More 7D mk ii samples

[DanielW]

Have you guys seen this?

http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/sample-image-gallery-canon-7d-mark-ii-dslr?i=487311&s=8

 

[Famateur]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I'd love to see the RAW files to get an idea of what the noise is like to start with and then what I could get as a final result in Lightroom. For web-sized photos, the cat image at 6400 ISO is pretty awesome. Makes me want to get out my 70D to see what it would do in similar circumstances...

 

[Woody]

I'd love to see the RAW files to get an idea of what the noise is like to start with and then what I could get as a final result in Lightroom.

Need to wait for Adobe support. Currently, even with RAW files, one can only process them with DPP.

I recently downloaded a 70D ISO 6400 RAW file from Imaging Resource and processed the file with DPP and Lightroom. Even with ALL the NR sliders at zero, the DPP output is still cleaner than that from Lightroom.

However, I also compared the 7D2 vs 70D RAW files at ISO 6400 after going through DPP (with NR = 0) and they appeared very similar. 7D2 has just slightly less amount of chromatic noise.

 

[dtaylor]

I recently downloaded a 70D ISO 6400 RAW file from Imaging Resource and processed the file with DPP and Lightroom. Even with ALL the NR sliders at zero, the DPP output is still cleaner than that from Lightroom.

ACR is able to extract more fine detail then DPP. When I've tested this I've actually been surprised at how much more. Conversely, I think its algorithm ends up emphasizing noise.

However, I also compared the 7D2 vs 70D RAW files at ISO 6400 after going through DPP (with NR = 0) and they appeared very similar. 7D2 has just slightly less amount of chromatic noise.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect any miracles here. I believe Canon when they say it's a new sensor with tweaks for better high ISO, but I also believe those tweaks are small. "New" should be interpreted as version 1.1, not version 2.

That said, some of the real world samples I've seen seem better then the initial files posted at Imaging Resource, and I'm not sure why. One real world portrait at ISO 3200 was stunning, I would have guessed 200 or 400 max. Some of Scott Kelby's sports shots look better then expected as well. That the ISO 16,000 shot is usable (it would make a fine 8x12 print) shocked me. It was a JPEG, but I wouldn't expect the JPEG engine to out perform DPP here.

Guess we'll find out when more people get their hands on it and ACR is updated. Alas, I probably won't pick one up until December, no pre-order for me :-\

 

[Steve]

These samples still don't seem very sharp to me. Even the low ISO shots seem a bit smeary. I gotta think its something to do with how the camera processes the jpgs. The NR looks good but everything seems just a touch OOF even when its obviously not.

ACR is able to extract more fine detail then DPP. When I've tested this I've actually been surprised at how much more. Conversely, I think its algorithm ends up emphasizing noise.

I've never noticed a difference between DPP and ACR wrt detail but the noise difference is pretty obvious. When I switched to using DPP to convert, I could definitely use less NR and more detail extraction, sharpening, contrast, etc without going over the edge into that weird watercolor world. Photos I converted from DPP and processed in PS were definitely sharper and more detailed than ACR conversions processed similarly.

 

[2n10]

These samples still don't seem very sharp to me. Even the low ISO shots seem a bit smeary. I gotta think its something to do with how the camera processes the jpgs. The NR looks good but everything seems just a touch OOF even when its obviously not.

ACR is able to extract more fine detail then DPP. When I've tested this I've actually been surprised at how much more. Conversely, I think its algorithm ends up emphasizing noise.

I've never noticed a difference between DPP and ACR wrt detail but the noise difference is pretty obvious. When I switched to using DPP to convert, I could definitely use less NR and more detail extraction, sharpening, contrast, etc without going over the edge into that weird watercolor world. Photos I converted from DPP and processed in PS were definitely sharper and more detailed than ACR conversions processed similarly.

Thanks for the observations. I'll need to look into processing this way.