Recommend me a replacement for Canon 7D Mk1
Discussion
OK, just back from RIAT, and I'm pissed off.
ALL, and I mean ALL of the photos are ridiculously noisy.
I've had the body for several years, but only use it as a back-up to a 5D Mk3 (previously 5D Mk2), mainly for motorsport. It's always been noisy, but I've worked around it, and over the last few years haven't used at all (5D Mk3 is much better than the Mk2, so have tended to swap lenses on that as 400mm on a full-frame is plenty for most car events).
...so I forgot about it's foibles. Until today, when I took two bodies with two lenses so I didn't have to faff swapping in the middle of a windy airfield. Those I took on the ground with the 5D and an old-and-used Tamron 24-70 are as good as ever. Those of planes in the air, taken with the 7D and the 100-400, are a mess. I'm in recovery mode right now, trying not to swear too loudly as the kids are asleep, but I'm pissed off at myself for forgetting it wasn't great, pissed off at Canon for making such a dog-s
t sensor, and pissed off for agreeing to swap my 40D for this basket-case of a body in the first place.
So, what can you all suggest?
A 2nd hand body fine. Crop sensor is absolutely fine, as it's used mainly when I need the extra (apparent) reach of a crop-sensor over full-frame (like today). But it's got to have better IQ and much lower noise than the 7D, and it's got to have a good fps for motorsport and airshows (this is one area where it was good - I kept the hammer down when tracking and it kept shooting). And it's got to be something compatible with all my current EF lenses.
Here's a processed image and an unprocessed image for comparison (both heavily cropped as I was still queuing), taken a second apart. Aside from a little dust, I know the 100-400 is a good lens as I've taken crisp shots with it on the 5D.
ALL, and I mean ALL of the photos are ridiculously noisy.
I've had the body for several years, but only use it as a back-up to a 5D Mk3 (previously 5D Mk2), mainly for motorsport. It's always been noisy, but I've worked around it, and over the last few years haven't used at all (5D Mk3 is much better than the Mk2, so have tended to swap lenses on that as 400mm on a full-frame is plenty for most car events).
...so I forgot about it's foibles. Until today, when I took two bodies with two lenses so I didn't have to faff swapping in the middle of a windy airfield. Those I took on the ground with the 5D and an old-and-used Tamron 24-70 are as good as ever. Those of planes in the air, taken with the 7D and the 100-400, are a mess. I'm in recovery mode right now, trying not to swear too loudly as the kids are asleep, but I'm pissed off at myself for forgetting it wasn't great, pissed off at Canon for making such a dog-s
t sensor, and pissed off for agreeing to swap my 40D for this basket-case of a body in the first place.So, what can you all suggest?
A 2nd hand body fine. Crop sensor is absolutely fine, as it's used mainly when I need the extra (apparent) reach of a crop-sensor over full-frame (like today). But it's got to have better IQ and much lower noise than the 7D, and it's got to have a good fps for motorsport and airshows (this is one area where it was good - I kept the hammer down when tracking and it kept shooting). And it's got to be something compatible with all my current EF lenses.
Here's a processed image and an unprocessed image for comparison (both heavily cropped as I was still queuing), taken a second apart. Aside from a little dust, I know the 100-400 is a good lens as I've taken crisp shots with it on the 5D.
Edited by havoc on Saturday 15th July 22:24
Guess one option would be to get another 5D mk3, as they are going for reasonable money on eBay - obviously doesn't give you the reach of a crop, but slightly higher resolution than a 7D and the IQ, might be enough? Also has advantage of controls being the same, so less chance of confusion when rapidly changing settings.
Getting a 7D mkii is another obvious option, however I had 5D mk3 and 7D mk2 at the same time and personally always much preferred the IQ and noise levels of the 5D, to the point that I sold the 7D mk2 fairly shortly after getting it. I had also owned a 7D mk1 before that, so know what you mean about noise.
Depending on budget, another option might be to go for a new R10 - about £730 for body only, up to 23fps (or 15fps on mechanical shutter), 24mbps crop sensor, and much better AF than a 7D. Is also much smaller and lighter than a 7D, although possibly too small for some with a long lens on it. With an EF-RF adapter for about £100, your EF lenses will work perfectly, plus gives you the option of moving on to RF lenses if you ever want to. I have used quite a few of my EF lenses with an adapter after moving from a 5D mk3 to a R3, and have never had a problem with them.
Getting a 7D mkii is another obvious option, however I had 5D mk3 and 7D mk2 at the same time and personally always much preferred the IQ and noise levels of the 5D, to the point that I sold the 7D mk2 fairly shortly after getting it. I had also owned a 7D mk1 before that, so know what you mean about noise.
Depending on budget, another option might be to go for a new R10 - about £730 for body only, up to 23fps (or 15fps on mechanical shutter), 24mbps crop sensor, and much better AF than a 7D. Is also much smaller and lighter than a 7D, although possibly too small for some with a long lens on it. With an EF-RF adapter for about £100, your EF lenses will work perfectly, plus gives you the option of moving on to RF lenses if you ever want to. I have used quite a few of my EF lenses with an adapter after moving from a 5D mk3 to a R3, and have never had a problem with them.
Tony1963 said:
Settings? (ISO, shutter speed)
Budget for replacement, if needed?
Settings - ISO 200 or under all day, Shutter priority set to 1/750 typically, but 1/60 to 1/125 for the rotary-wing stuff (so ISO 100). AI Servo / burst shooting, centre-weighted exposure. Nothing that should cause noise. I'm not a pro, but I've been messing around for long enough...Budget for replacement, if needed?
Budget - under a grand. Preferably quite a bit under - it's a spare after all. But I want something fit-for-purpose, otherwise there's no point.
Ouch. Unless the light levels are very low, iso 200 should never give much noise.
Well, time has marched on, and all I can do is echo the above advice. And I’d strongly recommend going mirrorless.
I’ve just gone 5D3 to R3 too, and the autofocus tech has completely changed everything.
For under a grand, Edr’s suggestion of R10 plus adaptor would probably be a huge leap for you.
I’ve bought a 400mm f5.6, (non image stab) used, and the in-body image stab of the R3 works very well indeed. Sharp, light, cheap ish.
Well, time has marched on, and all I can do is echo the above advice. And I’d strongly recommend going mirrorless.
I’ve just gone 5D3 to R3 too, and the autofocus tech has completely changed everything.
For under a grand, Edr’s suggestion of R10 plus adaptor would probably be a huge leap for you.
I’ve bought a 400mm f5.6, (non image stab) used, and the in-body image stab of the R3 works very well indeed. Sharp, light, cheap ish.
Thanks guys.
Just been looking into the R10...looks like some amazing performance from a consumer-level camera.
Two main niggles:-
- It's small, very small. As you suggest, putting a 100-400 IS on it will feel pretty imbalanced.
- Battery life looks like a problem (is this true for all mirrorless?). ~300 shots from the battery is woeful - I took c.2,000 from the 7D and it's still showing 2 bars, so say 30-40% left.
That said, a lightly used R7 looks like it fixes both those problems (well, battery life only partially - 500-700 shots). And would probably be far superior to a 6D II in all other regards.
Edit: If I can find one for much of a saving over new...they're all >£1,200 unless I gamble with eBay.
One final thought - does the adaptor for the EF-lenses come with any drawbacks? (I'm thinking like a 1.4TC hits aperture and sometimes IS)
Just been looking into the R10...looks like some amazing performance from a consumer-level camera.
Two main niggles:-
- It's small, very small. As you suggest, putting a 100-400 IS on it will feel pretty imbalanced.
- Battery life looks like a problem (is this true for all mirrorless?). ~300 shots from the battery is woeful - I took c.2,000 from the 7D and it's still showing 2 bars, so say 30-40% left.
That said, a lightly used R7 looks like it fixes both those problems (well, battery life only partially - 500-700 shots). And would probably be far superior to a 6D II in all other regards.
Edit: If I can find one for much of a saving over new...they're all >£1,200 unless I gamble with eBay.
One final thought - does the adaptor for the EF-lenses come with any drawbacks? (I'm thinking like a 1.4TC hits aperture and sometimes IS)
Edited by havoc on Sunday 16th July 11:07
No downsides to the ef-rf adaptors apart from added weight and length. But that’s negligible. There’s no glass to affect image quality.
Most reviewers get way more shots per battery charge than the manufacturer states. It looks like Canon's figures come from someone taking single shots at a time and messing around with the menus for each shot.
See here for more real world stuff:
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r10.htm
An R7, without doubt, would be a far better experience.
Most reviewers get way more shots per battery charge than the manufacturer states. It looks like Canon's figures come from someone taking single shots at a time and messing around with the menus for each shot.
See here for more real world stuff:
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r10.htm
An R7, without doubt, would be a far better experience.
What about the R8?
I'm considering it at the moment. It also has the adaptor - but I can't find anywhere with them the adaptor in stock.
By all accounts, it seems to be awesome, except for battery consumption.
I'd be upgrading from a 650D, which now has too many dead pixels for my liking.
Thing is, I love the warmth of its images.
I'm considering it at the moment. It also has the adaptor - but I can't find anywhere with them the adaptor in stock.
By all accounts, it seems to be awesome, except for battery consumption.
I'd be upgrading from a 650D, which now has too many dead pixels for my liking.
Thing is, I love the warmth of its images.
FYI, regarding EF to RF adapters - you don't need to hunt for a Canon one.
The adapters literally just pass through the electric contacts, from one mount to the other - theres no electronics inside - so even 3rd party adapters work just as well as the Canon one. (the differences i've found, have been that cheaper adapters can have less light baffles / flocking inside the adapter, so really cheapo ones can be a little shiny in there, leading to a little loss in contrast, or also prone to more gate flare)
I briefly had a Canon C70 for work, so video centric, but used a Viltrox RF to EF, and it worked flawlessly
The adapters literally just pass through the electric contacts, from one mount to the other - theres no electronics inside - so even 3rd party adapters work just as well as the Canon one. (the differences i've found, have been that cheaper adapters can have less light baffles / flocking inside the adapter, so really cheapo ones can be a little shiny in there, leading to a little loss in contrast, or also prone to more gate flare)
I briefly had a Canon C70 for work, so video centric, but used a Viltrox RF to EF, and it worked flawlessly
[quote=Fordo]FYI, regarding EF to RF adapters - you don't need to hunt for a Canon one.
The adapters literally just pass through the electric contacts, from one mount to the other - theres no electronics inside - so even 3rd party adapters work just as well as the Canon one. (the differences i've found, have been that cheaper adapters can have less light baffles / flocking inside the adapter, so really cheapo ones can be a little shiny in there, leading to a little loss in contrast, or also prone to more gate flare)
I briefly had a Canon C70 for work, so video centric, but used a Viltrox EF to RF, and it worked flawlessly. - even with my old Canon 100-400mm (autofocus seemed to work better than it did on my 7d)
The adapters literally just pass through the electric contacts, from one mount to the other - theres no electronics inside - so even 3rd party adapters work just as well as the Canon one. (the differences i've found, have been that cheaper adapters can have less light baffles / flocking inside the adapter, so really cheapo ones can be a little shiny in there, leading to a little loss in contrast, or also prone to more gate flare)
I briefly had a Canon C70 for work, so video centric, but used a Viltrox EF to RF, and it worked flawlessly. - even with my old Canon 100-400mm (autofocus seemed to work better than it did on my 7d)
dxg said:
What about the R8?
Too many of the downsides of the R10 (smaller, battery life, control interfaces, no IBIS), and no cheaper than the R7.Tony1963 said:
You b
ds are not helping me talk myself out of spending far too much money! 
Edited by havoc on Sunday 16th July 12:52
Agree that the R7 would be a great choice (I was going to suggest it originally, but thought I'd start with the R10 and let man maths go from there!). Has the additional advantage of being able to share batteries with your 5D3.
Obviously not trying to sway you, but as well as the Panamoz option (I like Panamoz, have bought a few things from there), Canon UK are doing £170 cash back on the R7 for the next few weeks, so makes the price from a UK supplier much closer.
You could always use their free test drive service to try one for a few days, plus they used to give you a 5% discount voucher after you tried the item to buy it from your preferred supplier, e.g. Wex / Park, etc. Would allow you to see how the noise levels compare, and how you like the handling.You could borrow an EF-RF adapter at the same time to try your own lenses on it.....
https://testdrive.trythekit.com/products/HAC00-081...
Obviously not trying to sway you, but as well as the Panamoz option (I like Panamoz, have bought a few things from there), Canon UK are doing £170 cash back on the R7 for the next few weeks, so makes the price from a UK supplier much closer.
You could always use their free test drive service to try one for a few days, plus they used to give you a 5% discount voucher after you tried the item to buy it from your preferred supplier, e.g. Wex / Park, etc. Would allow you to see how the noise levels compare, and how you like the handling.You could borrow an EF-RF adapter at the same time to try your own lenses on it.....
https://testdrive.trythekit.com/products/HAC00-081...
toohuge said:
heavily cropping images can amplify noise, this may also be a contributing factor.
Yeah, I know, but being either stuck in a queue because the organisers were st, at one end of the runway or a fair distance behind the flight-line didn't help, even with a -400 on a crop sensor. (which I tend to limit to 350mm or so to avoid using the limits of the optics)...and as I've a 70-200 f/4 IS which I adore for nearly everything except landscapes, the 100-400 only comes out when I need the extra range. I'm off to Reno in September, so wondering if a 1.4TC wouldn't be a silly idea...give me 560mm plus the crop-factor on-top for an effective 870mm-ish. Or whether my wobbling arms would tax even the IS of an R7.
(s
t...didn't realise how expensive TC's had got. Maybe not... 
)EdR said:
Agree that the R7 would be a great choice (I was going to suggest it originally, but thought I'd start with the R10 and let man maths go from there!).
Well, it's working...and with cashback that's cheaper than new from Panamoz, similar to Wex/other 2nd hand, and not THAT much higher than HDEW.As a PS to this, I'm looking into some of the more advanced / dedicated noise-removal tools on the market to see what I can recover...anyone used Topaz, ON1 or DxO?
:cough: Anyone want to buy a 7D Mk1. Great camera, honest...
Edited by havoc on Sunday 16th July 17:48
Tony1963 said:
Is this what PH used to be like? Someone asks for help, people chip in with help and ideas?
Still is sometimes, but mainly in the sub-fora now. NP&E, SP&L, Lounge and GG have too many trolls and wannabe's. Nowhere near as bad as Twitter, but it's not immune from the social media disease...
PS - free trialling DxO right now. Pretty impressive kit and well ahead of Lightroom Classic, but can't work miracles...loses the noise beautifully, but leaves the aircraft a little soft still and can't recover the detail that was originally lost. Will share some images once I've worked through them.
PPS - am going to make a couple of calls to some indy retailers in the morning, see if they've got an R7 in stock.
PPPS - for the mirrorless users out there, is there any significant benefit in going for the lens adaptor with control ring over the standard lens adaptor. It's an extra £100...but if it's useful, it's ONLY an extra £100, IYSWIM?
Always exposed to the right with the 7d mk1 - when I know I am shooting at high ISO, using Adobe Lightroom's new Denoise AI is very good if I really have too.
Recently picked up a used one for £130, utter bargain cameras nowadays, as a backup body I can chuck in my bag - run it alongside my 5dmk4 which is still a fantastic body I use for my work, still get the 5dmk2 out too if I want a particular look to the files, shadow recovery is immense on these bodies, anyway I digress.
Recently picked up a used one for £130, utter bargain cameras nowadays, as a backup body I can chuck in my bag - run it alongside my 5dmk4 which is still a fantastic body I use for my work, still get the 5dmk2 out too if I want a particular look to the files, shadow recovery is immense on these bodies, anyway I digress.
Edited by 7 5 7 on Sunday 16th July 22:34
havoc said:
PPPS - for the mirrorless users out there, is there any significant benefit in going for the lens adaptor with control ring over the standard lens adaptor. It's an extra £100...but if it's useful, it's ONLY an extra £100, IYSWIM?
I'm using a 5Dmk3, and also for over a year an R5 which I got with a control ring adapter. Apart from initially playing with it, I can't remember ever actively using the control ring. I don't know the specs/controls available on the bodies you are looking at, but certainly for my use cases, there are sufficient controls on the camera body meaning no need for the control ring on the adapter. If I had to buy again, I'd go for the adapter without control ring.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff