7d or 1d mark ii

[peety3]

Thanks. I'm paying close attention to this thread because I'm toying with the idea of picking up a 7D to replace my 1DIIN for use in action situations.


I probably won't do it... I use the 5DII 95% of the time. But it's tempting.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I have never tried a 5D2, so I can't predict what would happen. But I will say this: I have contemplated selling the 1D3 (and the 40D) and replacing them with two 7Ds and more glass. I could handle an all-7D fleet for a while. The two things that I'd miss most from the 1D3 would be the ability to map ISO onto the big wheel and the "safety" of not having an exposure knob to get bumped all over the map with the &gt;1 models. I can't believe how many times the knob on my 7D got spun to C3, and I continue to learn what things the Cx change and don't change back when you return to Av. Ugh.

[Keith B]

and the "safety" of not having an exposure knob to get bumped all over the map with the &gt;1 models. I can't believe how many times the knob on my 7D got spun to C3, and I continue to learn what things the Cx change and don't change back when you return to Av. Ugh.

Seriously! This happens to me on my 5DII all the time. My 7D seems to be a little tighter and doesn't happen nearly as much but it still happens.

[Dallasphotog]

I like the 1D MKII a lot and I still use mine for many commercial shoots, but the 7D has a lot of nice features. I think the screen size, improved controls and better menus makes the 7D a step up from the MKII. The great thing about the 1-series is the build quality and the weather sealing.

[Jon Ruyle]

I would get the 7D for features, resolution, better high ISO performance, and better screen than the 1DIIN. It would also be nice for (non-wide field) astrophotography due to its high pixel density.


Awful tempting.

[clemmb]

For the price I would get a 1DmkIII.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/Canon.jpg[/img]

[Fast Glass]

Thats all nice and dandy, but when you down rez the 7D to the same resultion as the 1D IIIthe 7D looks VIRTUALLY the same as the 1D III. Basically you get more resolution without more noise in your print.


Here are some samples


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/7D_2D00_P13_2D00_6400-reduced.JPG[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/1DIII_2D00_6400.JPG[/img]


I also applied crominace noise reduction and sharpened them, so sharpness is about the same.


John.

[Jon Ruyle]

I believe the DXO mark results already take that into account. In other words, the number given is the ISO at which the amount of noise on the whole sensor reaches a given threshold.


I'm not saying they're right and you're wrong, but just clairifying what they are claiming.


Where did your images come from? How were they exposed?

[Fast Glass]

The cropsare from Bryan's reviews, kinda suprisedyou didn't catch it though....[]


I'm not really sure how they get those scores, but DXO has a graph with the signal to noise ration. So I don't know what the ISO score is for....[^o)]


There might be more differances at a sub-pixel level, but just looking atit 100%they look pretty dang close too me....[Y]


John.

[Jon Ruyle]

The cropsare from Bryan's reviews, kinda suprisedyou didn't catch it though....[img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

I could tell they looked the same, but wasn't positive they *were* the same

I'm not really sure how they get those scores, but DXO has a graph with the signal to noise ration. So I don't know what the ISO score is for....[img]/emoticons/emotion-40.gif[/img]

If I understand correctly, it is the ISO at which noise reaches some threshold level. So the higher the score, the better.

There might be more differances at a sub-pixel level, but just looking atit 100%they look pretty dang close too me....[img]/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]

Me, too. That's why I asked about how they were exposed. One should use manual exposure when doing such tests to assure each camera is getting the same amount of light (if you rely on the meter, one camera may leave the shutter open longer at the same iso, thus giving itself more light an an unfair advantage). I *thought* Bryan used manual exposure, but the 7D image says "EV + 1/3" which seems to indicate the meter was used, and furthermore, that the 7D was given 1/3 stop more light, enough to make up the difference reported by DXO.


Anyhow, I'm not sure I could tell such a small difference anyway.

[Fast Glass]

that the 7D was given 1/3 stop more light, enough to make up the difference reported by DXO.

Heck, I think you got me there! I didn't give much thought about that....[:P]


So the 1D III is a littlebitbetter then 7D.


John.