Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review

[East Wind Photography]

So Jon, here is a good question. Once I removed the AP filter from its ring I lost track of which side would face the camera. Coated side or glass side? I don't see any reflectivity difference but who knows. Over 300 subs it might make a difference.

That's a good question. The coated side should be the filter side. I honestly do not know if the LP filters are reversible or not. I don't think an NB filter is reversible, those are pretty specialized...but an LP filter may be different. I do know that when I hold my Astronomik filters in front of my computer screen, it does not seem to matter which direction I hold them, they seem to filter the light from the screen the same way.


Anyway, I'll pay attention when I do this. Very curious about the gelatin filter holder...that 48mm filters fit. I guess I can pull mine out and actually measure it. I have a nice pair of digital calipers that should make short work of it all. I am curious how thick your filter is. I was looking at the IDAS ones, they say 3mm, which seems pretty thick (especially if the most the 52mm screw-in drop-in can handle is 5.5mm in total).

I think filtration wise it should be the same. I was concerned with reflections and perhaps double so on one side.

I'll measure my lumicon glass thickness. It is exactly 45mm in diameter. The other 3mm make up the filter ring and threads so the filter has to be smaller to fit in the ring.

 

[East Wind Photography]

The lumicon 48mm filter is actually 45mm in diameter and .1" thick. Sorry my caliper is not metric.

 

[scyrene]

If you have an APS-C camera, I think the standard clip-in CLS is fine. Well designed. It is only the FF one, the CLS-XL, that has the problems (so, if your using a 6D, which is probably Canon's best astrophotography camera right now, then I would look elsewhere...screw-on filters for standard camera filter threads are probably best, unless the lens simply cannot take a screw-on.)

Oh I've used the APS-C one for over a year with my 50D. It's fine but I wanted to see what a newer, bigger sensor could produce. I assumed the full frame version would be similar, but it sounds like that's not the case.

Screw on filters seem more expensive, as they're bigger (I guess I'd get the biggest size and use step down rings to fit different lenses).But then as you're discussing, that won't help with the superteles.

*Sigh* Nothing is simple

 

[scyrene]

Here is the canon gelatin 52 (mark 1 version). There is simply a door that opens and the filter drops in. Definately only room for the 48mm. The 52 glass won't fit.

I also checked the 52WII gelatin filter on my 300 mkii and it's the same. Glass is about 45mm in diameter and it pops right out once you open the trap door.

Wow. I've had my lens nearly 18 months and had no idea you could flip the filter open like that!

 

[East Wind Photography]

Here is the canon gelatin 52 (mark 1 version). There is simply a door that opens and the filter drops in. Definately only room for the 48mm. The 52 glass won't fit.

I also checked the 52WII gelatin filter on my 300 mkii and it's the same. Glass is about 45mm in diameter and it pops right out once you open the trap door.

Wow. I've had my lens nearly 18 months and had no idea you could flip the filter open like that!

It's designed so you can insert a gelatin filter in there and close the door to hold it in place. There is not much of a ledge to hold the glass I place so likely if the filter was 44mm it may not hold it in and you would need to fabricate a shim to support it. In the case of my lumicon deep sky filter it is exactly 45mm and fits perfectly in the holder.

Hoping some of the other AP filters are the same.

 

[terminatahx]

Never been a fan of DxO and this so called "review" is yet another reason. Focusing on a few metrics of a camera, then calling it a review is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Data and specs are important, but they are not to be considered a complete representation of a camera's ability/performance.

How in the world can you review any camera if you don't actually take pictures? No field testing, not evan a single attempt to evaluate the camera's AF system?

DxO is simply an excellent scoring resource for a very narrow set of metrics. Plain and simple.

 

[Marsu42]

Never been a fan of DxO and this so called "review" is yet another reason. Focusing on a few metrics of a camera, then calling it a review is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Data and specs are important, but they are not to be considered a complete representation of a camera's ability/performance.

True - this assessment will only change when (and if) Canon comes up with a superior sensor :->

 

[scyrene]

Here is the canon gelatin 52 (mark 1 version). There is simply a door that opens and the filter drops in. Definately only room for the 48mm. The 52 glass won't fit.

I also checked the 52WII gelatin filter on my 300 mkii and it's the same. Glass is about 45mm in diameter and it pops right out once you open the trap door.

Wow. I've had my lens nearly 18 months and had no idea you could flip the filter open like that!

It's designed so you can insert a gelatin filter in there and close the door to hold it in place. There is not much of a ledge to hold the glass I place so likely if the filter was 44mm it may not hold it in and you would need to fabricate a shim to support it. In the case of my lumicon deep sky filter it is exactly 45mm and fits perfectly in the holder.

Hoping some of the other AP filters are the same.

Never used a gel filter, so I never noticed I'll definitely look at this for LP filters though. I've perched my Astronomik APS-C filter in there, but it would sometimes fall into the lens cavity as it wasn't attached by anything.