Canon 1DIII v 7D high ISO noise comparison done

Messages
3,435
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I'm primarily a sports photographer and currently looking for an additional camera body. The 7D looks really interesting so I had a play with one today in Jessops. I took along a 1DIII and 70-200 2.8 plus a memory card as well with the primary aim of seeing how well the 7D handled high ISO compared to the 1DIII. High ISO performance is really important when shooting under floodlights where I'm routinely at ISO2000 or more.

As an aside, the 7D feels very nice in the hand, and the buttons have that distinctive smooth precision of the 1DIII which is lovely.

These pics are quite tight crops, all of the same amount and position of each photo (note NOT the same number of pixels). Done in Lightroom by cropping into the centre of one image then syncing the crop across the other images to ensure the same size of frame is shown. Shots are RAW with no processing except Lightroom import then crop and export as 100% quality jpeg.

Here the 1DIII at ISO2000, f/2.8, 200mm and 1/4000th at 1078x720px. NOTE it is raining so you can see raindrops here and there on both these pics.
672193397_AvShr-L.jpg


And the 7D at ISO2000, f2.8, 200mm and 1/3200th at 1437x960px
672193825_FSmQi-L.jpg


Looks like a win for the 1DIII to me at ISO2000.

And the 1DIII at ISO3200, f/2.8, 200mm and 1/640th at 1078x720px
672201162_JQwfN-L.jpg


And the 7D at ISO3200, f/2.8, 200mm, 1/640th at 1437x960px
672201381_r6eoQ-L.jpg


Not as conclusive but the 1DIII again looks to have the upper hand.

Obviously the 7D has a smaller sensor (1.6x crop v 1.3x crop on the 1DIII) so the images appear more "zoomed in" on the 7D pics. Also the 7D pics have more pixels, however this is of zero advantage as if you want to crop in closer you get an even noisier shot.

You will be "closer" to the action though so may not need to crop on the 7D versus the same lens choice on the 1DIII.

Conclusion...the 7D is pretty good, but not good enough. I'd like to try one at the next floodlit rugby game I do to see it in action, especially focus speed & accuracy. In the meantime I'm waiting for the 1DIV or a 2nd hand 1DIII :D.

Tobers
 
I didn't alter any custom functions or whatever, but it's a RAW image so should be exactly as the camera took it.
 
I've heard people saying that the noise is pretty bad with those two settings on that Chaz mentioned, which I think are for JPEG shots but you have to turn them off to get the best from RAW.
 
I believe that for some reason, raw is not raw on the 50d and 7d, there are a couple of settings which are applied to the raw data, then the data is saved to the camera.
The comparison isn't really eggs with eggs, as you have stated that the picture is more zoomed in on the second ones, which means that there is a larger pixel density still being used on the 7d. However, the reason (apart from cost) of using the 7d would be to get the extra zoom. (I assume here that the extra zoom percentage is the difference between the 1.3 and 1.6 crop).
I think apples with apples it still shows an advantage to the 1D, but I am still happy with the 7d there.

Thanks for taking the time to do the comparison
 
the picture is more zoomed in on the second ones, which means that there is a larger pixel density still being used on the 7d.

Yes indeed, more pixels are being used. However, if I had cropped to match the same number of pixels as the 1DIII, the 7D image would look even worse.

Mind you, I'd hope a £2800 camera would give better results than a £1700 camera. It looks like the 7D is really pretty good.

As you say though, if you can live with the noise the 7D is cheaper to buy than a 400 2.8 if you need some extra reach :D.
 
I think maybe you mis-interpreted what I meant.
Surely the 2 main reasons for zooming is to get either framing, or more detail.
The same goes for cropping, to some extent.
I took your two photos (hope you do not object as edit does not appear to be selected), and scaled them to be the same.
To me, apples with apples, as it would be in most cases a framing argument, I think that both images show noise. One has a lot of noise in the highlights, the other more noise in the darker areas.
With highlight tone priority left on though, it is difficult to judge.
All in all, I don't think that the camera has done too bad, when compared with one costing, almost double?
 
Yes - I see what you mean. Pretty difficult to tell the difference. Can you do the same with the ISO2000 version?

edit - Ah, so if the custom function is highlight tone priority, then that was off on both cameras assuming that on the 7D it is indicated by the zeros on the ISO indicator being smaller i.e. 2ooo instead of 2000? Both cameras showed ISO as 2000.
 
Hands up who thought Canon was going to release a crop camera to compete with their still current and current for some time yet to come, top end crop action camera??

The 7D is a "Canon D300", its damned good, but its still not quite as good as 1D MkIII, only its substantially cheaper. If you want the best, buy the MkIII still, if you want bang for buck and something well capable of shooting action sports and something that the 50D *should have been already* , get the Canon D300 :D
 
Does the fact the 7D is £1000 less not come in to the comparison?

Unfortunately not in my case as I need as good or better high ISO performance than the 1DIII otherwise my pics wont be usable, so for me the 7D would be a waste of £1700.

However, it looks like a pretty powerful piece of kit for the price.

edit: this was only meant as an informative comparison, not a comment on Canon's sales strategy or a larger comment on the world of cameras. I was simply trying to see if the 7D would work for me. It wont. C'est la vie. Hopefully others may find the comparison useful which was its original intent.
 
TBH Canon just aren't going to release a cheaper camera that's better than the 1, it would be commercial madness.
 
I still think the most exciting thing about the 7D is a taste of things to come for the 1D Mk4!
 
Back
Top