1D mk iv (1.3x) vrs 1DX (1:1) w 1.4 extender - whch is better?

[Richard Lane]

Thanks for your input, John!

If anyone else is interested, the comparison of the photos look better in the Flickr lightbox.

[FastGass]

I forgot to mention, extenders can affect Bokeh. I know that the old Minolta MD 2x extenders were tuned for specific lenses and one of the important variables was spherical aberration, one of the most important (if not the most important) quality for Bokeh. So there is one variable there. I don't see a big difference in your pictures anyway but just so you know.

John.

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for all the comparisons, Rich!

As Rick stated, you need to look pretty hard to see a difference, and when you do, it can go either way. I've been wondering about picking up a 1DIV (refurb if they come available when I have funds), but this set of shots really suggests I shouldn't bother, but rather just use the 1D X.

I recall that we previously concluded a cropped 5DII vs. 7D gave basically equivalent results from an IQ standpoint, assuming 8 MP were enough for desired output. I wonder how a 1D X +/- 1.4xIII would compare to a 7D with the former cropped to the APS-C AoV?

[HDNitehawk]

John, it has long been my belief from experience that the 1D iV will win in the 7d vs 1D IV comparison. The other qualities in the picture far out weigh the small loss of resolution.

The 1D X vs 7D comparison would be interesting.

The only reason I would see to have a 1D IV is if you have a supertele with the 1.4x on and wanted just a little more reach. A 500 or 600 with a 1.4x and 1D IV would be quit presentable. Personally I choose the 1D IV over the 7D in this situation as well. You would have working AF as well if you wanted to use the 2x.

[Joel Eade]

What about the other end of the spectrum: macro? Would the 7D be preferred over the 1DMKIV due to higher resolution?

[HDNitehawk]

For macro I prefered the 1D IV for macro, or the 5D II. I did a comparison of those two and came up with a 50/50 split on which did better.
But, I probably didn't compare the 7d as much as I should have for macro. When I had the 7D I had it in my mind that I preferred the FF for macro.

Edit: thinking back the sample pictures John took that were used for comparison in the 5D II vs 7D test were with the 100mm IS Macro. The 7D only slightly out resolved the 5D II and the 5D II had better contrast than the 7D.

[neuroanatomist]

I've tended to prefer FF for macro work. I suppose it comes down to style of shooting, and more importantly what you shoot. Sensor format doesn't change the MFD or the magnification out of the lens, so if you're shooting at 1:1, the tradeoff is a wider FoV with FF vs. greater resolution of a smaller area with 1.3x or 1.6x. Also, in that situation, for a given aperture the smaller sensor will actually have a shallower DoF (something usually not desirable for macro shooting).

I'd say if shooting a subject that's only large enough to fill an APS-C sensor at 1:1, the 7D may be a better choice...but in that case, I'd personally be using the MP-E 65mm for up to 5x mag, right? So, I'd still prefer FF. What if I need to go even smaller, a subject much smaller than the FF sensor at 5:1? Haven't had that happen yet...but my inclination would be to use a dSLR eyepiece adapter to connect a camera to my Zeiss Stemi DV4 surprisingly, it's available from B&H!), which delivers up to 32x mag.