Looking for feedback on Canon 7D upgrade

[gsm275]

So I've been photographing now for 2 years and getting ready to consider upgrading my camera body from a T1i to 7D and wanted to getting some input into what type of improvements I should expect. I've already gone through my lens phase and bought a 50mm 1.4 and a pretty sweet 17-55mm 2.8 lens and i've actually managed to sell a photo for the first time last week and can't wait to roll it back into my hobby.

So looking for others out there who have gone through this stage and upgraded to a 7d and interested in hearing how it has changed the quality of photos.

 

[Overread19 7]

The most important questions first:

1) What are you hoping to get from the upgrade - ie why are you upgrading (aside from I want a new shiny camera body)

2) What kind of situations/subjects do you work with? An idea of what you like to shoot and how you shoot it.

3) Lenses - do your lenses currently cover all your needs subject wise or are there situations where you feel limited by them?

 

[gsm275]

Thanks for the response. I'm generally pretty happy with what the T1i has been able to do for me so far but still feel a little limited. I try to dabble into all types of photography but my top interest is in travel photography and street photography where if i miss a shot it's gone forever. The T1i is pretty decent but still finding more then a few missed shots due to motion blur or image noise. There may be some user skill level that contributes to this but i do suspect better equipment may also be part of the factor. I also hope that it may it can improve the clarity and colour quality that can help push me from a really good photo to an amazing photo. When i've looked at a lot of photos I've admired i've seen more then a few of them coming from camera's at this level. Again, possible it's better photographers rather then equipment but i guess that's what i'm trying to determine with this thread. My goal is just to step up my overall photo quality.

I feel pretty well covered for lenses. Would be nice to have a nice wide angle lens but I'm good for a walk around lens, telephoto lens, and portrait prime lens. Could use a decent flash as well but being as i like to travel a lot i'm preferring to keep my gear that i drag around with me as managable so for me that's a lower priority.

 

[Overread19 7]

Out of interest what ISO do you normally shoot with? Getting noisy and blurry results says to me that you need to consider raising your ISO. A higher ISO might give more noise, but that can be corrected with editing; whilst motion blur cannot be; furthermore noise often isn't even viewable in prints or webresizes. In addition if you are getting very noisy results look up the "Expose to the right" method (lots of guides to this).

 

[Derrel]

If you are missing more THAN a few shots due to noise or motion blur, then you need to jack the ISO up. And learn to properly expose scenes. "Noise" ought not to be a factor until ISO 1,600 at the absolute lowest ISO level, and probably at ISO 3,200 your camera will be somewhat noise-prone. Many new digital shooters fret and worry about noise. Noise that is so,so,so low I often laugh at the suggestion that an image has "noise" when it is brought up on some web board. I'm not laughing at you, per se, but merely at the way today's young people find even minor noise levels horrifically objectionable, in an almost comical manner, like, "Waiter! Waiter! There's BEEF in my HAMBURGER!"

If you have a 50/1.4 and a 17-55 2.8 Canon and you have issues with noise and with blurred images, it's not better equipment that you need. It is knowledge. And skill. And technical knowledge. And I say that as somebody who started in photography when ISO 400 was considered "fast" film, and available ONLY,and I mean ONLY, in black and white. I was in junior high school when ASA 400 color negative film was invented, and ASA 160 color slide film was considered "very fast". Arguments raged over the superiority of Kodachrome 25 versus Kodachrome 64. Seriously! And both those early color films had image character that looked about like ISO 1,600 does today from a cheap, entry-level d-slr. And yet, millions of people made compelling images, blur-free, with crummy zoom lenses that were not as fast as your f/2.8 model.I learned to shoot color on Kodachrome 64. ASA 64. SIxty-four!

It's fine to admit you want a Canon 7D. I looked art your other thread, asking for comments on how you might improve. I think the one thing you could do is probably to start shooting at ONE of the higher ISO settings, maybe for 10 days at a time, and actually,literally "SEE" how your images change when you are free of slow shutter speeds. I have a feeling that you are tending to shoot, as I call it, "on the margin", probably without realizing it....speeds just a litle too slow....exposures just a little too far to the left on the histogram...maybe you are doing the cardinal sin: evaluating your exposures by LOOKING at the LCD IMAGE, and not the histogram...

 

[gsm275]

I do almost always shoot at 100 ISO unless i'm indoors in which case i'll adjust accordingly, although typically try to get photos of people to 1/60 second or fastr so i'll bump down to if i need to. Not familiar with adjust to the right so i'll have to look this up. I've gotten a bit more familiar with adjusting noise in Lightroom but i suspect there's even better tools out there for this.

With the hope of not getting too far off the original question and understanding there are improvements i can make with knowledge and skill upgrade alone, any insight into the type of difference i should expect from the body upgrade? If reasons explained aren't the right reasons to upgrade, what is the right reason to upgrade to a new body just so i help base my decision.

My biggest concern is the primary advantage for this body is for people who want to shoot action/sports photography and not as much for overall photo improvement. Any comment on this?

 

[Derrel]

It's late here. I don't have a lot of time. But PLEASE take my advice. Stop wasting your valuable time and valuable shooting opportunities and STOP shooting at ISO 100. It's just not a smart decision. It's like driving 45 miles per hour on the freeway, "to save the engine". Instead, you're just in the way of everybody. Jack the ISO up to 400 for the next 10 full shooting days. And do not cheat. ISO 400!!!!!!!!

 

[gsm275]

Thanks Derrel, not much there i can really debate. I am being a little critical in my noise/blur and i do notice it is getting fewer and fewer over time although i suspect you're both right about ISO, i think up until now i've just gone with the philosophy of staying as low as i can until i absolutely have to move it. Very helpful feedback. Histograph is still very much not something that comes naturally to me yet either (but i'm getting there).

 

[gsm275]

Ok, ok!!! ISO 400!! Will do!

 

[Jethro]

I upgraded from 450D and well..you can expect improvements in pretty much anything with this kind of jump (t1i = 500D right?) What impressed me the most are these things: AWESOME viewfinder, speed, great controls system, overall quality of the images looks better, good high iso performance. Though I still haven't discovered all of this cameras secrets so I believe more things are comming!

 

[Big Mike]

To nutshell the comments above....there really isn't going to be that much noise at ISO 400 (or even 800 or 1600), if you expose correctly. Exposing correctly is key when trying to control noise.
And some noise is almost always 'better' than some blur....so don't be afraid to turn up the ISO.

Back to the original question, some of the differences between your camera and the 7D would be;
The size & ergonomics of the body. The 7D is bigger and has more external controls. For example, when in manual mode, you can control both the aperture and shutter speed with separate dials, whereas on your camera, you must push a button while scrolling the dial, to change the aperture.
Another big difference is the AF system. The 7D has the most advanced AF system that you will find on a Canon body that costs less that $4000.

 

[gsm275]

Still weighing my decision on upgrading so would appreciate any other input that anybody else may have.

 

[yipDog]

I went from a t2i to a 7d and though I primarily shoot video for a living, I now shoot a ton of stills. The T1i to a 7D would be an even bigger step up.

Lots of benefits to the 7d in video mode but what got me excited about stills again was the finer controls over exposure settings, the burst shooting speed (I do a lot of action shots and even with portraits it's handy in case the subject blinks) The build quality of the 7D is much better and more forgiving of abuse. The CF cards (vs SD cards) are more reliable and faster to download. And then there's that AF system! It rocks!
If you're having issues with the pics your taking with the T1i, you will have the same issues with a 7D. The controls at a basic level are the same. And the T1i is more than capable of producing quality images. If you want to get the 7D which is a true pro level camera to do the learning on, it'll just mean you have more hours in it and thus comfort with the ergonomics.

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

 

[GeorgieGirl]

It's late here. I don't have a lot of time. But PLEASE take my advice. Stop wasting your valuable time and valuable shooting opportunities and STOP shooting at ISO 100. It's just not a smart decision. It's like driving 45 miles per hour on the freeway, "to save the engine". Instead, you're just in the way of everybody. Jack the ISO up to 400 for the next 10 full shooting days. And do not cheat. ISO 400!!!!!!!!

I'm gonna do this too now.

 

[xmurrdogx]

So I've been photographing now for 2 years and getting ready to consider upgrading my camera body from a T1i to 7D and wanted to getting some input into what type of improvements I should expect. I've already gone through my lens phase and bought a 50mm 1.4 and a pretty sweet 17-55mm 2.8 lens and i've actually managed to sell a photo for the first time last week and can't wait to roll it back into my hobby.

So looking for others out there who have gone through this stage and upgraded to a 7d and interested in hearing how it has changed the quality of photos.

Number one you are making a mistake that 90% of new wanna be photographers make and that's thinking the equipment will make you a better photographer, wrong!

I could ask you basic questions on photography and you won't be able to answer them, just like your question on the 7d, it's not a pro series camera and to be straight with ya the camera your using should be producing awesome images especially with those lens! Pick up a London and Upton book and learn it front to back if you want to be even somewhat of a good photographer, take seminars every chance you get and learn from real pros and most of all shoot shoot shoot til ur finger falls of and then let a pro critique you and then just maybe then you should invest in a full frame digital slr not another entry level camera!

As far as 100 or 400 it does not matter because if you new what you were doing you would produce quality at both, the easy way out is to crank up the ISO up and not learn to shoot the image you want at whatever camera settings you want.

I'm not criticizing you but being blunt, I was a combat photographer in the military, graduated top go my class in college, and owned a commercial studio for 22 years, still after all that I will tell anyone that I'll never know everything there is to know about photography!

It's hard to see how the industry has been so hurt by fakers, people who pick up a camera get lucky a few times then portray themselves to the customer as being qualified as a Pro, not true and eventually they will be called out!

Good luck and make yourself and the photography world a better place by putting the time in and really learning this great art!

Take Care

Murdoch