70D or 7D MK II

[luckydude]

I get what you are saying though, but that 10FPS on a sunny day sounds very nice for a grandpa trying to get that perfect shot.

While I shoot hockey a lot (my kids play) I never use the burst mode, I'm always single shot. Maybe it's because I play as well, dunno, but I can anticipate the shot and get what I want.

I have had to work on my technique to get those shots. I learned that AI-servo really helps (that's an understatement), I use center point focus, spot metering, shutter priority and I tend to set the ISO, auto ISO hunts more than I like.

The real reason I don't do bursts is I hate having to go through all that crud and delete the non-keepers. I tried burst and found that my keeper rate fell to about 1-10%, closer to 1%. My keeper rate for single shot is 50-90%. So I had a good reason to work on my technique. If you don't made the post filtering then yeah, I've heard 8fps is as "slow" as you want to go.

Good luck with whatever you do, and don't worry too much, you've got an awesome body in the 5DIII. I love mine.

I don't know which body and lens you are using, but your keeper rate in extreme low in burst mode. I did find out, and seen that many more action photographers, use centrum weighted measuring instead of spot measuring. I don't have then problems then that my auto-iso hunts that much.

I'm using the 200mm f2.0 prime (a very nice lens) and the 5DIII (which I also like).

When I'm shooting burst there are all the pictures before and after the shot I wanted that I toss. I'm taking 10ish pictures to get one (and that doesn't always work).

I play hockey and I can anticipate what is going to happen, I know the shot is coming because I see the windup, I've gotten dozens and dozens of nice shots of goals being scored with the puck in midair. All single shot.

If you don't play the game I suppose it would be harder (I sort of feel like being a player is "cheating" when I'm taking pictures, I know where the game is going. I also coach several teams so that probably helps with reading the game). Anyway, for me, single shot results in just as many (or close) keepers and a ton less post processing (which is really delete, delete, delete...).

This is all at the rec/high school/travel level, so it's not a money maker (though I've been offered jobs by the pros, LOL, $25/hour 1099 money, like that's going to pay for my equipment I just do it so I've got pictures to look at when my kids move off to college and for the other parents/kids. So I'm optimizing for the least hassle for me.

If I was getting paid to take NHL pictures then I might play with the burst mode, doing it for fun means I spend too much time deleting.

 

[FEBS]

I get what you are saying though, but that 10FPS on a sunny day sounds very nice for a grandpa trying to get that perfect shot.

While I shoot hockey a lot (my kids play) I never use the burst mode, I'm always single shot. Maybe it's because I play as well, dunno, but I can anticipate the shot and get what I want.

I have had to work on my technique to get those shots. I learned that AI-servo really helps (that's an understatement), I use center point focus, spot metering, shutter priority and I tend to set the ISO, auto ISO hunts more than I like.

The real reason I don't do bursts is I hate having to go through all that crud and delete the non-keepers. I tried burst and found that my keeper rate fell to about 1-10%, closer to 1%. My keeper rate for single shot is 50-90%. So I had a good reason to work on my technique. If you don't made the post filtering then yeah, I've heard 8fps is as "slow" as you want to go.

Good luck with whatever you do, and don't worry too much, you've got an awesome body in the 5DIII. I love mine.

I don't know which body and lens you are using, but your keeper rate in extreme low in burst mode. I did find out, and seen that many more action photographers, use centrum weighted measuring instead of spot measuring. I don't have then problems then that my auto-iso hunts that much.

I'm using the 200mm f2.0 prime (a very nice lens) and the 5DIII (which I also like).

When I'm shooting burst there are all the pictures before and after the shot I wanted that I toss. I'm taking 10ish pictures to get one (and that doesn't always work).

I play hockey and I can anticipate what is going to happen, I know the shot is coming because I see the windup, I've gotten dozens and dozens of nice shots of goals being scored with the puck in midair. All single shot.

If you don't play the game I suppose it would be harder (I sort of feel like being a player is "cheating" when I'm taking pictures, I know where the game is going. I also coach several teams so that probably helps with reading the game). Anyway, for me, single shot results in just as many (or close) keepers and a ton less post processing (which is really delete, delete, delete...).

This is all at the rec/high school/travel level, so it's not a money maker (though I've been offered jobs by the pros, LOL, $25/hour 1099 money, like that's going to pay for my equipment I just do it so I've got pictures to look at when my kids move off to college and for the other parents/kids. So I'm optimizing for the least hassle for me.

If I was getting paid to take NHL pictures then I might play with the burst mode, doing it for fun means I spend too much time deleting.

Nice combo by the way. Not only for sports inside but also for portrait.

I do understand what you mean now by keeper rate. It's keeper rate against the required shot you would like.

For sports it is such a tremendous advantage you can read the sport. In fact for all type of action photography. You are fully right that using continuous mode would give you a lot of photos, which you don't all want to keep. Best advice there for people is to use for a while NOT the continuous mode, but the single shot. Just to reduce the load of generated photos. Also in continuous mode, you need to trigger your camera only when it is needed. You need the correct face expression, the position of ball, or in your case the puck. And that's exactly what you are doing.

Sorry, but thought you needed some assistance for such a high rate "out of focus" which you din't say say but I presumed from your low keeper rate.

 

[Tugela]

If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.

Incorrect. The proper answer is the NX1. That is the camera the 7D2 should have been, but wasn't.

 

[FEBS]

If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.

Incorrect. The proper answer is the NX1. That is the camera the 7D2 should have been, but wasn't.

How can you say that? did you see already any video review of this camera? are is your answer purely based on published specifications?

 

[tphillips63]

As mentioned, the layout and buttons of the 7D MkII are basically the same as the 5D MkIII. That would make the choice, for me, the new 7D MkII. Once I see full reviews with real images and ISO performance that would cinch it for me.

 

[Tugela]

If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.

Incorrect. The proper answer is the NX1. That is the camera the 7D2 should have been, but wasn't.

How can you say that? did you see already any video review of this camera? are is your answer purely based on published specifications?

And the 7D2 is any different??

All we have for both cameras are the specs, and as far as the specs are concerned the NX1 blows the 7D2 out of the water.

Like I said, the NX1 is the camera the 7D2 should have been.

 

[Tugela]

As mentioned, the layout and buttons of the 7D MkII are basically the same as the 5D MkIII. That would make the choice, for me, the new 7D MkII. Once I see full reviews with real images and ISO performance that would cinch it for me.

If you like obsolete footage, go for it. Perhaps the 7D2 is like the 5D3, but the 5D3 is 2 years old and the overall field has moved far beyond that now. Choosing the 7D2 because it is "like" the 5D3 is ignoring everything that has happened in the last 2 years and going for yesterdays standards.

Personally, if I am going to drop 2K on a camera, I want it to embrace tomorrows standards, not yesterdays. But that is just me.

 

[Lee Jay]

Like I said, the NX1 is the camera the 7D2 should have been.

If the 7D2 had an EVF only, I wouldn't be interested in it at all, because it would be essentially useless for my primary intended purpose.

 

[Tugela]

Like I said, the NX1 is the camera the 7D2 should have been.

If the 7D2 had an EVF only, I wouldn't be interested in it at all, because it would be essentially useless for my primary intended purpose.

Which is what? If an EVF is essentially instant without lag, it is superior to an optical viewfinder since it can correct for exposure (which is impossible in an optical viewfinder). If you work in low or high contrast light, you 100% need an EVF.

A lot of the resistance against EVFs is resistance against EVFs from 10 years ago. I have cameras with optical view finders and EVFs, and other than the exposure issue, EVFs blow optical out of the water with features such as peaking, view zooming and zebra functions that allow you to get proper focus and overall exposure. Optical viewfinders are a technology of the past, and cannot compete with modern EVFs designed for the future in terms of overall functionality. They simply cannot, they are obsolete.

 

[Lee Jay]

The big selling point for me for the 70D is the 3x digital zoom mode in video. Hopefully it'll get added to the 7DII either by firmware for by Magic Lantern. But with the Dual DIGIC 6 chips, that might be a big effort for ML to accomplish.

So, I just tested it, and the 70D is single-shot contrast-detect only focusing in 3x zoom mode, making it essentially useless for what I was going to use it for. I'd still like to have it for certain things, but this fact makes it 5% as useful as I expected it to be.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I’m interested in a second body to compliment my 5D MK III. I mostly shoot candids, portraits, my grandson in the park and his T-ball and soccer games. The 5D MK III has done really well and I rented a canon 1.4 III extender and will try out this weekend.

The reason I’m interested in the 70D or 7D MK II for my second body are.
The extra reach and video auto focus.

70D advantages
Touch Screen
Articulated Screen
Price

7D MK II advantages
Ergonomics (similar to 5D MK III)
65 Focus Points
10 FPS
Weather Proof
Headphone Port
Viewfinder coverage, 100%

I’m leaning towards the 7D MK II, but I’d like to hear your feedback and suggestions.

Which one would/will you buy or would you buy?

I'd think the 7D2 would do considerably better for soccer.
That's what that cam is made for and for what it should be the best aps-c camera on the market.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If Nikon hadn't patented the crop in the camera I'd just switch the 5D to crop mode for wildlife and have the camera I want.

Are your really sure that is true?? There is absolutely beyond a doubt no way in heck that should be something patentable. Granted the patent office has done some things that are utterly nuts, so I suppose, but....

 

[Lee Jay]

Like I said, the NX1 is the camera the 7D2 should have been.

If the 7D2 had an EVF only, I wouldn't be interested in it at all, because it would be essentially useless for my primary intended purpose.

Which is what?

Very high speed subjects.

If an EVF is essentially instant without lag, ...

Then it's in violation of the laws of causality. I have an EVF with a measured total combined lag of only 25ms (which is very fast as EVFs go) and it's just way, way too slow - a factor of at least 5.

it is superior to an optical viewfinder since it can correct for exposure (which is impossible in an optical viewfinder).

Which I absolutely don't want it to do.

If you work in low or high contrast light, you 100% need an EVF.

Interesting, then, how I've done it for all this time without one. Oh, an EVF is really totally useless to me especially in low light because it will destroy the dark adaptation of my eyes. I want the viewfinder to be dark when the subject is dark. And I've shot in extremely, extremely difficult conditions with an OVF. Try this - crop camera OVF, f/21 optics wide open, total darkness, 4,300mm equivalent focal length, hand-tracking and manually focusing on an object that's moving at orbital velocities and it only 9m long at 400km away. I did it successfully and was even able to identify the object. That would be totally and completely impossible with an EVF.

A lot of the resistance against EVFs is resistance against EVFs from 10 years ago. I have cameras with optical view finders and EVFs, and other than the exposure issue, EVFs blow optical out of the water with features such as peaking, view zooming and zebra functions that allow you to get proper focus and overall exposure. Optical viewfinders are a technology of the past, and cannot compete with modern EVFs designed for the future in terms of overall functionality. They simply cannot, they are obsolete.

EVFs are only really good for video for me. For stills, the only good thing about them is that they are better than using the LCD. I turn off all that nonsense information on my EVF cameras so I can focus on the subject anyway.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Just a note on video to help you decide:

Canon has two generations of video IQ:

-Generation one: aliasing and moire hell, soft images, poor lowlight performance, these are the 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, 100D, 1200D, 60D, 70D, 7D, 5D mk II, and 6D. These cameras have bad IQ compared to their current competitors (D3300/5300/7100, A6000 etc)

-Generation two: used pixel binning instead if line skipping therefore eliminated aliasing and moire, have better resolution and way better lowlight performance, these are the 7D mk II and 5D mk III. These have similar or better IQ compared to their competitors (D5300/D7100/D600/D800 etc)

If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

Actually even in gen 2 the video quality is kind of behind the times at this point. It's very waxy and blurry. A lot of competitors have better to vastly better video quality now.

But yeah the 7D2 is better than the 70D for video quality. The 70D has a lot of nasty aliasing and moire, the 7D2 fixes that up, although nothing else (still the same soft, waxy video and still without basic, basic things like focus peaking and magic focus zoom box and such).

The only high quality 1080p from a Canon DSLR these days is from the 5D3 if you shoot RAW using the ML hack. The 1DX 1080p is passably sharp.

But the best video AF probably is in the 70D/7D2.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.

... plus the 7D-II has a headphone jack (much like the 5D-III) which is useful for monitoring while you record.

It also has clean 4:2:2 HDMI out with audio embedded.

The clean 4:2:2 HDMI isn't worth much since with Canon DSLRS the image quality damage occurs prior to the compression stage. I got a Ninja for my 5D3, but I could barely tell any difference whatsoever. Using ML RAW though the difference was beyond night and day.

 

[Lee Jay]

If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.

... plus the 7D-II has a headphone jack (much like the 5D-III) which is useful for monitoring while you record.

It also has clean 4:2:2 HDMI out with audio embedded.

The clean 4:2:2 HDMI isn't worth much since with Canon DSLRS the image quality damage occurs prior to the compression stage. I got a Ninja for my 5D3, but I could barely tell any difference whatsoever. Using ML RAW though the difference was beyond night and day.

I've seen the difference, and it's minor. It's better in some ways, but worse in others, especially hot pixels and color artifacts.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I get what you are saying though, but that 10FPS on a sunny day sounds very nice for a grandpa trying to get that perfect shot.

While I shoot hockey a lot (my kids play) I never use the burst mode, I'm always single shot. Maybe it's because I play as well, dunno, but I can anticipate the shot and get what I want.

I have had to work on my technique to get those shots. I learned that AI-servo really helps (that's an understatement), I use center point focus, spot metering, shutter priority and I tend to set the ISO, auto ISO hunts more than I like.

The real reason I don't do bursts is I hate having to go through all that crud and delete the non-keepers. I tried burst and found that my keeper rate fell to about 1-10%, closer to 1%. My keeper rate for single shot is 50-90%. So I had a good reason to work on my technique. If you don't made the post filtering then yeah, I've heard 8fps is as "slow" as you want to go.

Good luck with whatever you do, and don't worry too much, you've got an awesome body in the 5DIII. I love mine.

I don't know which body and lens you are using, but your keeper rate in extreme low in burst mode. I did find out, and seen that many more action photographers, use centrum weighted measuring instead of spot measuring. I don't have then problems then that my auto-iso hunts that much.

I'm using the 200mm f2.0 prime (a very nice lens) and the 5DIII (which I also like).

When I'm shooting burst there are all the pictures before and after the shot I wanted that I toss. I'm taking 10ish pictures to get one (and that doesn't always work).

I play hockey and I can anticipate what is going to happen, I know the shot is coming because I see the windup, I've gotten dozens and dozens of nice shots of goals being scored with the puck in midair. All single shot.

If you don't play the game I suppose it would be harder (I sort of feel like being a player is "cheating" when I'm taking pictures, I know where the game is going. I also coach several teams so that probably helps with reading the game). Anyway, for me, single shot results in just as many (or close) keepers and a ton less post processing (which is really delete, delete, delete...).

This is all at the rec/high school/travel level, so it's not a money maker (though I've been offered jobs by the pros, LOL, $25/hour 1099 money, like that's going to pay for my equipment I just do it so I've got pictures to look at when my kids move off to college and for the other parents/kids. So I'm optimizing for the least hassle for me.

If I was getting paid to take NHL pictures then I might play with the burst mode, doing it for fun means I spend too much time deleting.

Nice combo by the way. Not only for sports inside but also for portrait.

I do understand what you mean now by keeper rate. It's keeper rate against the required shot you would like.

For sports it is such a tremendous advantage you can read the sport. In fact for all type of action photography. You are fully right that using continuous mode would give you a lot of photos, which you don't all want to keep. Best advice there for people is to use for a while NOT the continuous mode, but the single shot. Just to reduce the load of generated photos. Also in continuous mode, you need to trigger your camera only when it is needed. You need the correct face expression, the position of ball, or in your case the puck. And that's exactly what you are doing.

Sorry, but thought you needed some assistance for such a high rate "out of focus" which you din't say say but I presumed from your low keeper rate.

The dangers with not using burst though are:
1. AF will miss, with burst at least maybe you got once decent shot in focus out of the sequence
2. you might not handle the AF perfectly in all cases and then once again a burst might at least get one semi-decent shot
3. sometimes a hideous facial expression or arm pops up in some weird position or blocking something critical, you can known the sport as well as a pro and have played it at a high level, but it won't help in these cases, a fast burst might still get one great frame
4. sometimes you want more than one key frame
5. something things go into a wild melee
etc.
for some things, like ball on head or bat, you do have to time it yourself, even a 10fps is way to slow
and even for regular things, sometimes your own timing can pick the peak of the peak of a sequence out better than a burst (although once you get to 12fps the burst can often do it as well, plus with 8 or better 10-12 you sometimes want and can get a couple really key frames)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If you're serious about video quality do not buy a 70D. The 7D is a much video better camera.

If you're serious about video quality, actually there's just one Canon choice: The 5d3 with pixel binning (= no moire) and Magic Lantern raw video. Who knows when this will arrive on the 7d2, if ever.

... plus the 7D-II has a headphone jack (much like the 5D-III) which is useful for monitoring while you record.

It also has clean 4:2:2 HDMI out with audio embedded.

The clean 4:2:2 HDMI isn't worth much since with Canon DSLRS the image quality damage occurs prior to the compression stage. I got a Ninja for my 5D3, but I could barely tell any difference whatsoever. Using ML RAW though the difference was beyond night and day.

I've seen the difference, and it's minor. It's better in some ways, but worse in others, especially hot pixels and color artifacts.

In some cases I could swear it even gave you LESS dynamic range too. (talking clean HDMI recording, not ML RAW)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Anyway this is probably getting too much into the finer points of video image quality, which I have a feeling might not be the top priority in this one particular case.

 

[Tugela]

Like I said, the NX1 is the camera the 7D2 should have been.

If the 7D2 had an EVF only, I wouldn't be interested in it at all, because it would be essentially useless for my primary intended purpose.

Very high speed subjects.

If an EVF is essentially instant without lag, ...

Then it's in violation of the laws of causality. I have an EVF with a measured total combined lag of only 25ms (which is very fast as EVFs go) and it's just way, way too slow - a factor of at least 5.

it is superior to an optical viewfinder since it can correct for exposure (which is impossible in an optical viewfinder).

Which I absolutely don't want it to do.

If you work in low or high contrast light, you 100% need an EVF.

Interesting, then, how I've done it for all this time without one. Oh, an EVF is really totally useless to me especially in low light because it will destroy the dark adaptation of my eyes. I want the viewfinder to be dark when the subject is dark. And I've shot in extremely, extremely difficult conditions with an OVF. Try this - crop camera OVF, f/21 optics wide open, total darkness, 4,300mm equivalent focal length, hand-tracking and manually focusing on an object that's moving at orbital velocities and it only 9m long at 400km away. I did it successfully and was even able to identify the object. That would be totally and completely impossible with an EVF.

A lot of the resistance against EVFs is resistance against EVFs from 10 years ago. I have cameras with optical view finders and EVFs, and other than the exposure issue, EVFs blow optical out of the water with features such as peaking, view zooming and zebra functions that allow you to get proper focus and overall exposure. Optical viewfinders are a technology of the past, and cannot compete with modern EVFs designed for the future in terms of overall functionality. They simply cannot, they are obsolete.

EVFs are only really good for video for me. For stills, the only good thing about them is that they are better than using the LCD. I turn off all that nonsense information on my EVF cameras so I can focus on the subject anyway.

At 60 fps the eye can no longer tell the difference, which is ~17 ms refresh. As a practical matter your ability to tell a difference will have a threshold a lot higher than that. In other words modern EFVs are more than adequate. Stop looking at EFVs from 10 years ago, and stop looking at the word "EFV" to form you judgment.

Your "dark adaption" of your eyes allows you to see in the dark? Don't make me laugh. Please. A modern camera sensor on the other hand is quite capable of seeing in the dark, and certainly a lot better than any human eye. Maybe a lot of noise, but they will SEE what they are looking at.

Plus, you are still ignoring the fundamental advantage EFVs have over optical, which is the ability to see at the pixel level what the camera actually is seeing (which is fundamentally important because the CAMERA (bolded because you are ignoring this fundamental fact) is recording the image, not your eye). Optical viewfinders are simply incapable of doing that.