5D3 or 7D for 500mm

I recently purchased a Canon 500mm lens and I'm trying to decide between a 5D Mark III or a 7D to go with it.  I've outlined the benefits running through my head for each option below.  Does any have any additional thoughts or feedback.  This is my first super telephoto so I'm interested to hear some feedback from those that have experience with one.

Also some feedback in regards to the autofocus systems and noise would also be appreciated.  I currently have a 5D II so I'm sure the noise is similar on the III but what about the 7D, how high can you go?  Is it much different than the 50D was...I tried not to go past ISO 800 on the 50D I had.

5D III:
Higher useable ISO
Better Autofocus?

7D:
High Frame Rate
Crop Factor (More reach)

Aaron,
The noise per unit field of view with the same lens, same exposure, and same f-ratio will be virtually identical between the 5DIII and 7D. A demonstration of this effect (with a 7D and 5Dii) is shown in Figure 1 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exp ... .upgrades/

So with a 7D, you can have the same low noise, lower pixels on subject as you would get with a 5DIII, just by proper post processing (ignoring the loss in total field of view with the smaller sensor). Note photoshop does not have the tools to do the resampling in this regard.

Also note, crop factor has nothing to do with reach and pixels on the subject; pixel size (pixel pitch) is the key factor.

Having said that, the 5DIII has a much better autofocus system. So if you want to photograph action, the 5DIII is the better choice assuming you can get the desired pixels of the subject.

Roger

Dr. Clark above is a space scientist photon expert.  I am interested to see his take on my suggestion, as well as yours, Aaron.  My recommendations stem from many hours of nature photography in the field on a near daily basis, sometimes solo working on ideas, sometimes with folks seeking advice.  I have the pleasure of trying nearly every camera and lens out there.  Some cameras and lenses really jump out and make me a super happy camper.  The Canon 500mm f4 (both the one and two versions) are my favorite lenses for my kind of nature photography.  As you bought one, I am thinking you will not disagree.

The Canon 500mm f4 is light enough to hand hold, has strong image enlargement capability without going overboard like with my 800mm, and it has a full stop of extra light over the 800, and a considerably shorter minimum focus distance.  I have lots of images online on my flickr link off my website depicting my uses of both these lenses.

As per what camera would fit well with that lens, I am asking you to consider a different body than the two you mention.  For your purposes, the 7D and the 5D III are far less than the hot set up, I believe most will agree.  The 7D has an old school sensor with considerable noise over 400 ISO.  Rats.  The 5 D III is a killer body for wedding guys in dark rooms where they typically shoot 3200 ISO.  New school big time, but, boohoo, no crop factor for us nature types looking to enlarge those elusive little nature devils real big.

So, now what?  Personally I use the Canon Mark IV.  You can get one for about $3k used.  It has the coveted 1.3 crop factor, a killer LCD, epic ISO to 800, 10 frames per second, good auto focus, and a photo file that is very elegant.  The images are simply delicious to the eye, both on the LCD and my 30" NEC monitor.  Bang for the buck, this can't be beat in my view.  Not sure in wave angstrom nano Plank/ Einstein quark theory how the Mark IV pixel holds up inside the event horizon on its way to a singularity, but on this side of the horizon, it looks pretty nice.

What do you guys think? 

Between the 7D and 5Dmark3, the 5D will give you a much higher keeper ratio. Steve's suggestion of a mark4 is a good one as well, I'd pick it over either the 7D or 5Dmark3 if birds are your goal, if not, then 5D.

Thanks for the input so far everyone. I did consider the 1D Mark 4 but unfortunately another $3,000 is not in the budget. I could add a 7D or upgrade my 5D Mark II to a Mark III.

I have that lens and both cameras. I much prefer the 5D Mark III when I do not need the reach of the 7D or when light is not optimal. The focus is better and in my opinion the image quality is much better with the 5D Mark III. When light is good the difference is less noticeable. ISO 400 is the absolute limit for me with the 7D.

I am confused, Aaron. A Canon 5D Mark III is $3400 US at BH. A used Canon Mark IV is $3000 tops. So if $3400 IS in the budget, how can $3000 NOT be in the budget. Did I miss something?

Steve Cirone wrote:I am confused, Aaron.  A Canon 5D Mark III is $3400 US at BH.  A used Canon Mark IV is $3000 tops.  So if $3400 IS in the budget, how can $3000 NOT be in the budget.  Did I miss something?

Steve, sorry I should have been more clear.  I mainly do landscape photography and that is my #1 passion so I need to have a full frame camera like the 5D II or III.  Going the route of the 5D III I could sell my 5D II and buy a used 5D III and spend about  another $1000 or pick up a used 7D for $750 ish vs. $3000 on the 1D Mark IV.

Scott Baxter wrote:I have that lens and both cameras.  I much prefer the 5D Mark III when I do not need the reach of the 7D or when light is not optimal.  The focus is better and in my opinion the image quality is much better with the 5D Mark III.  When light is good the difference is less noticeable.  ISO 400 is the absolute limit for me with the 7D.

Scott thanks for the feedback.  What do you mainly shoot...birds, wildlife?  Do you find that you need the additional reach the 7D offers often?

In addition to my notes above, I also have a 500 f/4 (version 1), 7D, 5D2, 1DIV cameras, and my newest camera: a 6D. I also do a lot of landscapes, nightscapes and wildlife. If you want to save money on a full frame camera and want great autofocus, the 6D is Canon's secret pro level performance camera. It is also the best low light nightscape camera in the Canon lineup. The AF system has the modern AF, including acceleration. At least with the central AF point, it is comparable to my 1D4. (I still prefer the control of the 45 AF points of the 1D4 and if such things are important to you, the more AF points of a 5D3 should be considered.) But the 5D3 has more banding noise that the 6D, see my sensor analyses here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/ind ... r_analysis
and compare the banding noise in Tables 2a and 2b between cameras. You can see my latest two low light images made with the 6D in the naturescapes editors picks.
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 4&t=243856
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 4&t=243718

When I go on safari, I typically take the 1D4 and 7D for when I need more reach (smaller pixel pitch not crop factor). I don't hesitate to use any ISO with the 7D as I know I can compute in post processing any other larger pixel size to reduce noise. The 7D sensor has about the same efficiency per unit area as the 6D and 1DX, slightly higher than the 1D4, and higher than the 5D3. See Figure 10 here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dig ... y/#DENSITY
This figure shows that even though the 7D is slightly older, it actually outperforms the newer 5D3 at the sensor level. Just learn how to bin pixels and never worry about noise and pixel size again: when you have enough light, get more detail, when light a challenge, bin to 1DX pixels and get similar image quality.

On my next safari, I'll be taking 1D4 and 6D, along with a 300 f/2.8 because it has faster AF than the 500 f/4 (that reach is not a problem for me). So if AF speed is important, consider the lens too.

Roger

What is binning a pixel?

jeff Parker wrote:What is binning a pixel?

It is pixel averaging, for example, averaging every 2x2 pixels (4 pixel average) reduces noise 2x (the square root of the number of pixels in the average).

The term binning comes from some models of CCDs where the binning occurred on the chip and then there was only one readout noise for the group that was binned.  That was important when CCD read noise was in the 15+ electron range, but on sensor binning is not as important for reducing read noise on CMOS as good digital cameras have sensor read noise under 3 electrons (and some under about 1).  But post sensor binning still improves signal-to-noise ratio.  Kind of like SRAW on Canon cameras, only choose it in post processing.

Roger

Aaron Jors wrote:

Scott Baxter wrote:I have that lens and both cameras.  I much prefer the 5D Mark III when I do not need the reach of the 7D or when light is not optimal.  The focus is better and in my opinion the image quality is much better with the 5D Mark III.  When light is good the difference is less noticeable.  ISO 400 is the absolute limit for me with the 7D.

Scott thanks for the feedback.  What do you mainly shoot...birds, wildlife?  Do you find that you need the additional reach the 7D offers often?

I do a little bit of everything.  I do a lot of birds from my kayak and this time of year when they are skiddish the reach of the 7d is needed and on land I use it most often.  For larger wildlife the 5d III usually works fine.  For night photography I prefer the 5d III. Roger's comments on binning have made me decide  to try that out.  For some reason that term has always made me think of small scale dumster diving.

I used a 7D with a 500 mkI, for only a few months but here are my 2 cents :

+ the 800mm reach is very welcome most of the time whith shy birds
+ as R. Clarck demonstrated, the 7D still has a very good sensor for its reach, comparable to newer designs, which have lower noise at a given iso, but use much larger photosites. I also started a thread on this a few months ago.

- when a bird comes close, you can be a bit too tight for a well composed image (as a side note, I also learned to close the aperture in such case, because the 500mm at MFD as extremely shallow DOF).
- considering the AF, although my 7D drives the smaller 400/5.6 swiftly, I felt a decrease in AF speed with the 500. Maybe it comes from the lens itself, which has larger glass element to move. Anyway the 7D/500 combination was not so "hot" for AF performance. I cannot tell from my own experience if 5DIII or 1DIV would have more punch when mounted on a 500, but I would think so.

My conclusion would be to try 5DIII rather than 7D. Not for noise, but for AF performance.