Canon 1D Mk 4 and Canon 7D

[Manos Papadomanolakis]

Hi to all,
i have the Canon eos 1D MK 4 for birdphotography and for weddings(i am pro. wedding photographer)
but i dont like to have the same camera both of them!
i want to buy the 7D only for birdphotography...al the time together with my canon EF 500f/4
please tell me the difference between two cameras...i know the price of Mk 4 is three times more than 7D(MK 4 is better)
But i want to learn the defference to the NOISE in high iso and to the Auto focus

thanks a lot!

[arash_hazeghi]

No brainer choice is the MK4, IQ, AF, speed, battery-everything.
What do you mean by "I don't like to have the same camera for both of them" ? Are you concerned about too much wear and tear on your 1D?

[Manos Papadomanolakis]

No brainer choice is the MK4, IQ, AF, speed, battery-everything.
What do you mean by "I don't like to have the same camera for both of them" ? Are you concerned about too much wear and tear on your 1D?

Yes and weddings and bird photography..both are too bad for my camera...
i wrote that 1d 4 is better but i ask someone who have both of the them the difference in the noise!

[Roger Clark]

Yes and weddings and bird photography..both are too bad for my camera...
i wrote that 1d 4 is better but i ask someone who have both of the them the difference in the noise!

Manos,
In the two cameras, 7D and 1DIV, there is essentially no difference in noise if you have the same resolution on your subject. For example, the 7D has smaller pixels, so to get close to the same resolution with the 1DIV you need to add a 1.4x TC (actually 1.33x TC to be exact, but 1.4x TC is close enough), and when you do that you get close to the same light and noise per pixel and pixels on the subject. See my post in this thread:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...h-ISO-the-best

Of course the performance of the 1DIV is much better and the AF is also much faster.

Roger

[Manos Papadomanolakis]

thanks Roger.....your Santorini gallery is great.....welcome to Greece

[arash_hazeghi]

Yes and weddings and bird photography..both are too bad for my camera...
i wrote that 1d 4 is better but i ask someone who have both of the them the difference in the noise!

Manos, IMO the high ISO performance of 1D4 is much better, I had the 7D for some time but sold it quickly it is not suitable for high ISO.

[Roger Clark]

Manos, IMO the high ISO performance of 1D4 is much better, I had the 7D for some time but sold it quickly it is not suitable for high ISO.

If one uses the same lens on the 2 cameras, here is what you get: the smaller pixel camera has more noise per pixel but more pixels on subject. Which is better is subjective and people may choose different answers.

But if you normalize the pixels on subject, one gets a clearer answer. The lens collects the light, the focal length spreads out the light, and the sensor records the light. For a given lens and focal length, if one changes the sensor, e.g. 7D versus 1DIV (ignoring the sensor size), the 7D pixels are smaller, so the light delivered by the lens is split up into smaller pieces, and with less light, the signal-to-noise ratio in each pixel is less. If one puts the same lens on a 1DIV and adds a TC to increase the focal length to give the same resolution as one had on the 7D, then the light per pixel is identical between the two cameras. So now it comes down to the efficiency of the two sensors. The 7D sensor is slightly more efficient than that in the 1DIV, so in a same resolution on subject test, the 7D actually wins in signal-to-noise ratio.

With a 7D and a 500 mm f/4 lens, one can use a 1.4x TC and still have autofocus. On a 1DIV, one can use a 2x TC and still have autofocus. If one uses the same exposure on the two systems, the signal-to-noise ratio per pixel and the pixels on subject will be almost identical. (The 1DIV will have better AF performance, even with the 2x TC.)

Roger

[Roger Clark]

thanks Roger.....your Santorini gallery is great.....welcome to Greece

Thanks Manos. I LOVE Greece, and will visit often. (I haven't been to Crete yet.)

Roger

[arash_hazeghi]

If one uses the same lens on the 2 cameras, here is what you get: the smaller pixel camera has more noise per pixel but more pixels on subject. Which is better is subjective and people may choose different answers.

But if you normalize the pixels on subject, one gets a clearer answer. The lens collects the light, the focal length spreads out the light, and the sensor records the light. For a given lens and focal length, if one changes the sensor, e.g. 7D versus 1DIV (ignoring the sensor size), the 7D pixels are smaller, so the light delivered by the lens is split up into smaller pieces, and with less light, the signal-to-noise ratio in each pixel is less. If one puts the same lens on a 1DIV and adds a TC to increase the focal length to give the same resolution as one had on the 7D, then the light per pixel is identical between the two cameras. So now it comes down to the efficiency of the two sensors. The 7D sensor is slightly more efficient than that in the 1DIV, so in a same resolution on subject test, the 7D actually wins in signal-to-noise ratio.

With a 7D and a 500 mm f/4 lens, one can use a 1.4x TC and still have autofocus. On a 1DIV, one can use a 2x TC and still have autofocus. If one uses the same exposure on the two systems, the signal-to-noise ratio per pixel and the pixels on subject will be almost identical. (The 1DIV will have better AF performance, even with the 2x TC.)

Roger

Roger I strongly disagree with your assessments. I don't think anyone has used the cameras in question in the field for high ISO as much as I have. My response was meant to help Manos make a rational decisions in order to help him make better photographs, I do not intend to start yet another debate with you here. We disagree anyway.

I am sure other experienced photographers on this site who have actually made avian photographs with the bodies in question will chime in as well.

[Doug Brown]

I own both the 7D and the Mark IV. I'm no physicist or engineer, but there is never a time that I prefer the 7D to the Mark IV. The Mark IV produces much better quality images in every single photographic situation that I've ever encountered.

[brian simpson]

I found the 7D to be about the same as the old 50D for noise,, terrible....The nikon D300 to clearly be a full stop better.and D7000 maybe 2 stops better. ( sometimes the math doesnt work out and the proofs in the pudding) ie,,7D noisey camera at iso 200,,,!

[Doug Schurman]

I’m very much interested in this question too.

I was doing some calculations along the lines of what Roger was talking about. Let’s say you take a picture of an object with a 7D, 500mm at f4, iso 800 and 1/1000 that takes up 2,000 pixels by 2,000 pixels of a 7D file.

To get similar number of pixels on a Mark IV you could add a 1.4 Extender. To get the right exposure you would now be at f5.6 and ISO 1600 and 1/1000. According to my calculations factoring sensor size (14.9x22.3 vs 18.6x27.9) and max megapixels (17.92 vs 15.98) the Mark IV image would come out 2,139 x 2,139 (or about 7% bigger on each dimension).

If the Mark IV is only about 1 stop of light better on ISO then they would seem to be fairly comparable on non frame-filling targets.

In people’s opinion does the Mark IV seem to be about 1 stop better on ISO performance?

I had another thought. I understand the focusing system is better on the Mark IV and have heard it yields sharper images. If that is the case people may feel more comfortable shooting at slower shutter speeds on the Mark IV than the 7D. It that were the case it would allow you to not Increase you ISO to offset the drop in aperture as much. For example, if you could get sharp images on a 7D with 1/200 but could get similar on a Mark IV at 1/100 in the same situation then the 1 stop loss on aperture could be completely offset on the shutter speed without touching the ISO.

Anyway, just some thoughts from a relatively inexperienced bird photographer.

[Doug Brown]

Hi Doug. Put your calculator away. The Mark IV simply takes nicer looking images than the 7D. The Mark IV offers more than a stop of ISO advantage over the 7D, but looks better at all ISOs. The Mark IV has better AF on moving subjects, but this shouldn't translate into the ability to use slower shutter speeds on avian subjects because the 7D is perfectly competent at AF. Even though I prefer the Mark IV, remember that the 7D is a solid performer and an overall real bargain at $3,000+ less than a Mark IV.

[John Chardine]

I found the 7D to be about the same as the old 50D for noise,, terrible....The nikon D300 to clearly be a full stop better.and D7000 maybe 2 stops better. ( sometimes the math doesnt work out and the proofs in the pudding) ie,,7D noisey camera at iso 200,,,!

Rose coloured glasses Brian. I "own" a D300 at work. Not good.

[brian simpson]

Tried a D7000 John ?

[John Chardine]

No Brian, but by all accounts it is quite a good body.

[Roger Clark]

See figure 10 here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...x.html#DENSITY
which shows that the efficiency of the 7D pixels are slightly higher than the 1DIV pixels (in practice, the measurements are the same within errors).

This means if you normalize the number of pixels on the subject, the two cameras will produce identical images IF the lense can deliver the detail. In reality, delivering detail to the finer pixel pitch of the 7D is more difficult, so can explain image quality differences photographers observe in comparison with other cameras. I do use both 7D and 1DIV. There are situations where the 7D will produce better detail. Figure 15 here shows such an example:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...html#FLLAIQMAX
where if the focal length were the same with different cameras, the 7D clearly produces the image with the most detail.

But I agree, that for any action photography, the 1DIV is my choice because of it's better AF performance. Key in managing noise is knowing the performance and resolution on the subject. It is a trade: push for more pixels on the subject, then you have less light per pixel and lower signal-to-noise ratio per pixel, like slicing up a pie: want more pieces, then you have less pie per piece. If you want more pixels on the subject and more light per pixel, you need a bigger lens. That is independent of the camera, because if you stay within a generation, the efficiency of the sensors are very close. Pixel size and the match to lens aperture and focal length are the keys to image quality.

The technical background for this is Etendue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue

Roger

[Manos Papadomanolakis]

thanks all

[Alan Stankevitz]

Taking the autofocus and fps out of the equation, here is what I have found doing side-by-side comparisons...and trust me when I state that I have done numerous tests with both of these cameras...

When a focal-length-limited subject is taken with both cameras, meaning you can't move closer to the subject, and the images are cropped identically, (7D images are cropped less than the 1DM4 due to the sensor sizes) the 7D produces a higher resolution image with slightly higher noise levels. After applying noise reduction software to both of the camera's images, the results are about as close as identical as they can be.

As far as color, it is the RAW converter that plays a greater role in this, not the sensor.

With that stated, the 1D Mark IV has a slightly better autofocus system and faster fps. Also the wider field-of-view (larger sensor) there is less of a chance of clipping a wing out-of-frame for a bird-in-flight shot.

I do like the 7D over the 1D Mark IV for video work and for whatever reason, I have less of a problem with a dirty sensor on the 7D vs the Mark IV.

Alan