# Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures



## daniela (Jul 3, 2013)

Hi!

I bought an refurbished 7D for my son. A few days ago, he was on an airshow and took some shots.
But he is very disappointed, because the pictures are very noisy.
He shot faster then 1/1250, Auto Iso, Exposure: spot, +1/3-2/3.

So I called the Canon service center, who told me that this is normal for the 7D. 
Is it really? Which Iso is maximum to get no noisy pictures?

As an attachment, one example, where the noise is extremly visible. This frame shows the full picture
Thanks
Dani


----------



## Cannon Man (Jul 3, 2013)

It is just that noisy. Perfectly normal. This is not the first post about this on the forums..


----------



## retina (Jul 3, 2013)

since this is shot in raw, applying some noise reduction in LR would help


----------



## DJD (Jul 3, 2013)

Dani,
You said "This frame shows the full picture". I have a 7D and I've never seen noise like this using ISO 200 except for extreme crops or if you push the exposure a lot in post proccesing. Taking a close look at the noise it looks more like JPEG artifacts. I can even see what looks like the 8x8 macroblock structure. 

If this truly is the full image that was captured I would ask the following.
1. What recording format were you using? Large, Medium, Small, RAW, M-RAW, S-RAW?
2. How was this rendered to the JPEG image shown? In the camera, in post processing. With what tool and setting.

Cheers,
Doug


----------



## Harv (Jul 3, 2013)

I could be wrong here, but to me this looks more like a 100% crop. I just can't imagine a full frame shot looking that soft.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 3, 2013)

It looks like JPG compression noise..maybe either in camera or was adjusted again using software?

I typically shoot in RAW mode only and turn off Highlight tone priority and high ISO noise reduction. Sometimes the HINR can introduce noise even when not shooting high ISO....even in RAW mode.

Also, you can overexpose the sky quite a bit and pull the exposure back down with software like lightroom. That also can reduce noise. However I have not seen this kind of noise on any of my canon bodies including my old T2i.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Sometimes the HINR can introduce noise even when not shooting high ISO....even in RAW mode.



HINR shouldn't affect the RAW file - you're saying it does? Can you show examples?


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 3, 2013)

Is this image pre or post processing? It looks quite underexposed as it is...


----------



## daniela (Jul 3, 2013)

This photo was taken in normal raw. 
I took an screenshot of this picture in Lightroom, because the aperture,ISO,... are visible. 


In my opinion, the Cam suffers from an electronic damage.
I looked at the pictures (about 2500) and some things make me think of an electronic problem:
1.) I takes about 8-10 pictures from an (even slow moving (rolling) plane until the first one is really sharp. 
2.) Some pics are sharp and have an good IQ at Iso 800 ( max. Iso 800), others are noisy at 200....


----------



## daniela (Jul 3, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> Is this image pre or post processing? It looks quite underexposed as it is...


the pics are like shown in lightroom without any changes


----------



## yellowkamper (Jul 3, 2013)

Its not noisy it just out of focus


----------



## hamada (Jul 3, 2013)

yellowkamper said:


> Its not noisy it just out of focus



it is out of focus... but it´s noisy too.
if this is not a crop it´s really bad quality.


----------



## hamada (Jul 3, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> It looks like JPG compression noise..maybe either in camera or was adjusted again using software?



it´s an raw image she is talking about.. see the screenshot.



> Sometimes the HINR can introduce noise even when not shooting high ISO....even in RAW mode.



it does not affect RAW at all when we trust the manual. 
and i never heard about this option affecting RAW... you have a source?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 4, 2013)

Pretty hard to diagnose from one picture or even one shoot. I'd say take it outside and shoot a bunch of simple pictures – flowers, trees, pets, etc. See if you are getting noise under normal conditions. If so, send it back.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2013)

There is a lot of haze around the plane, and he appears to be moving fast, you can see the engines going full blast. 
I would not call this noise, its just the haze.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 4, 2013)

But the image provided is a JPG and has been processed. It is obvious when you magnify the JPG file and see the blocking from JPG compression. 

As far as HTP and HINR is concerned, I am the source and now turn both off due to the effects it produces on RAW images. There are a couple of options in the FW that affect raw images and those are two if them.



hamada said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like JPG compression noise..maybe either in camera or was adjusted again using software?
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 4, 2013)

No one can reliably diagnose this without the original RAW. I'm not even sure what magnification I'm looking at, much less if LightRoom has done anything to it.

Upload the RAW.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 4, 2013)

I dont have any examples. I turned it off long ago but feel free to try it. It's more apparent as the ISO goes up but still visible down to 200. These two filters are used as the image is read from the chip not in post in camera JPG processing like the other filters.

So back to THIS image. In addition to the JPG artifacts, I also see some color and some banding but hard to say if that was on the original image or due to LR screen shot and resizing for upload. Really need to see the RAW or at LEAST an uncompressed JPG conversion. I'm also thinking that this camera may have overheated as that can also introduce a lot of noise esp color blotching and banding. Usually the camera flashes an error message though when it gets to that point but the effects may be gradual as the temp increases..not just a sudden introduction of noise.



neuroanatomist said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes the HINR can introduce noise even when not shooting high ISO....even in RAW mode.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> As far as HTP and HINR is concerned, I am the source and now turn both off due to the effects it produces on RAW images. There are a couple of options in the FW that affect raw images and those are two if them.



In that case, I'd like to respectfully ask 'the source' for some evidence. I believe that the *only* in-camera setting that affects the RAW image data is long exposure NR, since the dark frame is subtracted before the RAW data are written. I don't think HINR affects RAW image data. 

FYI, 'the _real_ source' (aka Canon) agrees with me, and disagrees with you. They state that while some Canon software will try to replicate the effects of in-camera HINR (DPP, not so well, but it does try), "_Virtually all third-party RAW file software programs, such as Adobe’s Camera Raw™ software, will ignore in-camera settings such as High ISO Noise Reduction....Don’t expect the High ISO Noise Reduction you may have set in-camera to have any effect with most third-party software programs._" 

As for HTP, that also doesn't affect the RAW image data directly, although I suppose you can reasonably say it does, since you're getting a RAW exposure that's a stop underexposed relative to the ISO you picked. Like HINR, it also sets a flag in the metadata, but HTP also 'lies' in the metadata, recording ISO that's one stop higher than was actually used to expose the shot. For example, if you set ISO 400 with HTP, the camera really exposes at ISO 200, but records ISO 400 in the metadata and then applies a tone curve to the JPG file to boost the shadows by a stop - that underexposure is how it preserves highlights (and of course, you also get an extra stop of shadow noise as a consequence). Most RAW converters recognize the flag, and try to duplicate Canon's HTP tone curve with their own version (DPP uses Canon's version, obviously, but unlike HINR, 3rd party converters don't just ignore the metadata flag). RAW apps like rawnalyze just show you the 1-stop underexposed file. Point is, IMO rather than setting HTP, you're better off just exposing to preserve the highlights yourself, then boosting shadows in post yourself, where you have more control over the process.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 4, 2013)

As I stated give it a try or ask Canon. That might get to the bottom of it. What you quoted is that 3rd party software will ignore the setting. It doesn't state that the camera has not already monkeyed with your image. That is a carefully worded quote including the part about "most" software.

Regarding HTP, yes it does bring up the noise by about one stop...and in some cases it's better to go the other way and overexpose with a higher ISO to push the noise down by a stop or two in post.

In the case of this aircraft I would have over exposed the aircraft by a 1 or 1.5 stop (depending on full sun or overcast) and blown out the sky then pulled the aircraft back down with DPP or ACR. The sky in this image appears too dark. Could very well be HTP was on and was trying to appease the highlights. Would also be nice to see the metadata tagged to the image as reported by DPP.



neuroanatomist said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > As far as HTP and HINR is concerned, I am the source and now turn both off due to the effects it produces on RAW images. There are a couple of options in the FW that affect raw images and those are two if them.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> As I stated give it a try or ask Canon. That might get to the bottom of it. What you quoted is that 3rd party software will ignore the setting. It doesn't state that the camera has not already monkeyed with your image. That is a carefully worded quote including the part about "most" software.



I have tried it - it has no effect on the RAW files (at least, not on the 7D where I tested it long ago, and not on the 1D X). It's worded that way because there's probably some esoteric RAW converter out there that will try to do something in response to the HINR flag in the metadata. The article also states, "Don’t expect the High ISO Noise Reduction you may have set in-camera to have *any effect* with most third-party software programs." That's what I see empirically - no effect. 

So, while I'm certainly open to seeing evidence to the contrary, I rather doubt you'll be able to produce any (and conveniently, it's quite easy to state, 'it's not worth the effort'). If you really did see a difference long ago, I expect that was with DPP, ZoomBrowser, etc., which as stated, do try to mimic the in-camera JPG effect of setting HINR.

Honestly, the reason to leave it off is that it clobbers your shooting speed at high ISO even in RAW, because the camera performs the computationally-intensive HINR for the JPG preview image that's embedded in the RAW file.


----------



## Ryan708 (Jul 4, 2013)

Someone here must be new, arguing with Neuro Bahaha. Everything I have read agrees with Neuro. 

as far as the original topic here, when you import a raw into lightroom it does not apply the standard "canon" noise reduction, but a much lower amount of NR. RAW images look like crap in lightroom untill some NR is applied. 

Neuro, I have a Question:
I have noticed the Jpeg 7D images are much noisier than my 60D images, But I assume that is because of more modern NR being applied with the 60D, and the raw files should be identical in quality, being the same sensor, am I right?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 4, 2013)

It's not an argument. I am right and he is blind!  Just kidding. It's good to banter things around. Neuro and I differ on a lot of different topics here. Neuro has a lot of experience as well as I. People see things differently as we do in this case. Regardless and for whatever reason I find the RAW images are better with HINR off even at lower ISO. There are many reasons to use them and many more to just leave them off and do your clean up in post.

Re 60D vs 7D I did not find much difference in noise between the two but I did not own both at the same time and could not compare side by side.



Ryan708 said:


> Someone here must be new, arguing with Neuro Bahaha. Everything I have read agrees with Neuro.
> 
> as far as the original topic here, when you import a raw into lightroom it does not apply the standard "canon" noise reduction, but a much lower amount of NR. RAW images look like crap in lightroom untill some NR is applied.
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2013)

Ryan708 said:


> I have noticed the Jpeg 7D images are much noisier than my 60D images, But I assume that is because of more modern NR being applied with the 60D, and the raw files should be identical in quality, being the same sensor, am I right?



Two things going on. First, the default in-camera JPG conversion of the 60D has more NR applied (but that comes at the expense of some lost detail). But in addition, the 60D RAW files are slightly less noisy (and I do mean _slightly_, not anywhere near enough to account for the 'much noisier' images you mention). That could be the ADC, firmware, etc., but as I said - it's a subtle difference and not one you'd likely notice in everyday shooting of RAW images.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 4, 2013)

This is zoomed in. I can find no picture in my LR catalogue where the metadata text covers the image. There is always a part of the text that falls on the grey background.




Next patient please, nurse...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2013)

Ryan708 said:


> Someone here must be new, arguing with Neuro Bahaha. Everything I have read agrees with Neuro.
> 
> as far as the original topic here, when you import a raw into lightroom it does not apply the standard "canon" noise reduction, but a much lower amount of NR. RAW images look like crap in lightroom untill some NR is applied.
> 
> ...


 
When the 7D first came out, the jpeg processing was not nearly as good as it is in current cameras. Images I took using RAW seemed noisy to me, even at ISO 800. As better RAW processers became available, the noise seemed greatly reduced, and I was able to shoot at ISO 1600, and even 3200.
So, the new Adobe processors have revived my old 7D RAW images, but the jpeg ones stay the same.

For example, here is one taken with my 7D last year at ISO 1600 with no NR and no adjustments except for adding a little sharpening. I would not have even considered using ISO 1600 originally. About 1/2 the image was cropped away. Certainly, if I view it 1:1, there is noise present, but the images prints very nicely.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 4, 2013)

daniela said:


> He shot faster then 1/1250, Auto Iso, Exposure: spot, +1/3-2/3.



Is this shot cropped? If so, the noise is absolutely what you have to expect from the 18mp crop sensor, people buy a $3000 5d3 full frame plus expensive longer lenses for a reason.

Above iso 800 the quality of the current Canon crop sensor hits the fan if the shot is not properly exposed (ideally exposed to the right) - in your case the majority of the scene is somewhat underexposed because the camera seems to have adjusted for the bright jet exhaust, spot metering or not.

Note that there is no "real" iso 1250 on the crop sensor, the "real" analog iso steps are 100/200/400/800/1600/3200, everything else is only digitally modified in-camera. So to get acceptable quality shoot raw, try to keep @800 or go right up to 1600 to avoid motion blur like with the jet in the picture.

If you shoot raw or at least jpeg w/o in-camera noise reduction you can then apply *selective* noise reduction in postprocessing like with Lightroom: higher noise reduction for large,even parts and lower noise reduction for the detail parts might make a large difference.


----------



## extremeinstability (Jul 4, 2013)

Looks normal to me. Flat gray loves to show all the noise from that sensor. Even 100 ISO can look like that on flat gray, especially at all underexposed. Been actually going over files getting them ready for stock last couple days and cleaning noise. It's been a big fat reminder how I never want to go back to crop sensors...because most of what I shoot is full of the same sorta large areas of flatness..that are dying to show off noise. Got to the point I cringed going out to shoot any foggy scenes. 

Least the full frame options at the moment are more kind for that type of stuff but still can sometimes show some at low isos. Blue sky is another one but nothing like flat gray.


----------



## shashinkaman (Jul 4, 2013)

I don't think any of you could give this poor guy an even remotely usefull answer... As per usual!


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Jul 4, 2013)

shashinkaman said:


> I don't think any of you could give this poor guy an even remotely usefull answer... As per usual!


Then why don't you contribute? Just like these people actually have been.


----------



## jhaces (Jul 4, 2013)

So how come the OP hasn't come back to clarify some things? Posting the RAW (or an 'unedited' jpg export, if sensitive about copyright) would be useful.

As it is, to me it looks (1) cropped  and hazy. Maybe the lens was dirty/foggy? Those purplish spots on the left side seem suspect, but they do look too square (jpg compression) as someone has pointed out already.


----------



## justsomedude (Jul 4, 2013)

Looks like a compressed JPG and an out-of-focus image to boot.

The 7D's AI-servo tracking is not as dreamy as the promotional literature would lead you to believe. It's good; it's not great. Fast moving objects, just as planes, will leave the AF system a little lost in the woods. As such, your results will be hit or miss.

Want better AF tracking for action? Get a 1DX.

Sorry, that's the reality.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2013)

shashinkaman said:


> I don't think any of you could give this poor guy an even remotely usefull answer... As per usual!



There has been much useful information provided by posters who regularly provide useful answers. The consensus is that his 7D is not particularly noisy, but the camera settings are bad and the image is poorly focussed. More information, which has not been provided, is required for a fuller diagnosis. What more do you want?


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 4, 2013)

justsomedude said:


> The 7D's AI-servo tracking is not as dreamy as the promotional literature would lead you to believe. It's good; it's not great. Fast moving objects, just as planes, will leave the AF system a little lost in the woods. As such, your results will be hit or miss.



The 7D's tracking is excellent. That said, I'm guessing we're looking at a 100% view, and that the plane was nearly a mile away. There's nothing for AF to track here. Setting the lens on infinity would be sufficient.

Planes aren't usually very challenging for AF. My first DSLR, a 10D, handled them just fine. But no camera can cut through haze and other atmospheric distortion. And some of these aircraft create their own atmospheric distortion while flying.


----------



## hamada (Jul 4, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> But the image provided is a JPG and has been processed. It is obvious when you magnify the JPG file and see the blocking from JPG compression.



but HE has the problems with a RAW file.
saying "it looks like JPG artifacts" does not help then. 



> As far as HTP and HINR is concerned, I am the source and now turn both off due to the effects it produces on RAW images. There are a couple of options in the FW that affect raw images and those are two if them.



you know more then the canon engineers.... im impressed... (not) 

as far as i know this only affects the metadata of the RAW file so the effect is "rendered" when using DPP. but not visible in a program like lightroom.

afaik that why the manual says it affects the RAW when you print DIRECTLY from camera or view the images from camera.

but the RAW data is not affected by these settings.
so programs who do not interprete this canon metadata tags (afaik all except DPP) will ignore them.

i have tried, in the studio, with identical light conditions, and i did not see an effect.
so if you say it has an effect.... you better prove it or i have to say you are telling nonsense.


----------



## sandymandy (Jul 4, 2013)

Turned off Auto Lighting Optimizer? cuz that stuff will boost up dark areas in a photo and increasing noise that way


----------



## hamada (Jul 4, 2013)

sandymandy said:
 

> Turned off Auto Lighting Optimizer? cuz that stuff will boost up dark areas in a photo and increasing noise that way



again.... not for RAW files (manual: page 75).


----------



## pato (Jul 5, 2013)

Hi Dani
For us to really help you, we need the original RAW image. Could you upload it maybe to some free file hoster like mega.co.nz?
Thanks


----------



## justsomedude (Jul 5, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D's AI-servo tracking is not as dreamy as the promotional literature would lead you to believe. It's good; it's not great. Fast moving objects, just as planes, will leave the AF system a little lost in the woods. As such, your results will be hit or miss.
> ...



I disagree with you. I think the 7D's tracking is adequate at best, and sub-par from an objective standpoint.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2013)

justsomedude said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



I _thought_ the 7D's tracking capability was excellent....then I got a 1D X.


----------



## daniela (Jul 9, 2013)

Thanks for your help.

My son sent the camera to Canon-CPS. First message of the technican:
The AF of a few cameras are lacking in AI servo of performance at fast objects moving toward the photographer. Moving away is no problem for the AF. They adjusted the sharpness of the lens-camera combination, but there seems to be an malfunction of the program/chip who "reads" the pixels and makes an file out of it.
If so, it will be an expensive repair. 

When my son returnes from holiday, he will post the image in raw. But I can not do this here, the filesize is too big. 

G
Dani


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 13, 2013)

justsomedude said:


> I disagree with you. I think the 7D's tracking is adequate at best, and sub-par from an objective standpoint.



An objective standpoint would require published tests neither of us have performed. I am aware of one attempt at such a test: http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/03/autofocus-torture-test-updated-canon-1d-mkiv-nikon-d3s-added/

Better then the D3 and 1D3 is not sub-par. (Unless you own a 1DX ;D )


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with you. I think the 7D's tracking is adequate at best, and sub-par from an objective standpoint.
> ...



If fact, I think the article you link strongly supports the statement that the 7D's tracking is 'adequate at best, and sub-par from an objective standpoint'. A 73% is a grade of 'C-', and getting something wrong 27% of the time is 'adequate at best'. While technically a 'C' is 'average' (making a C- slightly below average - aka sub-par), I don't know many people who'd consider getting a C- on their report card to be a good thing.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 13, 2013)

7d noise:

It is there, even at iso100.

Things to do:
1. Try to expose correctly. This image isn't.

2. Shoot raw, shoot 18mp. Around 12 of these are redundant for most uses, resizing a cleaned image can hide a multitude of sins.

3. At the raw conversion stage play with wb exposure contrast so it looks like you want.

4. After previous tweaks reduce luma noise as much as the image can bear, view at 100% try and keep some fine detail in your loupe. In ACR I find 40-50 cleans up most images without affecting sharpness.

5. If you shot at high iso's the some soft chroma nr may also help.

6. Save as 16bit tiff take into PS open in Lab or channel mode and try slight guassian blur on the offending noisy colour. Always save the original and wirk on a copy.

7. Finally. Auto iso? C'mon. 

The noise issue is common to the four 18mp cameras i've owned, though the m is a stop cleaner over the digic 4's.

7d's AF.

Some folk get a bad camera. Most folk don't set the 7d up properly, for this kind if shot I would use zone mode, and probably the centre zone. Ai servo (obviously) and H burst.
I would shoot very short and sporadic bursts of h. Those gaps give the camera a much better chance if tracking and therfore predicting during mirror up.

Shooting 10s of h burst might work, but shooting track track burst, track track burst will give you less overal shots to trawl through, but a far higher keeper rate. 

You can also experiment with the 7d's tracking behaviour, so that foreground objects are ignored almost entirely (oh yeah and set your lens limiter if you have one. You can also influence how long the camera 'predicts' for, should the mirror or an object obscure the subject.

The 7d is a great tool, but it demands of it's user. If you work together the results can be superlative, left to it's own devices it can be a bit wayward. So whats the point of an automated camera that requires so much forethought to use? Well it assumes a certain level of technical understanding so that the automation can be targeted smartly, it can make a good photographer even better but will embarrass anybody who wants the af to work well out of the box or use images straight off the card.

Master the 7d and your son will find it an adroit and willing companion for events exactly like airshows.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jul 13, 2013)

The 7D's biggest weakness is noise. You can even see it in the skies at ISO 100. That said, Paul's advice is quite good. You have to get into the habit of nailing exposure in-camera. If you can master this, shooting wildlife at ISO 1600 will even work well.

It's too bad, because it's my favorite "shell" and the 7d is just perfect in the hands the way other Canon DSLR's are not. Can't explain why...but I could hint at a certain density and grip-size, and the way everything is laid out.

If you absolutely can't stand the noise, and your main subjects are landscape and portrait, then there's no reason to own the 7D IMHO.

If you shoot wildlife, experiment with exposure compensation in the field. Use spot metering as well, and a narrow band of focus points.

The 7d is a gem in the field, but not so forgiving in Lightroom. We must learn her tricks well, or move to FF.

--------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If fact, I think the article you link strongly supports the statement that the 7D's tracking is 'adequate at best, and sub-par from an objective standpoint'. A 73% is a grade of 'C-', and getting something wrong 27% of the time is 'adequate at best'. While technically a 'C' is 'average' (making a C- slightly below average - aka sub-par), I don't know many people who'd consider getting a C- on their report card to be a good thing.



Really? OK...let's nitpick :

Since the 7D is not a child and the test scores were not a report card, your analogy is ridiculous.

Sub-par would mean performance below the average SLR body at the time of the test. This is clearly incorrect so the 7D is not sub-par. (If you disagree, take it up with Merriam Webster.)

"Adequate at best" would imply performance barely to the level necessary to produce work in sports, wildlife, etc. Yet photographers produced work in those categories years before the 7D using AF systems with a fraction of the performance of the 7D's. Pretty obvious that the 7D...or just about any modern body...has AF performance well above "adequate" for sports and wildlife.

I'm sorry, but if you're missing the shot with a 7D, it's likely not the camera which is "sub-par" or "adequate at best."

And getting back to the original reason for this thread...a 10D can track an airshow. There isn't really much to track. You can almost get away with setting infinity and stopping down. The flaws in OP's photo have nothing to do with the camera. But without a RAW or JPEG to evaluate, there's not much advice to give.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Really? OK...let's nitpick :
> 
> Sub-par would mean performance below the average SLR body at the time of the test. This is clearly incorrect so the 7D is not sub-par. (If you disagree, take it up with Merriam Webster.)



I'm not opposed to picking nits. 

So because the 7D's AF is 'better than the average dSLR' it's not sub-par? If you think that, you should refer _yourself_ to Merriam Webster. In fact, 'par' isn't the average of every golfer out there, both great and crappy. It's an estimate of how well a *first class* golfer should do on a given hole. Saying the 7D is not sub-par because it's got better AF than a Rebel is like saying every duffer out there could be playing on the PGA Tour. That's why golf has a handicapping system, and while I'm not saying the 7D is a 'bogey golfer' it does need a handicap to compete with the recent 1-series bodies and the 5DIII. 

As for getting a shot, heck, you don't even need AF or a burst for that. Manually prefocusing, waiting for the action to be in focus, and a well-timed shutter press work today, just as they did with early film cameras. But the horse-and-buggy was once the state of the art mode of transportation - today's standards are higher. 

The bottom line is that there are many people who believe the 7D's AF to be nearly perfect. It's not. Yes, it's better than a Rebel or a 5DII - much better. No, it's nowhere near as good as a 1DIV, 1D X, or 5DIII. From an objective standpoint, missing >25% of shots is adequate, certainly not excellent or even very good. 

After shooting for a couple of years with a 7D and 5DII, one of the first things I noticed after getting my 1D X was that when culling images, I could no longer just delete a whole bunch of shots as OOF, a habit I developed with the other bodies. Since getting a new camera wouldn't have magically improved my technique, it's down to having better AF. Just sayin'.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 14, 2013)

I would expect a more recent much more expensive camera to perform better than a 7d, but it's a 7d the op is using and has asked about...


----------

