Glossy Ibis and thoughts on 1dx vs 7d2?

Zephyr

Zephyr

Messages
373
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
No
This is an example I want to show you and I want some input on, so this is shot with a 1dx @ 800mm at ISO 2500
My question is, obviously i had to crop this, would i have had better results at the same ISO with the same lens with a 7D2? It is something that has puzzled me for a while and I own a 1d4 but I feel in this situation the 1DX was better suited due to better noise performance amongst other improvements. I also have a 5D3 but the 1DX is superior in so many ways from a practicality perspective, driving the lens faster being one of them and AF acquisition. My style of shooting is that in the field, often going after rarities or just out and about shooting waders, or whatever i can see on my local sites, the UK light is often less than ideal so shooting between 1600-3200 is quite an often occurrence. If I am distance limited and the light is particularly good i will reach for my 1D4 (ISO 1250-1600 and below) but then that makes me think would having a 7D2 be any different from having my 1D4 and cropping? I hated my 7D although I got some lovely images from it, i could not crop anywhere near as much and retain detail, and the ISO would die off above 1600.
I would like some input on this and people's thoughts, thought it'd be better posted here than equipment or elsewhere as the pic is relevant to this section.
Glossy Ibis taken here in Cornwall.
I have more, closer, higher rez images I'll be posting at some stage but i don't have access to them where i am right now.
24756544941_7373cd8226_b.jpg

Cheers,
Graeme
 
Last edited:
Hey great shot. I don't know anything about the cameras as I use Nikon, but just noticed you're from Falmouth. My girlfriend is at Exeter Unit here so I'm down here right now (I thought she might know you but she doesn't). Obviously the weather is rubbish atm but do you have any suggestions of good places to go round here for bird photography? Sorry to hijack your thread!
 
No worries Chris, where are you and your girlfriend based? More than happy to meet up. I do a lot of bird photography around here when I'm not doing sports. I'll pm you later.
 
Well generally I live in London but I work down here 1 week per month when she's down here. She lives near the docks and only a few mins from the beach/rocks so the main places I go are just down there for the waders and some small birds, or down the back of Swanpool. Where abouts are you and where do you go around here? Feel free to PM me so as not to derail the thread.
 
I can't comment on the virtues of a 7D2 vs the other bodies mentioned as I've never owned a 1DX or 1D4 but the capture you have is fantastic and very clear & sharp to my eyes.
The 7D2 is a great camera which I have used but I would doubt it be any better than this shot, well done!
 
I also can't comment on Canon bodies or lenses but it is nice to see the Glossy Ibis ... for me it lacks a bit of punch and would benefit from an adjustment to levels, particularly increasing the blacks. :)
 
looks over saturated for the ones that i have seen

but a really good image
 
BillN_33 said:
looks over saturated for the ones that i have seen

but a really good image
Click to expand...
I am confused, what looks oversaturated? the image i posted, wha? 'the ones you have seen' or are you referring to the camera bodies i mentioned? I'm confused, lol! I applied a little vibrance, but not a lot, the bird really is that colour Bill. Thanks for the compliment
 
Im not lucky enough to own a 1dx so cant comment on camera bodies ,as for the image In my opinion its overexposed a tad and the WB could do with warming as it looks a bit cold (on my monitor)..just my opinion
 
I'd agree Den, Kodiak has kindly pm'd me some advice and i agree it lacks contrast and i need to adjust the levels. Thanks for your input
 
Peteaud said:
I would back off the exposure a tad as well.

Nice shot tho, well done.
Click to expand...
Ta, will bear all of this in mind, i use a calibrated monitor but i love brighter images, perhaps a lil too much! Will deffo back it off in future and be mindful. Thanks for all your input!

7D2 anyone??
 
Zephyr said:
I am confused, what looks oversaturated? the image i posted, wha? 'the ones you have seen' or are you referring to the camera bodies i mentioned? I'm confused, lol! I applied a little vibrance, but not a lot, the bird really is that colour Bill. Thanks for the compliment
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Bill means your Ibis looks oversaturated compared to Ibis' he's seen in real life :)
 
ahhhh okay, i have only seen the one before, but it wasn't as colourful as this, but then again i wasn't that close compared to this, either!
 
The fact is, for the small pixel sensors you don't get any extra "resolution/detail" unless you shoot at wider apertures (<f/8~) with sharp lenses. The only thing you really get is more pixels of the same resolution/details.
As long as you have enough pixels remaining for the desired display size the larger pixel sensor will generally perform better in every way. And when it comes to printing, the larger physical size (remaining) will generally be better.

That's not to say there is no benefit to greater pixel density (smaller pixels)... there can be if conditions/technique are right. But with wildlife they seldom are (and from what I understand the 7DII has pretty marginal AF).
 
sk66 said:
The fact is, for the small pixel sensors you don't get any extra "resolution/detail" unless you shoot at wider apertures (<f/8~) with sharp lenses. The only thing you really get is more pixels of the same resolution/details.
As long as you have enough pixels remaining for the desired display size the larger pixel sensor will generally perform better in every way. And when it comes to printing, the larger physical size (remaining) will generally be better.

That's not to say there is no benefit to greater pixel density (smaller pixels)... there can be if conditions/technique are right. But with wildlife they seldom are (and from what I understand the 7DII has pretty marginal AF).
Click to expand...
The 7D2 has cross point sensors for lenses of aperture 5.6 and higher, whereas the 1D4 doesn't, and would allow me to get closer to the bird. It's true the sensor would collect less photons at each photosite due to the micron size of each photosite. But what if i have to crop extensively, would the resulting image from a 7D2 better suited to my needs in that case? I know there comes a point where I would simply not shoot with it (in terms of ISO usability), but i don't know what that point is on the camera having never used one and whether it's worth it on some of its merits alone over trading in my 1d4. The bigger battery of the mark IV would mean it's theoretically drive the bigger lenses faster. Has anyone here got any hands on experience in the field with a 1d4 vs a 7d2? I'd love to hear your thoughts, and also how it holds up against a full frame sensor ie 1dx in focal distant limited scenarios with the likes of bigger lenses (in my case 800mm f5.6)

All I know is my mark IV i like up to 1600 and my 1DX i feel is usable up to ISO 5000 or so on a well exposed bird image without having to crop a great detail. Obviously this differs for sports photography for me where cropping isn't an issue and detail for example is less of a problem.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
I can't speak to the Canon cameras, but here is an article I wrote about using crop sensors and "cropability" of high resolution (small pixel) sensors in a side-by-side field test. I tried to stay away from discussing the technical specifics of when each camera started into diffraction/diffraction limiting and how sensor size affects MTF/contrast/sharpness/etc.

One might argue that you can't compare the images because they are not using the same settings... but that is the point. You can't really use the same settings in a given situation because the cameras have different limitations.
And yes, the images kind of suck... it was a bad situation (too far) in not great light. If it had been a better situation I wouldn't have been doing a field test ;).

http://photographic-academy.com/camera-basics/84-camera-basics/141-mp-s-detail-contrast
 
Last edited:
I have both 7D2 and 1DX and can say that so far, the 1DX images look sharper and have more definition. If you have to crop a 1DX to match the image size of a 7D2, you will only get around 7MP image size compared with 20 for the 7D2, so your maximum print size will be much smaller.

Another issue to consider is the lens. All lenses will be sharper on the 1DX because the sampling frequency of the sensor is much lower (the pixel size is larger), and all lenses are sharper at lower frequencies. DXO Mark measure the perceptual megapixels of the 1DX and 600mm f4 as 17MP, which is a great performance on an 18MP camera. However, for the 7D2 it is only 12MP out of 20MP. Then, dropping the 1DX down to match the 7D2 means that the 7MP image size is a lot more comparable to the 7D2 at 12. However, there is still more detail and sharpness from the 7D2. Factor in image noise which reduces sharpness (and dynamic range) - and I would say that the 1DX is at least 2-3 stops cleaner than the 7D2 - then at 1600 ISO, the noise of the 7D2 is equivalent to the 1DX at around 6400, and the detail recording abilities swap over in favour of the 1DX.

The 1DX AF is also noticeably better at focusing with my 600mm f4 than the 7D2.

I'm afraid there is no clear answer because it depends on what you want to do with the images and how much you need to crop - ultimately detail is all about the number of pixels on the subject in relation to the image size.

Hope this has helped in a small way.
 
Thank you, an incredibly useful comment. It sounds like it isn't a worthwhile investment after all.
 
I disagree somewhat on two points:
Brachytron said:
If you have to crop a 1DX to match the image size of a 7D2, you will only get around 7MP image size compared with 20 for the 7D2, so your maximum print size will be much smaller.
Click to expand...
Not really. If it looks good on your monitor where it occupies ~45* of your FOV then it will look equally as good printed at any size when viewed from an equally longer distance. In fact, the "standard" for sharpness (the COC) requires less than 2MP *for any size print.* Even if you take the COC to critical levels (equal to human vision) it still only requires ~ 12-14MP. What ultimately matters the most with prints is the physical size of area you are starting with and how large of a physical size you are stretching it to.

ultimately detail is all about the number of pixels on the subject in relation to the image size.
Click to expand...
Not entirely. It's also about the amount of detail projected onto the sensor which is limited by lens errors, aperture, and AA filters. Even a (non-existent) perfect lens on a camera w/o an AA filter will only project ~16MP onto a FF sensor at f/11. And that's equivalent to ~ 7MP on an APS sensor. It doesn't matter how many pixels the sensor has if you project fewer "dots" onto it.
 
Last edited:
Graeme..These are really good shots. I happen to be at Ham Wall,Somerset Levels on Wednesday and took shots of a Glossy Ibis but nothing like these close-ups. It was about 75 metres away First time I've seen one.

Reference your question about 7D2 1D1V..1DX. I was at a local pond yesterday, as were several others because there's a pair of peduline tits there and one of the guys had a Canon 500 f4 (Mk 1) plus the 1.4 X extender on a 7D2 and sang its praises,especially regarding ISO. He'd had the old 7D and said there was no comparison.Of course the 7D2 is 1.6X crop compared to the 1.3X of the 1D1V but the 1D1V gives you 10fps. The detailed information given by Mark and Steven is very comprehensive but a bit beyond my understanding but I think I gleaned from it, as you have too, that I'm better keeping my 1D1V (1DX for you) rather than either adding to or replacing it with the 7D2 so the input has been very useful. I have the Canon 400 f5.6 (it is infact only 380mm,I believe. seems .in the small print..5% leeway)…..but took the 100-400 (original) and used my 1.4X extender. Not good results and subsequent googling tells me that the 1.4X really degrades the image when used on the 100-400. The new 100-400 is a great improvement,I read. I'm now considering the 500f4.
 
Crop factor/croppability should not be considered to be the same as "more reach"/longer FL. A longer lens provides greater magnification making details actually larger/more distinct, but cropping/crop factor does not. If a detail is too small to be distinct, it doesn't matter how far you zoom in (crop/CF) or how many pixels of it you have.

best choices:
#1 Get closer
#2 Better/longer lens
#3a TC's
#3b Crop/crop factor

TC's and crop/CF are just different tradeoffs... neither is necessarily going to be better. It will depend on camera/lens or camera/TC/lens combination as to which suits a situation the best.
 
Thanks,Steven. Looks like no need to get the 7D2 then but maybe the 500f.My neighbour and I carried out some tests with 300 and 400mm (neither of us have 500mm)..and there wasn't that much difference,not enough to justify the cost of the 500f . I'm going back there tomorrow and/or Tuesday,both forecast to be sunny days and try and get closer. We were on a bank at a level of about halfway up the small trees opposite... approximately15-20 metres away. They spent quite a bit of time there eating insects.To get nearer I'd have to go down the embankment. I was wondering why no-one did that .and just remembered that there's a stream there. It's shallow so I'll take wellies. I'll see if I can get away with the 400mm (f5.6) and no TC. As you'll be aware,these birds are very small anyway. I'm also hoping they will go to the reeds nearby and within a few metres of the fencing around the lake..it's actually been created as part of the flood defence system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top