• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

Just interested to know why camera shake will be more of a problem with a 1.6 crop. Once a full frame is enlarged to 1.6x surely the subject blur will be the same?
I'm confused as to why all the magazines etc still refer to the reciprocal of focal length as a minimum shutter speed, surely that was based on full frame uncropped images? Seems to me we now need to add in the sensor crop factor plus any image editing crop too?
I'm also interested to know how the resolving power of lenses matches the pixel size. Presumably we get to a point where the number of pixels is so large that they are so small that they fall below the lens resolution. Is it worth having more and more pixels? What is the useful limit?
 
Roger P said:
Just interested to know why camera shake will be more of a problem with a 1.6 crop. Once a full frame is enlarged to 1.6x surely the subject blur will be the same?
I'm confused as to why all the magazines etc still refer to the reciprocal of focal length as a minimum shutter speed, surely that was based on full frame uncropped images? Seems to me we now need to add in the sensor crop factor plus any image editing crop too?
I'm also interested to know how the resolving power of lenses matches the pixel size. Presumably we get to a point where the number of pixels is so large that they are so small that they fall below the lens resolution. Is it worth having more and more pixels? What is the useful limit?
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this Roger. I don't see why camera shake would be more of an issue since you can down-sample the 7DII image to match the same size image from the camera with larger pixels... Like Roy, I believe that the smaller pixels can sometimes offer greater detail compared to the larger higher quality pixels on the full frame bodies. Jumping to your your last question, my 24MP Nikon D7100 has pixels even a bit smaller than the 7DII, and I don't think the sensor is out-resolving the best Nikon lenses yet, but I do think these latest high-res sensors require the best lenses and the best long lens technique. It also helps to be shooting at lower ISO where the sensor can perform best. So Miguel is partly right too. With my D7100 I shoot for a ballpark speed of at least 1/(2 x focal length) for hand-held shots. Even when I use a tripod I still try to get to 1/focal length just because of the pixel density and the amount of cropping I might want to do. Image stabilization of course is another thing to factor in; just remember it doesn't stabilize the movement of the bird.

I'm so envious of you Canon guys because you have a nifty new high end APS-C body! As far as SLR discussion, the Nikon camera forum is nearly dead these days... nothing to discuss... But we have the same endless "full frame vs. crop sensor" discussion over there too. For now I'm still sticking with my D7100 and hoping for one more upgrade on it, but lots of Nikon people who have switched to D8XX bodies do not miss the "extra reach." At or below ISO 400, I'm still not convinced. See this post where I give examples. I'd be interested in seeing similar examples of cropping with the new 7DII, because someday I may switch, depending on what Nikon does.

Have fun, and keep buying those 7DII's!
--Dave
 
Last edited:
I Do believe the 1x focal length was intended for a 50mm fl on FF and not on a moving subject as a safe SS .
Rob.
 
What I mean is:

From Canon Europe

"Smaller pixels are more sensitive to camera shake, as a smaller movement will cause the image to move across more pixels. You need to hold the camera steadier - ideally on a tripod.

For the same reason, sports photographers also need to re-think their shutter speeds, as blur from subject movement will be more apparent on cameras with more pixels. Where possible, consider increasing the shutter speed, even if this requires an increase in ISO speed."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/capturing_the_image/pixels_and_image_size.do

So since crop cameras have smaller pixels everything is magnified, even lenses faults

If one takes a photo that is sharp with a FF it won't amplify the blur if there isn't one I suppose.

So to me I rather use a FF, even if I have to crop, because it will give me a better picture quality, when light is not perfect(which is more often than not). My personal opinion
 
Miguel,
I really have no argument with most of what you have said. They key qualifier is "when light is not perfect." In the Nikon world, the difference between a 15.4MP cropped image from the D8XX full frame cameras vs. a 24MP uncropped image from the D7100 is not nearly as big as the pixel count suggests. If the light allows you to shoot at ISO ~400 or below, I still think the higher pixel density sensor will sometimes capture slightly more detail and allow a slightly larger print, but not by much--and some would disagree with me. Once you start shooting at higher ISO, any advantage of pixel density erodes. I would guess by ISO ~1600 the full frame camera may always win, even with fewer pixels on the bird. I expect this will also be true in the Canon world, 5DIII vs. 7DII, but I'd still like to see real objective side by side comparisons.

--Dave (a Nikon guy trespassing in the Canon threads)
 
Last edited:
opticoholic said:
Miguel,
I really have no argument with most of what you have said. They key qualifier is "when light is not perfect." In the Nikon world, the difference between a 15.4MP cropped image from the D8XX full frame cameras vs. a 24MP uncropped image from the D7100 is not nearly as big as the pixel count suggests. If the light allows you to shoot at ISO ~400 or below, I still think the higher pixel density sensor will sometimes capture slightly more detail and allow a slightly larger print, but not by much--and some would disagree with me. Once you start shooting at higher ISO, any advantage of pixel density erodes. I would guess by ~ISO 1600 the full frame camera may always win, even with fewer pixels on the bird. I expect this will also be true in the Canon world, 5DIII vs. 7DII, but I'd still like to see real objective side by side comparisons.

--Dave (a Nikon guy trespassing in the Canon threads)
Click to expand...

Interesting comments and always good to hear from a Nikon perspective too.
 
I think a lot of people are over thinking the issues regarding the technical pros and cons and especially comparing it with a 1DX. Comparing a $2000 7D MK11 with a $7000 1DX, one a crop sensor and one not, is not really a fair and useful comparison in my eyes…like comparing an Acura to a BMW.

Are there differences? Of course…if you want the BMW of no noise, the 1DX is the way to go. But, if you want to put $5000 in your pocket, the 7D Mk11 is the way to go since the noise aspect is much better than the 7D, especially at High ISO (up to 16,000 is still usable). And it is affordable.

The 7DMK11 was marketed as a sports and wildlife body, hence the crop factor. And it autofocuses with a 1.4x converter – huge! As Graham points out, what do you really need?? Most of us need an image that can be cropped and still maintain enough pixel density to produce a nice print. I judge a good picture by being able to make a 16x20 print. Most people looking at a print from 5ft away will not be able to see any imperfections..we are all too hung up at looking at pixels at 100% :)

Most of the images will be seen on the web or as an 8" x 6" photo in a magazine. If you can't take photos that look good in those arenas, maybe photography isn't for you..lol :)

I just got a 7D MK11 but was using a 40D (10.3 MP) and a 400mm 5.6 lens. And I am getting great images from that camera…how can I possibly go wrong with a 7D MK11??? The 7DMK11 puts a camera, with reach, into the hands of a large demographic of people that can now afford to go out and shoot wildlife as well as portraits and anything else.

I was going to go for the 5DMK111 since the files that come out of that camera are great and it autofocuses with a 1.4x- but I'd lose the crop-factor. But, since it is higher MP, I can crop in closer and still retain good detail, but that camera is twice the price of a 7DMK11. For those with cash issues, the 7D MK11 is a no brainer; 10 frames per second, great at high ISO, superb autofocus, 20MP and full autofocus with a 1.4!! I can now get a new camera AND take my son to Florida, for four days, to Universal Studios with the money I saved!
 
Last edited:
The difference between a 5D3 and a 7D2 here in the UK is as little as £300 ($450) now. I seem to remember Universal studios was $50 pp per day back in 1999 so I'm not sure how you will manage a four day trip on the saving but I hope you enjoy it!
All three discussed bodies have the same AF capability and will take a 2.0x TC if the lens is f4 or wider. The 1DX is probably is a tad quicker to AF than the 5D3 ( bigger battery?)
The question I ask myself is should I trade my 5D3 for a 7D2. Do I need to ? I have everything the 7D2 can offer between the 5D3 and 1DX but they both have their shortfalls... the 5D3 fps is a bit lacking for some scenarios, the 1DX is very loud and doesn't have a higher speed silent shutter mode,something which really irks me at times.
The big difference is the crop of the 7D2.
I have a 500mm lens and both tc's. I seem to have the 2.0x bolted on the end for half of the time and it's far from ideal. You have limited focus points available at f8.
To compensate for the loss of the 1.3 crop factor lots of 1D1V owners apparently went from 500mm to 600mm when they moved on to the 1DX. I didn't because I love the light weight of the 500mm Mk11.
So it's a simple decision for me. I am not going to buy a 600mm lens as I loose the hand holding ability ( I had the same weight MK1 500mm and it was too heavy for me ) and it's a bit bulky for foreign travel.It's also very expensive and doesn't make sense to own both.
So there we have it.
7D2 plus 1.4 TC on my 500mm gives me focal length of 1120mm and most of my af points would be useable.Push it all the way and its 1600mm with the 2.0xTC.
1DX and 5D3 would be 700mm or 1000mm.
And then you crop the image further too.The question is how much can you crop by and still get a decent image.
Over cropped 8x6 images can look appalling too.
Is the answer really that simple ? Does the image from a 7D2 Acura match up to the 1DX BMW especially when there is plenty of good light to benefit from.

From some accounts the answer is yes.
 
Julian H said:
I think a lot of people are over thinking the issues regarding the technical pros and cons and especially comparing it with a 1DX. Comparing a $2000 7D MK11 with a $7000 1DX, one a crop sensor and one not, is not really a fair and useful comparison in my eyes…like comparing an Acura to a BMW.

Are there differences? Of course…if you want the BMW of no noise, the 1DX is the way to go. But, if you want to put $5000 in your pocket, the 7D Mk11 is the way to go since the noise aspect is much better than the 7D, especially at High ISO (up to 16,000 is still usable). And it is affordable.

The 7DMK11 was marketed as a sports and wildlife body, hence the crop factor. And it autofocuses with a 1.4x converter – huge! As Graham points out, what do you really need?? Most of us need an image that can be cropped and still maintain enough pixel density to produce a nice print. I judge a good picture by being able to make a 16x20 print. Most people looking at a print from 5ft away will not be able to see any imperfections..we are all too hung up at looking at pixels at 100% :)

Most of the images will be seen on the web or as an 8" x 6" photo in a magazine. If you can't take photos that look good in those arenas, maybe photography isn't for you..lol :)

I just got a 7D MK11 but was using a 40D (10.3 MP) and a 400mm 5.6 lens. And I am getting great images from that camera…how can I possibly go wrong with a 7D MK11??? The 7DMK11 puts a camera, with reach, into the hands of a large demographic of people that can now afford to go out and shoot wildlife as well as portraits and anything else.

I was going to go for the 5DMK111 since the files that come out of that camera are great and it autofocuses with a 1.4x- but I'd lose the crop-factor. But, since it is higher MP, I can crop in closer and still retain good detail, but that camera is twice the price of a 7DMK11. For those with cash issues, the 7D MK11 is a no brainer; 10 frames per second, great at high ISO, superb autofocus, 20MP and full autofocus with a 1.4!! I can now get a new camera AND take my son to Florida, for four days, to Universal Studios with the money I saved!
Click to expand...
Aagghh! The voice of sanity at last - well said.
Russ
 
Dave Williams said:
But it doesn't solve my personal dilemma.

On a straight value for money decision it's probably spot on.
Click to expand...


The 1dx does everything the 5d3 does and more, both dont have the crop factor so surely the 7d2 would be the perfect partner for the 1dx ie all bases covered. in good light i bet there wont be a lot of difference either. seems quite a few guys are swapping their 5d3 for the 7d2 only time will tell if it was the right decision but i suspect it may be? Tone.
 
I think you are right Tone. I do like the smaller compact size of the 5D3 on some occasions, particularly say going out for the evening. However, the 5D3 might be good for low light but the 7D2 has a built in flash.
Do you know, I think you have sold me on the idea as I don't own a flash unit.
 
Dave,

Given you have a lot more (better) equipment than me, I don't think you have any issues if you have a 500/600mm lens and either a 1DX, a 5D III or a 7DII. Surely any combination of these will yield awesome pix since you wouldn't have bought them.
With that long a focal length, plus a 1.4x converter, a full frame body won't detract at all, even if heavy on the cropping.

Money is a factor for birder/photographers and most people can't spend $16K on a body and lens.

I was going to splurge $3K for the 5D MK111 because i figured the extra pixels of the 5D would cancel out the crop factor i would lose from my 40D, but I would gain full autofocus with a converter (which no other pro-body offered -until the new 7D MK 11).

The 7D MK11, on cost alone makes it a no-brainer. I doubt anyone would notice a $800-$1000 difference between the images from this and the 5D mK 111??

Get closer and take better photos is what I have to do.
 
As I expected Dave some interesting observations have appeared here!
I have very limited experience of the 7D2, but on the couple of occasions that I got to handle one I was quite impressed. With one proviso - ISO.
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.
For reference I have attached a recent image of a Bittern and a crop of it, no idea on the percentage but it is quite severe. Note this is not processed/sharpened, just straight from the camera, Jpeged (in DPP) and scaled for web.
Any observations would be welcome.

When all is said and done the decision is simple for most people - the 1DX is expensive! One can't realistically expect the same performance from a camera costing 1/3 the price, nevertheless the 7D2 is certainly shaping up well and looks like a very good second body or a very good (best?) sensibly priced wildlife camera.
 

Attachments

  • Bittern04.JPG
    Bittern04.JPG
    379.9 KB · Views: 180
  • Bittern03.JPG
    Bittern03.JPG
    300.5 KB · Views: 216
Last edited:
Dave Williams said:
But it doesn't solve my personal dilemma.

On a straight value for money decision it's probably spot on.
Click to expand...

Dave,
As I've already said I'm a believer that higher pixel density allows at least slightly better image quality and larger prints *when light is good.* But I will add that as I work harder at bird photography I've become a little snobbish about what I think is good... Anymore I find ~95% of my best shots are taken in good light. So increasingly I place a priroity on what my equipment can do under good conditions when it matters most and I have the best chance of getting the shot I want. But I also enjoy living in a climate blessed with a lot of sunny bright days... and I've never owned a full frame camera; if I did maybe more of my nice shots would be in less than great light. But I also prefer to at least have the option to work without any teleconverter; with full frame I'd be inclined to use a teleconverter most of the time (taking away at least 1 stop of light). Just my opinion and I'm sure there will be those who disagree.

Of course I think the 7D2 offers other performance advantages too, great autofocus, fps speed/buffer, etc.

I suggest that you seek out hard evidence to support your decision. Maybe rent a 7D2 for a weekend and do some testing and give us your own examples?

johnf3f: What camera did you use for the bittern photo?

Thanks,
Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Williams said:
I guess it's still early days but has anyone got a 7D11 and either a 1DX or 5D3 ?
I'm interested to hear your opinion of image quality on the 1.6 crop vs the FX bodies especially when the image is cropped.
One pre release tester stated his 1DX stayed in the bag now.Having recently returned from a trip where I couldn't take a big lens to most places the 1.6 crop might have been the answer with my 70-200mm or 300mm plus the 2.0x TC.
Click to expand...

As John posted above, many users of the 5D3/1Dx have the 500/600/800 super teles. In those cases, a FF camera will not be focal length limited and definitely the better alternative. Once you start cropping a FF heavily then the advantage starts go back down the slider in favour of the crops.

Many crop users are using the 100-400, 300/4 and 400/5.6 and, while they are 'L's they aren't the quality of the others. The 7D2 hasn't improved in it's ISO handling that the 7Dc guys were waiting on. Canon can't improve their sensors to Nikon/Sony standards so they played clever and went for a great feature set instead.

In great light the 7D2 will be a worthy wildlife camera due to reach being god in birding.

PS
I had a look at your website, you have some very very clean shots.
 
7DMK II initial shots and front-focus micro-adjustments

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
 

Attachments

  • kum_gull.jpg
    kum_gull.jpg
    232.7 KB · Views: 193
  • _P9A0600.jpg
    _P9A0600.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 197
  • _P9A0644.jpg
    _P9A0644.jpg
    90.1 KB · Views: 169
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

MrYama
Fuji 70-300mm +1.4 TC vs +Cropping (w/ X-T4)
Replies
2
Views
315
Ignatius
Ignatius
dorubird
Trinovid 8x20 BCA vs Ultravid 8x20 BR
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars
Replies
11
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
Chicken Nugget
Nikon D7500 Package. Is it a good deal?
Replies
4
Views
2K
tanys
T
wolfbirder
Hardcore Madeira Madness - 15 - 20 June 2022
2 3
Replies
59
Views
9K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top