1d IV vs. 7D II

[privatebydesign]

When you have some real images, not theoretical mockups, from the two cameras you are comparing come back to me, until then you are just building castles on sand.

That is the difference between you and I, you are intent on proving your theory correct without the actual real world images, I am in the business of taking pictures, I did the testing with the cameras I was comparing, the conclusions I drew were matched by many others with similar gear and the relevant bodies.

The 18mp APSC doesn't give you 18mp of detail, the 21/18/24mp ff camera doesn't give you 21/18/24mp of detail, in my experience from my own use with the actual cameras in my hands illustrated the fact that the bigger pixels on the ff sensors lose far less detail than the crop sensor pixels. If they didn't my crops would be very different and the 7D would show appreciably more detail than the 1Ds MkIII, and much more than the crops actually do.

You can get critically sharp images from the 7D, but you can't get 18mp worth of critically sharp detail from the 7D. It is possible to realise the full potential of the camera, but the full potential is not 18mp. There is no contradiction in what I am saying and what I am saying is based on empirical observation of actual images.

 

[jrista]

Here is another real-world example of a critically sharp 7D photo. Again, of a Mourning Dove, specifically it's eye, the feathers around it's ear, and neck feathers. This is a 1:1 unscaled crop, it has had zero sharpening applied (still at the default 25), it has had fairly significant noise reduction applied (+40 in LR, as well as masking in the sharpening tool, which further reduces noise in the background).

Furthermore, this is one frame out of one...no burst here. AF is not perfect...it hit the eye, but missed the beak. However in this situation, even the 1D X would have done that, as I was pointing at the eye, with a thin DOF/wide aperture, and the birds head was pointed away. I'd have had the option of focusing on the beak with the 1D X thanks to it's greater number of AF points, definite bonus there. However I just want to be clear...this is a real-world shot, single frame, single AF action (I use rear-button AF, press it to focus, let go, start making photos).

As you can imagine, I'm a very strong believer that the 7D CAN INDEED realize it's full potential in the field, in the real world. For those of you who are wondering whether a 7D II will be worth it when it is finally released, I have no doubt that it will be. In reach-limited scenarios, I think it will be a phenomenal camera, especially if it hits with 10fps and an improved AF system. I don't think the 7D II will be much better at high ISO than the 70D, which is itself marginally improved over the 7D. High ISO performance and noise performance in general is where sensor area kicks in, and APS-C is APS-C...it's always the same total sensor area. If you are not as concerned as much about reach, and are more concerned about noise levels, then you want a larger sensor. If you want the best of both worlds, and can get your hands on a 1D IV, that is still the best blend...it has a larger sensor area, so it will have less noise, but it is cropped and generally has smaller pixels than FF cameras (D800 is probably the one exception.)

If you want the best reach with the best resolution possible, go APS-C. If you want the best noise performance possible, go full frame. Any full frame will have considerably less noise than any APS-C, however if you are interested in the lowest per-pixel noise, then you want both the largest sensor you can find AND the largest pixels. If you are interested in the highest resolution possible, you want the largest sensor you can find with the SMALLEST pixels.

 

[garyknrd]

I just came in from a two month trip. In the jungle of Thailand, Hala-bala. I only have the 1D mark IV and the 7D. I love the 1D series camera. But, after some frustrating long shots with the ID-IV + 1.4 T.C. I finally put the 7D and 1.4 on my 500 mm lens. Honestly, I loved the results. So much so when in that situation I always put the 7D on the lens. Long shots AF was fine. Depth of field was pretty deep and I never missed a shot. With the mark IV I was not happy at all. The 7D saved the day.

Also shot some close shots with the 7D and mark IV. I much preferred the ID camera.

This is with the 7D + 1.4, after a frustrating time with the mark IV.

I have many many shots with the 7D and Mark IV. More with the IV for sure. It is a piece of heaven for me. But the 7D is still in my bag. I personally could care less about the tests and the technical details. I can say, for me it made a big difference.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
www.birdsthatfart.com