# Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise



## kirispupis (Nov 20, 2014)

I received my 7D2 last Thursday and immediately set out for wildlife to photograph. My primary interest is wildlife photography and I spend one hour in a park every day before going to work. I currently use a 5D3 with a 200-400/1.4x and a 6D as my backup body (mainly for landscapes).

Going in I expected ISO 1600 on the 7D2 to be roughly the same as ISO 3200 on my 5D3. On my 5D3 at ISO 1600 I can still count the feathers on a bird, while at ISO 3200 the feather detail begins to break down but the image is still usable for most purposes.

What I found was that on the 7D2 there was still a noticeable lack of detail at ISO 1600 compared to ISO 3200 on my 5D3. Even worse, when I went down to ISO 800 there was still noticeable noise, though the images were certainly usable. This morning I spent some time photographing identical subjects with the two, and I came to the conclusion that the 7D2 simply would not work for me.

I am glad I bought it at unique photo - who said they'll take it back as long as the box is in good condition. I had hoped this would give me a bit more extra reach, but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors. Instead I intend to wait and see what Canon does with the 1Dx2.

Unfortunately my sample images are not up, but you can get an idea from this one (ISO 400).


Predator by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## djack41 (Nov 20, 2014)

I am getting very good results at ISO 800 but exposing to the right is important.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> Going in I expected ISO 1600 on the 7D2 to be roughly the same as ISO 3200 on my 5D3.



Reading a review would have saved you from the disappointment - ff still keeps a ~2ev advantage as the 7d2 has less banding and more dynamic range, but isn't a revolution concerning iso noise.



kirispupis said:


> On my 5D3 at ISO 1600 I can still count the feathers on a bird, while at ISO 3200 the feather detail begins to break down but the image is still usable for most purposes.



As you're in 200-400 territory, I imagine you expect the very best from your gear so ff is the only option.



kirispupis said:


> Unfortunately my sample images are not up, but you can get an idea from this one (ISO 400)



It's impossible to judge from a postprocessed, denoised jpeg, but if this is really the original size you cropped your 20mp crop sensor to 2mp and expect top notch iq? For this resolution the shots looks fine to me, if there's a problem it's not iso noise but a general lack of sharpness - either from wrong nr, cropping, atmosphere, lens shake, ...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 20, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors.



This is why I'm telling myself not to fall into the 7D2 trap as I did previously with the 7D. If you are really discerning, and used to full frame quality, there's no 'budget' option to get good quality 'reach' I'm affraid.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 20, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors.
> ...



I bet the 7DII is a better contender for 'reach advantage' than the original 7D was. To realise potential resolution you need the capable optics, pixels, light, magnification, stability. The trouble with the 'crop sensor for reach' is that you only gain one of these; pixels. Everything else remains unchanged. The improved sensor of the 7DII with higher QE might make better use of its 20 mp, assuming all other factors are efficient.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 20, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors.
> ...


 

I also passed on it, its a fine camera but after going to FF, I don't think I would go back, not at least until they come out as refurbs. Maybe a 1D MK IV which does retain good detail at high ISO's.


The 7D Mark II is fine at low to medium ISO levels, but it is a crop after all, and for a really clean image, ISO 1100 or lower is best.

Its truly difficult to judge any small image uploaded to CR, or to Flickr where the images are modified during the upload process. I've seen some decent photos taken by professionals, but I also note the smeared look from over processing from owners attempts to take high ISO images and use too much NR.

Its actually better to use a extreme light touch on NR. The noise won't be visible at web sizes, but the detail will not look like melted wax.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 20, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors.
> ...



Agreed. The OP's issue sounds like my 70D. The crop cameras are fine for the best light, fashion, or sports. But for wildlife photography, the IQ is lacking. You need smooth, yet detailed fur and feathers. The Canon high mp crop sensors look rough and grungy compared to their FF offerings, even at lower ISO's.


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 20, 2014)

In response to the replies, yes this is basically my dumb. I had owned the original 7D and had similar problems with it, but I had too much hope that this was a much better step forward. I seized on several positive reviews despite my own better initial judgment.

The sample image was mainly intended to show that I do in fact own the camera and am not a troll.  The problem images will go in the delete pile...


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 20, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> In response to the replies, yes this is basically my dumb. I had owned the original 7D and had similar problems with it, but I had too much hope that this was a much better step forward. I seized on several positive reviews despite my own better initial judgment.
> 
> The sample image was mainly intended to show that I do in fact own the camera and am not a troll.  The problem images will go in the delete pile...



Funny, I just did a video review of why I think the 7D2 is almost better suited for events when extra reach is needed, not birds/wildlife and detail. I can see where lack of clarity would be infuriating.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2014)

Clearly it's a problem with the lens. You need a better one...







I, too, am passing on the 7DII. As I've stated previously, the main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. Having owned the 7D, moved to the 5DII for everything but birds/wildlife (because the AF of the 5DII wasn't up to the task), then moved to the 1D X and selling both the 5DII and 7D, I don't see going back to APS-C, except when the constraints of an outing preclude a full sized camera, and in that case the 7DII would also be too big (and that's where my EOS M comes into play).


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Nov 20, 2014)

I've also passed on picking up the 7D Mark II after a little more research and reading a few more reviews.
I'm going to pick up a full frame next year and picking up a Pentax K-5II's next week,for it's low light and it being a much lighter camera to haul around.


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 20, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Sorry it didn't work out for you and your needs but I'm very happy with the results that I have been getting.



Sick shot!!!


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 20, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> I received my 7D2 last Thursday and immediately set out for wildlife to photograph. My primary interest is wildlife photography and I spend one hour in a park every day before going to work. I currently use a 5D3 with a 200-400/1.4x and a 6D as my backup body (mainly for landscapes).
> 
> Going in I expected ISO 1600 on the 7D2 to be roughly the same as ISO 3200 on my 5D3. On my 5D3 at ISO 1600 I can still count the feathers on a bird, while at ISO 3200 the feather detail begins to break down but the image is still usable for most purposes.
> 
> ...



What's wrong with the image?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 20, 2014)

AprilForever said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately my sample images are not up, but you can get an idea from this one (ISO 400).
> ...


There is nothing wrong with the picture, except that it is only ISO 400.

I'm sure 7D Mark ii is quite useful to ISO1600. If someone needs to print large size in ISO 3200, should choose full frame. But that does not make 7D Mark ii unusable at ISO3200 for publish an entire magazine page.


----------



## Werz (Nov 21, 2014)

I don't think the problem is the 7D2 but the expectations for this camera are out of proportions. Personally I love it for what it is


----------



## surapon (Nov 21, 2014)

Dear Friends.
Yes, The new and improve of my dear 7D MK II ( $ 1799 US DOLLARS) are not same IQ and Low noise( WHEN USE HIGH ISO ) as 1Dx or 5D MK II, But for me, I love 1,6 Lens factor ( ?) of extend my mm. of long range lens, and Best of the AF. for only 1/3 ( Cost) of Canon 1Dx.
Yes, My regular rifle( $ 800 Us Dollars ) are great for me, BUT NOT THE BEST as $ 15,000 US Dollars of the great Sniper Rifle.
Yes, If we know the ability of our equipment, and use them as 120% of their ability = Be happy.
No we are not the PRO as 15-20 % of CR. Member ( Who are the Great PRO in my Idea). Just be the best as our ability to use the full ability of our equipment = Heaven on earth.
Good Luck.
Surapon
PS, Last week, I shoot these Model Photos with my dear 7D MK II, and EF 70-200 mm F/ 2.8 L IS MK I, Late evening from 5:00PM to 6:00 PM. Dim Light at the sunset time , Hand held shooting, F= 8.0 , SS = 1/25 sec. ISO = 100 at 135 mm.
The Last 2nPhotos = F= 2.8, SS= 1/125 sec, ISO = 400 for Back ground Blur.


----------



## digigal (Nov 21, 2014)

Sorry things are not working out with the 7DMII for you. For me, with the limited opportunities I've had, it has outperformed my 7D in so many ways that there is no way I would change. Certainly, I'd like the low noise level of a 1DX but that's not going to happen with a crop sensor. But the noise, I think, is much better handled in this camera if the picture is well exposed or exposed to the right. It's a keeper for me for large prints. Attached are 1:1 Crops of a hand held picture I took of a hummingbird at ISO 4000--the first is out of the camera into Lightroom with no adjustments and the second is with noise reduction and sharpening, etc. I think the feather detail is just fine at ISO 4000 especially considering this was handheld and shot with my 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x TC. 
Can't wait to use this camera on some owls in Canada in January!
Catherine


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 21, 2014)

Here are some sample images to illustrate my frustration. Note that these images from an artistic standpoint suck - but were an attempt to take a photo of the same subject under the same realistic lighting conditions with both cameras. Both images are near 100% crops and have absolutely no noise reduction or PP from the RAW images.

The first one is from the 5D3 at ISO 1600. The lighting was very poor at this time, but the details are fair. A similar shot of a more interesting subject could probably be salvaged.


6O6C8809.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

The next is of the same subject with the 7D2 at ISO 800. The detail on the faces is much rougher. The pattern just below the head (the eye is slightly OOF) is less defined than the 5D3 image.


388A0341.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

I do have other images at ISO 800 that are better. You are correct that pushed to the right the results are better, but I often do not have this convenience in Seattle.

Here is a mink I took during the same shoot about two minutes after these shots. I took it with my 5D3 at ISO 1600 and it was still too dark so I had to boost up the exposure quite a bit. I then did some PP and cleaned up the noise. The resulting shot still has nice details. There is no way the 7D2 would have done the same.


6O6C8788-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 21, 2014)

I am no crop camera apologist, but to me the differences are small, couple that with the fact that the 7D MkII shot light is flatter, either a few minutes later or on a more shady part of the water, and if they are both close to 100% then you are enlarging the 7D MkII image nearly twice as much, makes me think you might not be comparing this as evenly as you think.


----------



## digigal (Nov 21, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> Here are some sample images to illustrate my frustration. Note that these images from an artistic standpoint suck - but were an attempt to take a photo of the same subject under the same realistic lighting conditions with both cameras. Both images are near 100% crops and have absolutely no noise reduction or PP from the RAW images.
> 
> The first one is from the 5D3 at ISO 1600. The lighting was very poor at this time, but the details are fair. A similar shot of a more interesting subject could probably be salvaged.
> 
> ...


The mink picture looks quite nice but I think if you look at the histogram of the first two pictures in Lightroom you would find that they are quite underexposed which will markedly increase the noise. The only way to overcome that if you are shooting in the deep shadows and have your lens open as much as you can is to increase the ISO and I would say that the exposure of the first two could be improved and the noise moderated by ramping up the ISO. At some point there is a limit where increasing the ISO gives more noise than the severe underexposure does. I would assume the 5DMIII would win in that situation but I have no experience with it.
Catherine


----------



## zlatko (Nov 21, 2014)

AprilForever said:


> What's wrong with the image?



The largest version on Flickr (1189 x 1500) just looks like it's out of focus. Not a problem if most of the other shots are in focus. It would be easy to miss focus in that tall grass.

I enjoy full frame and crop cameras. Full frame for better IQ. Crop for smaller size. I'll likely pass on the 7D2 because it doesn't offer any size/weight advantage over the 5D3 or 6D. The 7D2 offers some great features that are not a priority for me right now.

For IQ, the 7D2 should be compared to other APS-C cameras. When compared to full frame, FF will always have a little more detail and a little more high ISO.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> The next is of the same subject with the 7D2 at ISO 800. The detail on the faces is much rougher. The pattern just below the head (the eye is slightly OOF) is less defined than the 5D3 image.



Agreeing with the other comments above, underexposing @iso800 is not what the manufacturer intended, better expose correctly @iso1600 even on crop unless you run into color problems. The ff of course gives you more data to work with, but even with crop and proper postprocessing you can enhance images such as this a lot and get good results for flickr/web sizes.

But maybe a good thread to warn off other potential downgraders ff->crop for more reach: The crop sensors including the 7d2 are for good light only, the very reason why I bought my ff 6d after getting frustrated with the 60d in cloudy weather in autumn and winter.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Nov 21, 2014)

(not so) off topic: stunning shots BTW- favorit: eagle with the fish- GREAT!


----------



## scyrene (Nov 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Clearly it's a problem with the lens. You need a better one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree on the cost thing. But I wonder what you think about this - something I've been considering while idly wondering if I should get this as a backup to my 5DIII. At present I use the 500+2x much of the time for small birds. I use it at f/10 because stopping down seems to improve sharpness a bit. However, this is a bit narrow when light levels are poorer (and the AF is much restricted). If I use the 7DII, I could stay with the 500+1.4 at f/5.6, and the crop reach is 1120mm (which is close enough to 1000mm for me). That extra aperture would allow me to use it in much lower light.

Now, I know the high ISO on a crop sensor isn't as good. So does it all cancel out? I don't think anyone has addressed this, admittedly rather special case. Essentially, are 5DIII @ 1000mm f/10 and 7DII @ 700mm f/5.6 basically the same (and not worth buying a new camera for), or in low light is there a little advantage to the crop here?

I'd welcome anyone else who has thoughts. Thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Essentially, are 5DIII @ 1000mm f/10 and 7DII @ 700mm f/5.6 basically the same (and not worth buying a new camera for), or in low light is there a little advantage to the crop here?



I suspect the 5DIII would have an IQ advantage, more so as the ISO rises. The 7DII would have a clear AF advantage in that comparison.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 21, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> Here are some sample images to illustrate my frustration. Note that these images from an artistic standpoint suck - but were an attempt to take a photo of the same subject under the same realistic lighting conditions with both cameras. Both images are near 100% crops and have absolutely no noise reduction or PP from the RAW images.
> 
> The first one is from the 5D3 at ISO 1600. The lighting was very poor at this time, but the details are fair. A similar shot of a more interesting subject could probably be salvaged.
> 
> ...



You just haven't developed an understanding of your gear yet.
Yes the 7D II RAW files are noisy, and they can be cleaned up in LR. 
ISO 1600 is quite usable once you properly PP.
Do this however, shoot RAW + JPG and compare. In camera JPG conversion is doing a fair job at cleaning up noise.
If your PP isn't exceeding the 7D II the problem is in your PP not the camera.
If both are still bad maybe you have a bad copy.
The copy I have is performing exactly (and sometimes better than) I expected.

Also if you think the noise out of the 7D II should be as clean as the 5d IIIthen the problem is with your expectations. 
I have never seen this clai anywhere. You should have expected at least a stop difference.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 21, 2014)

GraFax said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > I do have other images at ISO 800 that are better. You are correct that pushed to the right the results are better, but I often do not have this convenience in Seattle.
> ...



I certainly found that when I stopped holding back on exposing to the right I got much better results overall. I wouldn't have dreamed of going over ISO 3200 with the 5DIII but when I started using the technique properly, I found up to ~ISO 8000 could yield usable results. I imagine the 7DII could do fine at ISO 3200-4000, especially as you'd be cropping less in pp.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Essentially, are 5DIII @ 1000mm f/10 and 7DII @ 700mm f/5.6 basically the same (and not worth buying a new camera for), or in low light is there a little advantage to the crop here?
> ...



Oh sure, AF would be better but we know that  (there are other advantages to 700mm, such as less chromatic aberration, which only seems to appear with the 2x extender). I'd still love to do some side-by-side comparisons. I guess any differences will be subtle in any case. Maybe I'm just talking myself into wanting this camera :/


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 21, 2014)

The 7D2 should have an advantage with the crop, but in several cases I am not seeing that. For example in the coyote shot from earlier I compared it with a similarly posed coyote taken in worse light with my 5D3 but same rough ISO (400) and found that the detail is roughly the same despite the smaller size of the coyote on the 5D3.

http://www.calevphoto.com/p1067692827#h3ad922d8

In terms of the underexposed images that is what the light was at the time. With my 5D3 normally I would have shot these at ISO 3200, but at the time I was trying to get a good comparison between them. The point of illustration was the noise and loss of detail - not the quality of the shots.

I looked in LR just now to see the average ISO for my shots and can see:
ISO 3200 and above - 20%
ISO 1600 to 2500 - 25%
ISO 800 to 1250 - 20%

This is of all my shots, so most of the shots at lower ISOs were tripod based landscapes while most of the shots at higher ISOs are of wildlife.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> This is of all my shots, so most of the shots at lower ISOs were tripod based landscapes while most of the shots at higher ISOs are of wildlife.



Wildlife as in "bif" doesn't equal wildlife as in "animal standing in the scenery and looking at you". For the latter, you can get away with a much lower iso setting esp. with an IS lens and if you snap a couple of frames and chose the best one. For actual movement in lower light, crop simply no can do.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 21, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> The 7D2 should have an advantage with the crop, but in several cases I am not seeing that. For example in the coyote shot from earlier I compared it with a similarly posed coyote taken in worse light with my 5D3 but same rough ISO (400) and found that the detail is roughly the same despite the smaller size of the coyote on the 5D3.
> 
> http://www.calevphoto.com/p1067692827#h3ad922d8
> 
> ...



If you want to shoot at ISO 3200 and above the 7D II is not the right tool.
The half hour around sunset and just before is a curse for wildlife photographers. Animals start moving, the light is to low. I feel the pain.
I wouldn't push the 7D II past ISO 1600 and expect great results shooting wildlife. At sunrise the 7D II starts work later than the 5D III and will end its day before the 5D III. 

My 7D II underexposes a bit over 1/3 of a stop.


----------



## Famateur (Nov 21, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> http://www.calevphoto.com/p1067692827#h3ad922d8



Great photographs, Joseph. Thanks for sharing. I really like the head-on portrait of the bull elk with one antler growing from near the middle of his forehead -- never seen that before. If he sheds the other first, he'll be a unicorn elk for a while.


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 21, 2014)

GraFax said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D2 should have an advantage with the crop, but in several cases I am not seeing that. For example in the coyote shot from earlier I compared it with a similarly posed coyote taken in worse light with my 5D3 but same rough ISO (400) and found that the detail is roughly the same despite the smaller size of the coyote on the 5D3.
> ...



No offense taken. I do believe the 7D2 can be a great tool for those who live in places where the light is better such as Arizona or Florida. Here in the PNW that just isn't the case - especially this time of year.

My disappointment with the 7D2 was that I expected ISO 1600 to be about the same as the 5D3 at 3200, but from experimentation I found this not to be the case. I also was disappointed with the amount of noise I found even at lower ISOs.

The big decision factor was last night when I showed my wife the photos from both cameras and offered her the choice.
a) Keep this camera and sell my 6D. Do not purchase the 1DX when it comes out, but do upgrade my 5D3 to a 5D4.
b) Send this camera back and replace my 6D with a 1DX2 when it is released. Some time after the 5D4 release upgrade my 5D3.

Obviously choice b is considerably more expensive, but after looking at the results she came to the same conclusion I did and (with regret) gave tentative approval for choice b.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2014)

GraFax said:


> When you look at all of the tech that Canon was willing to put in the $1800 7D2. Imagine what kind of goodies they are holding back for the next 1D or 5D or even 3D if that's what it is.



I don't think they're holding back a lot (even tough they would like to) because of the market pressure. For the 5d4 it's clear what you can expect: rgb+ir metering, dual pixel af, probably 4k video, once again updated phase af.

I imagine after that Canon's old-school dslr line will run out of steam and they need to introduce serious tech changes - otherwise there'll be little reason to upgrade to the 5d5 or whatever when you can get used 5d3/5d4 for a fraction of its price.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I am no crop camera apologist, but to me the differences are small, couple that with the fact that the 7D MkII shot light is flatter, either a few minutes later or on a more shady part of the water, and if they are both close to 100% then you are enlarging the 7D MkII image nearly twice as much, makes me think you might not be comparing this as evenly as you think.



Yeah...I clicked all the way through to Flickr to make sure I was viewing the original size, flipped between the browser tabs a couple times...and had to come back here to read which was 5D3 and which was 7D2.

I say it all the time even though it offends people and makes me a pariah, but if you expect A to be better then B you will believe it is better and rationalize that it is better even when someone has flipped the labels and you are actually praising B! This is seen in wine tasting, audio equipment testing, photo print comparisons.... Double blind the test and people often can't tell the two apart where they previously thought the difference was huge...JUST HUGE!

That said, I would not normally recommend a 5D3 owner get a 7D2 for extra reach. Too much is made of the difference. You have to be cropping much further then APS-C...and then printing large...to observe the reach advantage of a crop sensor. It comes into play when you're left with 8 MP from the crop sensor, and <3 MP from the FF, and you need to print 16x24. And if you run into that situation it is significant. You can pick it out in a double blind test. But honestly ask yourself how often you run into that situation? If it's very often you might be better served by a new lens any way.


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 21, 2014)

GraFax said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



In my experience I really did not see that. Yes, the AF of the 7D2 is a bit quicker and the frame rate is higher, but I did not feel it really blew my 5D3 away. The AF of the 5D3 has never really prevented me from getting the shot, but I did find that the 7D2 marginally increased the rate of keepers.

The primary improvement I saw in the 7D2 was the customizability. I really liked being able to set different AF modes to different buttons. I also felt that the silent shutter was even better.


----------



## applecider (Nov 21, 2014)

Kirispupis where are you in the PNW?

I'm in portland and while the wildlife opportunities are legion this time of year, the light is not.

I shoot with the 5diii and 1dx at between 800 and 3200 and sometimes higher usually in order to get a shutter speed of 1250 for large lumbering birds and 2000 for fast flickering birds.

I think that a climate with consistent snow cover would brighten images and make a crop camera viable. But for me if I can't use iso 1600 to 6400 I might as well paint watercolors. Passing on 7d2, eager to see what the 5D4 and dx2 bring to table, but even there more smaller pixels probably means worse high iso performance, I would think that canon's dilemma here is that adding pixels would push iso performance down, and that is not the way to sell more bodies.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Although I'm sure there are folks who think the 5D3 has awesome AF. It's all relative I suppose.



Indeed. Try a 6d


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 21, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Sorry to disagree but it's not just about reach. Setting aside the debate about the smaller sensor and the effect that has on image quality, pro's and con's, my 5D3 feels like a lumbering dinosaur after shooting with the 7D2 for two weeks. It really is that much more responsive. I can see how people get hooked on those 1 series bodies. If you are shooting with a 1DX or 1D4 than it's hard to make the pro 7D2 argument. But the AF and 10/fps are alone worthy of adding this camera to a 6D or 5D3 if you are shooting moving subjects.



No, it's not just about reach, and I didn't mean to imply it was. What I meant was if a 5D3 owner asked me about buying a 7D2 ONLY for additional reach...i.e. he didn't care about anything else...I couldn't recommend it just for that.

If you want the incredible responsiveness of the AF and 10 fps, by all means, 7D2. Brand new, nothing short of $6,500 is going to get you a more responsive action DSLR.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 21, 2014)

applecider said:


> Kirispupis where are you in the PNW?
> 
> I'm in portland and while the wildlife opportunities are legion this time of year, the light is not.
> 
> ...



1/1250-1/2000 for birds? In flight yeah, but otherwise... that's a surprise. My favourite subjects are birds, usually smallish passerines, and I shoot around 1/320 in poorer light to 1/500 unless they're flying. There's no blur until you get down below 1/200-250 in my experience.


----------



## weixing (Nov 24, 2014)

Hi,
I accidentally took some shots at ISO 12800 and after a basic NR in LR 4, it's look ok to me for web use:






Have a nice day.


----------

