1DX Mark II vs 7D Mark II experience

[JMZawodny]

The 1DXII should beat the 7D2 in every metric but two, cost and size.

As someone who is not willing to spend that much money on a body and is unwilling to carry the weight on hikes, my choice is simple

Actually if you shoot with a grip, the size or weight difference between any of the 5D's or 7D2 and the 1Dx2 is minimal. Cost is vastly different, however, and so is performance. Certainly the 1Dx2 is not for everyone. YMMV.

Yes, but you can't take the grip off of a 1DXII.... As a backpacker, the size and weight is a huge (pun intended) issue....

The point that I am trying to make is that there are more criteria to evaluate than just image quality and performance numbers. A camera such as the 1DXII is technically superior to everything else in the Canon line, but depending on the person, ergonomics (physical size, weight, tilt/swivel touchscreen, etc) may be such a concern that they are willing to forgo that superiority in order to get what they want..... and the next person may make the exact opposite decision.... Same for cost.....

As a 7D2 owner, I am very comfortable saying that the 1DXII is a far superior camera. If I had one, It would definitely be my number one camera for in town and in studio.... It would be the one that accompanied me on car trips.... As a backpacker and a canoeist, NO FREAKING WAY! It is too big and too heavy! Different needs, different choice.....

Agreed, 1D series would be nice but completely impractical for on the go, hiking, biking, etc. Putting a grip on a 7Dii? No chance. They have no place for those applications. What benefit does a grip give anyway? Easier portrait shooting and not having to swap batteries as frequently? At least the permanent grip on the 1D series gives you more power to drive the big whites.

Yes, all of the above. I personally like the feel and balance with the lenses I use most (big whites). If I'm going to shoot with a smaller lens, I'll take the grip off. Most of the time the grip stays on my 7D2. Having both the 1Dx2 and 7D2 allows me to adapt what I shoot with to the situation.

 

[Rejay14]

Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..

 

[Jack Douglas]

Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..

It depends if you're evaluating at the beginning of the 10 mile hike or end and whether the camera and big white actually captured any great photos.

Sometimes that combo can be mighty heavy and take some of the pleasure out of the activity. As usual, it depends on each individual. I rated my hikes with 1D4/300 2.8 X2 as acceptable but there is no way I would go significantly heavier, and my excursions were not overnight, so no camping gear. Those who hike with 600 have my admiration and respect but it's not for me.

Jack

 

[tron]

Comparison is meaningless when we are free to fill the frame. Question is which is better when we are FL limited... alot!

When severely FL limited I cannot speak for the 1DX2 - I don't have one! I can only relate my experience with the 1DX and 7D2.
When everything is perfect (or close to) then the 7D2 can have a slight advantage - if conditions are less than perfect then the 1DX. For example we recently had a Squacco Heron here in South Wales for the first time since 2003 (apparently) so I wanted to get some shots. Unfortunately there was no way I could get close to the bird without disturbing it and the light, although good, was a little hazy. Due to the range I had to resort to my 2 x extender on my 800 F5.6 - frankly my shots with the 1DX were record shots at best. The 7D2? Well the heron was bigger in the frame but it was just mush.
Short range Kingfishers in good light - here the 7D2 is excellent, better than the 1DX. However if the conditions are not perfect then the 1DX shows it's mettle.
I am not knocking the 7D2, I love mine, but it is simply not a 1 series.

That is the same on every same generation of crop camera vs cropped ff camera (focal length limited) that I have either tested or seen. Pixel quality trumps pixel numbers in every situation apart from when conditions allow for the smaller pixels to perform at their full potential, which is practically never for most people most of the time.

+1 I have excellent 7d2 shots at iso 1250 and 1600 with optimal sunlight. At the same time I have mediocre iso 400 cloudy shots...

 

[KWSW]

I used to have the 5D3 as my main camera and t he 7D2 for anything else that needs faster AF and FPS plus it gives a nice reach with my 70200LmkII. Sold my 5D3 thinking to upgrade to the 5D4 but also toying with the idea of selling my 7D2 as well and getting the 1Dx2 for everything.

Only thing holding me back is the crop advantage that the 7D2 has which makes my 70200LmkII a 320mm f/2.8. For those who upgraded from 7D2 to 1Dx2, how is the pixel quality in terms of cropping to make up for the "lack" of reach from the crop sensor?

 

[Cthulhu]

Only thing holding me back is the crop advantage that the 7D2 has which makes my 70200LmkII a 320mm f/2.8. For those who upgraded from 7D2 to 1Dx2, how is the pixel quality in terms of cropping to make up for the "lack" of reach from the crop sensor?

No it doesn't, it makes it a 320 f/4.

I have all 3 cameras and it sure does take a minute adjusting to the lack of reach, but at the end of the day the 1dx mk2 is such a fine camera, I haven't touched my other bodies since it arrived - I pre ordered it - save for a few tests. The advantage the 5dmk3 had over the original 1dx was the higher mp, which is noticeable, and I suspect if I had the 5d mk4 it would be uses just as much as the 1dx mk2.

At the end of the day I'd say if you find yourself cropping your images often, then the 1dx mk2 isn't going to make you happy.

 

[Mikehit]

I have had the 7D2 for about 18months and rented the 1Dx2 a couple of weeks ago. Although I still need to finish reviewing the files I think the reach advantage in good light is not huge in my opinion (I can post a couple of images a bit later today). In fact it is so close I would look at other reasons for changing bodies.

With birds in flight, the wider view of the 1Dx2 (or any FF camera) makes it easier to track if the focus point moves off the subject. But because the subject is smaller in the VF it can make it harder to keep the focus point in precisely the right place (for example the eye).
The reason I was really interested in the 1Dx2 was performance at ISO 1600 and above, and it seems the 1Dx2 does have some advantages (or more exactly, is no worse) even when cropped to the same FOV as the 7D2. Again, examples to follow.

But the AF....that is a different matter. The 1Dx2 is far more assured and I can feel the difference in how is snaps the lens into focus. And it is better at tracking moving subjects especially in lower light levels.

For me, the choice is wider aperture lens or the 1Dx2. Wider aperture or better ISO performance. And a damned difficult choice it is.

If the refinements of 1Dx2 over 1Dx are not high priority, and if image quality is the main driver then seriously consider the 1Dx over the Mkii.

 

[Rejay14]

Only thing holding me back is the crop advantage that the 7D2 has which makes my 70200LmkII a 320mm f/2.8. For those who upgraded from 7D2 to 1Dx2, how is the pixel quality in terms of cropping to make up for the "lack" of reach from the crop sensor?

No it doesn't, it makes it a 320 f/4.

I have all 3 cameras and it sure does take a minute adjusting to the lack of reach, but at the end of the day the 1dx mk2 is such a fine camera, I haven't touched my other bodies since it arrived - I pre ordered it - save for a few tests. The advantage the 5dmk3 had over the original 1dx was the higher mp, which is noticeable, and I suspect if I had the 5d mk4 it would be uses just as much as the 1dx mk2.

At the end of the day I'd say if you find yourself cropping your images often, then the 1dx mk2 isn't going to make you happy.

It's still a 2.8 with the crop sensor..?

 

[East Wind Photography]

Its a very complimentary pair which i use frequently. The 1dx2 gets more use but i can tell you that the 1dx2 is far better at high iso and as such is far better in low light situations such as before sunrise or after sunset...or more importantly during a rain shower. The 7d2 is ok for a little gental rain but it cant hold up to a deluge.

The reach is better with the 7d2 but the 1dx2 has quite a bit more DR, less noise at a similar iso, and stands up better to post enhancement. I think the reach issue is pretty much equalized by all of the other enhane,ents on the 1dx2 sensor.

For sports i shoot 1dx2+300 f2.8 II. And 7d2+70-200 f2.8L II
For wildlife i use the 1dx2+600mm f4 and 7d2+300mm f2.8L II

The 600mm is a mark I so i dont use extenders on it. However the 300mm and 70-200mm are mark II lenses and work exceptionally with and without extenders.

I have no issues with shooting the 1dx2 to iso12800. The 7d2 is pushing the limits at 6400.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..

It depends if you're evaluating at the beginning of the 10 mile hike or end and whether the camera and big white actually captured any great photos.

Sometimes that combo can be mighty heavy and take some of the pleasure out of the activity. As usual, it depends on each individual. I rated my hikes with 1D4/300 2.8 X2 as acceptable but there is no way I would go significantly heavier, and my excursions were not overnight, so no camping gear. Those who hike with 600 have my admiration and respect but it's not for me.

Jack

Im not one to claim im fit but i was able to carry a two camera rig including a 300mm f2.8 on a spiderpro belt system and hiked 42 miles in about a weeks time period through the tetons, yellowstone, and glacier NP. It was not as bad as packing everything in a back pack where your spine takes the beating every step you take. My point is if you are motivated to use your best gear on an excursion, you will find a way and maybe suffer quite a bit to make sure you get your shot.

I would have taken my 600mm f4 but it would not fit in my carryon and I would have had to use a backpack as the 600 exceeds the design limits of the spiderpro system. I chose to use the 300 with the 2xiii extender and I think it was a better choice in the end. There were many times i had to be quite mobile to photograph bears and with the 600 you cant be that mobile unless you are still in your car. The 1dx2 with the 300mm and extender is still easily hand held and you can run and gun easily with it. 600mm f4 needs a monopod at least if not a full gimbal tripod setup.

 

[mihazero]

Was a tough decision, but will keep the Lambo and get rid of my back up Yugo as well

Mate don't bash Yugo Yugos are like funkiest things EVER

 

[reef58]

Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..

That kind of thinking will make your pack heavy. Also skipping lunch is not a good idea prior to a long hike.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..

That kind of thinking will make your pack heavy. Also skipping lunch is not a good idea prior to a long hike.

Consider Art Morris, he has recently commented about taking two 5D4's and leaving the 1DX (II?) behind. Clearly his age is making the weight simply too challenging or not enjoyable. I'm guessing a fair number of CR members are older like myself and making similar decisions. And of course there can be travel bag issues as well.

Jack

 

[reef58]

Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..

That kind of thinking will make your pack heavy. Also skipping lunch is not a good idea prior to a long hike.

Consider Art Morris, he has recently commented about taking two 5D4's and leaving the 1DX (II?) behind. Clearly his age is making the weight simply too challenging or not enjoyable. I'm guessing a fair number of CR members are older like myself and making similar decisions. And of course there can be travel bag issues as well.

Jack

I am fortunate in that I can carry a heavy pack if needed. That being said I do a lot of flyfishing / photography hikes, so i am carrying quite a bit of stuff. It helps to trim the fat or I could easily end up with 40 pounds or more wading in a river trying not to get wet. At times the Olympus omd10 sure seems like a great option.

 

[ems1]

Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..

That kind of thinking will make your pack heavy. Also skipping lunch is not a good idea prior to a long hike.

Consider Art Morris, he has recently commented about taking two 5D4's and leaving the 1DX (II?) behind. Clearly his age is making the weight simply too challenging or not enjoyable. I'm guessing a fair number of CR members are older like myself and making similar decisions. And of course there can be travel bag issues as well.

Jack

Art always "promotes" Canons latest camera, he did the same thing with the 5DIII & 7DII

 

[Mikehit]

And the 5DSR.
To be fair he would not use the camera if it did not produce the quality he needed to maintain his reputation as a quality photographer. And each of his changes has been better than the last - he has the 1Dx2 and still prefers the 5DIV for his style of photography (and his age!). Many I know (and many on this site) would advise having the 5DIV for most situations with the 5DSR for its pixel count in good light.
Of course, Art can afford to change with every new model release whereas most people skip models.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..

That kind of thinking will make your pack heavy. Also skipping lunch is not a good idea prior to a long hike.

Consider Art Morris, he has recently commented about taking two 5D4's and leaving the 1DX (II?) behind. Clearly his age is making the weight simply too challenging or not enjoyable. I'm guessing a fair number of CR members are older like myself and making similar decisions. And of course there can be travel bag issues as well.

Jack

Art always "promotes" Canons latest camera, he did the same thing with the 5DIII & 7DII

Interesting, I never thought of that since I'm a newer follower of his. Interesting also how Tin Man Lee was praising the 1DX2 - like 10 times better AF - makes for entertaining reading.

I'm probably not unique in this but lately I've realized that I always expand images if they are high enough resolution and look critically at the highest resolution for detail. What that implies is that I will never be satisfied because each magnification always brings details that are not quite as clear as I'd prefer. So, in that sense, 100 MP won't satisfy me. Imagine taking a beautiful composition and enlarging it so all you see is one small item, completely losing the overall impact.

What this does is allow me to brag about my technical prowess (sharpness, resolution) and ignore my lack of artistic ability or compositional skills (true quality) and I'm not thrilled about that!

Jack

 

[Mikehit]

I know what you mean, Jack!
With wildlife photography I have started to become more brutal in my culling: once I have deleted the completely missed shots, then with Lightroom on a 24" screen I can see quite easily if any are OOF enough to ruin the shot (even if they look sharp at thumbnail size).
Then I start to look at composition - does it look good as an image. This includes an animal turned too much away from camera will often get deleted no matter how sharp it is. After that, if I have sequences or sets of similar shots the critical factor is 'how sharp is the eye' - that often deletes a significant number.

But coming back to your post, one thing about the 400mm DOii is that it has raised my expectations on what I should be achieving. I thought the 100-400 ii was a good lens (and it is, even without AFMA) but when I got the 400DOii, I was amazed how sharp the images can be even with zero sharpening applied - in fact my average sharpening levels in LR have dropped from about 105 to about 60 (or less!). And my decision 'is the eye sharp' is often done viewed at 100% with no sharpening!!

There was a quote from Ansel Adams that resonates with me: "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"
What is the point of a sharp image of an animal if the image overall is mediocre? And sometimes if the composition is good and the image looks decently sharp when viewed at 50% it stays.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The book, The Photographer's Eye hit me like a 2X4 in the head as I realized what I'd been doing. Just to comment on one thing, I'd been cropping in too close to "show off" a bird as large as possible, completely ignoring what his environment was contributing to the overall image. I'm now a little over 3 years from being a totally clueless beginner and hopefully improving significantly; at least I'm trying hard.

Jack

 

[DaveGershon]

I had a similar experience moving from the 7Dmk2 to the 1Dxmk2. I shoot sports and had been using a combo of 7Dmk2 and a 5DIII bodies. When shooting High School Friday night lights football, the 7Dmk2 would not cut it when I needed high iso for the low light. I would use the 5DIII, but the FPS was not fast enough.

I really liked the 7Dmk2 in bright daylight when I was around 100 ISO.

I shot mostly with my 70-200mm f2.8 IS II lens and occasionally with the 1.4III extender.

I recently moved to the 100-400mm II lens for Baseball to get the reach, but not willing to make the jump to the 200-400mm f4 / 1.4 extender lens yet due to cost, but I can dream. The 100-400mm II lens has really impressed me in good light. The pictures have been very sharp with great color.

I really like the image quality of the 1Dxmk2 and its low light AF works great. To afford it I had to sell off both camera bodies. But in the long run I will be happier.

Dave