# 70D or 7D MK II



## MagnumJoe (Sep 20, 2014)

I’m interested in a second body to compliment my 5D MK III. I mostly shoot candids, portraits, my grandson in the park and his T-ball and soccer games. The 5D MK III has done really well and I rented a canon 1.4 III extender and will try out this weekend. 

The reason I’m interested in the 70D or 7D MK II for my second body are.
The extra reach and video auto focus.

*70D advantages*
Touch Screen
Articulated Screen
Price

*7D MK II advantages*
Ergonomics (similar to 5D MK III)
65 Focus Points
10 FPS
Weather Proof
Headphone Port
Viewfinder coverage, 100%

I’m leaning towards the 7D MK II, but I’d like to hear your feedback and suggestions.

Which one would/will you buy or would you buy?


----------



## yokaew (Sep 20, 2014)

I have a 7OD and really like it for still, especially when shooting outdoor. The focus system is really good. Extra reach is also great for shooting sports.
For video though, I find it is not quite as good as I had hope in low light situations. I am new to video so it could very well be that I don't know what I am doing .


----------



## luckydude (Sep 20, 2014)

Hard to say right now, we haven't seen the raw files to be able to judge if it is a new sensor or the same as what is is in the 70D (my inexpert guess is it is the 70D sensor with more noise reduction applied for jpegs).

You have some sports, I shoot sports and I use the center point for that. The double cross may be a win, I don't know yet, I don't think anyone does, is there a double cross (it's not double cross, it's a + and /\ on top of that which is better) in some other camera? Do they get more keepers? If so then that might be a reason to buy it.

I shoot birds in flight so I want the reach and the AF so I'll probably buy this body. But I'm skeptical enough that I'm not going to just buy it, I want to see some real reviews.

I've got the 7D and the 5DIII that you have and the 7D sees no use because the 5DIII is that much better. Crops from it are better than what I get from the 7D. The 7DII is going to have to come to the table with something good to make me use it over the 5DIII. The 5DIII is an awesome body. If Nikon hadn't patented the crop in the camera I'd just switch the 5D to crop mode for wildlife and have the camera I want.


----------



## MagnumJoe (Sep 20, 2014)

luckydude said:


> Hard to say right now, we haven't seen the raw files to be able to judge if it is a new sensor or the same as what is is in the 70D (my inexpert guess is it is the 70D sensor with more noise reduction applied for jpegs).
> 
> You have some sports, I shoot sports and I use the center point for that. The double cross may be a win, I don't know yet, I don't think anyone does, is there a double cross (it's not double cross, it's a + and /\ on top of that which is better) in some other camera? Do they get more keepers? If so then that might be a reason to buy it.
> 
> ...



Currently, I really have no interest in wildlife, but who knows. My grandsons soccer season ends Nov 1 which is 3 weeks behind of when the 7D MK II is 'suppsoively" released. I have the 5D MK III and only slightly touched the focusing system and it's freaking amazing. I know many of us worry about noise and how the 7D MK II will perform. 75 percent of the photos I take are lower that ISO 800. Living in Florida, the weather can change in in 15 minutes. I get what you are saying though, but that 10FPS on a sunny day sounds very nice for a grandpa trying to get that perfect shot.


----------



## luckydude (Sep 20, 2014)

MagnumJoe said:


> I get what you are saying though, but that 10FPS on a sunny day sounds very nice for a grandpa trying to get that perfect shot.



While I shoot hockey a lot (my kids play) I never use the burst mode, I'm always single shot. Maybe it's because I play as well, dunno, but I can anticipate the shot and get what I want.

I have had to work on my technique to get those shots. I learned that AI-servo really helps (that's an understatement), I use center point focus, spot metering, shutter priority and I tend to set the ISO, auto ISO hunts more than I like.

The real reason I don't do bursts is I hate having to go through all that crud and delete the non-keepers. I tried burst and found that my keeper rate fell to about 1-10%, closer to 1%. My keeper rate for single shot is 50-90%. So I had a good reason to work on my technique. If you don't made the post filtering then yeah, I've heard 8fps is as "slow" as you want to go.

Good luck with whatever you do, and don't worry too much, you've got an awesome body in the 5DIII. I love mine.


----------



## martinslade (Sep 20, 2014)

I have been following the posts on the 7d2 closely as I currently shoot with the 70d and am wondering about an upgrade. I shoot dogs in action with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS mostly in good light and my thinking is that the main benefit to me would be the AF tracking. I find the 70d AF really very good and 7fps more than adequate but 10fps would be nice. I was hoping for improved IQ in RAW but my best guess based on limited info is there will be little difference. So, all in all, would love a new toy (sorry, work horse) but at 2:1 price ratio am finding it difficult to justify as I currently make less that half my income from photography. Just my two penneth...!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 20, 2014)

Having played with the 7d MKII on the Canon stand at Photokina and seen A3 prints from the Canon Pixma Pro-1 I think IQ wise its a big jump from the original 7d. 
The camera in the hands is like the original with better control over AF points, GPS, much better video and changeable screens just to mention a few points. Judging by the crowds around the camera right up to close at 6pm today Canon has a winner. Yes it does not have a touch or ariticulated screen but Ive never found that a issue with the original or the 6d if I have to pick on one thing its the lack of built-in Wi-Fi which it should have had for remote shutter release & live view to a smart phone. Everything else the 70d camera has it has and a lot more mind you its 50% more expensive also.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2014)

luckydude said:


> If Nikon hadn't patented the crop in the camera I'd just switch the 5D to crop mode for wildlife and have the camera I want.



Does the Nikon give any extra reach in crop mode? Or is it the same as doing crop of FF in post?


----------



## noncho (Sep 20, 2014)

You have AF and picture quality on 5D Mark III - I would go for articulated screen, smaller body and wifi remote control on 70D.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

I can't decide myself. The 70D also has WiFi which would be nice for remote control over the camera. Plus, it's several hundred dollars cheaper. It also has 3x digital zoom mode in video.

I'm upgrading from a 20D. I love my 20D, but there are extreme situations where I don't get as many in-focus shots as I'd like. I know the 70D's focusing system is quite far advanced compared to my 20D, but the 7DII's is even more advance, by far.

I'm leaning toward the 7DII for several reasons. First and foremost, in focus shots in difficult conditions. Second, I don't think the touch screen and flip screen would help me for video since I'd be adding an LCD loupe like the Hoodman Cinema Pro kit for shooting video anyway. In fact, the 70D's screen might hurt in those situations. Finally, the 7DII has genuine f/8 AF points, whereas the 70D does not, and just seems to work "in some situations" for f/8 lens combinations.

The big selling point for me for the 70D is the 3x digital zoom mode in video. Hopefully it'll get added to the 7DII either by firmware for by Magic Lantern. But with the Dual DIGIC 6 chips, that might be a big effort for ML to accomplish.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 20, 2014)

AlanF said:


> luckydude said:
> 
> 
> > If Nikon hadn't patented the crop in the camera I'd just switch the 5D to crop mode for wildlife and have the camera I want.
> ...



Same, you can just see it in the VF and it allows you faster bursts...


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 20, 2014)

MagnumJoe said:


> I’m interested in a second body to compliment my 5D MK III.



Don't underestimate ergonomics, when dual-using with a 5d3 the 7d2 will feel much more natural (as intended by Canon) which will result in less hassle and more keepers. Plus you'll be much more bothered by the (supposedly, let's see the reviews) smaller viewfinder of the 70d.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Sep 20, 2014)

As far as WiFi goes, don't make that a big factor. Unless you use it a lot, it's easy to add to any Canon DSLR using DSLR Controller: http://dslrcontroller.com/guide-wifi_mr3040.php

Assuming you're using a tripod for remote, just Velcro that to a leg. Works like a champ and drains the batteries less.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 20, 2014)

Since no one ever put his hands on 7D Mark ii, I can only speak of what I saw on the internet: 

7D Mark ii 
Ergonomics almost like your 5D Mark iii. 
AF at least as good as 5D Mark iii. 
10 shots per second, much better than you have now. 
Video without the problem of moire. 
CF + SD slot allows you to share your existing cards. 
Better protection against rain and dust. 

70D 
Price and smaller size. 
Articulated LCD and touchscreen.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 20, 2014)

Just a note on video to help you decide: 

Canon has two generations of video IQ: 

-Generation one: aliasing and moire hell, soft images, poor lowlight performance, these are the 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, 100D, 1200D, 60D, 70D, 7D, 5D mk II, and 6D. These cameras have bad IQ compared to their current competitors (D3300/5300/7100, A6000 etc)

-Generation two: used pixel binning instead if line skipping therefore eliminated aliasing and moire, have better resolution and way better lowlight performance, these are the 7D mk II and 5D mk III. These have similar or better IQ compared to their competitors (D5300/D7100/D600/D800 etc)

If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 20, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.



If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 20, 2014)

luckydude said:


> MagnumJoe said:
> 
> 
> > I get what you are saying though, but that 10FPS on a sunny day sounds very nice for a grandpa trying to get that perfect shot.
> ...



I don't know which body and lens you are using, but your keeper rate in extreme low in burst mode. I did find out, and seen that many more action photographers, use centrum weighted measuring instead of spot measuring. I don't have then problems then that my auto-iso hunts that much.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 20, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.
> ...



True about the raw video, but the 7D2 from samples online looks to have much better moire performance than the 70D and 6D - about on par with the 5D3. I think this camera would be a solid video performer... and raw video is massive


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 20, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.
> ...


... plus the 7D-II has a headphone jack (much like the 5D-III) which is useful for monitoring while you record.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



It also has clean 4:2:2 HDMI out with audio embedded.


----------



## luckydude (Sep 20, 2014)

FEBS said:


> luckydude said:
> 
> 
> > MagnumJoe said:
> ...



I'm using the 200mm f2.0 prime (a very nice lens) and the 5DIII (which I also like).

When I'm shooting burst there are all the pictures before and after the shot I wanted that I toss. I'm taking 10ish pictures to get one (and that doesn't always work).

I play hockey and I can anticipate what is going to happen, I know the shot is coming because I see the windup, I've gotten dozens and dozens of nice shots of goals being scored with the puck in midair. All single shot.

If you don't play the game I suppose it would be harder (I sort of feel like being a player is "cheating" when I'm taking pictures, I know where the game is going. I also coach several teams so that probably helps with reading the game). Anyway, for me, single shot results in just as many (or close) keepers and a ton less post processing (which is really delete, delete, delete...).

This is all at the rec/high school/travel level, so it's not a money maker (though I've been offered jobs by the pros, LOL, $25/hour 1099 money, like that's going to pay for my equipment  I just do it so I've got pictures to look at when my kids move off to college and for the other parents/kids. So I'm optimizing for the least hassle for me.

If I was getting paid to take NHL pictures then I might play with the burst mode, doing it for fun means I spend too much time deleting.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 20, 2014)

luckydude said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > luckydude said:
> ...



Nice combo by the way. Not only for sports inside but also for portrait.

I do understand what you mean now by keeper rate. It's keeper rate against the required shot you would like. 

For sports it is such a tremendous advantage you can read the sport. In fact for all type of action photography. You are fully right that using continuous mode would give you a lot of photos, which you don't all want to keep. Best advice there for people is to use for a while NOT the continuous mode, but the single shot. Just to reduce the load of generated photos. Also in continuous mode, you need to trigger your camera only when it is needed. You need the correct face expression, the position of ball, or in your case the puck. And that's exactly what you are doing. 

Sorry, but thought you needed some assistance for such a high rate "out of focus" which you din't say say but I presumed from your low keeper rate.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 20, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.
> ...



Incorrect. The proper answer is the NX1. That is the camera the 7D2 should have been, but wasn't.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 20, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



How can you say that? did you see already any video review of this camera? are is your answer purely based on published specifications?


----------



## tphillips63 (Sep 20, 2014)

As mentioned, the layout and buttons of the 7D MkII are basically the same as the 5D MkIII. That would make the choice, for me, the new 7D MkII. Once I see full reviews with real images and ISO performance that would cinch it for me.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 20, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



And the 7D2 is any different??

All we have for both cameras are the specs, and as far as the specs are concerned the NX1 blows the 7D2 out of the water.

Like I said, the NX1 is the camera the 7D2 should have been.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 20, 2014)

tphillips63 said:


> As mentioned, the layout and buttons of the 7D MkII are basically the same as the 5D MkIII. That would make the choice, for me, the new 7D MkII. Once I see full reviews with real images and ISO performance that would cinch it for me.



If you like obsolete footage, go for it. Perhaps the 7D2 is like the 5D3, but the 5D3 is 2 years old and the overall field has moved far beyond that now. Choosing the 7D2 because it is "like" the 5D3 is ignoring everything that has happened in the last 2 years and going for yesterdays standards.

Personally, if I am going to drop 2K on a camera, I want it to embrace tomorrows standards, not yesterdays. But that is just me.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Like I said, the NX1 is the camera the 7D2 should have been.



If the 7D2 had an EVF only, I wouldn't be interested in it at all, because it would be essentially useless for my primary intended purpose.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said, the NX1 is the camera the 7D2 should have been.
> ...



Which is what? If an EVF is essentially instant without lag, it is superior to an optical viewfinder since it can correct for exposure (which is impossible in an optical viewfinder). If you work in low or high contrast light, you 100% need an EVF.

A lot of the resistance against EVFs is resistance against EVFs from 10 years ago. I have cameras with optical view finders and EVFs, and other than the exposure issue, EVFs blow optical out of the water with features such as peaking, view zooming and zebra functions that allow you to get proper focus and overall exposure. Optical viewfinders are a technology of the past, and cannot compete with modern EVFs designed for the future in terms of overall functionality. They simply cannot, they are obsolete.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The big selling point for me for the 70D is the 3x digital zoom mode in video. Hopefully it'll get added to the 7DII either by firmware for by Magic Lantern. But with the Dual DIGIC 6 chips, that might be a big effort for ML to accomplish.



So, I just tested it, and the 70D is single-shot contrast-detect only focusing in 3x zoom mode, making it essentially useless for what I was going to use it for. I'd still like to have it for certain things, but this fact makes it 5% as useful as I expected it to be.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

MagnumJoe said:


> I’m interested in a second body to compliment my 5D MK III. I mostly shoot candids, portraits, my grandson in the park and his T-ball and soccer games. The 5D MK III has done really well and I rented a canon 1.4 III extender and will try out this weekend.
> 
> The reason I’m interested in the 70D or 7D MK II for my second body are.
> The extra reach and video auto focus.
> ...



I'd think the 7D2 would do considerably better for soccer.
That's what that cam is made for and for what it should be the best aps-c camera on the market.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

luckydude said:


> If Nikon hadn't patented the crop in the camera I'd just switch the 5D to crop mode for wildlife and have the camera I want.



Are your really sure that is true?? There is absolutely beyond a doubt no way in heck that should be something patentable. Granted the patent office has done some things that are utterly nuts, so I suppose, but....


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



Very high speed subjects.



> If an EVF is essentially instant without lag, ...



Then it's in violation of the laws of causality. I have an EVF with a measured total combined lag of only 25ms (which is very fast as EVFs go) and it's just way, way too slow - a factor of at least 5.



> it is superior to an optical viewfinder since it can correct for exposure (which is impossible in an optical viewfinder).



Which I absolutely don't want it to do.



> If you work in low or high contrast light, you 100% need an EVF.



Interesting, then, how I've done it for all this time without one. Oh, an EVF is really totally useless to me especially in low light because it will destroy the dark adaptation of my eyes. I want the viewfinder to be dark when the subject is dark. And I've shot in extremely, extremely difficult conditions with an OVF. Try this - crop camera OVF, f/21 optics wide open, total darkness, 4,300mm equivalent focal length, hand-tracking and manually focusing on an object that's moving at orbital velocities and it only 9m long at 400km away. I did it successfully and was even able to identify the object. That would be totally and completely impossible with an EVF.



> A lot of the resistance against EVFs is resistance against EVFs from 10 years ago. I have cameras with optical view finders and EVFs, and other than the exposure issue, EVFs blow optical out of the water with features such as peaking, view zooming and zebra functions that allow you to get proper focus and overall exposure. Optical viewfinders are a technology of the past, and cannot compete with modern EVFs designed for the future in terms of overall functionality. They simply cannot, they are obsolete.



EVFs are only really good for video for me. For stills, the only good thing about them is that they are better than using the LCD. I turn off all that nonsense information on my EVF cameras so I can focus on the subject anyway.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Just a note on video to help you decide:
> 
> Canon has two generations of video IQ:
> 
> ...



Actually even in gen 2 the video quality is kind of behind the times at this point. It's very waxy and blurry. A lot of competitors have better to vastly better video quality now.

But yeah the 7D2 is better than the 70D for video quality. The 70D has a lot of nasty aliasing and moire, the 7D2 fixes that up, although nothing else (still the same soft, waxy video and still without basic, basic things like focus peaking and magic focus zoom box and such).

The only high quality 1080p from a Canon DSLR these days is from the 5D3 if you shoot RAW using the ML hack. The 1DX 1080p is passably sharp.

But the best video AF probably is in the 70D/7D2.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



The clean 4:2:2 HDMI isn't worth much since with Canon DSLRS the image quality damage occurs prior to the compression stage. I got a Ninja for my 5D3, but I could barely tell any difference whatsoever. Using ML RAW though the difference was beyond night and day.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



I've seen the difference, and it's minor. It's better in some ways, but worse in others, especially hot pixels and color artifacts.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

FEBS said:


> luckydude said:
> 
> 
> > FEBS said:
> ...



The dangers with not using burst though are:
1. AF will miss, with burst at least maybe you got once decent shot in focus out of the sequence
2. you might not handle the AF perfectly in all cases and then once again a burst might at least get one semi-decent shot
3. sometimes a hideous facial expression or arm pops up in some weird position or blocking something critical, you can known the sport as well as a pro and have played it at a high level, but it won't help in these cases, a fast burst might still get one great frame
4. sometimes you want more than one key frame
5. something things go into a wild melee
etc.
for some things, like ball on head or bat, you do have to time it yourself, even a 10fps is way to slow
and even for regular things, sometimes your own timing can pick the peak of the peak of a sequence out better than a burst (although once you get to 12fps the burst can often do it as well, plus with 8 or better 10-12 you sometimes want and can get a couple really key frames)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



In some cases I could swear it even gave you LESS dynamic range too. (talking clean HDMI recording, not ML RAW)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

Anyway this is probably getting too much into the finer points of video image quality, which I have a feeling might not be the top priority in this one particular case.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...




At 60 fps the eye can no longer tell the difference, which is ~17 ms refresh. As a practical matter your ability to tell a difference will have a threshold a lot higher than that. In other words modern EFVs are more than adequate. Stop looking at EFVs from 10 years ago, and stop looking at the word "EFV" to form you judgment.

Your "dark adaption" of your eyes allows you to see in the dark? Don't make me laugh. Please. A modern camera sensor on the other hand is quite capable of seeing in the dark, and certainly a lot better than any human eye. Maybe a lot of noise, but they will SEE what they are looking at.

Plus, you are still ignoring the fundamental advantage EFVs have over optical, which is the ability to see at the pixel level what the *camera* actually is seeing (which is fundamentally important because the *CAMERA* (bolded because you are ignoring this fundamental fact) is recording the image, not your eye). Optical viewfinders are simply incapable of doing that.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

Tugela said:


> At 60 fps the eye can no longer tell the difference, which is ~17 ms refresh. As a practical matter your ability to tell a difference will have a threshold a lot higher than that. In other words modern EFVs are more than adequate. Stop looking at EFVs from 10 years ago, and stop looking at the word "EFV" to form you judgment.



This is all simply untrue, and comes from an ignorance of how closed loop feedback systems work.



> Your "dark adaption" of your eyes allows you to see in the dark?



Yes. Very dark. The equivalent of ISO 500,000 1/10th.



> Don't make me laugh. Please. A modern camera sensor on the other hand is quite capable of seeing
> in the dark, and certainly a lot better than any human eye.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 20, 2014)

And the 7D2 is any different??

All we have for both cameras are the specs, and as far as the specs are concerned the NX1 blows the 7D2 out of the water.

Like I said, the NX1 is the camera the 7D2 should have been.
[/quote]

The OP is comparing between the 7D mk II and 70D. Nx1 is irrelevant. 

PS: where did we get the information about the absence if the 3x crop mode from the 7D mk III? That's a shame. It's a way better video camera than the 70D (image quality, lowlight, aliasing, 60p slowmotion, headphone jack, audio metering, improved DPAF, clean HDMI out with audio and timecode, more codec options (mov and mp4 and a lite version for smaller files) therefore it seems strange they would take it away.

Canon always done strange things with this specific feature however for some reason, for example it's in the 600D, yet absent from the 650D and 700D and 100D. It was featured in the original EOS m in the preproduction firmware yet it was taken away in the final released firmware. It's not in the 5D mk III or 1DX. Only the 600D and 70D (and 1Dc has similar various crop modes). I hope it's in the 7D mk II. It's a very very useful feature and gives you effectively the option of selecting a different sensor size for each shot.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 20, 2014)

If I use two cameras together I would always be interested in (very) similar ergonomics between both. Usually I have 600D and EOS M with me - both have very different ergonomics but just 40D and 600D are separated by a lightyear or so.

If missing wifi, tiltable screen, 3x digital zoom and weight (+ price) is a non-issue the 7D ii might be the right choice.

I am thinking myself about an upgrade
IQ-wise AND
AF-performance wise
and I am shure the 7D ii will win (70D is no option for me because I like the joystick controller of my 40D so much) - and I like compact solid bodies ...
Much better AF is needed for outdoor macro with AI servo to let the focus adapt permanently - it is always a little bit windy. The widespread AF fields and the cross type sensors might help a lot.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > At 60 fps the eye can no longer tell the difference, which is ~17 ms refresh. As a practical matter your ability to tell a difference will have a threshold a lot higher than that. In other words modern EFVs are more than adequate. Stop looking at EFVs from 10 years ago, and stop looking at the word "EFV" to form you judgment.
> ...



Maybe you are some sort of freak then.

"closed loop feedback", what ever that means, is irrelevant. The human eye cannot tell the difference above about 24 fps, so a refresh threshold of about 42 ms is enough.

I can look at a scene visually and look at the same scene through an EVF, and the EFV will win 100% of the time simply because the gain on an EFV can be adjusted whereas the gain on the eyeball cannot.

An EVF can focus in on subject matter for accurate focus (impossible with an optical viewfinder), *AND* it can accurately represent overexposure (impossible with an optical viewfinder). What are the advantages of an optical viewfinder other than a historical attachment to pre-digital cameras? The answer is simple - none.

Let me repeat - the EFV sees exactly what you camera is seeing (correct me if I am wrong, but that is the whole purpose of the viewfinder), and since you are interested in what your camera is seeing (not what you are seeing), the EFV is superior to the human eye in all situations bar none.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> PS: where did we get the information about the absence if the 3x crop mode from the 7D mk III?



We don't know for sure. All I know for sure is that the feature is not in the same menu location on the 7DII beta cameras that have been shown in video as it is in the 70D. This leads me to believe that the feature was removed.

As I said, the fact that it's single-shot focusing in that feature means it's useless to me for most applications I had planned for it.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 20, 2014)

Tugela said:


> "closed loop feedback", what ever that means, is irrelevant.



The fact that you don't know what it means also means that you don't understand its relevance.



> The human eye cannot tell the difference above about 24 fps, so a refresh threshold of about 42 ms is enough.



Then tell me why I could not do, with a 25ms lag EVF, what I could do easily with a 0ms OVF.

I know why, but you don't.



> What are the advantages of an optical viewfinder other than a historical attachment to pre-digital cameras?



Zero lag.
Zero power usage.
Infinite dynamic range.
Infinite color gamut.
Automatic match between viewfinder illumination and scene illumination.
A total dynamic range (bright sun to night scenes) equal to the scene, which can be about 10-12 stops more than an EVF can manage.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 21, 2014)

EVFs have advantages and disadvantages, OVFs have advantages and disadvantages, read about them on the hundreds of articles online, or go to a local camera shop try them out and decide which one you prefer. Much easier and way more productive than having a "-my-preference-is-better-than-yours-and-you-are-an-ignorant-for-having-a-different one, stupid-" fight with a random guy online...


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 21, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Zero lag.
> Zero power usage.
> Infinite dynamic range.
> Infinite color gamut.
> ...



Not to be picky.... but.....

Zero Lag.... not quite... it's about .5 microseconds for the light to travel through the prism.... but that's about a 30 thousandth the time of the best EVF's... for the stuff I deal with at work, .5 microseconds is freakin' slow! 

Infinite dynamic range and color gamut? That would require travelling through a vacuum... you loose some of each passing through glass and through atmosphere.. It is certainly far superior, but it is not infinite....


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Zero lag.
> ...



Light can go 500 feet in .5 microseconds. Did you mean .5 nanoseconds?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 21, 2014)

Not to be picky Don, but you obviously have no concept of the speed of light.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 21, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


repeat after me....

I love autocorrect.... I love autocorrect..... I love autocorrect......

autocorrect changed it on me! .5 nanoseconds is the correct answer....

By the way.... the local coffee shop chain around here is called "Tim Hortens". Autocorrect changes it to "Tim Horrendous"...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 21, 2014)

No excuses. This is the internet Don. ;D


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 21, 2014)

Any light worth catching is allowed to bounce around 1000 times - in a strict and well behaved manner - inside a Canon camera before it decides to exit through the viewfinder, Don.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 21, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> No excuses. This is the internet Don. ;D



Best comment I have read in ages!


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Sep 21, 2014)

Tugela said:


> The human eye cannot tell the difference above about 24 fps, so a refresh threshold of about 42 ms is enough.


Not quite. Cinema film shot at 24fps appears fluid to the human eye because it's projected at 48fps with each image shown twice -- as distinct from 48fps like Peter Jackson uses with a full 48 images. If it was actually run at 24fps, you'd have a splitting headache. Some projectors run at 72 images per second.

Carry on.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 21, 2014)

GmwDarkroom said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The human eye cannot tell the difference above about 24 fps, so a refresh threshold of about 42 ms is enough.
> ...



Regardless, your ability to see flicker isn't really related to your ability to track high speed subjects in the presence of lag.


----------



## MagnumJoe (Sep 21, 2014)

As exciting as I was about the 7D MK II I'm probably going to pass on it for now as well as the 70D. 
I rented a canon 1.4x III extender this weekend and I was amazed of the performance with my 5D MK III and 70-200 f/2.8 II. 
I'm still interested in something for video and use the glass I currently own. Time will tell what I choose. Thanks everyone for your suggestions.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Sep 21, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> GmwDarkroom said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...


No argument. The effectiveness of a display is affected by refresh rate, input lag, and change response time. The last is where an OLED EFV would have no issues. The first two can cause problems. The likely issue with any EFV would be input lag, if it's not sufficiently low. Given that the data has to be encoded, moved, and redisplayed, the electronics would need to be very, very fast.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 21, 2014)

GmwDarkroom said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > GmwDarkroom said:
> ...



The sensor too. The theoretical minimum on lag is the shutter period. In good light this can be very short, but then the frame rate and thus processing pipeline has to keep up.

In low light, the shutter speed can be a major problem. When you need 1/15th to get an image for the EVF, your lag is going to be that plus any processing overhead.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 21, 2014)

MagnumJoe said:


> I’m interested in a second body to compliment my 5D MK III. I mostly shoot candids, portraits, my grandson in the park and his T-ball and soccer games. The 5D MK III has done really well and I rented a canon 1.4 III extender and will try out this weekend.
> 
> The reason I’m interested in the 70D or 7D MK II for my second body are.
> The extra reach and video auto focus.
> ...



Hi Magnun,

You said you need a second body? You also have the 6D in your bag. 
I would wait and see how different is the performance (particularly noise and ISO) of the new 7D2 over the 70D. 
Particularly I'll wait to see real reviews of the 7D2 to see if the premiun over the 70D is worth it.


----------



## MagnumJoe (Sep 21, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> MagnumJoe said:
> 
> 
> > I’m interested in a second body to compliment my 5D MK III. I mostly shoot candids, portraits, my grandson in the park and his T-ball and soccer games. The 5D MK III has done really well and I rented a canon 1.4 III extender and will try out this weekend.
> ...



Hi Hjalmarg1,

I sold my 6D when I bought the 5D MK III, I had plans to buy the GH4, but when I realized the investments i have in canon lens, that just wasn't an option. For example a f/2.8 on the GH4 isn't really 2.8, it's more like a 5.6, so I lost interest.


----------

