7D2 - Image and Review

[Rory]

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.

[Abe R. Ration]

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.

[Colorado David]

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.

[NancyP]

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]

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. 

[Manoli]

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.

[John Koerner]

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

Is that "evidence enough" for you?  

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

Have a good one,

[CptZar]

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

Money?

[John Koerner]

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.

[NancyP]

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! 
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.