7D vs 5D Mark II for wildlife advice wanted

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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

[Daniel Browning]

You're welcome.

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...

[DLS]

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

[Daniel Browning]

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

[DLS]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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