Rest well Canon EOS 7D series [CR2]

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,029
331
Currently away on a 3-day trip to the Farne Islands on a Puffin photographic trip. We have taken both the 5DSR + 100-400mm II (which my wife monopolises) and the 5DIV + 400mm DO II for me, ok the 5DIV is not the 7DII, but there are some parallels. The 5DSR wins for static shots and slow BIF. But, the 5DIV has been fantastic for the Puffins and other small birds flying like rockets. The 5DSR focuses pretty well on the central 9 points but the 5DIV is faster and works on the lot. The 7DII doesn't focus as fast as the 5DIV but has close to the reach of the 5DSR. So, if you are mainly on the static stuff, I would go for the 5DSR because of its wider fov and better IQ, and I would take the zoom because of its greater versatility and shorter mfd. But, if you are into flying Puffins etc, it's the 7DII.

Edit: Oops Tron, you posted your mail while I was writing my response, which is now partly redundant. The bare 100-400mm II is pretty close to thje 400mm DO II in terms of IQ, and very fast AF.
hello Alan, I totally agree about the 100-400 and in fact If I get that I will strictly combine it with 5DsR so as to use it for landscapes, flowers in addition to birds. In that case I would have room in my bag for 5D4 with a 16-35 lens. Somehow I never had huge success with birds and 5DIV (at least with a big lens and teleconverters) although it is fantastic for low light photography (and with my 500II for some specific shots on a tripod). The excursion will cover a broad areas like a boat, walking on a hill to watch the area, in a forest, close to a small river. etc.

Do you still use teleconverters with the 400DO II on your 5DIV?
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,029
331
And AF microadjusting 400 or 500 with teleconverts is not practical as they require at least a distance of 20X the focal length...
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,616
2,854
hello Alan, I totally agree about the 100-400 and in fact If I get that I will strictly combine it with 5DsR so as to use it for landscapes, flowers in addition to birds. In that case I would have room in my bag for 5D4 with a 16-35 lens. Somehow I never had huge success with birds and 5DIV (at least with a big lens and teleconverters) although it is fantastic for low light photography (and with my 500II for some specific shots on a tripod). The excursion will cover a broad areas like a boat, walking on a hill to watch the area, in a forest, close to a small river. etc.

Do you still use teleconverters with the 400DO II on your 5DIV?
For fast BIF no. I need the larger fov to keep them in frame, and I think the AF is slightly faster. For static shots, I do use the 2xTC with the 400mm DO II when there is enough light. But, not on the 5DSR where I stick to a 1.4xTC if I need one.

I'll be posting the Puffin shots soon -watch out!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,616
2,854
And AF microadjusting 400 or 500 with teleconverts is not practical as they require at least a distance of 20X the focal length...
My garden is fortunately long enough. I tend to AF at 12m with FoCal and I do check at 20m. But, I find AFMA at 800mm f/8 a horrible process.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,029
331
2.5 years ago (Dec 2016) I took some wonderful pictures with 5DIV + 500mmII + 2XII but all these were static ones with the whole setup being held on my car's window. But I failed miserably even trying to shoot flying birds!

Also some combinations seem to be working better for me:
5DsR+ 400DO II needed lately a -9 AF 7DII + 400DOII seems OK. So both are OK for immediate use.
5DsR + 500II It's between =2 and 0 (... I guess!) But handholding is difficult.
I used to add teleconverters to that combination only when I could use a tripod.
On the other hand the 400DOII is super handholdable. This 1.1Kg less weight from the 500II makes all the difference for handholding (that and its good IS ofcourse). It is the fact that the subjects will be of a wide variety which makes the decision a little difficult...

P.S Back in the past when I did not have a 5DsR I had pretty good success with 7DII + 400DOII + 1.4XII too. I will try that too and I will try to AFMA the 5DSR with 400II + 1.4XIII.
 

jayphotoworks

EOS 80D
Aug 11, 2016
187
57
I have owned 1D's in the past and still have a 1D IV. On the big white sueprtele's the 1D's focus noticeably faster than the 7D and 5D. I have timed acquired focus time in the past. On small lenses it is not consequential. Better camera AF system? or More powerful battery?

It really wouldn't matter if it is the battery, the 1D's battery will not fit in my 7D II.
I think I can agree with you, in the past, the 1Ds I've shot on in the past definitely feel like they focus faster, but I only had brief excursions with a 300 2.8 and 200 2 white lenses, but even lenses like the 85 1.2 felt faster. For years, I went with old school logic from Nikon since some of the screw-drive lenses would definitely rack faster with a larger battery or a grip, but obviously that has no bearing on fully electronic lenses like Canon so I'm not sure how much of it can be attributed to a higher voltage battery vs a better AF system in contrast to the 7D or 5D. But like you said, since you can't use a LP-E19 in your 5D/7D, it doesn't really matter anyways. Those that want maximum performance will have to spring for the flagship..
 

Quirkz

EOS 80D
Oct 30, 2014
166
86
I don't know any 7D owners without a FF too.
The only 7D owners I know have only the 7D. Probably difference between semi-pros and enthusiasts vs casual hobbyists. That’s the problem with anecdotal evidence. They’re limited in perspective. (‘full disclosure, I know only 2 7D owners, so my observations are pretty useless ;) )
 

takesome1

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 23, 2013
1,486
119
98
Licking, Missouri
Unfortunately, the discussion here parallels that of climate change; the scientists trying to explain the facts, which are being disputed. But the climate change stakes are rather much higher and the bitterness far greater to say the least.
Since it is June I have less of an opinion.
But if you had asked me in January about global warming, I would have said I am all for it.

Overall with climate change the scientific facts have little impact on the discussion, the fact that matter is that many / most people are greedy and self centered and reluctant to give up any creature comfort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IslanderMV

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,924
1,231
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Overall with climate change the scientific facts have little impact on the discussion, the fact that matter is that many / most people are greedy and self centered and reluctant to give up any creature comfort.
...but only too happy to deny creature comfort to others...especially if the others are non-white residents of third world countries who would like to enjoy some of those creature comforts themselves.

To be candid though, none of us on this forum should point any fingers (myself included). Not when we are lugging around cameras that surpass the annual incomes of most of the world or jet around in pursuit of exotic sights, birds and animals, oblivious to the harm we do to the environment, in pursuit of our own personal picture of some unusual critter or landscape. These issues are complicated, but images like the recent "conga line" shots of Everest or the National Geographic cover story on wildlife tourism, make me increasingly convinced that I need to begin by looking at my own personal habits. [/soapbox]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,599
2,054
Neuro, you realise that you are entering a circular conversation where By your own definition watts per second can be defined as :
Coulomb x volts/ seconds to the power of two.
Perfectly sensible equation.
But keep the good work.
No, it's not sensible at all. But that's because your original statement that, "...watts per hour per minute whatever is perfectly correct term to use," is not sensible. If you want to add irrelevant terms to an equation then call it circular, you go right ahead.

Perhaps you're confusing power with energy, which shows up on your monthly electric bill in units of kWh. In SI units, that's written as kW⋅h, that little ⋅ in there denotes multiplication (i.e. a kilowatt of power sustained for one hour). Your invention of the term 'watts per second' is using time as a divisor when it should be a multiplier. You can rearrange a non-sensible equation all you like, but it still won't become sensible.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
873
411
1DXII has one battery, not two. And watts /second has no meaning since watt embeds the /second component already.
Pretty much all Li-Ion batteries are made by using multiple 3.6V cells.

LP-E6 series batteries each have two cells.

The LP-E4 and LP-E19 batteries used by the 1-series each have three cells.

Cameras that use LP-E6 batteries draw off only the two cells in either one or the other battery at any particular time when two batteries are placed in a grip.

Cameras that use LP-E4/LP-E19 batteries (they're backward/forward compatible) can draw off all three cells in the single battery at once.


You are now defining battery life as how many hours it will last, not how many shots. In both cases you are taking as many shots but in one case it can do it in a shorter time. The figures quoted by manufacturers and reviewers for battery life, however, are always based on the Cipa or their own tests for the number of shots, not the time it takes it takes to run down a battery.
Where did I ever say I was defining battery life in terms of number of shots? Where have I said I was defining it in terms of CIPA?

This discussion started within the context of AF speed during high speed continuous shooting using 'AI Servo AF'. When shooting sports/action, one very often does take fewer shots of the same play that lasts a limited amount of time if the camera's frame rate is slower. When shooting with continuous predictive focus in 'AI Servo AF' slower AF speed can result in slower frame rates, particularly with lenses that have heavy focusing elements to move.

For whatever technological explanation, Canon has indicated that higher capacity batteries can increase the frame rate of the same camera. Chuck Westfall in the this interview covering the introduction of the EOS 1D X Mark II and LP-E19 battery:

"The new LP-E19 battery pack is a 2700 mAH device running at 10.8 volts. In addition to the LP-E19, the EOS-1D X is also compatible with existing Canon LP-E4N and LP-E4 battery packs; However, maximum continuous shooting speeds are reduced to 12 fps through the viewfinder and 14 fps with the mirror locked up when using the older batteries (versus 14 fps and 16 fps respectively using the LP-E19). "

This is the case even when the mirror is locked up and no AF is happening between each frame.

The only difference between the LP-E19 and the older LP-E4n is the capacity: 2700 mAh vs. 2450 mAh.

You can also read it at Canon USA's information page for the LP-E19 battery pack.

So I guess Canon are among the "deniers" about how battery capacity relates, in some way or another, to the amount of power available for AF and moving the mirror?

Chuck also wrote the following in response to an inquiry from Bryan Carnathan at The-Digital-Picture regarding the differences in the AF systems of the (then newly introduced) 1D X Mark II, 7D Mark II, and (then current) 5D Mark III that is published here:

There are two distinct aspects to AF Speed that need to be compared individually: AF calculation vs. lens drive speed. Both of these parameters have a bearing on total system speed.

AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor.

Similarly, lens drive speeds will vary with all three cameras based on differences in optical formulas (for example, rear-focusing vs. full optical system extension, etc.). However, when all else is equal, the EOS-1D X and EOS 7D Mark II are capable of driving EF super-telephoto lenses faster than the EOS 5D Mark III, specifically during the first second of lens drive. This is due to differences in the circuitry of the camera body and these select lenses.
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,029
331
Pretty much all Li-Ion batteries are made by using multiple 3.6V cells.

LP-E6 series batteries each have two cells.

The LP-E4 and LP-E19 batteries used by the 1-series each have three cells.


....

Chuck also wrote the following in response to an inquiry from Bryan Carnathan at The-Digital-Picture regarding the differences in the AF systems of the (then newly introduced) 1D X Mark II, 7D Mark II, and (then current) 5D Mark III that is published here:
The battery is ONE like it or not. No one said they are the same inside.
I know about the 3.6 elements, in fact I use some for torches and some card copying devices (but not for smoking). I also wish for a pack that takes 4 of these and in combination
with a DC adapter to provide ample power to a 5D type camera for timelapses. But I don't want to risk it (the lanpart pack has been known to burn one camera). Maybe with Canon's own DC adapter but still....

I had seen this article many years ago but is very outdated. I would like to see a similar paper comparing the AF systems of 1DxII, 5DIV, 5DsR and 7DII.

Although I guess the results 1DxII and 5DIV focusing at f/8 with many points and 1DxII faster than 5DIV of course and 5DsR focusing system being on a par with 5DIII.

P.S A question is how much faster is focusing with 7DII vs 5Dxx? There are no measurements available. 5%, or 50% for example? The first is negligible, the second is substantial.
 

Quirkz

EOS 80D
Oct 30, 2014
166
86
If:
power = work/time

and

work = power * time

Then:

power = (power * time)/time

which can be reduced to:

power = power

That seems like a fairly circular argument to me.
Not circular, just a solid bit of math. I’d have been worried if it turned out that power DIDNT equal power
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,228
257
No, it's not sensible at all. But that's because your original statement that, "...watts per hour per minute whatever is perfectly correct term to use," is not sensible. If you want to add irrelevant terms to an equation then call it circular, you go right ahead.

Perhaps you're confusing power with energy, which shows up on your monthly electric bill in units of kWh. In SI units, that's written as kW⋅h, that little ⋅ in there denotes multiplication (i.e. a kilowatt of power sustained for one hour). Your invention of the term 'watts per second' is using time as a divisor when it should be a multiplier. You can rearrange a non-sensible equation all you like, but it still won't become sensible.
Nope, I am not confusing kWh x(times) hours with kW/hour.

I will give you hint and see if that may ring the bell for you:

You are surely use rechargeable batteries in your flash.
With a smart charger you can set current to an arbitrary value. As you know. If you charge too fast you can cause batteries overheating. the higher the current the higher is the mW per unit of time intake by your batteries. In extreme situation you can cause a damage to your batteries.
Recommended charge correct is typically 1/10 of the batteries capacity. Yes, you can go 1/5, etc.
Now to further explain watts/unit of time relevance:
Some batteries sustain a high current fast discharge better than others.
Some batteries cause flash unit overheating as they run really hot. You know that of course.
They are not well suited for a rapid discharge. Not able to provide a sufficiently fast current required.
Even large gel AGM car batteries are affected by the same issue: a car AGM (gel) battery typically are good to be charged with battery chargers at around 10A. If charged with 20A charger, you are risking gel to be permanently damaged it. Gel goes literary bubbles and capacity of the battery will be greatly diminished.

Both examples clearly demonstrates that A/unit of time or W/unit of time are a relevant and make sense.
Anyway, you get the gist.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,599
2,054
Nope, I am not confusing kWh x(times) hours with kW/hour.

I will give you hint and see if that may ring the bell for you:

You are surely use rechargeable batteries in your flash.
With a smart charger you can set current to an arbitrary value. As you know. If you charge too fast you can cause batteries overheating. the higher the current the higher is the mW per unit of time intake by your batteries. In extreme situation you can cause a damage to your batteries.
Recommended charge correct is typically 1/10 of the batteries capacity. Yes, you can go 1/5, etc.
Now to further explain watts/unit of time relevance:
Some batteries sustain a high current fast discharge better than others.
Some batteries cause flash unit overheating as they run really hot. You know that of course.
They are not well suited for a rapid discharge. Not able to provide a sufficiently fast current required.
Even large gel AGM car batteries are affected by the same issue: a car AGM (gel) battery typically are good to be charged with battery chargers at around 10A. If charged with 20A charger, you are risking gel to be permanently damaged it. Gel goes literary bubbles and capacity of the battery will be greatly diminished.

Both examples clearly demonstrates that A/unit of time or W/unit of time are a relevant and make sense.
Anyway, you get the gist.
Here again I see your tendency to make an incorrect statement then perseverate on it and even compound it. Obviously, your bells are silent and you clearly don't 'get the gist'. "The higher the current the higher is the mW per unit of time intake by your batteries." No. Current ≠ power (watts are units of power). Current is charge per unit of time, specifically coulombs (a unit of electric charge) per second. A higher current means more charge transferred per unit time. Please carefully read your statements and examples above – you state that on a smart charger you can set the current to an arbitrary value, and too high a value can damage batteries. You state, "Some batteries sustain a high current fast discharge better than others," which is true – a high current means a fast discharge, more charge transferred per unit time. You state that car batteries should be charged at 10 A, and that using a 20 A charge can damage them – higher current, more charge (too much) transferred per unit time. The term current already includes the time factor. You are perseverating on the claim that 'current per unit time' is relevant and makes sense, and that is just plain wrong...it is neither.

It's clear you are struggling with this concept, perhaps an analogy would help you. Charge is a time-independent value, measured in coulombs (C). Consider it analogous to distance, a time-independent value measured in meters (m). Velocity is a measure of change in position per unit time, the SI unit is m/s (velocity is really a vector, but we'll ignore the directional component for this analogy). Velocity is plotted as a linear function, and if you cover more distance per unit time, the slope of that line increases.



That is analogous to current, C/s. If you transfer more charge per unit time, that's a higher current (and as you point out, too high a current when charging batteries can damage them).

A change in velocity per unit time is acceleration, the units are m/s^2, and it's plotted as an exponential function:



Your concept of 'current per unit time' is flawed because it's like acceleration – a change in the rate of charge transferred over time. Current per time per time. That would be like starting your smart charger at 1 A, then every second increasing it by 1 A...a minute later you'd be charging at 60 A and your batteries would all be melting down.

Hopefully the above examples and illustrations will enable you to understand these concepts which so far have eluded you. The take-away point is, the term 'current' itself already incorporates the 'per time' component – 'current per time' include the time component twice, and thus is an irrelevant and useless concept.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,228
257
got it. back to the purpose of my initial post and on your terms: I suggest that 1DX II battery is capable of providing a higher current on demand than 5D IV battery, which results in long tele faster AF motor response and acceleration. now, back to fiddling around with my Sony TV, the little bugger developed a fault (3 years old tv). Main board requires replacement. Sony has no stock of spare parts and told me where to go. Never Sony again ;)
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,943
1,509
Irving, Texas
got it. back to the purpose of my initial post and on your terms: I suggest that 1DX II battery is capable of providing a higher current on demand than 5D IV battery, which results in long tele faster AF motor response and acceleration. now, back to fiddling around with my Sony TV, the little bugger developed a fault (3 years old tv). Main board requires replacement. Sony has no stock of spare parts and told me where to go. Never Sony again ;)
The supplied current is dependent upon load. If the voltage is constant (it is until the battery draws down), then the amount of current draw from the battery depends upon the load (resistance) of the circuit. So if the load is the same, and the battery voltage is the same. the current draw will be the same. E=IR. It is the load that "pulls" current from the battery. How long a battery will last under a specific load is another story. That is a capacity issue. ;) Anyway, my electronics / instrumentation days ended nearly 20 years ago. So I may be forgetting something. I do that a lot lately. ;) It very well could be that the circuitry and processors in the two cameras are different. So the load may be different. Just saying the difference between the two cameras might involve more than just the batteries. A good control would be rigging the 1DX II battery to power a 5D IV and checking response times that way. However, how does one accurately time such a thing when using a finger to press the button? We cannot. Lot's of uncontrolled variables. Are the differences that big? I wouldn't know. We are probably talking milli seconds. not disputing what you say, my friend
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,029
331
If 5DMkIV has a voltage regulator that for example lowers the voltage to the lens to 6V then even if supplied with more than 7.2 to 8.4V and assuming it will not be fried the result will be the same: 6V! Also: Maybe trying everything on a cheaper camera would lessen the damage should it occur.