7d good all around camera?

zach30345 · February 21, 2011

Hi, Im looking at buying the 7d I mainly shoot hockey, sometimes with strobes sometimes without. I also shoot a variety of other sports but at the same time I am trying to build my portfolio up in all other areas as well especially portraits. Is the 7d a good all around camera, I currently use a xsi so i know anything would be a huge upgrade.

mercphoto · February 21, 2011

I think you'd find a 7D to be a huge step forward. Especially for poorly lit sporting venues.

zach30345 · February 21, 2011

thats what im hoping to accomplish with it, this past weekend i was in a really poor lit rink and thats when i realized i needed to upgrade

ziggy53 · February 21, 2011

The Canon 7D is a major upgrade from the dRebel XSi, but it still might struggle to AF sports/action in some hockey type lighting. Renting first would give you the best idea whether the 7D would work for you.

ThatCanonGuy · February 21, 2011

The 7D is the best all-around camera IMHO, it has the highest pixel density, 8fps, etc. Very good high ISO as well.

Sent from my Palm TX using Softick PPP (not Tapatalk).

mercphoto · February 21, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

The Canon 7D is a major upgrade from the dRebel XSi, but it still might struggle to AF sports/action in some hockey type lighting. Renting first would give you the best idea whether the 7D would work for you.

That's a good suggestion. And I agree, the 7D might struggle a bit in hockey arenas, best to try first. But I'm quite sure it would be better than the XSi, and I'm also betting the OP doesn't have a budget for a 1D Mark IV.

mercphoto · February 21, 2011

ZacharyBarron wrote: »

thats what im hoping to accomplish with it, this past weekend i was in a really poor lit rink and thats when i realized i needed to upgrade

Also, are you using 2.8 or faster glass?

davev · February 21, 2011

What lenses will you be putting on this camera?

zach30345 · February 21, 2011

for hockey i use a 300 f4 and i almost always have access to strobes to bounce off the ceiling and my budget is about $1600, i am really looking for the best all around camera for that money. also thanks for the help, renting sounds like a great idea.

ziggy53 · February 21, 2011

ZacharyBarron wrote: »

for hockey i use a 300 f4 and i almost always have access to strobes to bounce off the ceiling and my budget is about $1600, i am really looking for the best all around camera for that money. also thanks for the help, renting sounds like a great idea.

In that case also rent an EF 135mm, f2L USM or the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM. Using an f4 lens, even though the lens is very nice for outdoor sports, will probably not do so well indoors.

A lens with a maximum aperture of at least f2.8 will activate the high-precision capabilities of the center AF sensor. That should give you the best chance in a low-light arena. An f2 lens will also allow 4 times the light for the AF sensor (compared to f4), allowing for faster AF response.

zach30345 · February 21, 2011

I would love to get a 300 2.8 one day but i simply cannot afford it right now. Hopefully in the future someday. I will have to look into those other lenses.

Overfocused · February 21, 2011

Referring to the "all around" question: hell yeah

But that's just it: all around. It's a jack of all trades type camera.

I agree with the others' suggestions. I'd rent one for a day to see if it struggles or not in your main applications and then go in for the plunge. Either way, compared to your current camera you'll be like "HOT DAMN THIS IS AMAZING!!!"

Brett1000 · February 24, 2011

ZacharyBarron wrote: »

Hi, Im looking at buying the 7d I mainly shoot hockey, sometimes with strobes sometimes without. I also shoot a variety of other sports but at the same time I am trying to build my portfolio up in all other areas as well especially portraits. Is the 7d a good all around camera, I currently use a xsi so i know anything would be a huge upgrade.

if you shoot a lot of action/sports like hockey the 7D would be a nice upgrade.

divamum · February 24, 2011

I went from an xsi, to a 50d, to a 7d. No doubt about it: the 7d is an absolutely fantastic machine, which (IMO) outperforms everything other Canon I've used. Sure, for astounding high ISO and ff-yumminess the 5dII would be a better choice (and I aspire to FF in due course), but it's still more expensive and doesn't have the zippy AF or dual processors for speed.

In comparison to the xsi you will DEFINITELY see a big upgrade in terms of handling and speed; I think you'll be very happy with it.

FWIW, I actually use mine mostly for portraits - the 5dII simply wasn't in my budget, and the 7d offered the best combination of ISO performance and features that I could afford. While the high ISO of the 7d can't match the 5dII, it's certainly no slouch and - when accurately exposed - seriously outperforms the xsi at 1600 (and above). No complaints from me!

bbjones · February 24, 2011

ZacharyBarron wrote: »

I would love to get a 300 2.8 one day but i simply cannot afford it right now. Hopefully in the future someday. I will have to look into those other lenses.

You might look at the EF 100mm f/2.0. Not the macro version, the other one. The autofocus is VERY fast on my 20D, and it's really sharp. Plus, it's a whole lot cheaper than the L-series: brand new I think it's about $430.

It doesn't have the reach that you'd probably like to have, and that's the compromise you are making to get the f/2 at a good price.

If you are interested, I'll dig through my stuff and find a good action shot with that lens.

divamum · February 24, 2011

Another good, relatively affordable fast prime - and an L to boot! - is the 200L 2.8. I had one of the Mk 1 for a while and it is a beeeyoooutiful piece of glass. The Mk 1 can be picked up for around $500-600, the Mk II for a couple hundred more (that's 2ndhand, of course - not sure of new prices on the Mk II). It's a great piece of glass. It was slightly too long for my needs - I sold it to pay for the close-to-perfect-in-all-ways 135L - but if you need a bit more reach, it's defnitely worth considering.

zach30345 · February 24, 2011

Alright thanks for the replies, I will have to look into those lenses the only problem is who I shoot for mainly makes us all use 300's so the shots are similar and isolated.

mercphoto · February 24, 2011

ZacharyBarron wrote: »

Alright thanks for the replies, I will have to look into those lenses the only problem is who I shoot for mainly makes us all use 300's so the shots are similar and isolated.

Well, the good news of that is the 300/2.8 is a GREAT lens that you will love! To this day I still regret selling mine. Would a 300/4 work for you instead? Or get a used 300/2.8.

ThatCanonGuy · February 24, 2011

They MAKE you use 300's? That's crazy... make sure they give you a 2.8...

mercphoto · February 25, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

They MAKE you use 300's? That's crazy... make sure they give you a 2.8...

Why is that crazy? The business owner has certain expectations and wants a certain look. I see zero issue with this. Many years ago I tried my hand at youth football working for an established duo of photographers who needed more coverage. I either shot with a 300/2.8 (of my own) or I didn't work for them. It was that simple.

divamum · February 25, 2011

ZacharyBarron wrote: »

Alright thanks for the replies, I will have to look into those lenses the only problem is who I shoot for mainly makes us all use 300's so the shots are similar and isolated.

One thing to consider is that with the 7d's high resolution, you can make crop hard and still have a great, printable shot. I'm not sure of your workflow (or if you're editing at all before handing shots in), but it wouldn't be that hard to turn a shot taken at 200 into looking like one taken at 300 with the 7d.

Just one more thing to consider

Ric Grupe · February 25, 2011

divamum wrote: »

One thing to consider is that with the 7d's high resolution, you can make crop hard and still have a great, printable shot. I'm not sure of your workflow (or if you're editing at all before handing shots in), but it wouldn't be that hard to turn a shot taken at 200 into looking like one taken at 300 with the 7d.

Just one more thing to consider

Excellent point!

He may be able to use something like the 200L f/2.8 (no IS ???) and the 7D.

I know my 400 was not long enough for small birds until I got my first 7D.

kdog · February 25, 2011

divamum wrote: »

I'm not sure of your workflow (or if you're editing at all before handing shots in), but it wouldn't be that hard to turn a shot taken at 200 into looking like one taken at 300 with the 7d.

I disagree. The operative word here is isolation. Let's look at some DOF numbers.

With a subject 75' away:

200mm, F2.8: DOF = 4.55'
300mm, F2.8: DOF = 2'

Note the 300mm has less than half the DOF of the 200 in this example. That will make a huge difference in your ability to isolate your subject from the other players.

Also, when you crop an image to increase magnification, you also increase noise. So really, you're not even coming close to what the 300 would look like.

mercphoto · February 25, 2011

kdog wrote: »

Note the 300mm has less than half the DOF of the 200 in this example. That will make a huge difference in your ability to isolate your subject from the other players.

Absolutely and I was going to bring that up as well. A 300/2.8 will have a different "look" than a cropped 200/2.8 image.

Ric Grupe · February 25, 2011

kdog wrote: »

I disagree. The operative word here is isolation. Let's look at some DOF numbers.

With a subject 75' away:

200mm, F2.8: DOF = 4.55'
300mm, F2.8: DOF = 2'

Note the 300mm has less than half the DOF of the 200 in this example. That will make a huge difference in your ability to isolate your subject from the other players.

Also, when you crop an image to increase magnification, you also increase noise. So really, you're not even coming close to what the 300 would look like.

Joel, the OP was shooting with a 300 f/4.

Can't afford the f 2.8 variety...so, while correct, your observation isn't on point here.

kdog · February 25, 2011

Ric Grupe wrote: »

Joel, the OP was shooting with a 300 f/4.

Can't afford the f 2.8 variety...so, while correct, your observation isn't on point here.

Neither is yours then for that matter.

Ric Grupe · February 25, 2011

kdog wrote: »

Neither is yours then for that matter.

You'd really rather argue with me than help the guy?

So...........how would a 300 f/4 and a cropped 200 f/2.8 image compare?

kdog · February 25, 2011

I'm not taking the bait, Ric. The OP is shooting with a 300 F4, as you correctly pointed out. So drop it.

Ric Grupe · February 25, 2011

kdog wrote: »

I'm not taking the bait, Ric. The OP is shooting with a 300 F4, as you correctly pointed out. So drop it.

What bait?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

ziggy53 · February 25, 2011

Please guys, stick to the topic.

mercphoto · February 25, 2011

Ric Grupe wrote: »

You'd really rather argue with me than help the guy?

So...........how would a 300 f/4 and a cropped 200 f/2.8 image compare?

The WILL differ. Whether it differs much, or enough, is a subjective matter. But they WILL differ. The 300/4 will have a different field of view than the 200/2.8 will, and cropping will not change that. There is no way around that. The background material will be different between the two images. Its the physics of focal length and cropping doesn't change that.

7d good all around camera?

Comments