Canon 7D for studio work

[nicku]

Hi,

I want to upgrade my almost 4 years old Canon 40D; my choice is the 7D; i mention that i will use it only with high quality L lenses, 40% for people studio work (portraits postures, isolated on white) 30% for objects, food, desserts  (in studio, over various backgrounds) and 30% for cases where the 1.6 crop factor and 8 frames/sec is a huge advantage. I am not interested in high ISO capability of the camera above ISO 400.

My questions are:

- how is performing the 7D sensor in studio shooting people over white background?Huh ( i am  interesting mostly in image noise levels at iso 100-200 , the ability to produce sharp images and the ''problems'' with the hair over white background)

- the lvl of details and overall IQ produced by 7D in studio is above average considering today stock standards ( SS standards in special)?

Thanks in advance for sharing your experience,

Nick.

[Wrathwilde]

I currently have the 7D, I'm going to be giving it up for the 1D X or the 5DIII. Image quality really isn't as good as I had hoped, and the 1.6x magnification makes it harder to work in smaller studio spaces. My advice would be to buy a second hand 5DII instead of a new 7D. But if you think the 1.6x is a must have, or you're going to be shooting sports where you need better autofocus than the 5DII can deliver... by all means get the 7D.

I bought the 7D off my brother for a grand because he needed the money, otherwise I would have sprung for the 5DII. Helping family was more important than getting the camera I wanted.

[nicku]

I am not interested in a comparison between 7D and 5D IQ. I know that 5D is much better in noise lvl and image quality. I am interested if the 7D is up to the task (70% studio work at above average IQ according to today Studio photography standards.). I have friends with 5Dmk2, 40D various Nikon models but not one with 7D ( to do a compare with my 40D).

[vbi]

While the 7D is a significant upgrade from the 40D in terms of resolution (sheer number of pixels) I have found it to fall a long way short of the IQ of the 5D Mk2 in a studio environment. However, I question if it is a significant upgrade over the 40D unless you want very large prints.

The extra reach, the superior AF system, and the speed of the 7D is suited to outdoor applications...sport, birding, wildlife. The IQ, even at 100 ISO, simply isn't as good as the 5D.

In the studio the 5D is king. The IQ is astounding, the 9 focus points not a problem (although I personally only trust the centre point so I focus and re-compose which gives me a 98% in focus rate), and the superb low light ability allows you to do a lot more natural light work.

Lastly, I have both, as well as a 40D which I still use regularly. It's a case of using the right tool for the job.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I used my 40D/17-55mm EF-s for product photography, since much of mine ends up on the web, it was more than adequate.  Now, I use my 7D for the same thing, its even more of a overkill.  I've used my 5D MK II, but I do not have a lens with the right focal range for the closeup images, and my 15-85mm zoom has just the right focal range for the 7D.  I can get close and show small details or zoom out for a fairly large object all without moving or resetting up the camera.  I have a fixed mount bolted to my light table, so moving the camera is a chore.

[leGreve]

I don't think they ever intended to sell the 7D as a pro cam... and it isn't a pro cam. Yes, it's used by some pros due to it's abilities for some things like 50fps and number of consecutive frames pr. sec.
I would stay clear of it... especially now when the mk III is about to hit the market.

The mk II is an awesome camera (still not pro but...) and it performs excellently with L glass in front. I will probably drop in price rapidly by now, so I would go that route instead.

I have added a photo I did for a local warehouse. Shot with the mk II and the 70-200 2.8L II IS USM. 2400w Broncolor generators and a 4 x 3 meter white paper background.
I had to scale it down to fit the size limit, but you can get the feeling of sharpness of rendition. It's lovely!

[xROELOFx]

the 7d is an okay camera, but it's not intended for studio work! i guess you can use the 7d for it, just like you can use a 5d to shoot action sports. but that's not what those camera's are designed for.

[Michael_pfh]

If money shouldn't be a problem you might want to have a look at the 1D4 (probably 2nd hand) since it does outperform the 7D in both studio and outdoor action performance by far.

[darkmatter2k12]

I use 7d for most of my work including studio. It is excellent camera when pared with excellent glass. And well suitable for portraits, fashion, etc. I did not bought 5d mark 2 because of poor auto focus. Even in studio it matter how good is your focus. Especially if you prefer framing at borders of frame (i mean out of center), where 5d mark 2 has most unreliable focus points. To be honest 5d mark 2 files have more quality than 7d mark 2. Mostly in terms of color accuracy. So you decide.

[EYEONE]

Honestly, I think the 7D would do just fine for studio work. I'm not sure how much you process your images but the 7D doesn't produce the cleanest images at ISO 100-400. This is something I've noticed in my own work. High ISO stuff is ok but it's really the low ISO images that can be annoying. Something to be aware of, but that being said I still think the 7D would work fine.

[nicku]

I am aware that the 5Dmk2 IQ is better than 7D, i am only interested if the 7D is up to the job. I mean above average IQ , sharpness and base ISO noise levels, considering today studio quality demands; or the end result is less than acceptable.

regarding of lenses i  use 17-40 f/4 L ; 50mm f/1.4 ; 100mm f/2.8 IS L .

[xROELOFx]

I am aware that the 5Dmk2 IQ is better than 7D, i am only interested if the 7D is up to the job. I mean above average IQ , sharpness and base ISO noise levels, considering today studio quality demands; or the end result is less than acceptable.

regarding of lenses i  use 17-40 f/4 L ; 50mm f/1.4 ; 100mm f/2.8 IS L .

well, i think your question is answered then: yes it is able to do the job

[adamkozlowski]

I would never buy or recommend the 7D to anyone, because i think that 18MP on a crop sensor is a joke - it requires very good lenses and only shooting at sweet spot to actually have sharp photos. But that's depending on your expectations of course. I actually bought a 7D alongside a 5D2 and 1Ds2 and it was just unbelievably bad for the kind of work i do (available light photojournalism mostly).

But for studio work you close down good lenses anyway, but still, i wouldn't recommend it ever since Canon released the 60D. You'd be hard pressed to find any difference in sensor output, but the twist/swivel screen is absolutely perfect for studio work. Why overpay?

Plus my 7D had awful AF problems with all lenses brighter than 2.8 - totally erratic, unable to fix with AF microadjustment. The ironic thing is that the ONLY lens that worked perfectly with my 7D was a Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. Also a borrowed 70-200/2.8L IS was OK. However the 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 24/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2 were just all over the place. But i'm shooting wide open all the time - it's just the work i do.

The only good thing about the 7D compared to 5D2 for studio work is the lack of shadow banding in low-iso high-dynamic-range shots. 5D2 is awful when it comes to shooting very contrasty scenes like sunsets with trees or highly reflective objects in studio with strobes. Then if you get the RAW into LR or PS and try to bump the shadows a little you get awful mesh-like structure/banding in the shadows. The 7D is free of that as far as i could see.

[Tijn]

I think the 7d's low iso IQ performance is not above average. The 7d has a vastly superior AF system, good for sports. Other than that, you might as well be using a 60d or 600d for studio work. Same IQ. As many have suggested, a 5d would do much, much, much better.

[awinphoto]

Speaking from one professional to another who has used the 7d professionally in studio environments, it is very up for the job.  Noise, well, eh, it's good overall, especially at low ISO... Just dont underexpose routinely and shoot to it's strength.  If you're doing your work to be outputted to print, whether it be for magazines, newsprint, banners or billboard, it should be clean enough where the noise, if any, will not print or if any of it does, it will show as detail.  If your outputting to web, odds are you will be downressing the files at some point and noise wont be an issue.  If you plan on keeping it at 100%, display on screens and computer with no intentions of outputting the files, then you may be less than thrilled.  I wont lie and say there is no noise, but when you output the files to print and or web, it really isn't a problem.