Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

[npc2396]

Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D?  I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.

Well, the "complete" negation argument is just plain false. From a spatial resolution standpoint, you would have to have a 47.6mp FF sensor to be able to crop out the center 18mp to match a 7D (both of which would have a 116lp/mm native spatial resolution (a bit less if you factor in the low pass filter)). Assuming you had a 47.6mp FF sensor, using the same lens on both cameras, if you fill the frame on the 7D with say a 600/4, then you could use the same lens on the FF and crop out the center 18mp and end up with an identical photo. Only then could you actually claim "complete negation" of the 7D's resolution advantage. The 5D III is actually at a disadvantage spatially (80lp/mm), which is the very reason why you need a longer lens (960mm) to get the same "framing" as you might with the 7D and a shorter lens (600mm).

If you are lucky enough to own an 800mm lens, the 5D III will probably serve you well...but you would be stuck with 800mm. You couldn't slap on a teleconverter and get more (since you would then be at f/8, and could no longer AF). You could use a 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC and get 840mm, but your still short of that 960mm you would need to actually fully negate the 7D's resolution advantage. And thats nothing to speak of the additional advantage of the 7D with the same 600/4 + 1.4x TC, which gives you an effective 1344mm. One way or another, the 7D has a reach advantage you just can't match with the 5D III, or for that matter even the 36.3mp D800.

I do not disagree.  I am saying take a picture using a 500mm and 5dIII and another with the 7D at a reasonable distance.  You will keep the one with the 5dIII.  The 5D looks better at 100% than the 7D looks at 50% crop, thus coming close on size. Even at iso 400 i would take the 5D. 

[jrista]

I do not disagree.  I am saying take a picture using a 500mm and 5dIII and another with the 7D at a reasonable distance.  You will keep the one with the 5dIII.  The 5D looks better at 100% than the 7D looks at 50% crop, thus coming close on size. Even at iso 400 i would take the 5D.

"at a reasonable distance"

Thats what I'm talking about, though. To get the "same shot" with both cameras, you would need to be 50-60% closer with the 5D III than with the 7D. That is a BIG difference, and when it comes to birds on the water, you often don't have the option to get within a "reasonable distance". In such cases, it ultimately boils down to getting a decently framed shot you can use...even if it might be a bit noisy (7D), vs. getting a shot where the bird is only a small fraction in the center of the frame, thus resulting in an image that is smaller in area with less detail...even if that detail is less noisy (5D III). In that case, I'd take the 7D any day over the 5D III.

A 50% difference in distance can also mean that your songbird or raptor flies away because your too close...you've punctured their comfort zone. Again, you could get the shot with the 7D, but you would likely miss it entirely with the 5D III. Reach is one of the most valuable thing in bird photography. The 7D has it in spades, and even if the IQ isn't as good as the 5D III, it can mean the difference between getting the shot and not. Missing a shot is the worst outcome possible.

[xROELOFx]

so how good is the AF on the 1D mk. IV at f/8, for example with a 500mm and a 2.0 tc?

i'll probably buy a 500mm in the next couple of days and was researching for a successor for my 7D. either the 1D mk. IV or the 5D mk. III. as i figured, i can crop an image from the 5D3 to 16MP (it would have a cropfactor of 1.375) and would have about the same reach as the 1D4 (not including f/8 AF support).

i have not used the 1D4, neither the 5D3, but almost everywhere i read the IQ of the 5D3 beats that of the 1D4. so would a cropped 5D3 image be better (or equal) of that of a 1D4 image? i guess i should rent both camera's when i have the 500, to figure it all out

[jrista]

so how good is the AF on the 1D mk. IV at f/8, for example with a 500mm and a 2.0 tc?

i'll probably buy a 500mm in the next couple of days and was researching for a successor for my 7D. either the 1D mk. IV or the 5D mk. III. as i figured, i can crop an image from the 5D3 to 16MP (it would have a cropfactor of 1.375) and would have about the same reach as the 1D4 (not including f/8 AF support).

i have not used the 1D4, neither the 5D3, but almost everywhere i read the IQ of the 5D3 beats that of the 1D4. so would a cropped 5D3 image be better (or equal) of that of a 1D4 image? i guess i should rent both camera's when i have the 500, to figure it all out

Technically speaking, you would have to crop out the center 13.3mp area (4464x2976 pixels) to have the same effective spatial area as the 1D IV. But your still going to be at a spatial resolution disadvantage...80lp/mm for the cropped 5D III area vs. 88lp/mm for the 1D IV's full sensor. To exactly match the 1D IV with a full-frame sensor when cropping, you would need a 26.6mp FF sensor, which would have the same 88lp/mm spatial resolution.

Keep in mind, raw IQ is not the only factor in "getting a good shot". Camera A may have stellar IQ, but only a 4fps frame rate and only 10 continuous frames, with limited reach (1.0x crop). That could significantly limit your ability to get a keeper in the first place. In that case, Camera B, which great IQ (but maybe not quite "stellar"), a 10fps frame rate and 30 continuous frames as well as extra reach (1.3x crop), is the much better camera. You have a higher chance of capturing that perfect moment that just "makes" the photograph. I'd sacrifice a little bit of IQ any day for Camera B, as its a better tool for the kind of photography I'm doing.

I personally use the 7D, more because it was within budget than anything (and left me with enough extra money to buy accessories, extra batteries, bunches of CF cards, flash, etc. I would LOVE a 1D IV though...) I find it to be an awesome camera, despite the fact that it definitely does not have the best IQ. In high SNR areas (i.e. a bird itself), its IQ is great, but it has the tendency to speckle noise around in bokeh areas and it just looks terrible. I've learned, however, that that is a moot point. Noise can be cleaned up, by a variety of means (standard noise removal and a bit of quick masking and Gaussian blur in photoshop completely eliminate all noise from even an ISO 3200 7D shot.) Don't let potential IQ bottlenecks hold you back from getting the right tool for the job.

One area where the 5D III would definitely win out is in the high ISO category. Pretty much all Canon cameras perform the same at ISO 100-400 due to whatever limitation Canon has in their sensor design that prevents them from improving DR past ISO 400. If you regularly shoot birds in rather low-light situations, I would expect the 5D III to do better at ISO 6400-25600 (not to mention getting the extra stop of native ISO to boot.) I think I could have used ISO 6400 and maybe 12800 on some of the darkest days I've photographed birds.

[briansquibb]

One area where the 5D III would definitely win out is in the high ISO category. Pretty much all Canon cameras perform the same at ISO 100-400 due to whatever limitation Canon has in their sensor design that prevents them from improving DR past ISO 400. If you regularly shoot birds in rather low-light situations, I would expect the 5D III to do better at ISO 6400-25600 (not to mention getting the extra stop of native ISO to boot.) I think I could have used ISO 6400 and maybe 12800 on some of the darkest days I've photographed birds.

Dont bet on significantly better high iso performance to 12800 - the 1D4 is still clean to there.

Where the 1D4 will claw back is on the auto iso keeping iso to a minimum when you set the shutter speed and aperture - and you get ec at the same time. This is something the 5DIII hasn't got.

[jrista]

One area where the 5D III would definitely win out is in the high ISO category. Pretty much all Canon cameras perform the same at ISO 100-400 due to whatever limitation Canon has in their sensor design that prevents them from improving DR past ISO 400. If you regularly shoot birds in rather low-light situations, I would expect the 5D III to do better at ISO 6400-25600 (not to mention getting the extra stop of native ISO to boot.) I think I could have used ISO 6400 and maybe 12800 on some of the darkest days I've photographed birds.

Dont bet on significantly better high iso performance to 12800 - the 1D4 is still clean to there.

Where the 1D4 will claw back is on the auto iso keeping iso to a minimum when you set the shutter speed and aperture - and you get ec at the same time. This is something the 5DIII hasn't got.

Ah, yes. The Auto ISO/EC is really a nice feature. Its too bad Canon won't put that in their other pro-grade bodies. I can understand not putting it in a Rebel...but damn, make it a standard pro feature.

[Maxis Gamez]

One area where the 5D III would definitely win out is in the high ISO category. Pretty much all Canon cameras perform the same at ISO 100-400 due to whatever limitation Canon has in their sensor design that prevents them from improving DR past ISO 400. If you regularly shoot birds in rather low-light situations, I would expect the 5D III to do better at ISO 6400-25600 (not to mention getting the extra stop of native ISO to boot.) I think I could have used ISO 6400 and maybe 12800 on some of the darkest days I've photographed birds.

Dont bet on significantly better high iso performance to 12800 - the 1D4 is still clean to there.

Where the 1D4 will claw back is on the auto iso keeping iso to a minimum when you set the shutter speed and aperture - and you get ec at the same time. This is something the 5DIII hasn't got.

Ah, yes. The Auto ISO/EC is really a nice feature. Its too bad Canon won't put that in their other pro-grade bodies. I can understand not putting it in a Rebel...but damn, make it a standard pro feature.

Auto ISO?? what's the advantage of that?

[jrista]

Dont bet on significantly better high iso performance to 12800 - the 1D4 is still clean to there.

Where the 1D4 will claw back is on the auto iso keeping iso to a minimum when you set the shutter speed and aperture - and you get ec at the same time. This is something the 5DIII hasn't got.

Ah, yes. The Auto ISO/EC is really a nice feature. Its too bad Canon won't put that in their other pro-grade bodies. I can understand not putting it in a Rebel...but damn, make it a standard pro feature.

Auto ISO?? what's the advantage of that?

Auto ISO with exposure compensation in Manual mode. The combination of the two is useful. I think only 1-series Canon DSLR's get that feature. I certainly don't have EC in M with Auto ISO on my 7D anyway.

[Maxis Gamez]

Auto ISO with exposure compensationThe combination of the two is useful.

Can you give us an example?

Thanks!

[jrista]

Auto ISO with exposure compensationThe combination of the two is useful.

Can you give us an example?

Thanks!

1. Manual Mode, 1/1000th shutter, f/7.1:
2. Auto ISO selects ISO 800

With evaluative metering, the scene is a bit too dark. You need the DOF of f/7.1, and you can't go below 1/1000th because your already as low as you can go to freeze all but the birds wing tips. You don't have the option of using flash.

3. Use EC to bump ISO up to by 2/3rds of a stop

Correct exposure now, but its still not manual ISO, so when that cloud passes in front of the sun a moment before you take the shot, evaluative metering compensates and it still exposes correctly. Oh, happy day, happy day.

(All I would need then is a real-time histogram in the transmissive LCD of the viewfinder so I can identify the exposure discrepancy without having to take my eye away from the viewfinder at all to make the necessary exposure adjustments....oh, I would be in BIF HEAVEN!)

[Maxis Gamez]

Auto ISO with exposure compensationThe combination of the two is useful.

Can you give us an example?

Thanks!

1. Manual Mode, 1/1000th shutter, f/7.1:
2. Auto ISO selects ISO 800

With evaluative metering, the scene is a bit too dark. You need the DOF of f/7.1, and you can't go below 1/1000th because your already as low as you can go to freeze all but the birds wing tips. You don't have the option of using flash.

3. Use EC to bump ISO up to by 2/3rds of a stop

Correct exposure now, but its still not manual ISO, so when that cloud passes in front of the sun a moment before you take the shot, evaluative metering compensates and it still exposes correctly. Oh, happy day, happy day.

Why not just change your shutter speed to whatever is needed to get a good exposure on your bird and leave alone the ISO?

BTW, do you really need to FREEZE the wing tips? I certainly hope not as long as the subject is well exposed.


Canon 30D, Canon 400mm @ f/5.6, 1/30sec, ISO 800 in Manual mode.

BTW. Thank you for your input and information.

[briansquibb]

The way it works is:

Set shutter speed
Set aperture
Set auto iso

Regardless of the light then the camera will maintain the shutter speed and the aperture by adjusying the iso.

On the 1D4 you also get the option to set exposure compensation to ensure correct metering

[Maxis Gamez]

The way it works is:

Set shutter speed
Set aperture
Set auto iso

Regardless of the light then the camera will maintain the shutter speed and the aperture by adjusying the iso.

On the 1D4 you also get the option to set exposure compensation to ensure correct metering

If I'm shooting in Manual (that's all I do) why would I want to sacrifice image quality and noise by allowing the camera to set different ISO's?

That's what I don't understand.

[jrista]

Auto ISO with exposure compensationThe combination of the two is useful.

Can you give us an example?

Thanks!

1. Manual Mode, 1/1000th shutter, f/7.1:
2. Auto ISO selects ISO 800

With evaluative metering, the scene is a bit too dark. You need the DOF of f/7.1, and you can't go below 1/1000th because your already as low as you can go to freeze all but the birds wing tips. You don't have the option of using flash.

3. Use EC to bump ISO up to by 2/3rds of a stop

Correct exposure now, but its still not manual ISO, so when that cloud passes in front of the sun a moment before you take the shot, evaluative metering compensates and it still exposes correctly. Oh, happy day, happy day.

Why not just change your shutter speed to whatever is needed to get a good exposure on your bird and leave alone the ISO?

BTW, do you really need to FREEZE the wing tips? I certainly hope not as long as the subject is well exposed.

You missed what I said: Freeze all BUT the wing tips. I WANT the slower shutter so I can get some blur in the wings to demonstrate their motion...hence the benefit of being able to use EC in manual mode and indirectly adjust ISO.
[/quote]

[jrista]

The way it works is:

Set shutter speed
Set aperture
Set auto iso

Regardless of the light then the camera will maintain the shutter speed and the aperture by adjusying the iso.

On the 1D4 you also get the option to set exposure compensation to ensure correct metering

If I'm shooting in Manual (that's all I do) why would I want to sacrifice image quality and noise by allowing the camera to set different ISO's?

That's what I don't understand.

The use of Auto ISO allows the camera to correct exposure when moment-changes occur. I can't say how many times I ended up underexposing because a cloud rolled in front of the sun just before I started shooting. (For all my technical knowledge, I'm still a novice when it comes to bird photography...I understand the technical factors and techniques, I'm just not that great at using them in the field yet. ) For BIF, you really can't redo the shoot. Using Auto ISO and EC, the camera could automatically compensate for the change in lighting, but you still have ultimate control over exposure.

As for noise, generally speaking if you underexpose and lift exposure in post, you'll still usually end up with more noise. Digital exposure adjustment always affects noise as well (since at that point its baked into the RAW), so lifting an underexposed photo will have as much or potentially more noise than using a higher native ISO setting. At worst the end result is roughly the same, at best using Auto ISO+EC in camera would produce better results.