Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF Issues

[Eldar]

I have tried to provoke some AF malfunctioning out of the 7DII and I cannot say I have been very successful. The only negative thing, which is the case with all crop cameras, is the extra noise, when you move up in ISO. But in general, this camera delivers what I had expected.

I have some interesting birds in the Oslo fjord these days, but they have been quite far out. So I decided to AFMA the 600mm f4L IS II + 2xIII combo. And of course, the only available model was The Local Lion (I´m sure many of you have missed him )

This was focused on his eye, 1/1250s, f8.0, ISO2500 (and by the way, it is a 100% crop)

Eldar thanks for the info. A few questions if you please:

Is this result repeatable?
Have you tried something similar with other lenses for example 100-400 or similar?
ISO2500 seems clean. Have you denoised the image or you just exposed correctly?

Thanks.

The attached image was fairly easy to expose correctly, so that helped with the noise. In general it is clear that the 7DII is a good step behind the 1DX on higher ISO performance.

I have tried most of my lenses on the 7DII and I get consistent AF on all of them. The 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII combo has given me fairly consistent results, but it is quite difficult to use though, due to it´s narrow field of view and sensitivity to shake. This is my wife´s camera and for my own use, I was only interested in it for the reach. You do not (ref. Privatebydesign´s many posts on the subject) get full benefit from the extra 1.6x reach, from an IQ perspective, maybe 1.2-1.3x (I have not been more scientific about this than comparing similar images), but you do get better AF conditions.

I have tried the 7DII, 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII extender combo a few times now and have actually found it to be a bit too long (maybe because I am getting old ...). Anyone who has shot moving targets with long teles can appreciate that a 1920mm equivalent field of view is pretty small and just finding whatever you´re shooting in the viewfinder is rather tricky, on top of controlling shake. So I have actually ended up skipping the 7DII, worked on my sneak & hide skills instead and use the 1DX. The 7DII shutter sound is really nice though, compared to the 1DX machine gun noise. My future use of the 7DII will most likely be limited to the 100-400 or maybe also the 200-400, for weight and reach benefits on longer hikes.

 

[tron]

I have tried to provoke some AF malfunctioning out of the 7DII and I cannot say I have been very successful. The only negative thing, which is the case with all crop cameras, is the extra noise, when you move up in ISO. But in general, this camera delivers what I had expected.

I have some interesting birds in the Oslo fjord these days, but they have been quite far out. So I decided to AFMA the 600mm f4L IS II + 2xIII combo. And of course, the only available model was The Local Lion (I´m sure many of you have missed him )

This was focused on his eye, 1/1250s, f8.0, ISO2500 (and by the way, it is a 100% crop)

Eldar thanks for the info. A few questions if you please:

Is this result repeatable?
Have you tried something similar with other lenses for example 100-400 or similar?
ISO2500 seems clean. Have you denoised the image or you just exposed correctly?

Thanks.

The attached image was fairly easy to expose correctly, so that helped with the noise. In general it is clear that the 7DII is a good step behind the 1DX on higher ISO performance.

I have tried most of my lenses on the 7DII and I get consistent AF on all of them. The 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII combo has given me fairly consistent results, but it is quite difficult to use though, due to it´s narrow field of view and sensitivity to shake. This is my wife´s camera and for my own use, I was only interested in it for the reach. You do not (ref. Privatebydesign´s many posts on the subject) get full benefit from the extra 1.6x reach, from an IQ perspective, maybe 1.2-1.3x (I have not been more scientific about this than comparing similar images), but you do get better AF conditions.

I have tried the 7DII, 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII extender combo a few times now and have actually found it to be a bit too long (maybe because I am getting old ...). Anyone who has shot moving targets with long teles can appreciate that a 1920mm equivalent field of view is pretty small and just finding whatever you´re shooting in the viewfinder is rather tricky, on top of controlling shake. So I have actually ended up skipping the 7DII, worked on my sneak & hide skills instead and use the 1DX. The 7DII shutter sound is really nice though, compared to the 1DX machine gun noise. My future use of the 7DII will most likely be limited to the 100-400 or maybe also the 200-400, for weight and reach benefits on longer hikes.

Thanks for answering.

I have 2 5D3s and my longest lenses are 100-400 II, 300 2.8 II and 500 4 II along with the version III teles.
I am trying to think whether a 7D2 is useful for FL limiting situations.
I guess it depends:

1. On the 7D2 model (good or with issues) OK my question assumed a good one.
2. On the portability requirements
3. On the available light.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have tried to provoke some AF malfunctioning out of the 7DII and I cannot say I have been very successful. The only negative thing, which is the case with all crop cameras, is the extra noise, when you move up in ISO. But in general, this camera delivers what I had expected.

I have some interesting birds in the Oslo fjord these days, but they have been quite far out. So I decided to AFMA the 600mm f4L IS II + 2xIII combo. And of course, the only available model was The Local Lion (I´m sure many of you have missed him )

This was focused on his eye, 1/1250s, f8.0, ISO2500 (and by the way, it is a 100% crop)

Eldar thanks for the info. A few questions if you please:

Is this result repeatable?
Have you tried something similar with other lenses for example 100-400 or similar?
ISO2500 seems clean. Have you denoised the image or you just exposed correctly?

Thanks.

The attached image was fairly easy to expose correctly, so that helped with the noise. In general it is clear that the 7DII is a good step behind the 1DX on higher ISO performance.

I have tried most of my lenses on the 7DII and I get consistent AF on all of them. The 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII combo has given me fairly consistent results, but it is quite difficult to use though, due to it´s narrow field of view and sensitivity to shake. This is my wife´s camera and for my own use, I was only interested in it for the reach. You do not (ref. Privatebydesign´s many posts on the subject) get full benefit from the extra 1.6x reach, from an IQ perspective, maybe 1.2-1.3x (I have not been more scientific about this than comparing similar images), but you do get better AF conditions.

I have tried the 7DII, 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII extender combo a few times now and have actually found it to be a bit too long (maybe because I am getting old ...). Anyone who has shot moving targets with long teles can appreciate that a 1920mm equivalent field of view is pretty small and just finding whatever you´re shooting in the viewfinder is rather tricky, on top of controlling shake. So I have actually ended up skipping the 7DII, worked on my sneak & hide skills instead and use the 1DX. The 7DII shutter sound is really nice though, compared to the 1DX machine gun noise. My future use of the 7DII will most likely be limited to the 100-400 or maybe also the 200-400, for weight and reach benefits on longer hikes.

Thanks for answering.

I have 2 5D3s and my longest lenses are 100-400 II, 300 2.8 II and 500 4 II along with the version III teles.
I am trying to think whether a 7D2 is useful for FL limiting situations.
I guess it depends:

1. On the 7D2 model (good or with issues) OK my question assumed a good one.
2. On the portability requirements
3. On the available light.

7d2
Better fps
Better magnification. 1.6 vs a 1.4 via extender and no 1 stop light loss
Better AF by a slight margin ( i originally weighed in favor of the 5d3). After now going back and forth between models, the 7d2 auto focuses slightly faster and maintains AF slightly better.
Dual pixel AF when shooting videos (AF while shooting video)

5d3
Full frame
Better resolution
Slightly better high ISO performance
Better silent mode
Runs magic lantern and supports all of the enhanced features of such (up to firmware 1.2.3)
Better battery life

I honestly can't live without both. They are so vastly different in what they were built for that I would have a tough time deciding on one. Since your lenses are geared for sports and wildlife, I would say you would benefit from the 7d2 based on what you shoot.

 

[tron]

I have tried to provoke some AF malfunctioning out of the 7DII and I cannot say I have been very successful. The only negative thing, which is the case with all crop cameras, is the extra noise, when you move up in ISO. But in general, this camera delivers what I had expected.

I have some interesting birds in the Oslo fjord these days, but they have been quite far out. So I decided to AFMA the 600mm f4L IS II + 2xIII combo. And of course, the only available model was The Local Lion (I´m sure many of you have missed him )

This was focused on his eye, 1/1250s, f8.0, ISO2500 (and by the way, it is a 100% crop)

Eldar thanks for the info. A few questions if you please:

Is this result repeatable?
Have you tried something similar with other lenses for example 100-400 or similar?
ISO2500 seems clean. Have you denoised the image or you just exposed correctly?

Thanks.

The attached image was fairly easy to expose correctly, so that helped with the noise. In general it is clear that the 7DII is a good step behind the 1DX on higher ISO performance.

I have tried most of my lenses on the 7DII and I get consistent AF on all of them. The 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII combo has given me fairly consistent results, but it is quite difficult to use though, due to it´s narrow field of view and sensitivity to shake. This is my wife´s camera and for my own use, I was only interested in it for the reach. You do not (ref. Privatebydesign´s many posts on the subject) get full benefit from the extra 1.6x reach, from an IQ perspective, maybe 1.2-1.3x (I have not been more scientific about this than comparing similar images), but you do get better AF conditions.

I have tried the 7DII, 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII extender combo a few times now and have actually found it to be a bit too long (maybe because I am getting old ...). Anyone who has shot moving targets with long teles can appreciate that a 1920mm equivalent field of view is pretty small and just finding whatever you´re shooting in the viewfinder is rather tricky, on top of controlling shake. So I have actually ended up skipping the 7DII, worked on my sneak & hide skills instead and use the 1DX. The 7DII shutter sound is really nice though, compared to the 1DX machine gun noise. My future use of the 7DII will most likely be limited to the 100-400 or maybe also the 200-400, for weight and reach benefits on longer hikes.

Thanks for answering.

I have 2 5D3s and my longest lenses are 100-400 II, 300 2.8 II and 500 4 II along with the version III teles.
I am trying to think whether a 7D2 is useful for FL limiting situations.
I guess it depends:

1. On the 7D2 model (good or with issues) OK my question assumed a good one.
2. On the portability requirements
3. On the available light.

7d2
Better fps
Better magnification. 1.6 vs a 1.4 via extender and no 1 stop light loss
Better AF by a slight margin ( i originally weighed in favor of the 5d3). After now going back and forth between models, the 7d2 auto focuses slightly faster and maintains AF slightly better.
Dual pixel AF when shooting videos (AF while shooting video)

5d3
Full frame
Better resolution
Slightly better high ISO performance
Better silent mode
Runs magic lantern and supports all of the enhanced features of such (up to firmware 1.2.3)
Better battery life

I honestly can't live without both. They are so vastly different in what they were built for that I would have a tough time deciding on one. Since your lenses are geared for sports and wildlife, I would say you would benefit from the 7d2 based on what you shoot.

Eldar and East Wing Photography,

thank you both for answering. I have succumbed to the temptation and ordered it!

I saw that it is one stop worse than 5D3: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/11
This is to be expected though. Anyway I need it for FL limited situations and for compactness. We'll see.

Thanks again...

P.S Thanks also to AlanF for his tests

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have tried to provoke some AF malfunctioning out of the 7DII and I cannot say I have been very successful. The only negative thing, which is the case with all crop cameras, is the extra noise, when you move up in ISO. But in general, this camera delivers what I had expected.

I have some interesting birds in the Oslo fjord these days, but they have been quite far out. So I decided to AFMA the 600mm f4L IS II + 2xIII combo. And of course, the only available model was The Local Lion (I´m sure many of you have missed him )

This was focused on his eye, 1/1250s, f8.0, ISO2500 (and by the way, it is a 100% crop)

Eldar thanks for the info. A few questions if you please:

Is this result repeatable?
Have you tried something similar with other lenses for example 100-400 or similar?
ISO2500 seems clean. Have you denoised the image or you just exposed correctly?

Thanks.

The attached image was fairly easy to expose correctly, so that helped with the noise. In general it is clear that the 7DII is a good step behind the 1DX on higher ISO performance.

I have tried most of my lenses on the 7DII and I get consistent AF on all of them. The 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII combo has given me fairly consistent results, but it is quite difficult to use though, due to it´s narrow field of view and sensitivity to shake. This is my wife´s camera and for my own use, I was only interested in it for the reach. You do not (ref. Privatebydesign´s many posts on the subject) get full benefit from the extra 1.6x reach, from an IQ perspective, maybe 1.2-1.3x (I have not been more scientific about this than comparing similar images), but you do get better AF conditions.

I have tried the 7DII, 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII extender combo a few times now and have actually found it to be a bit too long (maybe because I am getting old ...). Anyone who has shot moving targets with long teles can appreciate that a 1920mm equivalent field of view is pretty small and just finding whatever you´re shooting in the viewfinder is rather tricky, on top of controlling shake. So I have actually ended up skipping the 7DII, worked on my sneak & hide skills instead and use the 1DX. The 7DII shutter sound is really nice though, compared to the 1DX machine gun noise. My future use of the 7DII will most likely be limited to the 100-400 or maybe also the 200-400, for weight and reach benefits on longer hikes.

Thanks for answering.

I have 2 5D3s and my longest lenses are 100-400 II, 300 2.8 II and 500 4 II along with the version III teles.
I am trying to think whether a 7D2 is useful for FL limiting situations.
I guess it depends:

1. On the 7D2 model (good or with issues) OK my question assumed a good one.
2. On the portability requirements
3. On the available light.

7d2
Better fps
Better magnification. 1.6 vs a 1.4 via extender and no 1 stop light loss
Better AF by a slight margin ( i originally weighed in favor of the 5d3). After now going back and forth between models, the 7d2 auto focuses slightly faster and maintains AF slightly better.
Dual pixel AF when shooting videos (AF while shooting video)

5d3
Full frame
Better resolution
Slightly better high ISO performance
Better silent mode
Runs magic lantern and supports all of the enhanced features of such (up to firmware 1.2.3)
Better battery life

I honestly can't live without both. They are so vastly different in what they were built for that I would have a tough time deciding on one. Since your lenses are geared for sports and wildlife, I would say you would benefit from the 7d2 based on what you shoot.

Eldar and East Wing Photography,

thank you both for answering. I have succumbed to the temptation and ordered it!

I saw that it is one stop worse than 5D3: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/11
This is to be expected though. Anyway I need it for FL limited situations and for compactness. We'll see.

Thanks again...

P.S Thanks also to AlanF for his tests

I think you will find that the 7d2 holds up well. Although it loses about a stop at high ISO, the noise pattern is more pleasing. In RAW you will need to dial up the sharpening in post. The in camera jpg sharpening is pretty good.

Make sure you afma test your lenses and give the AF a really good shake down within your return period.

 

[tron]

I have tried to provoke some AF malfunctioning out of the 7DII and I cannot say I have been very successful. The only negative thing, which is the case with all crop cameras, is the extra noise, when you move up in ISO. But in general, this camera delivers what I had expected.

I have some interesting birds in the Oslo fjord these days, but they have been quite far out. So I decided to AFMA the 600mm f4L IS II + 2xIII combo. And of course, the only available model was The Local Lion (I´m sure many of you have missed him )

This was focused on his eye, 1/1250s, f8.0, ISO2500 (and by the way, it is a 100% crop)

Eldar thanks for the info. A few questions if you please:

Is this result repeatable?
Have you tried something similar with other lenses for example 100-400 or similar?
ISO2500 seems clean. Have you denoised the image or you just exposed correctly?

Thanks.

The attached image was fairly easy to expose correctly, so that helped with the noise. In general it is clear that the 7DII is a good step behind the 1DX on higher ISO performance.

I have tried most of my lenses on the 7DII and I get consistent AF on all of them. The 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII combo has given me fairly consistent results, but it is quite difficult to use though, due to it´s narrow field of view and sensitivity to shake. This is my wife´s camera and for my own use, I was only interested in it for the reach. You do not (ref. Privatebydesign´s many posts on the subject) get full benefit from the extra 1.6x reach, from an IQ perspective, maybe 1.2-1.3x (I have not been more scientific about this than comparing similar images), but you do get better AF conditions.

I have tried the 7DII, 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII extender combo a few times now and have actually found it to be a bit too long (maybe because I am getting old ...). Anyone who has shot moving targets with long teles can appreciate that a 1920mm equivalent field of view is pretty small and just finding whatever you´re shooting in the viewfinder is rather tricky, on top of controlling shake. So I have actually ended up skipping the 7DII, worked on my sneak & hide skills instead and use the 1DX. The 7DII shutter sound is really nice though, compared to the 1DX machine gun noise. My future use of the 7DII will most likely be limited to the 100-400 or maybe also the 200-400, for weight and reach benefits on longer hikes.

Thanks for answering.

I have 2 5D3s and my longest lenses are 100-400 II, 300 2.8 II and 500 4 II along with the version III teles.
I am trying to think whether a 7D2 is useful for FL limiting situations.
I guess it depends:

1. On the 7D2 model (good or with issues) OK my question assumed a good one.
2. On the portability requirements
3. On the available light.

7d2
Better fps
Better magnification. 1.6 vs a 1.4 via extender and no 1 stop light loss
Better AF by a slight margin ( i originally weighed in favor of the 5d3). After now going back and forth between models, the 7d2 auto focuses slightly faster and maintains AF slightly better.
Dual pixel AF when shooting videos (AF while shooting video)

5d3
Full frame
Better resolution
Slightly better high ISO performance
Better silent mode
Runs magic lantern and supports all of the enhanced features of such (up to firmware 1.2.3)
Better battery life

I honestly can't live without both. They are so vastly different in what they were built for that I would have a tough time deciding on one. Since your lenses are geared for sports and wildlife, I would say you would benefit from the 7d2 based on what you shoot.

Eldar and East Wing Photography,

thank you both for answering. I have succumbed to the temptation and ordered it!

I saw that it is one stop worse than 5D3: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/11
This is to be expected though. Anyway I need it for FL limited situations and for compactness. We'll see.

Thanks again...

P.S Thanks also to AlanF for his tests

I think you will find that the 7d2 holds up well. Although it loses about a stop at high ISO, the noise pattern is more pleasing. In RAW you will need to dial up the sharpening in post. The in camera jpg sharpening is pretty good.

Make sure you afma test your lenses and give the AF a really good shake down within your return period.

Thanks. I will make as many tests I can to make sure it's OK.

One question: By dialing up the sharpening I guess you mean more than the default Amount:25 Radius:1 in ACR I guess. I intend to use it only with the 100-400 II (rarely) 300 2.8 II (more often) and 500 II (if extreme reach is needed) lenses so if it will still need more sharpening I guess the AA filter will be responsible rather than the lenses...

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have tried to provoke some AF malfunctioning out of the 7DII and I cannot say I have been very successful. The only negative thing, which is the case with all crop cameras, is the extra noise, when you move up in ISO. But in general, this camera delivers what I had expected.

I have some interesting birds in the Oslo fjord these days, but they have been quite far out. So I decided to AFMA the 600mm f4L IS II + 2xIII combo. And of course, the only available model was The Local Lion (I´m sure many of you have missed him )

This was focused on his eye, 1/1250s, f8.0, ISO2500 (and by the way, it is a 100% crop)

Eldar thanks for the info. A few questions if you please:

Is this result repeatable?
Have you tried something similar with other lenses for example 100-400 or similar?
ISO2500 seems clean. Have you denoised the image or you just exposed correctly?

Thanks.

The attached image was fairly easy to expose correctly, so that helped with the noise. In general it is clear that the 7DII is a good step behind the 1DX on higher ISO performance.

I have tried most of my lenses on the 7DII and I get consistent AF on all of them. The 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII combo has given me fairly consistent results, but it is quite difficult to use though, due to it´s narrow field of view and sensitivity to shake. This is my wife´s camera and for my own use, I was only interested in it for the reach. You do not (ref. Privatebydesign´s many posts on the subject) get full benefit from the extra 1.6x reach, from an IQ perspective, maybe 1.2-1.3x (I have not been more scientific about this than comparing similar images), but you do get better AF conditions.

I have tried the 7DII, 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII extender combo a few times now and have actually found it to be a bit too long (maybe because I am getting old ...). Anyone who has shot moving targets with long teles can appreciate that a 1920mm equivalent field of view is pretty small and just finding whatever you´re shooting in the viewfinder is rather tricky, on top of controlling shake. So I have actually ended up skipping the 7DII, worked on my sneak & hide skills instead and use the 1DX. The 7DII shutter sound is really nice though, compared to the 1DX machine gun noise. My future use of the 7DII will most likely be limited to the 100-400 or maybe also the 200-400, for weight and reach benefits on longer hikes.

Thanks for answering.

I have 2 5D3s and my longest lenses are 100-400 II, 300 2.8 II and 500 4 II along with the version III teles.
I am trying to think whether a 7D2 is useful for FL limiting situations.
I guess it depends:

1. On the 7D2 model (good or with issues) OK my question assumed a good one.
2. On the portability requirements
3. On the available light.

7d2
Better fps
Better magnification. 1.6 vs a 1.4 via extender and no 1 stop light loss
Better AF by a slight margin ( i originally weighed in favor of the 5d3). After now going back and forth between models, the 7d2 auto focuses slightly faster and maintains AF slightly better.
Dual pixel AF when shooting videos (AF while shooting video)

5d3
Full frame
Better resolution
Slightly better high ISO performance
Better silent mode
Runs magic lantern and supports all of the enhanced features of such (up to firmware 1.2.3)
Better battery life

I honestly can't live without both. They are so vastly different in what they were built for that I would have a tough time deciding on one. Since your lenses are geared for sports and wildlife, I would say you would benefit from the 7d2 based on what you shoot.

Eldar and East Wing Photography,

thank you both for answering. I have succumbed to the temptation and ordered it!

I saw that it is one stop worse than 5D3: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/11
This is to be expected though. Anyway I need it for FL limited situations and for compactness. We'll see.

Thanks again...

P.S Thanks also to AlanF for his tests

I think you will find that the 7d2 holds up well. Although it loses about a stop at high ISO, the noise pattern is more pleasing. In RAW you will need to dial up the sharpening in post. The in camera jpg sharpening is pretty good.

Make sure you afma test your lenses and give the AF a really good shake down within your return period.

Thanks. I will make as many tests I can to make sure it's OK.

One question: By dialing up the sharpening I guess you mean more than the default Amount:25 Radius:1 in ACR I guess. I intend to use it only with the 100-400 II (rarely) 300 2.8 II (more often) and 500 II (if extreme reach is needed) lenses so if it will still need more sharpening I guess the AA filter will be responsible rather than the lenses...

You may need more than that. The good news is that the raw image holds up very well to sharpening in post. It's solely due to the strong AA filter used with this sensor. I wish they would have left it off but they wanted this camera to be good for video as well. I was referring to the in camera sharpening on jpg images. Sharpening jpg in post is rather useless.

You will be very happy with the 7d2 for what it was built for. I routinely use it with my 300 II and 2xiii and with the crop factor, I'm picking out birds at distances that are insane and still able to crop and get really great images.

 

[tron]

I have tried to provoke some AF malfunctioning out of the 7DII and I cannot say I have been very successful. The only negative thing, which is the case with all crop cameras, is the extra noise, when you move up in ISO. But in general, this camera delivers what I had expected.

I have some interesting birds in the Oslo fjord these days, but they have been quite far out. So I decided to AFMA the 600mm f4L IS II + 2xIII combo. And of course, the only available model was The Local Lion (I´m sure many of you have missed him )

This was focused on his eye, 1/1250s, f8.0, ISO2500 (and by the way, it is a 100% crop)

Eldar thanks for the info. A few questions if you please:

Is this result repeatable?
Have you tried something similar with other lenses for example 100-400 or similar?
ISO2500 seems clean. Have you denoised the image or you just exposed correctly?

Thanks.

The attached image was fairly easy to expose correctly, so that helped with the noise. In general it is clear that the 7DII is a good step behind the 1DX on higher ISO performance.

I have tried most of my lenses on the 7DII and I get consistent AF on all of them. The 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII combo has given me fairly consistent results, but it is quite difficult to use though, due to it´s narrow field of view and sensitivity to shake. This is my wife´s camera and for my own use, I was only interested in it for the reach. You do not (ref. Privatebydesign´s many posts on the subject) get full benefit from the extra 1.6x reach, from an IQ perspective, maybe 1.2-1.3x (I have not been more scientific about this than comparing similar images), but you do get better AF conditions.

I have tried the 7DII, 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII extender combo a few times now and have actually found it to be a bit too long (maybe because I am getting old ...). Anyone who has shot moving targets with long teles can appreciate that a 1920mm equivalent field of view is pretty small and just finding whatever you´re shooting in the viewfinder is rather tricky, on top of controlling shake. So I have actually ended up skipping the 7DII, worked on my sneak & hide skills instead and use the 1DX. The 7DII shutter sound is really nice though, compared to the 1DX machine gun noise. My future use of the 7DII will most likely be limited to the 100-400 or maybe also the 200-400, for weight and reach benefits on longer hikes.

Thanks for answering.

I have 2 5D3s and my longest lenses are 100-400 II, 300 2.8 II and 500 4 II along with the version III teles.
I am trying to think whether a 7D2 is useful for FL limiting situations.
I guess it depends:

1. On the 7D2 model (good or with issues) OK my question assumed a good one.
2. On the portability requirements
3. On the available light.

7d2
Better fps
Better magnification. 1.6 vs a 1.4 via extender and no 1 stop light loss
Better AF by a slight margin ( i originally weighed in favor of the 5d3). After now going back and forth between models, the 7d2 auto focuses slightly faster and maintains AF slightly better.
Dual pixel AF when shooting videos (AF while shooting video)

5d3
Full frame
Better resolution
Slightly better high ISO performance
Better silent mode
Runs magic lantern and supports all of the enhanced features of such (up to firmware 1.2.3)
Better battery life

I honestly can't live without both. They are so vastly different in what they were built for that I would have a tough time deciding on one. Since your lenses are geared for sports and wildlife, I would say you would benefit from the 7d2 based on what you shoot.

Eldar and East Wing Photography,

thank you both for answering. I have succumbed to the temptation and ordered it!

I saw that it is one stop worse than 5D3: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/11
This is to be expected though. Anyway I need it for FL limited situations and for compactness. We'll see.

Thanks again...

P.S Thanks also to AlanF for his tests

I think you will find that the 7d2 holds up well. Although it loses about a stop at high ISO, the noise pattern is more pleasing. In RAW you will need to dial up the sharpening in post. The in camera jpg sharpening is pretty good.

Make sure you afma test your lenses and give the AF a really good shake down within your return period.

Thanks. I will make as many tests I can to make sure it's OK.

One question: By dialing up the sharpening I guess you mean more than the default Amount:25 Radius:1 in ACR I guess. I intend to use it only with the 100-400 II (rarely) 300 2.8 II (more often) and 500 II (if extreme reach is needed) lenses so if it will still need more sharpening I guess the AA filter will be responsible rather than the lenses...

You may need more than that. The good news is that the raw image holds up very well to sharpening in post. It's solely due to the strong AA filter used with this sensor. I wish they would have left it off but they wanted this camera to be good for video as well. I was referring to the in camera sharpening on jpg images. Sharpening jpg in post is rather useless.

You will be very happy with the 7d2 for what it was built for. I routinely use it with my 300 II and 2xiii and with the crop factor, I'm picking out birds at distances that are insane and still able to crop and get really great images.

Thanks! This is what I was hoping for.

 

[ems1]

I've seen enough people writing up about how their 7D2's AF seemed poor and Canon asked them to send it in and replaced the sensor and mirror, that I'm confident there is some kind of actual hardware fault with the 7D2 that, while it may not be present in every unit, has turned up in enough for it to be a more noticable problem than the usual quality control failures. If the 7D2 actually was mechanically sound and all the faults were simply down to either user error or a software or firmware error, Canon wouldn't be replacing all those sensors and mirror boxes.

That said, there are obviously a lot of 7D2 owners who have had no such problems and I don't recall any notable publications mentioning AF problems in their reviews. Seems to me like it's probably the kind of thing which affected one specific production run and Canon will say "if your camera's serial number is between [###] and [###], send it in."

The majority of successful repairs that I have seen here in forum posts, including mine, involved replacing the mirror box assembly which includes the Af sensor due to improper assembly. Somewhere along the way the improper mounting often damages it enough that it cannot be salvaged and must be replaced. The entire system must then be recalibrated.

I'm certain they are diligently working on the root cause and will issue some sort of official statement once it's figured out.

In the mean time if anyone suspects it's not working like it should, dont wait for the warranty to expire. Call them or email them and arrange for it to be looked at.

Could you tell me if the shutter count was reset when you received the 7D2 back from repair? I'm sure I read somewhere that it gets reset when replacing the Mirror Box/AF Sensor.

Thanks

 

[East Wind Photography]

I've seen enough people writing up about how their 7D2's AF seemed poor and Canon asked them to send it in and replaced the sensor and mirror, that I'm confident there is some kind of actual hardware fault with the 7D2 that, while it may not be present in every unit, has turned up in enough for it to be a more noticable problem than the usual quality control failures. If the 7D2 actually was mechanically sound and all the faults were simply down to either user error or a software or firmware error, Canon wouldn't be replacing all those sensors and mirror boxes.

That said, there are obviously a lot of 7D2 owners who have had no such problems and I don't recall any notable publications mentioning AF problems in their reviews. Seems to me like it's probably the kind of thing which affected one specific production run and Canon will say "if your camera's serial number is between [###] and [###], send it in."

The majority of successful repairs that I have seen here in forum posts, including mine, involved replacing the mirror box assembly which includes the Af sensor due to improper assembly. Somewhere along the way the improper mounting often damages it enough that it cannot be salvaged and must be replaced. The entire system must then be recalibrated.

I'm certain they are diligently working on the root cause and will issue some sort of official statement once it's figured out.

In the mean time if anyone suspects it's not working like it should, dont wait for the warranty to expire. Call them or email them and arrange for it to be looked at.

Could you tell me if the shutter count was reset when you received the 7D2 back from repair? I'm sure I read somewhere that it gets reset when replacing the Mirror Box/AF Sensor.

Thanks

It was not reset. I only had a few thousand shots on it.

 

[tron]

I finally got my 7D2.

I verified that my 7D2 didn't need AFMA with or without 1.4XIII (I used SpyderLensCal and tripod in broad daylight).

I tried yesterday for the very first time to shoot some birds (seagulls) with 7DII and a 300 2.8 IS II with or without the 1.4XIII.

I believe what I mention below is a combination of user error and/or camera limits.

My (rather randomy expressed) observations (looking at 100% magnification but that's what I do in 5D3 + 100-400 pictures some of which I have cropped at 100% and remain excellent).

Well if I was a student and had to get 50% to pass I do not know if I would pass. OK the result was not a total disaster but from my point of view it was not satisfactory.

I have to say that my 5D3 + 100-400 II is a comfortable birding combination that serves me well - even with a 1.4XIII if I stop down 2/3 of a stop.

1. I got one or two very sharp pictures with the 1.4XIII (I was starting to think that it was a 300II+1.4XIII combination fault but at least one very sharp means no lens/teleconverter issues). So the culprit: user and/or camera.

2. I got some decent and a few very sharp pictures with 7D2 + 300mm 2.8 IS II (Most at f/4) but I could get these with my 5D3 + 100-400 II anyway.

OK 2.8 max aperture is much different from 5.6 but what is the point? My 7D2 exhibited noise even at ISO 400! I am comforable in boosting ISO much higher in my 5D3.

To be fair the tests were not the same. I was able to shoot seagulls with my 5D3 + 100-400 much closer. As a result I was able to: zoom in and out and put the AF zone in seagull's head. So I had many cases with very sharp eyes.

Most images were shot between 1/3200 and 1/8000 at f/4. I was using mostly AF Servo. Initially Case 1 but soon I changed it to case 6 (with a little changed values to increase responsiveness). In addition both initial and future pictures were at Focus priority (since release priority at 10fps produced many garbage images).

Other comments. The 7D2's AF system seemed to respond very well and very fast (zone mode) judging from the AF points that were detecting the bird.

I cannot decide If I was pushing 7D2 to its limits or If I must return it. SInce I am not an expert bird shooter I have to improve but everything (= very good results) seems easier with 5D3. To be fair I will test at f/5.6 to compare with (5D3 + 100-400).

I will test again with 5D3 + 300 + 1.4x or +2x. I hope - in fact I am sure - I will get better results...

 

[East Wind Photography]

I finally got my 7D2.

I verified that my 7D2 didn't need AFMA with or without 1.4XIII (I used SpyderLensCal and tripod in broad daylight).

I tried yesterday for the very first time to shoot some birds (seagulls) with 7DII and a 300 2.8 IS II with or without the 1.4XIII.

I believe what I mention below is a combination of user error and/or camera limits.

My (rather randomy expressed) observations (looking at 100% magnification but that's what I do in 5D3 + 100-400 pictures some of which I have cropped at 100% and remain excellent).

Well if I was a student and had to get 50% to pass I do not know if I would pass. OK the result was not a total disaster but from my point of view it was not satisfactory.

I have to say that my 5D3 + 100-400 II is a comfortable birding combination that serves me well - even with a 1.4XIII if I stop down 2/3 of a stop.

1. I got one or two very sharp pictures with the 1.4XIII (I was starting to think that it was a 300II+1.4XIII combination fault but at least one very sharp means no lens/teleconverter issues). So the culprit: user and/or camera.

2. I got some decent and a few very sharp pictures with 7D2 + 300mm 2.8 IS II (Most at f/4) but I could get these with my 5D3 + 100-400 II anyway.

OK 2.8 max aperture is much different from 5.6 but what is the point? My 7D2 exhibited noise even at ISO 400! I am comforable in boosting ISO much higher in my 5D3.

To be fair the tests were not the same. I was able to shoot seagulls with my 5D3 + 100-400 much closer. As a result I was able to: zoom in and out and put the AF zone in seagull's head. So I had many cases with very sharp eyes.

Most images were shot between 1/3200 and 1/8000 at f/4. I was using mostly AF Servo. Initially Case 1 but soon I changed it to case 6 (with a little changed values to increase responsiveness). In addition both initial and future pictures were at Focus priority (since release priority at 10fps produced many garbage images).

Other comments. The 7D2's AF system seemed to respond very well and very fast (zone mode) judging from the AF points that were detecting the bird.

I cannot decide If I was pushing 7D2 to its limits or If I must return it. SInce I am not an expert bird shooter I have to improve but everything (= very good results) seems easier with 5D3. To be fair I will test at f/5.6 to compare with (5D3 + 100-400).

I will test again with 5D3 + 300 + 1.4x or +2x. I hope - in fact I am sure - I will get better results...

The effects of the crop factor also magnify camera shake. Remember at 300mm with 1.4x you are really shooting at 672mm. I routinely use my 2xiii hand held and yes you need to use IS and even then at 100x you get shots with motion blur. However I am getting tack sharp photos with that combo when my own faults are removed from the shot.

I also use the 300 by itself to shoot soccer and its flawlessly amazing. I also have the 5d3 and yes it has lower noise and higher useable ISO. However for wildlife most of the time I need the crop factor and cropping the 5d3 image often doesn't cut it. Particularly when wolves or bears are the subject. I also don't see any noise I can't filter out until ISO 3200. Everything under that is easily removed either in camera or with ACR or DxO. I still like the 5d3 images a bit better but for the system as a whole, I like the 7d2 better.

Just keep at it for a bit. One or two sessions are not enough to make a determination.

 

[tron]

I finally got my 7D2.

I verified that my 7D2 didn't need AFMA with or without 1.4XIII (I used SpyderLensCal and tripod in broad daylight).

I tried yesterday for the very first time to shoot some birds (seagulls) with 7DII and a 300 2.8 IS II with or without the 1.4XIII.

I believe what I mention below is a combination of user error and/or camera limits.

My (rather randomy expressed) observations (looking at 100% magnification but that's what I do in 5D3 + 100-400 pictures some of which I have cropped at 100% and remain excellent).

Well if I was a student and had to get 50% to pass I do not know if I would pass. OK the result was not a total disaster but from my point of view it was not satisfactory.

I have to say that my 5D3 + 100-400 II is a comfortable birding combination that serves me well - even with a 1.4XIII if I stop down 2/3 of a stop.

1. I got one or two very sharp pictures with the 1.4XIII (I was starting to think that it was a 300II+1.4XIII combination fault but at least one very sharp means no lens/teleconverter issues). So the culprit: user and/or camera.

2. I got some decent and a few very sharp pictures with 7D2 + 300mm 2.8 IS II (Most at f/4) but I could get these with my 5D3 + 100-400 II anyway.

OK 2.8 max aperture is much different from 5.6 but what is the point? My 7D2 exhibited noise even at ISO 400! I am comforable in boosting ISO much higher in my 5D3.

To be fair the tests were not the same. I was able to shoot seagulls with my 5D3 + 100-400 much closer. As a result I was able to: zoom in and out and put the AF zone in seagull's head. So I had many cases with very sharp eyes.

Most images were shot between 1/3200 and 1/8000 at f/4. I was using mostly AF Servo. Initially Case 1 but soon I changed it to case 6 (with a little changed values to increase responsiveness). In addition both initial and future pictures were at Focus priority (since release priority at 10fps produced many garbage images).

Other comments. The 7D2's AF system seemed to respond very well and very fast (zone mode) judging from the AF points that were detecting the bird.

I cannot decide If I was pushing 7D2 to its limits or If I must return it. SInce I am not an expert bird shooter I have to improve but everything (= very good results) seems easier with 5D3. To be fair I will test at f/5.6 to compare with (5D3 + 100-400).

I will test again with 5D3 + 300 + 1.4x or +2x. I hope - in fact I am sure - I will get better results...

The effects of the crop factor also magnify camera shake. Remember at 300mm with 1.4x you are really shooting at 672mm. I routinely use my 2xiii hand held and yes you need to use IS and even then at 100x you get shots with motion blur. However I am getting tack sharp photos with that combo when my own faults are removed from the shot.

I also use the 300 by itself to shoot soccer and its flawlessly amazing. I also have the 5d3 and yes it has lower noise and higher useable ISO. However for wildlife most of the time I need the crop factor and cropping the 5d3 image often doesn't cut it. Particularly when wolves or bears are the subject. I also don't see any noise I can't filter out until ISO 3200. Everything under that is easily removed either in camera or with ACR or DxO. I still like the 5d3 images a bit better but for the system as a whole, I like the 7d2 better.

Just keep at it for a bit. One or two sessions are not enough to make a determination.

This seems really good advise. I will keep it (mostly because repeated AFMA tests seem consistent which means it has to be user error. However, shutter speed was high (1/3200 - 1/8000) and the majority of the picures were without 1.4X so it was 480 equivalent. If I compare these with 5D3 with 100-400 + 1.4X (OK it was a handful of distant shots) the latter combination is much better! I was able to remove most of the noice in ACR 9.0. In the near future the bird shots will also include the use of a 500 f/4 IS II with a 5D3 just to compare (not weight though...) Fortnately in the place I work most of the time, a small river passes (under/in between the beggining of a national road!) and we are close to the sea so there are seagulls...

 

[tron]

Just a thought. Could IS interfere with very high shooting speeds?

I was using IS mode 1 (OK I know that IS mode 2 is more relative).

By looking at my 7D2+300+1.4X pictures I found some very sharp, some so so a few (2 to 5) pictures that seem like having blur from movement (shutter at 1/6400) targets at medium to large distance.

Later I switched to mode 3 (but that was after I had removed the teleconverter). I haven't checked these yet...

EDIT: I have checked the 300+1.4X photos: 28 out of 69 are sharp.

It is much more difficult (time consuming to check the 1800+ 7D2+300 photos though...

 

[Travelintrevor]

I am on the fence about keeping/selling the 7D MK II because of the hit-or-miss focusing. At first, I was a huge fan of the camera and started to leave the MK III at home when shooting family/private work. I shot a few low light events (even lighting) and the camera did great.

The 7D MK II definitely has issues focusing under certain lighting conditions (back lighting and high contrast scenes) and this is why I am considering selling it. The improved DR/ability to push shadows is a huge improvement over the MK III and shows that Canon is heading in the right direction in regards to DR. The ergonomics/programmability are also 2nd to none. The IQ is also extremely good. At lower ISO values, just as good as the MK III. I did a few comparison shots early on and none of us could tell the difference up to 800 ISO or so.

But that focusing issue is real....it does not just slightly miss....it just complete fails. As a backup camera, I am having a difficult time trusting it. At my last wedding, I used it for 20 pictures because the first 7 in a row were OOF.

Lenses used were, for example, the 135L, 50 1.2 and 24-70 II, etc. Lenses that work fine on the 5D MK III under the same lighting conditions...

I have some thinking to do...selling it won't be easy because the camera is a lot of fun to use

PS: The streak across the eyes was intentional.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Just a thought. Could IS interfere with very high shooting speeds?

I was using IS mode 1 (OK I know that IS mode 2 is more relative).

By looking at my 7D2+300+1.4X pictures I found some very sharp, some so so a few (2 to 5) pictures that seem like having blur from movement (shutter at 1/6400) targets at medium to large distance.

Later I switched to mode 3 (but that was after I had removed the teleconverter). I haven't checked these yet...

EDIT: I have checked the 300+1.4X photos: 28 out of 69 are sharp.

It is much more difficult (time consuming to check the 1800+ 7D2+300 photos though...

I thought that at first but I'm convinced it helps by partially stabilizing the mirror flap. I've heard all kinds of stories about which is mode to use where. I rarely use mode 3 unless im shooting birds in flight. I mostly use mode 2 even for sports. The extra stabilization let's me hold focus better on faces at high magnification. Mode 1 is used only for static subjects.

My copy after service by canon is getting me about 95% in focus hit rate. The other 5% is due to motion blur.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I am on the fence about keeping/selling the 7D MK II because of the hit-or-miss focusing. At first, I was a huge fan of the camera and started to leave the MK III at home when shooting family/private work. I shot a few low light events (even lighting) and the camera did great.

The 7D MK II definitely has issues focusing under certain lighting conditions (back lighting and high contrast scenes) and this is why I am considering selling it. The improved DR/ability to push shadows is a huge improvement over the MK III and shows that Canon is heading in the right direction in regards to DR. The ergonomics/programmability are also 2nd to none. The IQ is also extremely good. At lower ISO values, just as good as the MK III. I did a few comparison shots early on and none of us could tell the difference up to 800 ISO or so.

But that focusing issue is real....it does not just slightly miss....it just complete fails. As a backup camera, I am having a difficult time trusting it. At my last wedding, I used it for 20 pictures because the first 7 in a row were OOF.

Lenses used were, for example, the 135L, 50 1.2 and 24-70 II, etc. Lenses that work fine on the 5D MK III under the same lighting conditions...

I have some thinking to do...selling it won't be easy because the camera is a lot of fun to use

PS: The streak across the eyes was intentional.

The only focus issue I have is on strong back lighting. I went and verified the issue on the same scene with my 5d3 and also have the same issue so I don't believe it's the camera. In those instances I just manual focus. I use back button AF only.

For all other scenes I get a very high success rate..a tad better than my 5d3.

If you are getting less than 90% in focus, return it or send it in to canon for evaluation and repair. Mine was quite a bit worse when I first got it. Canon replaced the mirror box and AF sensor and Recalibrated everything and I'm 100% sold on this model now. It is my go to camera unless I need full frame or higher iso.

 

[tron]

Just a thought. Could IS interfere with very high shooting speeds?

I was using IS mode 1 (OK I know that IS mode 2 is more relative).

By looking at my 7D2+300+1.4X pictures I found some very sharp, some so so a few (2 to 5) pictures that seem like having blur from movement (shutter at 1/6400) targets at medium to large distance.

Later I switched to mode 3 (but that was after I had removed the teleconverter). I haven't checked these yet...

EDIT: I have checked the 300+1.4X photos: 28 out of 69 are sharp.

It is much more difficult (time consuming to check the 1800+ 7D2+300 photos though...

I thought that at first but I'm convinced it helps by partially stabilizing the mirror flap. I've heard all kinds of stories about which is mode to use where. I rarely use mode 3 unless im shooting birds in flight. I mostly use mode 2 even for sports. The extra stabilization let's me hold focus better on faces at high magnification. Mode 1 is used only for static subjects.

My copy after service by canon is getting me about 95% in focus hit rate. The other 5% is due to motion blur.

I have attached a case of a very bad photo/failure: 100% magnification 1/5000 sec f/4 7D2 + 300mm f 2.8 IS II +14XIII

 

[tron]

Now check this. 100% too. Same shutter speed, aperture, camera, lens, teleconverter. No processing, no sharpening. Just as displayed on screen via bridge.

 

[tron]

Here is something similar to the first bad picture in size. 100% and same settings. No sharpening