Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review

[scyrene]

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

Not meaning to pick on you, but you've said a few things I wanted to reply to

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.

For many of us wildlife shooters, AF is extremely important. I appreciate your chosen subjects tend to be larger (mammals or large birds), so it's probably less important to you - but to generalise from that to say sensor performance (at low ISO) is all that matters in comparisons is extraordinarily blinkered.

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.

Those are valid cases, but hardly representative. I try to avoid backlit situations - all equipment has limitations, and I'm well aware that this would challenge my sensor. But I find backlit/silhouetted wildlife shots mostly less aesthetically pleasing anyway. A personal view, but these are all personal views. As for a bird against the sky, so long as the sky is blue I don't find any problem. On a white sky, it's rarely worth shooting anyway - except for records. I'm not sure marginal/unusual cases are the way to decide whether a camera is good or not.

That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,

Those are peripheral features, and usually overcome by even decent photogs. Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.

Actually you can get around any limitation - as I say above, it might involve not shooting in certain conditions, but we all do that. And since when was Canon sensor IQ (even at low ISO) *bad*? It's not as good as some of the competition. Not as good does not mean bad.

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.

You think that's what's happening on these forums? I try to remain neutral, but it seems mostly that the pro-Sony/anti-Canon/low ISO DR fanatics (call them what you will) are the ones who say their personal needs are all that counts - this camera is bad because it doesn't have the best low ISO DR, AF isn't important etc. And then anyone who says 'actually I'm content with what I've got, or interested by what has just been released' is a fanboy, or hates innovation or whatever. Everyone has different needs. Incidentally, is a crop sensor camera the best choice for travel anyway? I don't know what you're shooting, but I imagine landscapes/architecture is part of it - so you'd maybe want the widest FOV possible, and AF/fps isn't so important, so why choose the 7D2 at all?

 

[Maximilian]

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

Yeah, Jon! DxO rules and everything they do is as true as the holy bible. :
I think this was discussed too many times before and with no good end to DxO, so I'm out.
Have fun. 8)

 

[Jon_D]

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

Yeah, Jon! DxO rules and everything they do is as true as the holy bible. :
I think this was discussed too many times before and with no good end to DxO, so I'm out.
Have fun. 8)

well yes to no good end on a forum populated by canon fanboys.. that´s for sure.

if DXO would praise canon sensors it WOULD be the holy bible for most fanboys here.... im pretty sure about that. :

 

[Coldhands]

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.

The a77 mk2 has a translucent mirror that reduces the amount of light reaching the sensor, while the A6000 does not. This makes your inference invalid.

 

[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.

The a77 mk2 has a translucent mirror that reduces the amount of light reaching the sensor, while the A6000 does not. This makes your inference invalid.

or maybe you did not get what i was saying? :

EVEN with the transclucent mirror the A77 II is better than the 7D MK2.
as we can clearly see from the DXO scores.

 

[garyknrd]

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

I just read that also. I am waiting for the final paper from him. Looks pretty promising.

 

[Coldhands]

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.

The a77 mk2 has a translucent mirror that reduces the amount of light reaching the sensor, while the A6000 does not. This makes your inference invalid.

or maybe you did not get what i was saying? :

EVEN with the transclucent mirror the A77 II is better than the 7D MK2.
as we can clearly see from the DXO scores.

See bolded text in your post above. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but you are using your personal observations from the A6000 to extrapolate that the A77 mk2 will provide a better sensor output than the 7D mk2, based on the assertion that the they use the same sensor. However, that fact that the SLT mirror reduces the light reaching the sensor makes this key logical step null.

I am not making any reference to DxO results, simply pointing out a logical shortcoming.

 

[Loswr]

if DXO would praise canon sensors it WOULD be the holy bible for most fanboys here.... im pretty sure about that. :

Well, I'm absolutely certain you're a troll. :

 

[Txema]

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

Not meaning to pick on you, but you've said a few things I wanted to reply to

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.

For many of us wildlife shooters, AF is extremely important. I appreciate your chosen subjects tend to be larger (mammals or large birds), so it's probably less important to you - but to generalise from that to say sensor performance (at low ISO) is all that matters in comparisons is extraordinarily blinkered.

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.

Those are valid cases, but hardly representative. I try to avoid backlit situations - all equipment has limitations, and I'm well aware that this would challenge my sensor. But I find backlit/silhouetted wildlife shots mostly less aesthetically pleasing anyway. A personal view, but these are all personal views. As for a bird against the sky, so long as the sky is blue I don't find any problem. On a white sky, it's rarely worth shooting anyway - except for records. I'm not sure marginal/unusual cases are the way to decide whether a camera is good or not.

That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,

Those are peripheral features, and usually overcome by even decent photogs. Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.

Actually you can get around any limitation - as I say above, it might involve not shooting in certain conditions, but we all do that. And since when was Canon sensor IQ (even at low ISO) *bad*? It's not as good as some of the competition. Not as good does not mean bad.

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.

You think that's what's happening on these forums? I try to remain neutral, but it seems mostly that the pro-Sony/anti-Canon/low ISO DR fanatics (call them what you will) are the ones who say their personal needs are all that counts - this camera is bad because it doesn't have the best low ISO DR, AF isn't important etc. And then anyone who says 'actually I'm content with what I've got, or interested by what has just been released' is a fanboy, or hates innovation or whatever. Everyone has different needs. Incidentally, is a crop sensor camera the best choice for travel anyway? I don't know what you're shooting, but I imagine landscapes/architecture is part of it - so you'd maybe want the widest FOV possible, and AF/fps isn't so important, so why choose the 7D2 at all?

I use a 5D mark III and I think that, overall, the new high megapixel Sony sensors. I shoot landscapes/architecture/portraiture/food/street photography/food...
You are proving my point. I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.

 

[Faaier]

I prefer having a focused picture with some noise, than a fantastically clean, noiseless picture of an out of focus blur. Pretty sure that most 7D markii people didn't purchase it for low noise...

Oh... my comment counts for high and low ISO. ;D

Overpriced? It is new on the market and hey, everybody has had more then 5 years to put money aside...

DXO? Too bad for the 7DII I'd say , but luckily for Canon (and for me) a camera is more than a sensor and a lens. (still wondering why my user manual has 550 pages... )
Is it correct? Probably it is, but they should be much more carefull in their comments. Their test might be a objective measurement, but any statement that camera XYZ is better than camera ABC is based on sensor output only... They should show pictures of the sensors instead of showing the entire camera.

 

[scyrene]

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

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.

You think that's what's happening on these forums? I try to remain neutral, but it seems mostly that the pro-Sony/anti-Canon/low ISO DR fanatics (call them what you will) are the ones who say their personal needs are all that counts - this camera is bad because it doesn't have the best low ISO DR, AF isn't important etc. And then anyone who says 'actually I'm content with what I've got, or interested by what has just been released' is a fanboy, or hates innovation or whatever. Everyone has different needs. Incidentally, is a crop sensor camera the best choice for travel anyway? I don't know what you're shooting, but I imagine landscapes/architecture is part of it - so you'd maybe want the widest FOV possible, and AF/fps isn't so important, so why choose the 7D2 at all?

I use a 5D mark III and I think that, overall, the new high megapixel Sony sensors. I shoot landscapes/architecture/portraiture/food/street photography/food...
You are proving my point. I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.

Which point am I proving? That it's down to personal needs? I hope so. That's been my point all along. If you meant "whenever someone mentions the sony sensors is, at best, heavily criticized" then I'd disagree. I don't criticise your take on this camera at all, just your take on the state of the debate on these forums. Fair comment?

 

[scyrene]

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

I use a 5D mark III and I think that, overall, the new high megapixel Sony sensors. I shoot landscapes/architecture/portraiture/food/street photography/food...
You are proving my point. I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.

PS for those uses I'd look very favourably on the Sony bodies too. AF speed is much less important and there's plenty of standard lenses. But the 7D2 is not aimed at that - it's a sport/wildlife specialist camera, as far as I can tell.

 

[Loswr]

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

I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.

Your needs should be all that counts for your photography. But frequently on these forums, people seem to believe that Canon has a responsibility to meet their specific personal needs, and go on to claim that Canon is 'doomed' if their personal needs aren't met (presumably because they assume their personal needs represent those of the majority). Those who disagree, or point out Canon's many benefits and innovations (lenses, top AF, DPAF, anti-flicker, etc.) are accused of being fanboys trying to stifle innovation (innovation being narrowly defined by those people specifically as improved low ISO DR).

 

[scyrene]

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

I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.

Your needs should be all that counts for your photography. But frequently on these forums, people seem to believe that Canon has a responsibility to meet their specific personal needs, and go on to claim that Canon is 'doomed' if their personal needs aren't met (presumably because they assume their personal needs represent those of the majority). Those who disagree, or point out Canon's many benefits and innovations (lenses, top AF, DPAF, anti-flicker, etc.) are accused of being fanboys trying to stifle innovation (innovation being narrowly defined by those people specifically as improved low ISO DR).

At the risk of being accused of being one of your acolytes (to put it mildly), you've put it more eloquently than I did

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

The cost to replace them, where they are, is about $20,000. They get used about 1,000 hours a year. They consume 3KW at a cost of about 5.5c/KWh. So, they consume about $165 a year in power. Reducing that by 30% would result in a savings of about $49.50 a year for a payback period of 404 years.

 

[Joe M]

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.

Nice to see this new feature in real life action. An amazing result. I'll hand it to Canon...they weren't just blowing smoke on this one. Thanks Don.

 

[jaayres20]

That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,

Those are peripheral features, and usually overcome by even decent photogs. Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.

I think you have that a little backwards. I can definitely get around not having a little better DR at ISO 100, but I it is a little tougher for me to make up for less AF points, speed, or accuracy. I also love the color Canon gives me.

 

[jrista]

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

I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.

Your needs should be all that counts for your photography. But frequently on these forums, people seem to believe that Canon has a responsibility to meet their specific personal needs, and go on to claim that Canon is 'doomed' if their personal needs aren't met (presumably because they assume their personal needs represent those of the majority). Those who disagree, or point out Canon's many benefits and innovations (lenses, top AF, DPAF, anti-flicker, etc.) are accused of being fanboys trying to stifle innovation (innovation being narrowly defined by those people specifically as improved low ISO DR).

Just to set the record strait, here. For everyone reading this. (i.e. this is not just a direct reply to Neuro...it's informational...boggles my mind that I have to caveat like this, but hey, this community is just so wonderful about dissenting viewpoints.)


First, in my case, it's not just about low ISO DR. It's about improved sensor IQ across the board, increased DR across the board, low and high ISO (because it's already been done.) Increased color fidelity across the board, low and high. Increased resolution. Increased sharpness, yet not at the cost of false detail (which, IMO, is best achieved by pushing sensor resolution to the point where you generally oversample the lens, and are thus legitimately able to drop the AA filter entirely, and simply resport to downsampling to "sharpen.)


But that aside, Neuro's post here conveniently misses the point (that I have tried to make on many occasions) that Canon already excels in every area except sensors (as relative to current, modern technology.) The only area that Canon can realize significant improvements to overall output IQ is their sensor technology. Canon already has excellent, if not superior, AF technology. They are clearly distributing that technology, which premiered with the 1D X, to the rest of their cameras (or at least the rest of their pro-grade cameras, which is, IMO, good enough.) Canon already has superior glass (yes, I really do believe superior in most cases, although there are outliers that fall behind the competition, usually on the shorter end). Canon already has excellent ergonomics (won't say superior...it's a matter of taste/preference here.)


Canon currently excels in most areas...sensor IQ is the one area they do not excel. They haven't really excelled there for years, even back in the 5D II days, Canon's read noise was already a problem, and they had already reached the general limits of what their sensor technology could do...~11 stops (give or take) DR at best.


Just to put the record strait, for everyone reading Neuro's post, at least in regards to myself. I care about sensor IQ as a whole, not just low ISO, not just high ISO, not just one thing or another. I care about it overall, top to bottom, and I see sensor IQ as the one single area that Canon could, if they would invest the resources, realize very significant gains. (And maybe they have...there are rumors about a radical new layered sensor coming from Canon in 2015... Personally, given how Canon excels in every other area I care about, I truly hope the rumors are true, and that come 2015, Canon trounces the competition with something mindblowing. That's my hope. I'm still a skeptic. )

 

[Crapking]

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.

Here is a link to high school flickering lights in the year 2014....

www.flickr.com/pvc2012

 

[Lee Jay]

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

Just to put the record strait, for everyone reading Neuro's post, at least in regards to myself. I care about sensor IQ as a whole, not just low ISO, not just high ISO, not just one thing or another. I care about it overall, top to bottom, and I see sensor IQ as the one single area that Canon could, if they would invest the resources, realize very significant gains.

Significant gains would be nice, but it's not like they're way behind as many people (including DxO) thinks they are. Read what I wrote above.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23547.msg459899#msg459899