High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
123Photog said:neuroanatomist said:dilbert said:neuroanatomist said:dilbert said:
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.
well grangers examples at least show that even the 7D MK2 AF will not fix all issues...
Matt Granger was shooting with a 100mm L Macro IS which is known to have some focusing issues when used for portrait.
Upvote
0
lo lite said:
Banned or deleted account I think.
I think missed focus is a forgivable offense if the pictures were taken on a trade show floor, where he likely had very little time with the camera.
At web sizes, my 6d showed no noise at ISO 25600. Even ISO 51200 was acceptable, especially after some noise reduction. Heck, ISO 6400 on an EOS M that was underexposed and pulled up looks fine at web size. So yeah, full size images will be interesting once they start trickling in.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 372972
Guest
RAW files already there, but only ISO250 and not open able 
There are real RAW files available.
But DPP (3.x and 4.x) show only luminance. DPP 4.01 crash on open them.
Here how it look:
So we must wait for a program to open those files.
Files from http://www.imaging-resource.com
There are real RAW files available.
But DPP (3.x and 4.x) show only luminance. DPP 4.01 crash on open them.
Here how it look:
So we must wait for a program to open those files.
Files from http://www.imaging-resource.com
Attachments
Upvote
0
Tanispyre said:
It really is amazing. It is easy to get spoiled by high ISO shooting capabilities these days. I remember my first DSLR (30D), selecting ISO above 800 was really pushing it. These days, you can put 800 as your lowest ISO and still get great images.
Upvote
0
Agree on waiting. We need studio comparisons.
And also where no shadows are, image is clean.
See attachment of EOS M snapshot (DPP export, ISO 12800, very slight crop)
Now If you use multiple exposure (stacking) and some selective denoise, you´ll have no chance of knowing if it was poor ISO 400 shot or ISO25600 "hacked" to death....
And also where no shadows are, image is clean.
See attachment of EOS M snapshot
(DPP export, ISO 12800, very slight crop)Now If you use multiple exposure (stacking) and some selective denoise, you´ll have no chance of knowing if it was poor ISO 400 shot or ISO25600 "hacked" to death....
Attachments
Upvote
0
I'd certainly hope for some ISO improvement after all these years. Images taken at high ISO in good lighting almost always look good. The challenge comes in low light images where blue light levels are usually weak. Since blues are the weakest, the gain is boosted a extreme amounton the blue channel, and noise becomes a issue. DPR takes sample images at low light levels using incandescent lamps. That's the real test of high ISO performance.
I reviewed some of my ISO 3200 images from my 7D, and found a lot of detail gone, so these are definitely far better.
Imagine if this were full frame! I'm sure they are holding back the good stuff for the 5D MK IV.
I reviewed some of my ISO 3200 images from my 7D, and found a lot of detail gone, so these are definitely far better.
Imagine if this were full frame! I'm sure they are holding back the good stuff for the 5D MK IV.
Upvote
0
hmmm...regarding focus in that test shot...it looks like it was at the minumum focus distance...so that could account for it being a little off as most lenses get less accurate when the limits are pushed...wonder what lens was on there too....
Upvote
0
They all seem to be downscaled to 2MP so it's hard to tell anything. 2MP downscales always look vastly cleaner and sharper than 20MP originals.
Upvote
0
Quest for Light said:well i normaly don´t judge from resized JPG images.
but i doubt that 51200 on the 7D MK2 looks as grainy as ISO 400 on a 7D.
i guess his 7D has some major issues if that´s true. :
Wow if that is he what he is saying then he's just reading a script. That is absurd and would break all known laws of physics to be true.
Upvote
0
Memdroid said:
Doesn't anyone else find it bizarre that whoever they give the pre-release samples to for promotion never seem to be able to post even the simplest pictures up taken technically well? It's always weird random exposures, motion blur, hand shake, missed focus, etc. etc. So all the initial samples look hideous and then as soon as the cams get released even avg Joe on the street's first three shots look 100x better technically and the camera suddenly appears to work.
Why don't they ever give pre-release samples to those who are willing/able to put up technically well done photos, to actually show off the camera well, instead of making it look bad.
I guess they just want to reward certain people, people who will stick to script, have some sort of following or nepotism going for them.
Upvote
0
I looked at the images at Imaging Resource and they look just like images from any other Rebel i have owned.
I might see a difference when pixel peeping but it´s sure not breathtaking.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiGALLERY.HTM
I might see a difference when pixel peeping but it´s sure not breathtaking.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiGALLERY.HTM
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
You wonder why Canon does this? Why not give someone a reasonable chance to produce some images that show the cam in it's best light?
Upvote
0
takesome1 said: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.
I wouldn't be worried. Pretty much all of the shots released of this nature for all the recent Canon bodies have looked a mess in one way or another. They tend to let people who are technically sloppy use the bodies first or simply rush the photographers so much they don't give them a chance to use the cam properly.
Seriously, like 80% of the initial 1DX sample shots from selected photographers they let handle the cam and post were OOF too.
Maybe Canon did mess up this new AF, but I doubt it. Not since AF is the only thing it has going for it and not after the 1D3 mess. Anyway, there is no need to worry over initial quick test shots like this, since they are always a technical mess, for whatever reason.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
See there you go again. You mock 'DRoners' and object to being called a fanboy, but then you just flat out go around calling everyone on DxO BS even though you know that is not true. It's one thing to say that not everyone will shot a lot of high DR scenes and that some won't care, it's another thing to try to sneak in as many statements as possible to make even DxO's raw plot numbers seem like BS.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
