Canon 5D3 vs 7D for birding thoughts

[briansquibb]

The downside is I really can't get the pics in the wild still. 600mm is a need for birding.

I use a tripod with gimbal for the 600

 

[Loswr]

- I already have both the 5D3 and the 7D, so it is not a question about which camera to purchase. I have already compared the two cameras - unscientifically - and found that even when the crop is considered the 5D3 produces much better images.

Ok, so make it more scientific. Set up a target of some sort, something with lots of detail, and a tripod at a distance you usually shoot at, then take a shot with the same lens on both cameras, crop the 5DIII to the FoV of the 7D, and compare IQ. Then move the tripod to a further distance, such that you'd need tro crop the 7D, take the two shots, crop the 7D to the desired framing and the 5DIII to the same framing, and compare IQ (and also look at the resulting MP of the cropped 5DIII image to see if that will be enough for your uses. I'd try the above both ISO100 and ISO3200 on both bodies.

 

[dlleno]

and just to keep these numbers in mind... when a 5d3 image is cropped to 1.6x equivalent, the result is 8.7mp.

22.3mp divided by 1.6^2 = 8.7

right?

Its astonishing to me that the comparison posted earlier, which was quite well done, showed only a marginal edge (in resolution) to the 7D's 18mp image, compared to the cropped 5D image at 8.7mp. Then I had to remind myself that of something called a 1D mark II which sported an 8.2mp sensor, and the FF, 11mp 1Ds which sold for $8K

 

[briansquibb]

and just to keep these numbers in mind... when a 5d3 image is cropped to 1.6x equivalent, the result is 8.7mp.

22.3mp divided by 1.6^2 = 8.7

right?

Its astonishing to me that the comparison posted earlier, which was quite well done, showed only a marginal edge (in resolution) to the 7D's 18mp image, compared to the cropped 5D image at 8.7mp. Then I had to remind myself that of something called a 1D mark II which sported an 8.2mp sensor, and the FF, 11mp 1Ds which sold for $8K

The real trick is to compose the pictures the same in ff, aps-h or aps-c by getting the right lens so there is no cropping to get the same picture.

That way you will get more mp on the subject.

Any yes I do know it will cost more, just in the same way a Ferrari cost more than a Mustang - you pay for what you get.

 

[CanineCandidsByL]

Seriously, what happens with the bird when you press the shutter?

I think we can fall back to that old adage "Poop happens".

That would have been a funnier picture with a roast chicken underneath the feeder.

 

[dlleno]

and just to keep these numbers in mind... when a 5d3 image is cropped to 1.6x equivalent, the result is 8.7mp.

22.3mp divided by 1.6^2 = 8.7

right?

Its astonishing to me that the comparison posted earlier, which was quite well done, showed only a marginal edge (in resolution) to the 7D's 18mp image, compared to the cropped 5D image at 8.7mp. Then I had to remind myself that of something called a 1D mark II which sported an 8.2mp sensor, and the FF, 11mp 1Ds which sold for $8K

The real trick is to compose the pictures the same in ff, aps-h or aps-c by getting the right lens so there is no cropping to get the same picture.

That way you will get more mp on the subject.

yes of course, +1 on that, to be sure! But particularly in the wildlife scenario, where this comparison is important and meaningful (and part of the OP's original inquiry), one cannot simply decide to move closer, put a different lens on, or plead with the bird to take a different flight path. What we are out to discover is the effectiveness of the 5D versus the 7D at photographing subjects at a distance and with the same lens.

It takes a 46mp FF body to equal the pixel density of the 7D, such that one could crop the 46mp image at 1.6x to produce an 18mp image with the 7D FOV. Clearly, pixel density is not the whole story, however ,because we have seen here that when the 5D3 image is cropped to 1.6x, the result is an astonishingly good 8.7mp image with the same FOV very close to the 7D itself in sharpness.

maybe Canon doesn't want to let the secret out or maybe they want to preserve 7D sales I don't know. But unless they can significantly improve the actual resolving power the 1.6x sensors, it seems to me that the 'reach' advantage will soon be both a myth and a non sequitur, and that the FF boys will be able to produce the same IQ of the same subject at the same distance, with the same lens, simply by cropping their high-mp FFs to match their 1.6x buddies standing next to them.

the above makes a lot of amusing assumptions, but makes good conversation anyway

 

[Loswr]

But particularly in the wildlife scenario, where this comparison is important and meaningful (and part of the OP's original inquiry), one cannot simply decide to move closer, put a different lens on, or plead with the bird to take a different flight path. What we are out to discover is the effectiveness of the 5D versus the 7D at photographing subjects at a distance and with the same lens.

+1, that's exactly the issue. In my case, I can get the 1D X, or put that money towards a supertele prime. Since only 10-15% of my shooting is birds/wildlife, the 1D X makes sense for now (meaning 12-15 months to save for the 500/4 II).

It takes a 46mp FF body to equal the pixel density of the 7D, such that one could crop the 46mp image at 1.6x to produce an 18mp image with the 7D FOV. Clearly, pixel density is not the whole story, however ,because we have seen here that when the 5D3 image is cropped to 1.6x, the result is an astonishingly good 8.7mp image with the same FOV very close to the 7D itself in sharpness.

Indeed. But...what about a crop of the 7D's FoV to 50% of its original area? Would the resulting FF crop still be close in IQ, and is 4 MP sufficient for the end use?

 

[jm345]

So far, based on Alan's test, there is not much difference in IQ between the the 7D and 5DIII cropped to the 7D's frame size. But to neuroanatomist's point, it isn't always that simple - especially with small birds. There are times my 7D and 600mm with extenders won't get a frame filling shot and I will need to crop the 7D image. So the "extended" question is what happens to the 5DIII's IQ when it is cropped to to the same size as a cropped 7D image?

BTW, good discussion here.

 

[dlleno]

As I look at the crop/FF technology, the simplest common thread that pops out to me is that;

1. the FF sensors always have a lower pixel density which allows them to control noise and advantage IQ
2. the crop sensors with higher pixel densities have poor noise performance and limited actual resolving power
3. To some extent, (2) above may be due to less expensive technology used in the crop sensors.

I'm using the term 'resolving power' because, as many have pointed out, increasing pixel density does not (necessarily) a higher resolution system make. Case in point; As many and as profound as the 7D's strengths are, compared to the 40D, resolving power isn't the biggest "a hah" discovery. Its better, but not by leaps and bounds as the pixel count would imply. Which means -- the more pixels you cram into the same space the more physics dictates that you will have consequences (such as noise) that limit actual resolving power.

So -- and I'm making some broad hypothetical assumptions here -- if we assume that IQ limitations are dominated by the artifacts of pixel density, then its clear why there is a benefit to longer lenses and bigger sensors, and that a crop sensor will never equal a FF sensor of the same pixel count. Also, and following the same assumption, we would have to conclude that a FF sensor at 46mp (cropped to 1.6x) would perform identically to an 18mp crop sensor of the same technology-- because the actual resolving power would be identical.

I would suggest that as long as the technology itself, in the FF, is superior -- that is, the artifacts of pixel density are better controlled, then we could see the crop camera offering no advantage (other than cost) over the FF, in the situations we are discussing. Ajay's comparison is quite striking here, in that the 5D3 should behave more like the 10mp 40D, when cropped to 1.6x, instead of the 18mp 7D. Moreover, if the 5D3 would have offered mid-thirties mp, I bet we would see equivalency to the 7D or even superior!

The point that was raised about "over cropping" is interesting, i.e. how much can you throw away and still have a decent picture. I'm not a physicist but let me suggest that the answer is still about resolving power -- the sensor that has the best resolving power will show the best image. what does that mean -- to me it means that the comparison earlier, posted by Ajay, will continue to hold even as you crop things down further and further. the 7D will continue to show a slight edge, but as a practical matter the difference between the two will become more apparent as you crop further and further until the resulting image is essentially a pixel-peep.

Ajay you could demonstrate that by simply cropping the images further in Post.

 

[blufox]

I think another factor which needs to be kept in mind is that when you actually crop a FF image, especially when shooting wildlife or Birds etc, you have to keep exposure int mind too.

When you use a lens of 500mm Focal length on a 7D you are using it at 800mm. So, what happens is that your metering and luminosity is spot on at 800 mm because that is what the camera sees i.e the real distance and so do you from your viewfinder.

Now do keep in mind that light follows the inverse square law for luminosity, so the correct exposure for the same subject on a FF with 500mm lens is screwed up *if* you decide to crop for 1.6x factor.

So definitely there is a trade off between resolution and noise. Add to this that you have to decrease your shutter speeds further on a higher density APS-C sensor to get sharp images.

I think 1DMkIV with a 1.4TC is still a much better combo than anything out there. But that is just my opinion .

Please feel free to correct me, if I am wrong somewhere.

Thanks,

 

[briansquibb]

I think another factor which needs to be kept in mind is that when you actually crop a FF image, especially when shooting wildlife or Birds etc, you have to keep exposure int mind too.

When you use a lens of 500mm Focal length on a 7D you are using it at 800mm. So, what happens is that your metering and luminosity is spot on at 800 mm because that is what the camera sees i.e the real distance and so do you from your viewfinder.

Now do keep in mind that light follows the inverse square law for luminosity, so the correct exposure for the same subject on a FF with 500mm lens is screwed up *if* you decide to crop for 1.6x factor.

So definitely there is a trade off between resolution and noise. Add to this that you have to decrease your shutter speeds further on a higher density APS-C sensor to get sharp images.

I think 1DMkIV with a 1.4TC is still a much better combo than anything out there. But that is just my opinion .

Please feel free to correct me, if I am wrong somewhere.

Thanks,

One thing is obvious is that the DOF of the 1.6 is greater than that of the ff at the same shutter speed

This may impact the photo in that

- the 1.6 DOF may be too deep when wide open
- 7D has relatively poor high iso, limiting the quality IQ range (and therefore shutter speed)
- the ff DOF may be too shallow when wide open so you have to shut down - and lose shutter speed

The 1d4, 1.3 crop is a compromise

- may allow you you to keep the lens wide open whilst having suffivient DOF
- give more pixels over the subject, improving the IQ
- gives better high ISO, not too different from the 5DIII for birding, allowing you to keep the shutter speed higher

These are a few of the reasons why the 1D4 is still a better all-round package than the 5DII (trading lower mps for higher fps)

 

[Loswr]

Re: I've compared both

The bottom line is that the 7D's resolution is slightly better than the 5DM3's while the 5DM3's noise level is slightly lower. After applying NR and post-sharpening to both images, they are barely indistinguishable. This holds true from ISO 100 to ISO 3200.

BTW, this test result is not too different from a similar test I did with the 7D, 5DM2 and 1D Mark IV. This is what you should expect from the 5DM3's sensor which is almost identical to the pixel resolution of the 5DM2.

I did an equivalent test with the 7D and 5DII and came to exactly the same conclusion.

I think another factor which needs to be kept in mind is that when you actually crop a FF image, especially when shooting wildlife or Birds etc...

Now do keep in mind that light follows the inverse square law for luminosity, so the correct exposure for the same subject on a FF with 500mm lens is screwed up *if* you decide to crop for 1.6x factor.

True if you meter the whole scene (e.g. evaluative), but usually I use spot metering for birds/wildlife, meaning the exposure is set primarily by the subject. In fact, I'm really looking forward to the 1D X's AF-point-linked spot metering capability.

 

[briansquibb]

Re: I've compared both

True if you meter the whole scene (e.g. evaluative), but usually I use spot metering for birds/wildlife, meaning the exposure is set primarily by the subject. In fact, I'm really looking forward to the 1D X's AF-point-linked spot metering capability.

Series 1 already have the AF spot metering - as does the 5DIII I believe.

It works extremely well and gets away from the centre point AF metering of the 5DII - making metering MUCH better

 

[blufox]

Re: I've compared both

The bottom line is that the 7D's resolution is slightly better than the 5DM3's while the 5DM3's noise level is slightly lower. After applying NR and post-sharpening to both images, they are barely indistinguishable. This holds true from ISO 100 to ISO 3200.

BTW, this test result is not too different from a similar test I did with the 7D, 5DM2 and 1D Mark IV. This is what you should expect from the 5DM3's sensor which is almost identical to the pixel resolution of the 5DM2.

I did an equivalent test with the 7D and 5DII and came to exactly the same conclusion.

I think another factor which needs to be kept in mind is that when you actually crop a FF image, especially when shooting wildlife or Birds etc...

Now do keep in mind that light follows the inverse square law for luminosity, so the correct exposure for the same subject on a FF with 500mm lens is screwed up *if* you decide to crop for 1.6x factor.

True if you meter the whole scene (e.g. evaluative), but usually I use spot metering for birds/wildlife, meaning the exposure is set primarily by the subject. In fact, I'm really looking forward to the 1D X's AF-point-linked spot metering capability.

Precisely but I think spot/eval/partial/* metering is moot when you are in manual mode, no?
Atleast that is what I used to think was true for low end DSLRs.

Is it not the same for 1D bodies?

Cu,

 

[Loswr]

Re: I've compared both

In fact, I'm really looking forward to the 1D X's AF-point-linked spot metering capability.

Series 1 already have the AF spot metering - as does the 5DIII I believe.

Yes, it's a 1-series feature. The 5DIII does not have AF point-linked spot metering (in fact, the specs specifically state, "AF point-linked spot metering not provided.")

Precisely but I think spot/eval/partial/* metering is moot when you are in manual mode, no?
Atleast that is what I used to think was true for low end DSLRs.

Is it not the same for 1D bodies?

Metering is metering, whether in a semi-auto mode or full manual. The meter tells you what exposure will result in the sampled area being exposed to 18% gray (although evaluative is modified by stored scene parameters). So, spot metering in manual mode will tell you the same thing as spot metering in Av mode, except that in Av mode the camera changes the shutter speed to move the meter 'needle' to the middle.

 

[dlleno]

Add to this that you have to decrease your shutter speeds further on a higher density APS-C sensor to get sharp images.

or any other high-density sensor for that matter. the point here I think is that no matter what the size, the high-density sensors don't do as well in low light and may benefit from exposing to the right. Which of course, and to your point I believe, is why the larger sensors do better.

I think 1DMkIV with a 1.4TC is still a much better combo than anything out there. But that is just my opinion .

Well, if you can put a 1.4TC on a 1D4 you can put it on a 5D3 or 7D too, and on any other lens that you might have. But what is interesting about your point is the advantage of 16mp in a 1.3x crop, with phenomenal burst rate and low-light performance. An action photographer's dream, to be sure, and at $5K for the body, it better be!

These are a few of the reasons why the 1D4 is still a better all-round package than the 5DII (trading lower mps for higher fps)

yea I quite agree with the reasoning here. the sensor technology itself appears superior to that of the 7D, and in addition the pixel density is much lower. So cropping the 1.3 to a 1.6, if necessary, will still produce very delicious results.

 

[briansquibb]

Well, if you can put a 1.4TC on a 1D4 you can put it on a 5D3 or 7D too, and on any other lens that you might have.

F/8 focusing is not on the 5D3 or 7D

 

[Rockets95]

My question is to those who also have both cameras. What have you noticed in the difference? I am not looking for theoretical discussions here but practical ones from other individuals who have used both cameras.

My two cents: I had a T1i an moved up to a 7D with the 18-135. I love the camera but hated the kit lens. I got the 24-105 f/4 L and it made a big difference in IQ. I believe that the 18mp sensor commands good glass. My conclusion - go for the glass!

 

[photorockies]

Go with the 5D mKIII. The autofocus is so much better. The 41 cross points make this a a great camera for birding. I used this with a 400 f4 DO with and without a 1.4x converter and it works great to track birds. On my 1D MKII the teleconverter is almost useless because focusing is so much slower. Also, the 7D produces softer files. I returned mine because of that issue.

 

[briansquibb]

Go with the 5D mKIII. The autofocus is so much better. The 41 cross points make this a a great camera for birding. I used this with a 400 f4 DO with and without a 1.4x converter and it works great to track birds. On my 1D MKII the teleconverter is almost useless because focusing is so much slower. Also, the 7D produces softer files. I returned mine because of that issue.

Have you evidence to back up the claim that the 5DIII autofocus is much better? The top BIF shooters are still staying with the 1D4 for good reason

Dont assume that the 1D4 +400 f/2.8 + 1.4 is slow at AF - because it isn't - and neither is the 600 f/4 1.4

Shame on you for rubbishing a great camera