*UPDATE* EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, Alan!  Definitely agree.  It really highlights the point that the real 'crop factor advantage' is lower cost.  In 'good' conditions, the crop body isn't at a disadvantage, which means the 7D is a great value.  When conditions are less than ideal (poor light, low contrast subjects), the FF camera has the advantage (but getting that advantage requires a higher cost - especially getting good AF along with the FF sensor, i.e., the FF advantage is blunted on the 5DII/6D by the AF system performance, at least as it pertains to those of us who shoot birds).

[jrista]

The extra reach is a huge benefit of the 7D. That said, there IS something to be said about using the 600/4 or 800/5.6 on a FF sensor...the thinner DOF really helps subject isolation, and the wider aperture and lighter weight of the 600 f/4 L II IS make it an extremely appealing lens, regardless of whether you have a 7D or a 1D X.

As a bird photographer myself, the one thing I really do struggle with on the 7D with cheaper lenses is blurring out my backgrounds. At f/5.6, or f/4 with 300mm or shorter lenses, getting that nice creamy background while still getting as many pixels on subject as possible can be a tricky ordeal. These days, I love it when I rent a 500mm or 600mm f/4 L II lens...the high spatial resolution of the 7D really packs on the detail like you've never seen, and the extra stop of light means better exposures and less noise on top of the extra reach (which, in FF terms, is 800mm or 960mm, respectively).

In the other (very similar) thread, in your post with the very nice finches, you stated, "I would say the lens is the most important IQ factor. The AF system and frame rate are second. The image sensor is third," and went on to discuss the benefit of FF at higher ISOs.  All of those reasons are actually why I prefer to use the 1D X with the 600 II, rather than the 7D.  The AF is not only faster, it's more consistently accurate on the 1D X than the 7D, and the faster frame rate is nice.  In very bright light, the 7D does very well; but, even in 'relatively good' light, it often takes a fairly high ISO to achieve the desired shutter speeds (especially with long lenses), and of course, birds often perch in the shadows...

I'm curious - you like the 7D for the 'reach' and 'pixels on target' especially with a supertele, but have you tested a 1D X or 5DIII along side the 7D in the same scenarios?  I ask because in many cases, empirical reality trumps theory.  Case in point are some tests from AlanF.  Some time back, he posted some real-world testing of the 7D (and note - only the 7D), and came to the conclusion that, "It doesn’t matter how superior the 5D III is than the 7D, the laws of optics and information theory dictate that at 9 m you can resolve the barbs of feathers on a 7 D but you see a blur with the 5D using a 600mm lens."  That conclusion sounds quite consistent with your comments. 

Subesquently, Alan got himself a 5DIII and actually tested it along side the 7D - he concluded, "... the 5D III is just about as good for detail as the 7D (now my back up) and has all the advantages of much better focussing and lower noise," and also stated, "...in practice the higher IQ and lower noise of the 5D III more than makes up for the loss of crop factor."

Personally, I had planned on keeping my 7D even after getting  the 1D X, for the (supposed) 'reach advantage' in focal length-limited situations.  In practice, I came to the same conclusion as AlanF, and my 7D has been a very nice paperweight (ok, that was a little harsh...let's say, a very nice backup camera  ).

First off, thanks for the link to AlanF's test. Very interesting stuff, and seems to empirically validate what I've experimented with in a more ad-hoc fashion. That said, it should be noted that the higher spatial resolution of the 7D is only really a benefit in focal-length-limited scenarios. If you are stuck with a specific lens (say the 600 II), unable to get closer to your subject, and unable to add a teleconverter, then the 7D will always be capable of resolving more. In all honesty, that is frequently a contrived scenario, and you more often than not are at least capable of slapping on a 1.4x TC, and in the case of the 1D X (and hopefully soon enough, for the first time, the 5D III as well) adding a 2x TC. For the more skilled, getting closer to your subject is also not a problem, and most professional bird photographers have the sneaky skill to get within feet of jittery subjects, so filling the frame and getting as many pixels on subject is rarely an honest real-world problem when money and time are no object (or at least a secondary concern).

Assuming no limitations, the superiority of the 1D X and 5D III over the 7D is very clear. I have not had the luxury of trying out a 1D X (I would LOVE to, but doing so would eat a small but measurable chunk of my savings for a 600 II lens), however I've had the chance to try out a 5D III with a 500mm f/4 L from another photographer out in the field once (as well as messed with them in local shops). The 5D III AF system is truly phenomenal, as is it's high ISO performance. The thing I like about the 5D III's AF system is its speed and consistency. I like my 7D, and its AF system for the most part...however compared to the new 61pt AF system it's consistency issues are rather obvious...it does not always lock, and sometimes when using AI Servo it never really "locks"...it jitters back and forth (particularly with medium and lower contrast detail under the AF points). When AF does lock, it locks well...but the 5D III seems to nail it and nail it well just about every time. I can only imagine how much better the 1D X must be. I definitely believe the AF system is far more important than the sensor...if you can't get the subject in focus, it doesn't really matter how good the sensor is, you'll end up with irreparably soft detail.

I completely agree that there are too many situations where, with the 7D, I am unable to achieve the shutter speed I need at ISO settings of 1600 and below. During overcast days, birds in shadow, etc. I am all too often stuck at ISO 2000, 2500 (which can be semi-usable) and sometimes 3200 or more (usually UN-usable on the 7D for artistic purposes). Between the better AF system and greater ISO latitude of the 5D III, I believe it could give just as many if not more keepers. Those keepers may not be as detailed and sharp as the 7D, but if we are talking action or ISO limited scenarios, the 7D is either going to end up with blurry subjects due to subject motion, or extremely noisy images with poorer color fidelity. I would generally agree with AlanF, that in most practical situations, the 5D III is plenty good enough and its higher IQ/lower noise will make up for the loss of crop factor. It is for these reasons that I would love to get my hands on a 5D III...the only reason I have not yet picked one up is because of the 7D II rumors. I'd at least like to see how the IQ fares on the 7D II before I spend money on a 5D III...maybe Canon will finally get their 180nm sensor tech out the door, improve DR a bit, and improve the noise characteristics of their APS-C sensors. If they do, and slap on a better AF system, I'd probably pick up a 7D II first, and a 5D III later.

Sharpness is certainly a key factor in image quality, but in my previous examples I failed to mention anything about color fidelity. At high ISO, the 7D REALLY does suffer greatly in terms of color fidelity. You lose a lot of richness, contrast (both global and micro), and even sharpness and detail at higher ISO settings. I would say ISO 1600 is really the threshold. Below it, IQ is generally fine on all levels. Above it, IQ begins to suffer, particularly on the color fidelity front. At or above ISO 3200, you start suffering on all fronts, and few images are really keepers (and even those that may be, are usually not useful outside of downscaled web uploads). I believe I'd happily take either the 5D III or 1D X over the 7D for low-light bird and wildlife photography. I do not believe they would offer the same amount of detail...subjects would be softer at any given distance and focal length...but every other aspect should be better at any ISO setting.

If I had the luxury (or rather, the financial ability) of buying both the 1D X and the EF 600mm f/4 L II, I would in a heartbeat. I've seen bird photos taken with the 1D X, and they are beyond phenomenal. The quality of noise is stellar, it's dynamic range seems to be the best Canon has to offer right now, and the AF system is to die for. At 1200mm (600/4 + 2x TC) you have the necessary reach to pack on the pixels, so the detail discrepancy between the 7D drops considerably (although, by my calculations, you would really need around a 1570mm lens to fully close the gap...6.95^2 / 4.3^2 = 2.61x per-pixel area difference; 2.61 * 600mm = 1566mm).

I am quite certain my 7D would end up becoming a paperwieght, too, if I picked up a 1D X.

[Jackson_Bill]

First, I'd like to say thanks to all of you for a well-reasoned and polite discussion.
I only have one camera (7D) and have been debating getting a 5Diii.

...
That said, it should be noted that the higher spatial resolution of the 7D is only really a benefit in focal-length-limited scenarios. If you are stuck with a specific lens (say the 600 II), unable to get closer to your subject, and unable to add a teleconverter, then the 7D will always be capable of resolving more. In all honesty, that is frequently a contrived scenario, and you more often than not are at least capable of slapping on a 1.4x TC, and in the case of the 1D X (and hopefully soon enough, for the first time, the 5D III as well) adding a 2x TC. For the more skilled, getting closer to your subject is also not a problem, and most professional bird photographers have the sneaky skill to get within feet of jittery subjects, so filling the frame and getting as many pixels on subject is rarely an honest real-world problem when money and time are no object (or at least a secondary concern).

I have to say I don't think the "focal-length-limited" scenario is a contrived scenario at all. For me that seems to be the rule rather than the exception. From personal experience:
 1. You're on a cliff on one side of the river and the bear is on a carcass on the other side.
 2. An owl in a nest is being mobbed by crows - same deal, can't get closer because you have to drop off the steep slope and wouldn't be able to see anything but trees.
 3. You don't want to get closer to the wolf pack
 4.  etc.
As far as slapping on the teleconverter, I already did that with the 7D.

Now that I have that out of my system, I'm hoping you guys can point out the error in my thinking here:
Given the "focal-length-limited" scenario above, and assuming good light (I know, that usually (or should I say almost always) isn't the case but speaking theoretically here), you want a 16 x 20 print and you crop the FF to the 1.6 dimensions to get equal subject sizes on the final print. I think that gives you 216 pixels per inch for the 18 MP APS-C vs. 150 for the 22 MP FF crop. Doesn't that give the APS "reach" some advantage?

thanks

[dlleno]

Would you all be so enthusiastisc about FF bodies if that new 7D ends up have 22MP, with comparable stats of course?

FF enthusiasm with long glass will still continue... Canon's strategy is working .  But a good point to keep in mind here is that so far the comparison is with different technology life cycles -- the tired old 18mp sensor of the 7D compared with the more recent FF sensors of the 5D3 and 1DX.  To be more complete, earlier comparisons between 5D2 and 7D, for example, still point to the relatively small advantage of the 7D, even when the conditions are optimized.  The real world IQ gap between the 1.6x crop factor technolgy and the FF technolgy continues to be rather wide, which is precisely what is being pointed out here.   

imho, the key question yet to be answered is "how much of a jump in IQ will the 7D2 sensor represent?"   We just don't know.  Without clear data, or until we see/hold/use the real thing, the prognostications will not be that meaningful I suspect.   Moreover, the expectation of a new technology 22mp 1.6x crop sensor with comparable IQ to that of todays FF sensors is still very unlikely, as far as my own "not very meaningful"  prognostication is concerned

[jrista]

First, I'd like to say thanks to all of you for a well-reasoned and polite discussion.
I only have one camera (7D) and have been debating getting a 5Diii.

...
That said, it should be noted that the higher spatial resolution of the 7D is only really a benefit in focal-length-limited scenarios. If you are stuck with a specific lens (say the 600 II), unable to get closer to your subject, and unable to add a teleconverter, then the 7D will always be capable of resolving more. In all honesty, that is frequently a contrived scenario, and you more often than not are at least capable of slapping on a 1.4x TC, and in the case of the 1D X (and hopefully soon enough, for the first time, the 5D III as well) adding a 2x TC. For the more skilled, getting closer to your subject is also not a problem, and most professional bird photographers have the sneaky skill to get within feet of jittery subjects, so filling the frame and getting as many pixels on subject is rarely an honest real-world problem when money and time are no object (or at least a secondary concern).

While there's no doubt the 7D has its limitations in ISO performance, especially, I have to say I don't think the "focal-length-limited" scenario is a contrived scenario at all. For me that seems to be the rule rather than the exception and its not because I'm unskilled. From personal experience:
 1. You're on a cliff on one side of the river and the bear is on a carcass on the other side.
 2. An owl in a nest is being mobbed by crows - same deal, can't get closer because you have to drop off the steep slope and wouldn't be able to see anything but trees.
 3. You don't want to get closer to the wolf pack
 4.  etc.
As far as slapping on the teleconverter, I already did that with the 7D.

Very good points, and it is good to point out that focal-length limited scenarios are not "impossible". I did mention that they were often contrived, but that does not necessarily mean always, and the higher density (and therefor added reach benefit) of the 7D sensor is definitely a bonus in those scenarios.

Now that I have that out of my system, I'm hoping you guys can point out the error in my thinking here:
Given the "focal-length-limited" scenario above, and assuming good light (I know, that usually (or should I say almost always) isn't the case but speaking theoretically here), you want a 16 x 20 print and you crop the FF to the 1.6 dimensions to get equal subject sizes on the final print. I think that gives you 216 pixels per inch for the 18 MP APS-C vs. 150 for the 22 MP FF crop. Doesn't that give the APS "reach" some advantage?

Definitely. There will always be the benefit of added reach with any sensor that has a higher pixel density. It does not necessarily have to be an APS-C sensor, it could be a FF 47mp sensor, which has the same pixel pitch (4.3 microns) as the 7D. If the 7D II hits the street with a 24.4mp sensor, that is about the same a FF 64mp sensor. Reach is a benefit of pixel density, not necessarily form factor.

That said, it really depends on how clear and sharp, and to some degree noisy, your images are. From what I've seen in terms of bird photographs from the 1D X, it is impeccably sharp! Even in a focal-length limited scenario, you could probably blow its images up pretty far and still be satisfied. You may not have the same amount of detail, but that shouldn't really matter in most cases...so long as the detail captured looks good...is sharp, clear, with high color fidelity and low noise. Noise is less of a problem in print for enlargements up to 2x native size, as print density is generally much higher than screen density. Even at 150ppi, you are still about 45% more dense than the average 103ppi 30" screen (or 106ppi 27" screen). In the case of screens with 96ppi, that same print is 57% more dense, and in the case of a 72ppi screen, the same print is over 100% more dense.

Also, keep in mind, printers don't really print pixels when all said and done. They print ink droplets. The driver's rasterizer (or perhaps a custom rasterizer) converts image pixels into a set of ink droplets of varying color with a given dithering to maximize the quality of the image in print. Depending on how carefully you tune your images for print (manually resize to the exact native size and PPI for the print you intend to make, manually set white and black points, manually verify gamut, etc.), and depending on the capabilities of the rasterizer you use (Canon and Epson driver rasterizers actually do a pretty good job these days, but better third-party alternatives can also be found, usually for a price), the appearance of noise in the final print can take on a very different quality, usually a better quality. I rarely have problems with noise in my prints, usually generated with fine-tuned images tweaked in PS6, and printed with the Canon driver, on a PIXMA Pro 9500 II and various high quality fine art papers. The only time I do have problems with noise is with images taken at ISO settings above 1600, and then, usually ISO 2500, 3200, and higher.

Getting all of the complexity out of the way, though. I would say that for the most part, just about any image taken at an "artistically usable" ISO setting on any camera can usually withstand up to a 2x enlargement, assuming you maximized the potential of whatever gear you are using. The 1D X offers numerous benefits over the 7D, and even if you crop it, you should be able to enlarge that cropped image up to about 2x or so before you could really notice any IQ issues in print. If you really wanted to enlarge a 1D X crop to the same size as a 2x enlarged 7D full size image, you could probably pull it off thanks to the IQ benefit of the 1D X. The detail level wouldn't be the same, but I'd bet few people would notice.

[Jackson_Bill]

...
Getting all of the complexity out of the way, though. I would say that for the most part, just about any image taken at an "artistically usable" ISO setting on any camera can usually withstand up to a 2x enlargement, assuming you maximized the potential of whatever gear you are using. The 1D X offers numerous benefits over the 7D, and even if you crop it, you should be able to enlarge that cropped image up to about 2x or so before you could really notice any IQ issues in print. If you really wanted to enlarge a 1D X crop to the same size as a 2x enlarged 7D full size image, you could probably pull it off thanks to the IQ benefit of the 1D X. The detail level wouldn't be the same, but I'd bet few people would notice.

Thanks much

[jrista]

I guess I should clarify that in my sharpness examples with the 7D, I was not trying to say that the 7D is a better camera than the 5D III or 1D X. I just wanted to make it clear that the 7D sensor is most definitely not a bad sensor. It gets a lot of bad rap, but in my experience more of the "issues" with the 7D have to do with the lens, more so than with the sensor. The considerable complaints about 7D softness, and as a byproduct of the softness its noise, in my opinion, are really more complaints about the 7D revealing flaws with ones gear.

My ultimate point was that if you use high quality glass designed to resolve enough detail for high resolution sensors (i.e. any EF Mark II generation L-series lens), you'll utilize the 7D to its fullest. It is not a great high ISO performer, but at all the ISO settings it does perform well at, the overall IQ should be no different in real terms than what you may get out of any better camera. You will, however, find that the 7D's limitations are greater than that of newer Canon cameras. It falters at higher ISO settings where the 5D III and 1D X shine. It's AF system lacks the consistency and accuracy of the new 61pt AF system.


Sharp detail eats noise for breakfast; Noise eats softness for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Maximize sharpness with high quality glass, and noise will quickly become a background issue with the 7D. Use inferior glass, and the limitations of both the glass and the 7D will even more quickly become readily apparent.

[garyknrd]

            Sharp detail eats noise for breakfast; Noise eats softness for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

That is a very true statement. I am using very good glass also. I was out yeaterday and it is amazing. I can now shoot at OSO 1250-1600. Expose to the right and crop to about 33-50%. Before I got the good glass I would of argued with you on this. But it has now taken me from ISO 800 max to 1600 max. The only problem is with AF. The 7D is just not good enough with the new glass? It really makes using a T.C. a problem. I have stopped using a T.C. with the 7D. Low light with a T.C. for me is just a nightmare.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos

[jrista]

            Sharp detail eats noise for breakfast; Noise eats softness for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

That is a very true statement. I am using very good glass also. I was out yeaterday and it is amazing. I can now shoot at OSO 1250-1600. Expose to the right and crop to about 33-50%. Before I got the good glass I would of argued with you on this. But it has now taken me from ISO 800 max to 1600 max. The only problem is with AF. The 7D is just not good enough with the new glass? It really makes using a T.C. a problem. I have stopped using a T.C. with the 7D. Low light with a T.C. for me is just a nightmare.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos

I would agree that the 7D AF is not great at f/5.6. It is fairly slow, even in decent light (it is only really "fast" in great light). That poses a bit of a problem for any AI Servo tracking when you are initially locking on. Once locked, it does a fairly good job...but there is no question the new 61pt AF system is vastly superior in all cases, and much faster at f/4 and faster at f/5.6.

[WildBill]

I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D.  After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk.  I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong.  I appreciate any help you guys can give me.

[AlanF]

I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D.  After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk.  I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong.  I appreciate any help you guys can give me.

No one is saying that.  Quite the opposite: in good light, the 7D is the equal of the 5D III in many circumstances at a fraction of the price.  But, the 5D III is better at high iso and has more consistent and faster focus.  I have taken great photos and will continue so to do with my 7D. But, the 5D III loses very little if anything by having 1.6 times less reach. 

[jrista]

I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D.  After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk.  I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong.  I appreciate any help you guys can give me.

No one is saying that.  Quite the opposite: in good light, the 7D is the equal of the 5D III in many circumstances at a fraction of the price.  But, the 5D III is better at high iso and has more consistent and faster focus.  I have taken great photos and will continue so to do with my 7D. But, the 5D III loses very little if anything by having 1.6 times less reach.

I think he was being sarcastic. That said, you get a few feet from your subject, and even the "lowly" 100-400mm L lens on the 7D will do you justice:



A Killdeer in late fall/early winter, taken with the 7D, 100-400mm @ 400mm, 1/1000s, f/7.1, ISO 200. The 7D can certainly take great photos, even with "crappy" glass like the 100-400 L (although I will say, I really kind of hate the boke from the 100-400...really NOT of any great quality). For those who miss WildBill's sarcasm...keep in mind, we've been comparing the 7D to the likes of the 5D III and 1D X. Arguably two of the best DSLRs the world has ever seen...

[iP337]

I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D.  After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk.  I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong.  I appreciate any help you guys can give me.

+1

Even though I traded my 7D for a 5D3 I would trade the 5D3 for a 7D2.  I'm hoping it's just an APS-C 5D3 that's a stop behind in the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.

[garyknrd]

Even though I traded my 7D for a 5D3 I would trade the 5D3 for a 7D2.  I'm hoping it's just an APS-C 5D3 that's a stop behind in the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.

+1   Man I would be in heaven.

[-Jarred-]

Even though I traded my 7D for a 5D3 I would trade the 5D3 for a 7D2.  I'm hoping it's just an APS-C 5D3 that's a stop behind in the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.

+1   Man I would be in heaven.

Agree'd, I'm upgrading from a 600D and I'm finding it difficult to not just blow it on a 7D instead of waiting for the MkII. While the 7D is still a hell of an upgrade over the 600D, I know I'll be kicking myself when the MkII gets released if I caved...

MUST. HOLD. OUT. LONGER.