Canon introduces 7D Mk II APS-C Pro Body

WJaekel wrote:Arthur Morris put the 5d3 against the 7d2 with files identically processed from raws (by using DPP).

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/10/ ... d-be-easy/

Take it for what it is worth 

Wolfgang

Yeah , no kidding! 

Does anyone know if the 7D MK2 supports the faster speed of the UHS-2 in SD cards? Performance will not be hindered using a UHS-1 SD card?

WJaekel wrote:Arthur Morris put the 5d3 against the 7d2 with files identically processed from raws (by using DPP).

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/10/ ... d-be-easy/

Take it for what it is worth 

Wolfgang

Note, he compares images from a 5DIII and 7DII with the subject the same size.  But he used the same lens setup from the same location.  So one of the images had to be scaled.  The 7D2 image should have the bird 1.52 times larger (1.52 more pixels on the bird in both dimensions).  If he downsampled the 7D2 images, then he compromised the resolution and changed the noise.

Roger

I was going to ask how he got the heron the same size with the same lens setup... so a bogus and typically Arty test. I really never met anyone looking at 200% to see differences.

Neilyb wrote: I really never met anyone looking at 200% to see differences.

I don't see a problem with showing 200% or any other enlargement to show a difference.  Different monitors have different MTFs, so some monitors may not show at difference at all at 100%.  Showing 200% or more takes out the monitor MTF variable in the comparison.

Roger

Good test and all that; but I'm not interested at ISO400, it is ISO1600 that we're all concerned about.  The 7D was OK at ISO400.

Lets see some at ISO1600 Arty.

fredcor wrote:Good test and all that; but I'm not interested at ISO400, it is ISO1600 that we're all concerned about.  The 7D was OK at ISO400.

Lets see some at ISO1600 Arty.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/10/ ... -iso-1600/

Here ya go...

crw816 wrote:

fredcor wrote:Good test and all that; but I'm not interested at ISO400, it is ISO1600 that we're all concerned about.  The 7D was OK at ISO400.

Lets see some at ISO1600 Arty.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/10/ ... -iso-1600/

Here ya go...

Thanks crw816.  I missed the comment in the first article.

These tests are pretty much meaningless IMO. Field comparisons are so fraught with potential and real errors as to make the exercise meaningless. To make matters worse, noise tolerance is subjective(the happier you are with the camera purchase, the more forgiving you will be), even though it can be tested objectively. If this camera was truly breaking new ground in the noise department, Canon marketing would be full of accolades. At best, I expect one stop improvement over the 7D and dynamic range to be in line with every other sensor Canon has produced for the past few years. It would be nice if the AF is top notch, although Kelby's comments said it isn't. 
My expectations for this camera are, better AF than the original(please), enough improvement in noise so that ISO800 is equivalent to the old 7D at 400, better DR , although I seriously doubt that. Either way, in good light it is a well spec'ed camera and should be perform well, like it's predecessor.

Scott Fairbairn wrote:These tests are pretty much meaningless IMO. Field comparisons are so fraught with potential and real errors as to make the exercise meaningless.[snip]

May be not given that most of us don't just photos in the labs. If the objective is to sell the camera to the real world people, lab results may not mean that much sometimes (not to mention most people don't know what they mean anyhow).

DChan wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:These tests are pretty much meaningless IMO. Field comparisons are so fraught with potential and real errors as to make the exercise meaningless.[snip]

May be not given that most of us don't just photos in the labs. If the objective is to sell the camera to the real world people, lab results may not mean that much sometimes (not to mention most people don't know what they mean anyhow).

I agree with your point, however, autofocusing on a quasi-stationary bird can lead to all kinds of errors with the plane of focus being different. Noise might be comparable, but only if the light/exposure stayed the same. For the most part people have made their mind up about this camera anyway.

Scott Fairbairn wrote: ......................... For the most part people have made their mind up about this camera anyway.

Precisely. Mine has been on order since the announcement was first made. I also bought the 7D but sold it within a few weeks, disappointed with the output. The best judge of how a camera is doing is you. If I am happy with it, I will keep it.

I also just bought the  Tamron 150-600mm after having sold my Canon 600 f4MkII. I must say I am pleasantly surprised. Up to about 400mm the lens is super sharp and is just about hand-holdable for me. With the 7D2 on it, it may just become my most-used wildlife combo. The crop factor on the 7D2 will provide the kind of 'built-in extender' of the 200-400 lens (I know, I know). For a fraction of the cost and the weight of the 1DX plus 200-400 f4 I would have a much lighter, more mobile, easier to carry/pack and almost as good in IQ combo. 

Hard to beat that. Now if the new Sigma performs even better, that would just be awesome.  I am tired of heavy equipment.

Pradeep

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

DChan wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:These tests are pretty much meaningless IMO. Field comparisons are so fraught with potential and real errors as to make the exercise meaningless.[snip]

May be not given that most of us don't just photos in the labs. If the objective is to sell the camera to the real world people, lab results may not mean that much sometimes (not to mention most people don't know what they mean anyhow).

I agree with your point, however, autofocusing on a quasi-stationary bird can lead to all kinds of errors with the plane of focus being different. Noise might be comparable, but only if the light/exposure stayed the same. For the most part people have made their mind up about this camera anyway.

I have not made up my mind yet. I'm optimistic that this camera will live up to the hype but certainly not decided.  I agree The tests from Artie are antecdotal at best...  

I dont know why there is so much hate for this camera, especially when there is not really anything else that can match it. To me the photos look as good as 90% of the bird shots I see posted on here with the $6000 1dx.

Scott Fairbairn wrote: For the most part people have made their mind up about this camera anyway.

I agree with just about everything you have said here. Personally I'm open to this being a decent camera, but I'm skeptical. I can't tell a whole lot from Artie's tests about how they'll apply to how I would use the camera. Everyone has different needs, uses, and expectations. I think I'll wait until I can try one out as a loaner from CPS and have a chance to play around with the RAW files myself in ACR, which I always use nowadays. I can't tell anything from DPP. One thing is for sure and that is Canon will be selling a lot of these things. I would expect them to be readily available from Canon Direct as refurbs for around $1400 (or less with a sale) early into 2015.

Coreyhkh wrote:I dont know why there is so much hate for this camera, especially when there is not really anything else that can match it. To me the photos look as good as 90% of the bird shots I see posted on here with the $6000 1dx.

I think the term "hate" is a bit strong. What you are seeing is a bit of backlash against Canon's continued use of old sensor technology. When you can get more dynamic range out of a little Sony sensor (RX100 M3), than you  can in a larger Canon sensor(even full frame), it says a lot.

Coreyhkh wrote:I dont know why there is so much hate for this camera, especially when there is not really anything else that can match it. To me the photos look as good as 90% of the bird shots I see posted on here with the $6000 1dx.

Well, based on what I have gathered reading DPR, it comes down to the 7D's reputation for producing noisy files, the lukewarm reception of the 70D sensor and the great improvements on the Sony and other manufacturers sensors.  

I leave the pixel-peeping to others.  I appreciate that someone is doing it becauseI can benefit from reading the findings.  I read it only for reference.  It is like when you buy a nice stereo component.  Amplifier, receiver, speaker, etc.  Your head is filled with tech soecs from reading Stereophile magazine and what the salespeople fill your head with.  Aside from this initial "pixel peeping" stage, most people will not really know the difference.  In the end it's the music most people pay attention to.  Same with camera gear.  Aside from the initial pixel-peeping stage, most people only care about the photo they've captured.

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

Coreyhkh wrote:I dont know why there is so much hate for this camera, especially when there is not really anything else that can match it. To me the photos look as good as 90% of the bird shots I see posted on here with the $6000 1dx.

I think the term "hate" is a bit strong. What you are seeing is a bit of backlash against Canon's continued use of old sensor technology. When you can get more dynamic range out of a little Sony sensor (RX100 M3), than you  can in a larger Canon sensor(even full frame), it says a lot.

Well it gets fractional more DR at base ISO and falls off extremely quickly from there when compared to a 1DX. 12.3 vs 11.8 stops.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/ ... ___957_753

While I would love more DR for my landscape work at base ISO (100) I really don't see much if any significant advantage the Sony/Nikon sensors have over the Canon sensors in terms of DR above ISO 400, which for me and my wildlife work is about as low an ISO I can ever get with the light levels I generally have to work in. Generally I need ISO800-3200.

Since the 7D Mark II is primarily a sports/wildlife camera I personal think for most people the lack of DR at base ISO is pretty insignificant in this camera.

I thought the lack of dynamic range was only a problem at low ISOs and higher ISO levels it was pretty much a level playing field.
But I agree I wish Canon would invest in sensors again, maybe the 1dx and 5dmkiv will bring some much needed improvements. And it probably won't ever happen but I wish they would lower the prices, like the 5d should be around $2500 and the 1D around $3500 and not $7000 which I think is highway robbery.

Andy Trowbridge wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

Coreyhkh wrote:I dont know why there is so much hate for this camera, especially when there is not really anything else that can match it. To me the photos look as good as 90% of the bird shots I see posted on here with the $6000 1dx.

I think the term "hate" is a bit strong. What you are seeing is a bit of backlash against Canon's continued use of old sensor technology. When you can get more dynamic range out of a little Sony sensor (RX100 M3), than you  can in a larger Canon sensor(even full frame), it says a lot.

Well it gets fractional more DR at base ISO and falls off extremely quickly from there when compared to a 1DX. 12.3 vs 11.8 stops.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/ ... ___957_753

While I would love more DR for my landscape work at base ISO (100) I really don't see much if any significant advantage the Sony/Nikon sensors have over the Canon sensors in terms of DR above ISO 400, which for me and my wildlife work is about as low an ISO I can ever get with the light levels I generally have to work in. Generally I need ISO800-3200.

Since the 7D Mark II is primarily a sports/wildlife camera I personal think for most people the lack of DR at base ISO is pretty insignificant in this camera.

Compare apples to apples, the 70D and the nikon D7100
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/ ... ___895_865

Canon is way behind here, the Nikon has more megs as well. DR is important IMO for wildlife work. It makes a big difference with dark subjects and snow or white subjects with dark BG.