Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review

[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.

 

[Lawliet]

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.

 

[Marsu42]

IS IT THE SAME AS THE 70D SENSOR? Probably not actually!

At the end of the day, only nerds (*not* pointing at you here) care about what sensor it is because the whole image processing chain is what counts: photon -> converted raw file. And as Canon has a lot of components to tune in between these two points, it is reasonable that they put more work in their premium crop camera for the next 3-4 years.

 

[lo lite]

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?

Not if you machine gun it first …

 

[Loswr]

And venues that haven't updated their lights? About just as rare, as it's a quite expensive idea not to do so.

Too bad, I was hoping to see some examples of the anti-flicker feature in use, but I guess if venues with flickering lights are as rare as you suggest, I probably won't find any...especially so soon after the launch of the camera. I mean, it's not like there are already nice examples posted by two different CR members on the 'first impressions' thread. Oh, wait...there are. :

 

[Lawliet]

Oh, wait...there are. :

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

 

[Don Haines]

Oh, wait...there are. :

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"

 

[Lee Jay]

Oh, wait...there are. :

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"

Electronic ballasts flicker at 120Hz too. Not as much, and not with the big color shift, but they do flicker (in power supplied, this is called "audio susceptibility" for historical reasons). I have an optical tachometer for my model airplanes. If you point it at a bulb driven by an electronic ballast, it still says 3600RPM, same as with a bulb driven by a magnetic ballast.

 

[rs]

Oh, wait...there are. :

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

The harsh reality is most photographers tend to turn up at a venue to shoot without taking the time to modernise the entire lighting system first. I've been guilty of that myself, and have been forced to choose between using shutter speeds too slow to freeze action, or be left with a whole load of editing on most of the shots, sometimes even going as far as using a graduated WB/exposure in PP for the shots that are really worth keeping. What a waste of time this 7D II is. Next time I'll just do things properly and spend days modernising each venue before I shoot. ???

 

[Don Haines]

Oh, wait...there are. :

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"

Electronic ballasts flicker at 120Hz too. Not as much, and not with the big color shift, but they do flicker (in power supplied, this is called "audio susceptibility" for historical reasons). I have an optical tachometer for my model airplanes. If you point it at a bulb driven by an electronic ballast, it still says 3600RPM, same as with a bulb driven by a magnetic ballast.

Quite true.... they use a fairly crappy linear power supply so the power output does fluctuate with the line voltage...

And incandescent bulbs also have a small amount of flicker at 120hz...

 

[Lee Jay]

Oh, wait...there are. :

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

I'm having a hard time finding 1000W, 1500W or 2000W 277V electronic ballasts for metal halide bulbs. I have no trouble finding magnetic versions. Maybe you could point me to some?

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/70863/PLUSRITE-7274.html
http://www.venturelighting.com/vlps/Opti-Wave1000W.html

 

[Lawliet]

It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

Sure, but the last time I've seen flickering discharge lamps in a high school gym was about a decade ago, and the serious venues where faster to adapt.

BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"

Even at 1/50k you wouldn't see much, during that time frame you retain enough residual emission to cover the gap. The DSCs couldn't see it, but the high speed video cams would. 8)

 

[Don Haines]

Oh, wait...there are. :

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"

Electronic ballasts flicker at 120Hz too. Not as much, and not with the big color shift, but they do flicker (in power supplied, this is called "audio susceptibility" for historical reasons). I have an optical tachometer for my model airplanes. If you point it at a bulb driven by an electronic ballast, it still says 3600RPM, same as with a bulb driven by a magnetic ballast.

Quite true.... they use a fairly crappy linear power supply so the power output does fluctuate with the line voltage...

And incandescent bulbs also have a small amount of flicker at 120hz...

Not a very scientific test... but here goes.

Camera set to manual, 1/400 second, ISO3200 and shooting a burst of about 20 shots.

Old style ballasted fluorescent - about 3 stops of variation....
electronic ballasted fluorescent - about 1/2 stop of variation.
Compact fluorescent - about 1/3 stops of variation.
500Watt tungsten studio light - 0 stops variation

 

[rfdesigner]

... in a nutshell and my own words/understanding: Canon does more signal processing off the sensor die which results in read noise that drowns the theoretically possible dynamic range. That's why the dynamic range curve is nearly flat on low iso with Canon, while the competition gets better until base iso with their patented exmor on-die processing. And that's what 90% of all flamewar threads are about on CR.

Otherwise the Canon sensors are fine, because at higher iso the read noise doesn't matter that much anymore so Canon does better vs. the competition - but depending on the specific models, still nothing to write home about or switch systems over. On the other hand, more than +2 stops on low iso is a big difference if you want/need it.

You got most of that wrong.

On sensor versus off sensor "processing" or how much processing is getting done after ADC isn't the issue for low ISOs.

And read noise does matter a lot at high ISO, but Canon's read noise at high ISO is competitive with that of other brands.

I've designed and built a CCD camera amongst many other things... I'm afraid it's you who doesn't know his onions.

What is being referrred to is the ANALOGUE signal processing (correlated double sampling / dual slope / Anti-Aliasing / flicker noise mitigation etc etc)

I highlighted my own text above, that you apparently didn't read.

I did, I still think there's a chink in your understanding.. it's pre-digits "processing" that's the problem.. we just can't identify where the problem is.

 

[zlatko]

Oh, wait...there are. :

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

The harsh reality is most photographers tend to turn up at a venue to shoot without taking the time to modernise the entire lighting system first. I've been guilty of that myself, and have been forced to choose between using shutter speeds too slow to freeze action, or be left with a whole load of editing on most of the shots, sometimes even going as far as using a graduated WB/exposure in PP for the shots that are really worth keeping. What a waste of time this 7D II is. Next time I'll just do things properly and spend days modernising each venue before I shoot. ???

Yes, same problem here. When I photographed my son playing basketball at the local recreation center built in 2006, I failed to modernize the lighting over the basketball courts. As a result, I got flicker-lighting effects in a lot of my photos. A decent photographer would have gone in there and modernized the lighting system ... no big deal, right?

 

[Lee Jay]

It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

Sure, but the last time I've seen flickering discharge lamps in a high school gym was about a decade ago, and the serious venues where faster to adapt.

The last time I saw some was yesterday.

The ballasts where I work were installed in 1978.

 

[Sabaki]

Well, I rarely use anything lower than ISO 400 when shooting birds or other wildlife and I definitely crank my ISO when shooting indoors.

So if the 7Dii's ISO capabilities between 400 and 1600 (3200 at a push) are better than any other Canon APS-C body, it's a homerun in my opinion.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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