Canon 7D Mark II Image Quality

[NancyP]

My minimum shutter speed for moving birds on the 60D with 400 f/5.6L is 1/1000 sec.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My minimum shutter speed for moving birds on the 60D with 400 f/5.6L is 1/1000 sec.

That's been my goal as well, 1/2000 is better. The op did not post any photos or give any settings, he merely assures us that he knows how to take sharp images.

That leaves the question as to what he wants from the forum.

 

[takesome1]

The OP does say he knows how to shoot his 5D III to get sharp pictures.

Then people start telling him he must double his shutter speed because of camera shake and that you loose resolution because the 7D II will show all the lens flaws.

I have been shooting the 7D II along side of my 1D IV and 5D II taking all to the blind since November. While some of this reasoning has a partial basis in truth, it doesn't play out in the real world.

If the OP has the skill and knowledge to take a sharp picture with a 5D III he as the skill to take one with the 7D II.
Equal settings, equal shutter speeds the 7D II at the same distance with the same lens on a crop picture the 7D II will produce a sharper image. In this scenario camera shake just doesn't play out as an issue that is different from one body to the next.

There are times camera shake and shutter speed are an issue with the 7D II vs the FF, but that is related to poor ISO performance and having to use slower shutter speeds to keep ISO down.

 

[dh]

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. Here are a couple of comparison shots (unprocessed, just exported from LR as JPG):

https://www.flickr.com/gp/92232903@N08/26i3xe/

Maybe not the most dramatic example, but these are two relatively good side-by-side comparisons.

Happy to hear any thoughts on what's going on here -- problem with my technique, expectations too high, etc.

Thanks,
-dh

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Sorry everyone - You don't need a faster shutter on a 7D over a 5D in fact if anything you could get away with a slower shutter since the frame will contain fewer pixels.

On the other hand, if you are not comphensating for framing, you will need a 55% faster shutter (61% faster from the crop / 1.1 slower from the decreased sensor density) at matching focal lengths if you want to see increased detail that would otherwise be lost to motion. At a given shuter, you are NOT going to lose detail on small subjects, you only increase the chance of having motion blur which will be the same amount as the 5D only zoomed back by a factor of 1.6 In other words the image will NOT be worse, it will be equal or better on content already being cropped.

Having cleared that up; the differences you are seeing are probably due to lens quality.

If you were to say that Full frame uses 100% of an EF lens, you could say that crop uses only 39% of that.

This magnifies the defects.

The better the lens, the less of an issue.

Hope that makes sense.

Even Canon recommends a faster shutter speed for crop cameras using the same lens at the same distance. Image blur happens due to motion of the camera during a photo. The smaller and closer photosites mean that a slight movement will blur across the pixels. If you compare a crop camera with a FF body having the same pixel size and spacing, that would not be a issue.

A crop camera does not magnify defects, it crops the center of the image, and you generally get fewer issues which generally show up on the edges of the image circle.

 

[3kramd5]

A crop camera does not magnify defects, it crops the center of the image, and you generally get fewer issues which generally show up on the edges of the image circle.

Sure, but what flaws there are will be magnified more the smaller the sensor is, for a constant view or print size.

 

[candc]

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. Here are a couple of comparison shots (unprocessed, just exported from LR as JPG):

https://www.flickr.com/gp/92232903@N08/26i3xe/

Maybe not the most dramatic example, but these are two relatively good side-by-side comparisons.

Happy to hear any thoughts on what's going on here -- problem with my technique, expectations too high, etc.

Thanks,
-dh

Ok so what are we looking for here? The heron shots are under completely different light and the killdeer shots look pretty similar.

 

[Deleted member 369279]

Hi everyone,

I did not check the pictures from dh yet. My connection here is too slow.
Thanks everyone for your replies. The debate is not about the shutter speed on a crop factor.
When at 600mm (960 on the 7D2) my shutter speed are 1/1600 or faster.
I was thinking about starting a thread about the 7D2 image quality. But Dh reported exactly the same feeling that I have. As one of you mention. I should probably not pixel peep with a crop sensor once you have worked with FF.
I guess I have to buy a 1Dx to be satisfied. Unless of course my 7D2 has a problem. I will post pictures as soon as I can.

Vincwat

 

[AlanF]

When I put the same lens on my 7DII and then the 5DIII and shoot a test card, I get better resolution from the 7DII but better contrast from the 5DIII. The better resolution is because the smaller pixels obviously can separate finely spaced lines. But, in turn, they smooth out the transition from intense black to pure white - the larger pixels have a sharper, albeit more jagged, transition. It is a combination of contrast and resolution that gives the overall apparent sharpness of an image (high and low frequency MTFs). DxO when they measure "perceptive megapixels", I think, are doing something like combining different frequency MTFs whereas lenstip, ePhotozine etc are using a standard MTF measurement.

The perceptive megapixel measurements of DxO show that an ultrasharp lens like the 300mm f/2.8 II loses comparatively little sharpness on going from FF to crop whereas softer lenses like the Tamron150-600 or the old 100-400mm are hit hard. The softer lenses lose more contrast by spreading out the transition of sharp edges even more. I see this in my own tests and you can see it by comparing FF vs crop on TDP. It was a revelation to me when I tried my old 100-400 on a 5DIII after the soft images it always gave me on the 7D.

 

[Sporgon]

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. Here are a couple of comparison shots (unprocessed, just exported from LR as JPG):

https://www.flickr.com/gp/92232903@N08/26i3xe/

Maybe not the most dramatic example, but these are two relatively good side-by-side comparisons.

Happy to hear any thoughts on what's going on here -- problem with my technique, expectations too high, etc.

Thanks,
-dh

Just had a quick look at your examples. Am I not right in saying that we would expect resolution to fall on a crop camera faster than on a FF as ISO goes higher ?

On your first two samples the FF is a ISO 250, your crop at 800. On the second two, FF is 1000 and crop 800, so pretty much the same. Advantage very much to FF in your first sample, advantage still to FF in your second sample.

If you want to compare them I would start by static tests on a tripod with your sharpest lens at base ISO, then move up from there.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

But sometimes i experience noise at even 100 iso.

Yeah, that'll be down to you (and the OP) - or more to the point, your conversion/processing decisions.

This a 100% crop of a 4000 ISO file from my 7D Mk II - straight out of converter (in noise terms - no additional PP added) and it's squeaky clean.

And at the image level - sharp, detailed, right. Again, no additional NR over what the converter applied.

Because I used a converter that does the job...

(The exif in the second shot will indicate that I wasn't short of light - true, I was testing Auto ISO when I took this, and had dialed in a high shutter speed, which I want for bird and motor sport photography) but, this is still a perfect demonstration of the 7D Mk II's IQ capabilities).

 

[justaCanonuser]

Hi Al and all,

Here are some results from my first brief birding tour yesterday ith my new 7D2, compared with my 5D3. I didn’t take my old 7D because I didn’t have enough time to handle three cameras, and I could not plan and design a perfect test setup - so it's a bit rough and dirty, but with interesting results. It was already late afternoon, so I decided to visit a feathered friend, a tawny owl, who I knew would keep still enough for a bit of a test shooting . Unfortunately, his/her “apartment” is a bit high on an old, high tree.

I used a 20 yrs old EF 500mm F/4.5 (Lady Di was paparazzied with it to death – no, that's a very bad joke) and optionally a 1.4x TC (Canon, Mk. III) on a monopod I just grabbed and threw on my backpack. This vintage lens has no IS but is very sharp when closed to >= F/5. I shot RAWs and slightly post processed them in Canon’s DPP (for those who don’t use LR) with „unsharp mask“ parameters shifted to maximum detail but standard sharpening settings untouched. Then I converted the resulting JPEGs to a reduced size allowed for uploading here (2000 Pixels width, compression quality level “7”).

Step 1: The two images here show the whole, not cropped images I got with the 500mm, no TC. Both cameras set to F/5.6. 7D2 shot with 1/1000s ISO 1600 (to check how far I can go down without IS and get not too much blur by my tiny motions with the monopod). 5D3 shot with 1/1600s ISO 4000. The 2nd image is shot with the 7D2 (of course).

 

[justaCanonuser]

…step 2 (check my first posting before this one): both images cropped to the same bird’s size to see which camera delivers more detail with settings as described in my first posting. First image is from my 5D3, second from my 7D2. As you can see, the 7D2 delivers a tad more fine detail in the feather texture than the 5D3 (see also my nexts postings), despite I used a slower shutter speed by 1/600s with the crop sensor 7D2. In fact, the cropped image from 5D3 has only 1350 Pixels width left, because the owl was already very small in the full image. So at least until ISO 1600 the 7D2 delivers what I hoped for – more reach and better detail for birding than my 5D3.

 

[justaCanonuser]

… step 3 (check my two previous postings first): now another interesting comparison, my 5D3 with 700mm (500mm + 1.4 TC) (1st image) compared to my 7D2 with 500mm only (2nd image). Both shot with 1/2000s, 5D3+TC combo at F/6.3 (ISO 1000), 7D2 at F/5 (ISO 1250) (I know I should have used the same F stop settings with both, but as I said, this was a rough & dirty test). So, both combos deliver about the same image framing (1.4x TC + FF vs. 1,6x crop but 2 MP less resolution).

The images shown here are cropped to roughly 1400 Pixel width, and the results of both combos get much closer. The 5D3’s image appears to look a bit more pronounced in details. But at that moment there was more bright grazing light on the owl (light conditions changed quickly) and its aperture was more closed by 1.3 stops. You can also notice that are clipped highlight spots in both images since the light at that moment still was hard and contrast rich (not my preferred setting), and I decided to use automatic metering without compensation to see how the 7D2’s metering performs – and did the same with my 5D3 knowing that this wasn’t what I’d do normally. Well, the result shows that the 7D2 would have needed some compensation by -2/3 stops, too…

Overall I can tell from this first brief real life test that IMO the 7D2 seems to be a really nice wildlife tool, in good light and the same focal lengths it definitely outperforms the 5D3 in resolving objects far away - in real life, as I hoped for. The game changes a bit with the 5D3+1.4 TC, but if there’s enough light I can now slab a TC on my 7D2, combine it with use an F/4(.5) super tele and get even more reach. This is the huge leap from the old 7D I hoped for (I did not yet test the 7D2 dual pixel AF in LV which should be another big leap). I also appreciate the 7D2’s great silent mode which appears even more silent than the 5D3’s one. The loud shutter noise of the old 7D sometimes threatened to scare shy animals.

 

[justaCanonuser]

To make my "step 2" posting more clear to those who do not want to compare both images in detail: here a crop of those 5D3's and 7D's images, both shot with the 500mm, 7D2 with 1/1000s ISO 1600, 5D3 with 1/1600s ISO 4000. The 7D's image looks a bit softer (I sharpened it now a bit more in Photoshop), but shows more fine detail.

 

[takesome1]

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. Here are a couple of comparison shots (unprocessed, just exported from LR as JPG):

https://www.flickr.com/gp/92232903@N08/26i3xe/

Maybe not the most dramatic example, but these are two relatively good side-by-side comparisons.

Happy to hear any thoughts on what's going on here -- problem with my technique, expectations too high, etc.

Thanks,
-dh

The picture of the heron is not comparable. Different lighting and different framing.

The other bird is shot with two different lenses with close to the same framing. The 7D II at 300mm on a zoom and the FF at 400mm on a prime. Actually I do not see what you are talking about with these pics but it's not an equal comparison. If anything I would have expected the FF to look better in this comparison.

To my original response, the extra resolution of the 7D II is only going to be seen in a focal length limited situation, where it is on your longest lens. In that situation you have to crop a substantial amount if you shoot FF.
Because of this I only use mine on my longest lens the 500mm. If I can use an appropriate shorter focal length I will be using a different body.

In your second example if I were carrying both bodies my 7D II would have been on the prime and the 5D on the zoom.

I think the problem you may be having has nothing to do with settings or technique, rather it is your expectations of what the 7D II should be doing. The 7D II has an advantage, but only in a limited set of circumstances.

 

[Dylan777]

One of CR member shared some 7D II + 100-400 II RAW files with me - BIF photos. Looking through LR, I'm impressed with Canon 7D II cropped sensor. I cropped down 50% and IQ still look great. The shutter speed he shot was 1/2000. It doesn't seem his camera has issue with AF focus at all.

 

[MikeT]

Because I used a converter that does the job...

Keith Reeder... Which converter did you use? I used my new 7D MkII this week, and was very disappointed in the level of noise at ISO 3200, even after using DxO Prime.

 

[dh]

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. Here are a couple of comparison shots (unprocessed, just exported from LR as JPG):

https://www.flickr.com/gp/92232903@N08/26i3xe/

Maybe not the most dramatic example, but these are two relatively good side-by-side comparisons.

Happy to hear any thoughts on what's going on here -- problem with my technique, expectations too high, etc.

Thanks,
-dh

Ok so what are we looking for here? The heron shots are under completely different light and the killdeer shots look pretty similar.

If you look in the killdeer shots at the amount of fine detail on the bird's wing, back, and breast, the 5D3 appears to have significantly more detail than the 7D2. Another post in this thread indicates that that would be expected in this kind of scenario, so maybe this is just a case of unrealistic expectations on my part.

Perhaps the heron shots are not as useful for side-by-side comparison, but to my eye, they show a similarly disappointing lack of detail in the 7D2 image compared to the 5D3.

Thanks,
-dh

 

[takesome1]

If you look in the killdeer shots at the amount of fine detail on the bird's wing, back, and breast, the 5D3 appears to have significantly more detail than the 7D2. Another post in this thread indicates that that would be expected in this kind of scenario, so maybe this is just a case of unrealistic expectations on my part.

Had you shot the killdeer with the 5D III using 70-300mm at 300mm, then cropped the picture to the same field of view as the 7D II's. Then resized the image to the exact same size then you have an equal comparison to the 7D II's image. In that situation you will see an improvement.

Focal length limited situations, at your longest focal length, where you have to crop go with the 7D II. It is a very narrow set of circumstances.

Outside of those parameters, the FF body photos will look equal or better.
Without that understanding or need for length, honestly there isn't much reason to own a 7D II. Maybe FPS, maybe video but not many reasons.