| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
7d thoughts??
Frankie Creel, Photographer
 |
Boiling Springs | SC | USA | Posted: 4:25 PM on 08.16.10 |
| ->> What are your thoughts about the Canon 7d in low light conditions? How is the auto-focus? Pros...cons.... |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 4:36 PM on 08.16.10 |
->> I really hated that thing. Ran about 800 shots through it before giving it up.
Pros - Fast, cheap, great AF, quiet mirror, nice functionality, large files, HD video.
Cons - Horrible sensor, horrible quality begins at ISO 800, small sensor.
With all that said. Looking at the facts. Because it's a cropped sensor, it sucks in low light. The files just weren't up to par with the 1D or 5D series by any stretch of the imagination. I'd rather have a 1D Mark II.
It's good as a second back up body and video.
At the end of the day it all about the image hitting the sensor. And because a cropped frame just doesn't have the pixel pitch as a FF camera, you really can't compare the two. |
|
Frankie Creel, Photographer
|
Boiling Springs | SC | USA | Posted: 4:44 PM on 08.16.10 |
| ->> How is the Mark IIn in low light conditions? I am hoping to pick up another body before the season starts and I am wrestling with the two mainly because of the video aspect of the 7d. |
|
Max Simbron, Photographer, Assistant
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 4:50 PM on 08.16.10 |
->> Frankie,
I agree with most of what Corey said, except that I think the great AF should really be more of a "good" AF rating.
I had one for 3 days and put it through several games work. I too thought that it looked pretty bland past 800 and that a mk2 produced a cleaner file, so long as you can fill the frame up.
If you're looking for something that can do video, produces a nice big file that looks good at lower ISO, and gives you some versatility, try out the T2i. I got one, for well under half the price of a 7D, and it's great.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
compare the 7D and T2i. While the sensors are technically different, I see very little in favor of the 7D image. Add to that the cost difference.
The main reason to get a 7D over this would be the body style (it's certainly tougher), the AF (although in movie mode you're just manually focusing) and the size (if you got big hands, the rebels are a pain). If this is what you need, then consider a mk2n or even an older mk2.
Max |
|
Frankie Creel, Photographer
|
Boiling Springs | SC | USA | Posted: 4:55 PM on 08.16.10 |
| ->> That link is awesome, Max....Thanks! |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 5:39 PM on 08.16.10 |
->> IIn tanks out at 1600 ISO (3200 extended) and requires adjustments for noise (imho).
That said, I own several and consider it one of the 2 best DSLR's Canon has manufactured. Mostly because it doesn't have video.
7d - I have no hands on experience, but a conversation with a friend that has one kind of opened my eyes with one statement from him. "It takes pictures you don't even see and when you look at them it just starts your mind on all kinds of things that are possible that weren't before." Well, that may me more of a paraphrase than an actual quote. But I got his point. He didn't discuss quality, but he does love his camera. |
|
Frankie Creel, Photographer
|
Boiling Springs | SC | USA | Posted: 7:57 PM on 08.16.10 |
| ->> So is the IIn acceptable at iso 1600? If the noise is better at 1600 then that is the way I am leaning. |
|
Tom Story, Photographer
|
Tempe | AZ | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 08.16.10 |
| ->> I still use Mark IIs and Mark IIns. I feel the N models are quite a bit better at 1600 and much better at 3200 than the Mark IIs. For the prices they are going for these days, it is a very good value. |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Dan Powers, Photographer
|
Appleton | WI | USA | Posted: 10:43 PM on 08.16.10 |
| ->> I shot several basketball games at ISO 4000 with a 7D Canon and it absolutely blew away my Mark IIn's. Not even close. I use my Mark IIn's at no higher than ISO 1600 and the focusing in low light isn't even close to the accuracy of the 7D's. So I would respectfully disagree with those who think the Mark IIn low light files are better. That said, the things I don't like are that it feels fairly cheap ( because it's NOT a pro body), no voice tags and I hate the crop factor. For the money it's a nice piece of gear. Just not sure how long it would hold up for someone shooting at a daily paper...Dan. |
|
Dinno Kovic, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 1:30 AM on 08.17.10 |
| ->> I shoot with the 7d, mark 11 1D, and the 5d. Most recently had the opportunity to evaluate the Mark IV. I took some comparison shots from both cameras, Mark IV and 7D at high ISO and would be happy to provide you with the high iso images. I really have enjoyed my 7D and have been using it for sports under the lights and has held up really well. (totally recommend tweaking the settings, including the lens calibration) I really don't like to shoot above 800 with my mark II. I hope that helps |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 4:10 AM on 08.18.10 |
->> The noise from the 7D is different from the noise from older generation cameras. From shooting in very low light with the 7D it has high noise in shadow areas and very little in the mid-tones and highlights. Adobe Camera RAW in CS5 or Lightroom 3 will easily cope with that shadow noise.
I shoot with a 7D alongside two 5D MkII bodies and a 1D MkIV and the 7D is about one and a half stops noisier than either.
Neil |
|
Fabian Stratenschulte, Photographer
|
Arnsberg | NRW | Germany | Posted: 6:59 AM on 08.18.10 |
->> I shoot mainly sports with a 5D Mark II and 1D Mark IV.
I had the 7D for one week a few months ago and shot one soccer and one handball match with it. Auto focus is good, but image sensor, image quality and noise at high ISO are disappointing and far behind Canon's pro cameras 5dII and 1dIV.
I sold the 7D immediately and saved my money for a Mark IV. That was the right decision, although for video the 7D is a good camera.
Fabian |
|
Robert Benson, Photographer
|
San Diego | Ca | USA | Posted: 11:50 AM on 08.18.10 |
| ->> I sold it too after a week of use. Terrible image quality. |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 4:53 PM on 08.18.10 |
| ->> I use a MkIIn and a MkII. There is absolutely no difference in IQ when you shoot RAW. Any difference with in-camera JPG's is due to slightly different default settings for JPG files. Properly exposed 1600 ISO files look excellent, especially for a six-year old camera. |
|
Al Goldis, Photographer
|
East Lansing | MI | USA | Posted: 11:55 AM on 08.19.10 |
->> I had a 7D for a few months when they first came out. I sold it mainly because of the poor image quality (and because I needed the money at the time).
I have recently been shopping for another body or two and considered repurchasing another 7D. That is until I went back and looked at some of my 7D images. Bleech.
It's a darn shame because other than lousy image quality, the 7D is really a terrific camera. If only Canon hadn't tried to stuff 18MP into that tiny sensor.
To add to what Jay said about the 1D Mark II and IIn... Other than adding Picture Styles to the IIn, the big difference in jpgs between the two is the default sharpness in the IIn is set way higher. If you crank up the sharpness in the II to about 4, you're pretty close to what the IIn gives you out of the box. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 12:14 PM on 08.19.10 |
| ->> My experience has been similar to that of several others. I like the control setup and the shortcut menu and many of the other features. But no amount of tinkering with the settings or lens calibration could get me sharp images. |
|
Daniel Malmberg, Photographer
|
Huskvarna | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 1:42 PM on 08.19.10 |
->> My experiences from 7D compared to 1D mkII.
Image quality:
Depends a lot on which software you use.
With high ISO and CS4 or LR3 images get a lot of ugly noise.
With CS5 or LR3 images are really good.
A lot better than my 1D mkII.
(About two ISO steps)
Sharpness:
Initially i was disappointed with sharpness.
Sent my 7D and all off my L-glass to CPS for calibration.
(Two of my lenses where "tilt-damaged" and uncentered).
After CPS done their job i think sharpness is really good.
But the high resolution on a small sensor makes even very small issues with lenses visible.
When it comes to sharpness 7D got a strong lowpass-filter, resulting in images looking a bot softer directly from the camera compared to other Canon bodies. |
|
Peter Tarry, Photographer
|
croydon | Surrey | England | Posted: 2:05 PM on 08.19.10 |
| ->> i think its fantastic, pin sharp and great colors, the flash works a lot better on it than on my mk3, i cant fault it in fact im going to buy a second one. |
|
Nuno Gonçalves, Photographer
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 10:12 PM on 08.19.10 |
| ->> I'm really perplexed by people claiming the 7D has one to two stops cleaner high ISO than the 1D-MkII. I've downloaded many 1600 and 3200 ISO RAW images from the 7D and I have to say the noise is absolutely hideous. No way it's cleaner than the MkII. |
|
Daniel Malmberg, Photographer
|
Huskvarna | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 9:55 AM on 08.20.10 |
->> @Jeff.
I agree partly.
As i wrote in my previous post in this thread.
With some software high ISO images have a ugly noise.
Raw with Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5, and some processing.
The same images are really good.
With the same processing i LR3, my 7D files is 1-2 steps better than my 1D mkII files.
Using LR2 or CS 4 is a different story.
So i like to say that you are both right and wrong at the same time.
I know it may sound strange.
But there are a major difference between different software when converting 7D raw-files. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 11:39 PM on 08.20.10 |
| ->> I just got a 1Div, and was thinking about selling the 1Diii and buying a 7D for a third body to use as a remote or backup. I figured, the 1.6 crop and increased MP would compliment my current setup, but this thread doesn't seem too enthusiastic about the 7D...is it fair to say the 7D is just a glorified 40D with video??? |
|
Randy Sartin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Knoxville | TN | USA | Posted: 1:55 AM on 08.21.10 |
->> The whole "7D is Junk"/"The 7D Rocks" issue really interests me. There are either a bunch of bad cameras out there or they are extremely particular about how they are setup.
I'm in the 7D Rocks camp, but it did take me quite awhile to get it where I liked it. Just processed a wedding with images shot at 3200 and 5000 (shot in RAW and processed with Noise Ninja), routinely shoot sports in JPEG at ISO 1600 and 3200 (no Noise Ninja, just overexpose a tad bit), I never have a problem with AF, and it's silly sharp (in camera sharpening is cranked way up).
We had a basketball tournament in a cave earlier this year, Mark II's and III's simply could not acquire focus in this particular gym, pulled the lens off the Mark III, put it on the 7D, shot all day with it. We have two of them setup the exact same way and simply could not be happier with them. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 12:26 PM on 08.21.10 |
->> Randy:
I'm very glad for you that you are happy with your 7Ds, and I think your observation is correct -- we're seeing the same kind of random Canon quality control problems we've seen with the Mark III, 5D, and several recent lenses. Some SS members report maddening and outrageous issues and customer service problems while others rave about how great their gear works.
Call me cranky and old-fashioned (and many people do), but I simply can't bring myself to be satisfied with a camera that requires some kind of ninja in-camera sharpening to give me a good image.
Is working correctly from the start too much to ask these days? I don't understand everyone's willingness to have to fiddle with something to make it work the way it should. If you had a car that didn't run properly from the moment you drove it off the lot, would you even buy it, much less be willing to spend hours under the hood trying to make some tedious micro-adjusments? Or worse, have to keep sending it off to the manufacturer and then have no car for weeks at a time? |
|
Angel Valentin, Photographer
|
RIO GRANDE | PR | Puerto Rico | Posted: 1:48 PM on 08.21.10 |
| ->> I dig my 7D although I don't use it as much as my 5DII's but I've zero complaints so far. |
|
Randy Sartin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Knoxville | TN | USA | Posted: 3:07 PM on 08.21.10 |
->> Jeff:
I agree 100% with you! I switched from Nikon to Canon, bought the 7D, and spent a few months going through "Now why in the heck did I do this?"
A lot of that was just switching brands, but I also spent quite a bit of time tweaking things just to get acceptable images (the in camera sharpening is a good example of that).
So yes, I agree, it should be much better SOOB (straight out of box, feel free to use it) :) |
|
Rodrigo Pena, Photographer
|
Beaumont | CA | USA | Posted: 12:12 AM on 08.23.10 |
->> I use a two body system: The MarkIIN for daylight and the 7D for low light. The 7D is very nice in low light. I had to tweak it a bit to get the results that I wanted, including NO in-camera SHARPENING. This resulted in a lot lower noise. Then I sharpen in post production if necessary. The 18 megapixels has been really helpful in some situations where the long glass was not long enough. The HD video is AWESOME compared to the other video cameras that I have used. The low-light video capabilities are truly incredible.
Now for the not-so-good; AF issues. I used the micro focus/fine tuning adjustment and it seemed to work but then stopped working. I'm referring to the way my 7D seemed to front focus on some instances and yet be perfectly focused in the next moment. The AF compared to my MarkIIN is really bad. I've shot both cameras at the same event using the same lens to see if there is a focusing issue. Even subjects that are standing still are out of focus with my 7D. Other times it focuses perfectly with moving subjects. There really is no rhyme or reason, the 7D just goes off subject from time to time. It feels like my 7D is predicting where the focus is going to be, even on subjects that are standing still. So perhaps this is why a subject that is standing still is either front focussed or back focussed. Side by side the MarkIIN does not have the same problems. Sure I'm going to miss a few shots here and there, but when I miss, it's generally my fault on the MarkIIN, when I see out of focus photos on a subject that is standing still and the focus is just behind or just in front of my subject, then I get a little upset. I don't trust my 7D anymore. I'm constantly re-focusing on my subject because I have found that if I re-focus 2-3 times, I'm going to get at least 1 out of 3 subjects in focus. Sometimes I get all of them in focus, sometimes, not. It has let me down on two occasions, when the shot I needed was out of focus. That's not a good feeling.
As far as high ISO goes, yup, I agree, over exposed photos are less noisy. I can shoot comfortably up to 2000 ISO, but I know I'm going to get little white dots in my blacks when I shoot above 2500 ISO. I can shoot 3200 ISO comfortably if I don't have too many blacks. There seems to be no noise in the bright areas of the image.
So the bottom line is. I think perhaps the 7D is not quite the right camera for a pro. The MarkIV, from what I've read is not the perfect solution, but I believe it is a better solution than the 7D. I had a chance to use the MarkIV one night and I loved its performance. I had no focusing issues whatsoever. Of course I only used the MarkIV for two hours on one night. I also had a chance to view someone else's comparison test on HD video with several cameras. The MarkIV's video is not as nice as the 5DMkII nor the 7D. |
|
Robert Benson, Photographer
|
San Diego | Ca | USA | Posted: 12:43 AM on 08.23.10 |
| ->> 7d is garbage, to me. image quality is horrific. I had one for two weeks then returned. Mk2n still remains sharpest camera ever, behind my medium format digital back. As reference, I also shoot with mk3 and 5dmk2. |
|
Dave Collyer, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 1:42 AM on 08.23.10 |
->> I would still have my Mark2n today if the files weren't so 'small'. That was one of the best Digital cameras I have ever had.
I own two 7D's and like both of them for what they do - Sports (surfing for me; The small size and light weight is welcome when you have to swim with one in a water housing) and a back up to my 5DM2 for an event or wedding.
Thing is, each one is slightly different. They seem to be about a stop off of each other. I have them marked and know one from the other so it is no big deal. Would I like more consistency? Yep, but it does so many other things for the money I find it hard to complain. |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 2:19 AM on 08.23.10 |
| ->> Wow, I haven't seen this many opposite opinions on a Canon DSLR since the MkIII. |
|
Jonathan Nimerfroh, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 8:29 AM on 08.23.10 |
->> I also have two 7D's. They work great for me. Every photo on my blog was shot on the 7D. If your looking for some test samples here ya go.
http://jdnphotography.net/blog/ |
|
Mitch Stringer, Photographer
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 3:48 PM on 08.24.10 |
| ->> I am selling mine because it is too inconsistent for my taste. Contact me offline if anyone is interested. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|