1d IV vs. 7D II

[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. ;D

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. ;D

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. ;D

 

[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

 

[unfocused]

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?)...

...if I have to choose one it will be the 7d. That's because the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details...

...If i'm not in a reach limited situations, or if I have to use iso higher than 3200, I would pick the 1d4....

...Please visit www.nature-wildlife-images.com for images...

...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

Thanks Petter. I really appreciate the real world experience and basically you seem to be confirming what I have taken away from much of the technical discussion as well.

I really believe the 7D II will have a sensor in the 22-24 mp range and be upgraded with many of the 5D III features (autofocus, silent shutter, dual card slots). Virtually every DSLR made today is great for all-around shooting and the key differentiations are at the margins.

I've often said that I was impressed with how well Canon targeted the 5DIII to a specific market (wedding and event photographers) while still creating a great all-around camera. I expect the 7DII will be similarly targeted to bird, wildlife and sports photographers (but remain a great all-around camera as well). While not a large professional market, the enthusiasts that fit into this category probably make up one of the largest and most affluent sub-categories of photographers.

This fits in with another theory I have – which is that Canon doesn't want to sell people just one camera. They want to grow the market by encouraging buyers to own both a full frame and a crop sensor. A 7DII that provides excellent images in good light and distance-limited situations will very nicely complement a 5DIII, which shines in poor light, but requires too much cropping when distance-limited.

As I've written before, I started this thread in part to define the upper limits of performance, so as to better manage expectations. If one has reasonable expectations, then, given Canon's laser-like focus on maximizing opportunities where they find them, I think the 7DII will be quite impressive.

 

[wickidwombat]

Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo?

Well, while it appears the Dodo was fairly swift. Using a modern proxy, the ostrich (as a large, land bird) runs about 40 mph, I'd put an uneducated, non-scientific guess at about 25-35 mph peak speed.

Assuming that the origination of the Unicorn is from people seeing Rhino's, the White Rhino can run about 31 mph at peak.

If, instead, the Unicorn is really someone's great practical joke and it was simply a horse dressed up, a Quarter horse can run about 47.5 mph.

So, if a Dodo and a Unicorn made a bet as to who would get the land-speed record, if it's a Unicorn based on a White Rhino, it might be a toss-up. If it's a Unicorn based on a dressed up horse, pretty much the horse would win.

And now I feel all proud and geeky and self satisfied that I have go through the time and effort to attempt to make an absolutely meaningless point about something completely unrelated to the original topic.

Only on this forum....

 

[Tugela]

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?)...

...if I have to choose one it will be the 7d. That's because the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details...

...If i'm not in a reach limited situations, or if I have to use iso higher than 3200, I would pick the 1d4....

...Please visit www.nature-wildlife-images.com for images...

...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

Thanks Petter. I really appreciate the real world experience and basically you seem to be confirming what I have taken away from much of the technical discussion as well.

I really believe the 7D II will have a sensor in the 22-24 mp range and be upgraded with many of the 5D III features (autofocus, silent shutter, dual card slots). Virtually every DSLR made today is great for all-around shooting and the key differentiations are at the margins.

I've often said that I was impressed with how well Canon targeted the 5DIII to a specific market (wedding and event photographers) while still creating a great all-around camera. I expect the 7DII will be similarly targeted to bird, wildlife and sports photographers (but remain a great all-around camera as well). While not a large professional market, the enthusiasts that fit into this category probably make up one of the largest and most affluent sub-categories of photographers.

This fits in with another theory I have – which is that Canon doesn't want to sell people just one camera. They want to grow the market by encouraging buyers to own both a full frame and a crop sensor. A 7DII that provides excellent images in good light and distance-limited situations will very nicely complement a 5DIII, which shines in poor light, but requires too much cropping when distance-limited.

As I've written before, I started this thread in part to define the upper limits of performance, so as to better manage expectations. If one has reasonable expectations, then, given Canon's laser-like focus on maximizing opportunities where they find them, I think the 7DII will be quite impressive.

It is not so much that Canon is splitting up the market so much as the physical nature of the sensors are splitting up the market. Larger sensors have better light sensitivity while smaller ones have better reach.

It is surprising that they don't have a range of cameras with even smaller sized sensors specialized for very long range photography as well. A smaller crop size would make ultra telephoto lenses much more portable and practical to use.

 

[Steve]

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.

Haha, what? I've had both and the 1DIV is vastly superior in every way - IQ, AF (especially tracking AF), noise handling, etc + I can crop deeper into a mkIV image without it turning into a noisy mess than I ever could with my 7D. The 7D is useless past ISO 800 imo if you intend to crop at all, which, if you are shooting birds, you will be 99.995% of the time. When I first got my 1DIV I was positively giddy at how much better the images were to work with and how much better they look. Whatever small advantage can be gained with the crop factor is absolutely steamrolled by every other aspect of the APS-H and the 1D body.

Actually, the one thing I really do miss about the 7D is the precision center AF point. That was pretty badass. I don't miss how it dropped focus every other frame in servo mode, however.

 

[dtaylor]

I don't apply NR to my images.

If you use ACR and do not explicitly reduce it to 0, you are using it. With DPP or in camera JPEG it doesn't matter if you choose the lowest setting, some is applied any way. You can get away with truly zero NR in low ISO images that are perfectly exposed, but if you're not taking advantage of it at higher ISOs then you are literally handicapping your output vs. cheaper and older sensors that are optimally post processed.

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?

Not necessarily because the relationship between NR and detail is not a simple linear one. If you apply X NR to a RAW file to achieve a certain noise and detail level, you may be able to apply X+Y NR to a more noisy RAW file to end up with the same result. Depends on the gap between sensors, the NR algorithms, the settings you feed those algorithms, and also the image itself.

Comparing swatches that have been run through a noise reduction process means your no longer comparing the most objective data.

I was comparing the IR studio scene and looking at the entire scene.

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 you didn't understand my post and still don't realize how pointless and irrelevant unprocessed gray patches are. In the real world making real images 70D IQ is indistinguishable from 1D4 IQ until very high ISOs where it's still fairly close. That's sufficient to answer the question posted by unfocused.

Unless, of course, unfocused will be primarily shooting patches in RAW and converting with NR completely off. In which case he should forget about the 7D2 and 1D4 and buy a Nikon or a Sony.

 

[Pit123]

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.

Haha, what? I've had both and the 1DIV is vastly superior in every way - IQ, AF (especially tracking AF), noise handling, etc + I can crop deeper into a mkIV image without it turning into a noisy mess than I ever could with my 7D. The 7D is useless past ISO 800 imo if you intend to crop at all, which, if you are shooting birds, you will be 99.995% of the time. When I first got my 1DIV I was positively giddy at how much better the images were to work with and how much better they look. Whatever small advantage can be gained with the crop factor is absolutely steamrolled by every other aspect of the APS-H and the 1D body.

Actually, the one thing I really do miss about the 7D is the precision center AF point. That was pretty badass. I don't miss how it dropped focus every other frame in servo mode, however.

Sounds like you are shooting jpg only.
To compensate for the higher amont of pixels on the subject you need to put a extra tc on the lens on 1d4.
This will cancel out the one stop iso advantage 1d4 has vs 7d.
Also the af will be slower due 1 stop slower lens (with tc).
If You are in a reach limited situation with the 500mm + tc's and the two bodys, what combination would you use?
1d4 + 2x tc or 7d+1.4tc?
The 7d combo will win regarding details and AF speed. Noise will be equal.
Maybe you would stick with 1d4 +1.4 tc. In this case the 1d4 af will be better. 7d will have better details but more noise. However, you can easily pp the more detailed image from 7d and then downsample to show same subject size at 1d4. Again, the 7d will win. At least for isos up to somewhere betwen 1600 and 3200.

You said spot af is the only thing you miss from 7d. What about a quick way of change shooting setup from BIF mode to static mode? If you are a birder and dont miss that, I doubt you seriously have used these bodys. Or maybe you can give me a good tip

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Haha, what? I've had both and the 1DIV is vastly superior in every way - IQ, AF (especially tracking AF), noise handling, etc + I can crop deeper into a mkIV image without it turning into a noisy mess than I ever could with my 7D. The 7D is useless past ISO 800 imo if you intend to crop at all, which, if you are shooting birds, you will be 99.995% of the time. When I first got my 1DIV I was positively giddy at how much better the images were to work with and how much better they look. Whatever small advantage can be gained with the crop factor is absolutely steamrolled by every other aspect of the APS-H and the 1D body.

Actually, the one thing I really do miss about the 7D is the precision center AF point. That was pretty badass. I don't miss how it dropped focus every other frame in servo mode, however.

Sounds like you are shooting jpg only.
To compensate for the higher amont of pixels on the subject you need to put a extra tc on the lens on 1d4.
This will cancel out the one stop iso advantage 1d4 has vs 7d.
Also the af will be slower due 1 stop slower lens (with tc).
If You are in a reach limited situation with the 500mm + tc's and the two bodys, what combination would you use?
1d4 + 2x tc or 7d+1.4tc?
The 7d combo will win regarding details and AF speed. Noise will be equal.
Maybe you would stick with 1d4 +1.4 tc. In this case the 1d4 af will be better. 7d will have better details but more noise. However, you can easily pp the more detailed image from 7d and then downsample to show same subject size at 1d4. Again, the 7d will win. At least for isos up to somewhere betwen 1600 and 3200.

You said spot af is the only thing you miss from 7d. What about a quick way of change shooting setup from BIF mode to static mode? If you are a birder and dont miss that, I doubt you seriously have used these bodys. Or maybe you can give me a good tip

You are making two different arguments and neither tally with real world use.

First you say you the 7D has "the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details and less noise after pp and downsampling", then you say "To compensate for the higher amont of pixels on the subject you need to put a extra tc on the lens on 1d4."

But your assumption, one I have found normally propagated by people who don't actually have the gear, is that all pixels are equal, are you seriously trying to tell us a 7D pixel is worth exactly the same as a 1D MkIV pixel? Because that is what you have said, and it is not true.

Market forces determine camera output, it is funny but true just look at the drop in value of the 1D MkIII since the 5D MkIII came out, a 7D can be had for $600 -$900, the 1D MkIV is still around $2,500.

So would you mind showing us a couple of your images that illustrate your conclusions?

 

[bdunbar79]

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.

Haha, what? I've had both and the 1DIV is vastly superior in every way - IQ, AF (especially tracking AF), noise handling, etc + I can crop deeper into a mkIV image without it turning into a noisy mess than I ever could with my 7D. The 7D is useless past ISO 800 imo if you intend to crop at all, which, if you are shooting birds, you will be 99.995% of the time. When I first got my 1DIV I was positively giddy at how much better the images were to work with and how much better they look. Whatever small advantage can be gained with the crop factor is absolutely steamrolled by every other aspect of the APS-H and the 1D body.

Actually, the one thing I really do miss about the 7D is the precision center AF point. That was pretty badass. I don't miss how it dropped focus every other frame in servo mode, however.

Sounds like you are shooting jpg only.
To compensate for the higher amont of pixels on the subject you need to put a extra tc on the lens on 1d4.
This will cancel out the one stop iso advantage 1d4 has vs 7d.
Also the af will be slower due 1 stop slower lens (with tc).
If You are in a reach limited situation with the 500mm + tc's and the two bodys, what combination would you use?
1d4 + 2x tc or 7d+1.4tc?
The 7d combo will win regarding details and AF speed. Noise will be equal.
Maybe you would stick with 1d4 +1.4 tc. In this case the 1d4 af will be better. 7d will have better details but more noise. However, you can easily pp the more detailed image from 7d and then downsample to show same subject size at 1d4. Again, the 7d will win. At least for isos up to somewhere betwen 1600 and 3200.

You said spot af is the only thing you miss from 7d. What about a quick way of change shooting setup from BIF mode to static mode? If you are a birder and dont miss that, I doubt you seriously have used these bodys. Or maybe you can give me a good tip

Since nobody asked it yet, I will: WTF??

 

[Pit123]

You are making two different arguments and neither tally with real world use.

First you say you the 7D has "the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details and less noise after pp and downsampling", then you say "To compensate for the higher amont of pixels on the subject you need to put a extra tc on the lens on 1d4."

But your assumption, one I have found normally propagated by people who don't actually have the gear, is that all pixels are equal, are you seriously trying to tell us a 7D pixel is worth exactly the same as a 1D MkIV pixel? Because that is what you have said, and it is not true.

Market forces determine camera output, it is funny but true just look at the drop in value of the 1D MkIII since the 5D MkIII came out, a 7D can be had for $600 -$900, the 1D MkIV is still around $2,500.

So would you mind showing us a couple of your images that illustrate your conclusions?

You dont get it, do you?
To equalize a crop of the same target shooting with the same lens from same distance using same settings you can a: Downsize the 7d crop to same amount of pixels as 1d4. After downsizing, the iq looks very similar if you dont do any pp before downsizing. Same noise, same details. (downsizing removes noise).
Or b: you can put on a 1.4x tc on the lens when shooting with 1d4 to get the same details on subject as 7d.
Adding the tc change the aperture and you have to double the iso to compensate. Hence same noise and same details if the tc is not reducing any details.
Thats the basic. But above around iso 2000, the smaller pixels on 7d breaks apart and 7d loose iq. Below iso 2000, 7d will win if you pp before downsizing. If you dont downsize but instead put a tc on, 7d will also win due to the reduced optical quality from the tc.

 

[Don Haines]

Such a pasionate debate over the relative merits of an obsolete camera against an imaginary camera.....

I imagine that the imaginary camera will be superior in every way.... therefore the imaginary camera wins...