Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II

[fragilesi]

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?

You have to take the whole package though.

If you think that another manufacturer offers you a setup that will get you better pictures then go for it by all means. People concentrating on sensors will find cameras with better sensors, no-one is arguing. But for action photography can you find something comparable (camera+lens at rpice) that will get you better pictures?

The point being that there is only so much R&D budget. Money directed at the sensor would detract from other areas. If Canon has come up with one of the best combinations of its kind then pointing out that one of the components could be improved is fairly pointless. It's too early too judge at this stage how good this camera will prove but overall it looks fairly positive at this stage.

AND if it is one of the best but with an obvious area for development then that bodes well for the future.

 

[Besisika]

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!).

Understood, thanks for your input.

 

[Adrian]

7D11 RAW images open perfectly with UFRaw, from what I can see I'll be sticking with my 5D3 for some time yet.

 

[dstppy]

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).

Exactly. I just don't see the complaining or the doom and gloom . . . every quirk I didn't like about my mk2 was answered with the mk3, but on every new camera thread, we get people talking about Canon's failures that I'm just not seeing.

 

[Woody]

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

Thanks for sharing.

 

[jvhigbee]

I find it interesting how different the opinions are of what is shown using the comparometer. The images are jpg from the camera and in my experience those are a fair comparison over what to expect from properly converted raw files.
That said, here is what I see when comparing only the 3200 iso from each of the following cameras;
7D2 and 70D seem quite close in shadow areas but 7D2 seems cleaner in lighter
7D2 seems very close in IQ to 1D4 in shadow areas
6D beats them all, which makes me happy 'cause it's what I got! (also have 7D and 60D and have owned all xxD's except 50 and 70)

Like I said, opinions vary and that's just mine.

 

[Quasimodo]

I have to say... I am about to sell either my 17F4.0L TS or 8-15L and stuff to get this camera (lenses I hardly use). Just a few weeks ago I was thinking about how to get money for two additional 600ex rt´s (in addition to the three I have), and I got sidewinded (if that is the correct word) by this anouncement. I have to have it, and it will be the only camera I have in addition to my 1Dx. The only complaint I have (and that is a minor one...) is that it has not got built in radio triggering capabilities for the 600´s (and the others to come).

 

[Perio]

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.

I'm not quite sure why you expect high ISO images from 7dii look very similar to those from 5diii. One if crop and another one is FF, of course crop will look worse.

 

[pdirestajr]

Looks good for an aps-c camera. I never go above iso 800 on my 7D. This looks good up to 3200!

 

[jrista]

There is a good difference in IQ between the 7DII and original 7D. That's certainly to be expected, given how old the original 7D is. I'd say there is a stop difference in high ISO capability, which is admirable.

Compared to the 70D, the differences are minimal. The biggest difference that I can see is there seems to be lower color noise. Here is a comparison of the two:

In the green part of the label of the right-hand bottle, and in the background, there is a visible difference in color noise. Not huge, but visible. More blue color noise in the green part of the label on the 70D. More random color noise in the gray background on the 70D. The blacks and dark grays of the text on the bottles seem to be crisper on the 7D II. The purple swatch on the 70D also seems to have more noise than on the 7D II. I don't think random noise has changed at all...appears to be the same to me. The crisper blacks and lower color noise are nice, though.

 

[iceman]

right you have to see the whole package, i can agree to that.
problem is most people don´t need a 10 FPS wildlife camera like the 7D.

they still BELIEVE they need a DSLR but they would be better of with a smaller lighter MILC.

and 80% here shoot images for flickr or facebook.
when i look at some portfolios here (in rare cases when the user dares to link to them) i wonder why they need a DSLR at all.

it won't be everyone's cup of tea but then again Canon wouldn't have made the 7D2 if the first one was a failure. i don't think anyone buying a 7D2 wouldn't know what this camera was meant for.

 

[Sporgon]

and I got sidewinded (if that is the correct word)

I think you mean sidetracked. I could get sidetracked from my FF cameras too.......the 7DII looks like very good value compared with the FF cameras.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Wait for the unprocessed RAWs and wait for those who always have to have something to gripe about.

Unprocessed Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course - and remember that we can do a whole lot better ourselves with good converters like Capture One, than an in-camera jpeg engine will ever do.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Yes, I think this is a valid comparison between 70d and 7d2. IMO looks like about 0.5 stop better at ISO 3200 - 6400

About what I'd expect, meaning a good stop + for the 7D Mk II over the 7D.

I've been pointing out for a while that the 70D is definitely better than the 7D, and saying that the 7D Mk II will bring yet more to the table over what the 70D can achieve.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

We'll have to wait and see what happens with DxO testing and elsewhere to see if there is any banding evident

And I'll say it again - no banding in the 70D, and there'll be no banding in the 7D Mk II.

You just can't stand the idea that these latest Canon croppers are going to change things, can you?

 

[mrsfotografie]

It's sharper and more contrasty but still quite noisy. I wonder how this compares to the 5D Mk III sensor.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

It's sharper and more contrasty but still quite noisy.

More noisy than what? Find an example of better IQ from any previously-released crop camera while it's still at pre-release and before the good converters have caught up.

I'm positively drooling at the prospect of how good 7D Mk II files will look out of Capture One 8.

 

[Steve]

Unprocessed Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course

Not if you are trying to determine whether an image is better because its from a better sensor or because their is more processing power available in camera to do more sophisticated NR. A better sensor means more latitude in post, a better jpg engine means better sooc jpgs. Its a pretty relevant concern, imo

 

[Sabaki]

So, the 7Dii is a failure because:
1. It's noisier than the 5Diii
2. It can't do 4K video
3. It doesn't have a brand new sensor
4. It's screen doesn't tilt
5. No wifi

65AF points. ITR. 10fps. Intervelometer. Increased buffer. Autofocus at f/8.0. Spot metering on AF point. All these things doesn't stop the 7Dii from being a useless, no good, piece of crap camera. Apparently...

 

[jrista]

It's sharper and more contrasty but still quite noisy.

More noisy than what? Find an example of better IQ from any previously-released crop camera while it's still at pre-release and before the good converters have caught up.

I'm positively drooling at the prospect of how good 7D Mk II files will look out of Capture One 8.

I don't suspect the RAW output will be markedly better than the 70D. I think there will be a reduction in color noise, but in general, the IQ changes don't look extreme. Compared to the 7D, it's definitely an improvement...but, so were the first couple of Rebels and later xxD bodies that used the same 18mp sensor.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the 7D II will live up to many peoples prior expectations that it would be a "5D III high ISO killer"...simply isn't going to happen.