1D Mark IV vs 7D for Wildlife photography

Zephyr

Zephyr

Messages
373
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I shoot a lot of birds, along with various other wildlife, and currently have a 7D as my main body. I am toying with the idea of getting a 1D Mark IV, but given it is more than three times the price, is it 3x as good?

I've heard from a few people that have them that the Mark IVs are only about 1 stop better in the ISO department than the 7D, so I am debating whether to wait for the next gen of cameras given that the Mark IV is also 2 years old roughly now, and perhaps put it towards a 300 f2.8, and wait for a 7D successor (whether APS-C or APS-H) and see what happens.

Just wondering to owners of both cameras, what are your thoughts on this? Bearing in mind I shoot a lot of birds, both small and large, and my longest lens is a 500 f4. I would have thought the loss of 'reach' gained by the 7D would mean less pixels were on target so IQ would be close (up to ISO 800 where the mark IV would take the lead).

Ahh decisions, decisions!!

Advice would be appreciated, thanks a lot TP'ers.
 
What do you think is lacking on your 7D, that the 1D MKIV would give you. The fact that you probably have one of canon's best wildlife lenses in the 500mm f4 personally I can't see what the MKIV would give you unless you specifically want a better autofocus system to capture fps bursts, as the 1D series is still far superior in this department. What about 1D MKIII at signifcantly less cost.

The 1.3x crop is a compromise, especially if you do a varied amount of photography from landscapes to action photography, but if you mainly shoot wildlife personally the 1.6x crop lends to that more, especially with a 500mm attached.
 
pete.rush said:
What do you think is lacking on your 7D, that the 1D MKIV would give you. The fact that you probably have one of canon's best wildlife lenses in the 500mm f4 personally I can't see what the MKIV would give you unless you specifically want a better autofocus system to capture fps bursts, as the 1D series is still far superior in this department. What about 1D MKIII at signifcantly less cost.

The 1.3x crop is a compromise, especially if you do a varied amount of photography from landscapes to action photography, but if you mainly shoot wildlife personally the 1.6x crop lends to that more, especially with a 500mm attached.
Click to expand...

Cheers for your reply. More looking at getting a 2nd body, and also I wondered how the noise levels would compare at higher ISOs, the better autofocus system for BIF and more action. The only gripe I really have about the 7D is the noise levels at ISO 800 and above!! Any tips for reducing noise effectively? In photoshop all I tend to do is crop (12x8 or 12x10) sharpen using the unsharp mask (100-130/2-3 pixels/0 threshold) and increase vibrance/contrast slightly, I find photoshop's reduce noise facility to detract from sharpness, and have thought about buying one of the remove noise package addons - do you have any suggestions in the noise department? I was wondering if the 1d IV would be significantly improved in this aspect?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Zephyr said:
Cheers for your reply. More looking at getting a 2nd body, and also I wondered how the noise levels would compare at higher ISOs, the better autofocus system for BIF and more action. The only gripe I really have about the 7D is the noise levels at ISO 800 and above!! Any tips for reducing noise effectively? In photoshop all I tend to do is crop (12x8 or 12x10) sharpen using the unsharp mask (100-130/2-3 pixels/0 threshold) and increase vibrance/contrast slightly, I find photoshop's reduce noise facility to detract from sharpness, and have thought about buying one of the remove noise package addons - do you have any suggestions in the noise department? I was wondering if the 1d IV would be significantly improved in this aspect?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Noise ninja its an add-on for photoshop (just google noise ninja), it seriously improves images and highlighly recommended for a small outlay. OK it won't improve the seriously effected images, but it works very well.
 
I mostly shoot at 800 ISO with my 7D, expose to the right as much as possible, in PS I use a plugin called Topaz DeNoise, I'm very happy with the results.
 
Thank you both! I shall have a look into those, are they fairly intuitive? Any recommended settings for those addons?? e.g. like in PS I would sharpen in between 100-130%/2-3 pixels/0 threshold

I just find it annoying, at ISO 1600 the detail just drops off, I'm quite surprised that the 1D Mark IV wasn't recommended over the 7D for wildlife in some ways as I imagine the images at those higher ISOs to not only be cleaner but also more detailed.

I guess I shall have to invest it into glass then, 300 f2.8 IS II it is!

Anyone else got thoughts on 7D vs 1dMark IV? Or post processing in ref to the above? maybe it is something else i am doing wrong?
 
fastworldimages said:
My 1d mkiii has much better files at higher ISO than any 7d I've used.

With the 1d mkiv being better still.
Click to expand...

Really?

What about pixels on target? Won't that affect print quality and therefore size? especially if you're photographing a relatively small bird?
 
Russell Johnson said:
Mark IV all the way.....
Click to expand...

Elaborate, I want to know what makes the Mark IV worth the £2k+ more than the 7D. I am thinking about getting one you see, and want to know if it's worth it, especially since at some stage (within the next year) the 7D will likely to be replaced by a new model, which may be better suited to my needs (and possibly better than the mark iv).

Thoughts?
 
I've pondered the same question recently, and there's no clear cut answer. The 1D4 is better, but three times better depends on the depth of your pockets. 7D is amazing value these days.

The conclusion I came to was the 1D4, mainly for the AF system. I don't know how much better it is than the 7D as I've not used a 7D in the same way, but the 1D4 was fabulous for servo tracking BIFs (until the LCD packed up - it was on loan though). My thinking was that image quality doesn't matter a jot if the image is out of focus.

The only way to find out, for you, is the try one. Hire one, or buy a good used example and sell it on for what you paid if it doesn't work out. 300L 2.8 is a fabulous lens, but what does it give you that your 500L 4 doesn't? If it's better IQ/noise you're after, you want a longer lens on a larger format, ie a 1DX and 600L 4 Mk2 :D

A 7D Mk2 is an interesting prospect but there is a school of thought that says the significant firmware upgrade that has been promised for the current model might delay a new launch.
 
HoppyUK said:
I've pondered the same question recently, and there's no clear cut answer. The 1D4 is better, but three times better depends on the depth of your pockets. 7D is amazing value these days.

The conclusion I came to was the 1D4, mainly for the AF system. I don't know how much better it is than the 7D as I've not used a 7D in the same way, but the 1D4 was fabulous for servo tracking BIFs (until the LCD packed up - it was on loan though). My thinking was that image quality doesn't matter a jot if the image is out of focus.

The only way to find out, for you, is the try one. Hire one, or buy a good used example and sell it on for what you paid if it doesn't work out. 300L 2.8 is a fabulous lens, but what does it give you that your 500L 4 doesn't? If it's better IQ/noise you're after, you want a longer lens on a larger format, ie a 1DX and 600L 4 Mk2 :D

A 7D Mk2 is an interesting prospect but there is a school of thought that says the significant firmware upgrade that has been promised for the current model might delay a new launch.
Click to expand...

It is quite a frustrating thing to ponder i think, especially as we don't know where the future lies for the high end crop cameras, on Canon's front.

I was thinking of getting the 300 f2.8 for a BIF lens, and to bridge the gap between my 70-200 and 500mm, without sacrificing on quality (where i could use converters on my 70-200. Good idea?

Even a 600mm on a 1DX wouldn't give me much reach really though, so to me a crop camera is always the way to go especially for smaller birds.

The 7D is no slouch for BIF shots though, here's a couple i took on my 7D recently:
7362194182_3b4dcab06f_z_d.jpg


7355158960_7b62028b8b_z_d.jpg


7338601246_6c3903d437_z_d.jpg

My thinking also is that the 1dIV is now 2 years old, with the new AF system of the 5D3, if this comes into a new action oriented crop camera - will it be better than the 1D4s system??

Oh nothing makes this choice any easier, lol. But you said it was superb for BIF - but how much better i guess is down to the user >.<
 
Last edited:
Doesn't look like you need to buy anything to me absolutely stunning pictures!
 
Nice work :) I've seen some great BIFs from a 7D. The question is, what's your hit rate?

Good point about the 5D3. No idea how much better the AF is compared to the 1D4, other than it should show some improvement. And it has to be easier to set up - I found the 1D4 very complex and needed a lot of testing with different subjects in various modes to learn.

Again based on the theory that AF is priority, and 6fps is enough, 5D3 crops down to 13.5mp at 1.3x and 9mp at 1.6x, with good ISO performance.
 
I have a 7D and a 1Dmk2n. The 1D gets more keepers but only slightly. It is better at tracking birds coming straight at the camera though. I guess the mk4 would be better still.
Having said that i only seem to use the 7D these days. The 1.6 crop is brilliant and the 7D AF is very good.

They make a good pair of cameras to own. 1D for situations when you're not reach limited and for BIF. I definitely wouldn't get rid of a 7D and replace it with the 1D though.

Zephyr said:
Hi,

I shoot a lot of birds, along with various other wildlife, and currently have a 7D as my main body. I am toying with the idea of getting a 1D Mark IV, but given it is more than three times the price, is it 3x as good?

I've heard from a few people that have them that the Mark IVs are only about 1 stop better in the ISO department than the 7D, so I am debating whether to wait for the next gen of cameras given that the Mark IV is also 2 years old roughly now, and perhaps put it towards a 300 f2.8, and wait for a 7D successor (whether APS-C or APS-H) and see what happens.

Just wondering to owners of both cameras, what are your thoughts on this? Bearing in mind I shoot a lot of birds, both small and large, and my longest lens is a 500 f4. I would have thought the loss of 'reach' gained by the 7D would mean less pixels were on target so IQ would be close (up to ISO 800 where the mark IV would take the lead).

Ahh decisions, decisions!!

Advice would be appreciated, thanks a lot TP'ers.
Click to expand...
 
get a Nikon if you want better ISO performance

In reality, its all down to technique and using the right lens
 
peely said:
Doesn't look like you need to buy anything to me absolutely stunning pictures!
Click to expand...

Thank you :)


HoppyUK said:
Nice work :) I've seen some great BIFs from a 7D. The question is, what's your hit rate?

Good point about the 5D3. No idea how much better the AF is compared to the 1D4, other than it should show some improvement. And it has to be easier to set up - I found the 1D4 very complex and needed a lot of testing with different subjects in various modes to learn.

Again based on the theory that AF is priority, and 6fps is enough, 5D3 crops down to 13.5mp at 1.3x and 9mp at 1.6x, with good ISO performance.
Click to expand...

Ah... okay, so maybe it would be of benefit... I shall have to have a think


Werecow said:
I have a 7D and a 1Dmk2n. The 1D gets more keepers but only slightly. It is better at tracking birds coming straight at the camera though. I guess the mk4 would be better still.
Having said that i only seem to use the 7D these days. The 1.6 crop is brilliant and the 7D AF is very good.

They make a good pair of cameras to own. 1D for situations when you're not reach limited and for BIF. I definitely wouldn't get rid of a 7D and replace it with the 1D though.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input, as I said above maybe they would both be of benefit in different ways then :).

Also I notice you're from Cornwall - whereabouts?? Falmouth here!

Thanks chaps :)
 
Your 7D is doing a grand job. If I were you, I'll put the money on the 300mm f/2.8.
 
IGADIZ said:
Your 7D is doing a grand job. If I were you, I'll put the money on the 300mm f/2.8.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think that's the option I'll be going with as I don't feel there is enough reason to justify a 1d mark iv over a 7d for my purpose and the cost difference.
 
footman said:
My 7D turned in some great bird shots but the the less than ideal light in the woodland settings I use gives my 1DIV the edge in ISO's I wouldn't dream of using with the 7D.
Click to expand...

I like how there are all these differing opinions!

Could you tell me what you think the ISO is usable up to on both models? Is it really just 1 STOP better on the 1D Mark IV over the 7D??
 
The 7D was good up to 800 for me, after that the required NR would give me an image that I wasn't happy with.
I haven't shot that much with the Mark IV above 800 but those images at 800 or slightly above respond much better to NR.
 
footman said:
The 7D was good up to 800 for me, after that the required NR would give me an image that I wasn't happy with.
I haven't shot that much with the Mark IV above 800 but those images at 800 or slightly above respond much better to NR.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. Yes I generally find that the detail really disappears after 800, and it's especially bad at 1600 upwards.

I guess the malleability of the files has something to do with the pixel density of the sensor. Generally this si what I have found off people, that the Mark IV files you can do more in PP, whereas the 7Ds are more 'rigid'

Thanks for the input
 
A similar discussion over on the EOS forum regarding ISO & Noise in a 7D, the consensus was generally folk were happy up to ISO1600 & occasionally to 3200 (which I agree with), one of the more experienced members (Colin C) over there made the following relevant points:

&#8226;Noise is subjective to an extent - what is acceptable to me may be unacceptable to you.
&#8226;The more you "Nail" the exposure, the less noise will be evident.
&#8226;Use the histogram to expose to the right hand side of the histogram, without clipping the highlights.
&#8226;Keep post processing to a minimum. The more you are tempted to move the sliders, the greater effect on enhancing noise.
&#8226;Only sharpen what you need to. The main subject usually has lots of detail, so will take some sharpening. Large areas of plain colour will show noise more readily, so dont sharpen. Just select what you want sharpened and leave the rest.
&#8226;Digital noise is split into two elements: Luminence and Chrominence. Luminence is the size of each piece of noise and chrominence is the colour of each piece of noise - Red/Green in shadow areas and Magenta/Cyan in lighter areas. In general, most people can live with some Luminence, but Chrominence tends to be the more unacceptable. Using noise reduction just to reduce the Chrominence can often do the trick. If you need to reduce both elements, there will be some softening of the image, so as with sharpening, select all of the image except the main subject and just use noise reduction in the selected area.
Taking all the above into consideration, ISO 1600 shouldn't be a problem for the majority of subjects and for some you could use ISO 3200.

Colin
 
Zephyr said:
Ah, okay. Yes I generally find that the detail really disappears after 800, and it's especially bad at 1600 upwards.

I guess the malleability of the files has something to do with the pixel density of the sensor. Generally this si what I have found off people, that the Mark IV files you can do more in PP, whereas the 7Ds are more 'rigid'

Thanks for the input
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can generalise about things like pixel density these days. Of all the cameras I have either used recently or have some good knowledge of, all I can really say that the newer sensors are better. And not to be forgotten is the processing engine that goes with them.

In no particular order, Nikon D7000, Nikon V1, Nikon D800, Panasonic GX1, Fuji X-Pro1, Canon 5D3 (and almost certainly the Canon 1DX) are all examples of the lastest technology being a significant step foward from the generation before - and that includes the 7D of course. It should be mentioned that Sony has a big hand in Nikon and other brands, as well as their own cameras. And further, Nikon usually gets more out of Sony sensors because they spend more on the processing engine.

Some good points from Les above, though the one about exposing to the right is a bit of a red herring. ETTR is only a technique you can use in good conditions and while it can reduce noise a lot, like one or two stops, it is in effect reducing the ISO - by one or two stops! So when you're pushed for light, ETTR is just not feasible.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
I'm not sure you can generalise about things like pixel density these days. Of all the cameras I have either used recently or have some good knowledge of, all I can really say that the newer sensors are better. And not to be forgotten is the processing engine that goes with them.

In no particular order, Nikon D7000, Nikon V1, Nikon D800, Panasonic GX1, Fuji X-Pro1, Canon 5D3 (and almost certainly the Canon 1DX) are all examples of the lastest technology being a significant step foward from the generation before - and that includes the 7D of course. It should be mentioned that Sony has a big hand in Nikon and other brands, as well as their own cameras. And further, Nikon usually gets more out of Sony sensors because they spend more on the processing engine.

Some good points from Les above, though the one about exposing to the right is a bit of a red herring. ETTR is only a technique you can use in good conditions and while it can reduce noise a lot, like one or two stops, it is in effect reducing the ISO - by one or two stops! So when you're pushed for light, ETTR is just not feasible.
Click to expand...

I think that's it, what we need to remember is that they are always advancing and what we have now is much better than what we had 5 years ago, maybe it comes as our quest for always wanting better and better.

Defniitely good points for thought and taking on board for PP - I also believe the 'exposing to teh right ' is a red herring for the exact reasons you mention.

Thanks a lot for your help, both of you. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top