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

gjl711 wrote in post #17249239
Doing the math, the 7DII puts about twice as many pixels on target per square mm than the 5DIII. 5DIII is 25600 pixels per square mm and the 7DII is about 53300 for the same area. How that translates into reach advantage is more difficult to assess because optically there is no reach advantage. You just have more pixels on the target to play with.

Your logic is right in terms of math, and that is what motivated me to be on this thread. In the past we have seen that enough pixel density on the subject is required, but is not enough by itself. To be able to crop better, we also need picture quality. To me, a closer cropped 5d3 picture looked almost as good as a lesser cropped 7d picture. I have high hopes from the 7d mark 2, but only photographers who have both the bodies can confirm if it adds enough value in terms of reach over the 5d3, to qualify for an investment in an additional camera body just for the reach.

WOOHOO!!!

My camera should finally ship today after fighting with the bank for several days.
Tomorrow is going to be one tough workday.

Here is my 7D for cropping power if it helps. Not sure what this would have looked like on a FF and equivalent crop. I don't have any 5D3 comparisons as I usually use my crop for birding and sports. I have never really tried my FF for that yet.

It would be nice to see some tests. Maybe I'll try it out one day but I'm not sure I want to know. If equal or better that would only mean you get and advantage in FPS which can be important if you need it.

Snydremark wrote in post #17248401
Yes. You can swap the dials if you prefer.


Ok, so one more comparison between the 7DI and 7DII:

Gallery ISO 100 - 12800 w/ both bodies: https://www.flickr.com …k/sets/72157646​769942864/)

So far, the lower ISOs seem pretty much the same up to ISO 800; but, from there the MkII's noise patterns are much less bothersome and much easier to process. I am particularly liking the 1600 - 6400 range now.

These were all shot in the 1600 - 3200 range:
3200:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pCwL​fT
7DII_3200-0024 by Guideon72, on Flickr

1600:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pCwL​qT
7DII_1600-0044 by Guideon72, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oYe7​nz
7DII_1600-0070 by Guideon72, on Flickr

I still need to go through and MFA all of my lenses and whatnot, but so far this is a great body to have.

And, since there's discussion going on in here, a quick list of things I'm enjoying over the MkI that may/may not have been included in the marketing materials:
- Gasket seal around lens mount to mate up with your weather-sealed lenses
- Locking dial for shooting modes
- AF select lever
- Move of the DoF preview button
- Ability to configure bracketed shots of 2, 3, 5 or 7
- "Same expo for new aperture":

This might be one of the coolest adjustments I've seen in a while. In M, when zooming a variable aperture lens or throwing on a lens with a different aperture than the previous one, the camera will adjust either ISO or shutter speed [configurable] to maintain the previous exposure.

- Ability to specify 'usable' shutter speed and aperture ranges
- Ability to set continuous shooting speed for High, Low and Silent.

Range is:
High: 4 - 10/fps
Low: 1 - 9/fps
Silent: 1 - 4

- Updates to the viewfinder to allow warnings and other various shooting info to be displayed without having to remove the eye from the VF.
- Multi-function Lock configuration: Set which controls get locked out when the multi-function Lock switch is engaged
- Set minimum shutter speed to use with Auto ISO
- Ability to continue to set EC when using Auto ISO
- In camera multi-exposure blending/in camera HDR
- Built-in Intervalometer - Basic but nice to have. Hh/Mm/Ss + # of shots
- Built-in Bulb timer - Finally...I've wanted this one in-camera since the 40D
- Silent shoot continuous drive

These are biggie to me Eric thanks for sharing very good info. The more I looked at this thread the more I wanted to go just get it. Great observation everyone. For now I will just keep reading what you guys can find out or experienced with this new body.

I did some more tests this morning with my bodies and the Tamron. The lighting could have been better, but I now am wondering if I need to Micro adjust the lens. I wasn't able to on my 60D.

I did live view shots vs. normal AF acquisition, and I think pretty much all the shots were soft/alot softer when not shooting in live view. On my 60D and Mark II. At 150mm at F/7.1.

What is the best/cheapest/ or free way to easily micro-adjust a lens? Shooting a chart taped to a wall seems like it might not be the best idea? But I know some methods do it that way?

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #17249377
I did some more tests this morning with my bodies and the Tamron. The lighting could have been better, but I now am wondering if I need to Micro adjust the lens. I wasn't able to on my 60D.

I did live view shots vs. normal AF acquisition, and I think pretty much all the shots were soft/alot softer when not shooting in live view. On my 60D and Mark II. At 150mm at F/7.1.

What is the best/cheapest/ or free way to easily micro-adjust a lens? Shooting a chart taped to a wall seems like it might not be the best idea? But I know some methods do it that way?

You'll need to have a setup that will let you see if the lens if front- or back-focusing. TeamSpeed (POTN member) has a focus test aid ("Focus Genie") for sale - the link is in his signature. I've got one and it makes it pretty easy to test focus and do the micro-adjustment. If you're OK with a rough and ready approach, just go outside (for good light; inside works also if you have enough distance for the focal length and good light) and shoot a high-contrast target (like a black line on white paper) at about a 45 degree angle, with something detailed in front of and behind the target so you can judge focus accuracy and adjust accordingly.

MFA is useful, and incredibly frustrating all at once. There are some who calibrate it to a target and then take shots at different settings until you get your lenses dialed in. I just take a bunch of shots where I can see where the focal plane REALLY is - i.e. there is carpet, or grass, or wood grain in the shot too, and then nudge the lens in the correct direction until the focal plane is roughly even and then use the lens on some "real world" test shots and see if I feel like it is hitting better. If you are getting different results in LiveView then you are definitely in need of MFA.

digital paradise wrote in post #17249356
Here is my 7D for cropping power if it helps. Not sure what this would have looked like on a FF and equivalent crop. I don't have any 5D3 comparisons as I usually use my crop for birding and sports. I have never really tried my FF for that yet.

It would be nice to see some tests. Maybe I'll try it out one day but I'm not sure I want to know. If equal or better that would only mean you get and advantage in FPS which can be important if you need it.

Wowza. Here is where I think the logic fails a bit - if you are putting significantly fewer pixels in a area, this level of crop is simply going to have a lot less data to work with if it came off of a 5D3 - sometimes you need pixels for prints, or certain DPI numbers for publishers, and an APS-C keeps that density higher for longer when cropping in.

Extra battery is out for delivery today, woo.

Keyan wrote in post #17249405
Extra battery is out for delivery today, woo.

Mine is still in a UPS transfer center a couple of states away.

Keyan wrote in post #17249404
Wowza. Here is where I think the logic fails a bit - if you are putting significantly fewer pixels in a area, this level of crop is simply going to have a lot less data to work with if it came off of a 5D3 - sometimes you need pixels for prints, or certain DPI numbers for publishers, and an APS-C keeps that density higher for longer when cropping in.

I do that kind of 7D vs 5D3 cropping comparison in my mini reviews. The 5D3 cropped and resized is pretty close to the 7D, but when I use a 1.4x on the 5D3, it is a bit better. Since the 5D3 is a stop better in ISO and holds detail a bit better, you have more wiggle room with a cropped section and subsequent resize from that camera.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17248730
I just caught up on the last few pages, wow some great photos and i love the excitement ! I'm jealous of you guys and your new toys!

As a cyborg, you should be able to stay alert and read 24/7. Or at a minimum sleep-reading. Maybe you need to upgrade your cyborg body first.

I pulled the trigger locally yesterday at Nebraska furniture Mart. The big debate seems to be comparing to 7D and 70D and the 5DIII but for me, coming from the 50D, this is a substantial upgrade in Af and high ISO and I can't wait to really put it thru its paces. The IQ for the higher ISO is outstanding for a crop, so I'm impressed and think I did a good upgrade.

And I LOVE how quiet the shutter is.. and I haven't even tried quiet mode yet.

Keyan wrote in post #17249252
Great shot! - Have you considered stopping down a little to control the CA and bring the whole bird into focus (looking at the lower right)?

I keep trying to get good captures of the hawks in my neighborhood, I got a couple of sweet ones one day with the 70D, but just a quick snap with the 7D2.

Yes I should have been at at least f8 here. I had been shooting birds flying a lot further away and was heading home when I caught sight of this guy siting on a gene post right beside the road. I hit the beaks, grabbed the camera and fired away. I was chirping to see how it looked when he got tired of me and departed.

That was my first real day out with it and I learned some things I want to tinker with and change for the next time. The autofocus is awesome, but I need to learn to control it better for instance.

Keyan wrote in post #17249404
Wowza. Here is where I think the logic fails a bit - if you are putting significantly fewer pixels in a area, this level of crop is simply going to have a lot less data to work with if it came off of a 5D3 - sometimes you need pixels for prints, or certain DPI numbers for publishers, and an APS-C keeps that density higher for longer when cropping in.

If the optical path were perfect and flawless, then a simple pixels on target calculation would work. But things get dicey when you start factoring in the optical properties of the glass. If for instance at the 5DIII pixel densities you are already at the optical resolution of the lens, adding in more pixels isn't going to resolve any more detail. You have captured all the lens can deliver. I think in practice though that whenever you are reach limited, that is that both a FF and crop are going to be cropped so that both will have the same square footage used in the image, the additional resolution is going to get you a better image.