Upgrade lens or body??

[Buckster]

You folks seem to just want to see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

I don't get it. :er:

I will explain why this is for you, since you don’t get it.

About 90% of the "evidence" that Derrel presents about the 7D is simply his opinion.

Also about 99% of what you are saying about the 7D is purely your opinion as well.

Why then should we "believe" your "evidence to the contrary"? Answer me this...

Because I bought it, own it and shoot it. I have actual, real-world experience with it

It should also be noted that Derrel is not alone in what he's saying about it. ie; It's not just his opinion.

 

[Buckster]

Saving up another 700 for a body isn't as east as it sounds. Especially for a college student who already budgeted for the 7d and already is paying a lot for it. 5d mk2 is just out of the question.

Your excuse is duly noted. I find it fairly weak though, tbh.

OK this is getting out of control.

"Oh, I'm sorry... Were you trying to make more poor excuses again? My bad."

You cant be serious with this garbage? Really?

Please DO NOT start flaming people based on their finincial situation. It is none of your business what other people can afford/what they decide to spend their money on.

This is 100% not the direction that this thread needs to go.

I missed where you corrected those who grab Derrel by the virtual neck and slam him into the nearest virtual wall if he dares to show anything other than fealty to their chosen product...

Seems just a tad one-sided...

 

[Derrel]

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon announces 17.92 million image pixel, 8fps EOS 7D

"Canon appears to have done a masterful job of wringing out every ounce of quality from the 7D's little pixels (smaller than any Canon before), resulting in photos that are fairly crisp, reasonably clean and usable up to about ISO 1600."

"Noise, when it appears, has a natural graininess to it, up until about ISO 1600 as well. At ISO 3200 and beyond you'll run into increasingly unmanageable amounts of digital dandruff (white pixels spread throughout darker areas) and plugged shadows. At all ISO increments, other than the very lowest ones, pictures can take on a somewhat harsh, chunky appearance not present in larger-pixel cameras in Canon's lineup, such as the EOS-1D Mark III. Or Nikon's D3 and D700.

Correcting for digital dandruff requires image detail to be softened, sometimes considerably, while the slight harshness is simply a trait to be lived with."

"This means that overall, 7D image quality is shaping up to be decent, though not groundbreaking. If you're coming from a 50D or Rebel T1i, you're likely to be right at home with the picture quality from this camera. If you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin."

It's interesting that, now that Buckster owns a 5D Mark II and a 7D, that he can see the image quality differences between the 7D and the 5D-II. So can other impartial observers. the 7D has a nice list of body features, but it does not deserve to be defended like your sister's virginity, to quote a certain someone involved in this post.

The 7D's image quality is good, but not outstanding. the 7D has less-saturated color than other Canon cameras, it tends to create plugged shadows, and it suffers from higher than expected noise beginning at ISO 400. It has the tiniest pixels ever incorporated into a Canon d-slr camera. The increase in megapixels that Canon decided upon for the 7D sensor ended up costing color richness, clean shadows, and low noise; there is NO FREE LUNCH, and there is no escaping the principles of physics.

As Rob Galbraith said, "If you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin." I find it interesting that Buckster, now that he owns a 5D-II, can easily see, and admit, that the image quality of the 7D is not the same as that of the 5D-II. And yet, there are two or three people on this board that CONSTANTLY defend the 7D, and CONSTANTLY try and belittle, defame, and insult anybody who dares to bring up **any** shortcomings their beloved 7D might have. Fanboys.

 

[Neil S.]

Because I bought it, own it and shoot it. I have actual, real-world experience with it

It should also be noted that Derrel is not alone in what he's saying about it. ie; It's not just his opinion.

OK lets be honest here and just lay it all out on the table (including you please Derrel).

- Yes Derrel has an insane amount of knowledge concerning photography equipment, and he is an extremely valuable asset to us here. I have great respect for him, and I have said all this here many times. Do not act like nobody here respects Derrel or his opinions...

- Derrel however is biased when it comes to the 7D for some reason. He refuses to acknowledge anything good that is said about it, and has nothing but bad things to say when talking about it. Also he seeks out opportunities to bash it. Why exactly all this is I have no idea, and honestly I don’t really care because it doesn’t matter.

- Yes it is true that the 7D is not perfect. Canon has for a while now been struggling with their bodies compared to Nikon, and with metering especially. Nikon overall makes better bodies in my opinion, and I have also said this here many times. This may change very quickly at any time, keep this in mind please. The D3x is in my opinion the best body between the two companies for everything except action/sports.

- The above being said Canon still makes excellent cameras, and anyone who truly appreciates quality will be happy with one of them.

- The 7D is at a minimum one of the top 3 crop bodies currently available on the market. There are countless professional reviews stating this, and it is a well established fact for the rest of the world. For some reason whenever I bring this up the 7D haters get real quiet. I wonder why this is. If you want to keep arguing about this, please tell me why most all of the professional reviews are wrong about the 7D. Please tell me that.

- This thread is people trying their hardest to bash Canon and the 7D (for some reason). This is not a "7D is the greatest thing ever" thread. All people like Matt and I are doing here is trying to DEFEND what they feel to be a good product. I am very open minded and realistic when it comes to this.

- Comparing the 7D to the 5D mk II (or any other FF body) is absurd. They are different prices, as well as having physical size differences in their sensors. If you want to compare the 7D to something, compare it to another APS-C body of a similar price please.

Neil

 

[Neil S.]

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon announces 17.92 million image pixel, 8fps EOS 7D

"Canon appears to have done a masterful job of wringing out every ounce of quality from the 7D's little pixels (smaller than any Canon before), resulting in photos that are fairly crisp, reasonably clean and usable up to about ISO 1600."

"Noise, when it appears, has a natural graininess to it, up until about ISO 1600 as well. At ISO 3200 and beyond you'll run into increasingly unmanageable amounts of digital dandruff (white pixels spread throughout darker areas) and plugged shadows. At all ISO increments, other than the very lowest ones, pictures can take on a somewhat harsh, chunky appearance not present in larger-pixel cameras in Canon's lineup, such as the EOS-1D Mark III. Or Nikon's D3 and D700.

Correcting for digital dandruff requires image detail to be softened, sometimes considerably, while the slight harshness is simply a trait to be lived with."

"This means that overall, 7D image quality is shaping up to be decent, though not groundbreaking. If you're coming from a 50D or Rebel T1i, you're likely to be right at home with the picture quality from this camera. If you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin."

It's interesting that, now that Buckster owns a 5D Mark II and a 7D, that he can see the image quality differences between the 7D and the 5D-II. So can other impartial observers. the 7D has a nice list of body features, but it does not deserve to be defended like your sister's virginity, to quote a certain someone involved in this post.

The 7D's image quality is good, but not outstanding. the 7D has less-saturated color than other Canon cameras, it tends to create plugged shadows, and it suffers from higher than expected noise beginning at ISO 400. It has the tiniest pixels ever incorporated into a Canon d-slr camera. The increase in megapixels that Canon decided upon for the 7D sensor ended up costing color richness, clean shadows, and low noise; there is NO FREE LUNCH, and there is no escaping the principles of physics.

As Rob Galbraith said, "If you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin." I find it interesting that Buckster, now that he owns a 5D-II, can easily see, and admit, that the image quality of the 7D is not the same as that of the 5D-II. And yet, there are two or three people on this board that CONSTANTLY defend the 7D, and CONSTANTLY try and belittle, defame, and insult anybody who dares to bring up **any** shortcomings their beloved 7D might have. Fanboys.

Derrel lol...

Who here is saying that the 7D is better than the 5D mk II?

They are not even in the same class...

Ya I do admit that the 7D isn’t as good as the best FF bodies. So what though. This means nothing because its apples to oranges.

It sounds like you are bashing APS-C cameras as a whole? Is that whats going on here?

Please tell me if your hate is simply for the 7D or for all crop bodies...

 

[Buckster]

Derrel however is biased when it comes to the 7D for some reason. He refuses to acknowledge anything good that is said about it, and has nothing but bad things to say when talking about it. Also he seeks out opportunities to bash it. Why exactly all this is I have no idea, and honestly I don’t really care because it doesn’t matter.

Again, the evidence against that view of Derrel is in his posts. In the very post before the one where you wrote the above, he says for example, "the 7D has a nice list of body features".

The one-sided view that Derrel is some evil 7D basher or a Canon basher, as someone else said, is just not standing up to what I've actually read from him on the subjects over time.

- Yes it is true that the 7D is not perfect.

Don't let the fan boys catch you saying that!

- The 7D is at a minimum one of the top 3 crop bodies currently available on the market. There are countless professional reviews stating this, and it is a well established fact for the rest of the world. For some reason whenever I bring this up the 7D haters get real quiet. I wonder why this is. If you want to keep arguing about this, please tell me why most all of the professional reviews are wrong about the 7D. Please tell me that.

Again, you seem to want to focus on the good and ignore the bad, even though you yourself said above, "Yes it is true that the 7D is not perfect." Well, that's exactly the whole point, and it upsets the fan boys whenever that gets stated, which is the whole point of what I've been trying to convey here - the 7D is a mixed bag, and it's just not right to keep shooting the messenger just because they don't like the information being discussed.

- This thread is people trying their hardest to bash Canon and the 7D (for some reason).

No. It's really not. It's about facing up to reality, understanding and accepting the bad with the good, and trying to get through to people to stop shooting the messenger just because they don't like the information being discussed.

This is not a "7D is the greatest thing ever" thread. All people like Matt and I are doing here is trying to DEFEND what they feel to be a good product. I am very open minded and realistic when it comes to this.

Then show it. Stop kicking back so hard against anything that points out the non-awesome aspects of this piece of gear.

- Comparing the 7D to the 5D mk II (or any other FF body) is absurd. They are different prices, as well as having physical size differences in their sensors. If you want to compare the 7D to something, compare it to another APS-C body of a similar price please.

To someone looking for real quality in their images, it's entirely relevant to point out that for a few hundred dollars more than the cost of the 7D they may be considering, they can have the quality they are probably hoping for in the 7D, but won't necessarily get.

It's no different than pointing out to someone who's considering a very expensive point and shoot because they want great quality that for not much more money, comparitively speaking, they could get into a DSLR and make a major leap in the quality department. It's not wrong to point out to them the problems and shortcomings they may encounter if they buy the point and shoot instead.

 

[Neil S.]

Buckster,

I am starting to think that its pointless discussing this with you because you are barely even listening to what other people are saying.

I will try one more time to get my points across to you, then I will just give up.

Remember this all started with Derrel telling the OP that he should not buy the 7D. Do not try and act like this was started by "7D fanboys".

The 5D mk II and the 7D are very different cameras in many ways. They have different prices, different size sensors, and aren’t even designed for the same type of shooting.

The 5D mk II cannot even begin to compete with the 7D in speed. 3.9fps vs. 8fps. Single DIGIC 4 processor vs. dual DIGIC 4 processors. I am not sure but I think the AF system is even better/faster on the 7D.

I am going to go as far as to say that any pro action/sports shooter worth their salt would go with a 7D over a 5D mk II.

There is also the issue of EF-S lenses. Yes if I had it to do over I would have just bought L glass to start out with. Guess what though, I didn’t know what I know now back then so it couldn’t have been helped. I am not big on regrets by the way…

Do not act like it’s so simple to just resell EF-S lenses, and buy new ones. For me to sell my 17-55 2.8 alone and buy L glass that can compare in IQ I would lose at least $500+ in the process. I will probably end up doing this in the future anyways, but it will be when I decide to based on my needs and finances, and not when you tell me to based simply on your opinion.

Nobody is saying the 7D is “all that and a bag of chips” as you so eloquently put it before. We are simply saying that for its price/target audience it is a great camera.

You still have yet to discuss the 7D in the context of its target audience, and in relation to its direct competitors based on price. You STILL just keep comparing it to the 5D mk II even after I already explained to you why this is absurd.

For the last time: Yes FF bodies are very nice (and very expensive). Yes the 7D isn’t as good as most Canon/Nikon FF bodies (and why should it be?). Yes it is not the best camera ever (even though nobody is even saying that).

Am I getting through to you?

 

[Buckster]

Buckster,

I am starting to think that its pointless discussing this with you because you are barely even listening to what other people are saying.

Untrue. I'm listening... er, reading, and it looks to me like it's mostly rhetoric designed to not have to directly address the shortcomings of the 7D nor the fact that people like Derrel are set upon every time they dare to mention them.

Remember this all started with Derrel telling the OP that he should not buy the 7D. Do not try and act like this was started by "7D fanboys".

You conveniently left out the very informative post by Derrel where he explained in great detail WHY he suggested that the OP go a different route to get what he'd stated his goal was. There was no animosity, no bashing, just the facts of the matter.

THEN, immediately after that, the 7D fanboys jumped in, as usual, to denigrate him for it.

The 5D mk II and the 7D are very different cameras in many ways. They have different prices, different size sensors, and aren’t even designed for the same type of shooting.

Entirely beside the point, based on the OP's desires and Derrel's advice based on those desires.

The 5D mk II cannot even begin to compete with the 7D in speed. 3.9fps vs. 8fps. Single DIGIC 4 processor vs. dual DIGIC 4 processors. I am not sure but I think the AF system is even better/faster on the 7D.

Entirely beside the point, based on the OP's desires and Derrel's advice based on those desires.

I am going to go as far as to say that any pro action/sports shooter worth their salt would go with a 7D over a 5D mk II.

Entirely beside the point, based on the OP's desires and Derrel's advice based on those desires.

There is also the issue of EF-S lenses. Yes if I had it to do over I would have just bought L glass to start out with. Guess what though, I didn’t know what I know now back then so it couldn’t have been helped. I am not big on regrets by the way…

Entirely beside the point, based on the OP's desires and Derrel's advice based on those desires.

But let's look at what you just said. If you had it to do over, you would have just bought L glass to start out with. Well, there goes your argument, because this is about how to advise folks who are asking what they should do with their money. You are saying, in effect, "knowing what I know now, buy L glass, not S lenses."

Seems familiar somehow...

Do not act like it’s so simple to just resell EF-S lenses, and buy new ones.

People do it all day long on eBay, craigslist, swap meets, etc.

For me to sell my 17-55 2.8 alone and buy L glass that can compare in IQ I would lose at least $500+ in the process. I will probably end up doing this in the future anyways, but it will be when I decide to based on my needs and finances, and not when you tell me to based simply on your opinion.

You just defeated your own argument again. I'm not telling you to do it - I'm saying you COULD. And now you're admitting that you intend to do just that.

Gee, I wonder why... Hmmmm... What a mystery... Where's Scooby-doo when we need him?

Oh, and it's kinda weird to say you'll "lose $500" by upgrading to better glass. If it's not worth the additional money after selling your old lenses, then just don't do it. Nobody's got a gun to your head (I hope).

Nobody is saying the 7D is “all that and a bag of chips” as you so eloquently put it before. We are simply saying that for its price/target audience it is a great camera.

I've read what you folks have had to say about it, especially in context with how you denigrate anyone who dares to say that it's not "all that". Sorry, but I'm not buying into this pretend-innocence you'd like to portray on the issue.

You still have yet to discuss the 7D in the context of its target audience, and in relation to its direct competitors based on price. You STILL just keep comparing it to the 5D mk II even after I already explained to you why this is absurd.

I already explained this to you, so no sense in repeating it. If you're interested, go back a post or two and read the reasoning again.

For the last time: Yes FF bodies are very nice (and very expensive). Yes the 7D isn’t as good as most Canon/Nikon FF bodies (and why should it be?). Yes it is not the best camera ever (even though nobody is even saying that).

Just stop shooting the messenger when they discuss the shortcomings, and it won't be an ongoing issue around here. Seems easy, doesn't it?

Am I getting through to you?

Yeah, I hear you loud and clear.

 

[Neil S.]

Buckster,

Like I said before, I am now done discussing this with you since you clearly just want to argue with someone. This is evident by your desire to dissect every post line by line.

To be honest I don’t really even know what you are trying to argue here...

That the 5D mk II is better than the 7D?

OK you win that one, I concede lol...

/rolls eyes

 

[prodigy2k7]

Buckster you have the 7D and you don't think it's that good of camera. Dpreview says otherwise. You going to call them canon fan boys too?

 

[Buckster]

Buckster you have the 7D and you don't think it's that good of camera. Dpreview says otherwise. You going to call them canon fan boys too?

Only if they start lashing out and denigrating folks who present information that shows it's shortcomings, so that the great 7D's reputation will remain unsullied for all time.

 

[Inst!nct]

Wow holy thread crapping..

I agree with buckster but whatever, please create a new thread if you want to have an argument, I know this started with you helping me and I appreciate that, but starting to get a little rude.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Wow holy thread crapping..

I agree with buckster but whatever, please create a new thread if you want to have an argument, I know this started with you helping me and I appreciate that, but starting to get a little rude.

Just go here and check it out:
Canon EOS 7D Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

High ISO Tests:
Canon EOS 7D Review: 27. Compared to (Higher ISO): Digital Photography Review

Conclusion:
Canon EOS 7D Review: 30. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

Pros:

• Class-leading detail and resolution at base ISO, good per-pixel sharpness
• Very good low-light performance, low noise levels and good retention of detail
• 8 frames per second continuous shooting speed
• Thanks to Dual Digic 4 processors very quick and responsive performance
• Excellent build quality with magnesium body and environmental sealing
• Good ergonomics, well shaped and comfortable hand grip
• Improved button and control layout over 50D/5D Mark II
• Highly customizable user interface
• On-screen Q-Menu offers good alternative for access to shooting settings
• Large and bright viewfinder with 1.0x magnification and 100% coverage
• Highly flexible new AF system with 19 cross-type sensors
• (Relatively) quick contrast detect AF in live view
• Good quality 1080/720p video output with a range of frame rates
• Easy switch between stills mode, movie mode and live view
• External microphone socket
• Useful highlight tone priority mode
• Reliable flash exposures
• Wireless flash control
• Optional wireless and battery grips
• Dual axis electronic level
• Good battery life
• Comprehensive software bundle

Cons:

• Unreliable white balance under artificial lighting
• Slight tendency to overexpose in contrasty conditions
• Occasional jagged lines in 720p video
• No built-in AF illuminator

In some respects the 7D is even a better camera than the EOS 5D Mark II and a viable alternative for all those who do not want or need a camera with a full-frame sensor. Its eight frames per second continuous shooting speed and highly flexible AF system might even make it a consideration for credit-crunch battered sports photographers on a budget.
The EOS 7D's specification and current pricing make it also look very good next to its most direct competitor in the enthusiast bracket of the market, the Nikon D300S. It offers a higher nominal resolution and maximum sensitivity, better movie mode specification and slightly faster continuous shooting speed than its Nikon rival; but having said that, in many ways the two cameras are not too dissimilar, and it will be down to personal taste and probably your lens collection if you prefer one over the other.



Despite the highest nominal resolution of all APS-C DSLRs and therefore a very small pixel-pitch the EOS 7D performs very well in low light situations and manages to maintain a good balance between image detail and noise reduction up to very high sensitivities. It's visibly better than the EOS 50D and as good as it gets in the APS-C class (if you prefer the 7D or Nikon D300S in this respect is probably a matter of taste). If you require significantly better high ISO performance than the EOS 7D can provide, your only option is to move into the full-frame segment.

 

[Village Idiot]

The EF-S issue is overrated. There's only 6-7 EF-S lenses in Canon's lineup and lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 hold their value just as well as most L lenses.

And any photographer worth his salt doesn't rely on FPS. Is it a nice bonus for some people? Yes. I think the only time I'd absolutely need 8-10 FPS is if I was doing a stop motion video. Then I'd also need about $15,000 in lighting equipment to keep up with it.

 

[prodigy2k7]

The EF-S issue is overrated. There's only 6-7 EF-S lenses in Canon's lineup and lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 hold their value just as well as most L lenses.

And any photographer worth his salt doesn't rely on FPS. Is it a nice bonus for some people? Yes. I think the only time I'd absolutely need 8-10 FPS is if I was doing a stop motion video. Then I'd also need about $15,000 in lighting equipment to keep up with it.

One reason I want 8 FPS is for a special technique. I dont know what the technique is called, but I have seen them in surf magazines, a bunch of smaller pictures taking up the same page, showing you almost like a few frames of a movie.

I cant find any pictures of what im talking about, the closest thing is this:
http://www.joecurrenphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/surfer_011.jpg

Also another reason is for horse racing, when horses run, their legs are all in different positions and sometimes the photo just looks weird because of the position of the legs. I would like more shots to be produced in order to get a good leg position of the horse as it runs.