My 7D2 never had any AF issues that some number of others reported. I ran seasons of sports and action through it. Also, given the ownership numbers of the 7D2, 30-50 people reporting issues on a couple boards doesn't mean the 7D2 is plagued with issues, it means some number of batches had an issue.
As to ISO, here is just one of a number of comparison shots I did for a review of the 7D2 to the 5D3, at ISO 6400. The 5D3 is around 1.3 stops cleaner IMO.
EverLearning wrote:
Wow. That is the first time I have ever heard anybody say that the 7D2 can outperform a 5D4 re noise at high ISO.
OMG! In what parallel universe? I, and many others, have had lots of problems with the 7D2's AF. Snappy? Yes. Consistent? For many, No.
Maybe you should read more? Could it be possible that you, and many others, maybe didn't quite understand the full capabilities of the AF system? However, if you look at the AF systems in the camera, they are...exactly...the...same. Don't take my word for it, again, maybe read more?
In full disclosure, my 7D2's sensor was adjusted by Canon to within +/- 1nm of perfect when it comes to distance from the lens. Canon's factory tolerance, at last check, was +/- 10-20nm.
IME owning 7D2, 1DX and 5D4 I would say the 1DX AF was noticeably better than the 7D2 and the 5D4 was a little bit better. I'd also say the high-ISO is significantly better on the 1DX and 5D4 compared to the 7D2. AF can be debated forever but high-ISO noise is pretty definitive with numerous sources out there that can demonstrate the differences.
The 7D2 is a prosumer camera with widely, although clearly not uniformly, reported AF inconsistencies while the 1Dx2 was the flagship pro camera when released; 1 1/2 years newer and $4200US higher MSRP (3.33x more expensive). It is unfathomable that the 7D2 would match the 1Dx2's AF performance.
Likewise,
"and will out perform both the 90D and 5DIV at higher ISO's"
The 5D4 is two years newer, FF (and a pixel unit of 5.36um square vs 4.1um square) and nearly double the price of the 7D2, yet the 7D2 outperforms the 5D4 at higher ISOs?!
Care to clarify which camera's AF system you are saying "are...exactly...the...same."? The 1Dx2 And when you refer to the "AF system", are you talking hardware (including the AF sensor and sub-mirror design, and DIGIC processor (version and number present)), the firmware, the number of AF points, the type of AF points (ie. cross-type), etc. Heck, even battery power and configuration (ie. grip with two batteries) can make a difference in how rapidly one model of camera can focus big glass compared to another model. Here is one example of a difference between the 1Dx2 and the 7D2 (from Canon USA):
When current Version III 2x extenders are combined with certain other f/4 Canon telephoto lenses that produce f/8 effective maximum apertures, the EOS-1D X Mark II allows AF at up to 13 AF points. While of course not offering the total flexibility of AF at all 61 points, this still vastly expands focus possibilities compared to previous EOS SLRs which limited f/8 AF to the center point only.
The 7D2 is limited to center point only at f/8.
Nice of you to reference a camera that has been fine-tuned by Canon and is hardly representative of the collective bodies the general populace of owners would have.
Lastly, I do quite a lot of reading, every single day, thank you. Maybe you should:
a) practice writing more (you know, for clarity)
b) exaggerate less
c) be less presumptive and less condescending
Teamspeed, people bought the 7D2 over an extended period of time. It seems unlikely that only those who purchased early units had AF issues and only a handful at that due to a few bad batches. I won't dispute your sample photos for ISO, as it they are comparing the 7D2 to a 5D3 and not a 5D4. That said, I would have been quite happy if my 3200 ISO shots with my 7D2 looked as good as that 6400 shot from your 7D2 (I am assuming you didn't do any post-process NR in the posted samples).
jtford9 wrote:
I thought about picking up a 90D to use on the 400DO II, the only EF telephoto I still own. However 2 of the YouTube sites I respect- Gordon Laing and Pangolin Wildlife did reviews of the 90D compared to the 7DII and the 90D came up short. They were both critical of the lower number of focusing points in the 90D and both reviewers demonstrated the inability of the 90D to track moving subjects via the EVF.
The EF lenses including the 400DO II work great on the R5 but I wanted a crop sensor body to give me that 640mm f4 equivalent. Now that the R7 appears to be on the horizon I'm permanently holding off on the 90D/7DII.
I'm optimistic the R7 will be more in line with the R5 and R6 in features and performance than with the R. ...Show more →
Watched over half of the Laing video, wow I didn't realize that the 90D had eye af in LV!!! About 7:15 in the video. That is a pretty good review. Looks like an impressive camera. Although maybe not the best af for motion. Has a lot of technology in it, more than I probably need.
AmbientMike wrote:
Watched over half of the Laing video, wow I didn't realize that the 90D had eye af in LV!!! About 7:15 in the video. That is a pretty good review. Looks like an impressive camera. Although maybe not the best af for motion. Has a lot of technology in it, more than I probably need.
I get the impression that the 90D is a better mirrorless camera than DSLR given how much Canon's mirrorless tech has improved.
EverLearning wrote:
JRobertson compares the 7D2 to a 1Dx2:
The 7D2 is a prosumer camera with widely, although clearly not uniformly, reported AF inconsistencies while the 1Dx2 was the flagship pro camera when released; 1 1/2 years newer and $4200US higher MSRP (3.33x more expensive). It is unfathomable that the 7D2 would match the 1Dx2's AF performance.
Likewise,
The 5D4 is two years newer, FF (and a pixel unit of 5.36um square vs 4.1um square) and nearly double the price of the 7D2, yet the 7D2 outperforms the 5D4 at higher ISOs?!
Care to clarify which camera's AF system you are saying "are...exactly...the...same."? The 1Dx2 And when you refer to the "AF system", are you talking hardware (including the AF sensor and sub-mirror design, and DIGIC processor (version and number present)), the firmware, the number of AF points, the type of AF points (ie. cross-type), etc. Heck, even battery power and configuration (ie. grip with two batteries) can make a difference in how rapidly one model of camera can focus big glass compared to another model. Here is one example of a difference between the 1Dx2 and the 7D2 (from Canon USA):
The 7D2 is limited to center point only at f/8.
Nice of you to reference a camera that has been fine-tuned by Canon and is hardly representative of the collective bodies the general populace of owners would have.
Lastly, I do quite a lot of reading, every single day, thank you. Maybe you should:
a) practice writing more (you know, for clarity)
b) exaggerate less
c) be less presumptive and less condescending
Teamspeed, people bought the 7D2 over an extended period of time. It seems unlikely that only those who purchased early units had AF issues and only a handful at that due to a few bad batches. I won't dispute your sample photos for ISO, as it they are comparing the 7D2 to a 5D3 and not a 5D4. That said, I would have been quite happy if my 3200 ISO shots with my 7D2 looked as good as that 6400 shot from your 7D2 (I am assuming you didn't do any post-process NR in the posted samples).
A) Your inability to ingest the words I use isn't my issue
B) Zero exaggeration, opinion based on professional use
C) Presumptions are based on your opinions, nothing more.
JRobertson wrote:
A) Your inability to ingest the words I use isn't my issue
B) Zero exaggeration, opinion based on professional use
C) Presumptions are based on your opinions, nothing more.
I did make an error in my description, however, the 7D2 has a slightly newer AF system than the 1Dx, my apologies.
Both of those links are all "on paper" specs. Those articles were written in the early days based off of Canon marketing. I remember those days clearly, I remember the forum posts of people thinking they could buy 1DX results for pennies on the dollar. None of that bore out in real world use/results. For those of us that owned all those cameras (like myself) I would rate the 7D2's AF system as the worst of the bunch.
And before people tell me I had a bad, early 7D2, I didn't have an early 7D2, my 7D2 was sent into CPS and checked over, I then shot two other copies of the 7D2, also much later production. It was all the same, hyper-active, super fast AF with piss-poor accuracy for BIF.
It's too bad you didn't do more research. The first link you provided says 'inspired by' the 1dx, not "the same as". The 1DX provides cross-type AF with the center point at f/8, with the four surrounding points acting as AF assist points. The 7D2 provides basic center point AF at f/8 (according to your article).
This option effectively expands the size of the AF detection area to enhance autofocus performance with subjects that are small in the frame and difficult to track, such as small animals and birds in flight.
Also, the 7D2 has dual DIGIC 6 processors while the 1DX II has DIGIC 6 AND dual DIGIC 6+. Just two quickly identified differences. Clearly, comparing the 7D2 to the 1DX2 was a mistake.
I'm also unclear on what point you were trying to make with the second link. First, it doesn't cover the 1DX2; one of the cameras you claimed the 7D2 AF to be the same as. Second, it shows the 1DX has better AF in some considerations and the 7D2 has better in other considerations. What this link does highlight is that the AF systems are not the same.
Let's just say you were over-zealous in your description of the AF and ISO capabilities of the 7DM2 and move on to more beneficial discussions.
We have no idea what the AF systems are under the covers, which is "newer" or "better", because we don't know the R&D cycles inside the Canon walls, nor the code base that makes up the firmware. We cannot draw conclusions based on release dates nor what processors exist and how many, because we don't really know what the technical details for that really might be. They are just CPUs that run code, and we have no idea how Canon distributes function calls or their threading models across Digic This and Dual Digic That.
So it seems quite silly to argue anything around this, especially who is "right" and who is "wrong". The only thing we can agree on is that Canon will protect model lines by limiting either physically via hardware, or with code or configurations, their top of the line cameras from their mid level and lower level models.
Also, there are some of us that really know how to configure and use our gear, and there are others that don't. We also don't all shoot the same thing. Therefore we need to curb our zealousness with the knowledge that we all don't use our gear the same way shooting the same things, which means we will all have different experiences. I was using my 7D2 running circles around a Getty photographer that was using a 1DX in the past, because I knew my gear and could process my results in a far more superior method than he, but that doesn't make one camera better than the other.
lighthound wrote:
I wouldn't say the 90D is any slouch when it comes to "real action". I've never used the 7DII but I would guess that the 90D is very close.
The 70D, 80D, and 90D all have similar AF systems and all are decent. But a properly functioning 7DM2 is simply better. It seems, if you go by reports here, that very few had a properly functioning 7DM2s, but there are many others who don't post here who do. For me, my 7DM2 was every bit as good as my 5DM4 and was better in the sense that the view finder gave a magnified view with just as many AF points spread over the frame. I have many ISO 3200 shots from the 7DM2 that were good, too. Once I got my hands on the 90D though, it was hard to shoot on the 7DM2 since that 20 MP just sucked compared to the 32.5 MP on the 90D. But the 90D's AF system is crippled compared that in the 7DM2 and so are the customization features, which makes a huge difference in getting the most out of a camera system.
TeamSpeed, I don't disagree with your comment about the difficulty of comparing "AF systems" because there are indeed so many different factors that come into play. That said, AF speed and accuracy is very dependent on the ability of the system to determine what is "in focus" and then communicate this to the lens to take care of the necessary element adjustments. So in that sense, the processors are critical to AF; especially when in servo mode.
While not scientific, it would be counter-intuitive to suggest a camera two years newer, far more processing power and the flagship camera (at that time) at 3.33x times the cost would have an AF system only equal to the 7DM2. Also, it is quite reasonable to expect that updates to the AF firmware will be enhanced over previous versions, not reduced in capability (after removal of any bugs of course). Anecdotally speaking, there are far more complaints/criticisms about the 7DM2 AF across various forums than for the 1Dx2 AF.
You present a case for not drawing assumptions but then you do exactly that:
The only thing we can agree on is that Canon will protect model lines by limiting either physically via hardware, or with code or configurations, their top of the line cameras from their mid level and lower level models.
To be clear, I am not disagreeing with this assumption. I am merely pointing out that there is no indisputable proof of this; just a logical assumption. Similarly, there are very logical assumptions to be drawn about the 1Dx2 AF vs the 7D2 AF; supported by various specifications, as well as empirical and anecdotal evidence.
I agree that a dull chisel in the hands of an expert will result in a better outcome than a sharp chisel in the hands of a novice.
Keep in mind too regarding AF performance that a 1d body has 50% more power available to it to drive lenses and processors better, but then a Digic 8 processor may have 10x the computing power that a Dual Digic 6 has. This makes comparisons even more difficult. Fun times!
Very true TeamSpeed. I did make reference to that somewhere above. Part of the challenge is getting agreement on just what makes up an 'AF system' within the camera itself (so excluding the number and weight of the elements plus the abilities of the motor in the lens). Somewhat like comparing cars and only looking at motor size to determine speed. It could be a 450 but if the car is really heavy, has bald tires, 10 year old gas and a crappy transmission, the overall 'system' is not going to result in fast car.
There are tons of pros online that have used the 7D2, from birders to sports to wedding shooters.
And either you are a professional or not, there is no part time pro. You either get paid for your results, or you don't.
Finally, a pro doesn't always mean they know how to use their gear either, or how to use it effectively in all situations. I know many a street racer that can beat a pro racer, and I know many an amateur shooter that can get better results than a paid photographer.
Mike_5D wrote:
Part time pro - You get paid, but not enough 100% of your income.
So the rest of the time you are an amateur? If I am a pro, I am always a pro and market myself as such. If I talk to a potential client and say that "I am a part time pro", I am not getting the business. When I have a contract with the Pacers for example, but their payment doesn't constitute a majority of my income, that doesn't make me less of a pro or a part-time pro.
Part-time and Pro are mutually exclusive perhaps, and that may have been what was meant. If that is the case, then why was it used in the context it was earlier? A pro that works part time is no less professional than a full time professional and both their opinions likely matter equally.
The only thing we can agree on is that Canon will protect model lines by limiting either physically via hardware, or with code or configurations, their top of the line cameras from their mid level and lower level models.
