Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II

[jrista]

Sory guys. I'm being really sloppy tinight. Tonight. I have had very servere chronic insomnia for countless years...well over a decade. I go through periods where I just don't sleep for days, and I'm going through one now. After a while, you kind of feel like your drunk, even though your not... The nafter that, if you still haven't slept...yeahhh.......things get really really werid..............

So that's how you have time to do astrophotography?

Heh, sometime. Most of the time, I set up my gear, dila in PA, program an imaging sequene on a target thats just topped the trees, and get guiding going...then start it up aaaaaand....go to bed. I've got my gear tuned welll enough these days that it can just do it;s thing on its own now.


I don;t sleep most of the time hen I do that...but at least I'm not up messin around or fretting about the gear/ Spending 5-6 hours in bed is the only rest I usually get. Weekends are uutually the only time I get any actual speep, but according to my sleep studys I don't ever get to stage three...

 

[dtaylor]

Roger, I'd like to add my thanks to those of others for your participation here!

—John

So would I. Roger, I've found your site to be a valuable resource for years. Great to see you here.

 

[fragilesi]

I don't see any reason to be "balanced" if my current supplier delivers subpar product. As in every other business i give them clear warning and tell them what i want. I want the best value for every euro/dollar spent.
14% improvements are ridiculous and utterly meaningless to me (u am not into astro photography).
And What other customers want is totally irrelevant to me as well.

If canon does not deliver FULLY COMPETITIVE products and will stop buying (measure is in effect).
And i will criticize them (measure is in effect).
And buy competitors product. Measure not yet in effect. But will be as soon as somebody meets my requirements. getting closer by the day. Maybe sony a9.

The best reason for taking a "balanced" approach is that it will give you an accurate answer rather than an impetuous one not based on all the facts. That's always been a good enough reason for me.

This is why, for example, you've made the mistake of thinking that what other people want is irrelevant. Of course it isn't because it will help shape the priorities of the manufacturers. You might not care what other people want but I find it interesting listening to jrista for example (sorry I don't mean to keep quoting him over others but his posts stick in my mind the most for detail / knowledge on subject at hand). Knowing what he's after, seeing the effects of it has opened my mind to what additional DR might, at times, do for my photography. It's made me more aware of the limitations of what I have and made me think about ways around it - nothing new just techniques people have countered his arguments with.

But at least you agree right now that your Canon is still as good as anyone else's system overall. And if you think about it that's a hell of an achievement given that they aren't giving you the particular aspect you're so interested in. All the other advantages of Canon must be providing a pretty solid argument in your mind.

But, if in the meantime, based on the specs you imagine the A9 will have and how well it will perform why not sell your Canon gear now while you can get a good price for it before everyone starts a fire sale on Canon gear in readiness to move to the new Sony model . . .

 

[AvTvM]

I will upgrade to a 7D II if it can fully match an upcoming Nikon D400. In terms of sensor/IQ, electronics, performance/responsiveness, and especially AF ... most likely that would mean the 7D II should "inherit" the current 1D IV AF system (45 pt). In addition I would like it to get a tilt-swivel display (like the 60D). If they offer such a camera at $ 1800 launch price it will sell extremely well again and will leave hardly ny room or need for a 70D.

I can't say that I know how good or bad the Nikon D400 is (if it exists), but your statement above indicates that the 7D Mark II should be good enough for your standards. You even guessed correct on the price.
[/quote]

Look at the date of that posting. had Canon come out with the 7D II in spring of 2013, I would have bought it.
But now we are at the end of 2014. I am clear, I want an FF sensored cam and I want it without a mirror.

7D II is certainly a fine DSLR, and iw welll worth it, if one is into reach-limited tele-focused action-oriented Phtoography .. or possibly astrophotography. But I do not see anything that deserves the the word "game changing". Yes, it is an improvement, but in the grand scheme of things it is just another minor iteration of the Canon APS-C mirrorslapper series and their 18/20 MP sensors.

To me ... a "game cahnging product is "proff of some concept, that was considered hard, if not imposible to achieve.

Canon game cahngers in my book:
* 1D ... proof of concept, of a "fully viable professional grade digital camera, offering more than what 135 film ever could.
* Digital Rebel/300D - proof of concept, that digital DSLRs can be offered at "reasonable cost" (sub USD 1000), within reach of consumers/enthusiasts.
* 5D was a game changer - proof, that FF sensored DSLRs can be built "at reasonable cost" and first time they really came into reach of enthusiasts and semi-pros.
* 5D II was a game-changer, proof .. HD video can be done with a DSLR; put "shallow field of depth" capability into hands of video entghusiasts, low budget film makers

Since then I have not seen any game-changing cameras from Canon, only iterations, comparatively minor improvements.
* Sony A7/R/S are game-changers. Proof of concept, that the best, full-blown FF sensors on the market can be put into a body as small as an mFT or APS-C camera. Deemed impossible by many beforehand. ANd passin on some of the cost savings possible with cheaper to built mirrorless cams to the customers.

Let's see, what comes next that truly deserves the badge "game changing".

 

[Loswr]

With all the astro talk and the full moon, I thought I'd mention my favorite new astro accessory - the Canon 10x42L IS. Those things are way better than I ever expected them to be.

IS binoculars must be pretty nice, though.

I have the little Canon 10x30 IS binocs, which I got for free. The IS really is quite useful.

 

[Lee Jay]

.

To me ... a "game cahnging product is "proff of some concept, that was considered hard, if not imposcosting achieve.

Canon game cahngers in my book:
* 1D ... proof of concept, of a "fully viable professional grade digital camera, offering more than what 135 film ever could.
* Digital Rebel/300D - proof of concept, that digital DSLRs can be offered at "reasonable cost" (sub USD 1000), within reach of consumers/enthusiasts.
* 5D was a game changer - proof, that FF sensored DSLRs can be built "at reasonable cost" and first time they really came into reach of enthusiasts and semi-pros.
* 5D II was a game-changer, proof .. HD video can be done with a DSLR; put "shallow field of depth" capability into hands of video entghusiasts, low budget film makers

* 7D II is a game-changer, proof .. a professional weather sealed sports camera with a professional frame rate and professional auto focus system can be put into a compact body costing under $2k which is 50-75% less than previous cameras with similar functionality.

The A7s and r? They're just over grown compacts with large sensors. They should cost under $1k and be sold in the checkout line at Walmart.

 

[AvTvM]

* 7D II is a game-changer, proof .. a professional weather sealed sports camera with a professional frame rate and professional auto focus system can be put into a compact body costing under $2k which is 50-75% less than previous cameras with similar functionality.

no. It costs 100% of the preceding 7D, which has already proven that point and was "borderline game-changing", when it came out in 2009.

Basically something labeled Mk. II or III by Canon rarely is a game-changer. Exception so far: 5D II for video. ;-)

 

[Marsu42]

* 7D II is a game-changer, proof .. a professional weather sealed sports camera with a professional frame rate and professional auto focus system can be put into a compact body costing under $2k which is 50-75% less than previous cameras with similar functionality.

no. It costs 100% of the preceding 7D, which has already proven that point and was "borderline game-changing", when it came out in 2009.
Basically something labeled Mk. II or III by Canon rarely is a game-changer. Exception so far: 5D II for video. ;-)

Well, "compact body" or not aside, +1 for not accepting every marketing talk. The 7d2 is a fine camera at a still reasonable price (for Canon), and mk1 vs mk2 will result in more keepers due to improved metering and af. It will also have nicer video than previous crop cameras, but still below the 5d3 which also has ML.

But "game-changer" implies you can do something that you couldn't befroe at all - and I don't see it, tbh. Unless you shoot astro, looking over this thread the 7d2 seems to have some "more than a bit" iq improvement for this specific application.

What would be "game-changing" for me is something like:
* in-vf focus peaking and a evf you cannot tell from ovf
* raw and/or 4k video sub $2k
* open firmware that enables 3rd party addons

 

[Lee Jay]

* 7D II is a game-changer, proof .. a professional weather sealed sports camera with a professional frame rate and professional auto focus system can be put into a compact body costing under $2k which is 50-75% less than previous cameras with similar functionality.

no. It costs 100% of the preceding 7D, which has already proven that point and was "borderline game-changing", when it came out in 2009.
Basically something labeled Mk. II or III by Canon rarely is a game-changer. Exception so far: 5D II for video. ;-)

Well, "compact body" or not aside, +1 for not accepting every marketing talk. The 7d2 is a fine camera at a still reasonable price (for Canon), and mk1 vs mk2 will result in more keepers due to improved metering and af. It will also have nicer video than previous crop cameras, but still below the 5d3 which also has ML.

But "game-changer" implies you can do something that you couldn't befroe at all - and I don't see it, tbh. Unless you shoot astro, looking over this thread the 7d2 seems to have some "more than a bit" iq improvement for this specific application.

What would be "game-changing" for me is something like:
* in-vf focus peaking and a evf you cannot tell from ovf
* raw and/or 4k video sub $2k
* open firmware that enables 3rd party addons

One of those is impossible and the other two are features I wouldn't even consider in my purchase decision.

The 7D didn't have professional AF even for its time. Remember the 45 point system with dedicated AF processor?

 

[Marsu42]

What would be "game-changing" for me is something like:
* in-vf focus peaking and a evf you cannot tell from ovf
* raw and/or 4k video sub $2k
* open firmware that enables 3rd party addons

One of those is impossible and the other two are features I wouldn't even consider in my purchase decision.

You think an open firmware is impossible? Only by Canon's current policy, but they are free to release a sdk at any time to enable ML-like development w/o reverse engineering.

Concerning your purchase decisions: "game-changing" doesn't depend on if you personally want it or not, but if it enables a new range of possibilities in general. And with evolving technology, better evf and high-iq video will reach the consumer sooner or later.

 

[Lee Jay]

What would be "game-changing" for me is something like:
* in-vf focus peaking and a evf you cannot tell from ovf
* raw and/or 4k video sub $2k
* open firmware that enables 3rd party addons

One of those is impossible and the other two are features I wouldn't even consider in my purchase decision.

You think an open firmware is impossible?

No, I think an EVF you cannot tell from an OVF is impossible.

 

[Marsu42]

What would be "game-changing" for me is something like:
* in-vf focus peaking and a evf you cannot tell from ovf
* raw and/or 4k video sub $2k
* open firmware that enables 3rd party addons

One of those is impossible and the other two are features I wouldn't even consider in my purchase decision.

You think an open firmware is impossible?

No, I think an EVF you cannot tell from an OVF is impossible.

Considering the history of technology and what has been deemed impossible, this is a rather courageous statement

 

[Lee Jay]

What would be "game-changing" for me is something like:
* in-vf focus peaking and a evf you cannot tell from ovf
* raw and/or 4k video sub $2k
* open firmware that enables 3rd party addons

One of those is impossible and the other two are features I wouldn't even consider in my purchase decision.

You think an open firmware is impossible?

No, I think an EVF you cannot tell from an OVF is impossible.

Considering the history of technology and what has been deemed impossible, this is a rather courageous statement

No, it's fundamental physics. An EVF requires dual integration (one for the sensor, one for your eyes). An OVF does not.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And it's interesting that some improvements for astro photography are awesome (and they are) but then if say some landscape (not that only landscape shooters can benefit) shooter is looking for a 3 stops improvement, that's just minor nonsense and it's all on the photographer, people have made great pics forever so why should they even care, it just says something about the photographer doesn't it.

If a competitor had a >20 stop sensor that eliminated GND filters and HDR, that would be a "game changer" and would warrant the endless discussion and hand wringing we see here.

As is there are a couple stops of difference, which can be useful at times, but which simply cannot replace the techniques landscape photographers have used for years and decades. jrista's own interior shot demo that was here a while back showed two things. One, the Sony had more shadow latitude and the shadows were of higher quality. Two, even the Sony could not be stretched to retain the highlights and at the same time yield shadow quality that would be acceptable for publication. With a paying client you would be bracketing on either camera.

1. an extra 2-3 stops over what Canon delivers now actually would make a big difference for a lot of the shots where it matters at all. It's exactly what you'd need to pull off many dappled forest scenes and such, even if it won't cover every single HDR shot.

2. those GNDs only work for a very, very few simple types of scenes. They are totally useless for most scenes including virtually any forest scene or any of the jrista interior type shots. They are good for the classic ground/horizon/air, water/horizon/air shots and not much else.

3. multi-shot HDR can work in more scenarios, but it doesn't work out that nicely when there is motion be it from water, a breeze or subject's own motion. It also tends to require slow tripod work (you can sometimes do hand-held, but it tends to leave at least some weird artifacts here and there that can be a beast to clean up; even if you can always avoid that somehow, it not too uncommonly will put the longest exposed frame into the danger zone for handshake motion blur) and more time in all cases. Sometimes when the light is changing fast that means you miss a lot of different potential takes on an area. Other times it might meaning annoying others you are with or yourself and cut down enjoyment of the wonderful view.

If you're into sports, the 7D II's AF and buffer make a real difference. If you're into astro, it's sensor characteristics apparently make a notable difference. If you're into landscapes...well...for all the words spilled on the Internet over DR and DxO I'm not sure it has ever actually resulted in a print that's observably better then another print. It's hard to even make the tripod/hand held argument when you can easily hand hold 2-3 frame brackets with no IS, and 5-7 with the latest IS lenses.

LOL how typical. Every single thing the Canon is best at makes a real difference, but anything it's not absolutely doesn't matter expect just barely at all in the only the most extreme scenarios. LOL. How typical.

Nevermind that such serious level of astro photography is even a thing carried out far more rarely by the average user than high HDR regular shooting at low ISO and that the improvement it brings over the previous model is arguably not even quite as noticeable as exmor vs canon for low ISO high DR. But of course since the 7D2 improves the astro bit it's a critical improvement and since they didn't fix the low ISO DR thing that's a minor thing barely relevant to anyone and even to those it is, it still isn't really relevant anyway. Nice.

Listen I've said the 7D2 buffer,fps, AF should make it a beast for that stuff. And the improvements over the prior model for astro look cool. But so would have an improvement for low ISO DR (although the 7D2 can maybe get away without a bit more easily than say a 5D4 could).

I am curious as to what Canon's management thinks of DxO and DR, if anything.

They seem to be trying to ignore it (witness Maesada's interview where he plays the clueless fool who has never heard of DxO or that Canon DSLR sensors are behind competition in any way).

And for the record I would love to see this improved. I just don't understand the obsession with it.
There's less difference today between the "weakest" sensor in an entry level, small format (m43, APS-C, FF) ILC and the best sensors in the most expensive small format ILCs then ever before. Yet some how we are spending more time talking about those differences, and people (not you specifically, nor jrista)

When it comes to low ISO DR the differences are actually greater in recent years than in years past, not lesser.

on the Internet are becoming more arrogant about the performance of "their" sensor. It gets annoying, which is why you see the push back you are complaining about.

Personally I saw the bashing 'pushback' start first and then after a long time of that many either stopped posting or starting pushing back at defenders of the sacred honor of Canon after getting sick of all the personal insults being tossed for years. I was a bit sad to see Roger even start heading down that line, even if more gently than many, by appearing to call out any photographer who had a need for exmor-like low ISO DR and coming awfully close to the old learn how to shoot you crappy photographer, but having nothing but praise for his own type who liked the dark current improvements.

 

[jrista]

What would be "game-changing" for me is something like:
* in-vf focus peaking and a evf you cannot tell from ovf
* raw and/or 4k video sub $2k
* open firmware that enables 3rd party addons

One of those is impossible and the other two are features I wouldn't even consider in my purchase decision.

You think an open firmware is impossible?

No, I think an EVF you cannot tell from an OVF is impossible.

Considering the history of technology and what has been deemed impossible, this is a rather courageous statement

No, it's fundamental physics. An EVF requires dual integration (one for the sensor, one for your eyes). An OVF does not.

I agree here...I don't think it is possible for an EVF to perform well enough that you couldn't differentiate it from an OVF. Too many things that would push physics too far.

 

[Marsu42]

I agree here...I don't think it is possible for an EVF to perform well enough that you couldn't differentiate it from an OVF. Too many things that would push physics too far.

It's no surprise we tend to be in agreement about the awesomeness of a *real* optics vf - after all, we're Canon shooters :->.

So let me change my game-changer "cannot tell an evf from an ovf" to "an evf so good it'll even make the most die-hard old-school photogs switch". I imagine it's more a matter of habit like with so many things, as long as you don't run out of batteries. Given enough features, the difference won't matter - or otherwise people would still shoot *real* film no matter the fancy digital stuff.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What would be "game-changing" for me is something like:
* in-vf focus peaking and a evf you cannot tell from ovf
* raw and/or 4k video sub $2k
* open firmware that enables 3rd party addons

One of those is impossible and the other two are features I wouldn't even consider in my purchase decision.

You think an open firmware is impossible?

No, I think an EVF you cannot tell from an OVF is impossible.

Considering the history of technology and what has been deemed impossible, this is a rather courageous statement

No, it's fundamental physics. An EVF requires dual integration (one for the sensor, one for your eyes). An OVF does not.

I agree here...I don't think it is possible for an EVF to perform well enough that you couldn't differentiate it from an OVF. Too many things that would push physics too far.

8k, stereo, HDR, 120fps, extreme wide gamut EVF might get close; not feasible now, but I'd imagine it will be in time

Anyway, in some ways even what can be done now (although hasn't yet) could make an EVF bring quite some pluses over an OVF for some types of shooting (one thing to keep in mind is that most stills are still taken as 2D not 3D and the 3D OVF can give one a rather different impression of what the 2D shoot will look like just due to that alone) although in other cases yeah I'm not sure it would cut it.

 

[Lee Jay]

I agree here...I don't think it is possible for an EVF to perform well enough that you couldn't differentiate it from an OVF. Too many things that would push physics too far.

It's no surprise we tend to be in agreement about the awesomeness of a *real* optics vf - after all, we're Canon shooters :->.

So let me change my game-changer "cannot tell an evf from an ovf" to "an evf so good it'll even make the most die-hard old-school photogs switch".

EVFs would have to have an advantage, which they don't except for video and manual focusing.

The film/digital analogy doesn't work - digital DOES have advantages over film, namely much higher QE and the ability to change ISO on the fly.

 

[Marsu42]

EVFs would have to have an advantage, which they don't except for video and manual focusing.

With respect, just because you cannot think of any other advantages, it doesn't mean there isn't. With an electronic vf, all image processing, annotation and enhancement that can be done with software is possible. That doesn't mean that current evf implementations implement these.

Here's an interesting link for further research to broaden your imagination ... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=electronic+viewfinder+advantage

The film/digital analogy doesn't work - digital DOES have advantages over film, namely much higher QE and the ability to change ISO on the fly.

Right, I'd love to compare the arguments against the switch to the first digital cameras back then to the "we don't want any of your fancy mirrorless stuff, thank you very much" now.

In the diffusion of innovations, that makes you a "laggard", preferring steam engines, black and white tv sets and analog monitors. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. For all of these obsolete items you can find perfectly valid reasons to delay or refuse any switch because they have properties that matter to your personal preference.

 

[candc]

There are a lot of benifits to an evf. Most importantly you are monitoring the sensor. No more afma bullshit. look at how many posts and threads there are here about that. You can pretty much see in the dark, if you are shooting b&w then that's what you see in the finder