7D vs 5D Mark II for wildlife advice wanted

My first DSLR was the 50D, I upgraded from it to the the 5D Mark II of which I have x2 each now. At that time there was no 7D. The IQ from the 50D to the 5D Mark II was extremly noticable. I could crop off the full frame and have better IQ than the 50d.


So what I do, I have a 500mm F4L with the Gitzo tripod and Wimberly head to go with it. And I do take alot of wildlife pictures. When I get a good print I like to blow it up on the Pixma Pro to 13 x 19, even crop if possible.


I know the specs of both so no need to rehash it. That the 7D has a faster frame rate, that it is a crop body and there is a crop factor involved with the big lens.


Here is what I do not know, and want to know. Would the 7D give me the kind of quality I want to do the large prints. Would I notice a conciderable drop in IQ from my 5D

I just gave a family a 16x20 print created with the 7D. Honestly, the original image was soft--I was using an LCW Variable ND filter that, I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I could crop off the full frame and have better IQ than the 50d.

---

That is the same experience I have, but only at high ISO. Cropping the 5D2 to the same angle of view as the 50D results in only 8 MP (vs 15 for the 50D), but at high ISO (e.g. ISO 6400) those 8 MP have noticeably less noise. For me this is important because I do a lot at very high ISO.


However, at lower ISOs (e.g. ISO 400), I think that the 50D has significantly better image quality. The noise is about the same, and the 50D has far more detail (as expected with twice the pixel count).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Would the 7D give me the kind of quality I want to do the large prints.

---

Generally, yes. The 7D is almost the ideal camera for a wildlife photographer. One wildlife advantage that it has over the 1D4 is smaller pixels. It takes away the 5D2's noise advantage, so unlike the 50D, it is superior to cropping the 5D2 in every way (including noise).


That said, there are some circumstances where the 5D2 is slightly better.<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]The 5D2 will have slightly stronger contrast before you get into post, but this can usually be equalized in post processing with the right sharpening and contrast enhancement.


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

With the crop factor I would say I am comparing a 7D non croped picture shot compared to the same lens croped down off the 5D.

---

In that comparison, even the 50D will blow away the 5D2 for detail and contrast, at low ISO. The 7D will blow it away at low *and* high ISO.

NiteHawk, As I understand your question, you are seeking opinions regarding the 5DII vs the 7D for Wildlife photography; this is what I base my response on. For reference, please know that I own the 7D, I own the Pixma Pro 9500 (older one), have owned the 50D, I have never owned or used the 5DII and wildlife is my photographic genre of choice.-------Nor can I seem to get my fingers to work tonight which is why this is the third time I have attempted to respond to your question--[:S].


1. Wildlife photographers never seem to have enough reach. That said, the 5DII and the 500L will provide 500mm of reach. The 7D and the 500L will provide 800mm (percieved) reach.


2. Without doing the math, the general impression is that you will getbetter IQ with a 7D, than you will cropping a 5DII to the same size as a 7D.


3. With a tack sharp image, the Pixma-pro will yield a tack sharp print at 13x19----And my sharpening skills are novice at best. If you are any good at sharpening, the pixma-pro/7D combo is capable of yielding very impressive 13x19prints.


4. As I understand it, the 5DII and the 50D have a similar AF system. If this is true, the AF system on the 7D is far superior and more beneficial for wildlife photography, especially moving subjects.


5. There is a lot of difference bewteen 5 frames per second and 8 frames per second when shooting fast moving animals and BIFs--for this, the 7D is superior.


6. The 7D can't compete with the 5DII when it comes to full frame Image quality and noise managment.


Finally, for Wildlife and for the reasons stated above, I chose the 7D over the 5DII---and have never regreted it. If I was shooting in studio, weddings, portraits, low light etc, the 5DII wins, but for wildlife and sports, I think the 7D has the clear advantage.


Hope this helps,


Bob

Sean


Thanks for the perspective. The local store in town will not rent equipment, there a store in one of the suburbs of the city that claim they rent cameras. About a 30 mile drive but I may call them up and make the trip.


Daniel


I do not think the ISO and Noise will be an issue. I know the 5D Mark II would be superior, in those areas I do do not think it will matter that much. Even with the 5D when it starts getting dark and the ISO goes up, the images are not the quality I am looking for. The contrast difference you talked about may, I would be interested in seeing the difference.


Bob


You are right about the auto focus being superior on the 7D, this is a plus. The frame rate would be as well, as the 5D Mark II is &lt;4. The 5D autofocus is superior to the 50D however, even though it may be the same system, the 50D has a lot more missed pictures than the 5D does. Don't ask me why, I just know this by experience.


I guess when it comes down to it, its like Sean pointed out. "see if the 7Ds files live up to your (my) expectations"


It seems a lot of people think the 7D is the way to go for wildlife.





Thanks for responding guys.


Rick

<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

The 7D will blow [the 5DII] away at low *and* high ISO.

---

</div>



Hey Rick-


Daniel's word is nearly law in these parts, but if it would help I'd be happy to shoot the same scene from a tripod with the lens of your choice (listed in my profile) and both the 7D and 5DII, at a couple of ISOs (perhaps 100 and 3200), and send you the RAW files. Let me know...


FWIW, I love my 5DII for portraits and landscapes, but when I'm heading out looking for birds and wildlife, it's the 7D over my shoulder every time.


--John

John


I would be very appreciative if you would do that.


The two lens I see that would be a good comparison would of course be the 100-400mm L


or


The 100mm F2.8L Macro. The prime might give more accurate results than a zoom for the comparison, but it would have be at a F stop narrow enough to get rid of the vignetting this lens has on full frame when wide open and it would need to be some farther distance from the camera (not macro).


Thanks for the offer.


I have a feeling I am getting ready to spend $1600


Rick

Rick; concerning renting. About a year ago I was fed up w/my combo of the 40D and 100-400 photographing birds in low light situations....a.k.a. a New England winter.


So I did my own little test; I rented the 7D and 5D MK ll from LensRentals (link here on this site). Great service, in fact I just returned the 70-200 IS 2.8 MK ll....I wanted a comparison between the MK l and the MK ll. This was my 6th time renting from them.


I was renting at Calumet, but the drive to Cambridge Ma. (about the same as your drive) was a pain and the availability was limited....so I tried LensRentals. UPS delivers right to your door....you have to sign on delivery.....and then when it's time to return the equipment, there is a UPS office 5 minutes away from me. The whole process is simple and convenient.....give them a try.


BTW......I went w/the 7D for it's great AF (much better than the 5D MK ll) system's ability to quickly lock onto birds. Both cameras improved the 100-400 ability in low light and I'm no longer frustrated w/the dull gray low light of the NE winters.


I've also enlarged some photos taken w/the 7D to 10x30 (pano) and 16x20....they look great to me and garner ooh's and ahh's from friends and family when they see them....not very scientific, but satisfying. LOL


Regards


Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The contrast difference you talked about may, I would be interested in seeing the difference.

---

Since the 7D always trounces the 5D2 when you have to crop to the same angle of view (8 MP on the 5D2), I'll only give you an example of the situation where you don't have to crop the 5D2. This only applies when you are able to get closer with the 5D2+500, or you are able to switch to a longer lens (e.g. 800mm f/5.6). To simulate the scenario, I'll use separate lenses:


5D2 + 300mm f/2.8 @ f/4 vs 7D + 200mm f/2 @ f/2.8


The crops are slightly larger in the 5D2 image because of the slight difference between 18 MP and 21 MP (only 8% linear resolution difference). As you can see, the 7D images are lower in contrast, but not by much. With the right post processing, you can probably make it indistinguishable from the 5D2 image. But again, this is only in the circumstance that you do not crop the 5D2 image at all or use a TC.


Think of the 7D as a perfect 1.6X TC. It doesn't add any additional aberration, it doesn't slow down (or stop) autofocus, and it doesn't make the viewfinder any darker. All it does is magnify the flaws in your lens. Since the 500mm f/4 has few flaws, this is not much of a problem. I would have thought that the 7D would handily trounce the 5D2+1.4X TC, because real life teleconverters aren't perfect (though their distortion and chromatic aberration can often be corrected in post), but in this case (200mm lens) it looks like even with the 1.4X TC, the 5D2 is sharper:


1Ds3 + 200mm f/2 + 1.4X TC @ f/4 vs 7D + 200mm f/2 @ f/2.8


However, you still have the slower-autofocus and other TC issues. The results may also be a lot different for your 500mm lens).


Hope that helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Think of the 7D as a perfect 1.6X TC. It doesn't add any additional aberration, it doesn't slow down (or stop) autofocus, and it doesn't make the viewfinder any darker. All it does is magnify the flaws in your lens. Since the 500mm f/4 has few flaws, this is not much of a problem. I would have thought that the 7D would handily trounce the 5D2+1.4X TC, because real life teleconverters aren't perfect (though their distortion and chromatic aberration can often be corrected in post), but in this case (200mm lens) it looks like even with the 1.4X TC, the 5D2 is sharper:

---

Daniel


The 200mm lens in the comparison is a very high quality sharp lens. The 500mm F4L is an awesome lens as well. With the 1.4 teleconverter on the 500mm I can not perceive any loss of sharpness or Image Quality when using the 5D Mark II. With some other L series lenses I think you would have seen the 7D outperform the teleconverter. The 2x is a different story, it rarely performs to what I expect.


In the crop comparisons you pointed out, I am not sure in a real world situation I would notice any difference in quality from either camera. That said the autofocus system and the frame rates would be the deciding factors.


The 7D being the better camera for wildlife use is a hard one to get in my mind. I upgraded to a 5D Mark II before the 7D existed. At first thought you would think it would be a step backwards. I have been waiting for the 1Ds IV to come out, and hoping it would have a very fast frame rate and be able to process pictures quickly so I don't hit the "BUSY" signal.


Thanks for the input, it gives me a lot to think over.





Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill W

I've also enlarged some photos taken w/the 7D to 10x30 (pano) and 16x20....they look great to me and garner ooh's and ahh's from friends and family when they see them....not very scientific, but satisfying. LOL

---

Bill


Thats what I am looking for, the "ooh's and ahh's"

You're welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I have been waiting for the 1Ds IV to come out, and hoping it would have a very fast frame rate and be able to process pictures quickly so I don't hit the "BUSY" signal.

---

This is certainly possible, but the only way for it to happen would be if Canon took a significant departure from their current marketing philosophy. Right now, their cameras/marketing is based on the idea that compression is bad, bit depth is good, etc. The 5D2, for example, is plagued by such bad pattern noise and read noise that no one in their right mind (which excludes astrophotographers, naturally) ever uses more than 10 bits of of the 14-bit raw files. The 4 bits are just a waste of space (and frame rate). But the whole "14-bits" thing is a big marketing deal for Canon, so they can't allow the user to disable it for a faster frame rate. What I suggest they do is say "14-bits" on the box, but actually use 10 bits in the files. Users wont know the difference since they're not using more than 10 bits now. They could even write "16 quadrillion bits for better color!!!11". One can only hope...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

The 5D2, for example, is plagued by such bad pattern noise and read noise that no one in their right mind (which excludes astrophotographers, naturally) ever uses more than 10 bits of of the 14-bit raw files. The 4 bits are just a waste of space (and frame rate).

---

Mr Browning,


Could you please expand on this concept for me please? I'm not familiar with "pattern noise" and "read noise" and how it relates to bit-depth. The technical side of digital photography is new to me and I find it very interesting. Thanks a bunch.


Damian

[quote=neuroanatomist]I'd be happy to shoot the same scene from a tripod with the lens of your choice (listed in [url="/members/neuroanatomist/default.aspx]my profile[/url]) and both the 7D and 5DII, at a couple of ISOs...[/quote]


Ok, here you go. Sorry for the uninteresting subject matter - somehow I doubt plastic farm animals can be considered 'wildlife'. [:P]


All of these images were shot RAW and converted to JPG using DPP, with no adjustments applied. The 100mm images were shot with theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LMacro IS and the 400mm images were shot with theEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LIS. All of the shots were exposed as identically as I could make them - they are all at 0.3 s and f/6.3. I compensated for the 4-stop difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 with ND filters because I wanted to keep the exposure time the same to match the read and shot noise contribution - but maybe that wasn't the best approach (Daniel - comments?).


The first composite is the full size images, with the 5DII's images cropped down to match the FOV of the 7D. The second set of images are 100% crops from each image - the 7D shows a smaller field because of the much higher pixel density (the 5DII crops are 8 MP vs. the 18 MP of the 7D images).


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/5DIIvs7D.jpg[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/5DIIvs7D_2D00_100pct.jpg[/img]


Looking at the 100% crops, I'm not sure if this is a fair way to display the images - the smaller FOV of the 7D makes direct comparison difficult, since the pixels are different sizes. So in addition to straight 100% crops, I put together the following composite, where the 5DII crops are the same as above, but the 7D images are less than 100% crops since I took the same field as the 100% crop of the 5DII (about 2.2x as many pixels) and downsampled those crops to match the size of the 5DII crops.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/5DIIvs7D_2D00_100pct_2D00_scaled.jpg[/img]





There are a lot of ways these image can be interpreted, I think. I have to say, it's hard for me to conclude that the 7D images 'blow away' the cropped 5DII images. The 7D images seem a bit sharper, and the noise is a bit more evident at high ISO. But it does seem safe to say that a 7D image is definitely not a significant IQ downgrade compared to a cropped 5DII image. When that fact is added to the faster frame rate and better autofocus system, the 7D is the clear winner for wildlife/bird/sports shooting.


Rick, let me know if you want the RAW files - I can email them to you via yousendit (assuming the address in your profile is usable).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I have to say, it's hard for me to conclude that the 7D images 'blow away' the cropped 5DII images.

---

Yeah, "blow away" might not be too strong, but I do think it has significantly more detail (everything that's entailed in an upgrade from 8 MP to 18 MP). I don't think downsizing the 7D makes sense in this context, because that is throwing away a lot of the 18 MP advantage. It's like going form 7D to 20D.


Rather than downsize the 7D, I upsized them both to the same resolution:


Here is the 5D2:


http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...ed-upsized.png


7D ISO 100:


http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...ed-upsized.png


To me, the 7D has a lot more detail, and it can be improved by sharpening a lot. Of course, the JPEG artifacts are pretty obvious here too. Doing the same from raw and adding a realistic amount of sharpening would make the difference even more I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Rick, let me know if you want the RAW files - I can email them to you via yousendit (assuming the address in your profile is usable).

---

I'd like to take a crack at them. You can put anything you want in the email address and post the link here if you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Rick, let me know if you want the RAW files - I can email them to you via yousendit (assuming the address in your profile is usable).

---

John


I would appreciate that if you could email the link and yes the email in my profile is correct.


Thanks for putting the effort in to this


Rick

I returned my 7D and bought a used1D MK III for about the same price, I like it much better. As to the 500L f/4, I have read a number of complaints about AF problems with the 7D and 500mm L, I don

Glad to help - it was an interesting exercise! I've been wanting to compare the two in this way for a while now. Actually, once I get the 135mm f/2L (next on my list), I'll be able to empirically settle the debate Jon and I previously had, about IQ of 7D+85L vs. 5DII+135L (which, with the crop factor is the same FOV and DoF; for that test, I'll move the camera rather than crop the images).


Rick and Daniel, I have sent both of you links to the RAW files (.zip archives of two RAW files per link). Rick, yours went to your email address and Daniel, yours are in a PM.


Please let me know if there are issues with the files.


--John

This reviewer shows that the 5DII is still superior to the 7D when it comes to noise levels and sharpness/detail.


Yes, the 7D has superior AF, but it doesn't blow away the 5DII in these other areas.


http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eos-7d-review/

John


I received the files and thank you very much. I have to say you did a good job at setting the test up, all the samples are what I would expect off a tripod controlled set up.


I ran some tests and this is what I am seeing so far. I will be going over them a little closer as I think of more ways to check the files to see what I can do with the 7d.


While not by any means scientific this is what I have done so far:


I took the 100mm files did a quick look and from first perception they are very equal.


Next I took the file and reset the files to original camera settings. Which was Standard.


I then did a crop. I free handed the crop of just the outline of the book. My logic here is that if I were taking a picture of say a deer at 100 yards, I would crop just the things I wanted out of the picture. Being equal distance from the deer with either camera, I would most likely want the same crop out of either camera.


Next I did a white balance. I cheated on this one. Knowing my grandkids toys, I would bet the nose of the sheep is very close to 18% grey. Even if it isn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scalesusa

I returned my 7D and bought a used1D MK III for about the same price, I like it much better. As to the 500L f/4, I have read a number of complaints about AF problems with the 7D and 500mm L, I don't know if there is anything to it, or if it was a problem and fixed, but you should make sure ot works for you.

---

Scaleusa I will check that one out, since the only lens I will be using it on is the 500mm F4L


Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Glad to help - it was an interesting exercise!

---

Thanks again, John. Very useful test!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Actually, once I get the 135mm f/2L (next on my list), I'll be able to empirically settle the debate Jon and I previously had, about IQ of 7D+85L vs. 5DII+135L

---

Oooh, I'm looking forward to that. I think the 135 will trounce it soundly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

; for that test, I'll move the camera rather than crop the images).

---

Personally, I would be too lazy to move the camera -- I would probably just figure that the angles of view are "close enough". [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Rick and Daniel, I have sent both of you links to the RAW files

---

Thanks! I processed the first batch. Here are my results:


Full results for 100mm ISO 100


And here are a few crops from there:



100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-sharpened-5DII.png

http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...pened-5DII.png

100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-sharpened-7D.png

http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...arpened-7D.png


In order to make sure the demosaic and post processing was the exact same, I used dcraw and imagemagick. Here is the shell code I used to generate the crops programatically:
<pre>dcraw -v -b 4 -A 2350 2662 32 32 -H 1 -o 1 -q 3 -T 100mm-ISO100-5DII.CR2
dcraw -v -b 2.716 -A 2350 2662 32 32 -H 1 -o 1 -q 3 -T 100mm-ISO100-7D.CR2

convert 100mm-ISO100-5DII.tiff -crop 208x69+3540+2700 100mm-ISO100-crop1-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-7D.tiff -crop 310x102+3516+3070 100mm-ISO100-crop1-7D.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop1-5DII.png -resize 620x204 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop1-7D.png -resize 620x204 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-7D.png

convert 100mm-ISO100-5DII.tiff -crop 269x98+2362+2380 100mm-ISO100-crop2-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-7D.tiff -crop 396x144+1760+2598 100mm-ISO100-crop2-7D.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop2-5DII.png -resize 792x288 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop2-7D.png -resize 792x288 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-7D.png

convert 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-5DII.png -sharpen 0x2 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-sharpened-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-7D.png -sharpen 0x2 100mm-ISO100-crop1-upsized-sharpened-7D.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-5DII.png -sharpen 0x2 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-sharpened-5DII.png
convert 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-7D.png -sharpen 0x2 100mm-ISO100-crop2-upsized-sharpened-7D.png
</pre>


Overall, I think it does show a visible contrast/detail benefit to the 7D, but it's not as large as I would expect when comparing 8 MP vs 18 MP. Perhaps my expectations are too high?

John and Daniel


Just an FYI for whoever reads this in the future to see the outcome


I just did the final test to see if the 7D would and could produce IQ equal to the 5D Mark II crop image. The test here was to see how my limited post process skills would fit in with the 7D compared to the 5D Mark II


I took the ISO 100 shot that John gave us using the 100-400mm from both cameras. I made an equal size crop of each picture after I had reset to camera settings.


Here is what I found: I had to play with and adjust the 7D picture quit a bit more to get the maximum out of it. The hardest things requiring the most play were contrast, shadows and color. Once I finished I saved the picture as a max JPG.


The 5D required less work, and some sharpening. Once complete I saved the JPG.


Once comparing on the full screen, I could easily see the 7D was still lacking in contrast and color against the 5D version. The 5D version was just not as sharp. I tried resharpening the 5D version and took it as far as I could. I deleted and started over with the 7D version probably 5 times then compared. Finally I felt I had taken both as far as I could.


In the end this is what I decided, much the same as I had found before. The 7D delivered a sharper picture. The 5D was superior in color and contrast, but through much more extensive PP I was able to get the 7D up equal to the 5D. I believe it will take more work in PP with the 7D but in the end it can match and pass the 5D by just a little.


Final test was to print two 13x19 prints off with each camera. The 7D won slightly because of sharpness.


All in all this puts it to rest in my mind. The 7D quality is sufficient, but it is not so much better over the 5D Mark II that it would be the motivating factor to switch. The AF and Frame rate would be the factors as already stated.


Here are the two pics that I generated if any one is interested. They are marked on the pictures 5D and 7D. Thanks again for the help





[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/...9e1c528913.jpg]





[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/...24a9818cf7.jpg]

OK, I finished the second batch of analysis, this time using the 100mm ISO 1600 files. Here is one of the crops from the ISO 1600 comparisons:



http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...p-resize-3.png
http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...D-resize-3.png


Please see the rest of the crops here:


http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...5d2-7d-part-2/


I looked at the 400mm files but I don't think they're useful for this comparison because they don't contain any fine detail. The fine print on the book is the smallest detail I could find, and those were at least 20 pixels tall. (Ideally, the finest detail would be less than a single pixel, so we can see how much aliasing occurs.)


In order to do this comparison, I did the following:

• Exact same raw conversion / demosaic on each
• Increase brightness to the same level on both
• Crop 5D2 down to same angle of view as 7D
• Upsize both to the same dimension (so both are equally affected by upsizing)
• Use the exact same sharpening on both.

I think it shows that the 7D has more contrast and detail, with far fewer aliasing artifacts. The 7D image looks noisier, especially when both are upsized. Here is an example from the above comparisons where I downsampled the 18 MP 7D image to the 8 MP level of the 5D2:



http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...DII-crop-2.png
http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/...D-resize-2.png


That makes it more similar, but still a little noisier, I think. Take a look at the rest of the comparisons for yourself:





http://thebrownings.name/photo/2010/2010-11-5d2-7d-part-2/





I definitely prefer the 7D image in this circumstance.

Daniel


I didn't do anything with the ISO 1600 files John sent us, I went back through a lot of the old files of wildlife when I was shooting with ISO Auto with the 500mm F4L and for most the ISO was never over 800. Only on the rare instance when I did a landscape shot with the 500mm did the ISO ever get that high, and of course with that kind of shot I am going to prefer the 5D.


What your test on ISO 1600 showed though, is exactly what I was expecting it to show at 1600.


Now for the fun part:


I bought the 7D, its mounted on the 500mm F4L and I have it packed away in the backpack ready to go. I will be interested to see how it performs, and to try it with the 1.4 converter. I went ahead and got the MT-24EX Twin Macro Light as well to take advantage of the rebates, to bad it is just a paper weight until I can find someplace with a 72C adapter in stock.

Exciting! If you use the TC, don't be afraid to bump up the ISO -- the noise is the same or lower than cropping in post. For example:

• 1/320, 500mm f/4, ISO 800, cropped to 9.2 MP
• 1/320, 700mm f/5.6, ISO 1600, uncropped

Both of those shots will have the same angle of view after cropping, but the ISO 1600 will have slightly less noise. (One of the few advantages of using a TC).


Have fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DLS

Mr Browning,


Could you please expand on this concept for me please? I'm not familiar with "pattern noise" and "read noise" and how it relates to bit-depth. The technical side of digital photography is new to me and I find it very interesting. Thanks a bunch.


Damian

---

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, Damian. I wanted to work up some good images that demonstrate how pattern noise and read noise relate to bit depth, but I never found the time. I'm afraid the best I can offer in substitute is just words. I created a new post for it:



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
http://community.the-digital-picture.com/photography_gear1/f/7/p/5209/45224.aspx

Oh, no worries. I just read and commented on the new post. Thanks again!

I am three days in to a hunting trip that I have taken the new 7d mounted on my 500mm f4 L.


It felt like the 7d actually hit the af point slower than the 5d.


So I decided to test this today. I set up a test on tripod at just a bit over the minimum focus distance. I then would turn the lens to infinity focus.


What I found is that the 5d would make focus just slightly quicker than the 7d.


With this big lens, and both set to single point focus the average focus time of 1.4 for the 5d and 1.5 for the 7d.


I am going to check the ai servo setting tomorrow, I just tested the 7d on this setting and it would take 2.3 seconds.


One other thing I noticed about the 7d, occasionally, not every time it would make focus, and the red flash of confirmation would be delayed a second. I discarded those times from my result and not real sure why it did it.


In other areas it is obvious the 7d af is superior. It finds contrast much easier. I can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

What I found is that the 5d would make focus just slightly quicker than the 7d.

---

I wonder...Canon makes the AF slower with a teleconverter attached, perhaps because the longer focal length requires more critical focus. Perhaps Canon intentionally slows the AF slightly for greater accuracy due to the longer apparent focal length?


I dod notice when doing AFMAs that with some lenses (e.g. the 85L), when focusing from MFD to the target (but not the reverse), the 7D would overshoot slightly then come back to focus, whereas the 5DII just went straight there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Perhaps Canon intentionally slows the AF slightly for greater accuracy due to the longer apparent focal length?

---

Makes sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I dod notice when doing AFMAs that with some lenses (e.g. the 85L), when focusing from MFD to the target (but not the reverse), the 7D would overshoot slightly then come back to focus, whereas the 5DII just went straight there.

---

I noticed this quite often on the 500mm F4L, it would run past or even what appeared to be in focus then it would fine tune. This is not a bad thing if it gives you a little more accuracy.


The 7D and the 500mm F4L seem to back focus, and I will need to do a micro adjustment. This is something I didn't have to do with the 5D it was dead on.


I did get a few keepers


Cleared for Takeoff


F4, 1/1600, ISO 100


[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/...5a89aaab_z.jpg]