Canon 7D Mark 2 Rolling Review

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Was on holidays with limited internet when the 7D2 came out. Does the camera have the option of linking AF points to exposure?

Nope . That was the one main stills shooting non-sensor spec that got left out. Marketing still has that reserved for 1 series only.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Yet the people who have had their hands on the camera says it's better than the 70D by a fair margin.

It is better.

I own the 70D, and it's better than the 7D by a clear margin: the 7D Mk II files I've downloaded beat the 70D by a similar margin - and this is with converters (like Photo Ninja and Raw Therapee) that don't officially support the 7D Mk II yet.

And - converted in DPP - equivalent high ISO 70D and 7D Mk II CR2s from Imaging Resource, with the exact same settings, show a big difference in the amount and the nature of the noise: the 7D Mk II's has a tighter grain, better edges, and a lot less chroma.

 

[NancyP]

But how many takers are buying those Art Morris $5.00 RAW files? I would guess "zero".

 

[Sabaki]

Yet the people who have had their hands on the camera says it's better than the 70D by a fair margin.

It is better.

I own the 70D, and it's better than the 7D by a clear margin: the 7D Mk II files I've downloaded beat the 70D by a similar margin - and this is with converters (like Photo Ninja and Raw Therapee) that don't officially support the 7D Mk II yet.

And - converted in DPP - equivalent high ISO 70D and 7D Mk II CR2s from Imaging Resource, with the exact same settings, show a big difference in the amount and the nature of the noise: the 7D Mk II's has a tighter grain, better edges, and a lot less chroma.

Appreciate that Keith

I just cannot wait to get my hands on one. Hopefully it'll make me a better photographer ;D

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

Supposedly some say ISO 16,000 is usable on the 7D2, I've tried 70D and don't think it can go anywhere near that for usable files. I guess we'll see when more people actually have the 7D2 that use it for real world and rely less on reviews.

 

[dtaylor]

Photos and tests have been out for quite a while now, it basically matches the 70D for high ISO, a stop behind the 1D MK IV, 2 stops behind the 5DMK III.

You can see for yourself.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Going off the comparometer I'm not seeing 1 stop behind the 1D4. I would actually give a slight edge to the 7D2. I would give a 2 stop edge to the 5D3.

But I have to agree that the IR studio scene may not be telling the whole story. Some of the field samples I've seen online give a better impression. This 7D2 ISO 3200 shot on Flickr really impressed me (for example): https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotoblogia/15063749820/in/set-72157647629974871

Scott Kelby's samples were also pretty impressive.

On the same note, in the comparometer you would think there's no or little difference between the M and the 7D in high ISO, but without a doubt I prefer ISO 3200 on my M.

 

[dtaylor]

Supposedly some say ISO 16,000 is usable on the 7D2, I've tried 70D and don't think it can go anywhere near that for usable files. I guess we'll see when more people actually have the 7D2 that use it for real world and rely less on reviews.

"Usable" depends on the intended use. Kelby's ISO 16,000 shot is pretty noisy. But there's still detail and no color blotching. Honestly, at 11x14 the IQ would be comparable to some of the old ISO 400 color neg films, or a really good 800 film, and I would certainly say it's usable at that size.

The original 7D isn't even close to usable at that ISO.

 

[Steve]

Going off the comparometer I'm not seeing 1 stop behind the 1D4. I would actually give a slight edge to the 7D2. I would give a 2 stop edge to the 5D3.

Finally got around to looking at some RAWs in DPP and the 1D4 is still a bit better. The noise pattern is smaller and a little less harsh. It takes DPP NR better, too. The 7D2 is definitely improved from the 70D though. This is all based on RAWs dl'd from Imaging Resource.

 

[dtaylor]

Going off the comparometer I'm not seeing 1 stop behind the 1D4. I would actually give a slight edge to the 7D2. I would give a 2 stop edge to the 5D3.

Finally got around to looking at some RAWs in DPP and the 1D4 is still a bit better. The noise pattern is smaller and a little less harsh. It takes DPP NR better, too. The 7D2 is definitely improved from the 70D though. This is all based on RAWs dl'd from Imaging Resource.

Looking at the IR ISO 6400 RAWs in DPP...

The default NR settings are different. The 7D2 defaults to more LNR but less CNR (less CNR is surprising). Pixel peeping both at default the 7D2 looks slightly better when scaled to equal size.

When the 7D2 is set to the 1D4's NR defaults they look very close. 7D2 grain is a bit rougher (sharper), but the 1D4 has more color noise.

I would have to call it a wash. With the higher resolution 7D2 file you're going to use a bit more LNR to take the edge off the luminance noise. With the 1D4 file you've got to bump up CNR. With both processed optimally you're not going to see differences in print in this scene with this lighting.

Not sure how they might compare on different scenes, but it looks like Canon did a good job controlling color noise in this sensor. People will tolerate luminance noise more then color noise and splotching, which is probably why we're seeing acceptable shots...at least for web and small prints...up to ISO 16,000 OOC.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Supposedly some say ISO 16,000 is usable on the 7D2, I've tried 70D and don't think it can go anywhere near that for usable files. I guess we'll see when more people actually have the 7D2 that use it for real world and rely less on reviews.

Welcome to the real world of Implied Performance.

I thought my car should go 200 MPH, the speedometer goes that far

Canon typically rates sensors for in-camera jpeg images with lots of NR. For most people, who print or view them on their smart phone, they look great.

Just like a D800, if you start viewing at 100%, you see noise and lost detail.

I had predicted that the sensor performance might reach ISO 1100 or even 1200 as rated by DXO. I was a little high, but its in that ballpark. That's actually pretty good for a APS-C sensor, and even ISO 1600 images can have lots of detail without too much noise. My old 7D could do ISO 800 before things broke up quickly. Part of the consideration is to see the slope of the noise curve. If its gradual, than pushing the ISO up will not degrade images as quickly. That's one thing I like about my 5D MK III, I can push the ISO way up without the image being totally hosed.