Is the 7d Mk1 still a standout camera, or are there better alternatives

graycbr said:
Another site guys ...(being polite:p)

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-50D-vs-Canon-EOS-5D

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-60D-vs-Canon-EOS-7D
Click to expand...
I havn't looked TBH, I'm not sure why you think I need to look at these when I've owned both bodies :thinking:

But the OP wants video and the 5d1 doesn't do that. The 50d does with magic lantern (rather well too) but needs a stand alone mike / audio (and sync'd in post) as it doesn't have one built in so neither is ideal, so that falls back to the 7d again...
 
Last edited:
7D is a fine camera but it has limitations. It is a sports cameras, it is not great for low light.
 
Im changing systems but keeping my 7D just incase :)
 
ecoleman said:
The mkii is a far superior camera. The original 7D was never very good at high ISO stuff and if I remember correctly auto focus could be a bit hit and miss.

I use a 6D and a 7Dmkii how and whilst the 7D will never match the 6D in high ISO performance, I'm quite happy pushing the ISO on the 7Dii

If you're shooting mainly landscapes, the 6D is an excellent choice.
Click to expand...


I have to say, when you expose correctly the Mk was fine at 1600 ISO. It's focus system was class leading at the time, again, you just need to learn how to drive it. I now have a Mk2, which is a better camera, but it has had a number of years to develop.

If you want to shoot a moving target and don't have a big budget, it's a good piece of kit....
 
Yeah reading above it did have its weaknesses but it was a top consumer unit if you wanted better you go up a level, guess thats the same with most systems! :)
 
I'm just moved to comment about the noisiness of cameras at 400/800 ISO and usage of words such as "terrible."

I'm sure I'm not looking back with rose tinted glasses as I have thousands of shots on my pc and hard drives taken at ISO 400+ with terrible cameras and they look good to me. Not that I'm any great artisan, I'm not, so I'll encourage anyone making these comments to Google their way to pictures taken with these cameras at these terrible ISO's by people who really do know what they're doing in the hope that people will be a little more balanced and kinder to these cameras which IMO are capable of very good results with just a little care and skill.
 
Last edited:
I had the 7d mk1 and just couldn't get on with it but the mk2 is suppose to be a big improvement but at a much bigger price so i have turned to Nikon :)
 
You get what you pay for. I was looking at the 7d mk1 (used obviously) because all I'm after is a better fps burst than my current camera, then saw that the 50d also has a better burst rate than my current camera. It is cheaper than the 7d, I not fussed about video or the iso capabilities (noised to some degree can be reduced in post and camera craft) and judging by @Jelster post not a big issue anyway.
 
Archie747 said:
Jelster, did you have to apply much noise reduction? (Great photos)
Click to expand...

None at all in the first image, the meerkat, I did apply a little as the background was so dark, but only a bit in LR, so nothing special. That Meerkat shot was using an EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, so not a magic lens either.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
5Dmkii is at least twice the price of 7Dmki though, as tempting as it looks.

I just remember when the 7D was released, everyone raved about it. It was the thing to have. Surely it has something going for it, or was it all down to Canon's marketing, creating a new xd series, effectively having everyone thinking "Wow, it's a pro camera for those on a budget"? Now it all seems a bit "Meh..."
Click to expand...
Yes it does, there's nothing in the Canon line to touch it at the price. We paid £1200 for our first one, still in regular use, it's not really built for landscape work, but if that's what your need is, it's a great buy, plenty of pixels and DR if you keep the ISO reasonable.

Most people who slag it off have never owned one (we had 2 until last year). It's not that there isn't anything 'better' , just that it will cost loads more.
 
I find the current used price for the 7Di surprisingly low. The price for used 70Ds is substantially more. I know it is a newer model, but is it that much better? I know which one I prefer.
 
70D?
 
woof woof said:
I'm just moved to comment about the noisiness of cameras at 400/800 ISO and usage of words such as "terrible."

I'm sure I'm not looking back with rose tinted glasses as I have thousands of shots on my pc and hard drives taken at ISO 400+ with terrible cameras and they look good to me. Not that I'm any great artisan, I'm not, so I'll encourage anyone making these comments to Google their way to pictures taken with these cameras at these terrible ISO's by people who really do know what they're doing in the hope that people will be a little more balanced and kinder to these cameras which IMO are capable of very good results with just a little care and skill.
Click to expand...
I've got an A3 print of Petter Solberg shot at 1600 on a 300d. It's better than anything I could've got on film at the time, by a factor of 10 at least. Compared to my 6d it's poor, but jeez ... Kids nowadays. ;)
 
n0chex said:
70D?
Click to expand...
I remember the 70d release, the word was, it's got some things the 7d hasn't, and for less money too. Plus the focussing and speed is nearly as good. The IQ nigh on identical.

So if the floppy screen and WIFI are worth the extra to you, go for it, but for the price difference the 7d is a no-brainer.
 
Phil V said:
I've got an A3 print of Petter Solberg shot at 1600 on a 300d. It's better than anything I could've got on film at the time, by a factor of 10 at least. Compared to my 6d it's poor, but jeez ... Kids nowadays. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, I had a 300D and I took some of my favourite digital shots with it and quite a few at ISO 1600. I had a 10D and a 20D and kept the 20D for over 7 years. Whilst I'll happily accept that the higher ISO's of these cameras aren't up to modern standards and if you under expose and boost post capture there's noise if you can expose well and avoid post capture boosts or even expose to the right and back it off later the results at 1600 can be good and 3200 acceptable. Avoiding cropping can help too.

I know this is the internet and we can go a little far sometimes but I would like to see more qualification rather than rather extreme and blanket statements.
 
I'd also recommend the 7d for that kinda price. You won't get a perfect camera, read the 5dmk4 or 1dx2 threads, people still want more.
 
Phil V said:
I've got an A3 print of Petter Solberg shot at 1600 on a 300d. It's better than anything I could've got on film at the time, by a factor of 10 at least. Compared to my 6d it's poor, but jeez ... Kids nowadays. ;)
Click to expand...

I won a competition once, had my wining image taken on a 300d displayed on a 7 story high digital advertising hording in Manchester :D

From what I remember had a slight delay from pressing the button to the shutter firing..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top