# Canon 7D Mark II Noise comparisons from TDP are now available



## ftico (Nov 6, 2014)

Here we go, after DXO mark I guess some people will be happy about this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-ISO-Noise.aspx


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2014)

FYI, for those who prefer pictures to DXO scores. : I strongly prefer Mr. Carnathan's comparisons over the cryptic DXO methodology as it lets me opt in to the data on my own terms (using personal experience with a specific camera to compare it to).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-ISO-Noise.aspx

Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor. There's a ton of value _elsewhere_ in the camera, but if you were holding out for 2 stops better low light performance over the 7D, the 7D2 may have fallen short of that (admittedly high) mark.

- A


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: 7D mark II image quality on the-digital-picture.com*

Back to the real world. I trust the observations of a user over a tester.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 6, 2014)

Probably the one review I'm most looking forward to. 

Strange how users of the 7Dii and now Brian, seem to get very different results than DxO does


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: 7D mark II image quality on the-digital-picture.com*



2n10 said:


> Back to the real world. I trust the observations of a user over a tester.



Bryan Carnathan has the credibility of _being an actual photographer_, and his reviews are more focused on his user experience with the gear and less on MTF charts. He's a bit pro-Canon and tends to see the best in their products (lots of enthusiasm for new offerings), but his insights from use and personal anecdotes of how his gear gets it done or lets him down is valuable. He's also very good at sniffing out odd problems with gear (e.g. the Sigma 50 Art AF semi-inconsistency) and sharing his work behind those findings. So I don't look to his site for hard data so much as a global user read on a product, and he's very good at it.

I'm a big fan of all the good stuff at his site, and he's very approachable to answering my questions. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Probably the one review I'm most looking forward to.
> 
> Strange how users of the 7Dii and now Brian, seem to get very different results than DxO does



Just on the high ISO / noise front, I've been keeping a rough tally:

DXO: 7D2 is 1/3 stop better than the 7D (their words, obv. the range of ISO you are talking about matters)

DPReview: 7D2 is about a full stop better than the 7D (to my eyes)

TDP/Carnathan: 7D2 is under a full stop better than the 7D, but I can't nail down how much (to my eyes)

Again, you aren't buying _this_ camera for the sensor. There's a ton of improved tech on-board that justifies its purchase, but the sensor isn't on that list. 

Crudely, I liken the 7D to 7D2 comparison to that of the 5D2 to 5D3. The sensor of the 5D2 was excellent but a lot of supporting features (esp. the AF) underperformed, and the 5D3 comprehensively upgraded those features. The 7D2 -- obviously improving different sorts of features than the 5D3 -- represents that similar comprehensive upgrade. The IQ is very similar, but the number and percentage of keepers should be higher as a result.

- A


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor.



+1 ... you might pixel-peep relative comparisons old 18mp vs 70d vs 7d2 all day long, but at 100% crop I don't see the basic premise changed: 800 is the max with good iq, 1600 is so-so, and ff retains a ~2 stop advantage. But that's of course to my eyes and just a quick impression.

However, I'm rather irritated about the vast differences in sharpness between the models, for example the 60d looks very blurry vs. 70d/7d2 and the 6d is a lot shaper than all. Is this because of lens properties, aa filter, or... ?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor.
> ...



Yeeeeah..... No one ever does it the perfect way for us.

See his methods -- I believe he is taking all of these shots as JPGs off the camera with no noise reduction applied and a consistent picture style.* In some instances (and it's flagged), he'll show shots with NR applied either onboard or with a RAW file run through DPP. Again, read the page for particulars.

*That's where the softness is likely coming from. Canon tunes up the picture styles from body to body.

Personally, I'd just like to see appropriately exposed RAW files compared with no NR, but wouldn't we all like it a different way? 

- A


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Again, read the page for particulars.



Nah, why use search if you can just ask again - that's the time-tried CR method and never touch a running system  ... but thanks for the reply, offhand I simply assumed they're using raw w/o nr for these tests.


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: 7D mark II image quality on the-digital-picture.com*



ahsanford said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the real world. I trust the observations of a user over a tester.
> ...



I know that about Brian and that is what my comment was about. Brian = user, DXO + tester.

I very much trust Brian's reviews and views. He was the one source that I went to when I first started with DSLRs for lens and other attachment reviews. He still is. His reviews are the most in depth I have found and I was very much waiting for this one. It is still a work in progress from what I have read but it is none the less the best out there IMO.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Nov 6, 2014)

Lots of comparisons regarding signal/noise ratios, DR, and resolution. If banding has been eliminated, isn't that something that the 7D was criticized the most by many? How quickly we forget.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 6, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> [ I don't see the basic premise changed: 800 is the max with good iq, 1600 is so-so, and ff retains a ~2 stop advantage. But that's of course to my eyes and just a quick impression



Yep. And with a Canon FF the same price as this crop, there's no reason to settle anymore.





> However, I'm rather irritated about the vast differences in sharpness between the models, for example the 60d looks very blurry vs. 70d/7d2 and the 6d is a lot shaper than all. Is this because of lens properties, aa filter, or... ?



The Canon FF IQ is just beautiful. I'm selling all my crops as soon as I get home.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 6, 2014)

Thanks for sharing! Like many here, I am eagerly awaiting Bryan Carnathan's full review of the 7D Mark II. He is thorough and has a very well-rounded approach to reviewing cameras as a *camera*, rather than as some piece of laboratory equipment. 

I must say, I'm growing ever more impressed with the IQ results for the 7D Mark II. They are substantial, at least for those with realistic expectations. I knew the AF, burst and buffer would be enormously impressive and those are the features I was most interested in, but it's fantastic that there are solid image quality improvements as well. This looks to be a phenomenal replacement for the 7D!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 6, 2014)

I am pretty vocal about my dislike over DXO's one number system, but, I don't see any thing that contradicts the DXO testing. They set a 20% S/N ratio as the limit for a clean raw image, which turned out to be just over ISO 1000. They set a stiffer standard, but its not a limit to actually using a camera, you just lose more detail above their figure. Some cameras degrade quickly at higher ISO's, and some degrade slowly so that you can increase the ISO a couple of extra stops or maybe three if you don't mind using more NR and losing more detail.

Looking at Bryans tests, the images are pretty clean at 800 and have a bit of lost detail and show noise at 1600. That doesn't mean that they are unusable, I'd have no problems at ISO 1600, and could get a nice image using a little NR at 3200. They seem to match the image quality published earlier by other major reviewers.

But at 6400, noise becomes pretty significant, so it would be for emergencies, or photos where fine detail is not required.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 6, 2014)

that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.

no matter if it´s justified or not this will make an impression on customers.


only three example:

https://fstoppers.com/critiques/dxomark-results-show-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-test-similar-5-year-old-nikon-bodies-43470#comment-form

http://petapixel.com/2014/11/05/dxomark-disappointed-7d-mark-ii-sensor-lags-behind-mft-cameras-base-iso/

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a-mount-is-dead-sure-look-at-that/


you can say what you want about DXO but it carrys a lot of weight as you can see.

if canon does not counter that, the reputation is gone. if it´s not already too late.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 7, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.
> 
> no matter if it´s justified or not this will make an impression on customers.
> 
> ...



DXO Mark is like the Emperor's New Clothes. It carries a lot of weight, but Canon has done superbly with lots of cameras that scored poorly on it, including the 5D Mark III. Personally, I hope Canon doesn't start playing the same game the other companies do and start chasing the fantasy that is a DXO Mark rating. They're much better off making solid, well engineered cameras for _*photographers*_!


----------



## JMZawodny (Nov 7, 2014)

While I like objective lab tests and the opinions of experts, I still rely on getting out there with the HW in my own hands, shooting pics, and evaluating the performance against my own standards and expectations. I've been shooting around the house with my 7D2 side by side with my 5D2 and find it meets my expectations. Low light performance is actually quite good. I'll be shooting a nighttime football game tomorrow where that will be a mix of sports action (300mm f2.8L IS II) and halftime portraits (going to try out the Sigma 50mm Art). Next weekend, I'll be shooting a high power rocket launch. After that I'll have enough personal experiences and data to develop my own opinion. Buy, rent, or borrow one and shoot it for yourself. The only opinions that matter are your own.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.
> ...



+1

Canon sensors have received lower DxOMark Scores than their competitors for ~5 years now, years in which they continued to sell more dSLRs than those competitors. 

DxOMark's Biased Scores (BS) do serve a purpose, though (albeit not a useful one):


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.
> 
> no matter if it´s justified or not this will make an impression on customers.
> 
> ...



Note *edit* above. 

I don't disagree with your point, but people are flogging a _component_ of the camera and not the pictures the entire camera can capture. (Is anyone flogging Nikon for not having DPAF or a stellar AF system? Or the shots they miss for their limited burst rate and buffer size in this price point?)

Very very very very very few photographers deeply care about sensor scores, so 'losing' in a sensor battle to Sony is of little consequence to them. I have yet to see a single substantive piece of proof that shows that photographers are switching away from Canon in any numbers that matter. 

Yet I _do_ see stories like these:

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/

http://kurtklimisch.blogspot.com/2014/01/examination-for-reuters-fullfocus-2013.html

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/70_of_imaging_professionals_use_canon_gear_at_2014_world_cup/

...that imply that imaging professionals are awfully fond of their Canon gear. There's only one explanation for this: no one told them about the dynamic range they were throwing away by not switching to Nikon immediately. 

- A


----------



## Marauder (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...



Indeed! I think Canon is doing a much better job of focussing on what photographers want, rather than what reviewers expect--and it's paying dividends. Nikon also makes great products, but there seems to be an almost shotgun like quality to their approach, trying to see what will "stick." I think the oddest thing about Nikon right now is how they continue to handicap potentially solid products with mediocre (or downright abysmal) buffer sizes. 

For example, reading the various comparisons between the 70D and the D7100 really illustrates that weakness. For a camera that will be used by many for fast moving subjects, such as sports and wildlife, the D7100's extremely small buffer is a huge handicap, while the 70D has a decent sized buffer capable of allowing a judicious photographer to take several short (3 or 4 shot) bursts to capture various portions of a bird's flight, or other action sequence. It's a pity for a Nikon shooter in many ways, because the D7100 seems like a pretty solid performer with the exception of this one factor, but it's a critical factor. 

The full frame Nikon lineup seems a bit scattered too. Products like the D4S and the D810 seem to be well targeted at a lucrative market, but the differences between the D610 and D750 seem a bit less well defined. I think it's primarily AF speed and accuracy that separates them, and that is a critical difference. But there doesn't seem to be enough other salient differences to separate them, unless I'm missing something. (Nikon shooters, please feel free to disagree with that point if you wish--I'd like to know what other advantages you feel the D750 might have. I would have thought a substantially larger buffer would have been on the table, but I've read that's not really the case.) And don't even get me started on the DF! With Fuji and Olympus showing the way to make a thoroughly modern camera with a retro look that's also practical to use, it's hard to believe Nikon could have gone so badly wrong!


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...



With my own personal principals I can not support DxO by buying their products for the reasons you state.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.
> ...



I concur. It's almost as if some are viewing cameras as some sort of scientific instrument, rather than as a camera. That's what DXO Mark encourages, because they only look at one parameter, then give it weight way beyond what it deserves. It's the totality of the system that matters, and how well it fits into the needs of the photographers who use it!


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 7, 2014)

I enjoyed clicking back and forth between the 7D and the 7D2 at various ISOs. I'd say less than one stop of improvement. If you take into account the five year wait, it's definitely not very impressive to me. I plan to keep my 7D classic as a backup to my 5D3.

However, I'm happy for you guys and gals who shoot sports and birds. Looks awesome for you. Hope you have fun with the new camera!


----------



## Northbird (Nov 7, 2014)

JMZawodny said:


> While I like objective lab tests and the opinions of experts, I still rely on getting out there with the HW in my own hands, shooting pics, and evaluating the performance against my own standards and expectations. I've been shooting around the house with my 7D2 side by side with my 5D2 and find it meets my expectations. Low light performance is actually quite good. I'll be shooting a nighttime football game tomorrow where that will be a mix of sports action (300mm f2.8L IS II) and halftime portraits (going to try out the Sigma 50mm Art). Next weekend, I'll be shooting a high power rocket launch. After that I'll have enough personal experiences and data to develop my own opinion. Buy, rent, or borrow one and shoot it for yourself. The only opinions that matter are your own.



Very well said, I completely agree. My rental just arrived and I've spent the day configuring it and took a few shots. I'm impressed. Blazing fast and accurate AF with all the flexibility in configuration any sports/wildlife shooter would ever want. I've been using a 7D for over four years and it has served me well. The Mark II is in a different league with its superb AF system. With a few config tweaks the transition to the Mark II for a Mark I shooter is quite painless. Thank you Canon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 7, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I enjoyed clicking back and forth between the 7D and the 7D2 at various ISOs. I'd say less than one stop of improvement. If you take into account the five year wait, it's definitely not very impressive to me. I plan to keep my 7D classic as a backup to my 5D3.
> 
> However, I'm happy for you guys and gals who shoot sports and birds. Looks awesome for you. Hope you have fun with the new camera!


 
A 1 stop improvement is pretty good, actually. Sensors are getting to the point where big improvements won't happen without some sort of work around technology.

Consider what the cost would be to buy all new lenses that are a stop faster. (Assuming they are even available).

If you had 5 lenses, it could easily cost $1,000 or a lot more per lens to get that one stop.

On the other hand, If you have just a 18-55mm kit lens, upgrading to a 17-55mm ef-s would be more cost effective.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2014)

To MY eyes I see about half stop improvement. This is what I had expected. 

But focus, build, buffer, viewfinder and such exceed my expectations. 

Wish there was a bit more improvement in sensor. I doubt I will buy this and continue with FF. I was tempted to get this when announced but using 7D earlier has left such bad memories…


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2014)

I am not putting down the camera, just saying that it is not for me as the difference between FF and this is vast. And since it will always be like that I will continue using FF till I can afford to. I believe now that the only reason to go crop is budget.


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 7, 2014)

sanj said:


> I am not putting down the camera, just saying that it is not for me as the difference between FF and this is vast. And since it will always be like that I will continue using FF till I can afford to. I believe now that the only reason to go crop is budget.



IQ and budget are not the only reasons people consider this body; many pros employ a 5D3 and 7D (now 7D2). With the buffer and FPS on the 7D2, there is simply nothing comparable in the class/price range...

5D3: 6.1fps, buffer maxes out at 18 frames
6D: 4.5fps, buffer maxes out at 16 frames
7D2: 10 fps, buffer maxes out 31 RAW frames!! 

In three seconds of shooting on a 5D3 you've taken 18 shots and maxed your buffer - you get almost twice the shots on a 7D2 in the same time frame (not to mention the extra reach of crop). It's pretty astounding when you think about it. 

If you're not trying to capture the shot of an eagle grabbing a fish from the river, or the hockey puck entering the net, the baseball player swinging past the ball at the plate, or the race car driver making that amazing pass on the track, then the 7D2 is probably not for you. It is simply a specific tool for a specific purpose; one where both the 6D and 5D cannot measure up.



Marsu42 said:


> However, I'm rather irritated about the vast differences in sharpness between the models, for example the 60d looks very blurry vs. 70d/7d2 and the 6d is a lot shaper than all. Is this because of lens properties, aa filter, or... ?



This is the nature of pixel density and FF vs. crop sensors. Crop sensors cram more pixels into a smaller area. Think about it, the 7D2 has the same MP as the 6D and 5D3, with a sensor that is almost half the size. Even the 1D series employed a 1.3x crop APS-H sensor for a number of versions. Hence, the photosites on these crop bodies are smaller resulting in noisier (or "blurrier," as you call it) images. Canon, and all camera manufacturers have worked diligently over the years to improve the quality of crop sensors, and they have made great strides. But physics is physics, and you can only do so much with so much light, in such a small area.


----------



## bainsybike (Nov 7, 2014)

sanj said:


> I believe now that the only reason to go crop is budget.



Another reason would be size and weight, though not perhaps with the 7DII.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor. There's a ton of value _elsewhere_ in the camera, but if you were holding out for 2 stops better low light performance over the 7D, the 7D2 may have fallen short of that (admittedly high) mark.



The various tests out there do not tell the whole story. The 7D falls off a cliff after 3200, and even at 3200 is very sensitive to scene luminance range and exposure (underexpose a low key scene and you're done). The noise is blotchy and disruptive in a way that defies NR and printing beyond 3200. 

The 7D2 does not do this from what I've seen so far. It doesn't fall off a cliff. For subjects which are not dominated by fine detail you can actually clean up and print ISO 16,000 to 8x12 and be fine. It will look as good as ISO 800 color neg film used to look.

That's why the various tests and opinions are all over the place. Well exposed, high key scene at 3200? Difference is less then a stop (but certainly more then 1/3rd stop #DxOJoke). OK exposure of a low key scene at 6400? The 7D isn't even usable.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2014)

Another test that is useful from TDP is the comparison of sharpness using the 200mm/2 L. The Mark II seems to my eyes to be an improvement over the 7D:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=673&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although the 5D III still has a real edge, which is why the "extra reach" of the crop is not a factor of 1.6 because its image is more blurred.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=792&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 7, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> This is the nature of pixel density and FF vs. crop sensors. Crop sensors cram more pixels into a smaller area. Think about it, the 7D2 has the same MP as the 6D and 5D3, with a sensor that is almost half the size. Even the 1D series employed a 1.3x crop APS-H sensor for a number of versions. Hence, the photosites on these crop bodies are smaller resulting in noisier (or "blurrier," as you call it) images.



It's not a noise issue, at least not at low to mid ISO. It's just the nature of lenses. The finer the detail the lower the contrast of said detail. Given the same scene and lens, when you step back with a crop camera to fit the scene onto the smaller sensor the lens is projecting those details at a lower point on its MTF curve. Therefore the detail contrast is lower.

Of course that's just one factor. Another factor when comparing images SOOC is that cameras have different AA filters, sharpening defaults, etc.

At the end of the day though the sharpness differences beteween m43, APS-C, and FF don't survive post processing at low to mid ISO. People seem to consider sharpness differences SOOC or with RAW defaults, at lower ISOs, to be very meaningful. I consider them meaningless. At those ISOs you choose your sharpness in camera or in post.


----------



## RichM (Nov 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> ...
> 
> Crudely, I liken the 7D to 7D2 comparison to that of the 5D2 to 5D3. The sensor of the 5D2 was excellent but a lot of supporting features (esp. the AF) underperformed, and the 5D3 comprehensively upgraded those features. The 7D2 -- obviously improving different sorts of features than the 5D3 -- represents that similar comprehensive upgrade. The IQ is very similar, but the number and percentage of keepers should be higher as a result.
> 
> - A



I either own, or in the case of the 5d2, have owned all 4 models you've listed. I completely agree with your assessment. Since I've limited experience with the 7d2, I'll wait to finalize my opinion, but so far the slight improvement to high ISO performance, and the very significant improvement to AF make the purchase worthwhile.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> IQ and budget are not the only reasons people consider this body; many pros employ a 5D3 and 7D (now 7D2). With the buffer and FPS on the 7D2, there is simply nothing comparable in the class/price range...
> 
> 5D3: 6.1fps, buffer maxes out at 18 frames
> 6D: 4.5fps, buffer maxes out at 16 frames
> 7D2: 10 fps, buffer maxes out 31 RAW frames!!



1D X: *12* fps, buffer maxes out at *38* RAW frames and IQ is better than APS-C, particularly at higher ISO. So yes, budget is the main reason to consider a crop body, even one as good as the 7DII.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

RichM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I don't shoot video, so my decision to buy a 5D3 over the 5D2 (this was before the 6D was announced) was largely based on the opportunity of using a 1DX-like AF system. Many, many reviewers said that _AF performance alone_ was worth the extra money, and after two blissfully happy years of use, I concur.

- A


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 7, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > However, I'm rather irritated about the vast differences in sharpness between the models, for example the 60d looks very blurry vs. 70d/7d2 and the 6d is a lot shaper than all. Is this because of lens properties, aa filter, or... ?
> ...



Sure, but even the crop vs. crop have very different sharpness - so as theorized above, it probably is because they use jpeg files that have different (picture style or overall camera) sharpness levels applied.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 7, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> With the buffer and FPS on the 7D2, there is simply nothing comparable in the class/price range...
> 
> 5D3: 6.1fps, buffer maxes out at 18 frames
> 6D: 4.5fps, buffer maxes out at 16 frames
> 7D2: 10 fps, buffer maxes out 31 RAW frames!!



Actually, the 7D2 can do even better! The Digital Picture has found that with a very fast 1066x UDMA 7 CF card the 7D2 can exceed its 31 frame RAW buffer by about 50%. It can do 47 to 49 RAW frames:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=13858
And after the buffer is *full*, it can still shoot at 5.7 fps, faster than some cameras shoot with an empty buffer. 

Darn it Canon, by exceeding the rated buffer, you're doing a bad job of the "crippling" that people are always talking about.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 7, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> People seem to consider sharpness differences SOOC or with RAW defaults, at lower ISOs, to be very meaningful. I consider them meaningless. At those ISOs you choose your sharpness in camera or in post.



SOOC RAW comparisons are the only meaningful comparisons.

Your logic could be used to excuse away any differences between any cameras.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 7, 2014)

sanj said:


> Wish there was a bit more improvement in sensor. I doubt I will buy this and continue with FF. I was tempted to get this when announced *but using 7D earlier has left such bad memories*…



Been there.


----------



## jrista (Nov 7, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Another test that is useful from TDP is the comparison of sharpness using the 200mm/2 L. The Mark II seems to my eyes to be an improvement over the 7D:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=673&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> ...




Hate to say it, but your assessment here is a little flawed. The 5D III does have the edge, however that is because it is a comparison of identical framing. Whenever framing is identical, more sensor area with similar pixel counts is always going to win. These tests are NOT tests of reach. 


The 7D II appears softer (at f/2) than the 5D III only because the 5D III chart images were not taken at the same distance. If you DID change the framing with the 5D III, such that the chart was at the same exact distance from the sensor as it is with the 7D II...then the "softness" of the crop would at least be on par with the 5D III.


Furthermore, the softness is due to optical aberrations. For an adequate comparison of resolving power, you need to be more diffraction limited. If both cameras were tested at say f/4 *at the same distance* (which means different framing in the 5D III), the reach advantage of the 7D II should become much clearer.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Another test that is useful from TDP is the comparison of sharpness using the 200mm/2 L. The Mark II seems to my eyes to be an improvement over the 7D:
> ...



In addition, Bryan Carnathan is fond of JPG straight off the camera in these comparisons, thus rendering them a less-than-perfect comparison. As we all know, JPG processing, picture styles, etc. vary from camera to camera. So I generally don't use his site's great comparison tool to rate _camera bodies_ -- I use it for lenses, particularly sharpness vs. aperture.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Sorry, but I'm not sure where you got that idea...

[quote author=Bryan Carnathan, TDP]
All test shots are taken in RAW format using Canon or Nikon's Neutral picture style (all parameters = 0). All aberration corrections are turned off both in-camera and during post processing. Using DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Pro), a sharpening setting of 1 is added to Canon shots.
[/quote]

Full details here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but I'm not sure where you got that idea...



He's largely JPG for his high ISO samples, so I presumed he did the same here. I stand corrected. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but I'm not sure where you got that idea...
> ...



Well, I'm not sure where you got _that_ idea, or to what high ISO samples you are referring. The ISO noise comparisons using the Kodak gray/color patch test chart, which are the subject of this thread, are also shot in RAW. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-Noise.aspx

Shooting out-of-camera JPGs for any sort of meaningful comparison (other than comparing JPG engines, for who-knows-what reason) would make for a pretty poor test, and that's now twice you've made that incorrect statement about TDP's testing.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Shooting out-of-camera JPGs for any sort of meaningful comparison (other than comparing JPG engines, for who-knows-what reason) would make for a pretty poor test, and that's now twice you've made that incorrect statement about TDP's testing.



The problem with having a beard is how the egg on my face gets stuck in there. :-[ Again, I stand corrected.

Me and my speed reading. I saw 'picture style' and thought he was referring to onboard camera JPG picture style, when he was in fact talking about picture style in DPP. 

The lesson here? Never doubt Carnathan.

- A


----------



## jrista (Nov 7, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Ya'll are a bit too technical for a simple guy such as myself. I am usually limited by reach shooting wildlife with my 400 f5.6 on a 5D3. I know there are better lenses out there but that lens fits my needs pretty well other than being a bit short. Performance with a tele can be a challenge as there is no IS, f8 focus speed etc. If the 7D2 yields images that out-resolve images from my 5D3 cropped (8mp?) or the 5D3 with a 1.4x tele (with all of the issues that brings) I assume I come out ahead. So far that seems to be the case. The fact that the 7D2 is in many ways a more robust camera for outdoor work is just icing on the cake. Am I missing something? I get that full frame has advantages if/when you fill the frame but that just isn't always possible when photographing wild animals.




This is exactly right. There is a reach benefit to a camera like the 7D II. A lot of vocal members here strongly push the notion that because of the bigger pixels, FF cameras like the 5D III or 1D X can be enlarged and have better quality than the 7D II. When it comes to noise, it was a fine line in the case of the 7D (and other 18mp APS-C parts), however there has clearly been an improvement on the 7D II high ISO noise. Maybe not by stops, but a third to two thirds of a stop. 


More important than now much noise you have, though, is the simple fact that smaller pixels resolve more detail. More reach is all about detail. Grabbing an 8mp crop out of the 5D III is never going to result in the kind of sharpness or detail you can get out of a 7D II. 


There are other benefits, though, to using a sports crop instead of a full frame when you are reach limited: Maximum lens aperture. You nailed it on the head here. 


With the 5D III, you can always slap on a TC, but when you do, you lose a stop to two stops of maximum aperture. That in turn affects the number of AF points you can use, how sensitive they are, whether they are cross type or not, and how fast AF occurs. A 5D III with say a 400 f/4 +1.4x TC is going to lose the ability to use f/4 capabilities of many AF points, and the AF speed will drop. A 7D II with the bare 400 is going to have effectively the same reach, but it will be able to use all of it's 65 AF points, in full cross type mode, with more light than the 5D III.


So you get the AF improvement on top of the increased spatial resolution. Since you are reach limited, there is no full-frame benefit to cropping the FF, you aren't gathering more light in total, just more light per pixel. You can always downsample the 7D II image to the same dimensions as the cropped 5D III image, and your noise will drop while concurrently the image will get sharper. This fact should be more recognizable with the 7D II, with it's higher resolution sensor and slightly newer sensor technology, than it was with the 7D (which, to this point, is generally what these debates have revolved around...whether the 7D had a "real" reach benefit or not.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> More important than now much noise you have, though, is the simple fact that smaller pixels resolve more detail. More reach is all about detail.



Excellent analysis, and you didn't even mention dr once ... esp. the drop in af system capabilities of the 5d3 with slower lenses is often forgotten, it's not like Canon is very verbal about announcing this fact.

Alas, the crop 18mp 7d1 af vs. ff "wisdom" has been passed down the generations for years, and now that at last a Canon crop camera with a top-notch af system and ~1/2+ better iso is here it'll take some time for people to adjust. 

Just one note: The resolution of the "small pixels" demands a very good lens. I remember you stating that there is no "outresolving", but still, I feel with a 20mp ff you can slap on about every ef lens around as long as you don't magnify the corners, while with crop you have to be more picky. Probably the reason why the 100-400L2 appears now.


----------



## JMZawodny (Nov 7, 2014)

Reach is one reason I got the 7D2. I was just out shooting a little while ago with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II on the 7D2. I'm very happy with that combo. Show me another way to get an effective 480mm F/2.8 lens.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 7, 2014)

During the age of CRT television sets, I developed a very strong appreciation for the incredible tvs that Sony used to make.

I ended up buying into a whole Sony system. Surround sound. VCR (don't laugh). DVD player. I was very pleased.

Then with the advent of flat panel screens, Sony was no longer the player they used to be.

So there I stood one day, next to a salesman, weighing up just which LCD screen I wanted to spend my money on. I had this desire to buy Sony, as it would seamlessly fit into my little system. But my eye, my eye told me that the Samsung models were way better.

So I'm chatting to the salesperson and voicing some opinions when he nudges me and says; "Hey. You do know that you're only going to hang one screen in your room, right?"

The simple reality is that every single camera out there has it's shortcomings but when you take a good pic, what else matters?


----------



## jrista (Nov 7, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > More important than now much noise you have, though, is the simple fact that smaller pixels resolve more detail. More reach is all about detail.
> ...




I do believe that good glass matters, however I don't really think it matters more on crop than FF. I mean, people buy $10k lenses to use on FF cameras for the same reason...to get the most out of the format. You can try to use a 400mm lens on a 5D III for birds, but at that focal length, you have to get very close to get the most out of the system. On the flip side, a 400mm lens is an effective 640mm FoV on a 7D II. Just from a "filling the frame" standpoint, that makes it a lot easier to do just that, fill the frame, and get as many pixels as possible on target (which is ultimately where both lower noise and more detail is going to come from.)


Then you still have that added benefit of the potential for a faster aperture, which means potentially better AF, and therefor sharper results (I do notice that AF slows down on my 5D III with the 1.4x TC...it doesn't seem like it slows down a ton, but just enough to be a little frustrating).


I think the whole "you need a better lens" thing is itself _mostly _a myth. For one, particularly with Canon, the old 100-400mm is definitely not up to snuff by todays standards, or even yesterdays standards. It's a 1990's lens design, which was still back in the film era. I still have that lens (really need to sell it), and it was sent into Canon once for tuning, and even after that...at f/5.6 that lens is very soft, and it doesn't really sharpen up until at a minimum f/7.1-f/8. I still don't think it's critically sharp at f/8, and beyond that your into diffraction limited territory, so you just can't ever get the most out of such a lens. I think the very, very common pairing of the 100-400 with the 7D has in large part helped to create a deeper myth about how poorly the 7D (which then translated to all crop cameras) could resolve detail.


Once I started pairing other lenses with the 7D, including the 100mm macro, the 50mm f/1.4, and a few other lenses I've rented over the years, I realized that you can get critically sharp results with the 7D pretty easily. Often even hand-held. Yet every time I put my 100-400mm lens on it, I just never felt as though I was getting the kind of sharpness I knew the camera could deliver. (I also feel similar about the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II...I just never feel like I am getting enough out of that lens to even get the best sharpness on the 5D III, let alone the 7D.) It wasn't most lenses that had problems...it was really just that a small specific few lens that had problems. 


With 4-stop IS, fast primes and even fast zooms (24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, etc.), getting critically sharp results in a tripod is a no-brainer, and getting critically sharp results hand-held does not really require special equipment. It requires a little bit of technique...however I believe, especially if you want to use all the pixels that FF cameras offer, that you need that same technique when hand-holding with FF as well.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2014)

JMZawodny said:


> Reach is one reason I got the 7D2. I was just out shooting a little while ago with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II on the 7D2. I'm very happy with that combo. Show me another way to get an effective 480mm F/2.8 lens.



Your 7D MkII makes your 300 f2.8 an effective 480mm f4.5 from a fov, dof and iso point of view, when compared to a 135 format camera.

Most people who have actually tested same generation cropped ff against crop cameras for the same fov almost universally agree the difference in resolution is very small.

Having said that, the price of a 10fps ff camera makes the 7D MkII an amazing buy, but for different reasons than the largely imagined crop reach advantage.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 7, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Actually, the 7D2 can do even better! The Digital Picture has found that with a very fast 1066x UDMA 7 CF card the 7D2 can exceed its 31 frame RAW buffer by about 50%. It can do 47 to 49 RAW frames:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=13858
> And after the buffer is *full*, it can still shoot at 5.7 fps, faster than some cameras shoot with an empty buffer.
> 
> Darn it Canon, by exceeding the rated buffer, you're doing a bad job of the "crippling" that people are always talking about.



Music to my ears. I want to always shoot RAW, and 3s worth of burst at max fps is just short of what I would like. I can hit the buffer limit on the 7D in RAW. 

Nearly 5s should cover what I do perfectly.

And 5.7 fps when the buffer is full? Nice work Canon.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 7, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Your logic could be used to excuse away any differences between any cameras.



Obviously not differences that are outside of the capability of post processing to erase.

If you want to compare sensor performance then RAWs converted with neutral settings (as neutral as you can make them; don't think it's ever perfectly neutral) is best. But I'm most interested in practical results when the entire imaging chain is in play. In this case there's very little to pick between formats at low ISO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Super! That's about how I had it figured in theory but I was having second thoughts. Finally stopped raining here in Pennsylvania so I'm going to go and see if I can find some critters and put the theory to work. Still have about ten days left in the return window for the 7D2 just in case it doesn't pan out. I guess I could get a longer lens but I'd prefer not to deal with the extra weight.



Don't be disappointed when you do actual comparisons and realise there is actually very little difference.

For all the _"simple fact that smaller pixels resolve more detail"_ proponents I have never, and I have asked lots of times, ever seen anybody actually illustrate that point to any worthwhile degree. There are lots of comparisons out there, I have posted my own many times, of same generation cameras but when you process each to their optimum it becomes very hard to distinguish the two even at 100% magnification.

Now a 1.4 TC is a hell of a lot cheaper than a 7D MkII, but that doesn't mean there is no point to getting the 7D MkII, and I have never said that. What I have said is if you already own a ff camera the difference in resolution in your actual images doesn't come close to the expected figures so make the purchase choice based on more realistic differences, like frame rate, AF etc etc.


----------



## JMZawodny (Nov 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> JMZawodny said:
> 
> 
> > Reach is one reason I got the 7D2. I was just out shooting a little while ago with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II on the 7D2. I'm very happy with that combo. Show me another way to get an effective 480mm F/2.8 lens.
> ...



The light cone produced by the lens is determined by the lens alone and is f/2.8 no matter what camera it is attached to. Similarly, the difference in pixel size and number of electrons a pixel can hold is compensated for by the gain of the electronics so that ISO means the same thing from one camera to the next. And that is independent of lens. FOV of view does scale with crop factor. For a given solid angle, the APS-C puts more pixels in there. Depth of field is slightly reduced with the smaller pixels on the APS-C sensor. The problem I see here with folks throwing numbers around is that they are assuming very different things or performing some assumed scaling in order to match some arbitrary aspect between two different cameras. That was also the case with my original post. From an FOV perspective it appears to be a 480mm lens. DOF is reduced by ~1.6. Any discussion of ISO is irrelevant, but noise will most certainly increase as compared to a 480mm lens on a FF body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't be disappointed when you do actual comparisons and realise there is actually very little difference.
> 
> For all the _"simple fact that smaller pixels resolve more detail"_ proponents I have never, and I have asked lots of times, ever seen anybody actually illustrate that point to any worthwhile degree. There are lots of comparisons out there, I have posted my own many times, of same generation cameras but when you process each to their optimum it becomes very hard to distinguish the two even at 100% magnification.



^^ THIS.

Theory is wonderful. I like theory. But empirical testing is far more relevant to real-world applications. Ample empirical testing has shown that the 'reach advantage' of smaller pixels in smaller sensors is _much_ less than theory would suggest. In actual practice, the 'reach advantage' ranges from small to nonexistent to a disadvantage, depending on lens used, lighting, and subject distance. 

Interestingly, many of those empirical tests come from people who used only crop bodies and espoused the 'reach advantage'...then started using a FF body.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 7, 2014)

Hmm, it's looking like it's time to reach for the


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Another test that is useful from TDP is the comparison of sharpness using the 200mm/2 L. The Mark II seems to my eyes to be an improvement over the 7D:
> ...



It's not the distance that is important in determining sharpness in those TDP tests, it is the sharpness of the sensors. The camera and lens are at a distance so that the chart fills the sensor in all cases and the conditions are not such to cause light shimmering, haze etc that gets worse with distance. If the distance were the crucial factor, then a 600mm L lens would be much worse than a 100mm lens in his tests, which it isn't. And you can compare a 1dsiii with 300/2.8 + 1.4xTC with a 60d + 300/2.8. Both are about the same distance away from the chart but the 1dsiii is still sharper despite having a TC which degrades the image slightly.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=739&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Whoops. Didn't mean to wade into the middle of the crop vs FF debate. What was I thinking? Seems like folks already have their clearly staked out positions on this one. Think I'll stay out of it.
> 
> Anyway, just ran off a couple hundred frames and I am really beginning to love the handling of this camera. The in-viewfinder level is awesome. Wish my 5D's had that. Its so easy to lose track of the horizon when you are photographing wildlife and then have to do a major crop to square things up. Given that it's already a "crop" sensor you don't want to needlessly be throwing away any precious pixels for that. 10 FPS is waaaaaay faster than 6. Hard to just get one frame off in high speed mode. It really wants to run!



In fact, you have a great handle on the crop vs. FF debate. It's really about cost, and about features for a given price point.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 7, 2014)

AlanF said:


> It's not the distance that is important in determining sharpness in those TDP tests, it is the sharpness of the sensors.



If so, then the lack of sharpness of older sensors in their test shots is misleading. With a 60d which appears blurry as hell on tdp, I can get shots I couldn't imagine to be sharper with a 100L lens. Or am I missing something here?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the distance that is important in determining sharpness in those TDP tests, it is the sharpness of the sensors.
> ...



Perhaps the fact that TDP's ISO 12233 crops have a very low amount of sharpening applied relative to what is the default for the 60D with major RAW converters? Process the shots you refer to in DPP with Sharpness = 1, Picture Style = Neutral, and everything else OFF, and then compare them to how they look with your standard workflow. Let us know how that turns out...


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2014)

JMZawodny said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > JMZawodny said:
> ...



If you want to say that then it is equally true to say the focal length is determined by the focal length of the lens and is the same no matter what camera is attached to it. But that wasn't what you originally said, you said *"equivalent"* if you are going to start cherry picking parts of the 'equivalent' then don't be surprised when people pull you up on it and point out that one part of 'equivalence' is pointless without using all of it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps the fact that TDP's ISO 12233 crops have a very low amount of sharpening applied relative to what is the default for the 60D with major RAW converters? Process the shots you refer to in DPP with Sharpness = 1, Picture Style = Neutral, and everything else OFF, and then compare them to how they look with your standard workflow.



But the result with dpp would look like a sooc jpeg with the same settings, wouldn't it (excluding raw benefits like wb adjustments, dr, ...)? And that would be about the same as the in-camera preview or preview in a cr2 file? 

I admit my motivation to test it myself is limited, but if the real life results of the 7d2 (or 70d, for that matter) are as significantly different to the good ol' 18mp sensors than that's certainly a big step forward.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Whoops. Didn't mean to wade into the middle of the crop vs FF debate. What was I thinking? Seems like folks already have their clearly staked out positions on this one. Think I'll stay out of it.
> 
> Anyway, just ran off a couple hundred frames and I am really beginning to love the handling of this camera. *The in-viewfinder level is awesome. Wish my 5D's had that.* Its so easy to lose track of the horizon when you are photographing wildlife and then have to do a major crop to square things up. Given that it's already a "crop" sensor you don't want to needlessly be throwing away any precious pixels for that. 10 FPS is waaaaaay faster than 6. Hard to just get one frame off in high speed mode. It really wants to run!



The 5D3 _has_ an in-viewfinder level. No one ever talks about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6bIbWPYJo4
(skip to 0:22 in the video for the simulation of the in-viewfinder level)

That said, it lacks fidelity (it's fairly discrete/clumsy) and it effectively takes over the VF when you'd like to be doing other things inside of it. The 7D2 level seems much better located in the VF from what I've seen and read (though I have not tried it myself).

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the fact that TDP's ISO 12233 crops have a very low amount of sharpening applied relative to what is the default for the 60D with major RAW converters? Process the shots you refer to in DPP with Sharpness = 1, Picture Style = Neutral, and everything else OFF, and then compare them to how they look with your standard workflow.
> ...



Do you normally shoot JPG in Neutral or Faithful picture style? Default sharpness for those is zero. It's 2 for portrait, 4 for landscape, and 3 for the others (scale is 0-7).


----------



## lintoni (Nov 8, 2014)

GraFax said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > GraFax said:
> ...


That does sound like a much better implementation than the 5D3's - I've tried a couple of times to get along with it, but found it more of a hindrance than a help. Having said that, I'm generally quite good at horizons anyway, framing through the viewfinder, but certainly appreciate the one on the screen for tripod shooting.


----------



## JMZawodny (Nov 8, 2014)

I just got back from this evening's football game where I shot just under 1000 photos with the 7D2 on the 300mm f/2.8L IS II at ISO 4000. I had all noise reduction turned off and shot RAW + JPEG. Some initial impressions relative to my 5D2 which I was also shooting at ISO 6400: At f/2.8 the AF in the 7D2 is wicked fast and accurate - Very impressive. There are only a small number of shots that are not in focus due to my inability to track with that long lens. At ISO 4000 the jpegs at ~40% size on the computer monitor look very acceptable and I expect the RAWs should clean up nicely. At full res the color noise is comparable to what was shown at the beginning of this thread. I had a tough time squeezing off just a single frame when the drive was set to 10fps. The buffer is plenty deep. The flicker reduction delay was imperceptible. I am very happy with the way the 7D2 handles as well as the AF and IQ. It is a keeper.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 8, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> that´s all fine but fact is overall the 7D MK2 get´s a lot of bad press.
> 
> no matter if it´s justified or not this will make an impression on customers.
> 
> ...



just a quick question... before digital you know when we used that film stuff
did you just go out and unroll a 36 exp out of the box at the scene?
ya know cause the sensor is the only thing that matters right?


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I always shoot neutral (for jpeg preview only as I use raw) and use the neutral picstyle camera emulation in Lightroom. I couldn't stand the pimped up sharpness of the other in-camera picture styles, so for me neutral or faithful are the only options even though you can modify the picstyles in the camera.

But not only for preview sharpness, but because of the colors and tonality: neutral has a more "flat" look unless you dial everything to 11 in postprocessing. Some people want their pictures to give more pop, but I like it this way. Seems to be a big difference in taste. I should probably do another of my famous polls so we can find out what people around here use.


----------

