Review on the 5D4 low light vs 1Dx2 and 7D2

[Mikehit]

Big Ant TV Media LLC[/url], on Flickr
my 5d4 lowlight test 1st image is 5000 iso
and other image is 1600

Not surprising, BigAnt. Even Glenn Bartley admits that the full-frame shots from the 5DIV will be superior at any ISO. The article was about cropping to a similar FOV for a subject smaller than any of the sensors.

 

[bluenoser1993]

After many years of analysing data, I never believe anyhting until I repeat it. So, I downloaded the files of the feathers, processed the .CR2s with DPP with my usual fine settings, pasted a section from each into Photoshop, stretched them all to a similar size in order to compare. I get quite different results from what I expected from the article. The 7DII is far worse than the others. I don't what I did wrong to get this result.

Thanks Alan

The 5DIV shots are amazingly clean, but all are very good in my opinion.

Thanks Alan, that certainly shows that I'll have no use for my 7DII (other than shutter speed) once I can save for one of the current FF bodies.

With your experience with the 7 and 5D bodies, where would you expect the 5DS R to fit into the same comparison?

 

[AlanF]

I normally use DxO PRIME to process RAW files as it is so good at removing noise without compromising detail too much. The 5DIV is not yet compatible so I have been using DPP for all my 3 bodies for comparison. It seems to me, from iso250 up the 5DS and 5DIV are reasonably similar. The comparisons on TDP have the 5DIV getting better with higher iso:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=1074&Test=0&ISO=800&CameraComp=979&TestComp=0&ISOComp=800

etc. However, I am very conservative about using high iso when I have to crop.

 

[j-nord]

Would be nice if the 5DIV had 1-2fps more and more buffer for BIF/action shots. Doesn't matter how good the AF is if you can't catch the right millisecond of action.

 

[old-pr-pix]

I placed an order for a 7D2 after using my partners 1200D on my 500L, the reach is nice! Also detail shown even on the little 1200 was GREAT imo! I may well revisit the crop factor later on but for now I have made my choice, meantime if you want ultra lightweight the smaller bodies have something to offer on big whites I think.

1200D + 500L

It's seriously front focussing and you can't AFMA that ultra lite body.

Agree you can't AFMA the SL-1, but I don't see 'serious front focusing.' Go to the Flickr page and check the mag. view... looks darn good for effective 1120mm.

After many years of analysing data, I never believe anyhting until I repeat it. So, I downloaded the files of the feathers, processed the .CR2s with DPP with my usual fine settings, pasted a section from each into Photoshop, stretched them all to a similar size in order to compare. I get quite different results from what I expected from the article. The 7DII is far worse than the others. I don't what I did wrong to get this result.

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't your 7DII crops as shown here at higher magnification than the FF images? Would look better if they were the same magnification.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Would be nice if the 5DIV had 1-2fps more and more buffer for BIF/action shots. Doesn't matter how good the AF is if you can't catch the right millisecond of action.

It was a tough decision but that's partly why I went 1DX II over 5D4. It's not even necessarily BIF. It can be simply bird movement that changes the pose. Just a Downy I posted in the other thread but this example is a pose that was split second and not acquired if I was using my 6D. It's 3 or 4 shots right when it matters that increases the chance of success. And that illuminated AF point in the dull ISO 3200 situation I was in, saved a split second too. I fell in love with that feature with the 1D4.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

I placed an order for a 7D2 after using my partners 1200D on my 500L, the reach is nice! Also detail shown even on the little 1200 was GREAT imo! I may well revisit the crop factor later on but for now I have made my choice, meantime if you want ultra lightweight the smaller bodies have something to offer on big whites I think.

1200D + 500L

It's seriously front focussing and you can't AFMA that ultra lite body.

Agree you can't AFMA the SL-1, but I don't see 'serious front focusing.' Go to the Flickr page and check the mag. view... looks darn good for effective 1120mm.

After many years of analysing data, I never believe anyhting until I repeat it. So, I downloaded the files of the feathers, processed the .CR2s with DPP with my usual fine settings, pasted a section from each into Photoshop, stretched them all to a similar size in order to compare. I get quite different results from what I expected from the article. The 7DII is far worse than the others. I don't what I did wrong to get this result.

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't your 7DII crops as shown here at higher magnification than the FF images? Would look better if they were the same magnification.

I did go to the page. The very front of the wing and face are in sharp focus, but nothing else. If it was correctly focussed, then there should have been sufficient depth of field for further back to have been in focus as well.

Yes, they are at different magnifications to get to the same final size. But, that is what was provided in the downloads from his website. I went out in the fading light this evening and took some comparison shots with the 7DIi and found it significantly noisier.

 

[j-nord]

I placed an order for a 7D2 after using my partners 1200D on my 500L, the reach is nice! Also detail shown even on the little 1200 was GREAT imo! I may well revisit the crop factor later on but for now I have made my choice, meantime if you want ultra lightweight the smaller bodies have something to offer on big whites I think.

1200D + 500L

It's seriously front focussing and you can't AFMA that ultra lite body.

Agree you can't AFMA the SL-1, but I don't see 'serious front focusing.' Go to the Flickr page and check the mag. view... looks darn good for effective 1120mm.

After many years of analysing data, I never believe anyhting until I repeat it. So, I downloaded the files of the feathers, processed the .CR2s with DPP with my usual fine settings, pasted a section from each into Photoshop, stretched them all to a similar size in order to compare. I get quite different results from what I expected from the article. The 7DII is far worse than the others. I don't what I did wrong to get this result.

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't your 7DII crops as shown here at higher magnification than the FF images? Would look better if they were the same magnification.

I did go to the page. The very front of the wing and face are in sharp focus, but nothing else. If it was correctly focussed, then there should have been sufficient depth of field for further back to have been in focus as well.

Yes, they are at different magnifications to get to the same final size. But, that is what was provided in the downloads from his website. I went out in the fading light this evening and took some comparison shots with the 7DIi and found it significantly noisier.

I have a 6D and had a 7D for a while at the same time. When comparing the two I found the IQ loss (for my particular lens, 70-300L) and incredible amount of noise with the 7D, unbearable. When the 7DII came out I was excited but after seeing a lot of testing, the noise still looked painful though improved. Sadly, it doesn't look like we will get a non-1series faster than the 5DIV this generation.

 

[j-nord]

Would be nice if the 5DIV had 1-2fps more and more buffer for BIF/action shots. Doesn't matter how good the AF is if you can't catch the right millisecond of action.

It was a tough decision but that's partly why I went 1DX II over 5D4. It's not even necessarily BIF. It can be simply bird movement that changes the pose. Just a Downy I posted in the other thread but this example is a pose that was split second and not acquired if I was using my 6D. It's 3 or 4 shots right when it matters that increases the chance of success. And that illuminated AF point in the dull ISO 3200 situation I was in, saved a split second too. I fell in love with that feature with the 1D4.

Jack

Haha Downys are like little crack heads, running up and down trees. I certainly get frustrated with the 6D frame rate and buffer when I can fill the frame but not get a decent shot of one.

 

[kasperj]

Here are larger views for a better comparison.
Files imported in LR CC 2015.7 (Camera Raw 9.7) and cropped the 5DIV and 1DXII to same FOV as the 7DII file Develop settings = none. Noise and sharpness = 0
ISO 6400:

ISO 12800

To my eyes the 7D holds up better than expected, and in line with the reviewers conclusion

 

[old-pr-pix]

AlanF forgive me, some nights I'm just slow... (plus I don't have this specific hardware to do my own testing, I'm trying to decide on 5DIV). In your composite aren't the 7DII images about twice the size of the others? Meaning the overall image if printed would be about twice as large as the FF images? If the 7DII image were reduced to be equal size, wouldn't the apparent noise be significantly less as shows in the images by kasperj? (Although perhaps still more noisy than the FF images.)

As to the SL-1 shot, you seem to agree the face and part of the feathers are in focus. At f5.6 and 1120mm the DOF is only about 1/4" (roughly 1/8" fore and 1/8" aft of the plane of sharpest focus). While it may be fair to say a better choice of f-stop could have yielded better DOF, I don't think AFMA would have helped this shot. IMO the plane of sharpest focus is right where it should be... on the eye and face.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Isn't it possible there could be noise variation from camera to camera just like we see with other parameters such as AF consistency etc. That would suggest that a fair number of shots would be needed to really draw a conclusion.

Regardless the performance of all three is pretty impressive.

Another thought. The concept thus far is to take a FF shot and compare it to the crop down-sized. What happens the other way around - crop FF to match the crop sensor output. And what is happening to the other qualities that contribute to the best overall IQ in this scenario?

Jack

 

[AlanF]

1. Noise
I wouldn't decide to buy any camera based on the noise tests here. First, noise can be analysed in a number of different ways, depending on the purposes of the shot and the conditions, with quite different conclusions.

a) Crop has 1.6x shorter lens to give the same field of view as FF. Both shots are examined at the same size. The crop image will have 1.6x1.6 less light and so you lose 1.36 stops of light at the same f-stop.
b) Crop and FF have the same lens and aperture. Both are at the same distance from the subject and the image covers the same area on each sensor. The noise should be similar on both, the crop being finer grained and a bit worse because of light loss in the gaps between pixels.

a) is often the case for landscapes, portraits and general photography.
b) is often the case for bird photography comparisons.
Other examples are in between.

And, it is further complicated by the isos used. I personally never use iso6400 for bird photography as too much detail gets lost.

Secondly, the tests weren't well controlled or sufficiently described. The amount of sharpening also greatly affects noise levels, and different degrees are required for different sized enlargements and crops.

 

[Mikehit]

Regardless the performance of all three is pretty impressive.

Oh, I agree. I started out shooting film and am still amazed that I can have a picture of a bird that barely covered the centre point in the VF and I can blow it up and recognise the bird. We are definitely spoilt ;D

Another thought. The concept thus far is to take a FF shot and compare it to the crop down-sized. What happens the other way around - crop FF to match the crop sensor output. And what is happening to the other qualities that contribute to the best overall IQ in this scenario?

Jack

That is what Glenn Bartley did in his test - he cropped the 1Dx2/5D4 samples then up-scaled them. That is what you would do in real life.

 

[AlanF]

I don't know where your calculation comes from. He used a 500mm lens not a 1120mm, and depth of filed calculations need the distance as well. I take thousands of shots of birds close up under conditions of low depth of field and always get more in focus than that. Here are two recent ones where I was so close (560mm lens, f/5.6) that the robin filled nearly the whole frame and I had to reduce size to upload. In one, I focussed on the eye, and the other the front wing. See how much more is in focus than the one I said was front-focussed.

 

[AlanF]

Ok, I have gone off and done my own testing at my favourite iso, 640, with the 7DII, 5DS R and 5DIV, using RAW. All of these are at f/5.6 and 1/800s at 560mm with the 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC, at 12.7m from a target I produced myself. The target is a 100% crop, each pixel = 1 pixel of the original. Each pair has at the top my standard fine sharpening and noise reduction, and below no noise reduction and sharpening. The noise isn't particularly intrusive. In terms of IQ, the 5DS R is cleaner than the 7DII and slightly outresolves it. The 5DIV has marginally less resolution but higher accutance. Conclude for yourselves.

 

[AlanF]

And now for Bob Atkins chart for resolution, as above with slight sharpening and noise reduction. Order as above, top 7DII, 5DSR and 5DIV at bottom. The 5DSR wins, and the 5DIV isn't far behind the 7DII.

 

[AlanF]

In conclusion, they are all damned good, and I have more cameras and telephoto lenses than sense.

 

[arthurbikemad]

In conclusion, they are all damned good, and I have more cameras and telephoto lenses than sense.

Same here, I am a sucker.

 

[old-pr-pix]

I don't know where your calculation comes from. He used a 500mm lens not a 1120mm, and depth of filed calculations need the distance as well. I take thousands of shots of birds close up under conditions of low depth of field and always get more in focus than that. Here are two recent ones where I was so close (560mm lens, f/5.6) that the robin filled nearly the whole frame and I had to reduce size to upload. In one, I focussed on the eye, and the other the front wing. See how much more is in focus than the one I said was front-focussed.

Nice example to prove your point, but I still contend technique and not AFMA is the likely solution in this specific case. Yet, apologies are due... we are both only part right... here is quote from Flickr page that misled me "Just for fun, 1200D and 500/4 Mk2+1.4XMk3... Wanted to see what happens when you use the mighty 500/4 Mark 2 and 1.4X Mark 3 giving 1120mm on the little Canon 1200D a body that cost £250.00 new." And, your are correct, I had to assume a distance (I tried both 10 feet and 20 feet). But, I should have put 700 mm (500x1.4) into the on-line DOF calculator, not 1120.