# Upgrade lens or body??



## Inst!nct (Oct 3, 2010)

I'm at a crossroads, I have about 1400 to spend, no more then that, well maybe more if I get a telephoto lens, then I could sell mine for like 400 then I'd have 1800 but moving on... 

Anyways, I have 1400 to spend an debating between buying a new body ==> 7d, or a new lens ==> unsure .

I think I would want an L lens, good all around wide angle, because I already have a 70-300mm IS canon lens that I like, but maybe a 70-200mm IS L could be an option.. 

Anyways, thanks alot for the future advice , I'm mostly looking to get nicer looking shots, as in better quality, better colors.

And if I bought a new body I wouldn't have a battery grip.. and I love my battery grip haha, but I would have the built in wireless flash in the 7d, however my lens would perhaps limit the quality I get, so i wouldn't see a difference in quality unless I got an awesome lens THEN bought the body correct?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 3, 2010)

it will be nice if you list your gear.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 3, 2010)

Would be nice if you keep to 1 topic ;p
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products-news-reviews/219770-xti-7d.html


----------



## Inst!nct (Oct 3, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Would be nice if you keep to 1 topic ;p
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products-news-reviews/219770-xti-7d.html



Yea i was going to close that one, but this is kind of different, I'm asking for specifics, and IDK how to close that thread, just gonna delete it.

Right, my gear, It used to be in my sig, i forgot, I have an XTi, 70-300mm IS USM canon lens, kit lens for xti (15-55mm) and a sigma lens I hate (70-300 APO DG).


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 3, 2010)

I would get 50mm f/1.4 and used 24-70mm f/2.8L.


----------



## Inst!nct (Oct 3, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> I would get 50mm f/1.4 and used 24-70mm f/2.8L.



Wow, the 24-70mm looks like a great lens, what's your reasoning behind getting the nifty fifty? My friend has it and I can't say I was too impressed with it, he does treat his camera horribly though, and his lenses too so idk.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 3, 2010)

Inst!nct said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > I would get 50mm f/1.4 and used 24-70mm f/2.8L.
> ...


I have the 50mm F/1.4 and it is an excellent lens. Worth every penny! (although I got it for $300, prices have gone up).

I love it much more than my kit lens and my 75-300, maybe not my new 70-200 though lol...

I do agree with what Schwettylens said...Do you need the 7D? The XTi can take excellent pictures, especially with good glass. IMO it only really lacks with AF, ISO performance, cont' shooting, etc... I will be using it for sports. That is why I want to upgrade, to take advantage of all 3 of those.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 3, 2010)

Took this shot with XTi and 50mm F/1.4


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 3, 2010)

dude..  I love my 50mm..  I use that lens very very often.


----------



## Inst!nct (Oct 3, 2010)

Ok, so I guess a lens upgrade would be worth it, perhaps more then a body upgrade? Cause what I'm thinking is why get a 1400 dollar body with a 50 dollar lens (kit lens) you know?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 3, 2010)

if you buy a new body now, it will lose it's value quick by next year. If you buy used lenses, I am sure you can sell it the sam price next year.  But really.. messing with 50mm f/1.4 really made me a better photographer.  I learned a lot from using it.  There is no way I would learn as much on just the kit lens.


----------



## Inst!nct (Oct 3, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> if you buy a new body now, it will lose it's value quick by next year. If you buy used lenses, I am sure you can sell it the sam price next year.  But really.. messing with 50mm f/1.4 really made me a better photographer.  I learned a lot from using it.  There is no way I would learn as much on just the kit lens.



Humm yea I see your point, I think, atm I'm leaning towards getting a wide angle lens of some sort, because my telephoto is decent enough that it's not worth upgrading while my wide angle sucks :lmao:. Idk if I'm particularly keen on the 50mm however, I wanted to get an L lens and finally get a professional lens haha , and IS is a +.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 3, 2010)

Im pretty sure your kit lens is 18-55 not 15-55 like you listed.  Really.. that is plenty wide.  Most people use the kit lens for speciality shots.  They dont use it very often (i.e. EF-S 10-20mm).  I really think you need to upgrade other lenses first before you get a wide angle.


----------



## Inst!nct (Oct 3, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> Im pretty sure your kit lens is 18-55 not 15-55 like you listed.  Really.. that is plenty wide.  Most people use the kit lens for speciality shots.  They dont use it very often (i.e. EF-S 10-20mm).  I really think you need to upgrade other lenses first before you get a wide angle.



Yea thanks, new something was off about 15-55 but didnt bother to check . I just realized that I had counted about 300-400 of that budget for selling my camera body... Which means that I have only about 1k to work with now if I buy a lens.

I also realized that my telephoto really isn't bad right now.. And I might be leaning NOW towards getting a 7d and buying a 50mm once i have the money, most likely around december.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 3, 2010)

You need to figure out the most common focal length you use. You said "events" but what kind? EF 70-200mm F/4L non-IS is an excellent lens for $650. if you need a little wider, 17-40 F/4L is pretty cheap at $740.  If you want a better range of focal length with F/4 and IS, you can get the 24-105 F/4L IS at just over $1,000.

If you need 2.8 lenses there is the 16-35L for around 1500 (pretty steep price for you i think) and the 24-70L for just over 1300.

canon rumors suggests a possible replacement for the 24-70, no word if its IS or not but lots of people want it with IS.

A good non-L lens to consider is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM at just over 1,000 USD. Its not a "L" lens, mostly because they dont make EF-S lenses "L", but it is on par with the optical quality.

You could also go 3rd party lenses but I know nothing about them... lol

First figure out what focal lengths you commonly use, then checkout the lighting you often shoot in, figure out if you need f/2.8 or is f/4 is enough, and if you need IS or not. We can work from there


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2010)

Better, richer color? Don't buy the 7D, buy the 70-200 f/4 L IS ISM...the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras. Lenses are largely responsible for providing richer, more-saturated color; lenses that have good coatings and good optical designs, and which have higher levels of contrast, will tend to produce richer, more-saturated, better-looking color than lenses that are, well, lacking. This can be seen pretty easily in many of the Nikon ED-glass lenses...the more-costly lenses often produce richer, more-vivid color than consumer or entry-level lenses that lack extra-low dispersion glass elements and which have simpler, cheaper to produce optical designs. While the 70-300 you have is a good lens, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L is an excellent lens...and it will leverage whatever body you put behind it, for years to come. If you get a new, high-grade lens, you're immediately "good to go". If you get a new body and have to keep shooting with the 70-300, I do not see the gain.


----------



## Inst!nct (Oct 3, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Better, richer color? Don't buy the 7D, buy the 70-200 f/4 L IS ISM...the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras. Lenses are largely responsible for providing richer, more-saturated color; lenses that have good coatings and good optical designs, and which have higher levels of contrast, will tend to produce richer, more-saturated, better-looking color than lenses that are, well, lacking. This can be seen pretty easily in many of the Nikon ED-glass lenses...the more-costly lenses often produce richer, more-vivid color than consumer or entry-level lenses that lack extra-low dispersion glass elements and which have simpler, cheaper to produce optical designs. While the 70-300 you have is a good lens, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L is an excellent lens...and it will leverage whatever body you put behind it, for years to come. If you get a new, high-grade lens, you're immediately "good to go". If you get a new body and have to keep shooting with the 70-300, I do not see the gain.



Alright thank you so much for all the advice, that's what I thought at first, but the lack of that 300 dollars made me change my mind for some reason, I could probably sell the 70-300 for about 400 and my crappy sigma one for like 100 . Thanks alot derrel, I'll look into the 70-200 f4 IS right away .

Edit: Despite looking at this lens couple years ago and loving it, I am looking at the pics on amazon taken by it and they are all terrid.. I need to look at someplace better then amazon 

double edit: nvm looks awesome , will be buying in exactly a month, gotta get some more money but definetly a done deal


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 3, 2010)

Inst!nct said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Better, richer color? Don't buy the 7D, buy the 70-200 f/4 L IS ISM...the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras. Lenses are largely responsible for providing richer, more-saturated color; lenses that have good coatings and good optical designs, and which have higher levels of contrast, will tend to produce richer, more-saturated, better-looking color than lenses that are, well, lacking. This can be seen pretty easily in many of the Nikon ED-glass lenses...the more-costly lenses often produce richer, more-vivid color than consumer or entry-level lenses that lack extra-low dispersion glass elements and which have simpler, cheaper to produce optical designs. While the 70-300 you have is a good lens, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L is an excellent lens...and it will leverage whatever body you put behind it, for years to come. If you get a new, high-grade lens, you're immediately "good to go". If you get a new body and have to keep shooting with the 70-300, I do not see the gain.
> ...



The 70-200 F/4 IS is really an awesome lens, its friggin TACK SHARP.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 3, 2010)

Derrel said:


> the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras.


 
LOL...dont really know what else to say to this one...

Derrel man, let the 7D thing go.


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 3, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras.
> ...


Clearly this is based on his *extensive* hands-on experience with the 7D. He must do all his shoots in JPG with Saturation turned to -4 in the camera! It's pretty obvious this guy is an expert on the 7D, being that he doesn't own one, and hasn't really ever used one either.

Lova ya, Derrel. :hug::

Here's a dull, desaturated shot from my 7D that I took today:






This image is *heavily cropped* from the original, which showcases the nice optics of the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII paired with a high res 18mp sensor.


Anyway, back to the OP, I don't know if you checked your other thread, but I replied over there with my input before seeing this one:

"The big question you need to ask yourself is: Do I need to shoot at 1600, 3200, or 6400 ISO comfortably? Do I need to shoot at 8 frames per second? And do I want wireless flash control? If you answer "no" to all of these, you probably don't need a 7D. The XTi is a fine camera in ideal conditions like well lit studio portraits. But for events and stuff (especially dimly lit areas), the high ISO capabilities of the 7D paired with some fast lenses will make for some great shots.

That being said, you may get just as good results from a 60D; preliminary ISO tests I've seen put it as near to the 7D as makes no difference: Canon EOS 60D Digital SLR Camera Review It doesnt have the fancy upgraded AF or quick 8fps burst, but for your needs, it looks like it would suit the bill as well as a 7D would, but several hundred dollars cheaper. Put that money towards a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8, both of which would be excellent on a 60D (or even your XTi) for portraits and events."


----------



## Buckster (Oct 3, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


 
Some interesting EXIF data showing some of the PS work done to get it to this state...

# crs:Sharpness = "36"
# crs:*LuminanceSmoothing* = "65"
# crs:*ColorNoiseReduction* = "37"
# crs:*SaturationAdjustmentOrange* = "+52"
# crs:*SaturationAdjustmentYellow* = "+45"
# crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen = "0"
# crs:*SaturationAdjustmentAqua* = "+27"
# crs:*SaturationAdjustmentBlue* = "+68"
# crsarametricShadows = "-28"
# crsarametricDarks = "-19"
# crsarametricShadowSplit = "25"
# crsarametricMidtoneSplit = "50"
# crsarametricHighlightSplit = "75"
# crs:SharpenRadius = "+0.7"
# crs:SharpenDetail = "77"
# crs:SharpenEdgeMasking = "6"
# crs:*LuminanceNoiseReduction*Detail = "50"
# crs:*ColorNoiseReduction*Detail = "50" 

Seems like it was pretty dull when you first got a look at the image out of the camera, so you fixed it up in post to give it the pizazz you really wanted by pushing saturation and reigning in the noise issues.

No biggie, of course. I've owned and shot several digital cameras myself over the past 10 years or so, including the Canons: 20D, 40D, 7D and now the 5DMKII, so I know what you're working with there, and have to do the same thing with my 7D images.

But let's not try to pretend that we don't or that the 7D is "all that and a bag of chips", 'cause it just ain't; It's got it's own set of issues, and Derrel has rightly pointed some of them out over time here, as have others around the web who are no slouches when it comes to photographic equipment.

IQ is acceptable for these web images and small to medium sized prints after we work them in PS, as was done here, but there's a reason this isn't a $4000 body - it ain't got what it takes to be one, no matter how many amateurs think it's the greatest thing since somebody said, "what if we slice the bread BEFORE we sell it?"

Just sayin'...


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 3, 2010)

Buckster said:


> Seems like it was pretty dull when you first got a look at the image out of the camera, so you fixed it up in post to give it the pizazz you really wanted by pushing saturation and reigning in the noise issues.
> 
> No biggie, of course. I've owned and shot several digital cameras myself over the past 10 years or so, including the Canons: 20D, 40D, 7D and now the 5DMKII, so I know what you're working with there, and have to do the same thing with my 7D images.
> 
> ...


Hand in the cookie jar, eh?  Shooting through a hazy marine layer with only 200mm of focal length was definately a challange, I just posted that to bother Derrel. 
No Photoshop though, just some simple sliders in Lightroom. I added some extra Lum NR because I loved the smooth, almost-fake, painted look it gives the plane and smoke.

Regarding saturation, here's a completely unedited shot in the horribly gray morning:






Make no mistake though, that in no way do I think this is the best camera in the world. I feel Derrel's critisizms are unfair because he is only relaying whatever he reads on the internet rather than actually using the camera himself. That's why I (and others) rag on him every time he rants about the 7D, 50D, or just about anything Canon makes  It's certainly not the best camera in the world, but I personally feel it is the best crop body and offers the best speed and AF performance south of a 1DmkIV. It can't hold a candle to the kind of image quality that comes out of either camp's expensive professional full frame offerings, but that's to be expected from something that costs $3000-5000 less. 

If I had rented a 400/2.8 instead of trying to get away with my measly 70-200, I would have gotten a lot more out of the high flying shots. But that being said, I got several that should print nicely at 8x10 and 300dpi. I plan to have them on my wall as soon as they ship to me. :thumbup:


----------



## Buckster (Oct 3, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> I feel Derrel's critisizms are unfair because he is only relaying whatever he reads on the internet rather than actually using the camera himself.


No, he's clearly not. He's got a wealth of knowledge gained from years associated with photographic equipment and contact with people in the business that's ongoing. He understands the issues associated with optics and physics and how they relate to this gear.

You don't have to actually own and eat burnt toast to see that it's burnt, and there's no reason to buy and shoot a camera that you can see is not up to a quality standard you consider acceptable - so he doesn't.

There's nothing at all "unfair" about that, and frankly that doesn't seem like the reasoning at all for you rearing up every time it comes up like this, and even if it is, it's certainly not a valid reason. No, to be honest, it looks a LOT more like you take a dump on everything he says about it because you don't want your preccccciooousssss to be defamed or something; at least, that's how it comes off - like fan boy antics.

I own the camera. I shoot with the camera. I've read what he's had to say about it here, and I've read plenty from others who are knowledgeable saying the same kinds of things. Several others with extensive knowledge that frequent this forum are among them. And from my EXPERIENCE with the camera, I concur with him/them.

I've said it already in another thread, and I'm not too proud or ashamed to say it again here: If I knew then what I know now, I would have skipped right past the 7D and applied the money to a better body.

When I bought my 7D, I chose to disbelieve the Derrels out there and the things they were saying, and to believe folks like you instead; people who had the camera and were just wild about it. I'm now sorry I did that, and I hope that others who are weighing these purchasing decisions will do a better job than I did of discerning the knowledgeable from the fan boys.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 3, 2010)

Buckster said:


> cfusionpm said:
> 
> 
> > I feel Derrel's critisizms are unfair because he is only relaying whatever he reads on the internet rather than actually using the camera himself.
> ...


Some of us don't have the luxury to buy a pro line camera.

For the heavily knowledgeable and experienced, maybe the 7D isn't on par with what they like, but to many its a damn amazing camera and stupid to say its a bad camera for the price.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 3, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Some of us don't have the luxury to buy a pro line camera.


Anyone who can save up $1700 or so to get the 7D can save a bit longer to get up another $700 and get a 5DMKII.



prodigy2k7 said:


> For the heavily knowledgeable and experienced, maybe the 7D isn't on par with what they like, but to many its a damn amazing camera and stupid to say its a bad camera for the price.


First, I never said it's a bad camera for the price, so I'm sure you don't mean to infer that I'm "stupid" with that remark you just made. That said, that doesn't make it a *great* camera for the price either my friend. Especially not when for a few hundred bucks more, you can actually get a great camera for the price.

Second, there's still no reason for the knee-jerk reactions we see out of some folks around here every time someone like Derrel happens to speak the truth about this camera that isn't all warm and glowing and gushing with pride and giving the 7D fan boy club woodies over it being such the performance monster they like to pretend it is.

I bought into that rhetoric. I bought the camera. I used the camera. I still use the camera. It's acceptable for some things. It has some nice features. But it's still not all that it's hyped up to be. It's just not. Sorry. Sometimes the truth sucks I guess.

Hey, trust me, I get it. It's not easy to pay $1700 bucks for a camera body, full of expectations of it's capabilities, and then discover that maybe it's not all you thought it would be. And maybe because I've had several other cameras to compare it to, now including the 5DMKII, that's given me some additional perspective on the situation that they (and you) don't necessarily have. Hey, to someone with no camera at all, a Holga is the shiznit. Yeah, I get that - all of it.

But in the end it's just a camera, not a religion, and folks don't need to smack each other around over it, nor hang themselves on a cross over it, nor worship it. It's just a camera... Just a camera.... just a camera... just a camera...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of us don't have the luxury to buy a pro line camera.
> ...



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.

A lot of what you said about the 7d fan boys and whatnot can easily be said about derrel. He's all nikon and always bags canon products.


----------



## dcmoody23 (Oct 4, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a dull, desaturated shot from my 7D that I took today:
> ...


----------



## dcmoody23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Ooh and the 7D is going for about $1500 now, not $1700.

I LOVE my 7D, granted I've never worked with anything else except a T1i for a good like 2 shots.  Eh, normally I'd say lens but I'm really feeling the 7D for this call.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> 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.



prodigy2k7 said:


> A lot of what you said about the 7d fan boys and whatnot can easily be said about derrel. He's all nikon and always bags canon products.


Except for the fact that he congratulated me on my 5DMKII and went into some detail about what a great camera it is and how much he knew I'd enjoy it.

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:


----------



## dcmoody23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Purely from a psychological standpoint: 

Why?  Why are you trying to ignite a fire in the middle of an ocean?  Money is tight for some people -- you can't tell them they have a weak excuse because they can't go out and spend an extra $700 on a camera body.  More importantly than your camera body is putting food on the table, having clean clothes, and a roof over your head, a good education? A poor excuse, or poor judgement on your behalf?  I guess I just don't understand why you'd ever attack someone who can't come up with extra money.  If the 'extra' factor played into it, everyone would skip out on their XSis and head straight for 1Ds, and tote around a bag full of L lenses, and accessories galore.
Maybe a bit overkill on my part, but how unnecessary of you to say something like that, especially when you don't know the situation.  Not to mention that the 7D is perfectly capable of producing excellent shots.

And don't try to say that in saying 'duly noted' what i've just said should be completely disregarded, because 'duly noted' translates directly to 'i'm covering my ass here, but'.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



The 5d is overkill for me. I simple don't have the money to get all that pro gear. How is that hard to understand?  Why are you defending derail anyways? I think you have a lot in common and not in a good way. By your logic just save up for a few more months and get the 1D mark iv. People simply can't or dont want to dish out that extra cash and rather get lenses and other gear.

I think I invented a new way to spell derrels name haha.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2010)

dcmoody23 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > prodigy2k7 said:
> ...


Why? Why don't you ask them why they're always trying to ignite a fire when someone has something to say about the 7D that doesn't fit with their rhetoric?



dcmoody23 said:


> Money is tight for some people -- you can't tell them they have a weak excuse because they can't go out and spend an extra $700 on a camera body.


Sure I can. I just did. See how that works?



dcmoody23 said:


> More importantly than your camera body is putting food on the table, having clean clothes, and a roof over your head, a good education?


Oh, I see... Nearly starving, nearly homeless students who are barely getting through school and on the verge of losing their education entirely are in that shape because the cost of a camera body has them right on the edge of disaster - spend $1500 to $3000 on camera body and gear to go with it, and everything's hunky-dorry. But spend $2500 to $4000, and their lives go down the drain. Got it.

Then perhaps they should stick with the least expensive cameras, maybe even used point and shoots or old film cameras, not body's that cost nearly $1.5 grand for the body, plus a piece of L glass to give it any shot at all of being better than what they're upgrading from, bigger CF card to deal with the large files, extra battery, maybe a grip, tax, etc. 

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



dcmoody23 said:


> A poor excuse, or poor judgement on your behalf? I guess I just don't understand why you'd ever attack someone who can't come up with extra money.


You call what I said above an "attack" on someone? But you don't see what they've been laying on Derrel as an attack? WTF?

News flash: Your faux moral superiority just crashed hard into the pile of bull excrement you carefully laid out in preparation for this dialogue.



dcmoody23 said:


> If the 'extra' factor played into it, everyone would skip out on their XSis and head straight for 1Ds, and tote around a bag full of L lenses, and accessories galore.
> Maybe a bit overkill on my part, but how unnecessary of you to say something like that, especially when you don't know the situation.


I repeat: Your faux moral superiority has crashed and burned already.



dcmoody23 said:


> Not to mention that *the 7D is* *perfectly capable of producing excellent shots*.


Thank you, fan boy with no experience to compare it to. You rock. 



dcmoody23 said:


> And don't try to say that in saying 'duly noted' what i've just said should be completely disregarded, because 'duly noted' translates directly to 'i'm covering my ass here, but'.


I would never even consider it. You've said enough already to take care of that all by yourself.


----------



## dcmoody23 (Oct 4, 2010)

I must say - I'm impressed with the time spent organizing that post.
Some valid stuff, I agree, but I really don't get this faux moral superiority you claim ...  I don't view myself as superior whatsoever, and I really don't feel as if backing up the people who you go after because they don't have extra cash laying around is even relative to what you're trying to make me out to be.  I'm not trying to make myself appear better, or bash anyone.. I just feel like people know their limits, and shouldn't have to explain themselves to some random guy over the internet who tells them they should dish out extra cash they don't have.  

Fan boy seems to be your favorite thing to call as a name.  But what do you consider the consumers?  When you shoot with your 7D instead of your 5D do you have clients say "No, don't want that.  Not high enough quality of a camera to deserve spending my hard earned cash on." I didn't think so.  You're just being plain rude, and you've highjacked the OPs post.  Since I know you won't, I will.  Sorry OP for having your post highjacked by an inconsiderate narcissist.  I mean this is just ridiculous.. Why fight? It's a *PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM*


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> The 5d is overkill for me. I simple don't have the money to get all that pro gear. How is that hard to understand?


It's not hard to understand at all. Now you try:

The 7D is not all that the fan boys make it out to be, just as Derrel and others with experience and knowledge in the camera industry have been saying, as I have now discovered first hand by buying, owning and shooting it. How is THAT so hard to understand?



prodigy2k7 said:


> Why are you defending derail anyways?


Because he's constantly being attacked over this unfairly, and it's time someone who owns and shoots this camera sets the record straight; Someone who's not too shy or embarrassed to say "I spent $1700 on what I thought would be an awesome camera body, and all I got instead was this stupid 7D full of noise and dots that makes editing feel like I'm sifting through dull sand."



prodigy2k7 said:


> I think you have a lot in common and not in a good way.


Such as? Oh, you mean like being realistic, knowlegeable, honest and intelligent. Why, thank you!



prodigy2k7 said:


> By your logic just save up for a few more months and get the 1D mark iv.


That works too, but it's only comparable if the camera below that one in price is unnacceptable for some reason.



prodigy2k7 said:


> People simply can't or dont want to dish out that extra cash and rather get lenses and other gear.


More excuses. How charming! How much do you figure they're willing to spend on "lenses and other gear" to put on a camera that sucks compared to a camera that rocks but costs a few hundred bucks more? Ballpark figure will be fine, and you don't need to answer in the form of a question on this one. Take your time...



prodigy2k7 said:


> I think I invented a new way to spell derrels name haha.


Haha... yeah, that's a real knee-slapper! Golly gee, your mom must be so proud o your raw wit!


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5d is overkill for me. I simple don't have the money to get all that pro gear. How is that hard to understand?
> ...



A lot of noise in the 7d? What world so you live in?

You are acting immature for your age assuming that picture by you name is you. About derrels name. It was a typo. Wasn't a joke or anything.

Glass over body. 5d is overkill for my needs. I don't have the glass for it. I'm done talking with a brick wall.


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of us don't have the luxury to buy a pro line camera.
> ...


I actually very much agree with this. Unfortunately, Canon doesn't make a full frame camera that can keep up with the speed and AF performance offered in cameras like the 7D and 1D. I am still waiting for the day Canon offers a true competitor to Nikon's fantastic D700.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> A lot of noise in the 7d? What world so you live in?


This one: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/219783-upgrade-lens-body-2.html#post2039151

Please take note of the fact that in his attempt to dazzle us all and put Derrel in his place, he's pushed the saturation UP and the pushed the noise DOWN in post processing. Now, WHY do you think he felt the need to do that? Take your time...



prodigy2k7 said:


> You are acting immature for your age assuming that picture by you name is you.


It is me in the photo, and yes I am old, and still, I'm not one of the people getting into these little slap fights twice a week over the 7D, defending it as though it's my deflowered sister's honor, pretending that what pops out of it is so awesome and pretty and saturated only to have someone discover that I pushed saturation levels up to get it that way, and doing my best to impugn the reputation of a knowlegable and helpful forum member in the process.



prodigy2k7 said:


> About derrels name. It was a typo. Wasn't a joke or anything.


But hey, as long as the joke's on Derrel, why correct it, right?



prodigy2k7 said:


> Glass over body.


Then go with a 60D and use the extra money for good glass. 



prodigy2k7 said:


> 5d is overkill for my needs.


You're simply not getting this. Get what you want. Love it. Marry it if it makes you happy. But don't pretend it's ALL THAT and lash out at anyone who doesn't agree, the way SOME FOLKS here do with Derrel when he dares to speak the truth about it. That's it in a nutshell.



prodigy2k7 said:


> I don't have the glass for it.


Then you don't have the glass for the 7D either, because it's IQ is not forgiving on that front. Or do you also disagree with EVERYONE who, from EXPERIENCE, says to get and use good glass with the 7D for exactly that reason?

So, you're going to plunk down a grand and a half on a body, then starve it from being able to do you any real good by putting sub-par glass on it. And you call that an upgrade? And because Derrel points that stuff out, he's nuts, and because I agree with him, I'm rude.

Yeah. Okay. Sure. Whatever.


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:
			
		

> cfusionpm said:
> 
> 
> > I feel Derrel's critisizms are unfair because he is only relaying whatever he reads on the internet rather than actually using the camera himself.
> ...


That's a fair point to make. But what irks me most is when he says things with such firm conviction that are easily disproven. A perfect example this thread here, where he conveniently ignores my post of examples openly addressing his concerns about that particular sensor, diffraction, and high ISO. I was actually looking forward to what he had to say.... Plus, to say the high ISO is terrible is kind of absurd to me. Terrible compared to a full frame? Sure, but it's absolute top of its class for crop sensors. Credit given where credit is due.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 4, 2010)

Nice pistols Matt!


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> IQ is acceptable for these web images and small to medium sized prints after we work them in PS, as was done here, but there's a reason this isn't a $4000 body - it ain't got what it takes to be one, no matter how many amateurs think it's the greatest thing since somebody said, "what if we slice the bread BEFORE we sell it?"
> 
> Just sayin'...


 
Buckster,

You are right that its not a $4000 body, thank you for making us all aware of that.

What I want to know is why you are comparing it to one?

The 7D is a excellent camera for its price. Period.

Neil


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> Anyone who can save up $1700 or so to get the 7D can save a bit longer to get up another $700 and get a 5DMKII.


 
I bought my 7D because I had almost $2000 worth of EF-S lenses, that I didnt want to have to replace.

Have you considered that people may care about that?


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2010)

A point and shoot camera is excellent for it's price too. That alone doesn't make it desireable to run out and buy one.

My point, once again, is that while it is indeed a nice piece of gear, when problems with it are discussed, there's no need to behead the messenger for it nor to denigrate them, nor to bury one's head in the sand and pretend those problems don't exist at all, and then instead act like it's the be-all, end-all of products.

I don't personall think that's too much to expect from adults.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> 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...


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who can save up $1700 or so to get the 7D can save a bit longer to get up another $700 and get a 5DMKII.
> ...


Yeah, I have. I have a couple of them as well.

1. They were bought to fit my 20D and 40D bodies, and still work fine on the 40D (I sold the 20D), which is now a backup camera.

2. They hold their resale value just fine as long as they haven't been abused, so in short order they *could* be sold and the money applied to buy their equivalents in the full-frame world.

Again, this is simply more excuse-chatter to lead us away from the real issue I've been communicating: There is no need to shoot the messenger who discusses the real-world issues with a particular piece of gear, and bury our heads in the sand chanting, "no no no no - those issues don't exist! It's all a lie! He doesn't know what he's talking about! My camera is great - It's great it's great it's great IT'S GREAT!!!"


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Oct 4, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > prodigy2k7 said:
> ...


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 (Oct 4, 2010)

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. (Oct 4, 2010)

Buckster said:


> 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&#8217;t really care because it doesn&#8217;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. (Oct 4, 2010)

Derrel said:


> 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."
> 
> ...


 
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 (Oct 4, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> 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.




Neil S. said:


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


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




Neil S. said:


> - 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. 




Neil S. said:


> - 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.




Neil S. said:


> 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.




Neil S. said:


> - 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. (Oct 4, 2010)

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 (Oct 4, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> 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.



Neil S. said:


> 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.




Neil S. said:


> 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.




Neil S. said:


> 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.




Neil S. said:


> 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.




Neil S. said:


> 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...




Neil S. said:


> 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.




Neil S. said:


> 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).




Neil S. said:


> 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.




Neil S. said:


> 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.




Neil S. said:


> 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?




Neil S. said:


> Am I getting through to you?


Yeah, I hear you loud and clear.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 4, 2010)

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&#8217;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 (Oct 4, 2010)

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 (Oct 4, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2010)

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 (Oct 4, 2010)

Inst!nct said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2010)

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 (Oct 4, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> 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.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 4, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> 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.


 
The buffer will also fill up much quicker on the 5D mk II, because of the larger file sizes and the fact that it only has one image processor.

This is huge when shooting sports.

Also you didnt mention the 5D mk II's AF system. I am pretty sure it can't keep up with the one on the 7D.

The 7D also has a new and improved metering system that only it and the 60D share. This isnt really related to sports, although it does mean it has better metering overall.

Did you know all of this?

The 7D is a better sports camera. Period.

Please don't try and argue this with me, because you will lose.

Its no different than how the D3s is a better sports camera compared to the D3x.

Neil


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


That would all be relevant if the OP's stated interest in an upgrade was to get a good sports camera with a fast frame rate. Too bad that's not what he said his goal for upgrading is. In fact, he never mentioned shooting sports one time, and the threads he's started over time don't seem to show that interest either.

Of course, even if he had, somehow the whole sports-shooting photography world got by before the 7D came along, unbelievable as that sounds.

Maybe we should be looking for what camera body works best for astronomy, since he didn't specifically ask for that either?


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 5, 2010)

^In addition to bringing the 7D into the discussion, the OP also gave a budget of $1400.  If you can find me a 5DmkII for $1400, I'll gladly buy one myself!  Now, I can't speak for everyone else, but my first post in this thread pretty much advised against it, and opted to suggest the cheaper new 60D.

Though, pissing match aside, a used original 5DmkI would probably suit the OP's needs best.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 5, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> ^In addition to bringing the 7D into the discussion, the OP also gave a budget of $1400. If you can find me a 5DmkII for $1400, I'll gladly buy one myself! Now, I can't speak for everyone else, but my first post in this thread pretty much advised against it, and opted to suggest the cheaper new 60D.
> 
> Though, pissing match aside, a used original 5DmkI would probably suit the OP's needs best.


Truly, I made the comment that anyone who could save up enough to cover the cost of a 7D could save up a few hundred more to get something better, and perhaps that was somewhat presumptuous - maybe they just can't do that, for whatever reason. Even when I was young and had very little money coming in, I was always able to put a little aside till I could afford what I wanted, so I can't honestly say I understand not being able to do that, but maybe that's just me.

He does make his request in terms of what to get "first" or "next" or "later", so one can infer that he expects to see more money for gear over time, thus the thought that saving a bit longer is a reasonable and viable option on my part.

Nonetheless, if the goal is to spend $1400 _right now_ in pursuit of better IQ because it's burning a hole in his pocket so bad that it's become more important to spend immediately than to save a bit more and perhaps spend more wisely, I personally think better glass is the way to go. It will work on a better body later (assuming more money is acquired over time to buy one), holds it's value, and gets him better IQ on whatever body he's shooting immediately.

But that's just my take on it. YMMV


----------



## Derrel (Oct 5, 2010)

The OP said his budget was $1400, and was thinking about the 70-200 f/4....so I suggested he buy a premium, L-series Canon lens,and not a BODY. Where are all those people who continually scream, "buy glass first, buy glass first!"? Are they all being drowned out by the Canon 7D Fan Club Mouseketeers?

A 70-200mm f/4 L series lens will last probably twenty-five years or more in amateur usage. A 7D will be an outdated piece of junk in less than half that time, able to be bought off of eBay for $100 or so. Get a clue you three Mouseketeers...


----------



## Mbnmac (Oct 5, 2010)

Wow, just... wow.

Do some of you guys even read what you're typing?

At no point was the 7D 'attacked' before the fanboys jumped to defend it, it was merely pointed out that it's not worth the upgrade compared to the glass, but if that's what you wanted, the 5D is only another $700, so what, 2 months more to save?


But, you know, welcome to the internet I guess.

As usual, I'll just add that the glass will always be a better long term investment than a body, and if you don't find the body actually limiting, glass is the way to go.


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 5, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


 
That's nice.

The one advantage I'd give to the 7D as a sports camera is reach. Anyone with talent does not need FPS.

The Focusing system works fast enough on my 5D MKII. It's no worse than the 30D I used to own and I shot sports with that. I did a concert this year where one of the first two songs was lit by nothing but strobes. Terrible lighting for any camera and way worse than having to shoot sports. My 5D MKII never missed a beat and never once had to wait for photos to clear from the buffer.

Have you ever tried to shoot an event like that with a 5D MKII? If not, you wouldn't understand exactly how capable the camera is and how worthless you're trying to make it out to be compared to the 7D.

If you try and argue this with me, I'll laugh at you, annoy your, and make you want to pull your hair out in frustration. I know I'm right. The 7D is not superior to the 5D MKII period (your own words). In the right hands the 5D MKII has superior features like resolution and ISO performance that would be a bigger advantage, than a crutch like FPS, to an experienced photographer.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> That's nice.
> 
> The one advantage I'd give to the 7D as a sports camera is reach. Anyone with talent does not need FPS.
> 
> ...


 
First of all no I will not argue with you that the 7D is better for low light. I am not that stupid guy. Also thats not what I was even talking about.

You are changing the subject and taking my statements out of context repeatedly here.

Second I said it was better for *sports* (not overall), which you so conveniently left out when you said "The 7D is not superior to the 5D MKII period (your own words). " 

Basically you are twisting my words all around here to suit your very weak argument. 

To be honest I dont even feel you are arguing about sports shooting here, which is what I was talking about in the first place. Did you truly not realize what I was saying, or are you just twisting words around trying to create a problem?

FPS a crutch? This has got to be one of the most ignorant and useless statements I have ever seen here. Its up there with the "X camera sucks" statements in my opinion.

So if FPS is a crutch then a camera like the Hasselblad H4D-60 should be up to the task of shooting sports right? 

I mean after all its just about resolution and Iso performance like you said right? The Hasse has got both in spades.

After all it shoots at a blazing 1.4 seconds per capture. I am sure that pro sports shooters would think this was more than enough though...

Back to the 7D and the 5D mk II:

EOS 7D - dpreview.com:
Canon EOS 7D Review: 30. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"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."

EOS 5D mk II - dpreview.com:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 40. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"So while the 5D Mark II would never be mistaken as a camera aimed at sports or action photographers (thanks to its rather pedestrian AF performance and overall shooting performance), it balances resolution and high ISO performance very well. And let's not forget its party trick of being able to shoot 1080p HD video with full manual control of exposure (following the release of firmware version 1.10)."

You know what though, I am sure that you are right and the professional reviews(and myself) are wrong on this.

You are probably right that FPS is just a crutch too, since you know so much. It is useless and they should just make all cameras shoot no more than 1 FPS max.

I concede to your superior knowledge and experience on this one lol.

Please stop this for your own good, because you will just continue to make yourself look bad here.

I warned you by the way...


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 5, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > That's nice.
> ...


 
You warned me about what? That's you're arrogant and you think you know everything? Another Derrel on our hands?

Plain and simple. I can go out and shoot sports with my 5D MKII and get pictures just as good, if not better than yours on a 7D. It's about timing. I take my time and get the shot when it's there, I don't spray and pray. I was shooting for my school's football team when I was in college. That was with a Minolta HTsi film camera. At 7fps, my buffer of 24 shots would have been filled in a little over 3 seconds. I took my time and made it last. I didn't need your 7D for that.

And if you've never had a 5D MKII in your hand with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, then you can't label the AF as crap. It may not be as fast at a 7D or have all the cross point focus points, but it's by no means the dog that reviewers try and make it out to be. If it was, it would be impossible for me to get some of the shots I do at concerts.

So I'm looking really bad for not depending on a pray and spray method and having actual experience with the camera that you're saying is not up to the task?


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> You warned me about what? That's you're arrogant and you think you know everything? Another Derrel on our hands?
> 
> Plain and simple. I can go out and shoot sports with my 5D MKII and get pictures just as good, if not better than yours on a 7D. It's about timing. I take my time and get the shot when it's there, I don't spray and pray. I was shooting for my school's football team when I was in college. That was with a Minolta HTsi film camera. At 7fps, my buffer of 24 shots would have been filled in a little over 3 seconds. I took my time and made it last. I didn't need your 7D for that.
> 
> ...


 
So basically... 

Almost my entire above post was facts and references with just a little bit of my opinion.

Almost this entire post here is your simply your opinion with almost no facts or references to support it.

Got it. :thumbup:

By the way you didn&#8217;t address countless points that I made showing why FPS is important, and why the 7D is a better sports body.

Also I didnt say that the 5D mk II "is not up to the task". 

What I said was that the 7D is a better sports body overall compared to the 5D mk II. 

Why do you keep doing that lol? You sure do love to twist words around to suit your absurd arguments dont you? 

Since you mentioned it though, I challenge you to find me a pro sports photographer anywhere on the net that uses a 5D mk II. Do that and then maybe I will keep discussing this with you. 

Until then this is becoming a major waste of my time.


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 5, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > You warned me about what? That's you're arrogant and you think you know everything? Another Derrel on our hands?
> ...


 
A 5D MKII is a FF digital camera...hmmm...ff...like 35mm film...and 35mm film cameras were never used to shoot sports...and 8FPS was so important to those photographers...hmmmm....looks like some one is trying to make excuses that they need a camera with certain abilities to make up for their lack of skills.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 5, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


ahahahaha:thumbup:


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> A 5D MKII is a FF digital camera...hmmm...ff...like 35mm film...and 35mm film cameras were never used to shoot sports...and 8FPS was so important to those photographers...hmmmm....looks like some one is trying to make excuses that they need a camera with certain abilities to make up for their lack of skills.


 
Ahahahahahaha!

Are you mad lol? You are really losing your cool here. 

Remember I warned you. :lmao:

You have resorted to making ridiculous statements (like the above) in a desperate attempt to keep arguing a flawed position. 

This can only go straight down the toilet from here. Not like it hasnt already though.

I am done discussing this with you.

Good day Sir...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 5, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


8FPS isnt "important" in getting the right shot, it just helps in not missing the shot when you try and get it. Are you saying you get your shots right on every damn time? FF is nice and all but the light gathering ability isn't always required. Sometimes the crop bodies help with filling the subject in the frame.


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 5, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > A 5D MKII is a FF digital camera...hmmm...ff...like 35mm film...and 35mm film cameras were never used to shoot sports...and 8FPS was so important to those photographers...hmmmm....looks like some one is trying to make excuses that they need a camera with certain abilities to make up for their lack of skills.
> ...


 
Losing my cool? Not at all, sir. I just don't see how you're so blind as to see that people have been getting those shots with cameras that didn't have the 7D's AF and FPS. The XXD series was considered a good sports camera and they have about the same AF as in a 5D MKII, iirc. 

You're refusing to admit that pray and spray is a tactic that a real photographer wouldn't use. You're done discussing this because you don't have anything else to say besides you depend on FPS over skill?



prodigy2k7 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...


 
Not every damn time, but after using cameras with at least 5 FPS, I find it much easier to watch what's going on and taking the photo at that critical time rather than holding down the camera button and hoping that the focusing can keep up with the FPS to catch an acceptable photo out of the 10-20 that were just taken.

Like in my flaming guitar shoot. I got the photo as the guitar smashed into the ground and you can see the air from the impact pushing the flames out along the ground. Or like when shooting skateboard photos and timing it just right. Or when shooting portraits that require timing.

I guess not being able to afford a set of lights that will shoot consistantly at 4+ FPS kind of forces you to have good timing.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 5, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


My point is, you dont have to actually take 8 shots. You can take 2-3 but it helps to more likely get THEE shot, if you have 3 to choose from, that are similar, but different.  In surfing with short boards, they are pretty fast going up and down the waves, and sometimes they do tricks and spins and whatnot, and they do them fairly fast, and its hard to get the right shot if you just happen to get a splash of water in the wrong spot covering his face, or it just doesnt look right. It helps to get multiple shots to get the water and the wave and the surfer just to look right. Sometimes the surfer themselves are just in weird positions and doesn't look natural when doing their tricks.

Sure, you can get an excellent shot with 1 FPS, but you COULD possibly get an even better shot, a split second after your first shot, but you will never know, because you didn't take the second shot.


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 5, 2010)

8FPS is also kind of cool when trying to make images like this:







Collected from 13 images shot at 8fps of the Blue Angels doing a diamond roll at the Miramar Air Show last Sunday.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> 8FPS is also kind of cool when trying to make images like this:
> 
> Collected from 13 images shot at 8fps of the Blue Angels doing a diamond roll at the Miramar Air Show last Sunday.


 
Wow thats pretty cool Matt.

I was in the Navy for 8 years but never saw them.

I did see the Thunderbirds last year though.

Since I work at the Air Terminal, I worked the C-17s that brought in all their support people and gear too. 

They had a tool trailer that had chrome rims, low profile tires, and an automotive quality paint job lol. Thing was ballin yo.

If you saw the regular ones, you would think thats hilarious. They are matte green and ugly as sin.

- Neil


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 5, 2010)

I live about 5 minutes south of Miramar, so even if I don't go to the air show, I see them turning around above my house a couple times a year LOL.  But yeah, they've gotta be some of the best and most talented pilots I've ever seen.  Never in the service myself, but my dad served in the Navy for a while long before I was born.


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 5, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> My point is, you dont have to actually take 8 shots. You can take 2-3 but it helps to more likely get THEE shot, if you have 3 to choose from, that are similar, but different.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sure, you can get an excellent shot with 1 FPS, but you COULD possibly get an even better shot, a split second after your first shot, but you will never know, because you didn't take the second shot.


 
This is actually how I shoot most of the time when I shoot in high speed mode (the above shot is actually a rare exception). Short bursts of 2-4 shots. I find it helps quite a bit in giving options and choices in fast action. Even if they are only slightly different, I can pick the one that works the best rather than settling for whatever was in the single shot.


----------

