Images and Specifications for the Canon EOS 2000D/EOS Rebel T7

[Talys]

I will take this over the 7D2 for birding (and especially the 7D2 since it’s only 20MP).

Preferring the lowest entry level camera to 7D2 for birding merely for 4 additional Mpixels borderlines to a troll's statement. I do not believe this is your intention though. I believe you haven't tried to shoot even one bird instead. You cannot compare 7D2 handling with the joystick, button reassignment, 65 AF point system, fps and buffer to a toy camera with just 4Mp more than 7D2.

The ratio of tack-sharp autofocused images is much lower without AFMA, especially as focal lengths increase.

Birding is such an expensive hobby not because it isn't possible to great good photos with cheap equipment, but because the ratio of great photos is so low when we start the hobby. We pay ridiculous amounts of money for little improvements because each one of them helps a tiny bit to get 'the shot'.

I've gotten some good shots with a t2i and 70-300 (where I started with birding). But the problem is, the many, many poor shots.

 

[9VIII]

I will take this over the 7D2 for birding (and especially the 7D2 since it’s only 20MP).

Preferring the lowest entry level camera to 7D2 for birding merely for 4 additional Mpixels borderlines to a troll's statement. I do not believe this is your intention though. I believe you haven't tried to shoot even one bird instead. You cannot compare 7D2 handling with the joystick, button reassignment, 65 AF point system, fps and buffer to a toy camera with just 4Mp more than 7D2.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg663105#msg663105

The first one which is sharper (or better focused) than the others is really very nice! But I do not believe you shot them with a 1300D like camera, did you?

Here’s some better samples.







Yes, the Canon T3 (1100D) shoots BIF.

 

[9VIII]

...But the problem is, the many, many poor shots.

Agreed, that said, you still hear about people using center point AF even with fancy systems, and even shooting 2.5fps I still get way too many images to pick from, if I had a 7D I would mostly just be culling thousands of images instead of hundred.
The only thing a nice burst does is let you pick the position of the wings within a single flap (or at least that’s what I imagine 10fps to be like), rather than hoping to catch a good pose.

Most of the time the biggest problem is still “I decided to go hiking without my camera today! Oh look the hawks are snuggling in the top of that tree! A million dollar moment and no camera, Oh well.”

 

[tron]

Here is a 100% crop from 7D2, 400 + 1.4 (you have to click on it to see it max size). ISO 1250. The bird was far away and sitting in the dark so not satisfied 100% but still decent after PP. The issue is that with birds who do not help us by posing close we need the best we get get from our equipment. And AFMA helps.

 

[tron]

And this is a 100% crop from 7D2.

 

[Talys]

Agreed, that said, you still hear about people using center point AF even with fancy systems, and even shooting 2.5fps I still get way too many images to pick from, if I had a 7D I would mostly just be culling thousands of images instead of hundred.

I use the center point with the little rectangle in the middle as my preference. I still find that when it's busy (not blue sky) it's the easiest way to get the camera to focus on the right subject.

I took these two a couple of days ago using center point AF on a 6DII. I've borrowed a 5D4 to consider whether it's worth the purchase just for birding, and to be honest, I did not really get a much different keeper rate using iTTR or center zone plus expanding points. FWIW, I took 982 photos that day, and 529 made the first cut, which for me requires subject in-focus, and not a stupid crop or obviously useless position (like part of the bird cut off in flight, way too far in the distance, sun behind the bird, got back of head, etc).

The things that have made the biggest difference for me with birding is that FF allows me to shoot higher ISOs (therefore higher shutter speeds), and the Canon 100-400LII.

The bald eagle portrait was shot with a 100-400LII and 1.4x, ISO 2000, 1/2000 f/8. The BIF of the juvenile eagle is without the extender at 1/2500.

All of the photos are 100% crops (not reduced); the bottom one is at 1:1 pixels for the forum (700 pixel wide) so that it's not necessary to open to see pixel sharpness.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Here’s some better samples.



Yes, the Canon T3 (1100D) shoots BIF.

Sorry, but neither of those shots are sharp, particularly the flight shot is noticeably soft. If you are intending to show the utility of the T3 for birds and/or birds in flight, these examples aren’t helping your case.

Here’s one of my shots of a great horned owl nestling for comparison (there’s a second owlet in the nest, hidden behind the branches on the left). I trust you can see the difference in sharpness.

“Great Horned Owlet”

EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/500 s, f/5.6, ISO 400

I’m not sure what lens you were using on the T3 (I’m guessing an EF-S 55-250mm?), but here’s an example of a sharp image with a non-L lens (the EF-M 55-200mm).

”Down the Hatch”

EOS M2, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM @ 200mm, 1/1600 s, f/6.3, ISO 800

 

[Talys]

@neuro - nice shots The great horned owl looks like it's moulting and none to happy being photographed hahaha. The heron photo is a great moment!

 

[yjchua95]

Here’s some better samples.







Yes, the Canon T3 (1100D) shoots BIF.

IMO these aren't sharp by a long shot. They're pretty soft.

The shots here are non-L as well (Tamron 70-300 VC USD, 6D Mark II). Mine aren't all that sharp either, but they aren't soft to the point that it looks OOF or fuzzy.

Yes, it's possible to get sharp images using non-L, but just not with lenses like the 18-200 or 55-250. The 18-135's pretty decent though.

Note: Due to CR downsizing my images (they're at full resolution), they may appear soft at first glance until it's opened in full screen).

 

[Sharlin]

Yes, it's possible to get sharp images using non-L, but just not with lenses like the 18-200 or 55-250. The 18-135's pretty decent though.

I should note that actually the EF-S 55-250mm STM specifically is very sharp and ridiculously good value for an APS-C shooter. It beats the Tamron 70-300mm VC at 250mm; the Tamron, while a good lens, starts to fall apart IQ-wise beyond 200mm or so on modern high-density crop sensors.

 

[9VIII]

Sorry, but neither of those shots are sharp, particularly the flight shot is noticeably soft. If you are intending to show the utility of the T3 for birds and/or birds in flight, these examples aren’t helping your case.

Actually you’re making my case quite well for me, the 24MP sensor of the new T7 is a huge functional upgrade over older bodies.
I’m well aware that the 400f5.6 isn’t being done justice with the T3.

The point of showing the pigeon is that the old 9 point AF systems aren’t completely useless.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sorry, but neither of those shots are sharp, particularly the flight shot is noticeably soft. If you are intending to show the utility of the T3 for birds and/or birds in flight, these examples aren’t helping your case.

Actually you’re making my case quite well for me, the 24MP sensor of the new T7 is a huge functional upgrade over older bodies.
I’m well aware that the 400f5.6 isn’t being done justice with the T3.

The point of showing the pigeon is that the old 9 point AF systems aren’t completely useless.

Lol, so more MP will make a blurry image sharp? The problem with your shots isn't resolution, it's focus...bad focus.

(Oh, and while 12 MP to 24 MP may be a 'huge upgrade', the difference between 24 MP and the 20 MP of the 7DII is not really significant, and the 7DII is a whole helluva lot more functional than the T7.)

If you're happy with the pigeon image, then I'm glad. For me, both images would have been deleted at first review, with no hesitation. Missed focus is a missed shot, and those are clear misses. I'm not saying the 9-pt AF systems are useless, but that's because I know they can do far better than your images. If those shots were the best a 9-pt AF could do (particularly with a lens like the 400/5.6L), then that camera would go in the trash bin along with those images.

Here's one more example, shot with a T1i/500D (9-pt AF). Compare to your previous shots, and hopefully this time my point will sink in.

"Mallard at Sunset"

Rebel T1i, EF 300mm f/4L IS USM, 1/500 s, f/4, ISO 200

 

[tron]

I believe the one above the flying pigeon is a very near miss. Which means it could have been resolved by a series of many shots focused on the same or different points by moving the camera a little. That way it would mimic AFMA. Even with my 7D2 I take a few pictures to be on the safe side since I have to magnify bird shots at 100% due to distance (even at 400,500 or 560mm).

That trick works for me. 9VIII I do not believe you have anything to lose trying it and there is always the delete button if the result isn't worthy.

 

[yjchua95]

Sorry, but neither of those shots are sharp, particularly the flight shot is noticeably soft. If you are intending to show the utility of the T3 for birds and/or birds in flight, these examples aren’t helping your case.

Actually you’re making my case quite well for me, the 24MP sensor of the new T7 is a huge functional upgrade over older bodies.
I’m well aware that the 400f5.6 isn’t being done justice with the T3.

The point of showing the pigeon is that the old 9 point AF systems aren’t completely useless.

*facepalm*

Resolution and lens isn't the limiting factor here. 12MP is more than enough, and the 400mm f/5.6L is far better than any lens than I currently have.

It's your focusing skills and/or AF performance getting in the way.

This here was shot using the center AF point, AI servo using back button focusing, 100mm f/2.8L macro on a 9-point system too, at 12MP.

 

[9VIII]

hopefully this time my point will sink in.

You got twice as close to the subject, congratulations on giving a completely irrelevant example. (Just like the bird shot with the 100f2.8 Macro.)

I’ll upload a RAW file in a few days when I have access to them again.

the 7DII is a whole helluva lot more functional than the T7.)

The functionality of the T7 is infinitely better as long as the 7D2 is left sitting on a shelf because it’s too big.
The SL2 with the internals of the 7D2 (or as close as they can get) would be the ultimate wildlife camera.

 

[9VIII]

Lol, so more MP will make a blurry image sharp?

Yes.

Here's one more example, shot with a T1i/500D (9-pt AF). Compare to your previous shots, and hopefully this time my point will sink in.

"Mallard at Sunset"

Rebel T1i, EF 300mm f/4L IS USM, 1/500 s, f/4, ISO 200

Here’s the sharpness of the T3 vs. The T1i, I’m pretty sure the Owl shot with the T3 is focused about as well as possible.

(EDIT: Ok I looked again, I can see the leaves in the background are sharper than the owls, I must have chosen this phtot for the pose over sharpness.
Which does not change the fact that the 12MP T3 sensor is the bottleneck in IQ on that lens/body combination)


https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=760&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=488&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

 

[yjchua95]

Lol, so more MP will make a blurry image sharp?

Yes.

Here's one more example, shot with a T1i/500D (9-pt AF). Compare to your previous shots, and hopefully this time my point will sink in.

"Mallard at Sunset"

Rebel T1i, EF 300mm f/4L IS USM, 1/500 s, f/4, ISO 200

Here’s the sharpness of the T3 vs. The T1i, I’m pretty sure the Owl shot with the T3 is focused about as well as possible.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=760&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=488&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Lemme just put it this way.

See the peacock here?

That was with an 18MP EOS 60D (9-point AF, all cross type).

And it's nowhere sharp. Simply because it was out of focus (and the lens didn't help either, it was a crappy Tamron 18-270mm first-generation, shot at 77mm).

That bird with the 100mm macro was actually further away, mind you (and with the same camera too, but downsampled to a lower resolution).

Waste your money if you must on a better body, it's your money after all. I'm just telling you that a better body won't magically make your shots better. You're far from hitting the limitations of your 1100D/T3.

Here's a sample with a 1100D/T3: https://500px.com/photo/147007539/eurasian-tree-sparrow-by-laura-lehtola

And it's pretty good. Shot at 400mm too, and considering the size of the bird relative to the frame, the distance would've been just as far. Distances with these type of shots wouldn't affect sharpness.

 

[tron]

hopefully this time my point will sink in.

You got twice as close to the subject, congratulations on giving a completely irrelevant example. (Just like the bird shot with the 100f2.8 Macro.)

I’ll upload a RAW file in a few days when I have access to them again.

the 7DII is a whole helluva lot more functional than the T7.)

The functionality of the T7 is infinitely better as long as the 7D2 is left sitting on a shelf because it’s too big.
The SL2 with the internals of the 7D2 (or as close as they can get) would be the ultimate wildlife camera.

7D2 is not too big! And yes SL2 is a nice little camera but it does not have AFMA unfortunately.
In case you are interested I have made some focusing suggestions above that may - or may not - help to mitigate the lack of AFMA (at least for static subjects).

 

[9VIII]

Lol, so more MP will make a blurry image sharp?

Yes.

Here's one more example, shot with a T1i/500D (9-pt AF). Compare to your previous shots, and hopefully this time my point will sink in.

"Mallard at Sunset"

Rebel T1i, EF 300mm f/4L IS USM, 1/500 s, f/4, ISO 200

Here’s the sharpness of the T3 vs. The T1i, I’m pretty sure the Owl shot with the T3 is focused about as well as possible.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=760&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=488&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Lemme just put it this way.

See the peacock here?

That was with an 18MP EOS 60D (9-point AF, all cross type).

And it's nowhere sharp. Simply because it was out of focus (and the lens didn't help either, it was a crappy Tamron 18-270mm first-generation, shot at 77mm).

That bird with the 100mm macro was actually further away, mind you (and with the same camera too, but downsampled to a lower resolution).

Waste your money if you must on a better body, it's your money after all. I'm just telling you that a better body won't magically make your shots better. You're far from hitting the limitations of your 1100D/T3.

Here's a sample with a 1100D/T3: https://500px.com/photo/147007539/eurasian-tree-sparrow-by-laura-lehtola

And it's pretty good. Shot at 400mm too, and considering the size of the bird relative to the frame, the distance would've been just as far. Distances with these type of shots wouldn't affect sharpness.

Using a downsampled 18MP image is nothing like using a 12MP sensor, you guys are doing a really bad job of dismantling my argument.

However, I do see now that it’s OOF (leaves in the background are sharp), probably a rookie mistake, but as they say “Content is King”. There’s also another hundred or so shots I can pick from out of that batch so I’m sure I can find one that isn’t as bad.

 

[9VIII]

hopefully this time my point will sink in.

You got twice as close to the subject, congratulations on giving a completely irrelevant example. (Just like the bird shot with the 100f2.8 Macro.)

I’ll upload a RAW file in a few days when I have access to them again.

the 7DII is a whole helluva lot more functional than the T7.)

The functionality of the T7 is infinitely better as long as the 7D2 is left sitting on a shelf because it’s too big.
The SL2 with the internals of the 7D2 (or as close as they can get) would be the ultimate wildlife camera.

7D2 is not too big! And yes SL2 is a nice little camera but it does not have AFMA unfortunately.
In case you are interested I have made some focusing suggestions above that may - or may not - help to mitigate the lack of AFMA (at least for static subjects).

I vaguely remember experimenting with using single shot and continuous autofocus during that shooting session, I think my conclusion was continuous does a bad job of getting things steadily in focus, at least on this camera, which may be one of the valid criticisms of the 9 point AF system on a cheap body. Single Shot AF is solid though.