First Week With The 7D

[Derrel]

Once you get into 200, 300,400,and 500mm primes, the 1.5x or 1.6x Field of View Crop in not really 'your friend' in many PJ situations. Even with your 70-200 /2.8 indoors, the 1.5x and 1.6x bodies make the lenses less versatile. Same with the 24-70 or 28-70 f/2.8 zooms, or the 85mm 1.4 prime, or the 135mm f/2 lens...on a crop-body indoors, the loss of the field of view at the edges of the frame makes the lenses significantly less-useful indoors than on a FF body. On FF those are wide-angle to short tele zooms, on 1.6x they function as short-normal to short tele lenses. Quite often, too long for group shots or scene-encompassing. A shame, since the optics are so good.

Many indoor events demand short telephoto lenses, but on 1.5 to 1.6x, you are forced to be 25 to 35 feet away in order to get any real field of view with an 85mm lens or anything longer. The crop-bodies do NOT "magnify" anything,and they do not give you more "reach" or "range"--that is a total misunderstanding shared by many. THEY PUT MORE PIXELS onto a subject, but the subject is the same exact size on a 1.5x body as on a FF body. The higher pixel density puts a lot of demands on the lenses; from what I have seen of the 7D, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is not up to the task of 18MP on 1.6x; the samples I have seen using that lens show poor corner performance on the 7D. The 7D, if it were FF, would be 43 megapixels--making it the highest-density,smallest pixel d-slr on the market that I am aware of.

 

[Antithesis]

How did this turn into another crop vs FF discussion? It's easy enough to throw a 50 on for portraits, a 35 for normal or a zoom that fits your purposes. If you need 300mm equivalent, then throw a 200mm on there. I don't see how that becomes so much of an issue. Obviously you need to adjust what lenses you use in different situations, but you can figure that out in an outing or two with your gear.

And an Off-topic question: If an 18mp camera makes a thousand dollar lens lose a significant amount of IQ... doesn't it seem like we're chasing our tails? When are we going to realize that 10 or 12mp is enough? I'm sure the 7D is a great camera, but I think the number of pixels might be more than I'd ever need... to the point that I would never actually buy the camera.

 

[Buckster]

And an Off-topic question: If an 18mp camera makes a thousand dollar lens lose a significant amount of IQ... doesn't it seem like we're chasing our tails? When are we going to realize that 10 or 12mp is enough? I'm sure the 7D is a great camera, but I think the number of pixels might be more than I'd ever need... to the point that I would never actually buy the camera.

As is your right. Now then, what's it to you if others want to buy and use it? Why do you care if a company wants to build it? How does that affect you?

 

[musicaleCA]

For me the crop sensor is a blessing. I get to use a 400mm f5.6 L series lens that is relatively cheap & get 560mm out of it for example vs a full sensor in which I would spend about 5X that amount to get 560mm.

Cropping away the same amount from the full frame image in post would give you the same thing. It's a crop, not a teleconverter.

This is very true, it's just hard for some people to make that connection for some reason. I think some photo sales sites claim lenses give 1.6x the focal length, when in fact they only give the same.

No, because it's not true. The pixel density of a crop sensor is greater than that of a full frame, 35mm format sensor. Cropping a shot from a full frame sensor to be the equivalent of a crop sensor will nearly always yield results of lower resolution. So there is a very good reason why even the high-end, money-making photogs will use crop bodies (Scott Bourne comes to mind; that man makes way too much money for a wildlife photographer :lmao: ).

As to cloudwalker and antithesis' remarks, indeed, JPEG would be the way to go. Much of the time I'm pretty confident I can nail the shot, actually, with enough forethought, and I pretty much always have the correct WB set (it's a good exercise for me to do this and it ensures consistency). However, since we only publish twice a week, deadlines aren't nearly as tight as they would be in other papers. Also, for low-light stuff, RAW can be one's saviour (particularly concerts, where colour correction in-camera is just a whole nightmare world I don't want to get into, and I doubt my editor wants to either; I'd miss shots and lose precious time shooting if I bothered to fix colours in-camera).

As for quality, it's both print and web based. So I'm in the wonderful position of having to provide for both (and suitability for B&W conversion while I'm at it). Include that with the fact that some images are used as large horizontal spreads, and occasionally as large illustrations (possibly front page), and...yeah...My philosophy is just to do my honest best to produce the highest quality image possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. My editor referred me to some books on composition, but hey, he's been shooting for nine-and-a-half years longer than me.

 

[musicaleCA]

Whoa, post ninja'd.

Derrel, I agree, it's freaky. The loss in versatility in some situations is the very reason I carry two, not one. I can quickly switch so I keep good coverage of focal lengths. And the 10-22 is surprisingly a good performer on the 7D, for not having Canon's silly "L" designation (finally got my hood for it today). The 17-55/2.8 is definitely not able to provide the LW/PH that the 7D demands for true sharpness. Once again, hence why I have really solid, high-quality lenses to put on these things.

As for the 18MP, well...That and the dual DIGIC 4 processors let Canon stick in full HD video. That's a pretty big feat, and will really appeal to some videographers (given that such a large sensor—yes I said large—would normally run into the really, really 'spenive range of things in terms of video cameras). I honestly don't care much about that though. I can always downsize later, and the noise actually, interestingly, after going through Define and downsizing, can take-on a grainy quality. Almost as if it were film.

 

[Derrel]

Antithesis asked, "How did this turn into another crop vs FF discussion? It's easy enough to throw a 50 on for portraits, a 35 for normal or a zoom that fits your purposes. If you need 300mm equivalent, then throw a 200mm on there. I don't see how that becomes so much of an issue. Obviously you need to adjust what lenses you use in different situations, but you can figure that out in an outing or two with your gear. "

Uh, Antithesis, this turned into another crop vs FF discussion only after *YOU* brought up the topic!:lmao: See if you an follow along. Here's how it happened. Again, please note, you're the one who introduced the subject:

Antithesis, in post #13:, "I think your reasoning for getting the crop-bodies is a good one, and I think they are probably better if you have to grab more action shots for reasons SwitchFX stated. I actually prefer DX sensors for the very reason that you get more focal range per dollar."

the OP wrote in post # 21,"Shooting on a crop sensor, there's a trade-off. You get some noise, but you also get more bang-for-your-buck, greater DoF at equivalent apertures, and the crop factor can be a blessing, not a curse, in many applications

zland wrote in Post #28: "For me the crop sensor is a blessing. I get to use a 400mm f5.6 L series lens that is relatively cheap & get 560mm out of it for example vs a full sensor in which I would spend about 5X that amount to get 560mm."

Buckster wrote in post #29, "Cropping away the same amount from the full frame image in post would give you the same thing. It's a crop, not a teleconverter"

AverageJoe replied to Bucketer's comment in Post #30, writing, "This is very true, it's just hard for some people to make that connection for some reason. I think some photo sales sites claim lenses give 1.6x the focal length, when in fact they only give the same."

And then my dear boy, I mentioned that the loss of the edges of each lens's field of view is not always a good thing. I've studied the situation extensively, and have enough experience to know that in many situations, the loss of one's 85/105/135 mm lenses is something that no 50mm lens can make up for. The idea of "equivalent" focal length ranges doesn't really work out except on paper, and the idea that a 1.6x "adds" focal length is not correct; it merely crops OFF the edges of the lens's field of view. There is absolutely NO magnification of the image, just a reduced field of view. And a sensor that is 2.3 to 2.5 times SMALLER than a FF sensor.

A couple of people were earlier trying to comment on the 7D vs 5D Mark II and image quality, but that discussion never bloomed. What seems obvious to me is that there are a number of people under some misunderstandings about what it means to lose the field of view of all lenses. The most critical loss comes with the 300/2.8, which is a multi-thousand dollar lens, but it becomes VERY difficult to deploy a 300mm at many events when used on a crop-body.

My point as a former college PJ and later as a freelance PJ/sports shooter is that it's not just the "wide end" that APS-C impacts, it is also impacts many other lenses,and how they can be used, and how they perform, in the context of photojournalism, which is MusicaAle's current interest.

 

[musicaleCA]

Er, you do know that my nick is actually "musicale" (Italian for "music"), not "music ale" (music and a type of alcohol?), right?

 

[inTempus]

Er, you do know that my nick is actually "musicale" (Italian for "music"), not "music ale" (music and a type of alcohol?), right?

Oh, pipe down Music Ale.

 

[inTempus]

Uh, Antithesis, this turned into another crop vs FF discussion only after *YOU* brought up the topic!:lmao: See if you an follow along. Here's how it happened. Again, please note, you're the one who introduced the subject:

:lmao:

 

[Antithesis]

I was agreeing with the OP, not starting an argument. I've shot on both extensively, and I really don't want to get into a pro-con argument about them. I like both of them for different reasons, but I have my preferences for different things...

And an Off-topic question: If an 18mp camera makes a thousand dollar lens lose a significant amount of IQ... doesn't it seem like we're chasing our tails? When are we going to realize that 10 or 12mp is enough? I'm sure the 7D is a great camera, but I think the number of pixels might be more than I'd ever need... to the point that I would never actually buy the camera.

As is your right. Now then, what's it to you if others want to buy and use it? Why do you care if a company wants to build it? How does that affect you?

I am just stating that Canon likes to sell cameras based on buzz words and marketing lingo, to the point of introducing technology that doesn't really help anyone (except maybe landscape photographers who make enormous prints, but they likely already own a 5D2). I was hoping that Canon would, at some point, release a camera with good ISO performance, weather sealing and a few other pro-level options, at a prosumer price (like the 7D). Instead, they traded good ISO performance for an absurd pixel count. Again, it no longer fits my needs as I prefer smaller files and better ISO performance, rather than having to rebuy lenses after Canon has to re-engineer them to match their bodies (which will take a bloody decade).

Again, I'm sure it's a great camera, but doesn't fit my needs. At least Canon upgraded the AF system and the body, which was my biggest gripe with the 5D, which I would have been otherwise perfectly content with. And no, this isn't a Nikon vs Canon discussion, so don't try and call me out on it.

 

[Buckster]

I was agreeing with the OP, not starting an argument. I've shot on both extensively, and I really don't want to get into a pro-con argument about them. I like both of them for different reasons, but I have my preferences for different things...

And an Off-topic question: If an 18mp camera makes a thousand dollar lens lose a significant amount of IQ... doesn't it seem like we're chasing our tails? When are we going to realize that 10 or 12mp is enough? I'm sure the 7D is a great camera, but I think the number of pixels might be more than I'd ever need... to the point that I would never actually buy the camera.

As is your right. Now then, what's it to you if others want to buy and use it? Why do you care if a company wants to build it? How does that affect you?

I am just stating that Canon likes to sell cameras based on buzz words and marketing lingo, to the point of introducing technology that doesn't really help anyone (except maybe landscape photographers who make enormous prints, but they likely already own a 5D2). I was hoping that Canon would, at some point, release a camera with good ISO performance, weather sealing and a few other pro-level options, at a prosumer price (like the 7D). Instead, they traded good ISO performance for an absurd pixel count. Again, it no longer fits my needs as I prefer smaller files and better ISO performance, rather than having to rebuy lenses after Canon has to re-engineer them to match their bodies (which will take a bloody decade).

Again, I'm sure it's a great camera, but doesn't fit my needs. At least Canon upgraded the AF system and the body, which was my biggest gripe with the 5D, which I would have been otherwise perfectly content with. And no, this isn't a Nikon vs Canon discussion, so don't try and call me out on it.

Seems simple to me: Just don't buy it - same as the other hundreds of cameras manufactured and bought out there that don't suit your needs.

I wouldn't have commented at all, except that for some reason, the introduction of this camera seems to upset some people, especially when it comes to the pixel count. I just don't get that at all. Don't like it? Don't buy it. No big deal.

 

[Antithesis]

I totally agree with you Buckster. Like I said, it fits the needs of some, but many will cringe at the MP numbers. As Derrel has explained a few times before, denser pixels-per-MM in many cases equals worse ISO handling for a sensor.

It would seem the intended audience for a camera like this would likely be wedding photographers or event photographers. I imagine that both would prefer a smaller image with better noise.

 

[zland]

FYI, I menioned somewhere that after I bought my 7D I put my existing Extreme III 8GB card in & tried some video & it was jerky. Today, I got my Extreme IV card & the added speed of the card smoothed it out.

I know some of you dont care about the video aspect & of course as stated before in this thread, it you dont care, you dont need to state so, just thought that info might help some future owner at some point in time.

 

[Derrel]

Philip Bloom » Blog Archive » Saturday Night Live use Canon 7d (and 5d)

Noted UK independent cinematographer Philip Bloom reports in his blog that he recently spoke with NBC's Alex Buono, the director of photography for Saturday Night Live; Buono recently shot SNL's new opening title sequence using Canon EOS 7D and 5D d-slr cameras, and also used
Canon d-slr's to shoot the "Bladivan" commerical parody which aired during the show's 40th anniversary opening episode, hosted by Megan Fox. The show airs on Saturdays at 11:30, 10:30 central time in the US.

The Bladivan clip is visible here for US residents. Saturday Night Live - Bladdivan - Video - NBC.com

 

[Nicholas James Photo]

Gotcha Music.

Here's another question. Why two (2) 7Ds? . Didn't want to go for an entry level FF? Unless offcourse you wanted to shoot 3D with the same exact camera LOL. Just curious...

2 cameras is the standard for photojournalism, and with good reason; it saves a heck of a lot of time switching between lenses. It's great to have, say, my wide-angle and normal zooms on, or my normal and tele lenses on, one for each body. That way I'm less likely to miss a shot. The advantage of covering a larger range of focal lengths with high-quality lenses in extremely fast moving and unpredictable situations can be a great benefit. In fact, I made the utter mistake of only having my 70-200 on me and leaving my normal on the side of the field at that football game. Not being able to switch-out to that lens in a split second cost me a touchdown shot of our home team. I'll never make that mistake again.

Since I couldn't afford 2 1Ds MkIIIs, and the 5D MkII is blown out of the water in everything except the FF by the 7D, the choice was pretty obvious. I don't miss the wide end at all because I have my 10-22, which is a fine, fine piece of glass. The end result of having my 10-22, 24-70, 70-200 trio, is that I can effectively cover a range of 16-360mm equivalent to a FF body. In short, I get more bang for my buck. Honestly, the 7D's specs are more like a 1D with a crop sensor and no grip...I might actually grip these boys though at some-point, if I ever own enough memory to warrant it.

Once Canon puts the new gadgets into their 1D and 5D lines (flash control, dual DIGIC 4s—I actually suspect the 5D might stay a great studio camera and stick to one DIGIC processor—, colour metering, etc.), Canon will have one killer trio of top-end cameras to compete with Nikon but goodly.

You won the lottery then Musicale?