# Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review



## papa-razzi (Dec 19, 2014)

I was getting ready to sell my 7D and pick up a 7DII in the spring. Pretty much every review I have seen has been favorable.

Not so much this one.
http://www.ronmartblog.com/2014/12/review-canon-7d-mark-ii-oh-no-not-again.html

So, who is right? Should I just hang on to the 7D, or upgrade to the 7DII. I use this camera for sports shooting. Night football games, basketball, volleyball - all could benefit from the higher FPS and improved high ISO performance on the 7DII - if in-fact there is improvement in the high ISO performance.

Has anyone had both a 7D and 7DII? What are your experiences?

Is Martinsen way off in his review? His is know for being candid and speaking his mind - and he is a Canon shooter. But he seems to be a lone voice with such a negative review.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2014)

Key statement from his review:

[quote author=Ron Martinsen]
Now if you thought the 50D, 60D or 7D was a good camera then you’ll love the 7D Mark II. However, if you are like me and thought they weren’t worth owning if someone gave you one for free, then I have to advise that you stay away from the 7D Mark II – despite how fantastic the body features and technical specifications are.
[/quote]

Seems he's expecting FF high ISO performance from a sensor with <40% of the light gathering capability. Maybe a tad unrealistic...just a tad.


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 20, 2014)

Good point Neuro. I didn't pick up on the subtlety of that.


----------



## drjlo (Dec 20, 2014)

Uhh, the 'conclusion'

"Ultimately I can’t recommend this camera. Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it). Sure you’ll get less frames per second on the Nikon, but nearly all of them will be in focus and you’ll have killer image quality too!"

It's rather odd that instead of an aps-c camera (7D II), he recommends a APS-H (1D IV) and two full frame cameras (D750, D4s). They can shoot at 1.6x reach advantage? :


----------



## nda (Dec 20, 2014)

Who's Ron Martinsen?


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 20, 2014)

nda said:


> Who's Ron Martinsen?



Who is John Galt?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2014)

papa-razzi said:


> Good point Neuro. I didn't pick up on the subtlety of that.



I dunno. Maybe he's quite reasonable. After all, the 7D sucked – probably because it started getting noisy above ISO 800. Many of his test shots are at ISO 6400. Maybe expecting _less_ noise at 3-stops more gain is perfectly reasonable. Then again...maybe not. :

As for the 'reach' argument, that's sort of a red herring IMO, the only thing a smaller sensor gets you is more MP, which isn't needed unless you're printing large. Still, he probably has the answer for that as well – to go along with your more expensive body, replace your 300-400mm lenses with 500-600mm lenses. But since ISO 6400 is so important, an f/6.3 lens won't work, you'd need f/4. What's $10K between friends? : :


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 20, 2014)

I would be reasonably happy with a 7D Mark II. Ron M seems to have other sorts of expectations from it, and thus he gets disappointed. Being used to shoot with FF bodies it's understandable to notice where a APS-C comes short in the IQ department.

Thanks for finding his blog, papa-razzi, it was one I hadn't read before.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 20, 2014)

papa-razzi said:


> I was getting ready to sell my 7D and pick up a 7DII in the spring. Pretty much every review I have seen has been favorable.
> 
> Not so much this one.
> http://www.ronmartblog.com/2014/12/review-canon-7d-mark-ii-oh-no-not-again.html
> ...



This guy is a nut. I just shot indoor soccer at ISO 12500 all were in focus. Obviously had to apply noise reduction but the result was almost as good as what I got in the past with a 1DX. I think he just made a mistake and had the camera turned around backwards.

I traded up from a 7D and the new model is just so much better in mostly every way. It's truely an economical sports camera.


----------



## Davebo (Dec 20, 2014)

nda said:


> Who's Ron Martinsen?



Wondered the same thing. For those interested, the following may answer some questions:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ronmart


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Key statement from his review:
> 
> [quote author=Ron Martinsen]
> Now if you thought the 50D, 60D or 7D was a good camera then you’ll love the 7D Mark II. However, if you are like me and thought they weren’t worth owning if someone gave you one for free, then I have to advise that you stay away from the 7D Mark II – despite how fantastic the body features and technical specifications are.



Seems he's expecting FF high ISO performance from a sensor with <40% of the light gathering capability. Maybe a tad unrealistic...just a tad. 
[/quote]

Ultimately I can’t recommend this camera. Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it). Sure you’ll get less frames per second on the Nikon, but nearly all of them will be in focus and you’ll have killer image quality too! 

____________________________________________________________________________________

I'd also prefer low actuation 1D Mark IV for a few dollars more, and if you are not using the 7D Mark II for wildlife and sports, a FF body for about the same price makes sense, assuming you are not stuck with a lot of EF-s lenses.

But... A $6500 D4s as a alternative to a $1800 camera! We need to get some of that stuff he's smoking.


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 20, 2014)

Well, I've owned both, am primarily a sports and wildlife shooter ... without getting into a lot of detail, which will start back and forth supportive and non-supportive posting - Yes, the 7D2 is significantly better IN THE FIELD ... how much in numbers, have no clue. I don't test by the numbers - I test in the field and evaluate images - and that's what makes up my mind when I chose equipment. 

Test charts and measurements mean something to designers and manufacturers -- and some very technical oriented photographers too -- but they've already done that math for me. 

My test is: Can 7D2 give me personally the performance I need to do my job. The answer is Yes - in my opinion, which is only my opinion. I bought it, shot with it, could have returned it, but sold my 7D to a friend instead - and kept the 7D2 - we both agree we made a good choice. 

Well, for what it's worth anyway ...


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 20, 2014)

I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. I have owned a 7D and currently own a 7D2, 5D3, and 6D. Initially upon receiving my 7D2 I was so disappointed that I posted that I would send it back. I wound up not doing that. Instead I only take it out of my bag when the light is good enough that I can comfortably shoot at ISO 800 or below.

You can argue that neither I nor Ron should expect much from a cropped sensor, but at least in my case I was hoping for more. Sony and Samsung have proven that this is possible, and at least sensor-wise the 7D2 accomplishes very little over the 7D. In fact, Ron's comparison comment was mine - except my original statement was "sure, the 7D2 has better image quality than the 7D, but that's kind of like saying that diarrhea is better than the stomach flu". 

Should you buy a 7D2 if you already have a 7D? That really depends on how you intend to use it. The camera does have much better ergonomics and the AF is very good. I use it only for wildlife and only on my 200-400/1.4x and only in good light. In those cases it does its job, but I have a 5D3 and 6D to fall back on for the majority of days here in the Pacific Northwest. 

On the other hand, if this is your primary camera then my recommendation would be to stick with your 7D (or even 70D) and save for a full frame camera in the future.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.
> 
> In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \


 
so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s? A D4s won't do sports or wildlife? What is he on??


----------



## DWM (Dec 20, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.
> ...


I was kinda wondering the same thing. What does he have against the 1Dx if he recommending a high priced ff? Where does the D4s beat the 1Dx for sports or wildlife? If they're good friends then they may be sharing the same smoke pipe.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2014)

DWM said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...


 
Yes, except, as I read it, he is recommending the D4s if you are NOT doing sports or wildlife. Maybe its just poorly worded, but that's the way I read it, the everyone else meaning those not shooting sports or wildlife.

Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, *and everyone else should consider a **D750** (or a **D4s* if you can afford it)


----------



## aardvark (Dec 20, 2014)

A couple of things I noted about the review which seem contrary to all other opinions were:

- Slight disappointment with the sensor performance: To be fair a lot of the early posts on CR were of the same view, some commentators (e.g. Scott Kelby) raved about it, most have now accepted its better than the pervious generation but not as good as perhaps they had wished or indeed the competition. However, the strange thing with this review is the implication that its worse than the 70D, which is the first review stating this, but also perhaps this is caused by the fact he is reliant on in Camera JPEG processing!

- AF system inaccurate: This is really strange, he states "I was disappointed with the high number of out of focus shots I got for such a slow moving activity " and also implies disappointment in focus accuracy, this is strange as virtually all other reviews have held this out as a strong point of the camera. One has to ask why, when others were absolutely raving about its performance and comparing with canons top of the line cameras/ For me this is a more important comment if I were buying - is there some merit in what he says and if so why does everyone else have contrary results here!


At the end of the day its an opinion, but remember he is a blogger and wants to drive traffic to his site as he can then get some $$$ for click trough's, controversial blogs do this - after would we have bothered reading it if it had been broadly neutral?


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 20, 2014)

aardvark said:


> A couple of things I noted about the review which seem contrary to all other opinions were:
> 
> - Slight disappointment with the sensor performance: To be fair a lot of the early posts on CR were of the same view, some commentators (e.g. Scott Kelby) raved about it, most have now accepted its better than the pervious generation but not as good as perhaps they had wished or indeed the competition. However, the strange thing with this review is the implication that its worse than the 70D, which is the first review stating this, but also perhaps this is caused by the fact he is reliant on in Camera JPEG processing!
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## zlatko (Dec 20, 2014)

aardvark said:


> At the end of the day its an opinion, but remember he is a blogger and wants to drive traffic to his site as he can then get some $$$ for click trough's, controversial blogs do this - after would we have bothered reading it if it had been broadly neutral?



Yep, he's entitled to express his questionable opinions — a combination of unrealistic expectations and unfair comparisons (gosh, the D750 and D4S are better?). Noise comparison examples on the-digital-picture.com show what can realistically be expected.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 20, 2014)

Checked his portfolio... he is not even a sports, wildlife, or, especially, bird photographer!!!

Yet, he speaks with massive authority on all things. Likely, we should go to him for dating advice as well, and also information about how and when to plant our crops.

I quote Russian Proverb: Ocean is knee deep to him.

Who is this person? Someone we should quickly forget, as there is nothing memorable about him.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 20, 2014)

That's a very poor review. I don't feel like typing out all the problems with it again. If you search on DPR you can find a good break down of that review (basically everyone agreed that it's off in many ways, Canon fanboys and not all agreed for once).


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 20, 2014)

I got up to the ISO test and found a discrepancy.



> At ISO 6400, things start to suck – especially when compared to a 70D,



Ok, here's the 70D test

http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s5/v133/p1997423089.jpg

and here's the 7DII test

http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s6/v144/p355442490.jpg

Image noise is obviously a massive improvement on the 7DII, when it seems like the lack of ISO improvement was the crux of his review.
AKA, this is just a carelessly written blog post intended to flame the 7DII.

Chalk him up as a Tony Northrup wanna-be.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 20, 2014)

Davebo said:


> nda said:
> 
> 
> > Who's Ron Martinsen?
> ...



Wow, very telling. So much wrong both technically and photographically in the review so.... of course he is a chief technical programmer for MS and an invited speaker with big connections in the photo world.


At least he isn't afraid to speak his mind though.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 20, 2014)

nda said:


> Who's Ron Martinsen?



+1


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 20, 2014)

papa-razzi said:


> I was getting ready to sell my 7D and pick up a 7DII in the spring. Pretty much every review I have seen has been favorable.
> 
> Not so much this one.
> http://www.ronmartblog.com/2014/12/review-canon-7d-mark-ii-oh-no-not-again.html
> ...



If you don't want to upgrade to ff Imo the 7d2 is defiently worth the upgrade. Is it a perfect camera? No. It's very good though. Everyone has there expectations and that's fine but I think some people have unrealisitic expectations. I wouldn't let one persons review sway you after you saw so many favorable reviews.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 20, 2014)

He says that if you have a large investment in big whites, you should go and buy a Nikon???


----------



## Eldar (Dec 20, 2014)

Here´s a short video, where he is demonstrating the fantastic (in his view) autofocus with facial recognition on the D4S:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nInuePLiO1k
Even for a totally still, well (over)lit face, it still hunts ...

In his D4S review, which he claim has the best AF system in the world, he is using his kid on a swing, as "the ultimate AF challenge" :

I have played with the 7DII for some time now and to bash its AF system can only imply that they guy either had a poor copy or he does not know what he is doing. I used it this weekend to shoot small birds, jumping around in trees, with the 600 f4L IS II and the 1.4xIII extender. At 1/640s, f5.6-6.3 and ISO 3200-5000, my keeper rate is high, so how he managed to have problems with large slow moving subjects (people), in high contrast outfits is beyond me. 

I have not tried the D4S, but I don´t remember having seen any review claiming that it has a better AF system than the 1DX, which I know very well. And I have seen for myself that the 7DII stands up very well to what the 1DX delivers, at a fraction of the price.

As for ISO performance, I, like many others, would have liked to see a greater improvement, but it is an improvement. And as for body ergonomics, I have absolutely nothing to complain about. Well, I´ll correct that; I would have liked the AF mode switch to work both ways, so I didn´t have to run through all modes every time (I can live with that 

I do believe I have read my last Ron Martinsen review ...


----------



## Roo (Dec 20, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I do believe I have read my last Ron Martinsen review ...



Thanks Eldar. Your user experience comments are always well balanced and appreciated. I did read a couple of Ron's other reviews and they are inconsistent at best. 

Some people blog for kicks while others blog just for the clicks ;D I'll file him away with Northrup as unreliable and never to be viewed again.


----------



## Koemans (Dec 20, 2014)

I am sorry, but the reviewer lost all credibility when he started to complain about noise at iso 100 when zoomed in 100%. That is like looking with a magnifying glass at a picture the size of a 4x5meter wall. O MY GOD SO MUCH NOISE.

"This image looks nice at first until you zoom in at 100%, there is so much noise at iso 1600!!!"

http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s6/v141/p250641345.jpg


And then he continues to rant how bad this camera is for a sports photographer. Yeah right, i am pretty sure 99% of the sport photographers out there dont print larger than the size of a newspaper that you can hold with 2 hands easely and publish in websize format on websites like facebook. Heck, very few sport photographers actually earn money these days since the market has been completely destroyed anyway. What the hell is he talking about?

Fact is, at iso 3200 and higher all the images produced are still pretty useable for newspapers and facebook (LOL!)


----------



## Tugela (Dec 20, 2014)

Well, he is correct that it is a disappointment because that is exactly what it is. Fans have rationalized it's shortcomings because it is a Canon and that is what they want, no matter what is actually delivered. The camera could have been so much more, but Canon for whatever reason chose to give us yesterday's tech instead of tomorrows.

Personally, if I were looking to upgrade and existing Canon camera (and I am), I would wait until the next round of upgrades and hope that they got off their a** and delivered a worthy product. Or, what is more likely to happen, upgrade to a camera with some other logo on the head plate.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 20, 2014)

What in God's name are you prattling on about, Tugela? The 7D Mk II is a _wondrous_ thing in the APS-C space.

*Of course, I'm speaking from a position of actual first-hand ownership experience here - I know that's not how things are supposed to be on here*.

As to the muppet reviewer - this is what (just) 4000 ISO (chosen by Auto ISO) looks like at 100% from my 7D Mk II, _straight out_ of a capable converter, used well. _No_ post-conversion NR:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO.jpg

Noisy?

_Yeah, right_... 

And at the image level, with only a little bit of selective sharpening in PS - again, no additional NR - the IQ is impeccable:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO_1.jpg

*And I can go a lot higher than this, for almost identical IQ/noise results*.

As to its AF system - _peerless_, certainly in the crop camera space; and it's a threat to the AF of any Nikon (and, according to some reviewers who I respect, any other Canon) out there.

Then there's f/8 AF, fully functional Auto ISO, and a whole slew of other improvements over the original 7D (which - despite Neuro's confident assertions - is fit for a damn' sight higher than 800 ISO).

Just because _you_ don't understand what the 7D Mk II is about, Tugela, or what makes it such an impressive camera, don't assume that your lack of understanding says anything_ about the camera_...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 20, 2014)

Koemans said:


> "This image looks nice at first until you zoom in at 100%, there is so much noise at iso 1600!!!"
> 
> http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s6/v141/p250641345.jpg



Again: 4000 ISO at 100%, but from someone who knows what he's doing (me!):

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO.jpg

And - just for a laugh - what 1600 ISO looks like _for me_, straight out of converter (only cropping/resizing in PS):

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/7D_mk_II_1600.jpg

And believe me: at the image level, pics converted like this and subsequently processed for presentation, look (subject matter notwithstanding! ) _great_ in IQ terms:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/7D_mk_II_1600_1.jpg

(Yes, these have a higher shutter speed than Martinsen's examples: take it from me, I can do this all day long with _much_ less incident light to play with: I was testing the camera's excellent Auto ISO here, and 1/1000 is what I usually aim for when I'm shooting rugby, etc).


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 20, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> Instead I only take it out of my bag when the light is good enough that I can comfortably shoot at ISO 800 or below.



I would _love_ to know what people like you are doing with your cameras - and to the files - to justify extraordinary comments like that...

Did Martinsen teach you how to convert and PP? Because he's clearly (embarrassingly) clueless, and if you can't use your 7D Mk II at 800 ISO, I can only conclude that you've spent too much time in his company...


----------



## Tugela (Dec 20, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> What in God's name are you prattling on about, Tugela? The 7D Mk II is a _wondrous_ thing in the APS-C space.
> 
> *Of course, I'm speaking from a position of actual first-hand ownership experience here - I know that's not how things are supposed to be on here*.
> 
> ...



It might meet your needs. It falls way short on meeting *MY* needs, thus it is a disappointment.

The technology in the camera is all from two years ago or more. The sensor is old tech. The processors are old tech. The body is too large for my hands. The thing is clunky.

It can track black dogs running towards the camera. Super.

Great, only....

I don't have black dogs.
I don't have dogs at all.
I have zero interest in photographing dogs running in any direction, least of all towards me.
99.9999999% of the pictures I take do not have excessive motion in them at all.
I know how to focus a camera, so the focusing system in this model has little to no value to me at all.
I want to be able to fix focus manually accurately so *I* determine what is or isn't in focus....oops....can't do that because the thing has a dumb ass mirror in the way 
I have a requirement that any camera I buy in the future be able to take decent video since I don't want to lug around two sets of equipment.
I want a touch screen so that when I do have to change stuff at a moments notice, I can.
I want a camera that fits comfortably in my hands, not some gigantic male jewelry. Bigger is not better. My ego is just fine. I don't need a supersized camera to compensate.

So what are you left with? Not much compared to competing products from other vendors. That is the disappointment since this camera was *supposed* to be Canons primary APS-C camera for the future, presumable for the next 3 years at least. I find that idea absolutely shocking - the reality is that it is a 2012 era camera designed around an even older paradigm for heaven sake!! Where is the vision? Where is the future? It is not with this camera, that is for damned sure!

There will be a 7D3 coming along pretty smartly I think, I don't see how they can get away selling this thing for the next three years and still expect it to be competitive. At best it has 1 year of competitive life in it.


----------



## Roo (Dec 20, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > What in God's name are you prattling on about, Tugela? The 7D Mk II is a _wondrous_ thing in the APS-C space.
> ...



Again someone that thinks that the camera is no good because it doesn't suit *YOUR* individual needs. On what you've described as* YOUR* needs no DSLR meets them so why look at one? The 7Dii was always going to be a sports/action/wildlife shooter and yet you're disappointed by it? Some people really need a reality check.


----------



## Khalai (Dec 20, 2014)

Roo said:


> Again someone that thinks that the camera is no good because it doesn't suit *YOUR* individual needs. On what you've described as* YOUR* needs no DSLR meets them so why look at one? The 7Dii was always going to be a sports/action/wildlife shooter and yet you're disappointed by it? Some people really need a reality check.



Precisely. Bashing 7D2 because it's not small, mirrorless, allrounder camera? Get a X-T1 or A7 and be happy about that. You can even use Canon glass with adapters if you're not happy with Fuji or Sony lens lineup. What the hell...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2014)

@Tuglea - I want a cup of coffee and the 7DII won't brew one for me. Therefore, it fails to meet *MY* needs and it's a crappy camera. So I guess we agree. 

: : :


----------



## candc (Dec 20, 2014)

i have the 70d and 7dii, i agree that the iq is the same. i really like the 7dii for the af, buffer, and speed but it does make me a bit irritated to think about how canon could put the 6d sensor in the 7dii body, sell it for $1800 and still make money. but no, if you want that you have to spend $6000 on the 1dx so they wont.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 20, 2014)

I haven't used the 7D2 yet, but I hear echos of when the 7D came out. Folk wowed by the specs and then underwhelmed by the images.

I got my 7D around 6 months after launch (let the beta testers break theirs first, save a third) and I quickly came to the conclusion that those not getting decent AF hadn't bothered setting up the AF system, particularly the Ai Servo preferences, and those who were getting too much noise were either shooting jpeg or messing up their RAW workflow.

I was, and remain happy with results up to 3200 with careful post processing, but as with all APS-C cameras, the lower the ISO the better.

I wonder how many people buy something like the 7D or 7D2 and expect it to work brilliantly out of the box? 
Thats what the 70D class of camera is for, and would probably suit reviewers like Ron a bit better.

I was about 4 weeks in having shot speedway, soccer etc before I had my 7D tuned to work in line with my shooting methods. It wasn't a frustrating experience as I could feel the keeper rate improving and the camera getting better and better at tracking.

The headline spec changes of the 7D2 aren't enough to tempt me just yet. Besides I want to see what Canon come up with in terms of 4K.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> That's a very poor review. I don't feel like typing out all the problems with it again.



+1, I was just about to start out but it really isn't worth it.

I'm agree with every Canon fanboy on this, for once: The 7d2 isn't there to produce top notch iq, but get the job done. If you want good iq with horrible af, then there's the 6d. The only complaints I see have nothing to with the 7d2 at all, which has a reasonable price - for Canon.

the "af and iq all in one" 5d3 is rather expensive, but then again Canon isn't a charity organization.
Canon has abandoned aps-h, but we (most likely) know the reasons for this move.
the "xxd for the masses" 70d didn't get the a bit improved 7d2 sensor

What I don't get is what reviewers consider to be the 7d2's use case and sports photography. Not everyone is reporting on the olympics, and those who are just get a 1dx+600L from their newspaper or buy one themselves.

_For most web-screen or print reporting, *image quality doesn't matter* as far as the recent crop-ff difference go_. You don't need a f2.8 lens to create subject separation for tele shots with a lot of space behind the subject. No local newspaper, blog or whatever is going to complain about some more noise reduction and sharpening if you get an af lock for just that precious moment of the action or the split-second of emotion. It isn't what I do, but there you are.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> i really like the 7dii for the af, buffer, and speed but it does make me a bit irritated to think about how canon could put the 6d sensor in the 7dii body, sell it for $1800...



Yeah, and I bet you're irritated that Chevy didn't put a Big Block V8 into the Camero instead of that piddly little 3.6L V6 and sell it for the price of a Cruze, too. Because that would be just so feasible... :


----------



## Tinky (Dec 20, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Not everyone is reporting on the olympics, and those who are just get a 1dx+600L from their newspaper or buy one themselves.



I've not long got out of newspapers. Not as a photographer, I would clarify, although I worked with them extensively. Saw the staff tog number dropin our region alone from 12 to 2 in the time I was there, we would have folk in Afghanistan, at all the soccer games, by the end up our staffers did the studio pics for features, everything else was bought in. The guys with the 1dx & 600's are with corbis or getty, not with the newspapers, not these days.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2014)

Tinky said:


> I haven't used the 7D2 yet, but I hear echos of when the 7D came out. Folk wowed by the specs and then underwhelmed by the images.
> 
> I got my 7D around 6 months after launch (let the beta testers break theirs first, save a third) and I quickly came to the conclusion that those not getting decent AF hadn't bothered setting up the AF system, particularly the Ai Servo preferences, and those who were getting too much noise were either shooting jpeg or messing up their RAW workflow.
> 
> ...


+1

When I first got my hands on the 7D2, I had a poor keeper rate due to autofocus problems..... The more I use it, the better the rate gets. I can do stuff now that the old camera could not handle, and I am still learning.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 20, 2014)

Tinky said:


> The guys with the 1dx & 600's are with corbis or getty, not with the newspapers, not these days.



So I hear. Unless you've got the right connections 

I sold some shots to a local homeless people project newspaper for a really minor fee, doing the right thing, you know? But when I saw their office is stuffed with the latest Macintosh systems and the boss carries a 1dx+24-70L2 for starters, I felt kind of underpaid.

However, the local guys working for news agencies (selling to the newspapers in turn) all have to buy their own gear, and they're happy if they can afford a 7d1 with a half-decent lens at all. But as I wrote, the agencies are just fine with the 7d1 iq, it's not like they'd produce wall-mount posters with it.

Working as a pj pro is soooooooo different from amateur enthusiast photography - if you're trying to gather your rent, you just want your darn gear to work and deliver what you want. And in this department, Canon imho is the best brand to use and the 7d2 is a dream camera.


----------



## candc (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > i really like the 7dii for the af, buffer, and speed but it does make me a bit irritated to think about how canon could put the 6d sensor in the 7dii body, sell it for $1800...
> ...



it is not like the analogy you are referring to which would be physically difficult and expensive to produce. the sensor in the 6d is not expensive and it would not be difficult to put it in a 7dii body. 

to me its greed. i don't mind paying a fair price for a product but i don't like getting ripped off.


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 20, 2014)

Here's my struggle with the 7D2 -- MAKE a list of things this camera was NOT designed to do, and then complain because it doesn't do them. 

coming from a 7D, I find this 7D2 a huge improvement ... it does exactly what i bought it to do, and very successfully. If you take any piece of equipment - set it up beyond its abilities and then complain about the camera, when you should be complaining about yourself ...

Go out on a field sometime, and look at a bar set at 22 feet, then go get a pole and see if you can "pole vault" over that bar. Well, you can't - whose fault is that? The bar, the pole, or the person who set that bar? Choose one !

You all should quit squabbling about what the 7D2 can't do, and start figuring out what it can do -- you might be surprised once you actually get it in the field and off the mathematical chalk board.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 20, 2014)

the agencies are fine with anything they can sell. always. sometimes content is more important than technical attributes. but if it will sell, they'll sell it for you, for a modest commission of course.

I saw the way circulation was going, around a quarter of where we were 15 years ago... the money was on the table, so I took it and ran.

Not a great business model giving all your content away free online.

Imagine describing a newspaper to Aliens... "So you can either get them free on a device that you have in your pocket anyway and have already paid for, or you somebody can chop down a tree, print on the pulp, drive it from the printers to a shop, you can spend money on this bulky object that will cut your fingers and leave then covered in newsprint, that you have to carry around with you, is to big to open on the commute, and then you have to recycle it". 

But as my Dad pointed out, "ipads are great, but my bic biro scratches the glass when I try and do the soduko puzzles"


----------



## Go Wild (Dec 20, 2014)

Hello everyone. 

First of all, let me give you my congratulations to everyone, it´s my first post, but i follow this forum for quite a while, and i really like to read your opinions either i agree, or not. I´m sorry for any mistake in writing, i speak better english than i write.

My name is Peter i am a wildlife photographer in Portugal and i really feel the need to write in this post, because i own the new 7D markII for a couple of days and i tested it in a very harsh environment with fog and in almost no light. 

And the camera went in a superb response! Auto focus is incredible even in very dificult conditions, and ISO gave me very good photos at iso 2000. I am not a pixel peeper, i don´t make comparisons, i don´t study at the minimun detail pixels or IQ, first of all i need to get the picture!! And in that field the 7D markII is superb. 

I also own a 5D markIII so i was kind of expecting this behavior, but it really pleasured me. 

I think some people are being very infair reviewing this camera. First of all, let´s not forget, it´s a 1600$ camera! Expensive? I think it has a quite reasonable price for what it delivers. But i think people is demanding things to this camera tha you can achieve in a 6000$ camera...Not real! And most part of the people who criticizes want everything in a 1600$ camera. They want an aps-c with 40MP, with iso capability of 25000, they want the camera to fly, they want the camera to be perfect...and that´s not possible...at least at this price.

And then, there ar very people who´s talking bad of this camera because they didn´t understand what is the target of this camera! If i want a Wedding camera i take my 5D markIII! If I want a low light camera, or a landscape camera I take a Canon 6D, or a 5D markIII. 7D markII it´s NOT a walkaround camera. His purpose is to get the photo in fast action! It is made for wildlife and sports!! 

I heard some talks about softness in image in this camera. So let me say again...if you are putting side by side canon 1D X or canon 5d markIII sharpness although it´s unfair, yes it may be not so sharp. But if i put you 2 photos side by side in good light conditions, of 5d markIII ad 7D markII without 100% zooms without all those tests you´ll never figure what the machine took the photo!! And that´s real world photo! 

What concern´s me a little bit is it seems Canon is loosing something for Nikon and Sony in Image quality overall...that´s a real concern. 

So this post is not scientific, nor trying to prove anything, it´s just my opinion that people are being unfair reviewing this camera. Yes, it´s not perfect, but for wildlife or sports? It´s awesome and if you don´t get the shot it´s your fault!

BTW - If you use ISO 2000 and you make a 50% crop, Of course you´ll get noise, but that´s not camera fault!! 

"If you're pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" - Robert Capa


Thank you everyone and please continue, i really apreciate all off your posts!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 20, 2014)

Tinky said:


> Not a great business model giving all your content away free online.



Smart move to run, given the outlook. Problem is that falling fees for photogs or journalists in general change the content, 7d2 or 7d1.

One of my recent jobs was organizing a congress dealing with this: if ads get out of print newspapers, there's no budget left for investigative or quality journalism and you depend more and more on ready-made stories you copy/paste from lobby organizations.

As you pointed out, people loading content on the devices they own aren't prepared to pay for it, esp. if it's more convenient than trying to unwrap an old-school newspaper in a subway train.

With very good photogrphy gear becoming more accessible (even to me!) and even iphones producing decent pictures, there's only one way it'll go, as you described: A small team buying content and duplicating it to every media channel, while everything else is outsourced.

I just happened to see the movie "all the president's men" yesterday with the old-school newsroom, oh my, those were the days :-o


----------



## miah (Dec 20, 2014)

Go Wild said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> First of all, let me give you my congratulations to everyone, it´s my first post, but i follow this forum for quite a while, and i really like to read your opinions either i agree, or not. I´m sorry for any mistake in writing, i speak better english than i write.
> 
> ...



Welcome to CR, Go Wild; your post hit the nail right on the head.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Sorry, but you're being rather naïve. A FF sensor is bigger...a lot bigger. That means a bigger mirror assembly. A bigger sensor means a bigger AF sensor, a bigger pentaprism, a bigger metering sensor, etc. Oh, you still want 10 fps? Ok, that's the 1D X's mirror assembly. Willing to have a somewhat lower frame rate, say...6 fps? That's the 5DIII. But you want it for $1800? 

Me dear ol' dad, who hailed from the Emerald Isle (by way of Chicago) used to say, "Wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up fastest." 

Oh, and by the way what you call greed, Canon would call trying to generate the maximum value for shareholders – and that's their legal obligation as a publicly traded corporation.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...


Just forgot a detail ... Put a larger sensor in a body 7D Mark II, maintaining 10 frames per second performance would require:

A larger mirror box also capable of high speed.
A larger shutter, still capable of high speed.
A larger pentaprism.
A better heat dissipation.
A larger battery consumption.
A larger AF sensor with focus points covering a larger area.

I think that exists and is called 5D Mark iii.

EDIT: Neuro replied before me.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Uhh, the 'conclusion'
> 
> "Ultimately I can’t recommend this camera. Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it). Sure you’ll get less frames per second on the Nikon, but nearly all of them will be in focus and you’ll have killer image quality too!"



Whoever this guy is, he probably flunked second grade a few times.

I looked into switching to Nikon once. Selling my Canon lenses and buying similar Nikon ones was going to cost me $8,000 and get me lenses that were worse than what I already have with one exception. They were also bigger and heavier.

The very last Canon camera I'd buy if I weren't going to buy a 7DII would be a 1DIV. I hate the 1D bodies (too big, lousy ergonomics, don't like the non-removable grip) and I want a high pixel density camera. The 1DIV is a failure on both counts. I'd buy a 70D or a 60D before a 1DIV.

Having compared raw and JPEG test images, feature set and cost, I'd say the 7DII is the best crop camera on the market for shooting any sort of action, and second place is the 70D.

This guy is just too dumb to get it.


----------



## candc (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



i am not being naive. i know exactly what canon is doing. not every company practices this way. mesa boogie is a good example. they put out the best product they can make and sell it at a reasonable price. i don't agree with the business strategy of artificially inflating the price of a product just because they can. i understand it is their choice to do so but i don't have to agree with or defend that choice.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



I'd rather have the 7DII than the 6D sensor in the 7DII - by far. One of my main reasons for wanting this camera is that I'm often left with 100% crops for my final image on my 20D (even at 400mm) and I want more pixels on the target. The 6D sensor would leave me with fewer pixels, not more.


----------



## candc (Dec 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



i like the 7dii as well. i guess there is the 5diii. the price on it is down around $2400 nowadays. that seems reasonable in comparison to the the 7dii i suppose. i think it was $3600 for a long time. i might get one now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Well, I _had_ meant the naïve part in reference to your suggestion that Canon 'just pop the 6D sensor into the 7DII body' like it was no big deal and basically cost-neutral. 

But apparently you're a bit naïve as far as business acumen, as well. Mesa Boogie is a privately held company, not legally accountable to shareholders. If they want to give their products away for free, that's their choice.


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 20, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> If you don't want to upgrade to ff Imo the 7d2 is defiently worth the upgrade. Is it a perfect camera? No. It's very good though. Everyone has there expectations and that's fine but I think some people have unrealisitic expectations. I wouldn't let one persons review sway you after you saw so many favorable reviews.



I have a 6D, so the 7D is my sports camera



Tugela said:


> Personally, if I were looking to upgrade and existing Canon camera (and I am), I would wait until the next round of upgrades and hope that they got off their a** and delivered a worthy product. Or, what is more likely to happen, upgrade to a camera with some other logo on the head plate.



All my sports shooting is of my children. They grow up pretty fast. So, unfortunately waiting indefinitely is not an option. If the differences are real, I can sell my 7D and the remaining difference in paying for the 7DII would be worth it. I'd almost do it for the extra 2fps and AF without any other improvements. The improved high ISO, even if marginal, is a bonus.

Thanks everyone for your comments. They are helpful, as this is a community of people far more knowledgeable and experienced than I am.

Another slightly off topic question - should I sell the 7D now, or wait until the spring/summer. I'm really down to football season where I would need the upgrade. I wouldn't buy the 7DII until next summer regardless.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> If you don't want to upgrade to ff Imo the 7d2 is defiently worth the upgrade.



Full-frame is not always an upgrade. I've had both crop and full-frame cameras for nearly a decade now, and each is better at some things.

Full-frame is better in low light and produces naturally sharper images when you are not focal length limited.

Crop cameras tend to be faster and produce superior images when you are focal length limited.

I see myself owning one of each for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Khalai (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> i am not being naive. i know exactly what canon is doing. not every company practices this way. mesa boogie is a good example. they put out the best product they can make and sell it at a reasonable price. i don't agree with the business strategy of artificially inflating the price of a product just because they can. i understand it is their choice to do so but i don't have to agree with or defend that choice.



Problem is, Canon is not alone out there. Do you think, they somehow make up pricings? They face a rather stiff competition, so they have to price their products accordingly. *Just because you don't agree with the price for the 7D mk2 doesn't make that price wrong.* If the price was too much, nobody would buy that camera.

P.S.: 6D sensor IS expensive. Sensor prices rises steeply with the size of a final sensor (less leeway for bad pieces from a wafer, those also account into price, not just the good ones). In my country (EU based), service centers charge around 700 USD just to replace the sensor if somehow damaged. They charge about half the price for the crop ones...


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 20, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.
> ...



From his review I gather that he is recommending the 1D4 over the 7D2. As a primary camera this makes sense. Personally this is one area where I do not agree. I find a 5D3 + 7D2 to be a better combination.

In terms of the D4s I know he loves this camera because he found the AF to be superior to the 1Dx in his review. That being said he is a Canon shooter. This is one area where I do not entirely agree with him. Personally for wildlife I cannot justify the price difference of the 1Dx over the 5D3.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 20, 2014)

AprilForever said:


> Checked his portfolio... he is not even a sports, wildlife, or, especially, bird photographer!!!
> 
> Yet, he speaks with massive authority on all things. Likely, we should go to him for dating advice as well, and also information about how and when to plant our crops.
> 
> ...



You are correct that he does not photograph wildlife, but he does photograph sports. He has photographed Formula 1 for some time and has had his photos of it published. He also photographed the winter Olympics in Vancouver.

Although Ron has reduced time on his blog so I suspect this is no longer true, at one time his blog was among the top ten photography sites in traffic. His photos have been published in numerous magazines and he often gives workshops. While even he will admit that there are many photographers out there more talented than he is, he certainly has more credibility than you.


----------



## tiger82 (Dec 20, 2014)

The people who should review cameras should be those whose needs fit the camera. If the reviewer does what I want to do, then there is credibility there. I'm not interested in making images Martinsen has posted on his portfolio blog so what he has to say means nothing to me. The 7D2 is not for him. I have the 5D3/1D4/7D2 combination and I use them according to my needs. Each has their advantages and disadvantages and not one will do everything exceptionally. Find something that suits your needs and produces the images you want and who cares what others say. You are the best judge of the equipment. Rather than reading a myriad of reviews, rent the camera for a few days and decide.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 20, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I just happened to see the movie "all the president's men" yesterday with the old-school newsroom, oh my, those were the days :-o



Yep. First class movie. Here in the UK we've had something of a less noble tradition, the cleansing is still going on, as more dirty deeds are uncovered. 

You know I actually watched the film the other week (for the xxxth time!) and just realised that there are a fair number of shots done on tilt lenses (especially in the newsroom, foreground focus, middle ground out of focus, far end in focus)

My fiancee says she can't enjoy any tv of film anymore without me dissecting scenes or technique...


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 20, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> I have the 5D3/1D4/7D2 combination and I use them according to my needs. Each has their advantages and disadvantages and not one will do everything exceptionally. Find something that suits your needs and produces the images you want and who cares what others say. You are the best judge of the equipment. Rather than reading a myriad of reviews, rent the camera for a few days and decide.



Tiger - I'd love to hear your comparison of 1D4 vs 7D2. I'm still considering one of these to replace my 7D.


----------



## tiger82 (Dec 20, 2014)

For one thing, the 1D4 is more suitable for indoor sports where I could use the 10fps and shoot wider with a 70-200. I don't pay as much attention to IQ as I do to my ability to capture properly framed moments and money shots. I would typically shoot a 1D4/70-200 and a 7D2/24-70 for those. For theater work, a 5D3/24-70f4 and 7D2/24-70f2.8 suits me well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> You are correct that he does not photograph wildlife, but he does photograph sports. He has photographed Formula 1 for some time and has had his photos of it published.



I wish the birds I photograph flew in an oval, around and around and around in a predictable pattern. FWIW, I've shot F1 and stock racing with a very high keeper rate...with manual focus, a memory card that holds 36 images, and a frame rate that was as fast as my thumb could push the advance lever between each shot.


----------



## tiger82 (Dec 20, 2014)

You can tie the bird and make it fly around in circles


----------



## Northbird (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct that he does not photograph wildlife, but he does photograph sports. He has photographed Formula 1 for some time and has had his photos of it published.
> ...



Thanks for the laugh Neuro. " ..... a frame rate that was as fast as my thumb could push the advance lever between each shot"

BTW, I own the 7D and 7D II. The 7DII is a fine camera for it's intended purpose if you don't want the weight, size and cost of a 1DX.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 20, 2014)

Tinky said:


> and just realised that there are a fair number of shots done on tilt lenses (especially in the newsroom, foreground focus, middle ground out of focus, far end in focus)



That's interesting, I never had the idea they'd use those! I'll check next time I see it  ... and because a friend of mine is currently underway buying a used ts-e 24mm, I am looking forward to look at the thing myself and what it can do.

Good point to make in a "machinegun that bird!" 7d2 topic though, because mf with a ts-e on a large sensor is the exact opposite type of photography you'd need a 2nd body for as a crop owner.



JBSF said:


> Even Ken Rockwell was able to get a sharply focused photo of a moving subject with a 7D2.



His growing family will be delighted :->


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 20, 2014)

_Myself, before the post was removed:_


> Hmmm, so he's at Microsoft? *spits in all compass directions and drags a black cat under a ladder (all at high ISO, and with no NR applied, for good measures)*



It's ok to tell me through a PM or similar, when a post is removed. I fail to see why/how this would violate anything. Sure, it's not exactly adding facts, but my way of trying to give a short (witty) comment.


----------



## candc (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2014)

Koemans said:


> I am sorry, but the reviewer lost all credibility when he started to complain about noise at iso 100 when zoomed in 100%. That is like looking with a magnifying glass at a picture the size of a 4x5meter wall. O MY GOD SO MUCH NOISE.
> 
> "This image looks nice at first until you zoom in at 100%, there is so much noise at iso 1600!!!"
> 
> ...


3200? for facebook? you can probably run it up to 51200 and be good enough for facebook


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.



If you have evidence that such activities are occurring, you should report it to the Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov). But I'm guessing you just think they cost too much. That's certainly your prerogative (of course, writing that they _are_ engaged in price fixing is libel), just as it's Canon's to set prices to maximize their profit.


----------



## Khalai (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.



Trust me, I'd love to have the FF prices as low as they can be. But do you honestly think that any manufacturer never tried to undercut the price to gain more market share? FF prices are falling over time and one day, they'll be as cheap as current entry bodies (fool's hope of mine), but I guess you are just upset about the pricing (as many others are). If there was a cartel deal between all FF manufacturers then either one of them would try to undercut the others to grab its market share or somebody would certailny whistleblew it a long time ago.


----------



## candc (Dec 20, 2014)

Khalai said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.
> ...



i have heard the argument about a ff camera costing more due to the sensor, mirror and other parts being bigger but that just doesn't seem rational when the 6d is as cheap as it is. i reckon ff sensors and parts cost a bit more but not enough to double the price. i would guess 20% more. take the 7dii 5diii comparison. they are the same size and the build is as good or better on the 7dii, it has gps and the dpaf sensor. it may well cost more to make a 7dii. i know about economy of scale but i can't see how the 5diii should cost twice as much.


----------



## candc (Dec 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.
> ...



that's it, i am calling the ftc, fda, cdc, and every government agency in the phonebook! canon is spreading a disease called g.a.s to sell you the cure and then they are jacking up the price on top of it!


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Actually costs go up pretty dramatically as sensor size increases.
Every silicon platter is going to have defects on it, usually caused by dust in the air, and it costs the same to process the platter regardless of what you make out of it.
Just as an example, if every platter has an average of ten defects and you make 100 sensors out of it, you're probably going to lose 10% of your product. If you make ten sensors out of it you have the chance of getting nothing at all.
Basically that's the equation you face with sensors larger than Full Frame right now.
I remember reading that back when Canon was starting FF production they had to move their cleanliness standards to a whole new level.


----------



## candc (Dec 20, 2014)

9VIII said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



ok, so how much does the sensor on the 6d cost compared to the one in the 7dii?


----------



## tiger82 (Dec 20, 2014)

Why sensors are not interchangeable: Physics of Optics and Data Processing.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 20, 2014)

candc said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



A little bit of Google returns a nice article on the subject.

http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/techniques/the-economics-of-digital-photo-sensors/


----------



## Tinky (Dec 20, 2014)

I am a socialist (which is different from communist, in this country at least) when others sing 'Oh Christmas tree' I inadvertently lapse into 'The Red Flag'. In the uk you can be socialist and like consumer goods, so long as they aren't made by kids in Cambodia or adults in America. (i jest, a bit)

But this has about as much to do with the thread, bad writing, cameras, shockingly bad car analogies as peanuts have to do with submarines.


----------



## candc (Dec 20, 2014)

http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/techniques/the-economics-of-digital-photo-sensors/

i read the article. it is outdated (2006). i don't know if the same percentages apply now? the article concluded that you got 5 ff sensors vs 13 crop sensors from a "silicon wafer". that translated to a cost of $385 vs $38. this conclusion was based on knowledge of semiconductor production and conjecture. not known costs. i don't suppose there is any published information about what the actual manufacturing costs of various sensors are?


----------



## Tinky (Dec 20, 2014)

The cost of production is not strictly co-related to the cost in the store.

I get the basics that a camera that is more expensive to develop and manufacture should cost more.
I get economies of scale where the more a unit is produced the cheaper the per unit production costs.

But we live in a world where SOME consumer electronic companies would rather put brand new boxed cameras and computers through a mincer than devalue their brand by selling off last years stock cheap.

In the UK most shops never actually 'own' the cameras or lenses, they remain the property of the regional importers, who can then dictate the price or demand unsold stock back.

You might find lots of extra offers such as vouchers or freebies, but unless you buy grey stock you are unlikely to get a camera or lens or tablet computer massively cheaper between high street retailers.

A FF sensor might cost 2x 3x 10x 35x the cost of an APS-C sensor, but in the wash I don't think it will have as much as to do with the price as what the regional market will tolerate.

Not saying there isn't a causal relationship at some level, just that there are many many other levels operating.


----------



## kurtj29 (Dec 20, 2014)

I just wanted to thank Ron for his review. I do a lot of sports shooting - lacrosse, soccer, track and cross country. I remember taking my new 7D out to shoot the Blue Angels (US Fighter Jets) and was absolutely horrified with the blue sky background on a perfectly bright summer day. I had to actually smooth out the sky in PS it was so uneven. 

http://kurtklimisch.blogspot.com/2011/08/blue-angel-august-7-2011.html


I sold that camera about 3 weeks after purchase on Craislist. (Got a used 1DM2n and was so much happier) I actually was going to buy the new 7DII but Ron is a great reviewer. So I am not. 

You may not agree with Ron and his opinion but seriously, anyone who says "who is Ron" should do a Google search. The guy has done what we would all love to do. While working full time at Microsoft - and to have the success he has had in the field of photography competing against people who do this professionally and full time is pretty amazing. How many of you non-professionals have had your work published in real publications that you actually know? The guy is the real deal. I worked for Microsoft and after too many 50+ straight days of work for whatever release we were working on, I left. I can not even fathom working there and doing all the stuff he did on his blog. The guy is pretty amazing. Read his blog. It is really good.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 20, 2014)

His writing is not however.

If I wanted to read about bowel movements I would read the Lancet.

He is trying to be a polemicist.

He may be an accomplished man amongst many other things. He is not a writer. He is not an arbitrary reviewer.

He came with a mindset churning away in his stomach and then opened his mouth to vomit it out, all warm and putrid and smelling of bile, the consistency of porridge, of bolognaise sauce, bits of carrot suspended in saliva hanging pendulousy from his chin, the smell making those around heave slightly. Warm sick in the mouth, a regurgitated coffee, not just in ones mouth, but now down ones nose, and unable to breathe without parting your lips, now down ones shirt, warm on the skin. You recognise bits of chewed but undigested breakfast and hope that warm feeling there as you passed wind was actually just a warm feeling thats creeping down your leg, inside your sock and shoe.

You get my point.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 21, 2014)

candc said:


> i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.


 
Try looking over the financial reports for Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Samsung. Then tell them how they can cut the price of products by 50% and still make the 5% profit they now make.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2014)

candc said:


> http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/techniques/the-economics-of-digital-photo-sensors/
> 
> i read the article. it is outdated (2006). i don't know if the same percentages apply now? the article concluded that you got 5 ff sensors vs 13 crop sensors from a "silicon wafer". that translated to a cost of $385 vs $38. this conclusion was based on knowledge of semiconductor production and conjecture. not known costs. i don't suppose there is any published information about what the actual manufacturing costs of various sensors are?



Yes, it's outdated. But even though Canon is now using 300mm wafers, two things haven't changed since then. One, the number of rectangles of a given size that can fit within a circle of a given size (actually, that hasn't changed since Euclid described the basic principles of geometry), and two, given a fixed defect rate and random distribution over the wafer, larger sensors will fail QC with a higher frequency than smaller ones. Since the cost to image a wafer isn't affected by the size of the pieces into which it will be cut, those two facts above mean a FF sensor will cost >10x the cost of an APS-C sensor. Then factor in the cost of everything else that has to be bigger because of the bigger sensor. 




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Try looking over the financial reports for Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Samsung. Then tell them how they can cut the price of products by 50% and still make the 5% profit they now make.



How dare you let facts and reality stand in the way of 'but I don't wanna pay that much *whine–pout–stamp-my-foot*'.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 21, 2014)

candc said:


> http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/techniques/the-economics-of-digital-photo-sensors/
> 
> i read the article. it is outdated (2006). i don't know if the same percentages apply now? the article concluded that you got 5 ff sensors vs 13 crop sensors from a "silicon wafer". that translated to a cost of $385 vs $38. this conclusion was based on knowledge of semiconductor production and conjecture. not known costs. i don't suppose there is any published information about what the actual manufacturing costs of various sensors are?


 
The old article was based on a Canon white paper, and things have changed. They now use 12 in wafers instead of 8 inch wafers, and the process of tooling for 18 inch wafers is under way. There is less waster when using larger wafers, the issue is making one that has few defects.

The cost of wafers has dropped a lot as well. 

If a wafer has just a few defects evenly spread around the sensor, it can ruin most of the sensors on that wafer.

This is a old article, but it gives a good explanation of the issues faced in making camera sensors. There are some very sophisticated processes involved in trying to eliminate or reduce defects.


----------



## candc (Dec 21, 2014)

OK. I still think the retail price of ff cameras is disproportionally high vs crop cameras but it's not as much as I thought. I am generally against spending a lot of money on camera bodies to begin with but the current prices on the 5diii and the1dx don't seem terribly out of line


----------



## kurtj29 (Dec 21, 2014)

Tinky said:


> His writing is not however.
> 
> If I wanted to read about bowel movements I would read the Lancet.
> 
> ...



Yes, yes I do...


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 21, 2014)

Tinky said:


> The cost of production is not strictly co-related to the cost in the store.



Depends on the level of competition - if the prices are under pressure and more than an oligopoly of manufacturers are out there. I imagine the manufacturers loose the luxury of free pricing sooner or later and have to relate to actual production costs plus some profit.



Tinky said:


> I am a socialist (which is different from communist, in this country at least)



Yeah, they all say that, don't they  ?



Tinky said:


> In the uk you can be socialist and like consumer goods



Lucky you, or you'd be wrong in an enthusiast dslr forum discussing the newest toys. Quoting a famous German phrase from the early 20th century Weihmar Republic: "Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten"! 

That concludes Marsu42's political transmission for this day, thanks for tuning in, back to "your dynamic range is bigger than mine".


----------



## Tinky (Dec 21, 2014)

The old dichotomy of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft is at work I grant you.

Very occasionally I might sing 'the working class can kiss my @r5e, I've got the gaffer's job at last' when I should be singing 'oh christmas tree'


----------



## tphillips63 (Dec 21, 2014)

I like his blog, especially the printing information. That part is great for me.
On the 7D Mark II, I bought one but have not made up my mind either way yet. I was also thinking of a 1D Mark IV as an alternative but decided to go with the more modern system in the 7D Mark II and refrain from being such a big pixel peeper. Many images I have seen out of the new body are not that bad. I don;t think I agree with Ron, at least so far, but it is his opinion.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2014)

moving back to the point.... the review.

Those pictures were terrible. If I were to consider a camera based on those pictures, I wouldn't touch it. The focus is not there, the lighting isn't there....Has he AFMAd his lenses? Does he have it set in some AF mode where it is focusing somewhere other than where he thinks it is?


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 21, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Here´s a short video, where he is demonstrating the fantastic (in his view) autofocus with facial recognition on the D4S:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nInuePLiO1k
> Even for a totally still, well (over)lit face, it still hunts ...
> 
> In his D4S review, which he claim has the best AF system in the world, he is using his kid on a swing, as "the ultimate AF challenge" :



My favorite part of his D4S review is how he spends the entire article talking about how the D4S has the best AF system ever created and is so much improved over the D4 and then in the last paragraph or so admits that the 1DX can do everything the D4S can do but just needs to have the AF options configured correctly.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 21, 2014)

Why would a photographer shoot in-camera HDR at ISO 6400?


----------



## Khalai (Dec 21, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Why would a photographer shoot in-camera HDR at ISO 6400?



You know... For, err, reasons?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 21, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Why would a photographer shoot in-camera HDR at ISO 6400?



To preserve highlights in a dark but harshly lit environment.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 21, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Why would a photographer shoot in-camera HDR at ISO 6400?



There are more reasons than at iso100 as higher iso have less dynamic range. I use hdr (or at least ML's dual_iso, even though it's way less effective at high iso) for night shooting. Try capturing a scene in full moon and try to get some detail in the shadows w/o clipping the sky...

... however I'd never use in-camera hdr for that, so the crippled hdr of the 6d is no concern to me.


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but you're being rather naïve. A FF sensor is bigger...a lot bigger. That means a bigger mirror assembly. A bigger sensor means a bigger AF sensor, a bigger pentaprism, a bigger metering sensor, etc. Oh, you still want 10 fps? Ok, that's the 1D X's mirror assembly. Willing to have a somewhat lower frame rate, say...6 fps? That's the 5DIII. But you want it for $1800?
> 
> Me dear ol' dad, who hailed from the Emerald Isle (by way of Chicago) used to say, "Wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up fastest."
> 
> Oh, and by the way what you call greed, Canon would call trying to generate the maximum value for shareholders – and that's their legal obligation as a publicly traded corporation.



Your dear ol' dad was clearly a wise man, that's a brilliant quote!


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 21, 2014)

I'd say kudos to Ron for his obvious achievements.

However, there is a long way to go from being a talented photographer to being a good reviewer and I think he proves it in spades with this. Retaining objectivity is paramount and to be fair to him he makes it completely clear in his review that he is far from objective about the 7DI and 7DII. 

I find it more than a little odd that someone with his apparent knowledge and experience can't get well-focused pictures in those situations despite the incredible display of ego around the comment about his picture being the best a Canon sports shooter could expect from it . . . Just a quick look around other reviews should have told him that others are not having the same difficulties he had and should have made him think again before hitting that publish button.

As he didn't this just comes across as an ill-considered rant based on a previous failed attempt with the 7dI which, if he is as good as is being suggested, is a shame because I don't plan to read anything else by him after that. I just hope I get that Tony Northrup box set for Christmas to set me right again .


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> the incredible display of ego around the comment about his picture being the best a Canon sports shooter could expect from it . . . Just a quick look around other reviews should have told him that others are not having the same difficulties he had and should have made him think again before hitting that publish button.



I think you've touched on the key here: so many photographers hold up their own personal experience (anecdotes) as examples of what can be done and what can't, what should be done and what should not, and forget that their personal experience may not match the experiences of others. While personal taste is appropriate for the artistic component of photography, it's more an exercise in engineering to decide how to use the equipment to collect the most and best data from each click of the shutter.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > the incredible display of ego around the comment about his picture being the best a Canon sports shooter could expect from it . . . Just a quick look around other reviews should have told him that others are not having the same difficulties he had and should have made him think again before hitting that publish button.
> ...



I guess this is the difference with the scientific community.... peer review.... Do your tests, compare them with others, and if there is a discrepancy, try to figure out why...


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 21, 2014)

If he didn't shoot cereal boxes in his kitchen, then his tests are not valid  ( a reference to an *internet expert* with a large following) There are too many people who don't shoot, what I shoot, the way I shoot it, trying to tell me what I need. In other words *their Real World* is not *my Real World.* Therefore I find "tests" by *internet experts* to be less than useless -- and I don't waste my time reading them. 

*The best test, is your own test.* Rent a camera, shoot with it for 1-3 days. Is it better than your present camera, then buy it. If you see no/little difference, then don't. Simple as that


----------



## sanj (Dec 21, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



Personally I can. Absolutely.


----------



## Jens_T (Dec 21, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Lucky you, or you'd be wrong in an enthusiast dslr forum discussing the newest toys. Quoting a famous German phrase from the early 20th century Weihmar Republic: "Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten"!



Sorry to get off-topic but this quote was coined by the nationalistic / conservatives that happily joined the big war and then, when the social democratic government had to exit it were looking for a scapegoat. If you disagree with Tinky at least don't bring that right wing nationalistic slogan.

Throwing Social-Democrats and communists into one pot shows a lack of understanding how the social democratic party (especially in Germany) developed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2014)

sanj said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



So could I...but I don't need to justify it to anyone.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 21, 2014)

Jens_T said:


> If you disagree with Tinky at least don't bring that right wing nationalistic slogan.



You're dead wrong about the origin, but never mind. Concerning mixing communism & socialism: that was a joke, sorry you didn't pick it up - It was too tempting after the op elaborating how he's a socialist. I'm not going for anything really political on CR, just the occasional pun ... but at least he's got it:



Tinky said:


> The old dichotomy of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft is at work I grant you.



 seems your're a 1/2 generation older than me, when I studied Sociology the professor who taught about Tönnies for all his life just had retired. Seems I'm stuck with being a happy consumer :->



kirispupis said:


> Personally for wildlife I cannot justify the price difference of the 1Dx over the 5D3.



Well, there has been the argument that the shutter of a 1d is sturdier, so you have to calculate at least a 5d3 shutter replacement into the equation if you do machine gun photography. Personally, I wish I'd have the money, esp. for wildlife in the great, rainy outdoors shooting with the 1dx metering, faster af and build quality has to be a dream come true.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 21, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> seems your're a 1/2 generation older than me, when I studied Sociology the professor who taught about Tönnies for all his life just had retired. Seems I'm stuck with being a happy consumer :->



I think it's also a cultural thing here too, the old Kailyard attitude, eschewing excess and conspicuous consumption.

There was a brilliant documentary on through the week about a 17 year old girl who won £1'000'000m on the lottery in her first ever go.

Now the girl was almost your typical teenager, wanting to party, wanting to treat her mates, go holidays etc.. but she came from a very socially deprived area of Edinburgh, both her parents had been heroin addicts and she had been raised by her Grandparents and Aunties. Turned out well despite the start, old head on young shoulders, heart and head in roughly the right places. If anybody deserved a turn of good fortune it was this girl, and she was shouldering the responsibility fairly well, buying herself a modest house, taking her pals to maguluf, no humvees or blatant excess, but her wee granny was all doom and gloom, instiling guilt and 'what about all the poor people?' etc etc.

The girl deserved a bit of lick in her life, and she wasn't being crassany more than any other 17 year old, but bezt of all she wasn't for apologizing fir failing to meet expectations that she never set for herself.

That just sums our culture up, an embarrassment of riches, we secretly covet consumer goods but want to be the stoic red clydesiders of old, we want the big white lenses but would be embarrassed to be seen flaunting the wealth on a hobby... that kind of thing.

On the 1dx subject, I've spent far more on a camera, but its been a video camera and for work, I never felt I had to justify anything to anybody. Some folk smoke. Some folk have big fancy cars, some folk play golf, some folk go scuba diving or ski-ing. I guess I'm seeking approval from clients every time I submit work, but I never seek it for my photography (only a hobby for me, I say only, it has a treasured pace in my life, but I regard it very much as my own and for me)


----------



## kurtj29 (Dec 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



It's interesting that the comparison is made between the 5D3 and 1DX. I am a sports shooter and found the 5D3 extremely wanting. Great AF but with 6 fps - it makes the 5D3 kind of a half way there camera - not a good sports camera- it just misses too many shots. I sold the 5D3 and purchased a used 1D4 and was very happy to find the IQ was better IMO than the 5D3. 1D4s are selling cheaper than used 5D3's. As usual I will wait for the 1DX to come down to under $3,000 and then pick one up - until then the king for under $3,000 DSLR has to be the 1D4. 

In some ways I feel that Canon did the same with the 7DII - blessed it with everything a sports shooter would want but then left great IQ on the table. Another "half way there" camera. The 1D4 has the IQ and AF of the 5D3 and the fps of the 7DII for about the same price of either. The only downside is the size and weight.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 21, 2014)

Tinky said:


> On the 1dx subject, I've spent far more on a camera, but its been a video camera and for work, I never felt I had to justify anything to anybody. Some folk smoke. Some folk have big fancy cars, some folk play golf, some folk go scuba diving or ski-ing.



Right, and that makes discussions on CR generally friendly - even the "rich" 1dx+600L folk don't put more money into it than your average neighbor drooling about their newest flat screen tv and middle class car. And going for photography means you intent to actually produce something and share it, even if "only" with your family - which is inherently different from pure throw-away consumption.

Last not least, people buying stuff is much better than stashing away $$$ on a bank account, at least consumption pays taxes (vat). Even in the department "planned obsolescence" a dslr probably is not so bad at generating junk heaps, plenty of folks around using older gear and esp. older lenses.



Tinky said:


> That just sums our culture up, an embarrassment of riches, we secretly covet consumer goods but want to be the stoic red clydesiders of old, we want the big white lenses but would be embarrassed to be seen flaunting the wealth on a hobby... that kind of thing.



You got me there - I admit I'm kind of embarrassed walking about even with my mediocre gear and "cheapest possible" white 70-300L which is only painted white for marketing purposes (other than say the 70-200L). But I'm currently improving a bit on that attitude, it's really about how you carry and handle your gear, not about the actual value.


----------



## Go Wild (Dec 22, 2014)

miah said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > Hello everyone.
> ...



Thank you very much miah!


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 22, 2014)

This guy may not be one of the well-known experts on photography, but that just frees him up to innovate and break important new ground. 

I am pretty sure, for example, he is the first one ever to discover the helpful descriptive power of the word "diarrhea" in describing image quality.


----------



## greger (Dec 22, 2014)

Most reviews have been positive. I have found one review that has complained about focusing on the 7Dll and now this guy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I read negative reviews about the 7Dl. I bought it based on the positives for it. It still makes me smile when I review pics. The 7Dll will sell well taking over where the 7Dl left off for as many years as Canon wants before a version lll is announced.


----------



## Tugela (Dec 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> @Tuglea - I want a cup of coffee and the 7DII won't brew one for me. Therefore, it fails to meet *MY* needs and it's a crappy camera. So I guess we agree.
> 
> : : :



I didn't say the 7D2 was a bad camera, I said that it was a disappointing camera because it is 2012 technology, but was released in 2014 when the world has moved on. If they had built it from current tech instead of old tech it would have been so much more than it actually is now. My old T3i is a good camera too, but I wouldn't buy it now because there are so many much more capable options available now. 

But, if you are cool with buying the latest and greatest made from old stuff from a few years back, then more power to you. I am sure that Canon greatly appreciates customers like you because your expectations are so undemanding, they can cobble anything together and you will buy it with a grateful smile.

Me - I have watched Canon do this same trick for the last few years where they re-wrap old tech into a new shell annually, and have become increasingly unimpressed by it. I once bought into the hype that they were a great innovative company and would deliver any day now, but the "any day" became years and still the same old old. But no more. If they want to impress me now they have to do it by delivering cutting edge stuff, not recycled last years products. As I see it the 7D2 is a recycled last years product. And yet so many drool over it as though it is the second coming. It boggles the mind!


----------



## weixing (Dec 22, 2014)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @Tuglea - I want a cup of coffee and the 7DII won't brew one for me. Therefore, it fails to meet *MY* needs and it's a crappy camera. So I guess we agree.
> ...


Hi,
Hmm... 7D2 is 2012 old tech?? Don't need to compare 2012 DSLR, just compare to 2014 camera: 
1) How many DSLRs in 2014 had 65 cross AF points? 
2) How many DSLRs in 2014 can shoot 10fps?? 
3) How many DSLRs in 2014 can focus as fast as 7D2?

The sensor in 7D2 might not performing as good as others, but you need to remember it's 40.4 million photodiodes meaning it's basically a 40.4MP APS-C sensor. 

Anyway, a good sensor cannot make a camera and cannot take a photo by itself... you need a good lens to produce a high IQ image on the sensor and a good AF system to focus the image sharply as fast as possible. You also need a image processing unit to process all those otherwise meaningless data from the sensor to produce the image and you also need good ergonomic to help camera user to capture the moment. All those add up will make a camera. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2014)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @Tuglea - I want a cup of coffee and the 7DII won't brew one for me. Therefore, it fails to meet *MY* needs and it's a crappy camera. So I guess we agree.
> ...



The camera you described would be utterly unable to shoot about 90% of the shots I shoot. And your hands must be as small as a child's if the 7D2 is too big. My hands are positively tiny and the 7D2 is a perfect fit. My T2i is way too small and the new mirrorlless cameras are generally much worse.

The world hasn't moved on - my hands are the same size they were two years ago and my targets aren't getting any slower. In fact, they're getting faster. We just have more cameras available now that are uncomfortable to use and are incapable of capturing fast moving targets, while also having horrible battery life and lousy supporting systems.

I expect the 7D2 to be my crop camera for the next 10 years.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 22, 2014)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @Tuglea - I want a cup of coffee and the 7DII won't brew one for me. Therefore, it fails to meet *MY* needs and it's a crappy camera. So I guess we agree.
> ...



Wouldn't that depend on what "capability" you are looking for? If you are looking for a weather sealed camera shooting at 10fps with the best AF system on the market today, the 7D II would be a perfectly capable camera. However, if you are going to shoot landscapes or fashion photography, a 7D II wouldn't make any sense, a 6D would.

BTW, what "current tech" are you on about? The 7D II is the best all round budget sports camera you can get in the market today. That said, it is pretty much clear that Canon isn't offering any new tech insofar as the sensors are concerned. So if your complaint with the 7D II is indeed about sensor performance, Canon is a dead end at the moment and you should look elsewhere.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 22, 2014)

Tugela said:


> I didn't say the 7D2 was a bad camera, I said that it was a disappointing camera because it is 2012 technology, but was released in 2014 when the world has moved on.



This demonstrates a lack of understanding about both "tech" and development.

The 7d2 indeed has up to date tech (sensor dpaf, phase af system), other than say the 6d which is just a recycled 5d2. And the world didn't "move on", it's still about producing the best pictures possible - and with the af coverage and fps of the 7d2, for some applications it's a great tool.

As for "2012" tech - you think dslr tech is replaced like a mobile phone, going from symbian to ios just like that? This dslr line is about is evolution, or you could actually say the 7d2 is 2000 tech (digital sensor) or 1950 tech (mirrored slr).



Tugela said:


> But, if you are cool with buying the latest and greatest made from old stuff from a few years back, then more power to you. I am sure that Canon greatly appreciates customers like you because your expectations are so undemanding, they can cobble anything together and you will buy it with a grateful smile.



In that case, Canon isn't your brand, and that's just fine and what a market system takes care of. Try shooting Sony and enjoy the newest mirrorless evf gadgets, no question that's the future. 

But for people wanting their camera to simply work and pay their rent with the shots they produce, or simply care about the picture than what-year-is-the-tech again, the 7d2 happens to be a good product. And I'm saying this as an otherwise very verbal critic of "cripple your own cameras, double the lens price or go buy the 50/1.8" Canon.


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 22, 2014)

I really wish some of these people making such great generalisations would go out and buy one of these other more advanced cameras and see just how well it really does. We've had the sensor thing and I think most agree there are other, better sensors out there but struggle to see quite why people see it as such an earth-shattering deal breaker in a camera of this type.

Go out and buy the latest Sony then, let's see how it copes with being battered, how long it lasts, how reliable it is, whether it can focus as well as the new Canon. Because unless it can saying that Canon is over-priced or based on old tech is to miss the point. It's innovative to put some new tech in a camera, it's actually bloody hard to make it reliable and resilient. That's the difference,


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 22, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > fragilesi said:
> ...



Thanks Don, Orangutan, the Internet is a wonderful tool and I've always enjoyed the fact I can read so many reviews but I think being reliant on them or not putting them into the right context is a danger in itself and this is a great case in point.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 22, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> I really wish some of these people making such great generalisations would go out and buy one of these other more advanced cameras and see just how well it really does. We've had the sensor thing and I think most agree there are other, better sensors out there but struggle to see quite why people see it as such an earth-shattering deal breaker in a camera of this type.
> 
> Go out and buy the latest Sony then, let's see how it copes with being battered, how long it lasts, how reliable it is, whether it can focus as well as the new Canon. Because unless it can saying that Canon is over-priced or based on old tech is to miss the point. It's innovative to put some new tech in a camera, it's actually bloody hard to make it reliable and resilient. That's the difference,


Reliable and resilient? Ugh! You do realise that means your camera will be _even more out-dated_ in a few years time? Why would you want a perfectly good camera that will produce great images for years, when you could be replacing it every year and living on the cutting-edge of tech? Get hip, daddy-o, and swing with the times!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2014)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @Tuglea - I want a cup of coffee and the 7DII won't brew one for me. Therefore, it fails to meet *MY* needs and it's a crappy camera. So I guess we agree.
> ...



You could have said _you_ are disappointed in the 7DII, and that would brook no argument. But to categorize it as 'disappointing old tech' is such an asinine comment it boggles the mind (or would, if it came from someone who hasn't made such comments frequently). 

65 cross-type AF points with a very wide spread across the frame, 10 fps with dedicated PDAF between each frame for excellent tracking (better than MILCs), those are 'old tech'? Oh, I remember – you're one of those that would prefer to take pictures with a bare silicon sensor, because sensor = camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 22, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


Exactly!

When I got my 7D2 I rushed out to take pictures.... and they sucked! I saw other people taking great pictures and asked myself why. Then I read and re-read the AF manual and "magically" my pictures improved. I played and practiced with the camera, and they got better. I AFMAd the lenses and my pictures got better.

Rather than saying "this camera is a piece of crap", I said "what am I doing wrong" and learned how to use it. For many, there is a need for instant gratification and a reluctance to invest the time to learn..... and it is those people who blast a product not because it is bad, but because of their own shortcomings.

There is a saying about how a skilled carpenter with crude tools can produce finer work than a klutz with the finest tools.... I think it holds for photography too.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 22, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> I think you've touched on the key here: so many photographers hold up their own personal experience (anecdotes) as examples of what can be done and what can't, what should be done and what should not, and forget that their personal experience may not match the experiences of others.



I think you just defined many of the posters here on CR.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

aardvark said:


> A couple of things I noted about the review which seem contrary to all other opinions were:
> 
> - Slight disappointment with the sensor performance: To be fair a lot of the early posts on CR were of the same view, some commentators (e.g. Scott Kelby) raved about it, most have now accepted its better than the previous generation but not as good as perhaps they had wished or indeed the competition. However, the strange thing with this review is the implication that its worse than the 70D, which is the first review stating this, but also perhaps this is caused by the fact he is reliant on in Camera JPEG processing!
> 
> ...



I agree with everything in his review. And yep he's right, the sensor on the first 7d was trash.

I have the set of test shots from the recent rental i did. Af was basically a disaster. I was going to use it for a test shoot, but very glad the weather didnt hold up- it would have been a complete waste of time. Sot Af helped, but even with that, the images were not as good as my M, and nothing close to my old workhorse t2i. Without af accuracy, the camera is a brick. There's nothing left to do with it.

Believe what you will, but i do i have the proof. the 7d2 is completely off my list, and especially without the touch screen, the 70d is back on my (eventual) buy list. I learned my painful lessons with the first 7d. Not again.


----------



## Oldcracker (Dec 23, 2014)

This is my first post, but not my last, here. I used the forum here at CR to help me research a new body. I've had a 5D since they were pretty new to the photography world, and it served me well over time. I lost it to a burglary and managed to recover it several years later, but it had been buried and all is not exactly well with it. The uncertainty of the 5D's usability, as well as the improved IQ and other capabilities of current bodies, led me to the 7DII. My original reason for purchasing the 5D was as an all-around camera. 

I'm fortunate enough to have a vacation home in the NC mountains, and a permanent home on a brackish feeder into the Tomoka Basin on the north side of the Daytona Beach , FL area. Both areas are absolutely loaded with wildlife, Florida especially. I'm just a short drive from the Canaveral National Seashore and Mosquito Lagoon, both prime birding areas. Add in the otters, alligators, manatees, eagles, ospreys, kites, egrets, herons etc. on our riverfront daily and my photography bones have gotten up a pretty good itch. I think you good folks refer to it as GAS, and I got a fine case going. 

The 5D with my 70-200 and an ef1.4xII extender wasn't quite enough of an answer for me, and I'm not ready to lay out the cash for one of the big white monsters, so I settled on the 7DII, an ef300Lf4 and my 1.4xII as my most practical solution. I don't particularly care about Mr. Martinsen's viewpoints. As to sensor resolution, 20+ mp provides more than enough resolution for me. So far I'm seeing more detailed images from the 7DII than I got from the 5D, especially considering the need to crop those to arrive at the same image size. Hand in hand with that is the extended reach provided by the 7DII's crop sensor and the fact that I'm utilizing the highest resolution, sharpest, and optically best portion of my lenses' image circles.

Let's just throw in the 10 fps the 7DII provides, on top of the overall construction of the new body versus my old 5D.Then there's the much faster and more accurate AF system and the newer bodies' ability to use AFMA. I don't think Mr. Martinsen can convince me that the 7DII is not a great addition for me. I threw in a 16-35Lf4IS, and with the older 24-70f2.8 and 70-200f2.8 I've had for years I've got all I need to wait and see what comes along next. If a 5DIII replacement or other high(er) mp body comes in 2015 I may be a buyer. But for my uses I believe the 7DII is all I'll need for a good while. I'll get a great deal of enjoyment, and fine images, out of it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> aardvark said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of things I noted about the review which seem contrary to all other opinions were:
> ...



For some people, a camera with fewer configuration options and complexities will yield better results.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > aardvark said:
> ...



Oh boy, it's you again. Instead of tryign to be clever- which you are failing at- say something that matters. I have nothing to prove to you, only adding to the conversation.

ANYWAYS....

Just as with the original 7d, the "advanced" Af produced an awful lot of oof images- for newbs and advanced users alike. 

There is nothing advanced about setting the camera in manual point select, focusing, and clicking the shutter. NOTHING. Any default af setting should be able to accurately focus on the set point, or even when set to automatic point selection. Its not that difficult at all. Whats' difficult is when that most basic of camera functions doesnt work well. And just to clarify, Im talking about still subjects/persons/landscapes.

What can be advanced is setting up focal (not everyone has the space) or other afma software. Its a pain in the arse, and wastes valuable time.

I cannot use unreliable Af, and thats why the 6d is about to get sold as well. I only own 5 canon cameras, so yeah....you go ahead and enjoy that 7d2, if you want that's not my problem. Your attempts at levity are useless.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> Just as with the original 7d, the "advanced" Af produced an awful lot of oof images- for newbs and advanced users alike.



And yet, somehow – miracle upon miracle – my 7D managed to deliver a very high percentage of crisply focused shots with a diverse array of lenses in a wide variety of settings...and the keeper rate with my 1D X is even higher. So either I've had some Canon bodies with exceptionally good AF performance, or you've had some Canon bodies with some exceptionally poor AF performance. I'm not that lucky, so either you're unlucky and keep getting defective cameras (except that amazing T2i of yours), or one of us is doing something wrong that's leading to OOF shots. Except _my_ shots are usually in focus.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 23, 2014)

I recently sat in a Russian T90 battle tank. Couldn't get it to move initially but after various tries managed it. Couldn't aim with the guns either despite repeated attempts - none of the shells landed where I had targeted.

The armed forces must be crazy to buy these tanks. There are piss poor and I have PROOOOOF! 

Just sayin ...


----------



## J.R. (Dec 23, 2014)

_"Don’t use live view? Well, the phase detection is a joy to use: completely accurate, the cool thumb button to let you jump points to anywhere you want in a split second, and the whole system is phenomenally customizable. Did I mention it’s accurate? I took a few hundred shots and it just nailed everything. Still life in bad light? Nailed it. Moving rapidly? Nailed it. Sunlight, halogen light, fluorescent light? Nailed it.

Whether you want a second camera with crop to back up your big pro camera, or just want to use this amazingly accurate focus system to nail that shot of your kid’s only goal of the soccer season, this camera works. The improved shooting speed, huge shot buffer, and dual card slots don’t hurt anything either."_ ... Roger's Take at Lensrentals ... http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/cameras/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii

I do believe that Roger knows what he is doing much more than some reviewers (including Ron Martinsen) and some posters here. Providing OOF shots as proof that a camera is bad is nothing better than spitting in the wind.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 23, 2014)

After all the "what's best" splattered everywhere, my decision is to continue with the 7D. I shoot sports and other odd stuff in mostly good daylight. The 7D shines in that category. When I shoot in low light, I'll go the the 5D III. So far this has worked very well. I'll focus my upgrades on good glass. Camera bodies come and go, but good & fast lenses will span the body upgrade gap. I'm holding out for a full frame mirrorless built on a rugged chassis like the 5DIII. Metering, fast focus lock, and frame rate are my priorities. Mirrorless just might get there.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Just as with the original 7d, the "advanced" Af produced an awful lot of oof images- for newbs and advanced users alike.
> ...


As Neur says, you must be doing something wrong here, or potentially you had a bad copy. I have been through a couple of cameras in my time and I currently have the 5DIII, 1DX and recently also the 7DII. I now have a couple of thousand images under my belt with the 7DII and I have some fairly qualified opinions about the whole camera.

There is no APS-C (or similar) camera on the market that can touch it as a camera system. Yes, I would have liked to see a bit more from the sensor, but everything else is phenomenal. And the thing that shines the most is its AF system. For someone unfamiliar with an AF system like this, it may take some time to master it. But for me, coming from the 5DIII and 1DX, it was pretty much same same. And to get that kind of AF system in a camera at that price is a very good deal.

My keeper rates with the 1DX and 5DIII, from an AF perspective, are very high. My keeper rate with the 7DII is at the same level. Sometimes things are out of focus, simply because I did not pay attention to where the actual focus point was. But that is my lack of ability to work with the camera and has nothing to do with the performance of the camera.

Your reference to your trusted t2i and M is nice to read. But your claim that they outperform the 7DII, sorry to say, is about as credible as someone claiming his Beetle outperforms a Porsche ...


----------



## Tinky (Dec 23, 2014)

@ashmadux

My experience is consistent with you in that when my M gets everything right it produces better images than my 7d, I put this down to the later generation digic. However there are many situations where the m just won't deliver for me where my 7d will. I'll jump to the defence of both models where I feel appropriate as I think both were unfairly maligned by lazy or time-pushed reviewers. That said I would also be the first to agree with anybody who said that neither were perfect when new and less so now. I would also like to thank the reviewers for making the M so inexpensive. Keep the 'bad' reviews of the 7d2 coming wink wink.

What I cannot fathom is how you can find the image quality of the T2i better than the 7d.
Same sensor. Same digic generation.

I can only therefor assume you had a bad copy of the 7d, or that you didn't have sufficient time to set it up to your liking. I was about 4 weeks in before I was happy with the AF, sorry, delighted with the af.

The raw recipe took me a little while too, favouring luminance NR over colour NR helps a lot. The jpegs from my m are definately superior, when everything else on the m is behaving.


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 23, 2014)

lintoni said:


> Reliable and resilient? Ugh! You do realise that means your camera will be _even more out-dated_ in a few years time? Why would you want a perfectly good camera that will produce great images for years, when you could be replacing it every year and living on the cutting-edge of tech? Get hip, daddy-o, and swing with the times!



Damn, you got me bang to rights . . . I'm just a great old, lumbering Diplodocus of a photographer who should have been put out to pasture years ago .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2014)

Tinky said:


> @ashmadux
> 
> What I cannot fathom is how you can find the image quality of the T2i better than the 7d.
> Same sensor. Same digic generation.



I think I've figured it out. He probably went from Vista straight to Windows 8 (or Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion if he's a Mac user). He never leaves Central Park via the Artisans' Gate. Hates that group of little dudes that hang out with Snow White. Refuses to watch the film starring Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt. Never read the final installment of the Harry Potter book series. I think we're looking at an irrational dislike of the number 7.


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> I have the set of test shots from the recent rental i did. Af was basically a disaster. I was going to use it for a test shoot, but very glad the weather didnt hold up- it would have been a complete waste of time. Sot Af helped, but even with that, the images were not as good as my M, and nothing close to my old workhorse t2i. Without af accuracy, the camera is a brick. There's nothing left to do with it.
> 
> Believe what you will, but i do i have the proof. the 7d2 is completely off my list, and especially without the touch screen, the 70d is back on my (eventual) buy list. I learned my painful lessons with the first 7d. Not again.



You can stop right there. I have a 70D and I am very happy with it, the AF is great.

I was lucky enough to be able to spend 30 minutes playing with a friend's 7d2 last , it had just arrived. Here's the rub . . .

*If you could not get good, sharp pictures from the 7dII then DO NOT buy the 70D.*

The 7dII from that 30 minutes is perfectly capable of nailing just about anything (reasonable) we threw at it last night and we got quite inventive by the end. If you honestly believe that the 7dII AF system is not good enough for you to take pictures with there will be no point trying the 70d. 

I'm sorry to be blunt but as others have said you really are pushing credibility suggesting that the AF system is so bad.


----------



## Khalai (Dec 23, 2014)

lintoni said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish some of these people making such great generalisations would go out and buy one of these other more advanced cameras and see just how well it really does. We've had the sensor thing and I think most agree there are other, better sensors out there but struggle to see quite why people see it as such an earth-shattering deal breaker in a camera of this type.
> ...



Replacing quite expensive gear every year? I replace my gear when it's broken and have paid off, not sooner. Who needs cutting-edge technology, when previous generation is 95% as good as the new one? Unless you're a pro and can deduct new gear from taxes (which still isn't that easy and cheap) or a rich person, who don't need to think abot paying bills and feeding family, because his income exceeds majority of popuplation, I don't think there are that many people, than can afford spending for 5D3 or 1Dx every year. A new 5D body every year basicly means around 250 USD spend monthly. In my world, this is not a spare change to me, especially for a hobby and not a working tool.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> Just as with the original 7d, the "advanced" Af produced an awful lot of oof images- for newbs and advanced users alike.


100 percent agreement. I'd even bet that the same held true for most 5D3 and 1DX owners. We are not just talking about changing the number of AF points here, we are introducing zones, tracking, acceleration, and more. This is an AF system that is 20 times as complex as that found in lesser cameras.... of course it will be harder to learn... and of course there will be a learning curve.



ashmadux said:


> There is nothing advanced about setting the camera in manual point select, focusing, and clicking the shutter. NOTHING. Any default af setting should be able to accurately focus on the set point, or even when set to automatic point selection. Its not that difficult at all. Whats' difficult is when that most basic of camera functions doesnt work well. And just to clarify, Im talking about still subjects/persons/landscapes.


You could just leave it in single point mode, but then why did you buy the camera???? It is a good starting point and a confidence builder, but if someone bought the camera for it's advanced AF capabilities, they had better expect to take the time and effort to learn how to use it properly.

We are talking the difference between a family sedan and a race car. If you have only driven a family sedan and then get into a race car, you don't expect to keep with the field at an Indy race... You start off driving slow and easy.... you learn new skills, you learn how it handles, you get experience, and you get better and better. To expect anything else is irrational.... It is the same with a camera.



ashmadux said:


> What can be advanced is setting up focal (not everyone has the space) or other afma software. Its a pain in the arse, and wastes valuable time.



Calibrating your equipment is NEVER a waste of time. Trying to take a sharp picture with a lens that needs a 10 point AFMA adjustment is a lesson in futility.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 23, 2014)

This isn't the camera for me to begin with. I don't have a dog in this fight. That said, I don't see what he is complaining about. But then again, I don't have a 4K monitor. Then again, maybe that is his problem as I don't see the pics being displayed that way generally speaking, in the near future.

sek


----------



## adhocphotographer (Dec 23, 2014)

Horses for courses.... If it fits your needs get it, if not... don't!


----------



## AccipiterQ (Dec 23, 2014)

I was disappointed in the 7Dii when it came out (you can see my post history)....but I just have to ask....was this guy shooting in JPG??? I noticed he mentioned turning off noise reduction and letting canon's software do that after. Based on the reviews I don't think he shoots RAW, which is what a huge portion of the people using this for wildlife/sports photos would be doing.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Just as with the original 7d, the "advanced" Af produced an awful lot of oof images- for newbs and advanced users alike.
> ...



Your rationale is a bit too basic.... There will be variation in cameras, thats not hard to figure out. And yep, there were MANY happy 7d users. I actually was one, for the first year. then the AF broke, and canon wasnt able to fix it after 4 attempts. I had to junk it, and trust me i loved that body. So yep, i was there with you, for a time. The sensor had its own issues, with on/off mosquito noise, which was confirmed by canon.

I can say that i am entirely NOT happy that my t2i is my workhorse. The 7d was it's replacement. And the 6d was....but its all about performance. The t2i' + 70-200mk2 AF and performance is utterly dependable, with thousands of frames of people and style over the years. A lot of photogs in these forums go crazy when you have a different opinion or experience...and its kind of nonsensical.

We can argue semantics, and different experiences, but i think we can all agree that point, focus, shoot, is not that hard.

I wouldn't want other photogs going through Af problems either. We pay good money for this kit.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Calibrating your equipment is NEVER a waste of time. Trying to take a sharp picture with a lens that needs a 10 point AFMA adjustment is a lesson in futility.



Well, depends on the aperture used and other factors that have an impact on pixel sharpness - but for +-10, it's certainly "worth it". For smaller values, it's debatable how much fuzz really makes a difference, esp. as the afma required varies with subject distance and you can only set 1 or 2 (newer cameras) values.

Having said that: superheros always use proper afma 



Oldcracker said:


> This is my first post, but not my last, here.



Welcome! Just remember: don't mention the war dynamic range :->


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

Tinky said:


> @ashmadux
> 
> My experience is consistent with you in that when my M gets everything right it produces better images than my 7d, I put this down to the later generation digic. However there are many situations where the m just won't deliver for me where my 7d will. I'll jump to the defence of both models where I feel appropriate as I think both were unfairly maligned by lazy or time-pushed reviewers. That said I would also be the first to agree with anybody who said that neither were perfect when new and less so now. I would also like to thank the reviewers for making the M so inexpensive. Keep the 'bad' reviews of the 7d2 coming wink wink.
> 
> ...




Hehe ive had this convo a million times in these forums but its all good. Im not complaining, Im just sharing my experience. Ive stated before- my 7d was gold for a year, then it went crazy and canon couldnt fix it. Thats that story.

The 7d and t2i sensors are from the same family, but they are not the same. The t2i does not exhibit the same noise levels, and is very very clean at iso 100/200. The M has the same sensor as the t4i- a bit sharper with the penalty of slightly more noise. It has more noise than the t2i, but its not overly offensive. I only state facts- i have years of usage with these models and Im a SUPER pixel peeper. IQ is of ultra importance to me, as a creative.


Personally, i love my M, while others hate its very existence. It takes great photos, and you cant get the 22/f2 on standard bodies.

The main reviews i believe is TDP. That guy bryan knows his stuff. All the data is there.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > I have the set of test shots from the recent rental i did. Af was basically a disaster. I was going to use it for a test shoot, but very glad the weather didnt hold up- it would have been a complete waste of time. Sot Af helped, but even with that, the images were not as good as my M, and nothing close to my old workhorse t2i. Without af accuracy, the camera is a brick. There's nothing left to do with it.
> ...




Have some perspective. You dont see me here trying to discredit the AF as not bein ggood enough.... I stated that I along with others had problems with the AF, as did I. If you works for you, great.

"But it worked for me!" Is not a rational response - you cannot discredit someone else's experience because it wasn't your own. That's just being foolish.

This is a photog forum, is it that hard to figure that many people in here know how to use cameras? You guys are a trip.


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> Have some perspective. You dont see me here trying to discredit the AF as not bein ggood enough.... I stated that I along with others had problems with the AF, as did I. If you works for you, great.



Fascinating. So what did you mean when you said:-



> I have the set of test shots from the recent rental i did. Af was basically a disaster. I was going to use it for a test shoot, but very glad the weather didnt hold up- it would have been a complete waste of time. Sot Af helped, but even with that, the images were not as good as my M, and nothing close to my old workhorse t2i. Without af accuracy, the camera is a brick. There's nothing left to do with it.



I would hate to see just what you would write if you *were* trying to "discredit" something.



> "But it worked for me!" Is not a rational response - you cannot discredit someone else's experience because it wasn't your own. That's just being foolish.
> 
> This is a photog forum, is it that hard to figure that many people in here know how to use cameras? You guys are a trip.



I'd have a think about what you've written so far before you accuse others of being irrational. It seems the large majority can get this AF system to work for them much better than you are suggesting it did for you. If you're in a minority of people that can't it has to be worth questioning your experience, I know that if I was in your shoes I would. I'd at least wonder if the copy I rented had a fault or if I had missed something.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Just as with the original 7d, the "advanced" Af produced an awful lot of oof images- for newbs and advanced users alike.
> ...




Don, we are actually totally in agreement.

I meant single 'manual' point selection. Also I noted the 7d2 rental did get much better when using spot af point mode- but oddly the regular single point did not work at all, and it could not focus with a 24-105 (IS on, heh), wide or telephoto. Advanced modes are not necessary for my work - but i dont consider spot AF advanced at all. this is an indication that i likely had a bad unit.

Calibrating unfortunately is a MUST. Im also very aware of the technical reasons why lenses and bodies just wont work well together in some instances, thanks to Canon techs, not my opinion. But that kind of information is well beyond even the techies like myself.

I bet that many or these guys making snarkly comments have NEVER sat with an actual tech in front of a screen (at the repair center) to evaluate AF accuracy after a repair. I have. It was awesome. Canon can give you a camera that is not tweaked properly, but if you cant see it, then its a wash.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Have some perspective. You dont see me here trying to discredit the AF as not bein ggood enough.... I stated that I along with others had problems with the AF, as did I. If you works for you, great.
> ...




Sorry but i have to go there. You don't make any sense, and your approach to someone else's experience is unfortunately quite popular (and misguided) in these photo forums. Again, I encourage the use of PERSPECTIVE (Sorry, caps).

Your argument is full of holes. Here's why.

You were not there to see an experienced photog (I am  ) have the AF problems in action. Nope.
The AF was NOT working well. This is a fact. You have no information to discredit it. Nothing.
You havent seen the files. Or have you? 
OBVIOUSLY it was the unit that i had. I cant speak for other units. Crazy, thinking, right? 
What "majority" are you speaking of? That you even know of? Show us your sampling data and method of how you reached this conclusion. Anything?...oh..NOPE. Oh.. you read forums.....riiiiiiight. 

If the camera was not working as it should, what should i write? a glowing review?

You are being fairly ridiculous, and while i probably dont have the nicest tone, it not personal at all. But i believe in talking what you know. You dont have enough info for the statements you are making.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2014)

Maybe we could stop giving this guy more attention now? ... :


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> This is an AF system that is 20 times as complex as that found in lesser cameras.... of course it will be harder to learn... and of course there will be a learning curve.



Much of the learning curve could be sidestepped with proper documentation, of course.
It's like having to rely on the various scene modes for exposure, an additional layer that makes understanding the underlying mechanics guesswork.


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> Sorry but i have to go there. You don't make any sense, and your approach to someone else's experience is unfortunately quite popular (and misguided) in these photo forums. Again, I encourage the use of PERSPECTIVE (Sorry, caps).
> 
> Your argument is full of holes. Here's why.
> 
> ...



Look, you said you didn't try to discredit the AF performance when you did. That's just fact as shown above.

You had trouble making a simple mode of AF to work that I as a pretty inexperienced photographer (just 3 years as a very part time hobbyist) had no issue with. Then again it is what I use the most. 

You used this experience to suggest that the reviewer in question was right about the camera. Not that you had a bad copy or might have made some mistake but presented it as evidence he was right. 

I say, based on my brief experience, the one other person I know who raves about the camera and yes the majority of reviewers that you either made a mistake or had a unit that wasn't working correctly. I am also seeing daily new galleries of excellent images shot with this camera that simply wouldn't be possible with the AF system as you describe it.

So, I'll try once again. Although we only have your word for it I take at face value everything you have said about your rental experience with that one copy of the camera. I accept it, I would hate to think that I had spent so much time debating this with the kind of person that would make such a thing up. Just take it from me, I'm in no way denying what you say happened, okay? I don't think I have ever said that you didn't have this experience.

What I have said is that if you really are attempting to present that as being typical of the experience that 7dII users who work with the camera will have then you are pushing the bounds of credibility.

For what it's worth, no you don't have the nicest tone but what the hell, it's not like we're neighbours so we don't have to put up with each other any more than we need to do we?


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 23, 2014)

Khalai said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > fragilesi said:
> ...



Khalai, read Lintoni's quote again. Sarcasm. I think you missed that.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 23, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> I would hate to see just what you would write if you *were* trying to "discredit" something.



LOL


----------



## Khalai (Dec 23, 2014)

papa-razzi said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...



Well if that is truly the case, it was very well hidden  In that case, please ignore my previous post.


----------



## Pierce (Dec 23, 2014)

Hi,

Ive been reading and watching dslr videos for a while just as the 5d mk iii was released. Then I fell out of photography and didnt bother with it until I went on holidays with my G10 last year which I love, but wanted it to be "better". I started cheap, real cheap.

Purchasing a 100d and a 40mm and 50mm it was a great start. Quickly followed by a 17-40 f4 l and a 300mm f4 l(omg what a lens!).

Anyways that was a 9 point af system which was pretty weak. But I still think I took some of my best shots with this camera even to this day! The picture of the car is 100d, 50mm f1.8





I am rambling a bit because this thread is about the 7d mk ii not my progress as a photographer. I purchased a 2nd hand 7d late last year knowing the 7d mk ii would come out "soonish" from the chatter on the forums here.

That was a monster and its 19 point af system taught me a lot. It taught me how to use my 100d!

I have used the 7d mk ii for a few outings. Its focus system is quite frankly crazy fast.






Its production of images is very good too. I of course would love an FF but I cannot justify an FF until the new model chatter calms down. It would be nice to be spoilt between a 6d mk ii and a 5d iv











I took the following picture while walking, I didn't frame it, look through the viewfinder or anything.





Now I am not saying that people that are having issues are trolls or up to no good, but from my path learning this art is that the camera is the most insufferable method of capturing an image. But the only way to do so. If you are having issues with the camera and you are confident it is not you the user you should consult who you purchased it from.

But what I am saying is that it takes practice, patience and a bit of confidence getting to know your camera and your gear. I could of thrown my 100d in the bin because I couldnt get sharp images. With practice and a bit of know how I was able to take a picture of a race car in the night and get it to look sharp.

I am a professional in other industries, but I wouldn't go on site to a customer with a product ive never taken out of the box other than a few pictures in the bed room or chasing after the dog and say this is awesome(or terrible). That is setting yourself up for a fall.

I just wanted to post these pictures because I feel the camera is getting bashed a bit hard, could of been better, old technology, no dymanic resolution, autofocus sucks, its noisy, its that its the other.

My experience as a general causal user is that this is a capable camera in my hands, I cannot imagine what a professional who holds this camera in their hands 8+ hours a day and depends on it for their lively hood can get out of it.

Anyways just my opinion and my experience. I do look forward to finding some more action type photos to take picture of and hope to do so over the christmas with a bit of nature etc. If I get any good shots I will post them on CR.

Merry Christmas to all & a Happy New year.

Pierce


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> ...there were MANY happy 7d users. I actually was one, for the first year. then the AF broke, and canon wasnt able to fix it after 4 attempts. I had to junk it...



Ok, now I get it. If _you_ have a unit that is or becomes defective, that entire model is junk. 

I repeat: Whatever, bub.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

> Look, you said you didn't try to discredit the AF performance when you did. That's just fact as shown above.
> 
> You had trouble making a simple mode of AF to work that I as a pretty inexperienced photographer (just 3 years as a very part time hobbyist) had no issue with. Then again it is what I use the most.
> 
> ...



I hear that. All i did was agree with the (apparently disliked) reviewer based on my usage. I cannot say if that situation is typical...heck i hope not.

Photog neighbors...that would actually be very cool.


Cheers, happy shooting (with good Af, heheh )


----------



## Monchoon (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > ashmadux said:
> ...



Since you are such an experienced photographer and the M and the T2i according to you have much better autofocus system, stick to what works.

Maybe just stick with your T2i, M, and 6D. Just a guess but if you rented the 5DMIII or the 1DX I am sure the Af would fail for you as well.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

Monchoon said:


> > Since you are such an experienced photographer and the M and the T2i according to you have much better autofocus system, stick to what works.
> >
> > Maybe just stick with your T2i, M, and 6D. Just a guess but if you rented the 5DMIII or the 1DX I am sure the Af would fail for you as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## tron (Dec 23, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> We need to get some of that stuff he's smoking.


I think it must be Nik...huana ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> Monchoon said:
> 
> 
> > > Since you are such an experienced photographer and the M and the T2i according to you have much better autofocus system, stick to what works.
> ...


People!
Before this gets any more personal, have you considered that he has had LOTS of experience with the T2i.....perhaps enough that he can push the T2i to its limits...couple that with a lack of time on a 7D2, and I have no problems with the claim that he got better pictures with it. 
When I got my 7D2, it took worse pictures than my 60D... Same problem..... But if one does not have the time to set the camera up and get comfortable with it, you don't get better.

This is no reflection on the persons skill, it is a reflection of the time they had to play with it. Let's resist the urge to attack each other and be civil instead.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 23, 2014)

Maybe it's just me, but after "growing up" with film cameras that had rangefinders and no metering system, any DSLR is awesome. Interchangeable lenses- wow! Zoom lenses- wow! OMG-autofocus! Try pushing Tri-X(B&W ASA 400) to 1600 when shooting sports indoors- that will reset your real understanding of grain. Don't even think about shooting color and pushing it.
This generation that has never used a film camera or took a film photography course may see things differently. 
Those that have shot with Kodachrome 25 and projected it onto a 8 foot screen might understand where I'm coming from.


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Monchoon said:
> ...



Don, I don't think anyone is attacking anyone else here. Just a bit of disagreement and now it sounds like I'll be moving in next to him soon so we can carry on over the garden fence


----------



## Jane (Dec 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Monchoon said:
> ...



Well said Don!


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> I hear that. All i did was agree with the (apparently disliked) reviewer based on my usage. I cannot say if that situation is typical...heck i hope not.
> 
> Photog neighbors...that would actually be very cool.
> 
> ...



Actually it would be damn good to have a photog neighbour you're right .

Someone along with me just to shout "lens cap you moron" before I try shooting would be handy. In fact, I'd probably pay a premium for a camera that would shout that at me at the right times! And of course "You ain't gonna get that bird flying past because you just changed your settings to snap that interesting tree five minutes ago".


----------

