High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II

[brad-man]

Wow. It really sucks that we have to wait until mid november before we see some samples from a retail camera. :'(

 

[takesome1]

Why does it seem that the only satisfaction some will get is hearing that the 7Dii is a huge fail?

There was a whole 'language' pre-announcement about how it's not going to make the grade and now that it's official with some sample images, disbelief that it could actually deliver.

I'm stumped.

I can only guess that it's from negative people OR from those of us with 1D Xs wondering if the 7DII hoping that the 7DII really isn't this good!

You should sell your 1D X before the 7D II hits the market. You may loose thousands on it if you wait.

But seriously if you look at the past the one thing that Canon does very well is place products in their line. They will not let the 7D II be better than the 1D X or the 5D III especially in IQ.

 

[mackguyver]

Why does it seem that the only satisfaction some will get is hearing that the 7Dii is a huge fail?

There was a whole 'language' pre-announcement about how it's not going to make the grade and now that it's official with some sample images, disbelief that it could actually deliver.

I'm stumped.

I can only guess that it's from negative people OR from those of us with 1D Xs wondering if the 7DII hoping that the 7DII really isn't this good!

You should sell your 1D X before the 7D II hits the market. You may loose thousands on it if you wait.

But seriously if you look at the past the one thing that Canon does very well is place products in their line. They will not let the 7D II be better than the 1D X or the 5D III especially in IQ.

Not selling.

And that is true, though pretty much all successful brands do that. The difference with Canon, I've noticed, is that the 7D, 7DII, and many XXD and Rebel models have introduced superior features (DIGIC 6, DPAF, Transmissive LCD, etc.) that aren't in the 5D & 1D lines and it takes years to get to those cameras. I think that's pretty cool! On the other hand, the firmware crippling Canon is notorious for really sucks.

 

[Admin US West]

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

Banned or deleted account I think.

He deleted his own account, I checked the logs. He had also set up a second account, and deleted that as well.

We have been handing out a few warnings and temporary bans, we typically delete all posts and topics when we delete an account, that's almost always a spammer.

 

[Quest for Light]

Matt Granger was shooting with a 100mm L Macro IS which is known to have some focusing issues when used for portrait.

bullexcrement...

 

[wsmith96]

Here's a link to some gallery pics from canon's Japan website. They are pretty small on my screen, but look promising. Of course, no real replacement for a downloaded, full sized image.

http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/special/7dmk2/gallery/

 

[quod]

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

Taking a hurried peak, it seems like the gain vertical banding issue of the 7D may be entirely gone. It's hard to tell because the 7D2 has such a small black outer frame area in the RAW and none of the shots are close to lens cap shots, but there is a chance they got rid of all or nearly all of the offset banding at low ISO all together. So that is the very good and impressive news.

The bad is that the random read noise still shows no improvements since 2007 whatsoever, as far as I can tell. It seems like it will be extremely close to the exact same DR as the 7D. The read noise might even be a touch higher than on the 7D. Not quite sure yet, didn't locate quite the proper 7D file or my old numbers. Without the banding, the effective usable DR should be higher though.

This is the same post as on the Fred Miranda forums. See #3 on p. 13. Are you skibum5? http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1318290/12

 

[Joe M]

I just got my official email from Canon letting me know I can pre-order with a link to the same photos most here have seen. Odd the Canadian link I got had small jpegs and the Japan one had the full sized ones. They seem reasonable though I have to agree the nighttime city scape was a little over done with the NR. Canon really wants me to buy this camera, offering me a jacket, Hansa camera, pad skin and the 24-70F4 for only $400 if I pre-order. I almost sort of wish I had a need for this camera as it looks like a good performer.

 

[Famateur]

Granger is a pretty solid Nikon shooter. And yes, he got to rattle off 5 shots as fast as he could in whatever light available. I doubt he had time to play with AF system setup and lord knows what mode it was on.

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?

But that defeats the purpose. We want to see samples of images with the camera in crappy light.





* I admit I didn't read the couple of pages that have been written since the above-quoted comment, so if someone beat me to it, right on.

 

[Viggo]

Have the good people of CR completely forgotten the Canon sample shots from the 1dx? It was misfocused, soft, heavy NR and no sharpness. But it didn't turned out be like that in real life now did it?

(Sorry if this has already been said)

 

[Keith_Reeder]

To my eyes, the squirrel at ISO 3200 looks at least one or even two stops better than the 7D

It's a lot worse than any 3200 ISO image that ever came out of my 7D - but that's to be explained by the fact that the squirrel is either be a SOOC jpeg, or a DPP conversion. DPP is a poor high ISO converter.

Once the good converters catch up, it'll be an excellent camera - but that squirrel doesn't show the potential at all.

Just for reference: this is 10,000 ISO from my 70D, converted in Capture One. The 7D Mk II will be better than this, no question.

Here's a 6400 ISO 100% crop from Capture One, just for completeness.

Use the right tool for the job...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Have the good people of CR completely forgotten the Canon sample shots from the 1dx? It was misfocused, soft, heavy NR and no sharpness. But it didn't turned out be like that in real life now did it?

(Sorry if this has already been said)

It was, but it bears repeating.
The early sample always look a mess and then it gets into people's hands and suddenly, BOOM, it all looks a lot better. So yeah once again I wouldn't worry much about these.


(Canon can get some blame though for choosing such heavy handed default NR and even using a lot when NR is set to zero and making DIGIC such a poor demosaic and low-detail image processor. That said, even the out of cam jpgs tends to look a lot better once the cams get into people's hands. Although the main trouble is for video, since without ML RAW, you can't escape Canon's wax works imaging engine.).

 

[lo lite]

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

Banned or deleted account I think.

He deleted his own account, I checked the logs. He had also set up a second account, and deleted that as well.

We have been handing out a few warnings and temporary bans, we typically delete all posts and topics when we delete an account, that's almost always a spammer.

OMG, maybe it was Matt Granger himself and he was so pissed off of what I said that he got in a huff and said goodbye … :-\

 

[Loswr]

Someone that many would call a competent photographer posts a series of images, of which a substantial fraction are out of focus and criticising the camera is baseless trolling?

So what would you like to blame for the focus problems:
* The camera
* The model
* The lens
* The photographer

Why speculate at all? For all we know, people milling about around him kept bumping into him at awkward moments, or the model kept moving, or.... What's odd isn't so much that some of the photos are duds as that anyone should have thought the bad ones worth publishing in the first place.

In other words he shouldn't have tried to take and post sample pictures.

Part of what's important about higher ISO is the tradeoff between detail and NR. Without 100% crops that are carefully done, it's not possible to make significant judgements.

...and yet, based on that same paltry number of not carefully done shots, you judged the 7DII's AF system is incapable of focusing on a relatively stable subject:

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

As I stated, more baseless trolling from you.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Those JPEGS at 12800 really do look lovely. Hope the raw files are clean like these.

Whatever an in-camera jpeg engine can do, we can improve on massively by using a decent raw converter.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Take a look a the attached shot from my 1D X shot a ISO 16,000 and resized to the same dimensions as the sample using MS Office - not even PS. Looks pretty good.

But you converted in in Optics Pro 9.5.2 - probably has something to do with it?

 

[jrista]

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...

Well, before I blame the technology, I'd be blaming the user. If the user was able to demonstrate perfect technique, THEN I'd blame the technology.

I'm not impressed with Canon's severe lack of progress on the sensor front, but this is still just the same old anti-Canon crap, Dilbert. EVERY AF system can be misused.

 

[Steve]

It's a lot worse than any 3200 ISO image that ever came out of my 7D - but that's to be explained by the fact that the squirrel with either be a SOOC jpeg, or a DPP conversion. DPP is a poor high ISO converter.

Pretty sure they are sooc. Canon's jpg engine is garbage. Even the hawk at ISO320 is a bit mushy and that was taken with the 600 f4. I'm betting that with real, decent post work this camera will give very good results up to 1600 if there isn't too much cropping. That ISO6400 image of the bay looks pretty bad though, so that's probably the top end. We won't really be able to tell until there are RAWs we can actually play with which probably won't happen until the camera ships.

Just for reference: this is 10,000 ISO from my 70D, converted in Capture One. The 7D Mk II will be better than this, no question.

Here's a 6400 ISO 100% crop from Capture One, just for completeness.

Use the right tool for the job...

Eh, no offense, but that image looks pretty bad. The detail is really crushed out of it. I don't think ISO10k is actually usable except for maybe surveillance?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

So what would you like to blame for the focus problems:
* The camera
* The model
* The lens
* The photographer

* The crowds?
* The situation?
* The time available?

 

[jrista]

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?

He's suggesting the AF problems are neither...that instead, they are THE USER.