Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review

[fragilesi]

I really wish some of these people making such great generalisations would go out and buy one of these other more advanced cameras and see just how well it really does. We've had the sensor thing and I think most agree there are other, better sensors out there but struggle to see quite why people see it as such an earth-shattering deal breaker in a camera of this type.

Go out and buy the latest Sony then, let's see how it copes with being battered, how long it lasts, how reliable it is, whether it can focus as well as the new Canon. Because unless it can saying that Canon is over-priced or based on old tech is to miss the point. It's innovative to put some new tech in a camera, it's actually bloody hard to make it reliable and resilient. That's the difference,

 

[fragilesi]

the incredible display of ego around the comment about his picture being the best a Canon sports shooter could expect from it . . . Just a quick look around other reviews should have told him that others are not having the same difficulties he had and should have made him think again before hitting that publish button.

I think you've touched on the key here: so many photographers hold up their own personal experience (anecdotes) as examples of what can be done and what can't, what should be done and what should not, and forget that their personal experience may not match the experiences of others. While personal taste is appropriate for the artistic component of photography, it's more an exercise in engineering to decide how to use the equipment to collect the most and best data from each click of the shutter.

I guess this is the difference with the scientific community.... peer review.... Do your tests, compare them with others, and if there is a discrepancy, try to figure out why...

Thanks Don, Orangutan, the Internet is a wonderful tool and I've always enjoyed the fact I can read so many reviews but I think being reliant on them or not putting them into the right context is a danger in itself and this is a great case in point.

 

[lintoni]

I really wish some of these people making such great generalisations would go out and buy one of these other more advanced cameras and see just how well it really does. We've had the sensor thing and I think most agree there are other, better sensors out there but struggle to see quite why people see it as such an earth-shattering deal breaker in a camera of this type.

Go out and buy the latest Sony then, let's see how it copes with being battered, how long it lasts, how reliable it is, whether it can focus as well as the new Canon. Because unless it can saying that Canon is over-priced or based on old tech is to miss the point. It's innovative to put some new tech in a camera, it's actually bloody hard to make it reliable and resilient. That's the difference,

Reliable and resilient? Ugh! You do realise that means your camera will be even more out-dated in a few years time? Why would you want a perfectly good camera that will produce great images for years, when you could be replacing it every year and living on the cutting-edge of tech? Get hip, daddy-o, and swing with the times!

 

[Loswr]

@Tuglea - I want a cup of coffee and the 7DII won't brew one for me. Therefore, it fails to meet MY needs and it's a crappy camera. So I guess we agree.

: : :

I didn't say the 7D2 was a bad camera, I said that it was a disappointing camera because it is 2012 technology, but was released in 2014 when the world has moved on. If they had built it from current tech instead of old tech it would have been so much more than it actually is now.

...

It boggles the mind!

You could have said you are disappointed in the 7DII, and that would brook no argument. But to categorize it as 'disappointing old tech' is such an asinine comment it boggles the mind (or would, if it came from someone who hasn't made such comments frequently).

65 cross-type AF points with a very wide spread across the frame, 10 fps with dedicated PDAF between each frame for excellent tracking (better than MILCs), those are 'old tech'? Oh, I remember – you're one of those that would prefer to take pictures with a bare silicon sensor, because sensor = camera.

 

[Don Haines]

the incredible display of ego around the comment about his picture being the best a Canon sports shooter could expect from it . . . Just a quick look around other reviews should have told him that others are not having the same difficulties he had and should have made him think again before hitting that publish button.

I think you've touched on the key here: so many photographers hold up their own personal experience (anecdotes) as examples of what can be done and what can't, what should be done and what should not, and forget that their personal experience may not match the experiences of others. While personal taste is appropriate for the artistic component of photography, it's more an exercise in engineering to decide how to use the equipment to collect the most and best data from each click of the shutter.

I guess this is the difference with the scientific community.... peer review.... Do your tests, compare them with others, and if there is a discrepancy, try to figure out why...

Thanks Don, Orangutan, the Internet is a wonderful tool and I've always enjoyed the fact I can read so many reviews but I think being reliant on them or not putting them into the right context is a danger in itself and this is a great case in point.

Exactly!

When I got my 7D2 I rushed out to take pictures.... and they sucked! I saw other people taking great pictures and asked myself why. Then I read and re-read the AF manual and "magically" my pictures improved. I played and practiced with the camera, and they got better. I AFMAd the lenses and my pictures got better.

Rather than saying "this camera is a piece of crap", I said "what am I doing wrong" and learned how to use it. For many, there is a need for instant gratification and a reluctance to invest the time to learn..... and it is those people who blast a product not because it is bad, but because of their own shortcomings.

There is a saying about how a skilled carpenter with crude tools can produce finer work than a klutz with the finest tools.... I think it holds for photography too.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I think you've touched on the key here: so many photographers hold up their own personal experience (anecdotes) as examples of what can be done and what can't, what should be done and what should not, and forget that their personal experience may not match the experiences of others.

I think you just defined many of the posters here on CR.

 

[ashmadux]

A couple of things I noted about the review which seem contrary to all other opinions were:

- Slight disappointment with the sensor performance: To be fair a lot of the early posts on CR were of the same view, some commentators (e.g. Scott Kelby) raved about it, most have now accepted its better than the previous generation but not as good as perhaps they had wished or indeed the competition. However, the strange thing with this review is the implication that its worse than the 70D, which is the first review stating this, but also perhaps this is caused by the fact he is reliant on in Camera JPEG processing!

- AF system inaccurate: This is really strange, he states "I was disappointed with the high number of out of focus shots I got for such a slow moving activity " and also implies disappointment in focus accuracy, this is strange as virtually all other reviews have held this out as a strong point of the camera. One has to ask why, when others were absolutely raving about its performance and comparing with canons top of the line cameras/ For me this is a more important comment if I were buying - is there some merit in what he says and if so why does everyone else have contrary results here!


At the end of the day its an opinion, but remember he is a blogger and wants to drive traffic to his site as he can then get some $$$ for click trough's, controversial blogs do this - after would we have bothered reading it if it had been broadly neutral?

I agree with everything in his review. And yep he's right, the sensor on the first 7d was trash.

I have the set of test shots from the recent rental i did. Af was basically a disaster. I was going to use it for a test shoot, but very glad the weather didnt hold up- it would have been a complete waste of time. Sot Af helped, but even with that, the images were not as good as my M, and nothing close to my old workhorse t2i. Without af accuracy, the camera is a brick. There's nothing left to do with it.

Believe what you will, but i do i have the proof. the 7d2 is completely off my list, and especially without the touch screen, the 70d is back on my (eventual) buy list. I learned my painful lessons with the first 7d. Not again.

 

[Oldcracker]

This is my first post, but not my last, here. I used the forum here at CR to help me research a new body. I've had a 5D since they were pretty new to the photography world, and it served me well over time. I lost it to a burglary and managed to recover it several years later, but it had been buried and all is not exactly well with it. The uncertainty of the 5D's usability, as well as the improved IQ and other capabilities of current bodies, led me to the 7DII. My original reason for purchasing the 5D was as an all-around camera.

I'm fortunate enough to have a vacation home in the NC mountains, and a permanent home on a brackish feeder into the Tomoka Basin on the north side of the Daytona Beach , FL area. Both areas are absolutely loaded with wildlife, Florida especially. I'm just a short drive from the Canaveral National Seashore and Mosquito Lagoon, both prime birding areas. Add in the otters, alligators, manatees, eagles, ospreys, kites, egrets, herons etc. on our riverfront daily and my photography bones have gotten up a pretty good itch. I think you good folks refer to it as GAS, and I got a fine case going.

The 5D with my 70-200 and an ef1.4xII extender wasn't quite enough of an answer for me, and I'm not ready to lay out the cash for one of the big white monsters, so I settled on the 7DII, an ef300Lf4 and my 1.4xII as my most practical solution. I don't particularly care about Mr. Martinsen's viewpoints. As to sensor resolution, 20+ mp provides more than enough resolution for me. So far I'm seeing more detailed images from the 7DII than I got from the 5D, especially considering the need to crop those to arrive at the same image size. Hand in hand with that is the extended reach provided by the 7DII's crop sensor and the fact that I'm utilizing the highest resolution, sharpest, and optically best portion of my lenses' image circles.

Let's just throw in the 10 fps the 7DII provides, on top of the overall construction of the new body versus my old 5D.Then there's the much faster and more accurate AF system and the newer bodies' ability to use AFMA. I don't think Mr. Martinsen can convince me that the 7DII is not a great addition for me. I threw in a 16-35Lf4IS, and with the older 24-70f2.8 and 70-200f2.8 I've had for years I've got all I need to wait and see what comes along next. If a 5DIII replacement or other high(er) mp body comes in 2015 I may be a buyer. But for my uses I believe the 7DII is all I'll need for a good while. I'll get a great deal of enjoyment, and fine images, out of it

 

[Loswr]

A couple of things I noted about the review which seem contrary to all other opinions were:

- Slight disappointment with the sensor performance: To be fair a lot of the early posts on CR were of the same view, some commentators (e.g. Scott Kelby) raved about it, most have now accepted its better than the previous generation but not as good as perhaps they had wished or indeed the competition. However, the strange thing with this review is the implication that its worse than the 70D, which is the first review stating this, but also perhaps this is caused by the fact he is reliant on in Camera JPEG processing!

- AF system inaccurate: This is really strange, he states "I was disappointed with the high number of out of focus shots I got for such a slow moving activity " and also implies disappointment in focus accuracy, this is strange as virtually all other reviews have held this out as a strong point of the camera. One has to ask why, when others were absolutely raving about its performance and comparing with canons top of the line cameras/ For me this is a more important comment if I were buying - is there some merit in what he says and if so why does everyone else have contrary results here!


At the end of the day its an opinion, but remember he is a blogger and wants to drive traffic to his site as he can then get some $$$ for click trough's, controversial blogs do this - after would we have bothered reading it if it had been broadly neutral?

I agree with everything in his review. And yep he's right, the sensor on the first 7d was trash.

I have the set of test shots from the recent rental i did. Af was basically a disaster. I was going to use it for a test shoot, but very glad the weather didnt hold up- it would have been a complete waste of time. Sot Af helped, but even with that, the images were not as good as my M, and nothing close to my old workhorse t2i. Without af accuracy, the camera is a brick. There's nothing left to do with it.

Believe what you will, but i do i have the proof. the 7d2 is completely off my list, and especially without the touch screen, the 70d is back on my (eventual) buy list. I learned my painful lessons with the first 7d. Not again.

For some people, a camera with fewer configuration options and complexities will yield better results.

 

[ashmadux]

A couple of things I noted about the review which seem contrary to all other opinions were:

- Slight disappointment with the sensor performance: To be fair a lot of the early posts on CR were of the same view, some commentators (e.g. Scott Kelby) raved about it, most have now accepted its better than the previous generation but not as good as perhaps they had wished or indeed the competition. However, the strange thing with this review is the implication that its worse than the 70D, which is the first review stating this, but also perhaps this is caused by the fact he is reliant on in Camera JPEG processing!

- AF system inaccurate: This is really strange, he states "I was disappointed with the high number of out of focus shots I got for such a slow moving activity " and also implies disappointment in focus accuracy, this is strange as virtually all other reviews have held this out as a strong point of the camera. One has to ask why, when others were absolutely raving about its performance and comparing with canons top of the line cameras/ For me this is a more important comment if I were buying - is there some merit in what he says and if so why does everyone else have contrary results here!


At the end of the day its an opinion, but remember he is a blogger and wants to drive traffic to his site as he can then get some $$$ for click trough's, controversial blogs do this - after would we have bothered reading it if it had been broadly neutral?

I agree with everything in his review. And yep he's right, the sensor on the first 7d was trash.

I have the set of test shots from the recent rental i did. Af was basically a disaster. I was going to use it for a test shoot, but very glad the weather didnt hold up- it would have been a complete waste of time. Sot Af helped, but even with that, the images were not as good as my M, and nothing close to my old workhorse t2i. Without af accuracy, the camera is a brick. There's nothing left to do with it.

Believe what you will, but i do i have the proof. the 7d2 is completely off my list, and especially without the touch screen, the 70d is back on my (eventual) buy list. I learned my painful lessons with the first 7d. Not again.

For some people, a camera with fewer configuration options and complexities will yield better results.

Oh boy, it's you again. Instead of tryign to be clever- which you are failing at- say something that matters. I have nothing to prove to you, only adding to the conversation.

ANYWAYS....

Just as with the original 7d, the "advanced" Af produced an awful lot of oof images- for newbs and advanced users alike.

There is nothing advanced about setting the camera in manual point select, focusing, and clicking the shutter. NOTHING. Any default af setting should be able to accurately focus on the set point, or even when set to automatic point selection. Its not that difficult at all. Whats' difficult is when that most basic of camera functions doesnt work well. And just to clarify, Im talking about still subjects/persons/landscapes.

What can be advanced is setting up focal (not everyone has the space) or other afma software. Its a pain in the arse, and wastes valuable time.

I cannot use unreliable Af, and thats why the 6d is about to get sold as well. I only own 5 canon cameras, so yeah....you go ahead and enjoy that 7d2, if you want that's not my problem. Your attempts at levity are useless.

 

[Loswr]

Just as with the original 7d, the "advanced" Af produced an awful lot of oof images- for newbs and advanced users alike.

And yet, somehow – miracle upon miracle – my 7D managed to deliver a very high percentage of crisply focused shots with a diverse array of lenses in a wide variety of settings...and the keeper rate with my 1D X is even higher. So either I've had some Canon bodies with exceptionally good AF performance, or you've had some Canon bodies with some exceptionally poor AF performance. I'm not that lucky, so either you're unlucky and keep getting defective cameras (except that amazing T2i of yours), or one of us is doing something wrong that's leading to OOF shots. Except my shots are usually in focus.

 

[J.R.]

I recently sat in a Russian T90 battle tank. Couldn't get it to move initially but after various tries managed it. Couldn't aim with the guns either despite repeated attempts - none of the shells landed where I had targeted.

The armed forces must be crazy to buy these tanks. There are piss poor and I have PROOOOOF!

Just sayin ...

 

[J.R.]

"Don’t use live view? Well, the phase detection is a joy to use: completely accurate, the cool thumb button to let you jump points to anywhere you want in a split second, and the whole system is phenomenally customizable. Did I mention it’s accurate? I took a few hundred shots and it just nailed everything. Still life in bad light? Nailed it. Moving rapidly? Nailed it. Sunlight, halogen light, fluorescent light? Nailed it.

Whether you want a second camera with crop to back up your big pro camera, or just want to use this amazingly accurate focus system to nail that shot of your kid’s only goal of the soccer season, this camera works. The improved shooting speed, huge shot buffer, and dual card slots don’t hurt anything either." ... Roger's Take at Lensrentals ... http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/cameras/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii

I do believe that Roger knows what he is doing much more than some reviewers (including Ron Martinsen) and some posters here. Providing OOF shots as proof that a camera is bad is nothing better than spitting in the wind.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

After all the "what's best" splattered everywhere, my decision is to continue with the 7D. I shoot sports and other odd stuff in mostly good daylight. The 7D shines in that category. When I shoot in low light, I'll go the the 5D III. So far this has worked very well. I'll focus my upgrades on good glass. Camera bodies come and go, but good & fast lenses will span the body upgrade gap. I'm holding out for a full frame mirrorless built on a rugged chassis like the 5DIII. Metering, fast focus lock, and frame rate are my priorities. Mirrorless just might get there.

 

[Eldar]

Just as with the original 7d, the "advanced" Af produced an awful lot of oof images- for newbs and advanced users alike.

And yet, somehow – miracle upon miracle – my 7D managed to deliver a very high percentage of crisply focused shots with a diverse array of lenses in a wide variety of settings...and the keeper rate with my 1D X is even higher. So either I've had some Canon bodies with exceptionally good AF performance, or you've had some Canon bodies with some exceptionally poor AF performance. I'm not that lucky, so either you're unlucky and keep getting defective cameras (except that amazing T2i of yours), or one of us is doing something wrong that's leading to OOF shots. Except my shots are usually in focus.

As Neur says, you must be doing something wrong here, or potentially you had a bad copy. I have been through a couple of cameras in my time and I currently have the 5DIII, 1DX and recently also the 7DII. I now have a couple of thousand images under my belt with the 7DII and I have some fairly qualified opinions about the whole camera.

There is no APS-C (or similar) camera on the market that can touch it as a camera system. Yes, I would have liked to see a bit more from the sensor, but everything else is phenomenal. And the thing that shines the most is its AF system. For someone unfamiliar with an AF system like this, it may take some time to master it. But for me, coming from the 5DIII and 1DX, it was pretty much same same. And to get that kind of AF system in a camera at that price is a very good deal.

My keeper rates with the 1DX and 5DIII, from an AF perspective, are very high. My keeper rate with the 7DII is at the same level. Sometimes things are out of focus, simply because I did not pay attention to where the actual focus point was. But that is my lack of ability to work with the camera and has nothing to do with the performance of the camera.

Your reference to your trusted t2i and M is nice to read. But your claim that they outperform the 7DII, sorry to say, is about as credible as someone claiming his Beetle outperforms a Porsche ...

 

[Tinky]

@ashmadux

My experience is consistent with you in that when my M gets everything right it produces better images than my 7d, I put this down to the later generation digic. However there are many situations where the m just won't deliver for me where my 7d will. I'll jump to the defence of both models where I feel appropriate as I think both were unfairly maligned by lazy or time-pushed reviewers. That said I would also be the first to agree with anybody who said that neither were perfect when new and less so now. I would also like to thank the reviewers for making the M so inexpensive. Keep the 'bad' reviews of the 7d2 coming wink wink.

What I cannot fathom is how you can find the image quality of the T2i better than the 7d.
Same sensor. Same digic generation.

I can only therefor assume you had a bad copy of the 7d, or that you didn't have sufficient time to set it up to your liking. I was about 4 weeks in before I was happy with the AF, sorry, delighted with the af.

The raw recipe took me a little while too, favouring luminance NR over colour NR helps a lot. The jpegs from my m are definately superior, when everything else on the m is behaving.

 

[fragilesi]

Reliable and resilient? Ugh! You do realise that means your camera will be even more out-dated in a few years time? Why would you want a perfectly good camera that will produce great images for years, when you could be replacing it every year and living on the cutting-edge of tech? Get hip, daddy-o, and swing with the times!

Damn, you got me bang to rights . . . I'm just a great old, lumbering Diplodocus of a photographer who should have been put out to pasture years ago .

 

[Loswr]

@ashmadux

What I cannot fathom is how you can find the image quality of the T2i better than the 7d.
Same sensor. Same digic generation.

I think I've figured it out. He probably went from Vista straight to Windows 8 (or Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion if he's a Mac user). He never leaves Central Park via the Artisans' Gate. Hates that group of little dudes that hang out with Snow White. Refuses to watch the film starring Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt. Never read the final installment of the Harry Potter book series. I think we're looking at an irrational dislike of the number 7.

 

[fragilesi]

I have the set of test shots from the recent rental i did. Af was basically a disaster. I was going to use it for a test shoot, but very glad the weather didnt hold up- it would have been a complete waste of time. Sot Af helped, but even with that, the images were not as good as my M, and nothing close to my old workhorse t2i. Without af accuracy, the camera is a brick. There's nothing left to do with it.

Believe what you will, but i do i have the proof. the 7d2 is completely off my list, and especially without the touch screen, the 70d is back on my (eventual) buy list. I learned my painful lessons with the first 7d. Not again.

You can stop right there. I have a 70D and I am very happy with it, the AF is great.

I was lucky enough to be able to spend 30 minutes playing with a friend's 7d2 last , it had just arrived. Here's the rub . . .

If you could not get good, sharp pictures from the 7dII then DO NOT buy the 70D.

The 7dII from that 30 minutes is perfectly capable of nailing just about anything (reasonable) we threw at it last night and we got quite inventive by the end. If you honestly believe that the 7dII AF system is not good enough for you to take pictures with there will be no point trying the 70d.

I'm sorry to be blunt but as others have said you really are pushing credibility suggesting that the AF system is so bad.

 

[Khalai]

I really wish some of these people making such great generalisations would go out and buy one of these other more advanced cameras and see just how well it really does. We've had the sensor thing and I think most agree there are other, better sensors out there but struggle to see quite why people see it as such an earth-shattering deal breaker in a camera of this type.

Go out and buy the latest Sony then, let's see how it copes with being battered, how long it lasts, how reliable it is, whether it can focus as well as the new Canon. Because unless it can saying that Canon is over-priced or based on old tech is to miss the point. It's innovative to put some new tech in a camera, it's actually bloody hard to make it reliable and resilient. That's the difference,

Reliable and resilient? Ugh! You do realise that means your camera will be even more out-dated in a few years time? Why would you want a perfectly good camera that will produce great images for years, when you could be replacing it every year and living on the cutting-edge of tech? Get hip, daddy-o, and swing with the times!

Replacing quite expensive gear every year? I replace my gear when it's broken and have paid off, not sooner. Who needs cutting-edge technology, when previous generation is 95% as good as the new one? Unless you're a pro and can deduct new gear from taxes (which still isn't that easy and cheap) or a rich person, who don't need to think abot paying bills and feeding family, because his income exceeds majority of popuplation, I don't think there are that many people, than can afford spending for 5D3 or 1Dx every year. A new 5D body every year basicly means around 250 USD spend monthly. In my world, this is not a spare change to me, especially for a hobby and not a working tool.