500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

[natureshots]

After seeing the results I got without one I knew there was no point in me testing with one, I even had a 1.4 and a 2x TC to hand at the time, though I no longer have the 7D so can't repeat the tests, but, for me, the results without a TC were conclusive enough to realise a 7D wouldn't serve me a useful purpose.

Still not exactly the point - the question was actually a comparison between the APS-C (1.6x) with the 1.4x TC (so, 2.24x total) vs. the FF with the 2x TC, in other words, is the better IQ of the FF sensor sufficient to overcome the greater decrement in the optics with the 2x vs. the 1.4x TC. It's relevant because in the case of an f/4 lens, the 1.4x TC allows normal AF on the 7D (all points) whereas the 2x TC on the 1D X allows only a central cross-type point and 4 surrounding single-line points.

True, not exactly the point, but as so often we can become in danger of over thinking this. If you agree there is no practical difference in output between my two crops, and at reasonable viewing distances in print and on screen I have satisfied myself that there isn't, especially when used in real world shooting scenarios, then the obvious extension of that is to get similar results from the 7D and 1Dx you don't need to use different TC's, just slap the 1.4 on the 1Dx and crop, your results will be exceptionally close to mine.

The second thing I found that killed the 7D for me was noise, even in well illuminated situations at base iso you can see more noise than with a cropped full frame, start shooting in less ideal situations and the differences just get bigger.

As always, I am not saying the 7D is a bad camera, it is not, and I am not saying you can't take superb images with a 7D and print them big, you can. It is just that, IMHO, if you own a decent megapixel full frame body with good AF then there is no realisable IQ reason for you to own a 7D as well.

So, when you do get round to doing your testing, make sure you compare both with a 1.4TC and crop the 1Dx, you might be surprised.

For those of us that do small birds we tend to use really long lenses/extender combos and crop (focal length limited photography). I'm guessing that the 7D + 1.4 will pretty thoroughly outperform the 1dx + 2X in good light. If this is what your primarily doing the 7D can make a big difference. Also, when they update the 7D which will hopefully be coming soon I would hope that the low light performance will increase by a stop. If so, the 7D mkII will be a huge boon for bird photography so I'm kinda curious how everything comes out. It's important to remember that the 7D combo puts a good deal more pixels on your subject and offers tighter framing while avoiding the less sharp corners of the 1dx + 600 + 2x TC. Also you have the ability to put on a 2x on the 7d and I can 100% guarantee that you will get better results than the 1dx and stacked TCs. Its a nice option to have for some bird photographers who can MF and simply cannot get closer (yes, plenty of bird photographers have made sale-able images with stacked TCs). For those people who want to do pro photography this edge for focal length limited stuff is huge and can make a difference in your income. If you want to make the comparisons check out the digital picture. Too bad they don't have the 100% crops from a crop camera and the 600 combos .

 

[AlanF]

Agree with Natureshots. Beyond a certain distance, you cannot theoretically and in practice resolve two lines at a particular separation That critical distance for any camera and sensor depends linearly on the focal length of the lens and linearly with pixel density. If the critical distance is 20 yards for a 500 mm lens, then it will be 24 yards for a 600 mm. If your subject is between 20 and 24 yards away, the 600 will work and the 500 won't resolve (all things being equal). But, if the subject is less than 20 yards away, both lenses will resolve the subject. Similarly, if the 20 yards is for a typical FF, then the 7D will get you out to about 30 yards. So, between 20 and 30 yards, the 7D will work and the FF won't resolve. Below 20 yards, the FF will beat out the 7D. So your test shots depend on what you are photographing and how far away it is.

 

[danski0224]

The obvious choice is 600 x $13k because it is more than 500 x $10k.

That's what I would want.

;D

 

[Loswr]

So, when you do get round to doing your testing, make sure you compare both with a 1.4TC and crop the 1Dx, you might be surprised.

Probably not. The reason I haven't been terribly motivated to set up the test is that I've done the test between the 7D and cropped 5DII (about 18 months ago, now), so I know the only difference is MP not IQ, and the 1D X is better than the 5DII for sensor IQ. I assume the test with the 600 + 1.4x on both bodies would show the same, or an advantage to the 1D X at higher ISO. That test is less relevant now that the 1D X supports f/8 AF - not much difference in pixel-level magnification comparing 2x on FF to 1.4x on 1.6x crop. I disagree with natureshots that the 7D + 1.4x will optically outperform the 1D X + 2x. That might be true with a lesser lens, but the MkII supertele lenses just don't take that big an IQ hit from a TC, even a 2x (and keep in mind that the 600 II + 1.4xIII beats the 800/5.6 for IQ). As for AF, while the 7D's 19-points are very good, the center point of the 1D X is better. But the real kicker is that most times I've been out shooting with the 600 II, my ISO has ranged from 1600 to 6400. The bottom of that range is ok on the 7D, but the top end just doesn't cut it on the 7D.

For those reasons, I'm pretty sure the 7D gives me no advantage over the 1D X, other than a few more MP (and not really all that many more, comparing the 1.4x on the 7D to the 2X on the 1D X.

The question I suppose I'm really asking myself is, do I want to keep the 7D as a backup body? Or should I take what I can get for it, now, and put that money toward a 24-70 II?

So, between 20 and 30 yards, the 7D will work and the FF won't resolve. ... So your test shots depend on what you are photographing and how far away it is.

Would you expect that to be true at, say, ISO 6400?

 

[Stu_bert]

So, when you do get round to doing your testing, make sure you compare both with a 1.4TC and crop the 1Dx, you might be surprised.

Probably not. The reason I haven't been terribly motivated to set up the test is that I've done the test between the 7D and cropped 5DII (about 18 months ago, now), so I know the only difference is MP not IQ, and the 1D X is better than the 5DII for sensor IQ. I assume the test with the 600 + 1.4x on both bodies would show the same, or an advantage to the 1D X at higher ISO. That test is less relevant now that the 1D X supports f/8 AF - not much difference in pixel-level magnification comparing 2x on FF to 1.4x on 1.6x crop. I disagree with natureshots that the 7D + 1.4x will optically outperform the 1D X + 2x. That might be true with a lesser lens, but the MkII supertele lenses just don't take that big an IQ hit from a TC, even a 2x (and keep in mind that the 600 II + 1.4xIII beats the 800/5.6 for IQ). As for AF, while the 7D's 19-points are very good, the center point of the 1D X is better. But the real kicker is that most times I've been out shooting with the 600 II, my ISO has ranged from 1600 to 6400. The bottom of that range is ok on the 7D, but the top end just doesn't cut it on the 7D.

For those reasons, I'm pretty sure the 7D gives me no advantage over the 1D X, other than a few more MP (and not really all that many more, comparing the 1.4x on the 7D to the 2X on the 1D X.

The question I suppose I'm really asking myself is, do I want to keep the 7D as a backup body? Or should I take what I can get for it, now, and put that money toward a 24-70 II?

Backup body is frankly always worth it IMO, especially if you take any sort of "costly" trip where swapping / repairing a body is impossible...

But although I agree with what you have said, I also thought part of the point of the tests were to give the OP options on 500mm vs 600mm. Appreciate you don't have the 500mm but would it not be valid to compare 600mm with 1.4x to 600mm with 7D ie is the crop sensor better than a 1.4x converter or indeed 1Dx with 2x vs 7D? If the 7D with 1.4x was equal to 1Dx with 2x, then might that infer a 500mm with crop sensor could be a viable alternative to 600m / 1Dx. Appreciate the comments on AF and ISO and the OP has a 1Dx

On your original test - the 7D had the same IQ as the MK II, but "higher MP" based on FOV? Was that with extenders as well by chance?

 

[Loswr]

I did a 'quick-and-dirty' test (static scene, not my ISO 12233-type chart) soon after getting the 600 II, comparing the 7D vs. 1D X + 1.4x. The 1D X + TC was a little better at ISO 100 and a lot better at ISO 3200.

The original test was with the 100L, no extender. The point was to simply compare the crop sensor vs. cropping the FF image to match FoV.

 

[Lnguyen1203]

How did this thread go from 500 vs. 600 to cropped sensor vs. FF? He already have a 1DX and is not asking about 7D vs. 1DX plus 1.4X.

 

[Loswr]

How did this thread go from 500 vs. 600 to cropped sensor vs. FF? He already have a 1DX and is not asking about 7D vs. 1DX plus 1.4X.

Because fundamentally, that's a question only the OP can answer for himself. What else is there to say?

 

[Stu_bert]

I did a 'quick-and-dirty' test (static scene, not my ISO 12233-type chart) soon after getting the 600 II, comparing the 7D vs. 1D X + 1.4x. The 1D X + TC was a little better at ISO 100 and a lot better at ISO 3200.

The original test was with the 100L, no extender. The point was to simply compare the crop sensor vs. cropping the FF image to match FoV.

Cool thank you.

 

[Stu_bert]

How did this thread go from 500 vs. 600 to cropped sensor vs. FF? He already have a 1DX and is not asking about 7D vs. 1DX plus 1.4X.

Err does it matter ?

 

[dolina]

While canvassing for a 600 II I found out that Canada has a tax rebate scheme. If you you are visiting canada you can avail of this.

http://www.photoprice.ca/product/03580/Canon-EF-600mm-f4L-IS-II-USM-price.html

http://www.visitorstocanada.com/visitortaxrefund.html

Without tax a 600 II sells for CA$11,395.44 vs BH's $12,800.00.

 

[natureshots]

So, when you do get round to doing your testing, make sure you compare both with a 1.4TC and crop the 1Dx, you might be surprised.

Probably not. The reason I haven't been terribly motivated to set up the test is that I've done the test between the 7D and cropped 5DII (about 18 months ago, now), so I know the only difference is MP not IQ, and the 1D X is better than the 5DII for sensor IQ. I assume the test with the 600 + 1.4x on both bodies would show the same, or an advantage to the 1D X at higher ISO. That test is less relevant now that the 1D X supports f/8 AF - not much difference in pixel-level magnification comparing 2x on FF to 1.4x on 1.6x crop. I disagree with natureshots that the 7D + 1.4x will optically outperform the 1D X + 2x. That might be true with a lesser lens, but the MkII supertele lenses just don't take that big an IQ hit from a TC, even a 2x (and keep in mind that the 600 II + 1.4xIII beats the 800/5.6 for IQ). As for AF, while the 7D's 19-points are very good, the center point of the 1D X is better. But the real kicker is that most times I've been out shooting with the 600 II, my ISO has ranged from 1600 to 6400. The bottom of that range is ok on the 7D, but the top end just doesn't cut it on the 7D.

For those reasons, I'm pretty sure the 7D gives me no advantage over the 1D X, other than a few more MP (and not really all that many more, comparing the 1.4x on the 7D to the 2X on the 1D X.

The question I suppose I'm really asking myself is, do I want to keep the 7D as a backup body? Or should I take what I can get for it, now, and put that money toward a 24-70 II?

So, between 20 and 30 yards, the 7D will work and the FF won't resolve. ... So your test shots depend on what you are photographing and how far away it is.

Would you expect that to be true at, say, ISO 6400?

I am sure that in real world applications the 1dx +2x will virtually always beat the 7D and 1.4x. My real curiosity about the performance of the 7D in bright light really has to do with the rumored 7D II's capabilities as a cheaper alternative to a 1dx for focal length limited applications. Of course you will always get better BIF and low light performance from a FF pro body like a 1dx but my idea is that if the 7D can do well in a situation like a bright field at low ISOs then it stands to reason that the 7D replacement will have better high ISO capabilities and hopefully some decent cross type AF points borrowed from the 1dx then there is great option for bird photographers as opposed to a $6000 camera. I hate spending money on bodies, there value plummets like used cars. By the same token neuro, a 7D will depreciate much less than a 1dx by virtue of the fact that its cheaper. If something happens to the 1dx I'd be psyched to have a backup 7D as opposed to a 600 II with no body. Just my thoughts....

 

[OCwildlife]

I had the 500f4IS for 3 years and felt it was a good length for wildlife and birds, even for a female. And if you shoot larger animals other than birds, the 600 may be too close much of the time. The added weight is a real issue, unless you are planning on a full time tripod. BTW I bought the new 500 II this month and the weight difference is substancial, enabling me to hike further and hand hold longer. A dream lens.

I added a 2x just for reference and am amazed of the clarity at 1000mm!! My 1.4x could also be used full time, no problems with focusing on BIFs. Clarity excellent with the new lens.

 

[victorwol]

Well... I finally went for the 600. Thanks for all the comments and help b