yet a crop vs. full frame question (500mm f4 + 7d) vs. (500mm f4 + 1.4x + 1dx)

[takesome1]

Re: yet a crop vs. full frame question (500mm f4 + 7d) vs. (500mm f4 + 1.4x + 1dx

I am not a fan of the 5Ds, either model. I can only see it used as a studio camera or landscape. tripod use almost required for razor sharp pics.

The 5ds and the 7d2 bodies are not design for the same use. technology aside on pixel size, these is almost no reason I would consider using one camera or another in a similar situation or even compare them. the 5ds would fail terribly in high speed sports situations. the 7ds would fail in studio or architectural shots in comparison to the 5ds, esp with ultra wide lens.

Art Morris – renowned bird photographer and former Canon Explorer of Light (before he switched to Nikon then back to Canon – doesn't do much studio or landscape photography, but is an expert in avian photography particularly birds in flight. He now prefers the 5Ds R. That's a far cry from 'failing terribly'.

While I agree with the points made and even I find that the 5Ds R very accurate for action. I would prefer its AF system to the 7D II. However the frame rate and buffer are huge negatives for action. I use my 5Ds R for BIF, but in critical situations the frame rate and buffer can be a huge negative that you have to work around.

However when I read Art Morris's comments about the frame rate being adequate I took it with a grain of salt. I have seen it in his reviews on other things, he tends to soft soap the negatives of a particular item in what appears to be a sales pitch rather than unbiased review.

I would take my 5Ds R out for BIF over the 7D II, but if you are shooting something like a fishing eagle you have to have carefully timing to get the great shot and there is a higher chance you will not get the frame you want.

 

[Jack Douglas]

It seems to me Canon has gone to great pains to make sure one camera doesn't satisfy too many of the common needs of most photographers. The 1DX II comes closest, but with its high price tag. So, two cameras it is, like it or not, one slow, one fast. This was somewhat predictable with resolutions getting so high as to become burdensome.

Jack

 

[Mikehit]

Re: yet a crop vs. full frame question (500mm f4 + 7d) vs. (500mm f4 + 1.4x + 1dx

I am not a fan of the 5Ds, either model. I can only see it used as a studio camera or landscape. tripod use almost required for razor sharp pics.

The 5ds and the 7d2 bodies are not design for the same use. technology aside on pixel size, these is almost no reason I would consider using one camera or another in a similar situation or even compare them. the 5ds would fail terribly in high speed sports situations. the 7ds would fail in studio or architectural shots in comparison to the 5ds, esp with ultra wide lens.

Art Morris – renowned bird photographer and former Canon Explorer of Light (before he switched to Nikon then back to Canon – doesn't do much studio or landscape photography, but is an expert in avian photography particularly birds in flight. He now prefers the 5Ds R. That's a far cry from 'failing terribly'.

While I agree with the points made and even I find that the 5Ds R very accurate for action. I would prefer its AF system to the 7D II. However the frame rate and buffer are huge negatives for action. I use my 5Ds R for BIF, but in critical situations the frame rate and buffer can be a huge negative that you have to work around.

However when I read Art Morris's comments about the frame rate being adequate I took it with a grain of salt. I have seen it in his reviews on other things, he tends to soft soap the negatives of a particular item in what appears to be a sales pitch rather than unbiased review.

I would take my 5Ds R out for BIF over the 7D II, but if you are shooting something like a fishing eagle you have to have carefully timing to get the great shot and there is a higher chance you will not get the frame you want.

You need to be careful with whose articles you are reading and what their hot buttons are.
Art Morris admits himself that birds in flight is not his speciality and he is more environmental and behaviour. You then look at Arash Hazeghi (who Art knows well and has co-authored guides on AF and processing with DPP) who specialises in raptors in flight and is very, very demanding of quality. Art's favourite camera was the 5D3 then the 7D then the 5DSR. Arash has been 1Dx and little else - Arash's blog has a comparison of 7D2 and 1Dx and rejects the 'softness' of the 7D2 based on images I would be amazed if I got them

http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/bald-eagles-and-first-impressions-on-the-7d2-100-400-l-ii/

 

[takesome1]

Re: yet a crop vs. full frame question (500mm f4 + 7d) vs. (500mm f4 + 1.4x + 1dx

I am not a fan of the 5Ds, either model. I can only see it used as a studio camera or landscape. tripod use almost required for razor sharp pics.

The 5ds and the 7d2 bodies are not design for the same use. technology aside on pixel size, these is almost no reason I would consider using one camera or another in a similar situation or even compare them. the 5ds would fail terribly in high speed sports situations. the 7ds would fail in studio or architectural shots in comparison to the 5ds, esp with ultra wide lens.

Art Morris – renowned bird photographer and former Canon Explorer of Light (before he switched to Nikon then back to Canon – doesn't do much studio or landscape photography, but is an expert in avian photography particularly birds in flight. He now prefers the 5Ds R. That's a far cry from 'failing terribly'.

While I agree with the points made and even I find that the 5Ds R very accurate for action. I would prefer its AF system to the 7D II. However the frame rate and buffer are huge negatives for action. I use my 5Ds R for BIF, but in critical situations the frame rate and buffer can be a huge negative that you have to work around.

However when I read Art Morris's comments about the frame rate being adequate I took it with a grain of salt. I have seen it in his reviews on other things, he tends to soft soap the negatives of a particular item in what appears to be a sales pitch rather than unbiased review.

I would take my 5Ds R out for BIF over the 7D II, but if you are shooting something like a fishing eagle you have to have carefully timing to get the great shot and there is a higher chance you will not get the frame you want.

You need to be careful with whose articles you are reading and what their hot buttons are.
Art Morris admits himself that birds in flight is not his speciality and he is more environmental and behaviour. You then look at Arash Hazeghi (who Art knows well and has co-authored guides on AF and processing with DPP) who specialises in raptors in flight and is very, very demanding of quality. Art's favourite camera was the 5D3 then the 7D then the 5DSR. Arash has been 1Dx and little else - Arash's blog has a comparison of 7D2 and 1Dx and rejects the 'softness' of the 7D2 based on images I would be amazed if I got them

http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/bald-eagles-and-first-impressions-on-the-7d2-100-400-l-ii/

In the given examples the 7D II shots I would have considered rejects. But one comment stuck in my mind and it is the one about many soft pictures with a few tack sharp pictures in between. This tells me that the camera itself is not soft as it can produce tack sharp images, but the AF system is either not accurate or percise.

 

[Mikehit]

Takesome 1 - that is my take as well. With rapidly moving subjects, there were regular reports of losing focus every third or fourth shot and while the 7D2 is better I am presuming that it is the same basic issue. The 1Dx has a more powerful battery as well as dual processors which may explain the difference. Arash's expectations are higher than most but his comments certainly set a great benchmark and you can then judge where your compromises lie.

 

[takesome1]

Takesome 1 - that is my take as well. With rapidly moving subjects, there were regular reports of losing focus every third or fourth shot and while the 7D2 is better I am presuming that it is the same basic issue. The 1Dx has a more powerful battery as well as dual processors which may explain the difference. Arash's expectations are higher than most but his comments certainly set a great benchmark and you can then judge where your compromises lie.

Arash's comparison, a $1400 camera with a $2100 lens vs a $5000 camera with arguably Canon's sharpest lens that cost $6000 and fitted with an extender. Not sure I would take that comparison as a benchmark. The comparisons in the OP had at least started with the same lens.