1d IV vs. 7D II

[jrista]

@Don: It looks like those are the paper release dates. The 1D X was announced in 2011, but it didn't actually hit the shelves until early summer 2012 (and maybe even later than that, as a lot of the early models used in the Olympics were ultimately replaced). The 1D X has a technical market life that is even shorter than the 5D III, which means the 7D is that much older than the next oldest Canon camera model.

Either it is REALLY going to be something utterly incredible...or Canon is killing off the 7D line. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if Canon can really achieve the level of "incredible" the 7D would really need to be to fill the shoes everyone expects it to...

[9VIII]

and if anyone is wondering why people are so frustrated with waiting for the 7D2, look at the following graphic....it's already been a year longer then the next longest in production Canon digital camera and at least another half year to go...

and if you look at the cameras currently in production, it has been out for 5 years.... next oldest is the 1DX at a mere 2 1/2 years...

This is why I say that whatever is coming, it's going to be big!

BTW, Thanks Wikipedia for the graphic!

Ah, but this assumes that the 1DX truly is the successor to the 1DS MKIII.
Regardless of how they classify it, Canon will soon be approaching a full decade since they've upgraded the resolution of their full frame sensors.

[dtaylor]

Page after page of theorizing mixed with your typical claims that "crop will never do it."

The 70D is the closest glimpse we have at a future 7D mkII. Looking at the Imaging Resource Comparometer I would say the 1D4 is still a bit better at ISO 6400. Though it doesn't appear to be a difference that would matter at the print sizes normally associated with ISO 6400.

ISO 3200...once you've equalized the viewing size...is a wash. Sneezing while your RAW converter is running will make more of a difference than exists between these two sensors at ISO 3200.

I can't imagine the 7D mkII will have worse IQ then the 70D, so yes, I think it will "come close" to the 1D4 and in fact "match" it at ISO 3200 and below. Possibly even at 6400. Especially true if prints are more important to you then going blind studying 300% magnifications in PS.

[jrista]

I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:



That's a very noticeable difference. There isn't enough of a difference in image size to completely normalize the results with downsampling (remember, it isn't simply the image dimensions you have to factor in, it is also the difference in sensor area. So simply downsampling the 70D image to 1D IV image dimensions is insufficient to reduce noise to the same levels.)

Personally, based on the gray and black swatches, the 1D IV seems to have quite a bit less noise at ISO 3200 than the 70D. Unless the 7D II hits the streets with a massive improvement in Q.E., I wouldn't expect there to be much of a difference. If Canon really manages to improve their Q.E. to modern standard (i.e. 55-60%), there could be a slight improvement, one that is recognizable over the 70D, but still insufficient to overcome the greater total area benefit of the 1D IV.

[dtaylor]

I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.

[traingineer]

I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.

I don't apply NR to my images.

[J.R.]

I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

I can't help but feel that I'm missing something. If you were working with raw files from both cameras, wouldn't the 1DIV give you a cleaner image in the final result because the RAW image itself is cleaner to begin with?

I'm not trying to be smart here ... just want to understand 

[jrista]

I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.

Well, because the way YOU do things doesn't really matter for everyone else. However, for the sake of discussion, I most frequently do not apply NR to my images. I do everything in my power to maximize my signal strength up front, so that noise is minimal. I also usually publish most of my work with fairly considerable downsampling (my 5184px images are usually uploaded at 1140px on my blog), and the downsampling does enough basic averaging to reduce noise to an acceptable level in a standardized way (so if I downsampled and compared a 1D IV image with a 70D image after downsampling, the results would be the same.)

Noise reduction, in the case of RAW images, is not a feature of the camera. It is a feature of post-processing software. If we are to have an objective discussion about CAMERAS and their SENSORS, the ONLY way to compare the noise levels of two cameras is directly, with a RAW image. If you apply noise reduction, then export as a JPEG...well, we are no longer comparing RAW now are we? Were comparing denoised jpegs (and the algorithms that perform noise reduction.

Additionally, NR is a subjective process, and how well it works is affected by a number of factors. The noisier 70D images will require more noise reduction. The farther you push an NR routine, the more blurring it will introduce. The more blurring introduced, the lower the resolution of the 70D images, which puts it at a further disadvantage to the 1D IV. Comparing swatches that have been run through a noise reduction process means your no longer comparing the most objective data.

Sorry to burst your bubble here D by disproving your theory that the 70D has the same low noise as the 1D IV, but there it is in gray, black, and blue. I'm sorry that I have to share this kind of information, but to be frank, I honestly do not believe it is fair to anyone else to simply let anecdotal claims that have no basis in fact stand without providing as much objective and honest data as I can so everyone can see for themselves and make their own determinations.

The 70D is measurably and visibly noisier than the 1D IV. The data backs that conclusion.

[9VIII]

I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.

I feel another RAW thread coming up.

[Don Haines]

I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.

I feel another RAW thread coming up.

Obviously touched a RAW nerve.....

[9VIII]

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16851.0

Here's what I was looking for. Now we can just read that one again instead of making a new one.

[Orangutan]

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

The 70D is measurably and visibly noisier than the 1D IV. The data backs that conclusion.

Now don't start going Risedal on us, Jon.   

To paraphrase Bailey Quarters, you're both right: the numbers don't lie AND the numbers don't always matter in the final product.  Now, make nice and go back to talking about 7D2's and unicorns.   

[jrista]

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

The 70D is measurably and visibly noisier than the 1D IV. The data backs that conclusion.

Now don't start going Risedal on us, Jon.   

To paraphrase Bailey Quarters, you're both right: the numbers don't lie AND the numbers don't always matter in the final product.  Now, make nice and go back to talking about 7D2's and unicorns.   

Hey, hey now. I resent the Risedal comment. I've never been an ragingly oblivious incorrect buffoon. I'm just a plain old standard buffoon. 

[jd7]

I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

Because it's not about how anyone works, it's about what the sensor gives you to work on.

You seem to be concentrating on the results you ultimately achieve - and that's fair enough to a point.  In the end, the final result is what really matters. But surely if one sensor gives you a "better" (lower noise, greater detail, whatever characteristic/s you're interested in) image to begin with, you'd expect that (with appropriate processing) it's going to be able to give you a better final result as well (although I guess that does assume both images can be processed in essentially the same way - which seems a pretty safe assumption).  And the only way to know which sensor is giving you the better image to begin with is to compare images which have had as little post processing as possible.

[Pit123]

Funny how some people can claim iq between cameras without owning them.
I own both a 7d and 1d4 and have compared them a lot ( birding only and most of the time in reach limited situations- who isn't?).

Typically I bring both cameras in the field, if possible. However, if I have to choose one it will be the 7d. Thats because the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details and less noise after pp and downsampling of the 7d crop to the same images crop  as 1d4.

If i'm not in a reach limited situations, or if I have to use iso higher than 3200, I would pick the 1d4. Anyway, in not reach limited situations, both will produce great results, at least until iso 3200 and whatever lens.
A very sharp lens, ie 300mm mk2 can take more advantage on the smaller pixels on 7d compared to 1d4. So the difference in favour of 7d is larger when using lower iso and/or sharper lenses.
I have a nice selction of lenses 300mk2, 400mk1, 500mk1 both tc' mk3, etc to test with.
Please visit www.nature-wildlife-images.com for images.

Another disadvantage of the 1d4 IMO, is the handling. The lack of complete custom presets (including AF mode) as on 7d or 5dmk3 is really annoying in the field. The only thing I miss on 7d(vs 1d4) is the silent shutter and ev comp in M

I really hope a 7d mk2 will be 22-24 mp and have at least same sensor iq as nikon d7100/pentax k-3.
(+ upgraded af, buffer, fps, silent shutter, ev comp in M etc)
Just like Pentax K-3