Rest well Canon EOS 7D series [CR2]

[Loswr]

Many of the 7D/7D Mark II owners I know and see at events use FF cameras. Many of them use their personally owned 7D Mark II as a second body to their 1D X/1D X Mark II issued by their employers. I don't see many 7D Mark II owners shooting with a single body. The single body Canon APS-C shooters I see tend to use the 80D.

Your personal observations are necessarily so limited with regard to the global market that they are irrelevant.

 

[Michael Clark]

Are you saying that you, an owner of a 5D series body, would not be buying the same lenses if you didn't have a 7D series body?

I'm saying I use each body for different roles. Although I occasionally use my 70-200/2.8 on the 5D3, that lens is almost always attached to the 7D2. If the light is too dim for the 7D2, I put a 135/2 on the 5D3. Otherwise, the lenses I use with the 5D3, both primes and zooms, are, other than the 24-105/4 which is a workhorse when shooting in "hazardous" or "high impact" conditions, less than 70mm.

When the 7D2 wears out (and mine already has well over 70% of the shutter rating on it), it wouldn't make much of a difference to me to go to the D500 or its successor with the more expensive but better AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR than an inferior "sports" R body while continuing to shoot wide angle stuff with my Canon gear.

 

[Michael Clark]

Your personal observations are necessarily so limited with regard to the global market that they are irrelevant.

As are yours. How many pro or semi-pro shooters do you run into at shooting jobs on a weekly basis? Just because my experience doesn't line up with your opinion does not make it any more irrelevant than your uninformed opinion.

 

[Otara]

I have the 7D2, got the R and am pretty happy with it. I use it for my daughters basketball, and for birding.
If frame rate with servo is the main metric then yes it loses. Personally I think the bigger barrier is price.

But there are a lot of things I really like about it, to the point that I now prefer it over my 7D2 even for birding, slower frame rate and all.

I didnt have a full frame for years while I had my 7D/7D2. I think professional shooters using 1DX/1DX2 is (probably) a pretty small subset of 7D2 users....

 

[Michael Clark]

Many of your comments suggest that you believe you are representative of a typical 7DII owner. Do you really think most 7DII owners also have a FF camera? Seems unlikely.

Edit: I see you acknowledged that your experience is anecdotal. Anecdotes aren’t data.

Exactly what authoritative data do you have that shows most 7D Mark II owners do not own a FF camera?

 

[Loswr]

As are yours. How many pro or semi-pro shooters do you run into at shooting jobs on a weekly basis? Just because my experience doesn't line up with your opinion does not make it any more irrelevant than your uninformed opinion.

Yes, my observations are also irrelevant. Canon has the data, and if their actions do not align with your opinion or mine, the logical explanation is that we are forming opinions without data to support them.

You can make up stuff like ‘the only logical explanation is that Canon doesn’t know if they can ever do DPAF Servo at 10 fps’ all day long, but it remains uninformed speculation.

 

[Loswr]

Exactly what authoritative data do you have that shows most 7D Mark II owners do not own a FF camera?

I’m not claiming anything, I’m just saying that your extremely limited and anecdotal observations are anything but ‘authoritative data’. I am certain that Canon has those data, and uses them to drive their product development decisions.

How many of the ~150,000 pro photographers in the US (based on USBLS data) do you interact with regularly, that leads you to imply that your observations are representative of that group, much less the entire global market?

 

[Otara]

Edit: wasn't intending to post the first bit, was half a thought.

Exactly what authoritative data do you have that shows most 7D Mark II owners do not own a FF camera?

The same kind of data that shows most 7D II owners dont own jumbo jets.

You are the one claiming an association between two items, its your job to prove it exists.

 

[slclick]

I for one loved the 10-22 on my 7D. True it was the only aps-c glass I used back then but it yielded fantastic results.

 

[CJudge]

As a rule of thumb, a 1.4xTC degrades MTF by 10% and a 2xTC by 20% for a good lens-TC match. My experience bears that out and it is always better to have a sensor with a higher pixel density than a lower density with an equivalent xTC on the same lens. (I am always switching between 1.4x and 2xTCs and between 5DIV and 5DSR bodies with my primes and telephotos and choose the best combinations for the particular situation.)

Good to know! I assumed that there was some slight degradation, but I reckoned that when paired with the new RF glass (and this would be an RF native tele-converter) and whatever upcoming sensor tech Canon eventually releases, that the difference could essentially be negligible at that point. Add in the fact that it means any RF mount body can serve double duty, both for long and short needs, and you might have enough to make people happy.

But I have no experience with either the 7D series or using tele-converters, so this was just idle speculation on my part

 

[Michael Clark]

I’m not claiming anything, I’m just saying that your extremely limited and anecdotal observations are anything but ‘authoritative data’. I am certain that Canon has those data, and uses them to drive their product development decisions.

How many of the ~150,000 pro photographers in the US (based on USBLS data) do you interact with regularly, that leads you to imply that your observations are representative of that group, much less the entire global market?

Where have I claimed that my experience was representative of the global market? Or even of the entire U.S. market? In one of my first comments way up above I led off by acknowledging that my personal observations are anecdotal. But at least they are actual observations of a decently large number of shooters, most of whom use at least some Canon gear.

I run into or interact regularly on social media with roughly 50%, maybe more than that, of the currently working photojournalists within the northern half of my home state. There are also several who once worked here but now work in other markets. I also know more than a few who have been put out to pasture or forced into freelancing via "early retirement" and layoffs. One of those is currently the governor's official photographer and no longer shooting sports. Several others are some of the most active sports/news freelancers in this area. I'm also on a first name basis with many of the sports shooters in this area for the largest scholastic photographic contractor in the US. Their guys shooting HS sports are all using Canon gear for that.

 

[BillB]

The only logical explanation for this is that Canon has no idea if they are ever going to be able to develop a sensor with fast enough readout to do AI Servo AF off the main imaging sensor at 10+ fps. This they are conceding the entire market niche filled by the 7D series to Nikon, Olympus, and Sony.

Not sure that is the only logical explanation. Canon's thinking may be based on market opportunuties more than performance constraints. As you point out, Nikon, Olympus and Sony are competing in the 7D space. Canon may see more opportunity with a 90D and the R models.

 

[Michael Clark]

Edit: wasn't intending to post the first bit, was half a thought.



The same kind of data that shows most 7D II owners dont own jumbo jets.

You are the one claiming an association between two items, its your job to prove it exists.

No, I'm sharing my personal observations which were prefaced way up above with an acknowledgement that they are anecdotal.

 

[CJudge]

But it's never a wash when there are extra optical elements between the lens and the sensor. Especially with night sports, when bright light sources may be in the frame, there's a penalty in terms of contrast and flaring. Sensor pixel density gets more pixels on the same subjects with no additional optics in the light path.

I've shot it both ways: When I finally got frustrated enough with the poor shot-to-shot AF consistency and high ISO noise of the old 7D, I started putting the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II on the (then new) 5D Mark III and cropping more. When I started using the 7D Mark II, AF and high ISO noise was much better and I get better results using the 7D Mark II than cropping the 5D Mark III down to less than 10 MP. Plus it frees the 5D3 up to be used as my "short" body.

There have been massive advances in coatings that reduce flaring and ghosting, which could be implemented here. Also, this would be the first look at an RF tele-converter. There could be other advantages introduced by the decreased flange distance. If it's possible for the IQ impact of the tele-converted to be minimised, then you'd have a winner on your hands. I'm not suggesting that people chuck an EF teleconverter on their EOS R bodies and they should be happy. I'm speculating on an improved optical performance tele specifically for the RF mount, which could effectively bridge the gap between the 5D and 7D series.

Just a thought.

 

[Michael Clark]

There have been massive advances in coatings that reduce flaring and ghosting, which could be implemented here. Also, this would be the first look at an RF tele-converter. There could be other advantages introduced by the decreased flange distance. If it's possible for the IQ impact of the tele-converted to be minimised, then you'd have a winner on your hands. I'm not suggesting that people chuck an EF teleconverter on their EOS R bodies and they should be happy. I'm speculating on an improved optical performance tele specifically for the RF mount, which could effectively bridge the gap between the 5D and 7D series.

Just a thought.

It's a thought that hasn't been borne out in the tens of thousands of frames I've shot with both FF and crop sensors from the sideline and baseline. Canon extenders work best with prime super telephotos.

Look, as far as RF goes, we haven't even seen most of the announced lenses yet. No one knows if the extending barrel RF 70-200/2.8 is going to be optically superior, or even as good as, the current internal zoom/internal focus EF 70-200/2.8 which is a pretty good lens. Maybe they think the selling point will be the compactness when stored at 70mm? Who really knows? Of the next 6-8 EF lenses that Canon has announced they will release in the next year or so, none of them are extenders.

It's really beginning to seem rather comical that most of those arguing here that it's no great loss that Canon has dropped the plans for a 7D Mark III are those who never bought a 7D (as flawed as it was, it was still a usable camera and advanced the state of APS-C cameras in many ways) or 7D Mark II. On the other hand, it seems to me that virtually none of the actual 7D/7D2 owners here agree with many of the reasons the non-owners are offering for why a FF R is somehow going to magically improve, probably for only twice the price, on the advantages the 7D2 offered for certain use cases!

 

[SecureGSM]

Good to know! I assumed that there was some slight degradation, but I reckoned that when paired with the new RF glass (and this would be an RF native tele-converter) and whatever upcoming sensor tech Canon eventually releases, that the difference could essentially be negligible at that point. Add in the fact that it means any RF mount body can serve double duty, both for long and short needs, and you might have enough to make people happy.

But I have no experience with either the 7D series or using tele-converters, so this was just idle speculation on my part

in addition and to support what Alan just said, there is also a noticeable AF performance toll associated with teleconverters that is mostly noticeable in poor light conditions. not so bad in case of x1.4 teleconverter though but still noticeable

 

[Don Haines]

Good to know! I assumed that there was some slight degradation, but I reckoned that when paired with the new RF glass (and this would be an RF native tele-converter) and whatever upcoming sensor tech Canon eventually releases, that the difference could essentially be negligible at that point. Add in the fact that it means any RF mount body can serve double duty, both for long and short needs, and you might have enough to make people happy.

But I have no experience with either the 7D series or using tele-converters, so this was just idle speculation on my part

My experience has been that unless you have a very good lens, that a 1.4 teleconverter should be avoided on crop cameras, and a 2X teleconverter should be avoided.

I find that both work well with FF, but that on a “less than stellar” lens, that the 2X should be avoided.

Of course, these are personal guidelines and there are many cases when I ignore them, and have even been known to stack teleconverters........

 

[Michael Clark]

Not sure that is the only logical explanation. Canon's thinking may be based on market opportunuties more than performance constraints. As you point out, Nikon, Olympus and Sony are competing in the 7D space. Canon may see more opportunity with a 90D and the R models.

Yeah, I should have probably began that with something like, "It seems to me that the only logical explanation is..."

I do stand by the assertion that pretty much every major disappointment that Canon has been criticized for with regard to camera bodies over the past five years or so can be explained by slow sensor readout speeds.

Part of it is that Dual Pixel CMOS AF increases the data load and processing needed. That has sold a ton of Canon cameras for dual use as stills and video cameras. But it does slow down the sensor readout.

I do find it hard to believe that Canon would so easily cave to the Nikon D500 and others and not even try to compete for that market if they could produce a competitive 7D Mark III camera at even a modest profit. They sold a ton of 7Ds back in the day. They sold a ton of 7D Mark IIs in the first three years or so it was out. Nikon and Sony are also competing in the mirrorless FF space, yet Canon seems willing to fight them there when by all appearances their sensor technology is less competitive to produce a mirrorless "sports" camera in that space than in the high end APS-C DSLR niche that they controlled for so long and are now seemingly abandoning.

 

[unfocused]

...Now please answer the rest of my question about how many bird photography outings do you go on to have any first hand knowledge of the occurrence of the D500 in the field.

Let's back up a bit. You jumped into a conversation where I said that anecdotes were not evidence of the relative popularity of Nikon, Canon and Sony. You responded with your own anecdotes and demanded that I produce anecdotes to counter yours. I'm not interested in an anecdote war. It doesn't matter how many bird outings you go on, it's not actual evidence of anything.

 

[Loswr]

I do stand by the assertion that pretty much every major disappointment that Canon has been criticized for with regard to camera bodies over the past five years or so can be explained by slow sensor readout speeds.

How have those ‘major disappointments that Canon has been criticized for’ affected Canon’s market share?