Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II

[ahsanford]

Im buying it, and I generally agree with the review. I dont carry my 7D much now unless its for birds or underwater, I bought a 6D for people, but even that with lenses is starting to feel relatively heavy, given what image quality you can get with smaller cameras now for walkaround photography.

The market has changed, and most people wont want what this camera offers in exchange for the downsides for your average joe - if they just bought it on the basis of the plaudits it will get without realising its relative specialisation in todays market, they would be shortchanged.

The wildcard is, of course, how many people see the 7D2 as a specialist's tool and how many see it as a roundly robust camera for general photography?

Enthusiasts see the 7D2 as being a camera for the reach-obsessed and budget constrained. And there are sports/wildlife/birding folks out there that will be able to do 95% as much with a 7D2 + 400 prime as those with a 1DX + 600 prime for a ton less money.

But, let's face it, those folks have to be only, what, five percent of the eventual people that will end up buying a 7D2? Sure, we talk about them. Sure, the value proposition is through the roof for those folks. But how many really are there?

So, yes, Gizmodo readers and Best Buy walk-in dudes/dudettes will buy one because it's new, it's powerful, and it's built to last. They aren't hung up on SLR footprint, size, weight, etc. They also aren't hung up on needing a FF sensor. But man, will it nail the shot of their kid at a school concert, sporting event, family trip, etc.

Plus, I also think it's a relative top-end camera for the beginning pro photographer (the small-town photjournalist was a great comment someone made) who is on a tight budget. If a starting photog has $2-3k to invest in a new system, not all of them will take Canon/Nikon's entry level FF rigs -- they very well may see a better value in a loaded APS-C rig or a mirrorless APS-C rig, a few lenses, and a flash.

- A

 

[Marauder]

...Once the hype is over and reality sets in, it will be seen as a camera for special purposes, and over priced for 99% of new DSLR users who buy a DSLR, then don't like the shallow depth of field, and put it in a closet. This forum has lots of camera enthusiasts, but is not representative of the average DSLR buyer who goes to Best Buy or Amazon and buys one that looks impressive.

I think you underestimate Canon's market research.

I doubt if they ever considered new DSLR buyers to be a major market for the 7D and even less so for the 7D II.

"Overpriced" – Of course that is in the eye of the buyer. But, I doubt if serious action shooters, wildlife and bird shooters will consider it overpriced if if gets them pictures they could not get without spending $7,000 on a 1Dx or might not be able to get by spending $3,000 on a 5DIII.

Canon does an exceptional job of researching the market and then pinpointing their products to buyers. This is clearly targeted to some lucrative markets.

A few:

Helicopter parents who are willing to spend almost any amount in order to preserve their children's high school sports careers, which for most high school athletes, will be the pinnacle of their sports careers. Take the number of starting players in any sport, multiply it by the number of sports offered at your average high school and then multiply that by the number of high schools in the United State's alone...then add in all the high school yearbook advisers who will need this camera for their student photographers. Just selling the 7DII to a fraction of that market will make it a best seller.

Birding is one of the most popular and fastest growing outdoor activities, especially among the burgeoning and high-disposable income baby-boomer generation. Couple this body with either the Tamron or the Sigma 600 zooms and birders finally have a package that allows them to take pictures of the same quality as they see in publications. (and yes...Canon is missing out by not offering an alternative to the Tamron and Sigma...yet)

The newspaper business may be dying, but the ones that remain are increasingly reliant on web galleries and print sales to boost income. Most smaller papers expect photographers to buy their own cameras and don't pay them enough to buy a 5D, much less a 1Dx. The 7D will become the tool of choice for small market photojournalists.

Whatever else you might think about the 7DII, you can't really argue that Canon has once again pinpointed a market and crafted a product that meets that market's needs. 5DIII -- tool of choice for wedding and event photographers; 6D -- step up camera for those wanting to move to full frame; and now the 7DII perfectly targeted to its audience.

Bravo! I don't think I could possibly have said it better. I think that many, including the Gizmodo reviewer, are badly underestimating the appeal of this camera. There are MANY people who want to shoot "fast moving subjects" with a high hit rate, fantastic burst and deep buffer.

I suspect far too many reviewers who are biased towards traditional portrait/landscape/street photography centric cameras will make the same mistake made in this review (and also by many posting in this forum). They've become so used to cameras being optimised for the same (over saturated) target markets that they cannot seem to see how amazing it is that Canon has broken the trend to create something unique.

The notion that the "wildlife/sports/action" shooter is always going to be a pro who represents a small market and who has enough cash to get into a 1DX seems rather firmly entrenched in the minds of many. But the truth is, there are LOTS of amateur "enthusiast" photographers who want to capture images of those same, difficult and challenging subjects without spending the same money as they would for a second hand car! The 7D II is a dream come true for anyone who wants to shoot fast moving and challenging subjects and get fantastic results reliably.

I'm not opposed to mirrorless cameras that are compact and low visibility for street photographers, nor am I opposed to high megapixel cameras for studio work, or good general purpose cameras for wedding and event photographers and portrait photographers. But I am opposed to the notion that all cameras must cater to those groups, almost exclusively. It's rather narrow-minded and silly. I think the appeal of a camera with first rate autofocus, fast burst rate and a deep enough buffer to capture an entire action sequence, all for under 2 grand, is going to be immense! Sadly, I think too many reviewers are so biased towards photographing more sedentary subjects that they will largely miss the point.

But the reality is, I think Canon understands how lucrative a market they are tapping by creating the 7D II. While all the critics are moaning that this isn't another cookie cutter camera aimed at the same, oversaturated markets all the other manufacturers are chasing, Canon has created a "1DX for the rest of us." Kudos to them for doing it!!!

 

[Chapman Baxter]

Believe it or not, reviews by these Gizmodo, Engadget, etc. types are helpful -- though fluffy and anti-technical -- in that they speak to the bigger picture of the camera in a much larger ecosystem. The Best Buy shopper comment is spot on.

If you have a cabinet full of lenses, you realistically only have one or two camera bodies to consider, so the original 7D2 announcement either sent you immediately reaching for your credit card or immediately back to the forums to pine for Canon's next camera down the road.

But if you aren't heavily invested in a specific mount, and if you are in the market to do so, and if you are a gadget guy/gal and you want to stay on 'top' of the latest tech, the buzz around mirrorless is deafening in comparison to 'yet another SLR with slightly better specs'. These folks would rather own a Tesla than a similarly priced Mercedes or Cadillac. The tech these folks buy is an extension of their worldview, and (provided the quality is comparable), they'd rather buy tech that places them on the bleeding edge than with the herd.

So as non-technical and populist as this review is, he makes a fair point. The value proposition of SLRs continues to wane as mirrorless gets smaller form factor, gets more 'pro' options/components, better EVFs, etc. Further, comments like 'the only reason to get this is high burst rate with AF tracking' -- given that he called the stills only marginally better than the 70D -- is damning.

I still am an SLR person. It's OVF or bust for me. And yes, I eagerly await Bryan Carnathan and other respected reviewers to kick the tires like the professionals that they are with a killer review in our terms, in our language, etc.

- A

This.

From the viewpoint of the wider ecosystem ahsanford refers to, I don't disagree with the reviewer's overall view.

 

[Otara]

The wildcard is, of course, how many people see the 7D2 as a specialist's tool and how many see it as a roundly robust camera for general photography?

Enthusiasts see the 7D2 as being a camera for the reach-obsessed and budget constrained. And there are sports/wildlife/birding folks out there that will be able to do 95% as much with a 7D2 + 400 prime as those with a 1DX + 600 prime for a ton less money.

But, let's face it, those folks have to be only, what, five percent of the eventual people that will end up buying a 7D2? Sure, we talk about them. Sure, the value proposition is through the roof for those folks. But how many really are there?

So, yes, Gizmodo readers and Best Buy walk-in dudes/dudettes will buy one because it's new, it's powerful, and it's built to last. They aren't hung up on SLR footprint, size, weight, etc. They also aren't hung up on needing a FF sensor. But man, will it nail the shot of their kid at a school concert, sporting event, family trip, etc.

Im sure thats what the salespeople will be saying to them in order to sell it, but the first comment I get from almost everyone picking up my 7D and 70-200mm F4 is 'wow thats heavy' and thats not exactly the heaviest lens around. Perception of camera weight alone has changed a fair bit in the last few years in my view.

 

[Phil L]

Not knocking the review, but just a few comments:

" timelapse intervalometer ... The de-flicker option is super useful for preventing the sharp jumps in exposure that happen when recording timelapses with auto-exposure."

I never shoot time lapse with auto-exposure. Does anybody shoot time lapse with auto exposure? You want smooth transitions of light changing especially in sunrise/sunset situations, so you have to go full manual.

I use my old 30D for time lapse with a Vello Shutterboss intervalometer so I don't run up clicks on my 7D.
I have the 7D II on pre order but I'm not too excited about the built in intervalometer since it tops out at 99 shots.
What's that going to give me? A few seconds of TL video?

 

[Gwathren]

I'm not too excited about the built in intervalometer since it tops out at 99 shots.
What's that going to give me? A few seconds of TL video?

The Canon website says it takes 1 to 99 shots at preselected intervals but also unlimited.

 

[Don Haines]

I'm not too excited about the built in intervalometer since it tops out at 99 shots.
What's that going to give me? A few seconds of TL video?

The Canon website says it takes 1 to 99 shots at preselected intervals but also unlimited.

That would make sense... go for a set number of shots, or run until stopped.... at a 0.5 second interval it should only take me 20 hours and 50 minutes to hit the rated shutter life

 

[Gwathren]

I'm not too excited about the built in intervalometer since it tops out at 99 shots.
What's that going to give me? A few seconds of TL video?

The Canon website says it takes 1 to 99 shots at preselected intervals but also unlimited.

That would make sense... go for a set number of shots, or run until stopped.... at a 0.5 second interval it should only take me 20 hours and 50 minutes to hit the rated shutter life

Thanks God the battery wouldn't hold so far !

 

[meywd]

I'm not too excited about the built in intervalometer since it tops out at 99 shots.
What's that going to give me? A few seconds of TL video?

The Canon website says it takes 1 to 99 shots at preselected intervals but also unlimited.

That would make sense... go for a set number of shots, or run until stopped.... at a 0.5 second interval it should only take me 20 hours and 50 minutes to hit the rated shutter life

Thanks God the battery wouldn't hold so far !

or the buffer

 

[Phil L]

I'm not too excited about the built in intervalometer since it tops out at 99 shots.
What's that going to give me? A few seconds of TL video?

The Canon website says it takes 1 to 99 shots at preselected intervals but also unlimited.

Does it really?!? Excellent! Now I feel better about it.

 

[meywd]

I'm not too excited about the built in intervalometer since it tops out at 99 shots.
What's that going to give me? A few seconds of TL video?

The Canon website says it takes 1 to 99 shots at preselected intervals but also unlimited.

Does it really?!? Excellent! Now I feel better about it.

Yeah can check it here at page 250 of the manual