Rest well Canon EOS 7D series [CR2]

[NetMage]

But 24MP FF in an R wouldn’t come close to 7DII reach.

 

[tron]

But 24MP FF in an R wouldn’t come close to 7DII reach.

+1
Exactly. 24MP FF is below 5DIV,EOS R, 5DsR and 7DII reach! So that response was out of context. This would make it a 1DXII like R type camera which is something completely different and not the topic of this thread.

 

[Otara]

7d II is hardly a sports oriented camera. More likely a wildlife camera for people that cannot afford the price and / or heft of a Full Frame pro bodies and lenses. The important parameter to watch is low light sensitivity more than anything else.
Indoor and outdoor night sports assignments will see you cranking up ISO levels in ISO 6400 territories. Just a a thought for you.

You could say the same for wildlife, which is often done in lower light conditions as well.

 

[stevelee]

I remember a few years back at a Kelby workshop I was seated near a bunch of parents of high school football players. The 7D was the camera they each already had or were aspiring to. They all thought it was a fine camera for shooting games under the lights.

 

[tron]

You could say the same for wildlife, which is often done in lower light conditions as well.

Except the 20Mpixel 1DxII needs the 1.4XIII to come close to 7DII reach which means the loss of 1 stop. So if someone is FL limited it is (more or less) a wash at least for bright conditions. Sports photography is a different thing I believe there 1DXII and 1DX are the best!

 

[unfocused]

7d II is hardly a sports oriented camera. More likely a wildlife camera for people that cannot afford the price and / or heft of a Full Frame pro bodies and lenses. The important parameter to watch is low light sensitivity more than anything else.
Indoor and outdoor night sports assignments will see you cranking up ISO levels in ISO 6400 territories. Just a a thought for you.

Not all sports are shot indoors or at night. You can certainly shoot the 7DII at 6400. Not as clean as the 1DxII or the 5DIV, but close to the 5DIII. Results are certainly acceptable.

 

[AlanF]

You could say the same for wildlife, which is often done in lower light conditions as well.

There is a big difference: wild life photography is often "reach limited", which is why the 7DII is popular. So, FF often has to be cropped down to the size of the 7DII's image, negating the the advantage of the larger area of the FF sensor or alternatively the 7DII image can be downsized to the resolution of FF, regaining S/N at the expense of resolution.

 

[SecureGSM]

Not all sports are shot indoors or at night. You can certainly shoot the 7DII at 6400. Not as clean as the 1DxII or the 5DIV, but close to the 5DIII. Results are certainly acceptable.

nope, not even close:

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Canon EOS 7D Mark II

Low light ISO: 1901

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Low light ISO: 3652

5D III at iso6400 is as good as 7DII at iso 3600

acceptability is a relevant term. i would not call 7d ii iso 6400 files being acceptable but each to its own..

 

[tron]

nope, note even close:

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Canon EOS 7D Mark II

Low light ISO: 1901

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Low light ISO: 3652

5D III at iso6400 as good as 7DII at iso 3600

acceptability is a relevant term. i would not call 7d ii iso 6400 files being acceptable but each to its own..

Agreed but to get the reach of 7DII 5DIII needs a 1.4X teleconverter which makes it lose 1 stop so eventually when we need ISO 3200 for 7DII we get ISO 6400 for 5D3 hence the equivalence.

But these apply when we are FL limited.

In all other cases the 5D3 wins with a difference.

 

[SecureGSM]

Agreed but to get the reach of 7DII 5DIII needs a 1.4X teleconverter which makes it lose 1 stop so eventually when we need ISO 3200 for 7DII we get ISO 6400 for 5D3 hence the equivalence.

But these apply when we are FL limited.

In all other cases the 5D3 wins with a difference.

absolutely!! but premise remains: I would not use it unless:
I am cash limited and cannot afford a nice super white tele. otherwise, just don't use a x1.4 teleconverter, grab a longer glass instead.
or
cannot afford hiking around a hefty FF setup for one or another reason and need something lighter instead.

So.. In either case 7D II is a compromise. I have not seen much of these cameras on sidelines. I have seen some at airshows where light is abundant.

 

[AlanF]

absolutely!! but premise remains: I would not use it unless:
I am cash limited and cannot afford a nice super white tele. otherwise, just don't use a x1.4 teleconverter, grab a longer glass instead.
or
cannot afford hiking around a hefty FF setup for one or another reason and need something lighter instead.

So.. In either case 7D II is a compromise. I have not seen much of these cameras on sidelines. I have seen some at airshows where light is abundant.

It is not an either or situation. You can use the same super white tele on a 7DII as you do on a FF. Glenn Bartley who is a professional bird photographer and posts excellent shots on CR uses a 7DII and a Canon 600mm f/4 II. I happen to prefer a 5DSR as it is has the same resolution but better IQ at the expense of lower fps, and I like the wider fov. But, there is no fundamental difference between hiking around an APS-C or a FF. In good light, the high resolution FF or the APS-C gives you more reach with the same lens as on a lower mpxel FF, and as the light deteriorates, they converge.

 

[unfocused]

nope, not even close:

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Canon EOS 7D Mark II

Low light ISO: 1901

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Low light ISO: 3652

5D III at iso6400 is as good as 7DII at iso 3600

acceptability is a relevant term. i would not call 7d ii iso 6400 files being acceptable but each to its own..

My assessment is based on my own experience using the two side by side in real world shooting. I was able to get publishable images for indoor sports using the 7DII at 6400. When compared side by side with the 5DIII, the two were very similar, with the very slightly better noise of the 5DIII offset by the many sports-oriented feature advantages of the 7DII.

In addition, the quality of the noise from the 7DII was much more pleasing and filmlike, than previous generation of the APS-C sensors. I didn't like shooting the original 7D at anything above 800 because of the noise, which in my opinion, had a very electronic look to it, while the 7DII noise looks to me more like the grain of 35mm film.

Ultimately, I moved to the 1DX II, which has all the usage advantages of the 7DII and better high ISO performance than either body. I find the high ISO performance of the 5DIV to be comparable to the 1Dx II. The files coming from both are much easier to post-process than earlier generations.

Different people get different results. Shooting style and post processing can have a lot to do with that. I have seen some high ISO images shot with the 7DII posted to this site that are stunning.

 

[AlanF]

nope, not even close:

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Canon EOS 7D Mark II

Low light ISO: 1901

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Low light ISO: 3652

5D III at iso6400 is as good as 7DII at iso 3600

acceptability is a relevant term. i would not call 7d ii iso 6400 files being acceptable but each to its own..

Those figures are for an image that occupies the full-frame. If the image on the FF does not fill the frame and is small enough to fill the same area on an APS-C, both will have similar similar S/N. Go to photonstophotos.net, and you will see that Nikons where you can use just the APS-C part of full frame (DX) have DR for the DX appropriately less than that for FF, and similar to an APS-C: e.g. the D850 vs D850 DX vs D500 http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D500,Nikon D850,Nikon D850(DX)

 

[tron]

absolutely!! but premise remains: I would not use it unless:
I am cash limited and cannot afford a nice super white tele. otherwise, just don't use a x1.4 teleconverter, grab a longer glass instead.
or
cannot afford hiking around a hefty FF setup for one or another reason and need something lighter instead.

So.. In either case 7D II is a compromise. I have not seen much of these cameras on sidelines. I have seen some at airshows where light is abundant.

The last 2 years I have used 5DsR which has similar pixel density with the 7DII (but loses in speed and buffer) and it has lower noise thah 7DII at low ISOs just like AlanF mentioned. (Thanks AlanF).
I do have big white lenses up to 500mm but one must put a limit somewhere. Even a bigger white tele could give more reach with a 7DII and/or a 5DsR.

 

[epic.one]

Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a fifth mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.

I can certainly see Canon merging the xxD and 7D lines into a 90D that looks a lot like the current 7DII, perhaps with a video feature upgrade, enhanced AF and 12 fps.

There's two problems with this approach...

1: A 90D needs to have a vari angle touchscreen, otherwise 80D owners don't have an upgrade. But having that vari-angle screen automatically means the 90D wouldn't be as durable as a 7DMk2 - wildlife / sports shooters value durability as much as the FPS.

2: A 90D needs that headphone jack. The 80D is the only APS-C DSLR Canon makes that has one. I still insist that Canon need to make the M5 Mk2 have the headphone jack, or alternatively make a new, larger M7 body to fill in the video gap a headphone-jackless 90D would have. This would drive uptake of EF-M for enthusiasts and vloggers especially considering the flood of new EF-M lens patents which should translate to new EF-M glass.

UNLESS CANON IS REDEFINING THEIR PORTFOLIO TO...
A: EF = Professionals, in FF, for DSLR
B: RF = Professionals + Enthusiasts , in both FF and APS-C, for mirrorless
C: EF-M = Enthusiasts + Beginners, in APS-C, for mirrorless
D: EF-S = Enthusiasts + Beginners, in APS-C, for DSLR

...this sort of portfolio would kill off the 7D and 6D, replacing both with RF cameras. This is what I think Canon's direction is since there's no M7 on the rumour mill.
One could be in the EF-S and EF-M camp, where you can start of with an M50 and upgrade to a 90D.
Or, be in the EF and RF camp, starting off with the RP, then upgrading to a 5D.
Both of these let you start adapting and purchasing EF-S or EF lenses early before upgrading your body.

 

[unfocused]

There's two problems with this approach...

1: A 90D needs to have a vari angle touchscreen, otherwise 80D owners don't have an upgrade. But having that vari-angle screen automatically means the 90D wouldn't be as durable as a 7DMk2 - wildlife / sports shooters value durability as much as the FPS.

2: A 90D needs that headphone jack. The 80D is the only APS-C DSLR Canon makes that has one. I still insist that Canon need to make the M5 Mk2 have the headphone jack, or alternatively make a new, larger M7 body to fill in the video gap a headphone-jackless 90D would have. This would drive uptake of EF-M for enthusiasts and vloggers especially considering the flood of new EF-M lens patents which should translate to new EF-M glass.

Durability isn't the issue with the vari-angle screen. The problem is that the size of the screen restricts the ability to offer a joystick and other controls. There is no evidence that a vari-angle screen is less durable.

The 7D II also has a headphone jack.

UNLESS CANON IS REDEFINING THEIR PORTFOLIO TO...
A: EF = Professionals, in FF, for DSLR
B: RF = Professionals + Enthusiasts , in both FF and APS-C, for mirrorless
C: EF-M = Enthusiasts + Beginners, in APS-C, for mirrorless
D: EF-S = Enthusiasts + Beginners, in APS-C, for DSLR

...this sort of portfolio would kill off the 7D and 6D, replacing both with RF cameras. This is what I think Canon's direction is since there's no M7 on the rumour mill.
One could be in the EF-S and EF-M camp, where you can start of with an M50 and upgrade to a 90D.
Or, be in the EF and RF camp, starting off with the RP, then upgrading to a 5D.
Both of these let you start adapting and purchasing EF-S or EF lenses early before upgrading your body.

I think it's premature to impute some type of grand restructuring of Canon's camera body portfolio. We will know better in a year or so, but right now, I think it is way too early to predict. To the best of my knowledge, Canon's only public statements have been to reassure customers that the EF lens system isn't going anywhere. I do not believe Canon is trying to direct the marketplace. Instead, I think they are positioning themselves to succeed, regardless of where the DSLR/Mirrorless market takes them.

 

[unfocused]

absolutely!! but premise remains: I would not use it unless:
I am cash limited and cannot afford a nice super white tele. otherwise, just don't use a x1.4 teleconverter, grab a longer glass instead.
or
cannot afford hiking around a hefty FF setup for one or another reason and need something lighter instead.

So.. In either case 7D II is a compromise. I have not seen much of these cameras on sidelines. I have seen some at airshows where light is abundant.

Of course the 7DII was a compromise. Canon made it very clear when it was introduced that it was a compromise that offered many of the features of the flagship 1Dx at a fraction of the cost.

Not everyone is a member of the 1% and can afford a big white telephoto. If Canon were only making products for those who could afford big whites and 1Dx's they would be a much smaller company, if they even existed at all.

Your sidelines comment is interesting. I wonder how much time you have spent on the sidelines of club, high school and small college events. Do you think the only people who shoot sports are on the sidelines of professional and major college sports? That's just a tiny fraction of the people shooting sports. Forum participants tend to have a really skewed sense of reality. We aren't representative of Canon's customer base.

 

[Michael Clark]

The key factor is power, not current or voltage. Constant current with higher voltage means more power. Thus the increased AF motor drive speed with the 1-series. Regardless, your statement about capacity was manifestly incorrect. Capacity includes a time factor (the h in mAh), and is irrelevant in terms of lens focus speed.

Electrical power is current times voltage and always includes a time component because power/work is measured in terms of how much work is done over time. Horsepower, for example, is a unit of power equal to 550 foot-pounds per second (745.7 watts). Likewise, an ampere (Amp) is a unit of measure of the rate of electron flow or current in an electrical conductor. One ampere of current is one coulomb of electrical charge (6.24 x 10^18 charge carriers) moving past a specific point in one second.

It is true that constant current with higher voltage means more power. It is equally true that constant voltage with higher current means more power.

That's not to say that battery capacity equals current as you are pretending I said.

It does not and that is not what I said above. Battery capacity (mAh) includes an additional time component of how long a particular flow of electrical current at a specific rate may be maintained. It is similar to acceleration that also includes a time component multiplied by another time component: how many feet per second per second a body is accelerating.

 

[Michael Clark]

So Canon’s slow sensor readout is responsible for the decline of the ILC market? LOL.

Keep pretending I said something else I did not if you think that somehow makes you look more intelligent. It actually makes your reading comprehension appear suspect.

 

[Michael Clark]

Interesting, thanks. I doubt it’s a firmware feature, firmware can’t store power. There would have to be a capacitor in bodies with that feature, which is possible.

Firmware can control a solid state voltage regulator.