Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734
In which aspects is it equal to or superior to the 1D X? Remember, full-frame vs. crop. The 7D2 pics look good when compared to the 7D, in terms of sharpness at least.
|
Two-edged sword here, but the much higher pixel density gives me an effective focal-length of 800/1,120/1,600mm when shooting with my 500mm lens and 1.4x and 2.0x TC-IIIs. Since my main shooting is birds and wildlife, reach with detail resolution is very high on my priority list. With the 1D X, I'd be wanting a 600mm lens, where with the 7D2, the much lighter 500mm might be all that I want.
With the old 7D, IQ pooped out at ISO 800. With the MkII, the sensor is three or four generations newer, so I'm very optimistic that it'll give me very clean files at ISO 800 and useable files at ISO 1600. I'll do some direct file comparisons between 5D3 images. In the 7D/5D3 comparisons, the 5D3 images are superior, but require constant use of TCs.
Using TCs is an area where the 1D X is clearly superior to the 5D3, because AF hardly slows down with the 2.0x TC, where the 5D3 requires incredible technique and even a bit of luck to lock on a bird and stay locked. The battery voltage on the 7D2 is up a little from the 5D3, but not near as much as the 1D X, so that's an area where the 1D X is likely still superior, but if I'm shooting at an effective 1,120mm with the 1.4x TC on the 7D2, then I won't shoot near as much with the 2.0x TC.
But for lower battery voltage resulting in reduced ability to manhandle super-telephoto lenses, the 7D2's AF system should equal the 1D X. With bare lenses, I doubt that you'll be able to tell any difference. With TCs it may matter on the super-telephotos. However, if the file quality is close up to ISO 1600, then I'll be totally happy. I use TCs a LOT.
One area where the 1D X blows away the 7D2 and the 5D3 is with ISOs above 1600. The 1D X yields really nice files up to ISO 6400 and useable files well beyond that. An indoor sports photographer would likely set that as their highest priority. Shooting basketball, volleyball, skating, etc., you don't need huge reach, but you need to be able to stop action and get a decent, clean file. The 1D X does this in spades.
The 1D X's 12 fps is also very impressive, but I think that I'll be happy with 10 fps on the 7D2. When I shoot my 7D with 8 fps, I don't find myself wishing for more fps. OTOH, at 6 fps on the 5D3, I'm wishing for more occasionally. 10 fps sounds like a great sweet spot to me.
I'll always have a FF camera in my bag in order to make the most of my 15mm and my 24-105mm. I'm even thinking of the EF 14mm f/2.8L since I like my old 15mm so much. At the wide and ultra-wide end of its range, Canon doesn't make comparable crop-sensor lenses. They've got some ok lenses, but I'm not going to switch from great to good in that regard.
Given the super high pixel-density of the 7D MkII, it'll be interesting to try it for some landscape shots that don't demand an ultra-wide lens. A full-frame sensor with the same pixel-density would be around 50 mp. That's pretty darn incredible density, but will the files at ISO 100 stand up to the FF sensors with much lower density? I suspect not, particularly in high dynamic range conditions. I hope that I'm pleasantly surprised, but that's not why I'm buying this camera and why I'll keep my 5D3 slung around my neck even while I'm lugging the 7D2 with my 500mm mounted on it.
So, my consideration of the 7D2 is as part of a two-camera system, including an excellent FF body. If I could only have one body, then it'd probably be the 1D X. If the super high pixel-density of the 7D MkII prevents it from achieving the IQ that I hope for, then a 1D X will come back into my plan.
The proof will be in the shooting.
Dave