Discussion Forums » Photography Equipment

EOS 7D Mark II User experience Thread

Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

« Previous topic | Next topic »

0 people like this post

First unread post

| 680 posts |

Page 5 of 34

« 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 34 »

by OntPhoto on Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:25 pm

OntPhoto
Forum Contributor

Posts: 7042
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.

Visit website

Picked this off DPR. Canon tutorial on using AI-Servo with 7D MK2. Lot of learning and practice for me and others not used to so many AF options.
http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/ga ... ials.shtml

0 people like this post

by Neilyb on Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:14 pm

Neilyb
Forum Contributor

Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich

Visit website

rnclark wrote:
Neilyb wrote:I found this on POTN. Not a scientific comparison at all, his exposures are a little on the dark side but what interests me is the "old" 70D sensor and the "brand new" 7DII sensor...both look very scarily similar to me. Noise and detail wise. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... ?t=1404856

I do not mind Canon marketing higher FPS and super AF system but "new" sensor?
Lots of confusion in this thread

Above link: he has resampled the images and depending on which image was resampled and with what algorithm, the noise profile on a given image will be changed. It should not be considered a noise comparison.

Doug Brown's image shows what the camera and lens are capable of. Doug is an excellent bird photographer. Anyone not achieving similar results is either using a lesser technique or a lesser quality lens.

The 7D2 has 4.1 micron pixels. A sensor with smaller pixels is functionally equivalent to using a sensor with larger pixels and a TC, but without the degradation of the TC. If you complain about noise consider this. Say you are used to a 1DX (6.9 micron pixels). Let's say you had a 1.7x TC. When you put the 1.7x TC on you increase exposure time (or open the f-stop if not already wide open). The 7d2 gives more reach on the subject over a 1DX by 6.9/4.1 = 1.7x. So taking off the 1DX and putting on the 7D2 is adding 1.7x magnification (but without the degradation of more optical elements). Increase exposure by 1.5 stops with the 7D2 just as you would with a 1DX+1.7x TC. Then you get the same noise and same pixels on the subject. Most complaints about noise is not understanding these facts (and that applies to the 7D Mark 1 too).

Blur filter over the sensor does not change noise. But finer detail does mask noise. (e.g. noise in a blurred background is more apparent than in areas of high contrast fine detail). When pixel sizes are large (e.g. 7 to 8+ microns) more aggressive blur filters are needed. As pixel sized decrease, blur is done more by the lens. I would have preferred a 7D2 with no blur filter. How do we know if the 7D2 has a blur filter?

In complaining "my other camera" gave a sharp image, but the 7D2 does not, consider the following. If your lens/technique is not up to the challenge of the increased resolution on the subject, the 7D2 is not going give lower quality ON THE SUBJECT. For example, a lens may not deliver the pixel to pixel sharpness (contrast) on the 7d2 that it does on a camera with larger pixels, but the detail will be no less ON THE SUBJECT and likely to still be more. I would say detail on the subject is more important than pixel to pixel sharpness. In other words, stop focusing on the pixel and focus on the subject.

Along these lines, examine the images here: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/
This is a comparison of images made with a 1DIV, 7D and 5DII as a function of ISO with NO resampling. Yes the 7D images are noisier, but they show more detail. Which image would you choose? Most people I show this to choose the images with more detail (7D). I'll do this same sequence with the 7D2 (I get my 7D2 today).

Roger

Roger, I doubt the 70 and 7d images were resampled, rather the 5d3 down to 20MP to match. My interest was the noise and slight softness of the images comparing to 2 identical sensors, even though one is marketed as (I quote Chuck Westfall) "brand new". I am acutely aware that non of Canon's crop sensors will match its full frame counterparts for noise etc.

Had Canon left off the AAfilter I am sure they would have mentioned it. I await your results.

http://natureimmortal.blogspot.com

0 people like this post

by fredcor on Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:38 pm

fredcor
Lifetime Member

Posts: 5419
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON. Canada
Member #:00186

View portfolio
Visit website

Agree with Neilyb. For my needs the ISO quality needs to be improved. So, when performing image quality reviews, keep the ISO values the same when comparing cameras. Changing exposure ISO due to removal of a TC is not the same. Perform reviews with all things being equal for the image quality review. IMO, adding or removing a 1.6 reach is not considered part of image quality. Provided exposure is correct; shutter and aperture variations do not change the sensor's ability to produce a noiseless or noisy image. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Frederick Lat Correa

0 people like this post

by rnclark on Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:45 pm

rnclark
Lifetime Member

Posts: 864
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Member #:01978

View portfolio
Visit website

OntPhoto wrote:Picked this off DPR. Canon tutorial on using AI-Servo with 7D MK2. Lot of learning and practice for me and others not used to so many AF options.
http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/ga ... ials.shtml

That is a great set of videos. It shows an amazing new set of options.

Question for those with the 7DII:
On the LCD I want the RGB histogram and the image. I want those two things as large as possible. But half the LCD screen is taken up by a scrollable list of exif data. I want the scrollable list off and the RGB histogram larger, and the image larger too. To have the LCD half filled with useless crap that doesn't help me evaluate the image just obtained is not acceptable. Any ideas how to fix that?

Roger

http://www.clarkvision.com/

0 people like this post

by rnclark on Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:05 pm

rnclark
Lifetime Member

Posts: 864
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Member #:01978

View portfolio
Visit website

fredcor wrote:Agree with Neilyb. For my needs the ISO quality needs to be improved. So, when performing image quality reviews, keep the ISO values the same when comparing cameras. Changing exposure ISO due to removal of a TC is not the same. Perform reviews with all things being equal for the image quality review. IMO, adding or removing a 1.6 reach is not considered part of image quality. Provided exposure is correct; shutter and aperture variations do not change the sensor's ability to produce a noiseless or noisy image. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

More confusion.

ISO does not change noise or sensitivity. ISO changes post sensor gain. Further, every camera model sets ISO at a different level. For example, consider buckets of water. If you went to buy a bucket at a store, could not actually see the bucket and you are only told the capacity can be full, half full, quarter full, 1/8 full etc, that would not be very useful. That is where we are with cameras and ISO. ISO 100 is basically a full pixel. ISO 200 is half full, ISO 400 1/4 full, etc. But we aren't told how much (light/photoelectrons) a pixel holds. So different cameras set the amount of light at different levels. That makes everything more confusing (this thread is evidence of that).

Again, focus on the subject, not the pixel. The lens delivers the light (X photons per square micron per second) from the subject. The pixel is just a bucket to hold the collected light (as photoelectrons). The lens, it's focal length and the exposure time are the keys to proper exposure on the SUBJECT to get the signal to noise you want, NOT the pixel or the specific camera. Noise shown in images linked to in this thread are entirely due to that from finite number of photons collected--photon noise. Exposure time and lens controls that, not pixels.

Back to the bucket analogy: The faucet is like the lens, and the amount of time you have the faucet on is the exposure time. The faucet and time are the keys to how much water you collect in the bucket, NOT whether you declare the bucket half full (when you don't even know the capacity of the bucket). Similarly, ISO just declares what range (in fractions of a full pixel) to digitize, not how much actual light will be digitized.

Roger

http://www.clarkvision.com/

0 people like this post

by fredcor on Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:52 pm

fredcor
Lifetime Member

Posts: 5419
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON. Canada
Member #:00186

View portfolio
Visit website

With due respect Roger. Too much info. When I'm shooting I would find it difficult to think of buckets

But I do think of differences in dark areas of my images being unrealisticly uneven, from pixel to pixel, with a 7D than my 5DIII, irrespective of lens or exposure. The darkness differences, in the same area, between neighbouring pixels; increase sooner in the 7D than the 5DIII as I increase ISO. Similar to the BG in the moon images on your website if one scrolls down to the high ISOs. Neighbouring pixel brightness change is drastic, not gradual in relation to the actual change in dark areas. That is my perception of noise.

Frederick Lat Correa

0 people like this post

by Methodical on Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:49 pm

Methodical
Forum Contributor

Posts: 138
Joined: 9 Jun 2009

Visit website

fredcor wrote:Methodical, the reason for such length on image quality is because there are a lot, and I mean a lot! of photographers who were disappointed with 7D image quality; not any other feature. They do not want to be laden with the same issue. Therefore, they have to be given the space to ensure their issues are resolved, or other features outweigh, before they purchase the 7DII. That includes me. I use a 5DIII now, but would really like to buy the 7DII as I miss the 1.6 factor; I had two 7D's bodies. I do not know if I can live with another 1.6 body, without at least a proven 1-1.5 stop noise improvement. I believe the image should come out of the camera clean without having to use noise reduction software. Those are my expectations and I'm sticking with them.

Why do we not see similar discussion with other new cameras is the question to ask?

Fred, I never had the 7D, so maybe that's clouding my view, but I can tell you the 7D2 is way better than the 50D I had. I'm pretty sure this sort of thing happens whenever any new camera body hits the market - 1D4 vs 1D3, 5D3 vs 5D2, 5D2 vs 5D. 7D vs 40 or 50D.

I see too many folks posting some crappy images from this new body (I know it's not the camera's fault), that I could not judge whether to buy or not buy from those alone. It's just to subjective to determine what's good or bad. I need to see for myself. Too many people complaining about how someone performed a test, but yet they don't go out and get it and test it themselves. For some things, I just don't have the patience. Like I said, this is way better than the 50D I had.

Good luck with all the mess around this camera in determining if it's good or not. It seems that most folks would be better served to just buy the 1Dx and be done with it.

Here's a shot at ISO 16000. It has noise, but is ok with me, but I am no expert with noise, but I do know that when printed it's not that big of a deal. I don't shoot that high though. What's your thought?

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... tcount=847

www.MethodicalImages.com

0 people like this post

by fredcor on Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:19 pm

fredcor
Lifetime Member

Posts: 5419
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON. Canada
Member #:00186

View portfolio
Visit website

I agree with all you've said. I had the 50D as well and sold it soon after. The image is good and sharp for the type of subject and location, though if the whites were not overexposed and the exposure was reduced then the darker areas would have more noise. I would not shoot higher than 800ISO unless I use the 5DIII. I never went above 400ISO with the 7D, the images were not worth keeping IMO. I just hate the look of that mottled BG when noise is present.

I don't have the ability or patience to test the camera, for that very reason we have able people that do reviews. Just doing the AF micro adjust is a chore.

You see; I do not want to spend time in front of the computer fixing an image other that to add a bit of saturation, sharpening and cropping to suit. I've sold images, people marvel at my pictures and I've never used noise reduction software and don't intend to start. The 5DIII suits me fine, I just miss the 1.6 factor after having sold my 500f4 due to weight. I had a 1D2 but now the 1D series are too pricey and inappropriate for my amount of shooting. I'd rather buy another 5DIII than a 7DII that has not improved in ISO ability. When a review positively states that the 7DII is 1-1.5 stops better, then I will consider it. Otherwise the 70D will be more appropriate until Canon comes out with a new 5D or 70D.

Frederick Lat Correa

0 people like this post

by Scott Fairbairn on Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:36 pm

Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437

View portfolio

Review. Summary, no difference in IQ to 7D and 70D.
http://kennewcombe.com/7DII_review.html

0 people like this post

by fredcor on Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:06 pm

fredcor
Lifetime Member

Posts: 5419
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON. Canada
Member #:00186

View portfolio
Visit website

Yes, I saw it in draft form and did not want to mention it till it was complete. Not surprising at all as Canon made no special promotion of quality improvement. This was one of the omissions that gave Ken the hint. I know Ken very well and value his technical skills greatly. We're both engineers, he electronics and radiation and I mechanical so there is mutual appreciation and respect.

Following the review, suffice to say that the 7D and 70D are a bit old now. So the only Canon 1.6 crop is the 7DII, unless one wants to wait a couple of years.

Frederick Lat Correa

0 people like this post

by Professional on Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:10 am

Professional
Lifetime Member

Posts: 956
Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Location: Ajman - United Arab Emirates
Member #:01430

View portfolio

Well, i have 1DX, but as you, i didn't use 1.6 factor camera since very very long time ago, in fact i even didn't use my 1.6 factor cameras longer than 2 years, i bought 350D in late[end] of 2005 and then followed with 30D in early 2006, and then i went with 1 series and only 5D classic, now with 7DII i think again about 1.6, but how much this 7DII will give me over 1DX?

I don't shoot birds or wildlife, but i shoot sports and my longest prime lens is 300mm 2.8IS, and i crop a lot, 1D2n and 1D3 were my best options until i got 1DX then both 1D2n and 1D3 are dead to me, but i still holding 1D3 as backup as i have also 70-200 II so i may shoot with second body, now, should i keep 1D3 as my second body or replace it with 7DII? what if i decide one day i want to shoot birds? I put 1D2n + 30D for sale but i know i will never have the price i look for, if that may happen then i can easily keep 1D3 and buy 7DII, but if i will compare 7DII with 1DX, what is there i should think rather than just more mo with 7DII and maybe better high ISO if 7DII is newer?

Tareq Alhamrani

0 people like this post

by Neilyb on Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:43 am

Neilyb
Forum Contributor

Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich

Visit website

Scott Fairbairn wrote:Review. Summary, no difference in IQ to 7D and 70D.
http://kennewcombe.com/7DII_review.html

Exactly, brand new sensor, thanks Canon.

http://natureimmortal.blogspot.com

0 people like this post

by Vertigo on Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:41 am

Vertigo
Forum Contributor

Posts: 416
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Rennes, France

Visit website

There is a little less noise on his 7D2 crops, or is it just me ?

0 people like this post

by crw816 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:19 am

crw816
Forum Contributor

Posts: 1942
Joined: 23 Jul 2011
Location: Colchester, VT

Visit website

Scott Fairbairn wrote:Review. Summary, no difference in IQ to 7D and 70D.
http://kennewcombe.com/7DII_review.html

This reviewer states that the iq is the same as the 7d and the 70d, yet the 7d and the 70d themselves aren't the same iq. (I didn't see any 7d images in this review to compare to, only the concluding statement... Did I miss it somehow?)

my impression of the 7D2 (after owning a 7d previously) is that the upgrade in iq is dramatically better. (With respect to noise)

Chris White
www.whitephotogallery.com

0 people like this post

by Neilyb on Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:24 am

Neilyb
Forum Contributor

Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich

Visit website

crw816 wrote:
Scott Fairbairn wrote:Review. Summary, no difference in IQ to 7D and 70D.
http://kennewcombe.com/7DII_review.html
This reviewer states that the iq is the same as the 7d and the 70d, yet the 7d and the 70d themselves aren't the same iq. (I didn't see any 7d images in this review to compare to, only the concluding statement... Did I miss it somehow?)

my impression of the 7D2 (after owning a 7d previously) is that the upgrade in iq is dramatically better. (With respect to noise)

The reviewer seems to refer to his 7DmkII as "7D"... a bit confusing.

http://natureimmortal.blogspot.com

0 people like this post

by crw816 on Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:19 am

crw816
Forum Contributor

Posts: 1942
Joined: 23 Jul 2011
Location: Colchester, VT

Visit website

Neilyb wrote:
crw816 wrote:
Scott Fairbairn wrote:Review. Summary, no difference in IQ to 7D and 70D.
http://kennewcombe.com/7DII_review.html
This reviewer states that the iq is the same as the 7d and the 70d, yet the 7d and the 70d themselves aren't the same iq. (I didn't see any 7d images in this review to compare to, only the concluding statement... Did I miss it somehow?)

my impression of the 7D2 (after owning a 7d previously) is that the upgrade in iq is dramatically better. (With respect to noise)
The reviewer seems to refer to his 7DmkII as "7D"... a bit confusing.

I noticed that. Furthermore I dislike test review images of things like books, or photographs of artwork. There is no way to tell if softness or texture is due to the sensor or the quality of the printing. Even high quality printing can bleed a little... I'm hoping to get out in good light soon to take photos of white-tail deer. For me, I need to see how animal hairs or feathers look at various ISO settings... Studio comparisons do not reveal much in my opinion.

Chris White
www.whitephotogallery.com

0 people like this post

by Michael Wolf on Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:56 am

Michael Wolf
Forum Contributor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Location: South Florida

Visit website

Another cool mini review that raves about autofocus & live view.....
"We put the 7D and 7D II side by side and autofocused from near to infinity in Live View. The 7D II had taken 8 shots before the 7D even locked on focus."

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/ ... 7d-mark-ii

Thanks for sharing,
Michael W.

[url=http://floridanaturephotographer.blogspot.com/][b]My Blog[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/floridanaturephotography//][b]Flicker[/b][/url]

0 people like this post

by Scott Fairbairn on Tue Nov 04, 2014 8:50 am

Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437

View portfolio

Michael Wolf wrote:Another cool mini review that raves about autofocus & live view.....
"We put the 7D and 7D II side by side and autofocused from near to infinity in Live View. The 7D II had taken 8 shots before the 7D even locked on focus."

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/ ... 7d-mark-ii

Actually using liveview is what I used to do with the 7D when it's AF system failed inexplicably. To hear that it is fast in liveview is great. Which I guess is just like the 70D?

Also read.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/11 ... -the-7d-ii

0 people like this post

by Methodical on Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:34 am

Methodical
Forum Contributor

Posts: 138
Joined: 9 Jun 2009

Visit website

I am reading this article now and the weather sealing is just another plus in my book. However, I wonder why they didn't make a one piece seal, instead of the overlapping piece, just above the eyepiece. Could that possibly be an entry point for moisture?

www.MethodicalImages.com

0 people like this post

by rnclark on Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:38 am

rnclark
Lifetime Member

Posts: 864
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Member #:01978

View portfolio
Visit website

Some quick notes after about 20 hours with the camera.
It was dark, rainy and dreary yesterday so I built an artificial star field to test sensitivity. I also did dark frame tests. Pattern noise is much better controlled. Still not up to par with the Nikon D800+ series, but much better, especially at low ISOs.

On sensitivity, people have been saying things like one to two stops. Physics says that really is not possible. Quantum efficiencies are already in the 40% range with gapless micro lenses (which means fill factors are close to 100%). In theory about 1 stop might be possible, but more likely less (otherwise canon would probably have a patent on it and be tooting their horns). Very preliminary star field analysis shows a small increase in actual sensitivity, perhaps as much as 30%. But this will have to wait until I can better calibrate the photons/pixel, which might be a while as it depends on decoding the raw file with no Bayer interpolation, which most raw converters do not do. Even so, low level noise seems to be better controlled.

While pattern noise is better at low ISO, I'm am not impressed with the pattern noise at ISO1600 and above--seems more than it should be and more apparent than at lower isos when the image intensity is stretched. But this too might be because overall random noise is less so remaining pattern noise shows more even though it may be less than i8n previous cameras. Finding out which is the case will again have to wait for calibration to photos/pixel.

There are MANY new settings in the camera. There are several noise settings. People are currently using DPP and even if NR is turned off in DPP, one needs to be sure all is off in the camera too or DPP may still be applying settings from the camera (we don't know what DPP really does). So it may be that the wide variation in apparent noise reported on the net has to do with camera + DPP settings and little to do with the sensor. If you want to looks at noise from the camera and not downstream processing, be sure ALL noise reduction settings, camera + software, are turned off.

Roger

http://www.clarkvision.com/

0 people like this post