# What's your options on the 7d?



## Aakajx (Dec 22, 2013)

I'm thinking about buying a 7d.. I'd love to know you thoughts on it?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 22, 2013)

A screen capture I just made...
  make me think, "Nice body, outdated sensor. Very '2009' "

Nikon D7100 versus Canon EOS 7D - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark


----------



## JTPhotography (Dec 23, 2013)

I had one, I loved everything about it but the image quality. Very grainy at anything above ISO 400, even there it wasn't great. My experiences fall right in line with the info posted by Derrel. If you're shooting for web or small print, it is fine. Otherwise, go with a 5200 or 7100 nikon.


----------



## JohnTrav (Dec 23, 2013)

I have a 7D and I love it. It fits my needs perfectly. 

The sensor is a little out dated. But you can also find them used at a decent price now. 

As far as image quality, as long as you are using good glass I think it's quite good.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 23, 2013)

it doesn't have enough D's...

also...

Canon 7D vs Nikon D7100 - Our Analysis

edit: oops, i didn't realize that this was not a comparison thread, just asking about the 7D. 
I don't know a lot about canon but...
a lot of people use the 7D and like it fine, and they are at a good price now with the release of the 70D, and I _*think*_ there is a 7D mkII in the works? (or is it out already?) anyway, that will drive the 7D's price down even more so it _*could*_ be a pretty good deal right now.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 23, 2013)

I would also recommend the Nikon D7100 over the 7D

7D is an old camera with old sensor that in my opinion should have been fazed out a while ago.
If you are keened on staying with Canon I would rather go with the 70D


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 23, 2013)

Canon 70D vs 7D - Our Analysis

Canon EOS 70D versus Canon EOS 7D - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark


----------



## grafxman (Dec 23, 2013)

I have taken at least 10,000 photos and hundreds of videos with my 7D. All were shot with Sigma zoom lenses except for the occasional use of a Tokina 11-16mm. The photos were taken in museums, zoos, aquariums and outdoors in wildlife areas. The only criticism I can make of it is that the photos get noisy above ISO 3200. Even then Canon's DPP software can often smooth things out to give an acceptable photo for internet viewing. Of course much depends on what you intend to use it for, what lenses you get and your skill set. 

For example, in my Henry Plant Museum set there are photos that were shot in near total darkness. Flash was not allowed and in the central corridor the only lighting was original Edison lights which are basically just a few candle power. Some of the photos were shot at ISO 6400 but look OK for internet viewing. However they would be completely unsuitable for publication in a magazine. Technique comes into play with breath control and developing the ability to shoot slow shutter speeds with blurring. For what it's worth, I've never felt the need for an expensive, super fast, non zoom lens. I think such lenses are a waste of money, at least they would be for me.


----------



## GlennT (Dec 23, 2013)

I recently picked up a refurbished 7D directly from Canon for $956 and I'm very happy with it so far.  I have a fairly significant investment into glass (particularly for a hobbyist), so I wasn't interested in switching brands.

I mainly compared it to the 70D, mostly for the new sensor, Digic 5+ processor and the wireless feature.  It is most certainly the choice if you intend to shoot video at all or plan to use the Live View extensively.  Also, while I found the 7D for less than the 70D, even a refurb 7D is usually about the same price as the 70D, and a new 7D is about $300-400 more.  That certainly could have swayed my decision. 

In the end, I opted for the 7D for a variety of reasons.  I wanted the pro style controls, particularly the fact many of the buttons are dual function (vs single on the 70D) and the joystick.  It also has 3 Custom Modes vs. 1 on the 70D.  I'm also not a fan of touchscreens like the one found on the 70D nor the fact that the 70D is missing all of the menu buttons to the left of that screen.  I find the hard buttons on the 7D to be faster to use, although the "Info" button is the one I use most and does exist on the 70D.  Also, while the 70D has basically inherited the same 19 point autofocus system, they did leave out "Spot AF" and "AF Point Expansion" options that the 7D has.

The 7D is certainly a dated camera, but the fact that improved technology exists doesn't change the fact that many people will continue to take great pictures with the older tech.  I've been shooting with a Canon Rebel XT for the last 6 years, and it was already a generation behind when I bought it, so to say I'm familiar with shooting with a handicap relative to newer cameras is an understatement.  The main thing I wanted was the autofocus system and I actually got the 7D for less than the 70D.  The 7D was a huge leap for me, so while the high ISO performance is subpar by today's standards, it's quite impressive from my point of view.  The nicer build quality and materials doesn't hurt either, but wasn't really a factor for me.  For still photography, I just didn't feel there was a significant gap between the 7D and 70D.  But, remember, I also got the 7D for about $100 less.

From what I've seen, the 7D Mark II is expected in Q2 2014 with a price around $2200.  If you search around, you'll find plenty of info; mostly rumors, but I've seen more authoritative info recently (i.e. more trustworthy, at least in appearance.)


----------



## Lumens (Dec 23, 2013)

I have a 7D and it IS an awesome camera.  BUT, (notice that word) you need to purchase based on your needs and what you will be shooting.  If you plan to shoot any video look at the 70D over the 7D as the 70D is designed for that purpose.  If you will be shooting stills only you can get a 7D used or refurbished at a better price and the image quality difference is insignificant.

The 7D excels in fast action sports and wildlife due to it's speed.  It is designed for that sort of stuff.  If that is what you shoot then IT IS FOR YOU.  If you  shoot more portrait and landscape then I recommend looking at the 60d.  Still insignificant image quality differences and you can find extremely good deals on that model at this time.

As for Nikon, well this is a "Canon" forum, isn't it?


----------



## JacaRanda (Dec 23, 2013)

GlennT said:


> I recently picked up a refurbished 7D directly from Canon for $956 and I'm very happy with it so far. I have a fairly significant investment into glass (particularly for a hobbyist), so I wasn't interested in switching brands.
> 
> I mainly compared it to the 70D, mostly for the new sensor, Digic 5+ processor and the wireless feature. It is most certainly the choice if you intend to shoot video at all or plan to use the Live View extensively. Also, while I found the 7D for less than the 70D, even a refurb 7D is usually about the same price as the 70D, and a new 7D is about $300-400 more. That certainly could have swayed my decision.
> 
> ...



Good info GlennT.


----------



## weepete (Dec 23, 2013)

I've been using one for a year now. Shot lots of stuff, wildlife, basketball and landscapes are normally the kind of stuff I do. I don't do video either. 

It's a solid and perfectly capable camera, though the tech inside is getting a little bit outdated at the moment and the nikons perform a little better on paper. And I have had useable photos from shooting at ISO 6400  too. 

As GlennT points out there are stop a couple of features of the 7D that make it an extremley usefull bit of kit, namely the layout on the back of the camera makes it really easy to use. Personally if I was considering another option it would be the 5D I'd be looking at as it has a very similar layout


----------

