Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review

[papa-razzi]

I was getting ready to sell my 7D and pick up a 7DII in the spring. Pretty much every review I have seen has been favorable.

Not so much this one.
http://www.ronmartblog.com/2014/12/review-canon-7d-mark-ii-oh-no-not-again.html

So, who is right? Should I just hang on to the 7D, or upgrade to the 7DII. I use this camera for sports shooting. Night football games, basketball, volleyball - all could benefit from the higher FPS and improved high ISO performance on the 7DII - if in-fact there is improvement in the high ISO performance.

Has anyone had both a 7D and 7DII? What are your experiences?

Is Martinsen way off in his review? His is know for being candid and speaking his mind - and he is a Canon shooter. But he seems to be a lone voice with such a negative review.

 

[Loswr]

Key statement from his review:

[quote author=Ron Martinsen]
Now if you thought the 50D, 60D or 7D was a good camera then you’ll love the 7D Mark II. However, if you are like me and thought they weren’t worth owning if someone gave you one for free, then I have to advise that you stay away from the 7D Mark II – despite how fantastic the body features and technical specifications are.
[/quote]

Seems he's expecting FF high ISO performance from a sensor with <40% of the light gathering capability. Maybe a tad unrealistic...just a tad.

 

[papa-razzi]

Good point Neuro. I didn't pick up on the subtlety of that.

 

[drjlo]

Uhh, the 'conclusion'

"Ultimately I can’t recommend this camera. Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it). Sure you’ll get less frames per second on the Nikon, but nearly all of them will be in focus and you’ll have killer image quality too!"

It's rather odd that instead of an aps-c camera (7D II), he recommends a APS-H (1D IV) and two full frame cameras (D750, D4s). They can shoot at 1.6x reach advantage? :

 

[nda]

Who's Ron Martinsen?

 

[papa-razzi]

Who's Ron Martinsen?

Who is John Galt?

 

[Loswr]

Good point Neuro. I didn't pick up on the subtlety of that.

I dunno. Maybe he's quite reasonable. After all, the 7D sucked – probably because it started getting noisy above ISO 800. Many of his test shots are at ISO 6400. Maybe expecting less noise at 3-stops more gain is perfectly reasonable. Then again...maybe not. :

As for the 'reach' argument, that's sort of a red herring IMO, the only thing a smaller sensor gets you is more MP, which isn't needed unless you're printing large. Still, he probably has the answer for that as well – to go along with your more expensive body, replace your 300-400mm lenses with 500-600mm lenses. But since ISO 6400 is so important, an f/6.3 lens won't work, you'd need f/4. What's $10K between friends? : :

 

[DominoDude]

I would be reasonably happy with a 7D Mark II. Ron M seems to have other sorts of expectations from it, and thus he gets disappointed. Being used to shoot with FF bodies it's understandable to notice where a APS-C comes short in the IQ department.

Thanks for finding his blog, papa-razzi, it was one I hadn't read before.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I was getting ready to sell my 7D and pick up a 7DII in the spring. Pretty much every review I have seen has been favorable.

Not so much this one.
http://www.ronmartblog.com/2014/12/review-canon-7d-mark-ii-oh-no-not-again.html

So, who is right? Should I just hang on to the 7D, or upgrade to the 7DII. I use this camera for sports shooting. Night football games, basketball, volleyball - all could benefit from the higher FPS and improved high ISO performance on the 7DII - if in-fact there is improvement in the high ISO performance.

Has anyone had both a 7D and 7DII? What are your experiences?

Is Martinsen way off in his review? His is know for being candid and speaking his mind - and he is a Canon shooter. But he seems to be a lone voice with such a negative review.

This guy is a nut. I just shot indoor soccer at ISO 12500 all were in focus. Obviously had to apply noise reduction but the result was almost as good as what I got in the past with a 1DX. I think he just made a mistake and had the camera turned around backwards.

I traded up from a 7D and the new model is just so much better in mostly every way. It's truely an economical sports camera.

 

[Davebo]

Who's Ron Martinsen?

Wondered the same thing. For those interested, the following may answer some questions:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ronmart

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Key statement from his review:

[quote author=Ron Martinsen]
Now if you thought the 50D, 60D or 7D was a good camera then you’ll love the 7D Mark II. However, if you are like me and thought they weren’t worth owning if someone gave you one for free, then I have to advise that you stay away from the 7D Mark II – despite how fantastic the body features and technical specifications are.

Seems he's expecting FF high ISO performance from a sensor with <40% of the light gathering capability. Maybe a tad unrealistic...just a tad.
[/quote]

Ultimately I can’t recommend this camera. Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it). Sure you’ll get less frames per second on the Nikon, but nearly all of them will be in focus and you’ll have killer image quality too!

____________________________________________________________________________________

I'd also prefer low actuation 1D Mark IV for a few dollars more, and if you are not using the 7D Mark II for wildlife and sports, a FF body for about the same price makes sense, assuming you are not stuck with a lot of EF-s lenses.

But... A $6500 D4s as a alternative to a $1800 camera! We need to get some of that stuff he's smoking.

 

[monkey44]

Well, I've owned both, am primarily a sports and wildlife shooter ... without getting into a lot of detail, which will start back and forth supportive and non-supportive posting - Yes, the 7D2 is significantly better IN THE FIELD ... how much in numbers, have no clue. I don't test by the numbers - I test in the field and evaluate images - and that's what makes up my mind when I chose equipment.

Test charts and measurements mean something to designers and manufacturers -- and some very technical oriented photographers too -- but they've already done that math for me.

My test is: Can 7D2 give me personally the performance I need to do my job. The answer is Yes - in my opinion, which is only my opinion. I bought it, shot with it, could have returned it, but sold my 7D to a friend instead - and kept the 7D2 - we both agree we made a good choice.

Well, for what it's worth anyway ...

 

[kirispupis]

I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. I have owned a 7D and currently own a 7D2, 5D3, and 6D. Initially upon receiving my 7D2 I was so disappointed that I posted that I would send it back. I wound up not doing that. Instead I only take it out of my bag when the light is good enough that I can comfortably shoot at ISO 800 or below.

You can argue that neither I nor Ron should expect much from a cropped sensor, but at least in my case I was hoping for more. Sony and Samsung have proven that this is possible, and at least sensor-wise the 7D2 accomplishes very little over the 7D. In fact, Ron's comparison comment was mine - except my original statement was "sure, the 7D2 has better image quality than the 7D, but that's kind of like saying that diarrhea is better than the stomach flu".

Should you buy a 7D2 if you already have a 7D? That really depends on how you intend to use it. The camera does have much better ergonomics and the AF is very good. I use it only for wildlife and only on my 200-400/1.4x and only in good light. In those cases it does its job, but I have a 5D3 and 6D to fall back on for the majority of days here in the Pacific Northwest.

On the other hand, if this is your primary camera then my recommendation would be to stick with your 7D (or even 70D) and save for a full frame camera in the future.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \

so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s? A D4s won't do sports or wildlife? What is he on??

 

[DWM]

I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \

so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s? A D4s won't do sports or wildlife? What is he on??

I was kinda wondering the same thing. What does he have against the 1Dx if he recommending a high priced ff? Where does the D4s beat the 1Dx for sports or wildlife? If they're good friends then they may be sharing the same smoke pipe.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I happen to be friends with Ron and have worked with him for some time. While I do not always agree with his reviews, he's pretty straight up. One thing is he has always stated what he thought about products - even when it wound up pissing off his sponsors. Keep in mind that the majority of big review sites out there have to temper their disappointments in order to not suffer financially.

In terms of his review on the 7D2, I happen to agree with it. \

so you recommend that someone who is not using the 7D MK II for wildlife or sports buy a D4s? A D4s won't do sports or wildlife? What is he on??

I was kinda wondering the same thing. What does he have against the 1Dx if he recommending a high priced ff? Where does the D4s beat the 1Dx for sports or wildlife? If they're good friends then they may be sharing the same smoke pipe.

Yes, except, as I read it, he is recommending the D4s if you are NOT doing sports or wildlife. Maybe its just poorly worded, but that's the way I read it, the everyone else meaning those not shooting sports or wildlife.

Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it)

 

[aardvark]

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 pervious 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?

 

[papa-razzi]

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 pervious 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?

+1

 

[zlatko]

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?

Yep, he's entitled to express his questionable opinions — a combination of unrealistic expectations and unfair comparisons (gosh, the D750 and D4S are better?). Noise comparison examples on the-digital-picture.com show what can realistically be expected.

 

[AprilForever]

Checked his portfolio... he is not even a sports, wildlife, or, especially, bird photographer!!!

Yet, he speaks with massive authority on all things. Likely, we should go to him for dating advice as well, and also information about how and when to plant our crops.

I quote Russian Proverb: Ocean is knee deep to him.

Who is this person? Someone we should quickly forget, as there is nothing memorable about him.