better , but i still can;t help thinking a camera that can give more details and clean images that don't look as my wife says muddy , they seem like there is something just off they are dull etc ,at say iso 800,1600, and 3200 would be a huge plus as that is what i end up shooting at most of the time .

[billbutcher]

Roger
i am looking at your site . I loved your explanation of photographing a bald eagle and al servo ,and tracking focus .My wife and I travel about 3 hours from our home every winter and spring to watch and photograph the eagles as the migrate through and winter along the open water near Wabasha . How ever my keeper ration is not near as good , and i have trouble sneaking in close enough to the eagles to set up my tripod before they spook and fly . I use a EF300 4.0 L IS and a canon 1.4 tc (this was all i could afford at the time i wished i had more reach but other than a tamron 200-500 there isn't much i could afford except maybe a EF400 5.6 L ,which i am saving to buy once i figure if a new camera body would better serve me .
anyhow i try to set up use my center focus point and alservo mode to track the eagles ,and i will say when i used my tamron 200-400 old film lens on my 20d I got maybe a few ok shots ,but the beak and eyes were not tack sharp usually i got the body more than anything but i was shooting with a 5.6 - 8.0 aperature , but i found with the 300L my keepers went way up i think it works better with my 20d and that it also focuses quicker which helps. I still struggle predicting where the eagles will fly ,and my heart races so much and i get so pumped when i see them i honestly lose track of what i am doing ,but am getting better .
We have been watching them more learning a bit more about them .Like usually they will poop right before taking off when they are scared . They tend to drop a bit at take off . It is so much fun photographing these amazing birds . I have so much to learn about exposure etc to get those awesome shoots like guys like you get .I remeber comparing my shots with those of a guy i met there that was shooting with the D300S and i was embarrassed to show him ,as his were tack sharp through and through and had such pop and he was usuing a 200-500 tamron . my images looked more dingy if that is the right way to explain it where his were clear and just jumped out at you they were so bright and vivid. my wife was like well maybe its the camera body since we were shooting side by side . so it made me think maybe i should save for a 7D , would it along with my 300 l give me better results as my technique improves ?
anyhow it bummed us because here was a large group of people watching the eagles and i had right in front of me two of them fighting in flight over a large fish the one had caught , i spun and tried to shoot them and all i got was a bunch of out of focus shots , when the guy with the D300S well he got a few awesome keepers ... and it made me think is it me , my camera body just being slow to lock focus ,what ..
So now i think of upgrading to a better body , and a 400 5.6 L ,i even thought of that nikon body that d300s what a camera .

anyhow i love your site and will continue to read and learn more ,and try to improve upon my technique .
I know when i first started shooting eagles the over cast skies always messed me up as my images came back gray , and dark the white of the birds head was way to dark , and this also made his eyes, beak dark and dull . Software can only do so much and when you get the white , white the rest of it gets messed up , so i am learning the right exposure off the bat is the only real way to go . I did much better when i switched to the 300 L , i compared meter readings in the same light and noticed the 300 gave me a different reading , which was or seemd to me to be more correct . anyhow again thanks Roger , have lots to learn and have contempleted taking an online course to learn more ,but couldn;t help but think maybe an equipment upgrade would help as well. thanks again for all your help Bill B
owe and when i go to see the eagles our time and money is so limited we usually only get a day or so to stay there so we spend a great deal of time exploring to find where the eagles are then sit and wait ,and the weather , light etc never seems to totally cooperate so we have to shoot when we can which also makes it tougher . If i lived there and had more time i am sure i could shoot in better conditions at better locations and also improve success . But we generally have to hunt find em and just react ... but i am starting to learn the area better now so hopefully next time will be better . Thanks Again Bill Butcher

[Grant Atkinson]

Hi Bill, one thing to consider, when you are looking at images in the screen on the back of your camera, the 20D screen has fewer pixels and much less colour information or detail when compared to the screen on a Nikon D300s or a Canon 7D, you really need to see the D300 images on a computer to compare them with yours and not on the screen. I owned a pair of Canon 7D camera bodies and the images in the screen on the back are definitely benefit from the new screens. I have owned Canon Rebel XT, 30D, 40D, 50D, 7D and currently 5Dmk2. In my experience the 5Dmk2 has much lower noise levels than any of the cameras I owned before, but it is hard to lose your 1.5x crop factor when shooting birds and the 300 with teleconverter might not be long enough...
cheers
Grant

[billbutcher]

No doubt about the LCD on the D300S is way more superior than my 20d not to mention that the d300s has more pixels jammed onto that smaller surface to make the images look awesome . I quickly figured that one out as sometimes when i would shoot something i would review it on the lcd on my 20d and would be like wow that is awesome then download it to my pc and be like what the heck happened this looks loosy . To bad there wasn't a way that the image seen on the lcd could not be transferred and maintain that detail .
Is the noise levels on the 7d bearable ? does it effect over all image qaulity ? do you lose a lot of the details when removing the noise? how does the noise compare to like the 20 or 30d ? I think with the 20D you lose a lot of details ,fine details like feathering etc once you get beyond iso 800 , and even at 800 . i am not sure this is caused by noise , light or what but it is especillay noticable when you shoot in jpeg as my wife quickly pointed out . the raw files have a bit more pop and detail ,than there jpeg counter parts at the same ISO . But my 20d was usuable even up to 3200 for sports and stuff where you had larger subjects so fine details were not as lost or as important ,but with things like small birds you seem to lose alot of the details .
i was looking at the 7d, 5dmark II as an upgrade .
I also realize that focus accuracy may also come into play somewhat with smaller subjects like birds etc ,ad the tree branch they are sitting on will look sharp but there eyes ,beak will look soft, because possibly movement , or maybe its a depth of field issue as well so i am experiementing . but with my 20d i feel some what limited as it seems no matter what i try once i get to ISO 800 or above my IQ falls way off . L glass does help and i am thinking of getting the 400 5.6 for more reach .
that was also something that i was curious about a crop sensor gives you added zoom effect , but a ful frame sensor would fill the frame more or do i have it back wards .because i think as the subjects fill the frame better my fine details are much improved , so i am going to experiement with extension tubes and flash for my humming birds and see if that will help as well.

its s tough choice 7d , 5dmark II ,or just stick with my 20d - if non of the other bodies offer a huge benefit ?
i liked the focus speed and accuracy i have heard about the 7D , and it has more resolution as well but that also means more noise as well and not sure how much IQ you lose with that trade off , is the 7d at iso 3200 like the 20d at 800 or 400 then maybe it would be acceptable .
then i heard that the 5dmark II has superb IQ , is it leaps ahead of the 7d or 20d ? if its fairly close then the advantages of the 7d might outweigh it .
the one thing that bugs me about the 7d is its supposed high levels of noise which would seem to defeat the purpose of what the camera was designed to do focus more accuratly in dimmer light . meter better etc . It also bugs me that if you use an extender past 5.6 it will lose auto focus so that would make a 400 5.6 non auto focus with a 1.4 TC and that would suck i would think as that was what i was thinking of trying . pLus i heard that the view finder shows all the focus points as black boxes making it difficult to see your subject ?
but then from images i have seen on the pc the 7d looks on par with the D300S ,but its hard to tell from pictures on the net .

So the choice is tough .
thanks Bill B

[David Stephens]

I own the 7D and the 5D MkII bodies and use them both for birds in flight and wildlife. When I go in the field I've usually got my EF 500mm f/4L IS on the 7D and my 70-200mm f/4L IS on the 5D2, with or without the 1.4x TC depending on if I expect to be in the open or deep woods.

The 7D's high ISO performance is very good up to ISO 800. The 5D2 is easily as good at 1600 and maybe even 3200. Still, I've gotten some nice images with the 7D at ISO 6400, just don't underexpose. I "Expose Right" (to the right of the historgram) in order to get as much dynamic range possible out of either body.

I much prefer the 7D for its quick AF and 8-fps burst rate. Also, the image that you see in the viewfinder is closer to what you see in your finished image. Also, it's easier for me to keep the AF point(s) on the subject with the 7D, due to the larger image in the viewfinder.

Up to ISO 800, if you take an image with the 7D, then put the same lens on the 5D2 and take the same image with the 5D2 and then crop the 5D2 image to the same size as the 7D, they'll be essentially equivalent. Get above ISO 800 and the 5D2 starts to separate itself.

I think that either body will be a big step forward from your 20D. That stuff about the focus points hiding your subject is simply BS. If you're trying to track a BIF, you want to see if an AF point is locked on and keep it on the bird. Working without the AF points is inconceivable to me.

Do I use my 5D2 for scenics, high ISO, portraits, utility shooting, etc.? Absolutely, yes. Would I even consider it for BIF when I've got the 7D in my bag? Absolutely not. So, do like me, buy both! :) (I'm not kidding, for those that can afford both).

Look at my Flickr site for some comparisons. I show the EXIF data on all images and they now show the body used toward the right of each image. You can also search within a user's PhotoStream. Look at the Original sizes to see the comparison of details, noise, OOF :(, etc. The nitty gritty is there to behold.

[Grant Atkinson]

Hi Bill B, have you considered a used Canon 1Dmk3, which is 10mp, 10 frames per sec, has great autofocus, and image quality that is very close to the 5dmk 2, and a 1.3 crop factor, as well as a RAW buffer of around 24 frames. It is a great camera for birds and the autofocus finds the target quicker, and keeps tracking better than any of the XXD bodies, or the 7D. Image quality is better at iso1600 than the 7D at iso800. I replaced both my 7D Canons with one 5Dmk2 and a used 1Dmk3 and I am loving using this camera. It is fast, easy to use, the viewfinder is bright and it just works. Mine came with a certificate showing that it had the Canon adjustment to the mirror box that was an early problem on some mk3 bodies. Used prices are not much more than a new 7D these days
cheers
Grant
www.grantatkinson.com

[billbutcher]

my only fear with a used body is how much use is on the shutter , how was the sensor cared for etc ..
I would be afraid of buying one that had a ka ziollion shots on the shutter and would start using it and the shutter would quit or something . Would a 10MP sensor give you good fine details in feathering etc or is it still a bit low in MP for picking up details ?
Is noise an issue ? How does it compare to the 20D ?

anyhow where did you buy yours from , where is a good trustworthy place to look?
thanks Bill B

[billbutcher]

Is the focus as good on the 1DMKIII as the 7D for tracking birds in flight ?

[Grant Atkinson]

Hi Bill B, I think buying used there is always a risk, but I bought mine from a pretty well-known online photo forum not too dissimilar to this one. You do take a chance on the shutter, but the owners usually disclose the general condition of the camera. The shutter life of these cameras is 300K so they are built tougher. For me the AF is the best I have used, without a doubt, it picks up a moving subject quicker than the XXd bodies or the 7D, and it tracks better. Also you should find that the points surrounding the centre point will also give better AF performance than the similarly placed ones on the cheaper camera bodies as the whole AF sensor in the 1Dmk3 is more sensitive to light and bigger than the one in the XXD and the &D ( that is what I believe, I stand open to correction here).
Regards
Grant

[Roger Clark]

Wow Roger you have really researched this .I looked at your link for noise .
I am lost with all the science .
To try to explain what i am referring about noise and my 20d is ,maybe its not so much noise .
Lets say i am shooting a woodpecker in my back yard at my feeder i am about say 20 feet away using my 20d EF300 4.0 L
i set my ISO to maintian a high shutter speed say 1/1000- 1/1600 so as to not get motion blur from the birds quick albeit small movements . If my ISO goes above say 400 , it seems to me that i loose details in the feathers and eyes and beak , almost like they are soft or as my wife says dirty .

Bill,
The predominant noise you are seeing in these situations is called photon noise. Improvements in electronics will not improve that, only collecting more light (photons). The noise is the square root of the number of photons collected. Only in the darker parts of the image does electronic noise become
significant.

now if i shoot in jpeg this is even worse .

So then you have photon noise + jpeg compression artifacts.

The noise that i notice most when shooting above 400 and especially over 800 ISO is in the back grounds like if there is a blue sky you can see the noise .

Again that is noise due to the random arrival of photons: photon noise.

For me it is becoming more and more important to capture the fine feathering details ,get sharp eyes,beak etc ,and i find that most of the time i end up shooting at aroudn 800iso to 1600iso do to time of yeart and light, over cast etc.

So i am trying to capture as much detail as i can i print ususally to 11x14 sometimes a bit larger depending .

Then you will probably like the 7D.

so if i lined up my 20d and the 7d with the same lens ,and shot a subject would the noise be the same at the same iso or is the 7d cleaner ,or given it has more details noise is a non issue .

Again, there is a simple test that will answer your question. Get a bird feather or two and tape it to some cardboard and mount the board somewhere where you can image it a various distances.
Photograph the feathers at a typical distance you photograph birds at. Then move closer to half the
distance and increase ISO by 2.5x and photograph the feather(s) again. Which image do you like better?
You can try this at several ISOs. Keep f/ratio the same. For example, photograph at ISO 400, move in closer to half the distance and photograph again at ISO 1000. The closer, higher ISO image simulates what you would get from the 7D, at the ISO of the 20D except the image will have a smaller subject coverage.

Roger

[billbutcher]

Again, there is a simple test that will answer your question. Get a bird feather or two and tape it to some cardboard and mount the board somewhere where you can image it a various distances.
Photograph the feathers at a typical distance you photograph birds at. Then move closer to half the
distance and increase ISO by 2.5x and photograph the feather(s) again. Which image do you like better?
You can try this at several ISOs. Keep f/ratio the same. For example, photograph at ISO 400, move in closer to half the distance and photograph again at ISO 1000. The closer, higher ISO image simulates what you would get from the 7D, at the ISO of the 20D except the image will have a smaller subject coverage.

Roger

Roger i thought the 20d and the 7d have the same crop factor ?
are you meaning that the detail would be on the 7d like getting closer to the subject ?

so if i shot at iso 400 with the 20d at say 40 feet , then went to 20feet set iso at say 800 would be similar to IQ i would obtain with the 7d ?

so basically what your saying is the noise levels will be similar its just that the 7d has more pixels or resolution so will pick up more details in the over all image .

if i am also understanding this correctly noise in most digital camera's noise is caused by lack of light reaching the sensor ? this would explain about how when i used my flash even at iso 3200 , the images were much better with less noise evident than without flash . Noise reduction software does work pretty nice but does soften some details .
I notice noise mostly in my 20d in various area's of color at high iso like reds, blues , blacks ,greens, it appaears as to me to look like dust spread out over those areas , when blown up looks blotchy . it decreases as iso goes down .

Maybe the 7d would be the ticket then . how ever i have heard that the 1dmarkIII , even older models of it have a superior focusing system and will be more accurate on locking onto subjects like birds in flight and also produces way less noise at higher ISO's , i am not sure how it would compare head to head with 7D , and i no from reading reviews and magazine articles you have to take lot of it with a grain of salt because a lot of it is advertising . Maybe the 1dmark III is better but how much is the key ? even when i read tech specs and reviews like they will say the d300s is faster in low light , you look and they are only like .25 of asecond difference that is not much . anyhow i am learning a lot here and i thank you for your help Roger , love your sight and your tips on shooting eagles and wildlife... Which camera do you shoot with when you are trying to capture a printable shot and you might not get another chance at the shot ?
again thanks Bill B

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

I use both and love both for Bird photography.

I use the 5D MKII like I used to use my film cameras, with patience, planning and precision and obviously on larger slower birds, the 7D is now doing battle with my MKIII an the fast ones and are neck and neck with the MKIII less noisy and the 7D better for cropping.

Both great Cameras and excellent Value for Money.

[Roger Clark]

Roger i thought the 20d and the 7d have the same crop factor ?
are you meaning that the detail would be on the 7d like getting closer to the subject ?

Bill,
Yes, the 20D and 7D have the same crop factor. But crop factor has nothing to do with telephoto reach nor detail on a subject. Crop factor is now the most misunderstood concept in photography in my opinion based on recent experience. Many photo magazines, photo books, professional photographers, and advanced amateur photographers and even top lens manufacturers get it wrong in print and on the web. Crop factor influences field of view and nothing more. The lens, its focal length and camera pixel size determine detail on the a subject. See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...tor/index.html

so if i shot at iso 400 with the 20d at say 40 feet , then went to 20feet set iso at say 800 would be similar to IQ i would obtain with the 7d ?

so basically what your saying is the noise levels will be similar its just that the 7d has more pixels or resolution so will pick up more details in the over all image .

Yes, except more like ISO 1000, not 800 on the 7D.

if i am also understanding this correctly noise in most digital camera's noise is caused by lack of light reaching the sensor ? this would explain about how when i used my flash even at iso 3200 , the images were much better with less noise evident than without flash . Noise reduction software does work pretty nice but does soften some details .

Noise is (mostly) proportional to the square root of the amount of light you record on the sensor. ISO does not change the amount of light. ISO does not change sensitivity (another thing that is often incorrect in book, magazines, and web sites). Only the lens aperture, focal length and exposure time influence how much light you collect. The lens collects the light: the larger the aperture, the more light. The focal length spreads it out. The exposure time sets how long the sensor can record the light delivered by the lens.

I notice noise mostly in my 20d in various area's of color at high iso like reds, blues , blacks ,greens, it appaears as to me to look like dust spread out over those areas , when blown up looks blotchy . it decreases as iso goes down .

Now you are getting in to perception of noise. That gets very complex and includes the light environment where one is viewing the image.

Maybe the 7d would be the ticket then . how ever i have heard that the 1dmarkIII , even older models of it have a superior focusing system and will be more accurate on locking onto subjects like birds in flight and also produces way less noise at higher ISO's , i am not sure how it would compare head to head with 7D , and i no from reading reviews and magazine articles you have to take lot of it with a grain of salt because a lot of it is advertising . Maybe the 1dmark III is better but how much is the key ? even when i read tech specs and reviews like they will say the d300s is faster in low light , you look and they are only like .25 of asecond difference that is not much . anyhow i am learning a lot here and i thank you for your help Roger , love your sight and your tips on shooting eagles and wildlife... Which camera do you shoot with when you are trying to capture a printable shot and you might not get another chance at the shot ?
again thanks Bill B

You ask a lot of questions and many answers come down to perception. Personally, I would tend to go with newer technology (at least the last couple of years). While I have used many cameras, these days I use a 5D Mark II and 1D Mark IV.

Roger