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

[Lee Jay]

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

Because of reduced enlargement ratio. A crop camera has to be enlarged 1.6 times as much to generate the same size final image. This puts extra stress on the optics. However, that's with constant framing. With constant focal length, the smaller pixels of the crop camera will extract more detail.

 

[Marsu42]

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'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.

That's the point, even if Canon isn't big on communicating this fact for their vast amount of crop cameras with ef lenses: It's not the same excellent glass. You're just using the center part, i.e. you're paying for and lugging around a bulk of excellent glass you cannot use.

On some older lenses with very mediocre performance on the outer edges, this can actually be an advantage and the corners are softer on ff than on crop. But for the most part, you're simply losing resolution and getting less depth of field & bokeh.

 

[tapanit]

There is a fundamental difference between 'issues' that actually need fixing, and peoples over expectations. As you say, people upgrading from a 7D/70D, or earlier, almost universally find the 7D MkII a huge improvement.

True.

Although the OP didn't say so in the first post, he later said he owned the 5D III and is considering the 7D II.
If he buys it he would be a good candidate for the disappointed category.

I bought 7D2 while owning 5D3,and I wasn't disappointed, using them side-by-side. I have found no sharpness problems with the 7D2, and its AF feels if anything better than 5D3's. The 7D2 failed though - its LCD went totally blurry with no obvious reason (I'm waiting for warranty repair/replacement). I haven't done any systematic comparison, however, and my expectations may have been lower than others' (I've no experience with 1-series bodies).

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I used to get some intermittent soft images with my 70-200 f4 LIS on a 7D, shooting landscapes. I would see some shoots where nearly every image was slightly soft, other shoots and each image was pin sharp. The camera / lens was on a very sturdy tripod (Gitzo systematic) and a Markins M20 ball head. I couldn't understand it until I realised that on some shoots, I'd left the IS on and that lens can't sense the tripod. It sent the gyros into panic mode, trying to find some shake to cure...
So what I'm saying here is go check the obvious mistakes, it's easily done even when one is an experienced landscape photographer. It's rarely a gear issue and nearly always a user error.

 

[Rahul]

The light continues to stay poor so I am denied any shooting chance today as well

Not shooting has given me a chance to think this over and over again. While not all pixels are equal, I'm left wondering how people will cope on same / similar pixels on the 5Ds which essentially appears to be a scaled up 7D2 sensor (with low ISO noise floor or whatever it is to tune it to low ISO efficiency.)?

I understand that the images at TDP were taken using live-view and not the phase detect AF. If this is so the case, there is no reason for the images to be soft. If the problem is only with the fact that the 7D2 sensor is a lot more dense than the FF sensors, the problems will be exacerbated with a 5Ds sensor because almost all lenses are a tad problematic in the corners and this will show even more clearly on a FF.

I'm certain I'm missing something but not sure what because in my unscientific test shots taken yesterday, the pictures came out sharp (I would consider many of the images to be as sharp as the FF images).

 

[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.

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!

In your description of the coin if you were the exact same distance from the coin and took a shot. Cropped the FF to the exact size of the crop cameras picture, the FF would have far fewer pixels left after the crop. The 7D II wins this test.

However all pixels are not created equal, if you find the exact point to crop to on the ISO chart that you have the exact same amount of pixels the FF will still be better.

I find the 7D II use full for shooting birds and small wildlife. Anything else I use FF. If you want the little bit of increased resolution on your longest lens, on pictures you usually crop then you might have a use for the 7D II. If you can properly frame forget the 7D II.

The 7D II is not that fast with the big white super tele's, if resolution is not what you are looking for consider a used 1D IV. It is much faster and accurate.

 

[takesome1]

The light continues to stay poor so I am denied any shooting chance today as well

Not shooting has given me a chance to think this over and over again. While not all pixels are equal, I'm left wondering how people will cope on same / similar pixels on the 5Ds which essentially appears to be a scaled up 7D2 sensor (with low ISO noise floor or whatever it is to tune it to low ISO efficiency.)?

I understand that the images at TDP were taken using live-view and not the phase detect AF. If this is so the case, there is no reason for the images to be soft. If the problem is only with the fact that the 7D2 sensor is a lot more dense than the FF sensors, the problems will be exacerbated with a 5Ds sensor because almost all lenses are a tad problematic in the corners and this will show even more clearly on a FF.

I'm certain I'm missing something but not sure what because in my unscientific test shots taken yesterday, the pictures came out sharp (I would consider many of the images to be as sharp as the FF images).

Yes you are missing something. When the 5Ds does the test it will be at the same distance from the chart as the 1Ds III with twice the pixels on target rather than 1.6x farther away. You will see a noticeable bump in resolution.

 

[mb66energy]

Just a remark about potential differences in the 7D ii sensor compared to similar cameras (in terms of SENSOR) ...

Maybe it is the result of microlens array placement. For me it makes sense to optimize the 7D ii sensor for medium to large telephoto according to its main field of use.
I checked some comparisons with the great 18 MPix sensors of 60D/600D/EOS M and the 7D ii where you can see that the vignetting is stronger in 7D ii compared to the other cameras for wide angle and less pronounced for a longer focal length.

Another reason might be the low pass filter which might be slighly stronger than in 60d e.g. (see third link).

Differences of vignetting were derived from the test chart image brightness visually.

EF 2.0 200

600D vs. 7D ii
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=759&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- slightly better resolution for 7D ii and less vignetting

EOS M vs. 7D ii
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=812&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- similar resolution but less vignetting for 7D ii

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=960&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=960&Sample=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- visible moiree for 60D in the MID FRAME image (diagonal lines) as orange "lines" from 11 o'clock to 5 o'clock.
EF 2.8 40

60D vs. 7D ii
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=810&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- very similar results

EF-S 2.8 24

60D vs. 7D ii
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=960&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=960&Sample=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
- slightly better resolution (esp. in the center) for 7D ii but less vignetting on 60D

 

[Rahul]

The light continues to stay poor so I am denied any shooting chance today as well

Not shooting has given me a chance to think this over and over again. While not all pixels are equal, I'm left wondering how people will cope on same / similar pixels on the 5Ds which essentially appears to be a scaled up 7D2 sensor (with low ISO noise floor or whatever it is to tune it to low ISO efficiency.)?

I understand that the images at TDP were taken using live-view and not the phase detect AF. If this is so the case, there is no reason for the images to be soft. If the problem is only with the fact that the 7D2 sensor is a lot more dense than the FF sensors, the problems will be exacerbated with a 5Ds sensor because almost all lenses are a tad problematic in the corners and this will show even more clearly on a FF.

I'm certain I'm missing something but not sure what because in my unscientific test shots taken yesterday, the pictures came out sharp (I would consider many of the images to be as sharp as the FF images).

Yes you missing something. When the 5Ds does the test it will be at the same distance from the chart as the 1Ds III with twice the pixels on target rather than 1.6x farther away. You will see a noticeable bump in resolution.

Oh, so if you shoot the same test chart from the same distance, the 7D2 image will be sharper than what is currently displayed at TDP? If this is so, I don't understand what this debate has been about.

Sorry but I'm a bit of a noob at shooting test charts so posing the questions as above. I usually rely more on my own images and return whatever gear what I find unsatisfactory.

 

[Rahul]

If you want the little bit of increased resolution on your longest lens, on pictures you usually crop then you might have a use for the 7D II.

Ok, so if this is the takeaway, I have purchased the 7D2 for the right reasons ;D for birding using the 100-400II + 1.4x III which is the longest lens / lens combination that I own.

The 7D II is not that fast with the big white super tele's,

Didn't get this part.

 

[chrysoberyl]

So which would be a better choice for a 6D owner, if one is looking for the best all-around camera, the 7D II or the 5D III?

 

[Marsu42]

So which would be a better choice for a 6D owner, if one is looking for the best all-around camera, the 7D II or the 5D III?

Unless you need one of the 7d2-only features like higher fps, "anti-flicker" or edge-to-edge phase af point, the 5d3 is the best available "all around" camera hands down. And it runs Magic Lantern, giving you access to a heap of features that might never make their way to the 7d2 (and certainly not to any 1d).

 

[East Wind Photography]

So which would be a better choice for a 6D owner, if one is looking for the best all-around camera, the 7D II or the 5D III?

Absolutely right now I would get the 5d3. Too many issues with the 7d2 right now. People are only getting about 5% keepers in servo AF. It's slightly better in one shot mode. However the AF system has some big issues that are not getting resolved by canon.

 

[AlanF]

I have no axe to grind about FF vs crop or the 7DII vs 5DIII or the 100-400mm II vs big primes because I use combinations of all of them according to circumstances.

First, the AF on both my 5DIII and 7DII is fast and consistent in A1 servo, and my keeper rate is very high. The same was not true for my 7D, which could not even cope with some lens combination.

Second, I use the 5DIII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III for bird photography, accompanied by wife who uses the 7DII + 100-400mm II, both camera systems having about the same field of view. The quality of the images from the 7DII are excellent, though not quite as good from the 5DIII, despite the 100-400mm II not being in the same price league as the prime. My experience is that the 7DII + 100-400mm II at f/5.6 is as sharp at the centre as the Tamron-150-600mm on the 5DIII at f/8 and sharper at the edges.

I simply do not understand why some users are getting only 5% keepers and have AF problems. Some used to say the same about AF with Tamron 150-500 on the 5DIII, but I never had any problems. Perhaps I have been very lucky with my 7DII and 100-400mm II etc. But, whatever, some copies of the 7DII do really deliver the goods.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have no axe to grind about FF vs crop or the 7DII vs 5DIII or the 100-400mm II vs big primes because I use combinations of all of them according to circumstances.

First, the AF on both my 5DIII and 7DII is fast and consistent in A1 servo, and my keeper rate is very high. The same was not true for my 7D, which could not even cope with some lens combination.

Second, I use the 5DIII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III for bird photography, accompanied by wife who uses the 7DII + 100-400mm II, both camera systems having about the same field of view. The quality of the images from the 7DII are excellent, though not quite as good from the 5DIII, despite the 100-400mm II not being in the same price league as the prime. My experience is that the 7DII + 100-400mm II at f/5.6 is as sharp at the centre as the Tamron-150-600mm on the 5DIII at f/8 and sharper at the edges.

I simply do not understand why some users are getting only 5% keepers and have AF problems. Some used to say the same about AF with Tamron 150-500 on the 5DIII, but I never had any problems. Perhaps I have been very lucky with my 7DII and 100-400mm II etc. But, whatever, some copies of the 7DII do really deliver the goods.

Perhaps you are of are one of the lucky ones that got a good copy. There are very numerous and consistent faults with the AF system and I would recommend anyone considering a purchase to hold off a bit for canon to figure out what is going on.

 

[YuengLinger]

I have no axe to grind about FF vs crop or the 7DII vs 5DIII or the 100-400mm II vs big primes because I use combinations of all of them according to circumstances.

First, the AF on both my 5DIII and 7DII is fast and consistent in A1 servo, and my keeper rate is very high. The same was not true for my 7D, which could not even cope with some lens combination.

Second, I use the 5DIII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III for bird photography, accompanied by wife who uses the 7DII + 100-400mm II, both camera systems having about the same field of view. The quality of the images from the 7DII are excellent, though not quite as good from the 5DIII, despite the 100-400mm II not being in the same price league as the prime. My experience is that the 7DII + 100-400mm II at f/5.6 is as sharp at the centre as the Tamron-150-600mm on the 5DIII at f/8 and sharper at the edges.

I simply do not understand why some users are getting only 5% keepers and have AF problems. Some used to say the same about AF with Tamron 150-500 on the 5DIII, but I never had any problems. Perhaps I have been very lucky with my 7DII and 100-400mm II etc. But, whatever, some copies of the 7DII do really deliver the goods.

AlanF, I'm sure you are getting great images, but when you start mixing extenders, bodies, and different brands and FL lenses in the comparison, it gets really tough to understand. Certainly we all expect the 7DII and 100-400mm II to work great together and be sharper than the Tamron--even when comparing to use on a 5DIII. And though from what I can find on the web and heard in a workshop from Arthur Morris the 300mm 2.8 II is the pinnacle of IQ, adding the 2x in the mix just makes the whole equation too much for me.

But the bottom line seems to be that the 7DII is not disappointing you at all.

It just seems that when we make decisions about FF vs crop, we have a vague idea that IQ is better on the FF, but I bet most buyers are thinking more in terms of higher ISO performance, and perhaps "silkiness," than sharpness at "normal" ISO's. At least that was the case for me until the past few days.

 

[takesome1]

If you want the little bit of increased resolution on your longest lens, on pictures you usually crop then you might have a use for the 7D II.

Ok, so if this is the takeaway, I have purchased the 7D2 for the right reasons ;D for birding using the 100-400II + 1.4x III which is the longest lens / lens combination that I own.

The 7D II is not that fast with the big white super tele's,

Didn't get this part.

Yes you did purchase it for the right reason.

And the 7D II on my 500mm f/4 L will not focus as fast as the 1D IV. On smaller lenses I doubt you would notice.

 

[takesome1]

I simply do not understand why some users are getting only 5% keepers and have AF problems. Some used to say the same about AF with Tamron 150-500 on the 5DIII, but I never had any problems. Perhaps I have been very lucky with my 7DII and 100-400mm II etc. But, whatever, some copies of the 7DII do really deliver the goods.

Perhaps the difference is my comparisons and opinions are based on using a 500mm F/4 L and the 500mm F/4L II and your experience has been on with the 100-400mm II.

It could be a Camera + Lens thing rather than a Camera body only problem.

 

[AlanF]

I do use other lenses. Here is a great tit taken on the 7DII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC. A guy next to me had the same lens combo on the 7D, and it would not focus. Mine was fast and good.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
Here is my experience: when use my 7D2 with my Tamron 150-600mm, my keeper rate is not high and AF seem not consistent. When use my 7D2 with my EF 400mm F5.6L, my keeper rate is way higher and AF is fast and consistent. So my conclusion is that my Tamron 150-600mm had some issue with my 7D2.

By the way, my Tamron 150-600mm had a live view AF issue with my 7D2 (no such issue when I use with 60D and 6D), but not sure does this issue affect the normal AF operation, but will going to do a 1 to 1 exchange tomorrow... after that I'll sell the Tamron and join the EF 100-400mm II club...

Have a nice day.