# 7d mk2 seems very soft?



## coreyhkh (Nov 2, 2014)

Has anyone else had this problem? I don't no if its just me but the images all seem rather soft to the point where it covers up alot of details.

This is a shame as everything else about the camera is great.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Nov 2, 2014)

any examples?
your flicker site is impressive


----------



## Stevet20 (Nov 2, 2014)

I've only done a couple of brief tests with a couple of lens and mine with the lens I've tested is very sharp to the point theirs very little difference between it and my 5D III. Even with my 100-400 which always seemed soft at 400mm on my 7D seems a lot sharper 

Regards

Steve


----------



## WillT (Nov 4, 2014)

After using the 7D for a few more days do you still think the photos are soft? Thanks


----------



## Crapking (Nov 4, 2014)

I've shot >1500 images already, with great glass (200, 200-400, 135) and find no issues. My question is will colors be the same once ACR is available? The OOC JPGS under fluorescent lights in gyms is not as natural as the 1Dx, 1dIV or 5d3 RAW FILES


----------



## retina (Nov 4, 2014)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> your flicker site is impressive



+1
great shots!


----------



## westr70 (Nov 4, 2014)

So far I'm not happy with my shots. They all seem soft. I have been messing with my settings though and not having LR is a major drawback. I've never had jpgs out of a camera so I'm not sure if in camera settings are doing something or what with the jpgs. 

Detail is missing from bird feathers and while AF is spot on, all of the shots are soft.


----------



## westr70 (Nov 4, 2014)

I don't have the 7Dii but with my 7D and 5Diii I've noticed that the default sharpness settings are lower than I would normally use. I suggest you shoot some RAW files and use DPP to convert to jpg.
If it still looks soft, check your MFA.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I can't open the raw files in DPP. Never used it before and the tutorials for it are for a previous version. In any event the raw files are locked.


----------



## candc (Nov 5, 2014)

retina said:


> beforeEos Camaras said:
> 
> 
> > your flicker site is impressive
> ...



+2 excellent work

Canon default in camera JPEG is a bit soft. I normally use auto picture style +1 saturation and +6 sharpening.


----------



## westr70 (Nov 5, 2014)

This is an example of a in camera jpg. The feather detail is simply not there.


----------



## quod (Nov 5, 2014)

coreyhkh said:


> Has anyone else had this problem? I don't no if its just me but the images all seem rather soft to the point where it covers up alot of details.


Yes, I have had the same problem. Your post pretty much sums up my view on the 7D2. Before it was released, I thought the test shots that I saw were a little soft. Once I used it, my views did not change. I like everything about the camera but the image quality. It looks like the 5D3 is going to continue being my go-to camera, including for wildlife.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2014)

westr70 said:


> This is an example of a in camera jpg. The feather detail is simply not there.


 
I agree that something is not right in that image. 

DPP should work fine with raw images, its pretty self explanatory. You can just use it as a raw converter, and export files as tiff into lightroom or photoshop. The raw files are compressed tiff images, with the camera settings added, so there is no loss to send them to Lightroom.

I believe the 7D MK II also has in camera RAW editing, which may avoid some of the over processing done for standard jpegs.

So far, the images I've seen online look pretty comparable to other APS cameras, except that some brands do boost NR, colors, contrast, etc and that appeals to many coming from P&S bodies.


----------



## rpt (Nov 5, 2014)

Silly question, but did you AFMA the lens? If you did, does shooting at twice the shutter speed you shot the picture earlier that was soft sort the issue? Is it soft when shooting from a stable tripod?


----------



## quod (Nov 5, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> DPP should work fine with raw images, its pretty self explanatory. You can just use it as a raw converter, and export files as tiff into lightroom or photoshop. The raw files are compressed tiff images, with the camera settings added, so there is no loss to send them to Lightroom.


You can do this with the new version of DPP. All of my 7D2 shots have been RAWs converted to TIFF via DPP.


----------



## ecka (Nov 5, 2014)

Honestly, what do you expect from an APS-C ???
I'd rather get a used 1D4 for only a bit more $.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Nov 5, 2014)

I only went out and shot with my 7dii for about an hour along with the Tamron 150-600mm. Thoughts are welcome on the results. 

For some reason I am not able to attach images so here are links to a few of the shots I got. They were processed only in DPP.

This close up of a kinglet is about 10 or 15% of the original image.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15521074278/

Here is one of the first shots I took with the camera

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15520959878/in/photostream/

And a junco as well. Light was harsh on this and the whites were a bit washed out. So I lowered the contrast and highlights as well. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15087232113/in/photostream/


----------



## Botts (Nov 5, 2014)

rpt said:


> Silly question, but did you AFMA the lens? If you did, does shooting at twice the shutter speed you shot the picture earlier that was soft sort the issue? Is it soft when shooting from a stable tripod?



That would be my guess, the entire bird seems a bit OOF.

Testing with manual focus in 10x live view might be a good way to test if it's body or AF.


----------



## rpt (Nov 5, 2014)

Botts said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Silly question, but did you AFMA the lens? If you did, does shooting at twice the shutter speed you shot the picture earlier that was soft sort the issue? Is it soft when shooting from a stable tripod?
> ...


Also if live view on stand focuses better than the normal AF, you need to AFMA.


----------



## Canon_Shooter (Nov 5, 2014)

Is it a NO NO to directly to light room , should one goto DPP then LIGHTROOM for best noise and COLOR


----------



## darth mollusk (Nov 5, 2014)

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/

apparently not if you own a 600 is ii (scroll down to the portrait of the vulture)!


----------



## nonac (Nov 5, 2014)

Canon_Shooter said:


> Is it a NO NO to directly to light room , should one goto DPP then LIGHTROOM for best noise and COLOR



For a couple more weeks, you can't go directly to Lightroom as Adobe has not yet released the updates to Camera Raw necessary to accept the files from the 7d Mark II.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 5, 2014)

coreyhkh said:


> Has anyone else had this problem? I don't no if its just me but the images all seem rather soft to the point where it covers up alot of details.
> 
> This is a shame as everything else about the camera is great.



are you using in cam jpgs with default settings? in cam jpgs are waxy from Canon, even with NR off they do too much mushing never mind with NR set to default


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 5, 2014)

Canon_Shooter said:


> Is it a NO NO to directly to light room , should one goto DPP then LIGHTROOM for best noise and COLOR



DPP does too much mushy NR for my taste, especially in shadows and areas of low contrast and the de-bayer and debayer sharpening seem a little weak to me, at least the last time I tried it, a while ago


----------



## GaryJ (Nov 5, 2014)

retina said:


> beforeEos Camaras said:
> 
> 
> > your flicker site is impressive
> ...


----------



## westr70 (Nov 5, 2014)

Okay, I have resolved my DPP issue. I had been using the most recent version 4.0.1.0 and that didn't seem to work. I installed the one I got with the camera and that worked just fine. The resulting test pictures (raw) out of the camera were great once they were converted to TIFF and then to LR and then to PS. Attached image is unmodified except for the various transitions. This is a 100 percent crop but reduced to 800 px. The head is OOF but the feather detail is excellent. I'm happy. Thanks to everyone for their help and input.


----------



## coreyhkh (Nov 6, 2014)

I fixed mine with a lens adjustment.

here is a bluejay shot at ISO 1000 and 30% crop


BlueJay - 7Dmkii by Corey Hayes, on Flickr


----------



## rpt (Nov 6, 2014)

coreyhkh said:


> I fixed mine with a lens adjustment.
> 
> here is a bluejay shot at ISO 1000 and 30% crop
> 
> ...


Lovely!


----------



## rpt (Nov 6, 2014)

westr70 said:


> Okay, I have resolved my DPP issue. I had been using the most recent version 4.0.1.0 and that didn't seem to work. I installed the one I got with the camera and that worked just fine. The resulting test pictures (raw) out of the camera were great once they were converted to TIFF and then to LR and then to PS. Attached image is unmodified except for the various transitions. This is a 100 percent crop but reduced to 800 px. The head is OOF but the feather detail is excellent. I'm happy. Thanks to everyone for their help and input.


Nice. So I am guessing that there was no difference between Live View and normal AF as you shoot through the viewfinder.


----------



## westr70 (Nov 6, 2014)

[/quote]
Nice. So I am guessing that there was no difference between Live View and normal AF as you shoot through the viewfinder.
[/quote]

I don't typically use liveview since I'm generally doing BIF. So far the images are great. Thanks for your help.


----------



## Raptors (Nov 6, 2014)

westr70 said:


> Okay, I have resolved my DPP issue. I had been using the most recent version 4.0.1.0 and that didn't seem to work. I installed the one I got with the camera and that worked just fine. The resulting test pictures (raw) out of the camera were great once they were converted to TIFF and then to LR and then to PS. Attached image is unmodified except for the various transitions. This is a 100 percent crop but reduced to 800 px. The head is OOF but the feather detail is excellent. I'm happy. Thanks to everyone for their help and input.



westr70, can you tell me which version of DPP came with the camera?

Thanks
Sue


----------



## westr70 (Nov 6, 2014)

westr70, can you tell me which version of DPP came with the camera?

Thanks
Sue
[/quote]

It is 3.14.40.0. Hope that helps.


----------



## Raptors (Nov 6, 2014)

westr70 said:


> westr70, can you tell me which version of DPP came with the camera?
> 
> Thanks
> Sue



It is 3.14.40.0. Hope that helps. 
[/quote]

Thanks, I just picked up my 7D MKII, have not had anytime to play. On my way to shoot a four day hockey tournament, so when I get back, I will try both versions...DPP 4.0.1 and DPP 3.14.4

Thanks again
Sue


----------



## luckydude (Nov 6, 2014)

coreyhkh said:


> Has anyone else had this problem? I don't no if its just me but the images all seem rather soft to the point where it covers up alot of details.
> 
> This is a shame as everything else about the camera is great.



Hi Corey, are you the same Corey that posted a night shot taken from Mt Shasta on Reddit a while back? If so, nice shot!

I've got the original 7D and the 5DIII. I hated the 7D after I got the 5D, it was way soft. But I played around with the in camera settings and found that the 7D wasn't sharpening as much as the 5D when shooting jpegs (which I do exclusively; I know, I know, but that's how I roll).

I liked the 7D quite a bit better after upping the sharpening.

The bluejay shot is stunning in the detail it captured. Do you have the 600 f4 II? I'd be interested to see what that can do; there are some bird people who coaxed some pretty nice shouts out of that and the 7D.

What was the post processing on the bluejay?

And curse you! I might have to get a 7DII now


----------



## westr70 (Nov 6, 2014)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> any examples?
> your flicker site is impressive



I just checked his flicker page too and they are impressive. Great moose shots too. You should teach or at least have your own website. Nice work.


----------



## luckydude (Nov 6, 2014)

Raptors said:


> Thanks, I just picked up my 7D MKII, have not had anytime to play. On my way to shoot a four day hockey tournament, so when I get back, I will try both versions...DPP 4.0.1 and DPP 3.14.4
> 
> Thanks again
> Sue



Hey Sue, 

I'd be interested to hear how you like the 7DII after the hockey shoot. I shoot roller hockey indoors and I used to use the 7DI but my goto setup is the 5DIII & the 200mm f2. If the 7DII does significantly better than the 7D at higher ISO then I could go with the 7DII & the 70-200mm 2.8 which is a little more flexible than the prime.

Thanks.


----------



## justsomedude (Nov 6, 2014)

luckydude said:


> I hated the 7D after I got the 5D, it was way soft.



I never got a decent image from my 7DI ... and everyone told me it was because it was "too much camera" for me. 

I'd take a 40D, 50D, 60D, 6D, and any 5D over a 7DI, any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. There are people who swear by theirs; I just happen to think those people have poor vision.


----------



## cnardo (Nov 6, 2014)

I've got the original 7D and the 5DIII. I hated the 7D after I got the 5D, it was way soft. But I played around with the in camera settings and found that the 7D wasn't sharpening as much as the 5D when shooting jpegs (which I do exclusively; I know, I know, but that's how I roll).

I liked the 7D quite a bit better after upping the sharpening.
********
Hey....Luckydude
.... exactly what did you do to the settings to up the sharpening????
Thanks.


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 7, 2014)

rpt said:


> coreyhkh said:
> 
> 
> > I fixed mine with a lens adjustment.
> ...



+1, very nice sharp capture 8)


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 7, 2014)

justsomedude said:


> luckydude said:
> 
> 
> > I hated the 7D after I got the 5D, it was way soft.
> ...



It's not a 1DX but it's a lot cheaper. My lousy 7D1 and cheap 100-400L (never AFMA'd) operated by an amateur without tripod still managed to take many amazing and sharp photos of tiny birds.

Now, where did I leave my glasses? ;D


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 7, 2014)

Looking at these examples, these birds are extremely small, which means very shallow DOF. It seems several of them are not really all that in focus. I hate to say it, but operator error may be far more at play than APS-C inherent insharpness. 

Of course, the internet loves to hate on APS-C, sooooo....


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2014)

The photo you post is indeed soft BUT it is so soft that I can't believe it is the camera. There is something else wrong which am sure you will figure out eventually. This is not a FF vs crop issue. AFMA or processing seems to be the issue.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2014)

Oh I just checked the replies and found you have figured it out. Great!


----------



## Phil L (Nov 9, 2014)

I received mine on Monday and got out a few days this week to try it on BIF action.
My initial impressions on the first day of using it were that the jpegs right out of the camera were soft. I was confused since it really seemed like I was nailing the focus as I was taking the pictures. 
I thought... if this was my old trusty original 7D the images would have all been sharp.

But I later figured it was a strange camera, I had been used to the feel and handling of the 7D with a battery grip, so give it a chance.
So I calmed myself down and went back out trying to pay more attention to technique.

Plus... I did increase the Sharpness in the settings. I'm still tweaking and dialing it in, but I now feel more comfortable and confident in the camera for wildlife action.

Here are my photo blog posts for the week if anyone wants to see how I made out.

Bald eagles, an osprey, and a gull mid air battle over a caught fish.

http://phillanoue.com/2014/11/08/bird-on-a-mission/

http://phillanoue.com/2014/11/07/high-speed-chase/

http://phillanoue.com/2014/11/06/osprey-double-dipper/

http://phillanoue.com/2014/11/05/looking-for-a-place-to-land/

http://phillanoue.com/2014/11/04/get-out-of-our-neighborhood/


----------



## luckydude (Nov 10, 2014)

cnardo said:


> I've got the original 7D and the 5DIII. I hated the 7D after I got the 5D, it was way soft. But I played around with the in camera settings and found that the 7D wasn't sharpening as much as the 5D when shooting jpegs (which I do exclusively; I know, I know, but that's how I roll).
> 
> I liked the 7D quite a bit better after upping the sharpening.
> ********
> ...



I wandered through the menus and found one that said sharpening or something like that. Clicked it up a couple of ticks. If you can't find it let me know, I'll get my butt out of this chair and go find it for ya.


----------



## Raptors (Nov 10, 2014)

luckydude said:


> Hey Sue,
> 
> I'd be interested to hear how you like the 7DII after the hockey shoot. I shoot roller hockey indoors and I used to use the 7DI but my goto setup is the 5DIII & the 200mm f2. If the 7DII does significantly better than the 7D at higher ISO then I could go with the 7DII & the 70-200mm 2.8 which is a little more flexible than the prime.
> 
> Thanks.



Hey luckydude,


I was planning on using the new 7DII on my recent hockey shoot, but the lighting was horrible! AS I have not had a chance to test the new 7D and
this being a paid shoot, I shot with my 1DX, 300mm 2.8II @6400 ISO. I mainly bought the 7D to use for my wildlife photography. I may try and go to the
local arena and test the 7dII...if I do , I will certainly post my findings.

Sue


----------



## CLohmeyerJr (Nov 29, 2014)

I too am questioning the sharpness on my new 7D II. Today was the first day of shooting with this camera and here a re a few examples.


----------



## CLohmeyerJr (Nov 29, 2014)

Another example.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 30, 2014)

Haven't had a chance to REALLY test out my 7D2 (i.e. at an actual event), but from test shots out and about, sharpness-wise all I can say is that it is significantly improved over the original 7D (which was soft on EVERYTHING), and about on par with my SL1/M. It only "looks soft" if I compare to my 5D3 (which we know is not a fair comparison)...


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 30, 2014)

Looks like the 7D. Great features, soft results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Looks like the 7D. Great features, soft results.



Is your opinion of the 7DII based on personal experience, or based on the images in this thread? The first two of those three posters solved their 'my 7DII is soft' issue, one with appropriate post-processing, the other with a lens adjustment (AFMA, presumably). The third, the eagles a couple of posts up on this page, the first of which is a front-focused image (also likely an AFMA issue) with abysmal white balance (or maybe it's perfectly accurate...if the bald eagle just took a swim in a vat of Tang).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 30, 2014)

Every time a new model comes out, we have a flurry of posters with soft images.

In some cases, the camera needs to go back, but in most, the photographer needs to spend more time with his new camera.


When I received my 7D, one of the first to be shipped, I took it out and got s lot of oof images. After reviewing my settings, I tried again, and the results were much improved. The third time, I started to get consistently good results, but I did a lot of checking exif's on the bad photos in between.

With my 5D MK III, I did a AFMA on my lenses, then I set it up on a tripod, and took a few carefully controlled shots which were all razor sharp. After that, I knew any soft images were my error, and sure enough, they were.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like the 7D. Great features, soft results.
> ...



Based on the shadows it looks like the Eagles were taken during the golden hour. So the white balance is probobly correct.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Based on the shadows it looks like the Eagles were taken during the golden hour. So the white balance is probobly correct.



It seemed to me that the fork in the branch casting a shadow on the eagle's back suggests a higher sun angle than 'golden hour'. Still, my comment was a bit off-color and I apologize (for the comment and the bad pun).

Regardless, it appears front-focused - the bark on the trunk appears sharper than that on the branch where the eagle is perched. I'd test focus adjustment before questioning the sharpness of a new camera on the first day of shooting.


----------



## CLohmeyerJr (Nov 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like the 7D. Great features, soft results.
> ...



The suggestion that the photos are front focused is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. The camera is only three days old and it has not been to the shop to have the AFMA work done yet. As for the "tang" comment I will bite my tongue! It just so happens that this photo was taken very early in the morning and the sun was shining directly on this tree where the eagle was feasting. No matter what I did with white balance or color adjustment the orange tint will not go away.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2014)

CLohmeyerJr said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



Not sure about 'been to the shop for AFMA'? AMFA is something you do yourself, at home. If you're still having issues after AFMA, the body (and/or lens) may need service. But backing up a step, there's an easy way to get a read on whether AFMA is going to help for a given lens+body combo. Use a stable tripod and choose a flat, high contrast target (a sheet of newsprint taped to a wall works), take a set of live view shots, then a set of phase (viewfinder) AF shots (set of = 5 or more), pick the sharpest of each and if LV is sharper, AFMA can help.

Sorry again about the Tang comment. :-[ As for the WB, what's your RAW converter? Here's a quick attempt of mine...


----------



## CLohmeyerJr (Nov 30, 2014)

There is a shop where I live that I use to do the AFMA. After reading through how to do this I felt more comfortable letting an expert do it. They adjusted my original 7D to the same lens I used on the photos that I attached. 

I am using Lightroom to convert my raw. I have only been using this for a few months so I do have a lot to learn. I would to hear how you made the orange tones go away.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2014)

CLohmeyerJr said:


> There is a shop where I live that I use to do the AFMA. After reading through how to do this I felt more comfortable letting an expert do it. They adjusted my original 7D to the same lens I used on the photos that I attached.



Cool - I've never heard of a shop providing that as a service. Personally, I use Reikan FoCal.




CLohmeyerJr said:


> I am using Lightroom to convert my raw. I have only been using this for a few months so I do have a lot to learn. I would to hear how you made the orange tones go away.



I use DxO Optics Pro. But I don't think that mattered for this - I have to confess, all I did was use the 'dropper' on one of the more weathered/neutral-looking patches of bark on the trunk. Perhaps I should have said a _really quick_ attempt of mine?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 30, 2014)

I also downloaded it and corrected the color in lightroom. I adjusted the head feathers to be white.

It appears to me that the camera focused on the crossing branch above the back of the bird. I'd check focus on a flat wall, its really easy to have a camera focus on the wrong area.

I assume that there was a high ISO, there is a lot of noise, so the fine detail is lost.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 30, 2014)

CLohmeyerJr said:


> I too am questioning the sharpness on my new 7D II. Today was the first day of shooting with this camera and here a re a few examples.



Ha...you're joking right? That eagle's eye look plenty sharp to me.

Where was the focus point? It does look like the branch and trunk in front of him are sharp too, and his body is not, which suggests the focus point might have caught that tree branch in front of him but the depth of field was great enough to get his eye in focus, but not his body? Just a guess.

I also did an edit for you....simply food for thought.


----------



## Berowne (Nov 30, 2014)

retina said:


> beforeEos Camaras said:
> 
> 
> > your flicker site is impressive
> ...



+1 Very nice!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 30, 2014)

One thing that i am finding is that the 7D2 is unable to get a lock on smaller subjects, even in spot AF. I compared the 7D2 to the 5D3 AF on the same subjects and even with bright sunlight the 5D3 focus just locks on and stays put. I'm not sure if this is because the AF sensor design is different that the 5D3 or if there is some other problem with the phase detect software.

It's still MUCH improved over the old 7D but I think there is some room for improvement. Hopefully it's just a firmware tweak.

When shooting larger subjects like people, eagles and herons which are fairly large in the frame, the AF has no issues.

Anyone else notice this? Those with 5D3's are better suited to compare.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 30, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> One thing that i am finding is that the 7D2 is unable to get a lock on smaller subjects, even in spot AF. I compared the 7D2 to the 5D3 AF on the same subjects and even with bright sunlight the 5D3 focus just locks on and stays put. I'm not sure if this is because the AF sensor design is different that the 5D3 or if there is some other problem with the phase detect software.
> 
> It's still MUCH improved over the old 7D but I think there is some room for improvement. Hopefully it's just a firmware tweak.
> 
> ...


 
I have not tried the MK II, but one of the strengths of my original two 7D's was the ability of spot AF to lock on to a subject, even with branches or a chain link fence in the way. I'd be surprised if the new one is worse in that regard.


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 30, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that i am finding is that the 7D2 is unable to get a lock on smaller subjects, even in spot AF. I compared the 7D2 to the 5D3 AF on the same subjects and even with bright sunlight the 5D3 focus just locks on and stays put. I'm not sure if this is because the AF sensor design is different that the 5D3 or if there is some other problem with the phase detect software.
> ...



I feel it is better than the 7D. I know spot focus is only 1.8% of the screen in the 7DII versus 2.6% in the 7D IIRC. It is much easier to thread the needle now. Well as long as you don't get too ambitious.


----------



## CLohmeyerJr (Dec 28, 2014)

Since my earlier posts to this thread I have been working on my settings with the 7D II. I have learned this is a much different camera than my original 7D. I still have a lot to learn about this camera and am even changing some setting after my results yesterday. The attached photo is one I took yesterday. Results are getting better.

1/1000, 8.0, 320 ISO


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 28, 2014)

Hi Charles. 
That looks like a big improvement, I'd speculate that you are 
A, very very close to having the camera "dialled in"
B, much happier with the sharpness issue you have going on here! ;D
By the way, Nice shot. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## CLohmeyerJr (Dec 28, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Charles.
> That looks like a big improvement, I'd speculate that you are
> A, very very close to having the camera "dialled in"
> B, much happier with the sharpness issue you have going on here! ;D
> ...



I am much happier with the camera but still need further adjustments. 
I find it interesting that on the old 7D I was able to freeze the majority of the wing action with 1/100 shutter speed. With the same setting on the 7D II I have a lot more motion blur so I am trying 1/1250 next time out.
The biggest challenge is with ISO. On the old 7D I used auto ISO and it worked 90% of the time. With the 7D II it tends to use a higher ISO than necessary and a lot of my shots are over exposed. I am going back to full manual and setting the ISO as I can recover much more out of an under exposed photo compared to what I am getting today.

I still have not done a micro adjustment as I think I am going to buy the new 100 - 400 and will just have that one adjusted.


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 2, 2015)

CLohmeyerJr said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Charles.
> ...


----------

