Canon 7D Mark II Image Quality

[dh]

Hi all,

I've been reading the "new firmware" thread about the Canon 7D Mark II. Most of the complaints there seem to be related to auto-focus accuracy. What I find disappointing about my 7D2 is not the auto-focus, but the overall image quality. My other body is a 5D3, and I find that the 7D2 doesn't hold a candle to it in terms of fine detail.

I'll admit I can be a bit of a pixel-peeper, but I just can't seem to get the kind of detail I want out of my 7D2. For example, in images of birds, the fine details of the feathers are almost completely missing.

I've seen shots that others have taken with a 7D2 that seem to have better fine detail. I'm not sure if the difference is that I've got a bad 7D2 that needs to be repaired/replaced, or if I'm doing something wrong in my post-processing.

If anyone has any insight on this, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
-dh

 

[justaCanonuser]

I've just got a new 7D2 yesterday as upgrade for my old 7D, and I do a lot of birding with a 5D3. I hope I can check today how my 7D2 performs with a tele lens.

One reason for mushed feather and fur textures could be too slow shutter speeds. I know this problem already from my old 7D: its smaller pixels are much more sensitive to those permanent vibrating movements which are typical e.g. for small birds. So one needs to go for shorter exposure times compared with cameras with bigger pixels. It is simply a geometrical effect, just like a higher magnification of a microscope also magnifies every movement of a probe like a lever. So I always had to use higher shutter speed settings with my 7D for birding than with my 5D3. Same with my wife's Nikon D300. With its 12 MP and bigger pixels she can go for less fast shutter speeds (using same focal lenghts) than me with my 7D and her images still look sharp when pixel peeping.

Unfortunately, this drives one faster to a higher ISO range, where the higher resolving, smaller pixel get more noisy... like always in life everything comes with a price tag.

 

[Danzq]

I think the IQ is superb when it hits focus - no complaints there.

+1 for the comment above regarding higher shutter speeds.

 

[YuengLinger]

Also, expecting FF quality (OP is comparing to a 5DIII), may still be high expectations in 2015. After all, 7DII costs half of 5DIII release price--and includes new features.

Very keen to se new firmware.

 

[Don Haines]

I think the IQ is superb when it hits focus - no complaints there.

+1 for the comment above regarding higher shutter speeds.

+2 on the higher shutter speeds....

 

[kristianlund]

I have problems with AF... But when it hits its really sharp. But sometimes i experience noise at even 100 iso.

 

[Deleted member 369279]

Hi Dh,

I have bought a 7Dk2 in January. I own the 5Dmk3. Recently I bought the Sigma 150-600 sport.
When I use it with the 7Dk2 i am very disappointed with the image quality. I didn't have time to check the image quality of the images taken with the 7Dk2 and the Tamron 150-600 i owned before. But there is a huge difference between the 7Dk2 and the 5Dk3. Of course I know it is APSC vs FF. But as you mention there is no detail in the feather of a bird, it looks like the focus is never good. Even with non-moving subject, using a tripod and shutter speed of 1600 or 2000 the pictures look terrible.

As soon as I am home I will post some unprocessed raw files.

I am thinking about getting a 1Dmk4 to replace the 7Dk2.

Vincwat

 

[takesome1]

Comparing bird shots.

First you shoot tweety in the back yard using both cameras. Obviously if you are using a FF you will most likely have to crop. So you shoot the same tweety at the exact same distance. The bird fills the frame so you do not have to crop with the 7D II. In this scenario the 7D II will be noticeably sharper than the FF.

The next scenario is you shoot tweety bird with a FF but you do not have to crop because you are using a zoom and got close enough. So with the 7D II you shoot tweety farther away or you adjust the zoom to fill the frame exactly the same as FF. No cropping. The FF will be noticeably sharper than the 7D II. In this situation you might even say the 5D III blows it away, I would.

I hate to say it because I find it to be a statement that is lacking, but "more pixels on target" wins.

I have been using the 7D II exclusively for bird and wildlife since I bought it. All the situations are focal length limited situations described in my first scenario. If you are cropping the FF substantially the 7D II will give you a noticeably sharper image.

Why are you not getting sharp images? I do not know. But if you have the skill and are able to get sharp images with the 5D III then you should be able to get sharp images with the 7D II. I could tell you how to get sharp bird photographs, but if you have the skill already with the 5D III you have it for the 7D II.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The thing that comes with a 1.6 crop, is the need for 1.6 X faster shutter speeds to avoid motion blur.

Its difficult to help someone without actually seeing the full size images that are a problem.

 

[Visarend]

The obvious question not yet asked. Have you AFMA your lens? Is it not soft because your focus is not as spot on as is the case for the 5D?

 

[Deleted member 369279]

Hi guys,

I know how to take sharp pictures of birds, the shutter speed is not a factor since I keep it high and the test I did were from a tripod. We were mentioning feather because obviously this is the kind of thing in which you want a lot of details.
But my tests were not involving birds, but non-moving subjects (a wall, bricks, ...) I did these tests after realizing that my pictures taken on the field were not as I wanted them to be. Both cameras have been AFMA with the lens (Dot tune method and Focal which by the way gave me the same results).
The pictures from the 7D2 look good as ok as you dont look at it at 100%.

Vincwat

 

[Andyx01]

Sorry everyone - You don't need a faster shutter on a 7D over a 5D in fact if anything you could get away with a slower shutter since the frame will contain fewer pixels.

On the other hand, if you are not comphensating for framing, you will need a 55% faster shutter (61% faster from the crop / 1.1 slower from the decreased sensor density) at matching focal lengths if you want to see increased detail that would otherwise be lost to motion. At a given shuter, you are NOT going to lose detail on small subjects, you only increase the chance of having motion blur which will be the same amount as the 5D only zoomed back by a factor of 1.6 In other words the image will NOT be worse, it will be equal or better on content already being cropped.

Having cleared that up; the differences you are seeing are probably due to lens quality.

If you were to say that Full frame uses 100% of an EF lens, you could say that crop uses only 39% of that.

This magnifies the defects.

The better the lens, the less of an issue.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[takesome1]

Having cleared that up; the differences you are seeing are probably due to lens quality.

If you were to say that Full frame uses 100% of an EF lens, you could say that crop uses only 39% of that.

This magnifies the defects.

The better the lens, the less of an issue.

Hope that makes sense.

No it doesn't.

First you are using the best part of the lens with the crop, the center. But that doesn't even matter in an equal distance equal target comparison.
Next your pictures will not be worse with a bad lens. They may not be any better because of the limitation of the lens but they will not be worse.

I would ask you to show an example of a really bad lens shot on an older sensor compared to one of the current sensors to demonstrate this.

Otherwise I write this line of thinking off to one of those baseless theories that we see floating around all the time. The theory starts out sound then gets warped as it is repeated. It starts out by someone saying a high resolution sensor will show more flaws in the lens, sure it would, then someone adds the line it makes your picture worse because you see flaws. One doesn't lead to the other.

 

[YuengLinger]

Sorry everyone - You don't need a faster shutter on a 7D over a 5D in fact if anything you could get away with a slower shutter since the frame will contain fewer pixels.

On the other hand, if you are not comphensating for framing, you will need a 55% faster shutter (61% faster from the crop / 1.1 slower from the decreased sensor density) at matching focal lengths if you want to see increased detail that would otherwise be lost to motion. At a given shuter, you are NOT going to lose detail on small subjects, you only increase the chance of having motion blur which will be the same amount as the 5D only zoomed back by a factor of 1.6 In other words the image will NOT be worse, it will be equal or better on content already being cropped.

Having cleared that up; the differences you are seeing are probably due to lens quality.

If you were to say that Full frame uses 100% of an EF lens, you could say that crop uses only 39% of that.

This magnifies the defects.

The better the lens, the less of an issue.

Hope that makes sense.

Utterly baffling.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Vincwat, I think you'd be disappointed with the 1D4 relative to FF IQ such as the 6D. Having just bought a 1D4 it has lots of features to really like, but higher ISO such as 1250 is grainy if you're forced to crop very much. My gut feeling is that once you pixel peep with FF, a crop camera isn't going to satisfy you.

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

Sorry everyone - You don't need a faster shutter on a 7D over a 5D in fact if anything you could get away with a slower shutter since the frame will contain fewer pixels.

On the other hand, if you are not comphensating for framing, you will need a 55% faster shutter (61% faster from the crop / 1.1 slower from the decreased sensor density) at matching focal lengths if you want to see increased detail that would otherwise be lost to motion. At a given shuter, you are NOT going to lose detail on small subjects, you only increase the chance of having motion blur which will be the same amount as the 5D only zoomed back by a factor of 1.6 In other words the image will NOT be worse, it will be equal or better on content already being cropped.

Having cleared that up; the differences you are seeing are probably due to lens quality.

If you were to say that Full frame uses 100% of an EF lens, you could say that crop uses only 39% of that.

This magnifies the defects.

The better the lens, the less of an issue.

Hope that makes sense.

Given approximately the same pixel count, the pixels on a crop camera are 62 percent of the length or width of a pixel on a FF camera. With the same lens, Vibration or movement on a FF camera that would cause a ray of light to move 1 pixel, would move 1.6 pixels of a crop camera. You counter this by reducing the time by 1.6 times.

Smaller pixels require faster shutter speed to get the same amount of blur. It is simple geometry.

 

[candc]

you need a faster shutter speed with a crop camera compared to ff due to the narrower field of view. just like the longer the focal length of the lens, the faster the shutter speed you need. the general rule for ff is 1/fl but for a crop camera its 1/(fl x 1.6). if you use auto iso that is what the camera tries to maintain for a minimum shutter speed.

when viewed at 100% small pixels will smear with movement easier than big ones so that and the narrower field of view really requires a high density sensor crop camera to need a fast shutter, some say the rule of thumb is 1/(fl x 2)


if you are shooting action you are going to get motion blur, the more you crop or magnify the image the more noticeable it is.

 

[Don Haines]

Next your pictures will not be worse with a bad lens. They may not be any better because of the limitation of the lens but they will not be worse.

The resolution of the system is a function of pixel density and lens quality. There is no hard stop where increasing the quality of the lens gives you no improvements, just diminishing returns.....

Regardless of the camera, be it FF or crop, a better quality lens (less or smaller aberrations and tighter tolerances) will increase the resolution of the photo. Likewise, a poorer quality lens will decrease the resolution of the photo.

 

[takesome1]

Next your pictures will not be worse with a bad lens. They may not be any better because of the limitation of the lens but they will not be worse.

The resolution of the system is a function of pixel density and lens quality. There is no hard stop where increasing the quality of the lens gives you no improvements, just diminishing returns.....

Regardless of the camera, be it FF or crop, a better quality lens (less or smaller aberrations and tighter tolerances) will increase the resolution of the photo. Likewise, a poorer quality lens will decrease the resolution of the photo.

For the most part I agree with this.

My comment was in reference to a lens on a FF and the same lens on a 7D II where distance and testing are equal. The 7D II will not be worse because it "shows flaws".

 

[takesome1]

Given approximately the same pixel count, the pixels on a crop camera are 62 percent of the length or width of a pixel on a FF camera. With the same lens, Vibration or movement on a FF camera that would cause a ray of light to move 1 pixel, would move 1.6 pixels of a crop camera. You counter this by reducing the time by 1.6 times.

Smaller pixels require faster shutter speed to get the same amount of blur. It is simple geometry.

I would like to see testing that demonstrates this. Know of any?