Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review

[LetTheRightLensIn]

That's a very poor review. I don't feel like typing out all the problems with it again. If you search on DPR you can find a good break down of that review (basically everyone agreed that it's off in many ways, Canon fanboys and not all agreed for once).

 

[9VIII]

I got up to the ISO test and found a discrepancy.

At ISO 6400, things start to suck – especially when compared to a 70D,

Ok, here's the 70D test

http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s5/v133/p1997423089.jpg

and here's the 7DII test

http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s6/v144/p355442490.jpg

Image noise is obviously a massive improvement on the 7DII, when it seems like the lack of ISO improvement was the crux of his review.
AKA, this is just a carelessly written blog post intended to flame the 7DII.

Chalk him up as a Tony Northrup wanna-be.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Who's Ron Martinsen?

Wondered the same thing. For those interested, the following may answer some questions:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ronmart

Wow, very telling. So much wrong both technically and photographically in the review so.... of course he is a chief technical programmer for MS and an invited speaker with big connections in the photo world.


At least he isn't afraid to speak his mind though.

 

[Ryan85]

Who's Ron Martinsen?

+1

 

[Ryan85]

I was getting ready to sell my 7D and pick up a 7DII in the spring. Pretty much every review I have seen has been favorable.

Not so much this one.
http://www.ronmartblog.com/2014/12/review-canon-7d-mark-ii-oh-no-not-again.html

So, who is right? Should I just hang on to the 7D, or upgrade to the 7DII. I use this camera for sports shooting. Night football games, basketball, volleyball - all could benefit from the higher FPS and improved high ISO performance on the 7DII - if in-fact there is improvement in the high ISO performance.

Has anyone had both a 7D and 7DII? What are your experiences?

Is Martinsen way off in his review? His is know for being candid and speaking his mind - and he is a Canon shooter. But he seems to be a lone voice with such a negative review.

If you don't want to upgrade to ff Imo the 7d2 is defiently worth the upgrade. Is it a perfect camera? No. It's very good though. Everyone has there expectations and that's fine but I think some people have unrealisitic expectations. I wouldn't let one persons review sway you after you saw so many favorable reviews.

 

[Bennymiata]

He says that if you have a large investment in big whites, you should go and buy a Nikon???

 

[Eldar]

Here´s a short video, where he is demonstrating the fantastic (in his view) autofocus with facial recognition on the D4S:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nInuePLiO1k
Even for a totally still, well (over)lit face, it still hunts ...

In his D4S review, which he claim has the best AF system in the world, he is using his kid on a swing, as "the ultimate AF challenge" :

I have played with the 7DII for some time now and to bash its AF system can only imply that they guy either had a poor copy or he does not know what he is doing. I used it this weekend to shoot small birds, jumping around in trees, with the 600 f4L IS II and the 1.4xIII extender. At 1/640s, f5.6-6.3 and ISO 3200-5000, my keeper rate is high, so how he managed to have problems with large slow moving subjects (people), in high contrast outfits is beyond me.

I have not tried the D4S, but I don´t remember having seen any review claiming that it has a better AF system than the 1DX, which I know very well. And I have seen for myself that the 7DII stands up very well to what the 1DX delivers, at a fraction of the price.

As for ISO performance, I, like many others, would have liked to see a greater improvement, but it is an improvement. And as for body ergonomics, I have absolutely nothing to complain about. Well, I´ll correct that; I would have liked the AF mode switch to work both ways, so I didn´t have to run through all modes every time (I can live with that

I do believe I have read my last Ron Martinsen review ...

 

[Roo]

I do believe I have read my last Ron Martinsen review ...

Thanks Eldar. Your user experience comments are always well balanced and appreciated. I did read a couple of Ron's other reviews and they are inconsistent at best.

Some people blog for kicks while others blog just for the clicks ;D I'll file him away with Northrup as unreliable and never to be viewed again.

 

[Koemans]

I am sorry, but the reviewer lost all credibility when he started to complain about noise at iso 100 when zoomed in 100%. That is like looking with a magnifying glass at a picture the size of a 4x5meter wall. O MY GOD SO MUCH NOISE.

"This image looks nice at first until you zoom in at 100%, there is so much noise at iso 1600!!!"

http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s6/v141/p250641345.jpg


And then he continues to rant how bad this camera is for a sports photographer. Yeah right, i am pretty sure 99% of the sport photographers out there dont print larger than the size of a newspaper that you can hold with 2 hands easely and publish in websize format on websites like facebook. Heck, very few sport photographers actually earn money these days since the market has been completely destroyed anyway. What the hell is he talking about?

Fact is, at iso 3200 and higher all the images produced are still pretty useable for newspapers and facebook (LOL!)

 

[Tugela]

Well, he is correct that it is a disappointment because that is exactly what it is. Fans have rationalized it's shortcomings because it is a Canon and that is what they want, no matter what is actually delivered. The camera could have been so much more, but Canon for whatever reason chose to give us yesterday's tech instead of tomorrows.

Personally, if I were looking to upgrade and existing Canon camera (and I am), I would wait until the next round of upgrades and hope that they got off their a** and delivered a worthy product. Or, what is more likely to happen, upgrade to a camera with some other logo on the head plate.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

What in God's name are you prattling on about, Tugela? The 7D Mk II is a wondrous thing in the APS-C space.

Of course, I'm speaking from a position of actual first-hand ownership experience here - I know that's not how things are supposed to be on here.

As to the muppet reviewer - this is what (just) 4000 ISO (chosen by Auto ISO) looks like at 100% from my 7D Mk II, straight out of a capable converter, used well. No post-conversion NR:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO.jpg

Noisy?

Yeah, right...

And at the image level, with only a little bit of selective sharpening in PS - again, no additional NR - the IQ is impeccable:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO_1.jpg

And I can go a lot higher than this, for almost identical IQ/noise results.

As to its AF system - peerless, certainly in the crop camera space; and it's a threat to the AF of any Nikon (and, according to some reviewers who I respect, any other Canon) out there.

Then there's f/8 AF, fully functional Auto ISO, and a whole slew of other improvements over the original 7D (which - despite Neuro's confident assertions - is fit for a damn' sight higher than 800 ISO).

Just because you don't understand what the 7D Mk II is about, Tugela, or what makes it such an impressive camera, don't assume that your lack of understanding says anything about the camera...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

"This image looks nice at first until you zoom in at 100%, there is so much noise at iso 1600!!!"

http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s6/v141/p250641345.jpg

Again: 4000 ISO at 100%, but from someone who knows what he's doing (me!):

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO.jpg

And - just for a laugh - what 1600 ISO looks like for me, straight out of converter (only cropping/resizing in PS):

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/7D_mk_II_1600.jpg

And believe me: at the image level, pics converted like this and subsequently processed for presentation, look (subject matter notwithstanding! ) great in IQ terms:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/7D_mk_II_1600_1.jpg

(Yes, these have a higher shutter speed than Martinsen's examples: take it from me, I can do this all day long with much less incident light to play with: I was testing the camera's excellent Auto ISO here, and 1/1000 is what I usually aim for when I'm shooting rugby, etc).

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Instead I only take it out of my bag when the light is good enough that I can comfortably shoot at ISO 800 or below.

I would love to know what people like you are doing with your cameras - and to the files - to justify extraordinary comments like that...

Did Martinsen teach you how to convert and PP? Because he's clearly (embarrassingly) clueless, and if you can't use your 7D Mk II at 800 ISO, I can only conclude that you've spent too much time in his company...

 

[Tugela]

What in God's name are you prattling on about, Tugela? The 7D Mk II is a wondrous thing in the APS-C space.

Of course, I'm speaking from a position of actual first-hand ownership experience here - I know that's not how things are supposed to be on here.

As to the muppet reviewer - this is what (just) 4000 ISO (chosen by Auto ISO) looks like at 100% from my 7D Mk II, straight out of a capable converter, used well. No post-conversion NR:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO.jpg

Noisy?

Yeah, right...

And at the image level, with only a little bit of selective sharpening in PS - again, no additional NR - the IQ is impeccable:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO_1.jpg

And I can go a lot higher than this, for almost identical IQ/noise results.

As to its AF system - peerless, certainly in the crop camera space; and it's a threat to the AF of any Nikon (and, according to some reviewers who I respect, any other Canon) out there.

Then there's f/8 AF, fully functional Auto ISO, and a whole slew of other improvements over the original 7D (which - despite Neuro's confident assertions - is fit for a damn' sight higher than 800 ISO).

Just because you don't understand what the 7D Mk II is about, Tugela, or what makes it such an impressive camera, don't assume that your lack of understanding says anything about the camera...

It might meet your needs. It falls way short on meeting MY needs, thus it is a disappointment.

The technology in the camera is all from two years ago or more. The sensor is old tech. The processors are old tech. The body is too large for my hands. The thing is clunky.

It can track black dogs running towards the camera. Super.

Great, only....

I don't have black dogs.
I don't have dogs at all.
I have zero interest in photographing dogs running in any direction, least of all towards me.
99.9999999% of the pictures I take do not have excessive motion in them at all.
I know how to focus a camera, so the focusing system in this model has little to no value to me at all.
I want to be able to fix focus manually accurately so I determine what is or isn't in focus....oops....can't do that because the thing has a dumb ass mirror in the way
I have a requirement that any camera I buy in the future be able to take decent video since I don't want to lug around two sets of equipment.
I want a touch screen so that when I do have to change stuff at a moments notice, I can.
I want a camera that fits comfortably in my hands, not some gigantic male jewelry. Bigger is not better. My ego is just fine. I don't need a supersized camera to compensate.

So what are you left with? Not much compared to competing products from other vendors. That is the disappointment since this camera was supposed to be Canons primary APS-C camera for the future, presumable for the next 3 years at least. I find that idea absolutely shocking - the reality is that it is a 2012 era camera designed around an even older paradigm for heaven sake!! Where is the vision? Where is the future? It is not with this camera, that is for damned sure!

There will be a 7D3 coming along pretty smartly I think, I don't see how they can get away selling this thing for the next three years and still expect it to be competitive. At best it has 1 year of competitive life in it.

 

[Roo]

What in God's name are you prattling on about, Tugela? The 7D Mk II is a wondrous thing in the APS-C space.

Of course, I'm speaking from a position of actual first-hand ownership experience here - I know that's not how things are supposed to be on here.

As to the muppet reviewer - this is what (just) 4000 ISO (chosen by Auto ISO) looks like at 100% from my 7D Mk II, straight out of a capable converter, used well. No post-conversion NR:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO.jpg

Noisy?

Yeah, right...

And at the image level, with only a little bit of selective sharpening in PS - again, no additional NR - the IQ is impeccable:

http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/PN_4000_ISO_1.jpg

And I can go a lot higher than this, for almost identical IQ/noise results.

As to its AF system - peerless, certainly in the crop camera space; and it's a threat to the AF of any Nikon (and, according to some reviewers who I respect, any other Canon) out there.

Then there's f/8 AF, fully functional Auto ISO, and a whole slew of other improvements over the original 7D (which - despite Neuro's confident assertions - is fit for a damn' sight higher than 800 ISO).

Just because you don't understand what the 7D Mk II is about, Tugela, or what makes it such an impressive camera, don't assume that your lack of understanding says anything about the camera...

It might meet your needs. It falls way short on meeting MY needs, thus it is a disappointment.

The technology in the camera is all from two years ago or more. The sensor is old tech. The processors are old tech. The body is too large for my hands. The thing is clunky.

It can track black dogs running towards the camera. Super.

Great, only....

I don't have black dogs.
I don't have dogs at all.
I have zero interest in photographing dogs running in any direction, least of all towards me.
99.9999999% of the pictures I take do not have excessive motion in them at all.
I know how to focus a camera, so the focusing system in this model has little to no value to me at all.
I want to be able to fix focus manually accurately so I determine what is or isn't in focus....oops....can't do that because the thing has a dumb ass mirror in the way
I have a requirement that any camera I buy in the future be able to take decent video since I don't want to lug around two sets of equipment.
I want a touch screen so that when I do have to change stuff at a moments notice, I can.
I want a camera that fits comfortably in my hands, not some gigantic male jewelry. Bigger is not better. My ego is just fine. I don't need a supersized camera to compensate.

So what are you left with? Not much compared to competing products from other vendors. That is the disappointment since this camera was supposed to be Canons primary APS-C camera for the future, presumable for the next 3 years at least. I find that idea absolutely shocking - the reality is that it is a 2012 era camera designed around an even older paradigm for heaven sake!! Where is the vision? Where is the future? It is not with this camera, that is for damned sure!

There will be a 7D3 coming along pretty smartly I think, I don't see how they can get away selling this thing for the next three years and still expect it to be competitive. At best it has 1 year of competitive life in it.

Again someone that thinks that the camera is no good because it doesn't suit YOUR individual needs. On what you've described as YOUR needs no DSLR meets them so why look at one? The 7Dii was always going to be a sports/action/wildlife shooter and yet you're disappointed by it? Some people really need a reality check.

 

[Khalai]

Again someone that thinks that the camera is no good because it doesn't suit YOUR individual needs. On what you've described as YOUR needs no DSLR meets them so why look at one? The 7Dii was always going to be a sports/action/wildlife shooter and yet you're disappointed by it? Some people really need a reality check.

Precisely. Bashing 7D2 because it's not small, mirrorless, allrounder camera? Get a X-T1 or A7 and be happy about that. You can even use Canon glass with adapters if you're not happy with Fuji or Sony lens lineup. What the hell...

 

[Loswr]

@Tuglea - I want a cup of coffee and the 7DII won't brew one for me. Therefore, it fails to meet MY needs and it's a crappy camera. So I guess we agree.

: : :

 

[candc]

i have the 70d and 7dii, i agree that the iq is the same. i really like the 7dii for the af, buffer, and speed but it does make me a bit irritated to think about how canon could put the 6d sensor in the 7dii body, sell it for $1800 and still make money. but no, if you want that you have to spend $6000 on the 1dx so they wont.

 

[Tinky]

I haven't used the 7D2 yet, but I hear echos of when the 7D came out. Folk wowed by the specs and then underwhelmed by the images.

I got my 7D around 6 months after launch (let the beta testers break theirs first, save a third) and I quickly came to the conclusion that those not getting decent AF hadn't bothered setting up the AF system, particularly the Ai Servo preferences, and those who were getting too much noise were either shooting jpeg or messing up their RAW workflow.

I was, and remain happy with results up to 3200 with careful post processing, but as with all APS-C cameras, the lower the ISO the better.

I wonder how many people buy something like the 7D or 7D2 and expect it to work brilliantly out of the box?
Thats what the 70D class of camera is for, and would probably suit reviewers like Ron a bit better.

I was about 4 weeks in having shot speedway, soccer etc before I had my 7D tuned to work in line with my shooting methods. It wasn't a frustrating experience as I could feel the keeper rate improving and the camera getting better and better at tracking.

The headline spec changes of the 7D2 aren't enough to tempt me just yet. Besides I want to see what Canon come up with in terms of 4K.

 

[Marsu42]

That's a very poor review. I don't feel like typing out all the problems with it again.

+1, I was just about to start out but it really isn't worth it.

I'm agree with every Canon fanboy on this, for once: The 7d2 isn't there to produce top notch iq, but get the job done. If you want good iq with horrible af, then there's the 6d. The only complaints I see have nothing to with the 7d2 at all, which has a reasonable price - for Canon.

• the "af and iq all in one" 5d3 is rather expensive, but then again Canon isn't a charity organization.
• Canon has abandoned aps-h, but we (most likely) know the reasons for this move.
• the "xxd for the masses" 70d didn't get the a bit improved 7d2 sensor

What I don't get is what reviewers consider to be the 7d2's use case and sports photography. Not everyone is reporting on the olympics, and those who are just get a 1dx+600L from their newspaper or buy one themselves.

For most web-screen or print reporting, image quality doesn't matter as far as the recent crop-ff difference go. You don't need a f2.8 lens to create subject separation for tele shots with a lot of space behind the subject. No local newspaper, blog or whatever is going to complain about some more noise reduction and sharpening if you get an af lock for just that precious moment of the action or the split-second of emotion. It isn't what I do, but there you are.