Canon EOS 7D MK2

Hi,

 

I'm contemplating upgrading to a 7D MK2 from a 550D. I'm disappointed in the 550's low light performance, and understand from reviews that the 7D has significant low light capability. Can anyone confirm/comment on this? Main requirement is for theatre/live performance work.

 

Many thanks, Ian

Hi, try full frame for low light,something like 6D, they generally better in hi ISO compared with crop sensors.

Hi, try full frame for low light,something like 6D, they generally better in hi ISO compared with crop sensors.

 

Didn't think my cropped sensor compatible lenses would fit full frame??

I haven't handled them. - If DxOmark's camera score is worth anything, you 'll get 1080 instead of 780 recommended highest usable ISO setting. Personally I wouldn't bother about that. but maybe the 7D Mk. II has significantly better low light AF?

The big low light question is usually: How little light is there at your venues and will any camera upgrade cut that cake gracefully? - I'd go by a site like DxO to put what I currently have into perspective with what I am pondering.

the only significant low light improvement is upgrading to full frame .... (and using larger aperture lenses)

Didn't think my cropped sensor compatible lenses would fit full frame??

No, crop lenses wouldn't fit, but it is depends how much you have invested in EF-S lenses. If it's pro-grade it is one thing, if it's kit lens, you not gonna be happy with them on 7D2 either.

Lots of good used EF lens available with reasonable price on fleebay.

The 7DMkII is going to provide a better High ISO performance than your 550D, however as noted the 6D is reportedly better again.

 

As a general rule of thumb and comparing cameras with about the same release date, a "full frame" model will do better at the High ISO than its comparable APS-C model.

 

It is probably good to appraise your whole kit's suitability for the tasks of "theatre/live performance work", rather than just focus only on the camera body, (you might have already done this?) Obviously the Camera body's High ISO capacity is important, but so are the lenses used. . . which also encompasses this question:

 

Didn't think my cropped sensor compatible lenses would fit full frame??

 

> IF you have Canon "EF-S" Lenses, then NO they will not mount on a 6D.

> IF you have third party lenses designed with an image circle for an APS-C Sensor, then I am very confident that they will mount and work on a 6D BUT there might be (probably will be) an optical vignette: if a zoom lens then that vignette is more likely to occur at the wide end of the zoom's compass.

 

BUT - another consideration about lenses is, what exactly are the lenses that you have? For (one) example if you have a couple of Kit Lenses, then typically they are quite slow (having a relatively small maximum aperture). This means that your typically pulling shots at around F/5.6 - whereas using an inexpensive EF 50 F/1.8 MkII, you can pull very good quality shots at F/2, a practical saving of three stops of ISO for any given Shutter Speed - this could be considered as well as or, instead of, a camera upgrade.

 

If your passion is to make a lot of low light images without Flash, then seriously consider one initial jump to a 6D, or a 5D series camera: I expect that a 6D would be the better value for money if the budget is tight.

 

WW

No, crop lenses wouldn't fit, but it is depends how much you have invested in EF-S lenses.

Please see my response above.

 

You're correct in so far as Canon "EF-S" Lenses: they have an "EF-S Bayonet Lens Mount" and as such will NOT mount on a 6D. But the OP didn't mention exactly what lenses he has.

 

Expanding/explaining my comment above: the salient point is (AFAIK) all third party lenses loosely described as "crop lenses for Canon EOS" will have an "EF Bayonet Lens Mount", and as such will mount to a 6D, but as mentioned might create a vignette.

 

This is a small but often misunderstood point and it can be useful and practical information - not necessarily to build a kit like that, but to know that it works is handy to know.

 

WW

 

BUT - another consideration about lenses is, what exactly are the lenses that you have? For (one) example if you have a couple of Kit Lenses, then typically they are quite slow (having a relatively small maximum aperture). This means that your typically pulling shots at around F/5.6 - whereas using an inexpensive EF 50 F/1.8 MkII, you can pull very good quality shots at F/2, a practical saving of three stops of ISO for any given Shutter Speed - this could be considered as well as or, instead of, a camera upgrade.

 

If your passion is to make a lot of low light images without Flash, then seriously consider one initial jump to a 6D, or a 5D series camera: I expect that a 6D would be the better value for money if the budget is tight.

 

WW

 

My main lens is a Sigma 18-250 3.5-6.3, plus a Canon 10-18 4.5-5.6.

 

I appreciate that neither of these are fast....

My main lens is a Sigma 18-250 3.5-6.3, plus a Canon 10-18 4.5-5.6.

 

I appreciate that neither of these are fast....

Yep, non of them would be my choice for low light/theatre work, and even for 7D2 you would want better lenses later.

My main lens is a Sigma 18-250 3.5-6.3, plus a Canon 10-18 4.5-5.6.

 

I appreciate that neither of these are fast....

 

Yes. I concur; typically most of the shots you'd be pulling with those two lenses would be at around the aforementioned F/5.6.

 

And I concur with Nick's comment (post #10), even if you buy a 7DMkII the lenses remain slow.

 

Realistically a good option would be to look at how your budget could acquire a new / second hand / refurbished full frame body and a faster lens: don't dismiss an inexpensive Prime Lens - the EF 85 F/1.8; EF50 F/1.8MkII and the EF 35 F/2 come to my mind, the chose depending upon what FL you typically use the most your ability to move about.

 

Also remember that if you choose to use a Prime Lens, it is usually better to have one a little wider than you typically will need, because it is usually easier to move closer and/or crop a bit of the image, but, if you have you back to an internal wall you cannot frame wider by moving further away from the Subject.

 

WW

William Michael provides some great advice here. I to have a 7Dii and for low light, I almost always bring a couple of primes. I really like the pancake lenses than Canon came out with. I use both the 24 mm EF-S and the 40mm EF lenses. 2.8 is fast and the iso on a 7Dii can be bumped up significantly and still produce some great images, especially if you shoot raw and edit in LR. I have debated going to full frame, but have so much invested in my crop sensor lenses, I am reluctant to pull the trigger yet. Especially after reading the reviews of the 6Dii and it doesn't seem to be that much of an improvement in dynamic range. I do love the 7Dii. Best camera yet I have gotten in a crop sensor Canon format.

The 6D is considerably better than the 7DII at low light. I shot frequently at >6400 with excellent results (+ or - noise reduction). The 6DII may not have much of an expansion in dynamic range over the original 6D, but it is at least as good, if not better, in noise and image quality at high ISOs, and the original is very good. "Dynamic range" issues are the biggest storm in the teacup for most photographers and can be ignored completely.

Hi,

 

I'm contemplating upgrading to a 7D MK2 from a 550D. I'm disappointed in the 550's low light performance, and understand from reviews that the 7D has significant low light capability. Can anyone confirm/comment on this? Main requirement is for theatre/live performance work.

 

Many thanks, Ian

 

You'll be very pleased with the 7D MkII's high-ISO performance. It's a major step ahead. Ignore the full-frame and prime-lens fan-boys. The 7D2 is going to be exceptionally good with your lenses. I've owned the 7D, 7D2, 5D2, 5D3, 5D4 and 5DS-R. The only one that really pulls away, in terms of dynamic range, is the 5D4. The 5DS-R is a full-frame body that's only incrementally better than the 7D2, yet cost more than twice as much.

 

If you don't need the AF capability of the 7D2, then you might consider the 80D; however, the 7D2 will blow away the 6D and 80D when it comes to AF capability for sports and wildlife.

Ignore the full-frame and prime-lens fan-boys. The 7D2 is going to be exceptionally good with your lenses.

 

On the question of the lenses Ian already has (whatever camera he upgrades to)

 

Much of how good the results Ian gets shooting "theatre/live performance work", will be dependent upon:

 

1. > the amount available light that he has illuminating the scene

2. > the direction of and speed of movement he needs to arrest

3. > whether or not he can use Flash (and it seems not, because the thread is about High ISO Capacity)

> I note that those first two elements are undisclosed to this conversation.

 

So, all those four points considered:

 

I think that considering Prime Lens(es) is a realistic and a practical suggestion to allow Ian the choice of the faster possible shutter speeds with the lower possible ISOs and thereby the suggestion is a viable and useful alternative to the F/5.6 Lenses that Ian is already using.

 

I do not think those suggestions are pushing any prime lens fan boy club: much of my professional career has been capturing people in Low Level Available Light without Flash.

 

Whilst listing numerous cameras and quoting comparative dynamic ranges is useful, the bottom line is, in the practical world of shooting Theatre and Live Performances without Flash - and if it is low level light - then if you can pull a shot at F/2 instead of F/5.6, you have three stops to play with - and you can allocate those three stops to either Shutter Speed or ISO or a bit to each - and that can be the difference between pulling a good shot or pulling an average shot.

 

To put it as an example, specifically addressing the topic of High ISO performance: even if a camera has good figures at ISO 12800 - the odds are that the cameras figures and the resultant images will be better if shot at ISO1600.

 

WW

WW, whatever you say is, of course, correct, for you. I submit that the OP will be very happy with his images from a 7D MkII and I stand by that recommendation. The 5D4 has better dynamic range, but I don't think that he's interested in spending that much money.

 

Many people like using primes. Even I own a 14mm and a 500mm; however, the dynamic range of today's sensors, makes primes of little use, except at the extremes of focal length, or when speciality shooting, such as for extra bokeh. For most 0ther shooting, f/4 is plenty fast. There's no need to be afraid of ISO 6400 and even 12800, when supplemented with a competent noise reduction program, like DxO Optics Pro's "PRIME" noise reduction. Of course, that's my opinion, but I believe it and live it. The OP didn't mention any "special needs", so I'm thinking that good zooms will serve him well.

 

I shot primes in the 1960s, when ISO for color films were 25, 64 and 200! A lot has changed. The image quality of zooms is matching most primes and the sensors give us the freedom to push ISO with abandon.

"My main lens is a Sigma 18-250 3.5-6.3, plus a Canon 10-18 4.5-5.6" , - David, will you personally use those lenses for theatre/stage work?

David

"however, the dynamic range of today's sensors, makes primes of little use", - I don't use prime either , but what it has to do with dynamic range?

"however, the dynamic range of today's sensors, makes primes of little use", - I don't use prime either , but what it has to do with dynamic range?

 

"Noise performance" and dynamic range are roughly the same thing. DR is the measure of light to dark potential, net of noise.

"My main lens is a Sigma 18-250 3.5-6.3, plus a Canon 10-18 4.5-5.6" , - David, will you personally use those lenses for theatre/stage work?

David

You know that I wouldn't, but the OP would and could.

You know that I wouldn't, but the OP would and could.

Sure, next thing he will go and buy some nice DX lens, and next he will compare his shots with something like shots taken with 6D or D750 and sell all his crop gear with significant discount and buy full frame camera and another set of lens, been there , don that.

Tom Hogan has nice article about that staff, when newbies trying to safe money in the beginning, just to pay significantly more in the end.

Canon 6D is cheaper than 7D2, with better low light performance , good used lens readily available.

Canon 7D2 nice camera for bird and wildlife, may be outdoor sport, but for theatre?

Sure, next thing he will go and buy some nice DX lens, and next he will compare his shots with something like shots taken with 6D or D750 and sell all his crop gear with significant discount and buy full frame camera and another set of lens, been there , don that.

Tom Hogan has nice article about that staff, when newbies trying to safe money in the beginning, just to pay significantly more in the end.

Canon 6D is cheaper than 7D2, with better low light performance , good used lens readily available.

Canon 7D2 nice camera for bird and wildlife, may be outdoor sport, but for theatre?

 

DX lenses? Did I wander into a Nikon forum?

 

Hey, I was the one that suggested 80D, if he didn't need the 7D2's superior AF. That was crystal clear.

 

You never know how serious a newbie will be. My cheapest lens is $1,000. If and when he's ready to jump to that kind of investment, he will.

 

I see just as many people, with deep pockets, buying a top-dollar rig and never making use of all the potential. It's sad to see wonderful equipment gathering dust. It'd be nice if we could all avoid equipment mistakes, but that'll never happen. I'll bet that we don't know all aspects of his usage, so any advice should be with a caveat.

Dave - re your response your Post #16.

 

Actually Ian did mention that he had "special needs" - he stated that he wanted to shoot theatre and live performances, as I already mentioned, the topic of the thread leads us to believe that he wants to shoot those without Flash.

 

Also note that comments never argued against buying a 7DMkII - the point being made is that 3 stops extra speed in a lens is a worthwhile consideration, both for lowering the ISO used (and also by the way for value for money spent).

 

Putting the idea to consider a fast zoom (F/2.8 or there are the two Sigma F/1.8 zooms) is similarly a viable suggestion for really low light work.

 

BUT (as already stated) the level of light and the amount of subject movement in those theatres and on those stages has not been quantified.

 

So I think it a bit of a stretch to make statements like F/4 or F/5.6 will be OK when we clearly don't have any idea what the typical ISO and Shutter Speeds Ian might need to get a good shot and when we don't know what Ian considers to be a good shot, in the first place.

 

All we know is Ian is dissatisfied with what the output of the gear he has now for the tasks that he wants to achieve.

 

To get a good result for low light work it is pretty clear that the consensus is that he will need to upgrade his camera, whether or not he needs to look at alternate lens(es) is certainly debatable and also open for opinion - but without some data on the shooting situation that debate seems a bit pointless and opinions require the caveat of the consideration of:

 

> how much light does Ian have?

> how much movement does Ian need to address?

> what Ian deems is acceptably good (re noise etc)?

 

WW .

DX lenses? Did I wander into a Nikon forum?, - OK , EF-S, still crop.

He already has crop camera, and 6D is most economical way to get good low light performance, if that was what he was asking for.

WW, I think that the current generation of Canon sensors are way better than you give them credit for. For wildlife and birds in flight, I routinely shooting at ISO 3200, 6400 and 12800, with great results.