1D Mark IV or new 70-200

I am a visual journalist and I am trying to decided on which item to upgrade first, so I figured I would ask for some opinions. Currently I have a 5D Mk.II and a 7D for my bodies and I would say I use the 7D 90% of the time being a VJ I rarely do anything other than sports or news related shoots. I also have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens. I am in a position where I could go either way and get the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV Digital SLR or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens. The price would equate to being about the same as I would sell my 7D however my older 70-200 would be handed to one of my colleague.


So the question remains if you had the choice between switching a 7D for a 1D Mark IV or the two lenses which would it be for you?

if you are satisfied with your 7D and 70-200mm2.8, I would not suggest you to upgrade ether the 1DIV or the 70-2002.8II, I will get 135mm 2.0(for indoor sports) and 300mm 4.0IS or 400mm 5.6(for outdoor), just my 2 cents.

I

7d is pretty good on its own, i'd get the glass, same as elmo said.

I would think your biggest jump in IQ would be the new 70-200mm 2.8L


Interesting story, the local camera store supplies the local paper here in town with cameras. My salesman told me that the paper didn

no doubt 70-200mm II has better IQ , but 135mm 2.0 gives you 1 stop faster and 300mm or 400mm gives you more reach and they also give you better IQ at least than the old 70-200mm 2.8, and you still have the 70-200mm when you need it. with those three lenses you can do a lot other things that the 70-200mm 2.8 II hardly can handle. and they are also smaller and lighter. also, if you chose the 70-200mm 2.8 II, you pay some of the money on the new IS system which you don

I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt.s.Maneri

... I rarely do anything other than sports or news related shoots.


So the question remains if you had the choice between switching a 7D for a 1D Mark IV or the two lenses which would it be for you?

---

Hey Matt,


I have two 7D's and a 1D MkIV and I would rather own a MKIV. I feel that the MKIV is much better than the 7D. It has a larger sensor, better Auto Focus, more advanced Metering system, faster burst rate, less noise in low light, better weather sealing, more solid feel, better contrast, more customizable user settings, no spin the mode dial, and the MK IV will make all of your lenses and all of your photos better than just one new 70-200mm. The MKIV also shoots wider than the 7D.


The only negatives that I can think of is that the MK IV (1.3X crop) wont provide you with as much reach as compared to the 7D (1.6X crop) which could mean you may need a more expensive lens like a 400mm as opposed to a 300mm and <s>or</s> the use of a 1.4x extender which will cause you to lose an f-stop, and the extender slows down the AF speed, and there is also no emergency pop-up flash on the MkIV. The MKIV is also larger and heavier, and you can't take the grip off.


However, I like the photos out of the MkIV better, so nothing else really matters to me.


Rich

Thank you for your opinions everyone. Just to clarify something I probably should have said before this was posted was that I already own a Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM, Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM, and a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM for my sport glass. Im still very open to any opinions if I cant decided soon I will just wait a month until I can afford both.


HDNitehawk - I think that may come down to expenses when you can get almost 3 7D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt.s.Maneri

I think that may come down to expenses when you can get almost 3 7D's for the cost of 1 1D Mk.IV

---

That is probably true, the salesman also mentioned money had been tighter for the paper because of the economy.


Your going to gain a little IQ over the 70-200 you have now. Since you have shot the 1D Mark IV I think the question can better be answered by you than any one else. Do you want the better IQ from the lens or rather have the camera.


After reading Richard Lane's post I thought this:


There was a thread I initiated a while back, comparing a croped picture from a 5D to the same size pic of a 7D. I was trying to find out if the IQ of the 7D was superior for wildlife, as some had claimed, using my 500mm lens. The end result that was decided after some testing was that the pictures out of the 7D could be improved in post to be the same or slightly better than the croped 5D's


That said, I often wondered if I shouldn't have put the 1D Mark IV in to that mix to see how it faired, IQ wise for a croped pic compared to the 7D.


Rick

Matt,


Since you have a lot of nice glass already, you should definitely get the Mk IV, especially since you already have the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8. I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L II and it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Since you have a lot of nice glass already, you should definitely get the Mk IV

---

100% agreed


both 1D IV and 70-200mm2.8 II are good stuff with a overpriced tag IMHO, it's a money issue, like HD has said, maybe the only one can answer your question is yourself.


thanks for wasting our time[:D](just kidding)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

, the only other parameter that I would like to see you add to your evaluation would be to include moving subjects, as well as stationary ones, because as you are aware, that is certainly where the 7D and the MkIV really shine, as compared to the 5D.

---

On those issues I believed it to be an obvious given that the 7D and the 1D MK IV would be superior to the 5D Mark II with moving objects. I was trying to find out if I would loose any image quality by switching, since with wildlife usualy I was having to crop a lot of the time with the 5D.


I bought the 7D in November, I am not convinced yet it is more accurate than the 5D Mark II on stationary subjects yet. On the tests with lensalign I have done with both cameras and the 500mm the 5D is more accurate. I plan on only using the 7D on the 500mm so I couldn't speak to its accuracy on other lenses. In the field its hard to compare, but it doesn't seem like my keeper rate has improved.


I have not seen any comparisons from any one that would say the 1D Mark IV is the better wildlife camera, or that the 7D is better because of the crop factor (or whatever other reason). That is why sometimes I wonder if I should have went to the 1D Mark IV instead of the 7D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I have not seen any comparisons from any one that would say the 1D Mark IV is the better wildlife camera, or that the 7D is better because of the crop factor (or whatever other reason). That is why sometimes I wonder if I should have went to the 1D Mark IV instead of the 7D.

---

this is what I found in Bryan's review


"
My experience is that the 7D does not perform quite as well as the 1-Series bodies in these situations. (Bryan was talking about Al Servo AF performance)


The percentage of OOF shots (they tend to be focused behind the
direction the subject is traveling)
I experience with the 7D is higher than I experience with the 1-Series
bodies.
Said another way, if your living depends on your ability to capture
action quickly moving toward or away from your camera, I recommend that
you get a Canon 1-Series body.
If you can afford to have a somewhat higher percentage of missed shots
in these situations, the Canon EOS 7D performs very well for the price -
better than any other Canon APS-C body I've used to date.


with better performance of AF(tracking moving object), ISO, better IQ(sharpness, contrast, color etc.) faster burst rate and shutter lag........, 1dIV will no doubt be my first choice if money is not a issue


I have been wanting this ID IV body for a while, just feel painful when thinking of spending 4 grand on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I am not convinced yet it is more accurate than the 5D Mark II on stationary subjects yet.

---

The accuracy should be about the same when using the center AF point on a stationary object in good light. I've found that the off-center AF points on the 7D are much better than the off-center points on the 5DII. Also, in low light the 5DII center point seems to lock on better than the 7D center AF point, but in low light the off-center points on the 5DII seem to hunt for focus a lot more than the off-center points on the 7D. The 7D tracks moving subjects much better than the 5DII.


So, overall it's a mixed bag but on balance I'd say the 7D AF wins in good light and the 5DII AF wins in poor light (assuming you're using the center point).


Certainly, a 1DIV or 1DsIII would trump both in the AF department...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

There was a thread I initiated a while back, comparing a croped picture from a 5D to the same size pic of a 7D....I often wondered if I shouldn't have put the 1D Mark IV in to that mix to see how it faired, IQ wise for a croped pic compared to the 7D.

---

That would have been interesting! Here's a link to the thread you mentioned, with the comparison images I shot with 7D vs. 5DII and the processing that Daniel did to the RAW files. I certainly would like to have had a 1DIV to put to the same test... [:P]


--John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

So, overall it's a mixed bag but on balance I'd say the 7D AF wins in good light and the 5DII AF wins in poor light (assuming you're using the center point).





That would have been interesting! Here's a link to the thread you mentioned, with the comparison images I shot with 7D vs. 5DII and the processing that Daniel did to the RAW files. I certainly would like to have had a 1DIV to put to the same test..

---

One of the things I have come to realize, is that you actually loose light by switching to the 7D which hurts somewhat with the AF. But not necessarily a bad way, because of the crop factor you have to shoot at a tighter aperture to get the same DOF. This becomes real noticeable when birds are getting real close and you want to have the whole bird in focus. The loss of light either translates in to slower speeds, which the 500mm you need all the speed you can get, or higher ISO which is not good either. But.....what a I keep telling myself is that to get the same field of view I would have had to get a 800mm for the 5D, and in that regard with the 7D with the 500mm you have an equivalent of a 5D with a 800mm F4 with the 500mm on the 7D having a wider DOF than an 800mm at equal apertures.


So there is some trading off of things to go to the 7D from 5D, but I would have rather not been trading off light. With other lenses I probably wouldn't have noticed this as much but with the 500mm speed is everything hand held.


I would have bought the 1D Mark IV, over the 7D if I had thought it could do better. I tried to find information on the web comparing the two, but I didn't find much that was help full. Richard's post peaked my interest when I read that he owned both, as he might have some insight on this.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

With other lenses I probably wouldn't have noticed this as much but with the 500mm speed is everything hand held.

---

There's an effect of loss of light if you stop down your aperture by 1.3 stops to get the same depth of field you'd get on the FF (e.g. you'd need f/6.4 on the 7D to achieve the same DoF as f/4 on the 5DII). But if you keep the aperture the same (and live with the shallower DoF on the 7D), the shutter speed should be the same. But in terms of handholding, the narrower angle of view does mean you need a faster shutter speed (e.g. the crop factor applies to the 1/focal length guideline) - in the auto exposure modes, the camera accounts for that, e.g. in Av mode with auto ISO and a 100mm lens, the 5DII will try to keep the shutter speed above 1/100 s, while the 7D will try to keep it above 1/160 s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

in the auto exposure modes, the camera accounts for that, e.g. in Av mode with auto ISO and a 100mm lens, the 5DII will try to keep the shutter speed above 1/100 s, while the 7D will try to keep it above 1/160 s

---

Thanks John, thats good info to know. What really caught my attention on the light and DOFis close up bird shots, I like to do drive by shootings of birds [6] sort of. I have land in the country, and occasionaly will drive the country roads looking for unsuspecting birds to shoot out the drivers side window. What I noticed is that close up I wasn't getting enough DOF to cover smaller birds. Where the 500mm on the FF body I could shoot all day at F4 and never notice.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

What I noticed is that close up I wasn't getting enough DOF to cover smaller birds. Where the 500mm on the FF body I could shoot all day at F4 and never notice.

---

Indeed - I often shoot my 7D with the 100-400mm at 400mm f/6.3 or f/7.1 for the same reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

or the use of 1.4x extender which will cause you to lose an f-stop,

---

If you have the same DOF you have the same noise if sensor technology is the same, which in this case it's not. The 1D IV has andnewer sensor and have better noise for the same DOF. Using a extender or croppingresults in the same DOF, wether you are using an extender or cropping you will lose just as much light. You don't quite lose one stop of light with a 1.4X extender, a 1.5X extenderwould be exactally one stop. You lose 1.4 times worth of light, you lose 1.6 times of light, you 2 times worth of light. Don't look at conversion factors only when deciding between cameras, noise and reach.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I certainly would like to have had a 1DIV to put to the same test...

---

I guess I am going to be able to make that comparison, I just ordered the 1D Mark IV [*-)]

WooHoo! Congrats!! Can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

<div id="ctl00_ctl00_content_content_ctl00_fragment_121 6_ctl01_ctl00_PostForm__QuoteText"]


WooHoo! Congrats!! Can't wait to see some photos taken with it!


Denise
</div>

---

I will get you some close ups of the divorce papers when the wife finds out[:^)]


Maybe I can slip it in with my other cameras and she won't notice.

Thanks for the response John (Fast Glass), but perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to compare using an extender vs. cropping, I was referring to the additional expense that might be incurred by requiring a 400mm f/2.8 with the MKIV, as opposed to a300mm f/2.8 + 1.4X extender on the MKIV which would cause a loss of one f-stop, as well as slower AF by 50% in the latter scenario.


When I put my 1.4X extender on my 300mm f/2.8L, it becomes a 420mm f/4, so I lost one f-stop on the same camera. The aperture is now one stop smaller and my speed is one stop slower. That's what I was trying to imply.


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I guess I am going to be able to make that comparison, I just ordered the 1D Mark IV [img]/emoticons/emotion-42.gif[/img]

---

Hey Rick., Congrats! [B]


That's awesome, you're going to love it.


It's really very, very, nice!!


Rich

HiRich,


The7D was supposed to have a advantage in reach and noise because you loose one stop with an extender with the same lens in your preivious post.A 400mm f/2.8has more reach at the same apetureas the 300mm f/2.8. My point was that the 1D IV has the advantage in noise/reach. I was in a hurry when Ityped that postand I should have noted cropped whether with a 1.6 crop camera or in the post.


The intonation of this post sounds like I am anoyed, I am not at all. Please don't take it that way.


Cheers[:)],


John.

Hi John,


Thanks for the clarification, however I did not take it that way at all, as I always enjoy reading about your technical side of things.


Cheers,


Rich