MK III vs MK IV vs 7D in 2012? (1 Viewer)

[OGW]

Right, I have sold my 60D and now I need another body. My options are

1. Used MK III (about 1300 USD)
2. Used 7D (about 1000-1100 USD, new for 1600 USD)
3. A used Mk IV (approx 3000 USD)

I do not want to buy another body anytime soon, so whatever I decide, it needs to last. I shoot wildlife (will do more birds), kids in action (soccer, athletics, skiing) and some portraits/landscape. I pretty much had written off the 7D since I just had the 60D (similar picture quality). I wasn´t really disappointed with the 60D but would love something with better high iso capabilities (since I live in Northern Norway where it gets dark, cold and wet).

I was set for a MK III (used, good offer) but now I start thinking of the mkIV. Perhaps that is a more viable options in the longer run? What would you get, any advice from people that have had both the MkIII and MkIV?
Extra money saved if buying the MkIII can be put towards some new glass even though I am pretty happy with what I have.

Lenses I have is the 17-40 F4 L, 50 F 1.4. 100 2.8 Macro L and 100-400 L
---
OGW

 

[jalethbridge]

I've used both 1D3 and 1D4, and for high ISO it is much better than the 1D3. I am happy to shoot at ISO 1600 all day long if needs be. The 1D3 from what I hear is better than the 7D, which I have never used, but which by all accounts is extremely noisy. A serious question which I don't know the answer to is this: High ISO capabilities get better and better which each successive generation of camera body. All three bodies you mention I think are older than the 60D, and although they are all more "pro" than the 60D, does that make a difference? I.e. Could you get a really recent body, not sure what we are on, but like a 660D or whatever it is called, and get what you are looking for?

Anyhow other 1D4 vs 1D3 advantages are 60% more pixels, nicer screen. Of the three, of course the 1D4 is the best, but what I would say is that the 1D3 is a hell of a lot of camera for the money. For the same price you could get a used 5D2 - amazing high ISO, on a par if not better than the 1D4. But AF not so good, nor frame rate.

But how about this - A 5D3 is same price as used 1D4, and will be even better re noise/sensitivity, with great AF, 6 fps, immense cropability with 22mp.... food for thought! Full-frame so your 17-40 will rock!

Jonathan

 

[OGW]

I've used both 1D3 and 1D4, and for high ISO it is much better than the 1D3. I am happy to shoot at ISO 1600 all day long if needs be. The 1D3 from what I hear is better than the 7D, which I have never used, but which by all accounts is extremely noisy. A serious question which I don't know the answer to is this: High ISO capabilities get better and better which each successive generation of camera body. All three bodies you mention I think are older than the 60D, and although they are all more "pro" than the 60D, does that make a difference? I.e. Could you get a really recent body, not sure what we are on, but like a 660D or whatever it is called, and get what you are looking for?

Anyhow other 1D4 vs 1D3 advantages are 60% more pixels, nicer screen. Of the three, of course the 1D4 is the best, but what I would say is that the 1D3 is a hell of a lot of camera for the money. For the same price you could get a used 5D2 - amazing high ISO, on a par if not better than the 1D4. But AF not so good, nor frame rate.

But how about this - A 5D3 is same price as used 1D4, and will be even better re noise/sensitivity, with great AF, 6 fps, immense cropability with 22mp.... food for thought! Full-frame so your 17-40 will rock!

Jonathan

Hi,

thanks for replying. The 5D3 price here in Norway is sadly much more than I need to pay to get the MKIV. It will set me back 4700 USD for a new 5DM3 and "only" 3000 USD for a use MKIV. That leaves the MKII as the only 5D option, and as you say AF is slow (or at least that is what I hear). I think the MKIV is a bit to much to shell out but I am afraid that the 1D MKIII would need to be replaced within a couple of years (old tech, newer things come out). Perhaps I just need to sit it out and wait to see if there is any truth in the 6D rumors..

I really really don´t know what to do here...

 

[jalethbridge]

Hi,

thanks for replying. The 5D3 price here in Norway is sadly much more than I need to pay to get the MKIV. It will set me back 4700 USD for a new 5DM3 and "only" 3000 USD for a use MKIV. That leaves the MKII as the only 5D option, and as you say AF is slow (or at least that is what I hear). I think the MKIV is a bit to much to shell out but I am afraid that the 1D MKIII would need to be replaced within a couple of years (old tech, newer things come out). Perhaps I just need to sit it out and wait to see if there is any truth in the 6D rumors..

I really really don´t know what to do here...

People are still happily using 1D2, it's a great camera. These things are built like tanks and will go on for years and years. Just because something new came out does not mean that the 1D3 suddenly became bad. I loved mine, and were it not for the screen on the back I would not be able to tell it from the 1D4, and if two images were presented to me side by side, one from the IV and one from the III, I would be seriously challenged to know which took which.

5D2 AF is similar to 40D, 50D etc, ie not bad per se, but not in 1D territory. For my kids it always frustrated me, so I moved it on. Fine for birds though.

 

[2slo]

Buying new gear is often a worry as no one wants to make an expensive mistake. I well understand your thoughts on high ISO requirements, the N E of England where I live gets more than it's fair share of dark gloomy weather.
I started shooting with a 7D late last year and I've found it to be excellent for birds and wildlife. Correctly exposed and processed, you can use it's range of ISOs right up to it's limit of 12800. So far so good.
A couple of months ago I upgraded and bought one of the last of the 1D mk IVs before Canon ceased production. This camera is in a different league to the 7D (as it should be, considering the price difference). So sticking with your question re ISO, I routinely shoot birds and wildlife in low light at up to ISO 8000 with little or no noise issues (shot in RAW and processed then converted to JPEG). To give you an idea of what the 1Div is capable of, here are some high ISO test shots I've recently taken with it. I used my 70-200mm lens for three shots from the same distance, at the same aperture (f/2.8) with an increase in shutter speed in relation to the increase in ISO. These were taken without flash, tungsten light from an adjacent room coming in through a partially open door.

ISO 25,600:



ISO 51,200:



ISO 102,400:



To me, the 1Div is the best bird and wildlife camera Canon have ever made (including the 1Dx) if you have a chance to own one, don't hesitate.

 

[OGW]

Thanks. That was a pretty strong and clear message. I have just bought the MKIV
Thanks for answering.

 

[postcardcv]

I've used both 1D3 and 1D4, and for high ISO it is much better than the 1D3. I am happy to shoot at ISO 1600 all day long if needs be. The 1D3 from what I hear is better than the 7D, which I have never used, but which by all accounts is extremely noisy. A serious question which I don't know the answer to is this: High ISO capabilities get better and better which each successive generation of camera body. All three bodies you mention I think are older than the 60D, and although they are all more "pro" than the 60D, does that make a difference? I.e. Could you get a really recent body, not sure what we are on, but like a 660D or whatever it is called, and get what you are looking for?

It's not always that straight forward - although released after the 7D the 60D uses the same senser so in theory would only be at the same level as the 7D in high ISO performance. I have a 7D and find that it is fine at high ISOs I reckon it is only a stop or so worse than the 5DmkII which is good going given the senser size and how packed it is. However if you get the exposure wrong with the 7D there isn't as much room to recover a shot as there is with the 5D. The 1DmkIV should be well ahead of both the 7D and the mkIII, but I've not tried one.

 

[Jaff]

I don't rate the 7D for use in poor light. If light is an issue I'd always be looking at the 1D bodies or something else with a nice big sensor.

 

[orbec]

I too am going through this dilemma, I'd like to upgrade my trusty old 1D mkII for one reason & one reason alone - Better high ISO results, as I don't rate the results from my 1D above ISO800. other than that I love it.

If I could afford it I'd buy a 1D mkIV in a flash, but I can't justify that kind of dosh so it's either a 7D or a 1D mkIII for me, or just keep on waiting until something new comes along hopefully in the not too distant future.

I'm reluctant to jump in at the mo as I've heard & read so many conflicting views & reviews of the quality of both the 7D & 1D mkIII images I'm baffled....

 

[Robert_Scanlon]

Hi Orbec, based on my limited experience with 7d compared to (more extensive) experience with 1d2, I'd recommend going for a 1D3 out of the two you mention. To my eye the 7d files weren't a patch on the 1D2 files. They weren't bad, but I had a look back over my old 1D2 files and they just have something that the 7d doesn't match.

I have just sold a recently purchased 7d to replace it with a 1d3, which I am looking forward to trying out tomorrow. From what I've read, there isn't an awful lot of difference between the 1d2 and 1d3 files, other than the extra 2mp, better tones and better iso. If I find the files to be a very slight improvement on my 1D2 ones, I will be more than happy with that.

 

[Roy C]

I'm reluctant to jump in at the mo as I've heard & read so many conflicting views & reviews of the quality of both the 7D & 1D mkIII images I'm baffled....

That's the trouble with views expressed on the web, you get people of varying expertise and expectations as well as differing needs. The main thing between these two Cameras will always be the person behind it IMHO - I have seen good and bad stuff from both of them.
From a personal point of view there is no way in the world that I would swap my 7D for a 1D3,(even if there was cash coming my way as well :-O). For me my main interest is birds/wildlife and I am most always reach limited, to this end I would certainly miss having a 1.6 crop with 18mp in the business part of the image. For me light is no big problem as I shoot mainly in the open along estuaries. I find the 7D good up to ISO 1600 (providing you shoot to the right of course), if I need more than ISO 1600 then the light is no good for me so I would not bother anyway. Would be different if you like shooting in low light such as woods where you may need to shoot at higher ISO's but for me if I did then I would probably be looking at one of the 5D's myself.
Another thing I would miss on the 7D would be zoneAF which when coupled with a fast AI servo sensitivity makes BIF ridiculously easy when you have a uncluttered BG. I also really like the way you can change AF modes on the fly while still looking through the viewfinder.

Having said all that I would certainly change to a 1D4 :king: BTW if pixel size was everything then we would all be shooting with a 4mp Camera lol.

 

[kurakura]

When I was buying new equipment I was recommended 7D over 1dIII for birds, because the bigger files can take some more cropping. Still the 1DIII is a very good camera and would be better weather sealed and more robust than the 7D.
If money is not a part of the equation I would go for 1DIV anytime

 

[Robert_Scanlon]

A quote I read from one of the most well known bird photographers around: "For example, the Canon EOS-7D wins the pixels-on-the-subject contest by miles, but most serious photographers far prefer image files from the 1D MIII or MIV bodies or from any of the 5D bodies by a large margin. There is a lot more to a quality file than pixels on the subject."

I agree. My 1D2 files can take some heavy adjustments in post processing and hold up extremely well. In contrast, the 7d files start crapping themselves anytime I go anywhere near them

In seriousness though, the 7D is a decent camera, in my limited experience with it hands on, and having read up as much as possible on tinternet, it seems to demand a lot more care and skill to get the best out of it, both in the field and in pp.

 

[Roy C]

In seriousness though, the 7D is a decent camera, in my limited experience with it hands on, and having read up as much as possible on tinternet, it seems to demand a lot more care and skill to get the best out of it, both in the field and in pp.

I think you have summed it up nicely here Robert, you certainly need to take more care with the 7D on two main fronts:-
1) You need good support or a higher shutter speed than normal with long lenses to get the best out of the high pixel density - the small pixels can lead to so called 'pixel bleed' without good support or a high enough shutter speed.

2) You also need to get the exposure right to avoid noise at higher ISO's. Shooting to the right (ETTR) is the order of the day. If you underexpose and try to push in processing then noise can be a problem.
----------------------------------------------------
Having said that the more pixels per bird you get with the 7D should yield more fine detail which is great for bird photography. If you shoot both Cameras from the same spot then the bird in the 7D image will be larger (due to the 1.6 crop) in the frame. Now if you crop the 1D3 image so that it is the same size as the 7D image not only will the 7D show better fine detail but also any noise advantage the 1D3 may have had will evaporate.

THIS ARTICLE with examples by Alan Stankevitz shows it very well (it is a pdf file).