Canon 7D review for professional wedding photographers

It wouldn't surprise me if ISO100 had more noise than a 40D, there's more pixels and they're smaller. Don't look at them at 18MP, resize it down to what you'd use, maybe 6x4" prints or 8x12" prints 300ppi, sharpen slightly, then judge it. Ideally just judge it by prints, or whatever your final product is - probably prints for wedding photographers.

tim wrote in post #8810730
It wouldn't surprise me if ISO100 had more noise than a 40D, there's more pixels and they're smaller. Don't look at them at 18MP, resize it down to what you'd use, maybe 6x4" prints or 8x12" prints 300ppi, sharpen slightly, then judge it. Ideally just judge it by prints, or whatever your final product is - probably prints for wedding photographers.

Well seeing as I viewed 50D in the same way, it should be even steven comparison or apples to apples.

I had a play with a 40D and a 7D, both with a 17-55 F2.8 IS, center point focus, ISO400, taking the same photo with each camera. I looked at the jpegs at 100% and the RAW files at 50%. I couldn't see much difference to be honest, both focused accurately, both had little noise, the only difference was the 7D had slightly more vivid color - but I don't know what picture style settings I have on the cameras.

I used the 7d at a wedding last weekend, I'm fully sold and might even upgrade the other cameras to another one, there are so many reasons why, but main ones for me was the focusing ability(which reminded me of eos1 or 3) didn't miss a beat in all kinds of situations, and is super sharp, I was most impressed with the 70-200 on it as this lens can be touchy at times. I also put the off camera flash system through it's paces. Throughout testing the week before it didn't miss a beat, but at the wedding it missed a couple of times, but not enough to be a hindrence at all and it was more 'user fault', you have to make sure the infrared on the external flashes are facing directly at you.

So how have you found the 7D at your recent weddings?
Is it worth the extra money over a 40D.

great review tim
i'm curious though
why did you choose the 7d over the 5d2 ?
some photogs would argue that such a combination( wide reach of full frame and long reach of aps-c)
gives you the best of both worlds

quoccy wrote in post #8994913
So how have you found the 7D at your recent weddings?
Is it worth the extra money over a 40D.

I've used it as my main camera at two full weddings now, it performed well. Some images were out of focus, but no more than the 40D. I haven't compared sharpness or anything with the 40D.

patrick clarke wrote in post #8996874
great review tim
i'm curious though
why did you choose the 7d over the 5d2 ?
some photogs would argue that such a combination( wide reach of full frame and long reach of aps-c)
gives you the best of both worlds

Because i'd have had to buy the 5D2, a new fast prime, and a new standard zoom, all of which would've cost me around NZ$14,000. The 7D cost me $3000 and uses my existing lenses.

tim wrote in post #8997562
Because i'd have had to buy the 5D2, a new fast prime, and a new standard zoom, all of which would've cost me around NZ$14,000. The 7D cost me $3000 and uses my existing lenses.

Same for me.

5DmkII next for me.

sando wrote in post #9003429
Same for me.

5DmkII next for me.

I honestly didn't like the 5D II, I think it is a hunk of junk.

Saxi wrote in post #9003637
I honestly didn't like the 5D II, I think it is a hunk of junk.

I think that comment says more about you than the camera.

Saxi wrote in post #9003637
I honestly didn't like the 5D II, I think it is a hunk of junk.

tim wrote in post #9003702
I think that comment says more about you than the camera.

Bad copy?

tim wrote in post #9003702
I think that comment says more about you than the camera.

My problem with the 5D II coming from a 50D was how inferior the AF is. In fact it is down right poor, I was messing around with one at my local studio I shoot at and put my 70-200 on it and it hunted multiple times. I've never seen that lens hunt before and I've shot it for 5,000 shots at least. I don't care what Canon's line up is, there is no excuse for the AF to be that bad compared to a camera 3x less. To me, that is a big deal breaker for the type of shooting I do, but to be honest I think it totally makes the 5D II a failure. Even if you don't require good AF it shouldn't be considerably worse than pro-sumer cameras. I haven't tested it, but I suspect my fathers XTi has better AF response.

I understand Canon's line up issue and if they put the 1D AF system into the 5D they would eliminate a lot of 1D sales, but it should at least have what the 50D has, even if it requires two processors, they managed to knock it out of the park with the 7D, why couldn't they put something at least as good as the 50D in the 5D rather than such a giant leap backwards.

My real reason for looking at the 5D II at the time was the ISO performance, and it definitely does a good job there but I couldn't sacrifice AF performance. The 50D wasn't amazing, but it was good to pay 3x as much and have considerably less AF performance just wasn't acceptable. The 7D couldn't' come at a better time for me. I just really wish it was FF and the ISO performance was as good as the 5D II or better. I'd even pay more to get it but to me the 5D isn't an upgrade as you loose some things but gain other things.

I know there are people that AF isn't important and some that don't even use AF, in those cases the 5D II is probably spectacular but even someone with a 1200mm using manual focus all the time is likely going to be doing candid or other action shots from time to time and use AF.

What Canon did with the 7D amazed me, I can't believe they put that AF system into a camera in that price range. I think they needed to be competitive with Nikon (who I think is kicking their ass with AF prior to the 7D) but from what they showed with the 5D II I never expected it.

That's my opinion, and I am sticking with it. Although I am still looking forward more details of your opinion of the 7D on the job!

Putting reasons behind your thoughts rather than the "junk" comment makes it a much more useful comment. I agree with some, not with others.

The 7D and 1D4 AF systems seemed pretty similar, I used a 1D4 last week. Fingers crossed they put that AF system into the 5DIII.

tim wrote in post #9003984
Putting reasons behind your thoughts rather than the "junk" comment makes it a much more useful comment. I agree with some, not with others.

The 7D and 1D4 AF systems seemed pretty similar, I used a 1D4 last week. Fingers crossed they put that AF system into the 5DIII.

Yeah I probably should have gone into detail, but I was just short at the time. Even with the 50D system it would be an entirely better system. My other gripe is going from 6.3 fps to 3.9 fps. It just felt like a downgrade to me.

form wrote in post #8761497
And thankfully most 5D owners (myself included) probably don't care about the performance of the latest crop sensor camera beyond a casual interest in seeing what Canon is doing now (and what they should've done with the 5D II).

Seriously, your attitude stings. You should go read the 5D thread and be happy.