No Canon 7D2 thread?
Discussion
JohneeBoy said:
I'm keen to read some reviews and comparisons before making my decision. I want to upgrade from my old 550D as I want better low light performance, focusing and shooting speed (3.7 is hopeless for motorsports). The 70D would be adequate but the 7D2 seems to have that bit extra, based on the specs at least. The question for me is whether or not the extra 3FPS and whatever else is worth the extra pennies.
I went from 550D to 70D, I don't think the extra 3fps is worth almost another grand but that depends if you're a hobbyist or a pro earning money from getting 'the shot'.mids said:
Main negatives (to me at least) seem to be no wifi, no 4K and no touch-screen control.
How many people do you know with a 4k tv? How much do you want to spend on memory - do you have any usable way of shooting with it?I can't believe anyone who is buying this camera needs 4k. Those who do will be doing something that pays them enough to buy something better.
Janesy B said:
I went from 550D to 70D, I don't think the extra 3fps is worth almost another grand but that depends if you're a hobbyist or a pro earning money from getting 'the shot'.
Ditto. The 7D is a lot heavier but more robust. They both serve a purpose - though you could still use the 70D as an event camera.RobDickinson said:
It's not just 3fps.
It's groundbreaking af and a really deep buffer the 70d just wouldn't keep up.
I'd seriously hope they have improved the low light performance of the original 7d as well. Image quality was always fine, but never the original 7d's strong point even in reasonable light. It's groundbreaking af and a really deep buffer the 70d just wouldn't keep up.
Although it will no doubt have class-leading AF and will please many people, I can't helping thinking that the 7D2 feels like a camera that should have been launched 2 years ago.
Cameras like the new Samsung NX1 show the future - a new tech, 28mp backlit sensor that has never been seen before ( offering the theoretical promise of awesome low light capability) , 4k video with stills grab capability, NFC, bluetooth and wifi connectivity to quietly send images to your tablet and the cloud while you are shooting, 15 fps with full AF and even more AF sensors than the 7D2.
Granted, the Samsung does not have the lens range and there are still plenty of reasons to choose the Canon, but the 7D2 does seem old to me, already.
Cameras like the new Samsung NX1 show the future - a new tech, 28mp backlit sensor that has never been seen before ( offering the theoretical promise of awesome low light capability) , 4k video with stills grab capability, NFC, bluetooth and wifi connectivity to quietly send images to your tablet and the cloud while you are shooting, 15 fps with full AF and even more AF sensors than the 7D2.
Granted, the Samsung does not have the lens range and there are still plenty of reasons to choose the Canon, but the 7D2 does seem old to me, already.
photosnob said:
I can't believe anyone who is buying this camera needs 4k.
We've already explained why 4K would be good to have and jurbie's link was a good example of that. Lack of 4K probably wouldn't stop me buying the 7D2 but when comparing bodies it's definitely on my list of features that I'd like. Agreed Toppstuff ^^ It's a shame that the NX1 isn't being launched with a longer lens. They've shown a 300mm f2.8 prototype but no release date. Looking forward to seeing some example photos and I'm sure it's going to be compared alongside the 7D2 in a lot of reviews.
The 4K is useful for serious videographers.
There's a growing trend on people choosing a DSLR out of choice for everything up to and including pro work.
The killer feature of the DSLR is the low light performance due to the larger sensor than a video camera. So, if you are buying a DSLR for serious video work, you'll end up with a full frame sensor camera.
My guess is this is why it's left out of the 7Dii. It's just Canon's attempt to segment the market and produce cameras for particular uses.
There's a growing trend on people choosing a DSLR out of choice for everything up to and including pro work.
The killer feature of the DSLR is the low light performance due to the larger sensor than a video camera. So, if you are buying a DSLR for serious video work, you'll end up with a full frame sensor camera.
My guess is this is why it's left out of the 7Dii. It's just Canon's attempt to segment the market and produce cameras for particular uses.
JustinP1 said:
The 4K is useful for serious videographers.
There's a growing trend on people choosing a DSLR out of choice for everything up to and including pro work.
The killer feature of the DSLR is the low light performance due to the larger sensor than a video camera. So, if you are buying a DSLR for serious video work, you'll end up with a full frame sensor camera.
My guess is this is why it's left out of the 7Dii. It's just Canon's attempt to segment the market and produce cameras for particular uses.
I'm not a serious videographer. However I've got a 5diii and a 1dx. Both full frame. If a firmware upgrade came along offering 4k I wouldn't dream of using it. There's a growing trend on people choosing a DSLR out of choice for everything up to and including pro work.
The killer feature of the DSLR is the low light performance due to the larger sensor than a video camera. So, if you are buying a DSLR for serious video work, you'll end up with a full frame sensor camera.
My guess is this is why it's left out of the 7Dii. It's just Canon's attempt to segment the market and produce cameras for particular uses.
I'll go back to my original question. How many people who want 4k have a 4k tv? How many of you have the memory to handle of it... Where can you upload it for people to see it? I know you are all going to say that this will come in the future etc... However a body of a camera doesn't have a long life. And people are still producing high end work not even on 1080p. The HD you see when you watch sky isn't 1080p. 4k is not relevant to the mainstream user at the moment.
Low light is still low light... If you can get some lights. They are not expensive (relatively) and will vastly increase your output. DSLR's are used for video because they are relatively cheap and allow you to get a film type look, controlling all of the variables for a lot less than a professional video set up.
The 7dii is actually aimed at sports photographers. You are correct in your assertion that anyone serious about video work wouldn't buy it for that reason. However I am sure it will do a great job as a side show.
There's a very good use for 4k even though you are never going to playback in 4K.
In the same way that in the audio world, recording will be at 24 bit for dynamic range when recording, recording in 4K makes your life easier for your workflow.
I've seen videographers at weddings set up slide rails and doing zooms on critical shots just to add interest. That's a lot to get right 'on the fly', and a lot to mess up on live action when for example you've done a long zoom onto faces, and someone's stepped out of shot.
How does that change if you record in 4K?
You get the shot in focus and leave it. Then, when you can see the footage you can set up 'virtual' pans and zooms, or even a combination of both absolutely perfectly - and never output anything worse than 1080P.
There's the use.
In the same way that in the audio world, recording will be at 24 bit for dynamic range when recording, recording in 4K makes your life easier for your workflow.
I've seen videographers at weddings set up slide rails and doing zooms on critical shots just to add interest. That's a lot to get right 'on the fly', and a lot to mess up on live action when for example you've done a long zoom onto faces, and someone's stepped out of shot.
How does that change if you record in 4K?
You get the shot in focus and leave it. Then, when you can see the footage you can set up 'virtual' pans and zooms, or even a combination of both absolutely perfectly - and never output anything worse than 1080P.
There's the use.
7d was always a let down.
I went from a 40d and waited and waited, and then bought the 70d
It's a great camera, I would miss the tilting screen and wireless on a 7dmk2
So will be keeping the 70d it's fast enough, and the tilt screen is just great ESP for car shows and low down shots.
It's plenty good enough for Motorsport also with nice auto focus.
no prosumer should need a 7dmk2 over the 70d the 70d offers more for the normal shooter.
50d 60d and 7d were bad SLR imo over nikon at the time. hence why I waited, the 40d even outperforming later models is some area's !!!
70d is a great camera and a nice price point.
I went from a 40d and waited and waited, and then bought the 70d
It's a great camera, I would miss the tilting screen and wireless on a 7dmk2
So will be keeping the 70d it's fast enough, and the tilt screen is just great ESP for car shows and low down shots.
It's plenty good enough for Motorsport also with nice auto focus.
no prosumer should need a 7dmk2 over the 70d the 70d offers more for the normal shooter.
50d 60d and 7d were bad SLR imo over nikon at the time. hence why I waited, the 40d even outperforming later models is some area's !!!
70d is a great camera and a nice price point.
JustinP1 said:
There's a very good use for 4k even though you are never going to playback in 4K.
In the same way that in the audio world, recording will be at 24 bit for dynamic range when recording, recording in 4K makes your life easier for your workflow.
I've seen videographers at weddings set up slide rails and doing zooms on critical shots just to add interest. That's a lot to get right 'on the fly', and a lot to mess up on live action when for example you've done a long zoom onto faces, and someone's stepped out of shot.
How does that change if you record in 4K?
You get the shot in focus and leave it. Then, when you can see the footage you can set up 'virtual' pans and zooms, or even a combination of both absolutely perfectly - and never output anything worse than 1080P.
There's the use.
Justin - video isn't my thing. You clearly know a lot more than me. As in you are on a different level. In the same way that in the audio world, recording will be at 24 bit for dynamic range when recording, recording in 4K makes your life easier for your workflow.
I've seen videographers at weddings set up slide rails and doing zooms on critical shots just to add interest. That's a lot to get right 'on the fly', and a lot to mess up on live action when for example you've done a long zoom onto faces, and someone's stepped out of shot.
How does that change if you record in 4K?
You get the shot in focus and leave it. Then, when you can see the footage you can set up 'virtual' pans and zooms, or even a combination of both absolutely perfectly - and never output anything worse than 1080P.
There's the use.
For me that value in 4k isn't there. I will never do anything fancy enough to need it. My audio has always either been straight into the camera via a rode videomic or using a zoom recorder. I've never made it my business to learn the dark arts off it.
However until memory is cheaper (as in SD or CF cards) I won't be interested in learning. Having the seen the price of the new super SD I'm convinced it's not for me.
I have a 7D, which I like very much. However, I recently bought an EOS-M, which is a fantastic little camera and has IQ to equal the 7D.
My personal opinion is that mirror less is the way forward and Canon have missed a great opportunity. Instead of the 7D11, they should have introduced a body to compete with Sony, Pentax etc. I for one will not be buying a 7D11.
With the EOS-M, I am able to use all of my FD lenses, plus my EF and EF-S lenses, not to mention my collection of M42.
My personal opinion is that mirror less is the way forward and Canon have missed a great opportunity. Instead of the 7D11, they should have introduced a body to compete with Sony, Pentax etc. I for one will not be buying a 7D11.
With the EOS-M, I am able to use all of my FD lenses, plus my EF and EF-S lenses, not to mention my collection of M42.
.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff