These shots look great, I think that 400 5.6 would go terrific on my 40D. Personally I don't use anything but the centre point focus, it's much simpler and gives me much more control. I'd love to buy the 7D but I'm looking more at the 5D MII at the moment.
Those who dare claim the shots are NOT nice are obviously jealous. In fact, their own BIF shots are worse.
HOWEVER, I'll have to agree if 7D owners find they aren't get better AF using AF expansion or AF zone, then something is NOT right here. Those are new AF tracking features on the 7D, and they are supposed to provide owners with that extra edge! If people need to fall back on the good old center AF point again, then why bother to put up the other 18 AF points? I feel the OP's experience mirrors what Rob Galbraith said about AF tracking on the 7D.
The next question inevitably is this: does the center AF work BETTER than that on the 40D, 50D etc? According to OP, the answer is yes. But I will like to know from other owners if that is indeed true.
Ruhikant is an experienced bird photographer.
However, Breitling is a very good photographer of birds and other subjects as well.
Therefore, this discussion is best to be based on relevant experience.
BTW, in my duck-in-flight shooting experience, Breitling is right in saying that one normally shouldn't try to focus on the flying bird's eye(s) if one attaches any significance to their keeper rate. Two exceptions here I can think of: (1) Head-on shots where one doesn't have much of a choice but to aim focus on the bill/forehead. (2) Close proximity shots where one has to focus on the head (eyes) if one wants keepers + the task of doing so becomes feasible.
In Ruhikant's shots which show the centre AF point far off the bird, I see that focus has deterirated almost to the point of being gone haywire.
No camera that I have ever tried could tolerate that sort of an AF slip and maintain focus on the bird, even on the slowest (1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII) sensitivity setting. In the absence of AF expansion, focus is lost very quickly and the system has to be rebooted for refocus. Even if 7D somehow tolerated a major slippage in the selected AF point off target with a very long time constant, I wonder what would then the focus acquisition (response) time be ?
PetKal wrote:
Ruhikant is an experienced bird photographer.
However, Breitling is a very good photographer of birds and other subjects as well.
Therefore, this discussion is best to be based on relevant experience.
BTW, in my duck-in-flight shooting experience, Breitling is right in saying that one normally shouldn't try to focus on the flying bird's eye(s) if one attaches any significance to their keeper rate. Two exceptions here I can think of: (1) Head-on shots where one doesn't have much of a choice but to aim focus on the bill/forehead. (2) Close proximity shots where one has to focus on the head (eyes) if one wants keepers + the task of doing so becomes feasible.
In Ruhikant's shots which show the centre AF point far off the bird, I see that focus has deterirated almost to the point of being gone haywire.
No camera that I have ever tried could tolerate that sort of an AF slip and maintain focus on the bird, even on the slowest (1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII) sensitivity setting. In the absence of AF expansion, focus is lost very quickly and the system has to be rebooted for refocus. Even if 7D somehow tolerated a major slippage in the selected AF point off target with a very long time constant, I wonder what would then the focus acquisition (response) time be ?...Show more →
Great technical explanation PetKal, It is disappointing when people care more how good they are a front of each other or how bad discussion turned instead of technical aspects and facts. It reminds me dpreview, where every single post with pictures is "Nice Shots" ... Those shots are OK to good, but I expected more from 7D updated AF. Correct maybe too early to talk about, but maybe too early to post any shots too?
PetKal wrote:
Ruhikant is an experienced bird photographer.
However, Breitling is a very good photographer of birds and other subjects as well.
Therefore, this discussion is best to be based on relevant experience.
BTW, in my duck-in-flight shooting experience, Breitling is right in saying that one normally shouldn't try to focus on the flying bird's eye(s) if one attaches any significance to their keeper rate. Two exceptions here I can think of: (1) Head-on shots where one doesn't have much of a choice but to aim focus on the bill/forehead. (2) Close proximity shots where one has to focus on the head (eyes) if one wants keepers + the task of doing so becomes feasible.
In Ruhikant's shots which show the centre AF point far off the bird, I see that focus has deterirated almost to the point of being gone haywire.
No camera that I have ever tried could tolerate that sort of an AF slip and maintain focus on the bird, even on the slowest (1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII) sensitivity setting. In the absence of AF expansion, focus is lost very quickly and the system has to be rebooted for refocus. Even if 7D somehow tolerated a major slippage in the selected AF point off target with a very long time constant, I wonder what would then the focus acquisition (response) time be ?...Show more →
Thanks Peter, 7D's initial focus acquisition is quite good and I can cancel the slow tracking by bumping the back AF button when I need to refocus again.
Isn't it all about the keeper rate anyway? We all know that any xxD is perfectly capable of grabbing an excellent action shot using the AF, but what's the keeper rate? What if the OP took 20 shots, wouldn't that mean maybe the camera is doing very well? What if his camera has 10k clicks on it just so he could post this set, that might not be quite as impressive! I don't think the AF question can be properly answered until a shooter identical to each one of us gives their opinion, or we fork out 1700 to find out on our own.
One more thing. I've seen Ruhikant's shots of Mourning Doves captured in power flight and they were quite well focused and sharp , and they were not one or two lucky shots either. So I can assure you, to get flying ducks for him should not be a big deal, assuming the gear used works OK.
Breitling65 wrote:
Those shots are OK to good, but I expected more from 7D updated AF. Correct maybe too early to talk about, but maybe too early to post any shots too?
Quite the opposite, I think what we need is more shots of different subjects in different contexts so we can start to make a collective judgement based on people's real world experiences with the camera. However if everyone who posts is met with a barrage of aggressive criticism about their technique, no-one is going to want to! I agree meaningless praise is .. well .. meaningless. But I think it's in our self-interest to maintain an environment that's at least accepting, even if critical.
globalkiwi wrote:
Quite the opposite, I think what we need is more shots of different subjects in different contexts so we can start to make a collective judgement based on people's real world experiences with the camera. However if everyone who posts is met with a barrage of aggressive criticism about their technique, no-one is going to want to! I agree meaningless praise is .. well .. meaningless. But I think it's in our self-interest to maintain an environment that's at least accepting, even if critical.
Didn't find any "aggressive" criticism instead it is lot's of extreme sensitivity & protectiveness without any reason. Criticism will lead to better shots, "nice shot" responses leading to friendships but not always to the good or excellent shots.
Breitling65 wrote:
Didn't find any "aggressive" criticism instead it is lot's of extreme sensitivity & protectiveness without any reason. Criticism will lead to better shots, "nice shot" responses leading to friendships but not always to the good or excellent shots.
A most common image post feedback on most wildlife/bird photography forums:
Meaningless praise is worthless, and I agree it's good to help others with constructive critique. How you say things and being sensitive is important, even if you're not a girly man. Everyone wants help, praise, and constructive critique. Most photogs came to this forum to get help and get C&C as they improve their techniques. Being harsh and brash is not the way to help others.
Didn't find any "extreme sensitivity" either. I didn't suggest anyone shouldn't be critical, just civil. This is the Canon *Gear* board, not Nature & Wildlife - where people actually post for the purpose of receiving C&C.
Gotta agree with Brietling65. There is only 1 image in that entire set that I would call even close to "in focus" and that is the female mallard 4th from the bottom. None of the rest are sharp at all. That isn't a critique of the OP at all, but more a general statement regarding sharpness of images. If these were the images I was looking at to determine a purchase of a 7D for BIF (Birds in flight) shooting, my decision would be "nay". A lot of the images are soft across the entire frame, and that may be, as the OP posted later, where he missed maintaining the focus on the bird, which if DOF was shallow, would explain the issue with many of the shots. Having used a 1DMkII and a 1DMkIII, and after all of the issues with the MkIII (which resulted in the same vehement defenses in all of the forums with tons of people saying "my camera is perfect" when in fact none of the cameras worked properly), I personally would be quite leery of purchasing a new Canon camera without significant empirical data which suggests a solid camera without defective technology.
PhotogDave wrote:
I'm not seeing anything yet that shows improvement over the previous model in terms of tracking. I'm with the other posters that say there are a lot of new features in this model which sound GREAT, but they dont work.
At least from what many posters are saying.
Many people are starting find this camera isnt giving them more keepers.
Hi jesus here
Like to see where your getting this info from...from what the users are saying its consideably better.
Your in NO position the judeg or talk about a camera which you do not own.
Have you seen the strings of shots and what the OOF rate is?
Sofar ive seen ine guy who had a back focusingcamera which now apears to be sorted througyh some MA tweak and thats it.
You know AF systems(yes Nikons included) are not magic laser beams but tools with limits which must be dealt with despite what you may think.
Have you read the Canon white paper on Mk3 focus performance??
Simply see the work of someone who is out of there depth here slagging off Canon at every turn and oppurtunity.
Maybe you want to go check out the Nikon forum and see some of the problems in there when the D3 was launched with its metering issues or do you choose to ignore that.
In according to globalkiwi - NO critics allowed here, so either say sorry and delete this words or say "NICE SHOTS" asap ...
Cymorg wrote:
Gotta agree with Brietling65. There is only 1 image in that entire set that I would call even close to "in focus" and that is the female mallard 4th from the bottom. None of the rest are sharp at all. That isn't a critique of the OP at all, but more a general statement regarding sharpness of images. If these were the images I was looking at to determine a purchase of a 7D for BIF (Birds in flight) shooting, my decision would be "nay". A lot of the images are soft across the entire frame, and that may be, as the OP posted later, where he missed maintaining the focus on the bird, which if DOF was shallow, would explain the issue with many of the shots. Having used a 1DMkII and a 1DMkIII, and after all of the issues with the MkIII (which resulted in the same vehement defenses in all of the forums with tons of people saying "my camera is perfect" when in fact none of the cameras worked properly), I personally would be quite leery of purchasing a new Canon camera without significant empirical data which suggests a solid camera without defective technology.
Those shots are OK to good, but I expected more from 7D updated AF. Correct maybe too early to talk about, but maybe too early to post any shots too? 
So I can assure you, to get flying ducks for him should not be a big deal, assuming the gear used works OK.
: " 