Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]

[Loswr]

Both types of cameras will take equally good pictures on the fundamental principle that the quality of a picture (when intentional) is 99.9% due to the user, not the tool.

It is all about pretension folks. The "must have" features are not really "must have", they are just things to make you feel superior to "amateurs".

Whatever you need to believe to help you feel better about yourself, it's all good. But your 'fundamental principle' of 99.9% of image quality being due to the user is fundamentally flawed.

What I can tell you as someone for whom bird photography is a hobby...when I switched from a 7D and 100-400L to a 1D X and 600/4L IS II, my images improved significantly 'overnight'. What changed – me as a user, or my tools? Gear matters.

What I can tell you as a father who takes pictures of my daughters' gymnastics events...in gymnasium lighting, getting an action-stopping shutter speed with a 70-200/2.8L IS II or 135/2L requires a minimum of ISO 3200, often 6400 or 12800. When I shot with a 7D, the images were unacceptably noisy at high enough ISO, or motion blurred if I used a lower ISO. When I added a 5DII to my kit, ISO 3200-6400 gave a usable image from a noise standpoint, but the AF system couldn't effectively track the girls. With the 1D X, AF tracking is flawless and ISO 25600 gives usable results, meaning I can get 1/800 s when needed. Gear matters.

Is it possible to take stellar, impactful images with a beat up old Digital Rebel/300D and a nifty-50/1.8? Sure. Just not of the subjects that I choose to shoot.

 

[Dylan777]

Both types of cameras will take equally good pictures on the fundamental principle that the quality of a picture (when intentional) is 99.9% due to the user, not the tool.

It is all about pretension folks. The "must have" features are not really "must have", they are just things to make you feel superior to "amateurs".

Whatever you need to believe to help you feel better about yourself, it's all good. But your 'fundamental principle' of 99.9% of image quality being due to the user is fundamentally flawed.

What I can tell you as someone for whom bird photography is a hobby...when I switched from a 7D and 100-400L to a 1D X and 600/4L IS II, my images improved significantly 'overnight'. What changed – me as a user, or my tools? Gear matters.

What I can tell you as a father who takes pictures of my daughters' gymnastics events...in gymnasium lighting, getting an action-stopping shutter speed with a 70-200/2.8L IS II or 135/2L requires a minimum of ISO 3200, often 6400 or 12800. When I shot with a 7D, the images were unacceptably noisy at high enough ISO, or motion blurred if I used a lower ISO. When I added a 5DII to my kit, ISO 3200-6400 gave a usable image from a noise standpoint, but the AF system couldn't effectively track the girls. With the 1D X, AF tracking is flawless and ISO 25600 gives usable results, meaning I can get 1/800 s when needed. Gear matters.

Is it possible to take stellar, impactful images with a beat up old Digital Rebel/300D and a nifty-50/1.8? Sure. Just not of the subjects that I choose to shoot.

+1000000000000000000000000000000000... with Neuro

I'm happy with 40D, 60D, 5D II and 5D III IQ, however, I'm much happier with 1DX until 1DX II of course ;D

 

[ahsanford]

Agree with Neuro for the most part. If you are a competent photog who pushes the limits of your gear, reducing the limits of the gear will lead to better shots, less missed shots, more salvageable shots in poor light, etc.

But if you don't understand the basics, upgrading from a Rebel to a 5D3 won't do you much good. "I don't understand the autofocus points so I get a lot of blurry shots, but wow, look at that color..."

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Agree with Neuro for the most part. If you are a competent photog who pushes the limits of your gear, reducing the limits of the gear will lead to better shots, less missed shots, more salvageable shots in poor light, etc.

But if you don't understand the basics, upgrading from a Rebel to a 5D3 won't do you much good. "I don't understand the autofocus points so I get a lot of blurry shots, but wow, look at that color..."

- A

I can honestly say that I really didn't understand the limits of AF until I started to get into BIF pictures.... gear does matter!

 

[bdunbar79]

It only matters if DxOmark says it's a better camera (sensor) than the corresponding Canon camera...At base ISO...on a tripod...downsampled to 8MP...

Whoops, sorry guys!

 

[Tugela]

Both types of cameras will take equally good pictures on the fundamental principle that the quality of a picture (when intentional) is 99.9% due to the user, not the tool.

It is all about pretension folks. The "must have" features are not really "must have", they are just things to make you feel superior to "amateurs".

Whatever you need to believe to help you feel better about yourself, it's all good. But your 'fundamental principle' of 99.9% of image quality being due to the user is fundamentally flawed.

What I can tell you as someone for whom bird photography is a hobby...when I switched from a 7D and 100-400L to a 1D X and 600/4L IS II, my images improved significantly 'overnight'. What changed – me as a user, or my tools? Gear matters.

What I can tell you as a father who takes pictures of my daughters' gymnastics events...in gymnasium lighting, getting an action-stopping shutter speed with a 70-200/2.8L IS II or 135/2L requires a minimum of ISO 3200, often 6400 or 12800. When I shot with a 7D, the images were unacceptably noisy at high enough ISO, or motion blurred if I used a lower ISO. When I added a 5DII to my kit, ISO 3200-6400 gave a usable image from a noise standpoint, but the AF system couldn't effectively track the girls. With the 1D X, AF tracking is flawless and ISO 25600 gives usable results, meaning I can get 1/800 s when needed. Gear matters.

Is it possible to take stellar, impactful images with a beat up old Digital Rebel/300D and a nifty-50/1.8? Sure. Just not of the subjects that I choose to shoot.

99% of your images could be taken equally well with that old camera. Coming up with the 1% (or whatever) where it can't, and presenting that as definitive evidence to the contrary, is poor logic and argument.

The principal determinant in the quality of an image is user input, not gear.

 

[Loswr]

99% of your images could be taken equally well with that old camera. Coming up with the 1% (or whatever) where it can't, and presenting that as definitive evidence to the contrary, is poor logic and argument.

The principal determinant in the quality of an image is user input, not gear.

In fact, they couldn't. Suggesting that you have knowledge about my image library and the conditions under which the images in it were taken is an untenable and meaningless argument.

It's true that user input is the main determinant in the image output. But you seem to be suggesting that user input is effectively the only determinant, and that's simply not the case. Gear matters, and for certain genres of photography, it matters a lot. Examples of those genres include birds (particularly in flight) and low light action shooting...both of which represent a major portion of what I shoot. For example, I routinely need high ISO – close to 40% of my images are at higher than ISO 3200; I just had a quick look at the set of images I'm currently processing, and the entire set of several hundred images ranges from a low of ISO 2000 to high of ISO 25600, with the majority being in the ISO 4000 - ISO 12800 range. Are you suggesting those hundreds of images could have been taken equally well with the 7D?

If you want to claim that gear does not matter for 99% of what you shoot, that's fine. For all I know, 100% of your images would just look just as good if taken with a 2.1 MP Hello Kitty camera:

...but that's certainly not the case for me.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Both types of cameras will take equally good pictures on the fundamental principle that the quality of a picture (when intentional) is 99.9% due to the user, not the tool.

It is all about pretension folks. The "must have" features are not really "must have", they are just things to make you feel superior to "amateurs".

What I can tell you as someone for whom bird photography is a hobby...when I switched from a 7D and 100-400L to a 1D X and 600/4L IS II, my images improved significantly 'overnight'. What changed – me as a user, or my tools? Gear matters.

What I can tell you as a father who takes pictures of my daughters' gymnastics events...in gymnasium lighting, getting an action-stopping shutter speed with a 70-200/2.8L IS II or 135/2L requires a minimum of ISO 3200, often 6400 or 12800. When I shot with a 7D, the images were unacceptably noisy at high enough ISO, or motion blurred if I used a lower ISO. When I added a 5DII to my kit, ISO 3200-6400 gave a usable image from a noise standpoint, but the AF system couldn't effectively track the girls. With the 1D X, AF tracking is flawless and ISO 25600 gives usable results, meaning I can get 1/800 s when needed. Gear matters.

+1

You need a good eye, of course, but without good gear you lose a lot of potential. When I switched from film to my first DSLR, that changed my approach to photography completely. Suddenly ISO 800 was useful then, and today ISO 1600 is nothing (with FF at least, not with a 7D Mark I). Comparable superfast films were crazily grainy, even an admirer of film grain needed a lot of artist's tolerance in those old days.

 

[NancyP]

Bird photography is specialized, and better gear does add up to better shots. I don't have $20.000.00 right now to drop on a bird photography kit, so I use a $2,400.00 (price when new) kit of 60D and 400mm f/5.6L. No doubt the keeper RATE would improve with the kit costing 8 x as much, but I can still get some nice images with what I have. The pros need the reliability of a 1 series camera. I don't. If I miss a shot, I am disappointed, but I still get to eat.

 

[FEBS]

When I added a 5DII to my kit, ISO 3200-6400 gave a usable image from a noise standpoint, but the AF system couldn't effectively track the girls.

I've found the AF system superior on the 5D3 compared to the 7D, from the first minute onwards. Also at least 2 stops better ISO for the 5D3 compared to the 7D. The difference in fps 6 against 8 in favor of the 7D, was at the end one of the reasons I did buy a 1Dx.

The 5D3 will stay a long time in running, till of course a much better 5D4 ;D
The 7D will be for sale within a few weeks

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Switching from a 60D to a 6D made a HUGE difference in my shots taken at book signings, even with the same 70-200 2.8 lens. When one is not reach-limited, FF is a million times better than any crop camera. Of course, using the 6D meant needing to get a little closer to get the same shots I got with the 60D, but at least I could do so. As a bonus, 70mm is no longer super-awkward...it's actually useful!

With the ice shows, it's a different story though. I AM reach-limited in that case and the range of the 1.6x (later swapped the 60D for a 7D) is ideal. But the 7D really struggles when the lighting is poor (as is the case at many of these events). I could use the FF but that means giving up reach and more work in cropping afterwards. I really would like a 7D successor for this...the existing equipment works just fine but it would be nice to get cleaner shots without having to sacrifice anything.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Bird photography is specialized, and better gear does add up to better shots. I don't have $20.000.00 right now to drop on a bird photography kit, so I use a $2,400.00 (price when new) kit of 60D and 400mm f/5.6L.

This is no bad combo, in particular if there is enough light. The little 400mm is a superb lens, I use it quite frequently when I do not want to carry a 500mm with me.