Initial thoughts

I am already sad that Canon won’t do a Mark 3!

The initial feeling on the 7D Mark Ii is great.

I tried the D500, but decided to go for the much better valued D7500. I ended up disliking the raw output of the D7500 sensor so much that I sold it. I also found the autofocus of the Nikon D300 on par as of the D7500. Both could shoot at 8 FPS, but the D300 felt so much more professional than the plasticy D7500.

So my sister wanted a camera: The best under $1000CAD. We found a 7D Mark II with 65k for $850 CAD with a spare battery. Great deal.

A few things, for having shot with both: The Nikon’s battery life is unreal. You can charge the D7500 twice a year almost. I’d be comfortable forgetting the charging on a long road trip. The white balance of the D7500 is better. It also feels snappier, at least the menu and the playback.

It’s hard to be the D7500 value for the price: but it was a camera plagued with a sensor that did not satisfy me. I’ve shot with great cameras delivering great RAW files. The D7500/D500 20.1 mp was always too “waxy” and too “digital”. It’s hard to explain if you have never shot using anything else.

I swear: Those RAW files from the 20.1 mp copper-something sensor are not great. There is something off too it. I shared this sentiment with other old school photographer on DPreview forum.

If you can tolerate its weird output, then the D7500 is still in the fight. It would probably be okay for 95% of the shooter. I’m old school and had a dozens or more of different DSLRs: I am picky. The D7000 had great RAW, just like the D300. The D7500? Nope.

So one can wonder what’s a better choice better a Nikon D7500 brand-new versus a Canon 7D Mark II used. The Nikon has 4k video capture. The Nikon seems to have a superior high iso. But I have to say that I was impressed with the Canon’s output at 16 000: it’s actually very decent.

The 7D Mark II offers 10 FPS for 1000 JPG burst or 30 RAW: very impressive. The D7500 is limited to 200 JPG (can’t imagine a situation that I need more than 10 seconds of shooting anyway) and 8 FPS.

But the most important is… the image quality. I can live with the output of the 7D Mark II:

The GPS feature of the 7D Mark II is a bit gimmicky but can be useful once in the pantanal in Brazil. The 7D feels tougher than the D7500, that’s for sure.

When it comes down to the autofocus, the D7500 has a superior one on paper, but in reality… It isn’t better than the D300 for birders. I was never impressed with the D7500 autofocus. I took it to the Arctic and to Singapore. It did the job, but it wasn’t doing what anything that a 10 years old D300 would have done.

You’d be better with the D500 if you are tracking birds, that is clear.

I have not used enough with the 7D too give you my opinion on the autofocus system. It seems very good so far. Only time will tell.

Would I buy a 7D Mark II? Nope: Too small! I don’t think it is a comfortable body to hold. The D7500/D300 is much more comfortable. I would rather take a second hand 1D Mark IV just to get the great 1.3x sensor rather than 1.6. But for someone like my sister that wants a compact 500mm f/4 stabilized equivalent with 20mp and 10 fps? It’s hard to beat the value proposition, and that’s why the 7D MK II gets my vote: better image quality than the D7500, better ergonomics and built quality, and faster. For a lower price, used anyway. The Nikon D500 is its direct competitor… but it has the same terrible 20.1 mp sensor from Nikon. So there isn’t really an option, other than the D7200 (2015) or D300s (2009).

I will post some results in a month. I need to leave Canada and head to Brazil to go shoot.

Cheers,

JP