# High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 16, 2014)

```
<p>Matt Granger has posted some high ISO samples from the brand new Canon EOS 7D Mark II. You can <a href="http://mattgranger.com/7d2" target="_blank">check out the samples at MattGranger.com</a></p>
<div id="attachment_17376" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/7d2isohigh.jpg"><img class="wp-image-17376 size-medium" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/7d2isohigh-575x383.jpg" alt="7d2isohigh" width="575" height="383" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 7D Mark II $1799: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081808-REG/canon_9128b002_eos_7d_mark_ii.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA7DM2.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NEWZDRG/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00NEWZDRG&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=4IHYPE3ZKJN5VL4X" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-cart/product.asp?pid=7dmarkii" target="_blank">Camera Canada</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## DiSnapper (Sep 16, 2014)

Amazing, atlease when compared to my 7D. The amount of grain at 51200 is same as what my camera gives me at 400. Good start for 7D ii. Looking forward for more reviews.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

DiSnapper said:


> Amazing, atlease when compared to my 7D. The amount of grain at 51200 is same as what my camera gives me at 400. Good start for 7D ii. Looking forward for more reviews.



aha


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 16, 2014)

WOW... that does look good... but if it had not been a major ISO improvement, it was going to be a dud! 

Makes me think "what will the 1dxII/5dIV be like"?  good times


----------



## ewg963 (Sep 16, 2014)

Looks good...


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

well i normaly don´t judge from resized JPG images. 

but i doubt that 51200 on the 7D MK2 looks as grainy as ISO 400 on a 7D. 

i guess his 7D has some major issues if that´s true. :


----------



## DiSnapper (Sep 16, 2014)

Quest for Light said:


> well i normaly don´t judge from resized JPG images.
> 
> but i doubt that 51200 on the 7D MK2 looks as grainy as ISO 400 on a 7D.
> 
> i guess his 7D has some major issues if that´s true. :



I am not sure of other 7Ds but the one am using have this issue along with inaccurate AF.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

DiSnapper said:


> Quest for Light said:
> 
> 
> > well i normaly don´t judge from resized JPG images.
> ...



you tell me your 7D at ISO 400 looks like this:







are you sure it´s not a Casio Z50 you are talking about? ??? ;D


----------



## kevl (Sep 16, 2014)

The ISO performance looks impressive for an APS-C. 

BUT WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE FOCUS? Out of 5 frames two are completely out of focus and one is focused on the wrong eye. Was he drunk or is the focus really not very good?


----------



## vlim (Sep 16, 2014)

it looks really realy good at 6400 iso which would be great for an apsc body !


----------



## steliosk (Sep 16, 2014)

JPEG from camera with noise reduction filters
downsized to 2 megapixels from 20
and the conclusion is HIGH ISO KING :

i doubt if high iso RAW files are gonna be any better than 7D 1


----------



## hemanthforcanonrumors (Sep 16, 2014)

Wow, awsome. I had posted in another thread tht i would be very happy if I could get a clean noiseless image at 6400 ISO speed. I see that at 12,800 ISO this still gives a super image absolutely.. Not able to wait for 7D2 to be in my hands soon.  

7D was good upto ISO 1000 or may be a stop over it max. but nothing above that. But under low light situations, i have used 5d3, and i have take so many images between ISO 6400 and ISO 8000, it results in an absolute stunning quality with absolutely no noise at all. So, with 7D2 all that have changed again compared to 7D.. no need for any extensive usage of an additional noise removal software's.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

hemanthforcanonrumors said:


> Wow, awsome. I had posted in another thread tht i would be very happy if I could get a clean noiseless image at 6400 ISO speed. I see that at 12,800 ISO this still gives a super image absolutely.. Not able to wait for 7D2 to be in my hands soon.
> 
> 7D was good upto ISO 1000 or may be a stop over it max. but nothing above that. But under low light situations, i have used 5d3, and i have take so many images between ISO 6400 and ISO 8000, it results in an absolute stunning quality with absolutely no noise at all. So, with 7D2 all that have changed again compared to 7D.. no need for any extensive usage of an additional noise removal software's.



and it would be even better if he had resized to 500x333 pixel. 8)


----------



## Vikmnilu (Sep 16, 2014)

The web is already suffering from high number of clicks..... I wonder if it is a result of GAS 

Seems that people were really looking forward to this! Understandable! And hope it copes with the noise.


----------



## Memdroid (Sep 16, 2014)

Wow that guy really got it together. Different exposures on almost all the the samples and misfocused too! He seriously published this as a "test", what a joke!

But the ISO performance seems really good for an APS-C body, impressed!. I wish he uploaded the the full res files instead.


----------



## martinslade (Sep 16, 2014)

Here are some much larger jpegs to check out: http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-sample-images-movies/


----------



## AlanF (Sep 16, 2014)

DiSnapper said:


> Amazing, atlease when compared to my 7D. The amount of grain at 51200 is same as what my camera gives me at 400. Good start for 7D ii. Looking forward for more reviews.



7 stops of improvement! Proves Neuro has been wrong all along about the laws of physics.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

Memdroid said:


> Wow that guy really got it together. Different exposures on almost all the the samples and misfocused too! He seriously published this as a "test", what a joke!




ken r. younger brother i guess... :


----------



## Joe M (Sep 16, 2014)

I realize that everyone is anxious for some output from the camera to back up what some consider an improved version and others a warm-over. The output is what matters. But could CR please link to some meaningful examples? While I'm not considering purchasing this camera, it's still interesting to see what technology Canon is bringing to the table and I am not anxious but would still love to see examples once they arrive. These oof downsized pics are of very little use. I guess a lot of people want to be first out of the gate with some reviews so that google and the rest of the world will hit their sites but really, if you're going to put something out there (MG), could you put a little effort into it? In any case, with opinions varying widely, I'll take the "seems like a meaningful update to the camera" stance. Although, the oof shots by MG don't bode well for the new fancy AF abilities. I'll chalk that up to user error for now and I look forward to reviews by reputable sites.


----------



## PhotoCat (Sep 16, 2014)

Downsizing the pic is a known technique for noise reduction and therefore I wouldn't read too much
into the downsized sample pics for 7D2's noise performance. 
It would be a ground breaking sensor achievement if Canon
can deliver a mere 1 stop of ISO improvement over 7D on raw pics.
Yet you don't see any new sensor technology mentioned in the announcement other than
the already known dual pixel technology which has very little, if any, to do with high ISO noise performance.

I am guessing the real ISO improvement, if any, would be anything less then 0.75 stop.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

DiSnapper said:


> Amazing, atlease when compared to my 7D. The amount of grain at 51200 is same as what my camera gives me at 400. Good start for 7D ii. Looking forward for more reviews.



A honest advice... visit Fielmann.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Well that new autofocus system in the 7DII is doing really well - the ISO3200 picture on his web page looks completely out of focus (front focus I'd say.) ISO25600 looks similarly misfocused.
> 
> So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...



Yes, I'm sure that's the problem. Thanks for point pointing that out, dilbert. Maybe his real problem is that he thinks the 7DII is a lens. Or you do. :


----------



## Besisika (Sep 16, 2014)

AlanF said:


> DiSnapper said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing, atlease when compared to my 7D. The amount of grain at 51200 is same as what my camera gives me at 400. Good start for 7D ii. Looking forward for more reviews.
> ...


I wouldn't go that far. Neuro has never failed me before.
Who would shoot at 3200 ISO a non-moving model during day time?
I would be convinced when they show me 6400 of a dunking player in a school interior basketball field.
I know, it is a great camera. Not 7 stops.
High ISO meant to be used in low light not close to sweet 16.


----------



## Leigh (Sep 16, 2014)

While I've placed a pre-order with B&H;------ Significantly lower noise than the 7D is the "make or break" criteria for me----Without that, the other "upgrade" features are not worth the cost of upgrading for me.

I'm waiting to see "high" ISO raw images without any in-camera, resolution robbing High ISO Noise reduction applied.

Though these jpegs look promising; Tony Northrop has a preliminary review concluding little to no improvement over the 7D; while Scott Kelby claims, " It's "high" ISO performance is the best he's ever seen on an APS-C camera".

I'm hoping Kelby's conclusion is the "correct" one!

Leigh


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

Leigh said:


> I'm hoping Kelby's conclusion is the "correct" one!
> 
> Leigh



It´s sure a payed one....


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 16, 2014)

Wow. This is 12800 ISO. This is 5D3 league of noise performance not APS-C. 







I would comfortably use this camera at 12800 with some noise reduction for non-critical applications.






I can say comfortably two stops improvement compared to my 70D/rebels where my limit is 1600.


----------



## mstawick (Sep 16, 2014)

Leigh said:


> I'm hoping Kelby's conclusion is the "correct" one!



At least Kelby had the camera in his hands. We'll know once some sample RAWs are posted.


----------



## distant.star (Sep 16, 2014)

.
Well, Granger got some exposure.


----------



## kevl (Sep 16, 2014)

martinslade said:


> Here are some much larger jpegs to check out: http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-sample-images-movies/



That is impressive for an APS-C sensor! Unless the AF system is a fail this camera will be my second body next year.


----------



## Leigh (Sep 16, 2014)

16,000 ISO images from Canon USA: 

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/eos_7dmkii_feature_img

"ISO 16000
Optimized for low-light shooting, the EOS 7D Mark II’s sensor captures images at 
up to ISO 16000 (expandable to H1: 25600 and H2: 51200). Thanks to its improved, 
higher sensitivity photodiode construction, CMOS circuitry, and color filters 
with higher light transmittance, the EOS 7D Mark II records both still and moving 
images at higher ISO speeds with remarkably low noise, making excellent low-light 
photography and moviemaking possible. "

Leigh


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 16, 2014)

I like what I am seeing!


----------



## DiSnapper (Sep 16, 2014)

Quest for Light said:


> DiSnapper said:
> 
> 
> > Quest for Light said:
> ...



I have attached an image from 7D shot at 400 ISO. This image is cropped and did basic corrections like exposure and contrast, this is downsized version. Also applied noise reduction after which the image looks little better (look at the grassy area), without noise reduction it looks as grainy as the sample of 7D ii.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Wow. This is 12800 ISO. This is 5D3 league of noise performance not APS-C.



Impressive noise reduction, at any rate. If recommend waiting for RAW files before passing judgement on noise _performance_.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



No, I'm suggesting that your allegation that the 7DII's AF has a problem is baseless trolling.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



well grangers examples at least show that even the 7D MK2 AF will not fix all issues...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

123Photog said:


> well grangers examples at least show that even the 7D MK2 AF will not fix all issues...



Wetware problems are tricky...


----------



## martinslade (Sep 16, 2014)

kevl said:


> martinslade said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some much larger jpegs to check out: http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-sample-images-movies/
> ...



I have downloaded the jpeg (http://canon-premium.webcdn.stream.ne.jp/www09/canon-premium/eosd/samples/eos7dmk2/downloads/06.jpg) and compared it to my Canon 70d and I honestly think they look about the same as far as I can tell. It's worth remembering that this is the "official" 6400 ISO from Canon so probably has a bit of NR in post.


----------



## RuleOfThirds (Sep 16, 2014)

Those samples are disingenuous. They are well lit and even my T4i produces solid images at 1600 when evenly lit. Show me sample images in horrible light and maybe I'd be impressed.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 16, 2014)

There are two ways of improving ISO performance. Increasing the sensor's sensitivity to light and increasing the noise reduction quality either on sensor level or in post (Jpegs and videos). I don't care which one is responsible here but this looks very promising in the ISO department compared to older APS-C Canons....

Waiting for the full resolution Jpegs and Raw to confirm...


----------



## Efka76 (Sep 16, 2014)

> Though these jpegs look promising; Tony Northrop has a preliminary review concluding little to no improvement over the 7D; while Scott Kelby claims, " It's "high" ISO performance is the best he's ever seen on an APS-C camera".
> 
> I'm hoping Kelby's conclusion is the "correct" one!




Scott Kelby is very good salesman who sits in Canon's pocket. Due to Dustin Abbott or other independent reviewer opinion is much more reliable. 

A number of people were offered pre-production camera and from their images few best images were selected. Also, it would be very strange if such reviewers would say that this camera has similar low noice performance as old 7D or there are improvements in autofocus area only (which did not cost Canon any additional penny).

Let's calm down and wait until camera is released and then let's watch real reviews.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

RuleOfThirds said:


> Those samples are disingenuous. They are well lit and even my T4i produces solid images at 1600 when evenly lit. Show me sample images in horrible light and maybe I'd be impressed.



+1 

imo you can´t tell much from resized JPG images.
but there is a lot of wishful thinking here i guess.


----------



## Iron Man (Sep 16, 2014)

I agree, will reserve judgement on high iso performance until I see a full res untouched jpeg.


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 16, 2014)

Wait?!
What is this _wait_ you speak of?
7D2 is old news, we're on to 5D4 around here, bub.

Try to keep up, won't you?


----------



## Maui5150 (Sep 16, 2014)

All an all looks promising - Hard to tell because unsure how well lit, but did not notice the amount of noise in the skin texture I was expecting to see, and looked like a lot more the detail there compared to a lot of noise reduction. 

Best way to judge is RAW in low light, but does seem like it is more serviceable than I was expecting


----------



## FTBPhotography (Sep 16, 2014)

A lot of dumb comments here. You're judging the AF system not knowing what mode/setting it was on, competence of a photographer testing a camera and a trade show, and whether or not the lens possibly needed to be micro adjusted. I love the internet...


----------



## magic koala (Sep 16, 2014)

Sold! I've been waiting for a few pics to show high ISO and I'm liking it. Like others I was satisfied with ISO 800 and tolerated ISO 1600 on the 7D but the 7D2 will really improve some indoor sports shots I'm planning this year.

Sure, I agree that focus was severely off in one of the pics but who knows what the user issue was.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 16, 2014)

FTBPhotography said:


> A lot of dumb comments here. You're judging the AF system not knowing what mode/setting it was on, competence of a photographer testing a camera and a trade show, and whether or not the lens possibly needed to be micro adjusted. I love the internet...



Exactly, I love it when people don't bother to even go to the original site. This was shot on the floor of the Photokina trade show. Clearly, what happened was the guy got to hold the camera for a few minutes, stuck a card in it and fired off a few shots of a nearby model. 

Still, the results do see quite good. Even if it is a jpeg, it would seem the camera's processing is pretty impressive at a minimum. Whether it's the "new" sensor or the new processing, it really doesn't matter, the results are definitely quite good and much closer to 5DIII standards than most people, if they are honest, would have expected.


----------



## Northstar (Sep 16, 2014)

Let's all try to remember that this is a crop sensor, and therefore highly likely that it's real high ISO capabilities will fall significantly short of any modern FF body. 

Maybe they've improved the in camera high ISO JPEG NR though...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 16, 2014)

Taking the example of these photos, we can conclude that 7D Mark ii is a very good camera for journalists who shoot JPEG and do not have time to process RAW files. :

The picture out of focus?  The beauty of the model left the photographer nervous... :-*


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> FTBPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of dumb comments here. You're judging the AF system not knowing what mode/setting it was on, competence of a photographer testing a camera and a trade show, and whether or not the lens possibly needed to be micro adjusted. I love the internet...
> ...



Granger is a pretty solid Nikon shooter. In fact he just sold off his 1DX last month. So consider his bias towards Nikon when you watch his review... which is pretty positive for this 7D2. And yes, he got to rattle off 5 shots as fast as he could in whatever light available. I doubt he had time to play with AF system setup and lord knows what mode it was on. The test was for more for ISO. Not AF. He'll have a fully fleshed out video review within a couple months as will dpreview.com and everyone else. Amazing that after a couple online pictures, we still have people in here who want to dismiss this camera as a POS. Go buy the Samsung and quit complaining.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 16, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Taking the example of these photos, we can conclude that 7D Mark ii is a very good camera for journalists who shoot JPEG and do not have time to process RAW files.



Those JPEGS at 12800 really do look lovely. Hope the raw files are clean like these. If they're not, then the in-camera noise reduction is really impressive, that will translate to video too, which is what I mainly care about.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem? 

I am just hoping this guy was a bad photographer.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

RuleOfThirds said:


> Those samples are disingenuous. They are well lit and even my T4i produces solid images at 1600 when evenly lit. Show me sample images in horrible light and maybe I'd be impressed.



Maybe you should watch the video. Not well lit, the photographer was complaining about the lights flickering.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 16, 2014)

I just played around with MS Office's resize tool on some of my higher ISO shots and now I'm not impressed at all. Take a look a the attached shot from my 1D X shot a ISO 16,000 and resized to the same dimensions as the sample using MS Office - not even PS. Looks pretty good. I tried the same on some old T2i shots at 6400 and guess what - they look mighty good, too. 

Until we see RAW or unresized SOOC JPEG, I'm not willing to make any judgement, but I'm still hopeful it's very good.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I just played around with MS Office's resize tool on some of my higher ISO shots and now I'm not impressed at all. Take a look a the attached shot from my 1D X shot a ISO 16,000 and resized to the same dimensions as the sample using MS Office - not even PS. Looks pretty good. I tried the same on some old T2i shots at 6400 and guess what - they look mighty good, too.
> 
> Until we see RAW or unresized SOOC JPEG, I'm not willing to make any judgement, but I'm still hopeful it's very good.




gratulations you just found out that downsampling images make noise look less worse!

i wait that the others who praise the 7D MK2 sensor because of a few resampled images (under well enough light, even when flickering) will get that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem?



Are you saying that you can draw any sort of conclusion from that information?  

It's getting crowded under dilbert's bridge... :


----------



## scyrene (Sep 16, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



A sample size of 6 is far too small (in any context) to draw any conclusions. Maybe the next 6 would all have been in focus, maybe the next 60 would have (or vice versa). As others have said, we know next to nothing about the lens, AF mode, technique, and user capability. To immediately point to it being a flaw in the camera body is patently trolling as Neuro said. Let's just hope it was meant lightheartedly.


----------



## spandau (Sep 16, 2014)

I have a question, if you had access to a 7d Mk ii RAW file, how would you open it outside the camera itself?


----------



## DiSnapper (Sep 16, 2014)

spandau said:


> I have a question, if you had access to a 7d Mk ii RAW file, how would you open it outside the camera itself?



DPP, Rawtherapee, Photoshop CameraRaw, unless they are unreadable.


----------



## spandau (Sep 16, 2014)

Photoshop CC 2014 will not open the file.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

spandau said:


> I have a question, if you had access to a 7d Mk ii RAW file, how would you open it outside the camera itself?



Most likely you wouldn't. Therefore, all of this speculation is premature. Won't stop it from happening, though..apparently, it's fun to bash things from a position of ignorance.


----------



## iMagic (Sep 16, 2014)

Chillax. All we know so far is that the 7D II takes pictures and video. We can't infer anything from some jpegs taken in haste at a trade show.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 16, 2014)

So there's this thing called "single shot autofocus", it sets the focus and waits for you to fully press the shutter button. Sometimes the subject moves between setting the focus and you pushing the button.

The focus in these pictures says absolutely nothing about the performance of the system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

9VIII said:


> So there's this thing called "single shot autofocus", it sets the focus and waits for you to fully press the shutter button. Sometimes the subject moves between setting the focus and you pushing the button.
> 
> The focus in these pictures says absolutely nothing about the performance of the system.



Don't you get it? If any 7DII, anywhere, misses a single shot then the camera model sucks. Even if it never misses a shot, Nikon has better DR, Samsung has higher fps, Sony has spiffy names for AF functions, and Pentax has colored LEDs on the outside, and so the 7DII still sucks. Just like every Canon camera. To be fair and impartial, Canon _does_ have a couple of okay lenses. But that doesn't make up for anything. 

Try to think like a troll for once, will you??


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 16, 2014)

I'm sure MG will regret not posting a few better pictures, or who knows, maybe he was just testing the camera's idiot mode auto mode.

I'm sure you masters of photography know that when using shallow depth of field on a headshot (even if the camera has face detect) it needs to place the focus somewhere. If you don't tell it where you want the focus it could place it anywhere. Single AF point is the way to go for shallow depth of field not full array. 

Maybe MG was over-excited with the opportunity to try out the new camera, maybe he was sleep-deprived and maybe fatigued from flying across multiple time-zones. Cut the guy some slack, he didn't have anything bad to say about the camera if anything I got the impression that he was blown away.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> iMagic said:
> 
> 
> > Chillax. All we know so far is that the 7D II takes pictures and video. We can't infer anything from some jpegs taken in haste at a trade show.
> ...


ISO noise is a global effect in the image whereas focus is a localized effect in an image. You can see noise even in an image with no contrast where focus is completely irrelevant. (e.g. a black frame or 18% grey frame)


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 16, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> I'm sure MG will regret not posting a few better pictures, or who knows, maybe he was just testing the camera's idiot mode auto mode.
> 
> I'm sure you masters of photography know that when using shallow depth of field on a headshot (even if the camera has face detect) it needs to place the focus somewhere. If you don't tell it where you want the focus it could place it anywhere. Single AF point is the way to go for shallow depth of field not full array.
> 
> Maybe MG was over-excited with the opportunity to try out the new camera, maybe he was sleep-deprived and maybe fatigued from flying across multiple time-zones. Cut the guy some slack, he didn't have anything bad to say about the camera if anything I got the impression that he was blown away.



Absolutely, but there are a lot of people on this forum who seem to have invested themselves in championing/desiring Canon failures and must bend backwards to find something wrong with anything that could undermine their position. Granger is no fool. He was in a hurry and was trying to demo ISO performance as best he could given the situation. Canon wasn't going to let him walk off with it. He will have a full review soon enough. And DPP 4 can most likely handle anyone's 7D2 RAW file.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If those pictures from the trade show are meant to earn applause for high ISO then why can't they earn criticism for focus issues?



One involves a dynamic interaction between photographer, camera, multiple settings, model, motion and timing...and the other is picking a number and pushing a button.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 16, 2014)

Memdroid said:


> Wow that guy really got it together. Different exposures on almost all the the samples and misfocused too! He seriously published this as a "test", what a joke!
> 
> But the ISO performance seems really good for an APS-C body, impressed!. I wish he uploaded the the full res files instead.



That guy is a dud. I cringed when he put his fat sweaty fingers inside the mirror box and flipped the focusing screen loose. I would never let touch him my camera as unwarily as he acts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> ...there are a lot of people on this forum who seem to have invested themselves in championing/desiring Canon failures and must bend backwards to find something wrong with anything that could undermine their position.



Indeed. And just think what a field day those folks will have after DxO's BS comes out. 




PureClassA said:


> And DPP 4 can most likely handle anyone's 7D2 RAW file.



Unlikely without a minor version update. Historically, each new RAW-capable has required an updated version of DPP. Often, those updates are initially via the optical disc included in the box, and only later available online. DPP v3.9 added unsharp mask, but for several weeks that version was only available to those (like me) who had bought the PowerShot S95.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > Wow that guy really got it together. Different exposures on almost all the the samples and misfocused too! He seriously published this as a "test", what a joke!
> ...



you never know maybe he would take a few pictures worth to put on flickr?


----------



## spandau (Sep 16, 2014)

Isn't DPP 4.0 only for FF cameras?


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 16, 2014)

That's great and all, but how will people REALLY get to know the full possibilities of this camera without photos with their lens caps on? I mean seriously!


----------



## lo lite (Sep 16, 2014)

123Photog said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > Memdroid said:
> ...



What should I think about the opinion of somebody who posts anonymously as a "guest" here? How's that even possible?


----------



## Tanispyre (Sep 16, 2014)

Part of me has a hard time wrapping my mind around how good digital sensors are these days in low light. I remember the good old days of taking Kodak 3200p and pushing it to 6400, or just to be crazy 12,800 and getting "usable" images. The grain on those images was so bad they were really only good for half tone printing, and small prints. 

And if you wanted Color, the Fuji 1600 was about as fast as you could get, You could push it to 3200, but the results were questionable at best. To be able to take a photo nowadays at 51,200 ISO and still get a recognizable image just blows my mind.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2014)

spandau said:


> Isn't DPP 4.0 only for FF cameras?



Only for the _newest_ full frame cameras. Oh you have a 5DII? No support for you, loser. It's been months since 4.0 was released and they still haven't added support for 90% of their camera owners yet. It's insane.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

lo lite said:


> What should I think about the opinion of somebody who posts anonymously as a "guest" here? How's that even possible?



That's how a username shows up after the user deleted their account.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem?
> ...



In November it will not be hard to troll from any bodies bridge, all one will have to do is say that then new 7D II is superior because of the increased resolution crop factor....and the fight will be on. ;D


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

scyrene said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Miss spelled word, I was *patiently* trolling until mine arrives in November. Or maybe not....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> iMagic said:
> 
> 
> > Chillax. All we know so far is that the 7D II takes pictures and video. We can't infer anything from some jpegs taken in haste at a trade show.
> ...



I don't think they're "meant to" earn anything, other than maybe web traffic. They're just... pictures.

As to why they can't earn criticism for focus, that's obvious: none of us here know where focus was intended or how it was achieved. 

However unlikely, it's possible the camera was set to manual focus. We don't know. Saying there's something wrong with the AF system is an absurd leap, on par with:

ZOMG, the D810 system is crap; her eyelashes are in focus.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > What should I think about the opinion of somebody who posts anonymously as a "guest" here? How's that even possible?
> ...



Interesting to know! From what he wrote in this thread I am under the impression he was only a troll anyway. Or do you know him and I am wrong?


----------



## reactionart (Sep 16, 2014)

123Photog said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Matt Granger was shooting with a 100mm L Macro IS which is known to have some focusing issues when used for portrait.


----------



## ifp (Sep 16, 2014)

lo lite said:


> What should I think about the opinion of somebody who posts anonymously as a "guest" here? How's that even possible?



Banned or deleted account I think.

I think missed focus is a forgivable offense if the pictures were taken on a trade show floor, where he likely had very little time with the camera.

At web sizes, my 6d showed no noise at ISO 25600. Even ISO 51200 was acceptable, especially after some noise reduction. Heck, ISO 6400 on an EOS M that was underexposed and pulled up looks fine at web size. So yeah, full size images will be interesting once they start trickling in.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2014)

Y'all realize there are full size jpeg samples from this camera posted on this very forum already, right? 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22774.0


----------



## Deleted member 372972 (Sep 16, 2014)

*RAW files already there, but only ISO250 and not open able *

There are real RAW files available.
But DPP (3.x and 4.x) show only luminance. DPP 4.01 crash on open them.
Here how it look:

So we must wait for a program to open those files.

Files from http://www.imaging-resource.com


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: RAW files already there, but only ISO250 and not open able *



in_04 said:


> There are real RAW files available.
> But DPP (3.x and 4.x) show only luminance. DPP 4.01 crash on open them.
> Here how it look:
> 
> ...



Holy crap, she's upside down. The optics logic must be broken along with the AF.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 16, 2014)

Tanispyre said:


> Part of me has a hard time wrapping my mind around how good digital sensors are these days in low light. I remember the good old days of taking Kodak 3200p and pushing it to 6400, or just to be crazy 12,800 and getting "usable" images. The grain on those images was so bad they were really only good for half tone printing, and small prints.
> 
> And if you wanted Color, the Fuji 1600 was about as fast as you could get, You could push it to 3200, but the results were questionable at best. To be able to take a photo nowadays at 51,200 ISO and still get a recognizable image just blows my mind.



It really is amazing. It is easy to get spoiled by high ISO shooting capabilities these days. I remember my first DSLR (30D), selecting ISO above 800 was really pushing it. These days, you can put 800 as your lowest ISO and still get great images.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 16, 2014)

Agree on waiting. We need studio comparisons.
And also where no shadows are, image is clean.
See attachment of EOS M snapshot  (DPP export, ISO 12800, very slight crop)
Now If you use multiple exposure (stacking) and some selective denoise, you´ll have no chance of knowing if it was poor ISO 400 shot or ISO25600 "hacked" to death....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 16, 2014)

I'd certainly hope for some ISO improvement after all these years. Images taken at high ISO in good lighting almost always look good. The challenge comes in low light images where blue light levels are usually weak. Since blues are the weakest, the gain is boosted a extreme amounton the blue channel, and noise becomes a issue. DPR takes sample images at low light levels using incandescent lamps. That's the real test of high ISO performance.

I reviewed some of my ISO 3200 images from my 7D, and found a lot of detail gone, so these are definitely far better. 


Imagine if this were full frame! I'm sure they are holding back the good stuff for the 5D MK IV.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 16, 2014)

hmmm...regarding focus in that test shot...it looks like it was at the minumum focus distance...so that could account for it being a little off as most lenses get less accurate when the limits are pushed...wonder what lens was on there too....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

They all seem to be downscaled to 2MP so it's hard to tell anything. 2MP downscales always look vastly cleaner and sharper than 20MP originals.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

Quest for Light said:


> well i normaly don´t judge from resized JPG images.
> 
> but i doubt that 51200 on the 7D MK2 looks as grainy as ISO 400 on a 7D.
> 
> i guess his 7D has some major issues if that´s true. :



Wow if that is he what he is saying then he's just reading a script. That is absurd and would break all known laws of physics to be true.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

Memdroid said:


> Wow that guy really got it together. Different exposures on almost all the the samples and misfocused too! He seriously published this as a "test", what a joke!



Doesn't anyone else find it bizarre that whoever they give the pre-release samples to for promotion never seem to be able to post even the simplest pictures up taken technically well? It's always weird random exposures, motion blur, hand shake, missed focus, etc. etc. So all the initial samples look hideous and then as soon as the cams get released even avg Joe on the street's first three shots look 100x better technically and the camera suddenly appears to work.

Why don't they ever give pre-release samples to those who are willing/able to put up technically well done photos, to actually show off the camera well, instead of making it look bad. 

I guess they just want to reward certain people, people who will stick to script, have some sort of following or nepotism going for them.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 16, 2014)

I looked at the images at Imaging Resource and they look just like images from any other Rebel i have owned.

I might see a difference when pixel peeping but it´s sure not breathtaking.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiGALLERY.HTM


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Wow. This is 12800 ISO. This is 5D3 league of noise performance not APS-C.
> 
> 
> > Downscale a 23MP 5D3 image of that type to 0.3MP and I assure you it will look beautifully clean at 12800 ISO like that too.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> hmmm...regarding focus in that test shot...it looks like it was at the minumum focus distance...so that could account for it being a little off as most lenses get less accurate when the limits are pushed...wonder what lens was on there too....



In the video he says it was the 100mm Macro.

I think if it was minimum focus distance we would have been looking at nose boogies and not the model.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Granger is a pretty solid Nikon shooter. And yes, he got to rattle off 5 shots as fast as he could in whatever light available. I doubt he had time to play with AF system setup and lord knows what mode it was on.



You wonder why Canon does this? Why not give someone a reasonable chance to produce some images that show the cam in it's best light?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem?
> 
> I am just hoping this guy was a bad photographer.



I wouldn't be worried. Pretty much all of the shots released of this nature for all the recent Canon bodies have looked a mess in one way or another. They tend to let people who are technically sloppy use the bodies first or simply rush the photographers so much they don't give them a chance to use the cam properly.

Seriously, like 80% of the initial 1DX sample shots from selected photographers they let handle the cam and post were OOF too.

Maybe Canon did mess up this new AF, but I doubt it. Not since AF is the only thing it has going for it and not after the 1D3 mess. Anyway, there is no need to worry over initial quick test shots like this, since they are always a technical mess, for whatever reason.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed. And just think what a field day those folks will have after DxO's BS comes out.



See there you go again. You mock 'DRoners' and object to being called a fanboy, but then you just flat out go around calling everyone on DxO BS even though you know that is not true. It's one thing to say that not everyone will shot a lot of high DR scenes and that some won't care, it's another thing to try to sneak in as many statements as possible to make even DxO's raw plot numbers seem like BS.


----------



## Leigh (Sep 16, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> I looked at the images at Imaging Resource and they look just like images from any other Rebel i have owned.



Non of the raw files there are above 250 ISO, with one 400 ISO jpeg.
Nothing there to evaluate "high" ISO performance.

Leigh


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 16, 2014)

Leigh said:


> pleasehelp said:
> 
> 
> > I looked at the images at Imaging Resource and they look just like images from any other Rebel i have owned.
> ...



But you agree?

Is there really no increased quality around 100-400 ISO after so many years?
I have a 550D and i see no difference at all.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> I looked at the images at Imaging Resource and they look just like images from any other Rebel i have owned.
> 
> I might see a difference when pixel peeping but it´s sure not breathtaking.
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiGALLERY.HTM



Taking a hurried peak, it seems like the gain vertical banding issue of the 7D may be entirely gone. It's hard to tell because the 7D2 has such a small black outer frame area in the RAW and none of the shots are close to lens cap shots, but there is a chance they got rid of all or nearly all of the offset banding at low ISO all together. So that is the very good and impressive news.

The bad is that the random read noise still shows no improvements since 2007 whatsoever, as far as I can tell. It seems like it will be extremely close to the exact same DR as the 7D. The read noise might even be a touch higher than on the 7D. Not quite sure yet, didn't locate quite the proper 7D file or my old numbers. Without the banding, the effective usable DR should be higher though.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 16, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> pleasehelp said:
> 
> 
> > I looked at the images at Imaging Resource and they look just like images from any other Rebel i have owned.
> ...



LOL to be honest i have no clue what you are talking about im just using the cameras to take pictures. 

I looked at the images, compared them to my own shots and i SEE nothing that looks better. :-[

Not colors, not details, not sharpness, not noise.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 16, 2014)

Okay, finally found some real samples:

Cameraegg Canon EOS 7D Mark II Sample Images & Movies

To my eyes, the squirrel at ISO 3200 looks at least one or even two stops better than the 7D, but the ISO 6400 cityscape looks like the image is falling apart with very aggressive NR. Usable ISO 3200 would really make this a great wildlife camera.

EDIT: These are from the Canon Japan website and are damn impressive (as you'd hope). The ISO 100 performance and sharpness of the 85L portrait is amazing. They must have really optimized the low pass filter (like they did in the 5DIII) as well.


----------



## distant.star (Sep 16, 2014)

.
Hey, hey, think before you post!!

The idea here is to ROUSE the RABBLE, not calm them down. You and your constant resorting to reason!! You're going to ruin all the fun around here!




unfocused said:


> Exactly, I love it when people don't bother to even go to the original site. This was shot on the floor of the Photokina trade show. Clearly, what happened was the guy got to hold the camera for a few minutes, stuck a card in it and fired off a few shots of a nearby model.
> 
> Still, the results do see quite good. Even if it is a jpeg, it would seem the camera's processing is pretty impressive at a minimum. Whether it's the "new" sensor or the new processing, it really doesn't matter, the results are definitely quite good and much closer to 5DIII standards than most people, if they are honest, would have expected.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > pleasehelp said:
> ...



Pleasehelp you may be right. Did you try zooming in at 800x and comparing each pixel side by side to see which is better?

Didn't you know that at the pixel level only matters.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Okay, finally found some real samples:
> 
> Cameraegg Canon EOS 7D Mark II Sample Images & Movies
> 
> ...



The squirrel I wonder if it is PP with noise reduction already applied?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > pleasehelp said:
> ...



It won't have the vertical bands across all tonal ranges that many 7Ds had it seems. And, deep shadows at lower ISO pulled should be much freer of banding and fixed pattern noise it seems.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> pleasehelp said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



ha ha, so funny, wow you really got me


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > pleasehelp said:
> ...



I think it may have gotten all of us on this site.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 16, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, finally found some real samples:
> ...


I can't tell you for sure, but generally these are taken as in-camera JPEGs and the EXIF data looks to be from the camera, not a photo editor.

Also, here's a better link, directly to Canon:

OFFICIAL Canon (Japan) 7DII Photo & Video Samples


----------



## ScottO (Sep 16, 2014)

Anyone trying to open the raw files from Imaging Resource try Perfect Photo Suite. Works for me then saved as a psd.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I don't think it is PP, neither the squirrel or the bird are critically sharp IMO.
Both look like they were just taken in one of the base formats as a jpeg and a bit of sharpening and noise reductions might do wonders.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 16, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


I think the squirrel looks pretty amazing for a crop sensor at ISO 3200 and as you say, with some PP (DxO PRIME ideally along with some sharpening) it would be a very usable shot.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 16, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd certainly hope for some ISO improvement after all these years. Images taken at high ISO in good lighting almost always look good. The challenge comes in low light images where blue light levels are usually weak. Since blues are the weakest, the gain is boosted a extreme amounton the blue channel, and noise becomes a issue. DPR takes sample images at low light levels using incandescent lamps. That's the real test of high ISO performance.
> 
> I reviewed some of my ISO 3200 images from my 7D, and found a lot of detail gone, so these are definitely far better.
> 
> ...


+1, high ISO in daylight means no much to me.
It would be nice if they add 4K on it too (together with the good stuff). I really miss that on this new 7D.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 16, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed. And just think what a field day those folks will have after DxO's BS comes out.
> ...



When Neuro says "DxO's BS," he's invoking the acronym "biased scores," not the one you're thinking of. The raw plot numbers aren't a consideration, just the umbrella scores with undisclosed criteria (such as weighting, aka bias).


----------



## sdsr (Sep 16, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Okay, finally found some real samples:
> 
> Cameraegg Canon EOS 7D Mark II Sample Images & Movies
> 
> EDIT: These are from the Canon Japan website and are damn impressive (as you'd hope). The ISO 100 performance and sharpness of the 85L portrait is amazing. They must have really optimized the low pass filter (like they did in the 5DIII) as well.



I wonder if the second one there is a response of sorts to the third one here:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 16, 2014)

Why does it seem that the only satisfaction some will get is hearing that the 7Dii is a huge fail?

There was a whole 'language' pre-announcement about how it's not going to make the grade and now that it's official with some sample images, disbelief that it could actually deliver. 

I'm stumped.


----------



## sdsr (Sep 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Someone that many would call a competent photographer posts a series of images, of which a substantial fraction are out of focus and criticising the camera is baseless trolling?
> 
> So what would you like to blame for the focus problems:
> * The camera
> ...



Why speculate at all? For all we know, people milling about around him kept bumping into him at awkward moments, or the model kept moving, or.... What's odd isn't so much that some of the photos are duds as that anyone should have thought the bad ones worth publishing in the first place.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 16, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Why does it seem that the only satisfaction some will get is hearing that the 7Dii is a huge fail?
> 
> There was a whole 'language' pre-announcement about how it's not going to make the grade and now that it's official with some sample images, disbelief that it could actually deliver.
> 
> I'm stumped.


I can only guess that it's from negative people OR from those of us with 1D Xs wondering if the 7DII hoping that the 7DII really isn't this good!


----------



## brad-man (Sep 16, 2014)

Wow. It really sucks that we have to wait until mid november before we see some samples from a retail camera. :'(


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Why does it seem that the only satisfaction some will get is hearing that the 7Dii is a huge fail?
> ...



You should sell your 1D X before the 7D II hits the market. You may loose thousands on it if you wait.

But seriously if you look at the past the one thing that Canon does very well is place products in their line. They will not let the 7D II be better than the 1D X or the 5D III especially in IQ.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 16, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...


Not selling.

And that is true, though pretty much all successful brands do that. The difference with Canon, I've noticed, is that the 7D, 7DII, and many XXD and Rebel models have introduced superior features (DIGIC 6, DPAF, Transmissive LCD, etc.) that aren't in the 5D & 1D lines and it takes years to get to those cameras. I think that's pretty cool! On the other hand, the firmware crippling Canon is notorious for really sucks.


----------



## Admin US West (Sep 16, 2014)

ifp said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > What should I think about the opinion of somebody who posts anonymously as a "guest" here? How's that even possible?
> ...



He deleted his own account, I checked the logs. He had also set up a second account, and deleted that as well.

We have been handing out a few warnings and temporary bans, we typically delete all posts and topics when we delete an account, that's almost always a spammer.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

reactionart said:


> Matt Granger was shooting with a 100mm L Macro IS which is known to have some focusing issues when used for portrait.



bullexcrement...


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 16, 2014)

Here's a link to some gallery pics from canon's Japan website. They are pretty small on my screen, but look promising. Of course, no real replacement for a downloaded, full sized image.

http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/special/7dmk2/gallery/


----------



## quod (Sep 16, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> pleasehelp said:
> 
> 
> > I looked at the images at Imaging Resource and they look just like images from any other Rebel i have owned.
> ...


This is the same post as on the Fred Miranda forums. See #3 on p. 13. Are you skibum5? http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1318290/12


----------



## Joe M (Sep 16, 2014)

I just got my official email from Canon letting me know I can pre-order with a link to the same photos most here have seen. Odd the Canadian link I got had small jpegs and the Japan one had the full sized ones. They seem reasonable though I have to agree the nighttime city scape was a little over done with the NR. Canon really wants me to buy this camera, offering me a jacket, Hansa camera, pad skin and the 24-70F4 for only $400 if I pre-order. I almost sort of wish I had a need for this camera as it looks like a good performer.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 16, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Granger is a pretty solid Nikon shooter. And yes, he got to rattle off 5 shots as fast as he could in whatever light available. I doubt he had time to play with AF system setup and lord knows what mode it was on.
> ...



But that defeats the purpose. We want to see samples of images with the camera in _crappy _light. 





* I admit I didn't read the couple of pages that have been written since the above-quoted comment, so if someone beat me to it, right on.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 16, 2014)

Have the good people of CR completely forgotten the Canon sample shots from the 1dx? It was misfocused, soft, heavy NR and no sharpness. But it didn't turned out be like that in real life now did it?

(Sorry if this has already been said)


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 16, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> To my eyes, the squirrel at ISO 3200 looks at least one or even two stops better than the 7D



It's _a lot_ worse than any 3200 ISO image that ever came out of my 7D - but that's to be explained by the fact that the squirrel is either be a SOOC jpeg, or a DPP conversion. DPP is a poor high ISO converter.

Once the good converters catch up, it'll be an excellent camera - but that squirrel doesn't show the potential _at all_.

Just for reference: this is 10,000 ISO from my 70D, converted in Capture One. The 7D Mk II will be better than this, no question.

Here's a 6400 ISO 100% crop from Capture One, just for completeness.

_Use the right tool for the job..._


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Have the good people of CR completely forgotten the Canon sample shots from the 1dx? It was misfocused, soft, heavy NR and no sharpness. But it didn't turned out be like that in real life now did it?
> 
> (Sorry if this has already been said)



It was, but it bears repeating.
The early sample always look a mess and then it gets into people's hands and suddenly, BOOM, it all looks a lot better. So yeah once again I wouldn't worry much about these.


(Canon can get some blame though for choosing such heavy handed default NR and even using a lot when NR is set to zero and making DIGIC such a poor demosaic and low-detail image processor. That said, even the out of cam jpgs tends to look a lot better once the cams get into people's hands. Although the main trouble is for video, since without ML RAW, you can't escape Canon's wax works imaging engine.).


----------



## lo lite (Sep 16, 2014)

CR Backup Admin said:


> ifp said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...



OMG, maybe it was Matt Granger himself and he was so pissed off of what I said that he got in a huff and said goodbye … :-\


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



...and yet, based on that same paltry number of not carefully done shots, you judged the 7DII's AF system is incapable of focusing on a relatively stable subject:



dilbert said:


> So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...



As I stated, more baseless trolling from you.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 17, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Those JPEGS at 12800 really do look lovely. Hope the raw files are clean like these.


Whatever an in-camera jpeg engine can do, we can improve on massively by using a decent raw converter.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 17, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Take a look a the attached shot from my 1D X shot a ISO 16,000 and resized to the same dimensions as the sample using MS Office - not even PS. Looks pretty good.



But you converted in in Optics Pro 9.5.2 - probably has something to do with it?


----------



## jrista (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Well that new autofocus system in the 7DII is doing really well - the ISO3200 picture on his web page looks completely out of focus (front focus I'd say.) ISO25600 looks similarly misfocused.
> 
> So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...



Well, before I blame the technology, I'd be blaming the user. If the user was able to demonstrate perfect technique, THEN I'd blame the technology. 

I'm not impressed with Canon's severe lack of progress on the sensor front, but this is still just the same old anti-Canon crap, Dilbert.  EVERY AF system can be misused.


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> It's _a lot_ worse than any 3200 ISO image that ever came out of my 7D - but that's to be explained by the fact that the squirrel with either be a SOOC jpeg, or a DPP conversion. DPP is a poor high ISO converter.



Pretty sure they are sooc. Canon's jpg engine is garbage. Even the hawk at ISO320 is a bit mushy and that was taken with the 600 f4. I'm betting that with real, decent post work this camera will give very good results up to 1600 if there isn't too much cropping. That ISO6400 image of the bay looks pretty bad though, so that's probably the top end. We won't really be able to tell until there are RAWs we can actually play with which probably won't happen until the camera ships.



Keith_Reeder said:


> Just for reference: this is 10,000 ISO from my 70D, converted in Capture One. The 7D Mk II will be better than this, no question.
> 
> Here's a 6400 ISO 100% crop from Capture One, just for completeness.
> 
> _Use the right tool for the job..._



Eh, no offense, but that image looks pretty bad. The detail is really crushed out of it. I don't think ISO10k is actually usable except for maybe surveillance?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So what would you like to blame for the focus problems:
> * The camera
> * The model
> * The lens
> * The photographer



* The crowds?
* The situation?
* The time available?


----------



## jrista (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



He's suggesting the AF problems are neither...that instead, they are THE USER.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> apparently, it's fun to bash things from a position of ignorance.



I suspect that the internet would be 99% smaller if they stopped doing it...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If those pictures from the trade show are meant to earn applause for high ISO then why can't they earn criticism for focus issues?



Because you _don't know_ if these are "focus issues". They're just images which are out of focus, _which is not the same thing_...


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 17, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Taking the example of these photos, we can conclude that 7D Mark ii is a very good camera for journalists who shoot JPEG and do not have time to process RAW files. :
> 
> The picture out of focus?  The beauty of the model left the photographer nervous... :-*



I agree. I think anyone here could use an XTi in that lighting at max ISO and get similar results. They're down to what, 2MP? Wasn't really informative...the model was a smoke-show though.


----------



## jrista (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



The AF was off, the exposures were off, the white balance was off. That's not the camera. That's the user. The guy was in a spur-of-the-moment setting, with a BRAND NEW PROTOTYPE camera that he had never before used. 

Sorry 'Bert, but you have to account for user error at the very least here, not to mention the potential issues that a PRE-release camera is going to bring to the table. No one is going to instantly become intimately familiar with and capable of using to perfection a brand new piece of hardware after handling it for a few minutes.

This is just baseless trolling. Canon has their flaws, but AF is one of the things they excel at. There are other, and much lower hanging, "troll food fruit" which you could go after a bit more effectively here.


----------



## ifp (Sep 17, 2014)

CR Backup Admin said:


> ifp said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 17, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> I have a 550D and i see no difference at all.



What difference are you expecting, exactly?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> Eh, no offense, but that image looks pretty bad. The detail is really crushed out of it.



No, it _doesn't_ look bad - for 10000 ISO from a cropper, it's as good as you'll get anywhere.

Not much "detail" in a Fender amp...


----------



## RodS57 (Sep 17, 2014)

I downloaded two of the full sized jpg's from the site in japan. The first (maybe wrong ) assumption it that they are out of camera jpg's. I compared them to two I have here from my T3i with the same ISO ratings. The one I have at ISO 6400 is of a large object from a close (about 8 feet) distance so not a good comparison to the one of the harbour. The other at ISO 3200 was compared to a bird shot I have and it does seem the squirrel exhibits a little better fine detail but that is about it. I don't think it is $1800 worth.

That leaves it back to raw performance whenever that is available.

On the flip side the camera's feature set, other than high ISO performance, was enough for me to pre-order. Got my name on a list early. I can always cancel if new / more information leads me to conclude that it is not worth the price.

Rod


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 17, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> pleasehelp said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 550D and i see no difference at all.
> ...



To be honest i wonder first and foremost that i see no difference at all after so many Sensor generations.

I mean is this already the end of what we can expect?
Is there only an ISO improvement from now on?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 17, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Lol, I didn't mean you!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> ...no difference at all after *so many Sensor generations*.



Well, assuming the 7DII sensor is basically similar to that in the 70D (minor tweaks), you're talking about one generation. One.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 17, 2014)

LOL at the trolling regarding the 7D2 AF, first of all the guy was making an informal test of the High ISO SOOC JPEGs from the cam, not its AF performance. Secondly, OOF images can still be useful to evaluate noise in the OOF areas (assuming an even-enough area in terms of color and lighting).

Here is a better 7D2 image gallery to evaluate the camera's AF performance (so-called "Professional's Impression" gallery), too bad the full-size images are not available (composed of BIFs, bullet trains, jumbo jets, various individual and team sports, various fast-moving land animals like Cheetahs, Subaru WRX STi rally cars, motoracing, jetskiing, etc.) :

http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/special/7dmk2/gallery/

In short, the gallery demonstrates that if you can't shoot in-focus action shots with the 7D2, then the problem is obviously located behind the viewfinder.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 17, 2014)

Another gallery from Canon UK, again, no full-size images:

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_7d_mark_ii/index.html#gallery


----------



## jrista (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Absolutely! Every single photographer on earth botches shots, even the greatest of the great pros. Throw in a bunch of random factors and a brand new prototype camera model that you've never used before, and you would missfocus a bit as well.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2014)

To everyone talking about the ISO 3200 pic being OOF

IF you watch the video you will see that the ISO 3200 pic isn't even the same one shown in the video.

Not much credibility with this guys article.


----------



## ifp (Sep 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Absolutely! Every single photographer on earth botches shots, even the greatest of the great pros. Throw in a bunch of random factors and a brand new prototype camera model that you've never used before, and you would missfocus a bit as well.



But man with a Sony sensor they could have had great dynamic range in all those out of focus areas.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Mark D5 TEAM II said:
> 
> 
> > LOL at the trolling regarding the 7D2 AF, first of all the guy was making an informal test of the High ISO SOOC JPEGs from the cam, not its AF performance.
> ...



at least he has his gut to post his out of focus image? how about you? take your best focus camera and try to beat me with my classic canon 7d which number of people in here complain about auto focus... post your similar sharp image like the one below which was taken with canon 7d and 24-105mm f/4...

sadly that i have to say, imo, that 7d mark ii should beat both canon 1d-x and 5d mark iii in auto focus and yes, i am not bias in this saying since i am one of those canon 5d mark iii owners...


----------



## npherno (Sep 17, 2014)

Wow, well done Canon!!! Apparently someone there does listen! High-ISO, Awesome AF system and 10 FPS. Best Camera in class by a good margin. It's hard to believe there are complaints, especially at this price. These things are going to fly out the door. This is going to revive the middle market for sure.

I have a feeling the 5DmIV will be the high DR, 4K camera (with built in recording) everyone wants. 

At least no one is saying the high ISO shots are noisy, lol


----------



## Zv (Sep 17, 2014)

Wow some people must have really high expectations from Matt Granger for him to be able to just pick up a camera he's never even seen before or even existed before that point and to then be handed it and given a short (a minute or two?) time to get a 100% hit rate in conditions he has has no control over? Well he didn't manage that so the only conclusion can be - that the camera is a dud? Because MG cannot miss. Ever. It's not even thinkable.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > To everyone talking about the ISO 3200 pic being OOF
> ...



It is at 4:48 on the video, the ISO 3200 in the video is the ISO 6400 on his site.
On the video the ISO 6400 is the ISO 3200 on his site.


----------



## drift juice (Sep 17, 2014)

Bet there was nothing wrong with the AF. Probably because the shots Matt took was with a 100L macro that they were OOF. Still on the fence if I'm gonna pre order though


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > So there's this thing called "single shot autofocus", it sets the focus and waits for you to fully press the shutter button. Sometimes the subject moves between setting the focus and you pushing the button.
> ...



I think you're right, I can't believe I was being so foolish.
What we really need is a camera that doesn't let you take a bad picture, something that automatically chooses the best focus and tells you what pictures are good.
And such a camera exists! It even shoots 10fps, and it selects the best image in a burst for you! Because it only offers you its favourite picture, by definition you can't take bad pictures with this camera, use this and you'll never see another crappy shot again!
You can be extra sure it's good because this camera is chosen by more people and has taken more photographs than any other in history.
I give you, the best camera ever (for trolls).
http://www.apple.com/iphone-6/cameras/


----------



## Zv (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Wow some people must have really high expectations from Matt Granger for him to be able to just pick up a camera he's never even seen before or even existed before that point and to then be handed it and given a short (a minute or two?) time to get a 100% hit rate in conditions he has has no control over? Well he didn't manage that so the only conclusion can be - that the camera is a dud? Because MG cannot miss. Ever. It's not even thinkable.
> ...



I agree he probably should have known better. I couldn't care less about these sample images. They're just creating more confusion and debate over nothing. The link Steve posted has good samples but I think once the real reviews come in from trusted sources we can start to form our own, (hopefully) more informed opinions. 

Until then it's still just a new camera and a spec sheet. I note some that are pre-ordering probably don't give a toss about these sample images and are quite satisfied knowing assuming that Canon have made a decent camera here.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



1. bigger but useless does not help ... LOL...
2. he is a business guy, what do you expect...

however, i have at least realized that you know very little about how to take images... otherwise, you already take my challenges... if your images are that s*cks, then do not give out comments or try to educate other people about photography after doing some crap research around the internet. if you are that good in technology, then apply for the r&d departments... instead of being so, join forums and keep learning just like some others and i do...

you have not answer my previous question on topic "Do Sensors Make the Camera" and again, be-careful in giving out answer, otherwise, i am going to call you as a guy being born with tofu brain...

... or you want to downgrade to my canon 30d and 50mm f/1.4? again, i guarantee that your images cannot be sharper than mine regardless what camera i use (from canon 30d to modern), certainly not better than any others in this forums, but definitely better than yours...

note: my daughter at a chess tournament, while little one playing crazy chess with her friend... taken with canon 30d and 430ex ii (in single shot mode, not high-speed burst since i hate process of rating images). if admin think what i am talking is not right, let me know and i will delete my post immediately...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If you want me to go and take a sharp picture, sure, I can do that. But what does that prove? Nothing.
> 
> Worth of an image is often subjective thus what you and I see as being worthwhile images are likely quite different ...
> 
> ...



1. yes, you can prove that you are good in understand your camera, photography techniques and technology but i afraid that you can't prove that. if so, search your database and like someone in this forum said, "photo up or shut up". i can stay up and wait for your image(s)...

2. if so, then post your subjective image here and let all members judge (note: do not steal images since, again, i have seen and known number of images on internet.)

3. wrong... your comment was on that post page 6. show me that you are really smart, otherwise, as i have said, born with tofu brain. see given link below:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22364.75 (page 6)

4. again, ordinary look images but does look better than yours... (post your images to show or steal some and let me laugh at it. hint: steal from unfamous site so that i do not know... keep in mind, i recognize images via techniques, themes, contents, etc... i.e. cliff mautner with rim light and using light, jonas paterson via use of colors, soft feelings with strong contents and his choice of aperture...)


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 17, 2014)

ishdakuteb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ishdakuteb said:
> ...



Your first two pictures are excellent and proof that we've been able to make great digital images since the early naughtiest. Having said that the 30D was never the best landscape camera and in_critical observation_ produced pretty noisy skies, although to be fair this couldn't be seen in a practical print unless very big.

With regard to the high ISO examples shot by this guy at photokina I'm sure his emphasis was an grabbing some high ISO shots, and let's face it; they are remarkably good, and I'll be fascinated to see some critical low ISO shots too. 

Regarding the focus - OK so the camera technology probably isn't yet dilbert proof, but which is ?


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 17, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



thanks for encouraging... i am a new learner comparing to many other people in here (less than 3 years of using dslr after my first t3, but i do learn hard, everyday). however, i, for some reason, do like color noise for after 1.5 year of learning. i always de-noise and then add color noise back in photoshop. i sometimes use gaussian, and most of the time use uniform.

the reason i think the new canon 7d mark ii af focus is that good because i suspect something might be relate to IR layer (i might wrong, but the design is proprietary and will not be disclosed by canon). i know some of this application thermal infrared, but not best and cannot talk about it since i have to feed my family 

thanks again, looking forward to learn more from many people in this forum and others...

note: that grainy image that you were talking about were taken after seeing this below linked image by jonas peterson:


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > pleasehelp said:
> ...



Sorry im not up to date.

But that "generations" was of course in reference to my 550D.

Since my 550D, i bought 2010, nothing has happend? 

Image quality in my compact cameras has made big steps forward.
When i compare images from my old P&S cameras to todays i immediately see a difference.

When i look at the 7D MK2 pics they look exactly like my 550D images. ???


----------



## rs (Sep 17, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...


I don't understand what you're expecting to see? Resolution and sharpness are hidden at 1920 pixels wide, DR isn't an issue with lighting like that, and high ISO looks pretty impressive. Other than handling (which the pictures can't reveal), the way the scene is rendered is down to the lens.

Premium compact cameras are getting bigger sensors and faster lenses. This APS-C camera still has an APS-C sensor, and still has access to all the same lenses your camera does. What are you expecting?


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 17, 2014)

rs said:


> I don't understand what you're expecting to see? Resolution and sharpness are hidden at 1920 pixels wide, DR isn't an issue with lighting like that, and high ISO looks pretty impressive. Other than handling (which the pictures can't reveal), the way the scene is rendered is down to the lens.
> 
> Premium compact cameras are getting bigger sensors and faster lenses. This APS-C camera still has an APS-C sensor, and still has access to all the same lenses your camera does. What are you expecting?



The images i compare too are full resolution.
Don´t know why you think they are only FULL HD?
They are from Imaging Resource as i wrote:



> I looked at the images at Imaging Resource and they look just like images from any other Rebel i have owned.




What im expecting.
Well naiv as i am as amateur photographer, better image quality! 

Im just puzzled that i look at a new camera and the images look not better than from the camera i already own since 2010.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 17, 2014)

I find photographers a curious bunch. If I choose to buy a 7DII...why does some one else get all stressed about that? What is it to them? It's my money, no theirs. If I choose to buy a camera with a useful 20mp and an AF system which is world class over another brand which has more pixels but the same frame rate, AF ability, high iso ability and it fits my range of stunning top tier lenses....what is that to them? I couldn't care a stuff if someone else buys a Nikon or Sony camera...so why do they get all huffy about my purchase? 
Winston Churchill had a great saying "A fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and won't change the subject"

I think the 7DII is a winner and it'll sell REALLY well. I think Nikon now have a marketing problem, because they have nothing in their portfolio which comes close to this camera.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 17, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I find photographers a curious bunch.



I would go even further.
Most of them, who take this to serious, are loners, weirdos.

That´s why i normaly stay away from Photograpyh forums.

Now if someone could please answer my question im out in a heartbeat. ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22799.msg440418#msg440418


----------



## scyrene (Sep 17, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> What im expecting.
> Well naiv as i am as amateur photographer, better image quality!
> 
> Im just puzzled that i look at a new camera and the images look not better than from the camera i already own since 2010.



What does 'better image quality' mean to you? If "image quality" can be measured objectively (and that's debatable), it surely depends on numerous criteria, some determined by the sensor/processor, some by the lens (and perhaps some by composition, lighting, etc). 

Would you expect every aspect of camera technology to noticeably improve with every generation? Some areas will be more mature than others. As far as colour/noise/detail are concerned, I don't expect to see all that much difference - especially in benign circumstances (though hopefully there will be some, at the margins).

Clearly the developers of this camera have focused on other aspects of the image-making process - autofocus and frame rate, especially. Those are critical for getting the shot (for the sort of work this body is aimed at). But even then, you can get great shots with older technology. I think the higher the grade of equipment, the more targeted the improvements will be. They'll give a small edge in critical situations. That would seem most useful to professionals and enthusiasts. I might see the benefit of 10fps vs 6fps, or an extra stop of useable high ISO. The average snapper likely wouldn't.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 17, 2014)

I don´t doubt the 7D MK2 is a way better camera than my 550D. 
Im just saying i thought i will notice a difference in image quality too.

At those low ISO pics i have no problems with the noise the 7D MK2 shows.
But the details, colors, sharpness, it all looks exactly the same as on my 550D.

By the way, i am especially unhappy with skin tones on my 550D.
They never look right.
And i have a calibrated and profiled NEC PA271 inch monitor.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I find photographers a curious bunch.
> ...



I know nothing of those bodies, I bought the wife a t4i and I can tell you it takes great pics. In my opinion it is a small camera, but then I drag this big pro gear around all the time. Good Luck


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Dilbert you should post pics to prove him wrong. Can I ask if you do can you also white balance and color correct so we can have that in the discussion as we'll.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 17, 2014)

ishdakuteb said:


> at least he has his gut to post his out of focus image? how about you? take your best focus camera and try to beat me with my classic canon 7d which number of people in here complain about auto focus... post your similar sharp image like the one below which was taken with canon 7d and 24-105mm f/4...



I like the flower photo - the light is quite nice, but am I the only one who fails to grasp the point you're trying to make with it?

The subject of this thread are some hastily taken photos with questionable focus by a guy who it appears is attempting to drive traffic to his website where he sells stuff.

How is that gutsy? And how did that turn into a sharpness competition? 

I don't get it.


----------



## Woody (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> That said, I'm pretty sure that we'll see an update from Nikon that "competes" with the 7DII within 12 months (probably less.)



Thom Hogan, the Nikon expert, does not seem to think so.

"I'm reminded of those bets with the Canon and Nikon Photokina announcements. Canon has placed another bet on the pro/prosumer crop sensor (7DII), while Nikon keeps betting on a huge variety of FX cameras (D750). Who’s right?

I’d say Canon. My surveys have long shown that a pro crop sensor camera continues to be in strong demand. Meanwhile, Nikon’s FX lineup is now a somewhat confusing mess that doesn’t sort itself out so easy in the minds of potential purchasers. Nikon appears to want everyone to move from DX to FX, despite the fact that such moves will be expensive for the consumer and not necessarily give them something better."

- http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/airbus-versus-boeing.html


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Your pictures are family snaps and *to you* I'm sure they look better than anything I'll photograph.
> 
> Look, let me make this easy for you. As dull and boring as your images are to me there's no way that I could take pictures as meaningful and interesting as the ones you've taken.
> 
> Happy?



1. did i put down photography or i just put down "caputured by"... duhhh... however, you can snap for your whole life, but i bet that you can not deliver the same quality image in low light. and no, i am not the judge of your images, members in this forum will be...

2. then prove it with your full of content images so that i can have a chance to learn more... lol
3. yessss... HAPPYYYYY
4. still have not answer the question about the other topic...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 17, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> I like the flower photo - the light is quite nice, but am I the only one who fails to grasp the point you're trying to make with it?
> 
> The subject of this thread are some hastily taken photos with questionable focus by a guy who it appears is attempting to drive traffic to his website where he sells stuff.
> 
> ...



1. first of all, i would like to thank you for your comment. as you have mentioned, it is all about light hitting the subject, flower and the capibility of delivering all its details at that moment. i took that one at a temple (Bao Quang) very close to my house...

2. well... technically he could sell information via saved logs if he intended to do so but i am not sure whether or not he is going to so since i am not him. however, he does business and i am one of those curious about high iso capability and he is the only one who has those images so i don't mind to give him my information via request information/header

3. sorry, i was not the one who was starting about the sharpness. normally, i just silently and secretly read and learn from this forum as others but this time, like some other times i just cannot stand in the way he has talked...


----------



## jonjt (Sep 17, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > To my eyes, the squirrel at ISO 3200 looks at least one or even two stops better than the 7D
> ...



Those shots look great.

Could you comment on the high ISO abilities of Lightroom, in comparison to Capture One?

Thanks.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 17, 2014)

9VIII said:


> What we really need is a camera that doesn't let you take a bad picture, something that *automatically chooses the best focus and tells you what pictures are good.*



Hmm...that actually would be a cool idea. Imagine if the camera had an algorithm similar to FoCal in which it evaluated the sharpness at the active AF point and applied a sharpness rating to the image meta.

Then you could filter in Lightroom for sharpness ratings above a certain threshold. That could save time when you have dozens of bursts to sort through, looking for the best shots. 

Maybe the geniuses at Magic Lantern could implement something like that (or already have?). If not, I bet some other genius could create a Lightroom plugin that does the same thing to photos already taken (as long as they have the AF point data). Shoot, maybe FoCal could make the plugin! 

Anybody else think this would be a cool feature/plugin? Does it already exist, and I'm just missing out?


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



don't worry, my website list of renown photographers that i currently monitor and learn from does not have yours since you are not qualified LOL....


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



i'll take the second one, rude to the rude or rude to the troll...


----------



## sanj (Sep 17, 2014)

FTBPhotography said:


> A lot of dumb comments here. You're judging the AF system not knowing what mode/setting it was on, competence of a photographer testing a camera and a trade show, and whether or not the lens possibly needed to be micro adjusted. I love the internet...



Well said


----------



## sanj (Sep 17, 2014)

9VIII said:


> So there's this thing called "single shot autofocus", it sets the focus and waits for you to fully press the shutter button. Sometimes the subject moves between setting the focus and you pushing the button.
> 
> The focus in these pictures says absolutely nothing about the performance of the system.



Yes it does not.


----------



## sanj (Sep 17, 2014)

ifp said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > What should I think about the opinion of somebody who posts anonymously as a "guest" here? How's that even possible?
> ...



Na. There is no reason to have an unfocused image here. Basic.


----------



## sanj (Sep 17, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



Dude… How can crop be better than full frame in IQ? Think about it….


----------



## sanj (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Wow some people must have really high expectations from Matt Granger for him to be able to just pick up a camera he's never even seen before or even existed before that point and to then be handed it and given a short (a minute or two?) time to get a 100% hit rate in conditions he has has no control over? Well he didn't manage that so the only conclusion can be - that the camera is a dud? Because MG cannot miss. Ever. It's not even thinkable.
> ...



I have never seen KR post any out of focus or blurred photo.


----------



## sanj (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Wow some people must have really high expectations from Matt Granger for him to be able to just pick up a camera he's never even seen before or even existed before that point and to then be handed it and given a short (a minute or two?) time to get a 100% hit rate in conditions he has has no control over? Well he didn't manage that so the only conclusion can be - that the camera is a dud? Because MG cannot miss. Ever. It's not even thinkable.
> ...



I doubt any photographer I know who has been shooting Canon will get an out of focus photo with a new Canon camera on such a photo. Nope.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2014)

sanj said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



The additional picture of 40 Benjamin Franklin in my wallet may be very pleasing, I like their IQ 

And to answer the question directly the 7D did have slightly better resolution then the 5D II, however you had to Post Process to see it. 7D files have more headroom for processing than the 5D II. My theory was that Canon did this on purpose to set the IQ apart from the 5D II. Resolution isn't everything when it comes to IQ but in some types of photography it can be more important and carry more weight to the general IQ of a picture.

IQ of JPEGS direct out of the camera are determined by the firmware in the camera. You can bet that Canon makes sure its new models fall in line in the product order, whether by hardware or firmware.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 17, 2014)

I don't read anything into the sample pictures as they are always like this from the start.

But I must say, even if you are new with a camera, taking a sharp picture for public view isn't exactly rocket science. If he saw that they were off, why not use LV ? Even if he had limited time, I'm sure he could take two shots. But this being said I know a few photographer that just goes "What?" If I point out a technical flaw or mishap in a shot. Not everyone is a tech geek, and some people don't even care about slight front or backfocus at all, not in their vocabulary ..

It could be 10.000 reasons ... Wait for reviewers that own tripods and are proper geeks to show us


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 17, 2014)

Besisika said:


> I wouldn't go that far. Neuro has never failed me before.
> Who would shoot at 3200 ISO a non-moving model during day time?
> I would be convinced when they show me 6400 of a dunking player in a school interior basketball field.



Agreed. There's nothing dark in these images, and that's where noise at high ISO tends to be the most obvious. And it's a camera-processed image, so who knows how much DNR has been applied.




takesome1 said:


> But seriously if you look at the past the one thing that Canon does very well is place products in their line. They will not let the 7D II be better than the 1D X or the 5D III especially in IQ.



Why not? The 6D is considerably better than the 5D Mark III in IQ, and is apparently pretty comparable to the 1DX.

Mind you, the *laws of physics* probably won't let the 7D Mark II be better than the full-frame bodies (ignoring resolution differences).


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't go that far. Neuro has never failed me before.
> ...



I have not seen a side by side of the 6D vs 5D Mark III, might look this up later.


----------



## KacperP (Sep 17, 2014)

http://www.optyczne.pl/7447-news-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_-_pierwsze_zdj%C4%99cia.html
Flame on... :


----------



## Khalai (Sep 17, 2014)

KacperP said:


> http://www.optyczne.pl/7447-news-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_-_pierwsze_zdj%C4%99cia.html
> Flame on... :



That ISO 3200 looks quite usable. Even 6400 looks not that bad. I'm oficially impressed 8)


----------



## cirkitdude (Sep 18, 2014)

Khalai said:


> KacperP said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.optyczne.pl/7447-news-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_-_pierwsze_zdj%C4%99cia.html
> ...



RAW… need RAW… why can't someone at Photokina snap some high-ISO RAW images and post? Need to know if I should cancel my preorder. Please??


----------



## mkabi (Sep 18, 2014)

cirkitdude said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > KacperP said:
> ...



Click the pictures and look at the pictures!
They are RAW transformed into jpeg without in-camera noise reduction. Hence you are able to see how much noise at each level.


----------



## Woody (Sep 18, 2014)

mkabi said:


> Click the pictures and look at the pictures!
> They are RAW transformed into jpeg without in-camera noise reduction. Hence you are able to see how much noise at each level.



What was used for the RAW conversion?


----------



## Woody (Sep 18, 2014)

Khalai said:


> That ISO 3200 looks quite usable. Even 6400 looks not that bad. I'm oficially impressed 8)



Very very impressed indeed.


----------



## RodS57 (Sep 18, 2014)

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I just can't keep up with all the posts. Also realize this is off topic for this thread.

1. Price in Canada, for the couple of sites I checked, is now at 1899.99. Up from the original 1799.99. This possible price variation between Canada and US was mentioned but now it's real.

2. Per specs at canon.ca the actual number of focus points and their type will depend on the lens used. No examples listed. No idea what kind of a real world effect this will have.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 18, 2014)

cirkitdude said:


> RAW… need RAW… why can't someone at Photokina snap some high-ISO RAW images and post? Need to know if I should cancel my preorder. Please??



i, so far, found one source that offers raw files, but not for high iso. you might email matt granger (aka the nikon guy) to ask if he has them or not. however, below is the link that offer raw files to download

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiGALLERY.HTM

about application to read these raw files, i do not know the answer. i might try to find out later when i am home...

note: however, these captures were done with beta camera. there will probably more tweak at release...


----------



## mkabi (Sep 18, 2014)

Woody said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Click the pictures and look at the pictures!
> ...



I don't know... but I assume its the EOS software.
You can clearly see the difference between the 12800 ISO pic that Matt Granger took versus these ones. So, there you go... you have an idea, if you were one of the pre-order peeps and want 12,800 ISO RAW to be clean, don't expect miracles.

I want to know how good ISO in video mode is...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2014)

RodS57 said:


> 2. Per specs at canon.ca the actual number of focus points and their type will depend on the lens used. No examples listed. No idea what kind of a real world effect this will have.



Look at the 1D X or 5DIII for a rough idea. There'll be a group A with f/2.8 and faster lenses except the f/2.8 macros, that do 65 cross with center dual cross. A group B with lenses slower than f/2.8 but at least f/5.6 that lose the center dual cross. Since all 65 pts are f/5.6 crosses (unlike the 1D X/5DIII which has f/4 crosses), the majority of lenses will be A or B. Then will come several groups with a few lenses each, old (film days) variable zooms with f/5.6 at the long end, and a few lenses like the 180L Macro, each group having a column or two from the edges acting as lines instead of crosses. The last group will be the f/8 lens+TC combos with the center point plus four expansion points.


----------



## Steve (Sep 18, 2014)

Woody said:


> What was used for the RAW conversion?



Probably done in camera with NR turned off

If these shots are a good representation of what we can expect with RAW, then it looks like it could be passable up to 3200, maaaaayyyyyvbee 6400 with really careful NR and no cropping. Which is a lot better than I remember from my 7D.


----------



## RodS57 (Sep 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RodS57 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Per specs at canon.ca the actual number of focus points and their type will depend on the lens used. No examples listed. No idea what kind of a real world effect this will have.
> ...



Thanks. I sort of envisioned the 65 points turning in the 9 I have now. Would this explain the push to bundle it with the 24-70 F4 L. Trying, with the addition of an 'L' lens, to show the camera at its best vs the package with the STM lens.

Rod


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2014)

RodS57 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RodS57 said:
> ...



No need to worry - most lenses will give you 65 cross points. But...it wouldn't surprise me if some of the current EF-S f/3.5-5.6 kit zooms have a column or two at the sides revert to lines instead of crosses, due to vignetting (you won't see that issue with EF lenses).


----------



## Northstar (Sep 19, 2014)

While I don't particularly care for DXO in general, I do think their "sports low light high ISO" scores are useful. I've always understood the scores to represent a point where DXO feels high ISO starts to degrade the image.

The first image shows the current best "low light high ISO" of all brands of CROP camera bodies. The best crop score comes from the Nikon d3300 at a score of 1385 ISO.

The second image shows the best of the Canon FF - with the 1DX clearly coming out on top, roughly a full stop better than the best crop body.

It's pretty unlikely the 7D2 will score better than these other crop bodies, so "incredible high ISO RAW images" are probably unlikely, and FF is still king in this regard.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 19, 2014)

I would think that the 70D would give a floor level idea.


----------

