Upgrading for a 7D which way to go? (1 Viewer)

[temmie]

It’s not hard to show perfect pictures with any modern dslr in perfect circumstances (especially good light). I got a picture of a rufous-backed Inca finch in the handbook of the birds of the world, with a 7D and 300mm f4 lens. The problem arises in suboptimal circumstances like low light or necessity to focus very fast, and the 7Dii was ok back in the days when there wasn’t much better, but in comparison with eg an R5 or R6 it’s simply outdated.

If you are in a hut and taking pictures every day in the best morning light of stationary objects, any dslr can shine with a good lens. If you go out walking in a forest and have to take it as it comes, 95% of shots are in suboptimal circumstances, and the worse your dynamic range and sensor, the less keepers you will have at the end of the day.

 

[WildPhotographer]

I would second that. I'm still very happy with my 7Dii. I'm tempted by the R5, of course, but it sounds like a lot of money and a lot of hassle (necessary upgrading of the computer etc etc) for slightly fewer pixels per bird. If the rumoured R7 (cheaper APSC version of the R5) actually materialises I might be more tempted though....

Hi Steve, interesting that you say "tempted by the R5.." Canon are extremely guilty for only promoting the R5 whereas most professionals are actually buying and using the R6.... Identical capabilities, lacking only the small display on the top (not useful) and the unnecessary large 45Mp sensor.

I'm outspoken as I have been using Canon professionally for 30 years. 45Mpix is not an advantage, but a big problem: the files not only take a great deal of space, but they are hard to process, in many cases necessitating a new laptop or computer. The sensor in the R6 is the same one used in the flagship EOS-1X III, has class leading low-light capability and 20Mpix is more than enough to print a billboard advertisement. The biggest advantage is reduced cost - an R6 can now be purchased for under £2,000, so significantly affordable. Strangely my 'standard' lens for birding is now the extremely affordable RF800mm f/11. Strangely, because on paper this lens looks to be unusable in low light, but I have been using it year-round for over a year, getting some beautiful images as it is sharp and the stabilisation is superb. It is also light; camera and lens weigh only 1500g / 3LB, the same as the EF100-400mm lens alone.

Having said all this I have been using an Olympus system for recent trip to Spain. The Olympus cameras are micro43, so the sensor is half the size of full frame, smaller than on a 7D II, meaning that a 300mm lens is effectively 600mm (so a 600mm f/4 equivalent is less than £2k, versus £13k on full frame!) Based on the extremely positive experience of the Oly, I have just ordered the new OM-Systems (Olympus) OM-1. The the specs are superb, image quality from the RAW files is lovely and the camera is light + the lenses very sharp and very affordable.

 

[mike nesbitt]

I doubt that anyone would disagree that the R5/R6 are superior performers to an ageing 7D2. That said mirrorless was ruled out in the very early days of the thread and isn't even a moot point in that respect.
Several peoples opinions are that they're still happy with their 7D2 and that it can still do a job, it's without question that it can.
Neither of the images I showed were taken in huts but on general walk around as are the majority of the images I take. I prefer not to walk through forests but I would certainly take a FF low light performer if I did.

 

[WildPhotographer]

I doubt that anyone would disagree that the R5/R6 are superior performers to an ageing 7D2. That said mirrorless was ruled out in the very early days of the thread and isn't even a moot point in that respect.
Several peoples opinions are that they're still happy with their 7D2 and that it can still do a job, it's without question that it can.
Neither of the images I showed were taken in huts but on general walk around as are the majority of the images I take. I prefer not to walk through forests but I would certainly take a FF low light performer if I did.

Nice pictures Mike. The 7D II has always been excellent, with the same AF system as the 1Dx and simple to use. It is now great value and as many have said, continues to work well. Like you, I walk around; rarely, if ever, go into hides. One of the best combinations was aways with the Canon EF100-400 and a 1.4x converter, or with a Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm lens.

I think your comment about the R5/R6 being superior performers is very valid, if the cameras are setup correctly. Out of the box, they are dauntingly complex and many are returned to dealers because they are too intimidating.

 

[Dave Williams]

As has been pointed out by myself and others @postcardcv is more than happy with his purchase. He doesn't want to spend a fortune on a new body and why should he, it's obviously not a priority in life as it might be for some of us!

The discussion now has been all about which bit of kit is best and has little relevance to a budget of circa £500 as we have leaped in to £000's..

I got drawn in too!!

 

[Dave Williams]

One of the best combinations was aways with the Canon EF100-400 and a 1.4x converter, or with a Sigma / Tamron 150-600mm lens.

I think your comment about the R5/R6 being superior performers is very valid, if the cameras are setup correctly. Out of the box, they are dauntingly complex and many are returned to dealers because they are too intimidating.

A bit like the 7D2 "was" is the key word when it comes to the 100-400 Mk 2 plus 1.4TC. A superb lens that with the TC gives you 140-560mm of reach. Better still with the R5 and presumably the R6 and R3 which I have no experience of, allows full AF point coverage across the sensor. Better still, with a 2.0x you have 200-800 with full AF point availability too despite it being f11. (You can't do that even on a 1DX2 unless you shoot live view which is far from satisfactory)You are of course compromised in speed and light but it's doable.
The "new" kid on the block is the RF100-500 which gives almost as much reach at 500mm but without a TC. Again, light and AF speed is compromised with a 1.4TC ( I haven't tried using a 2.0x and probably won't ) but you have 700mm at f10. A better option than the Sigma too in my opinion. It's biggest design fault for me is that if you stick a TC on the lens it becomes a 420-700 zoom. Fine for most birding situations but not necessarily for bigger creatures or sports.
The cheapest...let's re-phrase that....the least expensive option for long reach is undoubtedly the 800mm f11 but that isn't without it's drawbacks too.
The field of view is narrow, it's a prime so obviously not as flexible as a zoom and the construction, although clever, is not as robust as "L" class lenses.The minimum focus distance is quite long and it comes without a lens hood or a tripod foot. The latter I find disappointing not because I want to mount it on a tripod but it lacks an obvious way to carry it around. F11 is light challenging although it copes better than I thought because the IS and higher ISO abilities of modern cameras allow you to use lower shutter speeds. That said wildlife is prone to move so that negates the latter advantages. No, the 800mm is an excellent buy for the budget, it is capable of very sharp images but buyer beware. Attached to an R body you only get to use a centre block of about 25 % of the sensor coverage. I'm sure talented photographers can cope but I feel challenged that I can't use the AF points and eye detect to compose some shots as I would like.
Out of interest, and for me as I get older the weight is critical, the R5 plus single battery and the 800mm weighs in at 2.055kg. Light as a feather! With a 1.4 TC it weighs 2.285kg but at f16 most definitely light challenged.
The 100-500 with and added QR plate for a carry handle with R5 etc weighs 2.5kg, add the 1.4 and it weighs 2.73kg. In my opinion by far the better buy but it comes at a cost but there again most things do and it's a case of compromise or budget.
The R5 etc with an EF-R adaptor plus 500mmf4 Mk2, replacement lightweight QR tripod foot and 1.4TC comes in at a fairly hefty 4.8kg. Fine for younger bodies but mine struggles to cope carrying it too far nowadays but what a magnificent combination it makes!

I bought the R5 over the R6, after much consideration I might add, and I have no regrets. It's expensive, and yes I had to buy extras to go with it. CFexpress cards, a bigger SD card, extra batteries and a new desktop which I was due anyway and probably in due course some more external hard drives. Of all the camera bodies I have owned including 2 Nikon and 7 Canon DSLR's right up to the 1DX2, this is the biggest leap in technology by far.
This body brings to the table what the 7D2 probably did on it's launch. I can't see needing an upgrade for years to come by which time I'm sure those who are new to the game will be wondering what an earth is the old codger doing with that bit of ancient rubbish. He needs to upgrade to the R23 not the R12 at a fraction of the price. I will hopefully still be taking pictures purely for the pleasure of it though and for me the thrill is, and always will be , being there to take the shot and hopefully get a reasonable image in to the bargain. I could still possibly get that on a 7D2 and saved a fortune on all those 1 & 5D's I have owned and sold but for the moment 45mp and eye detect rules the roost!!
Shrouds don't have pockets as they say!

 

[WildPhotographer]

The 7D II was (and still is) an excellent and very capable camera. Apologies for my disruption. Perhaps the R5/R6 and related conversation should be moved away from this thread?

 

[Steve Gantlett]

Hi Steve, interesting that you say "tempted by the R5.." Canon are extremely guilty for only promoting the R5 whereas most professionals are actually buying and using the R6.... Identical capabilities, lacking only the small display on the top (not useful) and the unnecessary large 45Mp sensor.

I'm outspoken as I have been using Canon professionally for 30 years. 45Mpix is not an advantage, but a big problem: the files not only take a great deal of space, but they are hard to process, in many cases necessitating a new laptop or computer. The sensor in the R6 is the same one used in the flagship EOS-1X III, has class leading low-light capability and 20Mpix is more than enough to print a billboard advertisement. The biggest advantage is reduced cost - an R6 can now be purchased for under £2,000, so significantly affordable. Strangely my 'standard' lens for birding is now the extremely affordable RF800mm f/11. Strangely, because on paper this lens looks to be unusable in low light, but I have been using it year-round for over a year, getting some beautiful images as it is sharp and the stabilisation is superb. It is also light; camera and lens weigh only 1500g / 3LB, the same as the EF100-400mm lens alone.

Having said all this I have been using an Olympus system for recent trip to Spain. The Olympus cameras are micro43, so the sensor is half the size of full frame, smaller than on a 7D II, meaning that a 300mm lens is effectively 600mm (so a 600mm f/4 equivalent is less than £2k, versus £13k on full frame!) Based on the extremely positive experience of the Oly, I have just ordered the new OM-Systems (Olympus) OM-1. The the specs are superb, image quality from the RAW files is lovely and the camera is light + the lenses very sharp and very affordable.

Really interesting comments and plenty of food for thought. Thank you! Yes, I'm thinking about Olympus too. How can I get close to a 7Dii and an 800mm lens with that? It needs to be an 800 x1.6 = 1280mm full frame equivalent. Is that possible with Olympus? If not, it's back to the R5/R6 (or potential R7) dilemma. For my style of bird photography - very often dots in the middle of the frame – I surely need the extra pixel density of the R5 over the R6?

 

[pbjosh]

I appreciate this conversation. I'm still happy enough with my 7DII, as I basically only use my camera for ID shots of seabirds. I've not played with the R5/R6 but I when I last tried other cameras (2018/2019) I found even the top of the line Sony offerings woefully inadequate in terms of being able to find a distant tubenose against the ocean with the electrical view finder. Thus the optical view finder was the defining feature for me of not upgrading - even if the resulting image is horrifically bad and the bird is only like 30-40-50 pixels long, you can frequently ID with it. So getting the bird in view and knowing if you're focusing correctly with such tiny targets and so much focus hunting is more important for my use than the image quality.

I also have an RX10IV, and I'm overall underwhelmed as, again, I'm more interested in getting usable ID shots in difficult circumstances than the resulting image quality. The camera is much lighter / more compact than a DSLR but the EVF makes it pretty useless for seabirds and swifts, and challenging for a warbler or antwren in the canopy.

I'm sure my camera desires / priorities do not align with most other peoples however I almost invariably just reformat the card after a day shooting, unless I have something interesting from a rarity / ID perspective. Photo processing is something I enjoy less than cleaning the toilet, quite honestly.

 

[max1]

This is a really useful thread for me, as a battle-scarred but generally very content owner of the 7Dii and 100-400ii combination. I was close to pressing the button on an R6 recently until the rumours of a not-too-distant R7 became louder....realistically not likely to be in our shops until late this year at the earliest, given chip shortages etc. Masterly/miserly inaction on my part so far , but the R6 is still winking at me and the file size problems of the R5 seems insuperable to someone allergic to spending even more time in post-production .

 

[Dave Williams]

This is a really useful thread for me, as a battle-scarred but generally very content owner of the 7Dii and 100-400ii combination. I was close to pressing the button on an R6 recently until the rumours of a not-too-distant R7 became louder....realistically not likely to be in our shops until late this year at the earliest, given chip shortages etc. Masterly/miserly inaction on my part so far , but the R6 is still winking at me and the file size problems of the R5 seems insuperable to someone allergic to spending even more time in post-production .

The R5 does have a 17mb crop option in camera. I don't spend any more time in PP than I ever have done but I do spend more time deciding which and deleting the images I don't want. 20 FPS produces an insane amount of images.

 

[WildPhotographer]

Really interesting comments and plenty of food for thought. Thank you! Yes, I'm thinking about Olympus too. How can I get close to a 7Dii and an 800mm lens with that? It needs to be an 800 x1.6 = 1280mm full frame equivalent. Is that possible with Olympus? If not, it's back to the R5/R6 (or potential R7) dilemma. For my style of bird photography - very often dots in the middle of the frame – I surely need the extra pixel density of the R5 over the R6?

Hi Steve,
The new Olympus will, based on the RAW files I have been playing with, I think exceed the image quality from 7D II, certainly dynamic range, by around 1.5stops. I have not yet had hands on, but friends who have suggest AF is exceptional and I expect it to exceed my R6s (R5 too).

In terms of lenses, there are options: I have been using the 300mm f/4 prime with a 2x converter (check my Kestrel in the gallery) and had some lovely results when it was not too hot (heat haze plagues all lenses and scopes over 1000mm). Because of the smaller sensor, the 300mm lens is effectively 600 + 2x convertor = 1200mm. For general use, I would suggest the 1.4 and getting a little closer as their is less risk of atmospheric image degradation.

A second option is the 100-400mm lens (£1,000 approx) equivalent to 800mm + 1.4x or 2x converter.

 

[max1]

The R5 does have a 17mb crop option in camera. I don't spend any more time in PP than I ever have done but I do spend more time deciding which and deleting the images I don't want. 20 FPS produces an insane amount of images.

Thanks Dave; I didnt know about being able to cap the mb's on an R5. Does raise a question as to whether you're paying for the 45 Mpix chip and then not using the capacity (I have no idea if that's significant)? Your point about the 20 frames a second is well made; lots of time scrolling through to find the bird has barely moved and 3 shots would have been plenty !!

 

[WildPhotographer]

This is a really useful thread for me, as a battle-scarred but generally very content owner of the 7Dii and 100-400ii combination. I was close to pressing the button on an R6 recently until the rumours of a not-too-distant R7 became louder....realistically not likely to be in our shops until late this year at the earliest, given chip shortages etc. Masterly/miserly inaction on my part so far , but the R6 is still winking at me and the file size problems of the R5 seems insuperable to someone allergic to spending even more time in post-production .

Max, the rumours of the crop-sensor EOS mirrorless grow louder, be patient....

The R6 is an excellent camera (the reason I have two), but Canon have made some very big mistakes on the lens front and it is incredibly frustrating. The obvious lens option would be the 100-500mm zoom. But it does not play well with extenders. If you add an extender, the lens has to be zoomed out to 300mm, so it become physically longer to carry and it can only be used in the range 300-500mm, so 420-700mm with 1.4x or 600-1000mm with the 2x

To counter this Canon haver recently launched a cheap, plastic 100-400mm lens for £600 that does work with the converters, but I dare anyone to drop it... Perhaps you may understand why my standard lens has become an RF800mm f/11 IS STM? It works, is light and cheap, but I dare not bang or drop it!

Did I mention that the Pro photographers favourite option, a 70-200mm zoom with 1.4x is no longer possible? The lenses are incompatible with converters. Canon have made some serious errors of judgement in the last couple of years. Olympus lenses, on the other hand are metal, light, well-priced and very sharp...

 

[WildPhotographer]

The R5 does have a 17mb crop option in camera. I don't spend any more time in PP than I ever have done but I do spend more time deciding which and deleting the images I don't want. 20 FPS produces an insane amount of images.

I experimented very briefly with a Sony A7 RIV that offered a 26Mp crop in camera. The noise levels were terrible, even under 1000 iso, so it went back. The R5 will be much cleaner for noise, so a good way to get closer, but expensive. Waiting for the R7 may be better?

Frame rates on the R5 can be set at any level you want, as long as you don't use the silent electronic shutter, which is fixed at 20fps, depending on the card speed and AF settings. It also reduces dynamic range by around ½ stop.

 

[max1]

a lot to absorb, Nick, but then you've got masses of hands-on experience to impart as an owner of R6's (plural !) and R5. The nod to be patient for the 'R7' sounds like excellent money-saving advice.

 

[WildPhotographer]

a lot to absorb, Nick, but then you've got masses of hands-on experience to impart as an owner of R6's (plural !) and R5. The nod to be patient for the 'R7' sounds like excellent money-saving advice.

Always happy to help with info Max. Your may have seen on the website that I've been doing this for a while and lucky enough to have some very interesting projects with Canon and a few others

 

[Steve Gantlett]

Hi Steve,
The new Olympus will, based on the RAW files I have been playing with, I think exceed the image quality from 7D II, certainly dynamic range, by around 1.5stops. I have not yet had hands on, but friends who have suggest AF is exceptional and I expect it to exceed my R6s (R5 too).

In terms of lenses, there are options: I have been using the 300mm f/4 prime with a 2x converter (check my Kestrel in the gallery) and had some lovely results when it was not too hot (heat haze plagues all lenses and scopes over 1000mm). Because of the smaller sensor, the 300mm lens is effectively 600 + 2x convertor = 1200mm. For general use, I would suggest the 1.4 and getting a little closer as their is less risk of atmospheric image degradation.

A second option is the 100-400mm lens (£1,000 approx) equivalent to 800mm + 1.4x or 2x converter.

Thanks again. I'm currently still waiting to see if an R7 turns up, but definitely looking at possibly moving to Olympus instead. So the Oly 300mm f4 prime can be used well with either a 1.4x or a 2x converter. Interesting... Atmospherics aside, would you say there is a noticeable drop in sharpness if swapping the 1.4x to the 2x with this lens, or not really? And do you know how sharp and how responsive in comparison the Oly 100-400 is at 400 with at 1.4x at least?

 

[WildPhotographer]

Thanks again. I'm currently still waiting to see if an R7 turns up, but definitely looking at possibly moving to Olympus instead. So the Oly 300mm f4 prime can be used well with either a 1.4x or a 2x converter. Interesting... Atmospherics aside, would you say there is a noticeable drop in sharpness if swapping the 1.4x to the 2x with this lens, or not really? And do you know how sharp and how responsive in comparison the Oly 100-400 is at 400 with at 1.4x at least?

R7 will turn up this year, not sure when though.

No drop in sharpness on 300/4 with either. I have to stress atmospherics though on a hot day, both can suffer, but obviously the 2x is more affected, It all comes down to subject distance. I digiscope and learned a lot of lessons when I started! I have the Kestrel image with both TCs and there is no visible difference, bar the magnification. On the E-M1X, both are extremely responsive, dare I say, surprisingly so? The OM-1 has new processors, so I anticipate faster still.

 

[Dave Williams]

I experimented very briefly with a Sony A7 RIV that offered a 26Mp crop in camera. The noise levels were terrible, even under 1000 iso, so it went back. The R5 will be much cleaner for noise, so a good way to get closer, but expensive. Waiting for the R7 may be better?

Frame rates on the R5 can be set at any level you want, as long as you don't use the silent electronic shutter, which is fixed at 20fps, depending on the card speed and AF settings. It also reduces dynamic range by around ½ stop.

I tend to use electronic shutter because it's silent which, particularly in a public hide, is a huge advantage not only for not disturbing wildlife but the other people in the hide!
I would love to know how you can limit the frames per second in the other two modes. If you could tell me how it would be most appreciated because I can't figure it out. Might be very useful on occasions.