Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 07 Oct 2014 (Tuesday) 08:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,502 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8328
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Oct 08, 2014 09:28 |  #61

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17201273 (external link)
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. :)


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,577 posts
Likes: 1737
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Oct 08, 2014 09:32 |  #62

Paulstw wrote in post #17201138 (external link)
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.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paulstw
Senior Member
827 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2012
     
Oct 08, 2014 09:47 |  #63

bobbyz wrote in post #17201301 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,537 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6180
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 08, 2014 10:11 |  #64

David Arbogast wrote in post #17201295 (external link)
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

:D


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,502 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8328
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Oct 08, 2014 11:10 |  #65

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.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,577 posts
Likes: 1737
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Oct 08, 2014 11:54 |  #66

Paulstw wrote in post #17201345 (external link)
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.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sibil
Cream of the Crop
9,929 posts
Likes: 48660
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SoCal
     
Oct 08, 2014 15:31 as a reply to  @ post 17199685 |  #67

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paulstw
Senior Member
827 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2012
     
Oct 08, 2014 15:54 |  #68

bobbyz wrote in post #17201593 (external link)
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 (external link)
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 :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
convergent
Goldmember
Avatar
2,211 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 9
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Oct 08, 2014 16:28 |  #69

Paulstw wrote in post #17201345 (external link)
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 (external link)
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! :rolleyes:


Mike - Victory Photo (external link) | Full Gear List | Feedback
5D3 gripped - 7D2 gripped - 17-40L f/4 - 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - 24-70L f/2.8 II - 70-200L f/2.8 IS II - 100-400 L f/4.6-5.6 IS II
135L f/2 - 300L f/2.8 IS - Siggy 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, 100 f/2.8 Macro - TC1.4 II - TC2 III - (2) 600EX-RT - ST-E3-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PNPhotography
Senior Member
Avatar
802 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 55
Joined Sep 2007
Location: central PA
     
Oct 08, 2014 16:41 as a reply to  @ post 17201158 |  #70

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!!!!


6D|7D|7DMKII|Nikon D750|Nikon 85 F1.8|Nikon D5500|G15| Gripped|300F4|35F2IS|8​5 F1.8|135L F2|200L F2.8|17-55 F2.8|70-200L F2.8 MKII|430EX|
https://www.facebook.c​om …2755174446/?ref​=bookmarks (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,537 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6180
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 08, 2014 16:54 |  #71

canon rookie wrote in post #17202145 (external link)
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. :D


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Oct 08, 2014 16:59 |  #72

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.

IMAGE: http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/08/shotvscover.jpg

Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Azathoth
" ...whose name no lips dare speak aloud"
Avatar
1,507 posts
Gallery: 666 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4600
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Funchal
     
Oct 08, 2014 17:14 |  #73

koala yummies wrote in post #17199862 (external link)
Much respect for him. No whining and crying over and over about dynamic range, just great photo after great photo. That's what cameras are for. No test charts, no pointless pixel peeping. Shot two major events with an untested-to-him pre-production camera he had never used before.

Many a internet forum photographer wouldn't go outside without shooting a focal, viewing at 100% and calling B&H to return it for another 'copy'. Gotta MFA before I can use it. Gotta shoot some cats and children's dolls in my residence before I can trust it at my cousins wedding. Were sony or exxon mobil sensors mentioned even once?

bw!


500px (external link) | flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PNPhotography
Senior Member
Avatar
802 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 55
Joined Sep 2007
Location: central PA
     
Oct 08, 2014 17:35 |  #74

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17202167 (external link)
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. :D

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.


6D|7D|7DMKII|Nikon D750|Nikon 85 F1.8|Nikon D5500|G15| Gripped|300F4|35F2IS|8​5 F1.8|135L F2|200L F2.8|17-55 F2.8|70-200L F2.8 MKII|430EX|
https://www.facebook.c​om …2755174446/?ref​=bookmarks (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,537 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6180
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 08, 2014 17:42 |  #75

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... :)

IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/i-WVZ75zw/0/X3/IMG_1642-X3.jpg

Then when we glamorized it for the gals, one can see how post processing matters sometimes even more than IQ. Its a little more than I like, but strangely that is what was wanted.
IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/i-qzVnhwB/0/X3/IMG_1642a-X3.jpg

So IQ right out of the camera is important, but there are many other equally or more important factors. The 7D2 will do quite well for many sports shooters, despite the rantings of diehard FFers.

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

60,371 views & 0 likes for this thread
Scott Kelby's take on 7D mark II after real world use
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is htam
1295 guests, 283 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.