# Canon 5D3 vs 7D for birding thoughts



## kirispupis (Apr 3, 2012)

I currently own a 5D3 and a 7D. I still have the 5D2 my 5D3 is meant to replace and am waiting for the market to clear a bit before selling it.

Yesterday I photographed a pair of hooded mergansers that I had earlier photographed with my 7D. The lens was the same - 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III, and the location was exactly the same. I also photographed the birds at the same exact location in the pond with both cameras. The only difference was the shots were taken several weeks apart.

I was curious to compare them, so I took two photos of the same merganser at the same location and compared them. The crop from the 7D made its version larger, but the following is what I noticed with my very unscientific experiment (partly due to laziness and partly because there are flaws in this test I will not post the crops). Here are two different shots from each shoot, but note that these are not the ones I compared. They won't tell you much about the quality of the cameras but they'll give you an idea of the conditions.

7D - http://500px.com/photo/5118931
5D3 - http://500px.com/photo/6268179

- The 5D3 had a huge advantage in noise. I had taken the 7D shots at ISO 800, while the 5D3 shots were taken at ISO 1600. Nevertheless the 7D had very noticeable noise while the 5D3 was significantly cleaner.
- The 5D3 had far more detail in the shot. I could see far more details in the feathers than the 7D - even when the crop was taken into account.
- The 5D3 seems to have better dynamic range. With the 7D the black parts of the bird were solid black, while with the 5D3 there was a lot more detail there. This may also have been an exposure issue.

When I look at this, I am seeing really no reason to keep the 7D. Other than having two more fps, the 5D3 outperforms it in every aspect - even when the crop is taken into account. Perhaps this may not be true for ISO 100, but for bird photography that is extremely rare.

My question is to those who also have both cameras. What have you noticed in the difference? I am not looking for theoretical discussions here but practical ones from other individuals who have used both cameras.

This is just a single test and ideally I should test both cameras on a tripod with the same subject at the same time, but I am curious if others have noticed the same thing. At this point I am strongly leaning towards selling the 7D and going back to a single body, with the proceeds going towards funding a future 600/4 II.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 3, 2012)

I swapped a 7D for the 1D4 for sports shooting - been the best buy for that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> My question is to those who also have both cameras. What have you noticed in the difference? I am not looking for theoretical discussions here but practical ones from other individuals who have used both cameras.
> 
> This is just a single test and ideally I should test both cameras on a tripod with the same subject at the same time, but I am curious if others have noticed the same thing.



I don't have a 5DIII, but I did a controlled test of the 7D vs/ the 5DII, and came to the conclusion that after cropping the 5DII image to the FoV of the 7D, the 7D image had a slight edge for sharpness, and the 5DII had a slight edge for noise - overall sort of a wash. The other shortcomings of the 5DII precluded it's use for birds/wildlife, but those issues have been fixed by the 5DIII. 

What I did not test is further cropping - many times I need to crop my 7D images by 25-40% - what would that look like with a 5DII/5DIII image, and would the resulting final resolution (4-5 MP) be sufficient?

When my 1D X shows up, I'll likely to a similar controlled comparison with the 7D. Currently, though, I'm planning to keep the 7D after getting the 1D X.


----------



## aginggeek (Apr 3, 2012)

I plan to keep both my 7D and my 5D3.

The 7D has a built-in flash. Sure, the flash isn't that great, and wide zoom lens can block it. But I can pop it up in a second, as opposed to close to a minute to attach a speedlight. If I brought one with me, that is. I can also use the 7D's built-in flash for AF assist.

It's a lot faster to switch between two lenses if they're on two different bodies.

And finally I have a super-wide EF-S 10-22 for the 7D. Yes, someday I'll get a regular EF super-wide -- but first my credit card has to recover from the shock of the 5D!


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 3, 2012)

I have taken two bodies on my last two trips - to Uzbekistan/Tajikistan and to China. At the time I felt it was very useful. I generally kept a TS-E 24 II on my 5D2 and a 70-200/2.8 II to my 7D. This allowed me to quickly take photos near and far. However, looking through my photos from those trips I do wonder if this really helped my photography.

The problem is I travel with my wife and two kids and I therefore have a feeling two bodies cause me to rush more than if I just took my time with one. I also have shots where I pushed my 7D too much. Had I taken it with the 5D2 the shot would have been better.

I do believe for pro jobs such as weddings two cameras are essential, but for my travel purposes I am beginning to think they are not.

The main question though is whether I am giving up anything wildlife-photography wise through losing the crop the 7D offers. So far on initial inspection this does not appear to be the case, but I am curious to hear other opinions.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 3, 2012)

I have neither, but my guess is that a good crop sensor camera is going to be better than a FF camera simply because of reach.

I have a 100-400 and use it with my 50D, and the images with that thing are superb (even up ISO 500). the 100-400 is actually like a 160-640mm on the 50D. If you have a FF camera and have a 600mm lens you might have to take out a second mortgage on your house.

I am planning on getting a 5Diii eventually, but I will definitely use my 50D when taking bird shots or other things that are far away.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 3, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> I have neither, but my guess is that a good crop sensor camera is going to be better than a FF camera simply because of reach.
> 
> I have a 100-400 and use it with my 50D, and the images with that thing are superb (even up ISO 500). the 100-400 is actually like a 160-640mm on the 50D. If you have a FF camera and have a 600mm lens you might have to take out a second mortgage on your house.
> 
> I am planning on getting a 5Diii eventually, but I will definitely use my 50D when taking bird shots or other things that are far away.



I think perhaps you meant that "but my guess is that a good crop sensor camera is going to be cheaper than a FF camera simply because of reach"

The longest reach is from the 1D4, 1.3 crop bodies because they focus at F/8


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 3, 2012)

I love the 7D's AF. It was terrible at first to use and missed alot of photos until i tweaked the C-Fn and now is superb.

I always use AF-expansion and its the greatest thing since a certain food that can be sliced. ;D


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 4, 2012)

I'm finding the 5Dm3 comparable or better than the 7d. The number of pixels is roughly a wash vs the crop unless you can fill the frame of the 5Dm3 where it pretty much wins hand down.....except for the price, the fps, and the flash. The flash can be quick use or can act as a controller for other flashes. Also I believe the HDMI is superior on the 7d (full output?), but I'm not positive.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 7d for those on a budget or the 5dm3 for those with deeper pockets.


----------



## katwil (Apr 4, 2012)

Two reasons for holding on to the 7D could include: 1) your desire not to spend a lot of time cropping mk iii images and 2) the ability to focus on your subject with the mk iii. If your subject is too far away to accurately focus on it with the mk iii, cropping down to an out-of-focus bird serves no purpose.

In full disclosure, I have neither of your bodies, but it’s still a similar good crop body vs. better FF body discussion.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 4, 2012)

CanineCandidsByL said:


> I'm finding the 5Dm3 comparable or better than the 7d. The number of pixels is roughly a wash vs the crop unless you can fill the frame of the 5Dm3 where it pretty much wins hand down.....except for the price, the fps, and the flash. The flash can be quick use or can act as a controller for other flashes. Also I believe the HDMI is superior on the 7d (full output?), but I'm not positive.
> 
> I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 7d for those on a budget or the 5dm3 for those with deeper pockets.



Flash for birding?


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 4, 2012)

Despite the loss of megapixels, and moreso pixels-on-target, a 1D4 is definitely an upgrade to the 7D for wildlife, the fps, iq, and f/8 all trump it, even taking cropping into account (more if you count in less cropping if you're T/Cing at f/8)

But now comparing the 5D3 (which unfortunately, i don't have ... yet). You're still getting more megapixels, you're getting a lot nicer looking pixels at that. But you've got less pixels-on-target than 7D and 1D4. You've got sort-of better AF (more points, but no f/8), and less fps (is 6 not enough?).
Also, the 5D3 is running about the same price as a used 1D4. Between those two, it's a very very tought call.

Until the direct-comparison reviews filter through, we can't know if cropping a 5D3 beats a 1D4, or if cropping either beats a 7D. But my guess is that it's going to be very very close. Don't forget that the 5D3 is about 2-3 years younger than the 7D and 1D4. So maybe 5D3 will win comparing to those two. But the 7D2 should be out by the end of this year (or the dedicated wildlife APS-H 10fps 50pt-AF with 10 f/8 points 3D? I can dream can't I?), and then the balance might tip back away from the 5D3.

I'd say that for the price, 7D is good. For double that price, between a 5D3 and 1D4, it's probably a tough call (i'm glad I don't have the money so I don't have to make the decision).


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> CanineCandidsByL said:
> 
> 
> > I'm finding the 5Dm3 comparable or better than the 7d. The number of pixels is roughly a wash vs the crop unless you can fill the frame of the 5Dm3 where it pretty much wins hand down.....except for the price, the fps, and the flash. The flash can be quick use or can act as a controller for other flashes. Also I believe the HDMI is superior on the 7d (full output?), but I'm not positive.
> ...






Clicky Linky for full article

OK, that's a setup, but having an onboard-flash controller like the 7D leaves your 550/580EX free to add more light on the subject...


----------



## Pieces Of E (Apr 4, 2012)

Enhanced noise reduction on the EOS 60Da sensor offers photographers the ability to experiment with the wide array of ISO settings and increased ISO speeds up to 6400 expandable to 12800


Too bad the 7D missed out on the 'enhanced noise reduction' sensor, or there wouldn't be any posts to the contrary here or all over the web.


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 4, 2012)

Thank you for the replies, but just to target this discussion.

- I am sure a 1D4 is much better than a 7D, but that is not the question. The question is whether it is worth keeping the 7D along with a 5D3.

- I already have both the 5D3 and the 7D, so it is not a question about which camera to purchase. I have already compared the two cameras - unscientifically - and found that even when the crop is considered the 5D3 produces much better images. My main question was whether anyone else who actually has both cameras has done a similar comparison.


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 4, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> - I am sure a 1D4 is much better than a 7D, but that is not the question. The question is whether it is worth keeping the 7D along with a 5D3.



Well, my outloud-musings were along the lines of:
1D4 >> 7D
1D4 ~= 5D3. (give or take a bit)
ergo, 5D3 > 7D.

Seeing as noone else seems to have compared the two directly, you could be the first? Forget the T/C to begin with, just the 70-200 on a tripod, same iso, aperture, shutterspeed, crop the 5D3 to 3568*2384 (that's still an 8x12" print at 300dpi), and see if 8.5MP really does beat the 7D's 18MP. That's a fair whack of difference in resolution, but if it's the choice between a noisy shot, a blurry shot, or a clean 8MP shot, the latter might win...

Personally, i wouldn't mind the 2fps loss and less pixels on target, in return for the extra IQ, FF sensor, higher-iso, 61pt AF. I can't justify the extra expense from selling my 7D for the 5D3, but seeing as you've already got both, the question is between keeping both bodies or selling the 7D for cash towards something else (like the front element of a 600/4, you'd have to fund the rest of the lens from elsewhere).

If you like having 2 bodies for backup, keep the 7D, but if it were me i'd be trading it for better glass...


----------



## dlleno (Apr 4, 2012)

glad you are asking this! The 7D definitely has a higher pixel density than the 5d3. Hope this thread attracts some expert technical light on this and the following:

In terms of pixel density, the 5D3 is similar to the 40D, so one could conceivably compare these two in terms of resolution, when cropping the FF to match that of the 40D . In fact, If Canon were to introduce a 1.6 crop mode into the 5D3 like the D800 I'm assuming such a camera would be capable of producing 1.6x cropped images at 40D sizes. Except for the musings about Canon producing such a camera, I would like to know if this is accurate or if am I out in the weeds here. 

Ignoring the ISO, noise, focus performance, shadow detail and other IQ differences between 5D3 and 40D, and concentrating on resolution, is it possible or meaningful to compare the following results:

1. Take the 5d3 image and crop it in PP to match the 1.6x crop sensor FOV. How would this IQ (resolution) compare with the same image photographed by the 40D using the same lens at the same focal length with no PP crop?

2. use today's 5d3 in the hypothetical 1.6x crop mode. How would this compare with the native 40D image.

I realize the original question is about 7D, but I thought it would be instructive to think of the problem in terms of equivalent pixel density -- where the cropped 5D image is probably more similar to a 40D image than it is a 7D image.


----------



## ajay (Apr 4, 2012)

*I've compared both*

First things first, if you are going to test both camera's image quality for birds, you have to test them with the exact same subject from the exact same distance. If you do not, it's not a true comparison. At least when I am photographing birds, 99% of the time, I have to photograph them from a fixed distance unless they are tame birds.

In other words, in order to test both cameras fairly, you have to simulate taking the same exact shot standing from where you were when you took the image with the other camera.

I have done this test fairly with both cameras. Of course, the 5DM3's image is going to have a much wider FOV than the 7D in this scenario. In order to compare them identically, I cropped the 5DM3's image to match the FOV of the 7D. (This is something you would normally do in post-processing work.)

Here's the result taken at ISO 800, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II:






The 7D's image is on the left, 5DM3 is on the right.

Since this only shows part of the full image, you can't see that there is more noise with the 7D's image under certain color/shade variations. The bottom line is that the 7D's resolution is slightly better than the 5DM3's while the 5DM3's noise level is slightly lower. After applying NR and post-sharpening to both images, they are barely indistinguishable. This holds true from ISO 100 to ISO 3200.

Of course, this test is really only valid for subjects that you cannot move closer to. If you could move closer with the 5DM3 to frame it identically to the 7D, the 5DM3 would have better image quality. This test is only valid for photographing birds/wildlife in which you cannot move closer.

BTW, this test result is not too different from a similar test I did with the 7D, 5DM2 and 1D Mark IV. This is what you should expect from the 5DM3's sensor which is almost identical to the pixel resolution of the 5DM2.

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com


----------



## candyman (Apr 4, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Clicky Linky for full article
> 
> OK, that's a setup, but having an onboard-flash controller like the 7D leaves your 550/580EX free to add more light on the subject...




Ouch. And the bird needs to make an appointment with the optometrist or optician.....


Seriously, what happens with the bird when you press the shutter?


----------



## stilscream (Apr 4, 2012)

I too was trying to decide 600f4 ii and use my 7d for awhile longer or 1dx (1st FF) and some L lenses-- perhaps the newer 24-70, or 14 f2.8+ 50 f1.2 or 24mm f1.4+ 85mm 1.2 (I have the 35f1.4 and love it-- do like landscape as well as birding. The thinking here is that the zoos are easier places to take good pics of animals even though it feels like cheating. So, 1dx improves my speed, IQ, low light, weather sealing, and AF over my 7d and offers a 2nd body to have multiple cameras with different primes. The downside is I really can't get the pics in the wild still. 600mm is a need for birding. Trying to curb my spending below $15k. (Nice problem to have, I know, but this is money coming from my late parents house inheritence.) I really swing wildly back and forth daily or even hourly. The non f8 focusing of the 1dx makes me think the 600 might be the better way to go, but the versitility of the FF makes me reconsider.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 4, 2012)

stilscream said:


> The downside is I really can't get the pics in the wild still. 600mm is a need for birding.



I use a tripod with gimbal for the 600


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> - I already have both the 5D3 and the 7D, so it is not a question about which camera to purchase. I have already compared the two cameras - unscientifically - and found that even when the crop is considered the 5D3 produces much better images.



Ok, so make it more scientific. Set up a target of some sort, something with lots of detail, and a tripod at a distance you usually shoot at, then take a shot with the same lens on both cameras, crop the 5DIII to the FoV of the 7D, and compare IQ. Then move the tripod to a further distance, such that you'd need tro crop the 7D, take the two shots, crop the 7D to the desired framing and the 5DIII to the same framing, and compare IQ (and also look at the resulting MP of the cropped 5DIII image to see if that will be enough for your uses. I'd try the above both ISO100 and ISO3200 on both bodies.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 4, 2012)

and just to keep these numbers in mind... when a 5d3 image is cropped to 1.6x equivalent, the result is 8.7mp. 

22.3mp divided by 1.6^2 = 8.7

right?

Its astonishing to me that the comparison posted earlier, which was quite well done, showed only a marginal edge (in resolution) to the 7D's 18mp image, compared to the cropped 5D image at 8.7mp. Then I had to remind myself that of something called a 1D mark II which sported an 8.2mp sensor, and the FF, 11mp 1Ds which sold for $8K


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 4, 2012)

dlleno said:


> and just to keep these numbers in mind... when a 5d3 image is cropped to 1.6x equivalent, the result is 8.7mp.
> 
> 22.3mp divided by 1.6^2 = 8.7
> 
> ...



The real trick is to compose the pictures the same in ff, aps-h or aps-c by getting the right lens so there is no cropping to get the same picture.

That way you will get more mp on the subject.

Any yes I do know it will cost more, just in the same way a Ferrari cost more than a Mustang - you pay for what you get.


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 4, 2012)

candyman said:


> Seriously, what happens with the bird when you press the shutter?



I think we can fall back to that old adage "Poop happens".

That would have been a funnier picture with a roast chicken underneath the feeder.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > and just to keep these numbers in mind... when a 5d3 image is cropped to 1.6x equivalent, the result is 8.7mp.
> ...



yes of course, +1 on that, to be sure! But particularly in the wildlife scenario, where this comparison is important and meaningful (and part of the OP's original inquiry), one cannot simply decide to move closer, put a different lens on, or plead with the bird to take a different flight path. What we are out to discover is the effectiveness of the 5D versus the 7D at photographing subjects at a distance and with the same lens. 

It takes a 46mp FF body to equal the pixel density of the 7D, such that one could crop the 46mp image at 1.6x to produce an 18mp image with the 7D FOV. Clearly, pixel density is not the whole story, however ,because we have seen here that when the 5D3 image is cropped to 1.6x, the result is an astonishingly good 8.7mp image with the same FOV very close to the 7D itself in sharpness. 

maybe Canon doesn't want to let the secret out or maybe they want to preserve 7D sales I don't know. But unless they can significantly improve the actual resolving power the 1.6x sensors, it seems to me that the 'reach' advantage will soon be both a myth and a non sequitur, and that the FF boys will be able to produce the same IQ of the same subject at the same distance, with the same lens, simply by cropping their high-mp FFs to match their 1.6x buddies standing next to them. 

the above makes a lot of amusing assumptions, but makes good conversation anyway


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2012)

dlleno said:


> But particularly in the wildlife scenario, where this comparison is important and meaningful (and part of the OP's original inquiry), one cannot simply decide to move closer, put a different lens on, or plead with the bird to take a different flight path. What we are out to discover is the effectiveness of the 5D versus the 7D at photographing subjects at a distance and with the same lens.



+1, that's exactly the issue. In my case, I can get the 1D X, or put that money towards a supertele prime. Since only 10-15% of my shooting is birds/wildlife, the 1D X makes sense for now (meaning 12-15 months to save for the 500/4 II). 



dlleno said:


> It takes a 46mp FF body to equal the pixel density of the 7D, such that one could crop the 46mp image at 1.6x to produce an 18mp image with the 7D FOV. Clearly, pixel density is not the whole story, however ,because we have seen here that when the 5D3 image is cropped to 1.6x, the result is an astonishingly good 8.7mp image with the same FOV very close to the 7D itself in sharpness.



Indeed. But...what about a crop of the 7D's FoV to 50% of its original area? Would the resulting FF crop still be close in IQ, and is 4 MP sufficient for the end use?


----------



## jm345 (Apr 5, 2012)

So far, based on Alan's test, there is not much difference in IQ between the the 7D and 5DIII cropped to the 7D's frame size. But to neuroanatomist's point, it isn't always that simple - especially with small birds. There are times my 7D and 600mm with extenders won't get a frame filling shot and I will need to crop the 7D image. So the "extended" question is what happens to the 5DIII's IQ when it is cropped to to the same size as a cropped 7D image?

BTW, good discussion here.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 6, 2012)

As I look at the crop/FF technology, the simplest common thread that pops out to me is that;

1. the FF sensors always have a lower pixel density which allows them to control noise and advantage IQ
2. the crop sensors with higher pixel densities have poor noise performance and limited actual resolving power
3. To some extent, (2) above may be due to less expensive technology used in the crop sensors.

I'm using the term 'resolving power' because, as many have pointed out, increasing pixel density does not (necessarily) a higher resolution system make. Case in point; As many and as profound as the 7D's strengths are, compared to the 40D, resolving power isn't the biggest "a hah" discovery. Its better, but not by leaps and bounds as the pixel count would imply. Which means -- the more pixels you cram into the same space the more physics dictates that you will have consequences (such as noise) that limit actual resolving power. 

So -- and I'm making some broad hypothetical assumptions here -- if we assume that IQ limitations are dominated by the artifacts of pixel density, then its clear why there is a benefit to longer lenses and bigger sensors, and that a crop sensor will never equal a FF sensor of the same pixel count. Also, and following the same assumption, we would have to conclude that a FF sensor at 46mp (cropped to 1.6x) would perform identically to an 18mp crop sensor of the same technology-- because the actual resolving power would be identical. 

I would suggest that as long as the technology itself, in the FF, is superior -- that is, the artifacts of pixel density are better controlled, then we could see the crop camera offering no advantage (other than cost) over the FF, in the situations we are discussing. Ajay's comparison is quite striking here, in that the 5D3 should behave more like the 10mp 40D, when cropped to 1.6x, instead of the 18mp 7D. Moreover, if the 5D3 would have offered mid-thirties mp, I bet we would see equivalency to the 7D or even superior! 

The point that was raised about "over cropping" is interesting, i.e. how much can you throw away and still have a decent picture. I'm not a physicist but let me suggest that the answer is still about resolving power -- the sensor that has the best resolving power will show the best image. what does that mean -- to me it means that the comparison earlier, posted by Ajay, will continue to hold even as you crop things down further and further. the 7D will continue to show a slight edge, but as a practical matter the difference between the two will become more apparent as you crop further and further until the resulting image is essentially a pixel-peep. 

Ajay you could demonstrate that by simply cropping the images further in Post.


----------



## blufox (Apr 6, 2012)

I think another factor which needs to be kept in mind is that when you actually crop a FF image, especially when shooting wildlife or Birds etc, you have to keep exposure int mind too.

When you use a lens of 500mm Focal length on a 7D you are using it at 800mm. So, what happens is that your metering and luminosity is spot on at 800 mm because that is what the camera sees i.e the real distance and so do you from your viewfinder.

Now do keep in mind that light follows the inverse square law for luminosity, so the correct exposure for the same subject on a FF with 500mm lens is screwed up *if* you decide to crop for 1.6x factor.

So definitely there is a trade off between resolution and noise. Add to this that you have to decrease your shutter speeds further on a higher density APS-C sensor to get sharp images. 

I think 1DMkIV with a 1.4TC is still a much better combo than anything out there. But that is just my opinion . 

Please feel free to correct me, if I am wrong somewhere.

Thanks,


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 6, 2012)

blufox said:


> I think another factor which needs to be kept in mind is that when you actually crop a FF image, especially when shooting wildlife or Birds etc, you have to keep exposure int mind too.
> 
> When you use a lens of 500mm Focal length on a 7D you are using it at 800mm. So, what happens is that your metering and luminosity is spot on at 800 mm because that is what the camera sees i.e the real distance and so do you from your viewfinder.
> 
> ...



One thing is obvious is that the DOF of the 1.6 is greater than that of the ff at the same shutter speed

This may impact the photo in that

- the 1.6 DOF may be too deep when wide open
- 7D has relatively poor high iso, limiting the quality IQ range (and therefore shutter speed)
- the ff DOF may be too shallow when wide open so you have to shut down - and lose shutter speed

The 1d4, 1.3 crop is a compromise 

- may allow you you to keep the lens wide open whilst having suffivient DOF
- give more pixels over the subject, improving the IQ
- gives better high ISO, not too different from the 5DIII for birding, allowing you to keep the shutter speed higher

These are a few of the reasons why the 1D4 is still a better all-round package than the 5DII (trading lower mps for higher fps)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2012)

*Re: I've compared both*



ajay said:


> The bottom line is that the 7D's resolution is slightly better than the 5DM3's while the 5DM3's noise level is slightly lower. After applying NR and post-sharpening to both images, they are barely indistinguishable. This holds true from ISO 100 to ISO 3200.
> 
> BTW, this test result is not too different from a similar test I did with the 7D, 5DM2 and 1D Mark IV. This is what you should expect from the 5DM3's sensor which is almost identical to the pixel resolution of the 5DM2.



I did an equivalent test with the 7D and 5DII and came to exactly the same conclusion.



blufox said:


> I think another factor which needs to be kept in mind is that when you actually crop a FF image, especially when shooting wildlife or Birds etc...
> 
> Now do keep in mind that light follows the inverse square law for luminosity, so the correct exposure for the same subject on a FF with 500mm lens is screwed up *if* you decide to crop for 1.6x factor.



True if you meter the whole scene (e.g. evaluative), but usually I use spot metering for birds/wildlife, meaning the exposure is set primarily by the subject. In fact, I'm really looking forward to the 1D X's AF-point-linked spot metering capability.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 6, 2012)

*Re: I've compared both*



neuroanatomist said:


> True if you meter the whole scene (e.g. evaluative), but usually I use spot metering for birds/wildlife, meaning the exposure is set primarily by the subject. In fact, I'm really looking forward to the 1D X's AF-point-linked spot metering capability.



Series 1 already have the AF spot metering - as does the 5DIII I believe.

It works extremely well and gets away from the centre point AF metering of the 5DII - making metering *MUCH* better


----------



## blufox (Apr 6, 2012)

*Re: I've compared both*



neuroanatomist said:


> ajay said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line is that the 7D's resolution is slightly better than the 5DM3's while the 5DM3's noise level is slightly lower. After applying NR and post-sharpening to both images, they are barely indistinguishable. This holds true from ISO 100 to ISO 3200.
> ...



Precisely but I think spot/eval/partial/* metering is moot when you are in manual mode, no? 
Atleast that is what I used to think was true for low end DSLRs. 

Is it not the same for 1D bodies?

Cu,


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2012)

*Re: I've compared both*



briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, I'm really looking forward to the 1D X's AF-point-linked spot metering capability.
> ...



Yes, it's a 1-series feature. The 5DIII does not have AF point-linked spot metering (in fact, the specs specifically state, "_AF point-linked spot metering not provided._")



blufox said:


> Precisely but I think spot/eval/partial/* metering is moot when you are in manual mode, no?
> Atleast that is what I used to think was true for low end DSLRs.
> 
> Is it not the same for 1D bodies?



Metering is metering, whether in a semi-auto mode or full manual. The meter tells you what exposure will result in the sampled area being exposed to 18% gray (although evaluative is modified by stored scene parameters). So, spot metering in manual mode will tell you the same thing as spot metering in Av mode, except that in Av mode the camera changes the shutter speed to move the meter 'needle' to the middle.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 9, 2012)

> Add to this that you have to decrease your shutter speeds further on a higher density APS-C sensor to get sharp images.


or any other high-density sensor for that matter. the point here I think is that no matter what the size, the high-density sensors don't do as well in low light and may benefit from exposing to the right. Which of course, and to your point I believe, is why the larger sensors do better. 



> I think 1DMkIV with a 1.4TC is still a much better combo than anything out there. But that is just my opinion .



Well, if you can put a 1.4TC on a 1D4 you can put it on a 5D3 or 7D too, and on any other lens that you might have. But what is interesting about your point is the advantage of 16mp in a 1.3x crop, with phenomenal burst rate and low-light performance. An action photographer's dream, to be sure, and at $5K for the body, it better be! 



> These are a few of the reasons why the 1D4 is still a better all-round package than the 5DII (trading lower mps for higher fps)



yea I quite agree with the reasoning here. the sensor technology itself appears superior to that of the 7D, and in addition the pixel density is much lower. So cropping the 1.3 to a 1.6, if necessary, will still produce very delicious results.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 9, 2012)

dlleno said:


> Well, if you can put a 1.4TC on a 1D4 you can put it on a 5D3 or 7D too, and on any other lens that you might have.



F/8 focusing is not on the 5D3 or 7D


----------



## Rockets95 (Apr 10, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> My question is to those who also have both cameras. What have you noticed in the difference? I am not looking for theoretical discussions here but practical ones from other individuals who have used both cameras.



My two cents: I had a T1i an moved up to a 7D with the 18-135. I love the camera but hated the kit lens. I got the 24-105 f/4 L and it made a big difference in IQ. I believe that the 18mp sensor commands good glass. My conclusion - go for the glass!


----------



## photorockies (Apr 10, 2012)

Go with the 5D mKIII. The autofocus is so much better. The 41 cross points make this a a great camera for birding. I used this with a 400 f4 DO with and without a 1.4x converter and it works great to track birds. On my 1D MKII the teleconverter is almost useless because focusing is so much slower. Also, the 7D produces softer files. I returned mine because of that issue.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 10, 2012)

photorockies said:


> Go with the 5D mKIII. The autofocus is so much better. The 41 cross points make this a a great camera for birding. I used this with a 400 f4 DO with and without a 1.4x converter and it works great to track birds. On my 1D MKII the teleconverter is almost useless because focusing is so much slower. Also, the 7D produces softer files. I returned mine because of that issue.



Have you evidence to back up the claim that the 5DIII autofocus is much better? The top BIF shooters are still staying with the 1D4 for good reason

Dont assume that the 1D4 +400 f/2.8 + 1.4 is slow at AF - because it isn't - and neither is the 600 f/4 1.4

Shame on you for rubbishing a great camera


----------



## dlleno (Apr 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if you can put a 1.4TC on a 1D4 you can put it on a 5D3 or 7D too, and on any other lens that you might have.
> ...



right-- ok good point. so you're limited to f/4 native lenses, or wider, and specifically the 400 f/5.6 is ruled out.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 10, 2012)

dlleno said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



Plus of course the 100-400 and the other variable lens such as Neuro's favourite, the 28-300


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> photorockies said:
> 
> 
> > Go with the 5D mKIII. The autofocus is so much better. The 41 cross points make this a a great camera for birding.
> ...



Title of thread: Canon *5D3 vs 7D* for birding thoughts

Photorockies says the 5DIII AF is better than the 7D (and it is)...so, how exactly is the above 'rubbishing' the 1DIV?



briansquibb said:


> Neuro's favourite, the 28-300



Useful and convenient? Yes. Favorite? No.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Photorockies says the 5DIII AF is better than the 7D (and it is)...so, how exactly is the above 'rubbishing' the 1DIV?



My mistake - sorry for that remark :-[


----------



## altenae (Apr 10, 2012)

> The top BIF shooters are still staying with the 1D4 for good reason... Shame on you for rubbishing a great camera



What other choice was there before the 1D mark IV ?

A good wildlife photographer does not only do BIF. 
I think more wildlife photographers will use the 5D mark
III. 

Maybe as primary camera or maybe as backup. 
Depending the needs. 

Some prefer FF other crop. 
However the question was 7D or 5D mark
III. 

I would say the 5D. 
Form sure here in the Netherlands due to the bad weather. 
High clean ISO is a pre. 
The crop will give you more reach, but patience and knowledge about your target will get you closer to the bird without disturbing the bird.


----------



## tomscott (Apr 10, 2012)

briansquibb is a bit sensitive when it comes to the 1D VI  

Kidding and jokes aside.

I would have to try both, but think the 5D MKIII would get my vote its just a great all rounder and is FF. Only prob is that you need some longer glass which is when things start getting pricey. The 7D is a really great camera its just that noisy sensor at lower ISO that I dont like. May not be significant, but coming from an older camera and getting worse ISO quality in the business end of the ISO range seems a bit silly to me.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 10, 2012)

tomscott said:


> briansquibb is a bit sensitive when it comes to the 1D VI
> 
> Kidding and jokes aside.
> 
> I would have to try both, but think the 5D MKIII would get my vote its just a great all rounder and is FF. Only prob is that you need some longer glass which is when things start getting pricey. The 7D is a really great camera its just that noisy sensor at lower ISO that I dont like. May not be significant, but coming from an older camera and getting worse ISO quality in the business end of the ISO range seems a bit silly to me.



I only use my 7D when the weather is very good ie bright light with a touch of cloud.

I find that for the 7D then focal length * 2 seems to get sharp images. Hard work when using a 600 + 1.4 and the 7D is limited (for these types of shots) to about 800 - 1600 iso - especially for BIF

Getting close to smaller birds takes a long lens - for example to blue tit sized birds then you have to be very close. With a ff this usually means taking a big crop unless you are using a series 1 with the 600+2x


----------



## dlleno (Apr 11, 2012)

altenae said:


> The crop will give you more reach, but patience and knowledge about your target will get you closer to the bird without disturbing the bird.



just change the "but" to "and" lol


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 11, 2012)

dlleno said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > The crop will give you more reach, but patience and knowledge about your target will get you closer to the bird without disturbing the bird.
> ...



I sped-read that comment at first and didn't take it in, I thought you wrote "just change the 'bird' to 'butt'".
(depends what kind of birds you like taking photos of, i suppose...)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 11, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> One thing is obvious is that the DOF of the 1.6 is greater than that of the ff at the same shutter speed



This is really only when you can get close enough to fill the frame with the bird with either FF or APS-C, which is often not the case, when you are totally distance limited this goes away (and since aps-c cams often have higher photosite density and you often want to take advantage of that, when you try to take advantage of it, the aps-c cam actually shows any lack of DOF even more).



> This may impact the photo in that
> 
> - the 1.6 DOF may be too deep when wide open



As above, only when you are lucky enough to not be distance limited to the target and could frame as desired without cropping on the FF body.



> - 7D has relatively poor high iso, limiting the quality IQ range (and therefore shutter speed)



Unless you are distance limited, in which case it actually does a trace BETTER than the 5D2 for noise (the 5D3 might be a bit better than the 5D2 for noise though, it remains to be seen).



> - the ff DOF may be too shallow when wide open so you have to shut down - and lose shutter speed



again, there no DOF difference between 5D2, 7D, 1D4 when you are fully distance limited and willing to accept the 5D2 amount of detail it puts on the bird


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 11, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> again, there no DOF difference between 5D2, 7D, 1D4 when you are fully distance limited and willing to accept the 5D2 amount of detail it puts on the bird



My hide (shed) is just over 20 ft from the feeders for 3inch birds - using 1 1d4 I need shallow DOF/bg blur, the 7D gives poor bg blur at f/4 on the 600

I prefer not to crop if possible.


----------



## nesarajah (Apr 11, 2012)

7D , this camera was made for birding- not that I'm any good at it .


----------



## dlleno (Apr 11, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > again, there no DOF difference between 5D2, 7D, 1D4 when you are fully distance limited and willing to accept the 5D2 amount of detail it puts on the bird
> ...



so you are saying that when using the same lens at the same aperture, and you crop your 1d4 images down to 1.6 to obtain a 7D FOV, that the cropped 1d4 DOF is different than 7d?. I'm not seeing why DOF would be different, when cropping for identical FOV from the same lens, regardless of whether the crop was performed by the camera or in post.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 11, 2012)

dlleno said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



What I am saying is that a full frame 1D4 image will have a shallower DOF than a full frame 7D image.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



True...but the question is, do you need to crop? 600mm on APS-H at 20' frames an area of ~11" x 7.25". With a 3" high bird, you might be tempted to crop your resulting image in post to ~9" x 6", in which case you would have the same DoF as if you had taken the shot with an APS-C camera.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



I usually have the 1.4 on ...


----------



## dlleno (Apr 11, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



which means you are not in a distance-limited situation and you are able to obtain the FOV you want with optics and a larger sensor, which will produce the shallow DOF you want. this is nothing new. put those same optics on a 5D3 and you will have to crop the FF image to 1.3x to get the same FOV, and the resulting DOF will be identical. but here is the difference -- the 5D3 won't put the same number of pixels on the bird because it's pixel density not as high as the 1D4.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Distance limited because of minimum focal length


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 12, 2012)

The key here is to get the best IQ from the picture

There are 3 basic options, in ascending IQ quality order

- 1.6 crop

- 1.3 crop

- full frame

Also this list is in descending DOF order when the image can fill the frame without cropping. Reduced DOF helps increase the bg blur.

If it is possible to get the image uncropped then that is the way to go. It also maximises the amount of pixels in the image.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

nice summary. question is, with 1.3 out of the picture, is Canon forcing the wildlifers into carrying more glass or will they produce a high performance 1.6x body?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> nice summary. question is, with 1.3 out of the picture, is Canon forcing the wildlifers into carrying more glass or will they produce a high performance 1.6x body?



I would guess that either:

- 1.3 is not dead, just resting (a 22mp 1.3 would be good!!)

- a 30+mp ff is round the corner allowing cropping equivalent to the 16mp 1.3 (maybe even a 1.3 mode in firmware, like the EOS 1X APS camera had)


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > nice summary. question is, with 1.3 out of the picture, is Canon forcing the wildlifers into carrying more glass or will they produce a high performance 1.6x body?
> ...


I haven't seen the confirmation yet or any commitment from Canon that 1.3 is really dead, and I doubt Canon will abandon the high end sports body. Whether or not they implement such a body by cropping a high mp FF will depend on the next generation FF sensor, and whether or not it is possible to truly optimize for and push the state-of-the-art for sports without a dedicated body/sensor platform.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 12, 2012)

On topic, the 7d will give you more native resolution and give you bigger files to work with in comparison to the 5d3 files when cropped respectively. If you can get close enough either by distance and or lens to the bird with the 5d3, you may get cleaner/better files with the 5d3, but with birding that's not easy to do. Odds are if you have to crop severely on a 5d3 file to get a bird shot, you wont get as clean of files especially if you are desiring to print the picture compared to shooting a 7D and shooting natively and or scaling down in print to get the same print size


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> I haven't seen the confirmation yet or any commitment from Canon that 1.3 is really dead, and *I doubt Canon will abandon the high end sports body*.



They didn't. 12 fps and top-notch AF - the 1D X *is* the high-end sports body. Sports shooting rarely demands the longest lenses - the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 are sufficient for almost all sports even on FF, else there are f/4 lenses at 500mm and 600mm. 

The people who are really affected by the loss of the 1.3x crop are the bird/wildlife shooters, where you can pretty much never have a long enough lens.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen the confirmation yet or any commitment from Canon that 1.3 is really dead, and *I doubt Canon will abandon the high end sports body*.
> ...



ok, so re-phrase the question to target what I should have stated: the high end bird/wildlife shooter . If the 1.3 demise is real, then they will have to either pack more glass or settle for a 1.6. To me it seems surprising that Canon would abandon this crowd.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> ok, so re-phrase the question to target what I should have stated: the high end bird/wildlife shooter . If the 1.3 demise is real, then they will have to either pack more glass or settle for a 1.6. To me it seems surprising that Canon would abandon this crowd.



I agree - and Art Morris certainly bitched loud and long about the 1D X not having the ability to AF at f/8. Of course, now he's gushing praise for the 5DIII's AF system...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 12, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > ok, so re-phrase the question to target what I should have stated: the high end bird/wildlife shooter . If the 1.3 demise is real, then they will have to either pack more glass or settle for a 1.6. To me it seems surprising that Canon would abandon this crowd.
> ...



I would miss the ability to have the 1D4's function to keep the iso to a minimum at the same time having M functionality with ec ..... so the 5DIII will not replace the 1D4, there is just too much missing


----------



## dlleno (Apr 13, 2012)

Back to the OP's subject , 5D3 versus the 7D for birding: given the choice, and the evidence so far presented, todays 7D wins. However, my vote is for a 7D2 announced late in 2012 (purely CR -1 I have no idea what I'm talking about). But my thinking here is that (1) its due. 7D is three years old and behind on sensor technology (2) the 7D series could replace the xxd series and become a real upper-end 1.6. and (3) such a body would easily out-perform today's 5D3 in distance-limited situations using the same glass, where a post crop of the 5D3 would just not have enough pixels "on the bird".


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen the confirmation yet or any commitment from Canon that 1.3 is really dead, and *I doubt Canon will abandon the high end sports body*.
> ...


Why yield the ground to Nikon? Or Sony? Or Panasonic, etc.... There is a market for crop body because of the free reach. Who is confident enough that NEW photographers love the Canon brand SO much more than Nikon or SONY that we will forego any desire for a decent crop-body camera? That we will instead buy telephoto lenses wwe would not need otherwise which cost 7 thousand or more?


----------



## dlleno (Apr 13, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



+1 moreover, why abandon the pro BIF shooters by not advancing the state-of-the-art BIF body? I dont' claim to know what sensor that would be, but if the 1D4 successor is the 7D2, then Canon has a lot of marketing/messaging to do to convince pro BIFers to use a body that isn't a "1" no matter what sensor is in there. and its hard to imagine Canon abandoning the very market that the 7D proved successful in (1.6x prosumer wildlife)


----------

