What can a 7D produce

EMA747

EMA747

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,070
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I am thinking about getting a Canon 7D and was just wondering what sports shots it is capable of producing in the right hands (not mine :D).
 
The 7D is a very capable sports shooter, but like most camera's you need to put a good lens in front of it to get consistently good shots. That and a good eye for a photo of course. But if you've got a 1D mk4 then I'd probably just use that, its as good as it gets !!
 
Hi Andy,

With the 7D it's all about the set up.
I have had a 7D for about a year now and have been pleased with it. The important bit is to look at Canon's dercriptions of the way the focussing operates in each mode.
I don't photograph sport, as such, but have spent the last 3 years photographing low level military aircraft. This is as extreme as you can get, and really tests the focussing....and does the job admirably.

Hope this helps,

Philip
 
The pics on my thread, Gateshead vs Rushden are with a 7d. Bear in mind that I am using a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and not a Canon lens so quality would no doubt be better with a Canon lens. I await critique on the pics I've just put up but I don't think they are too bad.
 
Hang on a sec, the OP has a 1D4 ?

Why don't you just use that ?
 
Olly_K said:
Hang on a sec, the OP has a 1D4 ?

Why don't you just use that ?
Click to expand...
I had a 1DmkIV. Sorry for the confusion. I sold it to put money into some video gear and kind of regret selling it now. I might replace it with a 7D and 5DmkII OR another 1DmkIV.
 
Andy, Dave's already given you the best piece of advice on your other thread.
 
Sports shot under tricky lighting conditions (well, more or less none at all...) with the 7D.

Images. You can continue with right arrow if you want to see more.
 
Bit misleading Anders to say those photos were taken with no light since you used a flash for all of them :)

I have to say to the contrary the 7D's biggest weakness seems to be low light situations. It doesn't seem to be a patch of either the 1DIII/IV or the 5DII in terms of low noise. I find once you push the ISO as 'high' as 800 or 1000 you can pretty much forget about cropping.

That's my personal experience anyway.
 
At ISO 800 the 7D is still cruising. At 1600 I can produce crops up to 25-30% of the original frame size that are still easily acceptable for print and screen, whilst at 3200-6400 I'd try to stick to 50% or so.

12,800 images are still usable under lights.
 
Have a look at any of the Kingstonian sets in my flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/minky_monkey/sets/

And those are shot only mostly using a 70-200mm f4 IS, with a few from a 100-400 is decent light, so not using mega bucks lenses.

There's all the matches, so there's daylight/floodlit shots and pretty much all the weather that you encounter too!
 
What about the 7D in low light? What is the lowest iso people have used for sports and had decent pics?
 
Russ77 said:
The second link in my post were shot at ISO1600 - ISO6400
Click to expand...

Hi Russ, Just had a look at the exif on the second link.

f/5 @1/1600 sec indicates the light was still relatively good. A better indicator would be an exposure at f/2.8 @ 1/500 sec, That would show the High ISO handling in a better way.
 
Tugster said:
Hi Russ, Just had a look at the exif on the second link.

f/5 @1/1600 sec indicates the light was still relatively good. A better indicator would be an exposure at f/2.8 @ 1/500 sec, That would show the High ISO handling in a better way.
Click to expand...

TBH I can't tell what pictures are what 'cos I can't see photobucket stuff at work :lol:

None of those shots would be at f2.8 as only my 50mm opens that wide.
 
I'm quite happy using 3200 under floodlights, however that's with an f4 70-200mm. I do use noise reduction software, but can get reasonable images from it.

6400 is a bit too noisy for me tbh.
 
mjukphoto said:
Bit misleading Anders to say those photos were taken with no light since you used a flash for all of them :)
Click to expand...
It's not just taking the picture, it's also the question about aiming and focusing. The 7D performed surprisingly well there.

Regarding the inevitable noise at high ISO, I'm of the opinion that if that's a problem in action photos, then the action is too dull.
 
A good photographer will be able to produce good shots no matter what the spec of the camera.

It's not as if you can say all photos taken 5 years ago, when the latest cameras weren't around, were rubbish.
 
Ploddles said:
A good photographer will be able to produce good shots no matter what the spec of the camera.
.
Click to expand...

Sorry but thats complete and utter rubbish. When I am in a dim sports hall with no flash allowed.. at iso 12800 and f1.8 on a 50mm shooting at 200 shutter... capturing sport... There arnt a great lot of cameras that could even take a picture. I can give you lots more examples where only a top spec camera could get the shot and a low end camera would get nothing..

However on a nice day my 4k camera and 6.5k lens isnt going to produce a better picture of a plant pot than some mobile phones :)
 
So no one ever shot any decent photos in a sports hall 5 years ago without the latest gear you have available now?
 
Ploddles said:
So no one ever shot any decent photos in a sports hall 5 years ago without the latest gear you have available now?
Click to expand...

why 5 yrs ago? why not 10, 15 or 20

Is that it BTW? is that the only thing you can bring to the debate? I can give other examples but you seem to have come unstuck wiht just the one :)
 
KIPAX said:
why 5 yrs ago? why not 10, 15 or 20

Is that it BTW? is that the only thing you can bring to the debate? I can give other examples but you seem to have come unstuck wiht just the one :)
Click to expand...

Indeed why not 10 or more years ago. All I am saying is that you don't have to have the latest and greatest to be able to take great photos.

Everyone on here says upgrade the glass before the body and that is also the general consensus in the wider world. Following your logic then this isn't the case.

If we were at the same match and we switched bodies and you used my old 350D and I used one of your 1DMkIVs, you would still take far better shots than me. You are a great experienced sports photographer and I am an inexperience hobbyist.

Following your logic then, photos you take now will be utter rubbish compared to what you will be able to produce when the 1DMkVI comes out in xx years time and everything you did in the past with a 1DMkII were also not up to scratch and should never have seen the light of day.

All I am saying then is that you don't have to have the latest and greatest for the shots to be any good. The photographer is more important than the gear, otherwise every Tom, Dick or Harry could go out and buy the latest gear and put seasoned pros with older gear out of work.
 
I know where Kipax is coming from with this, I have a 450D and a 500D and fasten a canon 300mm f/2.8 IS or a 70-200 f/2.8 IS

I can sit at the side of a cricket pitch in summer and shoot all day no problems with a shutter speed of 1/1000 or higher and my shots will be just as good as Kipax with his 1Dmk4 and the same lens etc (Ok probably not due to his experiance and ability to shoot 10fps). But put me at Accy Stanley (Where Kipax shoots and alot of the other smaller grounds) I would struggle I could go up to ISO of 3200 I think it will go higher in H1 and H2 I think but the shots would need a hell of a lot of work to get them usable in colour. The ability to increase your ISO allows you to get the shutter speed to stop the action decent high ISO performance is what allows you to get the quality of image required. yes you can fix things with noise reduction processing but in the profesional world where the images need to be wired in real time you can't spend a few minutes processing them.

Now as a hobby you can afford to not get the shot occasionally, but think about it if its how you earn a living can you not put food on the table or fill the car with fuel? If the equipment is there to allow you to work in all conditions then you need to have it.

Back in the day photos in newspapers were black and white and quite poor print quality, now the demands a higher needed in colour and printed to a much higher quality even printed full page where before they used to be tiny almost thumbnails. The standard required is now a lot higher than what it was and they are wanted almost instantly.

I just want a 1Dmk4 or 2 for the sake of it and am saving up, yes I could get by with a 7D but somthing inside me would always say there is somthing better.
 
I agree and haven't said anything against that. I am all for making things easier for you if you can afford it. If the technology is there, why not use it. But if you can't afford it you can make do with lesser and still produce great shots.
 
Ploddles said:
I agree and haven't said anything against that. I am all for making things easier for you if you can afford it. If the technology is there, why not use it. But if you can't afford it you can make do with lesser and still produce great shots.
Click to expand...

I AGREE... but thats not what you originally said.. and I can prove that equipment does count and that sometimes no matter how brilliant the photogrpaher ..cant get the shot if his equipment isnt up to it... extreme circumstances :) I certainly dont subscribe to a good photogrpqaher will get the shot no matter what equipment
 
On a dark afternoon in November I took some shots at a rugby match, had to stop shooting at half time as my 400D could only go up to ISO1600 and my lens was f5.6-6.5. Couldn't get the shutter speed high enough to stop blurring.

Now in Kipax's hands that camera/lens combo may have been able to get a few more usable shots but otherwise the limits of the equipment has been reached and only the first half was shot.

Fast forward to January when I got my 7D, a similarly dark afternoon but due to being able to shoot at ISO3200/6400 I got usable shots right up to the final whistle.

I think new technology is enabling more people to take more shots that they wouldn't have got 5+ years ago, with the exception of the very talented pros with very expensive equipment.
 
All I was originally saying was that equipment isn't everything, and you seem to agree with me when you said:-

KIPAX said:
just had a glance.. nothing there i couldnt have done with my old 10d
Click to expand...

The OP said in his first post "in the right hands".

You personally could produce far better results with older, less able, equipment than I could with the all the latest gear and it does come down to "in the right hands".

So, in a round about way, we are agreeing to some extent and I'll leave it at that.
 
Ploddles said:
The OP said in his first post "in the right hands".
Click to expand...

I read that as a bit of a tongue in cheek comment ;) :lol:

I'm more than happy with my 7D 15-85mm combo (even my GF can see a difference in the images I take with it compared to my old set up) but I'm sure someone with a greater level of skill than me could do even better :)
 
Even with the top kit you still have know how to use it and get the best from it.

What is also very important is the abillity to second nature adjust for changing conditions. Changing ISO, SS or Aperture as though it was part of your body.

You can't buy the skill of timing, Time and experience shooting the subject is the only way to improve that split second timing and then you still need an element of luck.
I tried to explain to Super League clubs Communications manager, about the need for the the abillity to anticipate the action and it wasn'ty just a matter of screaming 20 sequence shots off. Its the abillity to be in the right place with a prime lens to get the picture framed correctly, Exposure correct and an acceptable background.

Its true technology has helped in a lot of ways but the above comments will never change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top