mosc: Ok, I get that this thing is weather proofed, has modern high ISO performance, as good a shutter as you're going to get, and an AF system that's best in class for tracking motion. All that said, it's an $1,800 APS-C camera! Who has that kind of budget and can't afford a FF camera that for not much more money can match most of the 7Dm2's features with about double the sensor area? The Sony A99 is only 10% more money.
I get the "It's pro" stuff, I just don't get who is pro AND APS-C. If you're pro, don't you have enough glass where a few hundred dollars difference in body doesn't mean that much? If so, what are you doing using expensive glass with a smaller sensor? I don't get it.
Then again, if I'm a canon EF glass aficionado already and I really don't want a non-weatherproofed body or one that doesn't naively take EF glass, what choice do I have? I think that's all that this needed. A tougher 70D indeed but seems like needless expense if that was the only goal.
mosc: I think you're missing a point. I don't WANT a "full frame" camera for wildlife. I don't want to lug around an 8- or 9-pound lens to compensate for the lower pixel density of a "full frame" camera--my shoulder already barks at me for carrying a 3-pound lens around. Double the sensor area--actually 2.6 times--is a disadvantage for me for bird photography, not an advantage. And I have a 6D, which is a joy to use for other things.
Karen Casebeer: I've been looking forward to this review and it seems mostly excellent. However, I noticed the new 7D2 got an 84% and a Silver Award, but the 70D got 83%, and a Gold award. I'm not sure what the relationship is between percentage and whether a camera body gets a Silver or Gold award.
As Barney Britton explains, there is no relationship between the camera's score and its award. If that makes any sense to you, you're are smarter than I am. It never ever has made any sense to me, and DPR has been doing this for as long as I can remember. The more DPR tries to explain, the less sense it makes.
Gnaeus48: I enjoy reading user opinions especially professionals, however, I would not expect a sports photographer to select an APS-C camera for their work since isolation of the subject and depth of field is very important to them. Also when you consider that shooting at higher ISO goes along with the fast shutter speed they need to stop action the APS-C sensor generally does not produce low noise at high ISOs. But, for those of us who shot landscapes, still life and portraits, the 7D II is a super camera. If you check out the high ISO noise on the Nikon D7100 you will see significant noise in both the highlights and shadows as well. From the sample photos I have viewed at DPReview taken with the 7DII, I like the high ISO performance of the 7D II over the D7100.
But for landscape, still life, and portraits? Seriously? You'd choose the 7D2 over the 6D for these purposes? Seriously??
ThePhilips: Did Canon paid to DRP for this infomercial? Did Nikon paid DPR for the D750 infomercial?
If not, DPR, you do realize that you actively help perpetuating perception that only CaNikon is producing pro gear?
Where is the infomercial for K-5? Or GH4? Or A7S? Or X-T1? Or E-M1? Or their predecessors? Or other not-so-pro looking cameras from other manufacturers? Ask the producers - they too would gladly pay photographers to write an "opinion" piece for DPR.
That quote from hte piece by Paul B Jones is truly bizarre. 7D has slow AF? Compared to what that was available in 2009? And color reminded her of puke? Really? She doesn't seem like a credible witness to me.
Anastigmat: If I am going to spend $1800 on an APS-C camera, I would definitely scrape together another $500 for a full frame. 10 frames per second is nice but I would take better image quality instead because 100% of my photos will benefit, whereas 10 frames per second is only needed once in a great while.
You know, some of us actually WANT more DoF!
I agree with "beep 'em." What about those of us who don't own any version of CS and want to start?
Jeff Peterman: PerL,
But the issues is how much did using Kodachrome 64 impact the final result compared to if the same photographer had used a modern high-end digital under the same conditions for the same shot. Are they any better because they were taken with Kodachrome 64 than they would have been taken with digital? If the answer is "no" because of the "noise" (grain) and lack of contrast/saturation control, the this is just an exercise in nostalgia.You appear to be implying that these shots ARE technically better. If so, in what way?
My thoughts exactly; there's no way, looking at those images, I'd have thought wow, those must have been made on film. Some aren't even that wonderful to me; they seem self-conscious and not particularly interesting; although others are wonderful.