Canon 7d2 with 100-400 ii or 1dx with 100-400 ii + 1.4ex iii. Which has better IQ?

[KKCFamilyman]

Hello all,

I just purchased the 100-400 ii and want to add the 1.4ex or was thinking of a 7d2 instead.. Also woukd serve as a second lighter body but looking for some real world opinion. I care most about gaining more reach for BIF and other wildlife. Sick of cropping in so far.

 

[monkey44]

Can't speak to the 1Dx (never have shot with one) but the 7D2 works nicely with the 1.4 ext as well.

First, you have the 7D2 CF over-riding the image cropping factor to some degree ... so you get that effect, then if you still need more distance, 7D2 will produce great images with an extender.

I'm not sure how the 1Dx compares with the 7D2 without the 1.4 ext ... so, the comparison here is a bit odd. Basically a FF camera with an extender, vs a CF camera already 'extended', sorta, in once sense anyway.

As a general rule, similar quality cameras without an extender will give better IQ than with an extender -- so, you're kinda asking it to do more than it is designed to do, using a "crutch" ...

I do own the FF 5DM3 as well as the 7D2, and if I were to require the distance (wildlife, sports), I would shoot with the 7D2 bare over the 5DM3 with extender as a general rule. Sometimes, it makes sense to shoot with the extender on the 5DM3 maybe, but I've not run across it much. Most all my work is outdoors.

I'm not against extenders ... just trying to answer what you asked, not define use at specific projects, which might change the choices of lens, camera, ext or not. 7D2 is one awesome wildlife camera, for certain, and paired with the 100-400 v2, is a match hard to beat.

 

[Dylan777]

For outdoor shooting, I would go with 7d2.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Just my opinion.
I have owned my 1DX for a couple of years and have been very impressed. More recently I have had the opportunity to have a play with the 7D2. For the money I was rather impressed with the 7D2 but I found it too limiting for my (Birding) uses. The 1DX is simply faster, gives better IQ, locks and tracks better, can be cropped viciously, is clean at pretty silly ISO, handles better etc...etc.
Although I have the Canon 1.4 and 2 x Mk3 extenders I prefer not to use them whenever possible, though I do use them when needed. Also I have zero experience of the 100-400 Mk2 - I use the 300 F2.8 L IS and the 800 F5.6 L IS.
If you are only going to shoot in good to very good light then the 7D2 is a very interesting camera, however if you need (as I do) to shoot in what conditions are available (and make the best of them) then you already have a far better camera. I think you would be disappointed with the 7D2, perhaps it would be a good idea to rent one and see how it fits your personal needs.

 

[rs]

Here's the 21mp 1Ds mk III with a 100-400 II/1.4x TC vs a 7D2 with 100-400 II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

One has a 560/8 combo, the other is effectively 640/9. Bear in mind the 7D2 has 65 fully functional cross type AF points spread wide across the frame with that lens. A 1D X with an f8 lens combo has just the centre AF points working. I'd vote for a 7D2 for overall usability myself.

 

[centuaryseries]

I shot both of these this week in my backyard using 7DMk.II + 1.4 Mk.II extender
with my first generation 100-400mm f-4.5/5.6L IS. The "birds" I usually photograph
are more often powered with jet/inline or radial engines and have at least one pilot
on-board! I however think that these show the potential for the setup you're considering.
Whatever your choice happy shooting. Edit I should have mentioned that these are NOT
crops simply converted from RAW to JPEG and sized to fit NO other post work was done