# Brief Hands on with the 7Dii



## Sabaki (Oct 5, 2014)

So I attended a Canon sponsored PhotoMob in Cape Town and briefly handled the 7Dii. 

So speaking to probably the most senior Canon guy on the African continent, I got this info from him:

1. 2-3 stops better ISO performance over the original 7D. 
2. ISO 3200 performance is a touch better than ISO 800 on the original. 

Disclaimer: He is a Canon man and most things said are probably pitch but there we go.


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 5, 2014)

I suspect that 2-3 stops is a little optimistic, or that he was speaking about JPG and not RAW. Did he clarify whether he was talking about JPG or RAW?

I have been looking at RAW files from Imaging Resource and to me it looks like the 7D2 is easily 1 stop better, and when I looked at 7D ISO 800 compared to 7D2 ISO 3200, it looked to me as though the 7D was slightly better. But they were really really close, which is very promising.

Based on what I have seen... which is pretty limited at this point... the 7D2 appears to be almost 2 stops improvement. However, as I have said before I believe that the noise is much easier to clean up in post being Luminance vs Color. Color noise requires more NR and also robs more detail in my opinion. 

I have one on pre-order and so far I'm encouraged I made the right decision. Looks to be one hell of a camera!


----------



## sanj (Oct 5, 2014)

If it gets even 1 stop better IQ it will be great. I think 1/2 stop is realistic.


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 5, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I suspect that 2-3 stops is a little optimistic, or that he was speaking about JPG and not RAW. Did he clarify whether he was talking about JPG or RAW?
> 
> I have been looking at RAW files from Imaging Resource and to me it looks like the 7D2 is easily 1 stop better, and when I looked at 7D ISO 800 compared to 7D2 ISO 3200, it looked to me as though the 7D was slightly better. But they were really really close, which is very promising.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately he just said noise performance and gave those numbers. 

Also said that distribution begins first week in November.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 5, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that 2-3 stops is a little optimistic, or that he was speaking about JPG and not RAW. Did he clarify whether he was talking about JPG or RAW?
> ...



Actually, this is something I've been contemplating. I'm pretty much a RAW-only person, but lately I've been asking myself a couple of questions: why do we always insist on evaluating the camera's performance based solely on RAW? I mean, realistically, isn't it the results that count? If we can shoot in JPEG and produce significantly better results because the programmers at Canon (or Nikon or Sony or Fuji or whatever) are better than us at converting that data to JPEG, why should we discount the camera?

That's a strength, not a weakness. Maybe we should embrace it, instead of discounting it. 

I'm fully aware of the advantages of RAW and in situations where I need those advantages I would always shoot RAW, but lately I'm wondering if I shouldn't take a second look at JPEG with the newest cameras. Yeah, I've gotten used to processing files in Adobe Camera Raw and I would have to adjust my workflow, but I'm certainty capable of doing that. After all, isn't it the final product that is important, and what difference does it make how we get there?

So, if the out-of-camera JPEG has significantly less noise and looks better than what I can produce with a RAW converter, why should I cut off my nose to spite my face?


----------



## Lurker (Oct 5, 2014)

Art Morris at Birds as Art will be getting a Beta version of the camera Monday, on loan from Outdoor Photographer. Watch his blog for his opinions.

This was copied from his blog:


> I asked George [Lepp]about the quality of the 7D II image files. He said, “You will love the camera and the image quality. The images are quite similar to those from the 5D Mark III.” Then I asked with some trepidation, “What about noise?” George replied, “The same as the 5D III.”


----------



## surapon (Oct 5, 2014)

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/09/19/the-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-wading-through-the-morass-dpp-4-0-camera-compatibility-issues-and-info/


http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2014/eos7dmkii_intelligent_viewfinder.shtml

Surapon


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Actually, this is something I've been contemplating. I'm pretty much a RAW-only person, but lately I've been asking myself a couple of questions: why do we always insist on evaluating the camera's performance based solely on RAW? I mean, realistically, isn't it the results that count? If we can shoot in JPEG and produce significantly better results because the programmers at Canon (or Nikon or Sony or Fuji or whatever) are better than us at converting that data to JPEG, why should we discount the camera?



Generally its because in those discussions where it matters people are talking about raw technical performance at the sensor level. Overall performance might be a different discussion. I only shoot jpeg with my Fuji because when I shot RAW and processed by hand the results weren't really markedly better but sure took longer to get. Fuji's jpeg engine is remarkable imo. Canon's sooc jpeg engine is hot garbage as far as I'm concerned so I'd love to know how the 7DII's RAW performance is compared to my 1DIV. If it really is better at 3200 than the 7D was at 800 in RAW (lol) than its absolutely worth a look but if they are just slamming it through those DIGIC 6's jpeg NR routines then its not nearly as exciting to me.


----------

