# REVIEW: Canon 7D2 For Events? Perhaps...



## justsomedude (Nov 20, 2014)

I do a lot of event photography here in Denver; pretty much anything from conventions, conferences and lectures, to music and concerts, and everything in between. I know some people have been un-thrilled with the detail the 7D2 gives them in their bird/wildlife photography, but oddly enough, I think the 7D2 is a perfect companion to a 5D3 for events. 

The ISOs and the extra reach (especially when you're forced to shoot from the back of a room), are incredible. I essentially got double the megapixels from the 7D2 (compared to the 5D3).

Here's a quick review and image comparo of an event I photographed last week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J3pS1-9fn8

PS: For those wondering why I picked 100mm as my point of comparison... I would've much preferred to compare 200mm between the 5D3 and 7D2, I just don't have two 70-200 lenses! Also, the room just wasn't big enough to justify 200mm on the 7D2, but hopefully, you get the point about cropping (images) vs. reach.


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 20, 2014)

Oops... please move this to the "Reviews" forum.

Thanks!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 20, 2014)

Thanks for sharing your test with us. 
I think 7D Mark ii may be a good choice for shooting events, where it is allowed to use flash. On the other hand, if someone need to shoot at ISO 6400, then full frame is the way to go.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 20, 2014)

Watched the video.
So what you are telling me is that the 7D2 with the right lens (at 100mm) is better than the 5D3 (with the wrong lens) at a similar focal length. Sorry that didn't blow my socks off. Much as I like my 24-105 F4 it is not going to produce the same results as a 70-200 F2.8 Mk2 or my Mk1 for that matter. Naturally the 7D2 has a narrower field of view and more, smaller, pixels on target - so what? Is its high iso as good? When the correct lens is used is it's resolution as good?
What about using your 70-200 (or 24-105) on both cameras and comparing them with the same framing?
This would give us much more useful information.


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 21, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> Watched the video.
> So what you are telling me is that the 7D2 with the right lens (at 100mm) is better than the 5D3 (with the wrong lens) at a similar focal length. Sorry that didn't blow my socks off. Much as I like my 24-105 F4 it is not going to produce the same results as a 70-200 F2.8 Mk2 or my Mk1 for that matter. Naturally the 7D2 has a narrower field of view and more, smaller, pixels on target - so what? Is its high iso as good? When the correct lens is used is it's resolution as good?



It's not about wrong lens or right lens - just selecting the proper tools for the conditions. The crop factor of the 7D2 can give you extra reach, if/when you need it. From what I can see, the higher ISOs are clearly as good as the 5D3. 

I shoot a lot of low light events, where I am 100-200 feet away from the subjects I need to photograph. In the past, I would have used a 5D3 with a 70-200, and cropped my final shots to get the desired composition. Mainly because I don't think a 300 or 400mm lens is appropriate or practical for events; and now the 7D2 provides a suitable alternative.

With the 7D2 and a 70-200mm lens, I can get 360mm framing with 5D3 ISO performance in a lightweight package.

Pretty hard to beat! Of course, YMMV.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 21, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> From what I can see, the higher ISOs are clearly as good as the 5D3. [qote]
> 
> They're not even close, and even further from the 6D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> Watched the video.
> So what you are telling me is that the 7D2 with the right lens (at 100mm) is better than the 5D3 (with the wrong lens) at a similar focal length.



I didn't watch the video. But if the OP is comparing the 7DII + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (arguably the best zoom lens available, at least the best under $10K), vs. the 5DIII + 24-105mm f/4L IS (a good lens, yes, but not nearly the quality of the 70-200 II), then I suppose I'll have to fetch my broom and declare shenanigans. 




justsomedude said:


> With the 7D2 and a 70-200mm lens, I can get 360mm framing *with 5D3 ISO performance* in a lightweight package.



If you're suggesting that image noise of a 7DII image and a 5DIII image with same lens/distance cropped to APS-C FoV are similar, ok. If you're suggesting that the high ISO performance of the two cameras is similar when comparing the same framing (e.g., a longer focal length on the 5DIII, aka 'using the right lens'), then try the comparison again once the effects of the mind-altering drugs have worn off.


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I didn't watch the video.



Ding ding ding!



neuroanatomist said:


> If you're suggesting that image noise of a 7DII image and a 5DIII image with same lens/distance cropped to APS-C FoV are similar, ok.



Ding ding ding!

But don't just take my word for it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw&t=17m29s

Like I said in my video, with NR and sharpening applied in post, you can get very clean high ISO images that are on par with the 5D3. As Northrup also explains, out of camera RAW noise is certainly worse on the 7D2. But I'm not arguing that anyone should be delivering unedited RAW files to their clients, either.

But, this discussion demonstrates my entire point... the fact that a crop sensor is approaching three year old full-frame sensor performance, to me, is mind blowing. 

Perhaps I'm easily amused.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 21, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> But, this discussion demonstrates my entire point... the fact that a crop sensor is approaching three year old full-frame sensor performance, to me, is mind blowing.
> 
> Perhaps I'm easily amused.



But it isn't. 

What you are saying is the same area of a sensor from a current crop camera is the same as the same cropped area from a three year old ff camera, that doesn't sound good at all. It sounds like there has been no improvement in actual sensor output, on a per area basis, for another three years. If you look back through time and compare same generations of crop and ff cameras that has always been the case, which isn't surprising because they use the same age technology.

However if you want to see where the true sensor performance on a per area basis is look at your phone camera and small P&S sensors, crop your FF or your 'crop' camera to the same dimensions and you will be amazed at the tiny sensors performance, it way outclasses ff an a per area basis.


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> What you are saying is the same area of a sensor from a current crop camera is the same as the same cropped area from a three year old ff camera, that doesn't sound good at all. It sounds like there has been no improvement in actual sensor output, on a per area basis, for another three years.



But this is where you're mistaken, it's not a "per area" basis, it's a "per pixel" basis. Comparing the "same area" of a 5D3 with 10 megapixels, to 20 megapixels on the same sensor three years later, to me, is mighty impressive. Remember, this isn't about area, this is about sensor efficiency.

This is why I implore all "photonerds" to really watch Tony's video. He explains why sensor efficiency is so important, and just how impressive the 7D2 really is, given how many (smaller) pixels they've crammed into such a tiny area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw&t=14m36s

Remember. The 7D has almost the same amount of pixels as the 5D3, in just about half the area!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> This is why I implore all "photonerds" to really watch Tony's video. He explains why sensor efficiency is so important, and just how impressive the 7D2 really is, given how many (smaller) pixels they've crammed into such a tiny area.



You and Northrup find the 7DII impressive, and you're arguing that the 7DII's IQ is as good as the camera Northrup suggested might be ok for non-pros posting images to Facebook. Impressive, indeed. : 

At those conventions and conferences, do presenters ever walk slowly across the stage? If so, you should test the 7DII's AF tracking ability on a subject walking sedately. You could call it a 'sports test' just like Northrup does. Maybe the 7DII can beat the ~60% hit rate Northrup achieved on the 5DIII. : :




justsomedude said:


> Remember. The 7D has almost the same amount of pixels as the 5D3, in just about half the area!!



Remember. The PowerShot G7X has almost the same amount of pixels as the 5DIII, in just about one-eighth the area!!

Remember. The Nokia Lumia 1020 has almost twice as many pixels as the 5DIII, in just about one-fifteenth the area!!!!!

I know which one delivers better IQ. I'm amused by people who don't.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 21, 2014)

Agree with what has been said so far in response to the comparison; this is not a valid test - unless you are aiming to show the 7DII is better. 

1: As has been said, the 24-105L at 100mm and f4.5 does not have the same sharpness and contrast as the 70-200ii f2.8 at 100mm at f2.8. 

2: You shot the 5DIII at ISO 3200 at 1/125 with a focal length of 100mm, so at best for critical sharpness you were probably dependant on the efficiency of the image stabilisation. You shot the 7DII at ISO 2500 at 1/250 at 100mm, so much less dependant on the IS. 

3: You shot the 5DIII at f4.5, the 7DII at f2.8 in relatively dim light, so the 7DII had over twice the (volume) of light reaching the sensor than (the crop area of ) the 5DIII. ( Bearing in mind exposure is calculated on light density, not quantity).

These three points are why you obtained the result you did.


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> You and Northrup find the 7DII impressive, and you're arguing that the 7DII's IQ is as good as the camera Northrup suggested might be ok for non-pros posting images to Facebook. Impressive, indeed. :



I guess I don't understand the point of your post. I never argued the 7DII to be "better" than anything. I simply state, for low-light work, where some photographers crop images to get a desired composition, the 7D2 will provide you with similar performance (at certain ISOs), and double the megapixels. "Similar" to me, is what I'm impressed by. I'm not looking for a 1Dx, but if I can squeeze out 4, 6, or 8 MP from an image I'd normally have to crop, with minimal degradation due to noise, I'm pretty darned satisfied.

PS: Not sure about your AF tracking comment about some one walking on stage. Whether it's a presenter, a drummer, or a guitarist jumping off a speaker stack, I'm not relying on AI tracking, I always use single-point and focus each shot individually. I've just never found AI to be reliable in lecture/concert halls. Maybe that's a difference in our own techniques. But for what it's worth, the keeper shots on the 7D2 were higher than that on my 5D3. I put that down to the dual-pixel AF, though, more than anything else. The 5D3 certainly holds up when it come to AF, but the 7D2's AF in low-light seems to be on another level entirely, at least when it comes to consistency/repeat-ability.

I can see why some people don't find this to be interesting or groundbreaking, especially those who'd rather carry a 400mm lens and stick to full frame. For my clients (whether they be presenters, musicians, whoever) who sometimes prefer a larger file to a smaller one, the 7DII does it's job. It's a tool for a certain job, and it does that job well.

For the kind of running around I do at venues, I'd prefer to shoot a 7D2 with a 70-200mm, than a 5D3 with a 400mm lens. It's just a matter of practicality. But that's horses of course.

Thanks for your feedback, Neuro.



Sporgon said:


> Agree with what has been said so far in response to the comparison; this is not a valid test - unless you are aiming to show the 7DII is better.
> 
> 1: As has been said, the 24-105L at 100mm and f4.5 does not have the same sharpness and contrast as the 70-200ii f2.8 at 100mm at f2.8.
> 
> ...



1. I disagree that the 24-105 f/4.5L is any less sharp than the 70-200 f2.8L (Mark I) at 100mm. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

2 & 3. And yes, in my initial post I noted that I would have preferred to compare the same lenses side by side, with the same settings. This was more of an "after the fact" attempt to compare images, as I wasnt planning this review during the shoot. In a next step, I will definitely be comparing the same lenses with the same camera settings. 

Thanks for the input! It definitely helps with future videos and reviews, so I can provide better data.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> I guess I don't understand the point of your post.



The point of that part was mostly that I have about as much use for Tony Northrup as for Ken Rockwell – that is to say, less than zero. 




justsomedude said:


> I simply state, for low-light work, where some photographers crop images to get a desired composition, the 7D2 will provide you with similar performance (at certain ISOs), and double the megapixels.



This was true for the 5DII vs. 7D as well. 




justsomedude said:


> But for what it's worth, the keeper shots on the 7D2 were higher than that on my 5D3. I put that down to the dual-pixel AF, though, more than anything else.



Are you usually using Live View? That (and video) are when Dual Pixel AF is used. If you're looking through the VF, you're not using DPAF.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 21, 2014)

justsomedude I am glad you are so happy with your 7D2.
Just yesterday I got the opportunity to have my first play with the 7D2. The owner was a local (ish) pro who does a fair bit of testing for Canon so I was interested in his observations.
Anyway I quite liked the 7D2 and appreciated is size and light weight as well as decent AF. As the day went on, however, he put his gear away (Canon 200-400 F4 + 7D2) as he had run out of ISO - I was still using my 800 F5.6 at F8 and 1000 sec. True I was using a 1DX but a 6D would have done this at F7.1 and a 5D3 at F6.3 or better. That tells me a lot about the 7D2. For reference his 7D2 is going back to Canon, he was trying it as a backup, but for him it is not up to the job.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 22, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Agree with what has been said so far in response to the comparison; this is not a valid test - unless you are aiming to show the 7DII is better.
> ...



Two apologise; just re read this and I see I didn't realise you were using the mki version of the 70-200/2.8 IS. Agreed, in the centre at these apertures the 24-105 is equal, possibly a tad better.

Also ignore my point 3, I think I must have been working on you having a longer focal length at f2.8. (The longer the lens the greater the _volume_ of light that passes for a given aperture. So in this situation you would have been much better to use the 5DIII with the 70-200 @200, @f2.8, because although _exposure_ remains the same, you would have had a much greater _volume_ of light in your shot.)

I think we are really looking at point 2. 1/125 at 100 mm is risky for critical sharpness, 1/250 is much safer.


----------

