AWAIR photography

Sports Photography & the 7D Mark II

Purchasing the Canon EOS-7D Mark II was an absolute disaster. Not only did I lose over a thousand dollars, I wasted numerous unrepeatable opportunities for sports action, of my kids.

There's always another Olympics, a Super Bowl or World Cup. Some sporting icon will do something amazing, and be immortalised by a phenomenal, or lucky, photographer (or maybe it's a phenomenally lucky photog!)

When it comes to your own, there may not be another event, so missing, or messing up is not an option.

I've had great results over the years with my original 7D, and the only things (I found) lacking were the number of focussing points and the continuous shooting speed. High ISO performance was not in my 'field of vision' at this stage, but even so, the Mark II still had it.

The rumours, and the eventual announcement, of the Mark II confirmed that the 7D Mark II was everything I needed in a new camera. Theoretically.

I had tried, considered, and rejected the higher quality of a full-frame DSLR. The 'sportiness' advantage of the 7D outweighed the quality of full-frame.

Except when you can't achieve the focus, reliably...

"Pixels are Pixels..."

Surely a pixel is a pixel. It's just one 'blob' of light, isn't it?

Well at least that was how I tried to convince a colleague of mine, many years ago. What I didn't realise was that his pixels were "bigger than mine".

This didn't really seem intuitive. There are, after all, so many of them. Does it really make a difference?

I was certain, in an obstinate, unendearing way, that my 18Mp (crop) camera should be as good as a similar vintage 18Mp full-frame model. Only I was completely wrong.

Over the past few years, I've rented the Canon EOS-5D Mark III, and owned the EOS-6D - twice.

The results have been remarkable. In good light my 7D would supply great images. I never had an inclination to pixel peep, the images always seemed sharp and crisp enough. However, in lower light situations (ISO 1600 or faster), the 7D seemed "barely adequate".

In contrast, the results from the 5DIII & the 6D, where used at the same event, produce results that are a marked improvement using exactly the same ISO, aperture & shutter speed.

Based on this experience, I would have to recommend the Canon EOS-6D as the perfect choice for an entry-level photographer.

Moving up to a Digital SLR

My first digital SLR was the Canon EOS-20D and was purchased for speed: speed for camera start-up, speed to acquire focus, and speed for shutter release. I had owned SLRs before, but now the children were getting too inquisitive, and wanted to see the image on the back screen, even before the picture had been taken. The wonders of digital photography!

I kept this model for nearly 5 years before upgrading to the Canon EOS-7D. Again, "purely for the children"...

The 7D is a fantastic sports/action camera that has served me well over the course of at least 5-7 years, until rumours of the Mark II became too hard to resist. By the time that later model was launched I was convinced that this was the camera to meet (and exceed) all my expectations. I became an early launch customer...

... and what a mistake that turned out to be.