Canon 7D Mark II Noise comparisons from TDP are now available
- Thread starter ftico
- Start date
FYI, for those who prefer pictures to DXO scores. :
I strongly prefer Mr. Carnathan's comparisons over the cryptic DXO methodology as it lets me opt in to the data on my own terms (using personal experience with a specific camera to compare it to).
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-ISO-Noise.aspx
Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor. There's a ton of value elsewhere in the camera, but if you were holding out for 2 stops better low light performance over the 7D, the 7D2 may have fallen short of that (admittedly high) mark.
- A
I strongly prefer Mr. Carnathan's comparisons over the cryptic DXO methodology as it lets me opt in to the data on my own terms (using personal experience with a specific camera to compare it to).http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-ISO-Noise.aspx
Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor. There's a ton of value elsewhere in the camera, but if you were holding out for 2 stops better low light performance over the 7D, the 7D2 may have fallen short of that (admittedly high) mark.
- A
Upvote
0
Re: 7D mark II image quality on the-digital-picture.com
Back to the real world. I trust the observations of a user over a tester.
Back to the real world. I trust the observations of a user over a tester.
Upvote
0
Re: 7D mark II image quality on the-digital-picture.com
Bryan Carnathan has the credibility of being an actual photographer, and his reviews are more focused on his user experience with the gear and less on MTF charts. He's a bit pro-Canon and tends to see the best in their products (lots of enthusiasm for new offerings), but his insights from use and personal anecdotes of how his gear gets it done or lets him down is valuable. He's also very good at sniffing out odd problems with gear (e.g. the Sigma 50 Art AF semi-inconsistency) and sharing his work behind those findings. So I don't look to his site for hard data so much as a global user read on a product, and he's very good at it.
I'm a big fan of all the good stuff at his site, and he's very approachable to answering my questions.
- A
2n10 said:
Bryan Carnathan has the credibility of being an actual photographer, and his reviews are more focused on his user experience with the gear and less on MTF charts. He's a bit pro-Canon and tends to see the best in their products (lots of enthusiasm for new offerings), but his insights from use and personal anecdotes of how his gear gets it done or lets him down is valuable. He's also very good at sniffing out odd problems with gear (e.g. the Sigma 50 Art AF semi-inconsistency) and sharing his work behind those findings. So I don't look to his site for hard data so much as a global user read on a product, and he's very good at it.
I'm a big fan of all the good stuff at his site, and he's very approachable to answering my questions.
- A
Upvote
0
Sabaki said:
Just on the high ISO / noise front, I've been keeping a rough tally:
DXO: 7D2 is 1/3 stop better than the 7D (their words, obv. the range of ISO you are talking about matters)
DPReview: 7D2 is about a full stop better than the 7D (to my eyes)
TDP/Carnathan: 7D2 is under a full stop better than the 7D, but I can't nail down how much (to my eyes)
Again, you aren't buying this camera for the sensor. There's a ton of improved tech on-board that justifies its purchase, but the sensor isn't on that list.
Crudely, I liken the 7D to 7D2 comparison to that of the 5D2 to 5D3. The sensor of the 5D2 was excellent but a lot of supporting features (esp. the AF) underperformed, and the 5D3 comprehensively upgraded those features. The 7D2 -- obviously improving different sorts of features than the 5D3 -- represents that similar comprehensive upgrade. The IQ is very similar, but the number and percentage of keepers should be higher as a result.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
+1 ... you might pixel-peep relative comparisons old 18mp vs 70d vs 7d2 all day long, but at 100% crop I don't see the basic premise changed: 800 is the max with good iq, 1600 is so-so, and ff retains a ~2 stop advantage. But that's of course to my eyes and just a quick impression.
However, I'm rather irritated about the vast differences in sharpness between the models, for example the 60d looks very blurry vs. 70d/7d2 and the 6d is a lot shaper than all. Is this because of lens properties, aa filter, or... ?
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
Yeeeeah..... No one ever does it the perfect way for us.
See his methods -- I believe he is taking all of these shots as JPGs off the camera with no noise reduction applied and a consistent picture style.* In some instances (and it's flagged), he'll show shots with NR applied either onboard or with a RAW file run through DPP. Again, read the page for particulars.
*That's where the softness is likely coming from. Canon tunes up the picture styles from body to body.
Personally, I'd just like to see appropriately exposed RAW files compared with no NR, but wouldn't we all like it a different way?
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Nah, why use search if you can just ask again - that's the time-tried CR method and never touch a running system
... but thanks for the reply, offhand I simply assumed they're using raw w/o nr for these tests.
Upvote
0
Re: 7D mark II image quality on the-digital-picture.com
I know that about Brian and that is what my comment was about. Brian = user, DXO + tester.
I very much trust Brian's reviews and views. He was the one source that I went to when I first started with DSLRs for lens and other attachment reviews. He still is. His reviews are the most in depth I have found and I was very much waiting for this one. It is still a work in progress from what I have read but it is none the less the best out there IMO.
ahsanford said:
I know that about Brian and that is what my comment was about. Brian = user, DXO + tester.
I very much trust Brian's reviews and views. He was the one source that I went to when I first started with DSLRs for lens and other attachment reviews. He still is. His reviews are the most in depth I have found and I was very much waiting for this one. It is still a work in progress from what I have read but it is none the less the best out there IMO.
Upvote
0
Lots of comparisons regarding signal/noise ratios, DR, and resolution. If banding has been eliminated, isn't that something that the 7D was criticized the most by many? How quickly we forget.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
Yep. And with a Canon FF the same price as this crop, there's no reason to settle anymore.
The Canon FF IQ is just beautiful. I'm selling all my crops as soon as I get home.
Upvote
0
Thanks for sharing! Like many here, I am eagerly awaiting Bryan Carnathan's full review of the 7D Mark II. He is thorough and has a very well-rounded approach to reviewing cameras as a camera, rather than as some piece of laboratory equipment.
I must say, I'm growing ever more impressed with the IQ results for the 7D Mark II. They are substantial, at least for those with realistic expectations. I knew the AF, burst and buffer would be enormously impressive and those are the features I was most interested in, but it's fantastic that there are solid image quality improvements as well. This looks to be a phenomenal replacement for the 7D!
I must say, I'm growing ever more impressed with the IQ results for the 7D Mark II. They are substantial, at least for those with realistic expectations. I knew the AF, burst and buffer would be enormously impressive and those are the features I was most interested in, but it's fantastic that there are solid image quality improvements as well. This looks to be a phenomenal replacement for the 7D!
Upvote
0
I am pretty vocal about my dislike over DXO's one number system, but, I don't see any thing that contradicts the DXO testing. They set a 20% S/N ratio as the limit for a clean raw image, which turned out to be just over ISO 1000. They set a stiffer standard, but its not a limit to actually using a camera, you just lose more detail above their figure. Some cameras degrade quickly at higher ISO's, and some degrade slowly so that you can increase the ISO a couple of extra stops or maybe three if you don't mind using more NR and losing more detail.
Looking at Bryans tests, the images are pretty clean at 800 and have a bit of lost detail and show noise at 1600. That doesn't mean that they are unusable, I'd have no problems at ISO 1600, and could get a nice image using a little NR at 3200. They seem to match the image quality published earlier by other major reviewers.
But at 6400, noise becomes pretty significant, so it would be for emergencies, or photos where fine detail is not required.
Looking at Bryans tests, the images are pretty clean at 800 and have a bit of lost detail and show noise at 1600. That doesn't mean that they are unusable, I'd have no problems at ISO 1600, and could get a nice image using a little NR at 3200. They seem to match the image quality published earlier by other major reviewers.
But at 6400, noise becomes pretty significant, so it would be for emergencies, or photos where fine detail is not required.
Upvote
0
that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.
no matter if it´s justified or not this will make an impression on customers.
only three example:
https://fstoppers.com/critiques/dxomark-results-show-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-test-similar-5-year-old-nikon-bodies-43470#comment-form
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/05/dxomark-disappointed-7d-mark-ii-sensor-lags-behind-mft-cameras-base-iso/
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a-mount-is-dead-sure-look-at-that/
you can say what you want about DXO but it carrys a lot of weight as you can see.
if canon does not counter that, the reputation is gone. if it´s not already too late.
no matter if it´s justified or not this will make an impression on customers.
only three example:
https://fstoppers.com/critiques/dxomark-results-show-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-test-similar-5-year-old-nikon-bodies-43470#comment-form
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/05/dxomark-disappointed-7d-mark-ii-sensor-lags-behind-mft-cameras-base-iso/
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a-mount-is-dead-sure-look-at-that/
you can say what you want about DXO but it carrys a lot of weight as you can see.
if canon does not counter that, the reputation is gone. if it´s not already too late.
Upvote
0
Jon_D said:
DXO Mark is like the Emperor's New Clothes. It carries a lot of weight, but Canon has done superbly with lots of cameras that scored poorly on it, including the 5D Mark III. Personally, I hope Canon doesn't start playing the same game the other companies do and start chasing the fantasy that is a DXO Mark rating. They're much better off making solid, well engineered cameras for photographers!
Upvote
0
While I like objective lab tests and the opinions of experts, I still rely on getting out there with the HW in my own hands, shooting pics, and evaluating the performance against my own standards and expectations. I've been shooting around the house with my 7D2 side by side with my 5D2 and find it meets my expectations. Low light performance is actually quite good. I'll be shooting a nighttime football game tomorrow where that will be a mix of sports action (300mm f2.8L IS II) and halftime portraits (going to try out the Sigma 50mm Art). Next weekend, I'll be shooting a high power rocket launch. After that I'll have enough personal experiences and data to develop my own opinion. Buy, rent, or borrow one and shoot it for yourself. The only opinions that matter are your own.
Upvote
0
Jon_D said:
Note edit above.
I don't disagree with your point, but people are flogging a component of the camera and not the pictures the entire camera can capture. (Is anyone flogging Nikon for not having DPAF or a stellar AF system? Or the shots they miss for their limited burst rate and buffer size in this price point?)
Very very very very very few photographers deeply care about sensor scores, so 'losing' in a sensor battle to Sony is of little consequence to them. I have yet to see a single substantive piece of proof that shows that photographers are switching away from Canon in any numbers that matter.
Yet I do see stories like these:
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/
http://kurtklimisch.blogspot.com/2014/01/examination-for-reuters-fullfocus-2013.html
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/70_of_imaging_professionals_use_canon_gear_at_2014_world_cup/
...that imply that imaging professionals are awfully fond of their Canon gear. There's only one explanation for this: no one told them about the dynamic range they were throwing away by not switching to Nikon immediately.
- A
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Marauder said:
+1
Canon sensors have received lower DxOMark Scores than their competitors for ~5 years now, years in which they continued to sell more dSLRs than those competitors.
DxOMark's Biased Scores (BS) do serve a purpose, though (albeit not a useful one):
Indeed! I think Canon is doing a much better job of focussing on what photographers want, rather than what reviewers expect--and it's paying dividends. Nikon also makes great products, but there seems to be an almost shotgun like quality to their approach, trying to see what will "stick." I think the oddest thing about Nikon right now is how they continue to handicap potentially solid products with mediocre (or downright abysmal) buffer sizes.
For example, reading the various comparisons between the 70D and the D7100 really illustrates that weakness. For a camera that will be used by many for fast moving subjects, such as sports and wildlife, the D7100's extremely small buffer is a huge handicap, while the 70D has a decent sized buffer capable of allowing a judicious photographer to take several short (3 or 4 shot) bursts to capture various portions of a bird's flight, or other action sequence. It's a pity for a Nikon shooter in many ways, because the D7100 seems like a pretty solid performer with the exception of this one factor, but it's a critical factor.
The full frame Nikon lineup seems a bit scattered too. Products like the D4S and the D810 seem to be well targeted at a lucrative market, but the differences between the D610 and D750 seem a bit less well defined. I think it's primarily AF speed and accuracy that separates them, and that is a critical difference. But there doesn't seem to be enough other salient differences to separate them, unless I'm missing something. (Nikon shooters, please feel free to disagree with that point if you wish--I'd like to know what other advantages you feel the D750 might have. I would have thought a substantially larger buffer would have been on the table, but I've read that's not really the case.) And don't even get me started on the DF! With Fuji and Olympus showing the way to make a thoroughly modern camera with a retro look that's also practical to use, it's hard to believe Nikon could have gone so badly wrong!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
