7D11 vs 5D3 and 1DX (1 Viewer)

KyleM · Dec 17, 2014

johnf3f said:
Personally I feel too much is made of the crop factor, whilst it does give a reach advantage over full frame it is (in my experience) rather less than the 1.6 crop factor would suggest.

Likely because the reduced field of view is not what made 'crop factor' valuable, but the higher pixel densities of the sensors to date. The caveat is pixels don't matter near as much, as they are getting to very high values (and that might give a preference to large FoV a bit more leeway/ less consequence?)

Take the nikon 810 (for heresy and example, I shoot canon though). A 36 MP full frame, if scaled down to canon APS-C, is ~ 15MP (area APS-C, 329mm^2/ Area FF, 864mm^2 * 36). In that case your 'crop factor' advantage would be the difference in MP, proportionally, not your field of view, as that is what influences you photo.

That is how I look at it, anyway. If a FF sensor had 2.6x the pixels the 2 could theoretically be entirely equivalent / irrelevant (assuming identical performance).

Edit: So I guess you really need to ask yourself, do I need the extra pixels, then your decision is made.

mark david · Dec 17, 2014

I Recently changed to full frame from a crop sensor, Canon 40D to Canon 5D mkIII.
I am very happy with choice altlough didn't buymit specifically for birding.
All three camera bodies are more than capable of producing top notch results and there are advantages and disadvantage to each.
Would quite happily have The 1Dx as I would love the faster fps and same goes for the 7D mkII.

I thinks that the crop sensor cameras biggest advantage is being able to use smaller and lighter lenses to acheive a similar fov to the big full frame supe teles without the massive price tags

If I went for a 7D mkii I think it would be perfect with Sigmas new 150-600 lenses.Having to lug around a sigma 300-800 can be labour of love most of the time.

graham catley · Dec 17, 2014

Julian H said:
Took my new 7DMK11 out for a spin on my 400 5.6. Set up a few settings and custom functions that were obvious but others seemed confusing, but time will get me used to all the bells and whistles.

I had some frustrating first few shots until I figured I had some autofocus issues. Redid some settings, changed my autufocus to the rear AF-On (a must!). I had some front-focus issues with my body on my canon 400mm 5.6 which saw me taking an hour to set up a focus test and ended up having to micro-adjust the body by +12 to correct it.

Went back out to the boatramp with some bread and shot some American Herring and Ring-billed Gulls - one of the first birds being this killer juv Kumlien's Gull. I shot large jpegs and cropped and sharpened. I was hasty in my processing so hopefully these look Ok as small webjpegs.

1600 F8 ISO 320

By far the best images I have seen as yet:
Generally things seem to have gone very quiet on whether there are any duff examples on sale and certainly nothing from Canon so is it all user error or is it still a lottery as to whether you get a good one or a sub standard job?

Russ Telfer · Dec 18, 2014

Graham, one of my mates returned one last week to Lincoln LCE for 'soft' issues with his 300 f2.8. It was replaced and so far the new body is behaving.

MJN · Dec 20, 2014

An interesting review of the 7D2 here.

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2014/12/review-canon-7d-mark-ii-oh-no-not-again.html

Malcolm Stewart · Dec 20, 2014

MJN said:
An interesting review of the 7D2 here.

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2014/12/review-canon-7d-mark-ii-oh-no-not-again.html

Hmmm. Did I miss where he tested it as a sports camera?

edenwatcher · Dec 20, 2014

Fairly pointless review I'd say.

Rob

Farnboro John · Dec 20, 2014

edenwatcher said:
Fairly pointless review I'd say.

Rob

Pretty dodgy bookshelf apart from the Tolkien, as well.

John

KyleM · Dec 20, 2014

Farnboro John said:
Pretty dodgy bookshelf apart from the Tolkien, as well.

John

My favourite part was where he talked about an 'action shot' but shot at 1/250.

"f/4 @ 44 mm, 1/250, ISO 5000, No Flash
This is one of the very few action shots that came out
during my one hour of shooting in the freezing cold.
This is representative of the best quality sports photographers
can expect in less than perfect light conditions."

holzphoto · Dec 27, 2014

i have all three cameras. i am enjoying the 7d2. it is lightweight, focuses well, produces sharp images. is it as good as the 5d iii and 1dx? eh. no. it does offer that 1.6x factor, which can be useful.

the 1dx is the king, plain and simple. it is better at everything over the other two bodies.
the 5d iii is better at low light, but if sports and wildlife are your thing, then the 7D ii is an excellent choice.

The raw files of the 1dx and 5d iii are much easier to work with when something is underexposed or at higher ISOs

Dave Williams · Dec 27, 2014

holzphoto said:
i have all three cameras. i am enjoying the 7d2. it is lightweight, focuses well, produces sharp images. is it as good as the 5d iii and 1dx? eh. no. it does offer that 1.6x factor, which can be useful.

the 1dx is the king, plain and simple. it is better at everything over the other two bodies.
the 5d iii is better at low light, but if sports and wildlife are your thing, then the 7D ii is an excellent choice.

The raw files of the 1dx and 5d iii are much easier to work with when something is underexposed or at higher ISOs

So, given that wildlife is my priority and I have a 5D3 as back up for the 1DX would you keep it or px it for a 7D2?
Lens wise I have a 500mm which is light enough to hand hold and I don't regret not getting the 600mm from that point of view but I do miss the reach I had when I owned one.
I'd appreciate your opinion from that perspective. Is the 1.6 crop factor going to fully compensate my lack of reach ?
The 7D2 two has other features I like too, a pop up flash and the slow motion movie mode.
Thanks Dave

holzphoto · Dec 27, 2014

well, it depends on if you really really want the 7D2. used values of the 5D III are dropping, at least here in the U.S. so you will probably take a beating when/if you sell the 5D III.

I don't know your financial situation, so i don't want you to spend your money and not be happy. but if you do have the extra $$$ then why not, you only live once. but i wouldn't sell the 5D III until you are for sure that you like the 7D2 better. I think every one's preferences are going to vary.

If you didn't already have the 5D III and you were looking at it vs the 7d2 for wildlife and you had the 1D X, i would say get the 7D2.

Also the 7D2 will write to SD cards way faster than the 5D III...sd cards are way cheaper than Cf cards, so that is an advantage as well.

I actually have the 600mm ii. attached is a photo w/ the 600 ii + 2x iii + 7d2 @6400 ISO, handheld.

Julian H · Dec 28, 2014

I just spent a weekend birding and had the opportunity to shoot some stuff.
I'll post a few shots when I find time!

Julian H · Dec 30, 2014

7D MK 11 images

These were shot in Massachusetts this past weekend. Large jpegs 320 ISO with a 400mm 5.6 lens. Jpeg was "standard" picture style. Processed, cropped and sharpened to 600 pixels on the longest side.

Autofocus was quick and accurate (I did have some front-focus issues which I microadjusted on the body +12)

I have to tweak my processing from my 40D files, but I did find the files noisier than I expected, even at 320 ISO, which was surprising. Maybe RAW files will be nicer out of the camera. I always expect more, so I may be complaining about nothing, but I expected these large jpegs to look a bit better, but maybe operator error or just high expectations.

Julian H · Dec 30, 2014

7D MK 11 images part deux

These portraits were the same, except using a 50mm lens ISO 400. Processed and cropped. The last one, the Snowy Owl was a distant, cropped shot with the hue and saturation of the sky boosted.

Julian H · Dec 30, 2014

I may not have some settings set correctly, but at ISO 320 I was not impressed with the file quality of the large jpeg out of the camera – I expected it to be relatively smooth – maybe I have too great an expectation, even allowing for a buttload of pixels packed into the sensor compared to my 40D. Hard to tell on the processed shots I just posted

Maybe I need to shoot some RAW files and see how these come in. It could be how the camera is processing these files. I use the jpeg preset of "standard" 3,0,0,0.

Even processing them with my current workflow, I was a bit disappointed in how these files sharpened up. Maybe I need to resize the native files to the same as my 40D and compare them.

Anybody have any thoughts other than "operator error"??

Dave Williams · Dec 30, 2014

I'd try using portrait mode. The skin tones on your lovely models don't look too good at all but neither do the colours either.
I think the two sea ducks are badly exposed and the detail is poor. Was the crop too big ?
The Gulls look OK but again how big was the crop ?
I'm sure the camera is capable of much better. I went out with a new owner both yesterday and today and the results are very impressive although I haven't as yet decided if I want one after all.
The points made about the benefits of the raw files of the 1dx and 5d iii being much easier to work with when something is underexposed or at higher ISOs was a very good one and one I need to think about as I take my shots in RAW and process them afterwards. Being able to recover incorrect exposure is big plus.

Julian H · Dec 30, 2014

The portraits were quickly processed with messing around with settings, so I wasn't concerned too much with softening skin etc and the colors were desaturated.

The duck photos were cropped, but I don't think so much as to affect the quality given the 20MP packed into the files-they look perfectly fine to me as far as exposure - why do you think they are badly exposed?

Thank for the comments.

Dave Williams · Dec 30, 2014

Julian H said:
The portraits were quickly processed with messing around with settings, so I wasn't concerned too much with softening skin etc and the colors were desaturated.

The duck photos were cropped, but I don't think so much as to affect the quality given the 20MP packed into the files-they look perfectly fine to me as far as exposure - why do you think they are badly exposed?

Thank for the comments.

The ducks look too dark to me Julian. The detail is hidden in there somewhere .

For the portraits, I was suggesting you change picture mode in the camera not in PP before the camera converts to Jpeg. Might be better, I don't tend to shoot jpeg so I'm not sure if that would improve matters.

MJN · Dec 30, 2014

I had a brief trial with a friends 7D2 yesterday. AF was impressive and it tracked the subject better than my mk4 would have.
I don't see a massive improvement in IQ over the 7D but that's a personal thing. Attached is a link to a sample shot.
Mike.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/42561920@N06/16148732772/

7D11 vs 5D3 and 1DX (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread