Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Glenn Bartley on November 05, 2014, 09:28:19 pm
-
Shot with the new Canon 7D Mark II.
My review of the new camera is now available. Check it out!
http://www.glennbartley.com/Canon7DmarkIISetupReviewandSettings.html (http://www.glennbartley.com/Canon7DmarkIISetupReviewandSettings.html)
(http://www.glennbartley.com/To%20Post/Surfbird%20-%20ISO%201600%20-%207D%20Mark%20II.jpg)
(http://www.glennbartley.com/To%20Post/1.JPG)
(http://www.glennbartley.com/To%20Post/Harlequin%20Duck%20-%20ISO%203200%20-%207D%20Mark%20II.jpg)
(http://www.glennbartley.com/To%20Post/2.JPG)
(http://www.glennbartley.com/To%20Post/3.JPG)
(http://www.glennbartley.com/To%20Post/4.JPG)
(http://www.glennbartley.com/To%20Post/5.JPG)
-
Beautiful
Have you used a 6D?
I have one and love some of my EF-glass but the addition of an A7s to the stable is making me consider a 7D II as a complementary body with a different strong suit.
The A7s is an amazing body... but I still like the Canon color palette more than the Sony. In certain situations I may like one or the other.
Great camera, thanks for sharing
-
Thanks for review Glenn. It closely matches my findings. I've been shooting mostly Nikon FX, so I'm going to have to reacquaint myself with noise reduction techniques. What I have noted so far is that the same subject, shot with the same lens with the 7DII and the 5DIII results in nearly identical results after downsizing the 7DII shot to match the 5DIII. That would make the 7DII noise perhaps just over a stop worse than the 5DIII (at ISO 1600).
-
Interesting, Glenn. I have been waiting to upgrade my birding camera from the 60D to the
mythical unicorn 7D2 for a while - no doubt I will have a shock on encountering a focusing system that does more than center-point AI Servo at a single sensitivity. I too am a focal length limited shooter, having a 400mm f/5.6L, and will look forward to the rather dim combo of 400 f/5.6 plus 1.4x TCII actually AFing. I will have to rent a Big White someday, if only to experience the weight and the image stabilization.
-
Hey Nancy,
This might interest you:
http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-additional-details/
-
DxO in their just-released test, rates the DR of the 7D2 at base ISO at about 11.5 stops. By comparison, the Nikon D5300 rates nearly 14. Where the 7D2 seems to excel is in high ISO response, which appears to indeed make it an apt camera for birding.
-
Thanks, synn. I have been awaiting some reviews of the 150-600 sport.
-
Thanks, synn. I have been awaiting some reviews of the 150-600 sport.
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/11/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-lens-review.aspx/
This just in. Tested on a nikon, but should give you a good idea of what the lens is capable of.
-
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/11/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-lens-review.aspx/
This just in. Tested on a nikon, but should give you a good idea of what the lens is capable of.
Interesting, while Bernard keeps extolling the virtues of the D810, ignoring the strength of the Canon 7D II for wildlife photography, with its excellent high ISO capability, peerless AF + high FPS, the reviewer of this Sigma lens (on Nikon's behalf, mind you) says,
"10) This lens is a natural fit for the D4s. The lack of wide apertures plus the focal lengths mean that you will likely be shooting with higher ISOs than the D810 can comfortably offer, in my experience, unless you have the best light or slowest subjects. Plus when shooting mobile subjects at such long lengths, a higher frame rate is extremely useful."
All of which are strengths of the 7D II, which pretty much either matches or eclipses the D4 in these areas too ... for 1/3rd the price ...
Jack
-
Jack, I do agree the endless dialog about DR in Canon vs. Nikon and therefore all matters are settled Nikon wins, is a somewhat over the top. So I AM with you
And I agree that at ISO 3200 the 7DII and 810 are neck and neck on DR so would agree that the 7DII with it's superior focus speed and fps (+/- on the crop sensor, depends on what you like) makes it very attractive.
But respectfully the argument spits the bit against the D4. The D4 was MADE for this. DR is a good ~1.5 stops deeper. D4s holds on even longer. The D-series is just too good at this
Of course we are back to the never-ending DR issue again and how much it really matters to a finished and pleasing product. But I fear that will never be completely resolved for people as myself who look at the camera-image as a complex continuum, not just a specification no matter how honest its derivation may be as in this case.
Cheers
Interesting, while Bernard keeps extolling the virtues of the D810, ignoring the strength of the Canon 7D II for wildlife photography, with its excellent high ISO capability, peerless AF + high FPS, the reviewer of this Sigma lens (on Nikon's behalf, mind you) says,
"10) This lens is a natural fit for the D4s. The lack of wide apertures plus the focal lengths mean that you will likely be shooting with higher ISOs than the D810 can comfortably offer, in my experience, unless you have the best light or slowest subjects. Plus when shooting mobile subjects at such long lengths, a higher frame rate is extremely useful."
All of which are strengths of the 7D II, which pretty much either matches or eclipses the D4 in these areas too ... for 1/3rd the price ...
Jack
-
Jack, I do agree the endless dialog about DR in Canon vs. Nikon and therefore all matters are settled Nikon wins, is a somewhat over the top. So I AM with you
And I agree that at ISO 3200 the 7DII and 810 are neck and neck on DR so would agree that the 7DII with it's superior focus speed and fps (+/- on the crop sensor, depends on what you like) makes it very attractive.
But respectfully the argument spits the bit against the D4. The D4 was MADE for this. DR is a good ~1.5 stops deeper. D4s holds on even longer. The D-series is just too good at this
Of course we are back to the never-ending DR issue again and how much it really matters to a finished and pleasing product. But I fear that will never be completely resolved for people as myself who look at the camera-image as a complex continuum, not just a specification no matter how honest its derivation may be as in this case.
Cheers
Point well made on the ISO and the DR of the D4 for action shots.
However, the Canon does match the D4 in FPS, beats it in AF technology, and is only 1/3rd the price.
I would hope the D4 was still better in some respects to justify the price :)
Cheers back
-
Interesting, while Bernard keeps extolling the virtues of the D810, ignoring the strength of the Canon 7D II for wildlife photography, with its excellent high ISO capability, peerless AF + high FPS, the reviewer of this Sigma lens (on Nikon's behalf, mind you) says,
Jack,
Sorry, no intention to enter another one of your pissing contests. I have never commented negatively on the strengths of the 7DII for wildlife photography.
Why don't you just show us images captured with your 7DII?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Went back and looked.... even my lowly 6D slaps the 810 around above ISO 800
But it "only" has a few focus points and "slow" fps so it CAN'T be very good, n'est-ce pas?
Couldn't possibly use it for birding... ;D
-
Point well made on the ISO and the DR of the D4 for action shots.
However, the Canon does match the D4 in FPS, beats it in AF technology, and is only 1/3rd the price.
I would hope the D4 was still better in some respects to justify the price :)
Cheers back
I own a D4, a D800E and a 7DII. I can tell you from significant experience shooting birds in flight that I would choose a D4 over the 7DII. The 7DII is darn good, but it simply is not in the same class as the D4, never mind a D4s. I'm not even clear on what point you are trying to make, but whatever it is, it is based on some seriously flawed premises.
-
I own a D4, a D800E and a 7DII. I can tell you from significant experience shooting birds in flight that I would choose a D4 over the 7DII. The 7DII is darn good, but it simply is not in the same class as the D4, never mind a D4s. I'm not even clear on what point you are trying to make, but whatever it is, it is based on some seriously flawed premises.
What would you choose for a bird in flight between the D800E and the 7DII?
That was pretty much my point.
Thanks for the insight.
-
I own a D4, a D800E and a 7DII. I can tell you from significant experience shooting birds in flight that I would choose a D4 over the 7DII. The 7DII is darn good, but it simply is not in the same class as the D4, never mind a D4s. I'm not even clear on what point you are trying to make, but whatever it is, it is based on some seriously flawed premises.
Owned an used a D4 and 7100 a lot until about a year ago. The D4 was simply amazing at high ISO/low light and/or action. Focus was "right now", could use shutter speeds the 7100 couldn't hope to match
Perhaps the 1Dx can rival the D4, never used one but great Pros certainly do so I'm sure it's no slouch when you get to the "get the shot or not..." situations
-
Perhaps the 1Dx can rival the D4, never used one but great Pros certainly do so I'm sure it's no slouch when you get to the "get the shot or not..." situations
The 1Dx trumps the D4.
Even Photoshop guru, Scott Kelby, made the switch.
Comparable color depth & high ISO scores, with far better ergonomics/functionality, faster FPS, etc.
Of course the 7DII isn't quite the workhorse of these cameras, but the fact it can be mentioned in the same sentence now (specs-wise), for 1/3rd the price, is saying something about its versatility without breaking the bank.
Jack
-
The 1Dx trumps the D4.
Even Photoshop guru, Scott Kelby, made the switch.
Comparable color depth & high ISO scores, with far better ergonomics/functionality, faster FPS, etc.
I'm sure the 1Dx is a great camera. But under ISO 1000, I'll take the D4.
I'm suspicious about Kelby as an endorsement. Isn't he compensated?
-
I'm sure the 1Dx is a great camera. But under ISO 1000, I'll take the D4.
Most fast-action, espec low light, is over 1000 ... where the 1Dx leaves the D4 behind ...
I'm suspicious about Kelby as an endorsement. Isn't he compensated?
Claims not to be. Claims he's been a longtime, hardcore Nikon user and proponent.
Claims Canon gave him a 1Dx to try out for action sports ... and, after experiencing the superior ergonomics, the ability to rapidly go through images and tag the best ones with the dial (a much faster capability then the Nikon), getting an extra 4FPS, and better skin tones tipped him over to Canon.
Jack
-
better skin tones tipped him over to Canon.
Jack
Again, I have no dog in the 1Dx/D4 debate, but THIS is one of the two reasons I left Nikon. Their color palette makes my eyes hurt.
Just my bias, not everyone would agree I suspect. That's why they come in different flavors...
-
What would you choose for a bird in flight between the D800E and the 7DII?
That was pretty much my point.
Thanks for the insight.
The D800E can handle most wildlife situations. It is only when you have a rocket flying around where the auto-focus will be slow or fail to lock and I would choose the 7DII. I would choose the D800E for all statics, despite the 7DII getting more pixels on the subject, because the D800 files are so much better. BTW, I feel the same way about the 5DIII, which I also owned. It does not track as well as the 7DII but the image quality is way better.
Out of curiosity, what is your background Jack? Just trying to establish the validity of some of your assertions.
-
The 1Dx trumps the D4.
This is of course just an opion, isn't it?
Even Photoshop guru, Scott Kelby, made the switch.
Did he inform you what his personals reason were? Would those be something which prove without a shread of doubt that your opinion above represents the objective truth?
Comparable color depth & high ISO scores,
1Dx worse low and middle ISO, similar high ISO, significantly inferior colour separation, thus for colour image you can expect slight drop in SNR as well as colour accuracy.
This is according to DxOMark measurements.
with far better ergonomics/functionality, faster FPS, etc.
What erogomic studies you have been made which have resulted in that observation? What kind of far better functionality it has? Or is it because it's a Canon, thus it must have better usability/comfort? Can you offer any evidence towards you "far better ergonomics/functionality" statement?
Of course the 7DII isn't quite the workhorse of these cameras, but the fact it can be mentioned in the same sentence now (specs-wise), for 1/3rd the price, is saying something about its versatility without breaking the bank.
It's just a sensor which is just 39% of the size of the full frame sensors and that is the key metric -7DII has nowhere near the same image quality potential either of those full framers have.
-
The truth of the matter is that either a Canon or Nikon (or others as well) system will do its part in creating outstanding images if the photographer behind it does his. I'm not against critical evaluation of equipment, but the fanboy nitpicking of the other guy, whomever the other happens to be, is wearing thin. It's a bloody miracle anyone was ever able to make a quality image before the latest equipment came out.
-
Rory and Abe R. Ration, apples and oranges. The 7D2 is a sports or wildlife shooter's budget camera. The D4 is a pro-grade camera costing 3 to 4 times as much. The pixel density of the 7D2 is useful mainly for the ability to "put more pixels on the bird" in an economical manner. In Canon land, a 400mm f/5.6L, an excellent lens, costs $1,340.00 new, and the 600mm f/4 L II IS, a "can't get better than this" lens, costs $12,000.00 or so. The $3,140.00 combo of 7D2 and 400 f/5.6L and the $17,500.00 combo of 1Dx and 600 f/4L IS II both put approximately the same number of pixels on the bird. Yep, the 1DX pixels are better pixels. The Nikon D4 pixels are better pixels. But $14,000.00 cost difference (between Canons) is significant to the majority of photographers, who either simply can't afford the more expensive kit or would rather spend the difference on increased retirement saving, and/or travel, and/or ... other discretionary spending.
I don't doubt that Glenn Bartley would like to be shooting with a 1DX, but it doesn't suit his business plan - he's looking for return on investment. Wildlife photography is competitive. I am sure that some of the people he takes on photo tours have 1DXs or the Nikon D4/600 combo. Investment bankers make more money than professional photographers.
-
Rory and Abe R. Ration, apples and oranges. The 7D2 is a sports or wildlife shooter's budget camera. The D4 is a pro-grade camera costing 3 to 4 times as much. The pixel density of the 7D2 is useful mainly for the ability to "put more pixels on the bird" in an economical manner. In Canon land, a 400mm f/5.6L, an excellent lens, costs $1,340.00 new, and the 600mm f/4 L II IS, a "can't get better than this" lens, costs $12,000.00 or so. The $3,140.00 combo of 7D2 and 400 f/5.6L and the $17,500.00 combo of 1Dx and 600 f/4L IS II both put approximately the same number of pixels on the bird. Yep, the 1DX pixels are better pixels. The Nikon D4 pixels are better pixels. But $14,000.00 cost difference (between Canons) is significant to the majority of photographers, who either simply can't afford the more expensive kit or would rather spend the difference on increased retirement saving, and/or travel, and/or ... other discretionary spending.
I don't doubt that Glenn Bartley would like to be shooting with a 1DX, but it doesn't suit his business plan - he's looking for return on investment. Wildlife photography is competitive. I am sure that some of the people he takes on photo tours have 1DXs or the Nikon D4/600 combo. Investment bankers make more money than professional photographers.
I totally agree Nancy.
-
It's just a sensor which is just 39% of the size of the full frame sensors and that is the key metric -7DII has nowhere near the same image quality potential either of those full framers have.
Or to put it another way, APS-C (44%) is to FF what FF (40%) is to MF . In some circumstances the smaller imaging area may equal the IQ of the larger one, but does not surpass it.
Welcome to LuLa, Abe ! Another +10 for both your blog and well articulated posts - makes a welcome change from the all-too rampant fanboy-ism.
-
This is of course just an opion, isn't it?
No, there are many objective facts which make it so.
Facts not having to do with the sensor, but the functionality.
Did he inform you what his personals reason were? Would those be something which prove without a shread of doubt that your opinion above represents the objective truth?
Here you go, Abe, right out of Scott's own mouth, on a public video, he personally displayed on his own website.
Why I Switched to Canon, by Scott Kelby (http://scottkelby.com/2014/why-i-switched-to-canon)
Is that "evidence enough" for you? ;D
1Dx worse low and middle ISO, similar high ISO, significantly inferior colour separation, thus for colour image you can expect slight drop in SNR as well as colour accuracy.
This is according to DxOMark measurements.
The disparity is not that great in either color depth or ISO.
It is the other features (e.g., get your head out of "the sensor" only) that make the 1Dx a more versatile tool.
What erogomic studies you have been made which have resulted in that observation? What kind of far better functionality it has? Or is it because it's a Canon, thus it must have better usability/comfort? Can you offer any evidence towards you "far better ergonomics/functionality" statement?
Ergonomics are a subjective evaluation. The "evidence" I have would be 3-fold:
1) When I personally went shopping for cameras, at the time it was between a Nikon D300 and a Canon 7D. I chose the Canon because it fit better in my hand, did not have a "ridge" on my fingertips like the Nikon, but a smooth indentation instead. I simply liked the way it felt better;
2) The video I just provided of Scott Kelby, a professional who likely earns more from his photography-based profession than you, saying essentially the same thing: ergonomics and overall functionality are superior (IFF you actually watch the video);
3) The fact that more sports photogs shoot the 1Dx than the D4.
It's just a sensor which is just 39% of the size of the full frame sensors and that is the key metric -7DII has nowhere near the same image quality potential either of those full framers have.
I agree. It is just a sensor. And therefore only part of the overall equation as to the value of a camera in the field.
No one can realistically expect the $1800 7DII to offer better overall resolution than the $6000 Nikon/Canon high-end sports/wildlife cameras.
But it does offer some (non-sensor) specs that are better than these cameras, with image quality that is good enough to get published in any magazine you want to talk about.
Anyway, sorry if I ruffled any feathers :D
Have a good one,
-
It came right out of his own mouth, genius, on a public video displayed on his own website.
Why I Switched to Canon, by Scott Kelby (http://scottkelby.com/2014/why-i-switched-to-canon)
Money?
-
That is your cynicism, but his reasons are clearly stated, and you can factually verify that the functionality perks are there in the Canon, not in the Nikon.
-
It boils down to subject matter, need for individual features, personal preferences - the right camera is the one that allowed you to get a good shot, whether that be a studio view camera or a film Hassy or a Canon Rebel or a Nikon D810 or a Leaf back with Schneider leaf-shutter lens.
There is one "killer feature" in the Canon 7D2 that will endear it and its successors to the amateurs photographing night and indoor sports - an "anti-flicker" mode that syncs the camera shutter with the output peaks of rapidly cycling sodium and other high-intensity stadium lights. I don't do that kind of shooting, but those that do will love the feature.
I would love a killer landscape feature or two - listen up, manufacturers! :D
1. what compass direction and degree off horizontal is the camera pointing to? This should be calculable from on board gyro information - and a lot of cameras now have at least as good a gyro as in your phone. Write this and the gps info into the exif. User can go to The Photographer's Ephemeris and have some excellent planning info to work with. I am frequently doing scouting hikes where I photo a likely spot to revisit at a more light-friendly time, then I haul out a compass (aka iPhone) and take notes "standing at this trail feature, with skyline features x and y in view at heading ### degrees"
2. For those who focus in live view, a way to highlight any two points for magnified live view, then display both magnified areas side by side live while you adjust focus. This could be a killer feature for TS lens users.