# Considering an upgrade from the original 7D



## insanitybeard (Feb 6, 2016)

Hello all, I currently own and use an original (MkI) 7D body, and I'm sure like many before me am in a bit of a dilemma about where to go next regarding an upgrade. What I'm interested to know from anybody who has owned and used the MKI and II 7D's is, disregarding any improvements made to the 7D MkII AF over the MkI, how much better is the basic image quality- i.e, at base ISO for landscape and in low light/ high ISO, in both JPEG and RAW? I've seen it said that the MkII has better sharpness than the MkI?

If the MkII image quality is a reasonable improvement over the MkI then I may consider that as an upgrade route, what I'd really like is a 5D MkIII but it's just too much money to justify really, especially for a hobby, and after the 7D I think I'd find the 6D just a bit lacking in features, AF and build, though not of course image quality. I could keep my 7D and get a 6D to complement it but I'd rather just have one body as I'm not really wanting to lug two bodies around. I shot a variety of subjects, especially landscape, which is why full frame is the obvious choice, but also moving subjects like trains, children etc.

Any input welcome, especially regarding how the image quality compares from the MkII 7D & the MkI!

Thanks!


----------



## candc (Feb 6, 2016)

i would wait and see if the 80d is announced soon. every new release offers a slight iq improvement so when you compare images from cameras several generations apart then the difference becomes noticeable. i don't see any discernible difference between the 70d and 7dii iq. for general use i like the 70d better because of the smaller size and touch/swivel screen.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 6, 2016)

The natural replacement for 7D, would be the 7D Mark II because it was improved in every way, including image quality.

Users of the old 7D complained about a certain kind of noise at ISO100 when shooting blue sky, and there is no complaint of its kind in Mark ii.

Most people considered ISO1600 its limit for decent quality images in old 7D, and almost everyone feels comfortable with ISO3200 in the Mark ii.

I have a 70D, and I see that the image is more pleasing colors, less noise, and sharpness better than the old 7D.

If you can wait for the announcement of the 80D, perhaps some improvements in image quality.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 6, 2016)

I owned the 7DI, now have a 5DIII and a 7DII.

At ISO 400 or below it's impossible to tell the difference between any modern DSLRs. (I had forgotten about the 'blue sky" issue that ajfotofilmagem mentions, but yes, I do recall that being a bit of a problem at times with the 7D I.)

I use the 7D II almost exclusively for sports, with the occasional bird photo. I'm usually shooting at higher ISOs and I find it very competitive with the 5DIII. Not quite as good, but competitive and the autofocus and fps more than offset the slight advantage the 5DIII has in that regard. Still prefer the 5DIII for all around use and low-light with subjects that aren't moving fast.

I never shot the 7D I at anything above ISO 400 if I could avoid it. With the 7D II I sometimes have to go to ISO 6400 and get very usable images. The difference in my opinion is the quality of the noise. You get noise with the 7DII, but it has a very film-like quality to it, which I consider much less objectionable than the electronic noise that I saw with the 7D I. 

If you are used to the controls of the 7DI, you will feel very at home with the 7DII. That's one reason why I first bought the 5DIII over the 6D. I just couldn't bring myself to give up the features and ergonomics of the 7D/5D series If you want to wait until the 80D is announced just to see what it offers, that's okay, but I expect it will not be that much cheaper than the current street prices of the 7DII and doubt if there will be a significant improvement in image quality.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 7, 2016)

insanitybeard said:


> ...after the 7D I think I'd find the 6D just a bit lacking in features, AF and build, though not of course image quality. I could keep my 7D and get a 6D to complement it but I'd rather just have one body...



As a former 7D owner (a 550D/T2i before that), I didn't have any problem transitioning from a 7D to a 6D 3 years ago. I was and am primarily a landscape photographer, so the IQ improvement in moving from the 7D to 6D was significant. I originally planned to keep both bodies, the 6D for landscape and the 7D for action/sports, but I found I was using the 6D 99% of the time, so sold the 7D. Nothing at all wrong with the build quality and features on the 6D IMHO. The only thing about the 7D I missed was the joystick, but I quickly learned to do everything I needed with the 6D. I found the 6D's AF to be more accurate and repeatable than the 7D. For my uses, the 6D was just a much better all around camera.

All that said, I think the 7D2 would be an excellent upgrade for a 7D owner today. If you shoot much action or wildlife the advanced AF of the 7D2 would definitely be very useful. My only 7D2 experience is a weekend rental, but I enjoyed the experience. The IQ isn't up to 6D or 5D3/SR standards, but its a big step up from the 7D. The noise is much better controlled and easier to remove in PP.


----------



## FTb-n (Feb 7, 2016)

If you want a nice bump in IQ, especially at higher ISO, watch prices of the 5d3. Canon refurbished store has great deals from time to time with full warranty. If you want a better action camera, then I'd look at the 7d2.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 8, 2016)

Thanks for your thoughts guys, I suppose I just need to work out which is more important- AF and frame rate or ultimate image quality. If the 6D's centre AF point is accurate/ reliable then that will probably be good enough for most of the kind of photography I do, and landscape is a big part of that. Of course, if a 5D IV is coming then I could always sit tight for now and see if there are any deals on 5D III's when it gets announced! ;D


----------



## gregorywood (Feb 8, 2016)

insanitybeard said:


> I could keep my 7D and get a 6D to complement it but I'd rather just have one body as I'm not really wanting to lug two bodies around. I shot a variety of subjects, especially landscape, which is why full frame is the obvious choice, but also moving subjects like trains, children etc.



I was there about a year ago and I finally decided to do just that - buy a 6D to complement my 7D. I see them as two different tools that I use for different things, and - I have a backup body now instead of only one. The 7D is still a very capable camera and I don't need the Mk2 improvements (that's just me).

I use my 7D for outdoor sports primarily or anytime I want some extra "reach". I use the 6D for everything else and it does quite well in the IQ and low light areas. 

Greg


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 8, 2016)

I have never found the AF system of the 7D II so accurate that I would take it over the 6D or 5D II. It has more options and features but that doesn't always translate into accuracy and precision.

The 7D II video system is superior. Live view tracking is superior. 

IQ directly out of the 7D II via JPG is superior to the 7D. The old 7D had more headroom for PP and JPG were just so so. Any improvement in ISO isn't so great that I said "Wow look at the improvement" to the contrary I would have to do some testing to see it.

You can take the 7D II and 5Ds R and shoot a shot at exactly the same distance with exactly the same focal length. Then crop the 5Ds R shot to match the 7D II and you wouldn't see any noticeable difference in normal viewing situations. Even Pixel Peepers would have to strain their eyes.

The 7D II would serve you well if it is in your budget and you only own EFS lenses.

Personally I would go with a used 5D II or 6D over the 7D II if that were my budget.

For what it is worth, I own every one of the bodies mentioned except the 6D.


----------



## pwp (Feb 8, 2016)

Had you considered a pre-owned 1D MkIV? 

-pw


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 9, 2016)

The 1D IV with the APS-H sensor is an interesting idea I must admit, but the 1D body form is a bit too big for what I want to carry around to be honest.

Thanks again for the input!


----------



## captainkanji (Feb 9, 2016)

I went from the 7D to the 6D. There was a huge improvement in IQ. I needed something for poorly lit stage events that didn't cost $3500. It's not fun for action though. There are a couple of scenarios where I have to manually focus (shooting through a fence or net). Really good for portraits.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2016)

Got the 7D at work, got the 7D2 at home.... The 7D2 is an improvement in every way over the 7D, particularly with the AF system which is light years ahead.....

That said, is it enough of an improvement to warrant spending the money to do it? Only you can answer because it depends on the conditions and subject matter you shoot.... Perhaps a 6D would compliment the 7D better, one camera excelling at low light and landscapes, and the other excelling at action and wildlife.....

There is also the option of waiting a month or two and see if the rumoured releases of the 80D and possibly 6D2 better fit the bill.... when there is no clear answer, and you have a perfectly good camera to use, waiting may be best....


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 9, 2016)

A rough rule of thumb I consider the 7D mark II to be about a half stop better low light and noise wise then the original 7D. One can debate the quality of noise (more pleasing to my eye as well), the banding issues that could be seen in a number of the 18 MP sensor at times, etc. but in general, pure IQ wise you'll not see any mind blowing improvements moving to the 7D mark II in the images.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 12, 2016)

And that's the crux of it..... whilst the improvement the Mk2 brings in terms of banding and noise in blue skies at low ISO would be welcome, is there enough improvement to justify the upgrade....... Having said that I've never found my 7D Mk1's AF to be consistently accurate, there have been times when it was obviously out of focus and yet the camera was telling me it had found focus- poor focus is as bigger killer to image quality as anything!

I think I'll sit tight for now and see what happens regarding the 5D III replacement, there may be some bargains to be had as and when it is announced and begins shipping!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 12, 2016)

With a 5D MK III gray market camera going for under $1899, they are now reasonably affordable. Canon has been honoring the warranty, so its not a concern.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03868/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-price.html


----------



## stinson001 (Feb 12, 2016)

Hi,, Sorry to take so long to reply as I just saw the question.
I have the original 7D and always loved it. I bought the 7D Mark II when it first came out about 
16 months ago and I have to say that the camera is better in every aspect.
I love the 10 Frames per sec. The image quality is superior at the higher ISO's the AF System, and the overall handling of the camera is great. I believe if you have ever handled the 5D series of cameras the 7D Mark II will seem an easy transition.

I am only "hoping" that Canon integrates the technology into the 5d Mark IV some day, when I'm ready to step up to Full Frame.

I hope this is helpful


----------



## jarrodeu (Feb 12, 2016)

I rented the Mk II for a week long event last summer and it solved my main complaint with the original. Ugly pattern noise in blue sky was gone. Still can't decide whether to buy the mk II or save up for the 5D MkIV.

Jarrod


----------



## awair (Feb 14, 2016)

This may be an isolated case, but I wish I hadn't bought the Mark II.

I loved the 7D performance, but wanted better low light capability, and welcomed the (promised) improvement in AF & drive speed.

The AF never delivered, so the other issues were irrelevant. I then bought the 6D, and was amazed at the quality but frustrated (occasionally) with only 11 AF points (19 on the 7D worked well) and slower drive rate.

With the 6D and both model 7Ds, I felt that the 5D3 wasn't a big enough step up (drive speed was the main issue), so I picked up a 1Dx while prices were dropping.

If you haven't experienced the 8fps or 10fps of the two 7D models, then the 5D3 is a great choice. It's what I should have bought after the 7D (instead of the Mark II, 6D & 1Dx!)

Good luck to anyone else with this dilemma - I'm just looking forward to the 6D2 & 5D4...


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 16, 2016)

Thanks all for your thoughts. Awair, regarding your above comments (and I read about your AF issues in your other thread), it makes me think twice about upgrading to the 7D MkII. I don't need the extra FPS over the MkI, if the AF is troublesome then it doesn't resolve an issue I've experienced with the MkI 7D AF (as outlined in my previous post), so if the only real benefits the MkII body will bring to me are less noisy blue skies at low ISO and a slight improvement at higher ISO's I think I'd be better saving the money for a full frame upgrade of some sort.


----------



## Kristofgss (Feb 17, 2016)

I have been comparing these two as well coming from the original 7D and what made me decide on the 5D3 was that it's basically a full frame 7D with a slightly slower framerate. You really get a different camera that is better in low light, for wider images. So instead of getting a wide angle lens for the 7D, I added that money to the 5D3 which evened out the price difference.
To me, the benefit is that you have the 7D for things which require tele (animals, planes, sports, action) and the 5D3 for landscapes, portraits, dark events, studio work) It really extends what you can do with your lenses.
On the 6D, I missed the 7D focus system, so that was not an option.

I now shoot about 75% 5D3 and 15% 7D (and 10% 100D because that fits in a pocket


----------

