7D is an awesome cam for BIRDS! Agree?

mikero said:

As a slight variation on a theme, I do quite a lot of bif using a 50D + 300F4. I've managed some good images but the success rate isn't high, largely I think because of the AF. Do you think the 7D is a worthwhile upgrade for the AF alone? I'm not particularly fussed about more MP.

Thanks
Mike

Click to expand...

Mike I have a 50D and a 7D (in fact I have two 7D's) and use Canon's 300 f4 for BIF and feel the 7D AF is considerably superior to the 50D.
The 50D is a great camera, but I do much better with bird action using the 7D.

For examples of some of my BIF shots using the 7D and 300 f4 (often with 1.4 extender) see my post earlier in this thread.
Cheers,
Phil

I have 2 7Ds myself and I tried the 60D as a second body but you can't go back! So it had to be a second 7D! Cheers
--
Sanjeev

Thank, and thanks to Phil too for your thoughts. This is what I sort of expected. I will look into an upgrade to a 7D.

Mike

The video capability of the 7D has turned out to be something I use a lot more then I ever thought I would. I mainly just use it on occasion for things like wading birds fishing or fussing around with one another. It ended up being a fun thing to fool around with and I actually do have some kinda cool little videos of Anhingas fishing, and I got a Green Heron plucking a dragonfly out of mid air. etc. There have been certain times when the still shots would not have turned out to be anything real special but the videos are fun to look at later. Have you ever seen Roseate Spoonbills fishing?

Their method does not always translate out to amazing still photos but the videos can be quite amusing.
Just something else to consider about the 7D.

Cheers,

Phil

Most of your pics and birds on them are too small to really tell if they are properly focused (which is the only difference the 7D would make). They are also to soft (because of your lens) in order to tell if they are actually focused...

vlab said:

Thanks dkord. I thought I will be fried over here to be so dare to post my 60d samples next to 7D.
--

Click to expand...

--
Nothing to see here ...

mikero said:

of the AF. Do you think the 7D is a worthwhile upgrade for the AF alone? I'm > not particularly fussed about more MP.

Click to expand...

Yes, the AF is the #1 reason I went to a 7D from a 50D. I figured as long as there is a real improvement in that area (which I found there to be) it is worth it.

Greg

Thanks Phil. Yes the video Q is superb and it can be fun. Care to share some videos? Maybe small clips on YouTube ?
Thanks
--
Sanjeev

Thanks Greg. Confirms what I'm hearing.

Mike

I have noticed no improvements in IQ or AF on the 7D versus the 50D. In fact, I find my 50D images with the same lenses to be considerably sharper in RAW.
There also appears to be less noise in ISO 100-800 images in the 50D.

There is absolutely no reason to upgrade to 50D to the 7D unless you need the video, and even then the 7D video implementation is wonky at best.

There are too many MP on the 7D's small sensor. There are many, many complaints about poor focusing on 7D. I had the same issues and needed to enable new modes via the menu and use those modes to get accurate focus.

Save your money for a lens.

mikero said:

As a slight variation on a theme, I do quite a lot of bif using a 50D + 300F4. I've managed some good images but the success rate isn't high, largely I think because of the AF. Do you think the 7D is a worthwhile upgrade for the AF alone? I'm not particularly fussed about more MP.

Thanks
Mike

Click to expand...

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

....and the bare lens and TC combo are far more accurate and clear on 50D. 7D has murky AA filter and too many MP.

The best IQ of the bunch is the 40D. The images from ISO 100-800 are much "smoother". If that had micro adjust, I'd go back to it.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

Montana500 said:

....and the bare lens and TC combo are far more accurate and clear on 50D. 7D has murky AA filter and too many MP.

The best IQ of the bunch is the 40D. The images from ISO 100-800 are much "smoother".

Click to expand...

LOL.... What a joke!

Montana500 said:

If that had micro adjust, I'd go back to it.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

Click to expand...

--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

springbock said:

Montana500 said:

....and the bare lens and TC combo are far more accurate and clear on 50D. 7D has murky AA filter and too many MP.

The best IQ of the bunch is the 40D. The images from ISO 100-800 are much "smoother".

Click to expand...

LOL.... What a joke!

Click to expand...

I agree - I am still laughing at this statement I really do not understand how a 40D can be better than a newer technology device such as a 7D

--
WSSA # 165
http://www.the-old-fart-in-the-cart.com

photojohne said:

springbock said:

Montana500 said:

....and the bare lens and TC combo are far more accurate and clear on 50D. 7D has murky AA filter and too many MP.

The best IQ of the bunch is the 40D. The images from ISO 100-800 are much "smoother".

Click to expand...

LOL.... What a joke!

Click to expand...

I agree - I am still laughing at this statement I really do not understand how a 40D can be better than a newer technology device such as a 7D

Click to expand...

It's only funny to you because you don't understand simple physics.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

Montana500 said:

photojohne said:

springbock said:

Montana500 said:

....and the bare lens and TC combo are far more accurate and clear on 50D. 7D has murky AA filter and too many MP.

The best IQ of the bunch is the 40D. The images from ISO 100-800 are much "smoother".

Click to expand...

LOL.... What a joke!

Click to expand...

I agree - I am still laughing at this statement I really do not understand how a 40D can be better than a newer technology device such as a 7D

Click to expand...

It's only funny to you because you don't understand simple physics.

Click to expand...

LOL! I guess DxO "don't understand simple physics" either then, because they don't show any advantage to the 40D.

Let's check some sample images on IR - nope, no advantage to the 40D there. We'll try DPR - nope, once again no IQ advantage to the 40D.

Oh well - I guess all the respected review sites just don't know how to compare images from these cameras but you do.

Perhaps you'd like to share your techniques for image quality comparison with us all?

It's important to remember that "next generation features" does not mean "next generation IQ". That's why Nikon stopped at 12mp, and Canon reduced MP for the 1X.

See post #8 for the PopPhoto IQ test between 7D and 40D. The 40D gets an "excellent" IQ rating from ISO 100 to ISO 1600, while the 7D only receives that mark for ISO 100-400. 40D beats it in color accuracy and noise.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849338

The 7D is a noise pig. A monkey that farts noise. It's like shooting with a Canon S2. Too much grain, too many MP, AA filter is slushy.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

photojohne said:

springbock said:

Montana500 said:

....and the bare lens and TC combo are far more accurate and clear on 50D. 7D has murky AA filter and too many MP.

The best IQ of the bunch is the 40D. The images from ISO 100-800 are much "smoother".

Click to expand...

LOL.... What a joke!

Click to expand...

I agree - I am still laughing at this statement I really do not understand how a 40D can be better than a newer technology device such as a 7D

Click to expand...

I really do not understand too. But having gone all the way from 20D, 40D, 50D to 7D and beyond my experience doesnt fit my belief in technological advance. As a birder I am often cropping the hell out of my pictures and am lusting for MP, but there are trade-offs because basically Canon has nothing altered on its sensor designs, just scaled it down.

With the 20D I used 400 as base ISO. With the 40D I stepped back to 200 ISO after a few months. With the 50D I kept at ISO 200 (ISO 100 is too slow at f5.6) but stopped pictures at 100% and only posted them at 50% max. Same with the 7D. I didn't do much action pics anymore because I didn't really get warm with ISO 400 and up.

Shooting a 5DII side-by-side with the 50D and 7D was a revelation. It delivered at ISO 400 without postprocessing what I couldn't squeeze out of the others at ISO 100. In the end it made me cough up the money for a 1DIV. Now I am switching between ISO 400/800 as base depending on light and extenders, and I find the result not only acceptale but really pleasing most of the time. With Canons current sensor technology this seems to be the sweet spot between pixel density and performance at medium ISOs. No wonder they went with a larger pixel pitch for their new low light monster-to-be, but still need most processing power of the DIGIC 5+ to tame the noise.

No, I do not have test images because in the end the only thing that counts for me are the pictures I bring back from my outings. Living animals in natural light with wind and weather playing all around. With a new camera I try out different ISOs - being a sucker for marketing promises often higher ones as before - and with time I settle for the highest point I am pleased with or at least can accept.

The 7D is a great birding tool - in fair weather. And fair weather is the best for cracking bird pictures. As I live in an area where cloudless days are not the norm, the 7D just was not enough for me.

Tinu

--
If the text above reads like real English, it must be a quotation
Some of my pictures: http://www.pbase.com/tinu

Montana500 said:

It's important to remember that "next generation features" does not mean "next generation IQ". That's why Nikon stopped at 12mp, and Canon reduced MP for the 1X.

Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts. Nikon didn't stop at 12MP's and that's not why Canon reduced the MP's for the 1X.

Montana500 said:

See post #8 for the PopPhoto IQ test between 7D and 40D. The 40D gets an "excellent" IQ rating from ISO 100 to ISO 1600, while the 7D only receives that mark for ISO 100-400. 40D beats it in color accuracy and noise.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849338

The 7D is a noise pig. A monkey that farts noise. It's like shooting with a Canon S2. Too much grain, too many MP, AA filter is slushy.

Click to expand...

Well - I don't rate PopPhoto at all as a reputable source of information. How, for instance, do they come up with those numbers? What tests do they carry out and how to they conduct them?

They have results there that simply disagree with both my personal experience and the majority of other, more reputable, review sites.

Your really 'farting noise' yourself by linking to that test IMHO! And if you can't match the IQ of a 40D with a 7D then you simply don't know what your doing - don't blame the gear for your own incompetence!

Besides, this is a thread about 'birding' cameras. And whilst a good bird photographer can do great things with a 40D, he'll almost certainly be able to do significantly better with a 7D - a point that you seems to have completely eluded you!

So, you've shared your "thoughts and observations" in this forum now on a couple of lenses plus the 7D vs. 40D IQ in a variety of posts. Plenty enough to demonstrate that you are pretty well clueless. I think it's pretty safe to say, based on those posts and that you are basically a highly opinionated blowhard who likes reading his own words and has nothing whatsoever to add in the way of real knowledge (or if you do, I'm still waiting to see it). You also seem to enjoy using nice, inflammatory little phrases like "noise pig", "farts noise", "wobbly" etc. which say little about the devices you're describing but a whole lot about you. It also confirms that you're here to troll rather than add any real value.

I think it's safe to say that totally ignoring your posts here would leave no one lesser informed. You've certainly wasted enough of my time.

Montana500 said:

It's important to remember that "next generation features" does not mean "next generation IQ". That's why Nikon stopped at 12mp, and Canon reduced MP for the 1X.

See post #8 for the PopPhoto IQ test between 7D and 40D. The 40D gets an "excellent" IQ rating from ISO 100 to ISO 1600, while the 7D only receives that mark for ISO 100-400. 40D beats it in color accuracy and noise.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849338

The 7D is a noise pig. A monkey that farts noise. It's like shooting with a Canon S2. Too much grain, too many MP, AA filter is slushy.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

Click to expand...

Please accept my apologies for opening this topic up to nonsensical 'debate'. I thought it was a simple question about AF performance for BIF. But evidently not. Emotions run high don't they.

Mike

WTTC... it happens to the most innocent of threads and it's certainly nothing that you did wrong. People get very emotional about their equipment here, that's for sure.

mikero said:

Please accept my apologies for opening this topic up to nonsensical 'debate'. I thought it was a simple question about AF performance for BIF. But evidently not. Emotions run high don't they.

Mike

Click to expand...