Posted by Brian Reilly on July 11, 2010 at 7:19 PM
I am a wildlife photographer shooting birds, including waterfowl primarily. Much of my work is done from a kayak, handholding a Canon 7D with a 300mm/2.8 lens and 1.4 TC. Perhaps 10% of my shots are birds in flight. I've been using the 7D for about 6 months and am generally happy with the results. I have 2 questions: What would be the advantages of upgrading to a Mark IV? and Do you think that there is enough of a step up to the Mark IV to justify the higher price? Thanks
Posted by SimonRumford on July 12, 2010 at 12:38 PM
I dont know about either but as a lifetime Canon user, I still have a 40d and will be upgrading in the next 6 months hopefully so I would like to hear a little more on this topic as well :)
I am a Nikon user and want to switch to Mark IV. So, like Simon, I would like to hear more.
Posted by Peter Conway on July 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM
I cannot make a direct comparison.
I can say that I changed from the Mark III to the Mark IV and find three very significant advantages.
1) The auto-focus works better.
2) Much better high ISO performance. I can use ISO 800 as a default and feel comfortable going higher if needed. Clearly this helps with either shutter speed or better DOF when needed. Since I shoot 95% with telephotos this is a big deal for me.
3) More detail in crops. I assume its the extra megapixels but its better.
Hope that helps,
Peter
Posted by Bryan Peters on July 13, 2010 at 12:00 PM
well your 300 is a 480 on that body plus your tc makes it a 672mm equiv.
on the Mark IV it would only be a 390 + the 1.4 = 546mm.
The megapixels is soo close it doesn't matter.
The 7D also has a very good, all new auto focus. it's not 45 point, but it is good.
It's all about the lower light capability of the larger sensor. So the question is, how much of your shooting is in low light where 1 stop will make all the difference? And will it bother you to lose the zoom?
It is also slightly faster, at ten frames per second.
so is that worth a few grand to you?
I'm new around these forums but I can offer my opinion on this question.
I moved from a Mark III with a 40D second / backup body to the Mark IV and a 7D combo. I have to say that I am not a huge fan of the 7D. I guess that is because I always felt that Canon hit a homerun with the 40D and I feel like the 7D doesn't quite live up to the hype. Is the 7D a bad camera body? No .... and it is capable of great images. I feel that the auto focus is too quirky and takes a good bit of time to get used to.
On the other hand the Mark IV is a terrific body, in my opinion. It has excellent improvements over the Mark III. The auto focus is very fast. I personally like the feel of the 1 series cameras.
Is the Mark IV worth the extra $$? I would say absolutely yes, if you have the resources (can afford it).
I have a 40d and recently upgradedmy mk2 for a mk4, keeping my 40d as a spare body. I cant comment on the 7d, i'm sure it's a fine body but once you use a 1d you will not be happy with anything less. It certainly cant compete with the nixon d3s on iso, but it can shoot at 1600iso without a problem, i have captured images that i could only have deamt of previously.It's not just about low light, you can bump up the iso to increase shutter speed and freeze action even in good light. The af is fast, reliable and accurate. I did consider a 7d and 5d mk2, but as Bob said, if you can afford it dont even think about the options, worth every penny/buck!
I think the image quality of the 1D mark IV is far and away better than that of the 7D, which I promptly gave up on after getting the Mark IV. I had a Mark III before and loved the image quality of that camera more so than the 7D, too. The 7D exhibits more noise of both types, lower down in the ISO range and I found it much harder to clean out (using Lightroom) than for the 1 Series bodies.
It's not all one-way traffic though - the 7D has better usability in terms of menus though. The button customisations are more expansive than on the Mark IV - for example, you can only assign the Spot AF feature to the Lens Stop buttons found on the L series teles... compare that to the 7D, where you can assign pretty much any function to whichever button you prefer.
The other main difference I noticed was that the 7D is great in sunlight but not as great in low light conditions, where the 1 Series cameras stretch well ahead for AF lock.
I've mentioned a couple of other Mark IV quirks in the wildlife camera settings guide on my website but by and large, the Mark IV is a better bet IMO and well worth the £££ to upgrade if you're very serious about your wildlife photography and can afford the jump in cost.
Posted by Kurt Bowman on September 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM
I have both. Since purchasing my MIV, I think I have picked up my 7D once and plan on selling it soon. The image quality is much better on the MIV because of the larger sensor and larger pixels. The noise difference is HUGE and I have to disagree with Andy that it "certainly does not compete with the Nikon D3s". Don't get me wrong.....I think Nikon still has an advantage, but it is slighter than I think he mentions. I have used many images at ISOs 3200 and 6400 with very little noise. I currently have an Elk image on my profile at ISO 2500 right now if you want to take a look and see for yourself.
In addition to this, the 1D offers many customer functions that are not even a part of the 7D. Really almost too many to mention, but a couple I really like are, auto ISO minimum and maximum levels or auto minimum and maximum shutter settings. An example of how one might use this....let's say you are shooting early morning, very low light and maybe it is Pelicans. You set your camera to Av mode and want to manage your BG, so you select F/5.6. But, because the light is getting stronger by the minute (with your 7D), you have to constantly change your ISO settings. Currently you are shooting ISO 400 because the Pelican is just floating...but all the sudden, he dips his bill and catches a huge trout! But, since the light is low, your shutter speed was only 1/250 and too much blur...bummer! With the 1D MIV, you could have had all the same settings, but had it on auto ISO with a minimum of let's say ISO 400 and maximum of ISO 3200. You also set the shutter speed minimum to 1/500 and a maximum of 1/2000...bam...it recognizes the action and sets the ISO at 1600 and you get your shot sharp! That is the real difference....Hope this helps
Discussion
8 repliesI can say that I changed from the Mark III to the Mark IV and find three very significant advantages.
1) The auto-focus works better.
2) Much better high ISO performance. I can use ISO 800 as a default and feel comfortable going higher if needed. Clearly this helps with either shutter speed or better DOF when needed. Since I shoot 95% with telephotos this is a big deal for me.
3) More detail in crops. I assume its the extra megapixels but its better.
Hope that helps,
Peter
on the Mark IV it would only be a 390 + the 1.4 = 546mm.
The megapixels is soo close it doesn't matter.
The 7D also has a very good, all new auto focus. it's not 45 point, but it is good.
It's all about the lower light capability of the larger sensor. So the question is, how much of your shooting is in low light where 1 stop will make all the difference? And will it bother you to lose the zoom?
It is also slightly faster, at ten frames per second.
so is that worth a few grand to you?
Just my 2cts, Bryan
I moved from a Mark III with a 40D second / backup body to the Mark IV and a 7D combo. I have to say that I am not a huge fan of the 7D. I guess that is because I always felt that Canon hit a homerun with the 40D and I feel like the 7D doesn't quite live up to the hype. Is the 7D a bad camera body? No .... and it is capable of great images. I feel that the auto focus is too quirky and takes a good bit of time to get used to.
On the other hand the Mark IV is a terrific body, in my opinion. It has excellent improvements over the Mark III. The auto focus is very fast. I personally like the feel of the 1 series cameras.
Is the Mark IV worth the extra $$? I would say absolutely yes, if you have the resources (can afford it).
It's not all one-way traffic though - the 7D has better usability in terms of menus though. The button customisations are more expansive than on the Mark IV - for example, you can only assign the Spot AF feature to the Lens Stop buttons found on the L series teles... compare that to the 7D, where you can assign pretty much any function to whichever button you prefer.
The other main difference I noticed was that the 7D is great in sunlight but not as great in low light conditions, where the 1 Series cameras stretch well ahead for AF lock.
I've mentioned a couple of other Mark IV quirks in the wildlife camera settings guide on my website but by and large, the Mark IV is a better bet IMO and well worth the £££ to upgrade if you're very serious about your wildlife photography and can afford the jump in cost.
In addition to this, the 1D offers many customer functions that are not even a part of the 7D. Really almost too many to mention, but a couple I really like are, auto ISO minimum and maximum levels or auto minimum and maximum shutter settings. An example of how one might use this....let's say you are shooting early morning, very low light and maybe it is Pelicans. You set your camera to Av mode and want to manage your BG, so you select F/5.6. But, because the light is getting stronger by the minute (with your 7D), you have to constantly change your ISO settings. Currently you are shooting ISO 400 because the Pelican is just floating...but all the sudden, he dips his bill and catches a huge trout! But, since the light is low, your shutter speed was only 1/250 and too much blur...bummer! With the 1D MIV, you could have had all the same settings, but had it on auto ISO with a minimum of let's say ISO 400 and maximum of ISO 3200. You also set the shutter speed minimum to 1/500 and a maximum of 1/2000...bam...it recognizes the action and sets the ISO at 1600 and you get your shot sharp! That is the real difference....Hope this helps