No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

[Silverman]

I used to shoot a lot wildlife with the 7D and the 500 IS and since last year also with the 600 IS II - mainly EU / Germany. I used the 1.4x almost always to get more reach. I never was really impressed especially of the high ISO performance of the 7D...
Since I saw the first rumors about the 7D II I was looking forward to the release of this new body - and was hoping for improved performance. Meanwhile I saved to buy it directly after release but now I have to admit that I just bought a 5D III and I am delighted!
I use it with the 1.4x on the 100-400 and with the 1.4x and 2x (with the new firmware) on the 600 IS II - all setups make me very happy I do not miss the "more" in fps since I have a much higher keeper rate right now.
By 2014 the price of the 5D III may have come down more - making the 7D II obsolete for myself.
Personally I am much more interested in the 100-400 II release date now...

 

[crasher8]

Time to start the 7D2 piggy bank fund.

 

[Silverman]

This is a difficult question and I think it depends on the copy of the lens and the converter version. Also good lens / body AF adjustment is important.

Personally I think the "new" 500 IS II and 600 IS II are a only "little" better IQ wise (sharper / contrast) to the "old" 500 IS and 600 IS. AF performance is not so much a difference and IS is of course improved. If you are happy with the old lens I do not know if the upgrade from the old IS to the IS II makes sense...

When adding a 1.4x TK III, the new IS II lenses are superior to the older IS lenses with added 1.4 TK. Also AF works faster.
Adding a 2x TK III to the new IS II lenses and tracking subjects only is possilbe with the 5D III and 1DX. For expample I can still track birds in flight easly with the 600 IS II and TK 2x III - even with not optimal light and a good keeper rate.
When you cannot get close enought to the subject - then I think the IS II lenses with the 2x IIIer Converters make sense. I personally find the IQ of the 600 IS II with the 2x III Converter far better than the 7D with the 500 IS and 1.4 III Converter. It is hard to believe but I actually think of selling my 7D now - but maybe hold it just for the CPS Membership

A friend of mine uses the 500 IS with 1.4x II Converter and also switched from 7D to 5D III. Since that day his 7D is only beeing used as a backup. Now he also starts to use the 2x III Converter with the 5D III after the firmware update and is very happy.

Lets face the reality:
7D is an outstanding camera but IQ struggles with higher ISO.
500 IS lens is one of the best wildlife lenses available. You still get very good image quality with 1.4x and decent with 2x.
5D III is also an outstanding camera and if you do not live from wildlife photography there is no need for "more".
The new 500 and 600 IS II lenses are maybe the "best" available wildlife lenses available. Adding 1.4x almost shows no difference than without and adding 2x the image quality is still superb.
The 7D II is not beeing released soon and who knows which features it will provide. I personally would actually go ALWAYS with the 5D III which gives you also everything you need beside wildlife.

 

[bdunbar79]

Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...

Give the cheap violin to the beginner and the output won't get worse. Give the Stradivarius to the master and the sounds will get significantly more beautiful.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that while skill is the most important factor, the tools do matter.

I get so sick and tired of this "it's all the photographer and not any of the equipment" garbage too. There's a reason that every SI shooter on NFL sidelines have a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8L II IS lens. Because it matters.

There's also a reason I can do a heck of a lot more clean 8x10 printing NOW versus IN THE PAST for indoor sports. It's because of my 1Dx and only because of my 1Dx. The prints I'm doing now I just didn't do in the past because sensor was limiting with noise/IQ loss.

Is there something in my skill and technique that I was doing wrong before I bought my new camera that prevented me from doing so? Sure, sports photography has been going on for a long time, it's just now with better equipment, it's better.

 

[Sporgon]

Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...

Give the cheap violin to the beginner and the output won't get worse. Give the Stradivarius to the master and the sounds will get significantly more beautiful.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that while skill is the most important factor, the tools do matter.

I get so sick and tired of this "it's all the photographer and not any of the equipment" garbage too. There's a reason that every SI shooter on NFL sidelines have a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8L II IS lens. Because it matters.

There's also a reason I can do a heck of a lot more clean 8x10 printing NOW versus IN THE PAST for indoor sports. It's because of my 1Dx and only because of my 1Dx. The prints I'm doing now I just didn't do in the past because sensor was limiting with noise/IQ loss.

Is there something in my skill and technique that I was doing wrong before I bought my new camera that prevented me from doing so? Sure, sports photography has been going on for a long time, it's just now with better equipment, it's better.

Remember in the days before AF a sports shot of fast action, isolated with tiny depth of field was a rare and valuable picture. I can well remember one of a footballer heading a ball, picked out in razor sharp focus with the rest of the field a subtle blur. It was in all the papers and became an iconic shot.

Now those pictures are common place - in fact, expected, and that difference of course is due to the equipment.

 

[pedro]

Well, 0.18 nm or less from a sensor tech POV and the now rumored Digic VI would make a good pair in 2014. Sounds promising to everything FF as well...

 

[noisejammer]

Well, yeah - but when a brand new 'sensor' was developed by Fuji or Kodak with higher ISO or better color fidelity, you didn't need to buy a new camera, you just popped in a new roll. :

Haha... but seriously - is that really fair? Who has compared the image quality of a 7D with (say) 200ASA film. What about 1600ASA? What about 6400ASA? When I could afford it, I used hypered TP for astrophotography (iirc 2415). I WISH it could have looked look like a 7D at 200ISO.

Then there's this widespread belief that Sony is making better sensors. It may be true but it's then difficult to explain why most DSLR astrophotographers use Canon cameras.

I think the real issue is that Sony & Nikon have decent in-camera noise reduction. If you think about it, Canon cameras produce obvious pattern noise. There's a pattern present which means the noise is not entirely random. Getting rid of pattern noise is easy - measure it during manufacture, correct for sensor temperature, subtract it from the image and you're done.

My take is then that Canon needs get it's sensor production sorted out, not it's sensor technology.

 

[9VIII]

Hmm... All this talk of film equating to camera sensors makes me wish we had exchangeable camera backs (in which case you could get away with using the same body for long periods of time again).

Regardless of whether that ever happens, we're in a technology bubble right now. Things are advancing at an incredible pace at the moment but it can't last forever. There will come a day when you will buy a camera expecting it to be top of the line for a long time.
Someday your camera (and maybe even computer) will have the same pricing structure as standard kitchen appliances. Bigger vs. smaller, more features vs. less, better build vs. cheaper materials. All performing the same within their class, year after year.

In the meantime, I have full confidence that ten years from now the 1DX will be worth a tenth of it's current retail value.

 

[Sporgon]

^
I wouldn't be so confident with that last paragraph. Eight years on, here in the UK, the 1Ds mkii is still selling for 20% of it's original headline RRP, and about 30% of what it quickly gravitated to after the initial launch.

As you suggest, if technological advancements do slow, a ten year old 1Dx may be worth an even higher percentage of it's original purchase cost.

 

[bdunbar79]

Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...

Give the cheap violin to the beginner and the output won't get worse. Give the Stradivarius to the master and the sounds will get significantly more beautiful.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that while skill is the most important factor, the tools do matter.

I get so sick and tired of this "it's all the photographer and not any of the equipment" garbage too. There's a reason that every SI shooter on NFL sidelines have a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8L II IS lens. Because it matters.

There's also a reason I can do a heck of a lot more clean 8x10 printing NOW versus IN THE PAST for indoor sports. It's because of my 1Dx and only because of my 1Dx. The prints I'm doing now I just didn't do in the past because sensor was limiting with noise/IQ loss.

Is there something in my skill and technique that I was doing wrong before I bought my new camera that prevented me from doing so? Sure, sports photography has been going on for a long time, it's just now with better equipment, it's better.

do they, I have seen a lot of D4 and 200-400/4, nothing canon can show up yet
one reason that many shooters has gone to Nikon is 200-400/4 at ishochey, handbill and soccer, soccer a sport around the world who are many times bigger than the american fotball where some people running around in helmets and looking generally confused. The sport world is bigger than the U.S. and american football, its called soccer

Once again, and I mean ONCE AGAIN, you completely missed the point. Who cares if it's Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, who cares? You missed the bus.

 

[CanNotYet]

The sport world is bigger than the U.S. and american football, its called soccer

Ahem. Nowhere else than in the U.S. it is called soccer. The name of the game is "football". Pretty logical, as you play it with your feet...

 

[jrista]

Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...

Give the cheap violin to the beginner and the output won't get worse. Give the Stradivarius to the master and the sounds will get significantly more beautiful.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that while skill is the most important factor, the tools do matter.

I get so sick and tired of this "it's all the photographer and not any of the equipment" garbage too. There's a reason that every SI shooter on NFL sidelines have a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8L II IS lens. Because it matters.

There's also a reason I can do a heck of a lot more clean 8x10 printing NOW versus IN THE PAST for indoor sports. It's because of my 1Dx and only because of my 1Dx. The prints I'm doing now I just didn't do in the past because sensor was limiting with noise/IQ loss.

Is there something in my skill and technique that I was doing wrong before I bought my new camera that prevented me from doing so? Sure, sports photography has been going on for a long time, it's just now with better equipment, it's better.

Totally agree, bdunbar. The problem is, people assume mutual exclusivity in those statements.

Its a simple logical fact:

"Give a skilled artisan a better tool, and they will produce better art."

That is NOT mutually exclusive with:

"Give a skilled artisan any tool, and they will produce good art."

BOTH of the above statements are true. Stating the second does not invalidate the first, nor does stating the first invalidate the second. They are non-exclusive, potentially simultaneous states that can exist concurrently.

Another way to put it:

"Give an unskilled artisan a better tool, and they will not produce art as good as a skilled artisan with the same tool. A better tool in the hands of a better artist will always result in better art over any other combination."

A skilled artist can create good art with any tool. Simple fact of the matter is, a better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will allow that skilled photographer to make better art! The tool matters just as much as the photographer, and vice versa. There would be no photography without BOTH.

 

[jrista]

Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...

Give the cheap violin to the beginner and the output won't get worse. Give the Stradivarius to the master and the sounds will get significantly more beautiful.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that while skill is the most important factor, the tools do matter.

I get so sick and tired of this "it's all the photographer and not any of the equipment" garbage too. There's a reason that every SI shooter on NFL sidelines have a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8L II IS lens. Because it matters.

There's also a reason I can do a heck of a lot more clean 8x10 printing NOW versus IN THE PAST for indoor sports. It's because of my 1Dx and only because of my 1Dx. The prints I'm doing now I just didn't do in the past because sensor was limiting with noise/IQ loss.

Is there something in my skill and technique that I was doing wrong before I bought my new camera that prevented me from doing so? Sure, sports photography has been going on for a long time, it's just now with better equipment, it's better.

do they, I have seen a lot of D4 and 200-400/4, nothing canon can show up yet
one reason that many shooters has gone to Nikon is 200-400/4 at ishochey, handbill and soccer, soccer a sport around the world who are many times bigger than the american fotball where some people running around in helmets and looking generally confused. The sport world is bigger than the U.S. and american football, its called soccer

Once again, and I mean ONCE AGAIN, you completely missed the point. Who cares if it's Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, who cares? You missed the bus.

I believe that is his (ankorwatt's/mikael's) permanent state: "Missing the point." Best not to try and convince him, your effectively trying to defy the universal laws of physics in the attempt.

 

[bdunbar79]

jrista,

There is definitely a lot of truth in what you say.

 

[dlleno]

The extra testosterone found in rugby players gives them 2 extra stops of dynamic range compared to American football players who, by virtue of greater protection, display more noise and banding. This of course can only be detected from the sidelines with nikon equipment

 

[bdunbar79]

The sport world is bigger than the U.S. and american football, its called soccer

Ahem. Nowhere else than in the U.S. it is called soccer. The name of the game is "football". Pretty logical, as you play it with your feet...

logical except in US there they have a lot of protection and strange helmets and call it football, the original sport calls RUGBY from 1823 and are for real men and they have no protection.

What's the difference between American football players running around looking confused with helmets on, and you sitting at your computer confused with a helmet on?

 

[Don Haines]

The sport world is bigger than the U.S. and american football, its called soccer

Ahem. Nowhere else than in the U.S. it is called soccer. The name of the game is "football". Pretty logical, as you play it with your feet...

logical except in US there they have a lot of protection and strange helmets and call it football, the original sport calls RUGBY from 1823 and are for real men and they have no protection.

Here in Canada, we also call it Soccer.... so it's not just the U.S. that has the name wrong.... and I dare you to go tell the members of my NEICE'S rugby team that the game is for real men....

And the sport world is much larger than contact sports. Might I suggest you take up canoeing? A quiet lake, waterfowl and magnificent scenery..... sunsets and sunrises, an osprey or an eagle picking a fish off of the surface of the water, moose browsing in a marsh.... If there was ever a sport ideal for photographers, canoeing has to be it.

 

[jrista]

The sport world is bigger than the U.S. and american football, its called soccer

Ahem. Nowhere else than in the U.S. it is called soccer. The name of the game is "football". Pretty logical, as you play it with your feet...

logical except in US there they have a lot of protection and strange helmets and call it football, the original sport calls RUGBY from 1823 and are for real men and they have no protection.

Man, do you EVER just STOP? Seriously..."RUGBY...are for real men"?!?!?

I honestly can't think of a more pitiful, pointless, and useless statement (especially on these forums!) Men who think along those lines are the type of men who have to prove they are men, as a result of being insecure about it in one way or another, rather than simply being comfortable with the fact that they ARE men. Football, Rugby, Soccer...doesn't matter what the game is...all just a bunch of insecure, testosterone-driven men without any willpower trying to prove to the world through macho, brain-damaging insanity that they aren't the pathetic, insecure men they really, actually are. (Well, either that, or a combination of raging insecurity and an unsatiable greed for fame and money...either way...same ultimate outcome.)

Pathetic...honestly...new low even for you... Sometimes you just need to admit defeat man, and move on.

 

[yogi]

I didnt mean to put sports down. Mainly anchorwhat? But i could say a few things about how the state of sports has become. Didnt a teenager recently kill an umpire with a single punch? Adults need to act like adults, whether they are coaches, umpires, parents of athletes or spectators, and set an example for younger people.Of course this could be said about adults in general, not just sports. Should have said people of the USA, not Americans. America, after all,encompasses North,South, & Central America. And Jrista, I believe the macho attitude is common in many men, not just in the sports world, though maybe more obvious in athletes & fans, and like you, believe it can sometimes be a sign of immaturity. Didnt mean to rant, or did I? I blame Awott for instigating this rant and detracting from the subject of photography. But it is all fun to me,not to be taken too seriously

 

[yogi]

And furthermore! Very funny Don Haines, bdunbar79,dlleno,jrista,CanNotYet. I love the humor & comments on this forum. Cant stay away