Bryan Carnathan has completed his review of the 7D Mark II

[e17paul]

Great review...
Pretty much comfirms to me this camera is far from being a dud, but a camera I believe will help me deliver the goods.
It would have been unrealistic of me to expect 1Dx performance at a greatly reduced price just because it has a couple of FPS fewer and a cropped sensor. Sure, it would have been nice to have a sensor with much higher DR and less high ISO noise but the truth is I rarely shoot action in low light situations and as suggested by Bryan, I can always use my FF 5D for those darker moments ( I can't justify a 1Dx for my work). The sensor which seems to attract alot of criticism is just but one component (albeit important one)in a camera but for me, the AF, FPS, durability and available lens system is just as important.

I have total faith in the Canon lens system and looking at the Canon body line up, the 5D3 is too slow and the 1DX is too pricey. It looks like I only have one to choose from. The product people at Canon have certainly got me in their buyer pool!

Yeah, I tend to agree with Bryan that the IQ is far better than the 7D's and quite a bit better than the 70D's. Combined with a superb AF system and amazing performance, it looks like a huge winner to me. So many reviews are talking about how well it does at high ISO, which also gels. The constant negativity about it seems surprising...yet I guess I shouldn't BE surprised at it ultimately! LOL

If this can be done with a 1.6x crop sensor, then the next generation of full frame cameras with 2.5x the sensor area should mute the critics, at least for a short while.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Great that Bryan's review is now online, I have waited it for it eagerly. As always, well done! I appreciate in particular that he persuaded Chuck Westfall to explain the differences of the 1DX, 5D3, and 7D2's AF systems in detail.

 

[heptagon]

Looking at the noise comparison above ISO3200, the 7DII clearly is a little bit better than the 70D. - I suppose this is about as good as we get with Bayer pattern silicon sensors. It is not possible to make large gains.

Reduce read noise? At high ISO, the Canon sensors are already close to the limit.
Improve Quantum efficiency of the subpixel? Yes, but not with current silicon.
Use multicolor subpixels? This hasn't worked out well, so far, with silicon.

In that light, even the tiny gains, that Canon could achieve, are great.

Current sensors throw away a lot of light. Color filters block out a lot of light from the other colors. Green is the most important channel but only half the pixels detect green. That would be almost one stop improvement if every pixel was green.

I would expect 1-2 stops improvement when the sensor manufacturers move on to utilize new materials to build Layered sensors with multiple colors (possibly more than RGB) and 90% quantum efficiency throughout the spectral range.

 

[Woody]

In that light, even the tiny gains, that Canon could achieve, are great.

Yup.

While there will always be whiners who want to see 2 to 3 stops of improvement in high ISO performance for APS-C sensors, the reality is that even Sony with all their sensor wizardry cannot perform better. Just pit Nikon D7100/5300 vs Sony A6000 vs 7D2 using DPReview comparison page. Only Fujifilm 'appears' to be better... but anyone can also achieve the same kind of performance by tinkering with their RAW files.

 

[Loswr]

If this can be done with a 1.6x crop sensor, then the next generation of full frame cameras with 2.5x the sensor area should mute the critics, at least for a short while.

Fat chance.

 

[e17paul]

If this can be done with a 1.6x crop sensor, then the next generation of full frame cameras with 2.5x the sensor area should mute the critics, at least for a short while.

Fat chance.

I'm one of life's greateste optimists

 

[Sporgon]

+1 on the post above me. Horses can easily run faster than the 18mph that Sporgon said. Please exercise at least common sense. A horse cannot run faster than a human? Football running backs run at 20mph, and none of them will outrun a horse. And yes, various online resources rate the horse at around 45mph tops. Which makes the AF all the more impressive.

If only we had some photographic evidence. Oh wait ! We have ;D

OK, in fairness Brian's example was to show the effectiveness of ten frames per second in capturing the moment of suspension in the horses's gait rather than AF accuracy with a target moving towards the camera, and ten frames per second has clearly capture the horse..... in canter gait, not gallop.

I'll give in, maybe she had it up to 22 mph.

Incidentally I think the 7DII is shaping up to be a really excellent value top end action camera.

 

[ritholtz]

Despite Bryan's commentary, I'm with AvTvM on this. To my eyes, the noise comparison page (link below) shows minimal difference from the 70D at any ISO and certainly less than a stop (maybe 0.5 stop?) against the 7D, which seems to me a disappointing return for five years' progress. Along with a 6D, I still have a 7D but there's not enough here for me to feel the need to upgrade it. YMMV.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-ISO-Noise.aspx

Nice review. Brian always exaggerates latest one as a greatest one. Based on DPR comparison tool, there is a noise improvement over 70D at high iso. But colors are little different. 70D some how has brighter colors (red/green boxes) with more noise. I think, there is a little difference in the processing.

 

[NancyP]

To put things in perspective, Eadweard Muybridge did the same 10 fps thing back in 1878 and following years>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Well I hope Brian's knowledge of the camera is better than his knowledge of horses !

That nag galloping towards the camera at '40 to 45 mph ' , who does he think it is, Red Rum ? If a horse like that was really going flat out it would be about 500 metres per minute max - 18 mph.

His daughter has been involved with horses for many years, as we have seen from his photos.

I've also owned many horses. Your 18 MPH speed is way off for a quarter horse.

[font=arial, sans-serif]Horse Speed in MPH - How fast is your horse going?[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]Horses speed varies with their stride length, body build, and other factors, but here is a basic idea of how fast-- in miles per hour-- horses move at their various gaits: [/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]
Walk: Roughly 3-4 MPH. A pleasure show horse can go as slow as 2 mph. Gaited horses-- who do not trot-- can do a 'running walk' as fast as 15 mph.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]Trot: The trot is roughly 8-10 MPH. Again, a shorter striding horse could trot slower, and a horse with a long stride could move faster.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Canter/Lope: 10-17 MPH. [/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Gallop: This depends on the horse's condition and athletic ability. Some horses are not built to run fast an may only do a fast canter at their best; however, the gallop is about 30 mph. Thoroughbreds, which are bred for running distance but not speed, have been clocked at over 40 MPH. Quarter horses, bred and raced for short distances at speed, can reach 50 MPH in short bursts according to the AQHA's website.[/font]

 

[Marauder]

To put things in perspective, Eadweard Muybridge did the same 10 fps thing back in 1878 and following years>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge

Fascinating article! Thanks for sharing it!

 

[fragilesi]

Reviews like this are not helpful.

They just fuel GAS.

I really want this camera now!

 

[Marsu42]

Gallop: This depends on the horse's condition and athletic ability.

From what I shoot, I can tell that the perceived speed also depends on if you're standing, kneeling or lying in the line of the horse's path or not :->

 

[Arctic Photo]

+1 on the post above me. Horses can easily run faster than the 18mph that Sporgon said. Please exercise at least common sense. A horse cannot run faster than a human? Football running backs run at 20mph, and none of them will outrun a horse. And yes, various online resources rate the horse at around 45mph tops. Which makes the AF all the more impressive.

If only we had some photographic evidence. Oh wait ! We have ;D

OK, in fairness Brian's example was to show the effectiveness of ten frames per second in capturing the moment of suspension in the horses's gait rather than AF accuracy with a target moving towards the camera, and ten frames per second has clearly capture the horse..... in canter gait, not gallop.

I'll give in, maybe she had it up to 22 mph.

Incidentally I think the 7DII is shaping up to be a really excellent value top end action camera.

To me it looks that the stride length indicates canter which supports your original statement. Also, I don't believe she would ride in full galop on the side of that slope.

 

[Marauder]

Reviews like this are not helpful.

They just fuel GAS.

I really want this camera now!

LOL Well, if it helps, I'm quite GASSY myself! Er..........that just sounds wrong! LOL

Saving my dimes for my own 7D Mark II--probably in he new year some time. Wish I could do the 100-400 II at the same time, but it takes time to save the dough!

 

[justaCanonuser]

If this can be done with a 1.6x crop sensor, then the next generation of full frame cameras with 2.5x the sensor area should mute the critics, at least for a short while.

Fat chance.

I'm one of life's greateste optimists

Pretty sure that the DT (Dynamic Trolls) will always find something to complain...