7D as a wedding camera?

Bakko

I've been shooting weddings and event for about a year now and I'm far from pro (rest assured I let my clients know this ahead of time).
I've been shooting with my 60D for the past few months and I've been getting OK results.
I retouch most images, and unless I set up shot lighting wise, my out of camera images are MEH.

Now my question is, I've been wanting to upgrade the camera body to a 7D for a while now, but with all the "7D produces soft photos" complains going on, I dont know if it would be the right choice.

Do any of you more experienced photographers use the 7D as your main camera?
If so, do you experience softness?


- Bakko

trevorb

I would not upgrade from a 60d to a 7d. You will get a bunch of extra features with the 7d that you don’t really even need. The ISO is pretty much the same between the two and I could not think of another reason to ditch the 60d besides for a full frame or camera with better ISO. I would personally save my money and wait for something that is worth the upgrade, but… That’s just me.

Matthew Saville

Anyone who calls the 7D soft clearly is peeping pixels at a level that no client will EVER care about. Seriously, the 7D is a very capable camera and I would feel much more confident shooting a wedding with it versus a 60D. Heck, I'd rather have a 7D than a 5D mk2, at some weddings.

But, the point that Trevor (?) is trying to make is that, plain and simple, a full-frame camera is in every wedding photographer's future, it is inevitable. It is the responsible thing to do either way, to have a reliable, capable camera that can handle the crazy and dynamic conditions that we see every weekend at the average wedding. So, a 7D would simply be a stepping stone to get you through the near future, until you can eventually get something full-frame. Plain and simple. Currently though with Canon's 5D mk2, the 7D DOES prove itself useful as a 2nd camera / backup. Even if I owned a 5D mk2, I'd keep a 7D around.

If you could afford a 5D mk2 by simply waiting a couple more months and saving up, then do it. If you've got plenty of work to do before you can afford another camera, then the 7D will not disapoint.

True, the 60D has the same sensor, but the 7D is so much more different than just that. You just have to have shot with both cameras to feel the difference, really

=Matt=

Glort

Bakko wrote: »

Now my question is, I've been wanting to upgrade the camera body to a 7D for a while now, but with all the "7D produces soft photos" complains going on, I dont know if it would be the right choice.

Geez, what the hell is it with photographers??

I remember this same argument 20 years ago with guys using " Blads and Rollies. Guys that had never shot a thing other then wedding or portraits would sit round crapping on about which maker produced the sharpest lenses never thinking that they were both made by the same lens manufacturer, that the lens on the enlarger determined the final print sharpness anyway, that they always printed on pearl finish paper and if all that wasn't enough, most of them had expensive Softar filters almost permanantly attached to their lenses that killed any sharpness that a $2 lens would have produced anyway! rolleyes

Anyone that complains that a a 7D does not produce sharp images and does wedding work is a wanker, end of section.

Wedding/ portrait Clients do not want to see every pore in their skin rendered with razor clarity and if your printing the images, the paper won't produce it unless your using high gloss or metal surfaces. Further more, unlike techincaly obsessed shooters that fail badly in realising waht their customers actualy want and why they buy photography in the first place, clients do not look at these things with a 50th of the concern they look at the content of the images as far as the feeling, emotion and expression contained therein.

Upstart shooters can waffle on about technicalities all they like but they are totally missing the point of what their customers want and I wonder how successful these technically obsessed people really are business wise or if they are even in business at all?

Do any of you more experienced photographers use the 7D as your main camera?

Yes.
Love it. Looking to buy another in the near future. Its great for sport, Dance, weddings, event and glamour work I do.
Looked at the 5DII and passed on it as did a couple of friends. For me/ us the 7D was a far better bit of gear for our needs.

I looked at the 60 and for the extra money and benifits, think the 7 is a bargain. It's different to any other digital I have used and find it's capeabilities fantastic. I have no inclination to buy a series 1 body either when for the price I can have several 7's giving me backups that do everything I need and much more for the work I do. Plus with teh way upgrades come out these days, Digicams are virtually disposeable so not worth putting the money into when in 2 years there will be a newer, more capeable cam out and I can give the old one to the kids to take on school excursions like they do with my old bodies now.

If so, do you experience softness?

On the contary, the thing is the sharpest digital I have ever owned.
With a 70-200 lens I can see the individual hairs on a horses nose as it goes over a gate at a showjumping event 100 ft away.
What the hell more does anyone want??? rolleyes


I have to say in all honesty and sincerity I DO NOT get this full frame preoccupation that so many people seem to have. If your using an SLR you can see what you are getting. If people are hung up about it because you loose a bit of wide angle with the crop factor, so what? I did a large greek wedding the other day with my 7D and with the 10-22 lens I could get my own feet in the shots If I wasn't careful. For most of the job I used a 17-40 and it was plenty wide enough. the only thing I used the 10-22 for was interiour shots of the church and the reception. All the people shots were done with either the 17-40 or the 70-200.

I was talking to someone about this the other day. I may be wrong but as far as i know, a 10mm lens with a 1.6 crop factor is equilivent to a 16mm. To the best of my knowledge, the "full frame" camera's don't take the ef-s lenses and the shortest available in an EF is a 16mm any way. If that is right, what's the difference?

The whole full frame hangup is totally lost on me i'm afraid. If there is something more to it that has a basis in practicality rather than theroy or meaningless debate like " 7D's have soft images", I'd genuinely like to find out what it is. I used " full frame" 35mm and medium format camera's for longer than I have been using digital so far and I'm buggered if i can see what the hoo haa is about.

mercphoto

+1 on Glort's post.

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Anyone who calls the 7D soft clearly is peeping pixels at a level that no client will EVER care about.

+1000. Only the nerds in dpreview forums call the 7D soft.





It is true though that pixel peeping (just for fun of course) on a 5DII is often rewarding. Once you've become accustomed to that, pixel peeping a 7D is not usually as rewarding, but sometimes it is. I think a lot of people try to judge the 7D against the 5DII, or against their previous camera which was probably a 40D or less. Looking at a 100% view of a 40D image is like looking at a 50% view of the 7D. I've learned that when judging my 7D images (and 5DII images for that matter), if it is sharp at 50%, it is sharp, period. At 100% view, you're seeing things that couldn't possibly be seen on a 40D, like tiny amounts of camera shake, motion blur, micro AF misses, DOF limitations, and the sheer limitations of tiny pixels. None of these things will be visible in print unless you are printing 4 feet wide and viewing from 18" away. Only fools do that and worry about it.

However I agree that there's no point in upgrading from a 60D to a 7D, unless you think you really need the extra AF. I'd be surprised if you did.

Sam

For the most part I agree with Glort. I have a 5D II and sold my 5D I to buy a 7D to use as a backup and for sports / movement type of photography.

I have been impressed with the build and feel of the 7D as well as the features and functionality. Better weather sealing. Better AF. OCF control without needing a speedlite on camera. Can put OCF in manual and control the power of the OCF from the camera. Higher burst rate. More features than I know how to use yet. I am learning how to shot fast moving subjects with this camera and AI servo. It does, at least to me, seem to be more easily influenced by camera shake and technique than the 5D II.

Glort posted: "The whole full frame hangup is totally lost on me i'm afraid. If there is something more to it that has a basis in practicality rather than theroy or meaningless debate like " 7D's have soft images", I'd genuinely like to find out what it is."

Having both cameras I can tell you for certain the 5D II produces superior files, with more detail. The high ISO shots are cleaner. You can push the 5D II files around more and have a lot of crop room. Based on current technology larger sensors with larger pixels produce better images.

All that said, for sports type of shooting I would absolutely choose the 7D over the 5D II. For shear image quality the 5D II wins hands down. For wedding and glamor work the 5D II is the Camera.

You can of course shoot ether type of event with ether camera and get good results. As an example I do have some, at least to me, nice horse jumping photos taken with my 5d and 5D II, and I am sure you can shoot a wedding with a 7D.

Sam

Bakko

thanks for all your help guys, i appreciate it!

mercphoto

While I'm also not a full-frame guy Sam has a valid point that larger sensors with larger photo sites has an inherint advantage that is real. The other thing about FF is the depth of field will be shallower, and will fall off at a higher rate, than a crop body will. Even when standing at the very same spot using identical field-of-view lens focal lengths. That is one difference between a 10mm on a 7D and a 16mm on a 5D -- the composition will be identical but the image will look different.

And Sam also makes a point that either camera will give good results. Heck, I know a working pro who follows the American Le Mans Series (auto racing) as his primary gig. He is terrific at his job. His results are wonderful. His weapon of choice is a Canon 40D. And even today, if he could get them new or refurbed he'd buy more of them. Just goes to show... sometimes you gotta stop yourself from worrying too much about the gear!

jmphotocraft

Glort
I think the perceived DOF "advantage" of Full Frame is really overstated. The significant FF advantages, IMO, are

• better high ISO - about a 1 stop advantage, visible at 800 and up
• larger viewfinder
• the ability to use EF lenses (L or not) as they were intended - especially primes
• better ultimate IQ for pixel peeping and printing huge. (if this matters)

Filling a bag with primes quickly makes no sense with an APS-C body. Even the zooms make more sense on FF until you need more reach for stuff like sports, BIF, wildlife, etc.

It is ironic though, as you point out, that APS-C users get 16mm out of the 10-22, while FF users "only" get 17mm at a similar price for the 17-40L. But then the FFers have the further option of the 16-35, and at constant f/2.8 to boot. But as I've pointed out above, it's not just about "how wide can you go?"

Matthew Saville

Yeah, there is no free lunch. A full-frame sensor will always be better than a crop sensor, at least when they're from roughly the same generation and roughly the same resolution.

However, that is not to say that crop sensors haven't come a LONG way. Bottom line- I would feel totally comfortable shooting a wedding with a pair of 7D's.

=Matt=

Glort

Thanks for the heads up.
At least now i understand there is more to it than just the non crop factor of the FF cams.

As it turns out, I may yet get one. A friend rang me asking if i was interested in a 5D with a short L series Zoom. ( forget which one but not the 17-40) Seems a friend of his wants to get out of it as he has finished uni and dosen't use it any more and wants to buy a Bike. He seems to be selling it for a real good price so i told my mate to tell him i'd take it.
I'll See what happens.
I was going to buy some new lights but might keep the cash ready for this one just in case.

Seems the Japs have got themselves sorted and there are 7D's coming into the country again so if the 5 falls through I'll just grab another 7.
Hopefully it won't glow in the dark or set off geiger counters :0)

An amateur mate is talking about buying a 1D and a 300 2.8. Seems he's making too much money in his business and can write it off on tax.
I'm definately in the wrong game.

jmphotocraft

"A short L series zoom" that is not the 17-40/4L can only be the 16-35/2.8L, unless it is something significantly older. Sounds like a good deal. I've never shot a 5D classic, but I've read reports that if you downsize 7D images to 12mp, they are on par with the 5D.

trevorb

No doubt the 7d is an epic camera but if you can wait and save for a FF do it, if not... You shoot with what you have and make it work. I had a wedding this year which I was stuck shooting at 4000 ISO. The venue was supper dim and the ceiling was 30' high and painted black. If I just had the 60d I would have been in a bad spot, granted I could have set up an off camera flash but it was nice to be able to just shoot the 5D at higher ISO.

Matthew Saville

I would prefer NOT to shoot a wedding with the 5D classic as my BEST camera, as far as speed and accuracy are concerned. It could certainly get the job done, but it would not be as easy as if you ALSO had a 7D by your side for action / daylight shooting where speed and accuracy are more important than low light or shallow depth.

I'll say what I always say to anyone who is considering shooting a wedding:

You really ought to have TWO professional cameras, if you want to call yourself a responsible professional. A 60D would barely cut it, if you kept it on you during the ceremony or other key moments, ready to go. It would not suffice to just have it at the very bottom of your bag, or out in your car. Cameras can fail mid-ceremony, I've had it happen before. So that is all I can say, whichever camera you decide to buy- assume that if you're going into a wedding, you'll have two cameras at your side especially during the critical moments where you can't afford to lose a moment. Personally, I would prefer NOT to settle for any less than a 5-series AND a 7D.

=Matt=

trevorb

My bad, meant to put 5D Mark II.

Glort

Wasn't that long ago I was shooting weddings with 10 and 20D's.
No client ever complained, I never had any great dramas using them and I still have the pics in my display albums which I defy anyone to tell from my 7D or any other camera. :0)

Sam

Glort,

Please note there are some substantial differences between the 5D classic, and the 5D II. That said thge 5D classic produces sweet files.

Sam

Matthew Saville

Glort wrote: »

Wasn't that long ago I was shooting weddings with 10 and 20D's.
No client ever complained, I never had any great dramas using them and I still have the pics in my display albums which I defy anyone to tell from my 7D or any other camera. :0)

Yep, I've still got a couple D70 images in my portfolio, too. Honestly, especially in broad daylight conditions I don't consider any of the latest cameras to be "ABSOLUTELY" mandatory. Even a 20D did a pretty dang good job in low light, with the right lens. (Can't say the same for my old Nikon D70 though, since that was during Nikon's "dark ages". :-P

HOWEVER, there is also the issue of reliability and responsibility. This has nothing to do with performance or image quality, it simply has to do with the chances that the camera will fail, or let you down in any small way. And, on that subject, I do believe that we as digital photographers were indeed a little foolish to so quickly jump to cameras like the 10D / 20D for professional use. Pretty much EVERY affordable DSLR from that era had one serious bug or another, and were notorious for totally dying / freezing without warning. Google "Nikon D70 BGLOD" or "Canon 20D err 99 freeze"

So, while on the one had a competent pro should be able to get most any job with most any camera, on the other hand a responsible professional does owe it to their clients to have reliable, relatively current equipment. And backups galore.

=Matt=

Glort

Matthew Saville wrote: »

So, while on the one had a competent pro should be able to get most any job with most any camera, on the other hand a responsible professional does owe it to their clients to have reliable, relatively current equipment. And backups galore.

True.

Only time my 20 Failed was when I wore out another shutter. Think it's up to its 3rd one atm.
That said, I would never and have never been to a wedding with only one camera. In fact I don't think I have ever done a wedding without 3 camera's coming with me.

I remember one job years ago that one of my medium formats that had just come back from it's second warranty repair locked up on the 2nd roll of film. I pulled out the backup of the same body and it fell over before we got to the church. Falling back to number 3, an old Twin lens, I did the church and formal pics.
I rang my wife ( from a public phone box as mobile phones were the size of a suitcase then and cost the same as a small car) and she brought my RB 67 and some 35mm's to the reception and I finished off on those. In the meantime, a mate dropped off his MF kit home for me to use the next day.

Sure the old Twin lens was a bit slower than the modern camera's I had but taking even more time than you did in those days shooting medium format, I made up for qty with great quality and the coverage was as good as any I had done. Of course not having 2 preloaded backs in your pocket that would allow a 5 second film change also meant you had to anticipate and plan your shots carefully so as not to run out mid important time like cake cutting etc.
The lens on the thing however was sharp as and had a colour rendition I have yet to see on any other camera.
The wedding was themed in an old fashioned style and at the reception, the buzz with the B&G and the bridal party was how good it was of me to get in theme with the wedding and use a camera that looked old and " period " like the rest of the wedding.

I sold all my MF gear years ago for a pittance of what it was worth when I stopped using it but got a good price at the time. I kept the old Twin lens though as that was and still is a special bit of gear and one of those things you value beyond it financial worth.

It's when I remember things like that which make me less than fussed with gear. Sure you need reliable stuff and anyone that dosen't have backups needs a smack aside the head. Amazingly, I have been to a few weddings where the shooter in the reception next door approached me to borrow gear when theirs failed. ( and one reception owner that said I " Had" to lend the guy next door a camera, yeah right!)

I have also had newish gear fail on me a lot more than older gear that had been serviced. You never know what's going to happen so I always have backups for backup with everything from bodies to lenses to flash to batteries etc.

Mark1616

I think pretty much this has been put to bed and confirmed by many that the 7D certainly will cut it. When I lived in Egypt last year I worked with a 5DmkII and 7D combo and it was great. Now that I'm back in the UK (well currently on holiday in Egypt but that doesn't count) I choose to work with the 5DmkII and 5D classic combination for most things. I have a friend who is rated as one of the top in the UK, involved with the national pro organisations giving training and judging competitions etc and she uses 2 x 5D classics and her work rocks. I do always feel more confident with the AF on the newer bodies I have (5DmkII, 1DmkIII and 7D) but the 5D classic is still a great piece of kit.

I prefer shooting FF as it gets the most of my glass and I know there is an argument about the DOF advantages but IMHO working regularly with FF, APS-C and APS-H systems you can really see the benefits of larger sensors.

karloznz

Hi


Interesting discussion not sure from this what it is that makes a good photographer - the camera or the person operating it ??

Sure technical is an important, in fact at times a lot more important than others. let not get away from the fact that its the operator taking the photo.

fernandezinmecca

You can't beat the focus prowler of the 7d, and shots in focus is key at weddings, who cares about noise, clients don't, they want focus!

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Mark1616

fernandezinmecca wrote: »

You can't beat the focus prowler of the 7d, and shots in focus is key at weddings, who cares about noise, clients don't, they want focus!

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Digging an old thread out with this one that's for sure.

Wouldn't go as far as to say in this day and age you can't beat the focus on the 7D, I still keep one in the bag as a backup to my pair of 5DmkIII's (better AF than 7D) and 5DmkII (not quite so good).

For those who like an APS-C body then the 7DmkII is probably worth a look now.

rzv84

I shoot weddings as a second shooter,for learning purposes and use a 7D with a sigma 17-50 f 2.8.
I want to build my gear bag,lenses for now.
what would you recomand I do,get two prime lenses: canon 50 mm 1,4 + 85mm 1,8 or go with 70-200 f4 is,i also intend buying a macro rings kit.
Please advise.

ziggy53

rzv84 wrote: »

I shoot weddings as a second shooter,for learning purposes and use a 7D with a sigma 17-50 f 2.8.
I want to build my gear bag,lenses for now.
what would you recomand I do,get two prime lenses: canon 50 mm 1,4 + 85mm 1,8 or go with 70-200 f4 is,i also intend buying a macro rings kit.
Please advise.

If you are having AF issues with the sigma 17-50 f 2.8 (some folks do) then I suggest trading it for a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. While the Canon does not close focus as well as the Sigma you have, in my experience it greatly beats the Sigma for AF keepers. That gets your standard zoom taken care of for professional uses.

(My experience is with a Nikon-mount Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM on a Nikon D7100 body.)

The next lens I would recommend is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, with or without IS. I have 4 lenses in this range, but the one I always take is the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. (Yes, even before the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, which I generally take for backup.) The larger f2.8 aperture is more valuable and invaluable for a dark church.

The f2.8 constant aperture is important in that it is the largest zoom aperture commonly available, and it allows activation of the high-precision center AF point in the Canon 7D, as well as many other Canon bodies. The f2.8 aperture also allows either faster shutter speeds or a lower ISO, compared to an f4 or slower aperture lens.

Yes, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a valuable wedding prime. Halation exists wide open and with contrasty scenes, but it sharpens nicely by f2.2 and the halation can often be used as a pleasing effect when it shows. A little slow to focus because it uses a micro-motor USM, but focus is fast enough for wedding use and AF accuracy is very sure.

Rather than the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM I think that the Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM is slightly more useful for a wedding application. That little extra focal length seems more appropriate to the typical uses for a normal telephoto prime in a wedding environment.

Better still, and what I use, is the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM, which has an arguably better look (image appeal). I use it for engagement, wedding and portraiture and it has a very sharp field even at f2, becoming one of the sharpest by f2.8. This lens has excellent bokeh qualities which seems due to a modified gaussian optical design. (The lens design is somewhat similar to a modern Sonnar design, but definitely not a Sonnar.)

---

Be aware that a single camera body is a bit risky for weddings and other once-in-a-lifetime events. Also risky is a single card slot.

A second body, even if an older or lesser body, is important as a backup if, and/or when, a primary camera failure occurs.

Likewise, a second card slot in the body which allows redundant image file storage is invaluable if/when card writing fails.

Rental is certainly an option to help get you appropriate equipment when you need it.

NikonsandVstroms

Just to add to that list one of my favorite lenses to use is the non-OS Sigma 50-150 F2.8. I haven't shot it on a Canon but I've gotten great results with it at events on my D7100, and personally I prefer it's ~70-200 equivalent range compared to an actual 70-200 which is a 112-320 on a Canon crop body. But the longer reach could work for you so I'd rent a 70-200 to see what fits your shooting style the best.

And +1 on getting a second body, beyond the redundancy it also gives you a lot more flexibility.