Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II

[Ryan85]

I love my 5d3 it's a great all arounder IMO. It's my primary camera for weeding and portriat shoots. I take it out and shoot wildlife with it from time to time. I also take a crop body with me when shooting wildlife. if I'm shooting elk that are beded down for instance and can't get closer without them knowing I'm there I'll shoot with the 5d3 then if I need more reach I'll switch to a crop sensor. When I pull them up I've been as happy or more so with the image quality of the crop sensor over cropping the 5d3. That's just my experience so I'm happy with FF and crop.

 

[AvTvM]

Really? Which 400 f2.8, 500 f4 or 600 f4 were you planning on using with your Samsung? Or did you mean things you couldn't reach with the included zoom kit lens?

Samsung 300/2.8 for starters. -
Maybe followed by a 2x Extender next.
;D

So you imagine that an NX1, with an untested and unreleased 300 2.8 plus 2x extender, is going to outperform a 7D2 with a native Canon 600 f4 IS ii. Zoiks.
Not even mentioning that you can add a 2x to the Canon 600. You do realize that these posts are public and that people can read them? Man you need to get out and get some fresh air.

No, i don't think and I did not write that a 300/2.8 + 2x will be equal in iq to a native 600/4. Yes, nobody knows yet, how good or not that samsung 300/3.8 is going to be. But considering how the NX-1 apparently matches and in some respects even beats the 7D II capabilities, we might just be in for yet another nice surprise.

 

[Loswr]

And apparently, the target market for the 7DII is those who don't care about image quality. Interesting rationalization.

I think it's fair comment when people are reduced to excusing away low ISO noise and DR quality.

If that's a fair comment, then evidently you don't care about image quality. If you did, you wouldn't be using a camera with such poor low ISO DR. :

 

[justaCanonuser]

I posted this to the BIF thread earlier today. Center 15pt small zone AF. I have a sequence of about a dozen of these and they are all sharp despite some very erratic movement. The AF works great if you put the effort into it. It took a while for me to get it dialed in.

Really great eagle shot, GraFax! Looks like the 400/5.6 works quite well with the 7D2. I use it frequently when there's enough light and I do not want to carry the bigger and heavier 500 with me. I think seriously about upgrading my old 7D because I use it much less since I have my 5D3, mostly because I love the 5D3's AF system. Your great image shows again that the skills of a photographer matter much more than any DR specs (in fact, my impression is: the worse a photographer is the more DR does he always need). Obviously the 7D2 delivers nice enough IQ for good wildlife shooting.

 

[DominoDude]

Still haven't had enough many cups of caffeine poured into me eyelids, but I see Digital PReview mentioning that it's disappointing that we had to wait so long for the 7D Mark II.
Now they know how many of us feel about their reviews of the Canon 1D X and Nikon D4s and a few other bodies...
(A rumour says that it's a Mr Godot that's carrying out those reviews. We just have to wait a little longer.)

Also, it looks like the primary "cons" they've found are such that I wouldn't consider them to be top priority for what I believe to be the typical buyer of 7D's. Softish video, lacking touch screen and other items seemingly more important for those shooting via LiveView. Perhaps their overall conclusion and score is fair, but as I read it I would expect a slightly higher total score. How they weigh the numbers from their test results are perhaps the same kind of mystery as it is with DxO's sensor testing.

I though it was generally fair. I wouldn't have put so much space into the low ISO DR testing since the results were to be expected and didn't reflect the 7D2's intended High speed/High ISO/ Long Lens use. But that's what passes for IQ testing these days so no surprise there. You need a little DR "blood in the water" to attract the trolls.

The article hinted at some interesting information regarding high ISO Noise management in Canon sensor's but stated that would be covered in a later article. That would actually have been more valuable information than the usual "shadows when pushed 5 stops" tests. Interested to read the follow up on that. Kudos to the Sony sensor's though. They are amazing.

edit...I just checked and as of today I've shot nearly 5000 frames with the 7D2 and I can only find 6 at base ISO. All of those will require additional contrast to achieve a nice looking image and none have any clipping. I suppose there are folks for whom base ISO DR on the 7D2 will be critical but so far I don't seem to be one of them.

I concur. I liked the review. I think they spent a bit more time dwelling on low ISO noise than was probably warranted for the target market. I'm firmly in the target market and I really don't care about that "issue." Or the lack of a touch screen or soft video.

On the other hand, I see the trolls have already been pooping in the thread. No surprise there--it's all they do! Gravitated to the few negatives and tried to spin the entire review as negative--probably hoping they could discourage the gullible from reading the review at all, or just aiming them at the portions with "issues." Decidedly ridiculous and childish--but very predictable.

The primary difference between DPReview and DXO Mark is that DPReview works very hard to present a balanced assessment. Like DXO Mark, they still gravitate towards an issue that matters more to them than to me--low ISO DR. But unlike DXO Mark, they look at the entire package when they make their assessment. Overall I liked the review. And, in spite of the spin doctoring that has gone on in this thread trying to convince the reader that this review proves that the 7D Mark II is minimal upgrade, the reality is that DPReview's conclusion is that: "It would be easy to write off the EOS 7D Mark II as just an incremental upgrade to the original 7D, but that would be a serious mistake." And it would be a mistake--but it's a mistake the trolls and DRones would love to continue to foster!

I hope I'm not considered to be one of the trolls or DRones, then I am misunderstood. I vent my opinion at time, but it's done to vent my opinion, not out to make it another person(s) opinion.

 

[DominoDude]

I hope I'm not considered to be one of the trolls or DRones, then I am misunderstood. I vent my opinion at time, but it's done to vent my opinion, not out to make it another person(s) opinion.

Certainly not by me DominoDude. Hope I didn't offend. I admit that the trolls have been getting on my nerves a bit so I may have been pushing the envelope. I did not intend to cast broad aspersions on those who may disagree with my opinions.

Venting is good and dissent should be encouraged in my opinion. Hopefully we can all find a way to do it constructively. Personally, I'm done with this thread.

*nods in understanding* No offence taken.

 

[AmselAdans]

*photo of an eagle*

BAM, what a shot! Great photo of a beautiful dinosaur.
I like it, when pros here actually share their work. Somehow it's far more convincing than those "yada yada but the DxO rating say" or "my lens cap told me that..." statements.
So what remains? Good photographers will be able to take great photos with the 7DII. Not so good photographers will not. And "7DII" might be replaced by almost any recent camera at this level.


To speak of the DPreview review of the 7DII: Refreshingly neutral, no bashing but also no overwhelmed chorus of praise. It summed up most of the things we already knew.

My personal, subjective point of view is: Wow, great AF system, definetely an exciting piece of technology to play with. Wow, that amount of (improved) features. Moreover that price, thats a sensational value for money. But... somehow I have the creepy sensation, that this thing is the last, delayed piece of an era that fades away.

Additionally, from the very first DSLRs, Canon was the company that set the norm. They were the company, all other companies wanted to reach. Then the introduction of videos in DSLR. Another bang in the industry and among users. It is sad to see that in videos (yes yes and in sensor tech, when "good enough" is surpassed by "even better") Canon has been overtaken by several other companies. Somehow I miss the drive in Canon's developments, the aspire to be the undisputed number one. The 6D provides affordable FF (and, based on the users here, devliers exactly what it should: very good image quality), but seems like a "dumb" brick equipped with a shutter button. Despite the 7DII having an amazing AF system, high FPS, excellent build quality... after several weeks my feeling is more or less: "....meh..."

 

[Marauder]

Canon's high mega-pixel APS-C cameras fair poorly in crepuscular conditions, which are usually the best time to film the charismatic mega-fauna found in the Northern Rockies.

I went out with an open mind the last two years, shooting Canon crop and FF in the same conditions. The results speak for themselves.

But I agree, use what works for you.

If you are shooting birds in brightly lit beach environments or using flash, grab the 7DII. If you are unable to control the light and shoot in crepuscular conditions, go FF.

And apparently, the target market for the 7DII is those who don't care about image quality. Interesting rationalization.

Please continue, master of light. Shine your wisdom upon us!

Dude, the more you say the funnier you get. "crepuscular conditions". Man, you just can't make that kind of stuff up. ;D

LMAO!

 

[Marauder]

*photo of an eagle*

BAM, what a shot! Great photo of a beautiful dinosaur.
I like it, when pros here actually share their work. Somehow it's far more convincing than those "yada yada but the DxO rating say" or "my lens cap told me that..." statements.
So what remains? Good photographers will be able to take great photos with the 7DII. Not so good photographers will not. And "7DII" might be replaced by almost any recent camera at this level.


To speak of the DPreview review of the 7DII: Refreshingly neutral, no bashing but also no overwhelmed chorus of praise. It summed up most of the things we already knew.

My personal, subjective point of view is: Wow, great AF system, definetely an exciting piece of technology to play with. Wow, that amount of (improved) features. Moreover that price, thats a sensational value for money. But... somehow I have the creepy sensation, that this thing is the last, delayed piece of an era that fades away.

Additionally, from the very first DSLRs, Canon was the company that set the norm. They were the company, all other companies wanted to reach. Then the introduction of videos in DSLR. Another bang in the industry and among users. It is sad to see that in videos (yes yes and in sensor tech, when "good enough" is surpassed by "even better") Canon has been overtaken by several other companies. Somehow I miss the drive in Canon's developments, the aspire to be the undisputed number one. The 6D provides affordable FF (and, based on the users here, devliers exactly what it should: very good image quality), but seems like a "dumb" brick equipped with a shutter button. Despite the 7DII having an amazing AF system, high FPS, excellent build quality... after several weeks my feeling is more or less: "....meh..."

I concur that it was a fair and balanced review. As to the areas where they were disappointed, such as low ISO DR, lack of touch screen and lack of video improvement, those areas are of limited (or no) importance to me. On the other hand, combining useful IQ improvements with first class AF, fast burst and a deep buffer make this a very compelling and exciting product for me. Also for many others who do wildlife or sports/action type shooting.

For landscape shooters and videographers, I get how the 7D Mark II may seem underwhelming. On a side note, it's similar to why the 6D (and D810 for that matter) are such "YAWN" products for me. They aren't suited to the kinds of photography I most enjoy doing, while the 7D II IS suited to them. But I certainly get why those who do landscapes etc. like these other cameras--and are underwhelmed by the 7D Mark II. In the end, it's a matter of selecting the best product for the sort of job you're going to do.

What I like in a balanced review is the ability of the reviewer to look beyond their own biases and photographic needs and imagine what a hypothetical user in a different field might want and I think the DPReview review delivers on that mostly. A bit of their own preference for a low ISO DR camera for landscape photography does come through, but it's counter balanced by their ability to grasp the importance of other features for a wildlife photographer. They have the ability to see how a different sort of photographer might have different "must haves" on their list--and not all reviews and reviewers have had that balance.

 

[Ryan85]

I concur that it was a fair and balanced review. As to the areas where they were disappointed, such as low ISO DR, lack of touch screen and lack of video improvement, those areas are of limited (or no) importance to me. On the other hand, combining useful IQ improvements with first class AF, fast burst and a deep buffer make this a very compelling and exciting product for me. Also for many others who do wildlife or sports/action type shooting.

For landscape shooters and videographers, I get how the 7D Mark II may seem underwhelming. On a side note, it's similar to why the 6D (and D810 for that matter) are such "YAWN" products for me. They aren't suited to the kinds of photography I most enjoy doing, while the 7D II IS suited to them. But I certainly get why those who do landscapes etc. like these other cameras--and are underwhelmed by the 7D Mark II. In the end, it's a matter of selecting the best product for the sort of job you're going to do.

What I like in a balanced review is the ability of the reviewer to look beyond their own biases and photographic needs and imagine what a hypothetical user in a different field might want and I think the DPReview review delivers on that mostly. A bit of their own preference for a low ISO DR camera for landscape photography does come through, but it's counter balanced by their ability to grasp the importance of other features for a wildlife photographer. They have the ability to see how a different sort of photographer might have different "must haves" on their list--and not all reviews and reviewers have had that balance.
[/quote]

+1 well said

 

[Marauder]

Thank you.

 

[sanj]

There is much more to a photo than IQ. Many who can't afford the 1dx or longer telephotos will find 7d2 ideal for their needs. They will know it is not the very best IQ in the market, but the very best IQ that they can afford.
And MANY MANY times the 2nd best IQ is just FINE. And difference visible only to pixel peeping photographers.

 

[Ryan85]

There is much more to a photo than IQ. Many who can't afford the 1dx or longer telephotos will find 7d2 ideal for their needs. They will know it is not the very best IQ in the market, but the very best IQ that they can afford.
And MANY MANY times the 2nd best IQ is just FINE. And difference visible only to pixel peeping photographers.

+1 absolutey

 

[dtaylor]

And even those may soon discover, that mirrorless cameras like Samsung NX1 are better suited for reach-limited, action-oriented captures.

The Samsung cannot AF. In TheCameraStoreTV's review it blew half the frames in a dead simple tracking test (brisk walk/slow jog speed). In the Golden City Films review the two guys just tore the Samsung apart over AF. They said it was terrible at tracking at a dog park and even in the studio trying to get the 85mm to focus on the model's eye. The 7D II? Reliable as expected.

Absent a major firmware update, I don't think the NX1 is going to make any in roads into the Canon/Nikon sports and wildlife markets.

 

[dtaylor]

I was surprised how much the DR difference to the Nikon D7000 is, but then I remembered how well my old 7D can deal with harsh lighting conditions with the right PP technique.

DPReview's processing of the Canon file was awful. There are multiple samples in a thread on their forums that are much better and therefore closer to the D7000. Still not as good, but much closer.

 

[Ryan85]

And even those may soon discover, that mirrorless cameras like Samsung NX1 are better suited for reach-limited, action-oriented captures.

The Samsung cannot AF. In TheCameraStoreTV's review it blew half the frames in a dead simple tracking test (brisk walk/slow jog speed). In the Golden City Films review the two guys just tore the Samsung apart over AF. They said it was terrible at tracking at a dog park and even in the studio trying to get the 85mm to focus on the model's eye. The 7D II? Reliable as expected.

Absent a major firmware update, I don't think the NX1 is going to make any in roads into the Canon/Nikon sports and wildlife markets.

I agree. Maybe in a few years if they continue to innovate and get the cameras better. And produce some great glass

 

[dtaylor]

The 7DII isn't intended for high ISO use. That's the 6D and 5DIII.

A crop sensor that's usable at ISO 16,000 is "not intended for high ISO use?" :

Oh, and the 7DII isn't intended for low ISO, low noise landscape use either, that's intended for the 6D and 5D III.

It's absolutely fine for landscape use. 99% of the time you couldn't tell it apart from a D810 in a 24" print given good glass on both and low/mid ISOs.

Unless, of course, you habitually underexpose by 5ev.

 

[Ryan85]

The 7DII isn't intended for high ISO use. That's the 6D and 5DIII.

A crop sensor that's usable at ISO 16,000 is "not intended for high ISO use?" :

Oh, and the 7DII isn't intended for low ISO, low noise landscape use either, that's intended for the 6D and 5D III.

It's absolutely fine for landscape use. 99% of the time you couldn't tell it apart from a D810 in a 24" print given good glass on both and low/mid ISOs.

Unless, of course, you habitually underexpose by 5ev.

+1

 

[Phil Lowe]

Great Blue Heron shot using the Canon 7D2 and Tamron 150-600 @600mm. ISO 3200, f/7.1 @1/1000. Post-processed in Lightroom 5.7.

I've got no issues with this camera. None.

This camera is cleaner at ISO 3200 than the 7D is at ISO 800. I used the settings I did because this bird was hunting in early evening light, and I wanted to be sure I had the shutter speed to see it catch a vole.

I sell my wildlife on Shutterstock, iStock, and Alamy, as well as Crated.com. Many of my wildlife photos shot with the 7D and Tamron 150-600 have sold, and the IQ from this camera beats the 7D. I also have images on the stock agencies shot with my 5D3, and the IQ of the 7D2 is much closer to the IQ of the 5D3 than its predecessor.

 

[Phil Lowe]

Another example of my 7D2 and the Tamron 150-600 in less than ideal lighting. Shutterstock won't accept an image with excessive noise, rendering issues (like too much noise reduction added), or soft focus.

As you can see, they accepted this one because it was clean, sharp, and well-rendered.

Pros do use the 7D2 for good reason: it delivers the goods.

http://shutterstock.com/g/Phil+Lowe