High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II

[jonjt]

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...

Those shots look great.

Could you comment on the high ISO abilities of Lightroom, in comparison to Capture One?

Thanks.

 

[Famateur]

What we really need is a camera that doesn't let you take a bad picture, something that automatically chooses the best focus and tells you what pictures are good.

Hmm...that actually would be a cool idea. Imagine if the camera had an algorithm similar to FoCal in which it evaluated the sharpness at the active AF point and applied a sharpness rating to the image meta.

Then you could filter in Lightroom for sharpness ratings above a certain threshold. That could save time when you have dozens of bursts to sort through, looking for the best shots.

Maybe the geniuses at Magic Lantern could implement something like that (or already have?). If not, I bet some other genius could create a Lightroom plugin that does the same thing to photos already taken (as long as they have the AF point data). Shoot, maybe FoCal could make the plugin!

Anybody else think this would be a cool feature/plugin? Does it already exist, and I'm just missing out?

 

[ishdakuteb]

...
Dilbert you should post pics to prove him wrong. Can I ask if you do can you also white balance and color correct so we can have that in the discussion as we'll.

I'll have to find something that I've never posted anywhere else...

don't worry, my website list of renown photographers that i currently monitor and learn from does not have yours since you are not qualified LOL....

 

[ishdakuteb]

...
Dilbert you should post pics to prove him wrong. Can I ask if you do can you also white balance and color correct so we can have that in the discussion as we'll.

I'll have to find something that I've never posted anywhere else...

don't worry, my website list of renown photographers that i currently monitor and learn from does not have yours since you are not qualified LOL....

Ok, that's nice to know. Now did you want to add something meaningful or just be rude?

i'll take the second one, rude to the rude or rude to the troll...

 

[sanj]

A lot of dumb comments here. You're judging the AF system not knowing what mode/setting it was on, competence of a photographer testing a camera and a trade show, and whether or not the lens possibly needed to be micro adjusted. I love the internet...

Well said

 

[sanj]

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.

Yes it does not.

 

[sanj]

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.

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.

Na. There is no reason to have an unfocused image here. Basic.

 

[sanj]

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.

Dude… How can crop be better than full frame in IQ? Think about it….

 

[sanj]

Wow some people must have really high expectations from Matt Granger for him to be able to just pick up a camera he's never even seen before or even existed before that point and to then be handed it and given a short (a minute or two?) time to get a 100% hit rate in conditions he has has no control over? Well he didn't manage that so the only conclusion can be - that the camera is a dud? Because MG cannot miss. Ever. It's not even thinkable.

If he's going to pick up a new camera, post pics online to "showcase quality" then he should make the pics worthy of such.

As it is, Matt Granger has posted pictures for click bait and to drive his views up. That's about all that you can say for the images posted.

He posted the pics for review and should have made sure they were ready to be reviewed. He didn't.

Matt Granger is just another click bait fool like Ken Rockwell.

I have never seen KR post any out of focus or blurred photo.

 

[sanj]

Wow some people must have really high expectations from Matt Granger for him to be able to just pick up a camera he's never even seen before or even existed before that point and to then be handed it and given a short (a minute or two?) time to get a 100% hit rate in conditions he has has no control over? Well he didn't manage that so the only conclusion can be - that the camera is a dud? Because MG cannot miss. Ever. It's not even thinkable.

If he's going to pick up a new camera, post pics online to "showcase quality" then he should make the pics worthy of such.

As it is, Matt Granger has posted pictures for click bait and to drive his views up. That's about all that you can say for the images posted.

He posted the pics for review and should have made sure they were ready to be reviewed. He didn't.

Matt Granger is just another click bait fool like Ken Rockwell.

I doubt any photographer I know who has been shooting Canon will get an out of focus photo with a new Canon camera on such a photo. Nope.

 

[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.

Dude… How can crop be better than full frame in IQ? Think about it….

The additional picture of 40 Benjamin Franklin in my wallet may be very pleasing, I like their IQ

And to answer the question directly the 7D did have slightly better resolution then the 5D II, however you had to Post Process to see it. 7D files have more headroom for processing than the 5D II. My theory was that Canon did this on purpose to set the IQ apart from the 5D II. Resolution isn't everything when it comes to IQ but in some types of photography it can be more important and carry more weight to the general IQ of a picture.

IQ of JPEGS direct out of the camera are determined by the firmware in the camera. You can bet that Canon makes sure its new models fall in line in the product order, whether by hardware or firmware.

 

[Viggo]

I don't read anything into the sample pictures as they are always like this from the start.

But I must say, even if you are new with a camera, taking a sharp picture for public view isn't exactly rocket science. If he saw that they were off, why not use LV ? Even if he had limited time, I'm sure he could take two shots. But this being said I know a few photographer that just goes "What?" If I point out a technical flaw or mishap in a shot. Not everyone is a tech geek, and some people don't even care about slight front or backfocus at all, not in their vocabulary ..

It could be 10.000 reasons ... Wait for reviewers that own tripods and are proper geeks to show us

 

[dgatwood]

I wouldn't go that far. Neuro has never failed me before.
Who would shoot at 3200 ISO a non-moving model during day time?
I would be convinced when they show me 6400 of a dunking player in a school interior basketball field.

Agreed. There's nothing dark in these images, and that's where noise at high ISO tends to be the most obvious. And it's a camera-processed image, so who knows how much DNR has been applied.

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.

Why not? The 6D is considerably better than the 5D Mark III in IQ, and is apparently pretty comparable to the 1DX.

Mind you, the laws of physics probably won't let the 7D Mark II be better than the full-frame bodies (ignoring resolution differences).

 

[takesome1]

I wouldn't go that far. Neuro has never failed me before.
Who would shoot at 3200 ISO a non-moving model during day time?
I would be convinced when they show me 6400 of a dunking player in a school interior basketball field.

Agreed. There's nothing dark in these images, and that's where noise at high ISO tends to be the most obvious. And it's a camera-processed image, so who knows how much DNR has been applied.

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.

Why not? The 6D is considerably better than the 5D Mark III in IQ, and is apparently pretty comparable to the 1DX.

Mind you, the laws of physics probably won't let the 7D Mark II be better than the full-frame bodies (ignoring resolution differences).

I have not seen a side by side of the 6D vs 5D Mark III, might look this up later.

 

[KacperP]

http://www.optyczne.pl/7447-news-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_-_pierwsze_zdj%C4%99cia.html
Flame on... :

 

[Khalai]

http://www.optyczne.pl/7447-news-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_-_pierwsze_zdj%C4%99cia.html
Flame on... :

That ISO 3200 looks quite usable. Even 6400 looks not that bad. I'm oficially impressed 8)

 

[cirkitdude]

http://www.optyczne.pl/7447-news-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_-_pierwsze_zdj%C4%99cia.html
Flame on... :

That ISO 3200 looks quite usable. Even 6400 looks not that bad. I'm oficially impressed 8)

RAW… need RAW… why can't someone at Photokina snap some high-ISO RAW images and post? Need to know if I should cancel my preorder. Please??

 

[mkabi]

http://www.optyczne.pl/7447-news-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_-_pierwsze_zdj%C4%99cia.html
Flame on... :

That ISO 3200 looks quite usable. Even 6400 looks not that bad. I'm oficially impressed 8)

RAW… need RAW… why can't someone at Photokina snap some high-ISO RAW images and post? Need to know if I should cancel my preorder. Please??

Click the pictures and look at the pictures!
They are RAW transformed into jpeg without in-camera noise reduction. Hence you are able to see how much noise at each level.

 

[Woody]

Click the pictures and look at the pictures!
They are RAW transformed into jpeg without in-camera noise reduction. Hence you are able to see how much noise at each level.

What was used for the RAW conversion?

 

[Woody]

That ISO 3200 looks quite usable. Even 6400 looks not that bad. I'm oficially impressed 8)

Very very impressed indeed.