# 1d IV vs. 7D II



## unfocused (Apr 16, 2014)

Okay, I know one is discontinued and the other is non-existent, but this is mostly for fun and a bit of learning.

Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV? Why or why not?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2014)

Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo?



Well, while it appears the Dodo was fairly swift. Using a modern proxy, the ostrich (as a large, land bird) runs about 40 mph, I'd put an uneducated, non-scientific guess at about 25-35 mph peak speed.

Assuming that the origination of the Unicorn is from people seeing Rhino's, the White Rhino can run about 31 mph at peak. 

If, instead, the Unicorn is really someone's great practical joke and it was simply a horse dressed up, a Quarter horse can run about 47.5 mph.

So, if a Dodo and a Unicorn made a bet as to who would get the land-speed record, if it's a Unicorn based on a White Rhino, it might be a toss-up. If it's a Unicorn based on a dressed up horse, pretty much the horse would win.

And now I feel all proud and geeky and self satisfied that I have go through the time and effort to attempt to make an absolutely meaningless point about something completely unrelated to the original topic.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 17, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> And now I feel all proud and geeky and self satisfied that I have go through the time and effort to attempt to make an absolutely meaningless point about something completely unrelated to the original topic.



In other words, a job truly well done!! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > And now I feel all proud and geeky and self satisfied that I have go through the time and effort to attempt to make an absolutely meaningless point about something completely unrelated to the original topic.
> ...



+1 ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 17, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo?
> ...


That's all fine and dandy... but neither will approach the airspeed is of a swallow carrying a coconut


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> That's all fine and dandy... but neither will approach the airspeed is of a swallow carrying a coconut



African or European swallow?


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo?



LOL


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > And now I feel all proud and geeky and self satisfied that I have go through the time and effort to attempt to make an absolutely meaningless point about something completely unrelated to the original topic.
> ...



Well done indeed!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > That's all fine and dandy... but neither will approach the airspeed is of a swallow carrying a coconut
> ...



I, I, I don't know that...


----------



## J.R. (Apr 17, 2014)

Hilarious ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> That's all fine and dandy... but neither will approach the airspeed is of a swallow carrying a coconut



I think Arthur et al. (1975) show that at least two swallows will be required.




neuroanatomist said:


> Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo?



What do you mean by overall land speed?
No offense to Drizzzt's excellent deductions, but if we are talking about also running over terrain that horses (uh- unicorns) cannot tread easily, like swamps, that will severely alter results.
By the way, thanks to Drizzzt for clearing up the issue about the dodo's speed. I had maligned the dead guy in an earlier post ("1/125 isn't enough to shoot a dodo with the 135L, let alone a hummingbird").

On topic: having used neither 1DIV nor 7DII, I can only surmise that the 7DII will have better IQ due to it's more advanced sensor and processing capabilities. Canon has discontinued its APS-H line, and the 70D is a already a better APS-C than 7D in so many ways for the value segment. So I think Canon will go all the way for the niche segment of a high-end user who need the extra reach of a crop.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 17, 2014)

Well, aren't we all being jerks today.

Nevermind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> On topic:



How _dare_ you?!? 



Seriously, though, I agree with both off- and on-topic parts of your post.


----------



## timmy_650 (Apr 17, 2014)

I am so glad I clicked on this tread!


----------



## pwp (Apr 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV?


I'm certainly hoping the 7DII will be a viable replacement for my high-milage 1D MkIV based on all sorts of performance parameters. But until the over-anticipated 7DII actually ships, speculation is next to useless.

-pw


----------



## TrabimanUK (Apr 17, 2014)

I think that the biggest differnce is that the 7DII has the potential for having a white version, unlike the 1DIV which is only available in black.


----------



## jimwin (Apr 17, 2014)

My first post as a member of the "family"

This is the most up-beat thread I have read for a long time!


----------



## JohanCruyff (Apr 17, 2014)

Reading this thread, I can't understand why I never see "sticky" threads on this forum. 

BTW, I'm sure there are been people who sometimes complain about their 1D IV, but nobody has ever complained about his/her 7DII, so we can induce that the latter is better from a KarlPopperian point of view.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Okay, I know one is discontinued and the other is non-existent, but this is mostly for fun and a bit of learning.
> 
> Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV? Why or why not?



Apparently, you have not used the 1DV.


----------



## Canon1 (Apr 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Okay, I know one is discontinued and the other is non-existent, but this is mostly for fun and a bit of learning.
> 
> Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV? Why or why not?



I think it would have to be equal to or better. There has been a huge leap in ISO usability from the 1d4/5d2 generation to their respective replacements. While it seems you only have gained 1 stop or 2 in regards to noise, I really think that the cleanness of the images across all ISO levels have dramatically improved. The noise we are left with is more of a luminance noise, which is much easier to clean up and retain detail. "Tough" noise was my complaint with the 7d. If they ever come out with a replacement, it doesn't need to revolutionize the high ISO game, but just give easier to work with noise at that ISO 800 - 6400level. Id love to see a 16mp "c" sensor that comes close to a 5d3. I would also welcome the new AF systems. If they address these categories (if they ever so release a mark ii) then I would buy one.


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Okay, I know one is discontinued and the other is non-existent, but this is mostly for fun and a bit of learning.
> 
> Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV? Why or why not?



It would really depend on what aspect of IQ is most important to you. Do you need to resolve the finest possible detail, or is low noise the most important thing? 

I don't think IQ is some rigidly definable thing. There are objective traits of IQ, and there are subjective traits of IQ. If you require the ability to resolve fine detail, especially at a distance, the 7D II will probably fare better. If you expect the lowest possible noise and need to use higher ISO settings, then the 1D IV will be the better option.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 17, 2014)

JohanCruyff said:


> Reading this thread, I can't understand why I never see "sticky" threads on this forum.
> 
> BTW, I'm sure there are been people who sometimes complain about their 1D IV, but nobody has ever complained about his/her 7DII, so we can induce that the latter is better from a KarlPopperian point of view.



LOL!! ;D 

A wonderful philosophical insight!


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 17, 2014)

It is an established fact that pictures taken with the 1D IV are substantially better than those taken with the 7D II.

Compare the 7D II's pictures on the attached link to any 1D IV picture you can find on the web;

http://www.nonexistantsevendtwopictures.com


----------



## noisejammer (Apr 17, 2014)

JohanCruyff said:


> BTW, I'm sure there are been people who sometimes complain about their 1D IV, but nobody has ever complained about his/her 7DII, so we can induce that the latter is better from a KarlPopperian point of view.


You assume this on the basis that 0/0 > 1/10000? 
L'Hopital is horrified.


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 17, 2014)

On the basis of better IQ and lesser noise at high ISO, there's a good chance the 7D II will be at least as good as the 1D IV. In there last few years, there have been great strides made in sensor technology. Let's hope the camera that finally comes to market doesn't have too many, hence smaller, pixels to negate that virtue.
On the other hand, the reliability and durability of the 7d II will likely not come close to the 1D IV (nor any others in the 1D family) unless it's sold at a price point above the 5D III. Since it's being billed as a prosumer camera, we can be pretty certain THAT's not going to happen.


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

jhpeterson said:


> On the basis of better IQ and lesser noise at high ISO, there's a good chance the 7D II will be at least as good as the 1D IV. In there last few years, there have been great strides made in sensor technology. Let's hope the camera that finally comes to market doesn't have too many, hence smaller, pixels to negate that virtue.
> On the other hand, the reliability and durability of the 7d II will likely not come close to the 1D IV (nor any others in the 1D family) unless it's sold at a price point above the 5D III. Since it's being billed as a prosumer camera, we can be pretty certain THAT's not going to happen.



There have been strides in sensor technology, however pixel size still dominates the determination of how much noise you have. Smaller pixels will always have more noise, that's a simple matter of physics. We have improved READ noise with better sensor technology, but read noise is only a small contribution to total noise (especially at high ISO)...photon shot noise is the primary source of noise in images. The larger pixels of the 1D IV will always win out against smaller pixels of APS-C sensors. The only way the 7D II could do better is if it had larger pixels than the 1D IV, however that would make it something like a 10mp sensor...highly unlikely.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 17, 2014)

I think the 1D will still be better, but I heard the Canon EOS 2D Mark 70-1 might be better than the 1D Mark IV.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 17, 2014)

Thanks, Jon Rista for trying to put this back on track. 

Apparently some don't get why this matters. If physics really does limit how well an APS-C sensor can perform at higher ISOs (and I have no reason to doubt you on that), then the direction Canon decides to go with the 7DII sensor will tell us much about what the company thinks about the future of high-end crop sensor DSLRs. 

If Canon were to release a 16mp 7DII, they are saying something quite different than if they release a 22-24 mp 7DII.

The relevant question for Canon is most likely to be – which one will generate more demand in the marketplace?

Many would say the 16mp sensor, which should have better high ISO performance than the current 18mp sensor. In effect, Canon would be following the same path with its flagship APS-C body that both they and Nikon have followed with their flagship full-frame bodies.

But, what really would be the demand for such a body – a good, maybe even great all-purpose crop body, but still not as good as the almost identically priced 6D in terms of high ISO performance. The 6D would be a better all-purpose body; and would there be sufficient differentiation between the two in the marketplace?

Or Canon could go the other way and release a 24mp crop sensor body -- essentially conceding the high ISO niche to full frame. Would this camera find a bigger market? 

While the relative advantages of a crop sensor for reach have been much debated, almost everyone concedes that in cases where the shooter is distance limited and significant cropping is required, pixel density does matter. You will always reach some point where there simply aren't enough pixels to give you a usable image. 

So, why the reference to the 1D IV? Because that was the point at which Canon abandoned the sensor that many argue passionately was the ideal compromise between size and reach. We can't assess or intelligently speculate without first knowing what the constraints are. 

If the ISO performance of the APS-H sensor can never be achieved with the smaller APS-C sensor, then Canon must decide which path to go down.

So, unlike the many, many threads where individuals focus solely on what they want and assign human motives to a large corporation (Canon doesn't care...Canon doesn't listen...Canon had better do this...) this is simply an effort to explore what the reasonable expectations may be, so that it gives us a better idea of what choices Canon is facing and, when they announce their decision, we have a better idea of where the market is going.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> On topic: having used neither 1DIV nor 7DII, I can only surmise that the 7DII will have better IQ due to it's more advanced sensor and processing capabilities. Canon has discontinued its APS-H line, and the 70D is a already a better APS-C than 7D in so many ways for the value segment. So I think Canon will go all the way for the niche segment of a high-end user who need the extra reach of a crop.



I refer to my quote above, which as I mentioned was actually on topic, in spite of the humorless aphorism I (we?) received. 
I think there is a big market for a high IQ crop body. Birders, sports photographers, paparazzi. That would be the demand for a 16MP crop body. Maybe not as good at high ISOs as the 6D but with a lot of other advantages.
Think 7D vs 5DII- except Canon has more at stake here after removing the 1D series.

Now think of a 22MP crop body. What can that offer above and beyond the 70D? Not IQ, only FPS, build and maybe AF. Will that satisfy a large consumer base?


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 17, 2014)

Just get a Pentax K-3 and call it a day.


----------



## ITshooter (Apr 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Apparently some don't get why this matters. If physics really does limit how well an APS-C sensor can perform at higher ISOs (and I have no reason to doubt you on that), then the direction Canon decides to go with the 7DII sensor will tell us much about what the company thinks about the future of high-end crop sensor DSLRs.
> 
> If Canon were to release a 16mp 7DII, they are saying something quite different than if they release a 22-24 mp 7DII.



You're bringing up a good point, but I think you might be overlooking an important consideration for market differentiation-- video. That could surely influence sensor strategy as well.


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Thanks, Jon Rista for trying to put this back on track.
> 
> Apparently some don't get why this matters. If physics really does limit how well an APS-C sensor can perform at higher ISOs (and I have no reason to doubt you on that), then the direction Canon decides to go with the 7DII sensor will tell us much about what the company thinks about the future of high-end crop sensor DSLRs.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the detailed thoughts. I understand where your coming from now, so maybe I can provide a clearer answer. 

For all intents and purposes, all else being equal, the only thing that actually matters when discussing IQ is the size of the sensor. The size of the pixels does not actually matter. You could have an FF, APS-H and APS-C with the same size pixels, to eliminate pixel size as the ultimate determining factor here. Assuming equivalence (same framing, same depth of field), per-pixel noise will be the same, however the FF will always be better than the APS-H which in turn will always be better than the APS-C. ALWAYS. Note the factors here: Same framing, same depth of field. 

So, why? Why is it that the IQ edge will *always* be FF > APS-H > APS-C > 4/3 > Small Form Factor? If we dive into what is necessary to achieve identical framing AND identical DOF, you'll understand why. 

*Identical Framing*

To achieve identical framing, you either use a longer lens, or get closer. It's pretty much as simple as that. However in achieving identical framing, you are changing the total amount of light, for your subject, that falls on the sensor. It really doesn't matter if the sensors have the same pixel pitch, or the same total pixel count, either way, the larger sensor is going to be gathering _more light in total_ when you normalize framing.

*Identical DoF*

Now comes the part that everyone usually assumes is the caveat that somehow lets a smaller sensor achieve better results than a larger sensor. To achieve the same depth of field with a larger sensor, you need to stop down the aperture. By stopping down the aperture, your negating the benefit of gathering more total light. The caveat stops there, however. At worst, you'll simply normalize the results...the FF sensor will have the same amount of noise as a smaller sensor. The Identical DOF factor is not a magic bullet that can ever allow a smaller sensor to perform better than a larger sensor. 



Let's take two sensors that have the same number of pixels. The 1D X and 7D are pretty ideal examples, since they both have exactly the same pixel count. Take the same shot with both cameras, and in not a single case will the 7D image ever be better than the 1D X image. The larger pixels trounce the 7D, at all ISO settings. 

Assuming your aiming for the same depth of field, then the 1D X image will at worst look the same as the 7D images, however there are actually technological improvements that make 1D X images always look better than the 7D, even when using significantly narrower apertures. 

Everyone always talks about the "equivalent" cases, however in my experience, in practical scenarios equivalence is rarely ever actually desired. One of the big reasons for buying a camera with a larger sensor is to get a THINNER DOF. The moment you open the aperture up on a larger sensor, all hope for the smaller sensor is gone. Not only are you gathering more total light simply by virtue of greater sensor area, but now your allowing more light through the lens. As is also always the case these days, the pixels of FF sensors are larger than the pixels of APS-C sensors...so you have more total light _with _larger pixels _along with_ the use of a wide aperture (at least as wide as the one you were using with the APS-C).

There is also often another benefit with larger sensors. They usually have more pixels than smaller sensors. For example, if you fill the frame with your subject with both a 5D III and a 7D, the 5D III is not only putting larger pixels on the subject, it is not only gathering more total light...it is ALSO putting _more _pixels on the subject. If you then downsample your 5D III images to the same dimensions as native 7D images, the extra pixels of the 5D III provide more source data, such that when interpolated, the 7D-normal outcome is _even better_, sharper, less noisy, more accurate. 

This is not always going to be true anymore...especially if Canon moves to a 24mp 7D II. However that does not negate all of the other advantages of using a larger sensor. The more total light is always going to be the case...larger sensor, more total light...more total light, higher SNR, less noise. 



Finally, there is the one caveat that actually does give smaller sensors the edge. Or rather, to be more accurate, the caveat that gives _smaller pixels_ the edge. Reach. The much-vaunted reach factor. The only case where a smaller sensor can give you a performance edge is when you are literally reach limited. You cannot use a longer lens, and you cannot physically move closer. You are either blocked by some active barrier, at the shore of a body of water, or moving closer would scare away your subject. 

In this case, and pretty much only in this case, we are actually NOT talking about an equivalent set of circumstances. Equivalence requires identical framing...however the larger the sensor, the less total area of the frame your subject is going to take. We now have identical subject size. Assuming that your FF sensor has larger pixels than the APS-H, and that in turn has larger pixels than the APS-C, then the APS-C is actually going to perform better. Some would argue that the larger sensor is still performing better...after all, it still has larger pixels. If one is willing to completely ignore the level of detail being resolved, then indeed, the larger pixels will still be less noisy. But were talking about reach here...the level of detail being resolved is exactly what matters. In this case, as the facts of physics would have it, your actual subject is getting the same amount of light in both systems. It's a matter of area, and the absolute area of the sensor is the same, even though relative area (to the frame) is different. The key difference is the amount of detail...larger pixels resolve less detail, and blur the edges of your subject with nearby background (and/or foreground) detail.

In reach-limited scenarios, with identical subject size at the sensor, smaller pixels perform better.



There is a lot of value in smaller sensors with smaller pixels. For the less skilled, it means you can get some detail and ultimately end up with a good composition without having to have other skills to get close, or compose right in camera, etc. With more pixels, you can always crop to enlarge and compose better.

If you have skill, and tend to photograph things that need reach...wildlife, birds, airplanes, even sports, reach is a very valuable tool. 

Even more so, it is a valuable tool to those with limited budgets. To achieve equivalence with a larger sensor, you need bigger lenses. To justify the cost of full frame, especially a high end full frame, you need to be able to produce _better _images, so you need bigger _and _better lenses. A crop sensor with lots of pixels means you can get an order of magnitude more bang for your buck, and often in a smaller, more portable and manageable package. More pixels doesn't really hurt you, either, as in a reach-limited scenario, your subject is still covering the same absolute area of the sensor...more pixels simply means more detail...and you can always downsample.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 17, 2014)

Jon, do you see a market for the 7DII except for those high-end shooters looking for reach?
If they want quality they have the 3 FF cameras.
If they are looking for value they have the 70D.


If Canon wants to replace the 1D (and IMO that's the only reason for 7DII to exist), Canon will try to replicate the IQ as close as possible. And that will mean lower MPs.
Note that Canon was pretty conservative with increasing megapixels on their 1D line.
They must have noticed people who want reach are wiling to sacrifice resolution for light sensitivity.
Mind you, the difference between APS-H and C isn't as much as with FF, so innovation in sensor light-sensitivity might well allow the newer APS-Cs (maybe not 7D though, if it still has the 70D sensor) to trounce the 1D line.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Finally, there is the one caveat that actually does give smaller sensors the edge. Or rather, to be more accurate, the caveat that gives _smaller pixels_ the edge. Reach. The much-vaunted reach factor. The only case where a smaller sensor can give you a performance edge is when you are literally reach limited. You cannot use a longer lens, and you cannot physically move closer. You are either blocked by some active barrier, at the shore of a body of water, or moving closer would scare away your subject.



Yes, and this is exactly where I see the path dividing in the woods, so to speak. 

I used to be an advocate for keeping the pixel density of the 7D at or about where it is currently and trying to score slight improvements in noise performance, etc. But your posts have convinced me that there simply isn't that much headroom available. 

So, lately, I've been speculating about the possibility that Canon might return to the megapixel race in the next 7D (or at least match their competition). 

Why? Because wildlife/bird/sports etc. photographers are often distance limited and, as you say, reach is an advantage for crop sensors. 

Here is where I think it boils down to market research. Canon will release a sensor with the pixel density determined primarily by which they think will sell more 7DIIs -- not exactly a brilliant insight, I know. 

But, they can't produce a sensor that violates the laws of physics – even if that is the sensor most of us want. 

So, I thought it worthwhile (and possibly entertaining) to contemplate what those technological limits might be and how that might influence the next round of flagship crop bodies to come out (both Canon and Nikon).


sagittariansrock said:


> Jon, do you see a market for the 7DII except for those high-end shooters looking for reach?
> If they want quality they have the 3 FF cameras.
> If they are looking for value they have the 70D.
> 
> ...



Interesting. I think we are following similar logic, but I'm seeing more megapixels and you are seeing less (which I would actually prefer, but don't think is likely)


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Apr 17, 2014)

Since the 7Dmk2 hasn't been officially released we can only speculate what the specs would be.

Given the current specs of the 70D are on par with the 7D (minus build quality, fps, and lack of a joystick) it'd make sense for the 7Dmk2 to further go into a niche category. Who knows...maybe Canon will resurrect the APS-H sensor in which case the comparison with the 1Dmk4 would be more in line.

As for the case with added reach with the 1.6 crop...I can see this appealing to hobbyists and advanced amateurs , but not for many pros because you can simply add a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter on a 5Dmk3 or 1DX (which is what I do). Sure you lose a stop or two with the aperture, but the FF IQ is still superior to what the current crop sensor DLSRs can provide.


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Jon, do you see a market for the 7DII except for those high-end shooters looking for reach?
> If they want quality they have the 3 FF cameras.
> If they are looking for value they have the 70D.



First, there is more to IQ than what the sensor does. I've said this a lot before on these forums, as had Neuro. Sometimes the focus capabilities and frame rate of a camera are VASTLY more important than how good the sensor is. In that respect, there aren't three FF options...there is really only one: The 1D X. The 5D III has a decent frame rate, but if the 7D II hits the streets at 10fps, the additional 4fps over the 5D III is going to be very significant. Were talking about a 67% increase relative to the 5D III. The 6D, while it has it's advocates, and it definitely pounds out the High ISO IQ, is definitely lagging in the AF area. That is not to say the 6D AF is bad...however it's no 61pt AF system either. 

If the 7D II hits the street with 10fps, a comparable APS-C optimized AF system to the 61pt system (say 41pts?), and a 20-24mp sensor, then I absolutely think it will have a market, and I think it will sell like hotcakes. You definitely cannot compare that to the 6D. The only benefit the 6D has going for it is the larger sensor...but that is one out of many factors that affect IQ. The 5D III, in circumstances where frame rate is not critically important, will probably still give the 7D II very solid competition, but in the cases where frame rate is critically important, the only real full-frame counterpart to a 7D II with such specs would be the 1D X.

So yes...it will definitely have a market. I suspect they will fly off the shelves, despite the existence of the 6D. I suspect many a 5D III owner will buy one as a backup. I know for sure that a lot of aspiring amateur bird photographers will be picking one up, especially if a new 100-400 hits the streets along with the 7D II.

The reasons the 7D was a success have not changed. Nothing has really changed. The only thing that would kill the 7D II is if it hit with a MSRP over $2500...then I think that would kill off early adopters and slow sales until the price drops below $2500 at least (I think a price around $2000 is most likely.) 



sagittariansrock said:


> If Canon wants to replace the 1D (and IMO that's the only reason for 7DII to exist), Canon will try to replicate the IQ as close as possible. And that will mean lower MPs.
> Note that Canon was pretty conservative with increasing megapixels on their 1D line.
> They must have noticed people who want reach are wiling to sacrifice resolution for light sensitivity.
> Mind you, the difference between APS-H and C isn't as much as with FF, so innovation in sensor light-sensitivity might well allow the newer APS-Cs (maybe not 7D though, if it still has the 70D sensor) to trounce the 1D line.



Why would you think the 7D II is a replacement for the 1D? The two lines are designed for completely different groups of buyers. The 7D II is not, has never been, and will never be a replacement to the 1D X. Your completely ignoring the price difference here. The price of the 7D II is likely to be less than 1/3rd that of the 1D X. It doesn't really matter how good the 1D X is, or how good it's potential successor is...price is the real segregator here. The 7D II will sell because it will fall within the realm of generally or eminently affordable to the majority of middle class buyers. At $6800, the 1D X does _not _fall into that class, not even close.

Regarding the megapixels of the 1D X, Canon didn't get away with anything, nor were they conservative with anything. It's so funny how short peoples memories are.  I remember, very very clearly, the loudest and most vocal outcry from Canon customers before the releases of the 1D X, D800, 5D III, and D4. The loudest demand, by a very LARGE margin, was: *"Fewer megapixels! Better high ISO!"* That was what people wanted, was VERY MUCH what people wanted from the 1D IV/1Ds III successors. Canon didn't skimp, get away with, nor was conservative with the 1D X. They delivered EXACTLY what their customers literally demanded. For those who can afford it, it seems to be a raging success as well. It's converted more than a few pro Nikon shooters to the Canon camp, and has made raving fans of existing Canon 1D/1Ds users.

There is no chance the 7D II is ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER going to "trounce" anything with a larger sensor. Just not gonna happen. Again, outside of the one caveat I mentioned, the IQ you get from a sensor really has nothing to do with the pixels. Improvements in pixel technology are primarily going to reduce read noise, which is already a very small factor in the deep shadows, and secondarily improve sensitivity. The quantum efficiency, Q.E., of the 7D is already at 41%. To double the noise performance, Canon would have to achieve 82% Q.E. I know of sensors that can achieve 82% Q.E. at around 650-600nm, but all of them require significant cooling to do so...usually a Delta-T of -50°C or more. That kind of cooling requires a lot of power (for example, most high Q.E. Astro CCD cameras use two- or three-stage peltier cooling...a peltier, or TEC is a thermoelectric cooling device that uses a P-N transistor matrix to create an electronic heat pump...they draw significant amounts of energy.)

Now, assuming Canon did somehow manage to improve the Q.E. of their sensors to 82% at average operating temperatures (pretty much not possible, dark current is going to be very high at operating temperatures of 60°F and above) but just for the sake of discussion, let's assume they do. At 82%, they can double their noise performance (reduce noise by half). That still doesn't cut it. The 1D X has a total sensor area that is 2.6x greater than the 7D (and any potential 7D II), so you would at least need to increase the 7D II's Q.E. by 2.6x instead of just 2x. Well, that isn't actually possible. To double Q.E. again beyond 82%, you would need 164%...but you can't have better than 100% Q.E. (quantum efficiency is the ratio of conversion of photons to released electron charge in a photodiode...you cannot convert more than 100% of the incoming photons.) You can't even get that .6x better than 82%, because that would require another 50% Q.E....or 131%. 

All that matters in this particular area is total sensor area. So long as Canon does not make the 7D line use at least a FF sensor, it will never be able to "trounce" the 1D X in terms of equivalent IQ. In terms of reach, all that matters is how big the subject is reproduced on the sensor...in which case smaller pixels mean more detail, but total light gathered *for your subject* is roughly the same regardless of sensor.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Apr 17, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Or did he mean African or European coconut? They are different you know. I really prefer the Western Integrated Polynesian USA adapted coconut. Its the best. Faster than the 7DIII.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> There is no chance the 7D II is ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER going to "trounce" anything with a larger sensor. Just not gonna happen.


If we assume a similar number of pixels and similar level of technology, you are right. However, take a 50 megapixel FF camera and a 20 megapixel APS-C camera and you can expect similar levels of performance.... but go the other way and make a 12 megapixel FF camera and now you have a camera that shoots ISO 409600 like an APS-C camera shoots ISO 12800.... And likewise, compare a 7D2 to a 1D and see what happens..



jrista said:


> Now, assuming Canon did somehow manage to improve the Q.E. of their sensors to 82% at average operating temperatures (pretty much not possible, dark current is going to be very high at operating temperatures of 60°F and above) but just for the sake of discussion, let's assume they do. At 82%, they can double their noise performance (reduce noise by half). That still doesn't cut it. The 1D X has a total sensor area that is 2.6x greater than the 7D (and any potential 7D II), so you would at least need to increase the 7D II's Q.E. by 2.6x instead of just 2x. Well, that isn't actually possible. To double Q.E. again beyond 82%, you would need 164%...but you can't have better than 100% Q.E. (quantum efficiency is the ratio of conversion of photons to released electron charge in a photodiode...you cannot convert more than 100% of the incoming photons.) You can't even get that .6x better than 82%, because that would require another 50% Q.E....or 131%.



Also, even if some new magic technology comes out that makes some new APS-C sensor outperform the current FF sensors, that same magic technology would get applied to the new FF sensors and you are back to the same 2.5 times difference.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 17, 2014)

Pretty much an excellent description of what to expect. Most of us agree that the 7DII will not equal the 1Dx. The 1DX is really purpose built for sports and action photography. The 7DII will be purpose built for video. The writing is on the wall. While I'm sure it will offer much more than the 7D and offer better IQ, much of the design is going to be built around a videographer's dream.

My fear is that a feature rich camera tailored to videography is going to be priced out of the range of most photographers who dont need the video features. I predict this camera will come to market around 2800.00 which will mean more like 3200.00 because we know Canon will milk us for every penny in our accounts.

To make things worse just because they like to make us feel more pain, the initial order will likely be kits with lenses they have a boat load of stock on. So we are talking an initial out-lie of about 3600 to 3800.



jrista said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Jon, do you see a market for the 7DII except for those high-end shooters looking for reach?
> ...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

*Not talking about 1D X, I specifically meant the 1D (APS-H) cameras, as per OP*

Jon and Don, I think you misunderstood a few key points in my post. I shall clarify so we don't go off-topic.

Firstly, I am not suggesting APS-C sensors will ever come close to a FF or even APS-H sensor of the same or closely followed generation. It is physically impossible, we have had lots of discussions on it, and I am sure it has that horse is dead and buried.
When I said a future APS-C sensor (and I mentioned it WON'T be 7DII with a 70D-grade sensor) might trounce 1D series, I mean 1D through 1D Mark IV APS-H sensors, that was last designed before 2009. Hope that bit is quite clear. So let's not even bring 1D X or any later cameras, and certainly not FF cameras here.

Secondly, that same statement above oes for Canon being conservative with 1D series- I do not mean the 1D X, but the 1D APS-H cameras. Even when they released the 7D with 18 MP, they released the 1D IV with 16 MP. 50D that followed 1D III (with 10 MP) had 15 MP crammed in a much smaller sensor. So I do feel Canon has been conservative with megapixel count for their top-of-the-line sports shooters because they felt that market cared less about high MP, but more about noise and IQ. The same path was taken by Nikon for their Pro shooters. It's just my observation, please correct me if I am wrong here.

Thirdly, there is definitely much, much more to the camera than the sensor- as has been discussed ad nauseam. Let us not even go into that fruitless discussion. I was attempting to suggest that if there is a choice between keeping the 20-24 MP count and sacrificing IQ vs lowering it to say 16 and improving the IQ in a 7DII, Canon will try to go that route. I think that was OP's question. So to restate the question to you, do you think Canon will go the higher IQ-lower MP route or the lower IQ-higher MP route, everything remaining the same.

Fourth, and this is the vital take home from your post- you do not think Canon will try to replace their 1D series with the 7DII or its successors. 
[Notice that you do mention 1D X from here on, so if you thought I implied 7DII replacing 1D X, trouncing 1D X etc., let's nip that in the bud. I very specifically meant the APS-H 1D cameras that have been discontinued. I think any mention of 1D X in this whole conversation is moot. I am not talking of any FF camera, certainly not the 1D X]
Now if you meant Canon will not replace its discontinued APS-H line, I will defer to your greater knowledge. I agree, Nikon has never brought out a high-end crop sensor line just for the sports shooters and birders, and APS-H and Nikon DX were both a technical compromise rather than a necessity. So that answers OP's second question- maybe Canon will not replace the 1D (APS-H) segment. Eventually time will tell.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is no chance the 7D II is ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER going to "trounce" anything with a larger sensor. Just not gonna happen.
> ...



First off...has anyone actually seen the sample still images from the A7s? Despite it having only 12mp, it's high ISO images are pretty crappy. Even the 6D does better at high ISO RAW than the A7s for some reason. Most of the "wow" stuff I've seen about the A7s has been video related, and I think Sony's BIONZ X processor is really what's doing all the amazing stuff. The A7s is still an Exmor...and unless Canon has tweaked the design, I believe Exmor sensors still digitally boost after CP-ADC for all ISOs. That might explain the lackluster high ISO RAW performance...

Anyway...your talking about pixel performance. On a per pixel standpoint, yes, the individual pixels of a 12mp or 10mp or 8mp 7D II would perform better than the individual pixels of a larger sensor with smaller pixels. But again, that doesn't matter. Pixel size doesn't really have anything to do with it. A single pixel doesn't make a picture. Multiple pixels in concert make a picture. Lets say we have a 50mp 1D XXX (;D) and a 12mp 7D II. Will the 7D II perform better than the 1D XXX? Hell no. There is no inverse trouncing going on here. : The 7D line will forever be in the position of leghumping Ms. 1D while she's in the middle of pole dancing for photography nerds.  Why? Because so long as you are not constrained by reach...a larger sensor will always gather more light. It's sensor area that matters, not pixel area. The 50mp image can always be downsampled to the same dimensions as the 12mp 7D II. More pixels interpolated into less area...that only and always means one thing: Better results. 

I used to think the same thing, years ago...that bigger pixels would make smaller sensors perform better, but the theory doesn't fit with the idea that only pixel size matters for camera performance. Pixel size is, for all intents and purposes, a non-factor. Sensor area is what matters. 36mmx24mm = 864mm^2, whereas 22.3mmx14.9mm = 332.27mm^2. That is a ratio of 2.6:1 in favor of the FF sensor. Pixel size doesn't even factor into the equation.

Now, what does factor into the equation is quantum efficiency. It we compare the original EOS 1Ds body from way back when, the 7D of today will perform better in some ways. The quality of silicon back in those days was not as high as it is today, and quantum efficiency wasn't anywhere close to where it is today (I think somewhere in the 20% range...the 7D has twice that, so like my explanation earlier about going from 41% to 82%, going from 20% to 41% is significant.) The lower quantum efficiency and older, inferior sensor design are going to cost the 1Ds in comparison with the 7D. However, the 1Ds was upgraded...we got the 1Ds II, 1Ds III and now we have the 1D X. That's why I try to refer to the "1D line" and "7D line". Any technological improvemnt you can think up for APS-C sensors can be applied to FF sensors. There is no technological improvement for APS-C sensors that can ever give it an edge over FF sensors because they all get the same technological improvements in the end. _(That's basically what you said in the second half of your post.)_

So...it boils down to quantum efficiency. The 7D is already at 41%. The 1D X has 2.6x the sensor area of the 7D, however you can only get up to 100% Q.E. before you run into the laws of physics where absolutely no more improvement can be made.

On an equivalence basis...bigger sensor, more light, better sensitivity. Pixel size need not apply, the job of sensitivity is already taken. ISO 400k on a 1D XXX is always going to trounce ISO 400k on a 7D II. Just as much as ISO 400k on a 55x44mm MF sensor is always going to trounce ISO 400k on a 1D XXX.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Pretty much an excellent description of what to expect. Most of us agree that the 7DII will not equal the 1Dx. The 1DX is really purpose built for sports and action photography. The 7DII will be purpose built for video. The writing is on the wall. While I'm sure it will offer much more than the 7D and offer better IQ, much of the design is going to be built around a videographer's dream.



Heh. I think it's all the mystery that surrounds the 7D II, and what it might actually end up being in the end, is what has everyone so intrigued by all the 7D II rumors around here. It so long overdue for release now, people are biting off their fingers waiting for some concrete news to finally hit the rumormongers. 



East Wind Photography said:


> My fear is that a feature rich camera tailored to videography is going to be priced out of the range of most photographers who dont need the video features. I predict this camera will come to market around 2800.00 which will mean more like 3200.00 because we know Canon will milk us for every penny in our accounts.



I honestly think the chances of that happening are roughly around 0.0000292372349%. 8) Canon would kill off the 7D II before it ever has a chance to start if they priced it at $3200. The original 7D was $1700 (or $1900 with kit lens.) It's been on the market for a very long time, has an established and strong following, much of that following is eagerly awaiting the release of the 7D II, and it's an APS-C camera. Pricing it at $2800 means they are pricing it $1100 higher than the original 7D. The original 5D II body only was $2700, which means the increase in price to the 5D III was $800 at release (and today stands at $700 MSRP, and $0-$100 when you factor the average in-cart price, which has been between $2600 and $2800 frequently lately for gray market, and around $2800 for official market). I'd say that $800 is the absolute maximum of an increase we can expect to see, hence the maximum potential price of $2500 I mentioned before. 



East Wind Photography said:


> To make things worse just because they like to make us feel more pain, the initial order will likely be kits with lenses they have a boat load of stock on. So we are talking an initial out-lie of about 3600 to 3800.



Again, I think that is highly unlikely. That would utterly kill off the 7D line...for the demographic I think is most highly interested in the 7D II, those prices are well out of the range of "generally affordable." People may want to buy them, but so many simply wouldn't be able to afford them. That would be really bad for Canon's bottom line. Greed works in both ways...the "greedy" want to make as much money as they can, which means they have to find the price point that will sell the most copies as often as possible...and it really isn't the "greedy" company that sets the price, the market, the consumers, set the price by buying when prices are good, and not buying when prices suck. I don't think that the 7D II will hit the street with a price higher than $2500, and if it does hit the streets at that price, it will most likely be primarily due to the economic disaster brewing in Japan with higher taxes and more quantitative easing, and it will still hurt Canon. I think a price closer to $2000, give or take a couple hundred, is far more likely, as it would satisfy Canon's bottom line goals due to higher (probably significantly higher than at a $3800 price point) sales volume.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
> Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...



Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins. The 1D line also gets extra attention to all the fine little details, the small things that require a lot of extra hands on time to tweak and tune and refine. It's a large part of the reason the 1D models cost more...they are highly and optimally tuned. You can ask almost any 1D owner regardless of generation, and most will tell you they love the out of camera quality in every respect...higher sharpness, lower noise, better color fidelity, etc. etc. The same fine tuning applies to all the other non-sensor aspects of the camera as well. The 1D IV had a much better AF system that performed much better than the 1D III and any other Canon camera of the time. It had the high frame rate, the higher performance shutter, etc. 

I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
> Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...



1div is old and on its last leg. Dont see it lasting long enough for any reputable testing firm to do an official comparison against the 7dii once it comes out. Lastly it does no good to compare something against another that doesnt exist yet.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

*Re: Not talking about 1D X, I specifically meant the 1D (APS-H) cameras, as per OP*



sagittariansrock said:


> Jon and Don, I think you misunderstood a few key points in my post. I shall clarify so we don't go off-topic.
> 
> Firstly, I am not suggesting APS-C sensors will ever come close to a FF or even APS-H sensor of the same or closely followed generation. It is physically impossible, we have had lots of discussions on it, and I am sure it has that horse is dead and buried.
> When I said a future APS-C sensor (and I mentioned it WON'T be 7DII with a 70D-grade sensor) might trounce 1D series, I mean 1D through 1D Mark IV APS-H sensors, that was last designed before 2009. Hope that bit is quite clear. So let's not even bring 1D X or any later cameras, and certainly not FF cameras here.


That's what I thought you meant. I think we are all saying the same thing with different words and reasoning 

If we compare old tech and new tech... yes a new tech (70D) will outperform an old tech 1D (ISO 1600 max?!?!) but it is blatantly unfair... Compare a new tech 70D to a "bit out of tech" 1DX and the 1DX kicks ass! I would expect an even more severe ass kicking if the 1DX and the 70D where the same level of tech.

Whatever the last camera is that was released, that's the new tech... it makes comparisons unfair because there is no such thing as both being exactly even in tech. The APS-C line is improving by small steps.... the FF line is improving by small steps, but nowhere do current models "overlap".

Pixel size matters. With 2 1/2 times the area, as long as there are somewhere around the same number of pixels, the FF pixels will be larger and assuming anywhere near the same tech, the FF pixels will be better. If you went to a high megapixel FF camera with the same sized pixels as a 70D and the same level of tech as a 70D those pixels should act the same and one would expect the same performance. but even at that, there is also resolution to consider... smaller pixels resolve more detail than larger pixels, but at the expense of sensitivity. Everything is inter-related.

So yes, there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor. To my mind, the most important factor is the AF system. As I am fond of saying, who cares what the DR is or the number of megapixels are on a blurry picture


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins.



Is it also true for an older sensor tech. vs a newer (future) sensor. I mean, is it theoretically impossible for an APS-C sensor to gather as much light as an APS-H sensor of the past? Not a rhetorical question, I am actually curious to know.
[for example, I know it is theoretically impossible for a future APS-C sensor to compete with the 6D, for example. Pi had proved that semi-mathematically.]

And no, everything doesn't apply. FF is a technology Canon is continuing. So, for every APS-C there will be an FF counterpart (don't take that literally, I mean around the same time). APS-H on the other hand is dead. So for any new technology APS-C takes advantage of, APS-H has no new cards to play.




jrista said:


> I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.



As I said, I defer to your greater knowledge to this answer. I personally felt Canon will replace the discontinued smaller sensor in high end body for those who want reach, pure and simple (not unlike yourself I am sure). Of course, now they get to sell longer lenses, hence more profit


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
> ...



That is a fair point, nevertheless that was the original topic of discussion. 
This is probably why you must have seen some mirth being distributed in the first few posts before Jrista straightened us out.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
> ...


And the quality of the build!
Better materials, tighter tolerances, hand matching to specs, all adds up to greater consistency. Another reason why the 1D lineups outperform the rest, particularly after a few drops and tumbles.....


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

*Re: Not talking about 1D X, I specifically meant the 1D (APS-H) cameras, as per OP*



Don Haines said:


> That's what I thought you meant. I think we are all saying the same thing with different words and reasoning







Don Haines said:


> As I am fond of saying, who cares what the DR is or the number of megapixels are on a blurry picture



Hear, hear!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.



I agree. The APS-H sensor has 1.7 times the area of the APS-C sensor and that's a lot of ground to catch up on.

Even if it did catch up, it doesn't really matter because the 1DIV is now the 1DX and the bar is raised further.... and if there was some magic tech that made it better, just watch what happens with the 1DX2 

As someone who has been shooting digital for 20+ years, I remember when high ISO was 1600 and you didn't shoot 800 or above because the noise would ruin the picture... and now I can shoot at 51,200 with less noise on a camera that is four years out of date. Tech has marched on and to compare the new and the old becomes meaningless after a while.


----------



## Greatland (Apr 18, 2014)

Comparing the current 7d with a MK IV is kind of ridiculous don't you think??? Even if the 7d2 is all that some of you want it to be it will still be half the camera, period...no comparison, period.....start with weatherproofing and go from there....you get what you pay for, period! If any of you really want a MK IV I will sell you mine...like new, with less than 20,000 clicks on it....


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins.
> ...



The 1D IV APS-H sensor was very good. It's one of Canon's better sensors. It has higher Q.E. than the 7D sensor, and is 1.6x larger. The 7D II would need to improve in Q.E. by 60%...or in other words, it would literally need to convert every single photon to charge in the photodiode, to perform as well as the 1D IV. Technological improvements can be made, but there is still that pesky problem of needing to convert more light than actually exists.

I think the 7D II could perform as well as the 1D IV if Canon managed to pack a hell of a lot of innovation into the new sensor. I mean, they would have to be really cutting edge, maybe even invent some new techniques to reducing read noise and improving sensor Q.E., and probably employ some kind of thermoelectric cooling (which in turn would require some kind of innovation in battery or power source to supply the increase in power needs). It's possible...but were talking REALLY cutting edge sensor technology. Cutting edge in a way that would have to blow away Sony's sensor tech. The 1D IV isn't that old of a sensor...a lot newer than the 7D sensor. Canon is barely on the map when it comes to CMOS Image Sensor (CIS) patents and innovation...they have had a few patents published in the last couple years, but Sony, Aptina, and a bunch of other manufacturers are running circles around Canon's sensor tech (sadly.) 

So, in light of that...I'll leave it to you: Do you think the 7D II can perform better than the 1D IV? 



sagittariansrock said:


> And no, everything doesn't apply. FF is a technology Canon is continuing. So, for every APS-C there will be an FF counterpart (don't take that literally, I mean around the same time). APS-H on the other hand is dead. So for any new technology APS-C takes advantage of, APS-H has no new cards to play.



Heh, well, that's an interesting argument. Again, the APS-H from the 1D IV is not that old. Canon is not innovating that much on the sensor front (although they ARE a very highly innovative company at large, especially in optics.) Technological improvements that can be made in silicon and with CMOS fabrication are becoming harder and harder to discover and produce, so the next decade is likely to see less significant improvement over the same 10-year span as we saw from 2003-2013. Sure, assuming APS-H is truly dead (it's a technology Canon owns, and unused technology is wasted technology...I still think Canon will find ways of employing APS-H in the future, although I do suspect that it will either be in mirrorless or video cameras, rather than DSLRs.)



sagittariansrock said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.
> ...



Reach is really just a matter of pixel size. That is more of a happy side-effect of smaller sensors, than something that is out of reach of larger sensors. Canon could create a reach-monster if they release a Big MP FF camera with 4µm pixels. I think many people would get one just because of the versatility...reach and sensor size, best of all worlds...despite the frame rate (which is likely to be slower rather than faster.)

I myself am moving more towards full frame. I'll be picking up a 5D III in the coming months, and I highly expect my 7D to either be sold, or at least take a distant back seat. I already have the necessary glass...the 600/4 II is versatile enough with 1.4x (840mm) and 2x (1200mm) teleconverters. I was sad to see APS-H go...but I do have hope for it. I really hope to see it in an EOS-M one of these days. I think Canon could put out a large sensor mirrorless that can give good ol' Sony a run for their money if they would bring APS-H back into the fold.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 18, 2014)

My take away: Technology marches on. Physics not so much. 

The headroom that is available for technological improvements is getting ever closer to the ceiling set by physics. So, from a practical standpoint, we may see some slight improvements in ISO performance from the next generation of 7D, but it won't match the performance of the last APS-H sensor Canon made. 

Now, let me back up and say that we should all acknowledge just how good all the modern sensors are. If you can't take a great picture with any Canon or Nikon DSLR it is due to your own shortcomings, not the camera's. 

It should be stipulated that this discussion, like almost all on this forum, is dealing with the margins. Small differences that won't affect most of us under most conditions. That's important because every once and awhile someone will assert that this or that camera or sensor is worthless. It's also important because we may refer to a particular camera as a "sports" camera, a "low-light" camera, a "high resolution" camera etc. etc., but that merely describes one characteristic of the camera and should not imply that it in any way limits its usability for other applications. 

I started this thread because of curiosity about the upper limits of what could be expected out of a new 7DII sensor. We won't know the specifics until something is announced, but frankly, knowing what the limits are should help us set reasonable expectations and provide a basis for informed speculation about what such a camera might look like – until, of course, we actually see one announced. 
Since I am now a 5DIII owner, I suppose I should not care. But I do. I still have a tremendous fondness for the 7D, but more importantly, I can still see it as a very useful option. I know my own financial limits and I seriously doubt those limits will allow me to own any Canon beyond 400mm. I may purchase the Tamron 600mm zoom, but no $4,000 lenses are in my future.

Also, not likely to be going on any $10,000 safaris pretty much assures me that I am likely to be distance limited under most circumstances. So, the reach of a good APS-C sensor inside of an excellent 7DII body with great autofocus, etc., etc., has its appeal.


ITshooter said:


> ...but I think you might be overlooking an important consideration for market differentiation-- video. That could surely influence sensor strategy as well.


You are correct. This has been a very "stills-centric" discussion and one of the unknowns is just how much emphasis Canon will place on video in the 7DII. That could totally upset the speculative apple cart.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

@Unfocused: Your point about realistic expectations is pretty much the primary reason I post here. I'm not going to claim that I know absolutely everything about photography, optics, or sensors...I still have plenty to learn. I do, however, know that there are a lot of common misconceptions that people have that don't line up with the theory I do know, and I think that leads to a lot of unexpected realizations for photographers who get their hopes WAY up for new camera releases or possibly "That other brand" (take your pick, whatever tickles your fancy), etc. 

I've encountered people who think that the D800 is supposed to do way better than any Canon camera on the market at all ISO settings, ended up dumping their entire Canon kit (literally), bought into Nikon, and ended up getting vividly pissed that their high ISO images couldn't be stretched any more than their Canon images at ISO 3200. I think it's sad that people buy so fully into some of the anecdotes that float around the web that they are actually willing to do something like that. If some of the wild misconceptions, such as the notion that an APS-C camera could "trounce" a FF camera in terms of sensor IQ, were curbed and corrected, I think people could be a lot happier with their purchases. Kind of like going to the movies to see something that your not sure if it will be good or not, and just expecting it to be really bad...then you get to be pleasantly surprised by how good it actually ended up being, even if it wouldn't have lived up to your "wild hype" expectations if you allowed them.

Too many people in the photography world go into a new camera release with wild hype expectations, and are woefully disappointed. I hope people can go into the 7D II release a bit more pessimistically, and be pleasantly surprised by what it actually ends up being. (Although not too pessimistically...I truly don't think the 7D II will hit the streets at $3800...that would be more expensive than the MSRP of the 5D III at the time of it's release...I don't think it matters how good the video features may be, that would be a total death sentence for the 7D line if Canon did that! )


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
> I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.


Agreed!

If IQ was my only concern, I could walk into the local bestbuy and grab a 6D for less than what we expect a 7D2 will go for. There is no way short of physics defying magic that the 7D2 will beat it... But for me, I really want a more capable AF system and after playing with the touchscreen interface on a 70D, would like to see the next generation of that too... Hmmmm...... 5D4?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
> ...



And this is where it gets interesting. If the AF system gets improved that hopefully means more keepers as was the case with the 5DIII and 1DX. So technically the IQ of the camera could be improved with a better more accurate AF system...as we know, Sensor IQ is nothing if the image is fuzzy to start with.

One needs to look at the system and not just one feature. If the 7DII gets an AF system on par with 5DIII or 1DX then that systems is more desirable than a 6D. I would expect a higher keeper rate (At least for subjects that are in action). For me, having tasted the sweetness of the advanced AF systems, I could never go back to the old school 19point or less. I would be disappointed, even if the sensor was noiseless.

Thats just me and buying a camera based on sensor alone is an amateur mistake.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


Agreed!
I did not realize how bad the AF was on the 60D until I got into birding and tried a borrowed 5D3..... now I can't imagine getting another camera without a great AF system. My ideal camera would be the sampling density of APS-C and 5D3 (or better) AF system... this is why I am so keenly waiting for the 7D2 and why I did not even consider the 70D...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I picked up a 7d a year ago for a backup camera (again...after selling one to buy a 5diii). If i had to buy one now it would be a 5diii or 1dx if the wife let me. However as a backup the 7d is ok and well its a backup. My intent was/is to replace it with the 7dii. I could easily just replace with another 5diii but i dont feel the need to rush out and make a purchase. I Wou,d rather wait and see if the 7dii has an improved af system...will certainly have better iq than the 7d.

On top of that i have magic lantern installed which stretches the 7d capability a bit and keeps me occupied while i wait for what seems like an eternity for 7dii orders to start. However if the 7dii ends up being just another 70d with enhanced video then i may defer to another 5diii.


----------



## Larry (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm afraid I have to question the ostrich as a "proxy" for the dodo 

Looking at pictures of both, the disparity in leg length seems too great for there to be much similarity in speed.

Still, i'm betting on the dodo over the unicorn, since there at least WAS a dodo,…and a unicorn is unlikely to have shown up for the contest.

Dodo by default!


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Totally agree! Although I think whether the 7D II or 6D is desirable will often depend on what the photographer photographs. If your a macro junkie, I think the 6D would be the superior camera, as you'll very likely be using manual focus and focus stacking anyway. If your an action shooter and cannot afford the 1D X, then the 7D II should be pretty ideal.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Absolutely! I've used one 1D IV once. It was pretty phenomenal. Even with it's older AF system, it was just amazing how well it performed, how fast it was, how it sounded, how it felt. The 1D X is the same way, just even more refined. If someone offered me either one for a steal, I'd take either one. Doesn't matter to me if the 1D IV is old, it's still a superior camera.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Aye, this is pretty much the same boat I am in. The sensor IQ on the 5D III is better as well, but once you start using that AF system, nothing else will really suffice. Ever since I first tried a 5D III a couple years ago now, I've seen all the flaws in the 7D's AF system. The 7D was better than the 9pt systems in it's time, but it definitely has it's issues. The 61pt system seems to be flawless...it's so well designed and perfectly executed. I don't know that I'll be getting a 7D II...I'm pretty set on a 5D III now (for action, landscapes, and astrophotography), but I still really hope the 7D II gets a vastly improved AF system.


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 18, 2014)

unfocused said:


> My take away: Technology marches on. Physics not so much.



I'm really tired of all the "physics doesn't change" arguments. Physics, literally "knowledge of nature" or the science of nature, changes all the time. Nature itself does not change, but our understanding of it (aka physics) and ability to work within it changes on a daily basis.


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Pixel size doesn't really have anything to do with it. A single pixel doesn't make a picture. Multiple pixels in concert make a picture.



Thank you, thank you, thank you. 

I keep hearing "pixel size, pixel size!" and although I don't get the physics like you do, I can tell you that a single, full-frame sized pixel isn't going to take much of picture. :


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
> ...




http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=684&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It's clear that a crop sensor can match full frame IQ (I posted the 1DIV comparison for relation to the OP) in some circumstances, not many, but it is possible. We're going to need a lot more pixel density on our full frame cameras to go beyond that.

I think people aren't giving enough credit to the processor when talking about low light. It seems pretty clear to me that the biggest upgrade responsible for that 1 stop advantage in the Nikon D4s is the processor.
Sensorgen doesn't have the specs up for that body so I can't say if there has been a significant improvement in QE or not, but at least Nikon seems to advertise that the processor is a major factor. Of course then we have to decide how much we trust marketing.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



So in AI servo mode, does the 5D focus much faster and more accurate than the 7D?


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

traingineer said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



In my experience, the 5D III is way faster, far more consistent, and a bit more accurate. The 7D can be accurate, it's just inconsistent. I've had rather poor luck photographing birds in flight, for example. I don't think the problem is my technique...the 7D just has trouble maintaining a lock. It'll lock initially, but then for each frame the AF moves around just enough to kill your keeper rate. The 5D III seems to maintain it's lock much better (especially in expansion or zone modes), so even though it has a lower frame rate, it's keeper rate is similar or higher than the 7D. 

The 7D II really needs to get an AF system like the 61pt that Canon put in the 5D III and 1D X. If they reuse the 19pt AF system again, I think that will be a very big mistake.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Interesting, because for me, in AI servo mode/Zone AF, the 7D does tend to have a low keeper rate on anything faster than a person walking.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 18, 2014)

RE: How far could the 7D-II progress...

*Resolution - 18-24Mpx*
For practical purposes to print a 2-page spread at 300dpi you would need:
(11.3x300)x(8.7x300)x2 = 17,69 Mega-dots 
if you want to use 1 pixel per dot then 17.69 Mpx
18.x Mpx will allow for bleed and minor adjustments (like crop+straightening). 

I would prefer the lower end of 18-24Mpx for faster buffer clearing and/or more images in buffer 

*AF System:*
Not sure, but perhaps it is possible to use the same 61pt AF sensor from 1Dx/5D-III but with a different field lens. If this isn't possible I'm sure someone will correct me soon enough...

*Noise performance:*
Quantum Efficiency could increase to 60%
Read noise could be reduced by 50%
Full Well Capacity (Saturation) increased by 40%

*Best case scenario: At least 1 stop improvement over 7D*
1.5 Stop improvement in max Dynamic Range
1 Stop improvement in high ISO noise performance
1 Stop improvement in high ISO dynamic range
Color depth increased by 1 bit. (I conjured that figure straight out of thin air)

*Worst Case scenario: Less that half a stop better than the 7D*
Basically the same image quality as 70D, but with better AF and at higher fps.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> The 7D II really needs to get an AF system like the 61pt that Canon put in the 5D III and 1D X. If they reuse the 19pt AF system again, I think that will be a very big mistake.



I agree, I don't like the 19pt diamond layout because you can't select the rule of thirds "power points". 

I'd love to see 61pt AF but if that's not possible then at least 27pt: 
19 +4(power points) +4(expanded centre column)


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 19, 2014)

and if anyone is wondering why people are so frustrated with waiting for the 7D2, look at the following graphic....it's already been a year longer then the next longest in production Canon digital camera and at least another half year to go...

and if you look at the cameras currently in production, it has been out for 5 years.... next oldest is the 1DX at a mere 2 1/2 years...

This is why I say that whatever is coming, it's going to be big!

BTW, Thanks Wikipedia for the graphic!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 19, 2014)

And why I think it will have a big price tag !!!


----------



## jrista (Apr 19, 2014)

@Don: It looks like those are the paper release dates. The 1D X was announced in 2011, but it didn't actually hit the shelves until early summer 2012 (and maybe even later than that, as a lot of the early models used in the Olympics were ultimately replaced). The 1D X has a technical market life that is even shorter than the 5D III, which means the 7D is that much older than the next oldest Canon camera model. 

Either it is REALLY going to be something utterly incredible...or Canon is killing off the 7D line. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if Canon can really achieve the level of "incredible" the 7D would really need to be to fill the shoes everyone expects it to...


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> and if anyone is wondering why people are so frustrated with waiting for the 7D2, look at the following graphic....it's already been a year longer then the next longest in production Canon digital camera and at least another half year to go...
> 
> and if you look at the cameras currently in production, it has been out for 5 years.... next oldest is the 1DX at a mere 2 1/2 years...
> 
> ...



Ah, but this assumes that the 1DX truly is the successor to the 1DS MKIII.
Regardless of how they classify it, Canon will soon be approaching a full decade since they've upgraded the resolution of their full frame sensors.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 19, 2014)

Page after page of theorizing mixed with your typical claims that "crop will never do it."

The 70D is the closest glimpse we have at a future 7D mkII. Looking at the Imaging Resource Comparometer I would say the 1D4 is still a bit better at ISO 6400. Though it doesn't appear to be a difference that would matter at the print sizes normally associated with ISO 6400. 

ISO 3200...once you've equalized the viewing size...is a wash. Sneezing while your RAW converter is running will make more of a difference than exists between these two sensors at ISO 3200.

I can't imagine the 7D mkII will have worse IQ then the 70D, so yes, I think it will "come close" to the 1D4 and in fact "match" it at ISO 3200 and below. Possibly even at 6400. Especially true if prints are more important to you then going blind studying 300% magnifications in PS.


----------



## jrista (Apr 19, 2014)

I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:







That's a very noticeable difference. There isn't enough of a difference in image size to completely normalize the results with downsampling (remember, it isn't simply the image dimensions you have to factor in, it is also the difference in sensor area. So simply downsampling the 70D image to 1D IV image dimensions is insufficient to reduce noise to the same levels.) 

Personally, based on the gray and black swatches, the 1D IV seems to have quite a bit less noise at ISO 3200 than the 70D. Unless the 7D II hits the streets with a massive improvement in Q.E., I wouldn't expect there to be much of a difference. If Canon really manages to improve their Q.E. to modern standard (i.e. 55-60%), there could be a slight improvement, one that is recognizable over the 70D, but still insufficient to overcome the greater total area benefit of the 1D IV.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:



Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I _never work that way and neither does anyone else?_

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 20, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:
> ...



I don't apply NR to my images.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 20, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:
> ...



I can't help but feel that I'm missing something. If you were working with raw files from both cameras, wouldn't the 1DIV give you a cleaner image in the final result because the RAW image itself is cleaner to begin with?

I'm not trying to be smart here ... just want to understand


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:
> ...



Well, because the way YOU do things doesn't really matter for everyone else.  However, for the sake of discussion, I most frequently do not apply NR to my images. I do everything in my power to maximize my signal strength up front, so that noise is minimal. I also usually publish most of my work with fairly considerable downsampling (my 5184px images are usually uploaded at 1140px on my blog), and the downsampling does enough basic averaging to reduce noise to an acceptable level in a standardized way (so if I downsampled and compared a 1D IV image with a 70D image after downsampling, the results would be the same.)

Noise reduction, in the case of RAW images, is not a feature of the camera. It is a feature of post-processing software. If we are to have an objective discussion about CAMERAS and their SENSORS, the ONLY way to compare the noise levels of two cameras is directly, *with a RAW image.* If you apply noise reduction, then export as a JPEG...well, we are no longer comparing RAW now are we? Were comparing denoised jpegs (and the algorithms that perform noise reduction. 

Additionally, NR is a subjective process, and how well it works is affected by a number of factors. The noisier 70D images will require more noise reduction. The farther you push an NR routine, the more blurring it will introduce. The more blurring introduced, the lower the resolution of the 70D images, which puts it at a further disadvantage to the 1D IV. Comparing swatches that have been run through a noise reduction process means your no longer comparing the most objective data.

Sorry to burst your bubble here D by disproving your theory that the 70D has the same low noise as the 1D IV, but there it is in gray, black, and blue. I'm sorry that I have to share this kind of information, but to be frank, I honestly do not believe it is fair to anyone else to simply let anecdotal claims that have no basis in fact stand without providing as much objective and honest data as I can so everyone can see for themselves and make their own determinations.

The 70D is measurably and visibly noisier than the 1D IV. The data backs that conclusion.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 20, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:
> ...



I feel another RAW thread coming up.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 20, 2014)

9VIII said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Obviously touched a RAW nerve.....


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 20, 2014)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16851.0

Here's what I was looking for. Now we can just read that one again instead of making a new one.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I _never work that way and neither does anyone else?_
> ...



Now don't start going Risedal on us, Jon.  ;D 

To paraphrase Bailey Quarters, you're both right: the numbers don't lie AND the numbers don't always matter in the final product. Now, make nice and go back to talking about 7D2's and unicorns.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



Hey, hey now. I resent the Risedal comment.  I've never been an _ragingly oblivious incorrect_ buffoon. I'm just a plain old standard buffoon. ;D


----------



## jd7 (Apr 21, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:
> ...



Because it's not about how anyone works, it's about what the sensor gives you to work on.

You seem to be concentrating on the results you ultimately achieve - and that's fair enough to a point. In the end, the final result is what really matters. But surely if one sensor gives you a "better" (lower noise, greater detail, whatever characteristic/s you're interested in) image to begin with, you'd expect that (with appropriate processing) it's going to be able to give you a better final result as well (although I guess that does assume both images can be processed in essentially the same way - which seems a pretty safe assumption). And the only way to know which sensor is giving you the better image to begin with is to compare images which have had as little post processing as possible.


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 21, 2014)

Funny how some people can claim iq between cameras without owning them. 
I own both a 7d and 1d4 and have compared them a lot ( birding only and most of the time in reach limited situations- who isn't?).

Typically I bring both cameras in the field, if possible. However, if I have to choose one it will be the 7d. Thats because the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details and less noise after pp and downsampling of the 7d crop to the same images crop as 1d4.

If i'm not in a reach limited situations, or if I have to use iso higher than 3200, I would pick the 1d4. Anyway, in not reach limited situations, both will produce great results, at least until iso 3200 and whatever lens.
A very sharp lens, ie 300mm mk2 can take more advantage on the smaller pixels on 7d compared to 1d4. So the difference in favour of 7d is larger when using lower iso and/or sharper lenses. 
I have a nice selction of lenses 300mk2, 400mk1, 500mk1 both tc' mk3, etc to test with.
Please visit www.nature-wildlife-images.com for images.

Another disadvantage of the 1d4 IMO, is the handling. The lack of complete custom presets (including AF mode) as on 7d or 5dmk3 is really annoying in the field. The only thing I miss on 7d(vs 1d4) is the silent shutter and ev comp in M

I really hope a 7d mk2 will be 22-24 mp and have at least same sensor iq as nikon d7100/pentax k-3. 
(+ upgraded af, buffer, fps, silent shutter, ev comp in M etc) 
Just like Pentax K-3


----------



## unfocused (Apr 21, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Funny how some people can claim iq between cameras without owning them.
> I own both a 7d and 1d4 and have compared them a lot ( birding only and most of the time in reach limited situations- who isn't?)...
> 
> ...if I have to choose one it will be the 7d. That's because the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details...
> ...



Thanks Petter. I really appreciate the real world experience and basically you seem to be confirming what I have taken away from much of the technical discussion as well.

I really believe the 7D II will have a sensor in the 22-24 mp range and be upgraded with many of the 5D III features (autofocus, silent shutter, dual card slots). Virtually every DSLR made today is great for all-around shooting and the key differentiations are at the margins. 

I've often said that I was impressed with how well Canon targeted the 5DIII to a specific market (wedding and event photographers) while still creating a great all-around camera. I expect the 7DII will be similarly targeted to bird, wildlife and sports photographers (but remain a great all-around camera as well). While not a large professional market, the enthusiasts that fit into this category probably make up one of the largest and most affluent sub-categories of photographers. 

This fits in with another theory I have – which is that Canon doesn't want to sell people just one camera. They want to grow the market by encouraging buyers to own both a full frame and a crop sensor. A 7DII that provides excellent images in good light and distance-limited situations will very nicely complement a 5DIII, which shines in poor light, but requires too much cropping when distance-limited. 

As I've written before, I started this thread in part to define the upper limits of performance, so as to better manage expectations. If one has reasonable expectations, then, given Canon's laser-like focus on maximizing opportunities where they find them, I think the 7DII will be quite impressive.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 22, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo?
> ...


Only on this forum....


----------



## Tugela (Apr 22, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how some people can claim iq between cameras without owning them.
> ...



It is not so much that Canon is splitting up the market so much as the physical nature of the sensors are splitting up the market. Larger sensors have better light sensitivity while smaller ones have better reach.

It is surprising that they don't have a range of cameras with even smaller sized sensors specialized for very long range photography as well. A smaller crop size would make ultra telephoto lenses much more portable and practical to use.


----------



## Steve (Apr 22, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Typically I bring both cameras in the field, if possible. However, if I have to choose one it will be the 7d. Thats because the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details and less noise after pp and downsampling of the 7d crop to the same images crop as 1d4.



Haha, what? I've had both and the 1DIV is vastly superior in every way - IQ, AF (especially tracking AF), noise handling, etc + I can crop deeper into a mkIV image without it turning into a noisy mess than I ever could with my 7D. The 7D is useless past ISO 800 imo if you intend to crop at all, which, if you are shooting birds, you will be 99.995% of the time. When I first got my 1DIV I was positively giddy at how much better the images were to work with and how much better they look. Whatever small advantage can be gained with the crop factor is absolutely steamrolled by every other aspect of the APS-H and the 1D body.

Actually, the one thing I really do miss about the 7D is the precision center AF point. That was pretty badass. I don't miss how it dropped focus every other frame in servo mode, however.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 22, 2014)

traingineer said:


> I don't apply NR to my images.



If you use ACR and do not explicitly reduce it to 0, you are using it. With DPP or in camera JPEG it doesn't matter if you choose the lowest setting, some is applied any way. You can get away with truly zero NR in low ISO images that are perfectly exposed, but if you're not taking advantage of it at higher ISOs then you are literally handicapping your output vs. cheaper and older sensors that are optimally post processed.



J.R. said:


> I can't help but feel that I'm missing something. If you were working with raw files from both cameras, wouldn't the 1DIV give you a cleaner image in the final result because the RAW image itself is cleaner to begin with?



Not necessarily because the relationship between NR and detail is not a simple linear one. If you apply X NR to a RAW file to achieve a certain noise and detail level, you may be able to apply X+Y NR to a more noisy RAW file to end up with the same result. Depends on the gap between sensors, the NR algorithms, the settings you feed those algorithms, and also the image itself.



jrista said:


> Comparing swatches that have been run through a noise reduction process means your no longer comparing the most objective data.



I was comparing the IR studio scene and looking at the entire scene.



> Sorry to burst your bubble here D by disproving your theory that the 70D has the same low noise as the 1D IV, but there it is in gray, black, and blue.



I'm sorry you didn't understand my post and still don't realize how pointless and irrelevant unprocessed gray patches are. In the real world making real images 70D IQ is indistinguishable from 1D4 IQ until very high ISOs where it's still fairly close. That's sufficient to answer the question posted by unfocused.

Unless, of course, unfocused will be primarily shooting patches in RAW and converting with NR completely off. In which case he should forget about the 7D2 and 1D4 and buy a Nikon or a Sony.


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > Typically I bring both cameras in the field, if possible. However, if I have to choose one it will be the 7d. Thats because the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details and less noise after pp and downsampling of the 7d crop to the same images crop as 1d4.
> ...


Sounds like you are shooting jpg only. 
To compensate for the higher amont of pixels on the subject you need to put a extra tc on the lens on 1d4.
This will cancel out the one stop iso advantage 1d4 has vs 7d.
Also the af will be slower due 1 stop slower lens (with tc).
If You are in a reach limited situation with the 500mm + tc's and the two bodys, what combination would you use?
1d4 + 2x tc or 7d+1.4tc?
The 7d combo will win regarding details and AF speed. Noise will be equal. 
Maybe you would stick with 1d4 +1.4 tc. In this case the 1d4 af will be better. 7d will have better details but more noise. However, you can easily pp the more detailed image from 7d and then downsample to show same subject size at 1d4. Again, the 7d will win. At least for isos up to somewhere betwen 1600 and 3200. 

You said spot af is the only thing you miss from 7d. What about a quick way of change shooting setup from BIF mode to static mode? If you are a birder and dont miss that, I doubt you seriously have used these bodys. Or maybe you can give me a good tip


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 22, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Pit123 said:
> ...



You are making two different arguments and neither tally with real world use.

First you say you the 7D has _"the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details and less noise after pp and downsampling"_, then you say _"To compensate for the higher amont of pixels on the subject you need to put a extra tc on the lens on 1d4."_

But your assumption, one I have found normally propagated by people who don't actually have the gear, is that all pixels are equal, are you seriously trying to tell us a 7D pixel is worth exactly the same as a 1D MkIV pixel? Because that is what you have said, and it is not true.

Market forces determine camera output, it is funny but true just look at the drop in value of the 1D MkIII since the 5D MkIII came out, a 7D can be had for $600 -$900, the 1D MkIV is still around $2,500. 

So would you mind showing us a couple of your images that illustrate your conclusions?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 22, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Pit123 said:
> ...



Since nobody asked it yet, I will: WTF??


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> You are making two different arguments and neither tally with real world use.
> 
> First you say you the 7D has _"the extra pixels on the subject gives me more details and less noise after pp and downsampling"_, then you say _"To compensate for the higher amont of pixels on the subject you need to put a extra tc on the lens on 1d4."_
> 
> ...



You dont get it, do you?
To equalize a crop of the same target shooting with the same lens from same distance using same settings you can a: Downsize the 7d crop to same amount of pixels as 1d4. After downsizing, the iq looks very similar if you dont do any pp before downsizing. Same noise, same details. (downsizing removes noise).
Or b: you can put on a 1.4x tc on the lens when shooting with 1d4 to get the same details on subject as 7d.
Adding the tc change the aperture and you have to double the iso to compensate. Hence same noise and same details if the tc is not reducing any details.
Thats the basic. But above around iso 2000, the smaller pixels on 7d breaks apart and 7d loose iq. Below iso 2000, 7d will win if you pp before downsizing. If you dont downsize but instead put a tc on, 7d will also win due to the reduced optical quality from the tc.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 22, 2014)

Such a pasionate debate over the relative merits of an obsolete camera against an imaginary camera.....

I imagine that the imaginary camera will be superior in every way.... therefore the imaginary camera wins...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 22, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> You dont get it, do you?



Oh yes, I get it, but you obviously didn't. I am calling you out and asking for actual images of yours that support your theory. And now note you arlimiting the comparison to focal length limited situations, which isn't particularly valid most of the time for most people.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 22, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Such a pasionate debate over the relative merits of an obsolete camera against an imaginary camera.....
> 
> I imagine that the imaginary camera will be superior in every way.... therefore the imaginary camera wins...



Don, I was happy to leave well alone until they starting comparing two actual cameras. I have no interest in speculation about a 7D MkII.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Such a pasionate debate over the relative merits of an obsolete camera against an imaginary camera.....
> ...



Yeah....

The problem with comparing two cameras is that there will be some things camera A does better than Camera B, and some things Camera B does better than camera A.... and some things equal. Which one is better depends on your priorities so the debate can continue forever without resolution... plus, the thread was a comparison to an imaginary camera, one that will be a lot closer to 70D specs than 7D specs..... so if they are going to pick an actual camera to compare against, why not the 70D?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 22, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I didn't pick either of them, nor the specific aspect of that comparison. Ergonomics for example can be argued until the cows come home, and then some, but a specific claim of comparative noise and resolution from somebody claiming to be familiar with both cameras should be easy to post their own actual images illustrating that. I am a bit of a loudmouth here sometimes, and to those who don't like that approach I apologise, but I regularly post images that illustrate and support my assertions.

If the comment had been about a 70D I would not have been drawn in as I have no experience with one.


----------



## Steve (Apr 22, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Sounds like you are shooting jpg only.
> To compensate for the higher amont of pixels on the subject you need to put a extra tc on the lens on 1d4.
> This will cancel out the one stop iso advantage 1d4 has vs 7d.
> Also the af will be slower due 1 stop slower lens (with tc).
> ...



Assuming the shot is worth taking, 1D4 + 2x. No question. The result will be much better. Even at a higher ISO the 1D4 will give a more manageable picture. Literally every professional bird/nature photographer would agree. The disadvantages of the smaller sensor outweigh the small advantage of crop reach. Note how everyone who can afford it has moved up to the full frame 1DX and the 5DmkIII has become a viable wildlife camera. Crop reach is largely illusory and only a legitimate factor in a tiny fraction of shooting situations. Most of the time if the crop would make the difference, you are too far away to take a decent pic anyway.



> The 7d combo will win regarding details and AF speed. Noise will be equal.
> Maybe you would stick with 1d4 +1.4 tc. In this case the 1d4 af will be better. 7d will have better details but more noise. However, you can easily pp the more detailed image from 7d and then downsample to show same subject size at 1d4. Again, the 7d will win. At least for isos up to somewhere betwen 1600 and 3200.



This is simply untrue in any real world application. I've used both cameras extensively and the 7D was a major source of frustration comparatively, particularly and most noticeably when dealing with noise in post. 

The thing is, your own portfolio (which is very nice btw!) demonstrates this difference. The shots you've taken with the 1d4 are much cleaner and more detailed compared with the shots you've taken with the 7D which generally show quite a bit more noise, even in those downsampled images. I could clearly pick them out before looking at the technical details at the bottom. The only ones that I guessed wrong were the black backed gull (which I thought was 1D4) and the Guillemot (which I thought was 7D). For the rest it was easy to see the difference in quality.



> You said spot af is the only thing you miss from 7d. What about a quick way of change shooting setup from BIF mode to static mode? If you are a birder and dont miss that, I doubt you seriously have used these bodys. Or maybe you can give me a good tip



I always have my 1D4 in servo mode and I switch between 45pt and center point with the joystick. With the 7D I had to switch between servo and one shot constantly because the 7D would bounce when using servo on a stationary subject. This isn't an issue with the 1 series AF. My two big complaints with the 7D, an otherwise great camera, are with noise and the almost-excellent-but-fatally-flawed AF system.


----------



## jrista (Apr 22, 2014)

arco iris said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > jhpeterson said:
> ...



A smaller pixel generates less read noise, correct. For example, the 7D has 8e- read noise, vs. the 1D X's 35e- read noise. But read noise is a tiny, tiny, tiny contributor to overall noise. The lower FWC means TOTAL noise (including photon shot noise) is higher, because your maximum signal (as dictated by that lower FWC) is lower.

The overall sensor area is what dictates total noise in the image, and in that respect it doesn't really matter what the pixel size is. Smaller sensors have more noise than larger sensors due to their smaller total area/less total light gathered.


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > You dont get it, do you?
> ...



Read my posts again and look forposts where I did not clearly said the example is for reach limited situations.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 22, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Pit123 said:
> ...



Read my posts again and show me an example of what you believe you are seeing, that the 7D outperforms the 1D MkIV in focal length limited situations, because the crops of yours I have seen support completely the opposite.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18368.msg342370#msg342370


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 22, 2014)

Steve said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like you are shooting jpg only.
> ...



So you are serious claiming that a 1d4 + 500mmf4 is mk1 +2x tc will outperform 7d+ same lens + 1.4x tc?
Have you ever tested the 500mm with a 2x tc? 
And are you serious claiming the af will be better too?
You must be joking!



Steve said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > The 7d combo will win regarding details and AF speed. Noise will be equal.
> ...



If you really can see what camera was used for all these images without looking at the exif, I must say Im impressed!
But remember, all the 7d images was taken in reach limited situations, while the 1d4 was not.
I have both cameras and takes the one that suits the situation best. If cropping is necessary and the light is good, the 7d easily wins. And im quite sure it will win against 5d3 too, in those situations.



Steve said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > You said spot af is the only thing you miss from 7d. What about a quick way of change shooting setup from BIF mode to static mode? If you are a birder and dont miss that, I doubt you seriously have used these bodys. Or maybe you can give me a good tip
> ...



I think there is a reason why they changed menus more to 7d style than 1d4 style both in 5d3 and 1dx.
Using your method, I have to click 3 different buttons in a total of 5 clicks to change mode. (Both af points and select predefined bif shutter/ev comp setting) On 7d I only need one click.


----------



## Steve (Apr 22, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> So you are serious claiming that a 1d4 + 500mmf4 is mk1 +2x tc will outperform 7d+ same lens + 1.4x tc?



Yes, that's what I'm saying. I thought it was pretty clear.

I have used the 500 with a 2x TC. It works pretty well. Also, you get more reach with the 500 + 2x on the 1d4 than you get with the 500 + 1.4x on the 7D by about 180mm equiv. meaning you will have to crop less, meaning less noise and better IQ. I didn't make any statements about the AF in that comparison.



> I think there is a reason why they changed menus more to 7d style than 1d4 style both in 5d3 and 1dx.
> Using your method, I have to click 3 different buttons in a total of 5 clicks to change mode. (Both af points and select predefined bif shutter/ev comp setting) On 7d I only need one click.



My method requires pushing the AF select button and then clicking the stick to toggle 45pt or center point. Its just about the easiest and fastest thing in the world. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by predefined BIF settings. I don't use custom profiles (I shoot manual 8)), is that what you are talking about?

Anyway, no point in continuing to argue about this. If you like the 7D better, that's awesome, have at it. You take some nice pics, keep it up in what ever way works best for you.


----------



## Kerry B (Apr 23, 2014)

I thought this topic was going to be ideal because I have a chance of getting a mint 1dmk 1v with no more than 7500 clicks. I will trade my 7d against this camera. I am no longer prepared to wait for the fabled 7dmk11.
Given the number of pages posted here on the merits of full frame v crop ( I already have the 5dmk111 and love it) could anybody confirm whether the 1dmk iv will be better than the 7d in terms of overall image quality. 

I know build quality will be improved and noise as well as autofocus will be better. I will be using this body with either the 300f2.8mk11 or 70-200f2.8mk11 + extenders.

Guys and girls a simple reply would be appreciated without going into the theorem of Pythagoras. I get lost with some of the technical stuff you all come up with.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 23, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> could anybody confirm whether the 1dmk iv will be better than the 7d in terms of overall image quality.
> 
> Guys and girls a simple reply would be appreciated without going into the theorem of Pythagoras. I get lost with some of the technical stuff you all come up with.



Simple answer is, yes.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There have been strides in sensor technology, however pixel size still dominates the determination of how much noise you have. Smaller pixels will always have more noise, that's a simple matter of physics. We have improved READ noise with better sensor technology, but read noise is only a small contribution to total noise (especially at high ISO)...photon shot noise is the primary source of noise in images. The larger pixels of the 1D IV will always win out against smaller pixels of APS-C sensors. The only way the 7D II could do better is if it had larger pixels than the 1D IV, however that would make it something like a 10mp sensor...highly unlikely.
> ...



Jrista, I'm a little confused by your two statements - which seem at odds with each other, unless I misunderstand them. 

My understanding is noise is determined by the total light gathered by the system, and that is a function of the sensor's area and its quantum efficiency. That would mean changing the 7D sensor for one which is the same size but has a smaller number of much larger pixels (which otherwise performed the same) wouldn't help with noise, because you wouldn't change the total light gathered by the system. Larger pixels would presumably have a larger FWC, which might enable more subtle colour/brightness gradation (and perhaps increase dynamic range?), but wouldn't actually reduce noise.

Am I missing something?


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 23, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> I thought this topic was going to be ideal because I have a chance of getting a mint 1dmk 1v with no more than 7500 clicks. I will trade my 7d against this camera. I am no longer prepared to wait for the fabled 7dmk11.
> Given the number of pages posted here on the merits of full frame v crop ( I already have the 5dmk111 and love it) could anybody confirm whether the 1dmk iv will be better than the 7d in terms of overall image quality.
> 
> I know build quality will be improved and noise as well as autofocus will be better. I will be using this body with either the 300f2.8mk11 or 70-200f2.8mk11 + extenders.
> ...



I think the answers will be exaxt the same if you compare (IQ) between your 7D vs 5D3:

My experience:
When no cropping is needed: 1D4 gives best IQ
If you need to crop 1D4 more than 7D FOV (using the same lens) and use lower iso than iso 2000: 7D gives (slightly) better IQ.


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2014)

jd7 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



That is essentially correct. Pixel size doesn't matter much because you can always downsample, which is effectively the same as either binning or having larger pixels. Let's say you have a 32mp APS-C and a 8mp APS-C. Both sensors have a Q.E. of 50%. Neither sensor has an AA filter. These two sensors are a factor of four difference in pixel size...you can fit four of the 32mp sized pixels into one 8mp sized pixel. If you take the 32mp image and downsample it to 8mp (8000x4000 pixels downsampled to 4000x2000 pixels), the results are the same. The per-pixel noise of the 32mp image is higher, however once downsampled, basic averaging effectively nullifies the increase in noise, and largely nullifies the increase in detail, resulting in nearly the same detail and exactly the same noise as the 8mp sensor. The detail will be slightly higher as you started out with a finer level of detail, and the multi-sampling process of downsampling means that while you are concurrently averaging out noise, you are also compounding the quality of detail in each pixel. 

Now, let's say the 8mp camera has 40% Q.E. and the 32mp camera has 80% Q.E. Now the 32mp camera only has noise that is 50% worse than the 8mp, rather than twice as bad. If you downsample the 32mp image to the same dimensions as the 8mp image, the downsampled 32mp image will have less noise and will show the same advantage in detail. It is highly unlikely we will ever see a consumer-grade sensor with 80% Q.E. I've only seen those levels in Grade 1 scientific sensors (the kinds of sensors you find in astrophotography cameras or the stuff they ship up to the Hubble.) We may see sensors with 65% Q.E. or so, however that is only about a half-stop improvement over the ~50% most current sensors have now.

Now, let's say we have two sensors of differing size. Let's say we have a 16mp mp FF sensor, and an 8mp 24x16mm sensor (exactly half the area of the FF sensor, slightly larger than APS-C). Both cameras have exactly the same pixel size. If you frame your subject in one vertical half of the FF sensor with the camera oriented vertically, and crop out the other half, you will have identical results to the 8mp APS-C sensor. If you frame the same subject horizontally using the full area of the FF sensor, you are putting twice as much sensor area on the subject. You have gathered double the amount of light with the FF sensor as you are with the APS-C sensor...and it has nothing to do with pixel size. If you downsample the FF image to the same dimensions as the APS-C image, your going to trounce it in both noise levels and detail levels.

The total amount of light gathered is really what matters. Assuming the same sensor size, then the actual pixel size does not really matter all that much. There are things that may result in improved performance of one sensor with one pixels size or another. Improved quantum efficiency is one way. There are also caveats with pixel size. If you want more pixels, that also means more wiring. In FSI sensors, the increased wiring with smaller pixels means there is even less total light sensitive area than with larger pixels. Theoretically, assuming an identical fabrication process is used, our 8mp camera from above will actually have more total photodiode (light sensitive) area than the 32mp sensor. If they both have the same Q.E. then the 8mp sensor will actually perform slightly better due to the slightly greater total photodiode area. This would be the only way I think a 7D II could perform as well as or better (highly unlikely) than the 1D IV. By reducing pixel count significantly, one can increase the total amount of light-sensitive sensor area. I'm not exactly sure where the cutoff point would be...however you would have to pretty drastically reduce the wiring area of the 7D II. You would probably also need to use a process shrink (500nm to 180nm). Another way to do it would be to move to a BSI design. (This all assumes that there is enough wiring in the 1D IV sensor that total light sensitive area is still not greater than the area of an APS-C sensor...if it is, then actually there wouldn't be any way the 7D II could actually perform better.)

In this respect, *you are indeed correct *about color fidelity and dynamic range...larger pixels do have an edge here. However you are still going to find that greater total sensor area still has a greater impact on those aspects of IQ than larger pixels do in the long run (for example, the D800 has phenomenal color fidelity, however it's pixel size is only marginally larger than the 7D, which has pretty terrible color fidelity in the grand scheme of things...the greater total light gathering capacity, benefited by both higher Q.E. and being FF, of the D800 is it's real edge here.)

Other technology may be employed to increase the total light sensitivity of a sensor pixel. Currently sensors are effectively two dimensional...the only thing that really matters for total charge capacity is the area of the photodiode. Foveon-type sensors stack photodiodes, resulting in an increase in total charge capacity for each pixel. The same technique could theoretically be employed for monochrome and bayer sensors. Blue pixels would be least sensitive, as silicon will filter out most of the bluer wavelengths before they penetrate deeply. Green and red pixels would be most sensitive, allowing for two or three, maybe even four layers of photodiodes. Such technology could be employed in higher megapixel sensors to increase FWC and sensitivity. There is nothing that says the same techniques couldn't be employed with larger pixel sensors, though.


----------



## jrista (Apr 23, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> I thought this topic was going to be ideal because I have a chance of getting a mint 1dmk 1v with no more than 7500 clicks. I will trade my 7d against this camera. I am no longer prepared to wait for the fabled 7dmk11.
> Given the number of pages posted here on the merits of full frame v crop ( I already have the 5dmk111 and love it) could anybody confirm whether the 1dmk iv will be better than the 7d in terms of overall image quality.
> 
> I know build quality will be improved and noise as well as autofocus will be better. I will be using this body with either the 300f2.8mk11 or 70-200f2.8mk11 + extenders.
> ...



So long as you compose your shots the same with the 1D IV as you would with the 7D II (i.e. the subject is framed the same), then yes, the 1D IV should perform better in pretty much every case. The only time a smaller sensor is better is when you are reach-limited, in which case your subject would be reproduced at the sensor the same size with both cameras. You'll get the same amount of light on the subject, as far as sensor area goes, however with the smaller pixels that are usually used with APS-C sensors, you'll generally get more detail. 

If the 7D II hits the street with a strong AA filter, or a less than ideal full well capacity, then it is unlikely it would even perform as well as the 1D IV in reach-limited scenarios. (The 7D has a 20187e- FWC, where as the 70D has a 26726e- FWC DESPITE having smaller pixels...so it is likely that the 7D II will also have a better FWC.) I think it is most likely that the 7D II will hit with a slightly weak AA filter, as that's been the trend, I think it will also have improved Q.E., so I think it will have an FWC between 26ke- and 28ke-. For what it is, it should perform quite well...but regardless of how well,_ if your filling your frame with the subject_, the 1D IV is still going to outperform it.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> If the 7D II hits the street with a strong AA filter, or a less than ideal full well capacity, then it is unlikely it would even perform as well as the 1D IV in reach-limited scenarios. (The 7D has a 20187e- FWC, where as the 70D has a 26726e- FWC DESPITE having smaller pixels...so it is likely that the 7D II will also have a better FWC.) I think it is most likely that the 7D II will hit with a slightly weak AA filter, as that's been the trend, I think it will also have improved Q.E., so I think it will have an FWC between 26ke- and 28ke-. For what it is, it should perform quite well...but regardless of how well,_ if your filling your frame with the subject_, the 1D IV is still going to outperform it.



I was gonna say this... ;D


----------



## unfocused (Apr 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> So long as you compose your shots the same with the 1D IV as you would with the 7D II (i.e. the subject is framed the same), then yes, the 1D IV should perform better in pretty much every case.



Not to stir things up and certainly not to question Jon in any way, but...

I think in fairness it should be noted that we are talking about the margins here. Yes, the 1D IV should perform better in pretty much every case, but whether that "better" performance is visible or of any practical value is another question.

I now own both a 5DIII and a 7D and I want to rationalize the 5D purchase as much as anyone. Yet, if I am honest about it, there are very few circumstances where the differences are even noticeable. Yeah, it saved my rear when I had to shoot existing light in a dimly lit theater and had no choice but to use obscenely high ISOs. I am also not talking about the other feature differences or the depth of field differences between full frame and crop. 

But, strictly in terms of the quality of images coming out of both cameras; for anyone shooting at ISO 400 or so and printing rather than pixel-peeping, the differences are insignificant even at large print sizes. 

On these pages, Jon and others have provided a very good reality check about the upper limits of sensor performance. I think it's also good to provide a reality check about the very narrow parameters we are talking about when it comes to visible differences in sensor performance.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



thanks for the explanatation jrista!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 24, 2014)

jd7 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



My battery died before i could finish!


----------



## jrista (Apr 24, 2014)

I hope that was understandable. I never realize how long these posts are until I've actually posted them. They always end up longer than I expect. 

I should caveat my last post with one thing. When I say pixel size doesn't matter, I do mean pretty strictly *in context of noise, pixel size doesn't matter much.* I don't want anyone to misinterpret that to mean that pixel size doesn't matter at all. On the contrary, pixel size does matter. Depending on what you shoot, it can matter a whole hell of a LOT! Pixel size determines resolving power (spatial resolution). When your photographing landscapes, birds or wildlife at a distance, even sports at a distance, you can always use more pixels. More pixels means more detail.

This should actually give even better context to the reasons why larger total sensor area is important when you are not reach-limited. If you can frame your subjects as you want to frame them, a larger sensor with smaller pixels means the best of both worlds...you can gather more total light, AND you can resolve more detail. There is really nothing wrong with that. Even if we eventually get to the point where sensors are oversampling lenses more often than not (which, _unless_ we eventually see the "average" lens quality equal the quality the Otus delivers at fast apertures (at least f/4, even up to f/2.8), is rather likely), it's actually better to oversample than to undersample. 

If we can oversample our images by about two fold at the lens' ideal aperture, then I think we would finally reach a point where AA filters would fundamentally be UNnecessary. The lens would be doing the necessary high frequency blurring for us, there would never be a chance (with the possible exception of the Otus Next ) that the lens would resolve detail fine enough to create moire patterns and aliasing with the sensor. At that point, it would simply be a matter of practice to always downsample our images by a factor of two (at least, obviously significantly more for publication online) to get the ideal result. In the case of print, sensors with that kind of resolution (and were talking some pretty serious resolution here, 120-150mp FF at least) would be natively producing quality results that don't need to be upscaled (which effectively produces similar results to a sensor that oversamples a lens) unless your printing at some pretty extreme sizes...40x30 or larger (however even then...you wouldn't need to upscale as much, so it's a wash.)


----------



## Marauder (Apr 24, 2014)

Interesting thread! Loved the unicorn vs dodo and the Holy Grail bits too! LOL

I'm glad this thread was created--kind of read my mind. I would love to pick up a second-hand 1D IV as it fits my "wildlife" photography needs. It would certainly be a massive step up from my 7D. Although I am generally satisfied with the 7D's performance, the better AF of the 1D IV would be a boon. I think it's a relevant comparison between the 1D IV and the rumoured 7D II as both cameras should be similar in price by the time the latter releases. So it's a question of 'bang for the buck.' 

I love reading the various opinions in the thread. Personally, I'm still awaiting the 7D II anxiously. Although I don't have any illusions that the 1D IV will outperform it in low light/high ISO, I suspect the 7D II will outperform it from an AF perspective. Although the 1D IV has a great 45 point AF system, the 61 point AF system on the 1DX/5D III appears to have been a quantum leap in accuracy and speed, and I suspect the 7D II will have a variation on that system. That alone makes it worthwhile. And it should match the 10 fps of the 1D IV and may even best it with a 12 FPS burst rate, combined with a deep buffer. 

All speculation at this point of course, but speculation based on rumoured prototypes and all very reasonable expectations. On the other hand, if the 7D II fails to materialize or does not have the desirable features we've come to expect.....well, a second hand 1D IV just might find it's way into my pack after all! 8)


----------



## eml58 (Apr 24, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> Kerry B said:
> 
> 
> > could anybody confirm whether the 1dmk iv will be better than the 7d in terms of overall image quality.
> ...



I think Sanj & Expatinasia are Photographers after my own heart.

I agree with both of them, 1DMK IV is a much better all round Camera (at a price) than the 7D (this is the 7D, not the theoretical 7D II that that so many seem to love to waffle about, and that doesn't exist, to my knowledge), so that's a simple Yes.

I base this statement on two very simple principles, I own/owned both, and I use/used both (to be totally honest, I was so disappointed in the IQ of the 7D I gave it to my Brother in Law after 3 months of use, I really don't like my Brother in Law).

The 1DMK IV is still in use.


----------



## Hannes (Apr 25, 2014)

Another factor no one has mentioned is the lenses used. Small sensors will do comparatively better on great lenses whereas if you compared the 7D with 1DIV using a lens like the tamron 150-600 wide open at 600 or a popular lens like the 24-105 the larger sensor will help more. I know myself how much better my 1DIII performed with the 24-105 compared with my 40D. Both of these are same gen and with the same number of pixels however the 1DIII pictures are noticeable better in most situations, even without pixel peeping.

If you use a fantastic lens like a 300 2.8 II the difference is going to be smaller. The 7DII may indeed be more viable simply because of the quality of the newer canon super teles. Obviously series I super teles weren't bad but still.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 25, 2014)

Well, in between unicorns and other species I have not been able to nail ... I had the 1DIV ... and the 7D. My wife liked the 7D, so I kept that. But when I got the 1DX, I could not find good cause to keep the 1DIV. But ... after selling the 1DIV, I kept missing the 1.3x-factor. So, today I actually bought a second hand 1DIV. 2k$, 12.000 exposures, mint condition ... Brilliant!

Comparing the 7D and the 1DIV is a Golf GTI vs. Porsche 911 comparison. The 7DII vs. 1DIV ... Well there your guess is as good as mine. But a new Golf GTI will still be a Golf, compared to a 911 ...

I may add that I have also sold the 7D. I was gambling on a 7DII before the summer vacation. Obviously wrong. So this summer my wife will occupy the 5DIII, with accessories. My summer gadget may be the Pentax 645z ... My patience for a high resolution Canon is running thin ...


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 25, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Well, in between unicorns and other species I have not been able to nail ... I had the 1DIV ... and the 7D. My wife liked the 7D, so I kept that. But when I got the 1DX, I could not find good cause to keep the 1DIV. But ... after selling the 1DIV, I kept missing the 1.3x-factor. So, today I actually bought a second hand 1DIV. 2k$, 12.000 exposures, mint condition ... Brilliant!
> 
> Comparing the 7D and the 1DIV is a Golf GTI vs. Porsche 911 comparison. The 7DII vs. 1DIV ... Well there your guess is as good as mine. But a new Golf GTI will still be a Golf, compared to a 911 ...
> 
> I may add that I have also sold the 7D. I was gambling on a 7DII before the summer vacation. Obviously wrong. So this summer my wife will occupy the 5DIII, with accessories. My summer gadget may be the Pentax 645z ... My patience for a high resolution Canon is running thin ...


Just curious:
Why do you miss the crop factor from 1d4 vs 1dx? Will the 1d4 give better Iq in reach limited situations? Even if 1dx is a newer generation sensor. 
If so, whats the principle about your claim that 7d cant give better iq than 1d4 in similar situations? 
Have you tried to compare a downsampled crop from 1d4 vs 1dx? I woul love to hear about your comparison results!


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Nice, you found this example.
On my monitor, this iso 1600 example shows more details on the 7d. Especial when you look at the hair section in the lower part of the image. To bad the images we can post here is very compressed. On the original it is easier to see the difference. Anyhow, on iso 1600 they have very similar iq. On lower iso 7d is better. Above somewhere between 1600 and 3200 1d4 will be better. 
I am not on my computer these days, but next week I can show similar crops with 1d4/1000mmf8 vs 7d/700mmf5.6 if anyone is interested. I claim 7d to give better iq performance here as well ( in reach limited situations).


----------



## Eldar (Apr 26, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Well, in between unicorns and other species I have not been able to nail ... I had the 1DIV ... and the 7D. My wife liked the 7D, so I kept that. But when I got the 1DX, I could not find good cause to keep the 1DIV. But ... after selling the 1DIV, I kept missing the 1.3x-factor. So, today I actually bought a second hand 1DIV. 2k$, 12.000 exposures, mint condition ... Brilliant!
> ...


Without getting into a long argument, I have a few that matters to me. 

First is that I wanted an extra body, to avoid swapping lenses on my 1DX. 

Second is that the quality and functionality of the 1-series bodies, which is far superior to the others, including 5DIII and 7D. And $2k for a mint condition 1DIV is, in my view, a bargain.

Third, when shooting birds with the long whites (600mm + extender), a crop sensor gives you that extra reach, which is something I like, not because it gives me higher IQ in the end, but because it makes it easier to nail focus on small subjects in a forrest area etc, simply because I see them better. I also get that extra reach with my 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, which is very convenient on trips where I cannot carry everything. But again the reason is to improve my ability to shoot in focus, not for IQ.

Comparing the 1DIV to the 7D, other than the 1D-body vs. 7D-body, I find IQ better on the 1DIV. The AF system is better and low ISO performance is better. It also provides a higher fps, which I really like. The 7D does have even better reach, but I don´t find that it gives me anything, since the AF system on the 1DIV is sufficiently better.

Comparing the 1DIV to the 1DX is not really a fair comparison, because the 1DX outperforms the 1DIV in everything but crop-factor (well actually it does, because it´s FF, but in this case I want reach). When subjects are clearly isolated from their surroundings, so I don´t need the extra reach to focus properly, a cropped 1DX image will, according to what I have read in a lot of places (and I don´t doubt), outperforms a 1DIV shot. If I could have justified it, I would have bought a second 1DX instead. 

When the 7DII comes out, I´m hoping they will equip it with a top notch AF system. if they do, the 1.6x crop factor, probably higher resolution (low twenties), with improved IQ and acceptable fps, will definitely motivate me to get one. A 7DII, 300mm f2.8L IS II, with 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders will be a very handy package for long hikes. 

I doubt that I would have bought the 1DIV today, if the 7DII had been out.


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 26, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


Thanks for your answer!
Love to hear experiences like this. i think a lot depends on subjective shooting style. I, for example find the AF on 7D to be very reliable, especial on static subject, even compared to 1d4. Because 7d has spot focus and 1d4 not. its much easier to nail focus on a bird between branches with the 7d. I think many of the af problems people claim with 7d is because it doesnt work very well Out of the box. You have to customize the settings and then program 3 typical shooting style to the 3 custom settings. That is something I do miss with my 1d4.
Another thing with 7d is that I had to microadjust all of my lens/tc combinations. On the 1d4, every combination works perfect without MA, so far. 
Its interesting you find its easier to nail focus with 1d4 than with 1dx due to the crop factor. Despite the spot focus and larger viewfinder on 1dx. Is the subject really that much larger on 1d4 than in the 1dx? I'm asking because I dont see any significant difference on subject size between 7d and 1d4 viewfinder.
I have never seen anyone show crop comparisons between 1d4 and 1dx for reach limited situations. You indicate that the crops from 1dx would be better, but I just cant understand why. They have the same mp? and if so, 1d4 produce a lot more ( 1,3^2 ) pixels on subject. After downsample I would guess the 1d4, would be best. (At least on isos below xxxx). 
if you can show otherwise, then maybe 1dx should be my next purchase. I would love a really silent shutter mode, ev comp in auto iso, and the high iso/FF advantages, as on 1dx, if Im not loosing any crop advantages. 
I do most of my shooting in reach limited situations, hence prefer the body with best IQ after cropping vs other parameters, as long as other parameters ( af, fps, built , etc) is "good enaough". If that would be 1dx, as you indicate, than im in. So please post some examples!


----------



## Eldar (Apr 26, 2014)

If silent shutter is a priority and fps is less of an issue, go for the 5DIII. AF about the same as 1DX, silent mode is Really silent.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 26, 2014)

Crop cameras put more pixels on the target. FF cameras have better quality pixels. Which one is better depends on your needs.


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Crop cameras put more pixels on the target. FF cameras have better quality pixels. Which one is better depends on your needs.


Exactly! And more pixels on the subject is normally best (IMO) if you downsize the higher pixel image to show the same subject size as the bigger pixel camera. Up until iso xxxx. 
And so far I havent seen anything that can prove otherwise. But I would love to see if I' m wrong, because I do see the advantage of a larger sensor when no cropping is needed. 
But as far as I (almost) always need to crop, higher pixel density is better for IQ. (Under iso 2000)
And thats way I really look forward to a high pixel 7d2. I would be happy if the sensor performance is equal to the 24 mp Nikon d7100.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 26, 2014)

I have shown this example of mine many times before, it is pretty out of date now but the comparison for same generation sensors holds good.

It is an artificially set up situation to maximise the advantage of the smaller camera with higher pixel density, my cameras were a 7D and a 1Ds MkIII. 

The shots were live view manually focused, mirror lock up, cable release, very heavy tripod, remote flash, 200iso 300 f2.8 IS at f5.6 and 1/200 sec so the only light is a low powered very high speed flash burst.

This is the biggest difference you could ever expect to see in an image, it is unattainable in real world shooting as the vagaries and inconsistencies of AF make a much bigger difference to the IQ of the images.

The 7D is putting over twice the "pixels on duck" as the 1Ds MkIII, but the resolution difference is just not there, the 7D does have a fraction more detail, but if you take the noise out (remember this is 200 iso) it ends up being even closer.

The 1Ds MkIII was upsampled to the same pixel numbers as the 7D and the 7D is a 150% crop.

Now, in my opinion, there are very good reasons for using a crop camera over a ff one in focal length limited situations, things like subject framing, cost, size and weight, AF etc, but additional detail, even at low iso, is not a convincing one.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I have shown this example of mine many times before, it is pretty out of date now but the comparison for same generation sensors holds good.
> 
> It is an artificially set up situation to maximise the advantage of the smaller camera with higher pixel density, my cameras were a 7D and a 1Ds MkIII.
> 
> ...


Interesting!


----------



## Pit123 (Apr 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I have shown this example of mine many times before, it is pretty out of date now but the comparison for same generation sensors holds good.
> 
> It is an artificially set up situation to maximise the advantage of the smaller camera with higher pixel density, my cameras were a 7D and a 1Ds MkIII.
> 
> ...


Thanks for showing! I can only see your example on my ipad, but for me its quite clear, even on these low res images, that the 18 mp 7d shows more details than the 21mp FF camera. 
Its even bigger difference in your example than a typical comparison between an upsampled image without using tc vs an image with same lens/body with a 1.4x tc. 

I think a comparison 1d4 vs 1dx would give quite similar results in the favour of 1d4. Maybe I'm wrong?


----------



## jrista (Apr 26, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I have shown this example of mine many times before, it is pretty out of date now but the comparison for same generation sensors holds good.
> ...



Private has shared this image before. I've also said this before. I agree with Pit here, that the 7D definitely shows a marked improvement in resolution. It isn't marginal and therefor meaningless...it is very obvious. You don't even need to overlay the 7D image on top of the 1Ds III image and flip back and forth to see the difference, the 7D CLEARLY has sharper detail here. It also has more noise, but the noise in smoother backgrounds isn't as much of a problem in the detail areas.

I don't know why this comparison, which clearly gives the edge to the 7D, is always downplayed as showing that the 7D doesn't "really" have an advantage...it does. And that is WITH the 7D's relatively strong AA filter by todays standards. A 7D II with 20-24mp and a weaker AA filter would walk all over the 1Ds III, and would probably walk all over the D800 for detail in a reach-limited scenario. This example is the perfect example of why cameras like the 7D can be quite valuable and useful...when your limited in terms of the longest lenses you can use, and limited in how close you can get, smaller pixels are going to have the edge (even DESPITE the potential for higher noise.)

Now, if Private would reproduce this sample by framing the same with both cameras, then the greater pixel count and greater sensor area of the 1Ds III would trounce the 7D into oblivion, no question.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 27, 2014)

_"I don't know why this comparison, which clearly gives the edge to the 7D, is always downplayed as showing that the 7D doesn't "really" have an advantage...it does."_​
That is because you like being obtuse and ignoring all the other factors that go into making an image in the real world. You might like to say _"the 7D definitely shows a marked improvement in resolution."_ but it doesn't show anything like the difference all you "more pixels on target" guys always hypothesis about, the difference is small, these are massive crops, the whole setup was artificially created to maximise the crop sensor advantage and, you will never attain that level of detail in real world shooting situations. If you ignore all that it is easy to say the 7D is substantially better, if you accept these conditions are not attainable in the real world and the small difference is easily eaten up by AF inconsistencies, lower contrast, higher iso, less stability etc etc then you would see the example as most practical people, and those who have owned both, do, the difference is marginal in optimal artificial conditions. That doesn't mean there is no reason to shoot with a crop camera, just that the difference in resolution between real world images of cropped ff images and images from a crop camera of the same generation are not compelling in themselves. I only did the tests because I wanted an excuse to buy a 7D, but realised for me there was no point.

But don't take my word for it, there are countless people who had 5D MkII's and 7D's out there that will tell you the same thing, Neuoanatomist is one, so was the complete pixel on target theoretician AlanF, until he got a FF camera.


----------



## jrista (Apr 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> _"I don't know why this comparison, which clearly gives the edge to the 7D, is always downplayed as showing that the 7D doesn't "really" have an advantage...it does."_​
> That is because you like being obtuse and ignoring all the other factors that go into making an image in the real world. You might like to say _"the 7D definitely shows a marked improvement in resolution."_ but it doesn't show anything like the difference all you "more pixels on target" guys always hypothesis about, the difference is small, these are massive crops, the whole setup was artificially created to maximise the crop sensor advantage and, you will never attain that level of detail in real world shooting situations. If you ignore all that it is easy to say the 7D is substantially better, if you accept these conditions are not attainable in the real world and the small difference is easily eaten up by AF inconsistencies, lower contrast, higher iso, less stability etc etc then you would see the example as most practical people, and those who have owned both, do, the difference is marginal in optimal artificial conditions. That doesn't mean there is no reason to shoot with a crop camera, just that the difference in resolution between real world images of cropped ff images and images from a crop camera of the same generation are not compelling in themselves. I only did the tests because I wanted an excuse to buy a 7D, but realised for me there was no point.
> 
> But don't take my word for it, there are countless people who had 5D MkII's and 7D's out there that will tell you the same thing, Neuoanatomist is one, so was the complete pixel on target theoretician AlanF, until he got a FF camera.



I think what you may be failing to account for is that photographers often find a way of negating, at least partially, the reach issues when using FF cameras. If we just use bird photography as an example case, as I think that is most often the use case for the Canon 7D and 400mm lenses. A lot of the people who buy a 7D and a 400mm lens (or the 100-400mm zoom) are those who are just starting out, don't really have the option of spending the kind of money necessary on FF and longer lenses (either a 300/2.8 + TCs or a 600/4). They are the most reach handicapped. 

One does not remain at a reach disadvantage forever, though. With time comes skill, and eventually most novice bird photographers learn how to get closer (just take a look at Jack in the bird photography forum here to see an example of a guy who took some advice to heart, and is now hardly reach limited at all for most of his work). Once you learn to get closer, you both learn how to maximize the potential of your existing gear, and develop a need for better gear. If you really stick with it and hone the skill of getting close, you can, with care, completely eliminate the reach handicap with FF and a 400mm lens (it isn't easy, it definitely takes skill, and a lot of pro photographers prefer not to get that close as it is generally disruptive to the birds, runs the high risk of scaring off whole flocks, which in turn can be disruptive to other bird photographers....so most stick with much longer lenses...600mm, 800/840mm, 1200mm.)

Neuro is an accomplished photographer. He has the skill to maximize the potential of a full frame camera. He is obviously not one of the reach handicapped, and is also therefor not one of the people who the 7D line is marketed to. That does not, however, mean that there is no market for the 7D line at all. The 6D isn't exactly an alternative for beginner birders or wildlife photographers...it has a slower frame rate (and if the rumors end up true, much slower), and it's larger frame puts them at an even greater disadvantage. The Tamron 150-600 will certainly make the 6D a more viable wildlife and birding camera, however there is still a lot of value in the intrinsic reach of the 7D II and the potential 10fps frame rate. 

Plus, at 24mp, it would offer an even better resolution advantage over the 7D. The 7D, as much as you try to downplay it's resolution advantage, is definitely resolving more detail in your comparison images. The 7D II would resolve another 30% more on top of that. The 5D III is a mere 5.7% improvement over the 5D II, and the 1D X is, from a resolution standpoint, a step back (this effectively necessitating the use of great white lenses to maximize it's potential.)

I have no question the 7D II will offer a significant reach benefit. It'll be an excellent camera for biginner bird photographers, it'll be a great option for beginning wildlifers (especially those who want to photograph wildlife in action), although those who shoot after sunset and don't care as much about action could probably do quite well with a 6D.

The advantages of full frame sensors are clear, there is no question about that and I do not deny that. But I think it's unfair to make the ASSUMPTION that you cannot realize the advantages of a high resolution crop sensor in the field. The resolution advantage of the 7D is fully realizable in the field, even with the relatively lowly 100-400mm lens, if you have the skill. Some professional bird photographers have used nothing but the 7D and 100-400mm lens for all of their work, and it's stellar work, too. There are advantages on both sides. FF may have more, but that does not mean that APS-C has none. I am also clearly not the only one who sees the resolution advantage that the 7D has, either. Bird photography is also not the only form of photography where APS-C can be useful, still scene photography is not the only way one can realize the full potential of smaller APS-C pixels. 

I'm trying to be objective, give credit where it's due, and having used the 7D for years now, I know full well what it is capable of (and what it is NOT capable of, and where FF is clearly better.) I'm also well beyond reaching the limits of what the 7D can do. I have a hell of a lot more skill now than when I first picked up a 7D. Back then, I had no ability to get close to birds, APS-C was essential. Today I can easily get close, and half the time the birds come right to me when I'm properly hidden. I'll be another one of the people joining the FF camera ranks soon enough here, but that isn't going to give me reason to suddenly ignore the advantages of APS-C, nor forget that there is a prime target market for the 7D line of cameras (one of which is as a backup camera for FF 1D X and 5D III and maybe even 6D users.)

Just as an example, here is a photo I took recently in a reach-limited capacity. My hard is currently home to at least four Mourning Dove couples. They are quite happy to hang out and munch down on my bird seed if I'm out there, so long as they know I'm out there, but they still seem to be camera shy, so I have to hide to photograph them. That usually means setting up behind one of the corners of my house, or hiding inside and poking my lens out my sliding glass door. I don't have the option of getting closer. This photo shows off how sharp a 7D can really get, and if I'd used a 5D III, 6D, or 1D X, I'd have been putting fewer pixels on the subject. This is the exact reason I'd get a 7D II, as a reach-limited backup camera to a 5D III or 1D X:


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _"I don't know why this comparison, which clearly gives the edge to the 7D, is always downplayed as showing that the 7D doesn't "really" have an advantage...it does."_​
> ...



Look, I was addressing one very specific point, the difference between a crop camera image with much higher pixel density and a cropped ff image with much fewer pixels, that was all. I wasn't addressing peoples ability to learn, peoples ability to buy bigger, better and, more expensive gear, or their ability to maximise the IQ from the gear they have. I have never suggested for one second the 7D and 100-400 are incapable of making superb images that have very high IQ and tons of resolution, indeed in one thread I specifically linked to 15 or so 7D images of birds shot in the wild at 800iso and above with superb results.

The difference between my point of view, and all the "pixels on target" hypothesists is that my opinion was derived from actual images. As I have said many times the crops I show are artificially set up to maximise the crop camera advantage, that doesn't mean people can't get the best out of the 7D and a 400mm lens, that means this is the best a 7D and a 300 f2.8 IS can do, ever, and it isn't much better even in artificial situations than a ff camera cropped to the same size. I have also said many times times that the real world shooting examples I took at the same time in my testing, whilst not valid for forum comparison, demonstrated that the small differences are not realisable in real world shooting.

Yet again, my claim/point of view is very specific and it _"doesn't mean there is no reason to shoot with a crop camera, just that the difference in resolution between real world images of cropped ff images and images from a crop camera of the same generation are not compelling in themselves."_ And this has been demonstrated at every generation of comparable sensors so far.


----------



## jrista (Apr 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Look, I was addressing one very specific point, the difference between a crop camera image with much higher pixel density and a cropped ff image with much fewer pixels, that was all. I wasn't addressing peoples ability to learn, peoples ability to buy bigger, better and, more expensive gear, or their ability to maximise the IQ from the gear they have.



If you were solely addressing the IQ difference, then the data leads to only one simple conclusion: The 7D offers a measurable, visible improvement in sharpness in reach-limited scenarios. 

The reason I counter you is because you stated this:

" if you _accept _these conditions *are not attainable* in the real world"

and:

"That is because you like being obtuse and ignoring all the other factors that go into making an image _in the real world_."

You are clearly making the argument that it is impossible to realize the full potential of the 7D in the real world. You stated such quite clearly with the words "are not attainable"...hard to misinterpret that. I posted a real world example of a CRITICALLY SHARP (sharpest possible) image taken with the 7D. It was the best frame out of about 12, slightly over one second of continuous shooting. From a technique standpoint, I wouldn't have done anything differently if I had the 1D X in my hands...I shoot short bursts, as is the recommended best practice, and pick the best frame. Even if there are more frames that are better with the 1D X, the same technique is used, and I would still have picked the best out of 14-16 frames. It's how you achieve critical sharpness in the field, regardless of which camera you are using.

Here is an example of comparable sharpness differences between the 7D, 5D III, and 1D X assuming you achieved critical sharpness (same image resampled to simulate the various pixel sizes of each camera; 7D versions are 1:1 full size crops, no scaling; note: Noise not indicative of real-world noise, as this was saved as s limited-palette GIF for animation purposes):







Assuming you achieve the BEST focus with all three cameras from the exact same location (which IS an attainable goal, regardless of whether you are using the 61pt or 19pt AF systems), with the exact same lens, on the exact same tripod, that eliminates all the other variables except two: pixel size (primarily) and AA filter strength (a very distant second, although any AA filter at all is going to be additive on top of the differences in pixel size, it cannot make bigger pixels better than their size would dictate). 



One other thing I'd like to point out. The differences in sharpness between one generation of sensors and the next is never very large. The difference between the 7D and the 70D, for example, is much less than the difference between the 7D and the 5D III or 1D X. The difference between the 5D III and the 5D II is also much smaller than the difference between the 7D and either the 5D III or 1D X. These "small" and "meaningless" differences in sharpness are what we all scramble about spending thousands of dollars for in the first place!  The 5D III was about a 5% improvement in spatial resolution over the 5D II, but the 7D is a 111% improvement in spatial resolution.!  The difference in spatial resolution between the 5D III and D800 is 63%. The difference between the 1D X and 5D III is 24%. The 7D still has a 30% advantage over the D800 (although that's going to be hard to see in a side-by-side comparison)!  8) Even when you throw in the 7D's "strong" AA filter (which really isn't too strong, it's just right), it STILL has a greater resolution edge over all of Canon's Full Frame alternatives.

I just thought I would clarify why I think it is important not to underestimate the advantage of smaller pixels in reach-limited scenarios. We all strive for more resolution, for that last minute little improvement that gives our photography the edge. It doesn't even matter if it is the sensor, or some other aspect of the camera that improves our IQ, from generation to generation, the actual measurable differences are not huge by any means. Canon's 61pt AF system is about 35-45% better than the 45pt system they used in the 1D IV (which was a pretty massive improvement over the 1D III, however the 1D III had some pretty major and persistent firmware bugs that crippled the system, which would have otherwise been excellent.) A majority of photographers are pixel peepers at one point or another...even the pros are (just dig into a few pro sports and wildlife/bird photographer blogs, and see how often they post 100% crops to show off their low noise at ISO 51200, or examine sharpness, or something else like that.) As much as I know my images are primarily published to the web, and most frequently at around 1200px on the long edge (over a 4x downsample), even the web is becoming more demanding. I've started uploading my photos to 500px at 1920x1200. In a couple of years time, I suspect I'll start uploading "High DPI/4k Ready" images at 3480x2400. Every little bit counts. It's what we spend thousands of dollars for. If you don't have the budget for high frame rate FF or the lenses to maximize it's potential, higher resolution APS-C parts are going to become increasingly valuable (and the differences in spatial resolution with APS-C pixel sizes, even with strong AA filters, is a lot more than most of the differences between full frame options themselves, even across generations.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 27, 2014)

When you have some real images, not theoretical mockups, from the two cameras you are comparing come back to me, until then you are just building castles on sand.

That is the difference between you and I, you are intent on proving your theory correct without the actual real world images, I am in the business of taking pictures, I did the testing with the cameras I was comparing, the conclusions I drew were matched by many others with similar gear and the relevant bodies.

The 18mp APSC doesn't give you 18mp of detail, the 21/18/24mp ff camera doesn't give you 21/18/24mp of detail, in my experience from my own use with the actual cameras in my hands illustrated the fact that the bigger pixels on the ff sensors lose far less detail than the crop sensor pixels. If they didn't my crops would be very different and the 7D would show appreciably more detail than the 1Ds MkIII, and much more than the crops actually do. 

You can get critically sharp images from the 7D, but you can't get 18mp worth of critically sharp detail from the 7D. It is possible to realise the full potential of the camera, but the full potential is not 18mp. There is no contradiction in what I am saying and what I am saying is based on empirical observation of actual images.


----------



## jrista (Apr 27, 2014)

Here is another real-world example of a critically sharp 7D photo. Again, of a Mourning Dove, specifically it's eye, the feathers around it's ear, and neck feathers. This is a 1:1 unscaled crop, it has had zero sharpening applied (still at the default 25), it has had fairly significant noise reduction applied (+40 in LR, as well as masking in the sharpening tool, which further reduces noise in the background). 

Furthermore, this is one frame out of one...no burst here. AF is not perfect...it hit the eye, but missed the beak. However in this situation, even the 1D X would have done that, as I was pointing at the eye, with a thin DOF/wide aperture, and the birds head was pointed away. I'd have had the option of focusing on the beak with the 1D X thanks to it's greater number of AF points, definite bonus there. However I just want to be clear...this is a real-world shot, single frame, single AF action (I use rear-button AF, press it to focus, let go, start making photos).

As you can imagine, I'm a very strong believer that the 7D CAN INDEED realize it's full potential in the field, in the real world. For those of you who are wondering whether a 7D II will be worth it when it is finally released, I have no doubt that it will be. In reach-limited scenarios, I think it will be a phenomenal camera, especially if it hits with 10fps and an improved AF system. I don't think the 7D II will be much better at high ISO than the 70D, which is itself marginally improved over the 7D. High ISO performance and noise performance in general is where sensor area kicks in, and APS-C is APS-C...it's always the same total sensor area. If you are not as concerned as much about reach, and are more concerned about noise levels, then you want a larger sensor. If you want the best of both worlds, and can get your hands on a 1D IV, that is still the best blend...it has a larger sensor area, so it will have less noise, but it is cropped and generally has smaller pixels than FF cameras (D800 is probably the one exception.) 

If you want the best reach with the best resolution possible, go APS-C. If you want the best noise performance possible, go full frame. Any full frame will have considerably less noise than any APS-C, however if you are interested in the lowest per-pixel noise, then you want both the largest sensor you can find AND the largest pixels. If you are interested in the highest resolution possible, you want the largest sensor you can find with the SMALLEST pixels.


----------



## garyknrd (Apr 27, 2014)

I just came in from a two month trip. In the jungle of Thailand, Hala-bala. I only have the 1D mark IV and the 7D. I love the 1D series camera. But, after some frustrating long shots with the ID-IV + 1.4 T.C. I finally put the 7D and 1.4 on my 500 mm lens. Honestly, I loved the results. So much so when in that situation I always put the 7D on the lens. Long shots AF was fine. Depth of field was pretty deep and I never missed a shot. With the mark IV I was not happy at all. The 7D saved the day.

Also shot some close shots with the 7D and mark IV. I much preferred the ID camera. 

This is with the 7D + 1.4, after a frustrating time with the mark IV.






I have many many shots with the 7D and Mark IV. More with the IV for sure. It is a piece of heaven for me. But the 7D is still in my bag. I personally could care less about the tests and the technical details. I can say, for me it made a big difference.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
www.birdsthatfart.com


----------

