Scott Kelby's take on 7D mark II after real world use

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17201273
Ha, I learned a new use for the word inform, thank you! Knowing how concise your posts are, I knew that I needed to look up the meanings of inform.

Great! It's a term frequently used in discussions of architects and designers, like me, when discussing design concepts.

Paulstw wrote in post #17201138
You sound like you're in the exact same boat as me. I don't want to get rid of the 5D3 as it's perfect for everything else, The 1DIV is still too expensive and the 1D3 is too limiting for cropping into soccer shots with a 70-200. It's a tough one.

You need a nicer lens.

For sports I would taken older camera but something like 300/400mm f2.8 before I spend money on the body unless I was shooting very high ISOs like high school football games.

For folks talking pro sports, lighting is so much better that performance at ISO6400 matters less.

bobbyz wrote in post #17201301
You need a nicer lens.

For sports I would taken older camera but something like 300/400mm f2.8 before I spend money on the body unless I was shooting very high ISOs like high school football games.

For folks talking pro sports, lighting is so much better that performance at ISO6400 matters less.

Spending £5000-£7000 on lenses on the chance you might sell images using those lenses doesn't make business sense to me. I find I can get a lot of good shots with a 70-200. I'd rather have a good body to deal with high ISO needs when the dark nights come in. I think this was one of the things that Kelby touched on too. His concerns over how good the ISO performance was at shutters about 1/1000th.

Getting the shot with noise is more important to me than failing to get it because my cameras ISO levels aren't good enough resulting in a slower shutter speed. My agency aren't going to accept that excuse.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17201295
Great! It's a term frequently used in discussions of architects and designers, like me, when discussing design concepts.

There, how's this? https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=17201401&po​stcount=16

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17201403
There, how's this? https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=17201401&po​stcount=16

Very good!

While the 7D II is an exciting new product, since I am not an action-shooter it doesn't quite fit with my priorities. But, it is very interesting to reflect on all the 7D II upgrades to get some notion of where Canon might be going with the next 1D and 5D cameras.

Paulstw wrote in post #17201345
Spending £5000-£7000 on lenses on the chance you might sell images using those lenses doesn't make business sense to me. I find I can get a lot of good shots with a 70-200. I'd rather have a good body to deal with high ISO needs when the dark nights come in. I think this was one of the things that Kelby touched on too. His concerns over how good the ISO performance was at shutters about 1/1000th.

Getting the shot with noise is more important to me than failing to get it because my cameras ISO levels aren't good enough resulting in a slower shutter speed. My agency aren't going to accept that excuse.

To each his own. Me spending $3000+ on 300mm f2.8 more important than spending $3000+ on a body. I will take 7d with 300mm f2.8 than even 5dmk3 with 70-200mm f2.8. This for field sports where 70-200mm is for closeup shots.

Those of you who shoot outdoor field sports at 1/1000, and have lots of keepers, must have some trick up your sleeve. For soccer, there is no way I can freeze sprinting players, a hard kicked ball, a header, corner kick, diving goalie, penalty kick, etc., at 1/1000. I try to stay closer to 1/2000. In dimmer light, I aim to shoot action in its peak so there is less fast movement.

bobbyz wrote in post #17201593
To each his own. Me spending $3000+ on 300mm f2.8 more important than spending $3000+ on a body. I will take 7d with 300mm f2.8 than even 5dmk3 with 70-200mm f2.8. This for field sports where 70-200mm is for closeup shots.

I'm always getting it drummed into me by picture editors for Scottish papers that nothing short of full frame pics will do. Such is life

Sibil wrote in post #17202020
Those of you who shoot outdoor field sports at 1/1000, and have lots of keepers, must have some trick up your sleeve. For soccer, there is no way I can freeze sprinting players, a hard kicked ball, a header, corner kick, diving goalie, penalty kick, etc., at 1/1000. I try to stay closer to 1/2000. In dimmer light, I aim to shoot action in its peak so there is less fast movement.

I am usually up near 1/1250th and no less to be honest on checking back my shots. If they aren't keepers then I wasn't trying hard enough

Paulstw wrote in post #17201345
Spending £5000-£7000 on lenses on the chance you might sell images using those lenses doesn't make business sense to me.

It depends on the business you are in. Years ago I dropped close to $4K for a 200 1.8 and paid for it in 2 hockey tournaments on the prints I was able to sell with it.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17201170
I'd guess at least another year... but you never know.

I seem to recall saying that exact same thing about when the 7D2 would be released... about 3 years ago!

I find it really funny all the people that say image quality doesn't matter. That's pretty much the single most important part of a camera. If this camera had great IQ, the same people would probably be pumping sunshine about how great the IQ was and how important that was. The final product is the most important thing.[/QUOTE]
Nailed it!!!!

canon rookie wrote in post #17202145
I find it really funny all the people that say image quality doesn't matter. That's pretty much the single most important part of a camera. If this camera had great IQ, the same people would probably be pumping sunshine about how great the IQ was and how important that was. The final product is the most important thing.

So photography is only about IQ? So some of the most famous photographs of all time that had horrid IQ are figments of our imagination? There is much more that goes into a photo that tugs at somebody's heart than IQ, I can guarantee you that.

IQ is just one facet of a good photo. Here on these boards, IQ is the only thing, but fortunately this board isn't real life, because we don't produce photos for each other here, we do it for ourselves, our families and friends, our clients, etc. Some clients may care about IQ, but a majority don't give a darn about 100% pixel quality of the photos they receive, they just want the story to be told from that photo. Shoot weddings and see what I mean. A good photo of a candid moment of a daughter getting married, however noisy, can make a mother cry, .... and pull out the checkbook... then tell her friends on facebook...

You will learn grasshopper, you will learn.

I can create basically the same image with Canon or Nikon. Lenses are fairly equal with a few pros and cons with each offering. But the Nikon image is going to have a much higher image quality overall with more dynamic range and more lattitude with shadow and highlight detail. I'd be a fool to choose Canon because all those things matter and Canon has trailed for 7 years now. The reason to stay Canon would be because it is such a huge pain/cost to switch, you need the video stuff or you need some of their specialty lenses like the 65MP-E or 17TS-E.

It's the same reason I choose to shoot with a 5D3 for sports over a 1D3. Better IQ. And if I didn't make that choice, I wouldn't have gotten this cover because I wouldn't have had a image that could have been used like this.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17202167
So photography is only about IQ? So some of the most famous photographs of all time that had horrid IQ are figments of our imagination? There is much more that goes into a photo that tugs at somebody's heart than IQ, I can guarantee you that.

IQ is just one facet of a good photo. Here on these boards, IQ is the only thing, but fortunately this board isn't real life, because we don't produce photos for each other here, we do it for ourselves, our families and friends, our clients, etc. Some clients may care about IQ, but a majority don't give a darn about 100% pixel quality of the photos they receive, they just want the story to be told from that photo. Shoot weddings and see what I mean. A good photo of a candid moment of a daughter getting married, however noisy, can make a mother cry, .... and pull out the checkbook... then tell her friends on facebook...

You will learn grasshopper, you will learn.

I'm not a grasshopper and I was quoting Thomas Campbell.I'll take high ISO IQ over frame rate,video,a intervalometer and all those other things that I know I'd never or rarely use on the new 7DMKII.
IMHO the 7DMKII needed one thing desperately and that's better high ISO performance,after all it's a sports camera and that means shooting high ISO.

Sports needs AF first and foremost, a super clean 25600 means little if AF cannot keep up, so in that situation AF is the most important thing.

I can shoot ISO 6400 on the 7D for sports pretty easily, I did that and marching band for years with great results. 12800 would be better, and the 7D2 should put me right there. There is no set ISO level needed for sports, each situation is different, and f2.8 at 1/1250 to 1/2000 simply depends on the lighting at hand.

IQ is just part of the equation and easily isn't the single large factor in photography for many people in many situations. IQ also isn't just ISO, yet another fallacy on the boards.

This is a shot my daughter took of the cheerleading squad last year. It prints out as a 8x10. The cheerleading squad leader loved it. It made it into their marketing material. The IQ isn't great according to standards here, but it didn't matter did it?

Not bad for an 11 year old with an SL1 at ISO 12800 with a kit lens...