If the 7D II comes out with 24.1 megapixels, would a similarly cropped shot with a 5D III (containing a smaller number of larger pixels) have less noise when enlarged? Would it be sharper? I am considering getting the canon 400mm 2.8 IS II and wondered whether there would be any benefit to shooting with the proposed 7D II versus my 5D III. Any help would be appreciated.
Wildlife shooting 5DIII vs. proposed 7D II
- Thread starter Golfer$$
- Start date
- Status
I have a similar dilemma, I want to know if the 5d mkiii will be a better option than the proposed 7d mkii. I am more concerned with image quality. Having just got the new canon 300f2.8 mkii my existing 7d is found wanting. Will I get a better image with full frame or should I wait for the new 7d mkii. My main photographic needs are wildlife.
Upvote
0
For what it's worth, assuming your shooting at a low ISO, if you crop a 5d3 image into half or whatever to match the same perspective of a crop, then essentially you are getting a clean 11MP crop vs a 24MP. So, just to get the same pixel count as the 24MP, you have to then interpolate that by 2x to get back to 22MP... and then depending on what size you want this puppy enlarged to on print, you will likely get a cleanish but slightly softer version of the 7D at native resolutions. At low ISO's, I would bet the 7D2 would be cleaner if you then wanted to print at full 24MP native resolution (near 16x20)... If you wanted to print larger, I would bet the 7d still wins but even more distinct. NOW, if you are shooting lets say ISO 1600 or ISO 3200 or faster, then I would say it would be a toss up and say the 5d3 may win that battle, just because of how clean their files are. You can always sharpen the files so the enlargements of the 5d3 in comparison to the crop perspective look as sharp, but then as you sharpen the details, you are sharpening the noise and round and round we go.
Upvote
0
Golfer$$ said:
It depends on which angle of view you need, and if you are mostly shooting at high ISO. That lens is sharp enough to resolve all of the detail of a 24MP crop camera's pixel density, where lesser lenses might not.
If you are used to the angle of view of a 400mm lens on a full frame camera already, then you probably want to stay full frame.
As to the "sharpness", certainly a 24 MP crop sensor, will resolve the same detail in the center of the shot, as a 61.44 megapixel full frame camera would. But your angle of view is now that of a 640mm lens (full frame equivalent.)
Sharpness also depends on the camera's ability to autofocus the lens accurately, hence all the "keeper" talk. I suspect the keeper rate for a 7D2 replacement, would be very close to the keeper rate of a 5D3, and less so of a 1DX.
If you shoot mostly above ISO 1600, then you definitely need to get either a 5D3 or 1DX.
Upvote
0
Well since we don't know what the proposed 7dii will have for sensor quality and higher iso performance, I think that the answer to your question will have to wait.
In theory the crop factor camera gets more pixels on target given the same lens and shooting location (no moving the camera to account for field of view). In my reality the 5diii beats the current 7d in image quality when cropped to the same subject size. The 7d is equal to the 5diii up to about 320 iso then the 5diii beats it hands down because of noise. For birds in flight it is nice to have a shutter speed of 1600, and an aperture of 5.6 to 9, so that both wings say on an eagle are in focus. By the time you have those settings, an iso of 1200 to 2500 is often needed especially in the pacific NW even when the sun is shining. It would be nice if the 7dii can produce useable images at iso 3200 then the crop factor reach might be useful, otherwise it is just theory. Others mileage may vary.....
In theory the crop factor camera gets more pixels on target given the same lens and shooting location (no moving the camera to account for field of view). In my reality the 5diii beats the current 7d in image quality when cropped to the same subject size. The 7d is equal to the 5diii up to about 320 iso then the 5diii beats it hands down because of noise. For birds in flight it is nice to have a shutter speed of 1600, and an aperture of 5.6 to 9, so that both wings say on an eagle are in focus. By the time you have those settings, an iso of 1200 to 2500 is often needed especially in the pacific NW even when the sun is shining. It would be nice if the 7dii can produce useable images at iso 3200 then the crop factor reach might be useful, otherwise it is just theory. Others mileage may vary.....
Upvote
0
Kerry B said:
In my opinion, since wildlife is all you want to do...you should sell the 300 f/2.8, and buy a 400 f/2.8, or 500 f/4, and use it with a 5D3 or 1DX. If you dislike your 7D's performance, you won't like its replacement's performance either. There is simply no way a new crop sensor is going to rival the full frame sensors. Not happening.
Upvote
0
applecider said:
Correct except dont forget that once you crop your 5d3 image to match the 7D, it is still a smaller picture than the 7D and the OP did mention enlarging, but didn't mention to how much. So, if he's enlarging the image larger than the 7D's native size, you would STILL have enlarge the cropped 5d3 over and beyond to the desired size, and it's in that step that most files will fall apart. This is the same arguement as the 7D 18mp vs the nikon D300 12mp and so on... And also, if you aren't enlarging and you want a small 5x7 or 8x10, reducing the 5d3 to the crop perspective and then shrinking it again to the desired output, and then doing the same to a potential 24 MP 7D so they are apples to apples... You may not see any difference, even at high ISO... Yes, native files 5d3 vs native files 7D or 7d2, the 5d3 probably wins every day of the week and twice on sunday, but when you manipulate to equalize and match a crop camera, then you have to take everything into consideration.
Upvote
0
I have no idea DJD, my old mki 300f2.8 worked very well on my 7d, image quality was superb. The decision to get the new mkii 300 lens was to use with the new mkiii extender 1.4. Prior to purchase I tried this combination on a friends 5dmkii and the results were stunning, far better than I ever thought possible.
This same combination on my 7d is not producing the same image quality despite micro adjustment. I was all set to get the 5d mkiii when the rumour of the proposed spec of the 7d mkii was announced today. Don't get me wrong the 7d has been superb but is the limitations of this camera now been overridden by the quality of new L glass?
What I am really asking is whether the full frame sensor will be better than a crop sensor. I'm am not really worried about reach as I mainly shoot mammals.
This same combination on my 7d is not producing the same image quality despite micro adjustment. I was all set to get the 5d mkiii when the rumour of the proposed spec of the 7d mkii was announced today. Don't get me wrong the 7d has been superb but is the limitations of this camera now been overridden by the quality of new L glass?
What I am really asking is whether the full frame sensor will be better than a crop sensor. I'm am not really worried about reach as I mainly shoot mammals.
Upvote
0
thought that canon already made that very clear, canon 7d and 7d mark ii are designed as a semi-pro dslr mainly serving for sport and wild-life photography? unless i miss understood... any other thoughts?
Upvote
0
Golfer$$ said:
To be honest I preferred my 7D for much wildlife shooting to my 5D3 never mind a 7D2! Unless I could get close, then the 5D3 was better (or there was utterly terrible lighting and the bird had mostly darker shades and fell towards the middle to lower end of the scene's DR and then the 5D3 too).
I'd def think the 7D2 would be better unless you area always able to get really close.
Upvote
0
CarlTN said:
Other than in this case where you may find even 800mm too short. It's not easy to get close to wildlife lots of times. In the highly reach limited cases the crop sensors can more than rival FF. And comparing 5D2 to 7D, closer generation cams than the 5D3, the 5D2 just about never did better, even at high ISO if you scaled the 7D down to # of pixels 5D2 put on the distant bird you actually got a touch LESS noise (plus less de-bayer errors and greater acutance).
Upvote
0
scrappydog said:
here are some images with iso of 3200 on my canon 7d (might look much better as if someone knows well about photoshop):
Upvote
0
awinphoto said:
Except that I was not forgetting enlargement as in my experience the 7d fails even with it's theoretical crop advantage at any but unreal wildlife low iso. I meant that by saying "the 5diii beats the current 7d in image quality when cropped to the same subject size". Guess that should also include when printed to show the same subject size. Sorry but the ff sensor image is at least 1.6x better than current 7d crop images, IMO and experience.
Upvote
0
scrappydog said:
compare them at the same scale and not at 100%, don't just shoot two birds and compare, filter and scale the 7D bird down to 5D2 scale and then compare
the 7D sensor is a touch more efficient per sensor area than the 5D2 sensor, now if you are shooting landscapes and filling each frame the same way of course the 5D2 has less noise since the sensor is 2.6x bigger (although the 5D2 does band more in deep high iso shadows, so for particular scenes where very dark regions fill up much of the image the 7D image might look better even in this case, but that is a very special case)
Upvote
0
applecider said:
well, do not know what to say but i am loving both 7d and 5d iii. my 30d also serve me pretty well in experimenting stuff so i am loving it too
here are some other images that i recently captured with 5d iii:note: link these images from my facebook; therefore quality of these images are not as good as previous since previous images were linked from flickr.
Upvote
0
Thanks for all your comments, all appreciated. I will spend this weekend testing the 7d/300 lens combo, given i have only had the lens since early this week there must be something I am doing wrong.
Have to say that the image quality with a borrowed 5D mkii and new 300 lens was outstanding even with the new 1.4 extender. There was no difference even viewing at 100%. My old mk1 lens and extender was not able to reach these dizzy heights.
Anybody else had any experience with the 300mkii/1.4 mkiii extender?
Have to say that the image quality with a borrowed 5D mkii and new 300 lens was outstanding even with the new 1.4 extender. There was no difference even viewing at 100%. My old mk1 lens and extender was not able to reach these dizzy heights.
Anybody else had any experience with the 300mkii/1.4 mkiii extender?
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Lettherightlensin, I was speaking in terms of framing the subject the same size with a longer lens on the FF, obviously. I certainly was not factoring in the crop factor and the finer pixel pitch of the crop sensor. I didn't realize that what Kerry B was referring to, was the problem of achieving sharpness. I thought he was referring to noise.
I certainly do think a 24mp 1.6x crop sensor, is going to reveal limitations and flaws of the lens' quality, and will be very difficult to get sharply focused results at times, even at a distance...especially in servo AF mode.
Let's face it, at distances of greater than 100 meters (for any Europeans out there), autofocus can be a lot less accurate, especially on a crop camera...at least with all the lenses I've ever tried or owned (not tried the 800 f/5.6 yet.)
Frankly, I have tried the 1.4x iii TC, but on an older version 1 500mm f/4L, on my 15mp 50D. I was disappointed with the results. That particular lens just wasn't all that sharp (even with no TC), so the TC made it worse. It was tested, supposedly they found nothing wrong. I'm sure it looked somewhat sharp on a 21 or 22mp full frame sensor.
Here's a 100% crop via 1.4x iii + 500 f/4L + 50D, see for yourself. Attempted focus was on the taller sailboat on the left. This was on a carbon fiber tripod, shutter speed 1/400 second, and no panning or movement of the lens/camera. The boats were moving very slowly, especially the taller one. ISO 250, closed to f/8...it was even softer when set wider than f/8, and also got softer going above f/8 as well. I purposely didn't add much NR in Adobe Camera Raw, and used the "sharpness" slider at 75 (out of 150), the "radius" at 2.3 (a "sharp" picture requires a radius from .5 to 1.4), and "detail" at 10 (out of 100).
So, it's not like I'm presenting it here without trying to optimize sharpness in post, because I did.
It made no difference how I set the AFMA (it only got worse both directions), and also made no difference if I focused manually, with live view, at 10x magnification (which I did here, the shot is done with mirror up in live view mode, so there's no mirror shake). What I saw on the LCD, even before I ever snapped a picture, was never all that sharp...the full motion video via the live view, barely looked sharper than this still image.
Sure, there is a bit of atmosphere between me and the sailboats (I was on shore)...but I feel that is only causing 15 to 20 percent of the softening you see here. A faster shutter speed of 1/2000 would have maybe helped another 5 percent. (As evidence of a faster shutter speed not making much difference...notice the American flag on the back of the larger boat. It seems to be relatively sharp with no motion blur...yet it had to be flapping at least a bit faster than the boat was moving.) So I say the rest of the problem, is the lens combo's softness.
So...the sharpness is nothing like my 135 f/2, or the 200 f/2 I later rented. I believe either of those (without any TC) would still be sharp enough for a 32 MP 1.6x crop sensor...and coupled to a 1.4xii or iii, would maybe still be sharp enough for a 26 to 28 MP 1.6x crop sensor.
What you see here, is barely sharp enough for an 18 MP full frame (1DX), in my opinion. I mean, I'll admit it is the older 500mm + a TC, so it's 700mm (and full frame equivalent 1120mm)...but at the pixel level on my 50D, it's very soft. White egrets at much closer range, looked similarly soft. Can't fault the atmosphere with those.
The true resolution test for a truly sharp lens, would be on Sigma's SD1 crop sensor, in my opinion. But of course, you can't mount Canon glass on Sigma bodies. And of course their camera itself, is nothing like as useful as a 7D, yet costs more.
Attachments
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
