Canon 5D Mark III: The Real Deal
I recently acquired a 5D Mark III, and like many, have been very impressed. Finally we have a solution for the long awaited digital form of a “3D”. While I haven’t been able to put it through extensive testing, here are some initial thoughts and sample images:
- Build: it feels very similar to a 7D, which comes as no surprise as the body shape and buttons are nearly identical. That said, the weatherproofing is an improvement, and the camera feels very solid in hand. The shutter sound is a huge improvement over the 5DII, and it feels like a “quick” camera.
- AF system. This was my biggest concern with the 5D II, and the new AF system takes all those worries away. I would place it in the same league as the 1D Mark IV, equally as good or perhaps even better. Some differences (apart from the 7D-like focus modes) are smaller AF points, less coverage due to the full frame sensor, and less raw drive speed on initial focus acquisition. One issue I do have is that I cannot quickly select an AF point using the joystick as I can with a 1 series body. Having to press the AF button first is hugely cumbersome if you need to do so quickly. EDIT: this can be enabled using a custom function by assigning the joystick to direct AF point selection. There are many new AF settings and tracking modes, which may prove valuable in certain situations, and it’s great to see the menus have been improved with proper descriptions of what each setting does, and what scenarios to use them in.
- Buffer. Rated at 13 images in RAW, I saw about 18 shots at lower ISOs with a 400x card, before it started to slow down. At 6fps this is about 3 seconds of shooting, which is nearly identical in terms of time as the 1DIV buffer, and I don’t see it being a major issue, unless you are shooting at high ISOs and/or with a slower card and frequently hitting the buffer limits. Of course, a larger buffer would be welcome, and Canon has much work to do in catching up to the D4 here.
- Exposure and WB appear solid. I’ve never had major gripes in this regard, and the colour out of camera is far more pleasing than the 5DII, which usually needed extensive correction to look similar to my other bodies. That being said, my initial thoughts are that AWB is a touch cool when outdoors.
- Image quality: It’s hard to quantify this yet. What I can say is the banding that frequently plagued 5DII images is gone, or at least remarkably diminished. I would agree that the noise is lower than either 5DII or 1DIV, but won’t commit to a value. Processing plays a huge role in this, so check out the same images and decide for yourself!
Overall I see the 5DIII as a solid complement to the 1DIV. Due to the greater crop factor, higher fps and f8 focusing ability, I will continue to use the MkIV as my primary bird camera, unless I am not focal length challenged or need better ISO performance, but the new 5DIII is just as competent for everything else. One thing is for certain – you can no longer blame the camera for your shortcomings.
What I should note is there appear to be issues with the IS systems on the 200 f2 IS and 800 IS. Those lenses are seeing more IS vibration and feedback noise when used with the 5DIII, which I quickly noticed. Canon is working on a fix, but until then, it is likely to affect image sharpness at low shutter speeds.
I took some photos of gulls and geese flying around, and the camera tracked beautifully in a variety of AF modes. While these are not overly complicated targets, I do not have the same faith in the 5DII’s AF system. Additionally, I tracked someone jogging towards me for about 15 shots, and the AF was glued until the subject was close to MFD and thus could no longer compensate quickly enough.
- Gull at ISO3200. Blue tends to be a poor channel for noise performance in Canon bodies
- Mallard (ISO400)
- Gull in flight – the DR seems pretty decent
- Mute swan detail
- Goose landing. This is one in a sequence of 6 which were all equally tack sharp. I have my doubts that the 5DII would have performed as well
- Flicker at nest cavity (ISO1600)
Birding with technology
As technology has advanced, the methods used in modern birding have changed greatly. Primarily, online birding lists or forums give instant access to recent sightings, and result in many more people seeing a one day rarity, or being able to discuss birding topics with a large number of people at once.
Personally, I heavily use weather radar and other maps while in the field. It’s very helpful to know if the clouds on the horizon are simply a small shower, or a storm serious enough to warrant a retreat. Additionally, Google Maps is fabulous for making custom maps with bird locations or markers, and then being able to access it on your smartphone in the field. Satellite view is also very helpful, and as long as you have cell and GPS coverage, makes navigating through areas of forest with no distinct trails much easier and safer than without. With wireless email and internet, there have been times where I’ve seen a report of a rarity nearby, and have abandoned my current plans to go “chase” that bird. This is without even mentioning the bird identification and song playback apps available. I am content with my paper guides for now, since I don’t relish re-paying for something in electronic format, especially since I’m quite comfortable with the eastern birds and have little use for a field guide while birding in my area.
I’m curious to hear how others use technology with respects to birding – please do leave a comment!
Canon’s 1D Mark IV – one year later
I’ve had the 1DIV for almost exactly a year, and 40,000 shots later I have some more thoughts on the camera. Not only is it Canon’s fastest camera, but I’d also argue it’s the best all-around camera in their current lineup. I’ve grown so accustomed to the incredible speed and control I have. Compared to previous cameras, the noise is much more randomly distributed and there is no banding, as I have noticed at higher ISOs with the 5DII. I’ve photographed birds at ISO1600 without hesitation and could probably go higher, assuming cropping was within reason and I had enough feather detail.
Initially I thought the AF was a bit slower than the MkIII. While that is probably still true for the initial lockon time, with some custom function customization the AF is incredibly fast and surefooted. While I developed more skill handling the very quick, but twitchy MkIII AF, I’d prefer the more stable and predictable, if slightly slower MkIV AF system. I’m sure some of the skills I acquired handling the MkIII have translated into better results with the IV – I’ve been able to track flying birds in conditions that I would have easily lost focus with the MkIII, and have standardized on using left/right point expansion, with the surrounding point expansion only being used with a large or slower subject, or if it was being photographed against a clean background like a blue sky.
Image quality is excellent, and the 16MP makes for a reasonable amount of resolution and more leeway with cropping. I find it rare that I’m reaching for my 5DII these days; even with the extra 5MP resolution, the IV’s out of camera file’s colour and white balance just looks so much better, and also needs almost no tweaking in post. Couple that with the amazing speed and AF advantages of the 1DIV, and you can see why I have hardly used my 5DII since then.
I do give the 5DII credit for being smaller and lighter, and having an AF system that is a bit more precise if trying to focus on a small subject against a busy background. It’s actually remarkably surefooted, and while tracking in some cases can be as good or better than the MkIV, it can’t compete for fast action. Full frame is of less importance to me when photographing birds and wildlife, although for travel or landscapes it would be an advantage.
Bottom line: anyone want to buy my 5D Mark II? 🙂
Canon 7D for sale (SOLD)
Selling my Canon 7D: 5000 clicks, no signs of wear, complete with all accessories. I originally purchased it as a higher res action-oriented body until I could get a 1D IV. I’m so accustomed to the 1 series line that I haven’t used the 7D much since then, and therefore can’t justify keeping both.
Asking $1400 CAD, please email me for any other details or if interested.
Now sold, thanks!
Importance of backups
One of the challenges of working with digital images is that there is considerable computer knowledge required. Not only do you need to understand how to process your images for maximum effect, but there is also a need to know how to organize and store your images. One of the most important strategies is having an effective backup plan. Hard drives are easily the most common component to fail in a computer, and thus there is a clear need for having a proper backup.
My strategy is to keep my master files on my desktop’s hard drive. Every night a script runs and makes an incremental backup of my photos, which results in having a mirrored copy on a dedicated file server. By using an incremental backup the time required to backup is drastically cut down, as it only needs to copy over the changes. Having just one form of backup is not enough. Offsite backup needs to be considered for maximum effectiveness, as it’s quite possible to have something drastic happen that could compromise keeping backups onsite (fire, theft, lightning strikes…). To guard against these possibilities, I keep an external hard drive at a relative’s house, which is updated every few weeks with any new files. It’s also important to spin up any backup external hard drive every so often, to ensure their mechanical components are running smoothly; it won’t do you any good to have an offsite backup if that drive then dies.
Recently I lost my main photo hard drive (Seagate 1500GB 7200.11 model) to a failure. I had gone out for an evening of photographing ducks, and came home with about 15GB of images. I uploaded these to my computer and then left for a few hours. When I arrived home, my computer was giving me a black screen. I performed a hard reboot, and once the computer started up again, it was clear there was a hard drive issue, with loud clicks coming from the computer and large delays in hard drive detection when booting the computer. I mistakenly thought this was due to my main hard drive, and spent too much time copying off all the data from it. Only later did I realize that the delays were actually because my photo drive was not able to be mounted because there were issues communicating with it. By now, that drive was no longer accessible, and it was not possible to simply copy off the files. I tried various techniques, and what eventually worked was to freeze the drive overnight in a ziplock bag in the freezer, which helps to shrink the bearings and give some extra access time. I was able to copy the data off at the low-level with dd_rescue to the replacement drive, and then mount and fix file system errors. However, I wasn’t able to see all of my files, and even after using photorec to recover files that were hidden, it was clear that I had lost that evening’s shoot. Fortunately the file server had a backup of everything else, and I didn’t lose anything beyond that evening’s photos. As a result of this, I know make a point of immediately running an incremental backup from my computer to the file server as soon as I upload new photos. As unlikely as it was, a hard drive failure between the time of photo upload and the nightly backup happened, and hopefully this step will prevent the loss of files in the future.
Macro photography using a telephoto lens
While it’s not an obvious choice for closeups, a supertelephoto lens can be surprisingly capable at macro photography. It’s not possible to get close enough for extreme macro photography of small bugs, but other wildlife such as butterflies or snakes are very well suited to this method of photography. In the middle of the summer I was walking around trying to find birds to photograph, and although I failed with that, there were many monarch butterflies around. While I didn’t have an extension tube, I was able to get close enough by using a 1.4x converter on my 600mm lens. An extension tube would have made it possible to get even closer, so I’ve now made a point of carrying an extension tube with me, because you never know what opportunities might present themselves.
There are several advantages to using a telephoto lens. Not only can you blur the background more than you could with a short macro lens (say 100mm), due to the focal length compression, but you you can shoot at wider apertures and benefit from a higher shutter speed. Whereas most macro lenses will be shot at f16 or narrower, to ensure enough depth of field when close to the subject, a telephoto could be used at around f8. Additionally, thanks to the extra working distance, you are less likely to scare off your subject. In this case I was 10-20 feet away from the butterflies, and this made it far easier to photograph without them leaving.
Canon 1D Mark IV initial impressions
I’ve now owned the new 1D Mark IV for about 3 weeks, and have shot approximately 6000 frames with it. Overall I’m quite happy with the body, and here are some more specific thoughts.
Battery life: It is noticeably much shorter than the 1D III, perhaps no better than 2/3 of the Mk3 battery life, using the same battery. When photographing on a cold winter’s day, I definitely have to swap batteries well before the end of the day, while I never had to do so with the Mk3. Certainly some of this can be attributed to the LCD, which has more current draw to support the far higher resolution, and the fact that I like leaving the info screen displayed on the back LCD at all times. It certainly beats having to look at the top of the camera for a quick glance at what settings you’re using. I get a maximum of about 1500 shots per charge, when previously I have gotten 3000+ with minimal image review.
Ergonomics: I found it very strange that the body is essentially identical to the Mk3 series. While that camera had very well-thought out and user-friendly ergonomics, I wish they would have included some of the 7D features. For instance, the 7D can switch AF modes by hitting the AF button, then FEL to toggle between modes (single point, expansion, zone etc). On the IV I wish it was possible to do something similar to change between different expansion levels. Currently, you have to go into the camera menu to toggle between none, left/right, surrounding or all 45 point expansion., which is not feasible to change while looking through your viewfinder, and it’s caused me to miss shots. The IV shares a similar LCD to the 7D, and it is sharp and accurate, though slightly deceiving in terms of brightness – it would have been nice if it had auto brightness as some other bodies do.
AF: This is the section everyone wants to read due to the problems with the 1D III. While I had no major issues with the III, I can say that the IV is definitely better. Tracking against busy backgrounds is hugely improved, and initial acquisition speed is just as zippy as with the III. I also like the fact that the 24-105/4, 70-200/2.8IS + 1.4x and 300/2.8IS + 1.4x now focus using the cross-type AF points, of which nearly all are now cross type. One thing that I immediately noticed was how well the camera tracked with expansion points enabled. I typically shot without expansion with the III, especially against busy backgrounds, but with the IV it actually helps to keep them enabled and gives you more leeway in how accurate you have to track the bird. If I had left them enabled on the III it would have focused on the background, but here it actually helps maintain the focus – a big plus in my books. I still find that 45 point AF is not the best choice unless you have a large subject or a clear sky, but it is still improved from the nearly unusable 45 point mode on the III. I can safely say I’ve gotten shots with the IV that I would not have earlier, as the AF just holds onto the target so well.
Image Quality: While the images may seem a touch softer at 100% view, that is not entirely a fair comparison with the resolution increase to 16MP, as you should now compare that to about 116% view on the III. I’m quite satisfied with the image quality, and the resolution is great for more cropping latitude, and 16MP on a 1.3x crop is probably about as high as is possible without compromising high ISO image quality. It’s great to be able to crop a vertical shot out of a horizontal capture and still be left with 7MP. The high ISO improvement is not nearly as much as Canon claims, but there is an improvement. Keep in mind that I rarely shoot above ISO1600 for bird photography, and from what I’ve heard the higher ranges are the ones that have seen the most improvement. AWB has improved substantially, and is bang on in nearly every circumstance.
Here are several photos to show the AF tracking.
RAW converters: are they equal?
While I typically use Adobe Camera Raw (otherwise known as ACR, included with Photoshop) to process my RAW images, I’m always looking for other RAW conversion applications that may deliver higher quality or other improvements. There have been a number of RAW converter updates released recently, particularly Lightroom v3 beta, and CaptureOne v5, making a comparison very timely. LR3 beta contains a beta version of what will be the processing engine for LR3 and the next version of Photoshop/ACR, and there have been numerous improvements made to the program. While I did use CaptureOne a few years ago, I have never warmed up to the workflow or the look and feel of the images.
At this point I’m using Bibble 5 under Ubuntu (Linux), for photo organizing, such as culling images, keywording and other asset management tasks. Any images I select for processing are then processed under ACR in an XP VM. While it’s not the most ideal solution, Lightroom does not run natively under Linux, and although it does offer excellent RAW conversions, there are significant performance advantages to running Bibble, both due to its architectural speed advantages, but also by running it natively and not in a resource-constrained VM.
Without further ado, here are some samples of an image processed in various converters, using the default settings.
While CaptureOne has great detail extraction, it’s noise handling is not as visually appealing with lots of fine grain; while perhaps not that apparent in this photo it’s my experience in general. Bibble 5 offers good conversion, but needs more tweaking to get similar looking images to the other converters, and exposure and levels can initially be quite off. LR3 has more pleasing noise characteristics and delivers warmer tones using the default (as shot) WB setting. Canon’s DPP offers excellent RAW conversion, as one would expect from manufacturer supplied software. The workflow is clunky enough with fewer adjustment options that I don’t even see DPP as a viable competitor.
I haven’t decided which program I will use for my 7D images, though it will likely be ACR. The image quality is lacking at this point with the beta profiles, so for the time being Canon DPP or CaptureOne 5 would be better options. I’m still enjoying the 7D, and it’s easily the most impressive crop body I’ve used so far. One thing I’ve really noticed is the faster card write speeds, and even when shooting in L-JPEG + RAW I didn’t run into the small 6 shot buffer limit too often. Even though I was using a non-UDMA Sandisk Extreme III card, the large 18MP images were still dumped to the card very quickly. By comparison, on the 1D III I would often fill the 30 shot RAW buffer and then wait a considerable amount of time for it to clear. The 1D IV will be even better in this regard, offering a 10% larger buffer than the 1D III, which is much larger than the 7D’s, while writing at similar speeds as the 7D.
Canon 7D Review – Part 2: Field Test
I managed to take the 7D out for a few hours of test shooting. With few subjects around I couldn’t test the AF to the limits, but had several opportunities with birds in flight. I will add more samples in the weeks to come to illustrate the image quality a bit further, both at high ISOs and hopefully some extended tracking sequences to show the AF capability.
What immediately struck me was that despite using the same battery as the 5D Mark II, the 7D appears to be more power efficient. It should be quite possible to achieve 1200+ shots per battery, compared to a maximum of about 800-1000 in my experience with the 5D II (I’m extrapolating a bit, so YMMV). Needless to say, battery life won’t be an issue unless you shoot video or review images a lot, and the 7D offers respectable battery life even if it can’t quite touch the 1D which gets to 2000-3000+.
With few ducks around I had to rely on gulls to test the AF on birds in flight, which admittedly aren’t quite as challenging as small, fast flying ducks. The 7D seemed to track beautifully, even against busy backgrounds the zone and 19 point AF would track well, as long as there was enough contrast between the bird and the background and the bird wasn’t too small in the frame. Of course, this type of shooting is much better suited to the single point AF selection mode.
One new feature on the 7D is that it’s now possible to have the camera display the AF point it has selected when shooting in AI Servo and not manually selecting a point. It’s a great addition and allows you to confirm what the AF is tracking and gives valuable feedback to the photographer.
Overall the focusing felt similar to the 1D III, about the same in acquisition speed and I’d say even better in tracking, as surprising as that may sound. The extra AF modes also allow for more flexibility, and I think the zone AF mode will be more useful than single point + expansion for birds in flight against a clean background, simply because you don’t have to keep the AF point right on the bird and it gives more room for error. Using all 19 points seems to be much more effective than using all 45 on the 1D, The one noticeable difference is that when acquiring a target that’s really out of focus, the AF will search for a subject, but often not long enough to actually acquire the subject, or it may lock on while still very misfocused. This is similar to my experience with other prosumer bodies, while only the 1D tends to search for focus long enough to accurately acquire a grossly out of focus target. In practise this is probably not a significant concern.
The body feels fast overall, with a more muted shutter sound than the 1D, but shooting at nearly the same speed. The new ergonomic enhancements are a great addition and the body feels great in the hand, even without a grip. By comparison the 5D II feels much more cheaply built and the combination of the shutter sound and burst rate contribute to feeling of it being a lower-class camera. In addition, the viewfinder feels similar to the 5D II or 1D III, despite the smaller sensor and increased crop factor and is a joy to use, especially with the extra spacing between the viewfinder and the LCD (as with the 1D), leaving a bit more room for your nose!
While the 1.6x crop factor can cause issues with framing being too tight at times, it’s a great help for wildlife under most conditions, where you are typically always in need of more focal length. I had forgotten how nice it was to have a 1.6x FOV when shooting birds, and with 18MP, the ability to put many pixels on a bird is not to be dismissed.
White Balance & Metering
The white balance mode seems to have been significantly improved. I often get results in automatic WB (AWB) that look similar to what I usually use cloudy WB (for warmer colour temperatures) on my other bodies. This can take some getting used to as it’s now possible to rely much more on AWB. Metering has been revamped with the iFCL system and more metering zones. While it is more intelligent than before, one still has to apply correction, especially if there are white highlights in a small portion of the frame, particularly with the rest of the frame being darker in tone. However, this is to be expected from any metering system that uses most of the frame to calculate exposure, and can’t really be attributed as a flaw. For more consistent results, spot metering would work best under those circumstances.
These are all unprocessed images, uncropped and straight out of the camera as JPEGs.
The noise levels and detail at ISO800 are still extremely good. I would be hard pressed to say the 1D Mark III is much better once the filesizes are equalized for a proper 1:1 comparison. In bird photography, typically when you need extreme ISO (3200+), the light quality isn’t worth shooting in, but I will try to post some real world very high ISO samples soon.
Overall I’m very pleased with the image quality of the 7D. While the results are not quite as good as what a larger sensor would give you, I think the reputation it already has for being the lowest noise crop body is well deserved. While there certainly is noise, it’s nicely controlled and in a pleasing pattern, with no banding to be seen. This also makes it very easy to clean up. The 18MP resolution also gives a lot of flexibility for cropping or printing large prints, and this is especially useful for wildlife photography when you are often cropping. It’s clear to see that especially with an excellent lens attached, fine detail is superb and these files can be heavily cropped.
The 7D delivers a punch in a smaller package, with performance not too far off that of the much larger and more expensive 1D series. I could see this becoming the body of choice for anyone into bird or wildlife photography, and particularly for those who want to save money over the pro bodies but still enjoy excellent performance. I only wish Canon would use the 5D II sensor in a 7D body; as good as the 7D is, a full frame sensor will always have the image quality edge, and having a full frame, high resolution small-bodied camera would be fantastic, with the major detriment of the 5D II being its autofocus and less than professional class body . That said, having both the 5D II and the 7D in your bag would be hard to beat, and ably cover all applications from landscapes to birds. I foresee myself using the 7D for focal length limited situations, such as more distant waterfowl and small songbirds, when the light is good. I do look forward to what the 1D III’s successor brings, and will probably use that as my primary body with the 7D as backup, or when pixel density is of concern.
Canon 7D Review – Part I: General Impressions
I recently acquired Canon’s hottest new body – the 7D. It combines 18MP on a 1.6x crop, shooting at 8fps in a very well-built body and includes many features new to Canon, such as new auto-focusing modes and enhanced video. I’ll break up the review in subsections for easier reading. I’m currently shooting with the 1D Mark III as my workhorse body and the 5D Mark II, and therefore my review will compare the 7D to these bodies in particular. I don’t intend this to be a comprehensive review, but a quick review of the body from a nature photographer’s perspective.
Body Handling and Build
The body feels absolutely solid and feels very close to a half-body 1D. The rubber is thick and grippy, and the new contoured grip makes it more comfortable to hold. Buttons feel very solid, and require a definite push to activate them.
Shooting modes are still controlled by a mode dial, with the power switch being relocated to just under it. I’m not entirely convinced of this decision as I never had a problem with the power switch being near the bottom of the body, but when shooting without a grip there is a possibility that the camera could bump against you and be switched off.
The viewfinder (VF) on the 7D is unlike anything Canon has put in a DSLR before, namely that it includes an LCD overlay and can superimpose anything on the display, instead of having just fixed AF points show. One can project grid-lines directly onto it, and even view the new electronic horizon. It’s also the first 1.0x magnification, 100% coverage VF included on a 1.6x crop body. This translates to a viewfinder that’s big and bright; in fact I’d say it’s equal to the 1D Mark III in both respects, whose VF is in turn similar in size to the 5D Mark II’s. To have a 1.6x crop body have a similar viewfinder to a body with much less crop factor is impressive, and makes using it enjoyable.
The only possible downside is that focusing screens are not interchangeable. This is due to Canon’s implementation, though with Nikon offering LCD overlays with interchangeable screens I’m left to wonder if Canon will allow for changeable screens in the 1D(s)4, as there are sound reasons for changing focusing screens, and it’s not uncommon either.
LCD & Menus
As with the VF, the LCD sets a new bar for Canon. It’s even better than the already stellar 50D/5D Mark II LCD, appearing sharper, with more contrast and easier to view outdoors. The LCD on the 40D/1D(s)3 seem positively archaic when compared side by side.
Menus have undergone changes as well, with many options (especially custom functions) being more user friendly and with more explanation and diagrams. For instance, when programming the M-fn button, a small graphic of the button possibilities is shown, in addition to a textual description.
I am not a heavy video user so this section will be light, but there are some changes worth mentioning. Like every current Canon camera, the 7D offers video mode, but when compared to the 5D Mark II, the 7D improves further. While the actual quality is no better due to the somewhat inferior sensor, there are far many more options. These include shooting 720p video at 24, 25, 30 or 60fps, and also 1080p at 24, 25 or 30fps, while the 5D Mark II is limited to 30fps only. Due to the dual DIGIC IV processors, it seems as if the LCD display refreshes more often, resulting in a much smoother view than with the 5D, especially at high ISOs when more data needs to be transferred. Liveview/video autofocus modes are still not comparable to shooting with the regular autofocus, but contrast detect autofocus works effectively and very quickly. Due to the jerky focusing this would not be desirable for video production, and manual focus will no doubt remain the mode of choice.
Anyone reading this review will no doubt be very interested in this section. With the 7D, Canon has introduced many new features for autofocus, including spot and zone AF modes. Spot AF mode takes a smaller than normal single AF point for focusing, and due to this size great precision can be achieved, but it’s also very unforgiving if you happen to let the point leave your target. Zone AF selects up to 9 AF points in a cluster, which can be either the left or right most, top or bottom most or the center area of the AF zone. This mode promises to be very useful for shooting birds in flight against a clean background, leaving the photographer more leeway in tracking the subject. Against busy backgrounds, I’m positive that like AF point expansion, this mode should be avoided unless the target is large in the frame and has high contrast against the background, otherwise the camera will tend to focus on the background. Other AF modes are as with previous Canon bodies: single point, single point + expand (enables another 4 points around your selected point) and all points. New to the 7D is the ability to select which AF point you want the camera to start tracking with when using all points; previously it always had to be the center point.
In my very limited testing, the 7D locked focus just as fast as the 1D Mark III. Tracking on static objects was very stable. In fact, I would say that stability on low-contrast, low light subjects was even beyond what the 1D can do. Due to the less densely spaced AF points on the 7D it may become necessary to enable AF expansion if focusing on very low contrast objects.
It is a bit early to make conclusive judgment of the image quality, but I’m cautiously optimistic about it. Images have very natural looking noise that can be very easily removed further if desired by using noise reducton software. Noise levels can’t quite touch the 1D Mark III, but given the far smaller pixels that is to be expected. It is far better than the 50D, both for noise amount and quality. A key consideration when comparing noise between cameras is to equalize the file size to give a true 100% 1:1 comparison. Once that is done, the difference between the 7D and Mk III should be fairly small. To have this type of noise performance on such small pixels (18MP on 1.6x crop vs 10MP on 1.3x crop) is really an achievement.
As the Canon DPP software is not my typical processing software and also delivers a different look to the images, I can’t say conclusively how they compare to my regular Adobe ACR processed RAW files.
Check back soon for my field test of the Canon 7D with samples images, coming soon!