Canon 7d

bjh1912

bjh1912

Suspended / Banned
Messages
43
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys, I'm seriously considering buying a 7d. I have about 1k to spend on a body, I don't shoot any 1 thing in particular so I'm after a really good all rounder! How have you 7d owners out there found yours and are there any alternatives you would suggest? Cheers for any advice offered!
 
Absolutely love mine to bits, main use is birds in flight and Motorsport although starting to play with light painting and portraits so would definately advise it as all rounder...
 
None as yet as I'm selling them as part of my old 350d. I will be buying a 24-105 L at the same time as the body though and building my lenses from there!
 
I loved mine until I got a 5D MKII, its been sat in the camera bag since.

Love is so fickle :-)
 
24-105 & 7D are a good match. Do some reading of the guides and look at the videos on the B&H site. Get your head around the focus system and you'll be away :)
 
bjh1912 said:
None as yet as I'm selling them as part of my old 350d. I will be buying a 24-105 L at the same time as the body though and building my lenses from there!
Click to expand...

A good walkabout lens but be aware that 24mm isn't all that wide on a crop so perhaps the 17-55 or 15-85 would be a better bet.

As for the camera - go for it, love mine to bits :)
 
Craft said:
24-105 & 7D are a good match. Do some reading of the guides and look at the videos on the B&H site. Get your head around the focus system and you'll be away :)
Click to expand...

+ 1 for that combination, it's a fantastic camera and lens.

Also get a copy of the Canon EOS 7D Digital Field Guide. Far better than the instructions you get with the camera.
 
The 7D is a great camera and you can shoot anything with it, but then you can with most cameras, a 5D2 is considered a better bet for weddings and landscape, whereas the 7d is ideal for sports and wildlife. I changed from a 350D to a 7D and it's been fantastic. A good all round lens is the 15-85 good range on a crop and excellent IQ.
 
Ploddles said:
What lenses do you currently own - may be relevant?

:canon:
Click to expand...

I have a variety, sigma 10-20, 50mm 1.8 (very cheap but stunning lens), 18-55 kit & 100-400. The 1-400 lives on the camera and is a great combo
 
Hi Ben,

I love the 7D.

I think it's quite a good all rounder, and would be a massive step up from your 350D.

You'd have a bit of change from 1K if you bought 2nd hand, could go towards another lens for it.

The 8fps really gives you some speed if you like bursts for fast moving subjects, after the first couple of weeks I stopped machine gunning the camera, but it's nice to know the capability is there if I need it.

It's a good camera, and I'm nowhere near reaching what its capable of. You won't regret getting it.
 
ive just recently bought onr after alot of review reading and never had any camera bigger than a compact before, also just bought the 100-400mm L IS USM lens for the aircraft at high level over my house,now got alot of learning and practiceing with it, Go for it.:bonk::bonk:
 
To be honest guys my mind was pretty much set on the 7d, every time I read more about it I want it more and after spending this evening playing with a 5d2 I can't wait to make the step up!!! Cheers again for all the helpful comments, I think the 24-105 L will be my lens of choice!!
 
I wouldn't class the 7d as a step up from the 5d2, they are totally different animals.
 
bjh1912 said:
Hi guys, I'm seriously considering buying a 7d. I have about 1k to spend on a body, I don't shoot any 1 thing in particular so I'm after a really good all rounder! How have you 7d owners out there found yours and are there any alternatives you would suggest? Cheers for any advice offered!
Click to expand...

bjh1912 said:
To be honest guys my mind was pretty much set on the 7d, every time I read more about it I want it more and after spending this evening playing with a 5d2 I can't wait to make the step up!!! Cheers again for all the helpful comments, I think the 24-105 L will be my lens of choice!!
Click to expand...

On an APS-C body like the 7D the 24-105 is no all-rounder; too slow for low-light shots, way too long to for anything wide angle, and it'd be a drag having to swap to your 10-20mm every time you want to go wider than 24. Get rid of your 18-55 and your 50 and get the 17-55 2.8; it's L quality glass and a perfect all-rounder lens for your all-rounder 7D.
 
Last edited:
Nifkin said:
On an APS-C body like the 7D the 24-105 is no all-rounder; too slow for low-light shots, way too long to for anything wide angle, and it'd be a drag having to swap to your 10-20mm every time you want to go wider than 24. Get rid of your 18-55 and your 50 and get the 17-55 2.8; it's L quality glass and a perfect all-rounder lens for your all-rounder 7D.
Click to expand...

Disagree, my 24-105 is my walkaround on crop and has been for several years. If in low light up the ISO, no problem. I bought my 10-22 to go to NYC, wouldn't of bought it otherwise.
55mm would drive me utterly mad, its just nowhere near long enough.

People are way to hung up about f2.8 vs f4 - its only 1 stop.

OP does have to realise his FOV will differ from the 5DII though.
 
Nifkin said:
On an APS-C body like the 7D the 24-105 is no all-rounder; too slow for low-light shots, way too long to for anything wide angle, and it'd be a drag having to swap to your 10-20mm every time you want to go wider than 24. Get rid of your 18-55 and your 50 and get the 17-55 2.8; it's L quality glass and a perfect all-rounder lens for your all-rounder 7D.
Click to expand...

Yup, I disagree as well. It really depends on what you shoot and how. On a crop camera the 24-105 needs two steps back without the distortion effect you get from the 10-22. BUT the 10-22 is so small and light it stays in my bag fro when I need it, but for a walkabout lens I certainly don't swap all the time. The 24-105 stays on my camera 90% of the time.

As for low light - sorry that's rubbish too. It's a great lens for low light. I've successfully hand held at 1/4sec when braced against a wall and 1/15th just stood hand held. f2.8 to f4 is one stop and the IS generally easily makes up for that. I've just successfully completed an assignment that consisted of several long exposures at very low light levels using this lens.

The 17-55 f2.8 is a good lens, but I found 55mm was too short for a walkabout. I was constantly swapping to my 70-200. Guess it depends on what you shoot. Also it's an EF-S lens so crop cameras only.
 
Can only agree that the 7D is a fine all round camera, got what I think is the ideal lens collection for it (10-22mm, 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/4 IS plus 1.4 TC) although some may prefer the 70-200mm f/2.8 version

No perfect all round lens and that's the whole idea of a DSLR is to change the lens for the appropriate situation, sure you will find it's a very nice camera to use.
 
I find 24 to be not wide enough on the 7D. The 7D is Ms arad85s and she uses it almost exclusively with a 15-85 which she finds a better match focal length wise for what she shoots (and it gives the L glass a run for its money in terms of sharpness too - in fact, I think it is slightly sharper than the 24-105).
 
Another 10-22 and 24-105 user here on the 7D. It's a great combo for this body (for me at least anyway). f4 is more than enough for most situations. The 24-105 practically lives on my 7D. 17-55 would be way too short for me. I can see the benefit of the 15-85 though.
 
Nifkin said:
On an APS-C body like the 7D the 24-105 is no all-rounder; too slow for low-light shots, way too long to for anything wide angle, and it'd be a drag having to swap to your 10-20mm every time you want to go wider than 24. Get rid of your 18-55 and your 50 and get the 17-55 2.8; it's L quality glass and a perfect all-rounder lens for your all-rounder 7D.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree here. I use a 24-70 as my walkabout and have no problems at all. The number of times I have to switch to the 10-22 because it's not wide enough is limited - not to say it doesn't happen and I'd not be without the wide for those times but it's not like I'm swapping them all the time. As for low-light, f/4 is still pretty wide and, whilst the 24-70 has an extra stop, f/4 is still perfectly fine for most situations and the IS of the 24-105 will help in certain situations too.

Whilst something like a 17-55 may be a viable alternative, and indeed I used to have one myself and have recommended it in the past, when it comes to lens swapping you could argue that a 17-55 would just have you swapping lenses more at the other end where a 24-105 would have you covered up to nearly twice the focal length.

All depends on what you shoot really :)
 
Byker28i said:
As for low light - sorry that's rubbish too. It's a great lens for low light. I've successfully hand held at 1/4sec when braced against a wall and 1/15th just stood hand held. f2.8 to f4 is one stop and the IS generally easily makes up for that. I've just successfully completed an assignment that consisted of several long exposures at very low light levels using this lens.
Click to expand...

Rubbish huh? OK. Well, as we all know, that one stop from f/4 to f/2.8 means twice as much light, which of course can make all the difference when capturing moving subjects (which IS won't help). By your reckoning, all the people that have spent the nearly £900 more on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II instead of just getting the f/4 IS version should have saved their money and braced themselves against a wall instead? Seeing as the OP says he doesn't shoot any one thing in particular, it's difficult to know what would be the best set up for him; I appreciate your opinions (based on your experience) re focal lengths, but mine (also based on experience) are just valid too in these circumstances. It's really up to the OP to further clarify his shooting preferences, or just up to him to get out there with a bunch of focal lengths and see which general range suits him :thumbs:
 
LOL - I love these classic threads. I should keep a set of standard well thought out responses. But I don't, so here's my unjustified shoot from the hip 2p.

24mm not wide enough
I used the 24-105 for years as my walkabout lens on crop sensors before I went full frame. Every now and again I would need to stitch images together to get the width, but it was never a problem.
Now I've gone full frame I REALLY miss the long end of the lens.

f4 v f2.5
Back in the old days this was significant. My 20D needed to be used at ISO 100 except for emergencies; ISO 400 was pushing things and ISO 800 was terrible. Hence an f2.8 lens was a real asset.
With modern cameras I rarely need better than f4. The 5DII produces noise free A3 prints at ISO 3200 with no post-processing; my 60D is nearly as good.
If the light gets any worse, then I switch to my 50mm f1.4 and break out the candles.

To IS or not to IS
If there is fast movement in the image then IS won't help.
Luckily, for most genres of photography this is a not a problem and IS is a significant asset.
If motion blur starts to become a problem at ISO 3200 with F4, then the light is getting bad and it's probably time to bypass f2.8 and switch straight to the 50mm f1.4; that's only a stop or two from needing a torch to help illuminate the moving subjects.
 
Last edited:
The 7d is a great all-rounder I'm sure you will be very happy with it, the 24-105mm L performs very well on the 7D, but as others have said you may find the 24mm not quite wide enough to use it as your main walk-about lens.

I also had the 15-85mm for a short while, it was very sharp, and a very good all purpose lens. I got it with as part of a 7d kit which I sent back as it was defective, I then just bought a 7d body as I had decided to get the 5d mark II and 24-105mm kit.
 
I have got the 7d and 24-105 and it is a great combination. I do have a couple of prime lenses also for low light shots.
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Now I've gone full frame I REALLY miss the long end of the lens.
Click to expand...

Me too! I thought the 24-105 worked really well on a crop sensor and the extra length more than made up for the missing wide angle. That said, it did mean I also carried a 10-20 in the bag although it got very little use.

After a few months with the 24-105 on a 5D the first lens in the bag was a 70-200 to make up for the missing length. Don't think I needs anything wider than 24mm though so no need to replace the 10-20
 
Interesting observations from those who've switched from using a 24-105 on a crop to full frame!

The 24-105 still gives more reach on full frame than does an 18-55 kit lens or the 17-55 on a crop and yet you don't see many people complaining about a lack of reach with those lenses so I guess it really is a case of not missing it unless you had it to start with and then it's gone. The 24-105 is really a very wide range for a walkabout, especially with a constant f/4 aperture - it's just that the range extends into the 'long' end on a crop and the 'wide' end on full frame :)
 
Well to be honest I like my 7D and I have a 5d mkii as well, originally my 7D was used for landscapes before I moved over to the 5D MKII

Yes the 5D MKII produces cleaner and provides more dynamic range and tonality than the 7D esp in landscapes and portraiture, but the 7D is a good allround and I like its focusing speed.

I also use the 24-105 with the 7D and it works well as a combo for doing street photography or general shooting of people moving around.


Here is a sample of the 7D quality for landscape:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7194/6778973308_69e6721f8a_b.jpg

7D + 24-105 combo for street work

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3224/5801055179_2c7ff8e934_b.jpg


So I wouldnt knock the 7D, its interface is better than the 5D MKII and I feel its more solid too than the 5D MKII but I love my 5D MKII for landscapes and portraits too :)

As an allround camera, I think the 7D is a fab camera, no doubt,

Cheers,

Andy
 
Last edited:
Nifkin said:
Rubbish huh? OK. Well, as we all know, that one stop from f/4 to f/2.8 means twice as much light, which of course can make all the difference when capturing moving subjects (which IS won't help). By your reckoning, all the people that have spent the nearly £900 more on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II instead of just getting the f/4 IS version should have saved their money and braced themselves against a wall instead? Seeing as the OP says he doesn't shoot any one thing in particular, it's difficult to know what would be the best set up for him; I appreciate your opinions (based on your experience) re focal lengths, but mine (also based on experience) are just valid too in these circumstances. It's really up to the OP to further clarify his shooting preferences, or just up to him to get out there with a bunch of focal lengths and see which general range suits him :thumbs:
Click to expand...

With respect, I was replying to your comment of: too slow for low-light shots. I still consider that to be a rubbish comment based exactly on what you have said above. You also have no idea of what the user is shooting ;)

As I said - I've used it very successfully in low light situations with my 50D and the 7D is a much more capable camera.

P.S. I also have the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Size, weight, depth of field are the main differences. You can isolate a player on a sports field very well at f2.8.
 
Last edited:
Regards this whole 'low light shooting' topic, is it just me or has the f/2.8 aperture taken on some kind of mythical status?

Yes a wider aperture is always desirable when shooting in low-light conditions but it seems like some people believe f/2.8 is an almost magical value, where all of a sudden you can get loads of shots that simply wouldn't have been possible before.

f/2.8 is only a single stop from f/4. Yes there are situations where you're pushing the boundaries so much that you get a shot at f/2.8 that simply wouldn't have been possible at f/4 but, in such cases, you're so close to the limits any way that the shot you 'got' at f/2.8 isn't going to be very good IMO.

'Real' low-light shooting needs artificial light or a much wider aperture than f/2.8, which is why people regularly shooting in such conditions use primes at apertures down to f/1.2.

Just my 2p :)
 
so amid all the bickering (myself included!) has the OP bought the damm thing yet ? :)
 
Not yet but I will be doing, and after all the bickering i'm even more unsure which lens I want to spend my cash on! I've recently been offered an access all areas to my friend motocross racing so I think the 7d is a no brainier!
 
We digress but f/2.8 lenses have One "magical" ability - most Canon bodies have extra precision AF sensors that don't activate unless a f/2.8 lens is used.

Apparently the precision comes from the sensor pair being spaced further apart to better see the phase shift or whatchamacallit and with apertures smaller than f/2.8 they are partially shaded. This is also Canon's reasoning in dropping f/8 AF from the 1Dx - gaining precision for other apertures. Not an expert on this stuff though.
 
But we aren't talking 1 series...
The 7D and 5DII will auto focus with lenses up to f5.6.
Hence an f4 lens will focus with a 1.4xTC, but not a 2xTC. Whereas an f2.8 lens will happily focus with both.
 
vaizki said:
We digress but f/2.8 lenses have One "magical" ability - most Canon bodies have extra precision AF sensors that don't activate unless a f/2.8 lens is used.
Click to expand...

Good (AF) point - I'd forgotten about that.
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
But we aren't talking 1 series...
The 7D and 5DII will auto focus with lenses up to f5.6.
Hence an f4 lens will focus with a 1.4xTC, but not a 2xTC. Whereas an f2.8 lens will happily focus with both.
Click to expand...

Yes I know... But the AF will be faster and more precise if the max aperture is f/2.8 or larger. Works with my 135/2 + 1.4x extender for example.

I just brought up the 1D series to ramble about AF sensor design & Canon :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top