I shoot wildlilfe. I currently use a 5D mostly with a 100-400 lens. I require a zoom lens but 400mm is not quite enough. My thought is to add a 7D with it's 1.6 crop factor the 100-400 becomes a 160-640. Almost perfect. I could then use the 5D with a 24-105 for the close and wide work and the 7D for medium and distant shots. Much less lens changing.
My question is would the output quality from the two cameras work well in the same sequence? Would the lesser quality of the 7D be obvious? Any other factors I should consider?
Opinion and thoughts please.
Enjoy

Kent

The 7D is hardly a "lesser quality" camera, both record using the same processing and codec. In fact, with its wider selection of frame rates, the 7D is in some ways better. Wherein lies the problem - soon to be alleviated - that the 7D and 5D shoot at different frame rates. The 5D only shoots 30p, the 7D 23.98 and 29.97 (as well as 60p at 720).

Canon will soon release a firmware update that will give the 5D most or all of these frame rates. So in my opinion your plan to add a 7D is a great idea.

I think the 7D is a good choice for that purpose. I have done some wildlife shooting with the 5D, doubling a 400 to get enough reach. I think you approach is likely a better way to go.

A lot of shots in this video, were shot with a Vivitar 400mm doubled with a Nikon 2x extender:

The Sandhill on Vimeo

By all means, a 7D would be good to add to the 5D2 OR, get a x1.4 extender or a x2 extender. Much cheaper…

Thanks for the encouraging comments. Chris, your video is beautiful. Congratulations.

Chris,

That's very nice panning on a tight lens so I'm interested in what you are using for the 800mm combination.
I'm trying to shoot aviation subjects...usually on a Canon 70-200 IS and often with a 2x converter. It's tough chasing a fast or even medium speed subject on a tight lens when using a camera as badly balanced as the 5D is with a zoom lens. I've been trying a Varizoom Zero gravity head (VariZoom ZeroGravity (Zero Gravity) Tripod Head, Tripods, Lens Controls, Camera Stabilizers & Supports, Batteries, Monitor Kits - Phone: 512-219-7722 (http://www.varizoom.com/products/tripods/zerogravity.html))
as it can be 'perfectly balanced', but alas that's still not perfect as it's prone to wobble in windy conditions. I have therefore thought of the Vinten 3AS head as that also promises an accurate balancing system that would be better than my other Libec head.
I also have some great older Olympus lenses that fit the 5D2, including a 300mm with 2x converter, but find the image stabilisation on the Canon helps particularly on the tight 'locked off shots'.
Do you use a monitor or viewfinder like the Zacuto? It doesn't help being pressed against a viewfinder when panning the camera and there's always those tripod legs trying to trip you up!

David

400mm on a 7D will be 640mm. With another 2x will be 1280mm

David:

I shot a lot of those shots with an Vivitar 400 that a I borrow from a friend, and doubled with a Vivitar 2x convertor. I later bought a 2x Nikon convertor.

Just shot with Manfrotto 3221 legs, and a 503 head. I did rig a rails set up to give some balance to the rig. It was a fight. The closeups and ground shots were with that set up. The two birds landings were with that too. After your question, I recall that after fighting with catching shots on a hit and miss basis, I switched to the 80-200 Nikon zoom, and doubled that as needed. I used a 15 inch monitor for a lot of the shots set up on a little stand I made, and it was powered by a 12 volt battery back and a convertor. The wind was blowing, but I set up in the lee of my vehicle to fight the shake. My open rear had also shaded the monitor so I was able to see.

So let me see if I understand this...

You guys are saying that by increasing the CROP factor, it automatically becomes an enlarger? Just like if he put a tele-converter on it? Is that really how it works?

Or does it in fact truly act like a crop factor, and just crops the field of view by a factor of 1.6:1?

That could be a $1700 mistake, and I'm sure a definitive answer would be welcome.

Perrone, both the 5D and the 7D output video at 1080 lines. The 7D has a smaller sensor. This produces a magnification.

Imagine if you could place the smaller 7D sensor within the full frame 5D sensor, and expose both to an image. That smaller area of the APS-C sensor would output the full 1080 lines. It would do this while capturing only a segment of the image captured by the full frame sensor. When footage from the two sensors is viewed, at full resolution on equal sized monitors, the 7D image will be "magnified."

Crop factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor#Magnification_factor)

So rather than lose light by using a convertor, use a 7D with a 1.6 crop.

Chris,

Thanks for the info...interesting that you took a 15inch monitor out into the field!
I thought I was humping a lot of gear with a SmallHD DP1 monitor as well.
It certainly is difficult making a front heavy but small bodied camera like a 5D with long lens pan smoothly as most big tripods are oversized and most small tripods don't balance the camera plus lens well.

John...regarding the focal length numbers...I'm shooting on a 5D2.
You said 'With another 2x will be 1280mm'...can you image making that stable on a windy wildlife shoot?
I don't think I want to drop below a 'full frame' format as that's what brought me to the camera in the first place....I then discovered it's video potential.

So let me see if I understand this...

You guys are saying that by increasing the CROP factor, it automatically becomes an enlarger? Just like if he put a tele-converter on it? Is that really how it works?

Or does it in fact truly act like a crop factor, and just crops the field of view by a factor of 1.6:1?

That could be a $1700 mistake, and I'm sure a definitive answer would be welcome.

With your background, I am sure you know this, but the stuff I have seen from the 7D clearly indicates its not a $1,700 mistake. And thats what counts.

On the technical side, its no different than we see with 1/3 inch cameras, right ? Thus a 50 mm lens on a 1/3 chip camera is long telephoto, on the 7D it is short telephoto, and on the 5D it is a normal lens. What make them what they are called is angle of view presented on the chip. The smaller chips naturally get a narrower field of view from the same lens.

Aside from the potential of vignetting on the larger chip, the real question should be do you get sufficient resolving power on each of the chips from the same lens, to serve each of the purposes ? In the case of the 35mm lens that have been developed originally for full frame film cameras and that I use primarily, the evidence I have seen is that the Nikon and Canon lenses are able to serve on all levels, assuming the mechanical mounting can be accomodated.

Chris, thank you for that clear and lucid explanation. My comment in regards to it being a mistake was nothing to do with the quality of the camera, merely a question of whether it would meet the use for which it was being purchased.