umphotography wrote in post #18778782
I dont know why anyone wants a 7D111
Please let me know why you are so interested with the way canon is now going with R mounts
You seem to get carried away whenever you become infatuated with a new product.
The R may be the best of Canon's AF for relatively static things and in very low light or with high open f-numbers, but it does not perform as well as the 7D2 for AIServo with moving subjects. It does not AF as fast in good light as PDAF. The R with a TC to make up for lower pixel density does not AF as fast as the R without a TC, and has more noise at double the high ISO as the 7D2. The R is detached from realtime viewing, noticeable when moving the lens around quickly, following an active subject, according to some users. This is a current drawback of all EVF systems.
The AF system on the 7D2 sucks compared to the 1Dx2 AF system. Performance is just not there
That's quite an exaggeration. The 7D2 doesn't have the AF it may have had if it was designed and manufacturers a few months later, but in fact, it was one of the best AF Canons at the time of its release. The only thing better was the higher power to drive the AF motors on 1-series cameras, and the 1DxII with its more advanced AF with f/8 at all points was yet to be released. To extrapolate that since the old 7D2 doesn't now have state-of-the-art AF that the 7D3 AF will likely "suck" doesn't make any sense. Canon has always given the 7D series good AF for its time of design.
When I see the results spme people are getting with the EOS R and TC use, it makes me wonder why the 7D is a consideration any longer
Do you know how big the subjects are supposed to be, or do you just look at "sharp" on the screen and get impressed? People don't show you turds in forums, especially unpolished ones. The degree to which people are impressed with web-image "magic" is downright scary. It is very easy to make a sharp web image; there is little challenge there. Soft web images are usually due to poor post-processing.
lets be honest, the only real reason we all want a 7D is for reach needs.
Pixels-on-subject is what interests me. "Reach" is a nonsense concept, IMO. A lens projects a subject on a sensor, and the sensor size crops the image circle, and the pixel density resolves the sensor area. The value of a small sensor is fast readout with high pixel density, by not having a lot of pixels to deal with, as you would with a 50MP FF.
When you start comparing ISO results to a 5D4 and a 1Dx2
That's no difference for the 5D4, and a small difference for the 1DxII, if you're talking about "reach" (I would think of performance per unit of sensor area). A 1.6x crop from the 5D4 has visually the same noise intensity as the 7D2 at high ISOs. The 7D2 sensor is like a smaller piece of the 5D4 film; same high-ISO noise, but more resolution. The 1DxII is only a little bit better than the 7D2, as again, almost all of the large difference attributed by most people is based on pixel-level and image-levels views. If you do not see this obvious fact, then you have not been comparing the results properly. Pixel-level views are BS, and image-level views are BS when you have to crop the FF; if you put a 1.4x on the FFs, they need 2x the ISO of the 7D2.
The idea of comparing different sensor sizes at the same ISO pervades digital photography culture, but is total bunk. You do not use different size sensors to create the same image at the same ISO. The larger sensor absolutely must use a shallower DOF to get the same ISO with the same FOV, and that is facilitated by a larger lens with a larger entrance pupil, and is not guaranteed by the large sensor. With the same DOF and FOV, the FF needs 2.56x the ISO. Back to focal-length-limited, a FF would need about 1.6x the focal length with 1.6x the entrance pupil diameter, to get the same ISO with the same shutter speed as the 7D2, but you can put that bigger, longer lens on the 7D2, too, if you want, and step it up, provided.the FOV is not too narrow.
and spotty the AF performance of a 7D2 camera, I think a TC on the newer full frame bodies is a better option. I absolutly do not miss the 7D2 and I cant see enough opportunity for sensor performance on the 1.6 sensors to see why a 7D3 would be a consideration.
My last eagle trip 2 weeks ago was a 300 F/2.8 and a 1.4 . these are straight off files
Nice, but not proof of much except that focus was achieved or very close, and with the background far away, the system only has to choose between two distinct depths. Even Rebels will get the focus sometimes; you just might delete more photos and people only show their successes, generally. The fact that I see sharpening halos suggests that they could have been a little bit off focus in such a downsized image (30MP to about 1.44MP; not a sharpness challenge at all). What I see is an "eagle trip", not a camera testimonial.