|
Canon 7D review and tests
In 2007, I bought the Canon 1DsIII as my main camera body, and I
have used it with satisfaction for two year. Now, I have "replaced" it
with the 7D: the new Canon SLR offers many advantages in comparison with
the older flagship, even though in some aspect the 1DsIII is still the
best (and this is the reason I won't sell it). In this article, I have
explained the reasons of my choice and I have tested the capabilities of
the 7D.
Quick specifications comparison
|
|
Canon 7D
|
Canon 1DsIII
|
|
Sensor size
|
APS-C (1.6x)
|
35mm Fullframe (1.0x)
|
|
Megapixels
|
18 megapixels
|
21 megapixels
|
|
ISO sensitivities
|
100 - 12800
|
50 - 3200
|
|
ISO performance
|
usable up to ISO 3200
|
usable up to ISO 3200
|
|
Continuous shooting
|
8 FPS x 21 RAW
|
5 FPS x 17 RAW
|
|
LCD screen
|
3", 640x480 px
|
3", 320x240 px
|
|
Live view
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
Silent shooting (MLU replacement)
|
yes
|
no
|
|
Video
|
yes, 1920x1080px at 30 FPS
|
no
|
|
Dimensions
|
148 x 111 x 74 mm
|
150 x 160 x 80mm
|
|
Battery charge in %
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
Weight
|
0.85 kg
|
1.4 kg
|
|
Price
|
1400 €
|
7000 €
|
|
Announced
|
2009
|
2007
|
Canon 7D and 1DsIII,
Fullframe vs APS-C
Even though the 1DsIII is a great camera,
there are various things I don't like. It is bulky and heavy, I wish it
had not the built-in battery grip. It is not super fast, and its sensor
is no longer the best on the market. When I bought the 1DsIII, there was
nothing that offered a similar sensor: it was the best both for
landscapes and wildlife. But now, let's compare the 1DsIII and the 7D
sensors...
Pixel size and "1.6x crop factor" for maximum reach:
when talking about the advantage in terms of reach that you can get with
a camera or another, you have to consider the pixel size. The sensor
size or the "1.6x crop factor" does not have any importance: for
example, the 8 megapixel APS-C Canon 20D does not give any "added reach"
in comparison with the 21 megapixel FF Canon 1DsIII, because you can
crop the 1DsIII at 8 megapixel and you will get exactly the same "1.6x
magnification" of the 20D. This is because both cameras have pixels (or,
more precisely, photodiodes) of 6.4µm. The Canon 7D, instead, has way
smaller photodiodes: just 4.3µm. If you crop the 1DsIII to 18
megapixels, you get only a 1.1x "magnification"; in conclusion, when
using the same lens, the 7D gives a real "1.5x magnification" in
comparison with the 1DsIII. (not 1.6x: to get an effective 1.6x, in
comparison with the 1DsIII, you would need a 21 megapixel APS-C
cameras).
Lenses, teleconverters and various parameters:
using the 7D with 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x gives the same results of the 1DsIII
with the 300 f/2.8 + 2x. The reach is the same; with the 7D and 300 +
1.4x you can shoot at f/4 while the 1DsIII with 300 + 2x is at f/5.6
(dept of field is the same, because APS-C gives 1 stop more depth of
field than fullframe). Other than that, thanks to the 1 stop wider
aperture, with the 7D you can use 1 stop lower ISO and getting the same
shutter speed. This is true for every telephoto lens: when you would
have used the 2x TC with the 1DsIII, you can use the 1.4x with the 7D;
when you would have used the 1.4x now you can use no TC at all, with
benefits for image quality.
Wildlife, macro, reportage, portraits,
landscapes: for wildlife the 7D is better than the 1DsIII, but what
about the other kinds of photography? For macro, reportage, portraits
I'd say they are about the same; the APS-C sensor gives 1 stop more depth
of field than FF...sometimes it is an advantage, other times you may
prefer less depth of field, in this case you can use a one stop wider
aperture. The only exception is if you do specialist kinds of
photography where you need the extremely thin depth of field of f/1.2
lenses on FF - in this case, I'd recommend the 5D2. Talking about
landscapes, instead, I still prefer fullframe cameras. The reason is not the
camera itself - of course you can take great landscape photos even with
the 7D - but lenses: my preferred landscape lens, the Sigma 12-24, has
an amazing angle of view of 124 degrees on FF; on APS-C, the widest you can
get is 10-20mm, that gives the same angle of view of a 16-35mm on
fullframe...I really wish that Canon made a 7.5-20mm wide angle, to get
the same angle of the 12-24 on FF. Other than that, there is not any
APS-C equivalent of my "milky way" lens - the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. If I had
an EF-S 7.5-20mm and an EF-S 12mm f/1.8, I'd be happy to leave home the
1DsIII even for landscape trips.
Why the Canon 7D? alternatives from
Canon and Nikon
Two possible Canon alternatives are the 50D
and the 1D MarkIV. The 7D is better in every respect than the 50D, so if
you don't have limits of budget, I'd have no hesitation to prefer the 7D
to the 50D. The 5D2 was not an option for me since I already have the
1DsIII; if you don't have other cameras, instead, I'd
suggest to evaluate carefully the 5D...if you do a lot of wildlife, or
you want a great "all around" cameras, I recommend the 7D, but if you
are specialized in landscapes I'd go for the 5D2.
I have never
been a fan of the Canon APS-H cameras, and the 1D4 is no exception. If
does not give the added reach of the 7D, it is as heavy and bulky as the
1DsIII, it is only marginally faster than the 7D, video is
identical...the only real advantage of the 1D4 is image quality at high
ISO - I have not tested it yet, but I guess that it is about 2 stops
better than 7D. But it is three times more expensive, and in its price
class you can get the Nikon D3s, in my opinion a much better camera.
What about Nikon? The D300s looks great, but overall the 7D is
slightly better in my opinion. Instead, the Nikon D3s is much more
tempting. Of course you can not compare the 7D with the D3s - they are
different cameras at a very different price; nevertheless, when I saw
how good was the D3s I was seriously tempted to switch to Nikon. The D3s
is fullframe - I much prefer FF to APS-H, that is a "mid-way" format
without the advantages of FF or APS-C. Moreover, the D3s has lower noise than any
other camera on the market. The D3 was already a great camera, but the
D3s is fully usable up to ISO 25600 (plus 51200 and 100k for
"emergencies" when image quality is not essential)...this is an amazing
performance. At the end I decided to stay with canon, but if you have
Nikon I highly recommend the D3s, if you are looking for the best you
can get. In alternative, if you want something like the 7D, the D300s
comes close.
Advantages of the 7D in comparison with my 1DsIII and other cameras
Continuos shooting: the 7D can shoot
at 8 FPS for 21 RAW frames (24-25 RAW with a very fast CF card), while
the 1DsIII shoots at 5 FPS for 17 RAWs. For landscapes or macro it does
not matter, but for wildlife the higher speed of the 7D is an advantage.
Other than that, the 7D is able to use faster cards, so it takes less
time to empty the buffer.
Silent shooting and MLU: unlike
the 1DsIII, the 7D has silent shooting mode in live view. This is a big
advantage, because thanks to SS you no longer need mirror lock up: when
using live view, you can shoot immediately with the remote release, or
with the 2 seconds self timer. With the 1DsIII, instead, you have to
exit live view and to shoot with MLU active (for more info, read the
article "Live View and
MLU").
Autofocus: I have not done yet in depth
tests of the 7D AF, but the first impressions are very positive. The
autofocus is really fast! In my opinion, it is even better than the AF
of 1DsIII, even though it is not an huge difference. I'm going to expand
this paragraph in future when I'll have more experience with the 7D!
Video: the 7D - together with the 1D4 - has the
best video capabilities of any SLR camera; the 1DsIII has no video at
all, the 500D and the Nikon cameras are far behind in this aspect.
Weight and size: the 7D is not feather weight, but it is
still much lighter than the 1 series cameras. A much more important
advantage is size: it does not have the integrated battery grip, so it
is much smaller and easier to carry around when you are travelling. I
have never liked the added bulk of battery grip and I really appreciate
the smaller size of the 7D. Another size difference is the battery
charger - the charger of the 1 series is huge, while the battery charger
of the 7D is way smaller and lighter: another advantage if you are
traveling and you want to reduce the bulk and weight of your luggage.
Price: the Canon 7D is a bit cheaper than the Nikon D300s,
and much, much cheaper than the 1DsIII. You can buy the 7D now, and when
it will replaced by a new camera after a couple of years, you can sell
the 7D and buy the new model losing only few hundreds of Euros; doing so
with a 1 series camera means losing thousands of Euros. Other than that,
the 7D gives a way better price/performance ratio.
Other
aspects: both the 1DsIII and the 7D show the remaining battery charge in
percentage. This is a nice thing, and it allows to understand how much
battery you still have; the three-steps battery level icon of cheaper
cameras is far from accurate.
Image quality: Noise and ISO
When the 7D has been announced, I was
doubtful about its image quality at high ISO...18 megapixels on APS-C
are really a lot! Surprisingly, the 7D is relatively good in this
aspect. It is not as good as the 1DsIII, but the difference is small -
I'd say about 0.5 stop - and it is a bit better than the 500D and 50D.
Of course there are some cameras that are miles ahead - the Nikon D3s is
at least 3-4 stops better than 1DsIII and 7D, but in its price class the
7D is one of the best. In this test, I have compared 1DsIII, 7D and 500D
from ISO 100 to 12800. The images are 100% crops from the unprocessed
RAW file. The photos of the 7D and 500D have been upsampled to 21
megapixels; the photos of the 1DsIII at ISO 6400 and 12800 had been
created from RAW files at ISO 3200 underexposed by 1 and 2 stops.
|
|
Canon 1Ds III |
Canon 7D |
Canon 500D |
|
ISO 100 |
 |
 |
 |
|
ISO 200 |
 |
 |
 |
|
ISO 400 |
 |
 |
 |
|
ISO 800 |
 |
 |
 |
|
ISO 1600 |
 |
 |
 |
|
ISO 3200 |
 |
 |
 |
|
ISO 6400 |
 |
 |
 |
|
ISO 12800 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Image quality: Resolution and detail
In terms of detail, the results are quite obvious. The 7D is slightly
better than the 500D (and other 15 or 12 megapixel cameras), but it
captures less detail than the 1DsIII, even though the difference is
small. These are 100% crop from the RAW files; the images of the 7D and
500D have been upsampled to 21 megapixels.
1DsIII:
7D:
500D:
Image quality: Dynamic range
The dynamic range is about the same. The 7D seems to
capture slightly more detail into highlights (even though it shows a
slight magenta cast), while the 1DsIII captures a bit more detail in the
shadows - but the differences are so small that in practice you won't
see any real difference.
|
| |
Canon 7D |
Canon 1Ds III |
|
full scene |
 |
 |
|
detail: lights |
 |
 |
|
detail: shadows |
 |
 |
|
Image quality: FF and APS-C, comparison
with the 1DsIII
At the beginning of this
article I wrote "when you would have
used the 2x TC with the 1DsIII, you can
use the 1.4x with the 7D; when you would
have used the 1.4x now you can use no TC
at all, with benefits for image
quality." Here is the test!
|
| |
Canon 7D with 300 f/2.8 (1/40 f/2.8 ISO 400) |
Canon 1Ds3 with 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x (1/40 f/4 ISO
800) |
|
full scene |
 |
 |
|
100% crop |
 |
 |
Comparing a lens without TC on 7D vs lens with
1.4x TC on FF, the 7D gives slightly better image
quality - more detail and less chromatic aberration.
| |
Canon 7D with 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x (1/20 f/4 ISO
400) |
Canon 1Ds3 with 300 f/2.8 + 2.0x (1/20 f/5.6 ISO
800) |
|
full scene |
 |
 |
|
100% crop |
 |
 |
Comparing 7D + 1.4x vs FF + 2x, the results are
about on par.
|
Do you still need the 2x TC?
Considering the very
high pixel density of the 7D, I thought
that the 2x would have not been
necessary: I was wrong. Even on the 7D,
the 2x TC is still able to extract a
little more detail than the 1.4x, at
least on high quality lenses.
|
| |
Canon 7D with 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x at f/4
(upsampled) |
Canon 7D with 300 f/2.8 + 2.0x at f/5.6 |
|
100% crop |
 |
 |
|
Image quality: Video
I have compared the 7D
video with the cheaper 500D. In future,
I'm going to compare the 7D also with
5D2. In terms of features, the 7D is way
better: it has much higher resolution -
1920x1080 at 30FPS vs 1280x720 at 30FPS
(I don't consider usable the full HD 20
FPS mode of the 500D); you can select
aperture, shutter speed and ISO; you can
choose the frame rate between many
options...but what about image quality?
These are two stills from videos taken
with the two cameras. Note that these
images are resized at 1000 px; click on
the image to view it at full resolution!
The 7D shows much better
image quality: more detail, less
artifacts and much less noise.
|
above: still frame from Canon 7D video (click to
enlarge)
above: still frame from Canon 500D video (click
to enlarge)
|
Conclusion
Overall, the Canon 7D is
an impressive camera for its price. It
is better than any previous xxD camera
(40D, 50D), and in many aspects it is
better than more expensive cameras as
the 5DII and 1DsIII (even though for
some kinds of photography, as
landscapes, I still prefer the FF
cameras). It combines good image quality
with great speed, fantastic video, and a
lot of useful features. Very
recommended! :-)
Do you
have comments or questions?
If you have comments or
questions about this article, feel free to
ask in the
Juza Nature Photography Discussion Forum!
|
|
