DPR Adds Studio Samples for EOS 7D Mark II

[Canon Rumors]

<p>DPReview has added studio samples to their EOS 7D Mark II first impressions write-up. They samples are in both .jpg and RAW.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9090306601/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-studio-samples-added-to-first-impressions" target="_blank">View Studio Samples at DPR</a> | Canon EOS 7D Mark II $1799: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081808-REG/canon_9128b002_eos_7d_mark_ii.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA7DM2.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NEWZDRG/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00NEWZDRG&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=4IHYPE3ZKJN5VL4X" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Helios68]

Really interesting !

Comparing to the 6D and the 7DII, it seems to have only 1 IL in ISO between the two.
The RAWs 7DII at 3200 and the 6D at 6400 look quite similar.

 

[Gcon]

It would be nice if the reviewer actually hit focus from time to time. Sheesh.

 

[Khalai]

Really interesting !

Comparing to the 6D and the 7DII, it seems to have only 1 IL in ISO between the two.
The RAWs 7DII at 3200 and the 6D at 6400 look quite similar.

Impressive indeed, ISO 1600 on 7D2 looks very similar to 6D's 3200 and 6D's 6400 is only marginally better than 3200 on 7D2.

I would not worry using 7D2 up to 1600 with 3200 (and maybe 6400) for emergency. Quite nice for a crop body...

 

[meywd]

Really interesting !

Comparing to the 6D and the 7DII, it seems to have only 1 IL in ISO between the two.
The RAWs 7DII at 3200 and the 6D at 6400 look quite similar.

Impressive indeed, ISO 1600 on 7D2 looks very similar to 6D's 3200 and 6D's 6400 is only marginally better than 3200 on 7D2.

I would not worry using 7D2 up to 1600 with 3200 (and maybe 6400) for emergency. Quite nice for a crop body...

well, as you can see below, the 7D @ 3200 equals the 7D Mark II @ 6400 which equals the 6D @ 12800, that is good, but is it really accurate, the 6D has the best low light/high ISO performance at least for canon, does this test represent real cases, or the difference will be bigger when shooting an night?

 

[whothafunk]

In other words.. JPEG just about the same as 70D from 100-6400, maybe 1/3 of an improvement, depends where on the picture you look. I was hoping they would improve noise reduction algorytm for JPEG.

 

[erickmoreno]

well, as you can see below, the 7D @ 3200 equals the 7D Mark II @ 6400 which equals the 6D @ 12800, that is good, but is it really accurate, the 6D has the best low light/high ISO performance at least for canon, does this test represent real cases, or the difference will be bigger when shooting an night?

At DPreview Comparison Tool, you can set it for low light. This will simulate a situation with light less than enough.

 

[Khufu]

In other words.. JPEG just about the same as 70D from 100-6400, maybe 1/3 of an improvement, depends where on the picture you look. I was hoping they would improve noise reduction algorytm for JPEG.

Do we know if the JPEGs have default/standard High ISO NR or if they've turned it off? (ie. Not default settings)

That thing works wonders controlling chroma-noise on the 70D and SL1, sacrificing a bit of sharpness.
There's also a pretty sweet feature in the 70D and I think maybe both the SL1 and M where you can crank the ISO right up and the camera combines 4 shots into one hella-clean low-light jpeg! When I started playing with this feature I was really disappointed to see the 5D3 doesn't do this... but the 6D does! Getting back on subject: the 7D2 probably also has this NR feature

Also, I'm pleased to see the 70D isn't totally defeated by the 7D2 - got mine for around £630 and I'm not feeling the near £1,500 7D2 is too close to seducing me into poverty just yet

 

[unfocused]

DPReview has added studio samples to their EOS 7D Mark II first impressions write-up. The samples are in both .jpg and RAW.

Is there a difference between this post and the thread that was started last week http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23352.0? Or is Canon Rumors once again being scooped by his own readers.

 

[Khufu]

Or is Canon Rumors once again being scooped by his own readers.

In all fairness there's more of us that there are of him and he did provide us with a forum

 

[Sportsgal501]

Just here for the comments ;D

 

[LovePhotography]

Compared the cameras I own (t5i and 6D) and one I've shot (5D3) with the 7DII at 100 ISO. To my eye, at every point on the test exposure the order of IQ was 6D -> 5DIII -> 7DII -> t5i. Clear winner was 6D except the yellow tube of paint with black ink which I would give to the 5DIII. The 7D2, to my eye, had more in common with the t5i (D700) than the other two cameras. Just my $0.02. Was willing to trade in my t5i for a 7D2 with good evidence to support it, but, at present, I'm not feeling the love... Not bad mind you, especially if your newest camera is behind the times. But no compelling info to upgrade/update from the current line up of cameras (that I can see).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've noted that almost every viewer sees something different, depending on what they are looking for in a image. I've also noted that the differences seem to be more or less between models depending which part of the image you view.

I thought that the 7D MK II at ISO 12800, where I seem to live a lot was better than expected, but still pretty marginal. I think that those who do not do extreme low light shooting will be pleased.

Comparing jpeg's from different cameras is going to mislead the viewer because of different sharpening, saturation, contrast, etc among cameras. You can set these in the camera to get what you like. The RAW images are the closest way we have of seeing what comes off the sensor, and even then, some brands modify the output. Raw outputs usually uses lossless tiff compression, but some cameras use lossy compression, and all have NR at the pixel level.

 

[dufflover]

Had a quick play myself just now (with 70D). Going off various spots on the RAWs at 800/1600/3200 the only difference I see is they've further reduced the shadow noise (ever so small though!). Tweaked electronics or circuit tracing to reduce the things which gave the read noise issues originally?

 

[2n10]

Had a quick play myself just now (with 70D). Going off various spots on the RAWs at 800/1600/3200 the only difference I see is they've further reduced the shadow noise (ever so small though!). Tweaked electronics or circuit tracing to reduce the things which gave the read noise issues originally?

I think that is what they have done. The files clean up nicely in relation to the 7D2 so they seem better than the unprocessed RAWs show.

 

[quod]

Had a quick play myself just now (with 70D). Going off various spots on the RAWs at 800/1600/3200 the only difference I see is they've further reduced the shadow noise (ever so small though!). Tweaked electronics or circuit tracing to reduce the things which gave the read noise issues originally?

I viewed the 800-1600-3200 RAWs in Irfanview. My impression is that the 7D2 shots were a lot softer and less contrasty than the 5D3 shots at the same ISOs. I hope this was misfocus rather than an indication of the IQ.

 

[whothafunk]

APS-C is never as sharp as FF, even at ISO100, no way you can expect they would be on equal terms at 800-3200, where noise is a lot more visible and apparent on APS-C than on FF. More noise, less sharpness and less contrast.

 

[quod]

APS-C is never as sharp as FF, even at ISO100, no way you can expect they would be on equal terms at 800-3200, where noise is a lot more visible and apparent on APS-C than on FF. More noise, less sharpness and less contrast.

My Fuji X100S is as sharp, if not sharper, than my 5D3 at these ISOs. Also, I was under the impression the 70D improved on sharpness in comparison to the prior Canon APS-C crop sensors due to a less aggressive AA filter.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Had a quick play myself just now (with 70D). Going off various spots on the RAWs at 800/1600/3200 the only difference I see is they've further reduced the shadow noise (ever so small though!). Tweaked electronics or circuit tracing to reduce the things which gave the read noise issues originally?

I viewed the 800-1600-3200 RAWs in Irfanview. My impression is that the 7D2 shots were a lot softer and less contrasty than the 5D3 shots at the same ISOs. I hope this was misfocus rather than an indication of the IQ.

Sounds like just about any high megapixel crop when compared to FF.

 

[kirispupis]

I have the 7D2 on preorder and spent some time looking at the crops here. I had already accepted that the 7D2 at ISO 1600 was the same as the 5D3 at ISO 3200, but after looking at them I came to the conclusion that it is worse. I therefore cancelled my preorder.

I do hope that the 1Dx2 has some improvement, as the lack of progress in sensors is frustrating.