Reading mode: Light Dark

1D MK III or 7D

Go to last post
P

Prodigitous

New member
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
VA, US
I am in need of some advice on purchasing a camera for high school sports and weddings. I am not a full-time pro or anything, but I already have a 5D Mark II that I use for weddings and portraits, and general walking around. I have a 40D that I had been using for everything including weddings and sports (football, baseball/softball, soccer).

Recently, on an impulse, I picked up a 1D Mark II. I love the superfast autofocus and the FPS is unreal. I'd like a larger display and better ISO range and noise performance.

I would like to replace the 40D and the 1D Mark II with a single camera that would be suitable for sports and as a backup body to the 5D for weddings. I have a couple of nice EF-S lenses, 10-22mm and 60mm f/2.8 macro. I also have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, a 24-105mm f/4L IS and 50mm f/1.4 USM. The 7D has much better AF than the 5D, and more FPS.

Since I already have a wide angle EF-S, I like the idea of the 7D. But untill I got the 1D mkII, I had no idea what I was missing. I can only imagine what the MK III would be like. But with the MK III, I would have to replace the wide angle lens, and I don't know if the ISO range is good enough for weddings. I would like to limit the cost to around what I could get on ebay for my 40D and 1D Mark II. Replacing the wide angle (probably with the 16-3mm f/2.8L) would add about $1400, not really an option for me right now. I would welcome any thoughts. Thank you
 
I would recommend you go with your gut. The IQ from the 1D Mark III is head and shoulders above the 7D. If you liked the 1D Mark II you will love the III. I had a 7D and upgraded to the Mark III myself.
 
id pick the mkIII over the 7D any day of the week.

IMO there is no comparison in IQ between the mkIII vs 7D. i use mkIIn, mkIII, 5DmkII & D3. i bought the 7D and traded in my mkIIn only to return it and buy back my mkIIn. anything over 800 ISO on the 7D didnt appeal to me.

my kid mostly uses my mkIIn but im still taken back by the IQ when i see his pics, skateboard, sports and some portraits.

the mkIII has about 1-1.5 more stops at upper ISO's over the mkIIn as fas as noise goes. the mkIII also keeps its saturation and luster at its upper ISO's over the mkIIn.

make sure if you go with the mkIII that you have a solid full refund if you return it due to funky AF. they do exist although mine finally got fixed.

david
http://www.davidprobst.com
 
I recently chose to upgrade my own camera and considered the 7D too but I went with the 1D MkIII in the end and I'm very glad I did; there really is no comparison between the two of them.

I went with a refurbished one with a 1 year warranty on it - it cost $2699 from Adorama.

I'm also looking at getting a new wide angle lens for it (same problem as you where my existing EF-S lens is no use anymore); and whilst I'd like to get the 16-35 f/2.8 I think I'm going to go with the 17-40 f/4 which is half the price and is very well reviewed as well. (though in fairness the f/2.8 isn't an issue for me with this particular lens and it may of course be for you).
Either way go with the 1D MkIII I'm sure you won't be sorry.
 
I was in a similar situation and after much deliberation went with the 7d. Here's why:

My 1dmkII's are workhorses and are extremely tough and reliable. The IQ and AF are superb. I was looking to update technology with the hope of achieving improved low light performance. The 1dmkIV was on the radar, but the $5k price tag was prohibitive in this economic climate. So, essentially I was looking at adding another 1dmkII ($800 or $1000 1dmkIIn), a 7d ($1450) or a used 1dmkIII ($1900-2000 used). I really didn't need or want another 1dmkII so it was between the 7d and 1dmkIII. I had purchased a 1dmkIII when they first came out and returned it because of AF issues. Yes, the mirror box assembly has been fixed, but people still report issues in bright contrasty light.

The 7d offers improved weather-sealing over the xxd bodies, though it is still constructed like an xxd. The smaller/lighter footprint is nice and the compact body is a bit easier to carry than a xd. Still the ergonomics aren't as good. The 7d viewfinder is bright and offers nearly 100% coverage. Having 18 mp and a 1.6x crop factor is beneficial for cropping. The AF is excellent and nearly on par with 1dmkII (some say better). The live view, level indicator, flash trigger, and HD video are fantastic features that really emphasize the advancement in technology. Unfortunately, the 1dmkIII offers none of these.

With respect to high ISO performance, at lower ISO's the 7d is fine, though I was disappointed that it didn't exceed that of my 1dmkII at highest ISO's. Nonetheless, the higher resolution offers the opportunity for greater NR application and the images clean up well. In the end, the 7d won out for my sports work and all around shooting with the flexibility and added features. My only advice is to lay hands on both cameras and make your own decision.
 
I've never used a MkIII, but I'm very happy with both the AF and the high ISO capability of the 7D. I recently dropped my 70-200L so it's temporarily out of service, forcing me to use ISO 12,800 with my 100-400L for high school baseball. I don't think it's bad at all.

























--
Gary

 
Having used the 1D MK III my self there is no comparison in terms of its speed, IQ and building quality. I would tell you to get a 7D if you had no smaller body but since you have the 5DII I'd say go for the 1D MKIII.
 
One of the things that I've been struggling with is IQ. To me, that trumps just about everything. Here are a couple of images that I shot with the same lens, similar perspective, and identical lighting and settings with a 1dmkII and 7d.

Workflow: Processed RAW via DPP v 3.8. NR, sharpening to OFF, neutral. No other adjustments made. Next the images were sent to PS where the 1dmkII images were upsampled via the bicubic method to the same size as a 7d image. The images were viewed at 100% and crops taken.

A couple of points. I am surprised at how well the 1dmkII performs in comparison even when uprezzed. At this ISO, the 7d demonstrates more chroma noise. So again, which camera is a better choice? In respect to IQ, the 7d isn't better than a 1dmkII (and probably isn't better than a 1dmkIII), but it has features that make owning it worthwhile (see my other post). Is spending an additional $400-600 on a used camera which doesn't have those features worthwhile? You decide.







 
I never have understood the people who say that Mark III IQ is so far superior to the 7D, in ISO, or any thing else, and certainly not the Mark II. People on the bird forums talk about being scared to push the ISO up past 400 on the Mark II, then there's an article in Outdoor Photographer where pro wildlife photographers are shooting regularly at or past ISO 1600 with the 7D and Mark IV. So I certainly don't understand why people say that the 7D can't hang with the MARK III or Mark II at high ISO. I don't see it in comparison images on imaging resource, or in the opinions of professional photographers that I've read about, or other image critique forums where both cameras are used.

Then the statement that the Mark III is just better in overall IQ....where? I haven't seen that either. I've seen people claim it, but never justify it.
Adam2 said:
I was in a similar situation and after much deliberation went with the 7d. Here's why:

My 1dmkII's are workhorses and are extremely tough and reliable. The IQ and AF are superb. I was looking to update technology with the hope of achieving improved low light performance. The 1dmkIV was on the radar, but the $5k price tag was prohibitive in this economic climate. So, essentially I was looking at adding another 1dmkII ($800 or $1000 1dmkIIn), a 7d ($1450) or a used 1dmkIII ($1900-2000 used). I really didn't need or want another 1dmkII so it was between the 7d and 1dmkIII. I had purchased a 1dmkIII when they first came out and returned it because of AF issues. Yes, the mirror box assembly has been fixed, but people still report issues in bright contrasty light.

The 7d offers improved weather-sealing over the xxd bodies, though it is still constructed like an xxd. The smaller/lighter footprint is nice and the compact body is a bit easier to carry than a xd. Still the ergonomics aren't as good. The 7d viewfinder is bright and offers nearly 100% coverage. Having 18 mp and a 1.6x crop factor is beneficial for cropping. The AF is excellent and nearly on par with 1dmkII (some say better). The live view, level indicator, flash trigger, and HD video are fantastic features that really emphasize the advancement in technology. Unfortunately, the 1dmkIII offers none of these.

With respect to high ISO performance, at lower ISO's the 7d is fine, though I was disappointed that it didn't exceed that of my 1dmkII at highest ISO's. Nonetheless, the higher resolution offers the opportunity for greater NR application and the images clean up well. In the end, the 7d won out for my sports work and all around shooting with the flexibility and added features. My only advice is to lay hands on both cameras and make your own decision.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
 
Go look at the ISO comparisons between 7D and 1D MkIII on this site - the 7D is far noisier, which is hardly surprising given that it's fitting more MP onto a smaller sensor.
 
Right. Now make the decision - would you rather have a new camera with some interesting features such as the electronic level, flash controller, HD video, etc. costing around $1400 or a used camera without these aspects for $1900-2200?
 
Go here and page down to the kodak control color patches were you can click on the differant iso's of the 7D 1dmk4 1dmk3 5dmk2. From that i see no advatange to the 1dmk3 over the 7D noise wise and about 1.25 stops advanatge 1dmk4 has over 7D.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

I have owned a 1Dmk2 for several years and then a 1DSmk2 for another 1.7 years and now a 7D. Focus wise i would put the 7D right along the 1Dmk2's. I tried a MK3 and it was awful but it was when it first came out. Back that camera went. I would still be very hesitant to buy a 1dmk3. Iam considerin g getting a used 1dsmk3 but still wonder if it will focus well.
--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

 
Adam2 said:
Right. Now make the decision - would you rather have a new camera with some interesting features such as the electronic level, flash controller, HD video, etc. costing around $1400 or a used camera without these aspects for $1900-2200?
Click to expand...
for a used Mark III. It's a great camera- post AF fix- no doubt. But as you stated above, I'm thinking that a new 7D buyer comes out on top compared to a used Mark III buyer.

It's some type of "1D" superiority complex. LOL

On a side note, I don't know what sample images are posted here from the 7D. I know there was a lot of discussion regarding DPReview testing a Beta version of the 7D before it came out. I never followed up to see if those were the images that are posted or not.

--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
 
I've had a used 1DMK3 for about six months now. It was one of the affected serial numbers, but had all the fixes. Prior to that, I've had 30D's. 40D's, 50D's, and I still have a 5D Mark II. I played around with a friend's 7D, but have not shot at length with it.

A couple of points that may not have been mentioned:

1. I uprezed the 1DMKIII 3200 and 6400 ISO photos on Imaging Resource to the 7D's size. IMHO, I saw no real difference between them in noise. There is a bit more detail, just a bit more, in the 7D pics. I think it's a draw here.

2. The digital files off my 1DMKIII can take a lot of processing without getting wacked out. I couldn't say that about my other 1.6 crop cameras. The dynamic range of the 1D appears better.

3. In the field, I LOVE the heft of the 1D. I can hold it a lot steadier in low light conditions. I never could do that with the smaller cameras. including the 5DMII.

4. The pixel quality of the 1DMKIII is incredible.

5. I know that the 7D is supposed to be rugged and protected against the weather. I would still worry about it in really bad weather. I have no such worries about the 1D. It's a frikin' tank.

6. The battery life of the 1dMarkIII is absolutely astonishing. I was shooting a sporting event a month back and shot over 1000 images. I had about 75% of my charge left.

7. I do not believe that true spot metering can be linked to any of the other than central AF focus point in the 7D. That linkage is great in the 1DMarkIII.

That's all that I can think of now. I'm sure there is more. All I know is that I usually take both cameras along on jobs (not the 5D when going outside unless the weather is good). If I need a wide-angle shot, I go to my 5dMII with my 17-40. I'll also go to it in very high ISO situations or where I will need to crop heavily or in studio, fine art instances. Otherwise, my 1dMarkIII is my constant companion.

You won't be sorry about getting the MarkIII. It may be a few years old, but it is one heck of a camera.

Marc
--
Marc Weinberg Photography
http://www.discoveredartists.com/marclw
http://www.weinbergphotography.com
http://www.marcw.smugmug.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top