Camera Bodies

[Tom Wade]

Having spent a few years with a Canon 40D, I am considering trading up and would be interested to hear other opinions.
I use all Canon lenses and split my photography 50/50 birds and butterflies / moths etc.

I am considering the 7D but would a full frame, such as a 5D give better images. Also, if money was no object, Ha Ha, is the
1D Mk iv a realistic body to use for butterfly photography. I know how good they are for bird photography and I own a 500 f4,
so could reap the rewards but is a 1d a bit cumbersome for butterflies?

as the 1d Mk1v is rumoured to be replaced next year this might be an interesting prospect.

Many thanks


Tom

[Gruditch]

Hi Tom, I have a 7D and a 5D MK2, I have also owned a 40D in the past, great camera.

The 7D is perfect for wildlife /sports photography, 8fps, great auto focus, and pretty good waterproofing. The 5D MK2 being full frame, is ideal for wedding photographers, landscape, and studio work. The question is what do you do the most of. I recon if wildlife photography is your thing, then you would get more use out of the 7D.

I must admit I love my 5D MK2 far more than the 7D, but if I could only have one, I would have to be practical, and go for the 7D.

If you can afford a 1D MK iV go for it, yes they are lumpy, but you'll get used to the weight.

Regards Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

I agree with all that Gruditch says.

The 7D is far more suitable for wildlife - the 5D may have better low light capabilities, and it may have more pixels, but you effectively loose reach on your lenses . That 500F4 would be 500mm on the 5D but a whopping 800mm on the 7D and that's a pretty big difference for birds etc. For macro, to fill the frame you would effectively loose depth of field with the 5D compared to the 7D so you loose there too. I tried a 5DII and 50D side-by side and the loss is really quite significant and basically the reason why I didn't get a 5DII.

Be prepared for an increase in noise over the 40D with the 7D though. Per pixel noise is pretty much the same as my 50D which to me was initially quite shocking compared to the 30D it replaced - noise at ISO100 equivelant to ISO400 on the 30D. I now have to work a little harder on the computer to get rid of it than before, but the detail achieved in the extra pixels (8-15 in my case) is stunning when I can use the low ISO settings. I believe noise difference between the 30D and 40D is barely noticeable. Also be prepared for more bad shots... the extra detail also highlights slight camera/subject movement more (use a higher shutter speed than before) and focus errors much more. The good bits look really good and the bad bits really bad! so an out of focus wing tip really stands out!

My dream camera would be the 1DMKIV and if I had the cash that's what I'd go for. A bit heavier, and you can't get as low to the ground with it due to the built in grip, and a much more complicated beast to use, but image quality is unbelievable. Much less noise than the 7D, and perhaps better than the 5DII. The 1.3 crop sensor is a good compromise in loss of depth of field and reach.

[Gruditch]

Noise on the 30D and 40D was comparable, and very good, but as you say 50D, shocker . With the reviews I read before I got the 7D, I thought the noise control would be comparable to the 5D2, wrong. I think it is a fair bit better than the 50D, but the 50D had a relay good noise reduction setting, on the 7D that same setting is awful.

Regards Gruditch

[Reverdin]

That's fascinating.... I'm struggling with noise with my 7D.

[Tom Wade]

Thanks to all for the comments.

I never really considered noise, I just assumed the 7D, being a newer camera than the 40D, would be better.

I will spend some time reading reviews etc and do some more research.

Thanks again


Tom

[Trev Sawyer]

I've been watching this thread with interest as I've also been wrestling with the info about new bodies. I spoke to a photographer yesterday who was effectively telling me the same drawbacks discussed above. I am happy with my set up for butterflies, but for birds, I am only just dipping my toe.
FISHiEE, one of the issues I would be concerned about would be the noise with a 7D - you say that you have to work harder on the computer to get rid of it. Do you use NeatImage or something similar to do this, or do you have a technique within Photoshop I wonder? If there is any noise in some of the shots that a number of posters on this site put up, I must have gone deaf

PS I have read that much of the noise problem with the 7D can be "cured" with a bit of "tiddling" with the in camera settings, but not sure how this would be achieved.

Trev

[Tom Wade]

I would be interested to know why Grudditch prefers to the 5D Mk11 to the 7D?

Also, if I can get full frame butterfly shots with a 40D and 100 macro, I presume I could do the same with a 5D Mkii and a 150 macro?

With regard to bird photography, I appreciate the comments about reach and the full frame sensor, but does the higher pixel count allow better cropping?

I've looked at Mike Atkinson's bird photography site and he prefers the 5D Mkii for a better quality image.

I think I need to go out and take some shots, darker evenings lead to much camera speculation !!!

Tom

[Rogerdodge]

if I can get full frame butterfly shots with a 40D and 100 macro, I presume I could do the same with a 5D Mkii and a 150 macro?

The issue is not with getting a full frame shot. It is with the depth of field.
The smaller the sensor size the greater the depth of field assuming the subject fills the same proportion of the sensor.
This makes it very difficult to get the butterfly in sharp focus wing tip to wing tip using a large sensor camera.
This is also the reason that photos taken with point and shoot or bridge cameras often have the background distractingly in focus.
This can, however, be useful if it is intended to include the habitat in the photograph.
The consensus of opinion is that a diffused background is more aesthetically pleasing - see the results of the many and varied photographic competitions on the website. It is rare for a placed entry to have a distracting background.
There are those, however, who do prefer a tangle of grass stems and bramble behind the subject. (Mountain peaks are different matter of course )

[Gruditch]

Hi Tom, all the reasons that Roger explained, working distance, depth of field, and speed, the 5D2 has a very slow frame rate compared to the 7D.

Yes the 5D2 does produce wonderful 22 megapixel, noise free images, but its not that, its just the feel of the thing. If the 7D is a Ferrari, then the 5D2 is a Roller. I do a lot of photography that suits the 5D2, and I just enjoy using it more. But if I'm doing macro or wildlife photography, then there really is no contest, I always use the 7D.

Regards Gruditch

[GOLDENORFE]

Hi Tom, i had the same question , 5d2 or 7d .

after reading everything i could i eventually decided on the full frame, yes i admit missing the crop factor , but the image quality at all iso settings up to 1600 is superb! and easily usable up to 4000!
i would not use if for wildlife, auto focus as mentioned is slow , i only manual focus anyway! but the image quality for macro , high mag and butterflys/dragonflies is trully amazing! the shallower dof is an advantage for getting clean smooth backgrounds, and yes you can crop significantly
and noise! there isnt any
no regrets in my choice .

it really does depend on what u are going to be shooting, if u shoot wildlife u have to go with 7d, macro and landscapes as i shoot ,5d2 cant be bettered!
phil

[FISHiEE]

FISHiEE, one of the issues I would be concerned about would be the noise with a 7D - you say that you have to work harder on the computer to get rid of it. Do you use NeatImage or something similar to do this, or do you have a technique within Photoshop I wonder? If there is any noise in some of the shots that a number of posters on this site put up, I must have gone deaf
Trev

Hi Trev, with the 30D I just used photoshops built in noise reduction and it was fine on it's own up to about ISO 400/500, however it does practically nothing to the noise of the 50D so I have to use other software. I was using Neat Image for a long time, and it did a pretty good job, however the more noise you take out the more detail you loose - photoshops own noise reduction was good at removing noise but leaving detail I wanted with the 30D. I have more recently switched to taking noise out in Lightroom, and it does a better job of removing noise while still retaining the good details.

I don't have any of the noise reduction settings turned on in camera. I think by default this is turned on at it's low setting, but I switched it off as from memory I think it reduced dynamic range

For images on the web they'd be massively reduced from the originals and those could be noisy as hell and you wouldn't see it in the small versions for the web. I am talking about issues with noise when I'm printing at A3 say. If you only print small or just put images on the web it probably won't be an issue.

[Tom Wade]

From all the comments made, its confusing but the 7D would appear to be the way to go if my bird photography is not to suffer too much.

I am interested to know how much the increase in noise is over my much loved 40D. Is it only noticed at really high levels or as low as ISO400.

I only print to A4 or very exceptionally A3 and otherwise would be used on PC screens.

Also, if members have traded up from a 40D which way have they gone ?

Tom

[Gruditch]

I think we may have unduly alarmed you a bit over the noise. Under iso400, it's not too dissimilar from the 40D, IMHO, at iso400 it's noticeably noisier, anything over iso400, not good. But I think since I've been doing photography, I've only ever printed off one picture over iso400.

Regards Gruditch

[Tom Wade]

Thanks Grudditch,

I thought that may be the case. I have'nt shot much above iso 400, so it shouldn't be too much of a worry.

I know that some bird photographers push the iso right up when taking flight shots in low light, when noise will be an
issue but I dont do much of that.

I am basically looking for an upgrade, with more pixels and better AF for birds and thought the 7D would be about right.

I suppose I could buy both the 7D and 5D mk11, Ha ha!

anyway a sigma 150 is also on my shopping list to give me a bit more reach than my canon 100 macro.

Thanks again for the comments


Tom