5D III or 7D II?

[AlanF]

The topic has come up repeatedly.

I too faced that decision, with the same two cameras (60D and 6D) currently in use, and went for the 7D2. It just arrived, and I have not had any time to do more than read its manual and look around the menu. This weekend will be the field trial, AFMA, etc. Price and pixel density are good arguments for using the 7D2 for birding. I have a EF 400 f/5.6L as my birding lens. I can use this lightweight combo for handheld birds in flight - the 60D was fine, I expect the AF of the 7D2 will be a revelation. I will live with a bit extra noise. I want to rent some Big Whites over the next year or so to see whether I can handle them, which I prefer, start saving.

I have found that I generally shoot either birds or landscape, not both on the same outing. Macro works well with both APS-C and FF.

Hi Nancy

I would be very interested to hear how you find the 7DII. I also have the 6D which is great but I am considering adding a 7DII, firstly for more reach when shooting birds and secondly for better AF when shooting field sports. I currently use my old 500D but I have to MFA to get good results and would like an APSC with AFMA and ideally f/8 AF to allow the option of extending reach with TC's.

Alan has posted helpfully on his experience with the 7DII and the new 400 zoom but I am interested to hear how you go with the 7DII and 400 prime. I am thinking of also swopping my 300 f/4 for one of the 400's. I want though to also be able to shoot large insects (e.g butterflies) - does this work well with the prime in view of its longer MFD?

Thanks

If you want to shoot both insects and birds with the same lens, the 100-400mm II is king of the jungle because it can focus down to just under 3 ft or 1 m. Here are a couple of recent shots of a butterfly and dragonfly I took with the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC, zoomed out to about 350mm at f/7.1. They would possibly have been better using the bare 100-400 II, but I didn't have to remove the extender between long distance shots.

 

[arthurbikemad]

I have a 6D and it is a great camera, but not for BIF. My long lens is a 70-200 2.8 II with a 1.4X III teleconverter, but at some point I will buy a 400 or 500mm prime. So the 7D II would be nice to lengthen the reach. My main question is, is the 7D II AF substantially better than that of the 5D III? What other considerations should I have for BIF?

I can’t believe this topic has not come up – but if it has, I am sure someone will kindly direct me to that discussion.

Thanks,
John

For BIF the 7D2 is hard to beat both for its AF and its crop factor. I would get the 7D2. Plus the 5D3 has a problem with AF illumination in AI servo mode that the 7D2 does not.

Does the 7D II show AF points in red while in AI Serv in low light? The 5DIII shows AF lock once focus is made, only in AI Serv do they remain black at all times? Just interested in the 7DII

 

[chrysoberyl]

All, many thanks; this has been quite valuable, especially the considerations regarding low light conditions. By the time I purchase a 7D II, I hope any AF bugs will have been worked out. And I doubt that I will be disappointed, because my only experience is with the 60D and 6D.

John

John, please get back to us in a week or two and let us know how do you like it, for BIF and for landscapes, as well.
Thanks,

Nelu

Hi Nelu, after seeing the 7D II photos here, I am undecided; I'm not sure I can live with the loss of sharpness, compared to my 6D. This shot was in low light and taken with my 6D from about 40'. So now I am leaning toward the 5D III. However, I want to see what NancyP posts, and will review 7D II photos in other threads.

John

 

[arthurbikemad]

I like the idea of a 7D2 to go with my 5D3, the x 1.6 would be great but at what cost? Low light is often the case for me so I love my 5D3, I have just got a 100-400mk2 and with the x1.4III the IQ is amazing!!! Also AF speed does not seem to be that much of an issue for me so far at 560mm, some great pics posted on here, you guys sure do get me thinking...

 

[Ruined]

I have a 6D and it is a great camera, but not for BIF. My long lens is a 70-200 2.8 II with a 1.4X III teleconverter, but at some point I will buy a 400 or 500mm prime. So the 7D II would be nice to lengthen the reach. My main question is, is the 7D II AF substantially better than that of the 5D III? What other considerations should I have for BIF?

I can’t believe this topic has not come up – but if it has, I am sure someone will kindly direct me to that discussion.

Thanks,
John

For BIF the 7D2 is hard to beat both for its AF and its crop factor. I would get the 7D2. Plus the 5D3 has a problem with AF illumination in AI servo mode that the 7D2 does not.

Does the 7D II show AF points in red while in AI Serv in low light? The 5DIII shows AF lock once focus is made, only in AI Serv do they remain black at all times? Just interested in the 7DII

Yes, it does. It behaves like the 1DX with the latest firmware.

 

[arthurbikemad]

Thanks, was just watching some vids, looks GREAT! Going to have to save for one (7D2) I think

 

[AlanF]

All, many thanks; this has been quite valuable, especially the considerations regarding low light conditions. By the time I purchase a 7D II, I hope any AF bugs will have been worked out. And I doubt that I will be disappointed, because my only experience is with the 60D and 6D.

John

John, please get back to us in a week or two and let us know how do you like it, for BIF and for landscapes, as well.
Thanks,

Nelu

Hi Nelu, after seeing the 7D II photos here, I am undecided; I'm not sure I can live with the loss of sharpness, compared to my 6D. This shot was in low light and taken with my 6D from about 40'. So now I am leaning toward the 5D III. However, I want to see what NancyP posts, and will review 7D II photos in other threads.

John

I might be wrong and spouting hot air, especially as we are comparing different lenses on different bodies and subjects, but what your photo appears to me to be showing is the superior acutance of the larger pixels of the 6D, and there is a trade-off between acutance and resolution with pixel size. The beak on your egret with its straight lines and coarser features comes out very well, but the fine details of the plumage don't. So, at first glance it looks very sharp. In comparison, this image of similar size of a Chinese pind heron, much further away at 560mm on the 100-400mm + 1.4xTC (as opposed to to 260mm on your 70-280 + 1.4xTC), has poorer acutance but but better resolution of the feathers. Superficially it is not as sharp.

(What I mean about the trade-off between acutance and resolution definitely happens when you take photos from the same distance with the same lens but comparing FF with crop.)

 

[chrysoberyl]

What an excellent example of acutance! That’s why I read this forum; to learn. Thank you, Alan. So had you taken this photo with a 5DS from the same location, it would look the same? Now I’m forced to wonder whether I should consider the 5DR or 5DRS.

All this research is good – it keeps me from spending money.

John

 

[sedwards]

i also have both the 7DII and 5DIII . I find the 5DIII to be much better with higher iso but the 7DII is no slouch.
image quality seems almost thee same for me.

7DII
Gray Catbird by Stuart Edwards, on Flickr
Eastern Kingbird by Stuart Edwards, on Flickr


5DIII
yellow-bellied sapsucker by Stuart Edwards, on Flickr
Hello ! by Stuart Edwards, on Flickr

 

[AlanF]

What an excellent example of acutance! That’s why I read this forum; to learn. Thank you, Alan. So had you taken this photo with a 5DS from the same location, it would look the same? Now I’m forced to wonder whether I should consider the 5DR or 5DRS.

All this research is good – it keeps me from spending money.

John

I look upon the 5DS as a 7DII with a 1.6x1.6 times larger sensor, and about the same quality for images that don't fill the crop sensor. On the other hand, the 5DRS has dropped the AA filter, which is tempting. But the file sizes are putting me off vs ~26 mb for a 20-24 megapixel. So. I'll wait for a crop without an AA.

 

[digigal]

@digigal What lens did you use for landscape photography with your 7D2 ?
Great pictures by the way!

cheers
Martin

Thanks. The landscape photo unfortunately suffers from water spots on the lens from the constant blowing mist because of standing behind the waterfall. I was using my Sigma Art 18-35/1.8. This was the first principle landscape trip my husband and I have been on. We usually photograph wildlife/birds and do "happy snap" landscapes on the side --usually without a tripod!! So when I say a landscape trip that means we used a tripod!! The following pictures were using my Canon 24-105. The Braided river photo was from a helicopter photo tour so was handheld at high ISO and unfortunately I had forgotten to turn on my IS for that trip. Fortunately we had the doors off and I shot a lot so got some acceptable ones. The ice bridge was from the Ice Lagoon and was shot hand held in a zodiac so the only one on a tripod was the waterfall--guess the wildlife experience with handholding did come in handy after all)
Catherine

 

[entoman]

I use 5DMkiii and 7DMkii bodies, shooting wildlife and landscapes for publication.

The 5DMkiii has a bigger brighter viewfinder, making it easier to compose and judge depth of field, and easier to focus manually. It also has a better performance at high ISO, being very usable even at 3200 ISO. It is the perfect camera for landscapes and other static subjects.

The 7DMkii has faster autofocus, faster burst speed, and quicker handling. The high ISO performance is fine up to 1000 ISO, perfectly acceptable at 1600 ISO, but I would only go to a higher ISO in an emergency. It is the perfect camera for sports, wildlife and action photography.

If I was limited to a single body, and had to choose between 5DMkiii and 7DMkii, there is no question about the model of my choice. It would be the 7DMkii. Why? Because it is far superior to the 5DMkiii for wildlife, and at low ISO is more than a match for the 5DMkiii with landscapes.

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

i have both the but ive shot more with my 7D2 i love it so much ive neglected my 5D3
u cant lose with either
9W9A4108-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
9W9A4346-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
9W9A2739-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr

 

[digigal]

I use 5DMkiii and 7DMkii bodies, shooting wildlife and landscapes for publication.

The 5DMkiii has a bigger brighter viewfinder, making it easier to compose and judge depth of field, and easier to focus manually. It also has a better performance at high ISO, being very usable even at 3200 ISO. It is the perfect camera for landscapes and other static subjects.

The 7DMkii has faster autofocus, faster burst speed, and quicker handling. The high ISO performance is fine up to 1000 ISO, perfectly acceptable at 1600 ISO, but I would only go to a higher ISO in an emergency. It is the perfect camera for sports, wildlife and action photography.

If I was limited to a single body, and had to choose between 5DMkiii and 7DMkii, there is no question about the model of my choice. It would be the 7DMkii. Why? Because it is far superior to the 5DMkiii for wildlife, and at low ISO is more than a match for the 5DMkiii with landscapes.

I was very pleased with the 7D2s versatility in Iceland and when we were in Mongolia shooting the Eagle Festival, the Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 gave me a greater chance at getting usable shots in the inside of the dark gers out near the Kurdistan border. It's a great all around camera for a person who concentrates on wildlife and is on the move (not shooting from blinds or a set up) and the capabilities at low ISO for landscapes makes it a great performer for the reasons you mentioned.
I'll be using it in Madagascar next month, Antarctica in December, the Falklands in January, India for Tigers with Andy Biggs and a few days of birding in April, and Svalbard for Polar Bears and Arctic Foxes in July so I have plans to give the 7DM2 as heavy a workout as the 7D which went to 7 continents also!
Catherine
Catherine

 

[bod]

If you want to shoot both insects and birds with the same lens, the 100-400mm II is king of the jungle because it can focus down to just under 3 ft or 1 m. Here are a couple of recent shots of a butterfly and dragonfly I took with the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC, zoomed out to about 350mm at f/7.1. They would possibly have been better using the bare 100-400 II, but I didn't have to remove the extender between long distance shots.

Hi Alan - Thanks for posting these images. Very useful to see some example insects images from the 100-400 II

I am finding this a stimulating thread and your comments have been thought provoking for me such as on acutance and resolution. Similarly your observation that "You can down-sample the crop image by 1.6x to give the same number of pixels as the FF, which is equivalent to gaining 0.7 stops in S/N" was something of a revelation to me as I had not considered this before.

Thanks again.

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

love my 7D2 and 5D3
9W9A1306-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
9W9A1121-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
9W9A0872-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr

 

[Deleted member 369279]

I have both, and I am so disappointed by the IQ of the 7Dk2 that I am selling it.
For me IQ is more important than the AF or the frame rate. Maybe my 7Dmk2 has a problem, I don't know. But the images show no details. I have shot birds with the 7Dk2 and without details in the feathers it is useless. Yes I have done AFMA with my lenses. Now I must say that that It seemed to work better with my Tamron 150-600 than with the Sigma 150-600 sport. The 7Dmk2 with ISO above 1600 is not giving usable images in my opinion. But the problem if you don't own F2,8 or F 4,0 telephoto lenses (If you were you would probably be using the 1Dx) you need to increase the ISOs to keep the shutter speed high. If the light is not good you easily go beyond 1600 ISO (my Sigma is at 6,3 when zooming at 600mm). So 10 shots per second at 3200 ISO gives you 10 shots per second of unusable images...
I am considering the 1DX when the 1DX mk2 comes out.

 

[AlanF]

It's your lenses that are the problem. Both the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm have very low MTFs of 0.4 at 600mm at 30 c/mm (i.e. APS-C) and 0.5-0.6 at 400mm. The 100-400mm II is significantly sharper.

 

[tomscott]

The pics in this thread contradict your statement.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1332307

 

[tomscott]

Here are a few from that thread with the tamron 150-600mm and the 7DMKII borrowed from Tongho58

Black Skimmer Skimming by Tongho58, on Flickr

2015 Hummer On Pride of Madeira # 1 by Tongho58, on Flickr

Osprey With Fish by Tongho58, on Flickr

2015 Hummer On Pride of Madeira # 17 by Tongho58, on Flickr

Breakfast of Champions by Tongho58, on Flickr

Most of the shots are at 600 and wide open. The guys obviously incredibly talented but this combo looks killer to me.