Canon 7D for studio work

[smirkypants]

An honest question... Can somebody explain to me how the 60D will differ from the 7D in the studio? I thought the major differences were in terms of AF, weather sealing and shooting speed. If one were doing studio work, wouldn't they in practice be identical?

 

[Loswr]

An honest question... Can somebody explain to me how the 60D will differ from the 7D in the studio? I thought the major differences were in terms of AF, weather sealing and shooting speed. If one were doing studio work, wouldn't they in practice be identical?

In practice, the 60D might actually be better, or at least, more convenient to use, thanks to the articulating screen.

 

[awinphoto]

An honest question... Can somebody explain to me how the 60D will differ from the 7D in the studio? I thought the major differences were in terms of AF, weather sealing and shooting speed. If one were doing studio work, wouldn't they in practice be identical?

In practice, as far as image quality is concerned, they should be near identical... Just keep in mind his experience and expectations of files may or may not differ than yours or anyone elses where he may not have been pleased but you could find it near perfect so take everyones opinion, including mine, with a grain of salt. =)

 

[ablearcher]

For 100-200 ISO combined with studio lights and good glass, a 7D will do just fine, IMO. People can argue that FF cams can do better, but hey, there are even more expensive systems out there which will do even better than 5D in studio environment. Any discussion of this nature will result in forum folks split into two camps - those who are satisfied with 7D and those who don't. Same result if you try to ask if 5DMKII is OK for studio or you need a Hassy. So this is kinda pointless. Nobody knows for sure what kind of results YOU need.

The easiest way to get an answer to your own question is to search for print samples/the web for studio work done with 7D. If that looks fine to you - get yourself a 7D. If not - upgrade to FF. As simple as that.

 

[awinphoto]

For 100-200 ISO combined with studio lights and good glass, a 7D will do just fine, IMO. People can argue that FF cams can do better, but hey, there are even more expensive systems out there which will do even better than 5D in studio environment. Any discussion of this nature will result in forum folks split into two camps - those who are satisfied with 7D and those who don't. Same result if you try to ask if 5DMKII is OK for studio or you need a Hassy. So this is kinda pointless. Nobody knows for sure what kind of results YOU need.

The easiest way to get an answer to your own question is to search for print samples/the web for studio work done with 7D. If that looks fine to you - get yourself a 7D. If not - upgrade to FF. As simple as that.

Couldn't have said it better myself +1

 

[Tijn]

For 100-200 ISO combined with studio lights and good glass, a 7D will do just fine, IMO. People can argue that FF cams can do better, but hey, there are even more expensive systems out there which will do even better than 5D in studio environment. Any discussion of this nature will result in forum folks split into two camps - those who are satisfied with 7D and those who don't. Same result if you try to ask if 5DMKII is OK for studio or you need a Hassy. So this is kinda pointless. Nobody knows for sure what kind of results YOU need.

The easiest way to get an answer to your own question is to search for print samples/the web for studio work done with 7D. If that looks fine to you - get yourself a 7D. If not - upgrade to FF. As simple as that.

Though then, a 60D will do the same job just as well for less money.

 

[awinphoto]

For 100-200 ISO combined with studio lights and good glass, a 7D will do just fine, IMO. People can argue that FF cams can do better, but hey, there are even more expensive systems out there which will do even better than 5D in studio environment. Any discussion of this nature will result in forum folks split into two camps - those who are satisfied with 7D and those who don't. Same result if you try to ask if 5DMKII is OK for studio or you need a Hassy. So this is kinda pointless. Nobody knows for sure what kind of results YOU need.

The easiest way to get an answer to your own question is to search for print samples/the web for studio work done with 7D. If that looks fine to you - get yourself a 7D. If not - upgrade to FF. As simple as that.

Though then, a 60D will do the same job just as well for less money.

Assuming you aren't needing the AF, assuming you dont need the additional features of the flash commander (groupings)... assuming you want to shoot CF UMDA cards... assuming you dont want the body/sealing in case you need to take the body out of studio and on location, 100% VF, FPS ... etc...

 

[nicku]

I have searched the web regarding the topic subject and like here i found different opinions, i found also loads crap images shoot with 7d (at 18MP) and very good photos ( unfortunately not at 18MP resolution more at 4-6MP).

if somebody is willing to post some links where we can see studio shots made with 7D at full resolution and post the post processing information .... that would be ideal.

eventually i believe i will rent one and test it in detail. but i want to make a concrete idea before spending 60 euros to rent a camera.

Thanks for the replays,

Nik.

 

[thepancakeman]

I cannot comment on "studio use" becuase I don't use a studio. But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.) I love my 7D for the feel, the AF, and the FPS, and high ISO images, but if I accidentally wandered into a studio I would prefer to have my 40D.

For reference I shoot primarily with a 70-200L 2.8 IS mark I and the 24-105L 4.0.

 

[Tijn]

Assuming you aren't needing the AF, assuming you dont need the additional features of the flash commander (groupings)... assuming you want to shoot CF UMDA cards... assuming you dont want the body/sealing in case you need to take the body out of studio and on location, 100% VF, FPS ... etc...

There are some differences of course, and indeed some might be of value for studio shooting. Though for the things he's asking about (IQ), I think there is very little difference. I can see the 100% VF being valuable. But both the 60D and the 7D can be used as a flash commander, and both bodies are weather sealed. For the rest, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. 60D is lighter weight, 60D has flip-out screen, 7D has titanium alloy, 7D has (much) better AF and higher FPs.

But since we were talking studio shooting and IQ, I didn't think those had any priority.

 

[PaperTiger]

The 7D would be fine in the studio, but aside from the resolution bump from the 40D and microadjust AF, not a whole lot that will benefit you in a studio setting. I'm not a big fan of the camera above 320 ISO, but you shouldn't have to worry about that with a well lit shot.

Where the 7D really shines is as an on location camera. Great weatherproofing/durability (I have a lot of experience beating that camera up. I think there's some mud on it right now), great AF, a little extra reach with the crop sensor, and so-so noise/IQ.

 

[Loswr]

But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)

I've run acorss this sort of statement several times. I think there's a technical issue at the root of this - the 7D has a higher-resolution sensor and a stronger AA filter to go with it, and thus the resulting images require a bit more sharpening in post.

But I also think that technical issue is not the source of most of these types of comments, rather, it depends on how you're viewing the images. The 7D is 18 MP, the 40D only 10 MP. If you view a shot of the same subject/same lens with both cameras at 100% on your screen, the 40D will appear sharper...but the subject the subject will be much smaller. If you downsample the 7D image to the 10 MP equivalent of the 40D file (or upsample the 40D image to 18 MP), the 7D should give the sharper result.

 

[thepancakeman]

But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)

I've run acorss this sort of statement several times. I think there's a technical issue at the root of this - the 7D has a higher-resolution sensor and a stronger AA filter to go with it, and thus the resulting images require a bit more sharpening in post.

But I also think that technical issue is not the source of most of these types of comments, rather, it depends on how you're viewing the images. The 7D is 18 MP, the 40D only 10 MP. If you view a shot of the same subject/same lens with both cameras at 100% on your screen, the 40D will appear sharper...but the subject the subject will be much smaller. If you downsample the 7D image to the 10 MP equivalent of the 40D file (or upsample the 40D image to 18 MP), the 7D should give the sharper result.

My "test" is quite simple: with the 40D I can make out the hairs on the arm and the time on the wristwatches of cyclists taken at 70mm from the other side of the street. With the 7D the hairs look more like fuzz, and the watch is often unreadable. If I were at home I'd post zoomed in examples, but alas no can do from work. This is a sample of the shots that I'm talking about:

 

[awinphoto]

But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)

I've run acorss this sort of statement several times. I think there's a technical issue at the root of this - the 7D has a higher-resolution sensor and a stronger AA filter to go with it, and thus the resulting images require a bit more sharpening in post.

But I also think that technical issue is not the source of most of these types of comments, rather, it depends on how you're viewing the images. The 7D is 18 MP, the 40D only 10 MP. If you view a shot of the same subject/same lens with both cameras at 100% on your screen, the 40D will appear sharper...but the subject the subject will be much smaller. If you downsample the 7D image to the 10 MP equivalent of the 40D file (or upsample the 40D image to 18 MP), the 7D should give the sharper result.

My "test" is quite simple: with the 40D I can make out the hairs on the arm and the time on the wristwatches of cyclists taken at 70mm from the other side of the street. With the 7D the hairs look more like fuzz, and the watch is often unreadable. If I were at home I'd post zoomed in examples, but alas no can do from work. This is a sample of the shots that I'm talking about:

Just to play devils advocate, but it has been said that with the 7d, because of it's increased magnification, compared to 30D,40D models, require faster shutter speeds above the 1/focal length speeds prior models would have required... Are you 100% positive it's not camera shake/slightly too slow of shutter and or lens MA being spot on vs camera sharpness? Just ruling that out... By all means the camera has it's benefits and downsides, but to be fair, and perhaps my sharpening in camera and in post may be different/higher than others, but this camera has been one of the sharpest cameras i've owned and that goes all the way back to the 10D and MF and LF cameras... As i said before, I cannot speak for everyone, but for the OP, rent the camera and come up with your own conclusions because no one can answer it for you.

 

[briansquibb]

I sold both my 7Ds because I did not like the IQ - was, to my eyes a worse IQ when printed to a max of A3 (16x10) than my 40D.

I went out shooting today and took the old 40D with the not so good glass, EF-S 55-250. However the results I think were pretty impressive and I would be happy with that - constrast and IQ are very good. I do minimal pp, crop to size, levels and simple sharpening.

Not as good as the 5DII, and definitely not as good as the 1Ds3 - but I think at least as good as the 7D

40d, 55-250@109, iso100, 1/320, f/5

 

[thepancakeman]

Just to play devils advocate, but it has been said that with the 7d, because of it's increased magnification, compared to 30D,40D models, require faster shutter speeds above the 1/focal length speeds prior models would have required... Are you 100% positive it's not camera shake/slightly too slow of shutter and or lens MA being spot on vs camera sharpness? Just ruling that out... By all means the camera has it's benefits and downsides, but to be fair, and perhaps my sharpening in camera and in post may be different/higher than others, but this camera has been one of the sharpest cameras i've owned and that goes all the way back to the 10D and MF and LF cameras... As i said before, I cannot speak for everyone, but for the OP, rent the camera and come up with your own conclusions because no one can answer it for you.

Shutter speeds on these shots are typically in the 1/800+ range, so I don't think that's the issue.

To be honest I have not spent much time with the MA on the 7D, but if that were the issue there would be SOME shots that have that clarity, but I have not seen them. For this given race series I shoot about 500 of these shots per race, so I've got a pretty good sample size.

 

[awinphoto]

Just to play devils advocate, but it has been said that with the 7d, because of it's increased magnification, compared to 30D,40D models, require faster shutter speeds above the 1/focal length speeds prior models would have required... Are you 100% positive it's not camera shake/slightly too slow of shutter and or lens MA being spot on vs camera sharpness? Just ruling that out... By all means the camera has it's benefits and downsides, but to be fair, and perhaps my sharpening in camera and in post may be different/higher than others, but this camera has been one of the sharpest cameras i've owned and that goes all the way back to the 10D and MF and LF cameras... As i said before, I cannot speak for everyone, but for the OP, rent the camera and come up with your own conclusions because no one can answer it for you.

Shutter speeds on these shots are typically in the 1/800+ range, so I don't think that's the issue.

To be honest I have not spent much time with the MA on the 7D, but if that were the issue there would be SOME shots that have that clarity, but I have not seen them. For this given race series I shoot about 500 of these shots per race, so I've got a pretty good sample size.

That's interesting to hear... anyways i'm not trying to say i'm right your wrong, i'm just making conversation... I guess from my POV and cameras I've shot with, the 7d, to my expectations, have far succeeded my other camera's photos, although I will admit I never owned the 40D, i went from the 10D to 30D to 50D and 7D to 5d2... My other cameras, to their credit, at the times I shot with them, I always loved them, but looking back in hindsight at files from those cameras to my current 7d/5d set up, I like the details more with my current gear, but it could be just me. I wont lie, if it wasn't for the IQ of the 5d2, I wouldn't be shooting it and i'm biting at the bit for the 5d3 so I can unload my 5d2... As a camera as a whole, IQ included, I love my 7d albeit i wish it had the sensor of the 5d2 shoved in it... Until then I'll keep plugging away running my business.

 

[justsomedude]

But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)

I've run acorss this sort of statement several times. I think there's a technical issue at the root of this - the 7D has a higher-resolution sensor and a stronger AA filter to go with it, and thus the resulting images require a bit more sharpening in post.

I think this is why we may actually see a 7D - or some other crossover body - as the "high end dSLR" in February before a 5D. The 7D has gotten panned across the board for IQ and AF issues. There are still people who stick by the "you're-just-too-stupid-to-understand-the-powerful-7D" mantra, but dozens of reviews and tests show that "fuzziness" and lack of clarity in resultant images is a repeatable and very real issue on the 7D.

Furthermore, the fact that Canon continues to service my 7D for images quality issues, totally free of charge and well outside of my warranty window, says a heck of a lot about what they must know internally regarding the problems with this body.

Let's keep in mind, the 7D was really a first for this type of body from Canon. Some bumps along the way were to be expected, and as first adopters many of us had to accept the issues that often come with a brand new model. I expect a 7D mkII to be vastly improved... I'm sure Canon expects the same.

 

[Taemobig]

My friend who shoots for GQ and FHM and other magazines uses a 7D and a 24-70mm. I used a 40D last year and got some work published in 944 magazine as well. But, like some of the previous posters have said, lighting is more important for studio work than the camera.

I can post some studio work I've done later and you can judge for yourself if you think the 7D is good enough.

 

[Mindfields]

Well, I must have one of the "good" 7d's. I'm just not seeing the problems that many seem to have with this body. 8)