Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II

[NancyP]

Well, I would like to get my hands on some RAW images and convert them. Will work on that soon. No hurry, Adobe Camera Raw updates ought to be just around the corner. Camera won't be available until November at the earliest.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

In the grander scheme of things that was never a realistic expectation though.

 

[jrista]

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.

In the grander scheme of things that was never a realistic expectation though.

True, but a lot of people had hopes that would be the case. Just saying, the preliminaries are pretty much crushing that hope. It's better than the 7D (as it damn well should be!), but nothing exceptionally good...its a small evolutionary improvement over the 70D.

 

[StudentOfLight]

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.

Maybe "broadsided" by the announcement? I really didn't expect the 65pt AF system, that blew me away (at least on paper) I'm yet to see how it really performs.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

That's to be expected though. The 5D3 has 2.6x the surface area to collect light. That's pretty hard to make up, especially since these cams were like all 40-65% efficient to begin with.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

One thing taht DxO doesn't do much is test for banding.

Anyway some of us have already looked at the masked area of the 7D2 RAW files and banding seems to be entirely fixed on the 7D2. Granted the masked area is small, so we can't be 100% sure yet, but I'd bet that it will prove to be the case that the 7D2 has extremely little to zero banding.

 

[Quasimodo]

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.

Maybe "broadsided" by the announcement? I really didn't expect the 65pt AF system, that blew me away (at least on paper) I'm yet to see how it really performs.

Broadsided is probably the right word, like a torpedo. This mythical beast (judging by the many years of rumors and the general longing) suddenly became real. The AF is great (per spec), but for me it is the overall package. If the IQ is really as good as it bears tidings of, it will become a camera I own quite soon

 

[mrsfotografie]

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.

In the grander scheme of things that was never a realistic expectation though.

True, but a lot of people had hopes that would be the case. Just saying, the preliminaries are pretty much crushing that hope. It's better than the 7D (as it damn well should be!), but nothing exceptionally good...its a small evolutionary improvement over the 70D.

It would be reasonable to expect the sensor to approach the 5DMkIII's in iso performance, but it clearly does not. Happily so, because it means I won't fall into the 7D 'digital teleconverter' trap twice and rather save up for some serious long glass.

As for crop sensors, Sony has served me fine. In fact the NEX-6 that I previously owned already easily had the 7D beat on sensor performance. The a6000 very nearly matches the NEX-6 high iso performance despite the significant increase in pixel density.

 

[jrista]

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.

In the grander scheme of things that was never a realistic expectation though.

True, but a lot of people had hopes that would be the case. Just saying, the preliminaries are pretty much crushing that hope. It's better than the 7D (as it damn well should be!), but nothing exceptionally good...its a small evolutionary improvement over the 70D.

It would be reasonable to expect the sensor to approach the 5DMkIII's in iso performance, but it clearly does not. Happily so, because it means I won't fall into the 7D 'digital teleconverter' trap twice and rather save up for some serious long glass.

As for crop sensors, Sony has served me fine. In fact the NEX-6 that I previously owned already easily had the 7D beat on sensor performance. The a6000 very nearly matches the NEX-6 high iso performance despite the significant increase in pixel density.

Again, it's rarely about pixel density, and primarily about sensor size. The 7D II was only going to approach the 5D III if a whole lot of highly unlikely technological improvements made it into this sensor. That was what I personally was hoping for, and it sounds like there has been one sole improvement over the 70D: A microlensing and DPAF sensitivity improvement (which conforms with the second patent Canon filed for DPAF last year, so no surprise there.) Canon would have had to dramatically increase Q.E., increase full well capacity quite a bit, and greatly reduce noise for the 7D II to have "approached" the 5D III in terms of IQ. The chances of Canon doing that, given their history, were extremely low. As we can now see, all those necessary changes didn't happen...and the IQ shows a minor improvement over the 70D (in JPEG...who knows yet how much the RAW data may have improved.)

 

[MichaelHodges]

Unprocessed Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course

Actually they provide the only base-line comparison for image quality.

 

[candc]

i ordered the 7dii for the af and buffer. some posters say they are shocked at how much better the iq is than the 7d? of course it is. maybe you haven't looked for the last 5 years but they have been getting better each release. i have a 70d now this looks slightly better if you look close. if you don't need the speed or af the then the 70d may be a better choice, it has wifi and the touch/swivel screen.

below is iso 3200 70d 7dii

 

[jrista]

Unprocessed Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course

Actually they provide the only base-line comparison for image quality.

Agreed. Processed RAW files can demonstrate the editing latitude, but things rapidly become subjective. Comparisons become much more difficult.

 

[cirkitdude]

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...

IMO there are only two things the 7Dii needed to do, improved AF (not so much the 61 points, just more accurate AF, period) and, more importantly, much better performance at ISO 1600 (ideally, similar to the Exmor). If the high ISO isn't appreciably better than the 70D as some are saying, the rest of it doesn't matter and I see no reason to buy a 7Dii, unfortunately.

Same here. Sold my beloved 7D last summer, planned to buy a 5D3… for two reasons: AF accuracy and better performance above ISO 1600. Both necessary for the indoor sports shooting I do… mostly at 3200. Decided to wait for the 7D2 because I have pricey f2.8 EF-S lenses and I just LOVED the 7D (except for the two reasons above). Wasn't expecting miracles, but was hopeful 3200-6400 noise would be maybe halfway between the 7D and the 5D3… maybe one stop of improvement over the original. It APPEARS (to me) that's not the case from these comparisons. Hoping I'm wrong. I really want to like the 7D2.

Yes, physics is physics and the FF pixels are larger. That's part of the equation. But the 5D3 also moved the read circuitry onto the sensor chip, giving a significant noise improvement aside from the pixel size. Was hoping the rumored "new technology" 20MP sensor of the 7D2 would do this also… but no information I can find on this. Anyone know?

BTW, new poster… this is a great forum and I'm enjoying it immensely.

 

[dp]

very, very small difference. certainly not five-years worth of improvement in the noise front. Also the 7dII files look oversharpened--to compensate for noise reduction-induced smudging.

Wow!!!! I'm using a small, uncalibrated monitor at work, yet I can see a difference (small) even compared to the 70D at high ISO. Is it just me or do you also notice an improvement?

I can definitely see an improvement over the original 7D, but I really can't see any improvement over the 70D.

EDIT: Well, I double checked the ISO 25600 and in some parts of the sample I can see the 7D II being better (say the bottle of wine vinegar), in some areas it is the same (say the bottle of pepper oil), and in some areas, the 70D giving a nicer look (shadow noise between the pepper oil and the colouring box). I think I need to see how the samples will look like on dpreview to get a better idea.

The difference is actually very small, I think we have to wait for some downloadable raws to make a valid comparison.

I'll have hard times deciding whether to drop double the money for a 7D2 or go for the 70D and save something to invest in a longer lens which I have to purchase anyway. The new Siggy 120-600 is approx 2x the price of the Tamron, but then there's also the other unicorn from Canon that's probably about to be announced hopefully sooner than later at this point... The "Year of the Lens" must not pass without the 100-400 replacement being announced, nevertheless, as neuro pointed out, that one lens didn't benefit from the recent price drop, probably meaning it's still selling very well... How hard a decision for me!

Well, I think I'll manage to hold back GAS and wait a few months to take advantage from the price settlement, not a bad idea to capitalize my limited budget. Meanwhile, I'll have fun reading reviews, comparisons, comments etc.

Cheers!

 

[Aglet]

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?

I can pretty much back that up. When I tested the 70D, it was Canon's least FPN crop body to-date. I posted that here back then.
I thot about replacing my 60D with it but was pointless since I'd already changed brands and I was at the bad part of the depreciation curve on my 60D so remains in my pile and gets used occasionally.

I'll have to get some proper dark files for my tests on the 7d2 but, from dpreview's samples, it's certainly less likely to have FPN issues like the old picket-fence-7D did. Altho DPR's 7D files were nowhere near as bad as my 7D's files.

EDIT: Actually, based on my prelim tests from available raw files, I've actually pre-ordered a 7d2 today. Got a great bundle deal so could not resist trying it for the total price. Sometime in November...

 

[heptagon]

I opened the CR2 files at 100ISO of the 7D and 7DII in PhotoNinja, turned off all noise/color enhancements and pushed the shadows:
* Pattern noise seems to be gone.
* Shadows are still noisy. Maybe 1/3rd Stop or 1/2 Stop more dynamic range than the 7D. But more useable due to the lower Pattern noise.

So, it is the same sensor technology with little enhancements.

 

[Diltiazem]

I opened the CR2 files at 100ISO of the 7D and 7DII in PhotoNinja, turned off all noise/color enhancements and pushed the shadows:
* Pattern noise seems to be gone.
* Shadows are still noisy. Maybe 1/3rd Stop or 1/2 Stop more dynamic range than the 7D. But more useable due to the lower Pattern noise.

So, it is the same sensor technology with little enhancements.

Do you have a link to those images? I want to try myself. Thanks.

 

[heptagon]

Test images:

7D2:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/E7D2hSLI00100NR0.CR2.HTM
7D:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DhSLI00100_NR_0.CR2.HTM

Program: Photo Ninja
http://www.picturecode.com/download.php

Settings:
Only the first three checkmarks on:
* Demosaic
* Color correction
* Exposure and detail
(no extra sharpness/color/noise correction)

Everything on default except in Exposure and Detail:
* Exposure offset +3
* Shadows +1

Now you see the colored noise in the cloth and cup at the right bottom.

 

[Diltiazem]

Test images:

7D2:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/E7D2hSLI00100NR0.CR2.HTM
7D:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DhSLI00100_NR_0.CR2.HTM

Program: Photo Ninja
http://www.picturecode.com/download.php

Settings:
Only the first three checkmarks on:
* Demosaic
* Color correction
* Exposure and detail
(no extra sharpness/color/noise correction)

Everything on default except in Exposure and Detail:
* Exposure offset +3
* Shadows +1

Now you see the colored noise in the cloth and cup at the right bottom.

Color and pattern noise give us an idea about sensor performance, but they are not taken into consideration when calculating DR. So you should leave Noise Ninja checked on at default setting too (chroma NR 50) and look at the luminance noise. Make sure that Detail slider is set to zero as it tends to enhance noise. Now throw in D7100 (DR 13.9 according to DXO) in the mix and see what happens. You won't see much difference in noise. So, I don't know if we can take this test too seriously to get an idea about DR. We need proper shadow lifting and read noise measurement. Other caveat is that 7DII is not supported officially by any RAW converter yet, we can't really rely on these tests.
Something else I have noticed and not sure what to make of this. Take this 3 cameras, do above adjustments, but leave the shadow slider at zero. Export the JPEG files to LR or CS and adjust exposure by +1 (or save as JPEGs and open again with PN and adjust exposure by +1). Now look at the cup, it is darker in 7DII file compared to other two cameras. Look at the whole scene, everywhere 7DII retains more color and detail (except for overblown areas) compared to 7D and D7100. Is it because 7DII scene is slightly underexposed? Lighting has changed? RAW converter needs fine tuning? Something else?

 

[Flailingarms]

I pre-ordered a 7Dm2 several days ago, first one to order at our local camera store. It will be used with a Sigma 5-500 OS. The current 7D will then be used with a Canon 18-200 IS. My wife will continue to use her 70D with Canon 100-400 IS. In general, all the foregoing discussion doesn't reach to any features that will affect our bird photography. The higher frame rate is a compelling reason for me to upgrade. If other results equal or exceed my current 7D, all will be well.