Canon 1D Mk III vs 7D

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>So saying it does not magnify anything is not quite right.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see exactly what you mean and I know why people claim a 200mm lens on a APS-C (30D, 7D) has 'more reach' compared to a 200mm lens on 35mm sensor camera (5DII). But the extent of that reach (and what you are explaining) is related not to the sensor size but to the <em>pixel density</em>. So given that the 5DII has a higher pixel density than the 30D, would a 200mm lens on a 30D have the same 'reach' as 200mm on a 5DII. But the 7D would challenge the 5DII for the same reason.<br>

I will admit that I am about to make assumptions here based on many reviews and comments. The 7D has more per-pixel noise than the 5DII and in your example, I can see a situation where the higher pixel density of the 7D would enable you to see whether the person is smiling more easily than the image from the 5DII, despite the the fact that the 7D may exhibit more noise (noise doesn't necessarily obscure detail up to a point).<br>

As ever in this hobby, you pays your money and takes your choice.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Daniel, well I understand that older 1.3 cameras would perform worse than 7D. I was referring to 1DIII and latest 1DIV. Don't get me wrong, 7D is a great camera and low ISO images are excellent when taken with both 5DII and 7D. But for me personally I would not have it as my main camera. FF, DOF and low-light performance of 5DII heavily outweigh 7D capabilities. 7D's AF of course is far superior to 5DII. I would get 7D if I didn't find 30D for $150. That was hard deal to turn down and I am pretty happy with its performance (I only use it during daylight). </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Sorry been out of town.</p>

<p>My earlier post was a typo, I did not mean <em>"a 1.3 sensor will beat the pants off a 1.6 sensor every time."</em> I meant a same generation 1.6 sensor will beat a 1.3 sensor every time.</p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Please post some examples of the two cameras that you use.</p>

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>My test was not invalid, I took Bob's comments on board and tested things beyond the resolution of both cameras. I felt a single human hair (approximately 1/7mm wide) from 17' away, was as much as most people would be happy resolving. But that was not the point of the exercise, however I am not surprised it eluded you. The crop camera might be capable, in very narrow circumstances, of resolving more detail, but in real world use the theoretical advantage is generally not achievable. To get the 7D/T2i sensor to perform noticeably better than the 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII sensor even when the FF one is cropped down to match the crop camera one, you have to go to the extremes of 10x live view manual focus, heavy tripod, cable release, limited aperture range, limited iso range, flash or very fast shutter speeds etc. Few people do this on a regular basis! If you don't then your crop cameras resolution advantage is never realised and you would be far far better off with the bigger lower density sensor.</p>

<p>All the professional tests that you use to support your arguments all the time have become silly and pointless, the academic differences are infinitesimally small, if the care needed to realise that resolution advantage is not used then it is not an advantage. Bob said that too on my thread. When we were in the early digital days of single digit MP then the testing was valid and showed us something. Crop camera pixel density is like P&S pixel density, it isn't realistically usable.</p>

<p>Now if for your shooting you are taking the care and attention to detail needed to resolve that extra resolution and you can limit that shooting to the narrow bands of settings and reproduction ratios and lighting where it keeps the advantage, then all power to you, you would be far better shooting large format though. If not, and pretty much everybody else falls into this category, then the 5D MkII will realise more detail and better prints than your 7D. We are no longer in the realms of this camera is the best, we are in the theoretical realms of what is the best camera for my needs and my output given the realistic situations in which I shoot. You can't 10x live view a bird in flight!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I'm obviously tired :-)<br>

I really did mean a 1.3 will beat a 1.6 every time! I was right first time. Like I said sensor real estate is king. Pixel density is not. Particularly now when both FF and crop cameras have such high densities.</p>

[steven_crist]

<p><em>"I see exactly what you mean and I know why people claim a 200mm lens on a APS-C (30D, 7D) has 'more reach' compared to a 200mm lens on 35mm sensor camera (5DII). But the extent of that reach (and what you are explaining) is related not to the sensor size but to the pixel density. So given that the 5DII has a higher pixel density than the 30D, would a 200mm lens on a 30D have the same 'reach' as 200mm on a 5DII. But the 7D would challenge the 5DII for the same reason."</em></p>

<p>I don't think that's correct. Otherwise a 7d would "magnify" more than a 20D (both 1.6 sensors). You could enlarge more with the 7D due to more mp but that's it.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Oh boy,</p>

<p>The reason the subject looks bigger in the viewfinder of the 7D than the 5D MkII is because it is. One of the reasons the 7D is so expensive is because the viewfinder is very good, not only is it 100% coverage, a feature normally reserved for top of the line pro cameras, but it has a 1x magnification ratio, whereas the 5D MkII has 98% coverage (not shabby at all) but only a 0.71x magnification ratio. A pretty significant difference. Now the problem for FF cameras and viewfinder magnification is that to increase it much you run into eye relief issues, that is you have to put your eye so close to the glass of the viewfinder it becomes impractical and uncomfortable, and even impossible for people who wear glasses, to actually see the whole frame. In effect the 5D MkII viewfinder image is reduced in size to match the area of the 7D one, thus over twice as much area projected onto the same space, ergo, everything looks smaller in the ff viewfinder.</p>

<p>The reason a subject looks bigger through a 7D viewfinder, than a ff camera, is because the viewfinder optics enlarge it more than they do in a ff viewfinder. That is why Jeff can see somebody smile better from further away when he uses his 7D. But that has nothing to do with the sensor or the actual lens, it is all in the viewfinder optics.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>My test was not invalid, I took Bob's comments on board and tested things beyond the resolution of both cameras. I felt a single human hair (approximately 1/7mm wide) from 17' away, was as much as most people would be happy resolving. </em></p>

<p>I didn't see the later tests when I made my initial reply. I've skimmed the thread and looked at them. I will note that in those tests the 7D did clearly perform better, and that the difference observed is the kind of difference that is noticeable in large prints of subject matter with fine surface texture/detail. It would also be very noticeable when making larger prints of action shots which have been further cropped to make up for lack of telephoto reach. And this is against the APS-C center of a 21 MP sensor. Imagine how much greater the difference would be against the APS-C center of a 10 MP APS-H sensor.</p>

<p>The paint brush test is conclusive. The surface detail and texture in the 7D version looks much better and therefore does a better job of helping the viewer 'suspend disbelief', to feel like they are looking at the real thing. The 1Ds mkIII version is smoothed and soft and therefore betrays this feeling. I know this is like looking at a 60" print, but it would be noticeable in a 20-30" print, and critical in that size range given further cropping.</p>

<p>Naturally if the 1Ds mkIII were allowed to reframe to make use of the full sensor things would be equal. But you are claiming that your tests prove there is no APS-C telephoto advantage when they have proved the opposite. And much more so against a 10 MP sensor.</p>

<p><em>To get the 7D/T2i sensor to perform noticeably better than the 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII sensor even when the FF one is cropped down to match the crop camera one, you have to go to the extremes of 10x live view manual focus, heavy tripod, cable release, limited aperture range, limited iso range, flash or very fast shutter speeds etc. Few people do this on a regular basis! </em></p>

<p>This is nonsense. You don't need a tripod, only a sufficiently fast shutter speed and possibly IS. Manual focus is also not a necessity. I think perhaps you underestimate the range of settings within which fine surface texture and detail will be visible and important in larger prints.</p>

<p><em>If you don't then your crop cameras resolution advantage is never realised and you would be far far better off with the bigger lower density sensor.</em></p>

<p>You don't seem to realize that the same level of technique must be applied to take full advantage of a 21 MP FF sensor. And that any mistakes of technique will affect it just as much.</p>

<p>Even with sub optimal technique, at low to mid ISO I'm still better off with the 7D crop sensor. It's much easier and cheaper to find corner-to-corner sharp glass for crop than for full frame. A 5D mkII + 16-35L II, at low to mid ISO, gives no advantage over a 7D + Tokina 11-16, but the price difference is huge. Many people can't afford that 5D combination and therefore go with the 17-40L, which is a fine lens but is easily beat by the 7D + Tokina. There are other crop vs. FF lens comparisons where this is the case. It's pretty easy to get lenses, at least in the Canon lineup, which have incredible MTF response in their center to take advantage of dense crop sensors. It's not so easy to get corner to corner sharpness.</p>

<p><em>All the professional tests that you use to support your arguments all the time have become silly and pointless,</em></p>

<p>Always nice to see someone resort to fallacies when they can't disprove a test or point.</p>

<p><em>the academic differences are infinitesimally small, if the care needed to realise that resolution advantage is not used then it is not an advantage. </em></p>

<p>Speak for yourself. Some of us do take that level of care and do see the results. The irony of your argument here is that if you're not taking the care necessary to see the difference between a 7D and the cropped center of full frame, then you certainly are not taking the care necessary to see the results of 21 MP full frame either. So save the money and pick up a used 5D or even a used 20D. A 5D mkII is just a badge to wear around your neck if you're not applying the technique necessary to take full advantage of 21 MP.</p>

<p><em>Crop camera pixel density is like P&S pixel density, it isn't realistically usable.</em></p>

<p>Again, speak for yourself. I see the results weekly. I believe Dave Luttmann would agree.</p>

<p><em>If not, and pretty much everybody else falls into this category, then the 5D MkII will realise more detail and better prints than your 7D. </em></p>

<p>Perhaps you need to spend more time with those "silly and pointless" tests which demonstrate the opposite of the statement above.</p>

<p>P.S. I love the debate hoops you're jumping through to "prove" the value of FF sensors. If the 5D mkII were clearly better than the 7D at low to mid ISO, there would be no debate. The fact that you have to go through so much tortured reasoning to make it seem much better only illustrates and emphasizes the point.</p>

<p>All things being equal more real estate does matter, and I believe the next 1Ds will clearly out resolve the 7D. But "all things being equal" does not translate into "bigger is always better no matter what", which is what some people seem to believe and preach.</p>

<p>And let us try to remember that the test is not with a 1Ds mkIII or a 5D mkII. The thread was about the 1D mkIII, which is easily out resolved by the 7D. No manual focus or heavy tripod required for that one!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dude,</p>

<p>Chill. I use the 1Ds MkIII and now also a borrowed 7D, daily ,I have all but given up on 1.3 crop cameras only because there is no wide angle coverage though I still own and use an old one. I know what crop cameras can do, I also know what they can't do. You'll learn :-) In the time it has taken you to analyze my comments today, and construct your castle built on sand (so much of what you say is just wrong), I have shot classic sloop racing and horse racing, both with teles and neither of which benefited from a crop camera.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Scott wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The reason a subject looks bigger through a 7D viewfinder, than a ff camera, is because the viewfinder optics enlarge it more than they do in a ff viewfinder. That is why Jeff can see somebody smile better from further away when he uses his 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, Jeff does not have a 7D - he has a T2i and a 5D.<br>

Second, nope it's not the viewfinder. Yep, it's the crop factor that allows me to see a person's face closer from 100 yards with the T2i than when using my 5D - and I figure you know that - but just in case someone is taking that comment at, um, face value...</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>You have to be kidding me? Anyway even if you are not, the T2i viewfinder magnification is 0.87 and the 5D is 0.71. That is the only reason things look bigger through a crop camera viewfinder. Because they are magnified more by the viewfinder optics!</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>My apologies, Scott. I keep forgetting that 23% is far greater magnification than 60%...</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/viewfinders.shtml">Read and learn....................</a></p>

[bob_mcbob]

<p>The biggest thing for me is the huge difference in size and weight. I have a 1D Mark III I bought a couple years ago because I wanted the pro-level autofocus and didn't want to switch to Nikon. It's a truly amazing camera, but lately I found I was barely ever shooting for personal enjoyment because I just didn't want to lug around such a big camera. I've been laughed at for this on photo forums a number of times, but many people don't factor this into their decision-making process.</p>

<p>I also dislike the effective focal length ranges of many of my lenses on the 1D3. I can't just take a 50mm lens with me for some quick shots, and at one point I was seriously considering buying the 35/1.4 just to have a 50mm equivalent lens, which seems a bit ridiculous. I much prefer my 16-35 on a full frame camera.</p>

<p>I bought a 5D Mark II last month, which feels like a huge downgrade in many ways, but I'm using it all the time, which is what counts. I got it with the 24-105, which is just awesome as a walk-about lens. It's made me give some serious consideration to swapping my 1D3 for a 7D. I didn't really buy it to shoot action, as silly as that seems, so I'm fairly certain the autofocus wouldn't be an issue. I'm afraid I'd miss the 1D3 and its crazy build quality and customizable features.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>Seriously, if you cannot debate a point or points, just man up and concede. Or at least say you don't have time right now but would like to discuss it in the future.</p>

<p>Don't resort to childish insults or common fallacies. Don't waste time saying the other person's opinion is wrong when you obviously can't refute even one point. And don't belittle your opponent's time and effort when you are prone to putting 10x as much into similar threads. While you did your tests (that ultimately disproved your point) and argued for pages in the FF vs. crop thread which you started, I spent 3 days hiking Zion National Park. Maybe you're the one who should chill?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>OK,</p>

<p>One point, I could argue almost all yours but here is one.</p>

<p><em>"You don't seem to realize that the same level of technique must be applied to take full advantage of a 21 MP FF sensor. And that any mistakes of technique will affect it just as much."</em></p>

<p>This is false. Take your landscape image as an example. With your crop camera you have a 22.2 mm long edge on your frame, I have a 36 mm. Now if, for arguments sake, both our tripods move the same amount, say 1/100th mm. The amount of our horizontal movement is the same, but our percentage, and subsequent sharpness, is different, your picture is more blurred than mine when we take exactly the same care over our technique. Your frame has blurred 0.045% along the horizontal axis, mine has blurred by only 0.028%, my shot is much sharper than yours.<em> </em></p>

<p>My point was not that I am not open to debate, I am, just look at my responses to Jeff, rather I am not interested in debating with you any more than I would try to convert the Pope to Islam.<em> <br /></em></p>

<p>Take care, Scott.<em><br /></em></p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>That was debate? Nah, it was just plain funny.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>So where did you get these figures from ? <em>"23% is far greater magnification than 60%..."</em></p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Scott:<br>

I was just comparing my T2i to my 5D - i.e. the crop factor on the T2i gets me 60% closer to the subject's face etc. while you were comparing the viewfinders which, I guess you were suggesting brought me 23% closer. I guess I misunderstand where you were going. That's all.<br>

Happy shooting!</p>

 

[ed_v.]

<p>OK, we're back from our commercial break!</p>

<p>Mr. OP, to answer your question I would choose the 7D for its flexibility (smaller, lighter, has video) and because I already own EF-S lenses that I like. If I chose the 1DMkIII I would have to sell all but my 70-200 f/2.8 and just about start over.</p>

<p>Although, one other response was interesting: to choose the more expensive camera, then sell it to get the cheaper camera and some other goodies.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>I would pick the 1D Mark III knowing that low light will be a challenge at higher ISO than 400. And that can be a problem, but many other times the camera will do a better job than 7D, like for example for moving subject activities, or especially with the focusing points and super-telephotos. It's hard to go back once you try a 1D body, if the size and weight don't discourage you after a few uses, then you'll stay with a 1D.<br>

1D Mark IV is great but at ISO 1600 [2s f/4] I would like better quality<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona10/images/2010-08-02-grand-moonrise-cps_0895.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /></p>

<p>but at ISO-200 that's where many great pictures can be taken<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona10/images/2010-08-02-grand-sunset-cps_0881.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /></p>

[garybridger]

<p>This is an old thread I own both . Ummm you may say. i bought the 1d MK III for wild life work up the jungle as i live here in Borneo. Sad the trips cost so much. However i bought the 7 D hoping to improve on image and do stock photography. Still not sold any yet, <br>

Those who think they are getting more focal length from using crop cameras . Its misleading fantasy. Only the image is cropped . you dont get any closer. or bring the image closer. the lens stays the same . Just the sensor crops in closer. I love the 7 D Its tough till it dropped out of my back pack. The 1D MK III however is heavy, But fast and when it rains or sweat poring off you keeps going . My 30d fist time , back in canon repair again and again . So I now use the 7d and 1d MKIII . If I had the money I would have a 1Ds and a hasselblad. For nature and spot depending on the shoot the above does the job. street photography the 7d works well . i still say its a shame that canon dont offer internal up grades . Like you would a PC . thats the pain about digital. Cant keep up. and the cost is starting to out weigh film . </p>

[garybridger]

<p>This is an old thread I own both . Ummm you may say. i bought the 1d MK III for wild life work up the jungle as i live here in Borneo. Sad the trips cost so much. However i bought the 7 D hoping to improve on image and do stock photography. Still not sold any yet, <br>

Those who think they are getting more focal length from using crop cameras . Its misleading fantasy. Only the image is cropped . you dont get any closer. or bring the image closer. the lens stays the same . Just the sensor crops in closer. I love the 7 D Its tough till it dropped out of my back pack. The 1D MK III however is heavy, But fast and when it rains or sweat poring off you keeps going . My 30d fist time , back in canon repair again and again . So I now use the 7d and 1d MKIII . If I had the money I would have a 1Ds and a hasselblad. For nature and spot depending on the shoot the above does the job. street photography the 7d works well . i still say its a shame that canon dont offer internal up grades . Like you would a PC . thats the pain about digital. Cant keep up. and the cost is starting to out weigh film . </p>

[garybridger]

<p>This is an old thread I own both . Ummm you may say. i bought the 1d MK III for wild life work up the jungle as i live here in Borneo. Sad the trips cost so much. However i bought the 7 D hoping to improve on image and do stock photography. Still not sold any yet, <br>

Those who think they are getting more focal length from using crop cameras . Its misleading fantasy. Only the image is cropped . you dont get any closer. or bring the image closer. the lens stays the same . Just the sensor crops in closer. I love the 7 D Its tough till it dropped out of my back pack. The 1D MK III however is heavy, But fast and when it rains or sweat poring off you keeps going . My 30d fist time , back in canon repair again and again . So I now use the 7d and 1d MKIII . If I had the money I would have a 1Ds and a hasselblad. For nature and spot depending on the shoot the above does the job. street photography the 7d works well . i still say its a shame that canon dont offer internal up grades . Like you would a PC . thats the pain about digital. Cant keep up. and the cost is starting to out weigh film . </p>