Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II

[pknight]

Improved AF, higher frame rate, improved metering, improved usability features, improved build quality, etc. are all reasons that many want this camera. The lack of a stop or so DR, that must be pixel-peeped to see, and that can certainly be largely addressed by competent PP, hardly outweighs the advantages that this camera promises. I want the best sensor possible, like anyone else, but but this looks like the best wildlife/action body, certainly for the price, regardless of not having the revolutionary sensor that many hoped for, but frankly should not have been expecting.

 

[heptagon]

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?

Ok, I agree, lifting the shadows might not do what i expected it to do. For a proper comparison we should use other programs where whe know better what happens. Also the scene here doesn't contain the amount of dynamic range we need for a proper comparison. The bright shadows of the 7D are weird, maybe the program has a wrong offset for black... don't know.

What we can say for sure though, is that the 7DII has better shadow noise than the 7D.

 

[dufflover]

I know I'm a few pages late to the party , but yes this CR topic is so misleading.
Many people didn't bother with the 70D because the IQ difference was minimal. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the exact same people are now singing the praises of the almost identical 7DII lol

(as usual for transparency let me repeat I quite like my 70D)

 

[Marsu42]

Many people didn't bother with the 70D because the IQ difference was minimal. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the exact same people are now singing the praises of the almost identical 7DII lol

But minimal + minimal = noticeable in real life shooting which makes 7d->7d2 attractive but not 7d->70d (and there's the fw crippling like the removal of spot af).

Nevertheless, from what I see and jrista wrote above, Canon crop still is nothing to write home about vs. ff, but neither are the Sony/Nikon sensors on higher iso settings. So basically if you've got some money to spend, it's still 5d3+expensive tele lenses or 7d2+6d to cover both and have two camera bodies around.

 

[Loswr]

Nevertheless, from what I see and jrista wrote above, Canon crop still is nothing to write home about vs. ff, but neither are the Sony/Nikon sensors on higher iso settings. So basically if you've got some money to spend, it's still 5d3+expensive tele lenses...

The main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. I'm sure I've read that somewhere...

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Nevertheless, from what I see and jrista wrote above, Canon crop still is nothing to write home about vs. ff, but neither are the Sony/Nikon sensors on higher iso settings. So basically if you've got some money to spend, it's still 5d3+expensive tele lenses...

The main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. I'm sure I've read that somewhere...

Moreover, the size and weight of the camera and lens.

 

[Marsu42]

Nevertheless, from what I see and jrista wrote above, Canon crop still is nothing to write home about vs. ff, but neither are the Sony/Nikon sensors on higher iso settings. So basically if you've got some money to spend, it's still 5d3+expensive tele lenses...

The main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. I'm sure I've read that somewhere...

Moreover, the size and weight of the camera and lens.

But you good people forgot Canon broke the legacy linear product strategy with placing the small and light ff 6d into their lineup . As for lenses, if you don't need to carry a f2.8 brick around the newer f4 zooms or non-L IS primes are small and don't have a lot of weight.

Btw other "main" advantages of aps-c include macro shooting and of course reach, so personally I would find choosing between the 6d+7d2 combination or a real 5d3 tough.

 

[Khalai]

Nevertheless, from what I see and jrista wrote above, Canon crop still is nothing to write home about vs. ff, but neither are the Sony/Nikon sensors on higher iso settings. So basically if you've got some money to spend, it's still 5d3+expensive tele lenses...

The main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. I'm sure I've read that somewhere...

Moreover, the size and weight of the camera and lens.

Since the 6D is actually lighter than 7D and 7D2, that point is actually not valid anymore. And for the lens, this only applies to certain focal lenght. Superteles will be the same size, no matter the sensor size. Can't outflank the physics of f/x

 

[Loswr]

Btw other "main" advantages of aps-c include macro shooting and of course reach

Well, sort of, kind of, sometimes.

For macro shooting, with APS-C you get more working distance for the same framing, but also less sharpness. If you match magnification, with APS-C you get more pixels on target (because in most cases pixel density is higher) but smaller FoV and shallower DoF (or you stop down more and diffraction costs even more sharpness). So for macro shooting in general, it's basically a wash (personally, I prefer FF for macro).

As for 'reach', unless you've got a 600/4 + 2x, you're still talking about a cost advantage (size/weight, too...but that's also buying you better IQ). Even if you're at 1200mm, APS-C's greater pixel density is only advantageous at lower ISO and if you want to print large.

While a higher pixel density (generally found on smaller sensors) is an advantage in certain specific use cases, there are generally trade-offs associated with those benefits. That's why I state lower cost as the main advantage (but that can certainly be a big advantage!).

 

[lo lite]

Btw. this is a Nikon at ISO 12800:

https://plus.google.com/100324172058536717685/posts/4QrynpGD1xF?pid=6061613593826971938&oid=100324172058536717685

o.k. its an old D3s

 

[ehouli]

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.

There are downloadable RAWs in Imaging Resource, but you have to open them with another RAW processor application, RAWTherapee is one, it opens the raws without problem and I think very neutral (no presets)

 

[Maximilian]

... Canon broke the legacy linear product strategy with placing the small and light ff 6d into their lineup .

And the funniest thing is, when I visit my father and he takes his old AE-1 out of the cabinet and says "boy, why do you carry such a big (ff) camera with you?"

 

[Roger Doughty]

"As for 'reach', unless you've got a 600/4 + 2x, you're still talking about a cost advantage (size/weight, too...but that's also buying you better IQ). Even if you're at 1200mm, APS-C's greater pixel density is only advantageous at lower ISO and if you want to print large."


Neuro
I own an 800 lens & 5D iii. I shoot paranoid birds in the west with a 1.4 iii tele 80% of the time. I also blow up large prints all the time. Are you saying that for my shooting I might get a better print at 1280 mm with a 7D ii in good light vs 1120 with a 1.4 converter! That would be insane if its true. Think of the auto focus capture rate shooting a 800 naked. Think of all those af points. Don't get me too excited here. I might faint.

 

[jrista]

"As for 'reach', unless you've got a 600/4 + 2x, you're still talking about a cost advantage (size/weight, too...but that's also buying you better IQ). Even if you're at 1200mm, APS-C's greater pixel density is only advantageous at lower ISO and if you want to print large."


Neuro
I own an 800 lens & 5D iii. I shoot paranoid birds in the west with a 1.4 iii tele 80% of the time. I also blow up large prints all the time. Are you saying that for my shooting I might get a better print at 1280 mm with a 7D ii in good light vs 1120 with a 1.4 converter! That would be insane if its true. Think of the auto focus capture rate shooting a 800 naked. Think of all those af points. Don't get me too excited here. I might faint.

I don't think you would necessarily get better. The difference in aperture negates a lot of the advantage of the larger frame. It's the total light that usually gives FF the IQ advantage. Your either at 1120 f/8, or 800 f/5.6 (effective focal length 1280mm only from a crop standpoint, from a relative pixel area standpoint, it's more like 1160mm). Same effective detail, difference of one stop in aperture. The 5D III probably still has the IQ edge, but it'll be normalized quite a bit.

That means the differences lie elsewhere. If the 7D II AF system ends up kicking total ass (with iTR, it should, even at f/5.6), then the 7D II with it's faster framerate should result in more keepers.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro
I own an 800 lens & 5D iii. I shoot paranoid birds in the west with a 1.4 iii tele 80% of the time. I also blow up large prints all the time. Are you saying that for my shooting I might get a better print at 1280 mm with a 7D ii in good light vs 1120 with a 1.4 converter! That would be insane if its true. Think of the auto focus capture rate shooting a 800 naked. Think of all those af points. Don't get me too excited here. I might faint.

If you need to crop your images to smaller than the APS-C FoV, in good light you'd have an advantage with the 7DII behind your 800+1.4x combo.

 

[Roger Doughty]

If IQ is roughly equal under the circumstances I have described and reach is comparable then this becomes a no-brainer in favor of this 7D ii over the 5D Mark III. The reason being is that I should be able to get 45 focus points for BIF where as I get one plus 4 assists with the 5D Mark III. Not to mention the fact that the AF should be twice as fast on The naked 800 When compared to the 800 +1.4 tele. The keeper rate should be through the roof, correct?

 

[Diltiazem]

If IQ is roughly equal under the circumstances I have described and reach is comparable then this becomes a no-brainer in favor of this 7D ii over the 5D Mark III. The reason being is that I should be able to get 45 focus points for BIF where as I get one plus 4 assists with the 5D Mark III. Not to mention the fact that the AF should be twice as fast on The naked 800 When compared to the 800 +1.4 tele. The keeper rate should be through the roof, correct?

I have compared 7DII RAW files with 5DIII RAW files from IR. 5DIII has about 1 stop ISO advantage. I will wait for more samples and supported RAW converter before making any decision.

 

[trickys77]

So I've spent quite a bit of time looking at the jpegs on IR which has been really useful. Specifically I have been looking at the dark areas on the higher ISO settings.

I've been comparing the 7D MKii with the 6D and to me it seems the 7D mkii is around 2 stops below the 6D in terms of noise (which is what I would expect). For the comparison in this case I used the the files:

E7D2hSLI12800NR2D.JPG and E6DhSLI051200NR2D.JPG. (Both of which are the photos of the bottles and fabrics)

I zoomed to the same level at 2 of the darker points in the photos which were the colour chart (squares) at the bottom middle of the photo and also the area to the right of the 'samuel smith' bottle by the cup and paint brush. Like I say IMO the 6D 512k iso seems to be roughly on par with the 7d mkii 128k in these areas. So again comparing a 'full frame' to the crop this is what I would expect.

However 1 thing that really strikes me at this high ISO is how much better the colours look on the 7D. In fact they are comparable to the Nikon D810.

The whites look really white and the yellows and blues seem to 'pop' more. Even at the same ISO sample image as the 6D.

So from what I have seen the 7D is 'ok' for noise (maybe not as good as the fujifilm X-T1 - IMO the crop leader at the moment for noise). However it seems great for fast action due to it's 1D'esk focusing ability and has excellent dynamic range/colour depth.

I am a keen amateur so please take my comparison as such but I would be interested to hear what others think of this.

 

[Nethawk]

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.

That may be a reasonable expectation from hobbyists and/or those with little understanding of digital photography, but the primary marketing for the 7D MKII is for pro and prosumers. You simply cannot deny physics.