High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II

[Loswr]

I have a question, if you had access to a 7d Mk ii RAW file, how would you open it outside the camera itself?

Most likely you wouldn't. Therefore, all of this speculation is premature. Won't stop it from happening, though..apparently, it's fun to bash things from a position of ignorance.

 

[iMagic]

Chillax. All we know so far is that the 7D II takes pictures and video. We can't infer anything from some jpegs taken in haste at a trade show.

 

[9VIII]

So there's this thing called "single shot autofocus", it sets the focus and waits for you to fully press the shutter button. Sometimes the subject moves between setting the focus and you pushing the button.

The focus in these pictures says absolutely nothing about the performance of the system.

 

[Loswr]

So there's this thing called "single shot autofocus", it sets the focus and waits for you to fully press the shutter button. Sometimes the subject moves between setting the focus and you pushing the button.

The focus in these pictures says absolutely nothing about the performance of the system.

Don't you get it? If any 7DII, anywhere, misses a single shot then the camera model sucks. Even if it never misses a shot, Nikon has better DR, Samsung has higher fps, Sony has spiffy names for AF functions, and Pentax has colored LEDs on the outside, and so the 7DII still sucks. Just like every Canon camera. To be fair and impartial, Canon does have a couple of okay lenses. But that doesn't make up for anything.

Try to think like a troll for once, will you??

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm sure MG will regret not posting a few better pictures, or who knows, maybe he was just testing the camera's idiot mode auto mode.

I'm sure you masters of photography know that when using shallow depth of field on a headshot (even if the camera has face detect) it needs to place the focus somewhere. If you don't tell it where you want the focus it could place it anywhere. Single AF point is the way to go for shallow depth of field not full array.

Maybe MG was over-excited with the opportunity to try out the new camera, maybe he was sleep-deprived and maybe fatigued from flying across multiple time-zones. Cut the guy some slack, he didn't have anything bad to say about the camera if anything I got the impression that he was blown away.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Chillax. All we know so far is that the 7D II takes pictures and video. We can't infer anything from some jpegs taken in haste at a trade show.

If those pictures from the trade show are meant to earn applause for high ISO then why can't they earn criticism for focus issues?

Personally, I think they should never have been posted because it is a test in an uncontrolled environment and they always end badly when someone is trying to "show off" a new camera. Always.

ISO noise is a global effect in the image whereas focus is a localized effect in an image. You can see noise even in an image with no contrast where focus is completely irrelevant. (e.g. a black frame or 18% grey frame)

 

[PureClassA]

I'm sure MG will regret not posting a few better pictures, or who knows, maybe he was just testing the camera's idiot mode auto mode.

I'm sure you masters of photography know that when using shallow depth of field on a headshot (even if the camera has face detect) it needs to place the focus somewhere. If you don't tell it where you want the focus it could place it anywhere. Single AF point is the way to go for shallow depth of field not full array.

Maybe MG was over-excited with the opportunity to try out the new camera, maybe he was sleep-deprived and maybe fatigued from flying across multiple time-zones. Cut the guy some slack, he didn't have anything bad to say about the camera if anything I got the impression that he was blown away.

Absolutely, but there are a lot of people on this forum who seem to have invested themselves in championing/desiring Canon failures and must bend backwards to find something wrong with anything that could undermine their position. Granger is no fool. He was in a hurry and was trying to demo ISO performance as best he could given the situation. Canon wasn't going to let him walk off with it. He will have a full review soon enough. And DPP 4 can most likely handle anyone's 7D2 RAW file.

 

[Loswr]

If those pictures from the trade show are meant to earn applause for high ISO then why can't they earn criticism for focus issues?

One involves a dynamic interaction between photographer, camera, multiple settings, model, motion and timing...and the other is picking a number and pushing a button.

 

[lo lite]

Wow that guy really got it together. Different exposures on almost all the the samples and misfocused too! He seriously published this as a "test", what a joke!

But the ISO performance seems really good for an APS-C body, impressed!. I wish he uploaded the the full res files instead.

That guy is a dud. I cringed when he put his fat sweaty fingers inside the mirror box and flipped the focusing screen loose. I would never let touch him my camera as unwarily as he acts.

 

[Loswr]

...there are a lot of people on this forum who seem to have invested themselves in championing/desiring Canon failures and must bend backwards to find something wrong with anything that could undermine their position.

Indeed. And just think what a field day those folks will have after DxO's BS comes out.

And DPP 4 can most likely handle anyone's 7D2 RAW file.

Unlikely without a minor version update. Historically, each new RAW-capable has required an updated version of DPP. Often, those updates are initially via the optical disc included in the box, and only later available online. DPP v3.9 added unsharp mask, but for several weeks that version was only available to those (like me) who had bought the PowerShot S95.

 

[123Photog]

Wow that guy really got it together. Different exposures on almost all the the samples and misfocused too! He seriously published this as a "test", what a joke!

But the ISO performance seems really good for an APS-C body, impressed!. I wish he uploaded the the full res files instead.

That guy is a dud. I cringed when he put his fat sweaty fingers inside the mirror box and flipped the focusing screen loose. I would never let touch him my camera as unwarily as he acts.

you never know maybe he would take a few pictures worth to put on flickr?

 

[spandau]

Isn't DPP 4.0 only for FF cameras?

 

[awinphoto]

That's great and all, but how will people REALLY get to know the full possibilities of this camera without photos with their lens caps on? I mean seriously!

 

[lo lite]

Wow that guy really got it together. Different exposures on almost all the the samples and misfocused too! He seriously published this as a "test", what a joke!

But the ISO performance seems really good for an APS-C body, impressed!. I wish he uploaded the the full res files instead.

That guy is a dud. I cringed when he put his fat sweaty fingers inside the mirror box and flipped the focusing screen loose. I would never let touch him my camera as unwarily as he acts.

you never know maybe he would take a few pictures worth to put on flickr?

What should I think about the opinion of somebody who posts anonymously as a "guest" here? How's that even possible?

 

[Tanispyre]

Part of me has a hard time wrapping my mind around how good digital sensors are these days in low light. I remember the good old days of taking Kodak 3200p and pushing it to 6400, or just to be crazy 12,800 and getting "usable" images. The grain on those images was so bad they were really only good for half tone printing, and small prints.

And if you wanted Color, the Fuji 1600 was about as fast as you could get, You could push it to 3200, but the results were questionable at best. To be able to take a photo nowadays at 51,200 ISO and still get a recognizable image just blows my mind.

 

[Steve]

Isn't DPP 4.0 only for FF cameras?

Only for the newest full frame cameras. Oh you have a 5DII? No support for you, loser. It's been months since 4.0 was released and they still haven't added support for 90% of their camera owners yet. It's insane.

 

[Loswr]

What should I think about the opinion of somebody who posts anonymously as a "guest" here? How's that even possible?

That's how a username shows up after the user deleted their account.

 

[takesome1]

Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem?

Are you saying that you can draw any sort of conclusion from that information?

It's getting crowded under dilbert's bridge... :

In November it will not be hard to troll from any bodies bridge, all one will have to do is say that then new 7D II is superior because of the increased resolution crop factor....and the fight will be on. ;D

 

[takesome1]

Well that new autofocus system in the 7DII is doing really well - the ISO3200 picture on his web page looks completely out of focus (front focus I'd say.) ISO25600 looks similarly misfocused.

So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...

Yes, I'm sure that's the problem. Thanks for point pointing that out, dilbert. Maybe his real problem is that he thinks the 7DII is a lens. Or you do. :

Are you suggesting that the AF problems aren't the cameras and are the lens instead?

So all of those people that complained about the 5D2's AF should really have been complaining about lenses intead?

No, I'm suggesting that your allegation that the 7DII's AF has a problem is baseless trolling.

Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem?

I am just hoping this guy was a bad photographer.

A sample size of 6 is far too small (in any context) to draw any conclusions. Maybe the next 6 would all have been in focus, maybe the next 60 would have (or vice versa). As others have said, we know next to nothing about the lens, AF mode, technique, and user capability. To immediately point to it being a flaw in the camera body is patently trolling as Neuro said. Let's just hope it was meant lightheartedly.

Miss spelled word, I was patiently trolling until mine arrives in November. Or maybe not....

 

[3kramd5]

Chillax. All we know so far is that the 7D II takes pictures and video. We can't infer anything from some jpegs taken in haste at a trade show.

If those pictures from the trade show are meant to earn applause for high ISO then why can't they earn criticism for focus issues?

I don't think they're "meant to" earn anything, other than maybe web traffic. They're just... pictures.

As to why they can't earn criticism for focus, that's obvious: none of us here know where focus was intended or how it was achieved.

However unlikely, it's possible the camera was set to manual focus. We don't know. Saying there's something wrong with the AF system is an absurd leap, on par with:

ZOMG, the D810 system is crap; her eyelashes are in focus.