Canon EOS 7D Mark II studio samples added to first impressions on DPReview.
- Thread starter ftico
- Start date
I was just comparing several of the cameras. It is better than I expected based on earlier raw test images. This is about as good of a performance as could be expected, and should make buyers very happy.
Looking at different areas of the test image seems to result in different results, so I chose the pie chart just below the playing cards. based on that, and looking at Raw images at ISO 12800... about 1 stop better than the 70D, at least 2/3 stops better than the Sony A6000, and about a full stop better than the Nikon D7100.
The 5D MK III is slightly more than 1 stop better, and the 6D about 1 stop better. As expected the 1D X is over 1-1/2 stops better.
The Nikon D610 is 1/3 stop better.
Looking at different areas of the test image seems to result in different results, so I chose the pie chart just below the playing cards. based on that, and looking at Raw images at ISO 12800... about 1 stop better than the 70D, at least 2/3 stops better than the Sony A6000, and about a full stop better than the Nikon D7100.
The 5D MK III is slightly more than 1 stop better, and the 6D about 1 stop better. As expected the 1D X is over 1-1/2 stops better.
The Nikon D610 is 1/3 stop better.
Upvote
0
In RAW I would agree that it looks about a stop better then the 70D at the higher ISOs.
I don't think it's a stop better then the D7100. I would actually say the D7100 is slightly better in the darkest tones (i.e. black), but the 7D mark II seems a bit better in lighter tones. So it's hard to put a number on it.
Agreed on the A6000 (7D2 is 2/3 stop better) and, a bit surprisingly, on the FF. I would have expected the FF bodies to do better, but I would agree with Mt Spokane here.
It's kind of curious to me that in RAW there only seems to be a stop or so between crop/FF but in JPEG, at high ISO, the gap looks larger because the crop images are so soft. The gap in JPEG looks like 2 stops just because of the detail loss, but in RAW it looks like a stop or so. I always shoot RAW any way, but I'm curious as to why this would be the case.
The Internet meme is that Canon did little or nothing because the sensor is still 20 MP, but it's obvious they made some improvements. In other threads I've said that when you go to print...even at 36"...there is really very little difference in resolved detail between FF and crop. We're simply hitting diminishing returns for these sensor sizes. I feel the same way scrolling around this test scene. It doesn't seem like the 7D2 is at any great disadvantage for "only" having 20 MP, and it's certainly at the top in high ISO.
I don't think it's a stop better then the D7100. I would actually say the D7100 is slightly better in the darkest tones (i.e. black), but the 7D mark II seems a bit better in lighter tones. So it's hard to put a number on it.
Agreed on the A6000 (7D2 is 2/3 stop better) and, a bit surprisingly, on the FF. I would have expected the FF bodies to do better, but I would agree with Mt Spokane here.
It's kind of curious to me that in RAW there only seems to be a stop or so between crop/FF but in JPEG, at high ISO, the gap looks larger because the crop images are so soft. The gap in JPEG looks like 2 stops just because of the detail loss, but in RAW it looks like a stop or so. I always shoot RAW any way, but I'm curious as to why this would be the case.
The Internet meme is that Canon did little or nothing because the sensor is still 20 MP, but it's obvious they made some improvements. In other threads I've said that when you go to print...even at 36"...there is really very little difference in resolved detail between FF and crop. We're simply hitting diminishing returns for these sensor sizes. I feel the same way scrolling around this test scene. It doesn't seem like the 7D2 is at any great disadvantage for "only" having 20 MP, and it's certainly at the top in high ISO.
Upvote
0
They've done a good job improving the chroma noise character on the 7d2. It's quite fine grained and not very blotchy so should respond very well to NR software. In fact it's pretty decent noise character across the whole ISO range.
I'm looking forward to making my own raw file tests and torturing them in post to see how much they can take before they scream, "FPN!" ;D
Would be nice if they only yell out, "Random!" instead.
I'm looking forward to making my own raw file tests and torturing them in post to see how much they can take before they scream, "FPN!" ;D
Would be nice if they only yell out, "Random!" instead.
Upvote
0
Pretty much comports with what I've been saying for a while about the 7D Mk II based on my own Raw conversion tests. That the 7D Mk II gets within a stop of the FF cameras is damn' impressive.
And - again - the 70D, and the 7D Mk II, show no appreciable pattern noise in pushed shadows.
And - again - the 70D, and the 7D Mk II, show no appreciable pattern noise in pushed shadows.
Upvote
0
Keith_Reeder said:
I wouldn't say that at all. At "Full Size", that may be true, however once you switch to "Print", FF pulls ahead again, with considerably lower noise in all cases.
I would also strongly dispute the notion that the 7D II does better than the D7100. Again, at "Full Size", the gap is small, however at "Print" size, the D7100 exhibits far less color noise. The 7D II still suffers from color noise problems. This is most obvious in the monochrome color swatches of the test image, but yellow, orange, green, and blue swatches also suffer from blotchiness due to color noise. Yellow and blue and maybe purple seem to be the most hard hit of the color swatches.
The third gray swatch from the right edge of the color checker demonstrates the differences in color noise best. I am actually rather impressed with the 6D noise...very clean.
The grain pattern at ISO 3200, 6400, and on most color swatches 12800 is a far more pleasing random mostly mono grain with the D5300, D7100, D810, 6D, 5D III, A7r, A7s, etc. than it is with either the 7D II or the 70D (or any other Canon crop). Color noise is still a key problem for Canon crop sensors at high ISO (and I suspect with shadow lifting.)
The D5300 seems to perform a bit more poorly on the brown and tan swatches...color noise is worse in those, for some reason, however its quite excellent in all the rest. The D7100 does not seem to have that problem...all of the swatches look excellent on the D7100 at Print size.
Overall, I don't see a whole lot of difference in luminance noise levels overall between any of the crop cameras. Luminance noise seems to be about the same on a normalized basis. The key difference is color noise and how it presents. Canon's characteristic blotchiness is still in play. I am not sure how it compares to older cameras...it's not possible to select the 7D in their new comparison tool on DPR. I suspect the 7D and 5D II are worse, but Canon crop is still worse than everyone else when it comes to color noise (and the 5D III and 1D X are still worse than the D810).
Upvote
0
jrista said:
my dad has the a6000
i comared it to the eos m and at ANYTHING other than iso 100 they are pretty much the same up to 6400
the a6000 has better shadow recovery at base iso and thats it
a6000 in camera jpg processing is woefull but raws a fine
a6000 has a wierd colour cast compared to the canon
a6000 af accuracy was not as good as the eos-m
so i think you are overstating things here a fair bit
Upvote
0
The best message is IMO: The 7D ii technical image quality isn't much behind other options in terms of crop cameras. It reproduces textures very well despite of the little bit more noise compared to other options.
I have to check only if I
- LIKE TO WORK with that instrument (probably YES!)
- need/want the spectrum of capabilities the 7D ii own (YES!)
- still have lenses for EF(-S) mount (YES!)
- want to carry the load (900g + lens) (YES! most of the time)
I have to check only if I
- LIKE TO WORK with that instrument (probably YES!)
- need/want the spectrum of capabilities the 7D ii own (YES!)
- still have lenses for EF(-S) mount (YES!)
- want to carry the load (900g + lens) (YES! most of the time)
Upvote
0
jrista said:
I'm not seeing any difference on the Print setting, nor is there any reason to think that scaling down would produce drastically different results from pixel peeping here. I suspect a quirk involving your browser, monitor, or the combination.
The D7100 and a6000 have slightly more color blotching then the 7D mark II, not less. The 5D3 is better of course, but put it a stop higher and it's about the same.
Upvote
0
It's no quirk of screen, browser, or anything else. It's a matter of characteristic...it's not the amount, it's how the noise presents. I'll produce some direct comparison images and GIFs from DPR data so people can judge on their own screens. Canon sensors are still more blotchy in most instances. Even the a6000 has a better noise characteristic than most Canon crops, with the exception of the reds and brown/tan swatches. It does have more color noise, however it's cleaner, random color noise with more per-pixel frequency and characteristic...it's not blotched.
I use that term very explicitly and specifically...blotched. That refers to characteristic, not amount. Canon color noise has a nasty characteristic. It's one of the things hate bout the 5D III at low ISO...it's the same blotchy characteristic in the shadows. Noise character matters just as much as noise amounts. As far as amounts go, there isn't a full stop difference between any one of the APS-C cameras. At most, on a normalized basis, there may be a third stop difference, but that's to be expected...barring color noise characteristic, the amount of noise overall is ultimately determined by total sensor area, Q.E., and maybe fill factor.
I use that term very explicitly and specifically...blotched. That refers to characteristic, not amount. Canon color noise has a nasty characteristic. It's one of the things hate bout the 5D III at low ISO...it's the same blotchy characteristic in the shadows. Noise character matters just as much as noise amounts. As far as amounts go, there isn't a full stop difference between any one of the APS-C cameras. At most, on a normalized basis, there may be a third stop difference, but that's to be expected...barring color noise characteristic, the amount of noise overall is ultimately determined by total sensor area, Q.E., and maybe fill factor.
Upvote
0
The noise is not blotchy: conversions from some converters are blotchy. And this is exactly as true of D7100 conversions too, depending on converter.
It's also painfully obvious that Nikon uses on-chip NR to deal with Chroma - I've been saying for years that the results I get with the default Chroma NR in Capture One are identical to how Nikon files look: I actually once asked Phase One whether they'd licenced their Chroma NR algorithm to Nikon.
But - to repeat - the character of the noise you're seeing has practically nothing to do with the camera and almost everything to to with the converter.
And in the tests I've done comparing 7D Mk II files against D7100 files, converting in Photo Ninja and in Raw Therapee (remember, the D7100 is a supported camera, the 7D Mk II is not), the D7100 loses out: and it is of course prone to banding/pattern noise in pushed shadows to an extent an order of magnitude (yes, I know what that means) more than is the 7D Mk II.
But - really? - Complaining about the "quality" of the Chroma noise? The single easiest thing to fix (by a country mile), of all the things that might impact on image quality?
Are you really that desperate for something to bash the 7D Mk II about?
It's also painfully obvious that Nikon uses on-chip NR to deal with Chroma - I've been saying for years that the results I get with the default Chroma NR in Capture One are identical to how Nikon files look: I actually once asked Phase One whether they'd licenced their Chroma NR algorithm to Nikon.
But - to repeat - the character of the noise you're seeing has practically nothing to do with the camera and almost everything to to with the converter.
And in the tests I've done comparing 7D Mk II files against D7100 files, converting in Photo Ninja and in Raw Therapee (remember, the D7100 is a supported camera, the 7D Mk II is not), the D7100 loses out: and it is of course prone to banding/pattern noise in pushed shadows to an extent an order of magnitude (yes, I know what that means) more than is the 7D Mk II.
But - really? - Complaining about the "quality" of the Chroma noise? The single easiest thing to fix (by a country mile), of all the things that might impact on image quality?
Are you really that desperate for something to bash the 7D Mk II about?
Upvote
0
On my computer the text is much clearer on the 7100? Not sure why. 7D II and 7D are very hard to read. Where the 7100 and 6000 are pretty clear on my mac. Don't guess it matters I will surely get the new 7D II. Just saying.
At 800 and 1600 ISO. Which is what I am interested in..
At 800 and 1600 ISO. Which is what I am interested in..
Upvote
0
ajfotofilmagem said:According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently.
OMG!! Canon actually did that. :
Must be some very angry haters out there now.
Upvote
0
Anyone still doubting that 7D Mark ii has a "really new" sensor, and is not the same as 70D? :2n10 said:OMG!! Canon actually did that. :ajfotofilmagem said:According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently.
??? ;D
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
2n10 said:ajfotofilmagem said:According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently.
OMG!! Canon actually did that. :
No, it's not the best. Apparently the noise that's there is 'blotchy' and 'nasty'...
The haters can rest comfortably knowing that everyone else still makes better sensors than Canon because of that particular characteristic. As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
ajfotofilmagem said:Anyone still doubting that 7D Mark ii has a "really new" sensor, and is not the same as 70D? :
I think there room for doubt. It depends on how you define 'sensor' I suppose. The 7DII and 70D may have identical CMOS pixel architecture, but a different microlens arrangement and different CFA, both contributing to increased light transmission, might account for some of the improved performance, and Digic6 might account for the rest.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:ajfotofilmagem said:Anyone still doubting that 7D Mark ii has a "really new" sensor, and is not the same as 70D? :
I think there room for doubt. It depends on how you define 'sensor' I suppose. The 7DII and 70D may have identical CMOS pixel architecture, but a different microlens arrangement and different CFA, both contributing to increased light transmission, might account for some of the improved performance, and Digic6 might account for the rest.
To me, without getting technical, this amounts to a 'new' sensor.
Upvote
0
