# Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?



## YuengLinger (Feb 14, 2015)

In a thread here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24210.15

and in the test-chart sample images available at the-digital-picture, certain lenses seem less sharp, soft in comparison, when mounted on a 7DII and compared with a 1D Mk III. In particular, the new 100-400mm II.

On the other hand, Arthur Morris claims that talk of the 7DII being relatively soft is due to user error.

Test charts aren't flying around...


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 14, 2015)

I firmly believe the engineering on the 7Dii, whether software or hardware, is flawed. 

I've had three copies of this camera now and can tell you with great confidence, this camera does not perform to the standards Canon's promotional material suggested. 

There's problems locking onto subjects, there's problems with softness, there's problems with AF performance...and before anybody takes my head for saying that, those were the words used by Canon SA when explaining issues with my first two bodies. 

Softness was a BIG issue with the second body and according to Canon, they could not reconcile the issue and instead gave me a third body. Which is also not perfect. 

Let's hope that when new firmware is released, it will solve of these issues.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> and in the test-chart sample images available at the-digital-picture, certain lenses seem less sharp, soft in comparison, when mounted on a 7DII and compared with a 1D Mk III. In particular, the new 100-400mm II.



This is the usual 20mp crop vs. 20mp ff problem isn't it? It applies to the 7d2-upscaled 5ds, too. By cropping away only the center of the lens, you get a performance hit esp. when pixel peeping wide open - I can see it on my 100L which otherwise is very sharp. Just because you pay $2000 for a crop camera doesn't change the fact that it's a crop camera.



Sabaki said:


> There's problems locking onto subjects, there's problems with softness, there's problems with AF performance...and before anybody takes my head for saying that, those were the words used by Canon SA when explaining issues with my first two bodies.



Af might be an issue, I don't know lacking a 7d2. But: lens "softness" sounds rather stange to me other than the crop/ff difference explained above. That's because the af is *somewhere*, so it has to be "as sharp as it gets" *somewhere* unless there's camera/IS shake.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 15, 2015)

There's nothing handicapping the 7DII in the tests, Marsu42. My 60D is sharper than what is shown, and you can see that for yourself if you choose the 60D as the body in several comparisons.

The 7DII is not being cropped in any strange way. It is a straight test of sharpness, of how the lens is resolving a test chart, and the 7DII with the ef 100-400mm II, a theoretical "dream team," is having some kind of trouble in this instance.

Arthur Morris deals with some pretty experienced enthusiasts, yet he dismisses their claims as user error. Are you saying that Brian at the-digital-picture set up his tests incorrectly?

The whole crop vs ff issue doesn't come into play here.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 15, 2015)

Hi YuengLinger,

Seems like a stupid question but have you checked your lenses for AFMA? Also, which are the lenses which appear to be soft to you?

I picked up my 7D2 on yesterday specifically for action / birding but haven't shot anything much because the weather has been terrible. 

I'll be waiting for your response so that I'll know what to look out for and share the results.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 15, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> There's nothing handicapping the 7DII in the tests, Marsu42. My 60D is sharper than what is shown, and you can see that for yourself if you choose the 60D as the body in several comparisons.
> 
> The 7DII is not being cropped in any strange way. It is a straight test of sharpness, of how the lens is resolving a test chart, and the 7DII with the ef 100-400mm II, a theoretical "dream team," is having some kind of trouble in this instance.
> 
> ...



I concur with all of your statements. I believe there are multiple issues that are not related. After a lot of testing I'm also finding that AFMA does not seem very consistent. That meaning one day afma 0 is good but several days later with the same lens afma 6 is better. Same lens on my 5d3 is perfect. One would then suggest that there is a physical issue with the AF sensor moving...possibly...but could also be a firmware issue where afma is not always honored. No one but canon can make that determination.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 15, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> There's nothing handicapping the 7DII in the tests, Marsu42. My 60D is sharper than what is shown, and you can see that for yourself if you choose the 60D as the body in several comparisons.
> 
> The 7DII is not being cropped in any strange way. It is a straight test of sharpness, of how the lens is resolving a test chart, and the 7DII with the ef 100-400mm II, a theoretical "dream team," is having some kind of trouble in this instance.
> 
> ...



The first question I ask in these cases is whether there are people out there who are getting the expected results from this camera. If the answer is yes, then we know (fairly conclusively) that it's not a design/engineering problem. At that point there are two main possibilities: quality control (i.e. manufacturing variability) and user error.

Go hit the web again; this time, look for satisfied pros/advanced enthusiasts who don't have a business relationship with Canon. If they're happy, you need to look beyond design flaws.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 15, 2015)

I think the error is not the 7D II but how you are interpreting the ISO chart.

First it is the 1Ds III, not the 1D III in the test.

The 1Ds III would put more pixels on the ISO chart and should have greater resolution. 

Look carefully at the 60D image, it is smaller than the 7D II image. The 7D II file is larger, and the 60D image should have been upsized a bit. The 7D II is much better in the corners.

See this for how the charts work;
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

AF issues would not show in the charts, they are shot in MF.

The 7D II will give you a resolution boost when used against FF cameras.
But the 7D II has a few problems, resolution and IQ are not one of them.

It will loose about 10% of its shots. A higher percentage than the 1D bodies.
It is not as precise, it has a wider range of float inside the DOF when hitting the subject than does other bodies I have. Some may think it is soft because of this, but if you have keepers that are crisp and sharp it is obviously an AF issue.
It has a harder time locking on small points, the spot point setting does not help much.
It seems like the individual focus point is larger than on other bodies. This may have something to do with crop vs FF and 65 AF points, but it is harder to pinpoint focus.

Some might think its soft because it doesn't have as much head room for sharpening as the old 7D had. It seems to do more sharpening in the body and you can see it in RAW as well. Personally I think this is a firmware change. I think this makes ISO and lab testing less effective, you are never comparing a sensor vs sensor, you are comparing a sensor with firmware vs sensor with firmware.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 15, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> After a lot of testing I'm also finding that AFMA does not seem very consistent. That meaning one day afma 0 is good but several days later with the same lens afma 6 is better. Same lens on my 5d3 is perfect. One would then suggest that there is a physical issue with the AF sensor moving...possibly...but could also be a firmware issue where afma is not always honored. No one but canon can make that determination.



I see the same thing.
Not as much as 0 to 6, mine is a bit tighter but it seems to do this.

But I continue to use it because of the resolution boost and I like that with small wildlife. When it hits the results are great.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing handicapping the 7DII in the tests, Marsu42. My 60D is sharper than what is shown, and you can see that for yourself if you choose the 60D as the body in several comparisons.
> ...



Hi Orangutan

I consider your opinion reasonable and logical. I do however have enough evidence to support the performance issues of the 7Dii. 

I take you back to Scott Kelby's hour long video where he highlights the superb performance of the 7Dii at two American football matches. Shots looked amazing, for both sharpness DNS noise performance. 
There's other videos of Canon pros who intimate that although not identical, the 7Dii's performance is very near to that of the 1DX. 

So we've all probably seen those and more videos. 

Thing is, when I sit with owners of the 1DX, both professionals (international event sport photography) and serious birders, who cannot get decent performance from the 7Dii, I worry. 

I am talking about seriously good photographers here. 

Aside from AF and shsrpness issues, there's also this extremely weird 'work one day, next day not' phenomenon. Set your camera up, take good shots. Go to the exact same place with similar conditions and then the camera behaved very differently. 

I can't grip that. 

We also talk about the vast number of people who are not complaining and I can tell you something there too...most of the regular buyers do not know how to benchmark whether an image is sharp or not. 

I'm a photographer/birder, meaning I strive for photographic excellence in my shots. There's also birder photographers, who are more keen on proof shots. It seems they're less worried about perfect photographs. 

I'm hoping and praying that Canon fix this or I may end up selling my 7Dii. 

Absolutely nothing worse than having a camera one does not trust implicitly.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 15, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> There's other videos of Canon pros who intimate that although not identical, the 7Dii's performance is very near to that of the 1DX.



Thus the issue for most of us, we were expecting these "Canon Pro's" not to lie to us.

The 7D II's performance is not 1D caliber.

But it is however the best AF system in a crop body. It is better than the old 7D. It is the best AF system in a body under $2,000.

Really what should we have expected for $1,799?


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 15, 2015)

Rahul said:


> Hi YuengLinger,
> 
> Seems like a stupid question but have you checked your lenses for AFMA? Also, which are the lenses which appear to be soft to you?
> 
> ...



Hi, Rahul, I'm drawing my conclusions from reliable websites. I was considering buying the 7DII as a better way of powering a Great White's AF system than my 5DIII, which apparently lags quite a bit when extenders are used. I keep getting closer to buying a Great White, but still have some reservations, namely cost, weight, and how well they work with the 5DIII + extender.

Admittedly, I'm still confused, when doing the math, about the number of pixels and the quality of pixels as a trade off when shooting cropped vs FF on very long lenses. It seems like this is one of those endless debate issues.

THIS IS NOT AN AF ISSUE!!! It is about the basic resolving capability of the 7DII with various lenses, and one combo that seems surprisingly soft is with the brand new ef 100-400mm II.

PLEASE go look at the-digital-picture to see for yourself before chiming in. Either the tests are unreliable or they indicate a problem.

I think the silliest assertions made are those that say some cameras or lenses perform better in the real world than with test charts. If the photographer makes mistakes or intentionally introduces bias, sure, one camera is going to fair worse than its true performance, but a simple shot of a paper target, keeping the same field of view with the same lens should be a very good way of comparing A to B to C.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 15, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Hi Orangutan
> 
> I consider your opinion reasonable and logical. I do however have enough evidence to support the performance issues of the 7Dii.
> 
> ...



If your reports are accurate it could be a manufacturing problem, or possibly sensitive dependence on initial conditions (as we know, conditions are never exactly the same at a location between visits.) Maybe small differences in lighting have large impact on the AF system. Alternately, maybe the AF system is sensitive to temperature, and goes in or out of alignment in certain conditions. Unfortunately, we won't know the answers to these questions until the problems become reproducible. 

Do you see the same problem in all AF modes? I.e., single-point vs zone? I hope you're able to isolate the problem before you give up on what is, reportedly, a very capable birding camera.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 15, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> but a simple shot of a paper target, keeping the same field of view with the same lens should be a very good way of comparing A to B to C.



It is the same FOV and the 7D II is shot 1.6x farther away than the 1Ds III. The 1Ds III has 21.1mp vs the 20.9mp of the 7D II. You loose from the MP and the additional distance. The 1Ds III should look better.

As for the 60D, it is not better than the 7D II IMO. 

If you own the 5D III the only reason to buy the 7D II is frame rate and a bit of added resolution if you are focal length limited and find yourself cropping. Then the benefit is a very small boost in resolution.


----------



## geonix (Feb 15, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Hi Orangutan
> 
> I consider your opinion reasonable and logical. I do however have enough evidence to support the performance issues of the 7Dii.
> 
> ...



Hello Sabaki

I have a 7D2 since December, and I took it out, mainly for bird and wildlife photography, for in total about 15 days. I used it on the Tamron 150-600, the Canon 300mm f4 L IS, the Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro and the the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. In one-shot mode it performed very well with all these lenses, no sharpness issues at all. In AI Servo I had some problems with the Tamron 150-600, many shots were out of focus although I used only the centerpoint extended by 4 sourrounding points and the focuspoint was firmly locked onto a birds head. With the 300mm f4, the 70-200 f2.8 and the same AI Servo settings, the results were much better. And since I also used a 5DIII on the 150-600 and expericened the same amount of unsharp results, I guess the cause is most likely my technique or (hopefully not) the lens. 
I will soon try the 7D2 on a Canon 100-400mm II which I can borrow for some days.


----------



## Rockets95 (Feb 15, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> The first question I ask in these cases is whether there are people out there who are getting the expected results from this camera. If the answer is yes, then we know (fairly conclusively) that it's not a design/engineering problem.



From my limited use so far, I'm impressed with the AF system, high ISO performance and overall image quality in comparison to my old 7D. I shot an NHL hockey game (as a fan) and I would have never came close to the results I got with the new 7D2 vs. my old 7D. It's hard to quantify, but the camera feels better in every way by a wide margin.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 15, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > There's other videos of Canon pros who intimate that although not identical, the 7Dii's performance is very near to that of the 1DX.
> ...



I would have expected a camera with a better than 10% keeper rate in servo AF mode. This camera is fine for Harry homeowner taking shots of his kids playing in the yard. It is NOT a body I would trust on an expensive trip or assignment. Not in its current state.

The system for all practical purposes is useless if you can't get better than 5 or 10% keeper rate. My daughters t2i does better than that.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 15, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > Hi YuengLinger,
> ...



Hi YuengLinger,

Luckily I have the 100-400 and it was for precisely this lens that I purchased the 7D2 for it a cheaper birding option - reach + 10fps.

I plan to shoot this combo over the next few days and revert with the results. 

That being said, I took some shots of kids earlier today with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and got good sharp images. I also tried with 50L and it too worked pretty well with the outer focus points. So far I am pleased with the AF.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 15, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



Less than 10% keeper rate would be unacceptable surely. Maybe there is some problem with the camera. 

I can't say for others but my 7D2 seems to be focusing fine so far - I would place it at par with the 5D3 based on the 100+ shots I took in the evening today.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2015)

geonix said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Orangutan
> ...



Hi geonix 

The issues with the third body is in AI Servo mode. 

Now, knowing that all those Cases work ONLY in AI Servo mode, my feeling is that the issue is either the physical SF points, software or perhaps a combination of the two. 

I was expecting to have a hit rate of maybe 70% for birds in flight but my current ratio is maybe 30%.


----------



## geonix (Feb 15, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> I firmly believe the engineering on the 7Dii, whether software or hardware, is flawed.
> 
> I've had three copies of this camera now and can tell you with great confidence, this camera does not perform to the standards Canon's promotional material suggested.



Did you get all this three cameras from the same source/shop?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> There's nothing handicapping the 7DII in the tests, Marsu42. My 60D is sharper than what is shown, and you can see that for yourself if you choose the 60D as the body in several comparisons.



Ok, I hear ya. As the other participants have mentioned, make sure you account for the 18mp->20mp resolution increase. If it still should be a big difference vs. 60d with proper settings, I'm lost how to explain it.



Sabaki said:


> I was expecting to have a hit rate of maybe 70% for birds in flight but my current ratio is maybe 30%.



I'm not saying there isn't anything wrong with the 7d2 (I don't own one), but I'm interested anyway ... did you make sure you experimented enough with the tracking settings? This makes a very large difference on how much keepers you get... 

... for example with optimal settings I can crank up my 6d up to a 10% keeper rate with the outer points :->


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2015)

Rahul said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



The story of 10% keeper rate is fairly common, I have to verify that rate. 

Here's something I find totally mad. I've been told it's a batch issue, yet! Not every 7Dii that is not performing, exhibits the exact same problems. Some have sharpness issues. Others have AF issues. Others have both. Then there's the issue of focus locking on objects that occupy less than 10% of the frame. Example would be a kingfisher vs heron. Heron is perfect, kingfisher not at all. 

Rahul, may I ask what you were shooting?


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2015)

geonix said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I firmly believe the engineering on the 7Dii, whether software or hardware, is flawed.
> ...



My first camera was from a retailer and the next two directly from Canon. 

I've been asked this question before and unless the retailer drops the box or hurts the camera in such a way, we get handed sealed boxes.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 15, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



Hi Sabaki,

I was shooting 3-6 year old kids playing outdoors. The AF tracking worked quite well in AI-Servo. This was my first day with the 7D2 though. I hope this isn't a Jekyll/Hyde camera as some have experienced. 

Birding will start tomorrow, weather permitting - it was a very cloudy day today. 

Focusing on very small subjects was a problem I faced consistently using the 100-400 V1 on both my 5D3 as well as the 6D - the 100-400 II works way better. What lenses are you using on the 7D2 which are causing this problem?


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I was expecting to have a hit rate of maybe 70% for birds in flight but my current ratio is maybe 30%.
> ...



Very fair question. 

I have invested many hours researching the sliders and fully appreciate that I am yet to nail perfection as far as that goes. 
Tracking sensitivity and AF point switch I find less complicated than the acel/decel slider. 
Acel/decel is, as far as I understand, critical for subjects that don't move in a straight line. So a bird that banks, dips or dives. Perhaps sudden change in speed. 

So I am work +1 now for acel/decel but what I don't know how to measure, is if there is a measure of TOLERANCE if I select +1 but 0 may be marginally better. 

That being said, it's not very satisfying to have a series of shots where my focus point is on the bird throughout the burst, yet 1 of 11 shots are sharp. Next attempt, same bird, same settings and then I get 4 of 10.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2015)

Rahul said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Rahul said:
> ...



Rahul, I really hope yours is 100% 

I don't know if you can sense my anger and massive disappointment about my experiences with the 7Dii, it's stolen my desire and enjoy of photography. 

Best of luck mate, holding thumbs yours is perfect


----------



## Rahul (Feb 15, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



Are you working with ITR on or off?


----------



## geonix (Feb 15, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Rahul, I really hope yours is 100%
> 
> I don't know if you can sense my anger and massive disappointment about my experiences with the 7Dii, it's stolen my desire and enjoy of photography.
> 
> Best of luck mate, holding thumbs yours is perfect



Don't let this draw you down too much, Sabaki. 
As I understood you are not very familiar with the AF cases right? For those and for bird photography I would recommend this video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcsSzhD74Q4
I use almost the same settings. And my keeper rate has increased already significantly just by adopting the back-button focusing. 
Maybe you know all this already, then please don't take this as an offending or so. 

If your problems really relate to in-camera flaws then there is still a chance that an firmware update would fix them. Always look on the bright site ...


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2015)

Rahul said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I leave it on, even if it only works when all 65 points are active


----------



## Rahul (Feb 15, 2015)

@Sabaki

Don't let this get you down. Since this is the third model you are using, I'd suggest you keep working on it to rule out user error 100%. Otherwise, check the serial nos. of the cameras you have used, they may be from a batch of production which has some issues. 

As an extreme way to confirm this could probably be to rent a 7D2 and see if the problems persist.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 15, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



It also works with zone AF and Large zone AF. The camera will then try to track color which may cause issues (nothing is perfect). Try disabling it and see how it goes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2015)

The more bodies you go through the less likely it is that it is a camera issue. Think of it like this, if 2% of bodies had an issue out of the box, then to get three bad ones in a row is 0.0008%, or 1 in 125,000. Not saying it couldn't happen, and the 'failure rate' is a complete guess, but is in line with average failure rates of 5% in the first 12 months for consumer electronics.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The more bodies you go through the less likely it is that it is a camera issue. Think of it like this, if 2% of bodies had an issue out of the box, then to get three bad ones in a row is 0.0008%, or 1 in 125,000. Not saying it couldn't happen, and the 'failure rate' is a complete guess, but is in line with average failure rates of 5% in the first 12 months for consumer electronics.



It would be less likely that you received a copy that is not of the same quality as other copies.
It could be a camera issue, it may just generally the 7D II itself.

From most of the complaints I have seen they came from a few different directions;
First is not understanding the camera, and is user error.
Next are those that bought the camera, thought it would focus as well as a 1Dx or 5D III and are disappointed.
I fall in the second group and I see similar complaints from other users with similar background as mine. It leads me to believe it is the 7D II's nature. Firmware may fix some issues but I wouldn't count on it.



Then there are the those who upgraded from a 7D or other crop body. And for them the improvement is great.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The more bodies you go through the less likely it is that it is a camera issue. Think of it like this, if 2% of bodies had an issue out of the box, then to get three bad ones in a row is 0.0008%, or 1 in 125,000. Not saying it couldn't happen, and the 'failure rate' is a complete guess, but is in line with average failure rates of 5% in the first 12 months for consumer electronics.
> ...



There is a fundamental difference between 'issues' that actually need fixing, and peoples over expectations. As you say, people upgrading from a 7D/70D, or earlier, almost universally find the 7D MkII a huge improvement.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



True.

Although the OP didn't say so in the first post, he later said he owned the 5D III and is considering the 7D II.
If he buys it he would be a good candidate for the disappointed category.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> There is a fundamental difference between 'issues' that actually need fixing, and peoples over expectations. As you say, people upgrading from a 7D/70D, or earlier, almost universally find the 7D MkII a huge improvement.



+1 ...



takesome1 said:


> Next are those that bought the camera, thought it would focus as well as a 1Dx or 5D III and are disappointed.
> I fall in the second group and I see similar complaints from other users with similar background as mine. It leads me to believe it is the 7D II's nature. Firmware may fix some issues but I wouldn't count on it.



... with the 5d3 Canon made the very unusual move to put their flagship af system into it, though with less features. So you're basically comparing the af system of a $6000 camera system to a $2000 camera system. Yes, I know I'm stretching it a bit, but even though Canon has put a lot of stuff into the 7d2 it's still a c-r-o-p camera and *not* a "mini 1dx".

Of course I (still) cannot tell where your exact problem is, bit this is true nevertheless and if you want to have a taste of a mediocre af system, get a loaned 6d or 5d2 for a weekend then be a happy 7d2 shooter henceforth


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 15, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> ... with the 5d3 Canon made the very unusual move to put their flagship af system into it, though with less features. So you're basically comparing the af system of a $6000 camera system to a $2000 camera system. Yes, I know I'm stretching it a bit, but even though Canon has put a lot of stuff into the 7d2 it's still a c-r-o-p camera and *not* a "mini 1dx".
> 
> Of course I (still) cannot tell where your exact problem is, bit this is true nevertheless and if you want to have a taste of a mediocre af system, get a loaned 6d or 5d2 for a weekend then be a happy 7d2 shooter henceforth



Why borrow a 5D II when I already own one. 

Mini 1Dx was the Canon Hype before the 7D II made it to the shelves.
Early reviewers built this up.
Why shouldn't a person be dissatisfied if a product is over represented.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2015)

And it is a mini 1DX. It doesn't have the IQ or frame rate as the 1DX either, but people aren't saying that is an issue.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The more bodies you go through the less likely it is that it is a camera issue. Think of it like this, if 2% of bodies had an issue out of the box, then to get three bad ones in a row is 0.0008%, or 1 in 125,000. Not saying it couldn't happen, and the 'failure rate' is a complete guess, but is in line with average failure rates of 5% in the first 12 months for consumer electronics.



Statistically you're 100% correct and I do wish that when I got my second body, it worked 100%. 

Canon Africa's senior technician ran diagnostics on the first two bodies and advised both were problematic. 

The diagnostics have been sent to Canon Europe for further analysis. I asked if I could get a written report but that was essentially declined.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> And it is a mini 1DX. It doesn't have the IQ or frame rate as the 1DX either, but people aren't saying that is an issue.



Neither does it have the same number of dual cross AF points as the 1DX or 5D3. 

It's fair to say the AF _*SOFTWARE*_ is similar to the IDX but to say the total AF system is the same is not truthful. 

It's like putting Photoshop onto a PC with 512mb RAM, core 2 duo processor and no graphics card and saying it will perform almost the same as the same version of Photoshop on the latest and greatest Mac


----------



## LovePhotography (Feb 15, 2015)

The difference with things like CA and contrast really is quite dramatic
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
That's not a focus issue.
Has TDP tested other lenses yet with the 7DII?


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 15, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> In a thread here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24210.15
> 
> and in the test-chart sample images available at the-digital-picture, certain lenses seem less sharp, soft in comparison, when mounted on a 7DII and compared with a 1D Mk III. In particular, the new 100-400mm II


As has already been pointed out you are comparing two different formats. If on the other hand you compare the 7DII + 100-400II with the 60D + 70-200 2.8II ( a lens that is often referred to as Canon's best zoom and one of the best made by anyone) at 100mm the 7DII combo is easily better wide open and even with the 70-200 stopped down to f4 the 7D 100-400 is still marginally better in corners and mid frame, 70-200 winning the center. Being compared to a best ever lens on the same sensor format with that kind of result, how good does it have to be to impress?


----------



## LovePhotography (Feb 15, 2015)

bluenoser1993 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > In a thread here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24210.15
> ...



I wasn't criticizing the lens. Surprised at the difference in quality between formats. I'm buying a 7DII primarly for reach with long lenses (although I'm sure the fast fps will come in handy) in order to use TC's less, or use 1.4 TC more and 2.0 TC less. If the 7D II adds that much CA, I might as well save the money and just use the TC's.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 15, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Same lens on my 5d3 is perfect.



Not a surprise at all.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 15, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> I would have expected a camera with a better than 10% keeper rate in servo AF mode. This camera is fine for Harry homeowner taking shots of his kids playing in the yard. It is NOT a body I would trust on an expensive trip or assignment. Not in its current state.



Same for my 7D, the 7D II I tried, and the 70D I own.


----------



## dslrdummy (Feb 15, 2015)

I must say I have had mixed results with the AF - keeper rate is not as high as I would like but still probably better than 70%. I shoot sports and back focus with AI-servo and I find if the first shot in a sequence misses focus then all shots will miss, and vice versa. But it's too early to say whether it is the focus system, my AF settings or pure user error. What I can report is that the 7Dii and 300 2.8ii combo (with and without 1.4 ext) is excellent and gives me the added reach I have been after. Not to mention the 10fps.


----------



## mkabi (Feb 15, 2015)

I don't know if someone said this already... 
In any case, it could be soft because of the stronger AA filter???
Obviously its using the same filter as the 5D3, not seen in 60D or 1Ds III???
Just saying...


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 15, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> bluenoser1993 said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



I'm not going to argue that the 7DII is a better camera than the 5DIII, while it may have a couple extra features useful to some, it is not "better" overall. I can only justify one body, so if I had the 5DIII like you, I'd be looking at the 1.4X option too. If you are happy with two bodies for unique uses, then look again at the TDP comparison and set the FF image to 560mm and the 7DII to f8. They are quite comparable and the 7D has all 65 AF points to use and a stop to open up if you need more shutter. The center point is still available beyond that, with the 1.4X. Isn't CA one of the easiest lens faults to eliminate in post?

I'll admit to bias, I bought a 7DII in December and I'm happy with it. I don't shoot small things, maybe that is the difference, it did work very well with a 135L at an NFL game as a fan. I did not experience the "if the first misses they all miss" as commented here. I had a couple instances of spontaneous moments when the first shot was not focused, the second improved, the rest of the burst in focus.

Sticking to the categories defined in this post, I am a 7D upgrader, so I can't compare the experiences of FF shooting. My plan had been to go to 5DIII when the IV was released, but the f8 AF included on the 7D was the deciding factor. I can't justify the big whites, and 400mm just didn't make the objects big enough for AF to work very well on the 7D (distance not size related). I'm looking forward to picking up a 100-400 II before summer paddling season and seeing what it can do with the 1.4x. I already have the 2x, so I'll keep that too and try it for fun with the live view on stationary/slow things.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 15, 2015)

This is just a preview of the posts we will see from those who buy a 5Ds and think that they will get better photos without taking extra care. It happened when the 7D MK I came out until people learned to handle it and to keep shutter speeds up.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2015)

It isn't.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

That comparison is between the 60D and 7DII on the 100-400L II at 400mm wide open.

Unless I'm just flat losing it, the 7DII shot is bigger, sharper, and recording higher resolution. Same thing but to a larger degree at f/8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3


----------



## candc (Feb 16, 2015)

I never expected the 7dii iq to be any better than it's predecessors so I have been pleased with it. Remember Roger's law of new product introduction. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/rogers-law-of-new-product-introduction

I do a lot of bif along with several others who are using the 7dii as well. One of the group is having inconsistent af problems with the 100-400mki. I and the others have had no problems with a variety of other lenses. I think the af is great, it is very predictive and keeps up with birds flying straight at you very well. It also does a good job of picking them out from the background and locking on.

I believe there are some issues with some of the cameras out there but I don't believe there is a fundamental problem with the design.


----------



## Northbird (Feb 16, 2015)

I've been using the 7D II as my primary wildlife & BIF body and have been quite impressed with build quality, IQ, frame rate, AF system. I considered the 1DX but couldn't justify the weight, size and cost premiums. 

Nothing but praise from me. A bit of softness with the 600 II and 2X TC but I guess I expected that 

https://flic.kr/p/r5GSRb


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Feb 16, 2015)

Northbird said:


> I've been using the 7D II as my primary wildlife & BIF body and have been quite impressed with build quality, IQ, frame rate, AF system. I considered the 1DX but couldn't justify the weight, size and cost premiums.
> 
> Nothing but praise from me. A bit of softness with the 600 II and 2X TC but I guess I expected that
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/r5GSRb



nice photos infact amazing well done sir


----------



## quod (Feb 16, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> On the other hand, Arthur Morris claims that talk of the 7DII being relatively soft is due to user error.


No matter how I shoot it, the 500/4 + 1.4x III turns out soft with the 7D2. It's not user error. I can usually get sharper and more contrasty shots with my 5D3.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 16, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> It isn't.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
> 
> ...



Remember--the 60D has NO AFMA. But its sensor was the same as the 7D--just slightly better processing on the 60D. But this doesn't matter in live-view, right?

I'm asking why the 7D II seems soft compared to FF.

Thanks for the links.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm asking why the 7D II seems soft compared to FF.



Again the answer for the ISO charts.
Both the crop and the FF shoot the same chart to fill each cameras frame. 
To do this the crop body has to be 1.6x farther away.
All the pixels are used on the FF. All the pixels are used on the crop body.
The FF 1Ds III has more pixels and because of this more resolution.

Now, a situation the 7D II has more resolution is this.
If you shoot both the same distance from the chart. Then crop the FF picture to the same size of the 7 D II, the 7D II image will have more resolution. You cut away the pixel advantage of the FF.

I own the 7D II and it's images are not soft. 
If they were I would have no use for it.


----------



## candc (Feb 16, 2015)

Also: those test chart crops at tdp always look better for ff than crop unless its the 200 f/2 then they all look the same? In real life situational shooting with decent light I don't see much difference. If you look at test scene shots like at dpr where they use a shorter fl lens on the crop cameras in comparison to the ff cameras and shoot from the same distance then they look pretty similar until the ISO gets high then the ff looks a lot better.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm asking why the 7D II seems soft compared to FF.



Looking at these tdp charts, the 7d2 doesn't seem to be softer, just a little larger. But both crops are visibly less sharp than ff, but this simply the way it works with anything but good primes and the very, very best zooms like 24-70L2.



candc said:


> Also: those test chart crops at tdp always look better for ff than crop unless its the 200 f/2 then they all look the same? In real life situational shooting with decent light I don't see much difference.



I definitely do see a difference ff vs crop (100L and esp. 70-300L wide open 60d or 6d) - but you really have to pixel peep on very fine details that resolve down to one pixel like animals' eyelashes.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 16, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'm asking why the 7D II seems soft compared to FF.
> ...



Thanks, takesome1, for taking the time to help me understand, but I'm still, after 10 years of digital, having a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that cropped is inherently softer than FF when using the same excellent glass. (Good to still be learning!)

But wait--both these sensors have very close to the same total pixel count; however, the TDP charts are using detailed crops. So, are you saying that at cropped sensor, when displaying the same, let's say "framed amount of pixels," is showing fewer pixels?

I thought because we had the same number of pixels in a smaller area, we were still about even. Any links to show the math of how a crop of an image on a FF vs cropped sums the number of pixels used to display the resulting cropped image? I guess I could do this with LR5 and see for myself.

Let's see. Take a coin. Set a 7DII so that the coin fills 50% of the frame using 100mm macro. Take the same shot, with the same coin and lens, but using a 1DsIII, and the coin again fills 50% of the frame.

Now show a 100% crop of a detail of the coin. So even if the same number of pixels are used for the full image, the crop of the image results in less pixels, which then results in less (displayed area) resolution?

Ok, now back to the TDP. It seems that the effects of cropped vs FF show more at longer Focal Lengths? Is this correct?

Thanks, maybe I'm getting there.

And thanks to all others who have been discussing the 7DII. It did come out with astounding hype, being loosely called the mini 1DX. And we all (as always) had dreams of a leapfrogging, a quantum leapfrogging of sensor tech, but really it is a modest improvement over the 7D's sensor with better processing. But still the best cropped dSLR in terms of all other specs.

I really don't want to buy a 1DX to power a Great White + extender. Maybe when the 1DXII drops in price before its predecessor is released, but not now!


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm asking why the 7D II seems soft compared to FF.



Because of reduced enlargement ratio. A crop camera has to be enlarged 1.6 times as much to generate the same size final image. This puts extra stress on the optics. However, that's with constant framing. With constant focal length, the smaller pixels of the crop camera will extract more detail.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you shoot both the same distance from the chart. Then crop the FF picture to the same size of the 7 D II, the 7D II image will have more resolution. You cut away the pixel advantage of the FF.
> ...



That's the point, even if Canon isn't big on communicating this fact for their vast amount of crop cameras with ef lenses: It's not the same excellent glass. You're just using the center part, i.e. you're paying for and lugging around a bulk of excellent glass you cannot use. 

On some older lenses with very mediocre performance on the outer edges, this can actually be an advantage and the corners are softer on ff than on crop. But for the most part, you're simply losing resolution and getting less depth of field & bokeh.


----------



## tapanit (Feb 16, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > There is a fundamental difference between 'issues' that actually need fixing, and peoples over expectations. As you say, people upgrading from a 7D/70D, or earlier, almost universally find the 7D MkII a huge improvement.
> ...



I bought 7D2 while owning 5D3,and I wasn't disappointed, using them side-by-side. I have found no sharpness problems with the 7D2, and its AF feels if anything better than 5D3's. The 7D2 failed though - its LCD went totally blurry with no obvious reason (I'm waiting for warranty repair/replacement). I haven't done any systematic comparison, however, and my expectations may have been lower than others' (I've no experience with 1-series bodies).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 16, 2015)

I used to get some intermittent soft images with my 70-200 f4 LIS on a 7D, shooting landscapes. I would see some shoots where nearly every image was slightly soft, other shoots and each image was pin sharp. The camera / lens was on a very sturdy tripod (Gitzo systematic) and a Markins M20 ball head. I couldn't understand it until I realised that on some shoots, I'd left the IS on and that lens can't sense the tripod. It sent the gyros into panic mode, trying to find some shake to cure...
So what I'm saying here is go check the obvious mistakes, it's easily done even when one is an experienced landscape photographer. It's rarely a gear issue and nearly always a user error.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 16, 2015)

The light continues to stay poor so I am denied any shooting chance today as well 

Not shooting has given me a chance to think this over and over again. While not all pixels are equal, I'm left wondering how people will cope on same / similar pixels on the 5Ds which essentially appears to be a scaled up 7D2 sensor (with low ISO noise floor or whatever it is to tune it to low ISO efficiency.)? 

I understand that the images at TDP were taken using live-view and not the phase detect AF. If this is so the case, there is no reason for the images to be soft. If the problem is only with the fact that the 7D2 sensor is a lot more dense than the FF sensors, the problems will be exacerbated with a 5Ds sensor because almost all lenses are a tad problematic in the corners and this will show even more clearly on a FF. 

I'm certain I'm missing something but not sure what because in my unscientific test shots taken yesterday, the pictures came out sharp (I would consider many of the images to be as sharp as the FF images).


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



In your description of the coin if you were the exact same distance from the coin and took a shot. Cropped the FF to the exact size of the crop cameras picture, the FF would have far fewer pixels left after the crop. The 7D II wins this test.

However all pixels are not created equal, if you find the exact point to crop to on the ISO chart that you have the exact same amount of pixels the FF will still be better. 

I find the 7D II use full for shooting birds and small wildlife. Anything else I use FF. If you want the little bit of increased resolution on your longest lens, on pictures you usually crop then you might have a use for the 7D II. If you can properly frame forget the 7D II.

The 7D II is not that fast with the big white super tele's, if resolution is not what you are looking for consider a used 1D IV. It is much faster and accurate.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2015)

Rahul said:


> The light continues to stay poor so I am denied any shooting chance today as well
> 
> Not shooting has given me a chance to think this over and over again. While not all pixels are equal, I'm left wondering how people will cope on same / similar pixels on the 5Ds which essentially appears to be a scaled up 7D2 sensor (with low ISO noise floor or whatever it is to tune it to low ISO efficiency.)?
> 
> ...



Yes you are missing something. When the 5Ds does the test it will be at the same distance from the chart as the 1Ds III with twice the pixels on target rather than 1.6x farther away. You will see a noticeable bump in resolution.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 16, 2015)

Just a remark about potential differences in the 7D ii sensor compared to similar cameras (in terms of SENSOR) ...

Maybe it is the result of microlens array placement. For me it makes sense to optimize the 7D ii sensor for medium to large telephoto according to its main field of use.
I checked some comparisons with the great 18 MPix sensors  of 60D/600D/EOS M and the 7D ii where you can see that the vignetting is stronger in 7D ii compared to the other cameras for wide angle and less pronounced for a longer focal length.

Another reason might be the low pass filter which might be slighly stronger than in 60d e.g. (see third link).

Differences of vignetting were derived from the test chart image brightness visually.

EF 2.0 200

600D vs. 7D ii
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=759&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- slightly better resolution for 7D ii and less vignetting

EOS M vs. 7D ii
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=812&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- similar resolution but less vignetting for 7D ii

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=960&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=960&Sample=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- visible moiree for 60D in the MID FRAME image (diagonal lines) as orange "lines" from 11 o'clock to 5 o'clock.
EF 2.8 40

60D vs. 7D ii
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=810&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- very similar results

EF-S 2.8 24

60D vs. 7D ii
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=960&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=960&Sample=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- slightly better resolution (esp. in the center) for 7D ii but less vignetting on 60D


----------



## Rahul (Feb 16, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > The light continues to stay poor so I am denied any shooting chance today as well
> ...



Oh, so if you shoot the same test chart from the same distance, the 7D2 image will be sharper than what is currently displayed at TDP? If this is so, I don't understand what this debate has been about. 

Sorry but I'm a bit of a noob at shooting test charts so posing the questions as above. I usually rely more on my own images and return whatever gear what I find unsatisfactory.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 16, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> If you want the little bit of increased resolution on your longest lens, on pictures you usually crop then you might have a use for the 7D II.



Ok, so if this is the takeaway, I have purchased the 7D2 for the right reasons ;D for birding using the 100-400II + 1.4x III which is the longest lens / lens combination that I own. 



takesome1 said:


> The 7D II is not that fast with the big white super tele's,



Didn't get this part.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 16, 2015)

So which would be a better choice for a 6D owner, if one is looking for the best all-around camera, the 7D II or the 5D III?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> So which would be a better choice for a 6D owner, if one is looking for the best all-around camera, the 7D II or the 5D III?



Unless you need one of the 7d2-only features like higher fps, "anti-flicker" or edge-to-edge phase af point, the 5d3 is the best available "all around" camera hands down. And it runs Magic Lantern, giving you access to a heap of features that might never make their way to the 7d2 (and certainly not to any 1d).


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 16, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> So which would be a better choice for a 6D owner, if one is looking for the best all-around camera, the 7D II or the 5D III?



Absolutely right now I would get the 5d3. Too many issues with the 7d2 right now. People are only getting about 5% keepers in servo AF. It's slightly better in one shot mode. However the AF system has some big issues that are not getting resolved by canon.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2015)

I have no axe to grind about FF vs crop or the 7DII vs 5DIII or the 100-400mm II vs big primes because I use combinations of all of them according to circumstances.

First, the AF on both my 5DIII and 7DII is fast and consistent in A1 servo, and my keeper rate is very high. The same was not true for my 7D, which could not even cope with some lens combination.

Second, I use the 5DIII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III for bird photography, accompanied by wife who uses the 7DII + 100-400mm II, both camera systems having about the same field of view. The quality of the images from the 7DII are excellent, though not quite as good from the 5DIII, despite the 100-400mm II not being in the same price league as the prime. My experience is that the 7DII + 100-400mm II at f/5.6 is as sharp at the centre as the Tamron-150-600mm on the 5DIII at f/8 and sharper at the edges.

I simply do not understand why some users are getting only 5% keepers and have AF problems. Some used to say the same about AF with Tamron 150-500 on the 5DIII, but I never had any problems. Perhaps I have been very lucky with my 7DII and 100-400mm II etc. But, whatever, some copies of the 7DII do really deliver the goods.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 16, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I have no axe to grind about FF vs crop or the 7DII vs 5DIII or the 100-400mm II vs big primes because I use combinations of all of them according to circumstances.
> 
> First, the AF on both my 5DIII and 7DII is fast and consistent in A1 servo, and my keeper rate is very high. The same was not true for my 7D, which could not even cope with some lens combination.
> 
> ...



Perhaps you are of are one of the lucky ones that got a good copy. There are very numerous and consistent faults with the AF system and I would recommend anyone considering a purchase to hold off a bit for canon to figure out what is going on.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 16, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I have no axe to grind about FF vs crop or the 7DII vs 5DIII or the 100-400mm II vs big primes because I use combinations of all of them according to circumstances.
> 
> First, the AF on both my 5DIII and 7DII is fast and consistent in A1 servo, and my keeper rate is very high. The same was not true for my 7D, which could not even cope with some lens combination.
> 
> ...



AlanF, I'm sure you are getting great images, but when you start mixing extenders, bodies, and different brands and FL lenses in the comparison, it gets really tough to understand. Certainly we all expect the 7DII and 100-400mm II to work great together and be sharper than the Tamron--even when comparing to use on a 5DIII. And though from what I can find on the web and heard in a workshop from Arthur Morris the 300mm 2.8 II is the pinnacle of IQ, adding the 2x in the mix just makes the whole equation too much for me.

But the bottom line seems to be that the 7DII is not disappointing you at all.

It just seems that when we make decisions about FF vs crop, we have a vague idea that IQ is better on the FF, but I bet most buyers are thinking more in terms of higher ISO performance, and perhaps "silkiness," than sharpness at "normal" ISO's. At least that was the case for me until the past few days.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2015)

Rahul said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you want the little bit of increased resolution on your longest lens, on pictures you usually crop then you might have a use for the 7D II.
> ...



Yes you did purchase it for the right reason.

And the 7D II on my 500mm f/4 L will not focus as fast as the 1D IV. On smaller lenses I doubt you would notice.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I simply do not understand why some users are getting only 5% keepers and have AF problems. Some used to say the same about AF with Tamron 150-500 on the 5DIII, but I never had any problems. Perhaps I have been very lucky with my 7DII and 100-400mm II etc. But, whatever, some copies of the 7DII do really deliver the goods.



Perhaps the difference is my comparisons and opinions are based on using a 500mm F/4 L and the 500mm F/4L II and your experience has been on with the 100-400mm II. 

It could be a Camera + Lens thing rather than a Camera body only problem.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2015)

I do use other lenses. Here is a great tit taken on the 7DII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC. A guy next to me had the same lens combo on the 7D, and it would not focus. Mine was fast and good.


----------



## weixing (Feb 16, 2015)

Hi,
Here is my experience: when use my 7D2 with my Tamron 150-600mm, my keeper rate is not high and AF seem not consistent. When use my 7D2 with my EF 400mm F5.6L, my keeper rate is way higher and AF is fast and consistent. So my conclusion is that my Tamron 150-600mm had some issue with my 7D2. 

By the way, my Tamron 150-600mm had a live view AF issue with my 7D2 (no such issue when I use with 60D and 6D), but not sure does this issue affect the normal AF operation, but will going to do a 1 to 1 exchange tomorrow... after that I'll sell the Tamron and join the EF 100-400mm II club...

Have a nice day.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 16, 2015)

Marsu42 and East Wind Photography: Thanks! I have been leery of going crop after full frame. Once I got my 6D, my 60D was shelved. After a year, I compared them again and there was still no going back to 60D.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2015)

Weixing
I think you'll be happy with that swap. The Tamron is very good on FF, but on crop it isn't nearly as good - see DxO's analysis. The 100-400 II doesn't seem to deteriorate as much on crop because it is basically sharper - I am waiting for the DxO review of the lens to see what they find.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 16, 2015)

chrysoberyl, I've just added a 1D IV as an action body to go with my 6D. Do you think I'll be in the same boat as you with the 60D? Haven't shot with it yet but it's unrealistic, I think, to expect the IQ of the 6D. This was a very tough choice relative to my initial plan of getting the 7D II.

Jack


----------



## Rockets95 (Feb 16, 2015)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Here is my experience: when use my 7D2 with my Tamron 150-600mm, my keeper rate is not high and AF seem not consistent. When use my 7D2 with my EF 400mm F5.6L, my keeper rate is way higher and AF is fast and consistent. So my conclusion is that my Tamron 150-600mm had some issue with my 7D2.
> 
> By the way, my Tamron 150-600mm had a live view AF issue with my 7D2 (no such issue when I use with 60D and 6D), but not sure does this issue affect the normal AF operation, but will going to do a 1 to 1 exchange tomorrow... after that I'll sell the Tamron and join the EF 100-400mm II club...



weixing,
That's one of the reasons I've shied away from non-Canon lenses, since they would have to be reverse engineered. I know that some Sigma lenses can be updated after the fact with a docking station. Maybe Tamron has a firmware update that would take care of the problem.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 16, 2015)

@ Jack Douglas:


> chrysoberyl, I've just added a 1D IV as an action body to go with my 6D. Do you think I'll be in the same boat as you with the 60D? Haven't shot with it yet but it's unrealistic, I think, to expect the IQ of the 6D. This was a very tough choice relative to my initial plan of getting the 7D II.



Well, Jack, there is an option I had not considered - a used 1D IV. I've never shot a 1D IV, so I cannot advise. But the price is not much higher than the 5D III. 

I think I will take out the 60D again and more carefully see whether how it performs with regard to BIF.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 16, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I do use other lenses. Here is a great tit taken on the 7DII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC. A guy next to me had the same lens combo on the 7D, and it would not focus. Mine was fast and good.



Yes but this is a static shot where one shot AF would be sufficient. Try some bird in flight shots and see how many in focus shots you get in the sequence.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> Well, Jack, there is an option I had not considered - a used 1D IV. I've never shot a 1D IV, so I cannot advise. But the price is not much higher than the 5D III.



If it's about sports or tracking with the 1.3x crop factor - there are still "aps-h" fainbois around for a reason . A 1d camera is said top notch usability, customization and much more durable shutter than the 5d3. It's my personal "dream" camera if I win the lottery. If you use search (hint, hint ) there are some threads on this.



chrysoberyl said:


> I think I will take out the 60D again and more carefully see whether how it performs with regard to BIF.



I find the problem with my 60d is that the af points are too few and too far apart, so it doesn't actually "track" and hand over the subject between af points. It's just like the 6d basically a 1-pt af servo camera, though the 6d has 1 and the 60d has 9 cross points.

If you want to improve the 60d's tracking capability, use Magic Lantern and the "af patterns" which enable you to select for example the center 5 points, the 3 on the right side and so on rather just "one or all".



AlanF said:


> Here is a great tit taken on the 7DII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC.



Hmmwellyes, maybe great for crop and certainly all nice and such. But such a shot makes you realize why there's a market for ff cameras. There are blown highlights on the head's feathers, the background gradient lacks, well, gradient and the shot isn't especially sharp - though you tried to compensate by cranking up the sharpening of the postprocessing software 

Essentially, this is no good for 100% crop, but if it isn't there's little point in using a 20mp sensor in the first place. As this is a "sitting duck" the shot might have been better with a 6d full frame, even though the 7d2 is certainly "good enough" as 20mp is way over top for most purposes anyway and downsizing is common.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 16, 2015)

Marsu42, I think I've probably read most of the threads and it was still hard to make the decision, that is until the price was right. That really helped but still this keeps going around in my head. What is so challenging is user versus camera and personal biases. You'd like to trust a given person's judgment/ability but you never know for sure, although certain folk are very experienced, unbiased and trustworthy so .......

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Marsu42, I think I've probably read most of the threads and it was still hard to make the decision, that is until the price was right. That really helped but still this keeps going around in my head. What is so challenging is user versus camera and personal biases. You'd like to trust a given person's judgment/ability but you never know for sure, although certain folk are very experienced, unbiased and trustworthy so .......
> 
> Jack



Jack, 

I have both the 1D IV and the 7D II.
Go back to your cropping thread for birds. That is what it comes down to.

With the 7D II when it hits you will have a super sharp image that you can crop tighter with greater detail. It adds a bit to that ability. It will give you a bit more sharpness to work with than the 1D IV.

With the 1D IV you will have a body with an AF system that hardly misses. Your little flying bird, it will be easier to get this pic with the 1D IV. If you miss the shot with the 7D II, how much resolution does the 7D II have? It has none.

I took the 7D II out this weekend, I had one situation presented itself with a running bird that I wish I had the 1D IV. 
The 7D II missed and it would have been the shot of the day. But for the rest of the day the 7D II did just fine.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 16, 2015)

Thanks takesome1, as you've already probably gathered I tend to fuss and fume tooo much. I'll have the 1D IV in a few days and it'll have to do and I'm pretty confident it will do. :-[

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a great tit taken on the 7DII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC.
> ...



I just posted this shot to show that the focussing is generally spot on and the image is reasonably sharp. If the highlights are blown to you, here it is again with the highlights dimmed and zero sharpening (it had only 0.5 pixels 100% USM last time). Show us some of your shots.


----------



## candc (Feb 16, 2015)

here are a couple more the nuthatch is with the tamron the chickadee is the 600ii + 1.4xiii, it was just one of some test shots that all looked good to me.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 16, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks takesome1, as you've already probably gathered I tend to fuss and fume tooo much. I'll have the 1D IV in a few days and it'll have to do and I'm pretty confident it will do. :-[
> 
> Jack



You will enjoy the 1DIV and never look back. Once you see what it can do, all of this discussion on the 7DII will appear as silliness.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 16, 2015)

East Wind Photography, you know how to calm the nerves of an easily stressed perfectionist. Correction, I seldom do anything near perfect so I guess the only part that's correct is the hyperactivity!  

I can and do laugh a lot, though, usually at myself. CR is a pretty safe place.

Alan, I see a challenge with birds that have near black heads and I'm not sure what else you could do, seems good to me, after all it's 300 X2.

Jack


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Show us some of your shots.



I was issuing some comments on a shot you posted yourself to make an unspecified point about the 7d2, and I replied - no intention of taking a swing at you at all, why would I. It's about discussing what such a (crop) camera can do or not, not about persons. That's why I never go for the "I double-dare you to post your shots" technique. 

As for the second shot, and please do note that this is my personal and subjective opinion: For a reason I cannot pinpoint the feathers are very soft, surprisingly the stump looks a bit sharper - I'd say backfoucs? Now I understand why it showed these sharpening artifacts, there's not a lot to sharpen  ... compare with candc's samples.


----------



## tron (Feb 17, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42, I think I've probably read most of the threads and it was still hard to make the decision, that is until the price was right. That really helped but still this keeps going around in my head. What is so challenging is user versus camera and personal biases. You'd like to trust a given person's judgment/ability but you never know for sure, although certain folk are very experienced, unbiased and trustworthy so .......
> ...


This is really useful information. Do you have an opinion of 5D3 in comparison with 7DII and 1DIV for birds in flight? That would be very interesting for me to know.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 17, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...




This looks a touch out of focus. It even has (I hate to say this) the dreaded "soft focus" look the 7D was famous for. It's an almost-but-not-quite twilight zone thing going on.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2015)

It is not a "touch out of focus", it is a touch soft.

It is soft because it is totally unsharpened from RAW, and so there is softening from the AA filter. Also, the 300/2/8 + 2XTC was at f/5.6, where it is slightly soft on crop (f/8 sharpens it up). The depth of field at a distance of 5 m is only ± 1 cm, and the bird is 4-6 cm deep. That shot is as well focussed as you could get, and it wasn't a one-off. 

(I don't usually use 600 mm on crop hand held, but normally stick to 400 mm).


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 17, 2015)

A very interesting conversation for me because I have been pretty disappointed with the 7D Mark II.
I have very good eyesight and the view through the viewfinder and a 100-400 L II is really very good.
The camera looks as if it's locking on focus extremely well.
The photos however I am finding are disappointing.
I would say quality wise no better than my old 500D.
I had though APS-C sensors had come along way since the 500D but it doesn't seem so with my copy of the 7D Mark II.
It's a lack of resolved detail I'm finding most disappointing.
Maybe I'm spoiled by the 5D Mark III but I find the pixels seem to smudge into each other alot earlier than I am expecting. No better than a 500D sensor.
I understand it's a cropped sensor but I thought at 20+ MP it would resolve detail better.
Photos do look a bit soft compared to how they seemed through the viewfinder.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 17, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> A very interesting conversation for me because I have been pretty disappointed with the 7D Mark II.
> I have very good eyesight and the view through the viewfinder and a 100-400 L II is really very good.
> The camera looks as if it's locking on focus extremely well.
> The photos however I am finding are disappointing.
> ...



Could these issues be caused by an AA filter or something similar that was intended to smooth out noise at higher ISO's? Or maybe something in the in-camera processing of the image? I can't imagine the actual sensor tech has taken a step back...

(I know this question in various forms has already been asked in this thread, but I was hoping some our more engineering enlightened members might chime in.  )


----------



## dolina (Feb 17, 2015)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/15905528754/in/photostream/lightbox/


^^ Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM marketed in 2008.

It was mentioned by a member of CPS Europe that lenses announced 2010 & newer are designed for high pixel density sensors like the 70D, 7D Mark II, 5DS & 5DS R. All three bodies I mentioned share a 4.1 µm pixel (photosite) size.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 17, 2015)

dolina said:


> https://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/15905528754/in/photostream/lightbox/
> 
> 
> ^^ Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM marketed in 2008.
> ...


Beautiful! You used the 7DII?


----------



## dolina (Feb 17, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/15905528754/in/photostream/lightbox/
> ...


Yes, that's why I shared the images on this thread. 

To be honest I wish Canon started offering bodies without AA filters starting with the 50D from 2008 & 500D from 2009 (4.7µm).

I mention these bodies because Nikon came out with with their D800E (4.88 µm & without AA filter) in 2012.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 17, 2015)

Got some test shots with the 7D2+100-400II early this morning today. The combo focuses quick and tracks well. Test shots taken in JPG


----------



## dolina (Feb 17, 2015)

YuengLinger,


https://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/15961453865/in/photostream/lightbox/


^^ Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM marketed in 2002 at ISO 8,000.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 17, 2015)

For those who have shot with both the 5D3 and 7D2, do you shoot the two cameras at the SAME shutter speed, or do you increase the shutter speed on the crop camera commensurate with the decreased pixel size eg. 1/1000 on 5D3, 1/1500 on 7D2?


----------



## dolina (Feb 17, 2015)

YuengLinger,


https://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/15973825441/in/photostream/lightbox/


^^ Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x marketed in 2013.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2015)

NancyP said:


> For those who have shot with both the 5D3 and 7D2, do you shoot the two cameras at the SAME shutter speed, or do you increase the shutter speed on the crop camera commensurate with the decreased pixel size eg. 1/1000 on 5D3, 1/1500 on 7D2?


No.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 17, 2015)

NancyP said:


> For those who have shot with both the 5D3 and 7D2, do you shoot the two cameras at the SAME shutter speed, or do you increase the shutter speed on the crop camera commensurate with the decreased pixel size eg. 1/1000 on 5D3, 1/1500 on 7D2?



Nancy, camera shake is not impacted by pixel size, it is impacted by reproduction ratio. Enlarge the same area of any sized sensor the same amount and you get the same impact from the shutter speed. 

So the answer should be no.


----------



## dolina (Feb 17, 2015)

YuengLinger,


https://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/16375360019/in/photostream/lightbox/


^^ Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM marketed in 2008


----------



## candc (Feb 17, 2015)

NancyP said:


> For those who have shot with both the 5D3 and 7D2, do you shoot the two cameras at the SAME shutter speed, or do you increase the shutter speed on the crop camera commensurate with the decreased pixel size eg. 1/1000 on 5D3, 1/1500 on 7D2?



with the narrower fov its a good idea to increase the shutter speed accordingly. that's why auto iso tries to maintain 1/flx1.6 on the crop bodies and 1/fl on the ff ones.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 17, 2015)

tron said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Because of the frame rate I never considered the 5D III for BIF. That is why I never bought it over the 1D IV.
I have an opinion, which is the 1D IV would be better because of frame rate. From what I have read I believe the 5D III would track very well. Probably not on par with the 1Dx but close.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 17, 2015)

dolina said:


> YuengLinger,
> 
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/16375360019/in/photostream/lightbox/
> ...



Thanks again! These are all very convincing.


----------



## dcm (Feb 17, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger,
> ...



It's not just the camera. I'm beginning to think Paulo could get a great photo using a pinhole camera.


----------



## dolina (Feb 17, 2015)

dcm said:


> It's not just the camera. I'm beginning to think Paulo could get a great photo using a pinhole camera.



You flatter me sir. I am glad I got a good copy of the body.



YuengLinger said:


> Thanks again! These are all very convincing.



Anytime!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/16375523449/in/photostream/lightbox/

^^ Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50 ZE marketed in 2008.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 17, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > A very interesting conversation for me because I have been pretty disappointed with the 7D Mark II.
> ...



Almost certainly the AA filter softens the image which requires post sharpening either in or out of camera. However the AA filter will not affect AF, at least with phase detect AF it wont. Most of the issues are with AF problems.

AA filters were introduced to reduce moire patterns, particularly in video. If you shoot mostly wildlife and natural landscapes moire is not an issue...though you can get it on feathers of birds in some situations. The AA filter seems particularly strong on the 7D2 and could be due to the smaller pixel pitch and their anti-moire requirements.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 17, 2015)

I guess I knew but hadn't been focusing on it and kind of forgot. Older cameras have very significant AF lens dependency and on this basis the 1D Mark IV should be blown away by the 7D Mark II. For those wondering about the 1D Mark IV attached is the manual quote. Quite restrictive by F5.6 and restricted to center only horizontal sensitive at F8 - that's not anything to brag about and doesn't match the 7D Mark II.

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> I guess I knew but hadn't been focusing on it and kind of forgot. Older cameras have very significant AF lens dependency and on this basis the 1D Mark IV should be blown away by the 7D Mark II. For those wondering about the 1D Mark IV attached is the manual quote. Quite restrictive by F5.6 and restricted to center only horizontal sensitive at F8 - that's not anything to brag about and doesn't match the 7D Mark II.
> 
> Jack



The 7D Mark II may be specked a bit better. But what you are referencing is similar.
If you haven't looked start on page 100 of the 7D II manual, it has similar limitations.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> It is not a "touch out of focus", it is a touch soft.
> 
> It is soft because it is totally unsharpened from RAW,




Unsharpened RAW can still be crisp. This is not. Looks mushy, which is a characteristic of Canon's antiquated 1.6x high MP sensors.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> I guess I knew but hadn't been focusing on it and kind of forgot. Older cameras have very significant AF lens dependency and on this basis the 1D Mark IV should be blown away by the 7D Mark II. For those wondering about the 1D Mark IV attached is the manual quote. Quite restrictive by F5.6 and restricted to center only horizontal sensitive at F8 - that's not anything to brag about and doesn't match the 7D Mark II.
> 
> Jack



Also go to Page 220 #7 Spot AF in the 1D IV manual. I think you will find this very useful for sitting birds and small subjects.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 18, 2015)

Thanks takesome1,

That is precisely what I'll now have to start learning because it's critical to success with action shots.

Do you happen to recall a discussion relating to optimal settings for a 1D Mark IV relative to BIF?

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 18, 2015)

A few weeks back I downloaded the 7D II AF-Settings Guidebook and I have to say Canon knew there would be challenges with such a sophisticated AF system, and have done a pretty good job addressing the issue. It's almost overwhelming. This AF should be simply amazing if issues are sorted out. It is being sorted out with the 7D II so it doesn't cause embarrassment when it appears in a 1DX II or 5D IV - no?? 

Jack


----------



## dolina (Feb 18, 2015)

Jack, another thread cited a video as to the decline of cameras.

Too complicated and not fun as compared to those found on smartcameras.

If I wasn't shooting wildlife and sports I would not bother with this body.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 18, 2015)

dolina said:


> Jack, another thread cited a video as to the decline of cameras.
> 
> Too complicated and not fun as compared to those found on smartcameras.
> 
> If I wasn't shooting wildlife and sports I would not bother with this body.



Self inflicted punishment isn't it? We collectively keep demanding higher technical standards, suggesting that previous cameras are not good enough, so with sophistication comes complexity. When one is 20, you thrive on it, but everyone ages and by 65 or 70 this complexity starts to become a burden.

This is why I've struggle with my conundrum - I love my 6D in all respects except it's restrictive AF relative to action and I didn't really want to be finding myself packing around double the camera weight in a 1D IV, but here I go. Guess I'll adapt.

Jack


----------



## dolina (Feb 18, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Self inflicted punishment isn't it? We collectively keep demanding higher technical standards, suggesting that previous cameras are not good enough, so with sophistication comes complexity. When one is 20, you thrive on it, but everyone ages and by 65 or 70 this complexity starts to become a burden.
> 
> This is why I've struggle with my conundrum - I love my 6D in all respects except it's restrictive AF relative to action and I didn't really want to be finding myself packing around double the camera weight in a 1D IV, but here I go. Guess I'll adapt.
> 
> Jack



In my case I am moving towards a fixed lens compact camera with a large sensor.




Leica X (Typ 113) by alabang, on Flickr

I have the 5D Mark II and skipped the Mark III (incompatibility with 1 important lens) but after watching the video and thinking of what I want to do I am "soft" in wanting a Mark IV if one were to come out August.

To put things in perspective here are the sales figures of 2014

1.5 billion smartphones
40 million dedicated cameras covering point and shoot, MILC and DSLRs.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 19, 2015)

Well, yes. The phone has taken over the snapshot business for those who would be satisfied with a single focal length - most of the camera market - the equivalent of the Brownie and Instamatic users of the past. People who buy cameras are now hobbyists. Prestige technologic goods now are the absolute latest version of phones and tablets.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 19, 2015)

For sure and they most likely didn't even consider the camera in purchasing the phone and may never use it so in some ways this comparison does not really prove much. 

Now if there are statistics on actual numbers of photographs taken, that would be more useful in identifying who is actually using the phone as a camera specifically for that purpose and in a meaningful way. Then again, does it really matter.

A relative (he's a lawyer) not too long ago suggested I should get an iphone because of its photographic image quality and that's after receiving many emails from me that included various bird/animal/nature shots such as I've posted on CR. He's passed me some photos that I have no problem acknowledging as "nice". 

I didn't reply other than to say his phone was wonderful. I still get the biggest grin whenever I think of him and his wonderful camera and it doesn't phase me in the least. 

FWIW.

Jack


----------



## dolina (Feb 20, 2015)

Per same video I watched claims that flickr receives more than 180,000 images every 60 mins.

As for stats on smartphones here you go.

http://petapixel.com/2015/02/12/importance-cameras-smartphone-war/

Worldwide 2 billion people who uses smartphones in 2014.

92% use them to take photos.

80% of these people send their photos

Deciding factor on buying a smartphone.

36% tend to buy based on quality of camera.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 20, 2015)

Can't argue with those numbers, that's significant. I guess the next question would be, how do the photos stack up in competition? No doubt very well with respect to the spontaneity and quick access and convenience. Seems so "in contrast" to a 1DX with a big fat lens, for sure. 

Jack


----------



## WillThompson (Feb 20, 2015)

Simply put soft lenses.


----------



## dolina (Feb 20, 2015)

A friend of mine noticed an iPhone was used in a winning photo for the World Press Photo Contents

http://petapixel.com/2015/02/17/breakdown-cameras-captured-winning-images-world-press-photo-2015/

He showed fear that his EF system will become obsolete.

It is a given that any technology will become obsolete. Some takes longer than others.

Samsung, Sony, Nikon and Panasonic are making smartphones with beefier cameras. I expect Canon to do the same sooner rather than later.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 20, 2015)

Won't say more since this really should be another thread but who can argue with a cell phone being the handiest pocket camera and the one that will be available to anyone during a riot. 

The question is more, is this going to suffice for more specialty shots such as our birds. In my mind the 6D is big enough and I chose it over the 5D III at the time for that reason and still am pleased with that choice. However I now own the 1D IV for when I head to Haida Gwaii. I will not be using a cell phone for photos.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Won't say more since this really should be another thread but who can argue with a cell phone being the handiest pocket camera and the one that will be available to anyone during a riot.
> 
> The question is more, is this going to suffice for more specialty shots such as our birds. In my mind the 6D is big enough and I chose it over the 5D III at the time for that reason and still am pleased with that choice. However I now own the 1D IV for when I head to Haida Gwaii. I will not be using a cell phone for photos.
> 
> Jack



Welcome to the 1 series club Jack. Used 1 series cameras are insanely good value when compared to the price of the 'newest', 'bestest' bodies.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 20, 2015)

privatebydesign, thanks, that's a most welcome "reassurance" since I remain tentative about it being the correct choice. It sure has a few features that I'll love and does "feel", well, just unique. Also, it seems they are good value right now, at least mine was financially the best choice. I guess based on the update cycle the 1DX came in shortening the 1D IV cycle, so many 1D IV's are not as "used" as say 7D's for example and the technology is a little more up to date. I'll have more thoughts on this as I get used to it for those that are interested. I won't have the 7D II for comparison though.

Jack


----------



## BobAaron (Feb 26, 2015)

I have both the 7D and the 7dii. I had the 7D for nearly a year and the 7Dii was supposed to be an upgrade for me.
Both cameras were set to the same exact settings (or as close as possible given that the shutter speeds have slight variations, etc.). I was shooting horse races using both the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the 3oomm f/2.8 L IS prime lens. On day one I used the 7D and 7Dii with the 70-200 lens alternating cameras one race after the other. On day two I alternated cameras race by race using the 300mm. RESULTS: Both the 7D and 7Dii shot identical quality shots using the 70-200mm. Using the 300mm prime lens, only the 7D shot in-focus shots one after the other. Nearly every shot taken by the 7dii was blurry. I spent a solid week testing and retesting. Same results.

There is something inherently wrong with here. Compatibility issues? Maybe? I sent the 7Dii back to B+H which honored their 30-day return policy.

Now my search for an upgrade to the 7D continues. I thought the 7Dii would be that upgrade but it turned out to be a huge disappointment!


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 26, 2015)

BobAaron said:


> I have both the 7D and the 7dii. I had the 7D for nearly a year and the 7Dii was supposed to be an upgrade for me.
> Both cameras were set to the same exact settings (or as close as possible given that the shutter speeds have slight variations, etc.). I was shooting horse races using both the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the 3oomm f/2.8 L IS prime lens. On day one I used the 7D and 7Dii with the 70-200 lens alternating cameras one race after the other. On day two I alternated cameras race by race using the 300mm. RESULTS: Both the 7D and 7Dii shot identical quality shots using the 70-200mm. Using the 300mm prime lens, only the 7D shot in-focus shots one after the other. Nearly every shot taken by the 7dii was blurry. I spent a solid week testing and retesting. Same results.
> 
> There is something inherently wrong with here. Compatibility issues? Maybe? I sent the 7Dii back to B+H which honored their 30-day return policy.
> ...


Ok, so since you've done such thorough testing I'm sure you have a few test shots to show us the effects you are seeing.
All lenses had been properly AFMA'ed to the bodies, right?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 26, 2015)

Although it would take some effort, I agree it would be most helpful to see some of the comparative examples. Sometimes things that are hard to believe are true but the average person doesn't have quite that much faith as to not want proof. The photo shop I visited recently and asked about their experiences were indicating no negative customer feedback even when I pressed the issue, not that that proves too much.

Jack


----------



## tron (Feb 26, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


Thanks for answering. Not being a pro I was thinking the 7DII for cases where I am FL limited. But for now I will stick to my 5DIIIs and save money for the next iteration.


----------



## BobAaron (Feb 26, 2015)

I tested the two cameras last month. I saved no images.

What does AFMA mean???


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 26, 2015)

"AFMA" can mean roughly: You get what you deserve, if you don't read the manual properly.

Don't blame the camera. Or the lens.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 26, 2015)

Auto Focus manual adjustment - if you didn't do it then that could at least in part explain the results. I have had settings up to 10 or more in deviation from the factory 0. A +ve setting reduces front focusing and vice versa. Lots of threads on this topic, many of them exaggerating the complexity of the process as if it's rocket science. 

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 26, 2015)

BobAaron said:


> I tested the two cameras last month. I saved no images.
> 
> What does AFMA mean???



Auto Focus Manual Adjustment.
You have a setting in camera you can adjust the AF system.
Its a way of calibrating your AF system.

My 7D II with the 500mm I had to set it at +4 to get good results.
At 0 I would get only a few in focus pics.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 28, 2015)

BobAaron said:


> I have both the 7D and the 7dii. I had the 7D for nearly a year and the 7Dii was supposed to be an upgrade for me.
> Both cameras were set to the same exact settings (or as close as possible given that the shutter speeds have slight variations, etc.). I was shooting horse races using both the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the 3oomm f/2.8 L IS prime lens. On day one I used the 7D and 7Dii with the 70-200 lens alternating cameras one race after the other. On day two I alternated cameras race by race using the 300mm. RESULTS: Both the 7D and 7Dii shot identical quality shots using the 70-200mm. Using the 300mm prime lens, only the 7D shot in-focus shots one after the other. Nearly every shot taken by the 7dii was blurry. I spent a solid week testing and retesting. Same results.
> 
> There is something inherently wrong with here. Compatibility issues? Maybe? I sent the 7Dii back to B+H which honored their 30-day return policy.
> ...



If it's any consolation, my 7d2 is back at canon being checked for AF issues. In my particular body even afma was not being honored properly. I could get fairly consistent in focus shots using one shot AF but in servo AF it required a different afma...and would not be consistent from one day to the next. 

Though they are full frame, the 5d3 or 1dx are the next options. For crop sensor the option would be the 70d.


----------

