# 7D Classic Good Enough for Pros?



## supaspiffy (Feb 18, 2015)

When the 7D came out, it was marketed as a sports and wildife camera and it was highly regarded with 8fps and 19 crosstype AF points. Now, 19 crosstype points is what they're putting on the Rebels. Are 19 crosstype points really good enough to do pro quality work with anything action related? Or do I really have to step it up to a 5D Mark III with its 61 points? What do the keeper rates tend to be for these cams? And for those of you who'd say that a 5D Mark III is necessary for pro work, how did the pros survive before the 5D Mark III?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2015)

supaspiffy said:


> When the 7D came out, it was marketed as a sports and wildife camera and it was highly regarded with 8fps and 19 crosstype AF points. Now, 19 crosstype points is what they're putting on the Rebels. Are 19 crosstype points really good enough to do pro quality work with anything action related? Or do I really have to step it up to a 5D Mark III with its 61 points? What do the keeper rates tend to be for these cams? And for those of you who'd say that a 5D Mark III is necessary for pro work, how did the pros survive before the 5D Mark III?


A Rebel in the right hands is plenty good enough for pros. Unless you're shooting sports, wildlife, or some other fast moving subjects in low light, or need a camera to survive the battlefield the 5DIII and 1D X aren't necessary. Even then, with a fast lens and good reflexes, even the cheapest DSLR can work. Some of my best wildlife shots were taken with my Rebel XSi/450D. Equipment is just part of the equation.

Obviously pros took many, many great photos with the 7D and many other "lesser" bodies before the newer models came out. I had the 7D for a while and really liked it. For photos up to ISO 1600, it works well and the Zone AF works quite well with AI Servo for birds in flight and other subjects. It's built very sturdy and 8FPS is plenty fast.

There's no need to feel inferior or like you can't produce great work unless you have the latest greatest camera and lenses. The "pro" gear helps, but only so much - you have to know how to use your equipment and be in the right place at the right time. I would rather be on a safari with a Rebel and 75-300 than sitting home with a 7DII and a 100-400II


----------



## canonistic (Feb 18, 2015)

In my opinion, NO.

Today, new cameras are EVOLUTIONARY, not REVOLUTIONARY. How did pros survive? By using the best tool available at the time. I have a 16x20 print on my wall taken with the original 1d. A 4 megapixel camera. It's still pretty but I would NOT choose that camera today. The 1dx would be in my bag.

I used the 7d, it was a good camera, but I sold it and moved on. The focus was okay, but it did let me down at times.
I also had trouble getting color the way I liked on some shoots. (Yes even in raw) maybe it was me, but I moved over to newer technology when I could.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 18, 2015)

supaspiffy said:


> And for those of you who'd say that a 5D Mark III is necessary for pro work, how did the pros survive before the 5D Mark III?



Poppycock (I like that word ), a friend of mine works as a freelancer for a major german news agency and he's using a 7d1 even for indoor/concert shots. He has to buy his own gear, and being "pro" is about EARNING money, not SPENDING it.

The most important thing is that the subject is in focus, and the 7d is good at that. Other potential weaknesses like mediocre high iso performance and baning are of absolutely no concern if you target web & newspaper print sized images.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 18, 2015)

The camera and hardware is way down the list of requirements for a professional photo. The subject matter takes up the first 25 places.

That said, Professional photographers like many here, like fine tools and buy the best they can afford that has the capabilities that they need. In some cases, a Iphone might be the best tool, and, in fact, a photo tales with a iphone placed in the top group of World Press photos. Its based on the subject, more than fine nuances of IQ, they don't care which camera was used.


----------



## agierke (Feb 18, 2015)

> how did the pros survive before the 5D Mark III?



we bitched alot...well at least i did.

the focus system in the 5d series was the number one improvement i was looking for since the release of the 5dC. before the 7d came out a very expensive 1 series camera was your only option for a really good focusing system. i could never afford the 1 series cameras...

i never invested in the 7d as i personally loathe a cropped form factor. of those professionals i knew who had them, they were luke warm over the camera. it was good in some respects...no so good in others. all of them dumped their 7ds in favor of the 5d3 when it came out.



> The camera and hardware is way down the list of requirements for a professional photo. The subject matter takes up the first 25 places



light is up there at the top for me. great light makes for great photographs. great subject in crappy light? probably not getting a portfolio piece out of that scenario. in truth those two probably go hand in hand...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 18, 2015)

do pros care much about equipments? somewhat but probably not whole lot... emily soto still use her 7d to deliver her images, zhang jingna proved and used her canon 350d to deliver outstanding quality of images, see link below...

http://blog.zhangjingna.com/2010/10/equipment-and-where-money-comes-from.html#.VOTl0y5c7Lg

but do pros need new high end cameras, i think the answer is yes... it is probably all about business...

i am NOT a pros, i am more like a HOBBYIST; who like to learn more and more, daily. i care more about learning techniques, so i have learn a lot from number of people in this forum and other pros (absolutely at no cost... lol... that is my wife's rule when letting me learning photography.)

however, if i can deliver these following examples with canon 7d, i bet you that there are number of pros still can... (note: those noise are mine... )


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 18, 2015)

I made some great money with my 5Dc. I know some guys who still have rarely shot a wedding with a 20D when something happened to their main bodies. Its really shocking but when I saw the end product, It was just fine for the prints they made.

The 7D is still a great camera, I wouldn't use one above 3200 ISO for color and 6400 for B&W. It still has a fantastic AF system that really got me to love canon again and made me wish the 5D2 had its AF. My only complaint is it wasn't FF but canon fixed that with the 5D3.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2015)

Good idea ishdakuteb. Here are some of my photos shot with the 7D - I didn't have it that long, but I think these shots show that it can produce good work, even with challenging subjects like wildlife and macro:


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 18, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Good idea ishdakuteb. Here are some of my photos shot with the 7D - I didn't have it that long, but I think these shots show that it can produce good work, even with challenging subjects like wildlife and macro:
> 
> ...



glad that you still like your canon 7d as i (also love canon 30d beside my 5d mark iii) and others do. i love your first image...


----------



## Act444 (Feb 18, 2015)

I "upgraded" from a 60D to a 7D a couple years ago. Although it was a (significant) upgrade in speed and durability, it was almost a step back in pure IQ - the pics were softer (needed +6 sharpening by default!! I rarely go above +4 on my other cameras) and noisier. And the AF was really a mixed bag. I couldn't wait to replace it with the 7D2...

That said, I'd be lying if I said the 7D didn't give me some awesome shots (as well as the 60D before it). Many were even print-worthy. Even the SL1 has given me some real nice ones - many among my favorites (and also most liked/viewed on Flickr). 


If I were truly in it as a pro, I'd likely be much more conservative in what I purchased and what I needed. The 7D still got me good shots, good enough to satisfy the vast majority of people. I'd probably still be using it today. As it is, as a hobbyist and being in this purely for myself, I tend to be much more picky...and that pushes me to get the best that I can afford.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 18, 2015)

7D is still a good camera and depending on what you are shooting could still be professional. I have a friend whose photos are better than mine and she is with a 7D.

Just be prepared to buy another body soon enough, unless you are tough with GAS.
You would tempt to when you can't get where you want to go and you put the blame on something else, starting with your gear.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 18, 2015)

Short answer:
Yes, the old 7D is good enough for professional use.

Long answer:
If you do not need to shoot without a flash in dark places ...
If you do not need more than 8 frames per second ...
If you do not need continuous AF in Live View ...
If you do not need to go above ISO1600 ...
If you can settle for a lower hit rate than current cameras ...
If you will not feel inferior to have an old camera ...

So yes.
The old 7D is good enough.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 18, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Short answer:
> Yes, the old 7D is good enough for professional use.
> 
> Long answer:
> ...



Great answer!

The OP and some posters give extreme examples such as 1D X and 5DIII not being always necessary and how a Rebel in a safari is better than a 7DII at home.
But let's face it- I would use a 7D today ONLY if I couldn't even switch to a 70D. Yes, even switching to a 70D will be a considerable upgrade from a 7D.
7D was a great crop sensor camera (arguably the greatest) in its time. But that time has passed. Technology has moved on. Pros shot great images with manual focus lenses. However, you cannot expect the sharpness and IQ to be even close to the stellar lenses of today. Would you ask, how did pros shoot before AF was developed? 
There are better choices than 7D depending on what you want. If they can't be had, yes, 7D will satisfice...


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 18, 2015)

Yes! It is a great camera even today. Would you choose it for sports over a 1DX? 1D Mark IV, 5D III 7DII? No. I shoot local pro sports, and have a 7d for a 2nd body. it's great. 

How about this: You recieve a press pass for the Superbowl / World Cup Final / Whatever Sporting event you love. All your equipment was stolen and your insurance company gives you $5,000. Using only that, what are you taking to the event?

Me I do OK with the 7D:



REX78329h by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 18, 2015)

A good experienced professional photographer will get the job done with whatever gear he owns (or rents if necessary) ... BUT, the newest technology will allow more versatility in a greater variety of shooting situations. 

A good pro will understand the limits of the technology in hand, and either upgrade if the work warrants the expense, or make arrangements to acquire what s/he needs ...

The newest technology allows a pro to accept a greater degree of challenge in the work flow as well. Can lesser technology do a great job -- yes it can. Can lesser technology create the identical results as can the newest technology -- no it can't. Understanding those limits makes the difference in the quality of the final product and the ability to meet the demands of a client.


----------



## Robert Welch (Feb 19, 2015)

Much depends on what you define as a professional, we could debate that point alone for years.

At it's introduction, the 7D was a solid camera with reasonable IQ and handling, excellent speed and fair AF. It had it's draw backs though, the high ISO IQ was fair at best, I found it to produce soft images generally, and the AF would miss too often to be completely reliable. I had 2 of them, thinking the first one might have been a bit of a lemon, but the 2nd pretty much performed the same as the first, so I just figured that was just what the camera was like. The best thing the camera had was durability and ruggedness, but it was no match for a full frame (as no cropped sensor really is), and even lagged in IQ to it's contemporary Nikon cropped sensor counterparts (D300 and in particular D7000). For a hard working professional, it was at best a backup/emergency use camera. Not an everyday camera that most pros would pick as their preferred number one camera. For a couple of years I used one as a backup, 2nd body to a 1DmkIII for wedding photography. The IQ of the 1DmkIII was clearly better, as was the AF. The only thing I preferred about the 7D was the lightness in weight, and when the photos became less important I would switch to the 7D to reduce the wear and tear on my wrist after a long day of shooting. When the 5DmkIII was released, it immediately replaced the 1DmkIII, and the 7D was soon replaced by a 6D when those came available.

I could be interested in what the 7DmkII has to offer, the positive reports on that camera certainly make me curious. A few less than positive reports do make me cautious, however, and I don't expect it to really match the IQ of a full frame. But the AF does intigue me, and in better light situation, with the right glass, I would expect it to be adequate at worst. The 7D was only barely so except in the most ideal conditions, IMO.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 19, 2015)

My first few shots with my 5D mkiii after upgrading from my 60D were... huh... I just paid $2000+ dollars (after selling the 60D and I don't see THAT much of a difference...

I was comparing good light to good light though... and the crop 18mp options were surprisingly good... but overtime I learned to love my mkiii for the AF and for the 1 fps more, and the low light performance... 

I buy some older equipment here and there... and I have been able to take really nice images with an xti... so it realy depends on the job @ hand... but you can get away with using a 7D in the right situation... 

And the mkiii isn't perfect... (or I'm not) because I miss my fair share of shots... and I curse and I grumble... and I have zero intention of upgrading to a mkiv or a 1dx... so I'm content.


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 19, 2015)

I remember the excitement when the 7D first came out. For a long time, it was THE camera to buy with the best video features and the AF and build quality was as good as it got. Its a little sad to read some of the comments above, which clearly indicate that time and technological advances wait for no one.

To the OP, it is easy to say that a 1DX, 5Diii and 7Dii are better cameras. But I assume you are asking due to budget constraints? In the 7D price range, you are probably comparing it to a used 5D/5Dii, 1Ds Mkii, maybe a new 70D, 6D etc. In which case it is the ruggedness and speed of the 7D vs slightly better image quality of the FF cameras vs the benefits of buying a new 70D (which is also meant to be a good camera). The answer comes back to what features you value most, the subjects that you shoot and the environment in which you do it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

I'd rather have a 1D MkIII than a 7D for around the same money for completed and sold listings on eBay.

Much more of a 'pro' camera.


----------



## tpatana (Feb 19, 2015)

One of my favorite shot was with Rebel XTi, another with 7D. Currently I have better bodies.

However, after getting 5D3, I tried 7D couple times and I hated the AF. I shot similar event I had been shooting recently with 5D3, and normal keeper (for focus reasons) on 5D3 was ~90%, 7D was <50%.

But given certain restrictions, there's nothing wrong with 7D. New cameras just do certain things better.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 19, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> I remember the excitement when the 7D first came out. For a long time, it was THE camera to buy with the best video features and the AF and build quality was as good as it got. Its a little sad to read some of the comments above, which clearly indicate that time and technological advances wait for no one.
> 
> To the OP, it is easy to say that a 1DX, 5Diii and 7Dii are better cameras. But I assume you are asking due to budget constraints? In the 7D price range, you are probably comparing it to a used 5D/5Dii, 1Ds Mkii, maybe a new 70D, 6D etc. In which case it is the ruggedness and speed of the 7D vs slightly better image quality of the FF cameras vs the benefits of buying a new 70D (which is also meant to be a good camera). The answer comes back to what features you value most, the subjects that you shoot and the environment in which you do it.



I wouldn't say the difference in IQ is slight from the 7D to FF (implying 6D, I suppose). From what I have heard, 70D is at least a stop better than the 7D. 
I don't think it is sad, this basically underlines the fact that the basic factors like understanding lighting and composition will be relevant for eternity, while tools such as the 7D are just transitory. 
It is interesting to listen to Steve Jobs talk about how modern technology becomes obsolete in such a short time (interesting because you realize he understands how short-lived his legacy will be):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zut2NLMVL_k


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 19, 2015)

You're right, by slight, I'm more referring to the original 5D and the 1Ds Mkii - especially at higher ISOs. I haven't used a 6D, but the large number of people suggesting that it currently has the best overall image quality of all Canon bodies puts it is in a total different league. A 6D vs 7D decision is probably the classic example of what I was inferring - two very different cameras designed for totally different uses. 

A 1Diii would be an interesting option. There's even the new 11-24mm to provide more wide angle problems.


----------



## lol (Feb 19, 2015)

I'm a big fan of the original 7D and it may even be the camera I took most shots with ever. I've recently got the mk2, must be better right? Yes and no! It boils down to what you can get out of your kit relative to your needs. The 7D classic was by no means perfect, but it could do, let's say 95% of what I wanted. The mk2? Maybe 96%. As things get more advanced, they do more and more, but for a lot of things we reached an area of "good enough" long ago and we are chasing smaller niches of improvement. I could buy 4 used 7D classics for the cost of one mk2. So in that respect, the value of the classic is phenomenal.

Also through the years, I find myself doing more and more, with less and less. For less demanding shots I'd be equally happy using my old 600D as I am the 7D2. But if the going gets tough, then for sure either 7D becomes more interesting.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 19, 2015)

Nope.

Now that the 7DII is out, the 7D will receive a silent firmware update, bricking it


----------



## 300D (Feb 19, 2015)

I am a hobbyist, and cannot use my camera all the time so my skill level seems to stay rather average; but I like to try out different areas of photography to discover what really interests me. So when I decided to purchase a new camera in 2010, the then current and well specified 7D found its way to the top of my list. The main feature of interest to me was the 19 point focusing system, because it gave me an ‘entry level’ introduction to the more sophisticated focus systems of modern cameras.

I bought the 7D and have found it to be a very adaptable camera. It’s not perfect but I have learned my way around its functions and some of its limitations, and enjoyed the process. I have discovered that the more sophisticated focusing systems are useful to me, and I will look to retain this feature in future cameras. 

While I know it has fallen behind by current standards; it still exceeds my photographic abilities, and is still capable of stunning pictures in the hands of a proper photographer, as others here have shown. In truth, I’d be more concerned that the camera might go out one day and upgrade its owner!

So I argue for the 7D as a currently relevant camera. It still produces good image quality in most situations, albeit with a little effort than in more recent cameras, and is a great trainer for the more sophisticated focusing systems. As for the Pro’s, I see no reason not to use it , dependent on where and how that work will be displayed.

At the end of the day it’s about learning to capture great moments, convey emotion, and tell a story. One day I hope to be able to achieve all those things, and the 7D with the right lenses and a good eye is still a very useful tool to help do that. 

Here are a couple shot from my 7D, not all bad I hope?


----------



## sanj (Feb 19, 2015)

ishdakuteb said:


> do pros care much about equipments? somewhat but probably not whole lot... emily soto still use her 7d to deliver her images, zhang jingna proved and used her canon 350d to deliver outstanding quality of images, see link below...
> 
> http://blog.zhangjingna.com/2010/10/equipment-and-where-money-comes-from.html#.VOTl0y5c7Lg
> 
> ...



Yes they do. And no 7D is not up to mark for a professional.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 19, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> A good experienced professional photographer will get the job done with whatever gear he owns (or rents if necessary) ... BUT, the newest technology will allow more versatility in a greater variety of shooting situations.
> 
> A good pro will understand the limits of the technology in hand, and either upgrade if the work warrants the expense, or make arrangements to acquire what s/he needs ...
> 
> The newest technology allows a pro to accept a greater degree of challenge in the work flow as well. Can lesser technology do a great job -- yes it can. Can lesser technology create the identical results as can the newest technology -- no it can't. Understanding those limits makes the difference in the quality of the final product and the ability to meet the demands of a client.


+1
Know your gear apparently is the first rule of photography.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 19, 2015)

supaspiffy said:


> ... how did the pros survive before the 5D Mark III?



They survived by using the technology available at the time.


----------



## supaspiffy (Feb 19, 2015)

Thank you for all your insights and comments! I didn't know I'd get this many responses; so I'm a little more impressed by the support and involvement of this community.

I've had my second hand 7D for a few months and I'm still only beginning to scratch the surface. I shoot with my 6D a lot more because I've been doing mostly portraits and landscapes. But I am getting tired of always having to focus/recompose for the one center point that I leave on my 6D. I wonder, if the 7D's 19 crosstype points are accurate enough to help ease me off my center point habit?

Also, I do want to start getting into action like sports and wildlife. As some have suggested, when shooting fast moving objects, it's mostly about tracking ability than the number of AF points. Assuming I try to get the moving subject as close to the center as possible, how's the tracking ability of the 7D compared to the 5D Mark III?

Thanks!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 19, 2015)

supaspiffy said:


> Assuming I try to get the moving subject as close to the center as possible, how's the tracking ability of the 7D compared to the 5D Mark III?
> 
> Thanks!


It isn't nearly as good in my experience, but the 5DIII/1D X AF is a whole generation ahead of the 7D. I found the 7D tracked well once you got a lock on the subject, but it had more difficulty doing that. I found Zone AF to work quite well, however. That osprey shot with the fish was taken while I was packing up my gear. I heard the osprey shrieking and pointed my camera at it, locked focus, and took 3 frames, all in focus. Any camera that can do that is "good enough" for me. I found the biggest difference between the two was the ability to shoot over ISO 1600, and that's what won me over with the 5DIII. I shoot most of my wildlife work just before and just after sunrise, so that was important to me. Your needs may be different.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 19, 2015)

supaspiffy said:


> I wonder, if the 7D's 19 crosstype points are accurate enough to help ease me off my center point habit?



The 6d's hybrid center point is rather precise except with fast lenses as it's non-cross for f2.8+ and falls back to f5.6 (there are lensrentals articles on this). The 7d1 has a reputation to be less precise, but this has been a matter of very vivid discussion - broken camera, user error, afma, design flaw?

Bottom line is that unless you're working with fast primes I expect the 7d1's outer points to work just fine. And even a little less accuracy beats the error you introduce with focus & recompose with thinner dof.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 19, 2015)

supaspiffy said:


> ...As some have suggested, when shooting fast moving objects, it's mostly about tracking ability than the number of AF points. Assuming I try to get the moving subject as close to the center as possible, how's the tracking ability of the 7D compared to the 5D Mark III?
> 
> Thanks!



i have both cameras, and i personally do not think that 7d can match 5d mark iii on moving subject, and i think many other thinks the same way. however, i set my canon 7d focus track sensitivity to:

"-1 from mid point for ai servo (just my personal way of shooting)..."


----------



## JBSF (Feb 19, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> supaspiffy said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming I try to get the moving subject as close to the center as possible, how's the tracking ability of the 7D compared to the 5D Mark III?
> ...



Those are really fine photos. I started using 7D for macro/closeup photos of insects last year, and it is capable of producing excellent images, within its acknowledged limitations. A survey of Flickr user groups for various Canon bodies suggests that the 7D has been used more for serious insect photography than most, if not any, other Canon bodies. I am planning on getting the 100-400 II as a crossover tool for insects and birds, and I want to pair it with 7D2, but all of the reports on focus issues have me a little gun-shy right now. I have thought about going for the 70D instead, as I like the rotating screen, which I have used frequently on mirrorless for insects.


----------



## nc0b (Feb 19, 2015)

First the camera you have with you is way better than what's back at your home/office. I had a 5Dc and a 300mm f/4 IS in the car the other day when a lone young prong horn antelope started walking up my 1/4 mile long driveway. I managed to stop the car, get the lens mounted, open the door and stand behind it to get a very nice series of shots off. Neither of those pieces of equipment are recent designs, but the results were excellent. Being in the right place at the right time, and having actually having a camera in the car was what was important.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 19, 2015)

JBSF said:


> A survey of Flickr user groups for various Canon bodies suggests that the 7D has been used more for serious insect photography than most, if not any, other Canon bodies.



There's a reason for that: Afaik in combination with the 100L, the 7d switches into a special macro tracking mode that does small steps faster than other cameras like for example the 60d.

I tried shooting bees in flight with the 60d, and really no can do except pure luck, so for that alone I'd like the have a 7d. Considering this sturdy and fast camera outdated is really stretching it as the 7d1 af system blows all 9-diamond Rebels and xxd out of the water.



nc0b said:


> Neither of those pieces of equipment are recent designs, but the results were excellent.



Now you've got us hooked  ... can we see? Always good to know what other photogs consider excellent :->


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 20, 2015)

nc0b's post reminds me of a recent trip where I spotted a pair of does next to the car, and asked my wife to take a few shots as I was driving and was in the wrong side. Now, all she had was a 6D and 135L attached to it. However, the competence of 6D's AF couldn't even come into play as she isn't familiar with dSLRs (and staunchly refuses to be, to my dismay)- so this image is essentially unfocused (I had it set to BBF and forgot to tell her), shot at ISO 100 and f/8 (whatever it was set at- fortunately the S/S limiter was set at 1/200 FWIW).
So you have an image that is, at best, fine for a Facebook post. With correct technique, even with this camera/lens combo, this could have been a really good shot- because of the beautiful golden hour light and the cooperative posing of the subjects. So, I had a camera in the car and it was the right time, but I wasn't at the right enough place (the passenger seat of my car).


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 20, 2015)

Good glass helps



Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 20, 2015)

may be it is just me, but i do like forcing myself to use old gears to capture images since i believe that i can later move much faster with new high end gears if i am able to manage myself to deliver images with old gears without any problems

note: well, i did mess up my daughter birthday at one time during first year of photography, but i have not giving up using old gear to capture images...

below is an image captured in quite a low light condition with canon 30d and 430ex ii. it was my wife birthday... lol... yep, i got stared at when loading this set on my car


----------

