7D to 7D II worthwhile?

Orville

Orville

Messages
803
Edit My Images
No
I am directing this question towards people who have moved from 7D to 7D II, or who have been able to use and directly compare both bodies.

I appreciate the spec differences, but is there really a big difference between how both cameras perform for taking pictures? I personally do not give a monkeys about video. but are just 19 AF points a real limitation, does 8 vs 10 fps make a difference, and does half-a-stop increase in low-light performance really justify an upgrade? Will I be wowed by an upgrade or will it be just an "iPhone 5 to iPhone 6 like" incremental bump?

Personal experience and field observations appreciated.
 
It'll depend what you're shooting. My reasons for changing (as you know I have :p ) is that I also got a 5D3 last year. As much as I loved the 7D, as soon as I used the 5D3 with its AF system I was wishing the 7D had the same. I also wanted a body which will be more capable in low light, something the Mk1 is well known for struggling at a bit.

For outdoor sport, the 7D Mk1 has given me photos that I've been extremely happy with. My Mk 2 will arrive in a few days so I'll let you know my first impressions once I've been out shooting with it.
 
Given good light you would be surprised how little difference there is between the two.
 
DavidC1980 said:
It'll depend what you're shooting. My reasons for changing (as you know I have :p ) is that I also got a 5D3 last year. As much as I loved the 7D, as soon as I used the 5D3 with its AF system I was wishing the 7D had the same. I also wanted a body which will be more capable in low light, something the Mk1 is well known for struggling at a bit.

For outdoor sport, the 7D Mk1 has given me photos that I've been extremely happy with. My Mk 2 will arrive in a few days so I'll let you know my first impressions once I've been out shooting with it.
Click to expand...
I used your old 7D (my second 7D after a year without one) for shooting an U14's County Cup Final match yesterday. I must say that I found nothing lacking in terms of AF speed or accuracy. It is certainly far better for range and speed than my 6D, but of course the 6D is built to be strong within other areas. It makes me wonder how good the AF on the 7D II must be.
 
The one thing that does not seem that much of an improvement is the ISO compared to the original 7D but other than that its a great step forward in other ways.
A/F is a big upgrade along with button layout and customisation,water sealing and dust sealing has been improved and dual card slots added along with A/F still at F8 with a tc.
New metering system seems to cope a lot better and auto white balance seems to be an improvement for me but the extra weather sealing and A/F are worth the upgrade in my mind as im out in all weathers.

Thing to remember is in the right hands the old 7D produced some stunning images in good light and i think that if you are looking at just an improvement in IQ and are not focal length limited the 5DMKIII is a better package as its just more or less a slow 1DX without the robust build and weather sealing.

For someone that is focal length limited or has a 5DMKIII and wants the increase in frame rate,weather sealing and limitless buffer in jpeg the 7D MKII will be perfect.
 
The AF and buttons make a big difference, but I was astonished at how much difference going from eight to ten fps makes. I do a lot of dog photography, and it has made a big difference to getting that perfect bit of the stride. For example, with the 7D I used to have to be pretty lucky to get a dog stretched out perfectly, all feet in the air over their reflection whilst running through water. With the extra two frames per second I can pretty much guarantee getting two or three shots like that from each and every run past. It makes a big difference for small birds (tits etc) in flight and taking off too.

I still have my 7D, but am very happy with my upgrade to a 7D2 for my main body.
 
Last edited:
I've wondered this as well am happy most of the time with my 7D Mk1 as mostly I shoot with ISO 400 and 800 and the mk 1 has great IQ up to 800 but starts to lose dynamic range at 1600 and above is the mk 2 noticeably better at ISO 1600 for image quality ?
Noise isnt an issue but the colour quality (dynamic range) starts to drop at higher ISOs
 
Last edited:
Not the best of exzamples as i pulled the shadows up in LR and the files are not as robust as from the 1DX but will give you an idea,can send you the original file to view if needed once home from work as the noise s not as prominent before post.

ISO - 1600 / 400mm f5.6 / 1/640th

 
I should also have said that the ability to use exposure compensation in Manual with Auto ISO is a great boon.
 
I used the original 7d for three years and I struggled taking wildlife in low light situations because of the high iso needed to get a fast ish shutter speed, anything above 800 was very poor.
With the mark ii 7d I find the focus and the high iso performance superb. Being able to customise the focus system and individualise the camera to just how you want it, is in my eyes superb. Weather sealing is also a great asset if your outside a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top