# Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review



## AndreSilva (Nov 5, 2014)

I don't like the fact they don't reveal their methodology, but here is the review:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-review-Low-ISO-performance-lags-behind-rivals


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 5, 2014)

AndreSilva said:


> I don't like the fact they don't reveal their methodology, but here is the review



For once, this is essentially in favor of Canon - with the 7d2 as a wildlife camera, who cares about low iso dr? If you wan to shoot sitting ducks you can just use the 6d for about the same price.

But even at low dr, it's nearly up to the full(!) frame 6d and put distance to the 70d. Essentially, Canon seems to have really tried to crank out the best performance they can out of their current tech, even for me the missing swivel screen is a point I'd sorely miss vs. my good ol' 60d.



> Canon EOS 7D Mk II: Below-par scores at low ISOs, *yet competitive at high ISOs*


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 5, 2014)

Wildlife and sports shooters need higher ISO more than low ISO DR. But I suspect the DRones will be out in their usual vein. :


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2014)

*The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*

If anyone is shocked by this, please send a personal message to Neuro, who serves as DXO's publicist. :

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-review-Low-ISO-performance-lags-behind-rivals/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-Below-par-scores-at-low-ISOs-yet-competitive-at-high-ISOs

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*

On the head to head link vs. the original 7D:

_"From the sensor performance point of view, a four-point lead over its predecessor is really only a modest advancement. That’s the equivalent to around 1/3-stop improvement in color sensitivity, just 0.1 Ev in DR (albeit at base ISO) and about a 1/3-stop improvement in low-light sensitivity."_

Ouch. I expected DXO to thrash the sensor from a resolution and low-ISO DR perspective, but the statement of only a 1/3 stop improvement in low light (if substantiated) is damning. 

In contrast, DPReview's sample shots suggested that the 7D2 was about a full stop better than the 7D.

Mr. Carnathan's ISO comparisons can't come quickly enough now. 

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*

While I expect the reality to set in after all the hype dies down, I also do not value DXO's secret numbering system, nor their claiming to rate a camera without actually testing it as a camera.

They test a sensor and rate the camera by low ISO results, even though high ISO over 400 is likely used by most of the owners simply because they get a small aperture kit lens with it.

They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.

I don't care if they rated it as the best camera or the worst, their numerical rating system does not point a buyer toward what he needs to buy for his use.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> While I expect the reality to set in after all the hype dies down, I also do not value DXO's secret numbering system, nor their claiming to rate a camera without actually testing it as a camera.
> 
> They test a sensor and rate the camera by low ISO results, even though high ISO over 400 is likely used by most of the owners simply because they get a small aperture kit lens with it.
> 
> ...



In fairness, Mt Spokane, it's a _Sensor Score_ and listed as such. (That's about all I'll ever do to back up DXO.)

- A


----------



## garyknrd (Nov 5, 2014)

A little disappointed with high ISO. Certainly not enough to replace the Mark IV. But, enough to replace my 7D for sure.
Personally as a stills shooter, I think it is overpriced. I will surely pick one up. But, in no hurry now. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
http://www.birdsthatfart.com


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> AndreSilva said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the fact they don't reveal their methodology, but here is the review
> ...



As a wildlife shooter, I'd consider low ISO dynamic range important. I'd also take the 6D over any crop camera by any brand for wildlife.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 5, 2014)

2n10 said:


> Wildlife and sports shooters need higher ISO more than low ISO DR.



Which makes crop cameras especially dubious for wildlife. 

And now that the 7D2 costs as much as a camera with much better IQ (the 6D) there's a bit of a conundrum.


----------



## dstppy (Nov 5, 2014)

It's not the theoretical scores that matter, it's REAL WORLD lens cap photos where the proof is in the pudding :


----------



## Marauder (Nov 5, 2014)

"Blah, blah" Totally predictable. Those who worship at the altar of DXO Mark will feel vindicated but, as always, it will mean nothing in real world scenarios.


----------



## geonix (Nov 5, 2014)

Did I get this right? The noise-level of low ISO (e.g. ISO 100) is not so good with the 7D II but its better than avarage at high ISO? Does that mean canon has solved the hig ISO noise issue and created a low ISO noise issue? I can hardly imagine that to be true. Are ISO 100 to 400 pics from the 7D II noiser now than from the D7100 or the K3? Or even from the 70D?
Of course I would be glad about a camera that high ISO performance is good, but I still always try to photograph at the lowest ISO level possible. So if low ISO is below avarage I would consider that the first real flaw of this camera that would bother me.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 5, 2014)

So once again DXO compares apples to green beans. There is no way I would buy the Sony over the 7DII for action/wildlife. If I were soley interested in wide DR for a particular application, say photo marketing of wedding dresses for example the Sony may be the better choice. The 7DII so far has superior AF, FPS as well as other features to make it not even compareable to the Sony.

This is why many of us own more than one tool for the trade, just as we have multipe lenses for the task at hand, so we also have different bodies.

Sports/Action 7DII or 1Dx
Wedding or events 6D or 5DIII
Video 70D or sony

Pick your combo and go make pictures (or videos if thats your bag)


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 5, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



> They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.




Sensor IQ is the only real baseline comparison aspect for all cameras. 



> I don't care if they rated it as the best camera or the worst, their numerical rating system does not point a buyer toward what he needs to buy for his use.



I don't know about that. It told me what I needed to know (and what I already guessed at): don't pay $1800 for ancient crop tech.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 5, 2014)

geonix said:


> Of course I would be glad about a camera that high ISO performance is good, but I still always try to photograph at the lowest ISO level *possible*. So if low ISO is below avarage I would consider that the first real flaw of this camera that would bother me.



Sure, everybody does, but what's possible relative to an acceptable shutter speed = keeper rate? What good are your noise free high-dr iso shots if they are blurred because wildlife tends to move?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 5, 2014)

geonix said:


> Did I get this right? The noise-level of low ISO (e.g. ISO 100) is not so good with the 7D II but its better than avarage at high ISO? Does that mean canon has solved the hig ISO noise issue and created a low ISO noise issue? I can hardly imagine that to be true. Are ISO 100 to 400 pics from the 7D II noiser now than from the D7100 or the K3? Or even from the 70D?
> Of course I would be glad about a camera that high ISO performance is good, but I still always try to photograph at the lowest ISO level possible. So if low ISO is below avarage I would consider that the first real flaw of this camera that would bother me.


For some years, the Canon image sensors have been "less good" than the Sony Exmor sensor at ISO 100. This is a known fact and discussed extensively in CR.

However, it is a well known fact that in the above ISO 1600 (depends on camera) Canon has better noise performance for over a decade.


----------



## Otara (Nov 5, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > AndreSilva said:
> ...



I have the 7D, 6d and now 7D2. I was already using my 7D in preference to my 6D for wildlife, so it probably depends a lot on how and what you shoot. I need all the help I can get with AF for instance, and I tend to struggle to fill the frame even with the 7D.

If I could get a second-hand 300mm 2.8 from Sony for the kind of price I can with Canon Id maybe consider the Sony camera DXO recommends. As it is I got a 7D2 and my current lens for less than that, and if I got it from my local shop I would have enough left over to buy a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II as well.

Otara


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 5, 2014)

What about the shots where a grizzly bear is backlit at low ISO's? Or a soaring golden eagle?

Low ISO dynamic range is extremely useful for wildlife

Also, excusing away technological improvements based on usage guesstimates is really an argument against improvement in general.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



MichaelHodges said:


> > They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you're using a Phase One for wildlife shooting, then?


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 5, 2014)

Otara said:


> I have the 7D, 6d and now 7D2. I was already using my 7D in preference to my 6D for wildlife, so it probably depends a lot on how and what you shoot. I need all the help I can get with AF for instance, and I tend to struggle to fill the frame even with the 7D.



You must shoot tiny birds, which is the only real advantage of crop, IMHO. I shoot grizzlies, bighorn, moose, elk, and raptors in the wild (not zoos, game farms, or fenced in areas). The differences in IQ, smooth exposures, and general harshness and roughness to the overall image is enormous.

I'm in the field now, just outside the largest wilderness complex in the lower 48, waiting for Canon to send my broken FF back to me. It should be here tomorrow.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 5, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Also, excusing away technological improvements based on usage guesstimates is really an argument against improvement in general.



That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing, as if those are things hardly anyone one will ever use. But they give Sony lots of points for a little extra DR at ISO 50 and 100, as if that's what matters most for most photographers. So the Sony scores much higher. Bravo to Canon for delivering what they think their sports & action shooter need, not what will earn them a big score on some review site. Yes, DR at low ISO comes in handy too, but that's an easy limitation to deal with. Not so easy for lousy flickering color-changing lights or bad weather.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

I suspect there's not one person at DxO that knows anything about shooting anything but test charts at base ISO.

Their technical measurements are useful, if reinterpreted.

Their software and their reviews are not.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 5, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> So once again DXO compares apples to green beans. There is no way I would buy the Sony over the 7DII for action/wildlife. If I were soley interested in wide DR for a particular application, say photo marketing of wedding dresses for example the Sony may be the better choice. The 7DII so far has superior AF, FPS as well as other features to make it not even compareable to the Sony.
> 
> This is why many of us own more than one tool for the trade, just as we have multipe lenses for the task at hand, so we also have different bodies.
> 
> ...



Well put!


----------



## geonix (Nov 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> geonix said:
> 
> 
> > Does that mean canon has solved the high ISO noise issue and created a low ISO noise issue? I can hardly imagine that to be true.
> ...



Thanks for that explaination. I would like to see some more real-world sample pics of low ISO shots with the 7D II. Wenn I shoot with my old 7D at ISO 100 I usually expect to have no visible noise at all in the picture. Well 'visible' is of course subjective and lets forget about this 'blue-sky-noise' issue of the 7D no matter of the ISO level.


----------



## ecka (Nov 5, 2014)

Jeez... dxomark again.
I don't really understand the magic math they are using .


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ... in a nutshell and my own words/understanding: Canon does more signal processing off the sensor die which results in _read noise_ that drowns the theoretically possible dynamic range. That's why the dynamic range curve is nearly flat on low iso with Canon, while the competition gets better until base iso with their patented exmor on-die processing. And that's what 90% of all flamewar threads are about on CR.
> 
> Otherwise the Canon sensors are fine, because at higher iso the read noise doesn't matter that much anymore so Canon does better vs. the competition - but depending on the specific models, still nothing to write home about or switch systems over. On the other hand, more than +2 stops on low iso is a big difference if you want/need it.



You got most of that wrong.

On sensor versus off sensor "processing" or how much processing is getting done after ADC isn't the issue for low ISOs.

And read noise does matter a lot at high ISO, but Canon's read noise at high ISO is competitive with that of other brands.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 5, 2014)

zlatko said:


> That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,




Those are peripheral features, and usually overcome by even decent photogs. Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.




> But they give Sony lots of points for a little extra DR at ISO 50 and 100, as if that's what matters most for most photographers. So the Sony scores much higher.



why wouldn't they? DXO specializes in IQ comparisons.


----------



## Nethawk (Nov 5, 2014)

DxOMark is an interesting site for trivia, nothing more.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 5, 2014)

geonix said:


> at ISO 100 I usually expect to have no visible noise at all in the picture. Well 'visible' is of course subjective and lets forget about this 'blue-sky-noise' issue of the 7D no matter of the ISO level.



So glad my 7D is gone.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 5, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> This is why many of us own more than one tool for the trade, just as we have multipe lenses for the task at hand, so we also have different bodies.
> 
> Sports/Action 7DII or 1Dx
> Wedding or events 6D or 5DIII
> ...



I'm in that wedding & events category. The 6D and 5D3 do the job just fine for me. I shoot virtually *nothing* at ISO 50 and 100, where the Sony Alpha 77 II gets much of its DxO scoring advantage.

As for video, virtually every videographer I've seen in the past 5 years has shot Canon. Videographers come to weddings & events with bags full of Canon gear. I don't recall any of them shooting Sony or Nikon. One shot Panasonic.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 5, 2014)

zlatko said:


> That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing, as if those are things hardly anyone one will ever use. But they give Sony lots of points for a little extra DR at ISO 50 and 100, as if that's what matters most for most photographers.



I'm not going to defend dxo and go on living on CR  but it's a sensor iq benchmark so sealing doesn't come into it. Plus the difference to the competition is more than a "little" at low iso, it's a lot and too much to bridge with some patching up the Canon's current sensor line.

Without knowing dxo mark specifics, at least they are bold enough to condense their opinion into a number so people can discuss about it. The blackbox design (if it's really explained nowhere) is annoying, but you get the same thing from just about every consumer study with aggregated data. I don't see that much of a difference to other pro-Canon or pro-Nikon/Sony reviewers who just convey the same thing, but buried in bullet points or pages of text.



geonix said:


> Thanks for that explaination. I would like to see some more real-world sample pics of low ISO shots with the 7D II. Wenn I shoot with my old 7D at ISO 100 I usually expect to have no visible noise at all in the picture. Well 'visible' is of course subjective and lets forget about this 'blue-sky-noise' issue of the 7D no matter of the ISO level.



The current sensors are fine for straight out of camera images, the problems only show after medium to heavy postprocessing, esp. raising shadows a lot. Or astro-photography. Or shooting with your lens cap on 



Lee Jay said:


> You got most of that wrong.



Oh my, if that's true I should probably start *reading* some of the dr threads around here :-o so sorry about my layman's understanding of how this works. Doesn't change the outcome though afaik esp. considering the flat dr curve of Canon which has to do with read noise Canon relative to the competition.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Those are peripheral features, and usually overcome by even decent photogs. Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.



For you they may be peripheral features, but for others they speak to the core of what they are looking for. If your use is landscape, who cares about the AF system.... if your use is capturing tiny birds in flight, the AF system is the most important aspect of the camera.


----------



## tmensonides (Nov 5, 2014)

What I can't seem to figure out is how they can have a testing methodology for sensors (i.e. essentially image quality) that is not compatible with certain types of sensors (i.e. fuji).... it really makes me wonder. On the face of it...what exactly are they testing for if not output? If your algorithm for sharpness, DR, or color depth or whatever can't handle a different sensor filter pattern wouldn't you need to acknowledge that the methodology if flawed and very well could be skewed for other reasons? I.E. canon may be doing something a little "different" in terms of tech/RGB pattern/etc. and their methodology doesn't either A) know and/or B) account for it. 

So as a possible example...the dual pixel thing, couldn't that potentially muck up their methodology even though visibly there is no difference? 

And I envy what you can get out the Nikon/Sony gear in terms of DR that's apparent to me who doesn't test anything... I know my Canon gear has a ways to go to catch up...but...that's what doesn't make sense to me


----------



## zlatko (Nov 5, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,
> ...



There you go again, elevating your own usage as primary and diminishing others' usage as "peripheral". For what I do, Canon delivers *excellent* sensor IQ. Not "bad", not just OK, not anything but *excellent*. And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:

1. Make tedious color and brightness adjustments to individual pics ... which is tedious and messy when the flicker cuts right through an image ... good luck doing that with Sony.
2. Set up remote flashes over the playing field/arena or at each corner and use flash to overpower the flickering lighting ... which is often not allowed, unsafe or impractical.
3. Use a shutter speed slower than 1/60th (strike that ... can't do that for sports action).

As for "specializing in IQ comparisons", they sure do give a lot of points for ISO 50 and 100. So there's a heavy bias against cameras designed primarily for sports and action shooters.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ... in a nutshell and my own words/understanding: Canon does more signal processing off the sensor die which results in _read noise_ that drowns the theoretically possible dynamic range. That's why the dynamic range curve is nearly flat on low iso with Canon, while the competition gets better until base iso with their patented exmor on-die processing. And that's what 90% of all flamewar threads are about on CR.
> ...



I've designed and built a CCD camera amongst many other things... I'm afraid it's you who doesn't know his onions.

What is being referrred to is the ANALOGUE signal processing (correlated double sampling / dual slope / Anti-Aliasing / flicker noise mitigation etc etc)

All this and more is what goes to ensure proper signal handling.. somewhere in the chain when the gain (ISO) is reduced to minimum noise is introduced to the signal chain, and it looks like the system architecture simply won't allow canon to correct the problem. This might be a result of off sensor ADC or it might not, without the schemtics it's hard to tell.

Signal processing doens't have to mean digital.. (did you know concorde's engines were controlled by analogue computers?)


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I highlighted my own text above, that you apparently didn't read.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm torn on the swivel screen issue. On the one hand, I like the mechanical soundness and simplicity of the design, which makes it very reliable and solid in a day-in/day-out sports shooting scenario. If my old 7D, 1DmkIV or 5Dmk II and III had swivel screens, I'd surely have torn one off by now, or at least severely damaged it in some freak accident hanging it off my side.

On the other hand, the swivel would allow my signature low-and-wide-angle sports shots a lot easier. I'm also branching out to short video interviews, and it would be nice to have a screen I could angle for easier viewing in video scenarios. In truth, a swivel screen is about the only thing I would change in making this my go-to lightweight trail running/cycling all-purpose camera. Right now that role is played by my 6D, and I surely wish I had a swivel on that. I'll probably update to the 7D2 this year because it covers ALL my shooting bases in a relatively small package. 1dmkIV-like speed and focusing with small-body design, with decent ISO and video capabilities. I'm rarely on the bleeding edge of IQ with my outdoor sports shooting.


----------



## Otara (Nov 5, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> You must shoot tiny birds, which is the only real advantage of crop, IMHO. I shoot grizzlies, bighorn, moose, elk, and raptors in the wild (not zoos, game farms, or fenced in areas). The differences in IQ, smooth exposures, and general harshness and roughness to the overall image is enormous.
> 
> I'm in the field now, just outside the largest wilderness complex in the lower 48, waiting for Canon to send my broken FF back to me. It should be here tomorrow.



Smaller creatures yes - live in Victoria Australia, so smaller birds, lizards, small marsupials etc tend to be the focus, and I shoot underwater too.

If I can get close enough, the 6D is pretty good. But once AF or distance enters into it, 7D works better for me, let alone the 2. I do sometimes wonder if a second hand 5DIII might have been the better choice, but once I start looking at the extra cost lenswise to cover what I currently have, not so much. Crop vs FF isnt just about the body cost, by a long shot.

Otara


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 5, 2014)

As we already knew it has the same old low ISO DR as every other Canon for the past near decade.

OTOH they did bump up the high ISO DR nearly a full stop over the 7D.

The SNR is 1/3 to a solid 1/2 stop better than on the 7D. (and BTW, this really was about all that was realistic and it's in line with 5D3 over the 5D2, a trace less of a jump but then the 7D was already a trace better than the 5D2 per sensor area)

The tonality and color noise are something like a solid 1/3 stop better than the 7D, not that noticeable since 1/3 stop is small, but technically better and just enough to slightly notice with a careful look.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


IS IT THE SAME AS THE 70D SENSOR?

Probably not actually!

In most regards the performance is very similar though, just 1/9 to 1/3 stop difference so you won't likely notice it and some of that might be copy to copy variation alone.

But for high ISO DR there is a large enough difference that it seems the 7D2 likely actually is a bit of a different sensor (including the sensor sensor and all read out electronics in my term sensor). The DR is as much as 1/2 stop better at high ISO on the 7D2 than on the 70D.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

COMPARED TO THE NIKON D7100?

miles behind for low ISO DR
clearly behind for mid ISO DR
a bit behind at lower high ISO DR
the same at very high ISO DR

SNR is exactly the same

tonality is close enough

color noise sensitivity is fairly behind


so the sensor really doesn't match up to the best in APS-C and Maesada was clearly talking trash when he said Canon sensors lead for IQ at DSLR size


That said, for action the D7100 suffers from a miserably small buffer and I doubt that the AF is as good and the fps is not as good either. The body performance of the 7D2 is clearly the king of all APS-C cameras and the build appears to be to. Considering that the video was so bumbled in quality and the dual pixel was a bit crippled by lack of touch screen I'm not sure at all that it was worth sticking to a Canon sensor on it though. I don't see anything that would've been worse had they gone to a Sony sensor. Had they delivered fully on video, then perhaps, but they didn't.

Anyway for sports the AF matters the most of all and then the buffer and fps. A little this or that with the IQ doesn't matter if the shot is missed and the D7100 would likely miss a lot more action shots and the DR and color sensitivity won't matter so much for every shot.

ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor. It would've been all ways, hands down the best APS-C ever if they had used the Sony sensor. I really don't see a single thing they gained by not using the SOny sensor other than a somewhat crippled implementation of their new dual pixel video AF.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor.



Wrong. One of the reasons I'll be getting this camera is the dual pixel video AF.


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 5, 2014)

zlatko said:


> And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:



Which makes me wonder: where does one still find flickering lighting?
If I'd intentionally tried to buy something with an conventional ballast I'd have real trouble finding one. And venues that haven't updated their lights? About just as rare, as it's a quite expensive idea not to do so.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 5, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> IS IT THE SAME AS THE 70D SENSOR? Probably not actually!



At the end of the day, only nerds (*not* pointing at you here) care about what _ sensor_ it is because the whole image processing chain is what counts: photon -> converted raw file. And as Canon has a lot of components to tune in between these two points, it is reasonable that they put more work in their premium crop camera for the next 3-4 years.


----------



## lo lite (Nov 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> geonix said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I would be glad about a camera that high ISO performance is good, but I still always try to photograph at the lowest ISO level *possible*. So if low ISO is below avarage I would consider that the first real flaw of this camera that would bother me.
> ...



Not if you machine gun it first …


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> And venues that haven't updated their lights? About just as rare, as it's a quite expensive idea not to do so.



Too bad, I was hoping to see some examples of the anti-flicker feature in use, but I guess if venues with flickering lights are as rare as you suggest, I probably won't find any...especially so soon after the launch of the camera. I mean, it's not like there are already nice examples posted by two different CR members on the 'first impressions' thread. Oh, wait...there are. :


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, wait...there are. :



Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, wait...there are. :
> ...



It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....

BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Electronic ballasts flicker at 120Hz too. Not as much, and not with the big color shift, but they do flicker (in power supplied, this is called "audio susceptibility" for historical reasons). I have an optical tachometer for my model airplanes. If you point it at a bulb driven by an electronic ballast, it still says 3600RPM, same as with a bulb driven by a magnetic ballast.


----------



## rs (Nov 5, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, wait...there are. :
> ...


The harsh reality is most photographers tend to turn up at a venue to shoot without taking the time to modernise the entire lighting system first. I've been guilty of that myself, and have been forced to choose between using shutter speeds too slow to freeze action, or be left with a whole load of editing on most of the shots, sometimes even going as far as using a graduated WB/exposure in PP for the shots that are really worth keeping. What a waste of time this 7D II is. Next time I'll just do things properly and spend days modernising each venue before I shoot. ???


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lawliet said:
> ...



Quite true.... they use a fairly crappy linear power supply so the power output does fluctuate with the line voltage...

And incandescent bulbs also have a small amount of flicker at 120hz...


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, wait...there are. :
> ...



I'm having a hard time finding 1000W, 1500W or 2000W 277V electronic ballasts for metal halide bulbs. I have no trouble finding magnetic versions. Maybe you could point me to some?

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/70863/PLUSRITE-7274.html
http://www.venturelighting.com/vlps/Opti-Wave1000W.html


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....


Sure, but the last time I've seen flickering discharge lamps in a high school gym was about a decade ago, and the serious venues where faster to adapt.


> BTW, the electronic ballasts are generally about 20 to 30 percent more efficient and usually run at 20 KHz... there is still flicker, but you would need a shutter speed of 1/50000 to catch it... something that the 7D2 "just ain't a gonna do"


Even at 1/50k you wouldn't see much, during that time frame you retain enough residual emission to cover the gap. The DSCs couldn't see it, but the high speed video cams would. 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Not a very scientific test... but here goes.

Camera set to manual, 1/400 second, ISO3200 and shooting a burst of about 20 shots.

Old style ballasted fluorescent - about 3 stops of variation....
electronic ballasted fluorescent - about 1/2 stop of variation.
Compact fluorescent - about 1/3 stops of variation.
500Watt tungsten studio light - 0 stops variation


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I did, I still think there's a chink in your understanding.. it's pre-digits "processing" that's the problem.. we just can't identify where the problem is.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 5, 2014)

rs said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes, same problem here. When I photographed my son playing basketball at the local recreation center built in 2006, I failed to modernize the lighting over the basketball courts. As a result, I got flicker-lighting effects in a lot of my photos. A decent photographer would have gone in there and modernized the lighting system ... no big deal, right?


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....
> ...



The last time I saw some was yesterday.

The ballasts where I work were installed in 1978.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 5, 2014)

Well, I rarely use anything lower than ISO 400 when shooting birds or other wildlife and I definitely crank my ISO when shooting indoors. 

So if the 7Dii's ISO capabilities between 400 and 1600 (3200 at a push) are better than any other Canon APS-C body, it's a homerun in my opinion.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 5, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor. It would've been all ways, hands down the best APS-C ever if they had used the Sony sensor. I really don't see a single thing they gained by not using the SOny sensor other than a somewhat crippled implementation of their new dual pixel video AF.



On the Canon Rumors forum, Canon sensors get bashed as crippled and crappy. But in the real world, Canon sensors are the first choice of a lot of working videographers. Of the dozens of videographers I've seen at weddings and events in the past 5 years, virtually all have shot Canon. None have shot Sony or Nikon. One shot Panasonic. That's dozens of videographers who pour their hard-earned money into Canon gear, live on the product of Canon sensors and depend on them with paying clients.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 5, 2014)

I did forget to mention banding though in my earlier post!

The 7D2, at least on the pre-production models, appeared to have 100% solved banding of all types.

The 7D suffered from both offset low ISO banding and overall gain banding (which, unique to the 7D, could sometimes make even bright tones appear banded, this aspect varied from copy to copy, another weird feature of the 7D- it's sensors were about the only ones in the world of DSLRs that really did vary enough copy to copy to where it could make a true visual difference).

This makes it effectively better for low ISO DR than the 7D too, not just at high ISO. You are still limited to the same general high amount of noise down there, but at least you can fully make use of every last bit that it does give, while with the 7D the banding might not let you make nice use of all it measures to have.

The D7100 is not one I've personally ever used or looked into, but apparently that was the one that also suffers from some bad banding and maybe was not the one to point to when talking about the most superb low ISO DR. Apparently that is the one random read noise at low ISO king that is troubled by banding issues which don't allow to make nice use of the full measured DR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor.
> ...



OK.

but do keep in mind that they removed touch control so you have to shake the camera using the joystick to change the DPAF focusing area so the 70D makes it a bit more usable I'd think if DPAF is a key feature for you


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 5, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > And there only 2 ways for a "decent photog" to counter flickering lighting:
> ...



A lot of gyms still have them.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I'll be putting a viewfinder magnifier (Hoodman, probably) over the LCD anyway (so I can use it as an eye-level viewfinder), so a touch screen would be useless, maybe ever harmful. And it'll all be handheld of fast-moving subjects.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 5, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Bad sensor IQ is a bit tougher too get around.



Some people who've labored with Canon's "bad sensor IQ" from time to time: Sam Abell, David Burnett, Patrick Demarchelier, Greg Gorman, Lauren Greenfield, Gregory Heisler, David Hume Kennerly, Douglas Kirkland, Antonin Kratochvil, Vincent Laforet, Annie Liebovitz, Don McCullin, Eric Meola, Peter Read Miller, James Nachtwey, Martin Parr, Paolo Pellegrin, Denis Reggie, Sebastiao Salgado, Mario Sorrenti, Pete Souza, Joyce Tenneson, Damon Winter ... and a few others.

Maybe they just have low standards, or maybe they just shoot easy stuff without much dynamic range? :-\


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 5, 2014)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ONce again though, since they did not give it video quality to the tops, not even make the best use of the new video AF, as far as I can tell, there was absolutely zero they gained by sticking to a Canon sensor in it and not using the Sony sensor. It would've been all ways, hands down the best APS-C ever if they had used the Sony sensor. I really don't see a single thing they gained by not using the SOny sensor other than a somewhat crippled implementation of their new dual pixel video AF.
> ...



Not really anymore. Go look at all the video forums and listen to the talk. The posts in those places are far more negative than even mine about the video.

Sure not evenone has switched yet, but for new buys most are looking to other brands for video now unless they need to be tied into the canon stills system as well (and many wedding people do use the canon stills system).

But hey if you want to constantly defend Canon crippling video quality and usability features and have us stuck with this forever, go ahead man. I don't see how that does any Canon user a any good though.


----------



## MTCWBY (Nov 5, 2014)

I sometimes wonder if DXOMark in it's test methodology ever actually takes pictures of anything spontaneously. I understand that they're trying to quantify with their testing but I can't imagine making a camera decision just based on that. The Sony has great specs but their lens stable is mediocre at this point and the EVF is painful for shooting sports compared to an optical viewfinder. You can have a great sensor but if you shoot through a mediocre lens and miss the shot it doesn't really matter does it.

A friend let me shoot his Sony during a football practice where the light was mediocre. Between the grainy viewfinder with the light and the very noticeable long blanking after shots I wonder how anyone shoots football well with one. I politely handed it back with praise on the shutter speed but wrote off ever using one at that instant. I have a 7D Mark II coming as a rental for this weekend and will compare it to what I'm used to for shooting football (5dMkIII).


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...


Just cooked my supper in a kitchen that still has them... as does the building where I work, and the gymnasium in the local community center. Yes, they are going away, but by no means are they gone yet...... and there is still flicker (just not as much) with electronic ballasts so the problem is not going to go away.


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Nov 5, 2014)

Dear friends,
after spending some time reading all that kind of "scientific BS" DXOMark had to tell us before giving a generous "70" to 7D Mk2, getting prepared to award with at least "99, best-in-entire-universe-and-somewhere-further" score whatever sensor SON(Y)KON throws on the table next, i feel obliged to say that the moment for FAKECHUCKWESTFALL to return to the web is finally here! I really miss his explosive, one of a kind, disgusting verbal puking, each time a "real-unbiased-scientific" DXOMark sensor review tried to enlighten us members of the photography community!
To be honest, i feel disgusted with DXOMark guys myself. Last week i saw them awarding G7X with a "71-excellent sensor" score, just because (as it's obvious to me) SON(Y)KON pays their salaries! Tonight, after being struck with this "70" for the 7D2, i opened up a full screen DPReview "test scene" and put side-by-side 7D2, 7D, D7100 and SONY SLT-A77 II. After taking me more than an hour on my precisely calibrated EIZO ColorEdge CX270 professional 27" monitor, using the provided loupe, to examine thoroughly the entire scene, going from ISO 100 to ISO 51200 for 7D2 (12800 for 7D, 25600 for the other two), i came to the conclusion that even at ISO 100 7D2 is slightly better than D7100 and blows A77 II right out of the water by 1+ stops! After ISO 400 the 7D2, just blows the crap out of Nikon and SONY followed quite closely by...7D (it was hard for me to believe too) untill ISO 6400!!! After this point and up to 51200, all the other just fall apart. Where the differences were most obvious is, the round umbrella like disk (don't know how it's called), that partly covers the playing cards on the lower leftish side of the scene and on the dark grey-to-black area just left of the bottles. Where in the world did the guys,up there at DXOMark "labs", saw that low ISO disadvantage of the Canon sensor? The noise of the camera is so low and the pattern so fine and close to FF one, that even Nikon's noise pattern seems as sugar crystals on my screen!
OK, DXO fellas, if you want me to believe that sun is blue cause you have to to earn your money, that's fine, but you chose the wrong guy!

Thanks for the space you provide me dear sirs of canonrumors and for the patience that all ladies and gentlemen in this forum showed, for spending time to read my two cents.

All the best for you and your beloved, be lucky, be strong, do well. Greetings from Athens, Greece,
Yiannis


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2014)

MTCWBY said:


> I sometimes wonder if DXOMark in it's test methodology ever actually takes pictures of anything spontaneously. I understand that they're trying to quantify with their testing but I can't imagine making a camera decision just based on that. The Sony has great specs but their lens stable is mediocre at this point and the EVF is painful for shooting sports compared to an optical viewfinder. You can have a great sensor but if you shoot through a mediocre lens and miss the shot it doesn't really matter does it.



They never claim to be testing anything more than a sensor. WHy do you expect fps and AF and usability and viewfinders to be tallied into sensor scores??

Would you suggest the 7D2 AF score be lowered because the sensor is a bit behind on low ISO DR? That wouldn't make any sense either.

DxO does not do camera reviews, they do sensor reviews.



> A friend let me shoot his Sony during a football practice where the light was mediocre. Between the grainy viewfinder with the light and the very noticeable long blanking after shots I wonder how anyone shoots football well with one. I politely handed it back with praise on the shutter speed but wrote off ever using one at that instant. I have a 7D Mark II coming as a rental for this weekend and will compare it to what I'm used to for shooting football (5dMkIII).



I'm sure that is true, but what does it have to do with examining the sensor?


----------



## AndreSilva (Nov 6, 2014)

Guys, take a look at this post:

http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=249565&p=2354307#p2354307

look for reply from *rnclark* and take a look at his website (link at the end of his post). He seems to know a lot about sensor and he describes his methods


----------



## Andrewccm (Nov 6, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



A lot of gyms? Heck nearly ALL sports venues still have them. I shoot at AT&T Stadium, Globe Life Park American Airlines Center, among many others here in Texas and ALL of them suffer color cycling and flicker. First day I shot an NHL a game with the 7D2 and the next day at an MLS game the camera showed flicker warning and you can see it... Perhaps North Texas venues are just outdated. :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I did forget to mention banding though in my earlier post!
> 
> The 7D2, at least on the pre-production models, appeared to have 100% solved banding of all types.
> 
> ...



The D7100 isn't actually Sony Exmor. It is Toshiba. They do even better than most exmor at high ISO and the same for raw measured at low ISO but they sadly suffer from lots of banding at lower ISOs.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 6, 2014)

Yiannis A - Greece said:


> To be honest, i feel disgusted with DXOMark guys myself. Last week i saw them awarding G7X with a "71-excellent sensor" score, just because (as it's obvious to me) SON(Y)KON pays their salaries! Tonight, after being struck with this "70" for the 7D2, i opened up a full screen DPReview "test scene" and put side-by-side 7D2, 7D, D7100 and SONY SLT-A77 II. After taking me more than an hour on my precisely calibrated EIZO ColorEdge CX270 professional 27" monitor, using the provided loupe, to examine thoroughly the entire scene, going from ISO 100 to ISO 51200 for 7D2 (12800 for 7D, 25600 for the other two), i came to the conclusion that even at ISO 100 7D2 is slightly better than D7100 and blows A77 II right out of the water by 1+ stops! After ISO 400 the 7D2, just blows the crap out of Nikon and SONY followed quite closely by...7D (it was hard for me to believe too) untill ISO 6400!!! After this point and up to 51200, all the other just fall apart.


Welcome to canonrumors.  
It is simply a matter of how "I need to" make photographs. 

I do not really even use ISO100. 
I do not do dark photos to lift the shadows in post production. 
I do not like the default settings Nikon (hate the skin tones from Sony). 
I did not photograph 36 megapixel, and then downconvert to 8 megapixel. 

If someone asks me advice on these cameras for situations that I do not need, I will gladly recommend Nikon.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 6, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Sure, go look at video forums and listen to the talk. You keep on reading that talk. That's just like reading this forum. There's lots of talk by people who like to talk — a massive distortion field. But then go look at people actually working and creating video. Time after time, I see them using Canon gear, often *new* Canon gear. They come to weddings and events with more Canon gear than I do. I've yet to see one using a Sony, at least not since the 5D2 came out. Sure not everyone has switched yet. In my world, no one has switched. Actually, they are praising Canon features and video quality and lenses, etc. They keep pouring their money into the 70D, 5D3, etc. While you're bashing Canon online for "crippling" video quality, they're relying on Canon's video quality every week for the work they live on and choosing Canon over competitors.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 6, 2014)

Andrewccm said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lawliet said:
> ...



According to forum experts, these venues are so rare as not to be a problem. And besides, any decent photographer can just deal with this with a Sony camera with all of that extra dynamic range at ISO 100.  ;D


----------



## benperrin (Nov 6, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Sure, go look at video forums and listen to the talk. You keep on reading that talk. That's just like reading this forum. There's lots of talk by people who like to talk — a massive distortion field. But then go look at people actually working and creating video. Time after time, I see them using Canon gear, often *new* Canon gear. They come to weddings and events with more Canon gear than I do. I've yet to see one using a Sony, at least not since the 5D2 came out. Sure not everyone has switched yet. In my world, no one has switched. Actually, they are praising Canon features and video quality and lenses, etc. They keep pouring their money into the 70D, 5D3, etc. While you're bashing Canon online for "crippling" video quality, they're relying on Canon's video quality every week for the work they live on and choosing Canon over competitors.



That's the problem right there. The people who complain the most aren't (usually) the ones out in the field producing excellent content. People like yourself who are producing great content seem to be content. So many of these so called experts seem to take the worst photos.


----------



## ariliquin (Nov 6, 2014)

It is very telling that the most common response to Canon's lagging sensor technology is that Canon is still viable due to pre-existing investments in lenses and the excellent available range of lenses. The longer Canon lags in sensor design improvements the less compelling the retention logic is. 

As for new camera users, no longer is Canon seen as the defacto king of Camera design. What will Canon do to reclaim ascendancy, that's the questions. At least I hope this situation drives innovation in camera systems, which will be good for everyone. Sony sensors saved Nikon from oblivion, at least for now. Who knows what will happen tomorrow.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 6, 2014)

ariliquin said:


> It is very telling that the most common response to Canon's lagging sensor technology is that Canon is still viable due to pre-existing investments in lenses and the excellent available range of lenses. The longer Canon lags in sensor design improvements the less compelling the retention logic is.
> 
> As for new camera users, no longer is Canon seen as the defacto king of Camera design. What will Canon do to reclaim ascendancy, that's the questions. At least I hope this situation drives innovation in camera systems, which will be good for everyone. Sony sensors saved Nikon from oblivion, at least for now. Who knows what will happen tomorrow.



Er no, not unless you no longer need a lens Canon makes that nobody else does.

Sensor output has a certain maturity, the differences in sensor output, whilst real, might not make that much difference to most people most of the time, hence lens selection is ever more important.


----------



## MTCWBY (Nov 6, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> MTCWBY said:
> 
> 
> > I sometimes wonder if DXOMark in it's test methodology ever actually takes pictures of anything spontaneously. I understand that they're trying to quantify with their testing but I can't imagine making a camera decision just based on that. The Sony has great specs but their lens stable is mediocre at this point and the EVF is painful for shooting sports compared to an optical viewfinder. You can have a great sensor but if you shoot through a mediocre lens and miss the shot it doesn't really matter does it.
> ...



Yea which is sort of useless since a camera is a system that's only as good as the sum of it's parts. Sort of like putting a $20 filter on a $2K lens. I know there are folks that obsess with tech and pixels but that doesn't create a good picture.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

ariliquin said:


> It is very telling that the most common response to Canon's lagging sensor technology is that Canon is still viable due to pre-existing investments in lenses and the excellent available range of lenses.



That's not why. They just make better cameras, better lenses, and better overall systems, and their sensors are competitive or superior where it counts, and super in focusing during video (dual pixel).


----------



## Woody (Nov 6, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The D7100 isn't actually Sony Exmor. It is Toshiba. They do even better than most exmor at high ISO and the same for raw measured at low ISO but they sadly suffer from lots of banding at lower ISOs.



That is interesting.

According to DXOMark, the D3300, D5300 and D7100 sensors all have similar performances.

Does this mean that even though the D7100 has 13.7 eV of base ISO dynamic range, banding precludes heavy shadow lifting in D7100?


----------



## jrista (Nov 6, 2014)

Woody said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The D7100 isn't actually Sony Exmor. It is Toshiba. They do even better than most exmor at high ISO and the same for raw measured at low ISO but they sadly suffer from lots of banding at lower ISOs.
> ...




The banding on those sensors is buried pretty deep, for the most part. I think the D7100 was the exception (it seems to have fairly bad banding that is relatively shallow, although maybe not as shallow as Canon sensors). You can eventually reveal it on say D5000 series models, but it presents at least a stop or two later than banding (or severe color noise and blotchiness, which is just as bad) presents on any Canon sensor. With Canon, you can lift two stops, maybe a little more, before that banding/color noise starts to become a problem. On cameras with the Toshiba sensor, I've seen people lift at least four, nearly five stops before the banding starts to show up...and the color noise is still pretty low.


I think Toshiba, or maybe Nikon, dealt with the banding in newer cameras that use that sensor. From what I understand, the D5300 doesn't have banding at all, or if it does, you REALLY have to push the shadows for it to show up (and then, color noise, from what I've seen, becomes a problem sooner than banding does.)


----------



## Txema (Nov 6, 2014)

I've always shot with canon, I love my lenses (specially my t-s 24) and my 5D mIII, but I sincerely hope they put a sony sensor on their 5D IV, since it will be a killer combo for travel photography. 
After waiting for so long, I've given up on the idea they will catch up on sensor technology.
Is there anything wrong on wanting to have the best camera system (for my needs) and the best sensors (for my needs)?
I't seems that whenever someone mentions the sony sensors is, at best, heavily criticized.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, wait...there are. :
> ...



Yeah, so am I. Alas, the real world isn't always rational. Empirical trumps rational in the real world, maybe you live somewhere else, must be nice for you.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

I'm looking at DPReview's raw files - 7D, D7100, 7D2, A77II.

The 7D2 and D7100 are tied for first, but for different reasons. The 7D2 shots are smoother, and more natural with a bit more low-contrast detail, the D7100 shots are slightly less noisy and slightly sharper. It's very close.

The A77II and 7D are tied for last, again, for different reasons. The A77II shots have lousy color and lots of artifacts. The 7D shots are soft and noisy.

I'm looking at ISO 200 and ISO 6400 shots, with shadows pushed quite a bit. I'm looking at noise, color, detail, and artifacts.

The 7D2 JPEGs are substantially better than the rest. The D7100 is second, the 7D is a distant third, there are no JPEGs from the A77II.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


and for empirical evidence from my kitchen....

First strip is with anti-flicker on.... I took ten shots and they were all the same.

Second strip is with anti-flicker off... I took ten shots and they were all over the place

all shots manual and same iso, aperture, and shutter speed... no processing other than to shrink the size down.

So for me, flickering lights are a problem that hits close to home  and I don't have to look very far to find them.


----------



## benperrin (Nov 6, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> and for empirical evidence from my kitchen....
> 
> First strip is with anti-flicker on.... I took ten shots and they were all the same.
> 
> ...



Looks like the tech really works well. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Aglet (Nov 6, 2014)

seems the 7d2 may still have some ugly noise structure, if not the heavy banding of its predecessor, based on some of the shots in the review here and elsewhere.

www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/7DII-ISO-800-6400.jpg

but that kind of noise is still workable

Not at all surprised that dxo-measured DR has barely improved at base and low iso. 
However, the AF system, weather-sealing and speed still appeal to me, so I'll be getting one.
I missed the performance aspect of my old 7d, even if I despised the stripey low ISO performance. The 7d2 gives me a bunch of useful upgrades, misses a few it should have had, and the sensor is... possible Canon's best crop sensor yet, if not nearly as good as the competitors.'

All that will, to me, provide a body that is "good enough" for some of the long lens wildlife type shots I'll use it for or some fast paced action shooting. if I didn't still have a decent stock of Canon EF/s glass I would not bother with it. 
If I find it still underwhelms, out it goes, and the rest of the $L lenses with it. This thing will be my make-or-break decision on maintaining higher end Canon crop gear. I can see MFT bodies coming up another notch or 2 in the next 2 years, possibly enough to challenge even sports-shooting DSLRs for capability as they're already close to par for IQ.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


 
My house still has the old ballast lights in the kitchen. It was built in 1998, and the electronic ones were still uncommon. I've changed to electronic ballasts everywhere else, but replacing those lights in the kitchen is a big job because they have molding that must be pulled down to get them out. They just keep going strong too.

Its probably a good thing, because LEDs are now taking over. I've replaced all my conventional CFL bulbs with LED bulbs over the last 8 months, and really like the color of the light as well as the apparent brightness.

I noticed a big display of LED shop lights at Home Depot today. A single 4 ft tube that looks like a fluorescent fixture, but costs $50. 

I expect to see prices continue to plummet, so when time comes to replace those tubes, it will be LED's.

For now, I use high CRI Fluorescents with electronic ballasts for lighting in my studio, LED's would be nice, but the ones I've tried don't yet put out enough light to illuminate a large area.


----------



## garyknrd (Nov 6, 2014)

Aglet said:


> seems the 7d2 may still have some ugly noise structure, if not the heavy banding of its predecessor, based on some of the shots in the review here and elsewhere.
> 
> www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/7DII-ISO-800-6400.jpg
> 
> ...



Spot on. I will not give up my two Canon lenses for anything.. I am really spoiled. Until, I think the mirror less is at a point where I will be happy shooting with them.
Will wait until the next high end Oly comes out, and wait for the results of the new Oly 300/4 lens. 

I'll shoot both for a few years then decide. No big hurry. Really looking forward to it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The last time I saw some was yesterday.
> 
> The ballasts where I work were installed in 1978.



Considering the savings in operational costs thats throwing money out of the window for no good reason. From a business perspective that in itself raises red flags.


----------



## Diko (Nov 6, 2014)

> I’m not sure I agree with them as far as the Sony A77 II being a more compelling option, especially when you consider lenses and other accessories



Well, actually they are evaluating the camera and not the complete set, you know! ;-)
This last sentence was really not very in favour of Canon.


----------



## sanj (Nov 6, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > AndreSilva said:
> ...



How differently you and I see wildlife photography! I would not consider low ISO dynamic range important and would not choose 6D over 7D for most brand of wildlife. The wildlife that I shoot is very active requiring high ISO and excellent focus to get the shot.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 6, 2014)

so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.

:

time canon buys sony sensors for it´s DSLR´s.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 6, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.
> 
> :
> 
> time canon buys sony sensors for it´s DSLR´s.


Wrong conclusion!
Time for DxO to think about their scores. But they won't.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 6, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.
> ...



looking at my A6000 output at low iso i can clearly see that the A77 MK2 has the better sensor compared to the 7D MK2.

the A77 MK2 and the A6000 both share the same sensor.. only that the A6000 has on sensor PD.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 6, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...


No doubt on this where you are comparing APS-C sensors from Canon and Sony. 
But APS-C against 1" sensors? :


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 6, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> so the G7X is one point better in DXO score.
> 
> :
> 
> time canon buys sony sensors for it´s DSLR´s.



Shame on you for thinking that the DxO formula has any relevance... Remember according to dX0 the D4 is a piece of crap camera and you are better off D600 or D610

So if you are looking for a top of a line Nikon, would you rather have a D4, D4s, D3x or D600.

DxO says the D600 is Superior. 'Nuff said


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 6, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



when you keep in mind that color and DR are not as easy recognized as details and image sharpness it´s possible that a 1" sensor has an overall better score.

you will immediately see when an image is unsharp or lacks details .. but color and DR problems are not that visible in every shoot.

so while a G7X image may looks worse it may has better DR and colors.
and that influences the overall score.


----------



## MacPaul (Nov 6, 2014)

When do people finally discard this scientific crap called DXO as what it is? Complete BS, nothing else! They even contradict themselves sometimes, regarding the relation between NR and DR e.g., or DPR, that rely on DXO findings on one hand, on the other hand they find out that the 5D Mk. III has better DR than the competition.
Make your own comparison and you will be able to look through the DXO BS!


----------



## Woody (Nov 6, 2014)

From Roger, the respected sensor reviewer of Clarkvision:

"A note on DXO numbers. It appears that DXO is not correcting Nikons truncating of the raw data, which artificially improves dynamic range by about a stop. Also Nikon filters the raw data, improving noise and dynamic range further. I believe, based on some experiments, that if the canon data were treated similarly, it would result it numbers at least as good.

Previous to the 7D2 and 6D, pattern noise was a real limitation in Canon cameras (the 1D4 and 1DX are also pretty good, but not a good as the 7D2 and 6D). That pattern noise produced poor shadow areas compared to what could be extracted from Nikon sensors, especially at some ISOs (like 200 and 400 on many canon cameras). But Nikon's raw files look "wormy" in the shadow areas from the in camera filtering of the raw data. The Canon 7D2 raw data looks much more random, as it should be." - 
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=249565&start=112


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*

Not meaning to pick on you, but you've said a few things I wanted to reply to 



MichaelHodges said:


> > They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For many of us wildlife shooters, AF is extremely important. I appreciate your chosen subjects tend to be larger (mammals or large birds), so it's probably less important to you - but to generalise from that to say sensor performance (at low ISO) is all that matters in comparisons is extraordinarily blinkered.



MichaelHodges said:


> What about the shots where a grizzly bear is backlit at low ISO's? Or a soaring golden eagle?
> 
> Low ISO dynamic range is extremely useful for wildlife
> 
> Also, excusing away technological improvements based on usage guesstimates is really an argument against improvement in general.



Those are valid cases, but hardly representative. I try to avoid backlit situations - all equipment has limitations, and I'm well aware that this would challenge my sensor. But I find backlit/silhouetted wildlife shots mostly less aesthetically pleasing anyway. A personal view, but these are all personal views. As for a bird against the sky, so long as the sky is blue I don't find any problem. On a white sky, it's rarely worth shooting anyway - except for records. I'm not sure marginal/unusual cases are the way to decide whether a camera is good or not.



MichaelHodges said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,
> ...



Actually you can get around any limitation - as I say above, it might involve not shooting in certain conditions, but we all do that. And since when was Canon sensor IQ (even at low ISO) *bad*? It's not as good as some of the competition. Not as good does not mean bad.



Txema said:


> I've always shot with canon, I love my lenses (specially my t-s 24) and my 5D mIII, but I sincerely hope they put a sony sensor on their 5D IV, since it will be a killer combo for travel photography.
> After waiting for so long, I've given up on the idea they will catch up on sensor technology.
> Is there anything wrong on wanting to have the best camera system (for my needs) and the best sensors (for my needs)?
> I't seems that whenever someone mentions the sony sensors is, at best, heavily criticized.



You think that's what's happening on these forums? I try to remain neutral, but it seems mostly that the pro-Sony/anti-Canon/low ISO DR fanatics (call them what you will) are the ones who say their personal needs are all that counts - this camera is bad because it doesn't have the best low ISO DR, AF isn't important etc. And then anyone who says 'actually I'm content with what I've got, or interested by what has just been released' is a fanboy, or hates innovation or whatever. Everyone has different needs. Incidentally, is a crop sensor camera the best choice for travel anyway? I don't know what you're shooting, but I imagine landscapes/architecture is part of it - so you'd maybe want the widest FOV possible, and AF/fps isn't so important, so why choose the 7D2 at all?


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 6, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> so while a G7X image may looks worse it may has better DR and colors.
> and that influences the overall score.


Yeah, Jon! DxO rules and everything they do is as true as the holy bible. :
I think this was discussed too many times before and with no good end to DxO, so I'm out. 
Have fun. 8)


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 6, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > so while a G7X image may looks worse it may has better DR and colors.
> ...



well yes to no good end on a forum populated by canon fanboys.. that´s for sure. 

if DXO would praise canon sensors it WOULD be the holy bible for most fanboys here.... im pretty sure about that. :


----------



## Coldhands (Nov 6, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...



The a77 mk2 has a translucent mirror that reduces the amount of light reaching the sensor, while the A6000 does not. This makes your inference invalid.


----------



## Jon_D (Nov 6, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



or maybe you did not get what i was saying? :

EVEN with the transclucent mirror the A77 II is better than the 7D MK2.
as we can clearly see from the DXO scores.


----------



## garyknrd (Nov 6, 2014)

Woody said:


> From Roger, the respected sensor reviewer of Clarkvision:
> 
> "A note on DXO numbers. It appears that DXO is not correcting Nikons truncating of the raw data, which artificially improves dynamic range by about a stop. Also Nikon filters the raw data, improving noise and dynamic range further. I believe, based on some experiments, that if the canon data were treated similarly, it would result it numbers at least as good.
> 
> ...



I just read that also. I am waiting for the final paper from him. Looks pretty promising.


----------



## Coldhands (Nov 6, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...



See bolded text in your post above. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but you are using your personal observations from the A6000 to extrapolate that the A77 mk2 will provide a better sensor output than the 7D mk2, _based on the assertion that the they use the same sensor_. However, that fact that the SLT mirror reduces the light reaching the sensor makes this key logical step null.

I am not making any reference to DxO results, simply pointing out a logical shortcoming.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> if DXO would praise canon sensors it WOULD be the holy bible for most fanboys here.... im pretty sure about that. :



Well, I'm absolutely certain you're a troll. :


----------



## Txema (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



scyrene said:


> Not meaning to pick on you, but you've said a few things I wanted to reply to
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I use a 5D mark III and I think that, overall, the new high megapixel Sony sensors. I shoot landscapes/architecture/portraiture/food/street photography/food...
You are proving my point. I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.


----------



## Faaier (Nov 6, 2014)

I prefer having a focused picture with some noise, than a fantastically clean, noiseless picture of an out of focus blur. Pretty sure that most 7D markii people didn't purchase it for low noise... 

Oh... my comment counts for high and low ISO. ;D

Overpriced? It is new on the market and hey, everybody has had more then 5 years to put money aside... 

DXO? Too bad for the 7DII I'd say , but luckily for Canon (and for me) a camera is more than a sensor and a lens. (still wondering why my user manual has 550 pages... ) 
Is it correct? Probably it is, but they should be much more carefull in their comments. Their test might be a objective measurement, but any statement that camera XYZ is better than camera ABC is based on sensor output only... They should show pictures of the sensors instead of showing the entire camera.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



Txema said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Txema said:
> ...



Which point am I proving? That it's down to personal needs? I hope so. That's been my point all along. If you meant "whenever someone mentions the sony sensors is, at best, heavily criticized" then I'd disagree. I don't criticise your take on this camera at all, just your take on the state of the debate on these forums. Fair comment?


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



Txema said:


> I use a 5D mark III and I think that, overall, the new high megapixel Sony sensors. I shoot landscapes/architecture/portraiture/food/street photography/food...
> You are proving my point. I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.



PS for those uses I'd look very favourably on the Sony bodies too. AF speed is much less important and there's plenty of standard lenses. But the 7D2 is not aimed at that - it's a sport/wildlife specialist camera, as far as I can tell.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



Txema said:


> I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.



Your needs should be all that counts for your photography. But frequently on these forums, people seem to believe that Canon has a responsibility to meet their specific personal needs, and go on to claim that Canon is '*******' if their personal needs aren't met (presumably because they assume their personal needs represent those of the majority). Those who disagree, or point out Canon's many benefits and innovations (lenses, top AF, DPAF, anti-flicker, etc.) are accused of being fanboys trying to stifle innovation (innovation being narrowly defined by those people specifically as improved low ISO DR).


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



neuroanatomist said:


> Txema said:
> 
> 
> > I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.
> ...



At the risk of being accused of being one of your acolytes (to put it mildly), you've put it more eloquently than I did


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The last time I saw some was yesterday.
> ...



The cost to replace them, where they are, is about $20,000. They get used about 1,000 hours a year. They consume 3KW at a cost of about 5.5c/KWh. So, they consume about $165 a year in power. Reducing that by 30% would result in a savings of about $49.50 a year for a payback period of 404 years.


----------



## Joe M (Nov 6, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> and for empirical evidence from my kitchen....
> 
> First strip is with anti-flicker on.... I took ten shots and they were all the same.
> 
> ...



Nice to see this new feature in real life action. An amazing result. I'll hand it to Canon...they weren't just blowing smoke on this one. Thanks Don.


----------



## jaayres20 (Nov 6, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > That's exactly what DxO does. They give Canon *zero* credit in the way of points for the amazing anti-flicker feature or for great weather sealing,
> ...



I think you have that a little backwards. I can definitely get around not having a little better DR at ISO 100, but I it is a little tougher for me to make up for less AF points, speed, or accuracy. I also love the color Canon gives me.


----------



## jrista (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



neuroanatomist said:


> Txema said:
> 
> 
> > I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.
> ...




Just to set the record strait, here. _For everyone reading this. (i.e. this is not just a direct reply to Neuro...it's informational...boggles my mind that I have to caveat like this, but hey, this community is just so wonderful about dissenting viewpoints.)_


First, in my case, it's not _just _about low ISO DR. It's about improved *sensor IQ* across the board, increased DR across the board, low and high ISO (because it's already been done.) Increased color fidelity across the board, low and high. Increased resolution. Increased sharpness, yet not at the cost of false detail (which, IMO, is best achieved by pushing sensor resolution to the point where you generally oversample the lens, and are thus legitimately able to drop the AA filter entirely, and simply resport to downsampling to "sharpen.)


But that aside, Neuro's post here conveniently misses the point (that I have tried to make on many occasions) that Canon already excels in every area except sensors (as relative to current, modern technology.) The only area that Canon can realize significant improvements to overall output IQ is their sensor technology. Canon already has excellent, if not superior, AF technology. They are clearly distributing that technology, which premiered with the 1D X, to the rest of their cameras (or at least the rest of their pro-grade cameras, which is, IMO, good enough.) Canon already has superior glass (yes, I really do believe superior in most cases, although there are outliers that fall behind the competition, usually on the shorter end). Canon already has excellent ergonomics (won't say superior...it's a matter of taste/preference here.) 


Canon currently excels in most areas...sensor IQ is the one area they do not excel. They haven't really excelled there for years, even back in the 5D II days, Canon's read noise was already a problem, and they had already reached the general limits of what their sensor technology could do...~11 stops (give or take) DR at best.


Just to put the record strait, for everyone reading Neuro's post, at least in regards to myself. I care about sensor IQ as a whole, not just low ISO, not just high ISO, not just one thing or another. I care about it overall, top to bottom, and I see sensor IQ as the one single area that Canon could, if they would invest the resources, realize very significant gains. (And maybe they have...there are rumors about a radical new layered sensor coming from Canon in 2015... Personally, given how Canon excels in every other area I care about, I truly hope the rumors are true, and that come 2015, Canon trounces the competition with something mindblowing. That's my *hope*. I'm still a skeptic.  )


----------



## Crapking (Nov 6, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > It takes a long time to cycle out all the old units....
> ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



jrista said:


> Just to put the record strait, for everyone reading Neuro's post, at least in regards to myself. I care about sensor IQ as a whole, not just low ISO, not just high ISO, not just one thing or another. I care about it overall, top to bottom, and I see sensor IQ as the one single area that Canon could, if they would invest the resources, realize very significant gains.



Significant gains would be nice, but it's not like they're way behind as many people (including DxO) thinks they are. Read what I wrote above.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23547.msg459899#msg459899


----------



## Crapking (Nov 6, 2014)

The flickering phenomenon is still real / valid for many of us, and I can say that shooting the 7d II with anti-flicker feature has significantly eased my post-processing headaches in this gym; now if ACR would just come out, then the headache of DPP to TIFF to LR would also disappear....


----------



## jrista (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Just to put the record strait, for everyone reading Neuro's post, at least in regards to myself. I care about sensor IQ as a whole, not just low ISO, not just high ISO, not just one thing or another. I care about it overall, top to bottom, and I see sensor IQ as the one single area that Canon could, if they would invest the resources, realize very significant gains.
> ...




I did read what you wrote. I think it's a lot of personal opinion...subjectivity. It wouldn't be any different if I performed the same exercise, or anyone else performed it. We all see what we see, and we don't all see the same things. We all have different computers, different screens, calibrated differently, with different pixel densities, etc. etc. 


There is a need for objective testing. I'm not a fan of DXO. I don't like their largely black box methodology in the way they report. I think their underlying data, however, which can be gleaned from sensorgen.info, is pretty sound (since it contains none of DXO's bias, just their measurements.)


I am very happy that DPR updated their studio sample comparison engine to support visual normalized results as well as full-size results. That allows the best and broadest range of comparisons.


Subjective opinions based on your own visual observations never go down well. I see what I see, and I've proclaimed what I see on these forums...which generally, on my screens calibrated the way they are in the lighting I have, Canon files show up quite blotchy with high color noise, while Exmor (and in most cases Toshiba) sensors have finer grained color noise and are not blotchy as Canon files. Clearly, on your screens the way you have them calibrated, you see something different. We could argue for days about who is right, and in the end, neither of us would be.


Objective measurements are important to having a reasonable basis for comparison. Algorithms can give us comparable results that exclude personally biased observation from the formula. Anyone who has done such objective measurements inevitably comes to the same conclusions: Canon sensors have fallen behind the competition, and are continuing to fall farther behind. It used to just be that at ISO 100, Exmor and Toshiba had about a two stop or greater advantage. Now, with the A7s, that advantage has been extended to the high ISO end (and not just high ISO, but ultra high ISO). Things keep progressing in competitor camps, with significant gains across the board...and, well, marginal progress at best on the Canon front...marginal _at best_.


If Canon could bring some of really modern innovations to bear, including things they have already patented (like power-disconnected reads, which could effectively eliminate dark current noise), I don't think it is unreasonable to think that 15 stops or more of real DR is possible. Canon could not just catch up with the competition, but actually leapfrog them, if they would invest some real resources into not just innovating in the sensor arena, but turning those innovations into actual consumer products.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Txema said:
> ...



We've read your posts long enough to know you're not a one-issue guy, and that you care about many things - for good reason. Your contributions have been overwhelmingly positive, I think.

As for DR etc, I think the proof of the pudding would come with a camera especially aimed at landscapes/studio work, but we'll see. I'm still saving up for whatever comes


----------



## jrista (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



scyrene said:


> We've read your posts long enough to know you're not a one-issue guy, and that you care about many things - for good reason. Your contributions have been overwhelmingly positive, I think.




Well, thanks. 



scyrene said:


> As for DR etc, I think the proof of the pudding would come with a camera especially aimed at landscapes/studio work, but we'll see. I'm still saving up for whatever comes




I hope Canon does something amazing. I want to see photo quality that just blows my mind. I just hope it doesn't cost $8999.  I could buy a LOT of astrophotography gear, even rather expensive CCD cameras and a bunch of really high quality filters, for that much money.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 6, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



jrista said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > We've read your posts long enough to know you're not a one-issue guy, and that you care about many things - for good reason. Your contributions have been overwhelmingly positive, I think.
> ...



I'm sure they'll set the price where they know it'll make them most money. They haven't stayed profitable this long without knowing how to do that - but personally I'd like everything to cost 1/10th what it does now


----------



## AndreSilva (Nov 6, 2014)

There is some interesting analysis here, about the score and comments DxO mark gave to the 7d2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw


----------



## lo lite (Nov 28, 2014)

Woody said:


> From Roger, the respected sensor reviewer of Clarkvision:
> 
> "A note on DXO numbers. It appears that DXO is not correcting Nikons truncating of the raw data, which artificially improves dynamic range by about a stop. Also Nikon filters the raw data, improving noise and dynamic range further. I believe, based on some experiments, that if the canon data were treated similarly, it would result it numbers at least as good.
> 
> ...



True words. I remember having heard it somewhere that Nikon's RAW isn't actually RAW but somewhat preprocessed. I wonder if their "lead in DR" which is often claimed here, origins from this preprocessing.

And I have another link regarding the 7DII's sensor performance: http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/index.html


----------



## jrista (Nov 28, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > From Roger, the respected sensor reviewer of Clarkvision:
> ...




Hate to say it, but this is simply not true. Clipping to the black point in a Canon file would cut out a lot of data, and DR would not meaningfully improve (it might improve numerically, but there are caveats). Clipping marginally improved DR at best. A group of Nikon hackers actually removed the black point clipping in Exmor cameras a while back. In their testing, the difference in terms of noise with the bias offset restored was minimal...at most, ISO 100 RN was 6e-, and in some models lower than that. That is in comparison to the base RN of around 3e- in Exmor-based cameras at ISO 100. That resulted in less than a stop loss in DR overall, sometimes less than half a stop (depending on the camera). 


That still means that a bias offset restored Exmor camera still has around 13 stops of DR, to a Canon cameras 11 stops. Operating in exactly the same way...with a bias offset rather than black point clipping. Why so little change? Because Canon cameras as much as 25-40 electrons worth of read noise at ISO 100...that is orders of magnitude greater than what Exmor has. You would have to "clip" a very significant amount of the signal in a Canon file...so while DR may improve, instead of discarding ~3e- worth of potentially usable data, you would be throwing away 22-37e- worth of potentially usable data. That's a LOT of data...that's a lot of potentially recoverable shadow data that is now simply GONE. Now...it's barely there to begin with in a Canon camera, because the read noise is so bad. So, maybe it doesn't matter so much that the information is clipped out. 


However, you have to recognize what's actually happening to the signal. Canon's DR numbers may improve...but they are not improving because of a reduction in read noise (which is what happened with Exmor sensors), thereby increasing the amount of recoverable data. They are improving because of a _removal of information_, thereby DECREASING the amount of recoverable data.


----------



## lo lite (Nov 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



jrista, did you actually read what Roger N. Clark is saying in his writings? If not, here are the links again:

http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=249565&start=112

here Clark basically states that _"Nikons truncating of the raw data, which artificially improves dynamic range by about a stop"_ which is basically consistent with what you're stating. But he doesn't stop there, he also states that Nikons RAW is not actually RAW data but has been tinkered with: _"Also Nikon filters the raw data, improving noise and dynamic range further. I believe, based on some experiments, that if the canon data were treated similarly, it would result it numbers at least as good. … But Nikon's raw files look "wormy" in the shadow areas from the in camera filtering of the raw data. The Canon 7D2 raw data looks much more random, as it should be."_ You completely ignored that fact.

You also never commented on http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/index.html

And finally I have an astro image taken with the 7DII for you to show what is possible: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/horsehead.rclark.c11.22.2014.0J6A1680-1750-sugav70.f-bin4x4s.html

Whatever, Roger N. Clark is much more trustworthy to me (since he maintains an independent website with actual measurements taken in a competent way) than somebody, who believes that 21 steps of DR would be possible with an 16 bit digitizer in a public forum. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23877.msg467462#msg467462


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 29, 2014)

lo lite said:


> here Clark basically states that _"Nikons truncating of the raw data, which artificially improves dynamic range by about a stop"_ which is basically consistent with what you're stating. But he doesn't stop there, he also states that Nikons RAW is not actually RAW data but has been tinkered with: _"Also Nikon filters the raw data, improving noise and dynamic range further. I believe, based on some experiments, that if the canon data were treated similarly, it would result it numbers at least as good. … But Nikon's raw files look "wormy" in the shadow areas from the in camera filtering of the raw data. The Canon 7D2 raw data looks much more random, as it should be."_ You completely ignored that fact.



I'd be curious to see an example of this "wormy" look. The D800 shots I've seen blown up look like random noise with a Gaussian distribution, much like my 6D's shots do. The only pics I've seen that look wormy have been low-quality JPEG copies of RAW files, with the usual artifacts around high frequency components.

Now the 5D Mark III... its shadow noise looks wormy, but that's because of banding. 




lo lite said:


> Whatever, Roger N. Clark is much more trustworthy to me (since he maintains an independent website with actual measurements taken in a competent way) than somebody, who believes that 21 steps of DR would be possible with an 16 bit digitizer in a public forum. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23877.msg467462#msg467462



The way I interpreted what he said was that they might do some interesting compression of the image by using a 16-bit converter nonlinearly, which is plausible, though it would be pretty bizarre.


----------



## lo lite (Nov 29, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > here Clark basically states that _"Nikons truncating of the raw data, which artificially improves dynamic range by about a stop"_ which is basically consistent with what you're stating. But he doesn't stop there, he also states that Nikons RAW is not actually RAW data but has been tinkered with: _"Also Nikon filters the raw data, improving noise and dynamic range further. I believe, based on some experiments, that if the canon data were treated similarly, it would result it numbers at least as good. … But Nikon's raw files look "wormy" in the shadow areas from the in camera filtering of the raw data. The Canon 7D2 raw data looks much more random, as it should be."_ You completely ignored that fact.
> ...



The issue is discussed here: https://nikonhacker.com/viewtopic.php?t=85 I wonder that jrista is not aware of that "star eating quality" of the Nikon bodies given that he always claims to be such a great astro-photographer.

You can see the wormy look here (and understand why he called it "wormy"): http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm the site is in french but I assume you know how to use google translate.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 29, 2014)

*Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.*



jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Here's the problem. I went looking through my shots (over a quarter million of them) for high DR environments. It turns out that it's exceptionally rare for me to need more than 9 stops of DR. The thing is, I need those 9 stops regardless of what ISO I'm using. In fact, I often need more DR at ISO 3200 than at ISO 100 because of the harshness of low artificial light.

It gets worse.

When I'm shooting at base ISO it's because shutter speed isn't limiting my shots. In those cases, it's usually no problem to shoot a quick +/-2 or 3 stop bracketed burst and, from those, create an 18 stop HDR. When I'm shooting at high ISO, it's because shutter speed does matter and an HDR is therefore not possible.

Conclusion: Canon's 10-12 stop base ISO DR is plenty for me. What I need more of is high ISO DR and few technologies available now seem to provide that.


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 29, 2014)

lo lite said:


> You can see the wormy look here (and understand why he called it "wormy"): .



Once you understand that it refers to the D3/D300(still analog readout, pre on sensor ADC), it becomes obvious why it doesn't matter.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 29, 2014)

Here's another problem. If you download the sensoegen CSV file and look at it closely, you'll discover than the DxO data isn't consistent with itself. QE can vary greatly with ISO acoording to the data when, in reality, it doesn't vary at all with ISO. It also appears that other data is inconsistent. How can we trust data that can't possibly be correct?


----------



## scyrene (Nov 29, 2014)

lo lite said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...



In fairness (and whatever the rights and wrongs here, I have no idea), I don't think jrista claims to be a great astrophotographer. He posts good astrophotographs and very detailed, considered posts on the topic.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 29, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > You can see the wormy look here (and understand why he called it "wormy"): .
> ...



Pretty much. Also, what I see there looks an awful lot like 5D Mark III banding, not DNR.


----------



## jrista (Nov 29, 2014)

lo lite said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...




I read everything, and I never ignored anything. The simple fact of the matter is, Sony Exmor has far lower REAL read noise at ISO 100 than Canon sensors. Without clipping, it doesn't matter how you slice it...the Exmor is better. That's my point. Some 5.6e- RN Sony vs. 33e- or 38e- RN Canon...that's the difference here. Canon can clip all they want. All they are doing by clipping is discarding potentially useful signal. For the record, THE SAME GOES FOR NIKON!  Why else do you think someone hacked Nikon cameras in order to remove the clipping and restore the bias offset? The difference is, Nikon threw away around 3e- worth of signal, whereas if Canon clipped, they would be throwing away 25e- or more worth of signal. That is a difference of 833% (25/3). That is very NON-trivial.

I am fully aware of what Roger Clark is saying. I am also aware that the improvement in DR comes at the cost of well capacity. You discard 33e- worth of charge, then your FWC drops as well. Lower FWC, then you counteract the gain in DR (not entirely, but you still counteract it). Your not really going to gain anything except a better number in the end...in other words, you wouldn't actually gain as much shadow pushing as an Exmor has...because the clipping is not what gives Exmor it's shadow pushing ability. Sony gained more DR in Exmor because they REDUCED read noise, vs. simply EXCLUDING read noise. One improves the signal, one cuts out signal. They didn't just take a pair of scissors and cut it out...they innovated new technology and actually reduced read noise. Actually, they significantly reduced read noise and dark current both. The dark current in Exmor is so low as to be effectively non-existent. 



lo lite said:


> You also never commented on http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/index.html



Was I supposed to? I've read the page...aside from improvements in banding, I don't believe that article tells us anything that any other review does not. Canon read noise in terms of overall levels, as a limiting factor, is still roughly the same. Not surprising, given that Canon's problem is most likely not their sensors, but their readout and ADC architecture. As I've said on countless occasions...until Canon increases the parallelism of their ADC, shortens the path length from pixel to ADC, and reduces ADC frequency...nothing is going to change on the Canon RN front.



lo lite said:


> And finally I have an astro image taken with the 7DII for you to show what is possible: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/horsehead.rclark.c11.22.2014.0J6A1680-1750-sugav70.f-bin4x4s.html



The astro image...well, it could be significantly better. I am honestly not sure of the quality of the sensor, as the processing is fairly poor (look at the horrible color gradients and transitions around flame...that's beginner work, and I know Roger has been doing AP for a LOT longer than I have...those kinds of mistakes shouldn't be something he's still doing...) Especially if the 7D II has better noise quality than my 5D III, which I've used to create these:














All of these images pushed my 5D III to the limits, with long exposures (particularly the elephant nebula one) at fast apertures...long exposures were necessary to get all the dim detail above the noise floor. Despite that, because of the high Canon noise levels (both the high RN, as well as very high dark current and dark current noise levels), I had to apply some very heavy NR on the Pleiades image...far more NR than I wanted to. In order to combat that, I am currently working on tripling the sub count. With a modded Nikon camera? I would never have had to do that...I've worked Nikon data on several occasions, provided by generous members on the CN forums. The difference in quality is night and day. Noise quality is PHENOMENAL on images from one particular member who uses a D5100...the data is incredibly responsive, like butter. I still have that data, I may be able to do a comparison. 



lo lite said:


> Whatever, Roger N. Clark is much more trustworthy to me (since he maintains an independent website with actual measurements taken in a competent way) than somebody, who believes that 21 steps of DR would be possible with an 16 bit digitizer in a public forum. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23877.msg467462#msg467462



I never said 21 stops of DR is possible with a 16-bit digitizer. I actually stated that it was because of the use of s-log for video that they were able to _take advantage_ of the 21 stops of DR the sensor had to offer, but that in a stills camera they would want a 20-bit ADC (I say 20-bit, because it seems far more likely than a 21-bit ADC, and read noise would have to be LUDICROUSLY low to actually achieve 21 stops IRL.)


----------



## jrista (Nov 29, 2014)

scyrene said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...




It should be noted that all of the Nikon sensors that were tested to have that "wormy" look were Nikon sensors, not Sony sensors. Today, having used astro image data from Nikon cameras with Sony sensors myself, I can attest to the quality. Noise quality and noise levels are an order of magnitude better than Canon quality and noise levels...at least an order of magnitude. I have a post on CN somewhere where I worked on a guys image produced with a Nikon DSLR...I was amazed at how responsive the data was to edits, how little NR the data required, etc. It was truly phenomenal...something I yearn for. 


I probably will not be getting a Nikon for AP...I have higher ambitions than that. (I do not call myself a great astrophotographer, however I do have aspirations to become one. ;P I am also very disappointed in Roger's astrophotography...for a guy who's been at it far longer than I have, he should really have far, far better processing skills... :-\ The harsh color shifts and poor quality gradients in his recent horse head nebula...he should be well beyond that now.) My next camera for AP will very likely be a QSI, either the QSI 683 or 690, with the WSG-8 FW and IGP option, along with some astrodon filters.  Nikon cameras are good, but during the summer, there is no substitute for a thermally regulated CCD. (Plus, QSI puts more effort into ensuring a pure gaussian read noise characteristic than anyone other than FLI.)


----------



## candc (Nov 29, 2014)

[/quote]

The astro image...well, it could be significantly better. I am honestly not sure of the quality of the sensor, as the processing is fairly poor (look at the horrible color gradients and transitions around flame...that's beginner work, and I know Roger has been doing AP for a LOT longer than I have...those kinds of mistakes shouldn't be something he's still doing...) Especially if the 7D II has better noise quality than my 5D III, which I've used to create these:














All of these images pushed my 5D III to the limits, with long exposures (particularly the elephant nebula one) at fast apertures...long exposures were necessary to get all the dim detail above the noise floor. Despite that, because of the high Canon noise levels (both the high RN, as well as very high dark current and dark current noise levels), I had to apply some very heavy NR on the Pleiades image...far more NR than I wanted to. In order to combat that, I am currently working on tripling the sub count. With a modded Nikon camera? I would never have had to do that...I've worked Nikon data on several occasions, provided by generous members on the CN forums. The difference in quality is night and day. Noise quality is PHENOMENAL on images from one particular member who uses a D5100...the data is incredibly responsive, like butter. I still have that data, I may be able to do a comparison. 

[/quote]

all of your images on that site are fantastic. i especially like the "orion and running man nebula"


----------



## jrista (Nov 29, 2014)

candc said:


> all of your images on that site are fantastic. i especially like the "orion and running man nebula"




Thanks.  I see LOTS of problems with all of them myself. Part of that is skill...I haven't been doing this even one full year yet. Part of it is equipment. Canon sensors are NOI-SY!! I say that a lot, and it's not just me being anti-Canon...I experience and deal with Canon's high noise levels constantly. It is rather frustrating. 


For my Pleiades image, I now have 208 subs, or 8h 40m. I am currently working on it again...even THAT much exposure time is not enough. Even after averaging that many subs (which is a 14.4x reduction in noise!), it still has far, far too much:







People seem to think I'm just full of shit now because I want more DR and demand Canon step up their game. Just for the record...I speak from lots of personal experience digging the faintest details possible out of the read noise from image stacks produced from high end CCD cameras, Nikon cameras and Canon cameras. I speak from a lot of experience, it isn't just me being anti-Canon or spouting bullshit. How much this matters ultimately depends on what you do and how you process...but whether it matters to you or not does not change the actual facts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> I speak from lots of personal experience digging the faintest details possible out of the read noise from image stacks produced from high end CCD cameras, Nikon cameras and Canon cameras. I speak from a lot of experience, it isn't just me being anti-Canon or spouting bullshit. How much this matters ultimately depends on what you do and how you process...but whether it matters to you or not does not change the actual facts.



Right, but you don't get to choose the facts that matter to everyone. Notably, the facts about how many dSLR buyers feel the issues which are problematic for you are problems for them. Those are the facts that Canon cares about...and it's that, not any amount of complaining on the Internet, that will effect change at Canon. 

The usual response (not universal, just usual) to the issues of Canon's read noise and/or lower DR at low ISO compared to other manufacturers isn't that those facts aren't correct. It's not 'spouting bullshit', but it's information that's not novel and hasn't been for years, and that's not relevant to a majority of Canon's market.

I understand that for many people, being told things that are critically important to them aren't really that relevant to most others can seem like a personal attack...but that does not change the actual facts.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 29, 2014)

jrista said:


>


this picture is breathtaking. is your 5D full spectrum modded?

how do you find the clip filters?


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


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




Thank you very much.  I am pretty happy with the framing and overall composition myself. That is actually a very preliminary image...it's one single hour of integration time (total exposure, across all subs). My goal is 10 hours...so, as you can imagine, I have a very long way to go. Hopefully tonight will pan out clear (and moonless) by the time Orion gets high enough in the sky, and I'll get a couple more hours. 



As far as the camera, It is unmodded. It's my only 5D III...I still use it for everything else (just got back from trying to photograph some birds...tough, the light was poor, and I had to use my TCs to get them large in the frame, so I was shooting at high ISO.) I have the benefit of using a very fast "telescope"...my f/4 600mm lens. A lot of astrophotographers who are in my position, their first year, are usually stuck using f/6-f/10 scopes. They are also usually smaller in terms of aperture (entrance pupil, for clarity)...my aperture is 150mm, while most beginners are stuck with as little as 80mm, and rarely more than 120mm. 


The large aperture fast lens gives me a leg up, in that in a five or eight minute exposure, I can get much deeper exposures than you can with an 80mm f/6 or slower scope. Coupled with the light pollution filter, and I am able to get some exposure on that outer dust, dimmer reflection nebula, etc. The DSLR is really holding me back though. The bayer array is a huge limiting factor, reduces light/increases noise, requires significantly longer integration time to get half-way decent results. I can't wait till I can get a proper astro CCD camera...the readout noise is exceptionally clean, and about as low as a DSLR at ISO 400...and with the -45°C dT cooling, dark current (and all the consequences of it) nearly disappears.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

lo lite said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...




I am very aware of that problem. I am also aware that NikonHacker figured out how to control the black point clipping. By disabling it, they restored the bias offset (which was very, very low...a mere 5-6e- tops). I have used data from both hacked and non-hacked Nikon cameras. The non-hacked do eat stars...but only the smallest/dimmest, stars that are often obliterated by standard processing anyway (especially when using scopes with smaller apertures.) The quality of data from Nikon cameras using Exmors and even the Toshiba sensor (D5200, and I think the D7100?) is excellent. Very clean, random noise. 


The black point does not need to be offset very much in Nikon cameras...either those using an Exmor or Toshiba sensor. It's nothing compared to Canon's MASSIVE bias offset. Restoration of the bias offset preserves tiny stars, and makes the signal more linear (it removes the "foot" at the bottom end of the tone curve), which is better for astro. 




lo lite said:


> You can see the wormy look here (and understand why he called it "wormy"): http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm the site is in french but I assume you know how to use google translate.




Those are old Nikon designed and manufactured sensors. They are not Exmor sensors. The Nikon cameras I am impressed with are the new ones that use Exmor and Toshiba sensors. In particular, the D5100/5200/5300 and D800/810. These cameras (and I think maybe some of the D7000 series) have had their black point clipping disabled by nikonhacker. Coupled with the superior sensor technology, which natively has lower read noise and dark current, they make for much better astro DSLRs.


Most Canon users, modded and others, start at ISO 400 and beginners are frequently using ISO 800 and 1600, for astro. I myself use ISO 400. At these ISO settings, clipping stars is a major concern. I have to deal with that all the time, every bright star tends to get clipped, which kills off the color, and it's a PITA to correct that (or, you end up having to make the color up, and artificially messing with stars never looks as good as natural stars.)


I know beginner Nikon users who are shooting at ISO 100 and 200!! With less RN than I have at ISO 400 on the 5D III! That is nearly unheard of when using Canon cameras for astro due to the extremely high read noise. Limited dynamic range is a big issue for astro, as stars can be many orders of magnitude brighter than nebula and dust. When trying to get a "deep" exposure, the amount of read noise, even a difference of 1-2e-, the amount of dark current, and the dynamic range are very, very significant factors. Read noise in particular is the key limiting factor in astro...you have to expose long enough to get the dimmest parts of nebula above the RN floor. A couple of electrons higher RN and you might have to expose up to twice as long to get the dimmest details above that read noise.


Canon cameras used to be preferred because they did not clip to black...they used a bias offset, and were more linear (although not entirely linear...Craig Stark of Stark Labs did an analysis years ago, and found that Canon cameras do indeed cook the RAW (and in some odd ways), so it's not as linear as it could be). Today, with the black point hack, Nikon cameras (well, all Exmor cameras really) offer much better linearity as well as lower dark current, read noise and more dynamic range.


I think the D5100 will soon become the beginners favorite, and I think Nikon cameras in the long run (or maybe Nikon and Sony...people are starting to hack and use the A7s as well; I recently saw some real-time night sky videos done with the A7s...rather incredible, that camera is so insanely sensitive it can pick up satellites and the milky way at VIDEO frame rates! ) will topple Canon's dominance in the astrophotography world. And for good reason, too.


----------



## Synkka (Nov 30, 2014)

So does this mean the 7dii won't be a choice camera for astronomy photography? I would have thought the 7dii strengths were for wildlife and sports?


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

Synkka said:


> So does this mean the 7dii won't be a choice camera for astronomy photography? I would have thought the 7dii strengths were for wildlife and sports?




These days, I don't _generally_ recommend Canon cameras for astrophotography. They used to be ideal because of their better linearity, however Nikon cameras offer even better linearity with the black point hack. If I were to recommend a DSLR for astrophotography, to a beginner, it would be a used D5100. For those who have experience and are more serious, the D810. Both with the black point hack. The D810 has been described as having "CCD-like linearity and noise quality, with very low dark current" by those who currently employ it for astrophotography.


The D810 is a rather expensive full-frame camera. The only time I do recommend a Canon camera for astrophotography is the 6D. While it still has high noise and a huge bias offset, it is currently Canon's best camera from a noise characteristic standpoint. It's also a hell of a lot cheaper than the D810 on the street...so if you want full frame, it's really the best deal, and offers good performance.


I would not recommend the 7D II for astro. It's a high speed action camera, and it seems to serve that purpose well. I don't think it has anything particularly unique or great to offer an astrophotographer...nothing better than any Nikon offering at least, and it has a smaller field than the 6D.


----------



## Synkka (Nov 30, 2014)

Yeah that's what I would have thought, and definitely would imagine if using a dslr a larger sensor will be better for noise.

Going slightly off topic, when I look at a lot of Nikon and sony cameras if recent I often feel they are too specialised to be big successes in the market. While they have technological advantages I think unless you are chasing one particular feature they won't be the best across the board. I think it is no secret that the 5d3 is popular due to it being a well rounded camera, I expect the d750 would also sell as well but I think some of the d600 d800 users may not swap to it, but those who had held out would.

Coming back to the 7dii I think it will be very successful despite where it ranks in apc sensor scores because it's well rounded. And most importantly coming from a 7d I think the noise is now at a point it can be used at low light indoor events without as much trouble.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

Synkka said:


> Yeah that's what I would have thought, and definitely would imagine if using a dslr a larger sensor will be better for noise.




Well, not really. Everything is at the same distance with astrophotography. So, unlike with terrestrial subjects, where you can get closer to fill the frame, for a given focal length, you simply get a bigger field of view. That doesn't help with noise. You are also primarily read-noise limited, it takes very long exposures to swamp read noise and make photon shot noise the dominant factor. 


The 6D is better simply because it has lower/cleaner read noise than most other Canon cameras, and moderately large pixels which help improve light gathering capacity.


Astro is very different from regular photography.  






Synkka said:


> Going slightly off topic, when I look at a lot of Nikon and sony cameras if recent I often feel they are too specialised to be big successes in the market. While they have technological advantages I think unless you are chasing one particular feature they won't be the best across the board. I think it is no secret that the 5d3 is popular due to it being a well rounded camera, I expect the d750 would also sell as well but I think some of the d600 d800 users may not swap to it, but those who had held out would.




Probably true, for sure. Sony cameras definitely lack in certain areas. Nikon doesn't have anything to really compete with the 7D line, and it seems clear Nikon users want something (i.e. a D300 successor.) That said, I think the D810 and D750 are both extremely nice well-rounded, general purpose cameras. I mean, the D810 could do with that extra 1fps when using full frame, but they have the crop mode, which allows faster frame rates...and the small pixels. That makes for a pretty good general purpose camera, and it's IQ trounces anything from pretty much anyone else, Sony included.


I think the D810 is what the D800 should have been from the start...but Nikon seems to prefer iterating rather than thinking hard.  Still, they just keep iterating, and the issue count just keeps dropping. As much as I think Nikon has a schizophrenic camera model naming scheme, they are closing in on what consumers want, and they have the IQ on top of everything else. Remember also, Canon had to catch up to Nikon in regards to AF system, metering, and linking the two together...Nikon was leading in that area for a while (much like they are leading in the IQ area now.) 




Synkka said:


> Coming back to the 7dii I think it will be very successful despite where it ranks in apc sensor scores because it's well rounded. And most importantly coming from a 7d I think the noise is now at a point it can be used at low light indoor events without as much trouble.




I think it will succeed because it is specialized.  It's a fairly unique part...an ultra high frame rate APS-C action camera (with some additional highly specialized features, like the 120Hz light oscillation feature). I wouldn't say the 7D II is as general purpose as either the 5D III or D810...it has it's niche, a popular niche, and it serves it very, very well. I think the NX1 is the first REAL competition to the 7D line, and I think it is just as specialized of a camera...and it tops the 7D II on a number of features (and yet still lags behind in a couple others...rear-button AF and decoupling AF from the shutter button for one, a big one.)


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 30, 2014)

jrista said:


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



yeah there's some APS-C astro imagers that caught my eye the last little while. and they are cheap running less than 2K.

however how much do you think having the stock IR filter still in the camera is holding you back. I could be wrong but aren't you getting around 2-3 stop attenuation there? especially in nebulosity? I know canon's pretty extreme now (if you've ever tried taking IR photos with a R72,etc) I believe it's around an 70 to 80% attenuation around hAlpha - which is why canon did the 20/60Da

IMO - you may be an idea getting a cheap assed APS-C junking off the IR filter and giving it a go.

you have quite the setup - and that's some great patience and your autoguiding setup is impeccable - but you are losing some of your nebulosity because of the cut filter.

your final image will be amazing I'm sure.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> however how much do you think having the stock IR filter still in the camera is holding you back. I could be wrong but aren't you getting around 2-3 stop attenuation there? especially in nebulosity? I know canon's pretty extreme now (if you've ever tried taking IR photos with a R72,etc)




Oh absolutely, the IR cut filter in DSLRs kills off a ton of the Hydrogen-alpha light. My red channel lags my green and blue channels by at least a couple stops, and as such it is always noisier. There are mods out there, from Baader and from Astrodon, where you can pull out the LPF filters in Canon cameras and replace them with astro-geared IR/UV cutoff filters that have a square cutoff, rather than a gradual rolloff into the reds. That can improve Ha and SII transmission from around 20% to around 90% (Baader) or 99% (Astrodon). The problem with these mods is they make regular photography more difficult. You can use custom WB settings, but there is always a strong red hue, and it is very difficult to get rid of. 


My 5D III is my main regular photography camera...so I have no plans to mod it. I have thought about modding my 7D, though. I'd go with the Astrodon mod, their filters are superior to everything else at the moment. In the end, I don't think modding a DSLR is really what I want to do...I really do want to just move to a proper astro CCD camera. There are lots of benefits. Even modded, the DSLR will still be Canon, and it will still have Canon's high noise levels. It will also still be a bayer color sensor, which while "easy" is actually really not that easy. You have to get a LOT of integration time just to get noise under control, and so much integration time as to be impractical to even approach mono CCD quality.



With a mono CCD that is thermally regulated, you effectively kill dark current (and thus dark current noise, hot pixels, etc.), and you have the ability to use filters. You get a 100% fill factor for every color, you gain the ability to do narrow band imaging (at the very least, Ha, which is frequently used as a luminance boost layer to improve detail of lower resolution color). You also get the benefits of CCD, which currently, for astro and other scientific applications, still produce better linearity and noise characteristics than CMOS. The top two CCD manufacturers as far as astro goes are QSI and FLI. FLI, or Finger Lakes Instrumentation, are currently considered the top manufacturer, however their equipment is large and expensive, and not as well integrated as QSI's. QSI, or Quantum Scientific Imaging, produces integrated cameras that include an off-axis guider port with a very short backfocus requirement.


I personally like the QSI design better, and it's about five grand for their full package (8 position filter wheel and integrated guider port, along with some 31mm LRGB filters). That's a very good deal, and I can pick up the camera with either a Kodak KAF-8300 sensor (older, but larger with larger pixels) or a newer Sony ICX sensor (newer, smaller pixels...but very tiny sensor areas.) The Sony CCD sensors are phenomenal...an order of magnitude lower dark current noise (eliminates the need to take and use darks during calibration), and lower read noise...about 5e- vs. 8-10e- of the KAF sensors.


I haven't decided which to get yet...I really love wide field work, and the ultra tiny size of the Sony sensors means I would have to mosaic to get the kind of field I want, even if I dropped to a 300mm focal length. The KAF sensor is much larger, at least three times the area of a Sony sensor (depending on which Sony your comparing.) I would still have to mosaic to get the field of view that a FF sensor offers, but it's a lot less work. (There are also full-frame and even large format KAF sensors...but all of those cameras cost more than ten grand, and I cannot justify that yet....not to mention a lot of telescopes only have an image circle large enough for a 26mm FoV, meaning APS-C sized tops.)


Anyway...mono CCDs actually require less total integration time for most of the DSLR-accessible targets than DSLRs themselves require. Being monochrome, with a 100% fill factor for each and every color, you don't have to deal with the consequences of a bayer array (which are actually many...much, much higher dark current, higher read noise in many cases, patterned read noise (which cannot be averaged out), more hot pixels, problems with things like correlated noise, requiring dithering each sub frame to offset pixels and support better hot pixel rejection, etc.) That means it is actually easier to get all the necessary sub frames with a CCD than with a DSLR...because you need less in total to get the same amount of noise levels in the end. So, sure...I could mod my DSLRs and everything...but since I am very serious about astrophotography...it isn't just a second hand hobby, I think the far better investment is to just go with a proper CCD camera.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> I haven't decided which to get yet...I really love wide field work, and the ultra tiny size of the Sony sensors means I would have to mosaic to get the kind of field I want, even if I dropped to a 300mm focal length. The KAF sensor is much larger, at least three times the area of a Sony sensor (depending on which Sony your comparing.) I would still have to mosaic to get the field of view that a FF sensor offers



You've lost me here - could you please explain that to simple /me :-o ?

As far as I understand this relation, you can get an equivalent fov by raising the focal length for a smaller sensor size? But you're writing for a smaller sensor you need to "drop" to 300mm? And what's the need for more or less mosiaic about depending on sensor size, when you can adjust the fov with the focal length?

Thanks for any elaboration, probably it's an astro thing, but then maybe it's not.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't decided which to get yet...I really love wide field work, and the ultra tiny size of the Sony sensors means I would have to mosaic to get the kind of field I want, even if I dropped to a 300mm focal length. The KAF sensor is much larger, at least three times the area of a Sony sensor (depending on which Sony your comparing.) I would still have to mosaic to get the field of view that a FF sensor offers
> ...




Cropped sensors effectively magnify. So, if I am using a 600mm lens, the FoV is LARGER with a FF DSLR than it is with a 1/3" Sony CCD. To make the field as large with a smaller sensor, I need a shorter lens/telescope.


For best results, camera lenses are not the best options for astro. You have extremely limited backfocus. With Canon lenses, it's 56mm. That's enough for the camera, that's it. Most telescopes offer at least 110mm of backfocus, many over 210mm. With that backfocus, you can get robotic focusers, filter wheels, off-axis guiders, etc. A good scope is VERY expensive. A minimum of five grand, many are over ten grand, plus extra for things like field flatteners, focusers, etc. So, you don't really change your focal length much.  


Hence...smaller sensor == smaller FoV, and the need to mosaic to get a larger field of view. Keep in mind, when using a mono sensor, mosaicing requires getting all the necessary subs for all the necessary color channels. If your doing LRGB, that is a minimum of 10 subs per channel, four channels (L = luminance), so a minimum of 40 subs for each panel of a mosaic. I think I'd need six panels with a Sony ICX 694 to equal the area of a KAF sensor, accounting for cropping out integration artifacts and overlap. So I'd need 6x40 subs, or 240, just to equal the FoV of the larger sensor. The minimum is often not enough to reduce noise to an acceptable level...just to the minimum required level to be able to process. Me, I prefer very low noise, and deeper exposures. So, were now talking at least 20 subs per channel, and subs that are probably 50% longer at a minimum. That's 480 longer subs. 


I get a handful of clear nights a month, between clouds and the moon. I've had months where I got no clear nights at all. On a given night, I can image for about four hours on a single target tops. 


Mosaicing is a b*tch.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > however how much do you think having the stock IR filter still in the camera is holding you back. I could be wrong but aren't you getting around 2-3 stop attenuation there? especially in nebulosity? I know canon's pretty extreme now (if you've ever tried taking IR photos with a R72,etc)
> ...



yes, I do infrared photography, so what I tend to do is get a full or dual spectrum converted camera (a UV block only) and then use filters in front.

thus the camera still works as a terrestrial camera and also as an astro imager.

but you are right - nothing will beat a dedicated CCD imager and the inclusion of the consistent cooling if you are serious about the craft.

looks like where you are, you are in a pretty good area for it to as well - I look at your images and my fingers start twitch to get back into it seriously - however living in a downtown city core isn't' exactly a good location for serious work.

have you looked at the QHYCCD?


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


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




I live in a red/orange zone (depends on the night)...the LP is pretty bad here. Far from a great area for AP though. I do some unfiltered imaging, on brighter targets. I filter all the rest, as it is pretty essential. I am actually looking to sell the Astronomik CLS-XL and get a 52mm screw-in for my drop-in filter on my 600mm lens. I'm going to be getting the IDAS, probably the LPS-D1, although I may pick up the LPS-P2 instead (if I can find it.) The IDAS filters are a little more tuned, and block narrower bands while passing the rest, so color balance is a bit easier (and they don't cut out as much light, so you don't necessarily have to expose for as long.) 



rrcphoto said:


> have you looked at the QHYCCD?




I have. I've also looked at Atik. I own the QHY5L-II guide and planetary camera, which uses an Aptina sensor. I checked out the larger QHY cameras. Their full-frame 11002 camera is actually probably one of the best priced out there...however I've heard a number of times about fogging/frosting problems with the QHY design, and I have never really heard much about their noise quality. QHY and FLI both put a lot of effort into ensuring non-patterned read noise, which is essential for AP as we average many frames together. Any pattern, instead of getting averaged out, ends up getting strengthened like any other signal.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> I live in a red/orange zone (depends on the night)...the LP is pretty bad here. Far from a great area for AP though. I do some unfiltered imaging, on brighter targets. I filter all the rest, as it is pretty essential. I am actually looking to sell the Astronomik CLS-XL and get a 52mm screw-in for my drop-in filter on my 600mm lens. I'm going to be getting the IDAS, probably the LPS-D1, although I may pick up the LPS-P2 instead (if I can find it.) The IDAS filters are a little more tuned, and block narrower bands while passing the rest, so color balance is a bit easier (and they don't cut out as much light, so you don't necessarily have to expose for as long.)



damn you .. I didnt' need you telling me you live in orange / red 

When I go south for the winter, that's approximately where I end up - it's around 1 hour outside of Houston.

I've been itching and debating setting up a semi permanent arrangement down there for at least the 3-4 months Jan through March when I'm there.

was debating getting a CGEM package with a 8" HD and getting the hyperstar conversion.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I live in a red/orange zone (depends on the night)...the LP is pretty bad here. Far from a great area for AP though. I do some unfiltered imaging, on brighter targets. I filter all the rest, as it is pretty essential. I am actually looking to sell the Astronomik CLS-XL and get a 52mm screw-in for my drop-in filter on my 600mm lens. I'm going to be getting the IDAS, probably the LPS-D1, although I may pick up the LPS-P2 instead (if I can find it.) The IDAS filters are a little more tuned, and block narrower bands while passing the rest, so color balance is a bit easier (and they don't cut out as much light, so you don't necessarily have to expose for as long.)
> ...




As far as mounts go, your better off with a non-Celestron mount. The CGEM and CGEM DX both have a gearbox problem that creates a wicked non-periodic error that is apparently quite difficult to guide out. It can be "mild", or severe. For those who have it severe, it can add (on top of the base 30-40" PE) another 20" or more PE. 


If your looking for a lower end mount, I highly recommend the Orion Atlas EQ-G. It uses a better set of gears, and if those prove to be problematic, you can belt mod them (I just installed the Rowan belt mod in mine, which helped with tracking by eliminating a lot of the higher frequency errors from the transfer and spur gears.) The Atlas is also compatible with EQMOD, which is beyond awesome for AP work.


Also, for an ideal imaging scope, SCTs are not at the top of the list. They suffer from mirror flop, and have the correcting miniscus (and an Edge has the corrector at the back as well.) The added glass can cost IQ. Personally I'm looking at picking up the $895 Astro-Tech 8" RC steel tube, which is a Ritchey-Chretien astrograph. Better 8" scope IMO than the Celestrons. (And cheaper, too!)


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 30, 2014)

jrista said:


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



one reason I was going to go with the Celestron is that you can polar align it in the daytime with Alt/Az goto - the only other one I know that you can do that with is Vixen I think.

the atlas is amazing - especially when they sold it without GoTo but still EQMOD capable.

Not sure about the RC 8" though, since I'm thinking I may want the faster glass since my window of opportunity will be less (only having 3 months a year with it)

was looking at this guy's work .. and it looks good enough for me - mind you this is the 11" with CGEMDX - which may be a worthwhile upgrade.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 1, 2014)

I have an Atlas Pro and an Edge HD 11. Here's why I prefer that to an RC - I just hate diffraction spikes. It also gives the option to go Hyperstar and thus shoot at 560mm and f/2. I'm in a white zone which means read noise isn't half the problem that sky glow is.

That said, I haven't tried shooting DSOs yet, just planetary and satellites.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I have an Atlas Pro and an Edge HD 11. Here's why I prefer that to an RC - I just hate diffraction spikes. It also gives the option to go Hyperstar and thus shoot at 560mm and f/2. I'm in a white zone which means read noise isn't half the problem that sky glow is.
> 
> That said, I haven't tried shooting DSOs yet, just planetary and satellites.




For planetary, there is little that beats a C or an Edge. Further, there is little that beats raw focal length, which the C11 Edge has in spades (especially with a barlow.) For imaging, the C11 is fine, but you do have to deal with mirror flop (something which is immaterial to planetary imaging, where you are using high speed video instead of slow, long exposures.) 


The RC does have diffraction spikes...but that's a matter of taste. I like em myself, others don't. You still have the central obstruction with an edge, which can create it's own issues, as it's still an obstruction, and still causes diffraction. That issue is magnified when doing hyperstar...it's one of the key issues that I notice with most hyperstar images, the giant central obstruction artifacts around stars.


Regarding read noise, it's still a problem, since you can extract the skyfog now. With PixInsight, either DynamicBackgroundExtraction or AutomaticBackgroundExtraction can be used to identify and remove the gradients caused by light pollution. GradientXterminator can be used with photoshop. In either case, those tools subtract the skyfog, leaving behind just the image...and all the read noise.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


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




With the RC, you usually use a focal reducer. The popular one is the Astro Physics CCDT67, a .67x reducer. When spaced right for the AT8RC, that usually gets you f/5.8 (to get a flat field, you usually cannot get down to the max f/5.3 due to the necessary spacing required.) An f/5.8 scope is faster than anything Celestron produces, by a long shot. 


One thing to keep in mind...imaging with an 11" scope is difficult. You need all the right conditions, and excellent, excellent tracking. Celestron is somewhat misleading in the way they package their product deals. The CGEM DX's capacity is a VISUAL OBSERVING capacity. So, while it's enough to hold an 11" SCT, it is not stable enough to image with most of the time. 


The general rule of thumb is to use at most half the capacity of a mount, unless it is explicitly specified as an imaging capacity. There are only a few mounts that advertise as imaging capacities...Astro-Physics, 10Micron, ASA, Software Bisque, Avalon. Maybe one or two more European manufacturers. Any other mount is NOT going to be an imaging capacity. So, with a DX, instead of 50lb of capacity, you really only have 25lb. That precludes the use of the C11 for imaging on that particular mount. You would have to get something with a higher capacity. 


In Celestron's world, the next highest option is the CGE Pro. It's a capable mount, but if you are going to spend that kind of money, the Orion HDX110 is superior. It's a newer design, and it has a lower PE. The Losmandy G11 or Titan would work as well. In all of these cases, the price doubles or more. 


Speaking from experience, mounts like the CGEM, CGEM DX, Atlas, Atlas Pro, Skywatcher EQ6, etc. are going to barely get you there with very good guiding. In the case of my Atlas, I have to fight to maintain a 0.6" RMS guiding rate, which is still around 2" P2P. And that is with my relatively lightweight setup using the 600mm lens. The AT8RC is the largest scope I'd put on any one of those mounts. Anything higher, and I am looking at an Avalon belt driven mount for portability and accuracy, and probably a 10Micron or maybe ASA for an observatory-installed large scope (16" or larger). The Avalon itself, and I'm thinking M-Uno, is over $7000 (of course, it's rated for 44lb imaging capacity, and designed to give you pinpoint stars with up to 3000mm focal length, so it's actually a damn good price considering other mounts that offer the same cost $15,000 and beyond.)


Anyway...I've seen a LOT of imagers over the last 10 months start with long scopes, just because they had them, then give up because they couldn't get things working well enough to image on the puny little mounts they had. In the astrophotography world, you will hear people say that the mount is the most important thing. It really is. I figure I'll have a half dozen scopes of differing focal lengths for different purposes in a couple of years time...they are kind of like camera bodies. They come and go, new ones are always being designed, some are better for some things and terrible at others (SCTs are usually the planetary imagers scope of choice, but not the go-to design for DSO imaging; refractors and RCs dominate the DSOs.)


If you want a mirror only telescope, something that would actually be easier to use on a CGEM DX, I still highly recommend the AT8RC. Another option would be to get an 80-120mm refractor, of which there are too many to go into...research 'em, get whatever tickles your fancy. Either way, your overall load on the mount is going to be smaller than with the Edge, and with reducers/flatteners/coma correctors, you can get a flat, sharp field edge to edge. Celestron sells very pretty products, and they have some great package deals...but their mounts are far from the best (even in the low end range), and their SCT designs are ideal for planetary but not for DSOs. The edge does have locks for the mirror...however if you lock the mirror down to prevent flop, you cannot refocus, and refocusing is essential to maintain star quality and detail throughout the night.


To be complete, there are guys who do image with Celestron scopes. Some even do it with low end mounts. The caveat is they either invest a hell of a lot of time doing it and they have many years of skill and know how to do handle everything...the image scale, the tracking/guiding, etc. or they are using a very high end mount. I see the AP Mach 1 GTO being used fairly often with Edge's, both the 11" and 14". The Mach1 is an $8000 mount.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

jrista said:


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



The problem with screw ins on the Canon lenses are that they need to be low profile filters. Most AP filter makers dont offer low profile rings so it's a crap shoot. I ended up just buying extra drop in UV filters and ordering standard 2" AP filters. The filters drop right in place of the UV glass with the addition of some shims (electrical tape) to accomodate the thinner glass used by some manufacturers. I use them both on my 300 and 600 and work quite well. The only draw back is that you cant easily use them for other purposes. However, I think its worth it just to have dedicated filters for use in the lenses rather that dealing with threading them in the field. Less time fiddling means more time actually shooting.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> The problem with screw ins on the Canon lenses are that they need to be low profile filters. Most AP filter makers dont offer low profile rings so it's a crap shoot. I ended up just buying extra drop in UV filters and ordering standard 2" AP filters. The filters drop right in place of the UV glass with the addition of some shims (electrical tape) to accomodate the thinner glass used by some manufacturers. I use them both on my 300 and 600 and work quite well. The only draw back is that you cant easily use them for other purposes. However, I think its worth it just to have dedicated filters for use in the lenses rather that dealing with threading them in the field. Less time fiddling means more time actually shooting.




Yeah, the IDAS filters I am looking at are 7mm thick, and the Canon drop-in filter holder needs 5mm thick. I was planning on just lapping the filter ring.


However, if I understand you correctly, your solution was to get 52mm slim UV filters, remove the UV glass and drop in the LP filter? I hadn't thought of that...but it's a damn good idea. What UV filters do you use?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with screw ins on the Canon lenses are that they need to be low profile filters. Most AP filter makers dont offer low profile rings so it's a crap shoot. I ended up just buying extra drop in UV filters and ordering standard 2" AP filters. The filters drop right in place of the UV glass with the addition of some shims (electrical tape) to accomodate the thinner glass used by some manufacturers. I use them both on my 300 and 600 and work quite well. The only draw back is that you cant easily use them for other purposes. However, I think its worth it just to have dedicated filters for use in the lenses rather that dealing with threading them in the field. Less time fiddling means more time actually shooting.
> ...



No its actually easier than that. I ordered the Canon standard drop in UV filter...same as the one that comes with the lens. Just gingerly swap out the glass.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...




Hmm, I'm not sure what exactly is different about that. I already ordered this:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/763737-REG/Canon_4773B001_52mm_Drop_in_Gelatin_Filter.html


This, the drop-in CLP, and the gel holder (which came with the lens) are the only options available for the 600/4 II. It does not appear that this has a UV filter in it...it's just a drop-in for 52mm screw-in filters.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




Hmmm I have the 600 mk1 and the gel holder w/glass UV works fine. I see the gel holder on BandH says for the 300 and 400mm but doesnt mention the 600. I bet it would work in the 600 Mk II.

The gel holder also has a glasss UV filter but has to be removed by removing a clip that holds it in.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> The gel holder also has a glasss UV filter but has to be removed by removing a clip that holds it in.



I wasn't aware the piece of glass in the drop-in gel holder that comes with the superteles was specifically a UV filter – I thought it was just optical glass.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The gel holder also has a glasss UV filter but has to be removed by removing a clip that holds it in.
> ...



Yes I think you are right about that. However in this case we are just discarding the glass and using the AP filter in its place. According to the 600 mk II manual any of the 52w(II) drop in filters will work. You can use non II drop ins but the color would be the old mk I color.

I would recommend using the gel holder instead of the screw on type with AP 2" filter glass 48mm? I don't believe the 52mm glass will fit...though it might. I would have to measure the glass that was removed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



Understood. I (possibly jrista, too) thought you were talking about buying a slim-mount (<5mm) 52mm screw-in UV filter (something cheap, Tiffen/Promaster/etc.,), opening up the mount, then replacing the UV filter glass with the LP filter glass removed from their thick mount.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




This was my original understanding. I think it would work...however, i cannot tell if slim UV filters are manufactured to be taken apart or not. They are also fairly expensive. 


I'll have to see about disassembling the gel drop-in...I've examined it before, I did not notice a way to remove the glass. In mine, I think there are two pieces of glass, between which the gels are sandwiched.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



It's been over a year since I did it. There was only one piece of glass. If I recall correctly there is a ring that keeps the glass in position. I just dont recall if it needs to be compressed or if there are screws to remove. However I did do it with my lumicon filters and I recall that it was easy. The hard part was removing the AP filter from the 2" ring without damaging the filter.

I also have one of those screw type drop ins and I remember that the glass filter it came with was a bear to get off the drop in part. I believe I had to use channel locks and hot water.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 1, 2014)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's looked at this. I've not tried the Astronomik full frame in-body filters yet though, and until I get a tracking mount that will take the big lens, it's not a priority. Let us know if it's possible to modify the drop in filters!


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

scyrene said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one who's looked at this. I've not tried the Astronomik full frame in-body filters yet though, and until I get a tracking mount that will take the big lens, it's not a priority. Let us know if it's possible to modify the drop in filters!




Will do.


Regarding the Astronomik filters. My problem is specifically with the CLS-XL clip-in for the Canon FF DSLRs. I have two Astronomik CLS filters, as I also have the one for APS-C. I think the design of the APS-C one, the "CLS" is far better. It only fits in one way (the CLS-XL can be reversed, which can cause problems with vignetting as the vignette the filter frame causes is not uniform....I marked one of the tabs on the sides of mine with a silver dot so I knew which direction to put it in), it fits inside the camera without messing with the mirror, and it does not allow any light leak around the edges. 


The CLS-XL has problems with non-uniform vignette, it has a large frame that wraps around to hold onto the filter, which effectively reduces the non-vignetted viewport to the sensor, it does NOT fit in the camera without locking up the mirror, it does not fill the entire space when the mirror is lifted up, and it moves around as the mirror moves up and down in the 1-2mm gap above the filter.


Basically, the CLS-XL is just a disastrous design, it was poorly thought out and hacked together. I don't really recommend it for anyone. Hence the reason I am looking into an IDAS screw-in. The IDAS filters are multi-bandpass, blocking only the key bands where primary LP sources (sodium and mercury vapor lamps) emit light. It passes a broader spectrum, so is easier to color correct as well. Since the IDAS will fit into the lens filter holder (in some fashion, I'm going to try EWP's trick) it can be used on any camera I attach to the lens, so I may just sell both my Astronomik filters.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad I'm not the only one who's looked at this. I've not tried the Astronomik full frame in-body filters yet though, and until I get a tracking mount that will take the big lens, it's not a priority. Let us know if it's possible to modify the drop in filters!
> ...



Thanks for that. What a pity - I'd been really excited when they released that filter, and was definitely going to get it. Maybe not now :/


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

scyrene said:


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




If you have an APS-C camera, I think the standard clip-in CLS is fine. Well designed. It is only the FF one, the CLS-XL, that has the problems (so, if your using a 6D, which is probably Canon's best astrophotography camera right now, then I would look elsewhere...screw-on filters for standard camera filter threads are probably best, unless the lens simply cannot take a screw-on.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2014)

@ jrista – If there are brick&mortar stores around you which have used items for sale, might be worth dropping in with a ruler to see if they have any 52mm UV filters <5mm thick with evident retaining rings to take out the glass. It looks like Hutech sells unmounted LPS filters as distinct catalog items, but maybe not in 52mm. However, maybe they'd sell the bare glass as a special order if you asked. Might also be worth suggesting they make a 52mm screw-in with a thinner mount for Canon supertele users. 

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/contact.htm


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ jrista – If there are brick&mortar stores around you which have used items for sale, might be worth dropping in with a ruler to see if they have any 52mm UV filters <5mm thick with evident retaining rings to take out the glass. It looks like Hutech sells unmounted LPS filters as distinct catalog items, but maybe not in 52mm. However, maybe they'd sell the bare glass as a special order if you asked. Might also be worth suggesting they make a 52mm screw-in with a thinner mount for Canon supertele users.
> 
> http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/contact.htm




I plan to ask them. I've called on a couple occasions, and just been on hold. I don't think they are a very large organization. As far as unmounted filters go, they do have 50mm ones. A 2" filter is, in exact terms, 50.8mm in diameter...so, those ones might work. I really need to get a hold of someone on the phone though, to actually figure out what will work. Even if it does, I am thinking I will still get a mounted 52mm filter, so I can simply screw it onto the front of other lenses, like my 100mm and 50mm lenses. (Although, now that I think about it....I think those might actually be 58mm filter threads...)


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @ jrista – If there are brick&mortar stores around you which have used items for sale, might be worth dropping in with a ruler to see if they have any 52mm UV filters <5mm thick with evident retaining rings to take out the glass. It looks like Hutech sells unmounted LPS filters as distinct catalog items, but maybe not in 52mm. However, maybe they'd sell the bare glass as a special order if you asked. Might also be worth suggesting they make a 52mm screw-in with a thinner mount for Canon supertele users.
> ...



For a 5mm filter you also have to be mindful of the glass thickness which may hinder a remount if it's too thick.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

Here is the canon gelatin 52 (mark 1 version). There is simply a door that opens and the filter drops in. Definately only room for the 48mm. The 52 glass won't fit.

I also checked the 52WII gelatin filter on my 300 mkii and it's the same. Glass is about 45mm in diameter and it pops right out once you open the trap door.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 2, 2014)

So Jon, here is a good question. Once I removed the AP filter from its ring I lost track of which side would face the camera. Coated side or glass side? I don't see any reflectivity difference but who knows. Over 300 subs it might make a difference.


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> So Jon, here is a good question. Once I removed the AP filter from its ring I lost track of which side would face the camera. Coated side or glass side? I don't see any reflectivity difference but who knows. Over 300 subs it might make a difference.




That's a good question. The coated side should be the filter side. I honestly do not know if the LP filters are reversible or not. I don't think an NB filter is reversible, those are pretty specialized...but an LP filter may be different. I do know that when I hold my Astronomik filters in front of my computer screen, it does not seem to matter which direction I hold them, they seem to filter the light from the screen the same way.


Anyway, I'll pay attention when I do this. Very curious about the gelatin filter holder...that 48mm filters fit. I guess I can pull mine out and actually measure it. I have a nice pair of digital calipers that should make short work of it all.  I am curious how thick your filter is. I was looking at the IDAS ones, they say 3mm, which seems pretty thick (especially if the most the 52mm screw-in drop-in can handle is 5.5mm in total).


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > So Jon, here is a good question. Once I removed the AP filter from its ring I lost track of which side would face the camera. Coated side or glass side? I don't see any reflectivity difference but who knows. Over 300 subs it might make a difference.
> ...



I think filtration wise it should be the same. I was concerned with reflections and perhaps double so on one side.

I'll measure my lumicon glass thickness. It is exactly 45mm in diameter. The other 3mm make up the filter ring and threads so the filter has to be smaller to fit in the ring.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 2, 2014)

The lumicon 48mm filter is actually 45mm in diameter and .1" thick. Sorry my caliper is not metric.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> If you have an APS-C camera, I think the standard clip-in CLS is fine. Well designed. It is only the FF one, the CLS-XL, that has the problems (so, if your using a 6D, which is probably Canon's best astrophotography camera right now, then I would look elsewhere...screw-on filters for standard camera filter threads are probably best, unless the lens simply cannot take a screw-on.)



Oh I've used the APS-C one for over a year with my 50D. It's fine but I wanted to see what a newer, bigger sensor could produce. I assumed the full frame version would be similar, but it sounds like that's not the case.

Screw on filters seem more expensive, as they're bigger (I guess I'd get the biggest size and use step down rings to fit different lenses).But then as you're discussing, that won't help with the superteles.

*Sigh* Nothing is simple


----------



## scyrene (Dec 2, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Here is the canon gelatin 52 (mark 1 version). There is simply a door that opens and the filter drops in. Definately only room for the 48mm. The 52 glass won't fit.
> 
> I also checked the 52WII gelatin filter on my 300 mkii and it's the same. Glass is about 45mm in diameter and it pops right out once you open the trap door.



Wow. I've had my lens nearly 18 months and had no idea you could flip the filter open like that!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 2, 2014)

scyrene said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the canon gelatin 52 (mark 1 version). There is simply a door that opens and the filter drops in. Definately only room for the 48mm. The 52 glass won't fit.
> ...



It's designed so you can insert a gelatin filter in there and close the door to hold it in place. There is not much of a ledge to hold the glass I place so likely if the filter was 44mm it may not hold it in and you would need to fabricate a shim to support it. In the case of my lumicon deep sky filter it is exactly 45mm and fits perfectly in the holder.

Hoping some of the other AP filters are the same.


----------



## terminatahx (Dec 2, 2014)

Never been a fan of DxO and this so called "review" is yet another reason. Focusing on a few metrics of a camera, then calling it a review is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Data and specs are important, but they are not to be considered a complete representation of a camera's ability/performance.

How in the world can you review any camera if you don't actually take pictures? No field testing, not evan a single attempt to evaluate the camera's AF system?

DxO is simply an excellent scoring resource for a very narrow set of metrics. Plain and simple.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 2, 2014)

terminatahx said:


> Never been a fan of DxO and this so called "review" is yet another reason. Focusing on a few metrics of a camera, then calling it a review is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Data and specs are important, but they are not to be considered a complete representation of a camera's ability/performance.



True - this assessment will only change when (and if) Canon comes up with a superior sensor :->


----------



## scyrene (Dec 2, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



Never used a gel filter, so I never noticed  I'll definitely look at this for LP filters though. I've perched my Astronomik APS-C filter in there, but it would sometimes fall into the lens cavity as it wasn't attached by anything.


----------

