Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:

Which makes me wonder: where does one still find flickering lighting?
If I'd intentionally tried to buy something with an conventional ballast I'd have real trouble finding one. And venues that haven't updated their lights? About just as rare, as it's a quite expensive idea not to do so.

A lot of gyms still have them.

 

[Lee Jay]

ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor.

Wrong. One of the reasons I'll be getting this camera is the dual pixel video AF.

OK.

but do keep in mind that they removed touch control so you have to shake the camera using the joystick to change the DPAF focusing area so the 70D makes it a bit more usable I'd think if DPAF is a key feature for you

I'll be putting a viewfinder magnifier (Hoodman, probably) over the LCD anyway (so I can use it as an eye-level viewfinder), so a touch screen would be useless, maybe ever harmful. And it'll all be handheld of fast-moving subjects.

 

[zlatko]

Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.

Some people who've labored with Canon's "bad sensor IQ" from time to time: Sam Abell, David Burnett, Patrick Demarchelier, Greg Gorman, Lauren Greenfield, Gregory Heisler, David Hume Kennerly, Douglas Kirkland, Antonin Kratochvil, Vincent Laforet, Annie Liebovitz, Don McCullin, Eric Meola, Peter Read Miller, James Nachtwey, Martin Parr, Paolo Pellegrin, Denis Reggie, Sebastiao Salgado, Mario Sorrenti, Pete Souza, Joyce Tenneson, Damon Winter ... and a few others.

Maybe they just have low standards, or maybe they just shoot easy stuff without much dynamic range? :-\

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor. It would've been all ways, hands down the best APS-C ever if they had used the Sony sensor. I really don't see a single thing they gained by not using the SOny sensor other than a somewhat crippled implementation of their new dual pixel video AF.

On the Canon Rumors forum, Canon sensors get bashed as crippled and crappy. But in the real world, Canon sensors are the first choice of a lot of working videographers. Of the dozens of videographers I've seen at weddings and events in the past 5 years, virtually all have shot Canon. None have shot Sony or Nikon. One shot Panasonic. That's dozens of videographers who pour their hard-earned money into Canon gear, live on the product of Canon sensors and depend on them with paying clients.

Not really anymore. Go look at all the video forums and listen to the talk. The posts in those places are far more negative than even mine about the video.

Sure not evenone has switched yet, but for new buys most are looking to other brands for video now unless they need to be tied into the canon stills system as well (and many wedding people do use the canon stills system).

But hey if you want to constantly defend Canon crippling video quality and usability features and have us stuck with this forever, go ahead man. I don't see how that does any Canon user a any good though.

 

[MTCWBY]

I sometimes wonder if DXOMark in it's test methodology ever actually takes pictures of anything spontaneously. I understand that they're trying to quantify with their testing but I can't imagine making a camera decision just based on that. The Sony has great specs but their lens stable is mediocre at this point and the EVF is painful for shooting sports compared to an optical viewfinder. You can have a great sensor but if you shoot through a mediocre lens and miss the shot it doesn't really matter does it.

A friend let me shoot his Sony during a football practice where the light was mediocre. Between the grainy viewfinder with the light and the very noticeable long blanking after shots I wonder how anyone shoots football well with one. I politely handed it back with praise on the shutter speed but wrote off ever using one at that instant. I have a 7D Mark II coming as a rental for this weekend and will compare it to what I'm used to for shooting football (5dMkIII).

 

[Don Haines]

And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:

Which makes me wonder: where does one still find flickering lighting?
If I'd intentionally tried to buy something with an conventional ballast I'd have real trouble finding one. And venues that haven't updated their lights? About just as rare, as it's a quite expensive idea not to do so.

A lot of gyms still have them.

Just cooked my supper in a kitchen that still has them... as does the building where I work, and the gymnasium in the local community center. Yes, they are going away, but by no means are they gone yet...... and there is still flicker (just not as much) with electronic ballasts so the problem is not going to go away.

 

[Yiannis A - Greece]

Dear friends,
after spending some time reading all that kind of "scientific BS" DXOMark had to tell us before giving a generous "70" to 7D Mk2, getting prepared to award with at least "99, best-in-entire-universe-and-somewhere-further" score whatever sensor SON(Y)KON throws on the table next, i feel obliged to say that the moment for FAKECHUCKWESTFALL to return to the web is finally here! I really miss his explosive, one of a kind, disgusting verbal puking, each time a "real-unbiased-scientific" DXOMark sensor review tried to enlighten us members of the photography community!
To be honest, i feel disgusted with DXOMark guys myself. Last week i saw them awarding G7X with a "71-excellent sensor" score, just because (as it's obvious to me) SON(Y)KON pays their salaries! Tonight, after being struck with this "70" for the 7D2, i opened up a full screen DPReview "test scene" and put side-by-side 7D2, 7D, D7100 and SONY SLT-A77 II. After taking me more than an hour on my precisely calibrated EIZO ColorEdge CX270 professional 27" monitor, using the provided loupe, to examine thoroughly the entire scene, going from ISO 100 to ISO 51200 for 7D2 (12800 for 7D, 25600 for the other two), i came to the conclusion that even at ISO 100 7D2 is slightly better than D7100 and blows A77 II right out of the water by 1+ stops! After ISO 400 the 7D2, just blows the crap out of Nikon and SONY followed quite closely by...7D (it was hard for me to believe too) untill ISO 6400!!! After this point and up to 51200, all the other just fall apart. Where the differences were most obvious is, the round umbrella like disk (don't know how it's called), that partly covers the playing cards on the lower leftish side of the scene and on the dark grey-to-black area just left of the bottles. Where in the world did the guys,up there at DXOMark "labs", saw that low ISO disadvantage of the Canon sensor? The noise of the camera is so low and the pattern so fine and close to FF one, that even Nikon's noise pattern seems as sugar crystals on my screen!
OK, DXO fellas, if you want me to believe that sun is blue cause you have to to earn your money, that's fine, but you chose the wrong guy!

Thanks for the space you provide me dear sirs of canonrumors and for the patience that all ladies and gentlemen in this forum showed, for spending time to read my two cents.

All the best for you and your beloved, be lucky, be strong, do well. Greetings from Athens, Greece,
Yiannis

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I sometimes wonder if DXOMark in it's test methodology ever actually takes pictures of anything spontaneously. I understand that they're trying to quantify with their testing but I can't imagine making a camera decision just based on that. The Sony has great specs but their lens stable is mediocre at this point and the EVF is painful for shooting sports compared to an optical viewfinder. You can have a great sensor but if you shoot through a mediocre lens and miss the shot it doesn't really matter does it.

They never claim to be testing anything more than a sensor. WHy do you expect fps and AF and usability and viewfinders to be tallied into sensor scores??

Would you suggest the 7D2 AF score be lowered because the sensor is a bit behind on low ISO DR? That wouldn't make any sense either.

DxO does not do camera reviews, they do sensor reviews.

A friend let me shoot his Sony during a football practice where the light was mediocre. Between the grainy viewfinder with the light and the very noticeable long blanking after shots I wonder how anyone shoots football well with one. I politely handed it back with praise on the shutter speed but wrote off ever using one at that instant. I have a 7D Mark II coming as a rental for this weekend and will compare it to what I'm used to for shooting football (5dMkIII).

I'm sure that is true, but what does it have to do with examining the sensor?

 

[AndreSilva]

Guys, take a look at this post:

http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=249565&p=2354307#p2354307

look for reply from rnclark and take a look at his website (link at the end of his post). He seems to know a lot about sensor and he describes his methods

 

[Andrewccm]

And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:

Which makes me wonder: where does one still find flickering lighting?
If I'd intentionally tried to buy something with an conventional ballast I'd have real trouble finding one. And venues that haven't updated their lights? About just as rare, as it's a quite expensive idea not to do so.

A lot of gyms still have them.

A lot of gyms? Heck nearly ALL sports venues still have them. I shoot at AT&T Stadium, Globe Life Park American Airlines Center, among many others here in Texas and ALL of them suffer color cycling and flicker. First day I shot an NHL a game with the 7D2 and the next day at an MLS game the camera showed flicker warning and you can see it... Perhaps North Texas venues are just outdated. :

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I did forget to mention banding though in my earlier post!

The 7D2, at least on the pre-production models, appeared to have 100% solved banding of all types.

The 7D suffered from both offset low ISO banding and overall gain banding (which, unique to the 7D, could sometimes make even bright tones appear banded, this aspect varied from copy to copy, another weird feature of the 7D- it's sensors were about the only ones in the world of DSLRs that really did vary enough copy to copy to where it could make a true visual difference).

This makes it effectively better for low ISO DR than the 7D too, not just at high ISO. You are still limited to the same general high amount of noise down there, but at least you can fully make use of every last bit that it does give, while with the 7D the banding might not let you make nice use of all it measures to have.

The D7100 is not one I've personally ever used or looked into, but apparently that was the one that also suffers from some bad banding and maybe was not the one to point to when talking about the most superb low ISO DR. Apparently that is the one random read noise at low ISO king that is troubled by banding issues which don't allow to make nice use of the full measured DR.

The D7100 isn't actually Sony Exmor. It is Toshiba. They do even better than most exmor at high ISO and the same for raw measured at low ISO but they sadly suffer from lots of banding at lower ISOs.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

To be honest, i feel disgusted with DXOMark guys myself. Last week i saw them awarding G7X with a "71-excellent sensor" score, just because (as it's obvious to me) SON(Y)KON pays their salaries! Tonight, after being struck with this "70" for the 7D2, i opened up a full screen DPReview "test scene" and put side-by-side 7D2, 7D, D7100 and SONY SLT-A77 II. After taking me more than an hour on my precisely calibrated EIZO ColorEdge CX270 professional 27" monitor, using the provided loupe, to examine thoroughly the entire scene, going from ISO 100 to ISO 51200 for 7D2 (12800 for 7D, 25600 for the other two), i came to the conclusion that even at ISO 100 7D2 is slightly better than D7100 and blows A77 II right out of the water by 1+ stops! After ISO 400 the 7D2, just blows the crap out of Nikon and SONY followed quite closely by...7D (it was hard for me to believe too) untill ISO 6400!!! After this point and up to 51200, all the other just fall apart.

Welcome to canonrumors.
It is simply a matter of how "I need to" make photographs.

I do not really even use ISO100.
I do not do dark photos to lift the shadows in post production.
I do not like the default settings Nikon (hate the skin tones from Sony).
I did not photograph 36 megapixel, and then downconvert to 8 megapixel.

If someone asks me advice on these cameras for situations that I do not need, I will gladly recommend Nikon.

 

[zlatko]

ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor. It would've been all ways, hands down the best APS-C ever if they had used the Sony sensor. I really don't see a single thing they gained by not using the SOny sensor other than a somewhat crippled implementation of their new dual pixel video AF.

On the Canon Rumors forum, Canon sensors get bashed as crippled and crappy. But in the real world, Canon sensors are the first choice of a lot of working videographers. Of the dozens of videographers I've seen at weddings and events in the past 5 years, virtually all have shot Canon. None have shot Sony or Nikon. One shot Panasonic. That's dozens of videographers who pour their hard-earned money into Canon gear, live on the product of Canon sensors and depend on them with paying clients.

Not really anymore. Go look at all the video forums and listen to the talk. The posts in those places are far more negative than even mine about the video.

Sure not evenone has switched yet, but for new buys most are looking to other brands for video now unless they need to be tied into the canon stills system as well (and many wedding people do use the canon stills system).

But hey if you want to constantly defend Canon crippling video quality and usability features and have us stuck with this forever, go ahead man. I don't see how that does any Canon user a any good though.

Sure, go look at video forums and listen to the talk. You keep on reading that talk. That's just like reading this forum. There's lots of talk by people who like to talk — a massive distortion field. But then go look at people actually working and creating video. Time after time, I see them using Canon gear, often *new* Canon gear. They come to weddings and events with more Canon gear than I do. I've yet to see one using a Sony, at least not since the 5D2 came out. Sure not everyone has switched yet. In my world, no one has switched. Actually, they are praising Canon features and video quality and lenses, etc. They keep pouring their money into the 70D, 5D3, etc. While you're bashing Canon online for "crippling" video quality, they're relying on Canon's video quality every week for the work they live on and choosing Canon over competitors.

 

[zlatko]

And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:

Which makes me wonder: where does one still find flickering lighting?
If I'd intentionally tried to buy something with an conventional ballast I'd have real trouble finding one. And venues that haven't updated their lights? About just as rare, as it's a quite expensive idea not to do so.

A lot of gyms still have them.

A lot of gyms? Heck nearly ALL sports venues still have them. I shoot at AT&T Stadium, Globe Life Park American Airlines Center, among many others here in Texas and ALL of them suffer color cycling and flicker. First day I shot an NHL a game with the 7D2 and the next day at an MLS game the camera showed flicker warning and you can see it... Perhaps North Texas venues are just outdated. :

According to forum experts, these venues are so rare as not to be a problem. And besides, any decent photographer can just deal with this with a Sony camera with all of that extra dynamic range at ISO 100. ;D

 

[benperrin]

Sure, go look at video forums and listen to the talk. You keep on reading that talk. That's just like reading this forum. There's lots of talk by people who like to talk — a massive distortion field. But then go look at people actually working and creating video. Time after time, I see them using Canon gear, often *new* Canon gear. They come to weddings and events with more Canon gear than I do. I've yet to see one using a Sony, at least not since the 5D2 came out. Sure not everyone has switched yet. In my world, no one has switched. Actually, they are praising Canon features and video quality and lenses, etc. They keep pouring their money into the 70D, 5D3, etc. While you're bashing Canon online for "crippling" video quality, they're relying on Canon's video quality every week for the work they live on and choosing Canon over competitors.

That's the problem right there. The people who complain the most aren't (usually) the ones out in the field producing excellent content. People like yourself who are producing great content seem to be content. So many of these so called experts seem to take the worst photos.

 

[ariliquin]

It is very telling that the most common response to Canon's lagging sensor technology is that Canon is still viable due to pre-existing investments in lenses and the excellent available range of lenses. The longer Canon lags in sensor design improvements the less compelling the retention logic is.

As for new camera users, no longer is Canon seen as the defacto king of Camera design. What will Canon do to reclaim ascendancy, that's the questions. At least I hope this situation drives innovation in camera systems, which will be good for everyone. Sony sensors saved Nikon from oblivion, at least for now. Who knows what will happen tomorrow.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is very telling that the most common response to Canon's lagging sensor technology is that Canon is still viable due to pre-existing investments in lenses and the excellent available range of lenses. The longer Canon lags in sensor design improvements the less compelling the retention logic is.

As for new camera users, no longer is Canon seen as the defacto king of Camera design. What will Canon do to reclaim ascendancy, that's the questions. At least I hope this situation drives innovation in camera systems, which will be good for everyone. Sony sensors saved Nikon from oblivion, at least for now. Who knows what will happen tomorrow.

Er no, not unless you no longer need a lens Canon makes that nobody else does.

Sensor output has a certain maturity, the differences in sensor output, whilst real, might not make that much difference to most people most of the time, hence lens selection is ever more important.

 

[MTCWBY]

I sometimes wonder if DXOMark in it's test methodology ever actually takes pictures of anything spontaneously. I understand that they're trying to quantify with their testing but I can't imagine making a camera decision just based on that. The Sony has great specs but their lens stable is mediocre at this point and the EVF is painful for shooting sports compared to an optical viewfinder. You can have a great sensor but if you shoot through a mediocre lens and miss the shot it doesn't really matter does it.

They never claim to be testing anything more than a sensor. WHy do you expect fps and AF and usability and viewfinders to be tallied into sensor scores??

Would you suggest the 7D2 AF score be lowered because the sensor is a bit behind on low ISO DR? That wouldn't make any sense either.

DxO does not do camera reviews, they do sensor reviews.

Yea which is sort of useless since a camera is a system that's only as good as the sum of it's parts. Sort of like putting a $20 filter on a $2K lens. I know there are folks that obsess with tech and pixels but that doesn't create a good picture.

 

[Lee Jay]

It is very telling that the most common response to Canon's lagging sensor technology is that Canon is still viable due to pre-existing investments in lenses and the excellent available range of lenses.

That's not why. They just make better cameras, better lenses, and better overall systems, and their sensors are competitive or superior where it counts, and super in focusing during video (dual pixel).

 

[Woody]

The D7100 isn't actually Sony Exmor. It is Toshiba. They do even better than most exmor at high ISO and the same for raw measured at low ISO but they sadly suffer from lots of banding at lower ISOs.

That is interesting.

According to DXOMark, the D3300, D5300 and D7100 sensors all have similar performances.

Does this mean that even though the D7100 has 13.7 eV of base ISO dynamic range, banding precludes heavy shadow lifting in D7100?