Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

[Krob78]

I'm certainly not cheering the 7D and it's high ISO capabilities, just that for all the complaints about it, decent, usable images can be had at what is considered a high iso for that camera. My complaint with it is with regard to high iso and portrait work, there it has given me some challenges...

I agree. I liked your photo, I think there is nothing wrong in that photo that a decent PP could not fix ... I would desaturate the background a bit so the bird would stand out more. But just curious about your comment on high ISO and portrait work ... why would you do portrait work in high ISO, any decent portrait work is usually (if not always) done in good light or studio lighting etc ... I thought most photographers consider it a sacrilege to use high ISO for portrait work.

I will be a candidate for the 7D MK II, most likely within the year after it is available...

I'll get it when there is a good rebate ... maybe Christmas time

No real issues for studio work so much. More with regard to location portraiture and in particular, family shoots rather than individual or couples...

The 7d (mine anyway), has a huge issue with noise in the shadows in my opinion and that's the noise I concern myself with in post for family portraiture. I do a lot of location images and often times my clientele has a place they want images taken at, rather than my recommendations... it can be trying at times, hence the 5D MK III is now the new pony in my stable since around Christmas time... It doesn't seem to have those issues and for what it's worth the two cameras seem to get along fine in my bag!

That being said, the 7D is seeing less and less clicks these days as I work to accentuate my relationship with my 5DIII... I love them both!

 

[Krob78]

You can also "help" the 7D noise at high ISO by overexposing and pulling it back down in post...try to get as much noise as possible down into the lower DR. Easier to process out as well. I never got anything like this at ISO 3200 but considering it's full frame and formatted for the web. It is quite good.

I'll be rushing out immediately to pick up a new 7D MK II. What all the hub-bub is about regarding the original 7D is that the complete lack of any high ISO usage, renders images useless and totally unusable for any purpose, as this sample taken at ISO 3200 on my original 7D, clearly shows... 7D MK II please get here soon! :-X

EOS 7D
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6mm L IS USM
1/1000 sec
F/6.3
ISO 3200
400mm

Good photo (love the colors), but I would say there are some issues with it that are definitely due to the camera and lens combination. There is also no embedded metadata, so there really isn't any way for any of us to verify that it really was shot at ISO 3200.

I've taken a lot of bird photos at ISO 3200 on the 7D (mostly with the 100-400mm lens), and the noise is usually a lot worse than that. Assuming you have not applied any NR, there is definitely a loss of fidelity. There is also a loss of detail. The 100-400mm lens imposes increased softness at f/6.3, and even more at f/5.6...usually, f/7.1 is the sharpest aperture (as f/8 is beyond the DLA of the 7D sensor and just barely a touch softer). Having used both the 100-400 as well as the 300 & 500 Mark II lenses on my 7D recently, I can attest to the fact that at that magnification/crop, even at ISO 3200, the lens is definitely costing you some sharpness and detail definition there...even though they are noisy, a shot taken the 300 or 500 w/ 1.4x TC at f/6.3 usually has much sharper detail.

I'd also point out that the full-size download shows a fair amount of posterization in the background, which is another one of the issues you encounter when using higher ISO settings with small pixels. Gain is so high for such a low full well capacity that you get a lot more quantization error than with something like the 5D III or 1D X and their significantly higher full well capacities.

Thank you. In the interest of keeping things above board, I've re-uploaded the file with the metadata embedded as you desired sir!

I agree that there is certainly some posteriztion in the background and it is certainly far from perfect, I would edit exposure and some other things as well. That being said, it is not a crop, it's the actual size of that particular image. I have other bird and wildlife images at high iso's with my 7d as well and some that are really quite usable. Most with my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. It is much more challenging with the 100-400 as you pointed out.

I'm certainly not cheering the 7D and it's high ISO capabilities, just that for all the complaints about it, decent, usable images can be had at what is considered a high iso for that camera. My complaint with it is with regard to high iso and portrait work, there it has given me some challenges...

I love my 7d, I love my 5D MK III even more, not at first though... I will be a candidate for the 7D MK II, most likely within the year after it is available... My 7D will be passed down or sold sometime in that future... I must say, it's served me well for the over 50,000 images I've taken with it so far!

Thanks East Wind, I didn't really do much to this image, it wasn't a keeper for me, I would apply NR in LR4 and certainly make some adjustments in exp, contrast, saturation, etc. if I thought to keep it for something. Mostly I just threw it up there, as someone mentioned the crappy 7D and it's lousy high iso capabilities. My point is just that it's not that terrible... can be trying at times and give one some extra work in post but the 7D is and has been a very formidable and fun camera for a lot of us. I'm sure I could get years more service out of it...

I still have to say though, the sound of the shutter speed on my 7D sounds incredibly more fast than my 5dIII. I didn't think it would be that noticeable going from 8fps to 6fps, however it's quite different in my opinion and to my ears...

I shot a soccer game yesterday and could readily see the shots in between that would have been nice to have from my 7d, if I had only brought it... It sounds like my 7d on low speed! However, I love, love, love the silent high speed shutter mode! It's excellent and hopefully makes it into the 7dII...

 

[Loswr]

since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.

???

When a RAW image is captured, a JPG conversion is done in-camera to create a small preview image, and that JPG preview is saved within the RAW file container. That JPG preview is what you see on the rear LCD of the camera after the shot, and importantly, it's what's used to generate the histogram data and the highlight alert if you use those features.

It's worth knowing, because many people think that the in-camera settings are totally irrelevant if recording RAW images - that's mostly true (long exposure NR is an exception), but if you make exposure decisions (e.g. ETTR) based on the histogram, the settings for Picture Style (contrast, etc.), ALO, HTP, white balance, etc., are all applied to the JPG preview image and the histogram data/blinkies, and that can affect your exposure decisions. Some people actually use a modified Picture Style that makes the JPG image more closely resemble the RAW file in terms of exposure.

 

[sagittariansrock]

since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.

???

When a RAW image is captured, a JPG conversion is done in-camera to create a small preview image, and that JPG preview is saved within the RAW file container. That JPG preview is what you see on the rear LCD of the camera after the shot, and importantly, it's what's used to generate the histogram data and the highlight alert if you use those features.

It's worth knowing, because many people think that the in-camera settings are totally irrelevant if recording RAW images - that's mostly true (long exposure NR is an exception), but if you make exposure decisions (e.g. ETTR) based on the histogram, the settings for Picture Style (contrast, etc.), ALO, HTP, white balance, etc., are all applied to the JPG preview image and the histogram data/blinkies, and that can affect your exposure decisions. Some people actually use a modified Picture Style that makes the JPG image more closely resemble the RAW file in terms of exposure.

Makes a lot of sense now that you've explained it. Thanks, that was very helpful.