Used 1D mkiii or new 7D

T

ttheduck

Messages
155
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

Which of these and why for sports and portraits, any opinions welcomed
 
Last edited:
ttheduck said:
Hi all

Which of these and why for sports and portraits, any opinions welcomed
Click to expand...

If you only do sports and portraits then it's quite possible that you'll find the 1D better, certainly for the sports.
I had a 1D MarkIIn and I used it mainly for birds. This required a degree of cropping that I felt reduced the IQ because of pixel density. That's the main reason I went for the 7D.

The 7D is obviously a more modern camera has lots of features not found on the 1D. Having said that, I really miss handling the 1D body, even given some of its slightly quirky operating characteristics.

Although the AF of the 7D is supposed to be equal to that of the 1D, purely subjectively I feel the 1D has the edge.
Even with the battery grip the 7D doesn't feel as balanced or comfortable in my hands as the 1D.

Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a great piece of kit, I'm glad I made the change from the 1D MarkIIn. Oh, how I wish I could afford the MarkIV :)
 
This is an option I have toyed with in the past, but sadly at the moment both options would have to wait. I seem to recall reading several similar posts in the past, so give the search options a try.

From what I recall from the other threads the 1D MK111 acquitted itself well against the newer 7D due to better build quality and weather sealing, both of which I liked. However, the downside is the increased weight, so not sure how you feel about that as at least with the 7D you could choose to use it with or without a grip.

I given the all round speed of the 1D MK111 I would have thought for serious sports photography then this would be the better option, but for portrait work perhaps the newness of the 7D might win, although I was concerned by a lot of comments about the 7D when it first came about noise at low ISO settings .

Just a few no doubt unhelpful thoughts, so take a look at the search option on here for some expert opinions from those that really know what they are talking about.
 
Hi

Either of the above cameras will do the job for you.A lot depends on what camera you are migrating from.That will largely dictate which camera you will enjoy using the most.

I personally find the 7D a frustrating camera.It certainly ticks all the boxes but there's something about the iq I just don't like.I've owned 2 of them and ended up selling them both.Lots of people love and swear by them though.
Would I but a 1DMK3?-No.Why not?
Purely personal but I hate the low res screen and want more than 10 mp in a 1.3x crop camera.

Only you know whats important to you in a camera.Write down a list of what you like and these decisions normally become easier.

cheers
Gary
 
It has to be the 1D... Overall image quality and build are much better than the 7D... There is no way you can compare the two together... The 1D is still a formidable weapon of choice...
 
Thanks everyone for taking the time to advice me, im going to go with the mkiii mainly for the extra speed for sports.

Cheers
Chris.
 
I've a 1Dmk2, a 5Dmk1 and a 50D.
The 1D is a weapon the others are very good but just not in the same overall class really. To me the 1D series seem able to do everything very well (some may think me wrong) whereas the other cameras in the range seem more aimed at a single market slot.

The 1D is a big beasty but not much bigger/heavier than a gripped cropper and it has better sealing because it doesnt have an add-on grip.
The Mk2 screen is pretty useless but once you realise the camera hits focus and exposure pretty much 100% of the time the rear screen just confirms you have a shot really.
I bought my 1D on a whim (a silly e-bay purchase) and I still thinks its the best one of the 3 I own (overall).
Matt
 
Assassin said:
It has to be the 1D... Overall image quality and build are much better than the 7D... There is no way you can compare the two together... The 1D is still a formidable weapon of choice...
Click to expand...

On the contrary I'd say that they stand up well against each other.

The 1D has build, slight fps advantage, dual cards and sensor size in its favour. It also has the 1 series factor which can't be overlooked.

The 7D has measurably better cropability (No of px), a more advanced and flexible AF system, higher ISO capability and further reach. Oh, and video if you are interested in it.

If you'd asked about the MkIV it'd be a no brainer, but between the 7D and MkIII I'd say that it's very tight although the portrait factor would nudge me towards the 1D.
 
i watched a video recently featuring tamara lackey(goggle her if you haven't heard of her) and she said she uses a 5dmk2 AND a 1dmk2. i don't know if it will sway your decision but if it's good enough for a pro shooting portraits for a living it's definitely worth its salt.

i know the point has been raised about the cropability of the 7d with it's extra pixels, but i have moved from a 14mp sony to a 30d with 8mp and i don't notice much difference.
 
ttheduck said:
Which of these and why for sports and portraits, any opinions welcomed
Click to expand...

lexie said:
i know the point has been raised about the cropability of the 7d with it's extra pixels, but i have moved from a 14mp sony to a 30d with 8mp and i don't notice much difference.
Click to expand...

Try covering a football or rugby match and you'll soon find out why the ability to crop is so important. Add cricket, polo, watersport or several other formats and it becomes even more so.
 
DemiLion said:
Try covering a football or rugby match and you'll soon find out why the ability to crop is so important. Add cricket, polo, watersport or several other formats and it becomes even more so.
Click to expand...


So Mark, would you say that the lesser quility in a crop from the 1dmkiii would be noticable in an A4 print
 
If you're doing a heavy crop from one end of the field to the other, then yes of course it would, because a 7D produces 5184 x 3456px compared to the MkIII's 3888 x 2592, meaning that the pixel density in a print from the former is always going to be greater.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a better camera, just that it has different capabilities.
 
I had a 1D MKII and 7D. I recently sold the 1D purely because I needed the cropability the 7D offers over the 1D. Otherwise I would have probably kept the 1D.
 
DemiLion said:
Try covering a football or rugby match and you'll soon find out why the ability to crop is so important. Add cricket, polo, watersport or several other formats and it becomes even more so.
Click to expand...

my bad, i completely forgot about the sports aspect of the OP's question
 
lexie said:
my bad, i completely forgot about the sports aspect of the OP's question
Click to expand...

No probs. It's an important part of sports photography that's occasionally overlooked by those who don't often get the chance to do it, especially so when your budget limits you in choice of lenses! :)
 
Hi
I have a 5D11 and a 1Diii, both absolutely fantastic. I use both for gig and portrait work, can't fault either!!

Dunc
 
Easily the 1D

Edit: I'd also maybe look into a 1Ds mk II, if your going to be doing more portraits than sports...
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
If you're doing a heavy crop from one end of the field to the other, then yes of course it would, because a 7D produces 5184 x 3456px compared to the MkIII's 3888 x 2592, meaning that the pixel density in a print from the former is always going to be greater.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a better camera, just that it has different capabilities.
Click to expand...

Actually you can discount allot of the 7D Mp's due to the strength of the blur filter which reduces effective resolution, also the crop factor will require lenses to be sharper on the 7D to obtain the same level of IQ.
 
MomentCapture said:
Actually you can discount allot of the 7D Mp's due to the strength of the blur filter which reduces effective resolution, also the crop factor will require lenses to be sharper on the 7D to obtain the same level of IQ.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
Its mainly going to be used for sports, but as DemiLion points out, less MPs more trouble cropping, but more concentration on composition..all in all no bad thing.

Maybe i should have never got into buying a new camera, now im thinking about a new lens.....a used 400mm 2.8 perhaps, the car will have to go i think.
 
Last edited:
ttheduck said:
Its mainly going to be used for sports, but as DemiLion points out, less MPs more trouble cropping, but more concentration on composition..all in all no bad thing.
Click to expand...

Not really, not if the image quality is better/sharper than the higher MP sensor...
What type of sports will you be photographing?
 
MomentCapture said:
^^^
I actually made two points, which one are refuting?
Click to expand...

Both.

I'll ask again- what practical knowledge are you basing your advice and opinion on.
 
The fact my friends 5DC was sharper with the same lens than my 550D, but seriously I'm surprised you even chose to argue that point, as thought it was fairly common knowledge that FF will render sharper images Vs Crop, and the reasons behind it are fairly basic maths.

With regards to the 7D, well most people know it isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...
 
Davie said:
Is a Mklll a full frame camera then? :thinking:
Click to expand...

It's a 1.3 crop which is obviously substantially bigger than a 1.6 crop, so not sure what your point is exactly as the same physics apply?

Also in a previous post of mine further up, you's see I also suggested a FF 1Ds mk II as an option.
 
Providing the 1.3 crop wasn't proving to be a problem I would personally take a 1D Mark 3 over a 7D all day long.

I came very close to buying a 7D recently just for that extra bit of reach. Ended up sticking with my 1D Mark 2 for when Auto Focus was tricky and my 40D for when reach was more of an issue than the AF.
 
Last edited:
ttheduck said:
Its mainly going to be used for sports, but as DemiLion points out, less MPs more trouble cropping, but more concentration on composition..all in all no bad thing.
Click to expand...

Below for example, is a comparison of the 12mp 5Dc Vs the 7D's 18mp.
I think it's pretty clear to see the FF 12mp file is substantially better than the Cropped 18mp sensor, even when the image is cropped to a similar field of view.

"Here is the 5d at ISO 400"
5D_4001.jpg


"The 7d at ISO 400"
7d_4001.jpg



"Since I had to size these down to 600×400 to be viewable on the website here are a couple of close up crop comparisons. The 5d image is on the left and the 7d image on the right."

"shot at 1600"

7dvs5dcrop1600.gif


http://digitalphotobuzz.com/canon-7d-vs-5d-comparison
 
MomentCapture said:
The fact my friends 5DC was sharper with the same lens than my 550D, but seriously I'm surprised you even chose to argue that point, as thought it was fairly common knowledge that FF will render sharper images Vs Crop, and the reasons behind it are fairly basic maths.

With regards to the 7D, well most people know it isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...
Click to expand...

I chose to argue the point because I'm talking from practical experience, not borrowing a mate's camera or owning one for five minutes.

I've got both a 7D and a 1DMkIII and they are both excellent in different circumstances as I outlined earlier. As for the pixels in the 7D being of little use on heavy cropping, the paper that I was filing for might tend to disagree with you.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but presenting it as fact when you have owned one of the cameras for hardly any time and the other one not at all, is just misleading, especially when you are advising someone which camera to buy.
 
DemiLion said:
I chose to argue the point because I'm talking from practical experience, not borrowing a mate's camera or owning one for five minutes.

I've got both a 7D and a 1DMkIII and they are both excellent in different circumstances as I outlined earlier. As for the pixels in the 7D being of little use on heavy cropping, the paper that I was filing for might tend to disagree with you.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but presenting it as fact when you have owned one of the cameras for hardly any time and the other one not at all, is just misleading, especially when you are advising someone which camera to buy.
Click to expand...

Sorry but it's a fact, 7D's image quality can't compete with the 5DC...

"As for the pixels in the 7D being of little use on heavy cropping, the paper that I was filing for might tend to disagree with you."

I'd be interested in seeing those files, were they the ones I saw on your flickr?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top