Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II

[SPKoko]

The longer this goes without RAWs being available the more incredulous I become. For the point & shoot crowd that's just looking for a crop (for some reason), I'm sure this'll be great. For sports/wildlife/action people I think we need to reserve judgment until we see an actual RAW posted that we can play around with. Or better yet two: one from the 7D, one from the 7Dii of the same shot, like what you have here.

I have copied the link to the raw files a few posts ago. I do not know if they can be opened with the current versions of LR or DPP, though... probably not...

 

[Steve]

Nope, can't be opened by either. The RAWs posted in the photography-on-the-net thread were opened in Irfanview supposedly but I haven't tried that.

Edit: until there is a way to compare RAWs, there's no way to tell if the improvements are due to better in-camera processing with the dual digic 6 or actual sensor improvement.

 

[aj1575]

Looks good compared to the original 7D, but compared to the 70D, there is not much improvement (only in the very high ISOs). I can't say anything about DR in the lower ISO (what DXOmark likes), but since it looks like an improved 70D sensor, it will most likely behave in a similar way.

This means that the 7D II will come out with a rather low score at DXOmark....

 

[m]

What's that black dot with light blue surrounding in the 7D2 file?

 

[Besisika]

I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.

I am anxious to see if you would consider this as the backup of your 1DX. Let us know if you decide to go for it. I am currently use a 5DIII as back up but if it is close to the 5D I would consider the 10fps as a serious candidate.

 

[Steve]

I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.

I am anxious to see if you would consider this as the backup of your 1DX. Let us know if you decide to go for it. I am currently use a 5DIII as back up but if it is close to the 5D I would consider the 10fps as a serious candidate.

The 7DII samples look substantially worse than the 5DIII samples. I'm betting the RAWs would be even farther apart.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.

I am anxious to see if you would consider this as the backup of your 1DX. Let us know if you decide to go for it. I am currently use a 5DIII as back up but if it is close to the 5D I would consider the 10fps as a serious candidate.

The 7DII samples look substantially worse than the 5DIII samples. I'm betting the RAWs would be even farther apart.

Yikes, must have been a user error on my part. I could swear I selected everything correctly but with all of the frames and such in the Comparometer(TM) thingy, I must have screwed something up earlier. The 7DII appears to be around 1/2 to 1 stop better than the 7D, but still isn't nearly as good as the 5DIII.

I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.

I am anxious to see if you would consider this as the backup of your 1DX. Let us know if you decide to go for it. I am currently use a 5DIII as back up but if it is close to the 5D I would consider the 10fps as a serious candidate.

I have been considering it, but after looking at what the 5DIIIs are going for on eBay this morning - around $2400 US (or $2160 after fees) - I would just about break even on the purchase. That doesn't include the loss I would take on the RRS L-bracket and other items, so the idea of losing roughly $1,000 (from what I paid for the 5DIII) just to get a newer camera with a crop sensor doesn't seem so appealing after I did the math.

The 1D X does everything I could ever want and I think I'm going to stick with the 5DIII for now, especially after seeing the comparison again (correctly this time!).

 

[mb66energy]

I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.

EDIT - I must have used the Comparometer(TM) incorrectly. The performance still looks quite good, though, and a big improvement over the 7D.

I was worried about your first remark which you corrected just few seconds before. Your posts make always sense but this one was strange

Compared to the 7D I see a good advantage but the images in the comparometer made with the 600d/T3i look not too bad compared to the 7D mark ii.

If I should buy the 7D mark ii I will buy it for it's ergonomy (600d has beeing euphemistic inferior ergonomics) and AF system if it shows great performance - not sheer IQ. And things are not easier now: perhaps a 6D for HQ imaging?

 

[digitalride]

at iso 6400 I think it looks just a touch smoother than the 70d with no loss of detail, I'd like to see a real raw comparison.

irfanview and other viewers usually just display the jpeg preview embedded in raw files.

 

[David_in_Seattle]

We'll have to wait and see what happens with DxO testing and elsewhere to see if there is any banding evident but it is a pity that Canon didn't put the same effort into improving IQ between the 5D2 and 5D3.

I'm curious if you owned either. I noticed marked improvement, but that was in my own, personal, real-world photography . . .

The 5Dmk2 was my workhorse before replacing it with a couple 5Dmk3s. There is at least a 1-stop improvement in overall image quality in noise levels at high ISOs plus much more color detail. With the 5Dmk2 I couldn't rely on ISOs over 3200 for 8x10 prints, but with the 5Dmk3 I can easily push it to 6400 (though I rarely do).

 

[dadgummit]

To my eyes the 7d2 at ISO 3200 looks better than my 7d at ISO 800.

I do not believe it is just noise reduction because the 7d2 shot is sharper as well.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.

EDIT - I must have used the Comparometer(TM) incorrectly. The performance still looks quite good, though, and a big improvement over the 7D.

I was worried about your first remark which you corrected just few seconds before. Your posts make always sense but this one was strange

Compared to the 7D I see a good advantage but the images in the comparometer made with the 600d/T3i look not too bad compared to the 7D mark ii.

If I should buy the 7D mark ii I will buy it for it's ergonomy (600d has beeing euphemistic inferior ergonomics) and AF system if it shows great performance - not sheer IQ. And things are not easier now: perhaps a 6D for HQ imaging?

I guess I need more caffeine! The one other thing I noticed is that the 7DII seems to hold color saturation a bit better at high ISOs.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 7DII at all. In all of the years I've been shooting wildlife, I've rarely shot anything over ISO 6400 (and that's before sunrise) and within 30 minutes of sunrise, I'm usually at ISO 1600 or less, depending on the lens to get 1/500s or higher. Even with a Rebel and the IS-less and slow 400 f/5.6, the vast majority of my shots were at ISO 400 + or - 1 to 2 stops. For sports where you need to be at 1/1000s or higher, it will be a bit tougher, but I think the 7DII is still up to the task from what I've seen. Besides, noise isn't the end of the world and I'd rather have a noisy shot than no shot. The AF, frame rate, etc. will give you much better odds of getting the shot.

 

[SPKoko]

I have been able to open the CR2 files from:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.HTM

in LightRoom 5 by using ExifTool and copying all the Exif tags from a RAW file generated with a 70D:

exiftool.exe -tagsfromfile IMG_0017.CR2 E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2

You can download sample images from a 70D for example in the dpreview scene comparison tool:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/16

After doing this, I can open the CR2 in LR without problems. Before trying this method, I had tried with changing only the important keys, and I could open the RAW file in LR, but the resulting image was very "pinkish":

exiftool.exe -Model="Canon EOS 70D" E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2
exiftool.exe -CanonImageType="Canon EOS 70D" E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2
exiftool.exe -CanonRaw:CanonModelID -tagsfromfile IMG_0017.CR2 E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2

This method has been inspired by:

http://www.canonwatch.com/canons-new-dpp-4-0-works-100d-650d-eos-m-70d-700d-raw-files-little-trick/

By the way, I really do not see a noticeable IQ improvement in the RAW files vs the 70D.

 

[Diltiazem]

I have been able to open the CR2 files from:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.HTM

in LightRoom 5 by using ExifTool and copying all the Exif tags from a RAW file generated with a 70D:

exiftool.exe -tagsfromfile IMG_0017.CR2 E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2

You can download sample images from a 70D for example in the dpreview scene comparison tool:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/16

After doing this, I can open the CR2 in LR without problems. Before trying this method, I had tried with changing only the important keys, and I could open the RAW file in LR, but the resulting image was very "pinkish":

exiftool.exe -Model="Canon EOS 70D" E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2
exiftool.exe -CanonImageType="Canon EOS 70D" E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2
exiftool.exe -CanonRaw:CanonModelID -tagsfromfile IMG_0017.CR2 E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2

This method has been inspired by:

http://www.canonwatch.com/canons-new-dpp-4-0-works-100d-650d-eos-m-70d-700d-raw-files-little-trick/

By the way, I really do not see a noticeable IQ improvement in the RAW files vs the 70D.

Or you can just use Photo Ninja to open the 7DII RAW files.

 

[fragilesi]

meanwhile every APS-C MILC offers better image quality.

Really? I don't think so.

 

[mb66energy]

are some canon fanboys so desperate that they dream with open eyes already?

the quality is exactly as the 70D.... the sensor is not improved at ALL.
the small difference you may imagine(!) could have all kind of reasons.

canon is playing it´s old game.
and i bet you will see this sensor until 2017 in entry level DSLR´s from canon.

meanwhile every APS-C MILC offers better image quality.

Perhaps 2017 is wrong - it might be 2019

but

A camera which OFFERS better IQ isn't always a guarantee for BETTER IMAGES

Ergonomics and reliability of its subsystems for exposure metering and AF might be of much higher importance depending on the purpose ...
And I have a set of lenses which I am very satisfied with.

 

[mb66energy]

I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.

EDIT - I must have used the Comparometer(TM) incorrectly. The performance still looks quite good, though, and a big improvement over the 7D.

I was worried about your first remark which you corrected just few seconds before. Your posts make always sense but this one was strange

Compared to the 7D I see a good advantage but the images in the comparometer made with the 600d/T3i look not too bad compared to the 7D mark ii.

If I should buy the 7D mark ii I will buy it for it's ergonomy (600d has beeing euphemistic inferior ergonomics) and AF system if it shows great performance - not sheer IQ. And things are not easier now: perhaps a 6D for HQ imaging?

I guess I need more caffeine! The one other thing I noticed is that the 7DII seems to hold color saturation a bit better at high ISOs.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 7DII at all. In all of the years I've been shooting wildlife, I've rarely shot anything over ISO 6400 (and that's before sunrise) and within 30 minutes of sunrise, I'm usually at ISO 1600 or less, depending on the lens to get 1/500s or higher. Even with a Rebel and the IS-less and slow 400 f/5.6, the vast majority of my shots were at ISO 400 + or - 1 to 2 stops. For sports where you need to be at 1/1000s or higher, it will be a bit tougher, but I think the 7DII is still up to the task from what I've seen. Besides, noise isn't the end of the world and I'd rather have a noisy shot than no shot. The AF, frame rate, etc. will give you much better odds of getting the shot.

Good remarks far from "counting pixels":
Perhaps a combination of a 7D mark ii with a high resolution camera will do for me - I really like the idea to have a ultra reliable AF system for faster action - just "action macros" of insects ... hopefully the 7D mark ii convinces in this respect.
A high resolution camera for other purposes might be added later ...

 

[SPKoko]

A camera which OFFERS better IQ isn't always a guarantee for BETTER IMAGES

Ergonomics and reliability of its subsystems for exposure metering and AF might be of much higher importance depending on the purpose ...
And I have a set of lenses which I am very satisfied with.

But, wouldn't you love to have a Canon camera with good ergonomics, reliability, good AF, good set of lenses AND IN ADDITION, a 24MP APS-C sensor with tons of DR and better low noise performance?

 

[SPKoko]

the quality is exactly as the 70D.... the sensor is not improved at ALL.

I suspected that but we need to verify it! And that is what we are trying to do! And certainly it looks like it is the same!

and i bet you will see this sensor until 2017 in entry level DSLR´s from canon.

Absolutely no doubt about that. We will see very soon a Rebel T6i with this 20MP sensor... and a SL2... and an EOS M3... and a little bit later, a Rebel T6...

 

[mackguyver]

A camera which OFFERS better IQ isn't always a guarantee for BETTER IMAGES

Ergonomics and reliability of its subsystems for exposure metering and AF might be of much higher importance depending on the purpose ...
And I have a set of lenses which I am very satisfied with.

But, wouldn't you love to have a Canon camera with good ergonomics, reliability, good AF, good set of lenses AND IN ADDITION, a 24MP APS-C sensor with tons of DR and better low noise performance?

Sure, that would be great, but if I had to choose, I'd go for a great camera with lesser IQ any day. Look no further than the Sigma Foveon DSLRs. Great IQ, but lousy everything else.

Besides, for all of the sensor superiority of the Sony/Nikon cameras, why is Canon selling more cameras, and why can't you tell which camera was used to shoot advertisement or magazine photos? If they were so much better, shouldn't you be able to tell just by the looking at the photo? There is SO much more that goes into getting a photo other than the sensor.