Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files

[MichaelHodges]

I don't know how you get away with only shooting 800ISO with wildlife, keeping the shutter speed at 1/1000 on an overcast day requires 1250+ in my experience. If you are in a darker environment like a forrest or under cover 3200+ is where you need to be.

I would never use ISO 3200 for wildlife on a crop camera. You might be able to get away with it for indoor sports, but it's not going to cut it for antler and fur detail in RAW. The shots I've taken at 3200 are strictly for memories (wild bobcats, grizzly bears).

ISO 800 is about the limit of my friends usage on crop as well. I do dip into ISO 1600 from time to time, but these need major work to restore fur and antler detail.

If you are routinely using ISO 3200 on a crop camera for wildlife, you need to consider moving to FF ASAP, because that's shooting a weakness.

Thats why I shoot FF… Which is why I said i don't know how people get away with only shooting ISO800.

Yep. I consider crops "afternoon" wildlife ISO 100-800 cameras, and FF for crepuscular/forest shooting to 12,800. Different tools for different jobs.

The crop bring you closer in daylight when animals are more leery, and the FF gets the job done in lowlight hours when many animals are more active and willing to move closer.

 

[Lee Jay]

Yep. I consider crops "afternoon" wildlife ISO 100-800 cameras, and FF for crepuscular/forest shooting to 12,800.

That's four stops. That's not what you said above.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Yep. I consider crops "afternoon" wildlife ISO 100-800 cameras, and FF for crepuscular/forest shooting to 12,800.

That's four stops. That's not what you said above.

The 6D cleans up a bit better at 12,800 for smaller web photos. But it's not something I'd do consistently.

 

[coreyhkh]

WOW people really need to learn to use noise removal plugins. all my bird shots are taken at between 800 and 1600ISO on the 7D.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/corey-hayes/

 

[MichaelHodges]

WOW people really need to learn to use noise removal plugins.

It's not really about that. It's about using the cameras within their "sweet spots". ISO 1600+ is a serious weakness for crop cameras. If you find yourself shooting crop at those ISO's, it's time to go to a 6D, regardless of how gimped the AF is.

 

[Quasimodo]

I´ll wait for the official peepers to make their judgement, but I will get it regardless, as IMHO it looks like a great back up camera, which also will make my 1Dx look better

 

[SPKoko]

As an owner of a 70D, I would disagree. I never shoot it above ISO 1600.

My FF cameras are significantly better. I would say the 6D is 2 1/2 stops better, 5DIII 2 stops.

Okay, whatever. I'd call the 6D 2 stops and the 5DIII 1 1/2, but that's only a half stop discrepancy.

According to Snapsort, that extracts ISO performance data from DxOMark, a 1,3 stops advantage for the 6D and a 1 stop advantage for the 5DIII:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Canon-EOS-70D
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-70D-vs-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II

Those numbers match reasonably well with what I can see in the dpreview's studio scene:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/16

where the ISO 1600 image from the 70D is noisier than the ISO 3200 image from the 6D but it is better than the ISO 6400 image. It looks closer to the ISO 3200 image than to the ISO 6400 image. Therefore, that number of 1,3 stops advantage seems just right.

 

[Woody]

The squirrel's fur also looks like a water color painting, and the delicate whiskers are eaten by noise/noise removal.

No, they don't. They are fine.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Nothing in the squirrel looks in good focus, and the whiskers are eaten away by noise/noise removal.

That shot was best left for a full frame sensor.

 

[Lee Jay]

Nothing in the squirrel looks in good focus,

The eye and parts of the tail are in good focus. It was shot at f/4 with the 200-400/4 and so it has very shallow depth-of-field.

 

[applecider]

Corey I like your bird shots, especially the composition. I really wish that you and everyone really would show full exif info to show on flikr, but that's just my pet peeve.

My criteria of a sharp bird picture like yours is to be able to see the little dots around the birds' eyes. When the eye dots show the feather detail is there as well and there is no reason one should not shoot to capture all these details. BTW if anyone knows what the dots are called I'd like to know.

For web use the crop does a decent job, for prints I still want to see the fine details, and for that FF is my boat. So I'm with Michael Hodges on this one. So far the 7Dii raws haven't given me a reason to change my thinking or shooting.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

I think the real "kill shot" will be the dual pixel technology in full frame. My 7D is awesome in good light, but when the light goes low, the 5D III comes out.
The whole point of having a DSLR is accurate, high quality capture for large prints. Otherwise, a point & shoot works great for 4x5s and web size.
After using full frame, I'm really leaning toward going 100% full on all new purchases. If I need "reach", I'll use an extender.
In reality, it all boils down to what is acceptable for YOUR needs. Cost versus performance & features drive the market.
Truthfully, the only reason I went to full frame is that I got tired of trying to figure out what my focal length was going to be on the crop size.

 

[Steve]

WOW people really need to learn to use noise removal plugins. all my bird shots are taken at between 800 and 1600ISO on the 7D.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/corey-hayes/

Well, it seems like all your shots posted at the link are at 1024 on the long side which will help with noise quite a bit but I tend to agree. When I had a 7D, I never shot higher than 800 because the noise was such a killer, especially when cropping, but I've learned a lot about noise reduction and general bird photography techniques since then. You can go a lot further with NR if its done thoughtfully and carefully and, of course, noise is less of a problem if you can get more of your subject in the frame.

 

[DominoDude]

Corey I like your bird shots, especially the composition. I really wish that you and everyone really would show full exif info to show on flikr, but that's just my pet peeve.

My criteria of a sharp bird picture like yours is to be able to see the little dots around the birds' eyes. When the eye dots show the feather detail is there as well and there is no reason one should not shoot to capture all these details. BTW if anyone knows what the dots are called I'd like to know.

For web use the crop does a decent job, for prints I still want to see the fine details, and for that FF is my boat. So I'm with Michael Hodges on this one. So far the 7Dii raws haven't given me a reason to change my thinking or shooting.

I think you mean the "orbital ring", at least that's what it's called in Swedish. "Eye ring" is also appropriate.

 

[quod]

ISO 1600+ is a serious weakness for crop cameras. If you find yourself shooting crop at those ISO's, it's time to go to a 6D, regardless of how gimped the AF is.

My Fuji X100S looks very good at ISO 1600 and good at ISO 3200. It's Canon's crop cameras that struggle at ISO 1600+.

 

[Ivan Muller]

Has anyone with access to 7d2 raw files tried processing them in DPP4 ? I am not in the market for an aps-c body, FF gives me the quality I need and want. For me the interest in the 7d2 was in seeing what the latest Canon sensor R&D was capable of. But I just cannot believe that the high iso quality of the 7d2 is s till the same as the 7d, especially when Canon claim there is an improvement. So forgive my scepticism on the images and comparisons posted here...I need more proof!

 

[AprilForever]

Nothing in the squirrel looks in good focus, and the whiskers are eaten away by noise/noise removal.

That shot was best left for a full frame sensor.

Clumsy processing, maybe?