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



## faustino (Apr 1, 2016)

Sorry for it, but I have question that may again raise the crop vs. full frame discussion.


I own a 500mm f4ii and I am wandering which would be the best setup if I need additional reach among the two options, crop vs. full frame:


CF: attaching to the lens a 7dii
FF: attaching to the lens a 2xiii and a 1dxii (a setup equivalent to a 700 f5.6 lens)


I know that the full frame option gives a setup equivalent to a 700mm f5.6 lens on a 20mp sensor, while the crop option will give a setup equivalent to an 800mm f6.4 lens on a 20mp sensor (somewhat different).


Apart from the difference in the equivalent focal distance and aperture, is there any major advantage of one setup vs. the other?


The question is not theoretical for me. I will later this year buy a 1dxii, and I was thinking to buy also a 7dii to be almost permanently attached to the 500mmf4ii, except from when I need less reach, when I would use the 1dxii.


Thank you very much for your recommendations!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2016)

faustino said:


> FF: attaching to the lens a 2xiii and a 1dxii (a setup equivalent to a 700 f5.6 lens)
> 
> I know that the full frame option gives a setup equivalent to a 700mm f5.6 lens on a 20mp sensor,



Please clarify - 500mm + 1.4x = 700mm f/5.6, 500mm + 2x = 1000mm f/8. 

With the 1D X II, I'd choose the 500 + 2x since you'll retain full AF capabilities at f/8, and have more reach and better IQ.


----------



## faustino (Apr 1, 2016)

Thank you Neuro; anyhow, the question I would like to solve is a little bit different.


1000mm would be too much reach, 700 or 800 is in the range that I would like to shoot at.


I am not saying that the crop setup is better (I moved to full frame for a reason years ago). I tend to believe that it will be more or less equivalent:


My understanding is that the crop will have a little bit more "equivalent focal length" (800 vs. 700) but less "equivalent aperture" (6.4 vs. 5.6). Apart from that, the autofocus on the 7d should work somewhat better, because it will get more intensity of light on the sensors (f4.0 vs. f5.6); but maybe it will work worse because the 1dxii has a such better autofocus that will beat the 7d even getting less intense light (but I doubt about this).


Apart from the above consideration, is there anything that I should add to the comparison to make a correct choice?


My choice will be whether to buy a 7dii for the only usage of attaching it to the 500mm or not.


The advantage would be to have the setup In the range of 700-800mm f5.6-f6.4 (equivalent parameters) without needing to pull out the 1dxii.


Another advantage should be (but I am not sure) that the autofocus of the 500+7d should perform better that that of the 500+1.4+1dx. Do you believe is this conjecture correct?


----------



## j-nord (Apr 1, 2016)

You want to know which is better and why:

500mm f4 ii + 7Dii = 800f6.4
vs
500mm f4 ii + 1.4xiii + 1Dxii = 700f5.6

Does this sum up your question? What are you shooting?

I don't have experience with this hardware but I imagine the 7Dii combo would focus slightly faster since it doesn't have the 1.4xiii. If you shoot low/poor lighting conditions the 1Dxii will produce better images. The 7Dii will allow you to shoot at f4 but the blur/bokeh/aperture will be similar to f6.4 equivalent (but you are using a longer equivalent focal length). If you'd have to crop more with the 1Dxii combo then, the 7Dii combo will get more pixels on the subject.


----------



## TeT (Apr 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> faustino said:
> 
> 
> > FF: attaching to the lens a 2xiii and a 1dxii (a setup equivalent to a 700 f5.6 lens)
> ...



yOu think the 1dxII can pull out better IQ at 2X ? Granted we are looking for fleas on a giraffe to find a difference... but that would be impressive. 


THe 1000mm itself would be enough to choose the 2X and at 1.4X the IQ nod is even more in the 1DXii corner...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2016)

I don't think you'll see any difference in AF performance between f/4 and f/5.6, unless you're shooting in near-dark conditions. I suspect the native 1D X II AF will be better than the 7DII, and that adding the 1.4xIII with the 1D X II will put it in equal footing with the bare lens on the 7DII (1-series bodies focus faster, the TC will slow it down).

I have no doubt the 1D X II + 1.4x will deliver better overall IQ than the 7DII.


----------



## Skatol (Apr 1, 2016)

Please forgive my ignorance but the crop aperture vs. full frame aperture numbers do not make sense to me.
F/5.6 is f/5.6 regardless of the sensor size. DOF is determined by aperture and distance to subject. If the goal is to shoot from the same distance then DOF will be the same on each setup. The crop sensor will have less area around the subject hence the "crop".

As to the original question, I would prefer the 1DX option for the F/8 capability on all points and spot metering linked to any AF point.

The plus for the 7D is having more pixels on target providing more detail.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 1, 2016)

There are so many aspects to the term 'better'....image quality, sensor quality, AF capability, ISO capability etc etc

If the 1dx2 is feasible I would go for that and the 7d2 would not get a look-in. Why? For so many reasons - superior AF is one but mainly because the because all batteries are not created equal and the battery in the 1dx will drive the AF mechanism in the lens much better. 
From everything I have read and seen. I would go so far as to say that the 1dx+1.4tc when cropped will beat the 7d2 plus 1.4tc. I live in Manchester UK (latitude above Vancouver) and the 7D2 has its limitations - I would love the low light capabilities of the 1dx. 

I have followed comments from 2 people quite closely over the last couple of years: Arash Hazeghi who shoots with a 1dx and Art Morris who until recently shot with a 7D2 - the latter says he prefers the 1dx but for him the bulk and weight of the 1dx are impractical. So really it all comes down to what compromises you are willing to make.
I think the 7D2 would be an excellent second body but given the choice for me it would be idx without question.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 1, 2016)

Skatol said:


> Please forgive my ignorance but the crop aperture vs. full frame aperture numbers do not make sense to me.
> F/5.6 is f/5.6 regardless of the sensor size. DOF is determined by aperture and distance to subject.



If you are shooting birds, the chances are you will end up cropping whether using APS-C or FF body. In this case the image of the bird is the same size on the sensor and what you are saying is totally true because the ratio of image size to final viewing size will be the same. 
If, however, you are shooting (for example) large mammals and getting a frame-filling image means wither using a different lens or changing the distance to the subject then the APS-C will have a deeper DOF. 
This is where the discussions get so fraught


----------



## Skatol (Apr 1, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Skatol said:
> 
> 
> > Please forgive my ignorance but the crop aperture vs. full frame aperture numbers do not make sense to me.
> ...



This is how I understand it. It seems some confuse the matter assuming the framing is identical. In this case DOF will change because you have to be physically further from your subject with a crop sensor to obtain the same framing. This however does not change the aperture value.


----------



## faustino (Apr 1, 2016)

Thank your for the additional comments, the points on the autofocus are very interesting:



j-nord said:


> I imagine the 7Dii combo would focus slightly faster since it doesn't have the 1.4xiii.





neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect the native 1D X II AF will be better than the 7DII, and that adding the 1.4xIII with the 1D X II will put it in equal footing with the bare lens on the 7DII (1-series bodies focus faster, the TC will slow it down).




If I decide to buy also the 7d I will try to find a way to test the difference in performance and post the results.


----------



## faustino (Apr 1, 2016)

j-nord said:


> You want to know which is better and why:
> 
> 500mm f4 ii + 7Dii = 800f6.4
> vs
> ...




Yes, it is exactly my question.


I will shoot bird in flight and small running mammals. My settings for shutter speed will force to stay in the range of ISO 3200 at those apertures (f4) on the 7d, so I will not want to further reduce the aperture below f4 on crop or f5.6 on full frame (because I would need to raise the ISO further or reduce shutter speed); also the focal length will be at the maximum for me to be able to follow the subject, above that range I would struggle too much in trying to find the subject (I experienced with the 5dm3 that I am using currently with all combinations - bare lens, 1.4x, 2.0x).


----------



## faustino (Apr 1, 2016)

Skatol said:


> the crop aperture vs. full frame aperture numbers do not make sense to me.
> F/5.6 is f/5.6 regardless of the sensor size.



It is true that f numbers and focal length remains the same whatever the sensor size is, I fully agree and will never state the contrary of that simple truth.

Anyhow, it is also true that there is a perfect theoretical equivalence between the following two:
a 500mm f4 lens projecting light on a 20mp 1.6 crop sensor set at 3200 ISO
and a 800mm f5.6 lens projecting light on a 20mp full frame lens set at 8192 ISO (theoretical iso setting, I know)


I would get everything equal: same noise, same pixels on subject, identical depth of field, identical perspective, same apparent reach... identical image.


What I am not sure is wether that theoretical equivalence holds in practice or not. And, if it does't hold true, I struggle in understanding why it is the case. And if it is true, I would find myself writing that the 800mm+1dx is like the 500mm+7d, which I understand is a quite puzzling statement 
Thanks again for any clarification you can provide.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 1, 2016)

This discussion always gets confused. Even if you don't move, the DOF is different. Suppose I have a 7D2 with a 400mm lens and shoot a subject at 50m at f/4. If all I do is change to a 1Dx, and don't change anything else, and keep it at f/4, the DOF values will be different because to get to the SAME output size, the smaller sensor has to undergo a larger enlargement ratio than the FF sensor. From a light-gathering perspective (pun intended) yes, f/4 is f/4. But from a DOF perspective, it is not even when the ONLY thing you change is sensor size.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 1, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> There are so many aspects to the term 'better'....image quality, sensor quality, AF capability, ISO capability etc etc
> 
> If the 1dx2 is feasible I would go for that and the 7d2 would not get a look-in. Why? For so many reasons - superior AF is one but mainly because the because all batteries are not created equal and the battery in the 1dx will drive the AF mechanism in the lens much better.
> From everything I have read and seen. I would go so far as to say that the 1dx+1.4tc when cropped will beat the 7d2 plus 1.4tc. I live in Manchester UK (latitude above Vancouver) and the 7D2 has its limitations - I would love the low light capabilities of the 1dx.
> ...



Art Morris has gone over to the 5DS R, and I have followed the great man. If you don't want blisteringly fast frame rate (Art Morris doesn't, and neither do I), the 5DS R is the best bird photography machine, combining better resolution than the 7DII with all the advantages of field of view of FF.


----------



## faustino (Apr 1, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Art Morris has gone over to the 5DS R, and I have followed the great man. If you don't want blisteringly fast frame rate (Art Morris doesn't, and neither do I), the 5DS R is the best bird photography machine, combining better resolution than the 7DII with all the advantages of field of view of FF.




Excellent point, I agree. You have the field of view to more easily follow the subject and still retain the same resolution on the subject that you would get with a modern crop sensor. The advantage of the 1dxii remains on frame rate (as you stated), and maybe on autofocus speed - because perhaps the 1dx provides more power to the lens motor (I would really like to have an answer on this point).


At high iso perhaps the crop from 1dx sensor will be better that the crop from the 5ds - because few large pixels behave better than many small pixels at high ISO.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 1, 2016)

faustino said:


> Skatol said:
> 
> 
> > the crop aperture vs. full frame aperture numbers do not make sense to me.
> ...



The 1Dx/800mm combo in your scenario would be sharper than the 7D2/500mm combo, ASSUMING everything else is equal, including noise, lens performance, all that, and you know that because you said that. But in my "perfect" example, even if I fill the frame with each, the FF image will be sharper. The reason is that to get to a final output size, let's just say 8x10, the image from the crop sensor has to undergo a 1.6x FF enlargement ratio to get there. In other words, the FF is enlarged less than the crop to get to any viewing size. But, we get into problems when say, the 500 f/4 II L is used and is likely a better performer than the 800 f/5.6L so any gain/loss is made up for with the lens quality. It's not very clear-cut.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 2, 2016)

If possible, when the time comes, rent the 7D and compare. Theory is entertaining. Actual photos will be clearer.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Apr 2, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> This discussion always gets confused. Even if you don't move, the DOF is different. Suppose I have a 7D2 with a 400mm lens and shoot a subject at 50m at f/4. If all I do is change to a 1Dx, and don't change anything else, and keep it at f/4, the DOF values will be different because to get to the SAME output size, the smaller sensor has to undergo a larger enlargement ratio than the FF sensor. From a light-gathering perspective (pun intended) yes, f/4 is f/4. But from a DOF perspective, it is not even when the ONLY thing you change is sensor size.



Ummm... Your example confuses me more. Crop is known for greater DOF, but your example states a higher enlargement ratio for the crop, which to my understanding would reduce DOF due to loss of sharpness during the enlarging.

In any case, I find the whole example misleading, because if you are happy with the framing of the 400mm and 7D2, then the 1DX will have to be cropped and enlarged to the very same enlargement ratio because the content in the image will be the very same size on both sensors at 400mm and equal distance to target.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 2, 2016)

As I said, smaller sensors have shallower DOF at the same aperture, f/stop, and subject distance. The amount of magnification required is more which makes the CoC smaller.

7D2 + 400mm f/4 subject distance 50m: 2.36m of DOF
1Dx + 400mm f/4 subject distance 50m: 3.73m of DOF

If we do it in real-life and actually MOVE 1.6x closer for the FF, then the FF is shallower.

1Dx + 400mm f/4 subject distance 31m: 1.45m of DOF

No matter what, the DOF is different.

We hold constant the viewing size and the viewing distance of the image.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Apr 2, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> As I said, smaller sensors have shallower DOF at the same aperture, f/stop, and subject distance. The amount of magnification required is more which makes the CoC smaller.
> 
> 7D2 + 400mm f/4 subject distance 50m: 2.36m of DOF
> 1Dx + 400mm f/4 subject distance 50m: 3.73m of DOF
> ...



Very sorry. In the previous statements you didn't actually say the crop would have shallower DOF when shot at same distance and focal length, just different. So I made the ignorant assumption that you meant greater DOF in that situation. I completely agree with what you've said here and I'm glad you clarified before I put my foot even deeper!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 2, 2016)

Oh for heavens sakes it's no big deal, no need to apologize. I wasn't clear in my first posts at all I agree. Good discussion.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 2, 2016)

If I can hijack the thread a little... I'm wondering if I'm better off going t4i + 70-200 f/2.8L IS mkii + 1.4x mkiii or 5d mkiii + 70-200 f/2.8L is mkii + 2x mkiii... I'm just hanging out in the outfield video'ing my daughter at bat... then she she gets a hit... zooming from 200 to 70 (plus the convertor) and watching her round the bases... 

My thinking is that I'd rather destroy a t4i with 1/1000 of a shutter in daylight recording 10 minutes of game footage per game.. 2-4 games per day... than put the stress on the 5d mkiii. 

I think the video quality will be good enough with the t4i... 1080p, 30 fps, but maybe I'm just making assumptions that are way off base. 

Sorry to jump in with my own full v. crop question... but I'm good with one answer... I don't think it requires a whole thread...


----------



## faustino (Apr 2, 2016)

jdramirez said:


> If I can hijack the thread a little... I'm wondering if I'm better off going t4i + 70-200 f/2.8L IS mkii + 1.4x mkiii or 5d mkiii + 70-200 f/2.8L is mkii + 2x mkiii... I'm just hanging out in the outfield video'ing my daughter at bat... then she she gets a hit... zooming from 200 to 70 (plus the convertor) and watching her round the bases...




Your question is in line with mine and adds an additional pertinent example. Thanks.


----------



## faustino (Apr 2, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> The 1Dx/800mm combo in your scenario would be sharper than the 7D2/500mm combo, ASSUMING everything else is equal


I understand, I am coming to the conclusion that this is the reason why the full frame combo is actually superior to the crop combo.


----------



## faustino (Apr 2, 2016)

To get a better understanding, please let me simplify my question, even if, in part, I am going to repeat myself.


I am trying to understand wether the following "equivalence principle" is correct or not, and why.


The principle would state that the following two combos (Full Frame and Crop) would be perfectly equivalent and would give the same identical image:


Full Frame:
----------------------------
Camera sensor: 20mp, full frame, ISO 8000
Lens: 400mm, aperture setting F8.0
Shutter speed: 1/2000
Distance from subject: 20 meters filling the frame


Crop:
----------------------------
Camera sensor: 20mp, 1.6 crop, ISO 3125 (it is 8000 divided by the square of 1.6; we may set the camera to 3200 and tweak in post production)
Lens: 250mm, aperture setting F5.0 (it is 8.0 divided by 1.6)
Shutter speed: 1/2000
Distance from subject: 20 meters filling the frame


Assuming the lens to be excellent in both combos (both focal length may be obtained with the excellent EF100-400ii), do you think we will notice any difference in the final output?


What if I add the 1.4x iii extender to the full frame combo in order to get the 400mm focal length? (I know it would be not needed, it would be just to make the comparison closer to what I actually want to compare: "going crop" or "going extender")


Thank you for your replies, I will really appreciate getting a clear understanding on this topic.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 2, 2016)

It would be my opinion, and my opinion only, that the FF choice would always be superior. I'm repeating things you already know of course, but if I put 20 MP's on subject with a 1Dx2 and 640mm lens at subject distance X and put 20 MP's on subject with a 7D2 and 400mm lens at subject distance Y, I think the FF will always be sharper. ANY differences in ISO (ISO likely doesn't compare with noise in a linear fashion between two differently sized sensors) will always keep making the crop worse. The differences will always influence the crop image worse than the FF image. You can set "equivalent" ISO's and apertures of course and follow theory but my observations is that the affect on crop is as I mentioned, worse. Let's say you set ISO 8000 on the 1Dx2 and 3200 on the 7D2. If the 7D2 has slightly less QE (which it probably does) then it is a little noisier, for instance, than theory would predict.

Assuming equal lens performance, and of course that is a big if, more magnification and less ISO ability will always hurt the crop image vs. FF, which has better ISO ability and requires less magnification.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2016)

Practical summary: you can contrive situations in which APS-C will deliver better IQ. Generally speaking, the best-case is they deliver similar IQ, and in many common scenarios FF will be better. APS-C costs less.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 2, 2016)

Suppose you have an image of a bird that covers 5MP on the 7D2 sensor and engineer situation that you can get the same image covering 5MP on a FF camera, then the FF image will IMO generally be superior if only because of the superior noise performance of the FF sensor and the greater tonal range of the larger pixels.
However, what people forget in these discussions is you must also be aware of sensor generation (technology) and the processing engine in the camera - nowadays the recording medium (unlike film) does not work in isolation.

Interestingly Art Morris compared the 7D2 and 5D3 and found the 7D2 was equal (maybe better) at a much lower price 
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/10/19/eos-7d-mark-iieos-5d-mark-iii-comparison-they-thought-that-it-would-be-easy/

However the evolution of the 5DSR has swung him back the other way because of the greater pixel count in focal-length limited situations.


----------



## faustino (Apr 2, 2016)

Bdunbar79, I believe your point is correct, the full frame combo will be sharper even if we add the 1.4 extender in the optical path. I got a confirmation selecting two comparisons on the-digital-picture site, which shows a better sharpness on the FF combination vs the crop:


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=962&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0


The autofocus on the FF would be penalised because of the extender, but, as Neuro stated, the 1dx better system should compensate for that (and I tend to believe it is true).


So I made my final decision: I will not buy the 7d, but use the 1.4 extender on the FF camera instead.


Thanks.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 3, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Suppose you have an image of a bird that covers 5MP on the 7D2 sensor and engineer situation that you can get the same image covering 5MP on a FF camera, then the FF image will IMO generally be superior if only because of the superior noise performance of the FF sensor and the greater tonal range of the larger pixels.
> However, what people forget in these discussions is you must also be aware of sensor generation (technology) and the processing engine in the camera - nowadays the recording medium (unlike film) does not work in isolation.
> 
> Interestingly Art Morris compared the 7D2 and 5D3 and found the 7D2 was equal (maybe better) at a much lower price
> ...



I'm not even sure pixel size matters nearly to the degree sensor size matters. The 7D2 and 5Ds have the same pixel size, but the latter is superior in image quality. AlanF tested even cropping the 5Ds to 20 MP and still found it to be better. I suppose in those situations though, the difference might have no practical meaning. Just another thought.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 3, 2016)

My choice would be to go with the 1DX Mark II and use what would have been spent on the 7D mark II for a gimble or something.

I keep thinking I want a 7D mark II for birding and sports. But nawwww. If I had the $$$, and apparently you do, I'd go 1DX Mark II all the way.

I still want a 7D mark II, but I ain't gonna do it, I ain't gonna do it, I ain't gonna do it, I ain't gonna....

Gonna go take my meds now.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 3, 2016)

I didn't read every response because I settled this in my mind years ago.

The simple answer is the 7D II would only be superior in the situation where you have to crop or use an extender. 
It would be lacking in any situation where you can fill the full frame of a full frame sensor.
The 1Dx and II will have better AF, better ISO performance.
There are more negatives than positives.

I had the 7D II on my 500mm for one reason, resolution. If I wanted frame rate or AF accuracy I used my 1D IV. After I bought the 5Ds R that reason went away. With the 1DX II pre-orderd and since it will do 4K video, once I receive it I doubt I have much use at all for my 7D II.


----------



## gpolly (Apr 5, 2016)

Guys,

This is not a great shot, but i carry a 5d mark2 and a 7d mark 2....for just this reason.

This shot was taken with the 7d2 with the 100-400 II. 1/2500, 5.6 ISO 320 at full 400mm. I love the extra reach of the 7d gives in relation to full frame.

this was taken at jaws in maui last week. I am on shore on a cliff well out. this is a 50% crop no modification just raw to jpeg. 50% crop due to file size limits.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

gpolly said:


> This shot was taken with the 7d2 with the 100-400 II. 1/2500, 5.6 ISO 320 at full 400mm. I love the extra reach of the 7d gives *in relation to full frame*.



In relation to *your* full frame camera, you mean. The 7DII does not offer any 'extra reach' in relation to the full frame 5DS, for example.


----------



## gpolly (Apr 5, 2016)

yes in relation to full frame.

I shot 35mm for 30 years and still carry my EOS-1 HS....my mind still processes everything in full frame. So in my mind I base everything I do from a full frame perspective. this crop, sensor side has been hard for me to adjust, used to doing that stuff in the dark room.

glad I don't have to use the darkroom anymore. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

gpolly said:


> yes in relation to full frame.
> 
> I shot 35mm for 30 years and still carry my EOS-1 HS....my mind still processes everything in full frame. So in my mind I base everything I do from a full frame perspective. this crop, sensor side has been hard for me to adjust, used to doing that stuff in the dark room.
> 
> glad I don't have to use the darkroom anymore. 8)



The point was that what you're talking about is _pixel size_, not sensor size, and there are trade offs. The 5DS is a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7DII, and the 7DII does not offer any comparative reach advantage. 

Consider the PowerShot SX60 HS, which gives you 1365mm of 'full frame reach' with only a 250mm lens.


----------



## gpolly (Apr 5, 2016)

Sorry, i thought the discussion also was referring to sensor size.

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

gpolly said:


> 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'.


----------



## gpolly (Apr 5, 2016)

Wow that is a surprise. I have not heard much success with those bodies with shots like that. that is really good to hear. I have heard a lot of gripping on softness with those bodies. I want to upgrade the 5dm2....just sitting on the fence with that.

to be honest it took my a year to learn the new auto focus on the 7dm2 before i starting to get 90% hits on focus. out of the box i only got about 20%, was not very happy at first. really like that thing now.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 6, 2016)

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



neuroanatomist said:


> gpolly said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 6, 2016)

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 (Apr 9, 2016)

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



takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > gpolly said:
> ...



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 (Apr 10, 2016)

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



Mikehit said:


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



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 (Apr 10, 2016)

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 (Apr 10, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> 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.


----------

