5DIII (+TC) versus 7DII

To Canon photographers who have used both bodies : 

On a 400-500mm lens, what would you choose as your primary body for birds ?

5D mk III with 1.4xTC on (pretty much all the time) or 7D II bare?

On paper the output of both solutions are very close, for noise (considering one's using the 5DIII/TC at 3200 iso, when the 7D will be used at 1600) and pixels on subject.

The 7D2 has 10 fps and a newer AF system, but overall the 5D3 has much better feedback it seems ?

7D II bare without a doubt

Thank you Mike,

what makes it so doubtless to you ? IQ, AF, fps, other ?

much faster frame rate and AF is better on the 7D II, a TC will usually slow down the AF and degrade the image to some degree.

...a TC will usually slow down the AF and degrade the image to some degree.

The AF will be slower, but whether the image degradation will be significant -- or even noticeable -- depends on the lens.  With my Canon 500mm f/4 Mark I lens, the image quality with the bare lens is superb. Adding the Canon 1.4X Mark II TC reduces IQ to merely excellent. I assume that would also be the case for the Canon 400mm f/2.8 and Canon 400mm f/4.0 lenses.

John

Aside from the theoretical effects of a TC, what would be the most interesting for me is feedback from people who have used both solutions, who probably can list the strengths and weaknesses of each, after field experience.

Hi,

I use a 500mm mark 1 with either 5DIII or 7DII plus a 1.4x converter. To answer your question I would go with the 7DII because of the frame rate, better AF coverage and better handling (dedicated buttons for changing focusing pattern & AF options). However, it is not a slam dunk, I love the full frame viewfinder (or eye relief), it is just easier to my eyes, my 5DIII focuses more reliably and despite the claims about improved noise I prefer the 5DIII even when I'm giving up a stop of light.

In good light I will grab the 7DII (usually with the extender) but if I need to go beyond ISO800 I want my 5DIII.

Cheers,

Jim

I shoot with both but I mainly use the 7D Mark II with 100-400 L IS Mark II and the 5D Mark III with the 500
Mark II and almost always 1.4x Mark III.
I miss the higher frame rate on action shots or on fast moving birds but love to be able to use ISO up to 1600 with the 5D Mark III.
Both are a compromise in a way. Get the 1D X if you can.

Thank you guys. I thought that it was not easy to choose, and it seems it depends on each one's tolerance to noise / need for fps, etc... I too like the FF viewfinder a lot, last time I used my 7D It felt like a D40 or 350D.
The thing is I want to have less bodies, ideally only one, because I have less time for bird photography. I will be selling gear and recompose a smaller kit.

I think I can go for a 7D2 or used 5D3 (perfect dad camera BTW) and a "medium lens" (300/2.8 or 400/4).
Or I get your message, Karl, and for a similar budget I find a 1DX, and only the 400/5.6L. BIF only. A radical choice, but quite tempting.

Just take a look how often Arthur Morris goes for the 7DII instead of the 1Dx...

Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:Just take a look how often Arthur Morris goes for the 7DII instead of the 1Dx...

I don't know but on his blog at http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/ today the first several images are using the 7DM2 along with newer lenses and extenders and look very nice. There are BIF and static subjects.

It should be mentioned that he is now one of the contracted Canon shooters.

ronzie wrote: It should be mentioned that he is now one of the contracted Canon shooters.

Since the choice for him is between the 1Dx and the 7DII IMHO it doesn't matter if he is a Canon Explorer of Light or not... And he presents the results - he even had several "guess the camera" posts the past weeks prompted by the claim by some of his blog respondents that they would be able to pinpoint the 1Dx shots without fail... Read one of his recent blog posts how they failed.

Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:

ronzie wrote: It should be mentioned that he is now one of the contracted Canon shooters.

Since the choice for him is between the 1Dx and the 7DII IMHO it doesn't matter if he is a Canon Explorer of Light or not... And he presents the results - he even had several "guess the camera" posts the past weeks prompted by the claim by some of his blog respondents that they would be able to pinpoint the 1Dx shots without fail... Read one of his recent blog posts how they failed.

 I was just pointing out a "disclaimer" for those who are not familiar with Art Morris. In his blogs he at times refers to the 7DM2 as amazing and as good as it may  be it represents to me a marketing term. I am not saying Art is dishonest and his lessons provide an excellent service of technique and review.

As far as comparison of a new model against an older model, some (not me) might consider it a marketing push to upgrade.

I did not dig in to his blog as I recall looking for the comparison shots.

I notice on the shots shown with the 7DM2 that they were taken with MII lenses for the most part. The question remains for each individual to decide if the increased sensor resolution will complement his current lens kit or accents his current lens kit's limits.

I, for one, having a 50D and the 300 f4/L IS with TCIII 1.4x am wondering if other than noise, in attempting to extend range, too much IQ in terms of CA, etc., will be sacrificed compared with the same amount of cropping on the 50D. I really want the better dark noise quality of the 7DM2 but can not afford to upgrade to the M1 or M2 lenses if that is going to be a requirement to use the 7DM2. I am retired and not using photography as an income.

. . . and yes, I have read E.J.'s and R. N. Clark's posts regarding this conundrum.

ronzie wrote: I notice on the shots shown with the 7DM2 that they were taken with MII lenses for the most part. The question remains for each individual to decide if the increased sensor resolution will complement his current lens kit or accents his current lens kit's limits.

Don't worry about that little increase in megapixel - it's their quality that makes the most difference, not the modest increase in resolution. For your 50D the increase does sound big in terms of megapixel, going from 15 to 20 - but that's only a 15% increase in resolution and I'd challenge you to find any difference in terms of lens defects between shots of the two. The camera will not be able to compensate for the major annoyances of for example the first 100-400L (lack of contrast wide open, bokeh issues with close quarter backgrounds, 1st generation IS), it is what it is - but it will not make anything worse...

I shoot with a 5DIII and a 7DII. I have owned the latter since November.

Regardless of what I am shooting, I prefer the 5D. My experience is that focus is far more reliable, image quality is better (even with the big crop) and of course high ISO is much better.

I really like a few features of the 7D, and I really want to love the camera, but so far I can't say that I do. I sent it back to canon for service, as I believe it is one of the bodies with focus issues, and they determined that it did indeed have problems. They "fixed" it, and sent it back, so now I need to decide if my initial impressions are still the same.

I am shooting with Version II Canon lenses, 24-70, 70-200, and 300... with and without TC's. Roger Clark mentioned that heat shimmer will be problematic on 7D particularly with TC's, so that may be part of it.

*UPDATE*- This morning I went kayaking in strong wind and heavy cloud cover at a local "quiet water" location where I shoot nesting Osprey. I shot with my 7DII, 300 f2.8II, 1.4x and 2.0x TC. It was really a perfect environment to test out the canon repairs, and I must say that I am quite impressed. 80-90% of images achieved accurate focus. I was very pleased with the quality of images up through ISO 2500.

I really went out this morning expecting to hate this camera, and doubted that canon's fixes would cure my dislike for it. I sure was wrong. As I looked through images with a very critical eye, I was actually pretty impressed.

I have been using the 5D MKIII for a couple of years now, and the 7D MKII since it was first released. There is a lot of discussion above about which camera has the better pixels and at what ISOs is one camera better than the other. I think that they are both great. The 7D MKII has exceeded all my expectations. I was hoping it would work well at least at ISO 800, as the 7D was useless to me above ISO 400. However, there isn't such a clear limit to the ISO of the MKII. Even at ISO 3200 the images are very good, but it does depend somewhat on the subject. I use the 7D MKII mostly up to ISO 1600 without hesitation. I haven't used the camera too much at higher ISOs, but I have gotten some very good images at 3200 as well.
For birds there is no question in my mind the 7D MKII is clearly much, much better than the 5D MKIII. The 1.6X crop factor is a huge advantage. I know some say they can crop the images from the 5D MKIII and have as good or better image. I don't believe it. You can crop the heck out of the 7D MKII also, as much as the 5D MKIII or perhaps even more. 
I usually use the 7D MKII in combination with the 400mm f/4 DO II lens. For small birds I add the 1.4X extender. This gives me 900mm equivalents if I were to use a full frame camera. The images are still extremely sharp and the AF very fast. The 2X extender also works very well. The images are still very sharp, much sharper than the 400mm f/5.6. The main problem with the 2X is that you often have to manually focus crudely before the AF will kick in. You will miss shots with fast moving birds, so I generally prefer using the 1.4X for dynamic situations.
I recently used this combo on safari to Tanzania. I generally had the DO lens with or w/o a converter attached to the 7D MKII and the new 100-400 on the 5D MKIII. The latter was used only about 25% of the time or so. You can see these images at:
Nature's Colors
 but to get an idea of the performance you need to see the original raw file at 100%. Significant sharpness is lost even when saving the files as highest quality jpg.

It seems there is a new firmware coming for the 7D2, perhaps it has something to do with the AF issues some are experiencing.
(source CR). If the AF on the 7D2 becomes as reliable as the 5D3, then the choice will be harder. It remains that I also like to get clean files at 1600 iso straight from the CF card. It is just much more rewarding when coming back from field.

crw816 wrote:*UPDATE*- This morning I went kayaking in strong wind and heavy cloud cover at a local "quiet water" location where I shoot nesting Osprey.  I shot with my 7DII, 300 f2.8II, 1.4x and 2.0x TC.  It was really a perfect environment to test out the canon repairs, and I must say that I am quite impressed.  80-90% of images achieved accurate focus.  I was very pleased with the quality of images up through ISO 2500.  

I really went out this morning expecting to hate this camera, and doubted that canon's fixes would cure my dislike for it.  I sure was wrong.  As I looked through images with a very critical eye, I was actually pretty impressed.

Glad to hear things working. Did your firmware version change?

No. Same firmware version. 1.0.2