Quantcast

Canon 7D

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
21,992
1,679
In my pants
Had it for about 10 days, was going to be backup/fun/etc to my 1ds2's. I just sold it.

Its the best built non one series they ever made, the AF was better than any non one series, but the images out of it sucked. Videos were nice and if I was shooting a lot of video I may have kept it. But it just was lacking detail in the images and the iso noise (400 and up) was pretty sh1tty. I shot one wedding with it, a bike clinic and an mtb action ad with it so I did put it through some tests.

If they put the 7d AF and build into a 5d2, it would be the best camera ever made.
Your standards for stills are no doubt way higher than mine. I've seen a good bit from the 7Ds that are out there that make me think I'd have few complaints. The full frame bit really doesn't bother me. Noise above 400 ISO might....... I've been looking for an excuse to buy an 'OK' dslr. The video capabilities of this thing just made it even more appealing as a second video camera too.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,165
0
california
Your standards for stills are no doubt way higher than mine. I've seen a good bit from the 7Ds that are out there that make me think I'd have few complaints. The full frame bit really doesn't bother me. Noise above 400 ISO might....... I've been looking for an excuse to buy an 'OK' dslr. The video capabilities of this thing just made it even more appealing as a second video camera too.
I'll be playing with a 5DMk2 tonight...
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
21,992
1,679
In my pants
The VIDEO stuff on the 7D is why my ears are perked up. With what you'd pay for a video camera with a true 35mm lens, this thing is awesome. And it actually uses 'real' frame rates that you can mix with other footage (unlike the 5dmii). Honestly the slr capabilities are secondary to me. I'm sure I can live with it. Especially for the price difference.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
The VIDEO stuff on the 7D is why my ears are perked up. With what you'd pay for a video camera with a true 35mm lens, this thing is awesome. And it actually uses 'real' frame rates that you can mix with other footage (unlike the 5dmii). Honestly the slr capabilities are secondary to me. I'm sure I can live with it. Especially for the price difference.
That's true. Have fun with all the photographers who suddenly think they are cinematographers :)
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
21,992
1,679
In my pants
That's true. Have fun with all the photographers who suddenly think they are cinematographers :)
I live in the woods and spend time on the internet for a reason. I talk to and therefore have to tolerate no one. Silence in my little communications world is just a click away:D

I honestly haven't owned an slr since I had a badass old nikon film camera I found in a thrift store in the late 80s. But it's pretty safe to assume most somewhat decent DSLRs (like the 7d) should have interval timers right? Even if it's a secondary accessory? Again....timelapse/video concerns. If I end up with a full manual camera that I get a few squirrel pics with, the still imagery side of me will be satisfied.



anyway....I just saw some vid footage from a 7D that makes me think it suffers from the same jellovision shlt that every CMOS video camera suffers from. Might not be ideal. Dumb question: Is ANYBODY making non CMOS sensors on DSLRS?
 
Last edited:

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
anyway....I just saw some vid footage from a 7D that makes me think it suffers from the same jellovision shlt that every CMOS video camera suffers from. Might not be ideal. Dumb question: Is ANYBODY making non CMOS sensors on DSLRS?
No.

The old sensors had another advantage: really high flash sync.

Everything has been sacrificed on the altar of low noise at high iso because I "don't want to learn how to use flash!"
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,643
396
NC
Everything has been sacrificed on the altar of low noise at high iso because I "don't want to learn how to use flash!"
Next time I'm out in the woods at 5:30 with the sun peeking over the horizon and a green heron snatching up his morning breakfast, I'll ask him to hold on just a second while I set up my flash...
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
21,992
1,679
In my pants
Next time I'm out in the woods at 5:30 with the sun peeking over the horizon and a green heron snatching up his morning breakfast, I'll ask him to hold on just a second while I set up my flash...
You think it'll work? I could see a blue heron willing to work with you.



On the flash thing. It's hilarious watching some of clay porter's vids (shot with a cmos sony ex1). He gets lots of podium shots obviously and the flash bulbs just destroy any semblance what a scene should look like.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,643
396
NC
Then you should be shooting with your flash and Better Beamer already attached. :D
I really don't like the way the Better Beamers make the shots look.

I get that, much of the time, a carefully set up flash configuration (including gels) can look like natural light... but that direct flash just isn't good. Especially not for most birds, since their pupils reflect a ton of light.

Perhaps it is my lack of skill. :monkey:
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
Next time I'm out in the woods at 5:30 with the sun peeking over the horizon and a green heron snatching up his morning breakfast, I'll ask him to hold on just a second while I set up my flash...
I have no bird shots.

I have lots of people shots.

Ergo, I've had lots of times that I'd rather have a faster flash sync than high iso performance.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,643
396
NC
That's fine, I get that there's a desire for it.

You said:

Everything has been sacrificed on the altar of low noise at high iso because I "don't want to learn how to use flash!"
I was just pointing out that there are more reasons for wanting low noise at high ISO than simply refusing to learn how to use good flash techniques.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
That's fine, I get that there's a desire for it.

You said:



I was just pointing out that there are more reasons for wanting low noise at high ISO than simply refusing to learn how to use good flash techniques.
Well, sure. But you and I both know that's not what is driving the high iso thing. How'd anyone ever get a bird shot with film?
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
25
behind the viewfinder
Well, sure. But you and I both know that's not what is driving the high iso thing. How'd anyone ever get a bird shot with film?
it's funny...i have an old set of Time/Life Science and Nature books that my youngest son likes to read w/ me at night. these are from the '50s i think, possibly early 60s. i had 'em when i was a kid.

the photography ain't all that great for the most part.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,643
396
NC
Well, sure. But you and I both know that's not what is driving the high iso thing. How'd anyone ever get a bird shot with film?
How'd you ever do anything without computers?

Just because people did it before, doesn't mean the advancements aren't great and doesn't mean that, for instance, I'm not going to value high ISO over many other features.

I understand why you want a different feature set, all I'm saying is that your desire for a set of features doesn't make something else a bad choice or lacking in merit.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
I understand why you want a different feature set, all I'm saying is that your desire for a set of features doesn't make something else a bad choice or lacking in merit.
No, it does. Wade into the sewer that are internet photography forums and see how many people love high iso because "I hate using flash!"

When someone tells me they hate using flash, 99% of the time it means they don't have any idea at all how to light.

It's the high fructose corn syrup of image making, I tell ya...rabble rabble rabble.

On a positive note, all the cameras with video now ensure that I won't have to see so many horrible photos, because everyone will be making horrible videos instead.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,643
396
NC

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,643
396
NC
Not so much the OP that I was looking at, just the range of comments - many of whom said they had problems and already shipped the camera back to Canon.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
25
behind the viewfinder
Sounds like it's just a QC problem (vs. an inherent camera flaw like the 1D) but I would think, with them getting hammered so hard on AF both from a perspective of having flawed cameras and the perspective of the 5D having very mediocre AF
:rolleyes:

it's not a sports camera, but i seem to be getting along w/ this mediocre AF system. yeah, could it be better? sure. mediocre? i guess it depends on yr level of hyperbole.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,848
0
Orange County, CA
Not so much the OP that I was looking at, just the range of comments - many of whom said they had problems and already shipped the camera back to Canon.
Yeah, but look at where the range of comments is from. If they tried to tell me the sky was blue I'd walk outside and look up to check myself...
 

WhoRyder

Turbo Monkey
Nov 28, 2007
1,835
0
NYC
After all this time, i'm convinced the 7D is better than the 300s... simple because of the video resolution... everything else is just like the Canon 50D Vs. the Nikon D300....

I've seen some amazing videos from the Canon 7D...
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
21,992
1,679
In my pants
If I were to get this camera, what lens would I want? What SINGLE lens....

Shooting would be biking, skiing, and some landscapes. I don't care about bugs and flowers. Also would be using it for video of course.
 

Racerx7734

Monkey
Mar 4, 2002
616
0
Hostile Sausage
If I were to get this camera, what lens would I want? What SINGLE lens....

Shooting would be biking, skiing, and some landscapes. I don't care about bugs and flowers. Also would be using it for video of course.
On a budget:
70-200 F4L - $500-$700 - GREAT glass for the money
Cheap and awesome.

if you have the scratch:
70-200 F2.8L IS - $1000 - 1300 - BADASS.....period. Pretty much the standard.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
25
behind the viewfinder
if you can find a good, working condition 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $1000, buy it even if you don't plan on using it. you'll be able to sell it and make a few hundred. they are $1700 new right now.

woo, how far away would you be shooting from? one could argue that the 'normal' length (ie 17-50ish on a crop) would work as well as the longer lens...depends on what perspective you want.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
21,992
1,679
In my pants
I'm not blowing 1k right off the bat (famous last words). I'll be stretching a little just to get the camera and one lens. I don't want garbage but most of canon's glass is not in that category anyway right? 70-200 seems kind of overkill.

Narlus: yeah I don't need any crazy zooming. I can move closer to the subject and all. I'm just looking for the best (most versitile) lens because I'll only have one for a while. IS is 'image stabilization' right?

I guess what I'm asking as much as anything is are there any series or product lines within canon that I should be looking at. Like 'yes, get an IS lens' or 'only this type will work with the autofocus' kind of thing.
 

Racerx7734

Monkey
Mar 4, 2002
616
0
Hostile Sausage
I'm not blowing 1k right off the bat (famous last words). I'll be stretching a little just to get the camera and one lens. I don't want garbage but most of canon's glass is not in that category anyway right? 70-200 seems kind of overkill.

Narlus: yeah I don't need any crazy zooming. I can move closer to the subject and all. I'm just looking for the best (most versitile) lens because I'll only have one for a while. IS is 'image stabilization' right?

I guess what I'm asking as much as anything is are there any series or product lines within canon that I should be looking at. Like 'yes, get an IS lens' or 'only this type will work with the autofocus' kind of thing.
70-200 2.8 is great glass all around.....for just about everything.....probabely the most used lens in the biz and outside of it.

I still say 70-200 F4 for your application.........your only sacrificing the amount of light you bring in......and outside it wont make a "huge" difference especially with a flash.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
25
behind the viewfinder
IS won't be very useful for what you are looking to do. think of IS as an invisible tripod, that allows you the steady the lens/camera at slow shutter speeds.

personally i would look at the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 zoom; it's got the speed of the fastest zooms (opens to f/2.8) and generally gets good marks. it's also much cheaper than the canon equivalent.

sigma 18-50

tamron 17-50

check out user-submitted lens reviews at fredmiranda.com or photography-on-the.net
 

Mulestar

Turbo Monkey
Sep 18, 2007
1,062
0
in the dirt
Check out the canon 100 mm f2.0. Being a prime lens your versatility is a bit limited, but its less than $500 and the image quality is comparable to much more expensive zoom lenses.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,815
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
personally i would look at the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 zoom; it's got the speed of the fastest zooms (opens to f/2.8) and generally gets good marks. it's also much cheaper than the canon equivalent.
Check out the canon 100 mm f2.0. Being a prime lens your versatility is a bit limited, but its less than $500 and the image quality is comparable to much more expensive zoom lenses.
These are actually the only two lenses I own... The Tamron is great. Fixed ap, reasonably fast AF, good focal range on a crop, and great pictures. Probably on my camera 80-85% of the time.



The 100mm f2.0 is an amazing lens, and while I love shooting with it, I can't imagine using it as my only lens. You need a lot of room in order to get anything besides a close-up face shot of someone... Remember, it's a lot easier to walk forward than it is to walk backward. I usually grab this for family gatherings and times when I want to get close-up shots without people noticing. Definitely better for shooting people than sports or landscape.





Even though I like both, I'd definitely lean towards the Tamron over the 100mm f2. While it's fun and challenging to shoot with a 100mm prime, it's WAY too close for most things. If you're going to suggest a prime, I'd look in the 28-35mm range. The 50mm 1.8 that I had felt like it was in between focal lengths (on a crop).

edit: and yes I have a problem cutting off the tops of people's heads. :shakefist:
 
Last edited:

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
21,992
1,679
In my pants
IS won't be very useful for what you are looking to do. think of IS as an invisible tripod, that allows you the steady the lens/camera at slow shutter speeds.

personally i would look at the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 zoom; it's got the speed of the fastest zooms (opens to f/2.8) and generally gets good marks. it's also much cheaper than the canon equivalent.

sigma 18-50

tamron 17-50

check out user-submitted lens reviews at fredmiranda.com or photography-on-the.net
Alright, the time has come.

Doing some reading, that tamron seems pretty legit.

Anybody have any thoughts on this one? Sigma 18-135

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549240-REG/Sigma_853101_18_125mm_f_3_8_5_6_DC_OS.html


Yes I'm looking for an all mountain, xc, dh, dirtjumper bike, I know.
 
Last edited: