Re: 1.6 crop IQ tests don't look as sharp compared to full frame, why?
2
Pones wrote:
Hi Guys
I recently purchased a 200-400 2nd hand and was toying with the idea of getting a 7D mark ii as a trial to see if I achieved better results with crop camera and no extender as opposed to full frame 1Dx with extender. Also extra reach of 1.6 would be handy. 560mm FOV. v 640mm FOV.
It's important to understand that reach doesn't come from the crop factor, it comes from the pixel density. After all, you could crop your 1D X images by the same amount and clearly that would not be a gain!
I would struggled on low light days I am sure with regard to noise. Shooting AFL Football mainly.
You'd be shooting at one stop lower ISO speed with the 7D2 (assuming you are able to shoot wide open) which would partly compensate.
the 7Dii looks so bad here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
That links to an incorrect comparison - 7D2 with the internal 1.4x, vs 1DS3 without. No wonder the 7D2 looks worse!
It does seem like the 7Dii is sharper than the extender enguaged on full frame
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
This is the comparison you described - 1.6x crop vs 1.4x extender - so it's the valid one for this discussion. To my eye they are pretty similar, suggesting you wouldn't gain much by using the 7D2.
You would gain the ability to switch in the internal 1.4x when using the 7D2 of course, for maximum possible reach. I'd consider that to be a significant benefit for birds, probably less so for your usage.