Canon EOS 7D Mark II studio samples added to first impressions on DPReview.

[unfocused]

As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.

That's one reason why I like these kinds of comparisons and sample images. I can judge for myself and use my own criteria.

At the same time, it's amusing to watch some people twist and turn as they try to rationalize their biases and even more entertaining when they couch it in pseudo-scientific lingo and pretend to be the ultimate authorities on sensor noise.

My own, undoubtedly biased opinion:

The differences between full frame and APS-C sensors used to be small. Now they are approaching tiny.

The differences between sensors of different brands but of roughly the same size used to be tiny, now they are approaching miniscule.

The major difference, at least at higher ISOs, seems to be the number of pixels, regardless of brand. The new Nikon D750 seems to be about equal to the 5DIII and 6D, while to my eyes, the D810 is absolutely horrible at higher ISOs.

I was disappointed in the Fuji X-Pro 1. (The only mirrorless camera I would ever consider) Given its lower resolution, I expected it to do better. But then it's sensor is getting a little long in the tooth by APS-C standards.

Given the tiny differences and the fact that Canon is clearly holding its own in the sensor quality realm, I think it is completely logical and admirable for Canon to place more emphasis on other areas such as improved autofocus.

If your goal in life is to lift shadows by five stops and shoot dark rooms that have the exposure set for an open window, then another brand might be your better option.

As for my own personal situation, as a 5DIII owner, I'm intrigued by the 7D, but a better investment of my resources would be in either the new Tamron or Sigma 600 zooms.

 

[Woody]

The differences between full frame and APS-C sensors used to be small. Now they are approaching tiny.

The differences between sensors of different brands but of roughly the same size used to be tiny, now they are approaching miniscule...

If your goal in life is to lift shadows by five stops and shoot dark rooms that have the exposure set for an open window, then another brand might be your better option.

As for my own personal situation, as a 5DIII owner, I'm intrigued by the 7D, but a better investment of my resources would be in either the new Tamron or Sigma 600 zooms.

Well said. I honestly don't see significant differences between the various APS-C sensors.

If the 7D2 is 200g lighter, I will have pre-ordered a copy.

 

[DanielW]

If the 7D2 is 200g lighter, I will have pre-ordered a copy.

Lighter than what?

 

[DanielW]

How do you guys think the 7D2 compares to the 60D in terms of high ISO? One full stop better? Anyway, I don't care as much about noise as I care about nailing focus, so the 7D2 should be really what I'm after and I'm very likely upgrading soon.
Off topic (sorry :-\): has anyone heard anything about a new 17-55 f/2.8 or something similar?
Cheers
Daniel

 

[jonjt]

The 7DII seems to handle smooth gradients and constant tones WAY better than the 7D did. That was a major issue I had with the 7D.

In any case, the 5DIII definitely shows more detail, and less chroma and luminescence noise at high ISO than the 7DII does. But man, you really have to look for it. I'm questioning if its worthwhile to pay twice as much for a refurbished 5DIII and 24-105, when I can "simply" buy a new 7DII and not have to deal with the transition to FF. I tend to shoot slow moving targets more often but still, the 7DII is compelling.

 

[applecider]

On the digital photography review site targeting the jack of hearts, and his "hair" and the text below him, the sony is head and shoulders better than any of the other sensors in raw at least. The lines of "hair" are visible in the sony, not so much in any other of the default camera choices. The noise looks similar in each of the cameras, the sony just seems to have much better resolution as the text in the red-orange bar below the jack is readable in the sony then the nikon 7100 next best, at least when expanded on this part of the test object. I think one could flip a coin as to which of the 7dmii or 70d is better, neither is legible.

I don't see anything that would let me say that the 7dmii is the best imaging crop sensor camera based on this subset of tests. Wish I could though.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.

That's one reason why I like these kinds of comparisons and sample images. I can judge for myself and use my own criteria.

At the same time, it's amusing to watch some people twist and turn as they try to rationalize their biases and even more entertaining when they couch it in pseudo-scientific lingo and pretend to be the ultimate authorities on sensor noise.

There is little doubt as to my bias. As I looked at different areas of the image, the difference between cameras changed, sometimes by a significant amount. The area I finally picked was one that I thought allowed me to see contrast, color, and resolution. I went a lot by the readability of the text in the edge of the pie chart. Reducing the resolution of the higher mp cameras will make them look better, and looking for different characteristics will give different results.

In the end, there is no absolute formula, its a matter of personal preference, which is a form of bias.

Arguing about a preference is not going to change another persons view, and proclaiming that my view is the correct one will bring a lot of disagreement.

I'll still want to wait for more professional reviewers, but its obviously already a improvement over the previous Canon APS-C cameras at high ISO's. At low ISO's and a proper exposure, they all look pretty similar to me.

 

[unfocused]

The 7DII seems to handle smooth gradients and constant tones WAY better than the 7D did. That was a major issue I had with the 7D.

In any case, the 5DIII definitely shows more detail, and less chroma and luminescence noise at high ISO than the 7DII does. But man, you really have to look for it. I'm questioning if its worthwhile to pay twice as much for a refurbished 5DIII and 24-105, when I can "simply" buy a new 7DII and not have to deal with the transition to FF. I tend to shoot slow moving targets more often but still, the 7DII is compelling.

Now you done it! How dare you suggest full frame might not be worth the investment!

Seriously, even though I switched from 7D I to 5DIII about a year ago, I'd have to say you really do need to think long and hard about whether or not it's worth the price of entry to full frame. I would say it depends in part on what lenses you already own because, as you correctly point out, it's not just the cost of the body, it's the cost of the lenses as well.

Clearly the gap is narrowing and while there always will be a gap, it is moving more and more toward the margins.

Now, expect to see an avalanche of posts from full framers telling you how APS-C can never compete with full frame. But, just remember, we have to justify our investment.

 

[Marauder]

As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.

That's one reason why I like these kinds of comparisons and sample images. I can judge for myself and use my own criteria.

At the same time, it's amusing to watch some people twist and turn as they try to rationalize their biases and even more entertaining when they couch it in pseudo-scientific lingo and pretend to be the ultimate authorities on sensor noise.

My own, undoubtedly biased opinion:

The differences between full frame and APS-C sensors used to be small. Now they are approaching tiny.

The differences between sensors of different brands but of roughly the same size used to be tiny, now they are approaching miniscule.

The major difference, at least at higher ISOs, seems to be the number of pixels, regardless of brand. The new Nikon D750 seems to be about equal to the 5DIII and 6D, while to my eyes, the D810 is absolutely horrible at higher ISOs.

I was disappointed in the Fuji X-Pro 1. (The only mirrorless camera I would ever consider) Given its lower resolution, I expected it to do better. But then it's sensor is getting a little long in the tooth by APS-C standards.

Given the tiny differences and the fact that Canon is clearly holding its own in the sensor quality realm, I think it is completely logical and admirable for Canon to place more emphasis on other areas such as improved autofocus.

If your goal in life is to lift shadows by five stops and shoot dark rooms that have the exposure set for an open window, then another brand might be your better option.

As for my own personal situation, as a 5DIII owner, I'm intrigued by the 7D, but a better investment of my resources would be in either the new Tamron or Sigma 600 zooms.

+1 Well said!

 

[unfocused]

There is little doubt as to my bias. As I looked at different areas of the image, the difference between cameras changed, sometimes by a significant amount. The area I finally picked was one that I thought allowed me to see contrast, color, and resolution. I went a lot by the readability of the text in the edge of the pie chart. Reducing the resolution of the higher mp cameras will make them look better, and looking for different characteristics will give different results.

In the end, there is no absolute formula, its a matter of personal preference, which is a form of bias.

Arguing about a preference is not going to change another persons view, and proclaiming that my view is the correct one will bring a lot of disagreement.

I'll still want to wait for more professional reviewers, but its obviously already a improvement over the previous Canon APS-C cameras at high ISO's. At low ISO's and a proper exposure, they all look pretty similar to me.

Knowing you, I'm sure you did a much more thorough and conscientious examination than I did. But, I pretty much came to the same conclusion (emphasized above). It may be my bias, but I think it's an improvement over most other brands at high ISOs, not just Canon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 7DII seems to handle smooth gradients and constant tones WAY better than the 7D did. That was a major issue I had with the 7D.

In any case, the 5DIII definitely shows more detail, and less chroma and luminescence noise at high ISO than the 7DII does. But man, you really have to look for it. I'm questioning if its worthwhile to pay twice as much for a refurbished 5DIII and 24-105, when I can "simply" buy a new 7DII and not have to deal with the transition to FF. I tend to shoot slow moving targets more often but still, the 7DII is compelling.

Now you done it! How dare you suggest full frame might not be worth the investment!

Seriously, even though I switched from 7D I to 5DIII about a year ago, I'd have to say you really do need to think long and hard about whether or not it's worth the price of entry to full frame. I would say it depends in part on what lenses you already own because, as you correctly point out, it's not just the cost of the body, it's the cost of the lenses as well.

Clearly the gap is narrowing and while there always will be a gap, it is moving more and more toward the margins.

Now, expect to see an avalanche of posts from full framers telling you how APS-C can never compete with full frame. But, just remember, we have to justify our investment.

Consider the cost of buying all your lenses one stop faster. A 300mm f/4 versus 300mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/4 verses 70-200mm f/2.8, and so on. If you struggle in low light and need to gain a stop, the investment in FF can save you money. If you are stopping down, then that's not a factor.

On the other hand, if you are focal length limited, a high MP crop camera might give you a edge over cropping or adding a TC, at least with high end lenses.

Finally, with a crop camera, those wanting to get shallow depth of field will need to purchase lenses with wider apertures, so given the same lens, FF will cost less.

In fact, a 6D can be had for significantly less than a 7D MK II, so the price of entry to FF is blurred by a lot of what-if questions.

 

[Canon1]

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..

I think the only thing you can compare here is noise. Different lenses are used on different cameras, so as far as how well a sensor can record details is not revealed with these comparisons.

 

[MichaelHodges]

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?

That's the funny thing about IQ. "Small" fixes are what separate cutting edge IQ from the mundane.

 

[dtaylor]

On the digital photography review site targeting the jack of hearts, and his "hair" and the text below him, the sony is head and shoulders better than any of the other sensors in raw at least.

You can see the hair and read the text in all samples. The difference in sharpness you observe is probably equal to moving the detail, sharpening, and/or clarity sliders a bit.

In any case, this would be invisible outside of pixel peeping. "Head and shoulders better", in my book, means you can clearly and reliably see the difference at normal, or least large, print sizes.

 

[dtaylor]

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.

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.

I wonder what the complaint would have been if Canon had released a 7D2 with a revolutionary 50 MP sensor that had multiple layers for extended DR...say 20 bits worth..and some how cleaner high ISO then the Sony A7S.

"Those Canon pixels are not perfectly square. Other cameras have square pixels but if you zoom in 10,000% you can see small distortion in the shape of Canon pixels." ;D

 

[dtaylor]

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?

This. Chroma noise cleans up nicely with hardly any impact on detail or sharpness.

 

[MichaelHodges]

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?

This. Chroma noise cleans up nicely with hardly any impact on detail or sharpness.

So do consumer pocket cameras and iphones.

 

[Sith Zombie]

Looks like canon did a great job with the 7d mkii sensor. To my eyes the a6000 looks the worst, followed by the 70d. The d7100 and 7d mkii are pretty close, with 7d edging out slightly. Great news for canon sports/wildlife shooters!

 

[jrista]

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?

At the moment this is purely anecdotal. I'm going off of real images that can be viewed and compared by anyone. Based on the data at hand, the data linked in the original post of this topic, I can draw no other conclusions other than what I have, based on the observations I am able to make.


I am currently evaluating Capture One 8. I haven't had a chance to do a full blown comparison between it and Lightroom. You may well be right, C1 may indeed handle NR better. I have no data from which to base an opinion yet. Even when I do, all I can do is base an opinion of how my own data from my own images compares. I cannot take my own images and use them as a basis for comparison with DPR's data, though.


Within the given context, which in this case, in this thread, is DPR's sample images, the Canon conversions, whatever was used to make them, end up looking worse. Given that very significant number of photographers (probably a, likely strong, majority, topping DPR, DXO, and C1) use Lightroom to edit their RAWs, I think the comparable data DPR provides is very indicative of what people in most cases are going to get. MAYBE it's because of LR. Until there is an extensive and reasonable set of conversions done from all the same cameras that DPR lists, with a similar kind of test scene, as an analytical person, I have to base my opinions in a thread like this off of what everyone else can see and base their own opinions on.


There is no value in making the aggressive and combative claim that it's the person sitting behind the keyboard, or the archaic software they are using, that's the problem. Not unless you can provide irrefutable evidence of such a claim, and demonstrate how a tool like C1 can improve results. (If it does indeed, then I'll do what I can to provide such evidence myself...I'm all for getting better results, and if C1 can do that for me, then hell, I'll ditch LR, or at the very least, use C1 to do my base RAW edits, and use LR to manage the library of original RAWs and conversion TIFFs.)

 

[dtaylor]

Within the given context, which in this case, in this thread, is DPR's sample images, the Canon conversions, whatever was used to make them, end up looking worse.

In your humble opinion.

The rest of us are looking at the images, reading your posts, and are left to assume that either A) there's something screwy with your viewing conditions, or B) bias is overriding your judgement.