# Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 19, 2014)

```
<p>Imaging Resource has posted some still life image tests from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II at various ISOs. You can easily compare results with other APS-C cameras on their web site. Below is a sample from the EOS 7D Mark II against the original EOS 7D at ISO 3200. I bet you can spot the difference.</p>
<div id="attachment_17446" style="width: 504px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/7d7d2compare.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17446" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/7d7d2compare-494x575.jpg" alt="EOS 7D  on right | EOS 7D Mark II on left | Image from Imaging Resource" width="494" height="575" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">EOS 7D on left | EOS 7D Mark II on right| Image from Imaging Resource</p></div>
<p>You can see all the <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/09/18/canon-7d-mark-ii-first-shots-let-the-image-quality-comparisons-begin" target="_blank">samples over at imaging-resource.com</a>.</p>
<p><strong><strong>Canon EOS 7D Mark II $1799: <a style="color: #900000;" 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 style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA7DM2.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a style="color: #900000;" 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 style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-cart/product.asp?pid=7dmarkii" target="_blank">Camera Canada</a></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## tron (Sep 19, 2014)

Impressive! Are we talking RAW or JPEGS?


----------



## Thomas Lieser (Sep 19, 2014)

I took a look at the images. This looks like a major jump in quality. I wish I had the money for that beast.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 19, 2014)

This is straight from the camera JPEG. For journalists who need to send pictures immediately, and do not have time to process RAW files, 7D Mark II look like a decent substitute for 1D Mark IV.  :

It also serves well for those who have time, but has no patience for RAW.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 19, 2014)

And what were those comments about Canon's sensor technology, generations _et al_.........?


----------



## zim (Sep 19, 2014)

Looks good and it's a beta camera. Not sure that these tests really mean all that much until proper official RAW software is released from Canon, the 5D3 and 6D releases were the lesson.

Regards


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 19, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> And what were those comments about Canon's sensor technology, generations _et al_.........?


Wait for the unprocessed RAWs and wait for those who always have to have something to gripe about.


----------



## pierlux (Sep 19, 2014)

Wow!!!! I'm using a small, uncalibrated monitor at work, yet I can see a difference (small) even compared to the 70D at high ISO. Is it just me or do you also notice an improvement?


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Sep 19, 2014)

WoW!

November can't get here fast enough, I've been holding on to my Canon 50D always hoping for an action/sports/event camera from Canon without having to go to Nikon. My wish has been answered.


----------



## Fr3lncr (Sep 19, 2014)

pierlux said:


> Wow!!!! I'm using a small, uncalibrated monitor at work, yet I can see a difference (small) even compared to the 70D at high ISO. Is it just me or do you also notice an improvement?



I can definitely see an improvement over the original 7D, but I really can't see any improvement over the 70D. 

EDIT: Well, I double checked the ISO 25600 and in some parts of the sample I can see the 7D II being better (say the bottle of wine vinegar), in some areas it is the same (say the bottle of pepper oil), and in some areas, the 70D giving a nicer look (shadow noise between the pepper oil and the colouring box). I think I need to see how the samples will look like on dpreview to get a better idea.


----------



## martinslade (Sep 19, 2014)

Sportsgal501 said:


> WoW!
> 
> November can't get here fast enough, I've been holding on to my Canon 50D always hoping for an action/sports/event camera from Canon without having to go to Nikon. My wish has been answered.



Yes, I think this is a valid comparison between 70d and 7d2. IMO looks like about 0.5 stop better at ISO 3200 - 6400:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...LI06400NR0.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...LI06400NR0.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...LI03200NR0.HTM


----------



## Thomas Lieser (Sep 19, 2014)

Sportsgal501 said:


> WoW!
> 
> November can't get here fast enough, I've been holding on to my Canon 50D always hoping for an action/sports/event camera from Canon without having to go to Nikon. My wish has been answered.



me too


----------



## dstppy (Sep 19, 2014)

dilbert said:


> We'll have to wait and see what happens with DxO testing and elsewhere to see if there is any banding evident but it is a pity that Canon didn't put the same effort into improving IQ between the 5D2 and 5D3.



I'm curious if you owned either. I noticed marked improvement, but that was in my own, personal, real-world photography . . .


----------



## pierlux (Sep 19, 2014)

Fr3lncr said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > Wow!!!! I'm using a small, uncalibrated monitor at work, yet I can see a difference (small) even compared to the 70D at high ISO. Is it just me or do you also notice an improvement?
> ...



The difference is actually very small, I think we have to wait for some downloadable raws to make a valid comparison.

I'll have hard times deciding whether to drop double the money for a 7D2 or go for the 70D and save something to invest in a longer lens which I have to purchase anyway. The new Siggy 120-600 is approx 2x the price of the Tamron, but then there's also the other unicorn from Canon that's probably about to be announced hopefully sooner than later at this point... The "Year of the Lens" must not pass without the 100-400 replacement being announced, nevertheless, as neuro pointed out, that one lens didn't benefit from the recent price drop, probably meaning it's still selling very well... How hard a decision for me!

Well, I think I'll manage to hold back GAS and wait a few months to take advantage from the price settlement, not a bad idea to capitalize my limited budget. Meanwhile, I'll have fun reading reviews, comparisons, comments etc.

Cheers!


----------



## SPKoko (Sep 19, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > And what were those comments about Canon's sensor technology, generations _et al_.........?
> ...



Hello. I'm a long time peeper, first time poster! I have registered just to say that the RAW files are available here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.HTM

I am interested in your opinion about the difference in QA among the 7D, the 70D and the 7D2. In my opinion, the 70D has a slightly advantage vs the old 7D (perhaps because of the softer AA filter), but I do not see a noticeable improvement among the 70D and the 7D2, but probably my inexperienced eyes are not trained enough to see the difference


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 19, 2014)

I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.

EDIT - I must have used the Comparometer(TM) incorrectly. The performance still looks quite good, though, and a big improvement over the 7D.


----------



## Sunnystate (Sep 19, 2014)

Oh Lord, once again we rave about jpeg noise reduction algorithms...


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 19, 2014)

Sunnystate said:


> Oh Lord, once again we rave about jpeg noise reduction algorithms...


and none of the sample pictures have squirrels  You can't go nuts without the squirrels coming out......


----------



## I_Miss_Minolta (Sep 19, 2014)

Sunnystate said:


> Oh Lord, once again we rave about jpeg noise reduction algorithms...



How else are you supposed to compare images on a WEB page?

YOU can download the raw images.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 19, 2014)

The longer this goes without RAWs being available the more incredulous I become. For the point & shoot crowd that's just looking for a crop (for some reason), I'm sure this'll be great. For sports/wildlife/action people I think we need to reserve judgment until we see an actual RAW posted that we can play around with. Or better yet two: one from the 7D, one from the 7Dii of the same shot, like what you have here.


----------



## SPKoko (Sep 19, 2014)

AccipiterQ said:


> The longer this goes without RAWs being available the more incredulous I become. For the point & shoot crowd that's just looking for a crop (for some reason), I'm sure this'll be great. For sports/wildlife/action people I think we need to reserve judgment until we see an actual RAW posted that we can play around with. Or better yet two: one from the 7D, one from the 7Dii of the same shot, like what you have here.



I have copied the link to the raw files a few posts ago. I do not know if they can be opened with the current versions of LR or DPP, though... probably not...


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

Nope, can't be opened by either. The RAWs posted in the photography-on-the-net thread were opened in Irfanview supposedly but I haven't tried that.

Edit: until there is a way to compare RAWs, there's no way to tell if the improvements are due to better in-camera processing with the dual digic 6 or actual sensor improvement.


----------



## aj1575 (Sep 19, 2014)

Looks good compared to the original 7D, but compared to the 70D, there is not much improvement (only in the very high ISOs). I can't say anything about DR in the lower ISO (what DXOmark likes), but since it looks like an improved 70D sensor, it will most likely behave in a similar way.

This means that the 7D II will come out with a rather low score at DXOmark....


----------



## m (Sep 19, 2014)

What's that black dot with light blue surrounding in the 7D2 file?


----------



## Besisika (Sep 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.


I am anxious to see if you would consider this as the backup of your 1DX. Let us know if you decide to go for it. I am currently use a 5DIII as back up but if it is close to the 5D I would consider the 10fps as a serious candidate.


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.
> ...



The 7DII samples look substantially worse than the 5DIII samples. I'm betting the RAWs would be even farther apart.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Yikes, must have been a user error on my part. I could swear I selected everything correctly but with all of the frames and such in the Comparometer(TM) thingy, I must have screwed something up earlier. The 7DII appears to be around 1/2 to 1 stop better than the 7D, but still isn't nearly as good as the 5DIII.



Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.
> ...


I have been considering it, but after looking at what the 5DIIIs are going for on eBay this morning - around $2400 US (or $2160 after fees) - I would just about break even on the purchase. That doesn't include the loss I would take on the RRS L-bracket and other items, so the idea of losing roughly $1,000 (from what I paid for the 5DIII) just to get a newer camera with a crop sensor doesn't seem so appealing after I did the math. 

The 1D X does everything I could ever want and I think I'm going to stick with the 5DIII for now, especially after seeing the comparison again (correctly this time!).


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.
> 
> EDIT - I must have used the Comparometer(TM) incorrectly. The performance still looks quite good, though, and a big improvement over the 7D.



I was worried about your first remark which you corrected just few seconds before. Your posts make always sense but this one was strange 

Compared to the 7D I see a good advantage but the images in the comparometer made with the 600d/T3i look not too bad compared to the 7D mark ii.

If I should buy the 7D mark ii I will buy it for it's ergonomy (600d has beeing euphemistic inferior ergonomics) and AF system if it shows great performance - not sheer IQ. And things are not easier now: perhaps a 6D for HQ imaging?


----------



## digitalride (Sep 19, 2014)

at iso 6400 I think it looks just a touch smoother than the 70d with no loss of detail, I'd like to see a real raw comparison.

irfanview and other viewers usually just display the jpeg preview embedded in raw files.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Sep 19, 2014)

dstppy said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > We'll have to wait and see what happens with DxO testing and elsewhere to see if there is any banding evident but it is a pity that Canon didn't put the same effort into improving IQ between the 5D2 and 5D3.
> ...



The 5Dmk2 was my workhorse before replacing it with a couple 5Dmk3s. There is at least a 1-stop improvement in overall image quality in noise levels at high ISOs plus much more color detail. With the 5Dmk2 I couldn't rely on ISOs over 3200 for 8x10 prints, but with the 5Dmk3 I can easily push it to 6400 (though I rarely do).


----------



## dadgummit (Sep 19, 2014)

To my eyes the 7d2 at ISO 3200 looks better than my 7d at ISO 800.

I do not believe it is just noise reduction because the 7d2 shot is sharper as well.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 19, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm stunned. The 7DII matches or nearly matches the 5DIII even at ISO 12,800! Wow. It's still no match for the 1D X at higher ISOs, but I can't believe they have pulled this out of an APS-C chip. It looks like I might have to get into the pre-order line after all.
> ...


I guess I need more caffeine! The one other thing I noticed is that the 7DII seems to hold color saturation a bit better at high ISOs.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 7DII at all. In all of the years I've been shooting wildlife, I've rarely shot anything over ISO 6400 (and that's before sunrise) and within 30 minutes of sunrise, I'm usually at ISO 1600 or less, depending on the lens to get 1/500s or higher. Even with a Rebel and the IS-less and slow 400 f/5.6, the vast majority of my shots were at ISO 400 + or - 1 to 2 stops. For sports where you need to be at 1/1000s or higher, it will be a bit tougher, but I think the 7DII is still up to the task from what I've seen. Besides, noise isn't the end of the world and I'd rather have a noisy shot than no shot. The AF, frame rate, etc. will give you much better odds of getting the shot.


----------



## SPKoko (Sep 19, 2014)

I have been able to open the CR2 files from:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.HTM

in LightRoom 5 by using ExifTool and copying all the Exif tags from a RAW file generated with a 70D:

exiftool.exe -tagsfromfile IMG_0017.CR2 E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2

You can download sample images from a 70D for example in the dpreview scene comparison tool:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/16

After doing this, I can open the CR2 in LR without problems. Before trying this method, I had tried with changing only the important keys, and I could open the RAW file in LR, but the resulting image was very "pinkish":

exiftool.exe -Model="Canon EOS 70D" E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2
exiftool.exe -CanonImageType="Canon EOS 70D" E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2
exiftool.exe -CanonRaw:CanonModelID -tagsfromfile IMG_0017.CR2 E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.CR2

This method has been inspired by:

http://www.canonwatch.com/canons-new-dpp-4-0-works-100d-650d-eos-m-70d-700d-raw-files-little-trick/

By the way, I really do not see a noticeable IQ improvement in the RAW files vs the 70D.


----------



## Diltiazem (Sep 19, 2014)

SPKoko said:


> I have been able to open the CR2 files from:
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.HTM
> 
> ...


Or you can just use Photo Ninja to open the 7DII RAW files.


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 19, 2014)

Next1 said:


> meanwhile every APS-C MILC offers better image quality.



Really? I don't think so.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 19, 2014)

Next1 said:


> are some canon fanboys so desperate that they dream with open eyes already?
> 
> the quality is exactly as the 70D.... the sensor is not improved at ALL.
> the small difference you may imagine(!) could have all kind of reasons.
> ...



Perhaps 2017 is wrong - it might be 2019

but

A camera which OFFERS better IQ isn't always a guarantee for BETTER IMAGES

Ergonomics and reliability of its subsystems for exposure metering and AF might be of much higher importance depending on the purpose ...
And I have a set of lenses which I am very satisfied with.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Good remarks far from "counting pixels":
Perhaps a combination of a 7D mark ii with a high resolution camera will do for me - I really like the idea to have a ultra reliable AF system for faster action - just "action macros" of insects ... hopefully the 7D mark ii convinces in this respect.
A high resolution camera for other purposes might be added later ...


----------



## SPKoko (Sep 19, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> A camera which OFFERS better IQ isn't always a guarantee for BETTER IMAGES
> 
> Ergonomics and reliability of its subsystems for exposure metering and AF might be of much higher importance depending on the purpose ...
> And I have a set of lenses which I am very satisfied with.



But, wouldn't you love to have a Canon camera with good ergonomics, reliability, good AF, good set of lenses AND IN ADDITION, a 24MP APS-C sensor with tons of DR and better low noise performance?


----------



## SPKoko (Sep 19, 2014)

Next1 said:


> the quality is exactly as the 70D.... the sensor is not improved at ALL.



I suspected that but we need to verify it! And that is what we are trying to do! And certainly it looks like it is the same!



Next1 said:


> and i bet you will see this sensor until 2017 in entry level DSLR´s from canon.



Absolutely no doubt about that. We will see very soon a Rebel T6i with this 20MP sensor... and a SL2... and an EOS M3... and a little bit later, a Rebel T6...


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 19, 2014)

SPKoko said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > A camera which OFFERS better IQ isn't always a guarantee for BETTER IMAGES
> ...


Sure, that would be great, but if I had to choose, I'd go for a great camera with lesser IQ any day. Look no further than the Sigma Foveon DSLRs. Great IQ, but lousy everything else. 

Besides, for all of the sensor superiority of the Sony/Nikon cameras, why is Canon selling more cameras, and why can't you tell which camera was used to shoot advertisement or magazine photos? If they were so much better, shouldn't you be able to tell just by the looking at the photo? There is SO much more that goes into getting a photo other than the sensor.


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 19, 2014)

SPKoko said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > A camera which OFFERS better IQ isn't always a guarantee for BETTER IMAGES
> ...



You have to take the whole package though.

If you think that another manufacturer offers you a setup that will get you better pictures then go for it by all means. People concentrating on sensors will find cameras with better sensors, no-one is arguing. But for action photography can you find something comparable (camera+lens at rpice) that will get you better pictures?

The point being that there is only so much R&D budget. Money directed at the sensor would detract from other areas. If Canon has come up with one of the best combinations of its kind then pointing out that one of the components could be improved is fairly pointless. It's too early too judge at this stage how good this camera will prove but overall it looks fairly positive at this stage.

AND if it is one of the best but with an obvious area for development then that bodes well for the future.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The 1D X does everything I could ever want and I think I'm going to stick with the 5DIII for now, especially after seeing the comparison again (correctly this time!).


Understood, thanks for your input.


----------



## Adrian (Sep 19, 2014)

7D11 RAW images open perfectly with UFRaw, from what I can see I'll be sticking with my 5D3 for some time yet.


----------



## dstppy (Sep 19, 2014)

David_in_Seattle said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Exactly. I just don't see the complaining or the doom and gloom . . . every quirk I didn't like about my mk2 was answered with the mk3, but on every new camera thread, we get people talking about Canon's failures that I'm just not seeing.


----------



## Woody (Sep 19, 2014)

SPKoko said:


> By the way, I really do not see a noticeable IQ improvement in the RAW files vs the 70D.



Thanks for sharing.


----------



## jvhigbee (Sep 19, 2014)

I find it interesting how different the opinions are of what is shown using the comparometer. The images are jpg from the camera and in my experience those are a fair comparison over what to expect from properly converted raw files.
That said, here is what I see when comparing only the 3200 iso from each of the following cameras; 
7D2 and 70D seem quite close in shadow areas but 7D2 seems cleaner in lighter
7D2 seems very close in IQ to 1D4 in shadow areas
6D beats them all, which makes me happy 'cause it's what I got! (also have 7D and 60D and have owned all xxD's except 50 and 70)

Like I said, opinions vary and that's just mine.


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 19, 2014)

I have to say... I am about to sell either my 17F4.0L TS or 8-15L and stuff to get this camera (lenses I hardly use). Just a few weeks ago I was thinking about how to get money for two additional 600ex rt´s (in addition to the three I have), and I got sidewinded (if that is the correct word) by this anouncement. I have to have it, and it will be the only camera I have in addition to my 1Dx. The only complaint I have (and that is a minor one...) is that it has not got built in radio triggering capabilities for the 600´s (and the others to come).


----------



## Perio (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I'm not quite sure why you expect high ISO images from 7dii look very similar to those from 5diii. One if crop and another one is FF, of course crop will look worse.


----------



## pdirestajr (Sep 19, 2014)

Looks good for an aps-c camera. I never go above iso 800 on my 7D. This looks good up to 3200!


----------



## jrista (Sep 19, 2014)

There is a good difference in IQ between the 7DII and original 7D. That's certainly to be expected, given how old the original 7D is. I'd say there is a stop difference in high ISO capability, which is admirable. 

Compared to the 70D, the differences are minimal. The biggest difference that I can see is there seems to be lower color noise. Here is a comparison of the two:







In the green part of the label of the right-hand bottle, and in the background, there is a visible difference in color noise. Not huge, but visible. More blue color noise in the green part of the label on the 70D. More random color noise in the gray background on the 70D. The blacks and dark grays of the text on the bottles seem to be crisper on the 7D II. The purple swatch on the 70D also seems to have more noise than on the 7D II. I don't think random noise has changed at all...appears to be the same to me. The crisper blacks and lower color noise are nice, though.


----------



## iceman (Sep 19, 2014)

Next1 said:


> right you have to see the whole package, i can agree to that.
> problem is most people don´t need a 10 FPS wildlife camera like the 7D.
> 
> they still BELIEVE they need a DSLR but they would be better of with a smaller lighter MILC.
> ...



it won't be everyone's cup of tea but then again Canon wouldn't have made the 7D2 if the first one was a failure. i don't think anyone buying a 7D2 wouldn't know what this camera was meant for.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 19, 2014)

Quasimodo said:


> and I got sidewinded (if that is the correct word)



I think you mean sidetracked. I could get sidetracked from my FF cameras too.......the 7DII looks like _very_ good value compared with the FF cameras.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 19, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Wait for the unprocessed RAWs and wait for those who always have to have something to gripe about.



_Unprocessed_ Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course - and remember that we can do a whole lot better ourselves with good converters like Capture One, than an in-camera jpeg engine will ever do.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 19, 2014)

martinslade said:


> Yes, I think this is a valid comparison between 70d and 7d2. IMO looks like about 0.5 stop better at ISO 3200 - 6400



About what I'd expect, meaning a good stop + for the 7D Mk II over the 7D. 

I've been pointing out for a while that the 70D is definitely better than the 7D, and saying that the 7D Mk II will bring yet more to the table over what the 70D can achieve.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 19, 2014)

dilbert said:


> We'll have to wait and see what happens with DxO testing and elsewhere to see if there is any banding evident


And I'll say it _again_ - no banding in the 70D, and there'll be no banding in the 7D Mk II.

You _just can't stand_ the idea that these latest Canon croppers are going to change things, can you?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 19, 2014)

It's sharper and more contrasty but still quite noisy. I wonder how this compares to the 5D Mk III sensor.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 19, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> It's sharper and more contrasty but still quite noisy.



More noisy than _what_? Find an example of better IQ from any previously-released crop camera while it's still at pre-release and before the _good_ converters have caught up.

I'm _positively drooling at the prospect_ of how good 7D Mk II files will look out of Capture One 8.


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> _Unprocessed_ Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course



Not if you are trying to determine whether an image is better because its from a better sensor or because their is more processing power available in camera to do more sophisticated NR. A better sensor means more latitude in post, a better jpg engine means better sooc jpgs. Its a pretty relevant concern, imo


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 19, 2014)

So, the 7Dii is a failure because:
1. It's noisier than the 5Diii
2. It can't do 4K video
3. It doesn't have a brand new sensor
4. It's screen doesn't tilt
5. No wifi

65AF points. ITR. 10fps. Intervelometer. Increased buffer. Autofocus at f/8.0. Spot metering on AF point. All these things doesn't stop the 7Dii from being a useless, no good, piece of crap camera. Apparently...


----------



## jrista (Sep 19, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > It's sharper and more contrasty but still quite noisy.
> ...



I don't suspect the RAW output will be markedly better than the 70D. I think there will be a reduction in color noise, but in general, the IQ changes don't look extreme. Compared to the 7D, it's definitely an improvement...but, so were the first couple of Rebels and later xxD bodies that used the same 18mp sensor. 

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the 7D II will live up to many peoples prior expectations that it would be a "5D III high ISO killer"...simply isn't going to happen.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 19, 2014)

Well, I would like to get my hands on some RAW images and convert them. Will work on that soon. No hurry, Adobe Camera Raw updates ought to be just around the corner. Camera won't be available until November at the earliest.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the 7D II will live up to many peoples prior expectations that it would be a "5D III high ISO killer"...simply isn't going to happen.



In the grander scheme of things that was never a realistic expectation though.


----------



## jrista (Sep 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the 7D II will live up to many peoples prior expectations that it would be a "5D III high ISO killer"...simply isn't going to happen.
> ...



True, but a lot of people had hopes that would be the case. Just saying, the preliminaries are pretty much crushing that hope.  It's better than the 7D (as it damn well should be!), but nothing exceptionally good...its a small evolutionary improvement over the 70D.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 19, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > and I got sidewinded (if that is the correct word)
> ...


Maybe "broadsided" by the announcement? I really didn't expect the 65pt AF system, that blew me away (at least on paper) I'm yet to see how it really performs.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



That's to be expected though. The 5D3 has 2.6x the surface area to collect light. That's pretty hard to make up, especially since these cams were like all 40-65% efficient to begin with.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2014)

dilbert said:


> We'll have to wait and see what happens with DxO testing and elsewhere to see if there is any banding evident



One thing taht DxO doesn't do much is test for banding.

Anyway some of us have already looked at the masked area of the 7D2 RAW files and banding seems to be entirely fixed on the 7D2. Granted the masked area is small, so we can't be 100% sure yet, but I'd bet that it will prove to be the case that the 7D2 has extremely little to zero banding.


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 19, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...


Broadsided is probably the right word, like a torpedo. This mythical beast (judging by the many years of rumors and the general longing) suddenly became real. The AF is great (per spec), but for me it is the overall package. If the IQ is really as good as it bears tidings of, it will become a camera I own quite soon


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It _would_ be reasonable to expect the sensor to approach the 5DMkIII's in iso performance, but it clearly does not. Happily so, because it means I won't fall into the 7D 'digital teleconverter' trap twice and rather save up for some serious long glass. 

As for crop sensors, Sony has served me fine. In fact the NEX-6 that I previously owned already easily had the 7D beat on sensor performance. The a6000 very nearly matches the NEX-6 high iso performance despite the significant increase in pixel density.


----------



## jrista (Sep 19, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Again, it's rarely about pixel density, and primarily about sensor size. The 7D II was only going to approach the 5D III if a whole lot of highly unlikely technological improvements made it into this sensor. That was what I personally was hoping for, and it sounds like there has been one sole improvement over the 70D: A microlensing and DPAF sensitivity improvement (which conforms with the second patent Canon filed for DPAF last year, so no surprise there.) Canon would have had to dramatically increase Q.E., increase full well capacity quite a bit, and greatly reduce noise for the 7D II to have "approached" the 5D III in terms of IQ. The chances of Canon doing that, given their history, were extremely low. As we can now see, all those necessary changes didn't happen...and the IQ shows a minor improvement over the 70D (in JPEG...who knows yet how much the RAW data may have improved.)


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 20, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> _Unprocessed_ Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course



Actually they provide the only base-line comparison for image quality.


----------



## candc (Sep 20, 2014)

i ordered the 7dii for the af and buffer. some posters say they are shocked at how much better the iq is than the 7d? of course it is. maybe you haven't looked for the last 5 years but they have been getting better each release. i have a 70d now this looks slightly better if you look close. if you don't need the speed or af the then the 70d may be a better choice, it has wifi and the touch/swivel screen.

below is iso 3200 70d 7dii


----------



## jrista (Sep 20, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > _Unprocessed_ Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course
> ...



Agreed. Processed RAW files can demonstrate the editing latitude, but things rapidly become subjective. Comparisons become much more difficult.


----------



## cirkitdude (Sep 20, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > So, the 7Dii is a failure because:
> ...



Same here. Sold my beloved 7D last summer, planned to buy a 5D3… for two reasons: AF accuracy and better performance above ISO 1600. Both necessary for the indoor sports shooting I do… mostly at 3200. Decided to wait for the 7D2 because I have pricey f2.8 EF-S lenses and I just LOVED the 7D (except for the two reasons above). Wasn't expecting miracles, but was hopeful 3200-6400 noise would be maybe halfway between the 7D and the 5D3… maybe one stop of improvement over the original. It APPEARS (to me) that's not the case from these comparisons. Hoping I'm wrong. I really want to like the 7D2.

Yes, physics is physics and the FF pixels are larger. That's part of the equation. But the 5D3 also moved the read circuitry onto the sensor chip, giving a significant noise improvement aside from the pixel size. Was hoping the rumored "new technology" 20MP sensor of the 7D2 would do this also… but no information I can find on this. Anyone know?

BTW, new poster… this is a great forum and I'm enjoying it immensely.


----------



## dp (Sep 20, 2014)

very, very small difference. certainly not five-years worth of improvement in the noise front. Also the 7dII files look oversharpened--to compensate for noise reduction-induced smudging.



pierlux said:


> Fr3lncr said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...


----------



## Aglet (Sep 20, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > We'll have to wait and see what happens with DxO testing and elsewhere to see if there is any banding evident
> ...



I can pretty much back that up. When I tested the 70D, it was Canon's least FPN crop body to-date. I posted that here back then.
I thot about replacing my 60D with it but was pointless since I'd already changed brands and I was at the bad part of the depreciation curve on my 60D so remains in my pile and gets used occasionally.

I'll have to get some proper dark files for my tests on the 7d2 but, from dpreview's samples, it's certainly less likely to have FPN issues like the old picket-fence-7D did. Altho DPR's 7D files were nowhere near as bad as my 7D's files.

EDIT: Actually, based on my prelim tests from available raw files, I've actually pre-ordered a 7d2 today. Got a great bundle deal so could not resist trying it for the total price. Sometime in November...


----------



## heptagon (Sep 20, 2014)

I opened the CR2 files at 100ISO of the 7D and 7DII in PhotoNinja, turned off all noise/color enhancements and pushed the shadows: 
* Pattern noise seems to be gone.
* Shadows are still noisy. Maybe 1/3rd Stop or 1/2 Stop more dynamic range than the 7D. But more useable due to the lower Pattern noise.

So, it is the same sensor technology with little enhancements.


----------



## Diltiazem (Sep 20, 2014)

heptagon said:


> I opened the CR2 files at 100ISO of the 7D and 7DII in PhotoNinja, turned off all noise/color enhancements and pushed the shadows:
> * Pattern noise seems to be gone.
> * Shadows are still noisy. Maybe 1/3rd Stop or 1/2 Stop more dynamic range than the 7D. But more useable due to the lower Pattern noise.
> 
> So, it is the same sensor technology with little enhancements.



Do you have a link to those images? I want to try myself. Thanks.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 20, 2014)

Test images:

7D2:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/E7D2hSLI00100NR0.CR2.HTM
7D:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DhSLI00100_NR_0.CR2.HTM

Program: Photo Ninja
http://www.picturecode.com/download.php 

Settings:
Only the first three checkmarks on:
* Demosaic
* Color correction
* Exposure and detail
(no extra sharpness/color/noise correction)

Everything on default except in Exposure and Detail:
* Exposure offset +3
* Shadows +1

Now you see the colored noise in the cloth and cup at the right bottom.


----------



## Diltiazem (Sep 20, 2014)

heptagon said:


> Test images:
> 
> 7D2:
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/E7D2hSLI00100NR0.CR2.HTM
> ...



Color and pattern noise give us an idea about sensor performance, but they are not taken into consideration when calculating DR. So you should leave Noise Ninja checked on at default setting too (chroma NR 50) and look at the luminance noise. Make sure that Detail slider is set to zero as it tends to enhance noise. Now throw in D7100 (DR 13.9 according to DXO) in the mix and see what happens. You won't see much difference in noise. So, I don't know if we can take this test too seriously to get an idea about DR. We need proper shadow lifting and read noise measurement. Other caveat is that 7DII is not supported officially by any RAW converter yet, we can't really rely on these tests. 
Something else I have noticed and not sure what to make of this. Take this 3 cameras, do above adjustments, but leave the shadow slider at zero. Export the JPEG files to LR or CS and adjust exposure by +1 (or save as JPEGs and open again with PN and adjust exposure by +1). Now look at the cup, it is darker in 7DII file compared to other two cameras. Look at the whole scene, everywhere 7DII retains more color and detail (except for overblown areas) compared to 7D and D7100. Is it because 7DII scene is slightly underexposed? Lighting has changed? RAW converter needs fine tuning? Something else?


----------



## Flailingarms (Sep 21, 2014)

I pre-ordered a 7Dm2 several days ago, first one to order at our local camera store. It will be used with a Sigma 5-500 OS. The current 7D will then be used with a Canon 18-200 IS. My wife will continue to use her 70D with Canon 100-400 IS. In general, all the foregoing discussion doesn't reach to any features that will affect our bird photography. The higher frame rate is a compelling reason for me to upgrade. If other results equal or exceed my current 7D, all will be well.


----------



## pknight (Sep 21, 2014)

Improved AF, higher frame rate, improved metering, improved usability features, improved build quality, etc. are all reasons that many want this camera. The lack of a stop or so DR, that must be pixel-peeped to see, and that can certainly be largely addressed by competent PP, hardly outweighs the advantages that this camera promises. I want the best sensor possible, like anyone else, but but this looks like the best wildlife/action body, certainly for the price, regardless of not having the revolutionary sensor that many hoped for, but frankly should not have been expecting.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 21, 2014)

Diltiazem said:


> Color and pattern noise give us an idea about sensor performance, but they are not taken into consideration when calculating DR. So you should leave Noise Ninja checked on at default setting too (chroma NR 50) and look at the luminance noise. Make sure that Detail slider is set to zero as it tends to enhance noise. Now throw in D7100 (DR 13.9 according to DXO) in the mix and see what happens. You won't see much difference in noise. So, I don't know if we can take this test too seriously to get an idea about DR. We need proper shadow lifting and read noise measurement. Other caveat is that 7DII is not supported officially by any RAW converter yet, we can't really rely on these tests.
> Something else I have noticed and not sure what to make of this. Take this 3 cameras, do above adjustments, but leave the shadow slider at zero. Export the JPEG files to LR or CS and adjust exposure by +1 (or save as JPEGs and open again with PN and adjust exposure by +1). Now look at the cup, it is darker in 7DII file compared to other two cameras. Look at the whole scene, everywhere 7DII retains more color and detail (except for overblown areas) compared to 7D and D7100. Is it because 7DII scene is slightly underexposed? Lighting has changed? RAW converter needs fine tuning? Something else?



Ok, I agree, lifting the shadows might not do what i expected it to do. For a proper comparison we should use other programs where whe know better what happens. Also the scene here doesn't contain the amount of dynamic range we need for a proper comparison. The bright shadows of the 7D are weird, maybe the program has a wrong offset for black... don't know.

What we can say for sure though, is that the 7DII has better shadow noise than the 7D.


----------



## dufflover (Sep 21, 2014)

I know I'm a few pages late to the party , but yes this CR topic is so misleading.
Many people didn't bother with the 70D because the IQ difference was minimal. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the exact same people are now singing the praises of the almost identical 7DII lol

(as usual for transparency let me repeat I quite like my 70D)


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 21, 2014)

dufflover said:


> Many people didn't bother with the 70D because the IQ difference was minimal. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the exact same people are now singing the praises of the almost identical 7DII lol



But minimal + minimal = noticeable in real life shooting which makes 7d->7d2 attractive but not 7d->70d (and there's the fw crippling like the removal of spot af).

Nevertheless, from what I see and jrista wrote above, Canon crop still is nothing to write home about vs. ff, but neither are the Sony/Nikon sensors on higher iso settings. So basically if you've got some money to spend, it's still 5d3+expensive tele lenses or 7d2+6d to cover both and have two camera bodies around.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Nevertheless, from what I see and jrista wrote above, Canon crop still is nothing to write home about vs. ff, but neither are the Sony/Nikon sensors on higher iso settings. So basically if you've got some money to spend, it's still 5d3+expensive tele lenses...



The main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. I'm sure I've read that somewhere...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Nevertheless, from what I see and jrista wrote above, Canon crop still is nothing to write home about vs. ff, but neither are the Sony/Nikon sensors on higher iso settings. So basically if you've got some money to spend, it's still 5d3+expensive tele lenses...
> ...


Moreover, the size and weight of the camera and lens.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 21, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


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



But you good people forgot Canon broke the legacy linear product strategy with placing the small and light ff 6d into their lineup . As for lenses, if you don't need to carry a f2.8 brick around the newer f4 zooms or non-L IS primes are small and don't have a lot of weight.

Btw other "main" advantages of aps-c include macro shooting and of course reach, so personally I would find choosing between the 6d+7d2 combination or a real 5d3 tough.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 21, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


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



Since the 6D is actually lighter than 7D and 7D2, that point is actually not valid anymore. And for the lens, this only applies to certain focal lenght. Superteles will be the same size, no matter the sensor size. Can't outflank the physics of f/x


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Btw other "main" advantages of aps-c include macro shooting and of course reach



Well, sort of, kind of, sometimes. 

For macro shooting, with APS-C you get more working distance for the same framing, but also less sharpness. If you match magnification, with APS-C you get more pixels on target (because in most cases pixel density is higher) but smaller FoV and _shallower_ DoF (or you stop down more and diffraction costs even more sharpness). So for macro shooting in general, it's basically a wash (personally, I prefer FF for macro). 

As for 'reach', unless you've got a 600/4 + 2x, you're still talking about a cost advantage (size/weight, too...but that's also buying you better IQ). Even if you're at 1200mm, APS-C's greater pixel density is only advantageous at lower ISO and if you want to print large. 

While a higher pixel density (generally found on smaller sensors) is an advantage in certain specific use cases, there are generally trade-offs associated with those benefits. That's why I state lower cost as the *main* advantage (but that can certainly be a big advantage!).


----------



## lo lite (Sep 21, 2014)

Btw. this is a Nikon at ISO 12800:

https://plus.google.com/100324172058536717685/posts/4QrynpGD1xF?pid=6061613593826971938&oid=100324172058536717685

o.k. its an old D3s


----------



## ehouli (Sep 22, 2014)

AccipiterQ said:


> The longer this goes without RAWs being available the more incredulous I become. For the point & shoot crowd that's just looking for a crop (for some reason), I'm sure this'll be great. For sports/wildlife/action people I think we need to reserve judgment until we see an actual RAW posted that we can play around with. Or better yet two: one from the 7D, one from the 7Dii of the same shot, like what you have here.



There are downloadable RAWs in Imaging Resource, but you have to open them with another RAW processor application, RAWTherapee is one, it opens the raws without problem and I think very neutral (no presets)


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 22, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ... Canon broke the legacy linear product strategy with placing the small and light ff 6d into their lineup .


And the funniest thing is, when I visit my father and he takes his old AE-1 out of the cabinet and says "boy, why do you carry such a big (ff) camera with you?"


----------



## Roger Doughty (Sep 22, 2014)

*"As for 'reach', unless you've got a 600/4 + 2x, you're still talking about a cost advantage (size/weight, too...but that's also buying you better IQ). Even if you're at 1200mm, APS-C's greater pixel density is only advantageous at lower ISO and if you want to print large." 


Neuro
I own an 800 lens & 5D iii. I shoot paranoid birds in the west with a 1.4 iii tele 80% of the time. I also blow up large prints all the time. Are you saying that for my shooting I might get a better print at 1280 mm with a 7D ii in good light vs 1120 with a 1.4 converter! That would be insane if its true. Think of the auto focus capture rate shooting a 800 naked. Think of all those af points. Don't get me too excited here. I might faint.*


----------



## jrista (Sep 22, 2014)

Roger Doughty said:


> *"As for 'reach', unless you've got a 600/4 + 2x, you're still talking about a cost advantage (size/weight, too...but that's also buying you better IQ). Even if you're at 1200mm, APS-C's greater pixel density is only advantageous at lower ISO and if you want to print large."
> 
> 
> Neuro
> ...


*

I don't think you would necessarily get better. The difference in aperture negates a lot of the advantage of the larger frame. It's the total light that usually gives FF the IQ advantage. Your either at 1120 f/8, or 800 f/5.6 (effective focal length 1280mm only from a crop standpoint, from a relative pixel area standpoint, it's more like 1160mm). Same effective detail, difference of one stop in aperture. The 5D III probably still has the IQ edge, but it'll be normalized quite a bit. 

That means the differences lie elsewhere. If the 7D II AF system ends up kicking total ass (with iTR, it should, even at f/5.6), then the 7D II with it's faster framerate should result in more keepers.*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2014)

Roger Doughty said:


> Neuro
> I own an 800 lens & 5D iii. I shoot paranoid birds in the west with a 1.4 iii tele 80% of the time. I also blow up large prints all the time. Are you saying that for my shooting I might get a better print at 1280 mm with a 7D ii in good light vs 1120 with a 1.4 converter! That would be insane if its true. Think of the auto focus capture rate shooting a 800 naked. Think of all those af points. Don't get me too excited here. I might faint.



If you need to crop your images to smaller than the APS-C FoV, in good light you'd have an advantage with the 7DII behind your 800+1.4x combo.


----------



## Roger Doughty (Sep 23, 2014)

If IQ is roughly equal under the circumstances I have described and reach is comparable then this becomes a no-brainer in favor of this 7D ii over the 5D Mark III. The reason being is that I should be able to get 45 focus points for BIF where as I get one plus 4 assists with the 5D Mark III. Not to mention the fact that the AF should be twice as fast on The naked 800 When compared to the 800 +1.4 tele. The keeper rate should be through the roof, correct?


----------



## Diltiazem (Sep 24, 2014)

Roger Doughty said:


> If IQ is roughly equal under the circumstances I have described and reach is comparable then this becomes a no-brainer in favor of this 7D ii over the 5D Mark III. The reason being is that I should be able to get 45 focus points for BIF where as I get one plus 4 assists with the 5D Mark III. Not to mention the fact that the AF should be twice as fast on The naked 800 When compared to the 800 +1.4 tele. The keeper rate should be through the roof, correct?


I have compared 7DII RAW files with 5DIII RAW files from IR. 5DIII has about 1 stop ISO advantage. I will wait for more samples and supported RAW converter before making any decision.


----------



## trickys77 (Sep 26, 2014)

So I've spent quite a bit of time looking at the jpegs on IR which has been really useful. Specifically I have been looking at the dark areas on the higher ISO settings. 

I've been comparing the 7D MKii with the 6D and to me it seems the 7D mkii is around 2 stops below the 6D in terms of noise (which is what I would expect). For the comparison in this case I used the the files:

E7D2hSLI12800NR2D.JPG and E6DhSLI051200NR2D.JPG. (Both of which are the photos of the bottles and fabrics)

I zoomed to the same level at 2 of the darker points in the photos which were the colour chart (squares) at the bottom middle of the photo and also the area to the right of the 'samuel smith' bottle by the cup and paint brush. Like I say IMO the 6D 512k iso seems to be roughly on par with the 7d mkii 128k in these areas. So again comparing a 'full frame' to the crop this is what I would expect.

However 1 thing that really strikes me at this high ISO is how much better the colours look on the 7D. In fact they are comparable to the Nikon D810.

The whites look really white and the yellows and blues seem to 'pop' more. Even at the same ISO sample image as the 6D.

So from what I have seen the 7D is 'ok' for noise (maybe not as good as the fujifilm X-T1 - IMO the crop leader at the moment for noise). However it seems great for fast action due to it's 1D'esk focusing ability and has excellent dynamic range/colour depth.

I am a keen amateur so please take my comparison as such but I would be interested to hear what others think of this.


----------



## Nethawk (Sep 26, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



That may be a reasonable expectation from hobbyists and/or those with little understanding of digital photography, but the primary marketing for the 7D MKII is for pro and prosumers. You simply cannot deny physics.


----------

