# Canon 7D Mark 2 Rolling Review



## coreyhkh (Oct 11, 2014)

http://www.foto-buzz.com/index.php?script=page&id=77&type=fotoskool

this camera looks like a real winner to me!


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 11, 2014)

Sweet find CoreyHKH!!!

This camera seems to be getting better and better with every article one reads


----------



## Skip (Oct 11, 2014)

I purchased a 1DX on Andy's review, might do the same with the 7D2 ;D


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 11, 2014)

So glad he reads people's reactions to other reviews. 

He gave the exact info we've been unsure about. 

So it's not the same sensor as the 70D and the noise performance from RAW files are exceptional for a APS-C body


----------



## Eldar (Oct 11, 2014)

My main interest in getting this camera is to use it with the 200-400. Now I am REALLY looking forward to get it


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 11, 2014)

Eldar said:


> My main interest in getting this camera is to use it with the 200-400. Now I am REALLY looking forward to get it



I only have a 400 f/5.6 but wow! I cannot wait to get my hands on this beast!!!

PS wish I had a 200-400 like you Eldar


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 11, 2014)

I'm also glad to hear of the glowing reviews. At present, I'm not considering this camera, but I was somewhat suspect of reviews like Kelby's who is associated with Canon. With each independent review, more cred.

Can't wait to see example pics from all types of photogs.

Who knows, I may change my mind.

Good for Canon, good for us.

sek.


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 11, 2014)

This is getting me excited for the IQ we can expect from the 5Div.


----------



## Steve (Oct 11, 2014)

Rouse isn't really independent, he's a Canon Explorer which is the reason he got access to a preproduction model. The cam looks great but take these pre-release reviews with a grain of salt. 

That said, the shots at 1600 look great, similar to what I get with my mkIV. Its a confusingly worded in the review but I think those are TIFFs produced from RAW? Hard to say as it wasn't exactly clear and the pics from PS are too small to make out the file extensions. I'm disappointed that this is another review that skips over the AF system, especially since he went into it pretty thoroughly in his 1DX review. It would be cool to know from someone with the body in hand if the AF points are illuminated, do they display during auto-select, how well does that AF mode toggle work and is it programmable, facial recog?, etc. None of this would require extensive testing to report on but so far the two big name reviewers aren't interested in mentioning this stuff. I know the AF works and is fast and accurate. That's true of literally every DSLR available for purchase in the YOOL 2014. An SL1 will nail focus on a stationary deer. I'm interested in the advanced AF system and specifically how much of an improvement it is from a camera that a likely 7DII buyer will be upgrading from.


----------



## coreyhkh (Oct 11, 2014)

He did say he is going to start testing the AF, but I agree with him Canon would of not came out with it and hyped the af if it was not good.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2014)

Lastest from Liquidstone/Romy is that it seems to focus at least as well as a 1D4/5D3 for BIF and probably better and he believe it will prove to be the best AF he has ever used.


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lastest from Liquidstone/Romy is that it seems to focus at least as well as a 1D4/5D3 for BIF and probably better and he believe it will prove to be the best AF he has ever used.



Cool, I'm gonna have to keep checking in with this guy since he's doing an actual comparison to a camera I'm familiar with. 

Also, while searching for that Liquidstone post at FM, I found out that Arthur Morris is selling 7DII RAW files for $5 each. What a scumbag, lol.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Oct 13, 2014)

Thank you for finding this!


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 13, 2014)

As Steve said... Rouse is not exactly unbiased and independent. When all the canon explorers say its too good to be true... Well don't bet the farm on these reviews is all. 

Andy mentioned that he thought this camera could beat the 5d3 on high ISO. I'm not drinking the punch yet. 

Looks to be an awesome camera. High ISO looks good too, but a thorough independent review may bring folks back to reality a bit.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 13, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> As Steve said... Rouse is not exactly unbiased and independent. When all the canon explorers say its too good to be true... Well don't bet the farm on these reviews is all.
> 
> Andy mentioned that he thought this camera could beat the 5d3 on high ISO. I'm not drinking the punch yet.


 
Photos and tests have been out for quite a while now, it basically matches the 70D for high ISO, a stop behind the 1D MK IV, 2 stops behind the 5DMK III.


You can see for yourself.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 13, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > As Steve said... Rouse is not exactly unbiased and independent. When all the canon explorers say its too good to be true... Well don't bet the farm on these reviews is all.
> ...



Yet the people who have had their hands on the camera says it's better than the 70D by a fair margin. 

Some South African shooters have posted that it is not an incrementally improved 70D sensor but a whole new animal. 

I do agree though that a fully independent review is probably needed.


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 13, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > As Steve said... Rouse is not exactly unbiased and independent. When all the canon explorers say its too good to be true... Well don't bet the farm on these reviews is all.
> ...



One thing to keep in mind is that the tests from IR are far from perfect. The lighting is not even consistent from one camera to the other for the same exact test scene. 

I don't dispute that the new 7d sensor is a great improvement over its predecessor, and may very well be one and two stops behind the 1d4 and 5d3 respectively... But I have yet to see a definitive test that illustrates this, or a review by an impartial source. ;-)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 13, 2014)

Was on holidays with limited internet when the 7D2 came out. Does the camera have the option of linking AF points to exposure? 

To me this is quite important when choosing not to use the spot center point. Example, 6D with 600mm using vertical orientation and the upper focus point. A pileated woodpecker lands on a stump in close proximity and my exposure comes off his densely black body (center point), significantly overexposing his red and white and black head. So just compensate - right? However, in situations like this the subject tends to be in constant motion with the background/foreground shifting from dark stump to blue sky to significant to almost out of the picture, not to mention the shadows.

Of course I'm relatively new to all this so there are no doubt some alternate solutions but for now that may be a deal breaker and reason to wait a little longer.

BTW in contrast to this reviews assertion, I find in my multi-hour hikes up mountainsides that I'd never crave to have a much heavier camera, although I do understand the principle of balance. My 6D with 300 2.8 X2 balances very nicely and is more comfortable than with just the 300. The shot doesn't illustrate perfectly but you can see how my hand pulls the camera into my armpit allowing the unit to be both carried comfortably or simply steadied by my hand while being supported by the shoulder strap. I can climb through bushes and jump puddles without losing a beat. Sadly, the 1Dx doesn't sit in there nearly as well and adds quite a bit of weight.

Jack


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 13, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Was on holidays with limited internet when the 7D2 came out. Does the camera have the option of linking AF points to exposure?
> 
> To me this is quite important when choosing not to use the spot center point. Example, 6D with 600mm using vertical orientation and the upper focus point. A pileated woodpecker lands on a stump in close proximity and my exposure comes off his densely black body (center point), significantly overexposing his red and white and black head. So just compensate - right? However, in situations like this the subject tends to be in constant motion with the background/foreground shifting from dark stump to blue sky to significant to almost out of the picture, not to mention the shadows.
> 
> ...



Nope. Only the 1d.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2014)

He always comes across as a paid shill. Hinting that the sensor will be radically better than the one in the 70D, come on. And how it might be close to APS_H,FF for high ISO non-reach limited? Come on. And his 4k talk, come on, some of the other 4k stuff won't make you have to rob a bank and he doesn't even put it in the best terms either. (although it's possible if Canon had put 4k in it they might have raised the price a bit (even though I bet the sales compared to what they get from 1DC would've way more than made up for 1DC lost sales and they'd be pulling in tons more money overall and in that sense would'nt even need to raise the price, so if you shoot zero video I could see those guys rather paying a little bit less). And he doesn't even bring up that they left out crop mode for video on a wildlife camera. Or proffer and excuse for why the 1080p is still soft and waxy and mushy.

And then he says that he didn't even bother to really try to push the AF at all. Just useless shill talk.

The one good thing is that it seems clear that Canon IS well aware of the forums and all the people going on about 4k and general 1080p video quality and wonders about if they will ever go to new sensor fabs and such.

All THAT said though, for sources who do tend to tell it like it is and not come across as corporate shills, they, or at least the one so far and other semi-so, are saying VERY good things about the AF so far (seemingly better than both 1D4 and 5D3 AF, at least for some things) and they do say that the IQ is definitely better than on the original 7D. I'm sure it will be a sports and especially wildlife beast for stills. Nothing else has the combo of the AF, speed and reach (and it has small size too).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Was on holidays with limited internet when the 7D2 came out. Does the camera have the option of linking AF points to exposure?



Nope . That was the one main stills shooting non-sensor spec that got left out. Marketing still has that reserved for 1 series only.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 13, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Yet the people who have had their hands on the camera says it's better than the 70D by a fair margin.


It _is_ better. 

I own the 70D, and it's better than the 7D by a clear margin: the 7D Mk II files I've downloaded beat the 70D by a similar margin - and this is with converters (like Photo Ninja and Raw Therapee) that don't officially support the 7D Mk II yet. 

And - converted in DPP - equivalent high ISO 70D and 7D Mk II CR2s from Imaging Resource, with the exact same settings, show a _big_ difference in the amount and the nature of the noise: the 7D Mk II's has a tighter grain, better edges, and a lot less chroma.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 13, 2014)

But how many takers are buying those Art Morris $5.00 RAW files? I would guess "zero".


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 13, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Yet the people who have had their hands on the camera says it's better than the 70D by a fair margin.
> ...



Appreciate that Keith

I just cannot wait to get my hands on one. Hopefully it'll make me a better photographer ;D


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Oct 14, 2014)

Supposedly some say ISO 16,000 is usable on the 7D2, I've tried 70D and don't think it can go anywhere near that for usable files. I guess we'll see when more people actually have the 7D2 that use it for real world and rely less on reviews.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Photos and tests have been out for quite a while now, it basically matches the 70D for high ISO, a stop behind the 1D MK IV, 2 stops behind the 5DMK III.
> 
> You can see for yourself.
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM



Going off the comparometer I'm not seeing 1 stop behind the 1D4. I would actually give a slight edge to the 7D2. I would give a 2 stop edge to the 5D3.

But I have to agree that the IR studio scene may not be telling the whole story. Some of the field samples I've seen online give a better impression. This 7D2 ISO 3200 shot on Flickr really impressed me (for example): https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotoblogia/15063749820/in/set-72157647629974871

Scott Kelby's samples were also pretty impressive.

On the same note, in the comparometer you would think there's no or little difference between the M and the 7D in high ISO, but without a doubt I prefer ISO 3200 on my M.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Supposedly some say ISO 16,000 is usable on the 7D2, I've tried 70D and don't think it can go anywhere near that for usable files. I guess we'll see when more people actually have the 7D2 that use it for real world and rely less on reviews.



"Usable" depends on the intended use. Kelby's ISO 16,000 shot is pretty noisy. But there's still detail and no color blotching. Honestly, at 11x14 the IQ would be comparable to some of the old ISO 400 color neg films, or a really good 800 film, and I would certainly say it's usable at that size.

The original 7D isn't even close to usable at that ISO.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Going off the comparometer I'm not seeing 1 stop behind the 1D4. I would actually give a slight edge to the 7D2. I would give a 2 stop edge to the 5D3.



Finally got around to looking at some RAWs in DPP and the 1D4 is still a bit better. The noise pattern is smaller and a little less harsh. It takes DPP NR better, too. The 7D2 is definitely improved from the 70D though. This is all based on RAWs dl'd from Imaging Resource.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2014)

Steve said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Going off the comparometer I'm not seeing 1 stop behind the 1D4. I would actually give a slight edge to the 7D2. I would give a 2 stop edge to the 5D3.
> ...



Looking at the IR ISO 6400 RAWs in DPP...

The default NR settings are different. The 7D2 defaults to more LNR but less CNR (less CNR is surprising). Pixel peeping both at default the 7D2 looks slightly better _when scaled to equal size._

When the 7D2 is set to the 1D4's NR defaults they look very close. 7D2 grain is a bit rougher (sharper), but the 1D4 has more color noise.

I would have to call it a wash. With the higher resolution 7D2 file you're going to use a bit more LNR to take the edge off the luminance noise. With the 1D4 file you've got to bump up CNR. With both processed optimally you're not going to see differences in print in this scene with this lighting.

Not sure how they might compare on different scenes, but it looks like Canon did a good job controlling color noise in this sensor. People will tolerate luminance noise more then color noise and splotching, which is probably why we're seeing acceptable shots...at least for web and small prints...up to ISO 16,000 OOC.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 6, 2014)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Supposedly some say ISO 16,000 is usable on the 7D2, I've tried 70D and don't think it can go anywhere near that for usable files. I guess we'll see when more people actually have the 7D2 that use it for real world and rely less on reviews.


 
Welcome to the real world of Implied Performance.

I thought my car should go 200 MPH, the speedometer goes that far  

Canon typically rates sensors for in-camera jpeg images with lots of NR. For most people, who print or view them on their smart phone, they look great.

Just like a D800, if you start viewing at 100%, you see noise and lost detail.

I had predicted that the sensor performance might reach ISO 1100 or even 1200 as rated by DXO. I was a little high, but its in that ballpark. That's actually pretty good for a APS-C sensor, and even ISO 1600 images can have lots of detail without too much noise. My old 7D could do ISO 800 before things broke up quickly. Part of the consideration is to see the slope of the noise curve. If its gradual, than pushing the ISO up will not degrade images as quickly. That's one thing I like about my 5D MK III, I can push the ISO way up without the image being totally hosed.


----------

