Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files

[Keith]

Does anyone know if the RAW files of the new 7D will require software updates to process?

 

[Don Haines]

I don't know, but you can bet that with all the cameras from everyone that were announced at photokina, there will be updates released soon for most software packages.

 

[Loswr]

Pretty much every new camera requires an update to RAW conversion software.

 

[tomscott]

Yes they do, I got a couple of sample images and couldn't process them.

Have to wait for an update.

 

[pwp]

Updates coming from Adobe for ACR & LR very, very soon.
There will be updates for a raft of new cameras that have been announced in the past week or so, not least the 7D2.

-pw

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Pretty much every new camera requires an update to RAW conversion software.

This is true, but Photo Ninja is already able to make a pretty good fist of 7D Mk II conversions, even before it's officially supported: at the weekend I converted an Imaging Resource 7D Mk II sample at 1600 ISO, and converted the equivalent (supported) 6D file from the same source, and - at 100% view - it's impossible to see a difference in the results, from a noise point of view.

 

[rajivsubs]

This is true, but Photo Ninja is already able to make a pretty good fist of 7D Mk II conversions, even before it's officially supported: at the weekend I converted an Imaging Resource 7D Mk II sample at 1600 ISO, and converted the equivalent (supported) 6D file from the same source, and - at 100% view - it's impossible to see a difference in the results, from a noise point of view.

WOW!! Could you please post the 100% crops from both cameras?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Pretty much every new camera requires an update to RAW conversion software.

This is true, but Photo Ninja is already able to make a pretty good fist of 7D Mk II conversions, even before it's officially supported: at the weekend I converted an Imaging Resource 7D Mk II sample at 1600 ISO, and converted the equivalent (supported) 6D file from the same source, and - at 100% view - it's impossible to see a difference in the results, from a noise point of view.

If I understand correctly:
RAW images provided by IMAGINGRESOURCE using PHOTO NINJA converter, seems equally between 6D and 7D Mark ii on the question of noise in ISO 1600?

 

[tomscott]

Ye sorry, that is very hard to believe. the physical size of a full frame sensor gives it at least a 2 stop advantage.

If the noise on its own is similar I bet the image is very muddy.

The results are already up

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.HTM

The 6D and 5DMKIII perform much better. Still impressive performance tho.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

 

[quod]

Yes they do, I got a couple of sample images and couldn't process them.

Have to wait for an update.

I opened 7D2 RAWs wirh Irfanview, which is freeware. I saved them to TIFFs and edited the TIFFs with ACR and Photoshop CS6.

 

[Leigh]

You can open the raw files in the free program rawTherapee .
:http://rawtherapee.com/

I downloaded 3200 ISO files of the 7D-2, & 70D; processed, & exported to PS-CS6 as TIFS, got 100% crops from 3 places in the image. (even without profiles, it's a fair comparison}
Note: I had to convert to High Quality jpeg to upload to this site, but the results are consistent.

I think it's fair to say that the 7D-2, 70D results are near identical.

Leigh

 

[Lee Jay]

Ye sorry, that is very hard to believe. the physical size of a full frame sensor gives it at least a 2 stop advantage.

1 1/3 stops, actually.

 

[MichaelHodges]

You can open the raw files in the free program rawTherapee .
:http://rawtherapee.com/

I downloaded 3200 ISO files of the 7D-2, & 70D; processed, & exported to PS-CS6 as TIFS, got 100% crops from 3 places in the image. (even without profiles, it's a fair comparison}
Note: I had to convert to High Quality jpeg to upload to this site, but the results are consistent.

I think it's fair to say that the 7D-2, 70D results are near identical.

Leigh

Uh-oh.

 

[Leigh]

7D vs 7D-2 vs 70D-3200 ISO raw to 16 bit TIF to jpeg for uploading---No additional processing, 100% crops.

leigh

 

[coreyhkh]

What converter did you use? I am using Photo Ninja and here are my results

I used the 1dmkiv so I compared it and I am happy with the results especially when you scale the file up and that does not take into account the added crop factor you would have in the field.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

 

[Lee Jay]

Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

Unusable? I'd call the 7D usable as 6400 and the 7D2 and 70D usable at 12,800 at least.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

Unusable? I'd call the 7D usable as 6400 and the 7D2 and 70D usable at 12,800 at least.

It all depends on the purpose. For a small print or a internet photo, you can get away with high ISO's just fine. However, some want to print large, and the noise becomes visible, or the detail is blurred by NR.

It all depends on the person and his use.

From what I've seen, the 7D MK II is just a tad better than the 70D at high ISO, and about 2 stops behind a FF like the 5D MK III.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

Unusable? I'd call the 7D usable as 6400 and the 7D2 and 70D usable at 12,800 at least.

I capture wildlife images, and I don't go past ISO 800 on the 7D or 70D i I can help it. Fur and feather detail becomes too mushy.

I'd consider the 7D borderline unusable at ISO 800, and know many wildlife photogs who simply gave up on the camera because of the noise at RAW ISO 800.

 

[MichaelHodges]

It all depends on the purpose. For a small print or a internet photo, you can get away with high ISO's just fine.

I'd debate that, even.

However, some want to print large, and the noise becomes visible, or the detail is blurred by NR.

It all depends on the person and his use.

True, it's all about taste and individual perception. But poor, mushy detail and watercolor images don't change because of a user's perception. They just are.

From what I've seen, the 7D MK II is just a tad better than the 70D at high ISO, and about 2 stops behind a FF like the 5D MK III.

Which makes the 6D about 2 1/2 stops better. goes to show just how superior the 6D sensor is. I think that's an unacceptable outcome given the five years of 7DII development.