Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review

[jrista]

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?

The banding on those sensors is buried pretty deep, for the most part. I think the D7100 was the exception (it seems to have fairly bad banding that is relatively shallow, although maybe not as shallow as Canon sensors). You can eventually reveal it on say D5000 series models, but it presents at least a stop or two later than banding (or severe color noise and blotchiness, which is just as bad) presents on any Canon sensor. With Canon, you can lift two stops, maybe a little more, before that banding/color noise starts to become a problem. On cameras with the Toshiba sensor, I've seen people lift at least four, nearly five stops before the banding starts to show up...and the color noise is still pretty low.


I think Toshiba, or maybe Nikon, dealt with the banding in newer cameras that use that sensor. From what I understand, the D5300 doesn't have banding at all, or if it does, you REALLY have to push the shadows for it to show up (and then, color noise, from what I've seen, becomes a problem sooner than banding does.)

 

[Txema]

I've always shot with canon, I love my lenses (specially my t-s 24) and my 5D mIII, but I sincerely hope they put a sony sensor on their 5D IV, since it will be a killer combo for travel photography.
After waiting for so long, I've given up on the idea they will catch up on sensor technology.
Is there anything wrong on wanting to have the best camera system (for my needs) and the best sensors (for my needs)?
I't seems that whenever someone mentions the sony sensors is, at best, heavily criticized.

 

[Loswr]

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.

Yeah, so am I. Alas, the real world isn't always rational. Empirical trumps rational in the real world, maybe you live somewhere else, must be nice for you.

 

[Lee Jay]

I'm looking at DPReview's raw files - 7D, D7100, 7D2, A77II.

The 7D2 and D7100 are tied for first, but for different reasons. The 7D2 shots are smoother, and more natural with a bit more low-contrast detail, the D7100 shots are slightly less noisy and slightly sharper. It's very close.

The A77II and 7D are tied for last, again, for different reasons. The A77II shots have lousy color and lots of artifacts. The 7D shots are soft and noisy.

I'm looking at ISO 200 and ISO 6400 shots, with shadows pushed quite a bit. I'm looking at noise, color, detail, and artifacts.

The 7D2 JPEGs are substantially better than the rest. The D7100 is second, the 7D is a distant third, there are no JPEGs from the A77II.

 

[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.

Yeah, so am I. Alas, the real world isn't always rational. Empirical trumps rational in the real world, maybe you live somewhere else, must be nice for you.

and for empirical evidence from my kitchen....

First strip is with anti-flicker on.... I took ten shots and they were all the same.

Second strip is with anti-flicker off... I took ten shots and they were all over the place

all shots manual and same iso, aperture, and shutter speed... no processing other than to shrink the size down.

So for me, flickering lights are a problem that hits close to home and I don't have to look very far to find them.

 

[benperrin]

and for empirical evidence from my kitchen....

First strip is with anti-flicker on.... I took ten shots and they were all the same.

Second strip is with anti-flicker off... I took ten shots and they were all over the place

all shots manual and same iso, aperture, and shutter speed... no processing other than to shrink the size down.

Looks like the tech really works well. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Aglet]

seems the 7d2 may still have some ugly noise structure, if not the heavy banding of its predecessor, based on some of the shots in the review here and elsewhere.

www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/7DII-ISO-800-6400.jpg

but that kind of noise is still workable

Not at all surprised that dxo-measured DR has barely improved at base and low iso.
However, the AF system, weather-sealing and speed still appeal to me, so I'll be getting one.
I missed the performance aspect of my old 7d, even if I despised the stripey low ISO performance. The 7d2 gives me a bunch of useful upgrades, misses a few it should have had, and the sensor is... possible Canon's best crop sensor yet, if not nearly as good as the competitors.'

All that will, to me, provide a body that is "good enough" for some of the long lens wildlife type shots I'll use it for or some fast paced action shooting. if I didn't still have a decent stock of Canon EF/s glass I would not bother with it.
If I find it still underwhelms, out it goes, and the rest of the $L lenses with it. This thing will be my make-or-break decision on maintaining higher end Canon crop gear. I can see MFT bodies coming up another notch or 2 in the next 2 years, possibly enough to challenge even sports-shooting DSLRs for capability as they're already close to par for IQ.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Yeah, so am I. Alas, the real world isn't always rational. Empirical trumps rational in the real world, maybe you live somewhere else, must be nice for you.

My house still has the old ballast lights in the kitchen. It was built in 1998, and the electronic ones were still uncommon. I've changed to electronic ballasts everywhere else, but replacing those lights in the kitchen is a big job because they have molding that must be pulled down to get them out. They just keep going strong too.

Its probably a good thing, because LEDs are now taking over. I've replaced all my conventional CFL bulbs with LED bulbs over the last 8 months, and really like the color of the light as well as the apparent brightness.

I noticed a big display of LED shop lights at Home Depot today. A single 4 ft tube that looks like a fluorescent fixture, but costs $50.

I expect to see prices continue to plummet, so when time comes to replace those tubes, it will be LED's.

For now, I use high CRI Fluorescents with electronic ballasts for lighting in my studio, LED's would be nice, but the ones I've tried don't yet put out enough light to illuminate a large area.

 

[garyknrd]

seems the 7d2 may still have some ugly noise structure, if not the heavy banding of its predecessor, based on some of the shots in the review here and elsewhere.

www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/7DII-ISO-800-6400.jpg

but that kind of noise is still workable

Not at all surprised that dxo-measured DR has barely improved at base and low iso.
However, the AF system, weather-sealing and speed still appeal to me, so I'll be getting one.
I missed the performance aspect of my old 7d, even if I despised the stripey low ISO performance. The 7d2 gives me a bunch of useful upgrades, misses a few it should have had, and the sensor is... possible Canon's best crop sensor yet, if not nearly as good as the competitors.'

All that will, to me, provide a body that is "good enough" for some of the long lens wildlife type shots I'll use it for or some fast paced action shooting. if I didn't still have a decent stock of Canon EF/s glass I would not bother with it.
If I find it still underwhelms, out it goes, and the rest of the $L lenses with it. This thing will be my make-or-break decision on maintaining higher end Canon crop gear. I can see MFT bodies coming up another notch or 2 in the next 2 years, possibly enough to challenge even sports-shooting DSLRs for capability as they're already close to par for IQ.

Spot on. I will not give up my two Canon lenses for anything.. I am really spoiled. Until, I think the mirror less is at a point where I will be happy shooting with them.
Will wait until the next high end Oly comes out, and wait for the results of the new Oly 300/4 lens.

I'll shoot both for a few years then decide. No big hurry. Really looking forward to it.

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

 

[Lawliet]

The last time I saw some was yesterday.

The ballasts where I work were installed in 1978.

Considering the savings in operational costs thats throwing money out of the window for no good reason. From a business perspective that in itself raises red flags.

 

[Diko]

I’m not sure I agree with them as far as the Sony A77 II being a more compelling option, especially when you consider lenses and other accessories

Well, actually they are evaluating the camera and not the complete set, you know! ;-)
This last sentence was really not very in favour of Canon.

 

[sanj]

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.

How differently you and I see wildlife photography! I would not consider low ISO dynamic range important and would not choose 6D over 7D for most brand of wildlife. The wildlife that I shoot is very active requiring high ISO and excellent focus to get the shot.

 

[Jon_D]

so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.

:

time canon buys sony sensors for it´s DSLR´s.

 

[Maximilian]

so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.

:

time canon buys sony sensors for it´s DSLR´s.

Wrong conclusion!
Time for DxO to think about their scores. But they won't.

 

[Jon_D]

so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.

:

time canon buys sony sensors for it´s DSLR´s.

Wrong conclusion!
Time for DxO to think about their scores. But they won't.

looking at my A6000 output at low iso i can clearly see that the A77 MK2 has the better sensor compared to the 7D MK2.

the A77 MK2 and the A6000 both share the same sensor.. only that the A6000 has on sensor PD.

 

[Maximilian]

so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.

:

time canon buys sony sensors for it´s DSLR´s.

Wrong conclusion!
Time for DxO to think about their scores. But they won't.

looking at my A6000 output at low iso i can clearly see that the A77 MK2 has the better sensor compared to the 7D MK2.

the A77 MK2 and the A6000 both share the same sensor.. only that the A6000 has on sensor PD.

No doubt on this where you are comparing APS-C sensors from Canon and Sony.
But APS-C against 1" sensors? :

 

[Maui5150]

so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.

:

time canon buys sony sensors for it´s DSLR´s.

Shame on you for thinking that the DxO formula has any relevance... Remember according to dX0 the D4 is a piece of crap camera and you are better off D600 or D610

So if you are looking for a top of a line Nikon, would you rather have a D4, D4s, D3x or D600.

DxO says the D600 is Superior. 'Nuff said

 

[Jon_D]

so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.

:

time canon buys sony sensors for it´s DSLR´s.

Wrong conclusion!
Time for DxO to think about their scores. But they won't.

looking at my A6000 output at low iso i can clearly see that the A77 MK2 has the better sensor compared to the 7D MK2.

the A77 MK2 and the A6000 both share the same sensor.. only that the A6000 has on sensor PD.

No doubt on this where you are comparing APS-C sensors from Canon and Sony.
But APS-C against 1" sensors? :

when you keep in mind that color and DR are not as easy recognized as details and image sharpness it´s possible that a 1" sensor has an overall better score.

you will immediately see when an image is unsharp or lacks details .. but color and DR problems are not that visible in every shoot.

so while a G7X image may looks worse it may has better DR and colors.
and that influences the overall score.

 

[MacPaul]

When do people finally discard this scientific crap called DXO as what it is? Complete BS, nothing else! They even contradict themselves sometimes, regarding the relation between NR and DR e.g., or DPR, that rely on DXO findings on one hand, on the other hand they find out that the 5D Mk. III has better DR than the competition.
Make your own comparison and you will be able to look through the DXO BS!

 

[Woody]

From Roger, the respected sensor reviewer of Clarkvision:

"A note on DXO numbers. It appears that DXO is not correcting Nikons truncating of the raw data, which artificially improves dynamic range by about a stop. Also Nikon filters the raw data, improving noise and dynamic range further. I believe, based on some experiments, that if the canon data were treated similarly, it would result it numbers at least as good.

Previous to the 7D2 and 6D, pattern noise was a real limitation in Canon cameras (the 1D4 and 1DX are also pretty good, but not a good as the 7D2 and 6D). That pattern noise produced poor shadow areas compared to what could be extracted from Nikon sensors, especially at some ISOs (like 200 and 400 on many canon cameras). But Nikon's raw files look "wormy" in the shadow areas from the in camera filtering of the raw data. The Canon 7D2 raw data looks much more random, as it should be." -
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=249565&start=112