Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?

[Sabaki]

And it is a mini 1DX. It doesn't have the IQ or frame rate as the 1DX either, but people aren't saying that is an issue.

Neither does it have the same number of dual cross AF points as the 1DX or 5D3.

It's fair to say the AF SOFTWARE is similar to the IDX but to say the total AF system is the same is not truthful.

It's like putting Photoshop onto a PC with 512mb RAM, core 2 duo processor and no graphics card and saying it will perform almost the same as the same version of Photoshop on the latest and greatest Mac

 

[LovePhotography]

The difference with things like CA and contrast really is quite dramatic
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
That's not a focus issue.
Has TDP tested other lenses yet with the 7DII?

 

[bluenoser1993]

In a thread here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24210.15

and in the test-chart sample images available at the-digital-picture, certain lenses seem less sharp, soft in comparison, when mounted on a 7DII and compared with a 1D Mk III. In particular, the new 100-400mm II

As has already been pointed out you are comparing two different formats. If on the other hand you compare the 7DII + 100-400II with the 60D + 70-200 2.8II ( a lens that is often referred to as Canon's best zoom and one of the best made by anyone) at 100mm the 7DII combo is easily better wide open and even with the 70-200 stopped down to f4 the 7D 100-400 is still marginally better in corners and mid frame, 70-200 winning the center. Being compared to a best ever lens on the same sensor format with that kind of result, how good does it have to be to impress?

 

[LovePhotography]

In a thread here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24210.15

and in the test-chart sample images available at the-digital-picture, certain lenses seem less sharp, soft in comparison, when mounted on a 7DII and compared with a 1D Mk III. In particular, the new 100-400mm II

As has already been pointed out you are comparing two different formats. If on the other hand you compare the 7DII + 100-400II with the 60D + 70-200 2.8II ( a lens that is often referred to as Canon's best zoom and one of the best made by anyone) at 100mm the 7DII combo is easily better wide open and even with the 70-200 stopped down to f4 the 7D 100-400 is still marginally better in corners and mid frame, 70-200 winning the center. Being compared to a best ever lens on the same sensor format with that kind of result, how good does it have to be to impress?

I wasn't criticizing the lens. Surprised at the difference in quality between formats. I'm buying a 7DII primarly for reach with long lenses (although I'm sure the fast fps will come in handy) in order to use TC's less, or use 1.4 TC more and 2.0 TC less. If the 7D II adds that much CA, I might as well save the money and just use the TC's.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Same lens on my 5d3 is perfect.

Not a surprise at all.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I would have expected a camera with a better than 10% keeper rate in servo AF mode. This camera is fine for Harry homeowner taking shots of his kids playing in the yard. It is NOT a body I would trust on an expensive trip or assignment. Not in its current state.

Same for my 7D, the 7D II I tried, and the 70D I own.

 

[dslrdummy]

I must say I have had mixed results with the AF - keeper rate is not as high as I would like but still probably better than 70%. I shoot sports and back focus with AI-servo and I find if the first shot in a sequence misses focus then all shots will miss, and vice versa. But it's too early to say whether it is the focus system, my AF settings or pure user error. What I can report is that the 7Dii and 300 2.8ii combo (with and without 1.4 ext) is excellent and gives me the added reach I have been after. Not to mention the 10fps.

 

[mkabi]

I don't know if someone said this already...
In any case, it could be soft because of the stronger AA filter???
Obviously its using the same filter as the 5D3, not seen in 60D or 1Ds III???
Just saying...

 

[bluenoser1993]

In a thread here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24210.15

and in the test-chart sample images available at the-digital-picture, certain lenses seem less sharp, soft in comparison, when mounted on a 7DII and compared with a 1D Mk III. In particular, the new 100-400mm II

As has already been pointed out you are comparing two different formats. If on the other hand you compare the 7DII + 100-400II with the 60D + 70-200 2.8II ( a lens that is often referred to as Canon's best zoom and one of the best made by anyone) at 100mm the 7DII combo is easily better wide open and even with the 70-200 stopped down to f4 the 7D 100-400 is still marginally better in corners and mid frame, 70-200 winning the center. Being compared to a best ever lens on the same sensor format with that kind of result, how good does it have to be to impress?

I wasn't criticizing the lens. Surprised at the difference in quality between formats. I'm buying a 7DII primarly for reach with long lenses (although I'm sure the fast fps will come in handy) in order to use TC's less, or use 1.4 TC more and 2.0 TC less. If the 7D II adds that much CA, I might as well save the money and just use the TC's.

I'm not going to argue that the 7DII is a better camera than the 5DIII, while it may have a couple extra features useful to some, it is not "better" overall. I can only justify one body, so if I had the 5DIII like you, I'd be looking at the 1.4X option too. If you are happy with two bodies for unique uses, then look again at the TDP comparison and set the FF image to 560mm and the 7DII to f8. They are quite comparable and the 7D has all 65 AF points to use and a stop to open up if you need more shutter. The center point is still available beyond that, with the 1.4X. Isn't CA one of the easiest lens faults to eliminate in post?

I'll admit to bias, I bought a 7DII in December and I'm happy with it. I don't shoot small things, maybe that is the difference, it did work very well with a 135L at an NFL game as a fan. I did not experience the "if the first misses they all miss" as commented here. I had a couple instances of spontaneous moments when the first shot was not focused, the second improved, the rest of the burst in focus.

Sticking to the categories defined in this post, I am a 7D upgrader, so I can't compare the experiences of FF shooting. My plan had been to go to 5DIII when the IV was released, but the f8 AF included on the 7D was the deciding factor. I can't justify the big whites, and 400mm just didn't make the objects big enough for AF to work very well on the 7D (distance not size related). I'm looking forward to picking up a 100-400 II before summer paddling season and seeing what it can do with the 1.4x. I already have the 2x, so I'll keep that too and try it for fun with the live view on stationary/slow things.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This is just a preview of the posts we will see from those who buy a 5Ds and think that they will get better photos without taking extra care. It happened when the 7D MK I came out until people learned to handle it and to keep shutter speeds up.

 

[Lee Jay]

It isn't.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

That comparison is between the 60D and 7DII on the 100-400L II at 400mm wide open.

Unless I'm just flat losing it, the 7DII shot is bigger, sharper, and recording higher resolution. Same thing but to a larger degree at f/8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3

 

[candc]

I never expected the 7dii iq to be any better than it's predecessors so I have been pleased with it. Remember Roger's law of new product introduction.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/rogers-law-of-new-product-introduction

I do a lot of bif along with several others who are using the 7dii as well. One of the group is having inconsistent af problems with the 100-400mki. I and the others have had no problems with a variety of other lenses. I think the af is great, it is very predictive and keeps up with birds flying straight at you very well. It also does a good job of picking them out from the background and locking on.

I believe there are some issues with some of the cameras out there but I don't believe there is a fundamental problem with the design.

 

[Northbird]

I've been using the 7D II as my primary wildlife & BIF body and have been quite impressed with build quality, IQ, frame rate, AF system. I considered the 1DX but couldn't justify the weight, size and cost premiums.

Nothing but praise from me. A bit of softness with the 600 II and 2X TC but I guess I expected that

https://flic.kr/p/r5GSRb

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

I've been using the 7D II as my primary wildlife & BIF body and have been quite impressed with build quality, IQ, frame rate, AF system. I considered the 1DX but couldn't justify the weight, size and cost premiums.

Nothing but praise from me. A bit of softness with the 600 II and 2X TC but I guess I expected that

https://flic.kr/p/r5GSRb

nice photos infact amazing well done sir

 

[quod]

On the other hand, Arthur Morris claims that talk of the 7DII being relatively soft is due to user error.

No matter how I shoot it, the 500/4 + 1.4x III turns out soft with the 7D2. It's not user error. I can usually get sharper and more contrasty shots with my 5D3.

 

[YuengLinger]

It isn't.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

That comparison is between the 60D and 7DII on the 100-400L II at 400mm wide open.

Unless I'm just flat losing it, the 7DII shot is bigger, sharper, and recording higher resolution. Same thing but to a larger degree at f/8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3

Remember--the 60D has NO AFMA. But its sensor was the same as the 7D--just slightly better processing on the 60D. But this doesn't matter in live-view, right?

I'm asking why the 7D II seems soft compared to FF.

Thanks for the links.

 

[takesome1]

I'm asking why the 7D II seems soft compared to FF.

Again the answer for the ISO charts.
Both the crop and the FF shoot the same chart to fill each cameras frame.
To do this the crop body has to be 1.6x farther away.
All the pixels are used on the FF. All the pixels are used on the crop body.
The FF 1Ds III has more pixels and because of this more resolution.

Now, a situation the 7D II has more resolution is this.
If you shoot both the same distance from the chart. Then crop the FF picture to the same size of the 7 D II, the 7D II image will have more resolution. You cut away the pixel advantage of the FF.

I own the 7D II and it's images are not soft.
If they were I would have no use for it.

 

[candc]

Also: those test chart crops at tdp always look better for ff than crop unless its the 200 f/2 then they all look the same? In real life situational shooting with decent light I don't see much difference. If you look at test scene shots like at dpr where they use a shorter fl lens on the crop cameras in comparison to the ff cameras and shoot from the same distance then they look pretty similar until the ISO gets high then the ff looks a lot better.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm asking why the 7D II seems soft compared to FF.

Looking at these tdp charts, the 7d2 doesn't seem to be softer, just a little larger. But both crops are visibly less sharp than ff, but this simply the way it works with anything but good primes and the very, very best zooms like 24-70L2.

Also: those test chart crops at tdp always look better for ff than crop unless its the 200 f/2 then they all look the same? In real life situational shooting with decent light I don't see much difference.

I definitely do see a difference ff vs crop (100L and esp. 70-300L wide open 60d or 6d) - but you really have to pixel peep on very fine details that resolve down to one pixel like animals' eyelashes.

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm asking why the 7D II seems soft compared to FF.

Again the answer for the ISO charts.
Both the crop and the FF shoot the same chart to fill each cameras frame.
To do this the crop body has to be 1.6x farther away.
All the pixels are used on the FF. All the pixels are used on the crop body.
The FF 1Ds III has more pixels and because of this more resolution.

Now, a situation the 7D II has more resolution is this.
If you shoot both the same distance from the chart. Then crop the FF picture to the same size of the 7 D II, the 7D II image will have more resolution. You cut away the pixel advantage of the FF.

I own the 7D II and it's images are not soft.
If they were I would have no use for it.

Thanks, takesome1, for taking the time to help me understand, but I'm still, after 10 years of digital, having a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that cropped is inherently softer than FF when using the same excellent glass. (Good to still be learning!)

But wait--both these sensors have very close to the same total pixel count; however, the TDP charts are using detailed crops. So, are you saying that at cropped sensor, when displaying the same, let's say "framed amount of pixels," is showing fewer pixels?

I thought because we had the same number of pixels in a smaller area, we were still about even. Any links to show the math of how a crop of an image on a FF vs cropped sums the number of pixels used to display the resulting cropped image? I guess I could do this with LR5 and see for myself.

Let's see. Take a coin. Set a 7DII so that the coin fills 50% of the frame using 100mm macro. Take the same shot, with the same coin and lens, but using a 1DsIII, and the coin again fills 50% of the frame.

Now show a 100% crop of a detail of the coin. So even if the same number of pixels are used for the full image, the crop of the image results in less pixels, which then results in less (displayed area) resolution?

Ok, now back to the TDP. It seems that the effects of cropped vs FF show more at longer Focal Lengths? Is this correct?

Thanks, maybe I'm getting there.

And thanks to all others who have been discussing the 7DII. It did come out with astounding hype, being loosely called the mini 1DX. And we all (as always) had dreams of a leapfrogging, a quantum leapfrogging of sensor tech, but really it is a modest improvement over the 7D's sensor with better processing. But still the best cropped dSLR in terms of all other specs.

I really don't want to buy a 1DX to power a Great White + extender. Maybe when the 1DXII drops in price before its predecessor is released, but not now!