Canon 7D Mark II Noise comparisons from TDP are now available

[takesome1]

that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.

no matter if it´s justified or not this will make an impression on customers.

you can say what you want about DXO but it carrys a lot of weight as you can see.

if canon does not counter that, the reputation is gone. if it´s not already too late.

DXO Mark is like the Emperor's New Clothes. It carries a lot of weight, but Canon has done superbly with lots of cameras that scored poorly on it, including the 5D Mark III.

+1

Canon sensors have received lower DxOMark Scores than their competitors for ~5 years now, years in which they continued to sell more dSLRs than those competitors.

DxOMark's Biased Scores (BS) do serve a purpose, though (albeit not a useful one):

With my own personal principals I can not support DxO by buying their products for the reasons you state.

 

[Marauder]

that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.

no matter if it´s justified or not this will make an impression on customers.


only three example:

https://fstoppers.com/critiques/dxomark-results-show-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-test-similar-5-year-old-nikon-bodies-43470#comment-form

http://petapixel.com/2014/11/05/dxomark-disappointed-7d-mark-ii-sensor-lags-behind-mft-cameras-base-iso/

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a-mount-is-dead-sure-look-at-that/


you can say what you want about DXO but it carrys a lot of weight as you can see.

if canon does not counter that, the reputation with forum-dwelling gear enthusiasts is gone. if it´s not already too late.

Note edit above.

I don't disagree with your point, but people are flogging a component of the camera and not the pictures the entire camera can capture. (Is anyone flogging Nikon for not having DPAF or a stellar AF system? Or the shots they miss for their limited burst rate and buffer size in this price point?)

Very very very very very few photographers deeply care about sensor scores, so 'losing' in a sensor battle to Sony is of little consequence to them. I have yet to see a single substantive piece of proof that shows that photographers are switching away from Canon in any numbers that matter.

Yet I do see stories like these:

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/

http://kurtklimisch.blogspot.com/2014/01/examination-for-reuters-fullfocus-2013.html

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/70_of_imaging_professionals_use_canon_gear_at_2014_world_cup/

...that imply that imaging professionals are awfully fond of their Canon gear. There's only one explanation for this: no one told them about the dynamic range they were throwing away by not switching to Nikon immediately.

- A

I concur. It's almost as if some are viewing cameras as some sort of scientific instrument, rather than as a camera. That's what DXO Mark encourages, because they only look at one parameter, then give it weight way beyond what it deserves. It's the totality of the system that matters, and how well it fits into the needs of the photographers who use it!

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I enjoyed clicking back and forth between the 7D and the 7D2 at various ISOs. I'd say less than one stop of improvement. If you take into account the five year wait, it's definitely not very impressive to me. I plan to keep my 7D classic as a backup to my 5D3.

However, I'm happy for you guys and gals who shoot sports and birds. Looks awesome for you. Hope you have fun with the new camera!

 

[Northbird]

While I like objective lab tests and the opinions of experts, I still rely on getting out there with the HW in my own hands, shooting pics, and evaluating the performance against my own standards and expectations. I've been shooting around the house with my 7D2 side by side with my 5D2 and find it meets my expectations. Low light performance is actually quite good. I'll be shooting a nighttime football game tomorrow where that will be a mix of sports action (300mm f2.8L IS II) and halftime portraits (going to try out the Sigma 50mm Art). Next weekend, I'll be shooting a high power rocket launch. After that I'll have enough personal experiences and data to develop my own opinion. Buy, rent, or borrow one and shoot it for yourself. The only opinions that matter are your own.

Very well said, I completely agree. My rental just arrived and I've spent the day configuring it and took a few shots. I'm impressed. Blazing fast and accurate AF with all the flexibility in configuration any sports/wildlife shooter would ever want. I've been using a 7D for over four years and it has served me well. The Mark II is in a different league with its superb AF system. With a few config tweaks the transition to the Mark II for a Mark I shooter is quite painless. Thank you Canon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I enjoyed clicking back and forth between the 7D and the 7D2 at various ISOs. I'd say less than one stop of improvement. If you take into account the five year wait, it's definitely not very impressive to me. I plan to keep my 7D classic as a backup to my 5D3.

However, I'm happy for you guys and gals who shoot sports and birds. Looks awesome for you. Hope you have fun with the new camera!

A 1 stop improvement is pretty good, actually. Sensors are getting to the point where big improvements won't happen without some sort of work around technology.

Consider what the cost would be to buy all new lenses that are a stop faster. (Assuming they are even available).

If you had 5 lenses, it could easily cost $1,000 or a lot more per lens to get that one stop.

On the other hand, If you have just a 18-55mm kit lens, upgrading to a 17-55mm ef-s would be more cost effective.

 

[sanj]

To MY eyes I see about half stop improvement. This is what I had expected.

But focus, build, buffer, viewfinder and such exceed my expectations.

Wish there was a bit more improvement in sensor. I doubt I will buy this and continue with FF. I was tempted to get this when announced but using 7D earlier has left such bad memories…

 

[sanj]

I am not putting down the camera, just saying that it is not for me as the difference between FF and this is vast. And since it will always be like that I will continue using FF till I can afford to. I believe now that the only reason to go crop is budget.

 

[justsomedude]

I am not putting down the camera, just saying that it is not for me as the difference between FF and this is vast. And since it will always be like that I will continue using FF till I can afford to. I believe now that the only reason to go crop is budget.

IQ and budget are not the only reasons people consider this body; many pros employ a 5D3 and 7D (now 7D2). With the buffer and FPS on the 7D2, there is simply nothing comparable in the class/price range...

5D3: 6.1fps, buffer maxes out at 18 frames
6D: 4.5fps, buffer maxes out at 16 frames
7D2: 10 fps, buffer maxes out 31 RAW frames!!

In three seconds of shooting on a 5D3 you've taken 18 shots and maxed your buffer - you get almost twice the shots on a 7D2 in the same time frame (not to mention the extra reach of crop). It's pretty astounding when you think about it.

If you're not trying to capture the shot of an eagle grabbing a fish from the river, or the hockey puck entering the net, the baseball player swinging past the ball at the plate, or the race car driver making that amazing pass on the track, then the 7D2 is probably not for you. It is simply a specific tool for a specific purpose; one where both the 6D and 5D cannot measure up.

However, I'm rather irritated about the vast differences in sharpness between the models, for example the 60d looks very blurry vs. 70d/7d2 and the 6d is a lot shaper than all. Is this because of lens properties, aa filter, or... ?

This is the nature of pixel density and FF vs. crop sensors. Crop sensors cram more pixels into a smaller area. Think about it, the 7D2 has the same MP as the 6D and 5D3, with a sensor that is almost half the size. Even the 1D series employed a 1.3x crop APS-H sensor for a number of versions. Hence, the photosites on these crop bodies are smaller resulting in noisier (or "blurrier," as you call it) images. Canon, and all camera manufacturers have worked diligently over the years to improve the quality of crop sensors, and they have made great strides. But physics is physics, and you can only do so much with so much light, in such a small area.

 

[bainsybike]

I believe now that the only reason to go crop is budget.

Another reason would be size and weight, though not perhaps with the 7DII.

 

[dtaylor]

Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor. There's a ton of value elsewhere in the camera, but if you were holding out for 2 stops better low light performance over the 7D, the 7D2 may have fallen short of that (admittedly high) mark.

The various tests out there do not tell the whole story. The 7D falls off a cliff after 3200, and even at 3200 is very sensitive to scene luminance range and exposure (underexpose a low key scene and you're done). The noise is blotchy and disruptive in a way that defies NR and printing beyond 3200.

The 7D2 does not do this from what I've seen so far. It doesn't fall off a cliff. For subjects which are not dominated by fine detail you can actually clean up and print ISO 16,000 to 8x12 and be fine. It will look as good as ISO 800 color neg film used to look.

That's why the various tests and opinions are all over the place. Well exposed, high key scene at 3200? Difference is less then a stop (but certainly more then 1/3rd stop #DxOJoke). OK exposure of a low key scene at 6400? The 7D isn't even usable.

 

[AlanF]

Another test that is useful from TDP is the comparison of sharpness using the 200mm/2 L. The Mark II seems to my eyes to be an improvement over the 7D:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=673&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although the 5D III still has a real edge, which is why the "extra reach" of the crop is not a factor of 1.6 because its image is more blurred.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=792&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[dtaylor]

This is the nature of pixel density and FF vs. crop sensors. Crop sensors cram more pixels into a smaller area. Think about it, the 7D2 has the same MP as the 6D and 5D3, with a sensor that is almost half the size. Even the 1D series employed a 1.3x crop APS-H sensor for a number of versions. Hence, the photosites on these crop bodies are smaller resulting in noisier (or "blurrier," as you call it) images.

It's not a noise issue, at least not at low to mid ISO. It's just the nature of lenses. The finer the detail the lower the contrast of said detail. Given the same scene and lens, when you step back with a crop camera to fit the scene onto the smaller sensor the lens is projecting those details at a lower point on its MTF curve. Therefore the detail contrast is lower.

Of course that's just one factor. Another factor when comparing images SOOC is that cameras have different AA filters, sharpening defaults, etc.

At the end of the day though the sharpness differences beteween m43, APS-C, and FF don't survive post processing at low to mid ISO. People seem to consider sharpness differences SOOC or with RAW defaults, at lower ISOs, to be very meaningful. I consider them meaningless. At those ISOs you choose your sharpness in camera or in post.

 

[RichM]

...

Crudely, I liken the 7D to 7D2 comparison to that of the 5D2 to 5D3. The sensor of the 5D2 was excellent but a lot of supporting features (esp. the AF) underperformed, and the 5D3 comprehensively upgraded those features. The 7D2 -- obviously improving different sorts of features than the 5D3 -- represents that similar comprehensive upgrade. The IQ is very similar, but the number and percentage of keepers should be higher as a result.

- A

I either own, or in the case of the 5d2, have owned all 4 models you've listed. I completely agree with your assessment. Since I've limited experience with the 7d2, I'll wait to finalize my opinion, but so far the slight improvement to high ISO performance, and the very significant improvement to AF make the purchase worthwhile.

 

[Loswr]

IQ and budget are not the only reasons people consider this body; many pros employ a 5D3 and 7D (now 7D2). With the buffer and FPS on the 7D2, there is simply nothing comparable in the class/price range...

5D3: 6.1fps, buffer maxes out at 18 frames
6D: 4.5fps, buffer maxes out at 16 frames
7D2: 10 fps, buffer maxes out 31 RAW frames!!

1D X: 12 fps, buffer maxes out at 38 RAW frames and IQ is better than APS-C, particularly at higher ISO. So yes, budget is the main reason to consider a crop body, even one as good as the 7DII.

 

[ahsanford]

...

Crudely, I liken the 7D to 7D2 comparison to that of the 5D2 to 5D3. The sensor of the 5D2 was excellent but a lot of supporting features (esp. the AF) underperformed, and the 5D3 comprehensively upgraded those features. The 7D2 -- obviously improving different sorts of features than the 5D3 -- represents that similar comprehensive upgrade. The IQ is very similar, but the number and percentage of keepers should be higher as a result.

- A

I either own, or in the case of the 5d2, have owned all 4 models you've listed. I completely agree with your assessment. Since I've limited experience with the 7d2, I'll wait to finalize my opinion, but so far the slight improvement to high ISO performance, and the very significant improvement to AF make the purchase worthwhile.

I don't shoot video, so my decision to buy a 5D3 over the 5D2 (this was before the 6D was announced) was largely based on the opportunity of using a 1DX-like AF system. Many, many reviewers said that AF performance alone was worth the extra money, and after two blissfully happy years of use, I concur.

- A

 

[Marsu42]

However, I'm rather irritated about the vast differences in sharpness between the models, for example the 60d looks very blurry vs. 70d/7d2 and the 6d is a lot shaper than all. Is this because of lens properties, aa filter, or... ?

This is the nature of pixel density and FF vs. crop sensors. Crop sensors cram more pixels into a smaller area. Think about it, the 7D2 has the same MP as the 6D and 5D3, with a sensor that is almost half the size.

Sure, but even the crop vs. crop have very different sharpness - so as theorized above, it probably is because they use jpeg files that have different (picture style or overall camera) sharpness levels applied.

 

[zlatko]

With the buffer and FPS on the 7D2, there is simply nothing comparable in the class/price range...

5D3: 6.1fps, buffer maxes out at 18 frames
6D: 4.5fps, buffer maxes out at 16 frames
7D2: 10 fps, buffer maxes out 31 RAW frames!!

Actually, the 7D2 can do even better! The Digital Picture has found that with a very fast 1066x UDMA 7 CF card the 7D2 can exceed its 31 frame RAW buffer by about 50%. It can do 47 to 49 RAW frames:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=13858
And after the buffer is *full*, it can still shoot at 5.7 fps, faster than some cameras shoot with an empty buffer.

Darn it Canon, by exceeding the rated buffer, you're doing a bad job of the "crippling" that people are always talking about.

 

[MichaelHodges]

People seem to consider sharpness differences SOOC or with RAW defaults, at lower ISOs, to be very meaningful. I consider them meaningless. At those ISOs you choose your sharpness in camera or in post.

SOOC RAW comparisons are the only meaningful comparisons.

Your logic could be used to excuse away any differences between any cameras.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Wish there was a bit more improvement in sensor. I doubt I will buy this and continue with FF. I was tempted to get this when announced but using 7D earlier has left such bad memories…

Been there.

 

[jrista]

Another test that is useful from TDP is the comparison of sharpness using the 200mm/2 L. The Mark II seems to my eyes to be an improvement over the 7D:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=673&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although the 5D III still has a real edge, which is why the "extra reach" of the crop is not a factor of 1.6 because its image is more blurred.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=792&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Hate to say it, but your assessment here is a little flawed. The 5D III does have the edge, however that is because it is a comparison of identical framing. Whenever framing is identical, more sensor area with similar pixel counts is always going to win. These tests are NOT tests of reach.


The 7D II appears softer (at f/2) than the 5D III only because the 5D III chart images were not taken at the same distance. If you DID change the framing with the 5D III, such that the chart was at the same exact distance from the sensor as it is with the 7D II...then the "softness" of the crop would at least be on par with the 5D III.


Furthermore, the softness is due to optical aberrations. For an adequate comparison of resolving power, you need to be more diffraction limited. If both cameras were tested at say f/4 at the same distance (which means different framing in the 5D III), the reach advantage of the 7D II should become much clearer.