Just what I was thinking, you buy the 7D II for the extra reach etc. in this case there is no point in scaling down the image to match the 5D III when the 7D II is clearly better with your moon shots because of the reach the crop factor
Pretty pointless test if you ask me, that's like down sampling crops from a 50mp 5Ds shot to match the 5D III (22mp), what's the point in that when your comparing them for detail because they are two completely different beasts?
There is no point in that though if your buying the 7D II for the reach is there surely?
I am interested in understanding the quality differences between FF and APS-C. In John's moon shots, the enlarged 5D3 shot is clearly of lower quality than the straight 7D2. This helps illustrates that when reach is required the APS-C gives better results than enlarging the FF to the same image size. Clear win for APS-C. However, what is also interesting (well to me anyway) is if you scale down and APS-C image to match the FF what are the quality difference when reach isn't required. There is a lot of talk that FF is always better than APS-C. But is it really?
There is a lot of talk that FF is always better than APS-C. But is it really?
Just to show that i'm not a 7Dmk2 hater
Bempton Peregrine. by Neil Brimacombe, on Flickr
One thing i do notice is the huge variance in what people call a well focused sharp image, i've seen hundreds of images on various sites that people put up and say "look how good this is" but in reality would of gone straight in my recycle bin.
Those that are happy then enjoy, for the rest of us the wait goes on
As a 5Diii owner, I can see where Mark was going. None of us want to think that a camera that's half the price can produce a better image, and the basic truth is that it doesn't. However, for my own specific purposes, the 7Dii is probably the most ideal tool to have in the armoury when extra reach is needed. The APS-C sensor will alway be a compromise when the FF gathers twice as much light. A few years ago, I had a 5Dii and then bought a 7D to go with it. I wasn't totally happy with either of them. When the 5Diii came along, I was so ecstatic about it that I bought a second one to avoid swapping lenses about. I doubt if I will feel the same way about the 7Dii, but I can see it being the first camera I use in any (birding) situation where light/ISO isn't an issue.
To give an analogy, I think the 7Dii is like the new 200-400 with the built-in 1.4x extender. It's never going to be as good as a prime 400 2.8L, but it will have its uses for many people.
I'll keep the 7Dii fixed to the 500F4 with the 2x and I'll have the 5Diii on the 400F2.8. I'll always know which one will produce the better results, but I won't always be close enough to get them.
This has got to be the only "owners" thread that is populated by ex-owners complaining how it's not as good as gear costing 3x as much !
How about getting back to discussing accessories / how to get the best out of it ?
I think it has more to do with pixel density rather than overall sensor size. The 7DII has a much higher density than the 5DIII and 1DX (hence smaller pixels). Smaller pixels catch less light and tend to have more noise, however as technology advances the efficiency gets better and so this really only applies to sensors using similar levels of tech.
As Gaz said a comparison between the 5DS and 7DII would be interesting as they have closer pixel densities.
That's a test I don't need to do, because the answer is already perfectly obvious. Don't think I want to be running the 7Dii beyond ISO1600, which makes it at least twice as good as its predecessor, but a long way off the 5Diii.Try the resizing when you have the ISO wound up a bit it goes back in the 5D mkiii's favour the further the ISO is increased.
This has got to be the only "owners" thread that is populated by ex-owners complaining how it's not as good as gear costing 3x as much !
How about getting back to discussing accessories / how to get the best out of it ?
So no one is allowed to comment on any thread about a piece of equipment if they don't own it??
.
I have made a comment before about the comparisons that are made between the mk2 and other models. W at I will add is I upgraded from 550d so for me and a lot of other people great upgrade. I did not look at 1d far to expensive and I didn't want a second hand one so I never went down that route. Still a good camera and a good upgrade.
I hope the picture of the box wasn't taken with the 7DII, as the noise is terrible.Well, I seem to have made a decision!
But to try to compare it to it's more expensive brethren in the same stable is a waste of time.
I hope the picture of the box wasn't taken with the 7DII, as the noise is terrible.
Why?
Comment ? Yes
Go on like a broken record ? No
It's a different camera its made with a budget in mind and within that budget it does the job
Quite well I may add.
But you get what you pay for if you aren't happy with your 1Dx I will quite happily buy you another Brand new 7D mkii and give you in exchange for it
If people are going to compare things you do it against what they are competing against in their price bracket.
One thing I never do is put a piece of camera kit on a pedastal because they all can be improved I don't see the point in saying things are perfect when they aren't because we are kidding ourselves. We buy what suits us and what does the job you want. Some people are saying because of the crop factor the 7d mkii is better than another camera so going by this thought the new Canon 5Ds is the best camera going because it has the same pixel pitch as a 7d but 50 million of them at the base ISO I must admit it knocks sots off everything even at half a frame. Then again it's ISO capability is Cr** compared to the 5D mkiii. It's peoples preferences.
Enjoy the camera for what it is to try and compare it with others is useless even my compact
Beats the 7d mkii, 5d mkiii and 1Dx in certain areas it has 4k video for a start
Panasonic Lx100 in case you are wondering
Hi Gaz
That's the problem that and the baby 1dx comment it makes people compare it to the more expensive cameras it can't win. If we put it into context on price alone is the 1 Dx three times better it isn't. Are we expecting to much from the 7d Yes is the answer.
What we should compare it against is the camera it replaced. In that regard it really begins to shine
Better AF
Better Frame Rate
Better ISO
Better Resolution
Better Build Quality
I could go on is it perfect no. I wanted one for traveling must importantly long haul stuff pairing it with the new 400mm f4 do mkii I had 2 issues why I didn't go for it the biggest being the ISO and being to close to the 1d mk iv for me to call that's another camera to compare it against. The other issue was consistency between the bodies I am slowly beginning to think maybe that is down to earlier bodies.
To all it may concern
This is one no doubt I am going to get some flack over and one reason i very rarely post these days.
The trouble with forums is people who would get on in a pub and have a laugh over these very same type of conversations tend to loose their rag more with the written word and we are all to blame thin skinned comes to mind and I truly believe that people will get more so as time goes on in this texting age. People just can't be bothered to talk any more.time to depart I have a nasty feeling I may be due a holiday if the mods take it the wrong way
The problem is, the budget.
Many people can't afford expensive cameras or lenses but they wish very hard that cheaper alternatives is as good as those expensive gear if not better, so they try many non-scientific tests [rare scientific] to comment about how good or how bad, and if they see something wrong then they complain or cry why it isn't as good as those expensive one, and most funny thing is that when they find out that it isn't on par with those expensive ones then they just accept it and keep saying it is as much good as those expensive one, like they are lying to themselves and try to lie to others, accept wrong thing or a difficult fact doesn't mean anything rather than what all you say "You get what you pay for", i paid expensive for 1DX so i will get what i paid for, if i bought 7D2 i will never compare it or put it in same class as 1DX, even i never put my 1DsII in same class as my 5D classic even my 1DsIII surpass both my 1DsII and 5D classic regardless they are all full frame cameras.
So simply, people keep looking for a camera that is super AF speed and super high ISO capability and super fps and super resolution with super price, Canon/Nikon will never make any camera that have all what you want and more than what you want for cheap price, sure technology is getting better and after say 5 years you will see a camera that is 5 times better than 7D markii with almost same price less than $2000, but that time Canon/Nikon will produce camera that is in $6000-8000 range that will surpass 1DX/D4s/D810 and then again people will try to put those cheaper less than $2000 cameras into comparison with those $5000-10000 cameras, it will never end, it is part of human nature, and those manufacturers will never make a perfect all complete whole camera so we all buy it and never look back or buy something newer for long years, they will lose, so they play with us by producing different cameras levels with each have pros and cons and leave us with those silly comparisons and more confusion and only lucky people with a lot of money/budget buy expensive things and the story is keep going on and on.
Hi Gaz
That's the problem that and the baby 1dx comment it makes people compare it to the more expensive cameras it can't win. If we put it into context on price alone is the 1 Dx three times better it isn't. Are we expecting to much from the 7d Yes is the answer.
What we should compare it against is the camera it replaced. In that regard it really begins to shine
Better AF
Better Frame Rate
Better ISO
Better Resolution
Better Build Quality
I could go on is it perfect no. I wanted one for traveling must importantly long haul stuff pairing it with the new 400mm f4 do mkii I had 2 issues why I didn't go for it the biggest being the ISO and being to close to the 1d mk iv for me to call that's another camera to compare it against. The other issue was consistency between the bodies I am slowly beginning to think maybe that is down to earlier bodies.
To all it may concern
This is one no doubt I am going to get some flack over and one reason i very rarely post these days.
The trouble with forums is people who would get on in a pub and have a laugh over these very same type of conversations tend to loose their rag more with the written word and we are all to blame thin skinned comes to mind and I truly believe that people will get more so as time goes on in this texting age. People just can't be bothered to talk any more.time to depart I have a nasty feeling I may be due a holiday if the mods take it the wrong way
Hi Tareq
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head
No flak from me Richard.
I just think some people are missing the fact that it doesn't compete with anything.
Shot from a couple of days ago in the heavy rain.
Canon 7D Mark II - 500mm f/4L - 1.4x III Extender - Gitzo GT2542S - Wimberley Head MKII
(1120mm total with crop factor)
f/8 - 1/320 - ISO 500
Just over 50% crop.
If you didn't mention the camera and the lens i may say it is from 1DX or D800 with 500 or 600mm lens, so this 7D2 is capable of a great shots and using 500 with 1.4x you got more reach with the crop factor already there, and ISO500 is still in safe range for those cameras, well done, maybe if i will buy 7D2 then i must buy 500/600 lens too, lol.
So is it worth upgrading from my 50D yet?
What's this new-fangled 'live view' business?
Shot from a couple of days ago in the heavy rain.
Canon 7D Mark II - 500mm f/4L - 1.4x III Extender - Gitzo GT2542S - Wimberley Head MKII
(1120mm total with crop factor)
f/8 - 1/320 - ISO 500
Just over 50% crop.
Thats good technique Joe at that shutter speed mate.