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.