Canon 7D? - Page 2

I have a 7D and I bought it used for about 1000. I had a T2i before and to be really clear with why I got the 7D beyond the faster FPS is the size of the body. THe T2i or T4i feel like toys and are too small. The 7D is more comfortable to hold. I equipped it with a Battery grip and it made it even better to hold with bigger glass on it since it balances it out. If he is going to shoot any type of sports with quick moving subjects then the 7D is good to have with 8fps. It just gives that bigger opportunity to rip of a bunch of shots and then sort through them later to find the gem. The AF system is good if you know how to set it up for your subject. That combined with Microfocus adjust makes it worth while.

Buy the 7D if you need larger size. But unless you are doing professional sports photography you dont need 8fps, it actually will only get the full 8 with the right settings shooting jpg with mirror lockup. The ability to rip a ton of shots at 6fps realistically doesnt not guarentee you will get that one winner. Good timing of a single shot has been much more benefitial to me over fast burst.

The 7D is giving you more ability to adjust settings that the lower cameras dont offer such as the sensitivity of the tracking speed and priorities. For a new comer to sports photography it took me like 6 months of nonstop shooting before i even started understanding how to take advantage of everything this camera offers.

While getting a used 7D us ideal just note that its not the canera that takes good pictures that are "keepers" its the photographer. Better gear will only help overcome limitations of cheaper gear... When that cheaper gear is almost on par or even slighty more improved. For example, im 90% sure the t4i will have slighty better high iso performance over the 7D which in my experience falls apart at iso 3200

D3200. You can stop looking now.

7D is overkill for consumer photography.....I'd suggest that he just gets a T3 body and a 17-50 2.8 non variable aperature lens a long with a speedlite. The 7D holds it's own image quality and low light wise against the 5DMKII which is a full frame camera.....the 7D is a monster of a camera and it would be a waste of money if he purchased one.

This is, quite simply, not true.

lol yeah. was going to comment on that but didnt feel like starting another argument

Actually it is true, look up the reviews for the 7D compared to the MK2. The MK2 is only about 1 F stop better in low light and image quality wise they are about neck and neck......the 7D just has a tighter crop.

I've seen comparison shots taken between both cameras and the MK2 does have a slight lead in low light high iso image quality but it's not as big as you're more than likely making it out to be. The 7D is a hell of a crop factor camera and factor in that crop factor lenses are generally much cheaper and see the "good" part of the lens when using any L or prime lenses and it's a damn good camera......
Edited by Mwarren - 11/8/12 at 10:51pm

The 5D2 is more than 'a stop better', having shot primarily with both cameras and event shooting for the last year+. On paper, it may be considered 'a stop better', but in practical application, the image quality difference (and handling in low light) is apparent. I'll give you that a crop camera tends to hit the sweet spot of a lens, but depending on what you're shooting, that's not always the best thing. Sometimes you want a bit of natural vignette, or a bit of natural distortion. Portraits, for example, tend to look better on my 5D2 than they do on my 7D, because they have a different feel, based on the imperfections of using the majority of the lens. Also, depth of field is definitely noticeably different between the two. but we're going on and on here about 7D vs 5D2, and that's not what the OP was asking about, so let's go back to the 7D being too much camera bit.

Whether or not it's too much camera for someone is subjective. You could take someone like me that gets into something, invests money and starts with stuff that may be above my experience level temporarily, but once I get my bearings, I work into it and it suits my needs for some time. I could have saved some time and money by going straight into a 7D a couple of years ago instead of picking up a cheap Rebel to get a feel (ha) for the Canon system, before switching up to the 60D, before selling that to pick up my 7D. Our concern shouldn't necessarily be that it's too much camera -- in the hands of the right person, a $25 Holga is too much camera, but it differs from person to person. We should be addressing the questions of the OP, not comparing one camera that the OP is considering to another that the OP apparently is not.

Also, going back to the gist of the original question... if your dad is serious about it and ready to dump $2000 and you're in the US:

Canon 7D via Canon Loyalty Program (see link in my sig) is down to $1023.36 (plus tax and sending in an old broken or out of warranty Canon point and shoot, can he bad for like $5-$10 on eBay or thrift stores, or maybe even lying around your house).
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 used - $400-500
Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS used (refurbished with the 7D could be as cheap as 20% off of 567.99 which is $454.32 - you may even be able to find cheaper on Craigslist if you're patient and smart about it)

That should be right around the $2000 budget, and provide two great quality lenses, (one normal zoom, one telephoto zoom) that should keep your dad happy for a while..

Well the MKII is going to have better low light performance but I've seen comparison shots at low light with high iso from owners of both cameras and when noise reduction is properly applied the MKII is better but not leaps and bounds better in low light.....Also the main reason why I'd go with a 7D is due to its vastly superior auto focusing system. It can focus extremely fast even in the dimmest of situations whereas with the MKII you are more likely to mis focus and it doesn't focus as well in low light due to it having a much older 9 point auto focus system wheres the center AF point on the 7D is f2.8 and can auto focus extremely fast and it has way more AF points each point being cross point.

During day light or where you don't need to boost your ISO way up I can not tell the difference between the 7D and MKII even when pixel peeping. Like I said the advantages of the MKII are that it has a bigger sensor so it will have a tad bit better dynamic range, better low light, and better image quality, but the 7D is much more modern and has a way better and faster auto focus system.....the difference in IQ is low to non existent in day light shots as like I said the 7D sees the sweet spot of the lens and is only 3MP's behind the 5DMKII. If someone is going for a MKII there is no doubt they will have to put out much more money for high quality glass than if they go for a crop factor camera.

Honestly I just don;t see the point in the MKII due to its older not as accurate auto focusing system.....I'd rather just get a 1D as then it will have a very good auto focusing system and I'd consider the MKII to be more of a full frame camera that only really excels at low light high iso performance due to it's auto focusing system and other things that it lacks.
Edited by Mwarren - 11/9/12 at 9:35am

I'm liking my D5100 a lot, especially considering the price I got it for. I chose it over the T3i because it seemed like a better deal...