No 7d iii in 2019!

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
#81
Sorry, I don't know for sure but it was probably a zone focus. (When I track birds in flight, I use the centre 9 points, which is great against a clear background. You have to be very precise if you stick to the centre point.) Where the Nikon scores is that the AF recognises movement and so can pick up a moving object against a static background. I have been using a Sony RX10 IV as all-purpose travel camera and am very taken with its AF. It recognises objects and remains glued to them, be they flying or on the ground. Point the camera at a bird on the ground and its shape gets surrounded by little green dots in the viewfinder and it gets locked on as it hops around. The same is true for a flying bird. Canon should start using these more sophisticated algorithms.
I often use the center points cluster with my 80D for birds/squirrels etc hopping around and it works rather quite well most of the time; even for bees and butterflys (with the right lenses). I occasional like to sit at the little airport here and take shots of older small planes taking off and have been quite impressed with this 80D with this type of shooting too. If the llight is good even the 150-600mm Sigma focuses VERY accurately on this 80D.

I'll run this 80D for 2 or 3 more years and likely replace it with a 90D or 7D3 if they are available. (I have no interests in a mirrorless for what I do).

If the 7D3 has what I want I'll likely be shooting with it in a few years from now.....
 
Likes: AlanF

Act444

EOS Rebel T7i
May 4, 2011
877
38
#82
edit: In my experience the biggest issues with the 7D Mark II and the reason I don't really use it that much these days is that it doesn't take any "additional crop" very well. As soon as you start drilling in to improve the composition things go south very quickly. When I can use the entire frame I'm usually very happy with the results. The problem is that it's very difficult to do that when you are doing sports/wildlife with primes. Too close and the subject bleeds out of the frame. Too loose and the IQ really suffers. I've found I need the extra real estate of a FF camera to consistently end up with the framing that I want. It's not really a knock on APS-C because I've found that you can acheive excellent results for a variety of subjects. It's just that I've found that for difficult subjects the "reach" doesn't necessarily translate to a better final image.
This has been my experience as well...coming from someone who once was sold on APS-C as the "reach king" and had no initial interest in FF for that reason. Then, over time, I began to run up against its weaknesses (high ISO performance, detail resolution indoors, etc.) and eventually went through a period where I used both (FF for general shooting, APS-C for sports and animals/birds)...then, a couple years ago I went to an ice skating event where I brought both a 5D3 and a 7D2, and found I was so satisfied with the 5D results that the 7D never left the bag. The problem with a lot of these shows is the poor lighting which demands high ISO usage (I'm talking 6400+ here), the 7D, or any crop sensor, just doesn't cut it and any "reach" advantage is wiped out entirely. Then, a bit later, I was out with my 5D3 shooting another event and came across some birds which I was able to get close enough to. I was stunned by the detail in the feathers, etc. The images were MUCH more crop-friendly as well. I let the 7D go shortly thereafter and have not bought another APS-C DSLR since.

Haven't abandoned APS-C entirely though, still utilize it in the form of the M6. But that camera is a significant size savings over a DSLR. I find it to be a great "bridge camera" between my phone and my full-size 5D...
 
Oct 26, 2013
970
110
#83
Thanks for that. He had a series of sharp shots. He was a serious guy, camouflaged from head to toe, with his camouflaged gear suspended from hooked webbing. I like my Canon gear, but I want Canon to keep up and overtake the others.
I do not mean to quote you specifically, but this is one of the reasons many of us shake our heads. You want Canon to "overtake the others." Many other posters continually whine and complain that Canon isn't as good as Sony or Nikon in this or that. They should be better than the others??

It just doesn't work that way. All of these companies have patents. All of these companies have only so much money to spend on R&D. The camera business - as we all know - is not flourishing. but rather in a difficult situation. Some brands will be better at AF tracking, others better at AF for stills, others better for video, others for color, others for durability, others for heat management, others for lenses, etc. The idea that one company will have all the best patents and technical know-how in everything is an unrealistic dream.

This seems to be so obvious that it needs not be said. And yet a huge number of forum users can't grasp this basic reality. And thus their constant frustration.

Any sort of mature comment such as, "Be happy with the gear you have because every DSLR or mirrorless camera made today is far better and can do far more than any similar camera ever could before," is usually met with scorn and derision.

The choice, alas, is up to each individual. Be happy with what you have, or be frustrated. It is your choice and has very little to do with your camera.
 
Likes: Jack Douglas
Dec 6, 2016
174
49
#84
While we have all seen great shots from Alan and we can trust that he saw what he saw, there is a counter to that. You could stand two people next to each other with the same camera and lens, Canon or Nikon, and they would get different results, on another day the results could be reversed.

I don't see any difference in the single anecdotal account than that, the guy had his gear dialed in and was on his game.
To a degree you are correct. I clearly remember my trip to the arctic last year where i was shooting with a 7d2 while next to me for 10 days was a fella with a d500 and 200-500. I consistently got better shots of all subjects but that was due primarily to experience. However. I know damn well that my 7d2 cannot 'track' a small fast bird against a distracting background in any zone focus setup.single point or single with 4 helpers are the only option and even then it is unlikely to be successful. So if sony and nikon are showing it can be done then it would be nice if canon can catch up. And just to clarify that I have to say that I have no problem with lager subjects. Raptors are easy as. Even down to seagulls are fairly manageable i am talking about the really small, fast and erratic birds. Kingfishers, swallows etc. Against mudflats, rippled ocean water thick and close vegetation.
 
Last edited:
Likes: AlanF

Jack Douglas

https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/64
Apr 10, 2013
5,556
89
Alberta, Canada
#85
Brand hopping has limited benefits for a couple reasons. Companies see-saw on best features and a user has to come up to speed using the gear. I think constant hopping would simply frustrate me. I was so pleased with Canon's menu system and general ergonomics after I left Nikon so I have no desire to go back for a marginal IQ or AF advantage. Some say Sony is worse so no way for me. As far as swooping darting swallows are concerned, I can't possibly follow them with my 400 lens.:(;) So I just try other tricks and don't sweat it.
 
Dec 6, 2016
174
49
#86
Brand hopping has limited benefits for a couple reasons. Companies see-saw on best features and a user has to come up to speed using the gear. I think constant hopping would simply frustrate me. I was so pleased with Canon's menu system and general ergonomics after I left Nikon so I have no desire to go back for a marginal IQ or AF advantage. Some say Sony is worse so no way for me. As far as swooping darting swallows are concerned, I can't possibly follow them with my 400 lens.:(;) So I just try other tricks and don't sweat it.
Agree. I will never go to nikon or sony. They just feel uncomfortable in my hand and completely unintuitive to use. Canon have always and likely will always just feel 'right'. And I don't think brand hoppers understand that. Tbh i don't think many who arent wildlife or action photographers understand that completely. I can shoot landscapes with any camera i use. I can shoot lightpainting or street with any camera. But not wildlife.
 

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,060
284
#87
I do not mean to quote you specifically, but this is one of the reasons many of us shake our heads. You want Canon to "overtake the others." Many other posters continually whine and complain that Canon isn't as good as Sony or Nikon in this or that. They should be better than the others??

It just doesn't work that way. All of these companies have patents. All of these companies have only so much money to spend on R&D. The camera business - as we all know - is not flourishing. but rather in a difficult situation. Some brands will be better at AF tracking, others better at AF for stills, others better for video, others for color, others for durability, others for heat management, others for lenses, etc. The idea that one company will have all the best patents and technical know-how in everything is an unrealistic dream.

This seems to be so obvious that it needs not be said. And yet a huge number of forum users can't grasp this basic reality. And thus their constant frustration.

Any sort of mature comment such as, "Be happy with the gear you have because every DSLR or mirrorless camera made today is far better and can do far more than any similar camera ever could before," is usually met with scorn and derision.

The choice, alas, is up to each individual. Be happy with what you have, or be frustrated. It is your choice and has very little to do with your camera.
Like you said, don’t take it personally. There are some who treat a brand like a religion and can’t stomach any criticism as if it is an attack on their beliefs; there are others who believe in making do with what they have and are content; there are some who want to strive for improvement; and there are trolls who enjoy whingeing. You choose your own position. Mine is you should respect what you have or do but strive to improve and keep ahead of the crowd.
 

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
#88
Brand hopping has limited benefits for a couple reasons. Companies see-saw on best features and a user has to come up to speed using the gear. I think constant hopping would simply frustrate me. I was so pleased with Canon's menu system and general ergonomics after I left Nikon so I have no desire to go back for a marginal IQ or AF advantage. Some say Sony is worse so no way for me. As far as swooping darting swallows are concerned, I can't possibly follow them with my 400 lens.:(;) So I just try other tricks and don't sweat it.
I'll shoot Canon for the rest of my life; I also just love the way they feel and work for me. The Nikon 810 and now the 850 both feel great in my hand but nothing feels like Canon. I also just love the sound of a mirror/shutter working......so I doubt I'll ever buy a mirrorless for my main shooter. I may buy a "Canon" FF mirrorless someday if it has a IBIS system specifically to shoot my large collection of vintage Takumar;s and Pentax lenses, but even then that would really just be splurging on an unnecessary camera. (these old lenses work just fine adapted on my 6D2).

Personally, brand hopping is out of the question for me; it doesn't matter how much better another brand makes a camera compared to Canon as my mid to lower range "outdated" Canon cameras I use right now I can just about do anything I need them to do. (and produce great results).

If one constantly focuses on what their gear can't do rather than what it can do they will totally cripple their craft and never get any satisfaction with photography....

I grab the gear I have and make it work and have a blast and enjoy using it every time I go out.....(unless the mosquito's are really bad and I forget my bug spray at home!)
 
Last edited:

Jack Douglas

https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/64
Apr 10, 2013
5,556
89
Alberta, Canada
#90
I'll shoot Canon for the rest of my life; I also just love the way they feel and work for me. The Nikon 810 and now the 850 both feel great in my hand but nothing feels like Canon. I also just love the sound of a mirror/shutter working......so I doubt I'll ever buy a mirrorless for my main shooter. I may buy a "Canon" FF mirrorless someday if it has a IBIS system specifically to shoot my large collection of vintage Takumar;s and Pentax lenses, but even then that would really just be splurging on an unnecessary camera. (these old lenses work just fine adapted on my 6D2).

Personally, brand hopping is out of the question for me; it doesn't matter how much better another brand makes a camera compared to Canon as my mid to lower range "outdated" Canon cameras I use right now I can just about do anything I need them to do. (and produce great results).

If one constantly focuses on what their gear can't do rather than what it can do they will totally cripple their craft and never get any satisfaction with photography....

I grab the gear I have and make it work and have a blast and enjoy using it every time I go out.....(unless the mosquito's are really bad and I forget my bug spray at home!)
That's it exactly. "If one constantly focuses on what their gear can't do rather than what it can do they will totally cripple their craft and never get any satisfaction with photography...."


Jack
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,074
277
#91
I got over the IQ by getting the 5DsR. It gets me better images below ISO 1000 and I am able to remove the noise by one-stage process. Back when I was using 7DII I had to use two denoising programs to achieve a similar result. So no better photographs but much simpler Post Processing for me. I already mentioned that I do not need other things like better video or tilting screen or more megapixels or more fps. It is just that 5DsR is more suitable for still subjects that makes me wish for 7DIII.
Are talking about focal length limited situations or similar framing?
 
Aug 1, 2017
107
43
#92
This has been my experience as well...coming from someone who once was sold on APS-C as the "reach king" and had no initial interest in FF for that reason. Then, over time, I began to run up against its weaknesses (high ISO performance, detail resolution indoors, etc.) and eventually went through a period where I used both (FF for general shooting, APS-C for sports and animals/birds)...then, a couple years ago I went to an ice skating event where I brought both a 5D3 and a 7D2, and found I was so satisfied with the 5D results that the 7D never left the bag. The problem with a lot of these shows is the poor lighting which demands high ISO usage (I'm talking 6400+ here), the 7D, or any crop sensor, just doesn't cut it and any "reach" advantage is wiped out entirely. Then, a bit later, I was out with my 5D3 shooting another event and came across some birds which I was able to get close enough to. I was stunned by the detail in the feathers, etc. The images were MUCH more crop-friendly as well. I let the 7D go shortly thereafter and have not bought another APS-C DSLR since.

Haven't abandoned APS-C entirely though, still utilize it in the form of the M6. But that camera is a significant size savings over a DSLR. I find it to be a great "bridge camera" between my phone and my full-size 5D...
Totally agree. I llike the 7D II and have had some decent sucess but (IMO) ultimately if you want to shoot wildlife you will get better results by finding ways to put yourself closer to your subject rather than adding on extra glass or using a higher density sensor. That being said, I see lots of great images takes with APS-C so YMMV. I'd love to have a compact APS-C kit for travel but the M's don't really work for me. Single cardslot means I have to carry some sort of back-up gizmo so I don't worry 24 hrs a day about my files being lost or stolen and that more or less eliminates the size advantage. If Canon made a more robust M with dual slots I'd be on board since I think the image quality is pretty good.
 

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,060
284
#93
Totally agree. I llike the 7D II and have had some decent sucess but (IMO) ultimately if you want to shoot wildlife you will get better results by finding ways to put yourself closer to your subject rather than adding on extra glass or using a higher density sensor. quality is pretty good.
Of course we all try to get close as possible for shooting wild life and use our field craft, and the closer the better. But, if you can't get close, you have no choice but to use longer glass and high density sensors or go for a nice walk instead. And what do you do about birds in flight? Photograph only the close ones, give up on the small or far ones because your lens is too short or do you hire a helicopter and chase them?
 

Jack Douglas

https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/64
Apr 10, 2013
5,556
89
Alberta, Canada
#94
Totally agree. I llike the 7D II and have had some decent sucess but (IMO) ultimately if you want to shoot wildlife you will get better results by finding ways to put yourself closer to your subject rather than adding on extra glass or using a higher density sensor. That being said, I see lots of great images takes with APS-C so YMMV. I'd love to have a compact APS-C kit for travel but the M's don't really work for me. Single cardslot means I have to carry some sort of back-up gizmo so I don't worry 24 hrs a day about my files being lost or stolen and that more or less eliminates the size advantage. If Canon made a more robust M with dual slots I'd be on board since I think the image quality is pretty good.
I don't fret too much about two card slots but I'm not making money off a shoot. On the other hand if I were concerned, I think I'd carry a handful of cards and just swap out every so often, which is really easy if they are SD or smaller. So far, in 7 years I've never had a card issue but know I could
So, in summary, I'd say you're exaggerating a bit.;)

I have my various issues and wishes regarding a camera but almost daily I'm reminded of how much I appreciate the high ISO capability of the 1DX2. Could I achieve the same with a 7D2 with lots of NR? If I were regularly filling the frame I think virtually any camera would do. There are reasons I usually don't fill the frame, like lens $$$, lens weight, and the challenge of always getting close to fearful creatures no matter what the lens. Not to mention, how many folk can fill the frame with a fast moving subject.

EDIT - Alan beat me to it.

Jack
 
Aug 1, 2017
107
43
#95
Of course we all try to get close as possible for shooting wild life and use our field craft, and the closer the better. But, if you can't get close, you have no choice but to use longer glass and high density sensors or go for a nice walk instead. And what do you do about birds in flight? Photograph only the close ones, give up on the small or far ones because your lens is too short or do you hire a helicopter and chase them?
I think you should do whatever works for you. I think it's mainly a matter of intent. If you want to capture the best image possible of a small bird for ID purposes and sharing with folks of similar interest heavy cropping and shooting through a lot of wet mushy air may be perfectly suitable. Digiscoping is a perfect example of this and more power to those folks.

My point is more that you can't turn a mediocre photo into a great one by adding extenders or cropping but you may be able to do that by getting closer. (edit. at least I can't. I can't speak for everyone)

But the helicopter thing sounds like fun.
 
Last edited:
Aug 1, 2017
107
43
#96
I don't fret too much about two card slots but I'm not making money off a shoot. On the other hand if I were concerned, I think I'd carry a handful of cards and just swap out every so often, which is really easy if they are SD or smaller. So far, in 7 years I've never had a card issue but know I could
So, in summary, I'd say you're exaggerating a bit.;)

I have my various issues and wishes regarding a camera but almost daily I'm reminded of how much I appreciate the high ISO capability of the 1DX2. Could I achieve the same with a 7D2 with lots of NR? If I were regularly filling the frame I think virtually any camera would do. There are reasons I usually don't fill the frame, like lens $$$, lens weight, and the challenge of always getting close to fearful creatures no matter what the lens. Not to mention, how many folk can fill the frame with a fast moving subject.

EDIT - Alan beat me to it.

Jack
I travel for extended periods out of a 35L backback and I don't bring a laptop so it's more a question of having two cards in case one gets lost or stolen. Before the 5D's had two slots I carried a Wolverine back up gizmo but I never felt entirely safe. Now I keep the second set of cards on a lanyard in a waterproof case and with me at all times and I am much happier and more relaxed. If you have never lost anything or had any gear stolen that's cool but I'm not so lucky. I have had a few issues with reading cards as well but thats not really the issue for me. With two slot Canon camera's you can also cross-write between cards to make an addition copy to send home. It's a must have for a travel camera IMO.
 

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,060
284
#97
I think you should do whatever works for you. I think it's mainly a matter of intent. If you want to capture the best image possible of a small bird for ID purposes and sharing with folks of similar interest heavy cropping and shooting through a lot of wet mushy air may be perfectly suitable. Digiscoping is a perfect example of this and more power to those folks.

My point is more that you can't turn a mediocre photo into a great one by adding extenders or cropping but you may be able to do that by getting closer. (edit. at least I can't. I can't speak for everyone)

But the helicopter thing sounds like fun.
Not all air is wet or mushy or spoiled by heat haze, and often conditions are perfect for long distance shots. If the mediocre photo is mediocre because your lens is too short and your sensor too low resolution, then you certainly could have taken a good shot by using the right gear with a longer lens and better resolution camera instead.
 

Jack Douglas

https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/64
Apr 10, 2013
5,556
89
Alberta, Canada
#98
I think that folk who do not do too much wildlife photography, at least not seriously (like Alan does ;)), don't always appreciate the nuances and the challenges of finding the little critters and getting a clear of obstacles photo. There can be many issues or alternately the subject may show up literally under your nose such that your lens is too long! A good example would be a friendly chipmunk or Jackdaw in a mountain park.

Likewise, I don't have much of a clue about the challenges in portrait photography but I do find it interesting to hear about them. We share and learn.

Jack
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
676
103
58
Blyth, NE England
#99
I think that folk who do not do too much wildlife photography, at least not seriously (like Alan does ;)), don't always appreciate the nuances and the challenges of finding the little critters and getting a clear of obstacles photo.
That's where fieldcraft, and behavioural knowledge of the subject, come in.

A new camera or lens won't give you those skills...
 
Likes: Jack Douglas
Apr 3, 2013
3,922
24
51
Isle of Wight
Hi Jack, Kieth.
For some critters yes field craft can help, on the other hand, I have yet to find any sort of field craft that can get me closer to planes in flight or race cars on a circuit. I climbed to the top of the cliffs at Bournemouth and the planes were still the same distance away, the cliffs slope away from the flight line! ;) I suppose I might get 6ft closer to the cars at Goodwood if I can get a job as a press photographer but that is a whole hula factory of hoops to jump through! :oops::)

Cheers, Graham.