Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review

[AndreSilva]

I don't like the fact they don't reveal their methodology, but here is the review:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-review-Low-ISO-performance-lags-behind-rivals

 

[Marsu42]

I don't like the fact they don't reveal their methodology, but here is the review

For once, this is essentially in favor of Canon - with the 7d2 as a wildlife camera, who cares about low iso dr? If you wan to shoot sitting ducks you can just use the 6d for about the same price.

But even at low dr, it's nearly up to the full(!) frame 6d and put distance to the 70d. Essentially, Canon seems to have really tried to crank out the best performance they can out of their current tech, even for me the missing swivel screen is a point I'd sorely miss vs. my good ol' 60d.

Canon EOS 7D Mk II: Below-par scores at low ISOs, yet competitive at high ISOs

 

[2n10]

Wildlife and sports shooters need higher ISO more than low ISO DR. But I suspect the DRones will be out in their usual vein. :

 

[ahsanford]

The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.

If anyone is shocked by this, please send a personal message to Neuro, who serves as DXO's publicist. :

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-review-Low-ISO-performance-lags-behind-rivals/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-Below-par-scores-at-low-ISOs-yet-competitive-at-high-ISOs

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.

On the head to head link vs. the original 7D:

"From the sensor performance point of view, a four-point lead over its predecessor is really only a modest advancement. That’s the equivalent to around 1/3-stop improvement in color sensitivity, just 0.1 Ev in DR (albeit at base ISO) and about a 1/3-stop improvement in low-light sensitivity."

Ouch. I expected DXO to thrash the sensor from a resolution and low-ISO DR perspective, but the statement of only a 1/3 stop improvement in low light (if substantiated) is damning.

In contrast, DPReview's sample shots suggested that the 7D2 was about a full stop better than the 7D.

Mr. Carnathan's ISO comparisons can't come quickly enough now.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.

While I expect the reality to set in after all the hype dies down, I also do not value DXO's secret numbering system, nor their claiming to rate a camera without actually testing it as a camera.

They test a sensor and rate the camera by low ISO results, even though high ISO over 400 is likely used by most of the owners simply because they get a small aperture kit lens with it.

They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.

I don't care if they rated it as the best camera or the worst, their numerical rating system does not point a buyer toward what he needs to buy for his use.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.

While I expect the reality to set in after all the hype dies down, I also do not value DXO's secret numbering system, nor their claiming to rate a camera without actually testing it as a camera.

They test a sensor and rate the camera by low ISO results, even though high ISO over 400 is likely used by most of the owners simply because they get a small aperture kit lens with it.

They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.

I don't care if they rated it as the best camera or the worst, their numerical rating system does not point a buyer toward what he needs to buy for his use.

In fairness, Mt Spokane, it's a Sensor Score and listed as such. (That's about all I'll ever do to back up DXO.)

- A

 

[garyknrd]

A little disappointed with high ISO. Certainly not enough to replace the Mark IV. But, enough to replace my 7D for sure.
Personally as a stills shooter, I think it is overpriced. I will surely pick one up. But, in no hurry now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
http://www.birdsthatfart.com

 

[MichaelHodges]

I don't like the fact they don't reveal their methodology, but here is the review

For once, this is essentially in favor of Canon - with the 7d2 as a wildlife camera, who cares about low iso dr? If you wan to shoot sitting ducks you can just use the 6d for about the same price.

As a wildlife shooter, I'd consider low ISO dynamic range important. I'd also take the 6D over any crop camera by any brand for wildlife.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Wildlife and sports shooters need higher ISO more than low ISO DR.

Which makes crop cameras especially dubious for wildlife.

And now that the 7D2 costs as much as a camera with much better IQ (the 6D) there's a bit of a conundrum.

 

[dstppy]

It's not the theoretical scores that matter, it's REAL WORLD lens cap photos where the proof is in the pudding :

 

[Marauder]

"Blah, blah" Totally predictable. Those who worship at the altar of DXO Mark will feel vindicated but, as always, it will mean nothing in real world scenarios.

 

[geonix]

Did I get this right? The noise-level of low ISO (e.g. ISO 100) is not so good with the 7D II but its better than avarage at high ISO? Does that mean canon has solved the hig ISO noise issue and created a low ISO noise issue? I can hardly imagine that to be true. Are ISO 100 to 400 pics from the 7D II noiser now than from the D7100 or the K3? Or even from the 70D?
Of course I would be glad about a camera that high ISO performance is good, but I still always try to photograph at the lowest ISO level possible. So if low ISO is below avarage I would consider that the first real flaw of this camera that would bother me.

 

[East Wind Photography]

So once again DXO compares apples to green beans. There is no way I would buy the Sony over the 7DII for action/wildlife. If I were soley interested in wide DR for a particular application, say photo marketing of wedding dresses for example the Sony may be the better choice. The 7DII so far has superior AF, FPS as well as other features to make it not even compareable to the Sony.

This is why many of us own more than one tool for the trade, just as we have multipe lenses for the task at hand, so we also have different bodies.

Sports/Action 7DII or 1Dx
Wedding or events 6D or 5DIII
Video 70D or sony

Pick your combo and go make pictures (or videos if thats your bag)

 

[MichaelHodges]

Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.

They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.

Sensor IQ is the only real baseline comparison aspect for all cameras.

I don't care if they rated it as the best camera or the worst, their numerical rating system does not point a buyer toward what he needs to buy for his use.

I don't know about that. It told me what I needed to know (and what I already guessed at): don't pay $1800 for ancient crop tech.

 

[Marsu42]

Of course I would be glad about a camera that high ISO performance is good, but I still always try to photograph at the lowest ISO level possible. So if low ISO is below avarage I would consider that the first real flaw of this camera that would bother me.

Sure, everybody does, but what's possible relative to an acceptable shutter speed = keeper rate? What good are your noise free high-dr iso shots if they are blurred because wildlife tends to move?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Did I get this right? The noise-level of low ISO (e.g. ISO 100) is not so good with the 7D II but its better than avarage at high ISO? Does that mean canon has solved the hig ISO noise issue and created a low ISO noise issue? I can hardly imagine that to be true. Are ISO 100 to 400 pics from the 7D II noiser now than from the D7100 or the K3? Or even from the 70D?
Of course I would be glad about a camera that high ISO performance is good, but I still always try to photograph at the lowest ISO level possible. So if low ISO is below avarage I would consider that the first real flaw of this camera that would bother me.

For some years, the Canon image sensors have been "less good" than the Sony Exmor sensor at ISO 100. This is a known fact and discussed extensively in CR.

However, it is a well known fact that in the above ISO 1600 (depends on camera) Canon has better noise performance for over a decade.

 

[Otara]

I don't like the fact they don't reveal their methodology, but here is the review

For once, this is essentially in favor of Canon - with the 7d2 as a wildlife camera, who cares about low iso dr? If you wan to shoot sitting ducks you can just use the 6d for about the same price.

As a wildlife shooter, I'd consider low ISO dynamic range important. I'd also take the 6D over any crop camera by any brand for wildlife.

I have the 7D, 6d and now 7D2. I was already using my 7D in preference to my 6D for wildlife, so it probably depends a lot on how and what you shoot. I need all the help I can get with AF for instance, and I tend to struggle to fill the frame even with the 7D.

If I could get a second-hand 300mm 2.8 from Sony for the kind of price I can with Canon Id maybe consider the Sony camera DXO recommends. As it is I got a 7D2 and my current lens for less than that, and if I got it from my local shop I would have enough left over to buy a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II as well.

Otara

 

[MichaelHodges]

What about the shots where a grizzly bear is backlit at low ISO's? Or a soaring golden eagle?

Low ISO dynamic range is extremely useful for wildlife

Also, excusing away technological improvements based on usage guesstimates is really an argument against improvement in general.

 

[Loswr]

Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.

They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.

Sensor IQ is the only real baseline comparison aspect for all cameras.

So you're using a Phase One for wildlife shooting, then?