-= 7D2 owners unite! Discuss and post photos!

burnet44 wrote in post #17482199
thanks I use the center 9 cross points and back button But I dont know if I got it set up right
my 1d2 seems to be sharper

The 1D2 has huge pixels, so of course it may seem sharper, but that is not a quality, unless you are full resigned to displaying all images with the same pixel magnification (for example, always 100 original pixels to the inch). Sharpness is an illusion; the 70D gets a lot more detail than a 1D2, especially in focal-length-limited situations, where it puts about 4x as many pixels on the subject.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17482603
I already mentioned this in one of the 100-400ii threads. I was at a semi local bird rookery this past Tuesday. There were 7 Canon shooters there.... 4 of us had the 7D2 and 100-400ii combo. One of the guys had a 1DX and the 200-400 w/1.4X. That lens is a beast.... I'm sure it's excellent but man, is that thing huge. I have to say.. it was nice seeing something so nice and not being envious. I am content with my 7D2/100-400ii combo.

From time to time, I do wonder about the improvements when using a full frame camera. One of the guys where I was on Tuesday was using a 300 f/2.8 on a 5D3. His comment was.... I was going to buy a 7D2 but decided to get a 5D3 and I can't believe the difference. I wasn't sure what to say so I just said: "The 5D3 is an excellent camera." I didn't ask him what he was using with his 300 f/2.8 before he got his 5d3.

I know I'm rambling here..... I guess I feel guilty for not feeling guilty for shooting a crop camera. Is there something wrong with me?

You're waking up to reality.

If you take the 6D, 1Dx, and 5D3, and put black paint borders on their sensors to make them all 1.6x crops, the 1Dx is the only one that will have less noise than the 7D2, and that is only at high ISOs, with the 7D2 superior at base ISO. The 6D will have about the same noise t high ISOs (and more at base ISO, true even more so for the 5D3), and the 5D3, a little more noise at high ISOs, due mainly to pattern noise. The 7D2 of course will put more pixels on subject than any of them, and the 1Dx has more pattern noise than the 7D2, so there may be no noise benefit to the 1Dx at all in practice, especially when you consider the fact that the higher pixel density on the 7D2 allows more aggressive NR while still keeping more detail than the 1Dx. Operationally, I imagine that the 5D3 and/or 1Dx may have some benefits, like the faster burst rate of the 1Dx.

Note: this is the first time in recent years that Canon has had an APS-c camera that had FF-competitive high-ISO noise per unit of sensor area in an APS-c sensor, which is why the concept of "equivalence" seemed to be false before. Everything has changed now.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17483577
The 1D2 has huge pixels, so of course it may seem sharper, but that is not a quality, unless you are full resigned to displaying all images with the same pixel magnification (for example, always 100 original pixels to the inch). Sharpness is an illusion; the 70D gets a lot more detail than a 1D2, especially in focal-length-limited situations, where it puts about 4x as many pixels on the subject.

John,
I fully agree with you. But, our brains are not use to correlating 100% views with "real life" perception of sharpness. So for perception, doesn't it boil down to perception of the end-viewing medum At some point, the point of that viewed medium, aren't there are deminished returns for sharpness? This makes it harder to argue against the illusion that fewer pixels is sharper. For prints, up close viewing as an example, many would argue 300ppi, and displays about 200ppi. So does less sharp at 100% viewing ever produce less sharp perception at real-medium viewing? IMHO, the answer is it depends (on how much less sharp). Right? But, for sharp 100% typically does mean sharp viewing for other medium perception when common rules prevail for that medium. This leaves 2 ways to evaluate sharpness for us to predict end-medium sharpness. Either view and hope for sharpness at 100%viewing, or finagle an estimated view % on display to resemble end medium perception. The later is much harder for most people unfortunately. So, unless the higher pixel count sensor was sharp enough, might it be true that fewer are sharper on end-medium? I guess, it would be fun experiment to see an induced blur of tiny size on sensor, the difference between low and high density sensors on the end medium. (since we know the higher density one will have more blur at 100%). Is there a way to quantify end perception and relate to 100% view blur tolerance?

Other thoughts?

Guy

gschlact wrote in post #17483616
John,
I fully agree with you. But, our brains are not use to correlating 100% views with "real life" perception of sharpness. So for perception, doesn't it boil down to perception of the end-viewing medum At some point, the point of that viewed medium, aren't there are deminished returns for sharpness? This makes it harder to argue against the illusion that fewer pixels is sharper. For prints, up close viewing as an example, many would argue 300ppi, and displays about 200ppi. So does less sharp at 100% viewing ever produce less sharp perception at real-medium viewing? IMHO, the answer is it depends (on how much less sharp). Right? But, for sharp 100% typically does mean sharp viewing for other medium perception when common rules prevail for that medium. This leaves 2 ways to evaluate sharpness for us to predict end-medium sharpness. Either view and hope for sharpness at 100%viewing, or finagle an estimated view % on display to resemble end medium perception. The later is much harder for most people unfortunately. So, unless the higher pixel count sensor was sharp enough, might it be true that fewer are sharper on end-medium? I guess, it would be fun experiment to see an induced blur of tiny size on sensor, the difference between low and high density sensors on the end medium. (since we know the higher density one will have more blur at 100%). Is there a way to quantify end perception and relate to 100% view blur tolerance?

Other thoughts?

I really can not understand your post, even after reading it a few times. I can't dedicate the time to cover all the things that you might be saying or asking, but my point was that sharpness can be only an illusion of detail. Having a dark pixel next to a bright one is not an absolute quality; all it really means is that your lens has too much micro-contrast for low pixel density. It has nothing directly to do with how much detail you have captured. There is a big difference between the detail of the subject, and the detail of pixels. We shouldn't be seeing pixels at all; they should be so small that the image is virtually analog, both captured and displayed.

We don't have this technology right now, so we are stuck with compromises, such as pixelated images that appear to some people as detailed only because the pixels have high contrast with their neighbors. You seem to be referring to limits of displays, but remember that today's limits are much different than tomorrow's. That 3MP image that looked great on your 1024*768 monitor is going to need some cosmetic surgery to look remotely competitive with 50MP images on an 8k monitor.

Pondrader wrote in post #17481912
Worked this up this morning, Awesome Combo

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rDQR​e9 IMG_0079 by Jeff Manser, on Flickr

Another stunning shot Jeff.

You should try using the AMASS EXIF feature, with Flickr you just need to make sure you post the original size image, check-out the link in my sig.

my 1d2 works well in light
Im still wondering how much better the 7d2 is than my 70d and if its worth the upgrade
I think the focus is better on my 1d2 I really need help on my 70d IDK if I got it dialed in right
the 1d2 IMHO is better sharper on focus
Ive seen some really good 7d2 shots here and Im wondering if its me or the 70d thats not right

here is the 1d2 in the light from about 120 feet away and about 50% crop
does the 7d2 have case focus ? My 70d dont or Im to stupid to find it
any help appreciated

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Burnet,

You aren't missing it: the 70D doesn't have cases for AI Servo. I like my 70D but the differences in the AF system between it and the 7D2 aren't subtle. I missed so many bird in flight photos with the 70D that I easily catch with the 7D2. I realize you are thinking about using one for sports but the real life situations are similar.

The above suggestion that you rent one seems like a good plan to me. That would be a small price to pay to confirm your thoughts, one way or the other.

maybe Ill need one for 2 5 day periods doing LL BB and SB will be around 500 rental which is about 1/2 of buying not good money to rent when its half for a buy IMHO as always money is a factor But if I sell enough at LL I hope to get one maybe Id like a 1d4 or 1dx if they perform like the 1d2 does in light Im sold on em but again its money Buddie of mine shot the state fb games with a 7d2 and loved it Said it was as good focus as his 1dx for 1/6 of the price

Lester Wareham wrote in post #17483867
Another stunning shot Jeff.

You should try using the AMASS EXIF feature, with Flickr you just need to make sure you post the original size image, check-out the link in my sig.

Thanks Lester, I only do that for Tom Reichner , he likes to know lol

I think either the 1DIV or the 7D2 would work well for you. Of course, the IDX would as well, though the cost is significantly higher and you might need longer lenses. It is nice to have choices these days. By the time you add a grip to the 7D2, you can easily purchase a IDIV with a low shutter count.

I wouldn't want to spend $500 on renting a camera body either. That's around 25% of a IDIV or 7D2, as you well know.

Another GREAT photo.

Thanks, Im thinking about heading to the land of the Pine Marten tomorrow.

Pondrader wrote in post #17484530
Thanks, Im thinking about heading to the land of the Pine Marten tomorrow.

We have pine marten here as well but all I ever see is traps. I've hear they are protected in some places but trapping them is still legal here. Despite the fact I live in the middle of nowhere wildlife sightings are rare or maybe it is because of that fact. They have the room to avoid people for the most part.

Of course being in the right place at the right time plays a big part as well. I was going to bring my camera with me after lunch today to try some shots but didn't. When I got back to work there were three ptarmigan standing on top of a pile of snow across from where I parked. They were maybe 100 feet away. Go figure.

Rod

I posted this also in the 100-400 mk II thread also, so I apologize in advance for the redundancy. But I did shoot this with a 7D2. Enjoy!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rHoV​NH

Wow. Very nice!