# Canon EOS 7D Mark II studio samples added to first impressions on DPReview.



## ftico (Oct 24, 2014)

Here is the link to the studio comparison scene:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/8

Curious to know what you guys think about the raw noise...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 24, 2014)

I was just comparing several of the cameras. It is better than I expected based on earlier raw test images. This is about as good of a performance as could be expected, and should make buyers very happy.

Looking at different areas of the test image seems to result in different results, so I chose the pie chart just below the playing cards. based on that, and looking at Raw images at ISO 12800... about 1 stop better than the 70D, at least 2/3 stops better than the Sony A6000, and about a full stop better than the Nikon D7100.

The 5D MK III is slightly more than 1 stop better, and the 6D about 1 stop better. As expected the 1D X is over 1-1/2 stops better.

The Nikon D610 is 1/3 stop better.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 24, 2014)

In RAW I would agree that it looks about a stop better then the 70D at the higher ISOs.

I don't think it's a stop better then the D7100. I would actually say the D7100 is slightly better in the darkest tones (i.e. black), but the 7D mark II seems a bit better in lighter tones. So it's hard to put a number on it.

Agreed on the A6000 (7D2 is 2/3 stop better) and, a bit surprisingly, on the FF. I would have expected the FF bodies to do better, but I would agree with Mt Spokane here.

It's kind of curious to me that in RAW there only seems to be a stop or so between crop/FF but in JPEG, at high ISO, the gap looks larger because the crop images are so soft. The gap in JPEG looks like 2 stops just because of the detail loss, but in RAW it looks like a stop or so. I always shoot RAW any way, but I'm curious as to why this would be the case.

The Internet meme is that Canon did little or nothing because the sensor is still 20 MP, but it's obvious they made some improvements. In other threads I've said that when you go to print...even at 36"...there is really very little difference in resolved detail between FF and crop. We're simply hitting diminishing returns for these sensor sizes. I feel the same way scrolling around this test scene. It doesn't seem like the 7D2 is at any great disadvantage for "only" having 20 MP, and it's certainly at the top in high ISO.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 24, 2014)

They've done a good job improving the chroma noise character on the 7d2. It's quite fine grained and not very blotchy so should respond very well to NR software. In fact it's pretty decent noise character across the whole ISO range.
I'm looking forward to making my own raw file tests and torturing them in post to see how much they can take before they scream, "FPN!" ;D
Would be nice if they only yell out, "Random!" instead.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 24, 2014)

Pretty much comports with what I've been saying for a while about the 7D Mk II based on my own Raw conversion tests. That the 7D Mk II gets within a stop of the FF cameras is damn' impressive.

And - again - the 70D, and the 7D Mk II, show _no_ appreciable pattern noise in pushed shadows.


----------



## jrista (Oct 24, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Pretty much comports with what I've been saying for a while about the 7D Mk II based on my own Raw conversion tests. That the 7D Mk II gets within a stop of the FF cameras is damn' impressive.
> 
> And - again - the 70D, and the 7D Mk II, show _no_ appreciable pattern noise in pushed shadows.




I wouldn't say that at all. At "Full Size", that may be true, however once you switch to "Print", FF pulls ahead again, with considerably lower noise in all cases. 


I would also strongly dispute the notion that the 7D II does better than the D7100. Again, at "Full Size", the gap is small, however at "Print" size, the D7100 exhibits far less color noise. The 7D II still suffers from color noise problems. This is most obvious in the monochrome color swatches of the test image, but yellow, orange, green, and blue swatches also suffer from blotchiness due to color noise. Yellow and blue and maybe purple seem to be the most hard hit of the color swatches. 


The third gray swatch from the right edge of the color checker demonstrates the differences in color noise best. I am actually rather impressed with the 6D noise...very clean.


The grain pattern at ISO 3200, 6400, and on most color swatches 12800 is a far more pleasing random mostly mono grain with the D5300, D7100, D810, 6D, 5D III, A7r, A7s, etc. than it is with either the 7D II or the 70D (or any other Canon crop). Color noise is still a key problem for Canon crop sensors at high ISO (and I suspect with shadow lifting.) 


The D5300 seems to perform a bit more poorly on the brown and tan swatches...color noise is worse in those, for some reason, however its quite excellent in all the rest. The D7100 does not seem to have that problem...all of the swatches look excellent on the D7100 at Print size.


Overall, I don't see a whole lot of difference in luminance noise levels overall between any of the crop cameras. Luminance noise seems to be about the same on a normalized basis. The key difference is color noise and how it presents. Canon's characteristic blotchiness is still in play. I am not sure how it compares to older cameras...it's not possible to select the 7D in their new comparison tool on DPR. I suspect the 7D and 5D II are worse, but Canon crop is still worse than everyone else when it comes to color noise (and the 5D III and 1D X are still worse than the D810).


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon crop is still worse than everyone else when it comes to color noise (and the 5D III and 1D X are still worse than the D810).



my dad has the a6000

i comared it to the eos m and at ANYTHING other than iso 100 they are pretty much the same up to 6400
the a6000 has better shadow recovery at base iso and thats it

a6000 in camera jpg processing is woefull but raws a fine
a6000 has a wierd colour cast compared to the canon
a6000 af accuracy was not as good as the eos-m

so i think you are overstating things here a fair bit


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 24, 2014)

The best message is IMO: The 7D ii technical image quality isn't much behind other options in terms of crop cameras. It reproduces textures very well despite of the little bit more noise compared to other options.

I have to check only if I
- LIKE TO WORK with that instrument (probably YES!)
- need/want the spectrum of capabilities the 7D ii own (YES!)
- still have lenses for EF(-S) mount (YES!)
- want to carry the load (900g + lens) (YES! most of the time)


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> I wouldn't say that at all. At "Full Size", that may be true, however once you switch to "Print", FF pulls ahead again, with considerably lower noise in all cases.





> I would also strongly dispute the notion that the 7D II does better than the D7100. Again, at "Full Size", the gap is small, however at "Print" size, the D7100 exhibits far less color noise.





> I suspect the 7D and 5D II are worse, but Canon crop is still worse than everyone else when it comes to color noise



I'm not seeing any difference on the Print setting, nor is there any reason to think that scaling down would produce drastically different results from pixel peeping here. I suspect a quirk involving your browser, monitor, or the combination.

The D7100 and a6000 have slightly more color blotching then the 7D mark II, not less. The 5D3 is better of course, but put it a stop higher and it's about the same.


----------



## jrista (Oct 24, 2014)

It's no quirk of screen, browser, or anything else. It's a matter of characteristic...it's not the amount, it's how the noise presents. I'll produce some direct comparison images and GIFs from DPR data so people can judge on their own screens. Canon sensors are still more blotchy in most instances. Even the a6000 has a better noise characteristic than most Canon crops, with the exception of the reds and brown/tan swatches. It does have more color noise, however it's cleaner, random color noise with more per-pixel frequency and characteristic...it's not blotched.


I use that term very explicitly and specifically...blotched. That refers to characteristic, not amount. Canon color noise has a nasty characteristic. It's one of the things hate bout the 5D III at low ISO...it's the same blotchy characteristic in the shadows. Noise character matters just as much as noise amounts. As far as amounts go, there isn't a full stop difference between any one of the APS-C cameras. At most, on a normalized basis, there may be a third stop difference, but that's to be expected...barring color noise characteristic, the amount of noise overall is ultimately determined by total sensor area, Q.E., and maybe fill factor.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 24, 2014)

The noise _is not_ blotchy: _conversions from some converters_ are blotchy. And this is _exactly_ as true of D7100 conversions too, _depending on converter_.

It's also painfully obvious that Nikon uses on-chip NR to deal with Chroma - I've been saying for years that the results I get with the default Chroma NR in Capture One are _identical_ to how Nikon files look: I actually once asked Phase One whether they'd licenced their Chroma NR algorithm to Nikon.

But - to repeat - the character of the noise you're seeing has practically nothing to do with the camera and almost everything to to with the converter.

And in the tests I've done comparing 7D Mk II files against D7100 files, converting in Photo Ninja and in Raw Therapee (remember, the D7100 is a supported camera, the 7D Mk II is not), the D7100 loses out: _and_ it is of course prone to banding/pattern noise in pushed shadows to an extent an order of magnitude (yes, I know what that means) more than is the 7D Mk II.

*But - really? - Complaining about the "quality" of the Chroma noise? The single easiest thing to fix (by a country mile), of all the things that might impact on image quality?*

Are you really _that_ desperate for something to bash the 7D Mk II about?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 24, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> so i think you are overstating things here a fair bit



_No change there, then_...


----------



## garyknrd (Oct 24, 2014)

On my computer the text is much clearer on the 7100? Not sure why. 7D II and 7D are very hard to read. Where the 7100 and 6000 are pretty clear on my mac. Don't guess it matters I will surely get the new 7D II. Just saying.
At 800 and 1600 ISO. Which is what I am interested in..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > so i think you are overstating things here a fair bit
> ...



It's like a song with a familiar refrain, you listen the first few times, then try to tune it out. 



Keith_Reeder said:


> That the 7D Mk II gets within a stop of the FF cameras is damn' impressive.



The size difference means a ~1.3-stop predicted difference assuming equivalent sensor technology.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 24, 2014)

According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently.


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 24, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently.



OMG!! Canon actually did that. : Must be some very angry haters out there now.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 24, 2014)

2n10 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently.
> ...


Anyone still doubting that 7D Mark ii has a "really new" sensor, and is not the same as 70D? : ??? ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2014)

2n10 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently.
> ...



No, it's not the best. Apparently the noise that's there is 'blotchy' and 'nasty'... 

The haters can rest comfortably knowing that everyone else still makes better sensors than Canon because of that particular characteristic. As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Anyone still doubting that 7D Mark ii has a "really new" sensor, and is not the same as 70D? : ??? ;D



I think there room for doubt. It depends on how you define 'sensor' I suppose. The 7DII and 70D may have identical CMOS pixel architecture, but a different microlens arrangement and different CFA, both contributing to increased light transmission, might account for some of the improved performance, and Digic6 might account for the rest.


----------



## sanj (Oct 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone still doubting that 7D Mark ii has a "really new" sensor, and is not the same as 70D? : ??? ;D
> ...



To me, without getting technical, this amounts to a 'new' sensor.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.



That's one reason why I like these kinds of comparisons and sample images. I can judge for myself and use my own criteria. 

At the same time, it's amusing to watch some people twist and turn as they try to rationalize their biases and even more entertaining when they couch it in pseudo-scientific lingo and pretend to be the ultimate authorities on sensor noise. 

My own, undoubtedly biased opinion: 

The differences between full frame and APS-C sensors used to be small. Now they are approaching tiny. 

The differences between sensors of different brands but of roughly the same size used to be tiny, now they are approaching miniscule.

The major difference, at least at higher ISOs, seems to be the number of pixels, regardless of brand. The new Nikon D750 seems to be about equal to the 5DIII and 6D, while to my eyes, the D810 is absolutely horrible at higher ISOs. 

I was disappointed in the Fuji X-Pro 1. (The only mirrorless camera I would ever consider) Given its lower resolution, I expected it to do better. But then it's sensor is getting a little long in the tooth by APS-C standards.

Given the tiny differences and the fact that Canon is clearly holding its own in the sensor quality realm, I think it is completely logical and admirable for Canon to place more emphasis on other areas such as improved autofocus.

If your goal in life is to lift shadows by five stops and shoot dark rooms that have the exposure set for an open window, then another brand might be your better option.

As for my own personal situation, as a 5DIII owner, I'm intrigued by the 7D, but a better investment of my resources would be in either the new Tamron or Sigma 600 zooms.


----------



## Woody (Oct 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> The differences between full frame and APS-C sensors used to be small. Now they are approaching tiny.
> 
> The differences between sensors of different brands but of roughly the same size used to be tiny, now they are approaching miniscule...
> 
> ...



Well said. I honestly don't see significant differences between the various APS-C sensors.

If the 7D2 is 200g lighter, I will have pre-ordered a copy.


----------



## DanielW (Oct 24, 2014)

Woody said:


> If the 7D2 is 200g lighter, I will have pre-ordered a copy.



Lighter than what?


----------



## DanielW (Oct 24, 2014)

How do you guys think the 7D2 compares to the 60D in terms of high ISO? One full stop better? Anyway, I don't care as much about noise as I care about nailing focus, so the 7D2 should be really what I'm after and I'm very likely upgrading soon.
Off topic (sorry :-\): has anyone heard anything about a new 17-55 f/2.8 or something similar? 
Cheers
Daniel


----------



## jonjt (Oct 24, 2014)

The 7DII seems to handle smooth gradients and constant tones WAY better than the 7D did. That was a major issue I had with the 7D.

In any case, the 5DIII definitely shows more detail, and less chroma and luminescence noise at high ISO than the 7DII does. But man, you really have to look for it. I'm questioning if its worthwhile to pay twice as much for a refurbished 5DIII and 24-105, when I can "simply" buy a new 7DII and not have to deal with the transition to FF. I tend to shoot slow moving targets more often but still, the 7DII is compelling.


----------



## applecider (Oct 24, 2014)

On the digital photography review site targeting the jack of hearts, and his "hair" and the text below him, the sony is head and shoulders better than any of the other sensors in raw at least. The lines of "hair" are visible in the sony, not so much in any other of the default camera choices. The noise looks similar in each of the cameras, the sony just seems to have much better resolution as the text in the red-orange bar below the jack is readable in the sony then the nikon 7100 next best, at least when expanded on this part of the test object. I think one could flip a coin as to which of the 7dmii or 70d is better, neither is legible.

I don't see anything that would let me say that the 7dmii is the best imaging crop sensor camera based on this subset of tests. Wish I could though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.
> ...


 
There is little doubt as to my bias. As I looked at different areas of the image, the difference between cameras changed, sometimes by a significant amount. The area I finally picked was one that I thought allowed me to see contrast, color, and resolution. I went a lot by the readability of the text in the edge of the pie chart. Reducing the resolution of the higher mp cameras will make them look better, and looking for different characteristics will give different results.

In the end, there is no absolute formula, its a matter of personal preference, which is a form of bias.

Arguing about a preference is not going to change another persons view, and proclaiming that my view is the correct one will bring a lot of disagreement.

I'll still want to wait for more professional reviewers, but its obviously already a improvement over the previous Canon APS-C cameras at high ISO's. At low ISO's and a proper exposure, they all look pretty similar to me.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 24, 2014)

jonjt said:


> The 7DII seems to handle smooth gradients and constant tones WAY better than the 7D did. That was a major issue I had with the 7D.
> 
> In any case, the 5DIII definitely shows more detail, and less chroma and luminescence noise at high ISO than the 7DII does. But man, you really have to look for it. I'm questioning if its worthwhile to pay twice as much for a refurbished 5DIII and 24-105, when I can "simply" buy a new 7DII and not have to deal with the transition to FF. I tend to shoot slow moving targets more often but still, the 7DII is compelling.



Now you done it! How dare you suggest full frame might not be worth the investment! 

Seriously, even though I switched from 7D I to 5DIII about a year ago, I'd have to say you really do need to think long and hard about whether or not it's worth the price of entry to full frame. I would say it depends in part on what lenses you already own because, as you correctly point out, it's not just the cost of the body, it's the cost of the lenses as well.

Clearly the gap is narrowing and while there always will be a gap, it is moving more and more toward the margins. 

Now, expect to see an avalanche of posts from full framers telling you how APS-C can never compete with full frame. But, just remember, we have to justify our investment.


----------



## Marauder (Oct 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.
> ...



+1 Well said!


----------



## unfocused (Oct 24, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There is little doubt as to my bias. As I looked at different areas of the image, the difference between cameras changed, sometimes by a significant amount. The area I finally picked was one that I thought allowed me to see contrast, color, and resolution. I went a lot by the readability of the text in the edge of the pie chart. Reducing the resolution of the higher mp cameras will make them look better, and looking for different characteristics will give different results.
> 
> In the end, there is no absolute formula, its a matter of personal preference, which is a form of bias.
> 
> ...



Knowing you, I'm sure you did a much more thorough and conscientious examination than I did. But, I pretty much came to the same conclusion (emphasized above). It may be my bias, but I think it's an improvement over most other brands at high ISOs, not just Canon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jonjt said:
> 
> 
> > The 7DII seems to handle smooth gradients and constant tones WAY better than the 7D did. That was a major issue I had with the 7D.
> ...


 
Consider the cost of buying all your lenses one stop faster. A 300mm f/4 versus 300mm f/2.8, a 70-200mm f/4 verses 70-200mm f/2.8, and so on. If you struggle in low light and need to gain a stop, the investment in FF can save you money. If you are stopping down, then that's not a factor.

On the other hand, if you are focal length limited, a high MP crop camera might give you a edge over cropping or adding a TC, at least with high end lenses.

Finally, with a crop camera, those wanting to get shallow depth of field will need to purchase lenses with wider apertures, so given the same lens, FF will cost less.

In fact, a 6D can be had for significantly less than a 7D MK II, so the price of entry to FF is blurred by a lot of what-if questions.


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 24, 2014)

garyknrd said:


> On my computer the text is much clearer on the 7100? Not sure why. 7D II and 7D are very hard to read. Where the 7100 and 6000 are pretty clear on my mac. Don't guess it matters I will surely get the new 7D II. Just saying.
> At 800 and 1600 ISO. Which is what I am interested in..



I think the only thing you can compare here is noise. Different lenses are used on different cameras, so as far as how well a sensor can record details is not revealed with these comparisons.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 24, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> *But - really? - Complaining about the "quality" of the Chroma noise? The single easiest thing to fix (by a country mile), of all the things that might impact on image quality?*



That's the funny thing about IQ. "Small" fixes are what separate cutting edge IQ from the mundane.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 24, 2014)

applecider said:


> On the digital photography review site targeting the jack of hearts, and his "hair" and the text below him, the sony is head and shoulders better than any of the other sensors in raw at least.



You can see the hair and read the text in all samples. The difference in sharpness you observe is probably equal to moving the detail, sharpening, and/or clarity sliders a bit.

In any case, this would be invisible outside of pixel peeping. "Head and shoulders better", in my book, means you can clearly and reliably see the difference at normal, or least large, print sizes.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



I wonder what the complaint would have been if Canon had released a 7D2 with a revolutionary 50 MP sensor that had multiple layers for extended DR...say 20 bits worth..and some how cleaner high ISO then the Sony A7S.

"Those Canon pixels are not perfectly square. Other cameras have square pixels but if you zoom in 10,000% you can see small distortion in the shape of Canon pixels." ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 24, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> *But - really? - Complaining about the "quality" of the Chroma noise? The single easiest thing to fix (by a country mile), of all the things that might impact on image quality?*
> 
> Are you really _that_ desperate for something to bash the 7D Mk II about?



This. Chroma noise cleans up nicely with hardly any impact on detail or sharpness.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 24, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > *But - really? - Complaining about the "quality" of the Chroma noise? The single easiest thing to fix (by a country mile), of all the things that might impact on image quality?*
> ...



So do consumer pocket cameras and iphones.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Oct 24, 2014)

Looks like canon did a great job with the 7d mkii sensor. To my eyes the a6000 looks the worst, followed by the 70d. The d7100 and 7d mkii are pretty close, with 7d edging out slightly. Great news for canon sports/wildlife shooters!


----------



## jrista (Oct 25, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> The noise _is not_ blotchy: _conversions from some converters_ are blotchy. And this is _exactly_ as true of D7100 conversions too, _depending on converter_.
> 
> It's also painfully obvious that Nikon uses on-chip NR to deal with Chroma - I've been saying for years that the results I get with the default Chroma NR in Capture One are _identical_ to how Nikon files look: I actually once asked Phase One whether they'd licenced their Chroma NR algorithm to Nikon.
> 
> ...




At the moment this is purely anecdotal. I'm going off of real images that can be viewed and compared by anyone. Based on the data at hand, the data linked in the original post of this topic, I can draw no other conclusions other than what I have, based on the observations I am able to make. 


I am currently evaluating Capture One 8. I haven't had a chance to do a full blown comparison between it and Lightroom. You may well be right, C1 may indeed handle NR better. I have no data from which to base an opinion yet. Even when I do, all I can do is base an opinion of how my own data from my own images compares. I cannot take my own images and use them as a basis for comparison with DPR's data, though. 


Within the given context, which in this case, in this thread, is DPR's sample images, the Canon conversions, whatever was used to make them, end up looking worse. Given that very significant number of photographers (probably a, likely strong, majority, topping DPR, DXO, and C1) use Lightroom to edit their RAWs, I think the comparable data DPR provides is very indicative of what people in most cases are going to get. MAYBE it's because of LR. Until there is an extensive and reasonable set of conversions done from all the same cameras that DPR lists, with a similar kind of test scene, as an analytical person, I have to base my opinions in a thread like this off of what everyone else can see and base their own opinions on.


There is no value in making the aggressive and combative claim that it's the person sitting behind the keyboard, or the archaic software they are using, that's the problem. Not unless you can provide irrefutable evidence of such a claim, and demonstrate how a tool like C1 can improve results. (If it does indeed, then I'll do what I can to provide such evidence myself...I'm all for getting better results, and if C1 can do that for me, then hell, I'll ditch LR, or at the very least, use C1 to do my base RAW edits, and use LR to manage the library of original RAWs and conversion TIFFs.)


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Within the given context, which in this case, in this thread, is DPR's sample images, the Canon conversions, whatever was used to make them, end up looking worse.



In your humble opinion.

The rest of us are looking at the images, reading your posts, and are left to assume that either A) there's something screwy with your viewing conditions, or B) bias is overriding your judgement.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2014)

Go back to the DPR compare tool, Select your cameras as 7D2, 6D, 5D3, and 1DX, and look at the images at low ISOs. Go to the spot on the test that has the pages of text and see how far down you can read with images from the various cameras... At ISO100 the 7D2 comes out the best and the 1DX the worst! As you move up in ISO, the 6D and 5D3 emerge as the best, but throughout, the 1Dx remains near the bottom, finally getting ahead of the 7D2 at around ISO3200. That aught to generate a lot of screaming and kicking!

(Remember, this is comparing new tech to old... it just makes me want to see what the next FF cameras can do  you can not make any reasonable conclusions with this data. )

EDIT: If you look at a face, you get the exact opposite results... The 1DX the best through the range, 5D3 and 6D in the middle, and 7D2 at the bottom, but at low ISO they are all close.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Go back to the DPR compare tool, Select your cameras as 7D2, 6D, 5D3, and 1DX, and look at the images at low ISOs. Go to the spot on the test that has the pages of text and see how far down you can read with images from the various cameras... At ISO100 the 7D2 comes out the best and the 1DX the worst! As you move up in ISO, the 6D and 5D3 emerge as the best, but throughout, the 1Dx remains near the bottom, finally getting ahead of the 7D2 at around ISO3200. That aught to generate a lot of screaming and kicking!
> 
> (Remember, this is comparing new tech to old... it just makes me want to see what the next FF cameras can do  you can not make any reasonable conclusions with this data. )
> 
> EDIT: If you look at a face, you get the exact opposite results... The 1DX the best through the range, 5D3 and 6D in the middle, and 7D2 at the bottom, but at low ISO they are all close.



I guess I should be happy I take pictures of people and not books!!


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Go back to the DPR compare tool, Select your cameras as 7D2, 6D, 5D3, and 1DX, and look at the images at low ISOs. Go to the spot on the test that has the pages of text and see how far down you can read with images from the various cameras... At ISO100 the 7D2 comes out the best and the 1DX the worst! As you move up in ISO, the 6D and 5D3 emerge as the best, but throughout, the 1Dx remains near the bottom, finally getting ahead of the 7D2 at around ISO3200. That aught to generate a lot of screaming and kicking!
> ...


+1!

My conclusion is that no matter what the test, different people will get different things out of it and come to different conclusions. I just like how you can move from one part of the image to another part and get two different conclusions.

My opinion is that the 7D2 seems to be a good step forward and that all the FF people should be just as pleasantly surprised when the next FF model comes out. It seems like a fine camera and mine should arrive the day AFTER I shoot an event... I can't wait to try it out.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 26, 2014)

The answer is obvious for people who take their photography seriously, you need every camera made on you at all times.

Then, if the scene contains mainly books you can use the appropriate camera and lens, if the scene happens to contain a person, then again, you will have the right tool for the job. Those that take the 'art' particularly seriously can even base their camera use choice on the colours of the books, as clearly (apparently) Nikon's wipe the floor with Canon on yellow, orange, green, and blue, so Canon would be OK for red, pink and mauve spectral scenes.

Simple really.......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> My opinion is that the 7D2 seems to be a good step forward and that all the FF people should be just as pleasantly surprised when the next FF model comes out. It seems like a fine camera and mine should arrive the day AFTER I shoot an event... I can't wait to try it out.



Agreed. If I _didn't_ have a 1D X, I'd be quite interested in the 7DII.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The answer is obvious for people who take their photography seriously, you need every camera made on you at all times.
> 
> Then, if the scene contains mainly books you can use the appropriate camera and lens, if the scene happens to contain a person, then again, you will have the right tool for the job. Those that take the 'art' particularly seriously can even base their camera use choice on the colours of the books, as clearly (apparently) Nikon's wipe the floor with Canon on yellow, orange, green, and blue, so Canon would be OK for red, pink and mauve spectral scenes.
> 
> Simple really.......


DARN!
I wanted a camera for taking pictures of red canoe against a green background....


----------



## DanielW (Oct 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's no quirk of screen, browser, or anything else. It's a matter of characteristic...it's not the amount, it's how the noise presents. I'll produce some direct comparison images and GIFs from DPR data so people can judge on their own screens. Canon sensors are still more blotchy in most instances. Even the a6000 has a better noise characteristic than most Canon crops, with the exception of the reds and brown/tan swatches. It does have more color noise, however it's cleaner, random color noise with more per-pixel frequency and characteristic...it's not blotched.
> 
> 
> I use that term very explicitly and specifically...blotched. That refers to characteristic, not amount. Canon color noise has a nasty characteristic. It's one of the things hate bout the 5D III at low ISO...it's the same blotchy characteristic in the shadows. Noise character matters just as much as noise amounts. As far as amounts go, there isn't a full stop difference between any one of the APS-C cameras. At most, on a normalized basis, there may be a third stop difference, but that's to be expected...barring color noise characteristic, the amount of noise overall is ultimately determined by total sensor area, Q.E., and maybe fill factor.



Jrista, could you please post a few examples of "good noise" and "nasty noise"? I am not sure I can tell one from the other.
Cheers
Daniel


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is obvious for people who take their photography seriously, you need every camera made on you at all times.
> ...



Don, don't be obtuse, the answer is obvious. Shoot the canoe with the Canon and the greenery (and water) with the Nikon, then merge in PS, it is automatic and only takes a few seconds, you can then apply a Nik or whatever effect to get that authentic natural look.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2014)

DanielW said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It's no quirk of screen, browser, or anything else. It's a matter of characteristic...it's not the amount, it's how the noise presents. I'll produce some direct comparison images and GIFs from DPR data so people can judge on their own screens. Canon sensors are still more blotchy in most instances. Even the a6000 has a better noise characteristic than most Canon crops, with the exception of the reds and brown/tan swatches. It does have more color noise, however it's cleaner, random color noise with more per-pixel frequency and characteristic...it's not blotched.
> ...


Good noise is repeatable patterns or uniform noise that can be relatively easily subtracted or averaged to remove from the signal. Bad noise is unpredictable and/or non random and you can't really get rid of it.

In the world of Canadian music, good noise is "The Stampeders", nasty noise is Justin Beiber... unpredictable and we just can't seem to be able to get rid of it.....


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> In the world of Canadian music, good noise is "The Stampeders", nasty noise is Justin Beiber... unpredictable and we just can't seem to be able to get rid of it.....



You seemed to do a pretty good job of getting rid of him by sending him to live in America 

We owe you for that one btw, and not in a good way


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 26, 2014)

A little off topic, but while reading this dpr article I realized that canon included exposure comp in manual mode with auto ISO. Not sure how i have missed this for the last month, but noteworthy, and a very welcome feature.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 26, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> applecider said:
> 
> 
> > On the digital photography review site targeting the jack of hearts, and his "hair" and the text below him, the sony is head and shoulders better than any of the other sensors in raw at least.
> ...



Isn't the difference in detail viewing it full size largely a resolution issue? There's effectively greater magnification, so it's not surprising that the two 24mp sensors reveal a bit more detail no matter where you look (the Sony looks a bit better to me than the Nikon in that regard, but who knows to what extent that's because of the sensor). But it's not what I would call a head-and-shoulders difference either, and when you view the "print size" option you could go blind trying to spot any but microscopic differences which wouldn't ever be noticeable in real life. Differences among lenses, user competence, lighting, processing, etc. are all going to make a much bigger effect on images created with these cameras than differences among their sensors.

They all seem pretty close regarding noise as well if you choose the print-size option - though the 7DII seems impressive in that regard viewed full-size too. As for the blotchiness issue, this seems to vary from camera to camera, depending on where you look on the test, doesn't it? It seems to me that in some areas one performs better than the others, but in another a different camera does. (To make things more interesting in a different direction, toss into the mix at print size one of the Olympus OM-Ds at 1600 or lower - not much difference there, either.) 

I'm not sure how much one can learn from this comparison tool (one could probably assume before seeing it that a slightly higher resolution sensor would reveal a bit more detail on close inspection), but it does seem to support the proposition that the 7DII's impressive-sounding high-tech/pro-level features don't come at the cost of a sensor that's uncompetitive with other APS-C cameras. (Other tests elsewhere may suggest otherwise, I suppose, but I suspect they won't.) If I were interested in an APS-C camera with such features I wouldn't hesitate to buy one.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> it's not possible to select the 7D in their new comparison tool on DPR.



? If you click on the OP's link, it's one of the three cameras selected to compare with the 7DII (it's right next to it).


----------



## Aglet (Oct 26, 2014)

sdsr said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > it's not possible to select the 7D in their new comparison tool on DPR.
> ...



sometimes you gotta dump your javascript caches?...
I was getting totally bad data from dxomark a couple years ago, thinking it was real. Made a fool of myself here posting it.
turned out my browser was displaying incorrect data - different computer, same page, same time, was displaying correctly.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I wanted a camera for taking pictures of red canoe against a green background....



pentax will do that for you and provide an indigo sky too


----------



## jrista (Oct 26, 2014)

Aglet said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




Odd, I have a similar issue. On my laptop, same browser (Chrome), the 7D is not listed. I cleared the cache and all, doesn't seem to matter what I do, 7D isn't listed. On my desktop system here, also with Chrome, the 7D is listed. Not sure what the deal is. As far as I can tell, both systems are running the same version of Chrome.


On my desktop here, at ISO 6400 RAW, the 7D definitely seems to have more chroma noise than the 7D II. The 7D II still seems to have a less fine-grained, more blotchy distribution of chroma noise, where as the D7100 has a finer-grained, more random and less blotchy chroma noise. 


@DanielW: I could take screenshots and post them, but we should all be looking at the same data. My screens are all calibrated, at a brightness of 120mcd. The lower brightness helps reveal detail, where as higher brightness, such as 400mcd or brighter which is often the default on many screens these days, could very likely wash out detail. If you can, reduce your screen brightness, and calibrate your screen.


Then, compare the light blue swatch on the color checker card at say ISO 6400 RAW, the one just above the black swatch in the lower right corner. Also, make sure you are in print mode. I've been comparing the 7D II and the D7100. The difference should be pretty obvious. I have also been comparing the grayscale swatches...on my calibrated screen, the 7D II seems to have more pronounced color noise, and the color noise seems to "clump" into groups of many pixels. The D7100, while it still has color noise, takes on a finer and more random characteristic which, to me at least, is more pleasing. I wouldn't say it has less noise...just a better characteristic in my opinion.


For a more real-world expression of how the characteristic of noise can affect an image, move the zoomed in view box to the picture of the guy in the lower left, and position it such that you can see a bit of the dark background behind the picture, as well as the guys chin and throat. The color noise in the background of the 7D II image takes on a rougher texture, and seems more pronounced. Also, you can see color noise in the guys neck. The D7100 has a finer and more random color noise texture, and I can hardly see any color noise at all in the guys neck.


As far as how readable the text is, that seems to be related to AA filter strength and pixel count. Sensors with more pixels generally have more readable text in the color wheels and in the text blocks in the middle.


I should note that all of these differences are more pronounced and obvious on my laptop screen. That has a 3200x1800 pixel screen, however it still renders everything at the same general scale as my desktop (I set the DPI up on the laptop to render everything using more pixels...so text is roughly the same size in absolute terms as my desktop, but more pixels are used to render it. Same goes for images...more pixels are used to render each image, or pixels are sub-detail on my laptop, which makes it easier to see that detail without seeing RGB subpixel elements.) The differences in text sharpness, color noise, etc. are very easy to pick out on my laptop. Yellow swatches in the color checker card, for example, pop right out as having a more blotchy and rougher characteristic than the D7100. I can still see the same issue on my desktop, but it is not as pronounced. 


I was using my laptop when I wrote my prior posts, so just to be fair, I wanted to make sure that context was shared...I was very, very clearly seeing differences in noise characteristic.


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 26, 2014)

What is the file size of web and print mode in DPR? I compared 7d,7dII, 100d, 70d, 700d and d7100. All are same. I only notice difference when I added 6d to the comparison which is better than all of them at the same ISO.

Thanks


----------



## Woody (Oct 26, 2014)

ritholtz said:


> What is the file size of web and print mode in DPR? I compared 7d,7dII, 100d, 70d, 700d and d7100. All are same. I only notice difference when I added 6d to the comparison which is better than all of them at the same ISO.
> Thanks



Similar observation here. All the APS-C outputs look similar although A6000 appears to be the worst.

6D is definitely 1 stop better than the various APS-C cameras.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> ....
> 
> Then, compare the light blue swatch on the color checker card at say ISO 6400 RAW, the one just above the black swatch in the lower right corner. Also, make sure you are in print mode. I've been comparing the 7D II and the D7100. The difference should be pretty obvious.
> 
> ....



Noticeable, certainly - but again, it varies with where you look - if you move up and compare the four squares above that the relative slight advantages seem to flip - especially the pale turquoise/cyan square at the top right, which is clearly much noisier on the D7100 than the 7DII, so much so that the noise almost hides the splotchiness. (And there seems to be something seriously wrong with whatever was done to the D7100 file if you look at the fake ferns to the right of there - the olive tint of the top layer of ferns is exaggerated and carries half way down into the emerald green of the finer-textured fake ferns below until there's a clean dividing line, almost as though a square of yellow film had been placed there - odd; it doesn't happen in the patch of fake greenery in the lower left corner.) So it still seems to me that, viewed at print size, the differences among all four cameras in the OP's link, as revealed in this test at least, are trivial and not consistent. (That's not to say, of course, that *you* should find them trivial, but perhaps you could agree that they're small enough not to matter to many/most others....)


----------



## jonjt (Oct 26, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jonjt said:
> 
> 
> > The 7DII seems to handle smooth gradients and constant tones WAY better than the 7D did. That was a major issue I had with the 7D.
> ...



Yeah, I'd have to replace my standard zoom and my wide angle zoom. That's almost 4k dollars. I'd probably get 1500 dollars from selling my 11-16, 17-55 and my 7D. I'm just not sure it's worth it, in comparison to what I can get from the 7DII.

In any case, I'm going to wait until the 5DIV is released, before making a decision.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2014)

sdsr said:


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



Agreed...and that highlights the issue of personal bias in observations. If you think Canon sensors have 'blotchy' and 'nasty' noise, you'll go looking for it...and most likely find it (even if you have to ignore observations which would lead to the opposite conclusion in the process).


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



As another demonstration, if you are shown what you believe to be an Exmor file, and you have a love of them, then they will exhibit _'fantastic gradation and tonal values'*_ even when they are Canon files. Personal bias is displayed with remarkable regularity here, often from both sides in the same thread.

What pixel peeping has done now is 'jumped the shark', which, as a saying I believe has also jumped the shark. Back in the days when we had low pixel counts and regular pixelation from sub 10mp cameras there was a genuine interest and 'need' for knowing where the pixel limits were, and pixel peeping became a quaint badge that was worn to demonstrate better understanding and knowledge to fellow photographers and anybody too immobile to move.

Well with our 1080HD displays, and even our 'I want 4K now' and 'bring on the new Apple screens' attitude, we still can't see a fraction of the pixels captured on full screen, even when we crop hard, we can print to never before printed sizes with ease, and the peepers became a bore. 

Pixel peeping has lost it's relevance to the output image. The files from pretty much everything nowadays are so good, so clean, so sharp, and so rich it is obscene, put those files into a copy of any decent RAW editor and the only image limitation most of the time is you. Sure we will always have needs we can't personally meet, a single shot might need a 600 f4, or a 17TS-E, or need 1/250 sec at f4 and 10,000 iso, but we are so spoilt now it is ridiculous, worrying about the noise patterns by swatch colour is crazy.

Enjoy the tech for what it is but don't take this kind of super over analysis seriously, and certainly don't let it impact your purchasing decisions. The 7D MkII will create some world class images by people not reading gear forums but by people actually out there making images, just as the now derided 7D has.

_• This is a paraphrase because the original was taken down........._


----------

