Re: 1.6 crop IQ tests don't look as sharp compared to full frame, why?
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. I would struggled on low light days I am sure with regard to noise. Shooting AFL Football mainly.
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
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
Anyone have experience they arte willing to share? Thanks in advance!
The build-in x1.4 in the 200-400 is very good so I prefer 200-400 @400 + built-in x1.4 + 1DX mk ii over the 200-400 + 7D mk ii. Adding an external canon x1.4 mk iii takes an IQ hit so I prefer 200-400 @400 + build-in x1.4 + 7D mk ii over the 200-400 @ 400 + built-in x1.4 + external x1.4 mk ii + 1 DX mk ii.
I haven't done any scientific tests though, just informal experience.
If I can't bring both the 1DX mk ii and the 7D mk ii with the 200-400 I bring the 7D mk ii for birding in good light and the 1DX mk ii for all other situations. I have got many good shots with the 7D mk ii but the 1DX mk ii is better: better IQ, faster AF, more reliable AF. And faster. I am not much into sports so I can't comment on football.