Canon 7D still a relevant purchase option?

Been debating whether or not to get the Canon 7D or just picking up the Canon 70D. I like the look and feel of the 7D much better, but is the 7D just too outdated to today's standards? To be honest the only thing keeping me from the Canon 70D is the plastic body. How is low light shooting with the 7D? I will be mainly using the 7D for shooting rock bands in low lit clubs and live houses. Will the Canon 7D be able to do this type of low light photography or would a full framed Nikon D610 be a better option (the other camera I am considering). Any and all input would be deeply appreciated. Thanks.

Ed

Your lens will have a greater impact than the sensor - choose the largest aperture you can which will give you sufficient depth of field. The 70D is maybe half a stop better in noise performance but don't expect the viewfinder autofocus to perform as well in situations where you have unpredictably moving subjects. The 7D has a lot of AF options which are missing in the 70D.

See this thread for details on how to get the best results from the 7D in low light, high ISO situations.

It is a dilemma at the moment. The 70D is a great camera but not built as well and does not have the AF of the 7D. However the 7D is on sale at the moment with as much as $500 off. One BRAND NEW can be picked up for under $1000.

The real dilemma comes in hearing all the rumors about the 7DII. As soon as you jump on the 7D, you know the 7DII will make your 7D obsolete. The best guess is the big sale on the 7D is to lower stock for the 7DII likely to be announced in Sept (quote/unquote). So what to do?

So, 7D, 70D, or wait on the 7DII; only you can make the decision.

New 7D for $1,000 - a lot of camera for the money
New 70D for $1,200 - a bit less camera for a bit more money - what?
New 7DII, when it shows up, for about $2399 (more than 6D, less than 5DIII), a BUNCH more money

The 6D is more suited to your purpose, is available now, and costs about $1,500 refurbished.

ronin67 wrote in post #17033529
Been debating whether or not to get the Canon 7D or just picking up the Canon 70D. I like the look and feel of the 7D much better, but is the 7D just too outdated to today's standards? To be honest the only thing keeping me from the Canon 70D is the plastic body. How is low light shooting with the 7D? I will be mainly using the 7D for shooting rock bands in low lit clubs and live houses. Will the Canon 7D be able to do this type of low light photography or would a full framed Nikon D610 be a better option (the other camera I am considering). Any and all input would be deeply appreciated. Thanks.

Ed

Heya,

The 7D is a very relevant body if you want a prosumer APS-C for action where a robust AF system is needed.

If you want ANY camera for low light shooting, the 7D, and any other camera that shares it's sensor on APS-C is probably not what you want.

The 6D would be what you want based on your description.

What even got you onto the 7D as an option?

Very best,

ronin67 wrote in post #17033529
Been debating whether or not to get the Canon 7D or just picking up the Canon 70D. I like the look and feel of the 7D much better, but is the 7D just too outdated to today's standards? To be honest the only thing keeping me from the Canon 70D is the plastic body. How is low light shooting with the 7D? I will be mainly using the 7D for shooting rock bands in low lit clubs and live houses. Will the Canon 7D be able to do this type of low light photography or would a full framed Nikon D610 be a better option (the other camera I am considering). Any and all input would be deeply appreciated. Thanks.

Ed

Is this, seriously, even an issue? This "plastic" is underrated.

I agee with the others..6D. Not only for it's superb high ISO abilities, but it's AF to -3EV (vs -2EV for the others).

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17034684
New 7D for $1,000 - a lot of camera for the money
New 70D for $1,200 - a bit less camera for a bit more money - what?
New 7DII, when it shows up, for about $2399 (more than 6D, less than 5DIII), a BUNCH more money

The 6D is more suited to your purpose, is available now, and costs about $1,500 refurbished.

The 7D2 will most likely fall in the $1900-$2100 range, a bit lower than you are projecting.

I could be wrong, but I have been watching the releases for a decade now.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17034684
New 7D for $1,000 - a lot of camera for the money
New 70D for $1,200 - a bit less camera for a bit more money - what?
New 7DII, when it shows up, for about $2399 (more than 6D, less than 5DIII), a BUNCH more money

The 6D is more suited to your purpose, is available now, and costs about $1,500 refurbished.

I must say I missed that!! Now that I see " shooting rock bands in low lit clubs and live houses." Bottom Line the obvious choice is the 6D.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17034815
The 7D2 will most likely fall in the $1900-$2100 range, a bit lower than you are projecting.

I could be wrong, but I have been watching the releases for a decade now.

I was just guessing. I think those who are waiting for the 7DII would be happy with $1900!

Lumens wrote in post #17034850
I must say I missed that!! Now that I see " shooting rock bands in low lit clubs and live houses." Bottom Line the obvious choice is the 6D.

Certainly. The 6D does what he does, better than any other SLR on the market right now.

I would go with the Nikon D610. If you underexpose at all the Nikon files will be so much easier to work with than any of the Canon sensors. What noise you may see from the Nikon files won't be so noticeable as the Canons, in particular the banding issues Canon sensors are famous for.

ronin67 wrote in post #17033529
Been debating whether or not to get the Canon 7D or just picking up the Canon 70D. I like the look and feel of the 7D much better, but is the 7D just too outdated to today's standards? To be honest the only thing keeping me from the Canon 70D is the plastic body. How is low light shooting with the 7D? I will be mainly using the 7D for shooting rock bands in low lit clubs and live houses. Will the Canon 7D be able to do this type of low light photography or would a full framed Nikon D610 be a better option (the other camera I am considering). Any and all input would be deeply appreciated. Thanks.

Ed

As someone who owned and used the 7D for concert photography, the D610 will smoke it any day of the week for that usage. The 7D is certainly not a bad camera for it, but not the best option either. I would use it regularly at 6400 and sometimes 12,800 when needed but it is very noisy. Definitely get some f/2 or better lenses to go with it if you can. My 50mm f/1.4 almost never left my 7D. 8fps for concert photography is a bit overkill, too. I actually wish I went with the D610 instead of my 6D at times but at this point I don't want to reinvest in everything again.

Also, to Thorrulz, that quote in your sig about the oven is like my life story with my camera. Hah. So true.

Thorrulz wrote in post #17035203
I would go with the Nikon D610. If you underexpose at all the Nikon files will be so much easier to work with than any of the Canon sensors. What noise you may see from the Nikon files won't be so noticeable as the Canons, in particular the banding issues Canon sensors are famous for.

Only true at base ISO. Since he explicitly states he'll be doing mostly low light (high ISO) shooting then the 6D will actually have more latitude than the D610.

Lumens wrote in post #17033881
...you know the 7DII will make your 7D obsolete.

Gee. I guess by that reasoning, I should throw out my 40D, let alone my 20D. But, gosh darn, they still take pictures. And people like them.

Perhaps a slight rephrasing is on order?

Thorrulz wrote in post #17035203
...the banding issues Canon sensors are famous for.

Have I been living on another planet? I've been shooting Canon digital SLRs for more than 10 years and in tens of thousands of shots, I've never had a one with banding. Does the equipment talk forum always have this much hyperbole?

joedlh wrote in post #17035246
Does the equipment talk forum always have this much hyperbole?

Yes.

If you're fond of pixel-peeping and increasing the exposure 3 stops in post, many cameras show banding. Will it be noticeable in properly-made prints? Probably never. People push digital files much further than we would ever have attempted to do with film, and expect perfection. There will always be flaws with each generation of technology, and if we sit around waiting for perfection we'll never get any photos taken.