Are you planning to purchase a 7D2

[pierlux]

I haven't read this thread yet, just voted and now I'm writing this, I'll post and then read all.

I voted "No, unless it exceeds what is expected", of course meaning what the rumor on the specs says. But I'm going to buy a Canon APS-C camera anyway. Should the sensor, and therefore IQ to some extent, be the same of the 70D (or of the 80D which will probably follow soon), there's no compelling reason for my needs to want more, except maybe weather sealing: 8 fps should be enough, coming from a 5D2 which didn't allow me to shoot birds, wildlife and sports: I'll be a beginner in those departments, I've tried just for fun, but my keeper rate was ridiculous, due also to lack of a proper focal length.

I resolved not to be an early adopter this time and to wait for the price to lower a bit since I also need a longer lens, my longest at present is 300 mm, not enough, and I'm budget limited.

I had great expectations on the 7D replacement as concerns IQ, and also in all the other compartments TBH, but I put IQ on top. Unlike te majority here, I'd gladly sacrifice resolution in order to have a considerable advantage in high ISO IQ over the 7D. Craig says he's "90% confident these are accurate EOS 7D Mark II specifications": I'm hoping that 10% remaining includes sensor specifications and FPS . Either 15-16 MP with the old sensor tech and a crazy 12-14 FPS, or 20-24 MP with a brand new sensor and 10 FPS: both options would do for me. Otherwise, like I said, it's 70D or 80D.

Reading the thread on the specs was fun, 51 pages, wow! But it was also bittersweet pain and pleasure, I stayed out of that, some of you guys should calm down a bit sometimes.

I'm going to post this and read this thread now, cheers!

And peace!

 

[PicaPica]

only when it would offer FF image quality.
so no i did not thought about buying one.

im one of the guys who says "once you go fullframe you never go back".

.

 

[scyrene]

yes, assuming I can use ISO 1600 at least, which I can't on my 7D. If not, it'll be time to take a hard look at a 5Diii and 1.4x for my 500 f4 vs jumping ship for Nikon.

What are you shooting though mostly? A 7DX and 6D will likely be more comparable pricing, and if High ISO performance is a key for you then no crop will ever beat out a Full Frame. If you're not taking tons of sports or fast action then look at the 6D perhaps?

Over 90% wildlife so the reach of the crop is important. If I went FF I'd need an 800mm to get the same image as my 500m on the APS-C or, as I mentioned, use the 1.4 (700mm vs 800mm) but I haven't been happy with the results with my 500 f4 and the 1.4x II.

Interesting. Can you elaborate? I find both image quality and AF speed/accuracy almost exactly as good with the 500+1.4x as with the lens alone.

 

[Lee Jay]

im one of the guys who says "once you go fullframe you never go back".

Wrong. I went full-frame, and I kept my APS-c camera for its advantages in high pixel density and fast frame rates over the full-frame. I use both, often together.

 

[Loswr]

Wrong. I went full-frame, and I kept my APS-c camera for its advantages in high pixel density and fast frame rates over the full-frame.

Of course, the latter is not a general 'crop factor advantage'. You can get higher frame rates for lower cost, and as I've stated, lower cost is the main advantage of crop sensors.

 

[Lee Jay]

Wrong. I went full-frame, and I kept my APS-c camera for its advantages in high pixel density and fast frame rates over the full-frame.

Of course, the latter is not a general 'crop factor advantage'. You can get higher frame rates for lower cost, and as I've stated, lower cost is the main advantage of crop sensors.

Okay, I don't personally consider the 1-series as a viable option because of the body style, so I'm only comparing to the bodies I'd actually consider using (6D and 5DIII).

 

[CanonOregon]

My preorder is in as my current 7d was purchased on 'Day One', September 30th, 2009. It's been a great camera but five years of new technology has got to beat it.

 

[Roo]

I was planning to replace my 60D early next year and the 7Dii might be just the camera to replace it depending on specs and price of course.

 

[Besisika]

Before I got the tammy 150-600 I had no interest. Now... possibly

+1,
Eager to see how both work along together. 8)

 

[ehouli]

Well having right now a 5D Mk III and 7D mk I, would only consider doing an extreme switch, selling both bodies and purchase a 6D and 7D Mk II.

I find myself using mostly the 7D since I do bird photography for hobby, the 5D Mk III is my travel, portrait and product photography camera and I really do not use its AF to it's capacity, so it's under used, also noticed that the 6D has better noise handling than the 5D mk III.

So... if the 7D Mk II improves, I may consider making the jump on both sensor sizes.

 

[Canon1]

Wrong. I went full-frame, and I kept my APS-c camera for its advantages in high pixel density and fast frame rates over the full-frame.

Of course, the latter is not a general 'crop factor advantage'. You can get higher frame rates for lower cost, and as I've stated, lower cost is the main advantage of crop sensors.

Okay, I don't personally consider the 1-series as a viable option because of the body style, so I'm only comparing to the bodies I'd actually consider using (6D and 5DIII).

Not sure if this is what you mean... but I much prefer the "gripless" smaller bodies of non 1 series cameras. My 1DIV is a great camera, but the smaller 5D is a lot more comfortable for handheld shooing and easier for walk around.

 

[Richard8971]

I love my current 7D. It is very fast, responsive and built like a tank. Despite the many complaints from others about the image quality of the 18MP sensor I have been very pleased with the images I have gotten from it over the past 3 years, even images taken at higher ISO's. I shoot well into ISO 3200 if the need calls for it and with a little post-processing the majority of noise is difficult to see under normal viewing circumstances.

No it won't handle low light like FF nor was it designed too. It was designed as an affordable, fast crop sensor body aimed towards sports and wildlife shooting.

I can't see anything about the 7D2 that makes me want to drop a couple of grand on a new body. Unfortunately it boils down to it still being a crop sensor and thereby subject to image noise at higher ISO's and to gain only 2 FPS doesn't seem worth the extra $$$ to get it.

Unless the new body blows the market away with super clean sharp images unseen before in a crop body I am not overly interested. As long as my 7D is firing away I have no reason to switch.

I am more tempted to invest in a 6D (for the times I want/need a FF body) and I am seriously considering a 1DIV. The FPS, AF speed (and accuracy) and not to mention image quality are so much better than the 7D. It is a nice compromise between fast handling combined with excellent image quality. Those who I have spoken too (who used the 7D and 1DIV on a regular basis) have told me that if I pick up a 1DIV I will never go back to my 7D.

I'm kinda hoping that after the 7D2 is released the prices drop on the 1DIV.

I hope the rumored specs are wrong because if they are not, I will be a little disappointed in Canon's idea of a replacement flagship crop body. I think they could have designed things a bit better.

Personally I would have gladly traded MP for image quality and speed. I think if Canon designed a 14-16MP crop sensor that was super clean and extremely sharp at the higher ISO's that would also allow for a fast frame rate and larger buffer capacity, that would have been a deal maker for me. I'm not a pixel peeper like some. More MP does not automatically mean a better shot. I am still amazed at the images I get out of my 40D when I put excellent glass on it. Images are super sharp and very clean.

D

 

[tayassu]

I'm actually quite happy with the performance of my old 7D. There are some points, though, I'd like to see better in the Mk II. A better metering system would be nice, also better WB-presets, as well as a better JPEG-engine. The AF could be a little less... shaky, fiddly, if you know what I mean. 1080p/30fps would be a big step up, and of course the ISO performance... For bird portraits, I'd like to be able to go over ISO 800, maybe half a stop improvement to like ISO 1000-1250! Let's see how high the price is and how it is reviewed, then I'll decide.

 

[gwflauto]

I would like to buy it before end of September, but that will not work. I would combine it "permanently", or let's say for two month, to my Tamron 150-600. That will help to avoid almost completely the dust problems, that are typical for sand deserts. And the reach is compelling for wild life and especially for birding.

 

[Richard8971]

I think another reason why it would be hard for me to justify an upgrade to the 7D2 is that the 7D, even though it is going on 5 years old now, was loaded with leading edge technology when it was introduced, most of which is still found in a lot of Canon's current offerings. It doesn't "feel" like an old camera, like my 40D does.

Ok, lets put the 7D into perspective.

Yes the 5D3 is superior, but it is also a full frame and costs over 2 grand more! It better be a superior camera. I use my camera daily and there is nothing it can't do that I feel the need to drop $3200.00 on a 5D3 to fix it.

If and only if I shot a lot of low light photography (which I don't) I don't feel the need for a 5D3. And even if I did, the 6D is a fantastic camera body for a ton less. I already have a good wildlife camera so I don't need to spend 3 grand for a full frame camera, when the $1500.00 6D will work perfectly.

I feel the same way about the 7D2...

D

 

[LovePhotography]

I'm kinda in the "once you go full frame you don't go back" camp. The main reason would be the extra reach, which I'm reading here is over-rated. More like 1.2 not 1.6. So, that makes it a very expensive teleconvertor. I've already got the ff lenses. So, not sure what the advantage would be over a 6D. If I wanted a second (great) body (have 6D and T5i and 2 EOS M) would be more tempted to buy another 6D, one for longer zoom, the other for wide zoom at athletic events.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I'm kinda in the "once you go full frame you don't go back" camp. The main reason would be the extra reach, which I'm reading here is over-rated. More like 1.2 not 1.6. So, that makes it a very expensive teleconvertor. I've already got the ff lenses. So, not sure what the advantage would be over a 6D. If I wanted a second (great) body (have 6D and T5i and 2 EOS M) would be more tempted to buy another 6D, one for longer zoom, the other for wide zoom at athletic events.

I agree with the conventional wisdom offered here that has been born of the crop vs FF debates. (In essence, what you have stated above about real world 1.2 reach, etc.) However, there is more to it than that. In real world use, a new technology sensor in a new crop sensor camera gives me...

- Faster fps (10 for the 7D2, 8 for the 7D and 7 for the 70D.)
- 1.6 (1.2?) crop factor reach advantage without a TC in the way
- 2nd body & lens (not a TC on a single FF)

A TC still costs you a stop of light and a loss of IQ compared to a crop sensor with no TC in the light path. Having both a FF and a crop camera hanging by your side with two different lenses at a sporting event has its merits. And if you are shooting sports, you are shooting a lot of frames of fast moving action. You need fps. And you need reach. Trying to crop FF images later in post is a LOT of work when you are looking at several thousand images over a day or two of action.

That's why I bought a 70D a week ago for $836 from Canon Refurb. It's likely going to give me at least 2/3 of (what I need) the 7D2 will give for possibly 1/3 the cost. It's likely got a similar (if not the same) sensor and 7 fps is fast enough for my needs. I'll know for sure after swim season starts.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm kinda in the "once you go full frame you don't go back" camp. The main reason would be the extra reach, which I'm reading here is over-rated. More like 1.2 not 1.6. So, that makes it a very expensive teleconvertor. I've already got the ff lenses. So, not sure what the advantage would be over a 6D. If I wanted a second (great) body (have 6D and T5i and 2 EOS M) would be more tempted to buy another 6D, one for longer zoom, the other for wide zoom at athletic events.

I agree with the conventional wisdom offered here that has been born of the crop vs FF debates. (In essence, what you have stated above about real world 1.2 reach, etc.) However, there is more to it than that. In real world use, a new technology sensor in a new crop sensor camera gives me...

- Faster fps (10 for the 7D2, 8 for the 7D and 7 for the 70D.)
- 1.6 (1.2?) crop factor reach advantage without a TC in the way
- 2nd body & lens (not a TC on a single FF)

A TC still costs you a stop of light and a loss of IQ compared to a crop sensor with no TC in the light path. Having both a FF and a crop camera hanging by your side with two different lenses at a sporting event has its merits. And if you are shooting sports, you are shooting a lot of frames of fast moving action. You need fps. And you need reach. Trying to crop FF images later in post is a LOT of work when you are looking at several thousand images over a day or two of action.

That's why I bought a 70D a week ago for $836 from Canon Refurb. It's likely going to give me at least 2/3 of (what I need) the 7D2 will give for possibly 1/3 the cost. It's likely got a similar (if not the same) sensor and 7 fps is fast enough for my needs. I'll know for sure after swim season starts.

Not if you take equivalence into account, if you do, and you should, the ff has an iso advantage greater than the stop of aperture loss.

 

[Lee Jay]

I'm kinda in the "once you go full frame you don't go back" camp. The main reason would be the extra reach, which I'm reading here is over-rated. More like 1.2 not 1.6. So, that makes it a very expensive teleconvertor. I've already got the ff lenses. So, not sure what the advantage would be over a 6D. If I wanted a second (great) body (have 6D and T5i and 2 EOS M) would be more tempted to buy another 6D, one for longer zoom, the other for wide zoom at athletic events.

I agree with the conventional wisdom offered here that has been born of the crop vs FF debates. (In essence, what you have stated above about real world 1.2 reach, etc.) However, there is more to it than that. In real world use, a new technology sensor in a new crop sensor camera gives me...

- Faster fps (10 for the 7D2, 8 for the 7D and 7 for the 70D.)
- 1.6 (1.2?) crop factor reach advantage without a TC in the way
- 2nd body & lens (not a TC on a single FF)

A TC still costs you a stop of light and a loss of IQ compared to a crop sensor with no TC in the light path. Having both a FF and a crop camera hanging by your side with two different lenses at a sporting event has its merits. And if you are shooting sports, you are shooting a lot of frames of fast moving action. You need fps. And you need reach. Trying to crop FF images later in post is a LOT of work when you are looking at several thousand images over a day or two of action.

That's why I bought a 70D a week ago for $836 from Canon Refurb. It's likely going to give me at least 2/3 of (what I need) the 7D2 will give for possibly 1/3 the cost. It's likely got a similar (if not the same) sensor and 7 fps is fast enough for my needs. I'll know for sure after swim season starts.

Not if you take equivalence into account, if you do, and you should, the ff has an iso advantage greater than the stop of aperture loss.

If the sensors perform the same per unit of area, there will be no difference. Cropping does the same thing as a teleconverter from a total light captured point of view. Equivalence says you multiply the f-stop by the crop factor, same as a teleconverter.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

My point is that from a real world use POV, there are more merits to having a crop camera than the mathematical and IQ aspects of crop format vs FF. Bottom line, they are both excellent for getting a good image. They both have their respective strengths and then there is overlap benefit between the two. IMHO, depending on the shooting scenario it can be ideal to have both at your disposal. If you can only have one or the other, that's a different situation. Heck, at that point get the 1DX and don't look back. But I'll take having two cameras over one most of the time and in that case, having a crop and a FF with different lenses to utilize the strengths of each camera can be very helpful. Just sayin'... ('ya know, to irritate those who hate the phrase, "Just sayin'! LOL!)