# 5dIII vs 7D shoot out for bird photography at 600mm and cropping



## AlanF (Dec 1, 2013)

There are many, many comments in the the threads about the 7D having a 1.6x longer reach for bird and nature photography than the FF. Those of us who have both FF and 7Ds (Neuro et al) reckon that in practice the difference in reach isn't much in practice and the higher IQ of the 5DIII or 1Dx etc gives overall better images. This morning, I decided to have a shoot out with the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 7D vs a 5DIII. Both cameras were hand held, but resting on the shelf of a hide (blind) at sufficiently high shutter speeds that there was no camera shake. Iso was at 640 and the aperture at f/5.6. I post 6 collage pairs out of many shots, which were are representative. The 7D images are at 100% crop (the actual number of pixels). The 5DIII have the number of pixels increased by 1.5x in each of width and height. All images were taken in RAW, and the sharpness and luminance set at 25 units in PS. The crops were cut and pasted into PS jpegs, and the collages sharpened using USM at 0.5 radius and 100%. 

The results parallel what I have found many times in the past.

In terms of resolution
1. At very far distances where the cropped image on the 5DIII is about 200-400 pixels high or wide, the 7D is marginally better.
2. For larger images of say ~500-800 pixels high or wide on the 5DIII, it is at least as good as the 7D, if not better.
3. For images greater than a 1000 pixels, the 5DIII is very clearly superior.

The noise is better on the 5DIII.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 1, 2013)

Three more. The photos are nothing special, and not very good. They are just to illustrate in a semi-scien tific manner.
The heron in the lake is the closest shot, in the reeds, further away, and the widgeon is at the limits of photography, just to have something that is pixel-limited, like the duck in the previous.


----------



## Click (Dec 1, 2013)

Very interesting post. Thanks Alan.


----------



## candc (Dec 1, 2013)

http://iwishicouldfly.com/iwishicouldfly/journal/html/020112b.html

this was an article that was posted in another thread where this subject was being discussed, its a little different in that it compares the5dii, 1div, and 7d. all the images are cropped somewhat to get to a target. the 7d cropped the least 1div in the middle and the 5dii the most. if you read the article you will see that the results are pretty much identical.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 1, 2013)

Very insightful test.

One additional point to consider - if you were taking say 500 photos, it would be a lot more work to have to go through and crop all of them in post compared to simply framing them in camera as you wish to begin with. So even if quality is no better the crop does have an advantage for this type of photography if you plan to take a significant amount of images.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 1, 2013)

Your results are similar to what I found on a comparison between the 5D2 and the 60D using a 300F4..... The 5D2 was better in closer while the 60D was better on far away items.... What I really found shocking was that for very far away subjects, the SX50 outperformed both!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2013)

Pretty hilarious post considering Alan was one of the biggest 1.6 tele advantage advocates out there, until he got a FF camera. 

I have been given so much grief and negative feedback for saying the same thing for years and showing my 7D and 1Ds MkIII crops. Welcome to real world meets theoretical pontificating.


----------



## surapon (Dec 1, 2013)

AlanF said:


> There are many, many comments in the the threads about the 7D having a 1.6x longer reach for bird and nature photography than the FF. Those of us who have both FF and 7Ds (Neuro et al) reckon that in practice the difference in reach isn't much in practice and the higher IQ of the 5DIII or 1Dx etc gives overall better images. This morning, I decided to have a shoot out with the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 7D vs a 5DIII. Both cameras were hand held, but resting on the shelf of a hide (blind) at sufficiently high shutter speeds that there was no camera shake. Iso was at 640 and the aperture at f/5.6. I post 6 collage pairs out of many shots, which were are representative. The 7D images are at 100% crop (the actual number of pixels). The 5DIII have the number of pixels increased by 1.5x in each of width and height. All images were taken in RAW, and the sharpness and luminance set at 25 units in PS. The crops were cut and pasted into PS jpegs, and the collages sharpened using USM at 0.5 radius and 100%.
> 
> The results parallel what I have found many times in the past.
> 
> ...



Dear Sir , Mr. AlanF.
Thousand Thanks for you Testing and Spend a lot of your time to Show and Teach us.
Just One more thing that I would like you to do for us again---Use That two Beautiful systems and Shoot the Doll or the Colorful Jar or Bottle of Wine ( The Doll or the Bottle of Wine can not Move), And The Cameras On the Tripods( With Remote Control or Self Timer) = That will show the real Sharp of the same photos with out motion blue of the real Birds.( Yes, Sir, I Know that your Strong Hands and do not create the Motion Blur when your press the shutter)
Again, Thanks you, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## candc (Dec 1, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Your results are similar to what I found on a comparison between the 5D2 and the 60D using a 300F4..... The 5D2 was better in closer while the 60D was better on far away items.... What I really found shocking was that for very far away subjects, the SX50 outperformed both!



I have to get one of those, I go on back country canoe trips and it would be perfect for wildlife. I think Panasonic makes one with a faster lens but the canon is 24-1200 equivelant, hokely smokely!


----------



## ahab1372 (Dec 1, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Very insightful test.
> 
> One additional point to consider - if you were taking say 500 photos, it would be a lot more work to have to go through and crop all of them in post compared to simply framing them in camera as you wish to begin with. So even if quality is no better the crop does have an advantage for this type of photography if you plan to take a significant amount of images.


When it comes to Wildlife photos, I always find myself cropping, even if using a APS-C camera  The animals are always too far away, and lenses are always too short. So the amount of work is about the same for me


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 1, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Both cameras were hand held, but resting on the shelf of a hide (blind) at sufficiently high shutter speeds that there was no camera shake. Iso was at 640 and the aperture at f/5.6. I post 6 collage pairs out of many shots, which were are representative.



Not quite convinced by the method here. The light doesn't look that bright on most of the pictures, so ISO 640 and f5.6 I am guessing would give a shutter speed at best of 1000th, more likely 500th. Unless you were resting on a suitable support I'd be worried that the stability wasn't reliable enough on a 600mm focal length for a very subtle test such as this one.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 1, 2013)

No matter what sensor you use, you can never really out-resolve your lens. What I think you're seeing here is that the 300mm L II just isn't a good enough lens to allow the 7D to outperform the 5Dmk3. If you believe the DXO analysis, they rate it at just 21 MP of resolution on a full-frame camera. Assuming those numbers are correct:

1. You're only effectively getting about 8.4 MP of usable resolution out of your 7D when used with that lens.
2. The 5Dmk3 exceeds the maximum angular resolution of the lens, so no other sensor can significantly outperform it.

A 7D's sensor, if scaled up to be full-frame size, would provide a whopping 45 megapixels. Thus, to fully take advantage of the 7D's resolution, your lens would need to be capable of resolving 45 megapixels on a full-frame sensor. If a sufficiently sharp lens existed, in theory, the 7D would mop the floor with a cropped image from the 5Dmk3 when used with that lens. Unfortunately, I don't think such lenses exist yet, and probably won't until Canon decides to build a high-megapixel full-frame camera.

Of course, in practice, the DXO analysis is, IIRC, limited by the resolution of the camera used to take the measurements, and may not adequately reflect the true maximum angular resolution of the lens itself. In other words, take everything I just said with a grain of salt.


----------



## candc (Dec 1, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Very insightful test.
> ...



I don't like shooting with the intention to crop later, I would rather use a longer lens but there is a limit to what you can do. I am using the sigma 120-300 with the canon 2xiii to get to 600 on a crop body and that gets pretty far out there and the results are pretty good as long as you don't have to crop further, then its not acceptable to me. I would really like to get the 600ii I think you can crop 50% with that lens and still get good results on either format.


----------



## chauncey (Dec 1, 2013)

I do a fair amount of BIF images of GBH's and Snowy Egrets using an older 300 f/2.8, with/without a 1.4 TC, mounted on an equally old Ds3, were those images mine...they would have been discarded in the initial culling process. But then, I'm one anal retentive, pixel peeping, SOB.
To be fair, I just got a new 2X IIII TC yesterday and haven't used nor micro-adjusted the focus yet but, if it preforms like the above examples...it'll be returned forthwith.


----------



## candc (Dec 1, 2013)

those are 100% crops, with a 2x converter, that's excellent results


----------



## Canon1 (Dec 1, 2013)

What was your shutter speed Alan?


----------



## Hannes (Dec 1, 2013)

I imagine the results may look different if you didn't have the 2x converter on which will limit resolution a lot


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 1, 2013)

It is not just the camera hardware you should compare but the firmware as well.
Testing at the same PP settings do not do this.

The 7D files have more room for improvement and sharpness in post processing. 
A test that would compare the two bodies fairly would be a test of the photographs after normal PP.

That is not to say you will find anything much different that others have already found or that you believe you found.
These type of tests have been done over and over ever since the 7D was released.

When and if a 7D II ever arrives I am sure we will get to see a whole new series of comparisons and tests.


----------



## Skulker (Dec 1, 2013)

Interesting post. Your results are much like what I get in so much as I generally like the results from the 5D3 over the 7D.

The only one I found surprising was the second were the 7D seems to have an advantage in low light. That's not what I find.

Thanks for sharing your results its interesting to see real world results rather than people trying to justify their opinion of the spec sheet. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 1, 2013)

candc said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Your results are similar to what I found on a comparison between the 5D2 and the 60D using a 300F4..... The 5D2 was better in closer while the 60D was better on far away items.... What I really found shocking was that for very far away subjects, the SX50 outperformed both!
> ...



While I like the incredible zoom range on the SX-50, be warned that as a p/s camera it has a long lag time when you press the shutter, it takes a long time between pictures, the ergonomics S__K compared to a DSLR, you WILL have to do noise reduction on SX-50 pictures, and it's EVF is most definitely NOT current technology.... That said, you can pull off some good shots if you get used to it...

The following comparison shots are between a 60D with a 70-200 at 200mm and the SX-50 set to 1200mm(equivalent). The first shot is the full frame from the 60D, the second shot is the full frame from the SX-50 (both scaled to fit here), the third shot is the jay from the 60D cropped to 800 pixels wide, the fourth shot is the jay from the SX-50 cropped to 800 pixels wide.

There are conditions where a p/s can beat a DSLR and a chunk of L-glasss


----------



## candc (Dec 2, 2013)

How does It do at the wide end, landscape shooting? I use a waterproof DSC tx-5 now and its pretty good, the Dr is not the best but I am pleased with otherwise but it does not get out very far


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 2, 2013)

Very interesting, I have to wonder how a more recent crop sensor would have performed, and what the results off the bare 300f2.8 would be like.


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 2, 2013)

In conclusion: all of these modern fancy cameras are pretty good!


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 2, 2013)

The 5D III is a model generation newer...

Also, on the 7D examples, you have focus issues in the first one of the great blue heron, and motion blur in the second, it appears....


----------



## gekko (Dec 2, 2013)

You seem to have some focus issues on your 7D with that lens combination. Maybe some AFMA would help?
If I had taken such out of focus pictures with my 7D they would have gone straight in the bin.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 2, 2013)

Misunderstandings always build up in threads because people come in at the end without reading the earlier posts. All of these images are for quick comparisons done under the normal conditions I, and many others, would use for amateur bird photography. The results are of use to me and for some others who may be similarly wondering whether to keep their 7D now they have a 5DIII or whether they should sell their old 7D to buy a new camera. The conditions are not what the perfect ones that TDP etc use for a scientific comparisons, but sub-optimal conditions used in every day life.

1.	The title says exactly what is going on – cropped images for bird photography at 600mm for a 5DIII vs 7D. It is not a scientific survey of FF vs crop under all conditions for all lenses and all bodies. The 7D is not a representative of all crop cameras. Its sharpness will depend on the sensor’s characteristics - for example its AA filter. The comparison is done for heavy crops from both systems to the same size, not for landscapes etc.
2.	I said at the beginning that the photos were not very good. These photos are for comparison purposes under the same set of conditions, not choosing the best photos taken on a particular camera under optimal conditions. They are not the highly selected best ones taken, of which one is proud - I have plenty of fine keepers from both cameras. So no snide comments please about how you would have discarded them immediately.
3.	Regarding focus problems. The lenses have all been AFMA-ed with the bodies using both Focal and sloping ruler tests. There are issues with the AF of the 7D – many posters find that it is erratic. Motion blur is unlikely – the one of the grey (not blue) heron is representative of a group of shots that were all similar, taken at 1/1250 s and 4 stops of IS, with the camera still and resting on a ledge.

If I want to take a photo of the moon, then my 600mm on my 7D with a good tripod etc will out-resolve the same lens on my 5DIII. But, what I wanted to know the answer for is how much of the advantage of crop on the 7D is realised in 90% of what I take. The answer is that the 5DIII is better. But, the situation might change with a 7DII. And then a 5DIIII might reverse it.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 2, 2013)

AlanF said:


> 2.	I said at the beginning that the photos were not very good. These photos are for comparison purposes under the same set of conditions, not choosing the best photos taken on a particular camera under optimal conditions. They are not the highly selected best ones taken, of which one is proud - I have plenty of fine keepers from both cameras. So no snide comments please about how you would have discarded them immediately.



That exactly is the point ... isn't it? To see the IQ differences in both cameras, you need to test the limits to see which one does better. 

Shoot the same subject in good light at ISO 100 and I very much doubt whether you will see much difference between FF and an APS-C. It's only when the lighting gets a bit murky that the 5D3 pulls away.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 2, 2013)

Thanks for posting Alan. I am one of the people in a similar boat. I ran my own tests, not quite as good as yours and ultimately concluded that cropping the 5DIII was good enough compared to the 7D.

Both are excellent cameras. But as a hobbyist, I haven't yet found justification for keeping two dSLRs. I am in the process of selling my 7D. My "body kit" will be the 5DIII and EOS-M.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Misunderstandings always build up in threads because people come in at the end without reading the earlier posts. All of these images are for quick comparisons done under the normal conditions I, and many others, would use for amateur bird photography. The results are of use to me and for some others who may be similarly wondering whether to keep their 7D now they have a 5DIII or whether they should sell their old 7D to buy a new camera. The conditions are not what the perfect ones that TDP etc use for a scientific comparisons, but sub-optimal conditions used in every day life.
> 
> 1.	The title says exactly what is going on – cropped images for bird photography at 600mm for a 5DIII vs 7D. It is not a scientific survey of FF vs crop under all conditions for all lenses and all bodies. The 7D is not a representative of all crop cameras. Its sharpness will depend on the sensor’s characteristics - for example its AA filter. The comparison is done for heavy crops from both systems to the same size, not for landscapes etc.
> 2.	I said at the beginning that the photos were not very good. These photos are for comparison purposes under the same set of conditions, not choosing the best photos taken on a particular camera under optimal conditions. They are not the highly selected best ones taken, of which one is proud - I have plenty of fine keepers from both cameras. So no snide comments please about how you would have discarded them immediately.
> ...



Hi Alan,

First and foremost, thank you for the images and comparisons. Many (hopefully) of us understand that it is a quick test and as such, the images will not be perfect.... but then, that's kind of the purpose of the test.... if you had posted perfect images taken with both cameras the comparison would have been worthless.

I do not believe in absolute statements about this camera against that camera as there will always be specific cases to the contrary, but no matter how hard people argue those specific cases the generalities remain.

In general, the bigger the sensor the better the camera performs in low light.

In general, FF outperforms APS-C for wide angle photography.

In general, on distant object photography UNDER GOOD LIGHT APS-C will outperform FF

In general, FF is more tolerant of lens resolution limitations than APS-C

How it comes together for any individual is a mix of all those factors and a lot more.... but from what I can gather of your pictures they seem within what those rules of thumb would suggest.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 2, 2013)

J.R. said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > 2.	I said at the beginning that the photos were not very good. These photos are for comparison purposes under the same set of conditions, not choosing the best photos taken on a particular camera under optimal conditions. They are not the highly selected best ones taken, of which one is proud - I have plenty of fine keepers from both cameras. So no snide comments please about how you would have discarded them immediately.
> ...



iso 100 with a 600mm telephoto lens is not often suitable for bird photography. iso 100 would mean restricting our photography to just when we had well sunlit, stationary birds. For birds in flight and much of the time we need fast speeds (near dawn and dusk, shade, rapidly moving subjects, camera shake when hand holding). The iso 640 that was used is not excessive for the 7D.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2013)

candc said:


> How does It do at the wide end, landscape shooting? I use a waterproof DSC tx-5 now and its pretty good, the Dr is not the best but I am pleased with otherwise but it does not get out very far



For wide there is no comparison, DSLR all the way... plus (for me anyway) as a canoist I find that water and polarizing filters go hand-in-hand.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 2, 2013)

Don
I agree with you 100% about the SX50 as well as your comments about FF vs crop. There is a good review of the SX50 vs the Sony rival HX300, which the SX50 wins - http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Cyber-shot_HX300/index.shtml

When Canon introduces faster AF with a dual pixel sensor, the SX50 will be awesome.
Alan


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 2, 2013)

When all the gear heads were comparing the 7D to the 5D II a few years ago the end result found is that the 7D files and photo's could be PP to a point that you would have a slightly better photo than the 5D II when you were focal length limited.

The 7D had a superior AF system however, and this trumped the 5D II for shots that were moving and not focal length limited. (BIF)

With the 5D III the AF system advantage is gone, when and if a 7D II is released this debate will be open again.

Three to four years ago when everyone was making these comparisons you could have gotten a decent FF vs Crop debate going. It seems those days are past now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> When all the gear heads were comparing the 7D to the 5D II a few years ago the end result found is that the 7D files and photo's could be PP to a point that you would have a slightly better photo than the 5D II when you were focal length limited.



…and shooting in good light. At higher ISOs, the 5DII would win. Below are a two sets of 'real world' images shown at 100%. On the left is the 7D and on the right is the 1D X. The first set are both at ISO 1600, the second set is ISO 3200 for the 7D and ISO 25600 for the 1D X.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > When all the gear heads were comparing the 7D to the 5D II a few years ago the end result found is that the 7D files and photo's could be PP to a point that you would have a slightly better photo than the 5D II when you were focal length limited.
> ...



In that situation the 5D II wouldn't win by a margin that would be significant enough to ignore the AF and frame rate advantage. If BIF are your thing anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> In that situation the 5D II wouldn't win by a margin that would be significant enough to ignore the AF and frame rate advantage. If BIF are your thing anyway.



Totally agree. That's why I kept the 7D after getting the 5DII. But the reasons demostrated by AlanF and the differences shown above are why I sold the 7D after getting the 1D X.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > In that situation the 5D II wouldn't win by a margin that would be significant enough to ignore the AF and frame rate advantage. If BIF are your thing anyway.
> ...



The ISO and noise comparison wouldn't be as drastic an improvement with the 5D III.
With the new AF system in the 5D III I couldn't think of any reason to keep the 7D over it either.

Maybe we could get some debate on this thread if we were comparing the 7D vs the 6D.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


Don't worry, after the 7D2 comes out it will start up again


----------



## Pit123 (Dec 2, 2013)

Hi
Interesting thread. I'm also wondering about IQ after cropping, which is essential for my wildlife photography.
And I really wonder if 5d3 can give me something that 1D4 can't vs 7D.
I started a similar thread at dpreview forum a few days ago in the 1d, 5d forum. The best answer I got was the link to this thread  
I have a 7D and a 1D4. My findings: Without much cropping the IQ from 1D4 is better, of course. However, in reach limited situations where heavy cropping is needed, I find 7D to give better IQ up to about 3200 iso. After that 1D4 gives more details and less noise.

Here is a comparison I did:

Test setup:
7D+300mm+2xtc @ f6.3 vs 1D4+300mm+2xtc @f6.3
Distance to target about 30 feet, Live view AF, 10 sec time delay, Raw, ACR, No NR. 
7D image resampled down to 1D4 resolution.
100% crops.
iso 1600. (Could'nt post iso 800 and iso 3200 due to size limit..., if anyone interested I can post separately)

1D4 left, 7D right


----------



## candc (Dec 2, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Don
> I agree with you 100% about the SX50 as well as your comments about FF vs crop. There is a good review of the SX50 vs the Sony rival HX300, which the SX50 wins - http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Cyber-shot_HX300/index.shtml
> 
> When Canon introduces faster AF with a dual pixel sensor, the SX50 will be awesome.
> Alan



I am going to get one for boundary waters trips where we take titanium sporks to save weight. An 8 lb tele is just not practical there and this camera looks like the best "all in one" solution, maybe I can get some nice moose pics then.
Thanks for the input

ps. its $349 at buydig, i just paid $180 for a b&w 105mm mrc clear filter. jeez margie!


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > When all the gear heads were comparing the 7D to the 5D II a few years ago the end result found is that the 7D files and photo's could be PP to a point that you would have a slightly better photo than the 5D II when you were focal length limited.
> ...



The 1Dx certainly holds its own there. I have to wonder what a comparison with the 70D or something like the D7100 would look like.
Anyway, If the trend of more pixel dense sensors performing better in tight cropping continues to hold true, I can't wait for the 7D2.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 3, 2013)

It would be fun to test an SX50 body adapted so it would fit on to a 300mm f/2.8 to give an effective fov of 1675mm or, in terms of pixel size 1200mm. Using the sharpest Canon lens at f/2.8, instead of the f/6.5 of the SX50 zoom (which has a true focal length of 215mm) might give some interesting insights.


----------

