Would you buy a 7D2 today?

Pondrader wrote in post #18616602
lol funny guy

It's true, I can't get on with live view.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18616601
I look through the viewfinder generally.

Back in the day of the 7D and 7 fps we were stuck with the centre point and framing was not done unless you reframed after focus.

Today those of us that have advanced with the tech stay zoomed in close and frame putting the max pixels on target. Cropping less giving a much easier and nice raw to work with. Thus better images. for wildlife it must be fast and easy. or the shot is lost. Just my two cents... no joystick and 7fps looses this battle all on their own.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.
I guess that's where the 1dx2 shines as you can link exposure to af point.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18616610
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.
I guess that's where the 1dx2 shines as you can link exposure to af point.

If I could have metering on point and fast AF I would pass-out. I need to rob a bank

Really? A .043/per second frame rate difference is is going to be that noticeable?

gjl711 wrote in post #18616615
Really? A .043/per second frame rate difference is is going to be that noticeable?

Absolutely... I do short burst most of the time. over and over.. The 7DII hands down wins getting the one head turn your looking for. The image that works

Just grab yourself a 7D and shoot small birds at a feeder.. Then use the 7DII... you will not measure the speed in .043/persecond ... You'll measure it in winning images.

Both have ok IQ in good light.. sometimes I even like the 7D image better.

I took this last week with the 7D.. her eye's are just out of focus because I had to shoot her in the chest using the 7D. No way to move my focus point up to her eye

Photo from Pondrader's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (910777)

In real life shooting if the eyes are not in focus... they will tear you to peaces... even on facebook LMAO..... noses are excusable it would seem

LucaV wrote in post #18616104
I always shoot raw (almost always triple bracketing). Basic, single photo editing is more than fine, almost always with DPP although I did prefer other software for shadow/highlight control.
I just don't do multiple photo alignment, panorama stitching and the likes. I dabbed a bit into manual HDR many years ago but never really got into it. I guess today's software is better, but old habits are hard to change.
I am also strongly against selective editing of parts of a picture (removing something is a no no for me, for instance), but it doesn't matter in this context.

I shoot a little bit of everyhing. From landscapes to flowers and insects macro; hoping/planning to get some interesting wildlife shot in the upcoming trip. In the past I was shooting a lot of motor racing trackside (indy cars, world superbikes, fia gt, f3 etc) with my 40d and 70-300 but I don't think I will do that again. BTW, the 300 was a little short but I still got decent results out of my equipment. With practice I was able to get nice hand held panning pictures typically up to 1/20, for instance (3000 pictures per weekend help to learn timing and technique ).

Main reason I would need to upgrade now is ISO, since I guess I will need to raise it to hand-hold the 150-600 (or 100-400) I plan to get. I could also use better dynamic range because I will not have the luxury to wait for the best light in the upcoming trip.

Sounds good.

Something to consider, if you're pushing ISO due to using F5.6~F6.3 glass, kiss dynamic range good bye. The dynamic range benefits are mostly realized at base ISO. There are of course some improvements with newer sensor tech, and they will still be better than the 40D in this respect, and well, every way. But just keep that in mind. Lifting shadows at ISO 1600~3200 on these cameras will not be the same as ISO 100. But, as you pointed out, the high ISO performance is more important for what your goal is there, with long slower glass.

The tech in the 80D/7D2 will do what you need for your budget. It really comes down to ergonomics and control. That's something only you can really decide there. If you shoot more wildlife/birds, etc, the 7D2 may have the edge. If you're more into shooting base ISO and keeping processing latitude in RAW, then the 80D has an edge.

Very best,

Archibald wrote in post #18616204
As one goes to bigger and bigger sensors, light gathering improves, and so does IQ. But cost and weight increase too, very steeply. For most of us, full frame is way more quality than we need, let alone medium format. Even crop frame is more than most of us need most of the time.
U
The objective for many of us is not to have the best quality, but to have gear that meets our needs and a bit more. Crop is probably the best format for that... although micro four thirds and even the 1"-type sensors are making strong gains.

If you want the best, go medium format. If you want a reasonable compromise, look at crop or smaller.

I generally agree with your first paragraph statements. But the challenge I voice is regarding 4/3 format cameras (and even to a degree aps-c cameras) in the fact that they are so limited in terms of handling shallow depth of field photographic situations.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18616632
The tech in the 80D/7D2 will do what you need for your budget. It really comes down to ergonomics and control. That's something only you can really decide there. If you shoot more wildlife/birds, etc, the 7D2 may have the edge. If you're more into shooting base ISO and keeping processing latitude in RAW, then the 80D has an edge.

Very useful, thanks.

Luca

Pondrader wrote in post #18616625
I took this last week with the 7D.. her eye's are just out of focus because I had to shoot her in the chest using the 7D. No way to move my focus point up to her eye

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying, but why couldn't you move the AF point? You certainly can do that with the 7D.

Tim

To answer the OP's question, for me, no. I'm waiting until the 7D3.

Tim

Orogeny wrote in post #18617992
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying, but why couldn't you move the AF point? You certainly can do that with the 7D.

Tim

I was thinking the same thing and concluded that it must be the number of FPs. The 7DII has more of them but the coverage top to bottom is the same though you get more coverage in the corners and sides. The sample image looked to have the eyes right where the top focus point would be.