Canon 7D or 7D mark ii

[Istnk]

I am amateur photographer. I use my Canon 1300D for a year now and i want to upgrade for something better. I am deciding between Canon 7D and 7D mark ii for sports and wildlife photography, partially portraits. Later on i want to try something with video too. I can get Canon 7D for around 350 bucks and 7Dm2 for around 950 bucks. My question: Is the 7D mark ii worth the money or should i get the cheaper 7D?

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

7DII officially has 2/3 stop better noise performance but in practice it is close to 1.5 stop. Noise reduction is much easier.

The colors of the 7DII are better: more vivid, better contrast.

Better sensor makes heavier crops possible.

Dual card holders give you an easy backup when in nature.

GPS comes in handy when shooting in large nature reserves. Where did I see that animal?

A bit more pixels is a bit more reach.

Higher frame-rate, etc.

 

[Kaso]

I am deciding between Canon 7D and 7D mark ii for sports and wildlife photography, partially portraits. Later on i want to try something with video too. I can get Canon 7D for around 350 bucks and 7Dm2 for around 950 bucks. My question: Is the 7D mark ii worth the money or should i get the cheaper 7D?

I use my 7D regularly. To me, this camera is totally capable for some more years.

"Later on i want to try something with video too"? I would leave later for later.

I want to share an important consideration: Excellent lenses are more relevant and make a significant difference. Please manage your budget and choose your lenses wisely.

 

[kreygscott]

I am deciding between Canon 7D and 7D mark ii for sports and wildlife photography, partially portraits. Later on i want to try something with video too. I can get Canon 7D for around 350 bucks and 7Dm2 for around 950 bucks. My question: Is the 7D mark ii worth the money or should i get the cheaper 7D?

I use my 7D regularly. To me, this camera is totally capable for some more years.

"Later on i want to try something with video too"? I would leave later for later.

I want to share an important consideration: Excellent lenses are more relevant and make a significant difference. Please manage your budget and choose your lenses wisely.

+++1

 

[Techo]

I have both. I didn't think the upgrade to the mkII would be a noticeable difference. It definitely was. The quieter shutter feature and larger buffer is worth it alone. Definitely easier to capture sports events with. An all around more pleasant camera to use. You can find a used model in really good condition for under $800.

 

[Robert Krawitz]

I find the difference to be night and day.

When the mkII came out, I sold one of my 7D's and bought an mkII. Every comment I've sen here applies -- the effective high ISO performance improvement is well over a stop, the AF is better, it's easier to clean up noise, and such. I'm not a pro (although I shoot a fair number of events for my alma mater and also where I work), so I haven't been able to justify to myself buying a second mkII, but it has been tempting if/when I could find it at a good price until the mkIII comes out.

I use my original mostly as a backup. If I carry two bodies (such as for sports), I use the 7D for the less demanding shots (for their end shooting basketball, for example). For quite a while I was backing off the baseline far enough that I could use my 70-200 on our end of the court, but I found that was just a bit too long for that purpose.

As others have noted, they share a name and the specs look fairly similar, but that's about as far as it goes. The original 7D feels crude compared to the mkII.

 

[elfroggio]

The &dMkII is a better camera than the 7D but...

The question is: with which lenses?

The 7DMkII with the older lenses is quite good but when you add the newer USM lenses like the 70-200L MkII both the f/4 and the f/2.8, the gap between the cameras widens by a good margin. It's the same with the 24-70 and the 24-105 lenses.

With the 50 STM f/1.8, the gap between the 7D and the 7DMkII is fairly narrow.

 

[YWG]

I am amateur photographer. I use my Canon 1300D for a year now and i want to upgrade for something better. I am deciding between Canon 7D and 7D mark ii for sports and wildlife photography, partially portraits. Later on i want to try something with video too. I can get Canon 7D for around 350 bucks and 7Dm2 for around 950 bucks. My question: Is the 7D mark ii worth the money or should i get the cheaper 7D?

I've owned a 7D1 since 2010 and have shot field and indoor sports, racing, airshows, wildlife and events on it. I think it is an exceptionally capable action stills camera. So much so that I sold off my 1D mkiii which had a higher burst rate, more sophisticated AF and higher ISO but getting burdensome to carry around.

The 7D2 would be without a doubt an upgrade over the 7D1 (like a modernized mini1D mkiii). However, the 7D1 is a huge action capability jump from your 1300D. I personally would buy the 7D1 and roll the money difference into a trip or lens.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I am amateur photographer. I use my Canon 1300D for a year now and i want to upgrade for something better. I am deciding between Canon 7D and 7D mark ii for sports and wildlife photography, partially portraits. Later on i want to try something with video too. I can get Canon 7D for around 350 bucks and 7Dm2 for around 950 bucks. My question: Is the 7D mark ii worth the money or should i get the cheaper 7D?

I've owned a 7D1 since 2010 and have shot field and indoor sports, racing, airshows, wildlife and events on it. I think it is an exceptionally capable action stills camera. So much so that I sold off my 1D mkiii which had a higher burst rate, more sophisticated AF and higher ISO but getting burdensome to carry around.

The 7D2 would be without a doubt an upgrade over the 7D1 (like a modernized mini1D mkiii). However, the 7D1 is a huge action capability jump from your 1300D. I personally would buy the 7D1 and roll the money difference into a trip or lens.

And there is copy variation. For instance, the AF of my 7DII is not that great compared to the 7DI I owned before. Even a bit worse.

On the other hand, the noise capacity of my 7DI was great, noise free images at ISO 800 while i've seen copies with terrible results at ISO 400. Still, my 7DII is much better at noise.

 

[xzebra007]

I too am so close to pulling the plug on a 7D mk ii, however I am worried as it originally came out in 2014. This would be an upgrade from my current 50D, which would be a huge leap. My concern is should I wait for the mk iii which looking at the timeline of Canon should come out within the next year.

I guess my concern is....would the benefits outweigh the gains of by now vs waiting for the mk iii? Is the 7d mk ii still a solid performer seeing it is nearly 4-5 yrs old comparably?

 

[Kaso]

I too am so close to pulling the plug on a 7D mk ii, however I am worried as it originally came out in 2014. This would be an upgrade from my current 50D, which would be a huge leap. My concern is should I wait for the mk iii which looking at the timeline of Canon should come out within the next year.

I guess my concern is....would the benefits outweigh the gains of by now vs waiting for the mk iii? Is the 7d mk ii still a solid performer seeing it is nearly 4-5 yrs old comparably?

I consider my 50D and 7D solid performers today, in November 2018 -- for me.

I suppose the 7D Mark II is still a solid performer for what it is designed and built for. Pretty sure those who have been using it for 4-5 years will say the same.

Only your needs and wants (and wallet) dictate whether you buy a 7D Mark II today or wait for 7D Mark III (presumably released in 2019 or 2020, at launch price).

 

[xzebra007]

I too am so close to pulling the plug on a 7D mk ii, however I am worried as it originally came out in 2014. This would be an upgrade from my current 50D, which would be a huge leap. My concern is should I wait for the mk iii which looking at the timeline of Canon should come out within the next year.

I guess my concern is....would the benefits outweigh the gains of by now vs waiting for the mk iii? Is the 7d mk ii still a solid performer seeing it is nearly 4-5 yrs old comparably?

I consider my 50D and 7D solid performers today, in November 2018 -- for me.

I suppose the 7D Mark II is still a solid performer for what it is designed and built for. Pretty sure those who have been using it for 4-5 years will say the same.

Only your needs and wants (and wallet) dictate whether you buy a 7D Mark II today or wait for 7D Mark III (presumably released in 2019 or 2020, at launch price).

Thanks Kaso...very well said...I do believe, myself included, that many times we get sucked into the reviews and techy crap vs the real world use and performance.

No offense to any site in specific because they all do it, but the 200% zoom in noise and sharpness means nothing if I shot a 24 x 36 Architectural print at Staples and it looks great - (just using that for an example seeing how I did that with my 50D).

I do however want to have better ISO and AF performance, thus my interest in the 7D mk ii especially at the price-point the are now.

 

[dougeryb]

I sold my 7D about 5 years ago. One of the biggest mistakes ever. I look at the photos I took with that camera and shake my head with disbelief that I ever sold it.

Not being able to shake it, I recently purchased the 7d Mk ii. Even though its at the end of its life cycle, Im still glad I bought it.

Having two card slots, 10fps, much lower noise than the 7d (fast sports in poorly lit gyms were a pain with the original 7d) are all fantastic upgrades. Im not a video shooter so the video is a moot point for me.

So I say yes it is still a good buy. The 7d mkii is, and will continue to be for years, a quality camera.

 

[Kaso]

I do however want to have better ISO and AF performance, thus my interest in the 7D mk ii especially at the price-point the are now.

By all means, treat yourself to it!

7D III is still an unknown, and its early adopters will pay launch price.

 

[The Aussie Viking]

I sold my 7D about 5 years ago. One of the biggest mistakes ever. I look at the photos I took with that camera and shake my head with disbelief that I ever sold it.

Not being able to shake it, I recently purchased the 7d Mk ii. Even though its at the end of its life cycle, Im still glad I bought it.

Having two card slots, 10fps, much lower noise than the 7d (fast sports in poorly lit gyms were a pain with the original 7d) are all fantastic upgrades. Im not a video shooter so the video is a moot point for me.

So I say yes it is still a good buy. The 7d mkii is, and will continue to be for years, a quality camera.

Having worked through the following range of Canon DSLR's - 350D, 40D, 50D, 7D, 6D, 7DMkII, 6DMkII, I am in a good position to comment.

The 50D is a bloody nice camera. I had to just about prise it out of the wife's hands to move her to the 6D (we had a trip planned with indoor no flash photography in Museums etc, and knew the 6D would perform much better and didn't want to part with the 7D of mine to finance it). It's natural feel of every control in the right spot and great IQ hasn't been forgotten.

My initial move 40D > 7D went through a bit of a confidence struggle. It was probably the jump in MP and me viewing things at pixel level to judge how sharp I nailed it. The higher MP camera's capture that much detail that nailing it razor sharp like we did in the 8-12Mp days makes you think your hit rate has dropped, even if it hasn't. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who went through a learning phase, and missed the "lazy brain" portrait, landscape, sports etc. and actually had to think for myself as to what aperture etc. I wanted for each shot.

My jump from 7D > 7DMkII had no such issue. I suppose I had already accepted that pixel-peeping would cause self-doubt, and had got used to the 7D. The better AF and pretty much everything on the move was a confidence boost. It's way more than just a MkII badge and a bit of a fiddle with the spec sheet. I don't regret my transition through the 7Das it helped me learn things, such as to concentrate on the shooting technique instead of a "she'll be right" attitude. I needed discipline to follow-through on the shot like a rifle-shooter, not wandering off for the next shot and snatching the shutter in the process.

7D really needs good light. Whilst I have pushed it all the way to 12,800ISO in caves it was very evident that 3200 was fine, 6400 was more the practical limit, and suffered in muted colour. In a nutshell, I stopped trying to take shots in low light as the missus would shoot all the keepers with the 6D. There was almost never a shot of mine that would be a keeper in comparison.

The 7DMkII on the other hand will happily go to 16,000ISO (Native) good enough I let the Auto ISO have that as an upper limit. Yes, I have tried the 25,600 and the 51.200 (Bad, but marginally better than the 12,800 of the 7D. And whilst the 6D's (&6DMkII's) images normally beat mine for IQ, the margin is closer, and sometimes I have photo'd something that she walked past and with PS and NR software I have got some good keepers. And the AF improvement in low light is noticeable. I frequently would nail AF with my favourite lens (17-55mm F2.8 IS Canon) and her 6D would struggle even with the 50mm F1.2. So it was a big difference. Having said that, the 6DMkII kicks it's butt in low light AF by a noticeable margin. It's bloody near psychic, and that's on the F4 24-105 lens!

In short, I'd certainly say go the 7DMkII over the original, even if that means (temporarily) forgoing better glass. Because as people rush to the new Mirrorless glass, there will be quality L glass coming onto the second-hand market.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I too am so close to pulling the plug on a 7D mk ii, however I am worried as it originally came out in 2014. This would be an upgrade from my current 50D, which would be a huge leap. My concern is should I wait for the mk iii which looking at the timeline of Canon should come out within the next year.

I guess my concern is....would the benefits outweigh the gains of by now vs waiting for the mk iii? Is the 7d mk ii still a solid performer seeing it is nearly 4-5 yrs old comparably?

Hard to say, the leap from 50D to 7D was already a huge leap, I had them both. The 7DII was much better, another leap.

The 7DII is a solid performer. In fact, if there will be no 7D Mark 3, I don't know what to do. Probably I stay with my 7DII and wait for a 40 Megapixel 5D version. If both series are not upgraded, I don't buy anything for five years and then change brands.

The introduction of the 7DII may be in fall 2019. It will be expensive then and the first series may have issues. I waited on purpose with buying the 7DII until all teething problems were solved (learned my lesson with the 7D). That may take a year at least, something to consider.

 

[DigitalSeeker]

Save your money in case the 7D-III is of interest when announced. Buy the 7D. I have both. My primary interest is birds in flight and other wildlife. I got better and more consistent results with the 7D than the MarkII. See very long thread on the 7D-II topic started 3 weeks ago by xXNIFIXx in this forum. Buying a MarkII is like throwing money down a rathole. Also see an excellent website by photographer Ari Hazeghi, with very helpful articles and comments.

 

[Techo]

...

I guess my concern is....would the benefits outweigh the gains of by now vs waiting for the mk iii? Is the 7d mk ii still a solid performer seeing it is nearly 4-5 yrs old comparably?

If you're not a video shooter, the 7D mkII is a great camera. The current price point is as such, that when/if the mk3 comes out, it will lose it's value but it won't feel like punch in the gut and it would then be a great backup cam if you decide to upgrade.

 

[bkpix]

I've got both the 7D and the 7D2. The 7D is fine in good light. The 7D2 is better and works in worse light. I never liked the 7D that much; the 7D2 is a reasonable all-around camera for people who shoot a lot of fast-moving sports or wildlife, though it's probably worthwhile only if you plan to put the time and practice into understanding its fairly complicated autofocus setup.

One suggestion: Keep open the future possibility of adding a full frame camera to your stable. That means buy only EF lenses, non EF-S.

The best choice for people on a budget is the original 6D, which is incredibly cheap these days. The 6d completely rocks portraits and bad light. It's lightweight and quiet and as close to unobtrusive as a Canon DSLR is going to get. The 6D2 has some improvements over the original -- among them the flippy screen, better autofocus and the ability to use exposure compensation when shooting in manual mode with auto ISO -- but costs more.

 

[GreatWhiteWing]

I am amateur photographer. I use my Canon 1300D for a year now and i want to upgrade for something better. I am deciding between Canon 7D and 7D mark ii for sports and wildlife photography, partially portraits. Later on i want to try something with video too. I can get Canon 7D for around 350 bucks and 7Dm2 for around 950 bucks. My question: Is the 7D mark ii worth the money or should i get the cheaper 7D?

Worth is something only you can determine for you. In my home are both bodies, I use the mark II and my son uses the 7D and for ME it's worth it. The 7D is no slouch though and used now one of the better values out there.

The mark II is rumored to be replaced soon so prices might drop.

Either one would be a big improvement for you