Review from an enthusiast who shoots stills

George Zip · Sep 3, 2016

I thought I would throw my 2 cents into the pit of reviews around the Net.

This review is more about what I consider average people would be interested in rather than dwelling on technical aspects such as Dynamic Range and test charts.

First a couple of things to note. 1) I am an enthusiast amateur who has been shooting intent for about two years. 2) I do not ever shoot video. So if video is your thing, look elsewhere

OK...now you know I do not have 30 years of professional experience here is what I think.

I personally enjoy shooting People, Animals, some sport and some landscapes.

I was struggling with my trusty 5DII in low light sports, so after some research I settled on the 7DII. I envisaged using it alongside the 5DIIm but now find myself using the 7DII for everything other than wide angle shooting because of the really useful features.

Rather than list all the features I will just highlight the ones I found most useful.

Focus System. This is the main reason I got it. It is outstanding. I undertand it is pretty much the same as the system in the 1DX cameras. I do not get many out of focus pictures anymore. I have it set for the joystick to move around the focus point and the the new lever near the joystick to change the area selection. I find it really easy to use and can change without removing my eye from the viewfinder. Also focus's really well in bad light.

Frames per second. The camera sounds like a sewing machine it bangs them out so quick. The 10 FPS is really useful for capturing decisive moments in sport. I am getting a lot more good moments in sport that I struggled with previously like this shot below. The only downside is how many pictures you accumulate.

My young Friend getting a whack on the nose, tough to get without the 10 FPS.

I banged out 20 or so shots of this moment and chose the one I liked best.

Anti flicker. This is gold for indoor sports. I was binning a LOT of photos previously. Almost worth the price of admission if you shoot indoor a lot.

Image quality and Color This is subjective obviously but in nice light this camera takes beautiful photos. I find shooting up to ISO 6400 to be actually good , but not so much beyond that. The above boxing photos were shot at high ISO's in horrible light. Below are some low ISO photos I took at a Zoo.

Beautiful color.

Build Built like a brick outhouse. I am nor a camera engineer but I think this would stand up to the rigors of professional use. Very solid and feels excellent in the hand.

The extra reach Very useful for wildlife, Great to get in close, especially with small subjects and capture extra detail.

Nice detail in the feathers.

Low Light. Not as good as full frames but pretty bloody good. I did not expect such good results. Here is one at 6400.

Egrets..He's had a few

Good for Landscapes.

Value The longer I own this the more I appreciate what you get for your money. I honestly think for what it's target market is ...Sports and Wildlife with the 10FPS, Weather Sealing, AF system, Dual Cards.... I really think this is a bargain.

Negatives I find it hard to find any negatives for me personally. The only two things that I can think of that would be good would be WiFi to be able to remotely control the camera with a phone for various shooting scenarios and possibly a flippy screen to save lying on rocky or wet ground or trying to get some elevation.But hey, you can't have everything.

Overall, if you want a camera for sport and wildlife that can do double duty for all other types of photography, I would certainly recommend it. I think it is an outstanding camera.

Parks71a · Sep 4, 2016

Enjoyed the read and enjoyed your photos. My favorites were the cow and the landscape. I have never shot with the 7D. Do you think it's fair to give it 5 green bars and excellent in landscape? I do like your landscape shot, and it doesnt meant it cant do certain landscapes well, but excellent or 5/5 bars means there is no better but I feel there clearly is better cameras for the job. DR is important for landscape, not the most important but it is important and adds value. For this reason alone I would give it a 4 star. Then, I would remove a star for the fact it's a low MP crop camera. Crop cant go as wide as FF and higher MP is better for landscape since often they are larger prints, more detail.

I'll disagree with 5 bars for portraits as well. While it might be fine for portraits, I feel any FF gives you more options with portraits. Shallower DOF, even if thats not your style, its and additional tool that doesnt do as well on APC. Doesnt make it a bad camera for it, I just think if thats your specialty there are better options so I would give it a 4 bar.

I have the 80D, and while I love the camera, I feel it gets 5 bars in nothing and thats not a knock on the camera because it does everything well, just nothing perfect. This is just my opinion and I am glad you love your camera!

George Zip · Sep 4, 2016

Parks71a said:
Enjoyed the read and enjoyed your photos. My favorites were the cow and the landscape. I have never shot with the 7D. Do you think it's fair to give it 5 green bars and excellent in landscape? I do like your landscape shot, and it doesnt meant it cant do certain landscapes well, but excellent or 5/5 bars means there is no better but I feel there clearly is better cameras for the job. DR is important for landscape, not the most important but it is important and adds value. For this reason alone I would give it a 4 star. Then, I would remove a star for the fact it's a low MP crop camera. Crop cant go as wide as FF and higher MP is better for landscape since often they are larger prints, more detail.

I'll disagree with 5 bars for portraits as well. While it might be fine for portraits, I feel any FF gives you more options with portraits. Shallower DOF, even if thats not your style, its and additional tool that doesnt do as well on APC. Doesnt make it a bad camera for it, I just think if thats your specialty there are better options so I would give it a 4 bar.

I have the 80D, and while I love the camera, I feel it gets 5 bars in nothing and thats not a knock on the camera because it does everything well, just nothing perfect. This is just my opinion and I am glad you love your camera!

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/89914543@N08/

Thanks for your comments.

Good point regarding the ratings. I was thinking for cameras in it's class as a crop frame camera as opposed to a full frame.

Regardless of it being crop and thinking about it more, I agree with you and I think I might reduce those ratings. I must admit I only rated them as they applied to me personally.

*edit* I can't edit the review for some reason.

Yossarian1 · Sep 4, 2016

Thanks George for your insights into how the 7D mk ii works for you and your great photos.

Your photo of the little blue headed bird is very good. I know how small they are and how quick they move. I never managed to get as good a shot as that with my old 7D.

Loved the boxing photos as well.

Keep enjoying your camera.

Alastair Norcross · Sep 4, 2016

Parks71a said:
Enjoyed the read and enjoyed your photos. My favorites were the cow and the landscape. I have never shot with the 7D. Do you think it's fair to give it 5 green bars and excellent in landscape? I do like your landscape shot, and it doesnt meant it cant do certain landscapes well, but excellent or 5/5 bars means there is no better but I feel there clearly is better cameras for the job. DR is important for landscape, not the most important but it is important and adds value. For this reason alone I would give it a 4 star. Then, I would remove a star for the fact it's a low MP crop camera. Crop cant go as wide as FF

Of course it can, if you have the right lens. Neither the 10-22 nor the 10-18 will work on full frame. Both of those lenses are excellent, the 10-22 especially excellent optically, and both are far cheaper than the equivalents for full frame. In fact, unless you are made of money, crop is far better than full frame for landscape, because the lenses are cheaper, and you get better depth of field. If you are made of money, medium or large format is better than full frame for landscape.

Parks71a said:
and higher MP is better for landscape since often they are larger prints, more detail.

That rather depends on how large you want to print your image. 20MP provides plenty of details for poster print of 20 X 30 inches, or larger. Besides, the larger the print, the further the viewing distance, at least for people who want to look at the image, rather than obsess over technical details.

Parks71a said:
I'll disagree with 5 bars for portraits as well. While it might be fine for portraits, I feel any FF gives you more options with portraits. Shallower DOF, even if thats not your style, its and additional tool that doesnt do as well on APC.

Again, that depends a lot on the lens. Given that you can use any EF or EF-S lens on the 7DII, you have access to very fast aperture primes. If you want less depth of field than the 85 F1.2 gives you for a portrait, you're talking about a shot where only one eye is in focus, and the rest of the face is blurry. Real portrait photographers would never do such a thing. I've found that people who say that FF is better for shallow DOF are simply spouting generalities that have no basis in reality (like saying that crop can't go as wide). Anyone who has ever shot crop with a fast prime knows that you can get as narrow a depth of field as is consistent with not being an aesthetic abomination. But, if you really want ultra narrow DOF, then use medium or large format, and go to town.

Parks71a said:
Doesnt make it a bad camera for it, I just think if thats your specialty there are better options so I would give it a 4 bar.

I have the 80D, and while I love the camera, I feel it gets 5 bars in nothing and thats not a knock on the camera because it does everything well, just nothing perfect. This is just my opinion and I am glad you love your camera!

Parks71a · Sep 4, 2016

You have great points and like I said, the 7d is a fine camera but 5 bars to me means there is no better and I personally do not agree with that but that's just me.

With equal lenses, the FF will give you better shallow DOF. If that's even what your looking for but still, we all know it does.

FF goes wider than 16mm, again if that's what your looking for but it CAN do it. It also does better for nightscapes which the crop can't do near as well.

Then you have the DR factor for landscapes or portraits. Not that the 7D is horrible, just other cameras are better but not all landscapes need high DR but I don't feel it's a 5 out of 5. The high MP also allows for larger amounts of cropping.

Im not knocking the 7D, like I said I have the 80D but I wouldn't give it 5 bars for anything.

George Zip · Sep 5, 2016

Good points Alastair

RogerZoul · Sep 6, 2016

Parks71a said:
You have great points and like I said, the 7d is a fine camera but 5 bars to me means there is no better and I personally do not agree with that but that's just me.

With equal lenses, the FF will give you better shallow DOF. If that's even what your looking for but still, we all know it does.

FF goes wider than 16mm, again if that's what your looking for but it CAN do it. It also does better for nightscapes which the crop can't do near as well.

Then you have the DR factor for landscapes or portraits. Not that the 7D is horrible, just other cameras are better but not all landscapes need high DR but I don't feel it's a 5 out of 5. The high MP also allows for larger amounts of cropping.

Im not knocking the 7D, like I said I have the 80D but I wouldn't give it 5 bars for anything.

George Zip · Sep 6, 2016

RogerZoul said:
Parks71a said:

You have great points and like I said, the 7d is a fine camera but 5 bars to me means there is no better and I personally do not agree with that but that's just me.

With equal lenses, the FF will give you better shallow DOF. If that's even what your looking for but still, we all know it does.

FF goes wider than 16mm, again if that's what your looking for but it CAN do it. It also does better for nightscapes which the crop can't do near as well.

Then you have the DR factor for landscapes or portraits. Not that the 7D is horrible, just other cameras are better but not all landscapes need high DR but I don't feel it's a 5 out of 5. The high MP also allows for larger amounts of cropping.

Im not knocking the 7D, like I said I have the 80D but I wouldn't give it 5 bars for anything.

Click to expand...

elansp · Sep 8, 2016

Thanks for taking the time to do the write-up - I'm in the upgrade boat and am strongly considering the 5D Mark IV vs 7d Mark II. The majority of my pictures are either landscapes or pictures of my kids playing outdoor sports like soccer and indoor sports so FPS, AF and low light performance is important.

I think I'll be able to survive without the extra 3 FPS but I think the IV's AF system is supposedly a bit better as are the low light results (indoor events). A bit apprehensive about the lack of reach of FF. I think the IV's image quality should be better but we shall see. I do like the integrated wifi vs having to add a card to the 7D II.

George Zip · Sep 8, 2016

elansp said:
Thanks for taking the time to do the write-up - I'm in the upgrade boat and am strongly considering the 5D Mark IV vs 7d Mark II. The majority of my pictures are either landscapes or pictures of my kids playing outdoor sports like soccer and indoor sports so FPS, AF and low light performance is important.

I think I'll be able to survive without the extra 3 FPS but I think the IV's AF system is supposedly a bit better as are the low light results (indoor events). A bit apprehensive about the lack of reach of FF. I think the IV's image quality should be better but we shall see. I do like the integrated wifi vs having to add a card to the 7D II.

Thanks.

I would imagine, if cost is not a factor that the 5DIV is the better way to go. The difference in price in Australia is huge though. 2000 for a 7DII or 5000 for a 5DIV.

The extra 3 FPS is nice, but not critical for casual use. I see some amazing stuff with the 5DIII. You just increase your odds a bit with the extra FPS.

If I did not have lenses, and price was a consideration, I would get the 7DII and spend the 3 grand on some nice glass.

Put it this way... In nice light, I have to really look to see the difference between a full frame and the crop sensor. To me anyway it is not night and day.

I was actually saving for the 5DIV, but now I'm not so sure, the 7DII really does nearly everything I want except for outstanding high ISO shooting. But even at 6400 it looks pretty good to me. I wonder if I am better off getting the 70-200 2.8 and upgrading my 24-70 2.8.

Good luck

KWEnz · Sep 8, 2016

George Zip said:
elansp said:

Thanks for taking the time to do the write-up - I'm in the upgrade boat and am strongly considering the 5D Mark IV vs 7d Mark II. The majority of my pictures are either landscapes or pictures of my kids playing outdoor sports like soccer and indoor sports so FPS, AF and low light performance is important.

I think I'll be able to survive without the extra 3 FPS but I think the IV's AF system is supposedly a bit better as are the low light results (indoor events). A bit apprehensive about the lack of reach of FF. I think the IV's image quality should be better but we shall see. I do like the integrated wifi vs having to add a card to the 7D II.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I would imagine, if cost is not a factor that the 5DIV is the better way to go. The difference in price in Australia is huge though. 2000 for a 7DII or 5000 for a 5DIV.

The extra 3 FPS is nice, but not critical for casual use. I see some amazing stuff with the 5DIII. You just increase your odds a bit with the extra FPS.

If I did not have lenses, and price was a consideration, I would get the 7DII and spend the 3 grand on some nice glass.

Put it this way... In nice light, I have to really look to see the difference between a full frame and the crop sensor. To me anyway it is not night and day.

I was actually saving for the 5DIV, but now I'm not so sure, the 7DII really does nearly everything I want except for outstanding high ISO shooting. But even at 6400 it looks pretty good to me. I wonder if I am better off getting the 70-200 2.8 and upgrading my 24-70 2.8.

Good luck

Thanks George, that was a good write-up and it helps crystallise my thoughts regarding a possible purchase of a 5DIV which I'd like but, to be completely honest with myself, don't really need (not that I'd tell my wife that!). I agree that the 7DII is a very good all-round camera and with good lenses it is competitive with what can be achieved with full frame cameras.

I have a few A1-sized prints (841x594mm [33"x23"]) taken with my previously-owned 7D camera and 10-22mm lens and they look stunning. Even close up they are more than acceptably sharp.

elansp · Sep 8, 2016

George Zip said:
elansp said:

Thanks for taking the time to do the write-up - I'm in the upgrade boat and am strongly considering the 5D Mark IV vs 7d Mark II. The majority of my pictures are either landscapes or pictures of my kids playing outdoor sports like soccer and indoor sports so FPS, AF and low light performance is important.

I think I'll be able to survive without the extra 3 FPS but I think the IV's AF system is supposedly a bit better as are the low light results (indoor events). A bit apprehensive about the lack of reach of FF. I think the IV's image quality should be better but we shall see. I do like the integrated wifi vs having to add a card to the 7D II.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I would imagine, if cost is not a factor that the 5DIV is the better way to go. The difference in price in Australia is huge though. 2000 for a 7DII or 5000 for a 5DIV.

I'm ok with the price difference here in the States (USD $ 1499 vs USD $ 3499) body only.

George Zip said:
The extra 3 FPS is nice, but not critical for casual use. I see some amazing stuff with the 5DIII. You just increase your odds a bit with the extra FPS.

I've rented a 1DX Mark II and now I'm spoiled - like only being able to afford Fiat and you test drive a Ferrari. My 70D has so many OOF and soft pictures, it finally got to me. I also rented the 5DIII and 7DII and used both at soccer tournaments. 7DII pictures that were in focus were fairly sharp - not as sharp as the 1DXII - plus I loved the bokeh of what the 1DXII spit out with my 70-200 2.8 lens - a byproduct of the FF sensor. For the 5DIII I used Canon's 70-200 2.8 II along with a 1.4x III TC. Also have a handful of misses but the ones that are in focus are fairly sharp at f4.

George Zip said:
If I did not have lenses, and price was a consideration, I would get the 7DII and spend the 3 grand on some nice glass.

Put it this way... In nice light, I have to really look to see the difference between a full frame and the crop sensor. To me anyway it is not night and day.

Here's a picture I took with the 1DXII - 1/1250 no PP or any edits. Basically, point and shoot - and the focus was spot on. I'm hoping the 5DIV will have similar success. I think the 7DII may get you here but I think you'd probably have to PP to get it close (though USD $ 4000 difference in equipment)

Here's the 5DIII with 1.4x III TC (again no PP - point and shoot)

and the 7DII

George Zip said:
I was actually saving for the 5DIV, but now I'm not so sure, the 7DII really does nearly everything I want except for outstanding high ISO shooting. But even at 6400 it looks pretty good to me. I wonder if I am better off getting the 70-200 2.8 and upgrading my 24-70 2.8.

Good luck

I ordered the 5DIV body only and will probably get the Tamron 24-70 2.8 IS as my walk around lens. Not willing to spend the extra money on the L version.

Thx. I do have 30 days to return the camera if not satisfied...

George Zip · Sep 8, 2016

KWEnz said:
K

Thanks George, that was a good write-up and it helps crystallise my thoughts regarding a possible purchase of a 5DIV which I'd like but, to be completely honest with myself, don't really need (not that I'd tell my wife that!). I agree that the 7DII is a very good all-round camera and with good lenses it is competitive with what can be achieved with full frame cameras.

I have a few A1-sized prints (841x594mm [33"x23"]) taken with my previously-owned 7D camera and 10-22mm lens and they look stunning. Even close up they are more than acceptably sharp.

George Zip · Sep 8, 2016

elansp said:
.

I've rented a 1DX Mark II and now I'm spoiled - like only being able to afford Fiat and you test drive a Ferrari. My 70D has so many OOF and soft pictures, it finally got to me. I also rented the 5DIII and 7DII and used both at soccer tournaments. 7DII pictures that were in focus were fairly sharp - not as sharp as the 1DXII - plus I loved the bokeh of what the 1DXII spit out with my 70-200 2.8 lens - a byproduct of the FF sensor. For the 5DIII I used Canon's 70-200 2.8 II along with a 1.4x III TC. Also have a handful of misses but the ones that are in focus are fairly sharp at f4.

I would love to own a 1DXII. They look so good.

I would wear it daily, like a gangster rapper wears jewellery.

elansp · Sep 8, 2016

George Zip said:
elansp said:

.

I've rented a 1DX Mark II and now I'm spoiled - like only being able to afford Fiat and you test drive a Ferrari. My 70D has so many OOF and soft pictures, it finally got to me. I also rented the 5DIII and 7DII and used both at soccer tournaments. 7DII pictures that were in focus were fairly sharp - not as sharp as the 1DXII - plus I loved the bokeh of what the 1DXII spit out with my 70-200 2.8 lens - a byproduct of the FF sensor. For the 5DIII I used Canon's 70-200 2.8 II along with a 1.4x III TC. Also have a handful of misses but the ones that are in focus are fairly sharp at f4.

Click to expand...

I would love to own a 1DXII. They look so good.

I would wear it daily, like a gangster rapper wears jewellery.

It really is an experience. Definitely takes some getting used to - heft, multiple buttons and dials, menu options, etc. but what came out of the camera was magic...That being said, the fact that the LCD was not fully touchscreen implemented is an embarrassment. At that price point given where technology is, there is no reason not to have it in Canon's flagship body. Have a button to turn it off if the pros don't want it...

MaxCh · Sep 16, 2016

George Zip said:
Having said all that, I am aware of a lady who is a wedding photographer and she gets stunning results with the 7DII. You could never tell it was not a 5DIII. She likes the focal lengths she gets from the EF lenses. I am pretty sure she uses 2 7DIIs and a 6D for wide stuff. She mentioned the 10 FPS is gold for getting those iconic wedding moments.

I actually think 10FPS is underrated for portraits and candid shots. I've been able to capture many amazing candid shots only because of 10FPS.

I also LOVE 10FPS for taking group pictures. You always have somebody in a group who blinks, looks away, makes face or just looks weird. In fact, I often take pictures of groups of 5 to 10 kids who love nothing more than screw up my shots by making faces. Does not matter. They can't outrun my 10FPS. I still end up with a shot where everybody in a group looks good.

Falxon · Sep 22, 2016

Keep in mind that # of out of focus shots are a mix of user skill, timing, and camera+lens AF performance.

Said differently, the AF system in the 7D is essentially the same as the 1DX2. The 1DX has more tweaks to the AF system, but there are downsides as well. A ton heavier, a built-in vertical grip (good for some things, bad for size/compactness), MUCH louder shutter release.

For a non-pro or semi-pro shooter (read that as "need to sell shots," not skill level), I'd still tend towards the 7D2. I have both that and a 5D3, and the low-light difference is night-and-day, but the AF system on the 5D3 is not as responsive as on the 7D2, not to mention 10 FPS.

Also, I agree on the point about the touchscreen. Total fail on Canon. Of course, the 7D2 with its superb dual-pixel movie AF should have had a touchscreen also, so an even bigger fail on the 7D2 there.

elansp said:
George Zip said:

elansp said:

.

I've rented a 1DX Mark II and now I'm spoiled - like only being able to afford Fiat and you test drive a Ferrari. My 70D has so many OOF and soft pictures, it finally got to me. I also rented the 5DIII and 7DII and used both at soccer tournaments. 7DII pictures that were in focus were fairly sharp - not as sharp as the 1DXII - plus I loved the bokeh of what the 1DXII spit out with my 70-200 2.8 lens - a byproduct of the FF sensor. For the 5DIII I used Canon's 70-200 2.8 II along with a 1.4x III TC. Also have a handful of misses but the ones that are in focus are fairly sharp at f4.

Click to expand...

I would love to own a 1DXII. They look so good.

I would wear it daily, like a gangster rapper wears jewellery.

Click to expand...

It really is an experience. Definitely takes some getting used to - heft, multiple buttons and dials, menu options, etc. but what came out of the camera was magic...That being said, the fact that the LCD was not fully touchscreen implemented is an embarrassment. At that price point given where technology is, there is no reason not to have it in Canon's flagship body. Have a button to turn it off if the pros don't want it...

Search

Review from an enthusiast who shoots stills

George Zip

Senior Member

Parks71a

Forum Enthusiast

George Zip

Senior Member

Yossarian1

Forum Enthusiast

Alastair Norcross

Forum Pro

Parks71a

Forum Enthusiast

George Zip

Senior Member

RogerZoul

Senior Member

George Zip

Senior Member

elansp

Active member

George Zip

Senior Member

KWEnz

Leading Member

elansp

Active member

George Zip

Senior Member

George Zip

Senior Member

elansp

Active member

MaxCh

Senior Member

Falxon

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts