Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II

[fragilesi]

My impression is different - very few (if any) people outside 1st posters claim that the Sony/Nikon system is "better" all around. It just depends on how much you want their gimmicks and sensor advantage (dr at low iso & resolution).

The grass is always greener on the other side, and during long periods of Canon releasing nothing of interest to the enthusiast dslr crowd of course discussion is about what's up next ... and Canon doesn't seem to have that much of "up next" in the sensor department that leaks to the public apart from their dpaf.

As far as I can see it, there's bias on both sides of the discussion. People wishing for more dr or resolution often get flamed to a crisp as an alleged vocal, but insignificant minority or get told that proper use of their gear wouldn't require any sensor advancements at all.

One particular bias pro Sony/Nikon probably is that you can *read* their "better" specs in no time, but to experience the upsides of the Canon system or the problems with rapid-release Sony you have to actually use that gear.

I think you've hit the mark with that last paragraph and certainly there is bias on both sides but again on a Canon forum wanting to talk about what is an excellent new release the thread is hijacked by this Sony marketing team talking about this mysterious IS system with no moving parts . . .

And I'm sorry I simply don't understand how given the recent lens releases and the advances in some areas that the 70d and 7dII have undoubtedly made for the APS-C DSLRs how anyone can say that Canon aren't releasing anything of interest. I understand that if someone's prime interest is more DR then they will feel frustrated, we all get that. It's the need to place it on a pedastel far above almost anything else and ignore the fact that it's no more essential to taking good pictures than many other things that leaves many of us puzzled.

And there are clearly hints that Canon is looking at their sensors and improvements in those cameras.

 

[Marsu42]

And I'm sorry I simply don't understand how given the recent lens releases and the advances in some areas that the 70d and 7dII have undoubtedly made for the APS-C DSLRs how anyone can say that Canon aren't releasing anything of interest.

Well, things have indeed improved lately, but there has been a while w/o apparent progress so this impression lags behind even if there are good releases like the 7d2 and 100-400L2. I feel that the 70d was just "more of the same" tough, and Canon's IS primes don't appeal to a lot of stills shooters while they fall behind Sigma with fast traditional L primes. Just look at their 50mm offerings.

And there are clearly hints that Canon is looking at their sensors and improvements in those cameras.

I wouldn't say [CR-anything] is a hint, there's nothing real from Canon about where they're going with their larger digital sensors. Everything they do so far is evolutionary improvement. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes you wonder if they have the will, patents and r&d for a revolutionary step like Sony with their exmor design and high-mp sensors for the masses.

Canon certainly appears to be heading in a certain direction, imho mirrorless with good on-sensor dual pixel af, featuring moderate resolution and good medium iso capability. They'll also integrate video and stills as this is what a good part of the consumer market uses. Unfortunately for some, this doesn't necessarily appeal to the die-hard old-school enthusiast looking for the edge with fast primes and high dr/resolution.

Disclaimer: I'm note here to defend or attack Canon, just stating my subjective observation.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I wouldn't say the 7DII AF is better than the 1D X, more of a wash. On the 1D X, with an f/2.8 or faster lens you have more dual cross points, and with an f/4 or faster lens you have more accurate cross-type toward the sides of the frame. On the 7DII, with an f/5.6 lens you have all cross-type points, and you have a better spread of AF points across the (cropped) frame. AF is also faster on the 1D X, thanks to the higher battery voltage.

+1
Bryan Carnathan got Canon's Chuck Westfall to explain the main differences of the AF systems in the 7D2, 1D-X, and 5D3 on his TDP site. It's worth reading:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-II-1D-X-5D-III-AF-Comparison.aspx

 

[Loswr]

And I'm sorry I simply don't understand how given the recent lens releases and the advances in some areas that the 70d and 7dII have undoubtedly made for the APS-C DSLRs how anyone can say that Canon aren't releasing anything of interest. I understand that if someone's prime interest is more DR then they will feel frustrated, we all get that. It's the need to place it on a pedastel far above almost anything else and ignore the fact that it's no more essential to taking good pictures than many other things that leaves many of us puzzled.

+1000

Well, things have indeed improved lately, but there has been a while w/o apparent progress so this impression lags behind even if there are good releases like the 7d2 and 100-400L2. I feel that the 70d was just "more of the same" tough, and Canon's IS primes don't appeal to a lot of stills shooters while they fall behind Sigma with fast traditional L primes.

The 70D got the 7D's AF (after three generations of the 40D's AF), and was the first camera to have dual-pixel AF. So...nothing new there. :

Did the 16-35/4L IS appeal to a few stills photographers? Or has no one mentioned wanting a corner-to-corner-sharp UWA zoom?

 

[Don Haines]

I wouldn't say the 7DII AF is better than the 1D X, more of a wash. On the 1D X, with an f/2.8 or faster lens you have more dual cross points, and with an f/4 or faster lens you have more accurate cross-type toward the sides of the frame. On the 7DII, with an f/5.6 lens you have all cross-type points, and you have a better spread of AF points across the (cropped) frame. AF is also faster on the 1D X, thanks to the higher battery voltage.

+1
Bryan Carnathan got Canon's Chuck Westfall to explain the main differences of the AF systems in the 7D2, 1D-X, and 5D3 on his TDP site. It's worth reading:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-II-1D-X-5D-III-AF-Comparison.aspx

although it comes out as a draw, I would not have been surprised if the 7D2 had been delivered with better AF than the 1DX.... after all, it is a newer camera... I would also be very surprised if the next revisions of the 5D3 and 1DX don't improve further from what we have now...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

The grass is always greener on the other side

Except that it's absolutely not, of course, for many of us.

Nothing Nikon does (and - hah! - by an order of magnitude, nothing Sony does), gets within a country mile of the 7D Mk II's capabilities in the categories in which the 7D Mk II is intended to excel.

This is a fact completely ignored by the bloody trolls and associated idiots that post on here kicking the camera for not being a small mirrorless: this is exactly like bitching about a BMW for not being much good at pulling a plough: it (the 7D Mk II) is what it is, and it's extraordinarily good at the things it's meant to be good at.

Any Sony MILC user is welcome to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me and try to compete when I shoot BIFs or MotoGP motorbikes with my 7D Mk II: I'll tear you apart.

 

[AvTvM]

as far as DP-AF is concerned ... so far Canon has not been able to turn that feature into any really tangible benefiot for users. To the best of ma knowledge, both 70 as well as 7D II are still rather on the slow end of the bunch when it comes to autofocussing in Live View. Nowhere near where a Sony A6000 or Fuji XT-1 are.

I am asking myself, whether there is real value in DP-AF technology and Canon just not able and/or willing to unleash t, or whether its basically a "dud innovation".

 

[Don Haines]

The grass is always greener on the other side

Except that it's absolutely not, of course, for many of us.

Nothing Nikon does (and - hah! - by an order of magnitude, nothing Sony does), gets within a country mile of the 7D Mk II's capabilities in the categories in which the 7D Mk II is intended to excel.

This is a fact completely ignored by the bloody trolls and associated idiots that post on here kicking the camera for not being a small mirrorless: this is exactly like bitching about a BMW for not being much good at pulling a plough: it (the 7D Mk II) is what it is, and it's extraordinarily good at the things it's meant to be good at.

Any Sony MILC user is welcome to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me and try to compete when I shoot BIFs or MotoGP motorbikes with my 7D Mk II: I'll tear you apart.

+1

and the torture test is to track a chickadee in flight through the branches of a tree....

 

[Marsu42]

Nothing Nikon does (and - hah! - by an order of magnitude, nothing Sony does), gets within a country mile of the 7D Mk II's capabilities in the categories in which the 7D Mk II is intended to excel.

Correct, that's why the reviews about the 7d2 are so positive (unlike the 70d, as far as I've read). But Canon has really worked hard on their conservative image during the last years, it won't change overnight.

This is a fact completely ignored by the bloody trolls and associated idiots that post on here kicking the camera for not being a small mirrorless: this is exactly like bitching about a BMW for not being much good at pulling a plough: it (the 7D Mk II) is what it is, and it's extraordinarily good at the things it's meant to be good at.

I agree that being mirrorless in itself is not much of an achievement - it's about the potential benefits that come with being mirrorless. However, at the current state of the development it's probably not possible to achieve what the 7d2 does with on-sensor af.

I am asking myself, whether there is real value in DP-AF technology and Canon just not able and/or willing to unleash t, or whether its basically a "dud innovation".

Canon keeps tweaking dpaf with each new iteration, starting from the Rebel 600d back then with just a few phase pixels.

But it would be interesting to know why the competition has faster live view af (if they have) - better software, faster cpu, dedicated hardware for contrast af? In any case, the additional benefit of the phase pixels should be a helper, not a hindrance.

Or probably we're all in the dark and the real benefit of the dpaf will only show up on upcoming cameras that have a digic and fw that make use of the tech, for example for better tracking in live view?

 

[Lee Jay]

The problem with ISO 1600 and up is you are SEVERELY limited in dynamic range. I already explained this, but at higher ISO, you suffer from star clipping. The benefit of the D810 would be that you could use it at ISO 100, and STILL have ~3e- RN.

I may be missing something, but it seems to me that 4 1-minute subs at ISO 1600 and RN of 2.8 is the same as 1 4 minute sub at ISO 400 and a RN of 1.4 (no additional highlight clipping, read noise averages out if it doesn't contain pattern noise and dark current, if it does, bias and flats can help remove them). Further, 16 1-minute subs at ISO 1600 and a RN of 2.8 is the same as 1 16 minute sub at ISO 100 and a RN of 0.7. It also seems to me that sky fog statistics are going to be the limiting factor in most cases, and in light-polluted skies it's easy to get sky fog way above RN.

 

[AvTvM]

...
Any Sony MILC user is welcome to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me and try to compete when I shoot BIFs or MotoGP motorbikes with my 7D Mk II: I'll tear you apart.

+1
and the torture test is to track a chickadee in flight through the branches of a tree....

provided, you put the 7D II into live view mode ... I would be game to try it ... using a Samsung NX-1 or a Sony A6000. ;D 8)

 

[Don Haines]

...
Any Sony MILC user is welcome to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me and try to compete when I shoot BIFs or MotoGP motorbikes with my 7D Mk II: I'll tear you apart.

+1
and the torture test is to track a chickadee in flight through the branches of a tree....

provided, you put the 7D II into live view mode ... I would be game to try it ... using a Samsung NX-1 or a Sony A6000. ;D 8)

So you think a test of the 7D2 AF system with the 7D2 AF system disabled is a fair test?

One compares the two cameras the way they were intended to be used, not crippled to match another unit.....

That's a lot like me having a car with an 8 speed transmission and you having a car with a 3 speed transmission and we take them out to race on the salt flats, but I can only use the first 3 gears.... totally meaningless!

 

[Lee Jay]

...
Any Sony MILC user is welcome to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me and try to compete when I shoot BIFs or MotoGP motorbikes with my 7D Mk II: I'll tear you apart.

+1
and the torture test is to track a chickadee in flight through the branches of a tree....

provided, you put the 7D II into live view mode ... I would be game to try it ... using a Samsung NX-1 or a Sony A6000. ;D 8)

Fair enough, as long as you put the NX-1 or A6000 into TTL/OVF mode for the second test.

 

[Loswr]

...
Any Sony MILC user is welcome to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me and try to compete when I shoot BIFs or MotoGP motorbikes with my 7D Mk II: I'll tear you apart.

+1
and the torture test is to track a chickadee in flight through the branches of a tree....

provided, you put the 7D II into live view mode ... I would be game to try it ... using a Samsung NX-1 or a Sony A6000. ;D 8)

Afraid your beloved MILCs can't compete once the 7DII's mirror starts slapping up and down?

 

[Marsu42]

The 70D got the 7D's AF (after three generations of the 40D's AF), and was the first camera to have dual-pixel AF. So...nothing new there. :

This is clever marketing indeed, and as the primary Canon advocate you make optimal use of it. So basically, for a successful camera release, do a lot of nothing for some years, then trickle down a 5 year old design, remove features (like spot af) and *tada* it's a leap forward :->

As for dpaf, yes, that's "new" as far as specs go, but aren't you the one always pointing out that specs don't mean a thing if the system doesn't deliver? If Sony/Nikon would have added a "nice tech and somewhat faster, but still slow" feature, would have it been seen as an advancement from us Canon enthusiasts? Well, I don't see the decisive real world advancement of this dpaf vs. the older hybrid lv designs for stills shooting yet.

Did the 16-35/4L IS appeal to a few stills photographers? Or has no one mentioned wanting a corner-to-corner-sharp UWA zoom?

Thanks, I've forgotten this, Canon has indeed released some nice zooms lately! Please bookmark this post as my positive Canon praise of the day - I am in danger of getting the "whatever you say has to be a minority opinion, because if it wouldn't be Canon would have done so" treatment

 

[ritholtz]

Read noise is the worst kind of noise for astrophotography. Without it, we could get amazing results with really basic mounts, without guiding, no one would care what their mounts PE was. The 7D II improves some things...but it still has Canon's same old high read noise. Elimination of banding is certainly a plus, and reduction in dark current is still a plus, but RN is STILL their limiting factor.

Elsewhere you recommended the D810 and D5100. The RN at ISO 1600 (often used for astro) for these cameras are:

D810 - 3.5
D5100 - 3.6
7DII - 2.8/2.4 (Sensorgen/Clarkvision)

So, don't you think you're being just a tad disingenuous? You were recommending a cascade type sensor above with very short exposures. Again, that equated to very high ISOs. The 7DII is again better than the above two cameras at ISOs from 1,600 to 12,800 in this area, with higher QE as well.

The only area I can find where Canon is lagging is low ISO RN, not high ISO. While I'd love it if they'd do better there (cleaner is always good), that's the least important place to have low read noise.

Checked out Sensorgen which has lot of statistics for every model. Surprising rebels with 18mpx sensor, are also good in terms of RN at iso 1600. Canon improved saturation number significantly on 70D compared to 7D. They improved further on 7D2. Unfortunately RN numbers at low ISO went up on 70D and 7D2. Not sure what happened there. Otherwise, we could have seen improvement in DR number for low ISO as well on new 20mpx sensor.
Not sure how accurate are these numbers. If you check 600d saturation number, which is higher than every other camera with 18mpx sensor. Even higher than 7D. May be that is the reason 600d so much popular and Canon kept on making them.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

as far as DP-AF is concerned ... so far Canon has not been able to turn that feature into any really tangible benefiot for users. To the best of ma knowledge, both 70 as well as 7D II are still rather on the slow end of the bunch when it comes to autofocussing in Live View. Nowhere near where a Sony A6000 or Fuji XT-1 are.

I am asking myself, whether there is real value in DP-AF technology and Canon just not able and/or willing to unleash t, or whether its basically a "dud innovation".

I have both the X-T1 and 70D. The 70D is not slow comparatively. It is actually just about as fast as far as when they both lock on. The issue for me with the Fuji is that it hunts when you don't expect it to. Same with the A7r when I had it (for what it's worth). DPAF has been much more reliable in my experiences with both cameras in various lighting situations. Comparing DPAF to any mirrorless camera I've had, it is much more consistent and reliable while being competitively fast.

 

[Marauder]

...
Any Sony MILC user is welcome to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me and try to compete when I shoot BIFs or MotoGP motorbikes with my 7D Mk II: I'll tear you apart.

+1
and the torture test is to track a chickadee in flight through the branches of a tree....

provided, you put the 7D II into live view mode ... I would be game to try it ... using a Samsung NX-1 or a Sony A6000. ;D 8)

So you think a test of the 7D2 AF system with the 7D2 AF system disabled is a fair test?

One compares the two cameras the way they were intended to be used, not crippled to match another unit.....

That's a lot like me having a car with an 8 speed transmission and you having a car with a 3 speed transmission and we take them out to race on the salt flats, but I can only use the first 3 gears.... totally meaningless!

I was going to use the word "silly" but meaningless works too! LOL

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Do keep in mind that his 'very' extensive sensor review basically skips over 50% of the stuff that people have most often found fault with Canon sensors over the last near decade. He did cover banding, which is much improved, but didn't really get into low ISO DR and totally glossed that Canon bugaboo over completely.

It is great to see it's super polished up for astro high iso long exposure and regarding banding though.

But it's a bit disingenuous that he totally ignores what most of the sensor complaint talk on the net is about and tries to play it off as if it was just poor exposure in low light and such and for this site to then go on and make it sound as if it's the all-around every which way best sensor ever made by anyone.

 

[racebit]

as far as DP-AF is concerned ... so far Canon has not been able to turn that feature into any really tangible benefiot for users. To the best of ma knowledge, both 70 as well as 7D II are still rather on the slow end of the bunch when it comes to autofocussing in Live View. Nowhere near where a Sony A6000 or Fuji XT-1 are.

I am asking myself, whether there is real value in DP-AF technology and Canon just not able and/or willing to unleash t, or whether its basically a "dud innovation".

+1000