Wildlife shooting 5DIII vs. proposed 7D II

[Golfer$$]

If the 7D II comes out with 24.1 megapixels, would a similarly cropped shot with a 5D III (containing a smaller number of larger pixels) have less noise when enlarged?  Would it be sharper?  I am considering getting the canon 400mm 2.8 IS II and wondered whether there would be any benefit to shooting with the proposed 7D II versus my 5D III.  Any help would be appreciated.

[Kerry B]

I have a similar dilemma, I want to know if the 5d mkiii will be a better option than the proposed 7d mkii. I am more concerned with image quality. Having just got the new canon 300f2.8 mkii my existing 7d is found wanting. Will I get a better image with full frame or should I wait for the new 7d mkii. My main photographic needs are wildlife.

[DJD]

Kerry B,
How has putting a better lens on your 7D caused it to perform worse? I don't understand. Please explain.
DJD

[awinphoto]

For what it's worth, assuming your shooting at a low ISO, if you crop a 5d3 image into half or whatever to match the same perspective of a crop, then essentially you are getting a clean 11MP crop vs a 24MP.  So, just to get the same pixel count as the 24MP, you have to then interpolate that by 2x to get back to 22MP... and then depending on what size you want this puppy enlarged to on print, you will likely get a cleanish but slightly softer version of the 7D at native resolutions.  At low ISO's, I would bet the 7D2 would be cleaner if you then wanted to print at full 24MP native resolution (near 16x20)...  If you wanted to print larger, I would bet the 7d still wins but even more distinct.  NOW, if you are shooting lets say ISO 1600 or ISO 3200 or faster, then I would say it would be a toss up and say the 5d3 may win that battle, just because of how clean their files are.  You can always sharpen the files so the enlargements of the 5d3 in comparison to the crop perspective look as sharp, but then as you sharpen the details, you are sharpening the noise and round and round we go. 

[CarlTN]

If the 7D II comes out with 24.1 megapixels, would a similarly cropped shot with a 5D III (containing a smaller number of larger pixels) have less noise when enlarged?  Would it be sharper?  I am considering getting the canon 400mm 2.8 IS II and wondered whether there would be any benefit to shooting with the proposed 7D II versus my 5D III.  Any help would be appreciated.

It depends on which angle of view you need, and if you are mostly shooting at high ISO.  That lens is sharp enough to resolve all of the detail of a 24MP crop camera's pixel density, where lesser lenses might not.

If you are used to the angle of view of a 400mm lens on a full frame camera already, then you probably want to stay full frame.

As to the "sharpness", certainly a 24 MP crop sensor, will resolve the same detail in the center of the shot, as a 61.44 megapixel full frame camera would.  But your angle of view is now that of a 640mm lens (full frame equivalent.)

Sharpness also depends on the camera's ability to autofocus the lens accurately, hence all the "keeper" talk.  I suspect the keeper rate for a 7D2 replacement, would be very close to the keeper rate of a 5D3, and less so of a 1DX.

If you shoot mostly above ISO 1600, then you definitely need to get either a 5D3 or 1DX.

[applecider]

Well since we don't know what the proposed 7dii will have for sensor quality and higher iso performance, I think that the answer to your question will have to wait.

In theory the crop factor camera gets more pixels on target given the same lens and shooting location (no moving the camera to account for field of view).  In my reality the 5diii beats the current 7d in image quality when cropped to the same subject size.  The 7d is equal to the 5diii up to about 320 iso then the 5diii beats it hands down because of noise.  For birds in flight it is nice to have a shutter speed of 1600, and an aperture of 5.6 to 9, so that both wings say on an eagle are in focus.  By the time you have those settings, an iso of 1200 to 2500 is often needed especially in the pacific NW even when the sun is shining.  It would be nice if the 7dii can produce useable images at iso 3200 then the crop factor reach might be useful, otherwise it is just theory.  Others mileage may vary.....

[CarlTN]

I have a similar dilemma, I want to know if the 5d mkiii will be a better option than the proposed 7d mkii. I am more concerned with image quality. Having just got the new canon 300f2.8 mkii my existing 7d is found wanting. Will I get a better image with full frame or should I wait for the new 7d mkii. My main photographic needs are wildlife.

In my opinion, since wildlife is all you want to do...you should sell the 300 f/2.8, and buy a 400 f/2.8, or 500 f/4, and use it with a 5D3 or 1DX.  If you dislike your 7D's performance, you won't like its replacement's performance either.  There is simply no way a new crop sensor is going to rival the full frame sensors.  Not happening.

[Jackson_Bill]

Same lens, same distance, good light, crop the FF to the APS-C, and print at 16 x 20 inches.
You'll get about 250 pixels per inch with the 24.1Mp APS-C as compared to about 150 pixels per inch for the 22.3 Mp FF.
True, pixels aren't dots but they're related and technically you would get a better large print with the APS-C, assuming all else equal. Of course, they're not equal. The alleged 7DMii would have a 3.7 micron pixel as compared to the 4.3 of the current 7D and the 6.25 micron pixel of the 5Dmiii. That's a lot less photons per pixel (by about a factor of 3).

[awinphoto]

Well since we don't know what the proposed 7dii will have for sensor quality and higher iso performance, I think that the answer to your question will have to wait.

In theory the crop factor camera gets more pixels on target given the same lens and shooting location (no moving the camera to account for field of view).  In my reality the 5diii beats the current 7d in image quality when cropped to the same subject size.  The 7d is equal to the 5diii up to about 320 iso then the 5diii beats it hands down because of noise.  For birds in flight it is nice to have a shutter speed of 1600, and an aperture of 5.6 to 9, so that both wings say on an eagle are in focus.  By the time you have those settings, an iso of 1200 to 2500 is often needed especially in the pacific NW even when the sun is shining.  It would be nice if the 7dii can produce useable images at iso 3200 then the crop factor reach might be useful, otherwise it is just theory.  Others mileage may vary.....

Correct except dont forget that once you crop your 5d3 image to match the 7D, it is still a smaller picture than the 7D and the OP did mention enlarging, but didn't mention to how much.  So, if he's enlarging the image larger than the 7D's native size, you would STILL have enlarge the cropped 5d3 over and beyond to the desired size, and it's in that step that most files will fall apart.  This is the same arguement as the 7D 18mp vs the nikon D300 12mp and so on...  And also, if you aren't enlarging and you want a small 5x7 or 8x10, reducing the 5d3 to the crop perspective and then shrinking it again to the desired output, and then doing the same to a potential 24 MP 7D so they are apples to apples... You may not see any difference, even at high ISO... Yes, native files 5d3 vs native files 7D or 7d2, the 5d3 probably wins every day of the week and twice on sunday, but when you manipulate to equalize and match a crop camera, then you have to take everything into consideration. 

[Kerry B]

I have no idea DJD, my old mki 300f2.8 worked very well on my 7d, image quality was superb. The decision to get the new mkii 300 lens was to use with the new mkiii extender 1.4. Prior to purchase I tried this combination on a friends 5dmkii and the results were stunning, far better than I ever thought possible.

This same combination on my 7d is not producing the same image quality despite micro adjustment. I was all set to get the 5d mkiii when the rumour of the proposed spec of the 7d mkii was announced today. Don't get me wrong the 7d has been superb but is the limitations of this camera now been overridden by the quality of new L glass?

What I am really asking is whether the full frame sensor will be better than a crop sensor. I'm am not really worried about reach as I mainly shoot mammals.

[ishdakuteb]

thought that canon already made that very clear, canon 7d and 7d mark ii are designed as a semi-pro dslr mainly serving for sport and wild-life photography?  unless i miss understood... any other thoughts?

[Jackson_Bill]

...
This same combination on my 7d is not producing the same image quality despite micro adjustment. I was all set to get the 5d mkiii when the rumour of the proposed spec of the 7d mkii was announced today. Don't get me wrong the 7d has been superb but is the limitations of this camera now been overridden by the quality of new L glass?

What I am really asking is whether the full frame sensor will be better than a crop sensor. I'm am not really worried about reach as I mainly shoot mammals.

I don't think the resolving power of the 7D is being challenged by the new 300 as compared to the old 300. The mtfs aren't that different.

If your question is really "should I buy the 5Diii or wait for the 7Dii?" Most would say the FF is as good as the APS-C under optimum conditions for the APS-C and much better in low light. I think there are a few caveats, though. For one, you can get the same reach with less money with the crop (7D and a 400 vs a 5diii and a 600) but you'll have to put up with poor high iso performance.

On another subject, it surprises me that the 7D image quality is not as good with the new lens. Since you're talking about AF microadjustment, I assume you're talking about sharpness. Have you compared the new 300 on the 7D to the old 300 on the 7D? The results ought to be very comparable on a crop. If the old 300 is better than the new 300, I'd say look at your AFMA again.
Then you can start comparing the performance with the extender, to see if that has something to do with it.
As far as the 300 ii and the 7D against the 300 ii and 5D, again assuming its sharpness you're talking about, I think they should be about the same with the same lens under good lighting conditions, same shutter speeds, etc. Are you shooting RAW or jpg? To put the 7D and the 5Diii on an equal footing process the RAW images to get the best photo.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If the 7D II comes out with 24.1 megapixels, would a similarly cropped shot with a 5D III (containing a smaller number of larger pixels) have less noise when enlarged?  Would it be sharper?  I am considering getting the canon 400mm 2.8 IS II and wondered whether there would be any benefit to shooting with the proposed 7D II versus my 5D III.  Any help would be appreciated.

To be honest I preferred my 7D for much wildlife shooting to my 5D3 never mind a 7D2! Unless I could get close, then the 5D3 was better (or there was utterly terrible lighting and the bird had mostly darker shades and fell towards the middle to lower end of the scene's DR and then the 5D3 too).

I'd def think the 7D2 would be better unless you area always able to get really close.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

For what it's worth, assuming your shooting at a low ISO, if you crop a 5d3 image into half or whatever to match the same perspective of a crop, then essentially you are getting a clean 11MP crop vs a 24MP.  So, just to get the same pixel count as the 24MP, you have to then interpolate that by 2x to get back to 22MP... and then depending on what size you want this puppy enlarged to on print, you will likely get a cleanish but slightly softer version of the 7D at native resolutions.  At low ISO's, I would bet the 7D2 would be cleaner if you then wanted to print at full 24MP native resolution (near 16x20)...  If you wanted to print larger, I would bet the 7d still wins but even more distinct.  NOW, if you are shooting lets say ISO 1600 or ISO 3200 or faster, then I would say it would be a toss up and say the 5d3 may win that battle, just because of how clean their files are.  You can always sharpen the files so the enlargements of the 5d3 in comparison to the crop perspective look as sharp, but then as you sharpen the details, you are sharpening the noise and round and round we go.

Even at ISO3200 my 7D usually beat my 5D3 for birds.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

There is simply no way a new crop sensor is going to rival the full frame sensors.  Not happening.

Other than in this case where you may find even 800mm too short. It's not easy to get close to wildlife lots of times. In the highly reach limited cases the crop sensors can more than rival FF. And comparing 5D2 to 7D, closer generation cams than the 5D3, the 5D2 just about never did better, even at high ISO if you scaled the 7D down to # of pixels 5D2 put on the distant bird you actually got a touch LESS noise (plus less de-bayer errors and greater acutance).