<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Canon 1d mark IV vs Canon 7D</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/10/canon-1d-mark-iv-vs-canon-7d.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/10/canon-1d-mark-iv-vs-canon-7d.html</link>
	<description>Digital photography guide, news and discussion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:08:26 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: David Poland</title>
		<link>http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/10/canon-1d-mark-iv-vs-canon-7d.html/comment-page-1#comment-1648</link>
		<dc:creator>David Poland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:54:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radiantlite.com/?p=1776#comment-1648</guid>
		<description>Recently shot a wedding on a Canon 5D Mk II, predominantly at ISO 1600 &amp; ISO 3200. Low Signal to Noise ratio was absolutely superb. 

We wanted another camera. Went for 7D over 1D mark III. -Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio on the Canon 7D appears only marginally better if any than that of the Canon 30D &amp; 40D, which we still utilize. The larger sensor size of the Canon 1D mark III seems to make all the difference.

Personal opinion: Canon 1D mark III = bulkier &amp; more expensive, but better in the rain, and Far better image quality above ISO 400.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recently shot a wedding on a Canon 5D Mk II, predominantly at ISO 1600 &amp; ISO 3200. Low Signal to Noise ratio was absolutely superb. </p>
<p>We wanted another camera. Went for 7D over 1D mark III. -Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio on the Canon 7D appears only marginally better if any than that of the Canon 30D &amp; 40D, which we still utilize. The larger sensor size of the Canon 1D mark III seems to make all the difference.</p>
<p>Personal opinion: Canon 1D mark III = bulkier &amp; more expensive, but better in the rain, and Far better image quality above ISO 400.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nikkorku</title>
		<link>http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/10/canon-1d-mark-iv-vs-canon-7d.html/comment-page-1#comment-985</link>
		<dc:creator>nikkorku</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radiantlite.com/?p=1776#comment-985</guid>
		<description>initial test last night on both cameras, 
7D max usable ISO is 6400
1D Mark IV is 12,800</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>initial test last night on both cameras,<br />
7D max usable ISO is 6400<br />
1D Mark IV is 12,800</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

