# 7D MkII RAW sample images



## pwp (Oct 15, 2014)

DP Review has updated the 7D MkII samples gallery after they got hold of an early build of ACR 8.7.
Check it out here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7693022340/raw-conversions-added-to-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-real-world-samples-beta

-pw


----------



## drjlo (Oct 16, 2014)

Is it just me? But those samples don't look like anything overtly impressive that my ancient T2i couldn't take when shot RAW and converted myself :-[


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 16, 2014)

I coulda used a little more cowbell, in the RAW files.


----------



## candc (Oct 16, 2014)

Maybe the fellows over at DPR don't look at the files they are converting. Maybe acr is just that bad. Maybe they just want to see if anybody is awake? Those are the worst raw conversions I have seen in a long time


----------



## Davebo (Oct 16, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Is it just me? But those samples don't look like anything overtly impressive that my ancient T2i couldn't take when shot RAW and converted myself :-[



+1


----------



## jrista (Oct 16, 2014)

candc said:


> Maybe the fellows over at DPR don't look at the files they are converting. Maybe acr is just that bad. Maybe they just want to see if anybody is awake? Those are the worst raw conversions I have seen in a long time




Hmm. Looks about as "good" as the 5D III, just without the banding. :\ Blotchy, scratchy, lacking in color fidelity.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 16, 2014)

It's the same 11-bit DR sensor, nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## Woody (Oct 16, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> It's the same 11-bit DR sensor, nothing to see here, move along.



I bet you are right. 

But those images honestly do NOT show any limitation imposed by a sensor with 11 stops DR at base ISO.


----------



## Woody (Oct 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Blotchy, scratchy, lacking in color fidelity.



Not sure how one can tell color fidelity from those images. After all, there is WB adjustments in RAW conversion etc.

Blotchy, scratchy... Are we sure Nikon D7100 APS-C sensor won't show the same limitations at high ISO in a side-by-side comparison?


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 16, 2014)

DPR pulled down highlights and pushed up shadows.  When I do same with DPP for my t3i, it adds a color cast.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

Woody said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Blotchy, scratchy, lacking in color fidelity.
> ...



+ A lot.

'Colour fidelity' is an anachronism and entirely meaningless in the digital camera age. If you don't like the colours, change them, if you want accurate then profile your camera it takes a few seconds, if you want to shoot jpegs then use the incredible custom capabilities freely available in your Picture Styles Editor App that came free with your camera or can be downloaded for free from Canon. It did have much more meaning in the days of film and 'atmospheric' lens coatings, but not now.


----------



## jrista (Oct 16, 2014)

Woody said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Blotchy, scratchy, lacking in color fidelity.
> ...




Look at the shaded side of the pushed bar. Poor color rendition, it's got that red-weighted color blotching and mottling, and the noise levels are very high. And those are downsampled as well. For a downsampled image, that's not very good.


----------



## candc (Oct 16, 2014)

I thought the jpeg looked really good and was expecting the raw to be better but its horrible.maybe the 70d or d7100 are not any better but I was hoping to see some noticeble improvement in IQ (especially shadow noise). I reckon it will do well for what I will use it for which is wildlife in good light but I will have to refrain from shooting dimly lit bars unless I want everything to look like its covered in purple shag carpet.


----------



## coreyhkh (Oct 16, 2014)

I really cant believe people bitch about this, those samples look great and who in the right mind actually pushes the stuff that much.


----------



## candc (Oct 16, 2014)

coreyhkh said:


> I really cant believe people bitch about this, those samples look great and who in the right mind actually pushes the stuff that much.



well the jpeg on the left looks good, the raw file on the right looks like what i would do if i was trying to show how bad the shadow noise can be. 

for now i will chalk it up to poor raw processing but it doesn't look good.


----------



## Woody (Oct 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Look at the shaded side of the pushed bar. Poor color rendition, it's got that red-weighted color blotching and mottling, and the noise levels are very high. And those are downsampled as well. For a downsampled image, that's not very good.



All that is at ISO 3200. Are we sure the D7100 or A6000 won't show similar issues at ISO 3200?


----------



## dash2k8 (Oct 16, 2014)

Anybody remember that this is done with an "early" build of ACR? Until the product actually hits the market and Adobe releases a final, it's too harsh to say this is the official result. If the JPEG looks good, it would make sense that the RAW will be much better. Let's wait for an official release before declaring this RAW dead.


----------



## jrista (Oct 16, 2014)

Woody said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the shaded side of the pushed bar. Poor color rendition, it's got that red-weighted color blotching and mottling, and the noise levels are very high. And those are downsampled as well. For a downsampled image, that's not very good.
> ...




Well, we'll find out how they all compare within about a month, I guess.


----------



## coreyhkh (Oct 16, 2014)

30sec noise fix in photoshop....


----------



## pwp (Oct 16, 2014)

Pushing those sample images out may have been a bit of a mistake by DPR. They don't really tell us anything.

I'll be sitting tight waiting for some properly shot and properly processed 7DII RAW files processed with a shipping version of LR or ACR before making judgements. The 7DII is firmly on my shopping list.

-pw


----------



## Jordan23 (Oct 16, 2014)

Seriously, did anybody really expected the 7D mk2 raw-files to be far better than 70D?


----------



## Eldar (Oct 16, 2014)

Is it just me, or are these images incredibly boring, uninspiring and (in general) unfit to prove a point in any direction? 

I have posted some images, trying to show what a few new lenses can do. The new Otus 85/1.4 is an example. And I am an amateur photographer, with a (lot more than) full time job, running a company, with limited time to run around finding good subjects, lights etc. to do this. But compared to what DP, whom I assume are devoting their full attention to this, is publishing here? I´m not sure who looks like the amateur. This is in my view rubbish. I did not bother to look into any of the images in any detail. I also wonder how Canon can see their best interests served by giving a beta version of a camera to someone who makes such a poor job out of it ...

I have already ordered this camera, so I´ll rather wait to see for my self than waste time on this.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 16, 2014)

Woody said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Blotchy, scratchy, lacking in color fidelity.
> ...



+1

Having access to both an extended Canon and Nikon gear I can tell you from real world shooting experience that color non-fidelity is more a classic Nikon issue, only with the latest models they improved that.


----------



## the blackfox (Oct 16, 2014)

taking it that the camera is being marketed as a wildlife and sports camera and for sale to the masses that will be shooting with your bog standard 400mm f5.6 or 100-400mm lenses ,then i cannot for the life of me understand canons philosophy of lending out cameras to companies or advanced pro's who are just going above our heads ,i.e i saw some shots last night taken by a pro who was using the camera with a 600mm f4 + 2xtc .
now the majority of joe public will never ever aspire to lenses of that length or indeed even half of that .and the results that are being obtained so far do not relate in real terms to anything that most people will actually shoot in everyday use .methinks canon have actually shot themselves in the foot on this one


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 16, 2014)

the blackfox said:


> taking it that the camera is being marketed as a wildlife and sports camera and for sale to the masses that will be shooting with your bog standard 400mm f5.6 or 100-400mm lenses ,then i cannot for the life of me understand canons philosophy of lending out cameras to companies or advanced pro's who are just going above our heads ,i.e i saw some shots last night taken by a pro who was using the camera with a 600mm f4 + 2xtc .
> now the majority of joe public will never ever aspire to lenses of that length or indeed even half of that .and the results that are being obtained so far do not relate in real terms to anything that most people will actually shoot in everyday use .methinks canon have actually shot themselves in the foot on this one



A good point but I don't see these pre production reviews been done using a 55-250 or so on.

I'm thinking in about a month's time, this camera will be released and we can gain a fair idea of just how bad, or good this camera is.

I'm kinda considering some folks's parameters as to what "much better IQ than the 70D" actually means. Just how bad is the IQ of the 70D, that a vast improvement will be considered the only acceptable answer? Would an incremental improvement, over a camera about a year old, not count?


----------



## the blackfox (Oct 16, 2014)

all i was alluding to is the FACT that the reviews seen so far are not being done in the amateurs world .i'll never own a 600mm L lens let alone the tripod and other bits to go with it or even a 2x tc .yes i,m interested in the camera but nothing i have yet seen gives it that WOW factor ,that makes a growl noise in yer throat and says BUY ME NOW ,yes better a/f is fine ,better high iso ability is fine but is there going to be enough difference to make me sell my old cameras and go for the new kid on the block .
i am a bit apprehensive as last year i was on nikon and got my fingers badly burned by faulty cameras ,leading to my return to canon :


----------



## Nethawk (Oct 16, 2014)

1. They aren't reviews
2. Pros own pro lenses
3. It is being marketed as a wildlife camera, and 600mm is a popular lens
4. 400mm bog standard?
5. The masses probably aren't going to be cruising by discussion forums and websites to pixel peep
6. We can't expect reviews to be conducted with our lenses
7. Stand in line, there are lots in front of you doubting anything WOW (I'm in the other line, I see it)

Even when they come, don't expect CNET or other websites for the masses to be critical. The decision to buy or not is entirely up to you.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 16, 2014)

Jordan23 said:


> Seriously, did anybody really expected the 7D mk2 raw-files to be far better than 70D?



Not far, but at least 1/2 a step better?


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 16, 2014)

This is going to be harsh:
In my opinion Digital PReview is not doing this demo-ex justice. And from the looks of it, they haven't really tried to do the best possible processing of the RAWs. I've stopped considering them for any unbiased works, especially when it comes to reviews on Canon gear.
It seems like the writer was handed the 7D Mk II and he just brought it along on a short vacation with a good looking young woman. If he's anything like me, then he would pay far more attention to the lady than any shooting. In combination with directives from Digital PReview that doesn't exactly look like they include words like "thorough" and "fair" this is what to be expected.

My prognosis is that we will see real RAWs under rougher conditions from real users here within a very short time after the first 7D Mk II has been unboxed and had a charged set of batteries inserted.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 16, 2014)

mkabi said:


> Not far, but at least 1/2 a step better?


_It is_ - no question. I've seen it very clearly in the conversions _I've_ done. 

I've owned a 70D (which I frequently use, to great effect, at high ISO - I know what I'm doing) for some time, and have converted a number of high ISO 7D Mk II Raw files (from Imaging Resource), comparing them with equivalent 70D files from the same site. 

*The 7D Mk II is better* - and that's before the best converters have officially caught up with it (Photo Ninja converts 7D Mk II files already, even though it doesn't officially support them). 

I've also compared it with the "best of the rest" in the crop camera world (Nikon D7000/D71000, Pentax K-5/K-3) - I'll take the 7D Mk II's results _any_ day.

Once Photo Ninja and Capture One catch up with the 7D Mk II, things are going to be _really_ good. DPR's Raw conversion examples are crap (how many more times? ACR (and Lr) are not "state of the art" converters any more, especially used as badly as they've been here) - but hey, they do give The Usual Suspects something else to fixate on and whine about, so they've got _some_ value...

Seriously - download some 7D Mk II files from Imaging Resource and convert them yourselves - the latest DPP (which I don't regard very highly at all as a converter) supports the 7D Mk II, and gives better results than these DPR monstrosities.


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 16, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Not far, but at least 1/2 a step better?
> ...



I find DPP works quite well as a converter if you zero it out and only adjust color, exposure and apply lens correction.


----------



## quod (Oct 16, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I've also compared it with the "best of the rest" in the crop camera world (Nikon D7000/D71000, Pentax K-5/K-3) - I'll take the 7D Mk II's results _any_ day.


My Fuji X100S files appear (to me) to have about the same IQ my 5D3 shots. My significant other (who has pre-ordered the 7D2) looked at some of my high ISO shots and agreed. You should check out their files.


----------



## jrista (Oct 16, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Not far, but at least 1/2 a step better?
> ...




Alright. I'm going to put Capture One 8 to the test. I know that LR handles Canon noise worse than DPP does. That handling does not seem to have improved with LR 5.x. You have stated on multiple occasions lately that Capture One does a superior job handling noise. If it really does, then it may indeed be worth the money. I've trialed it in the past, although that may have been v7. I'm going to do some side-by-side processing of some images in both C1 and LR and see how things turn out. It looks like they offer a $10/mo subscription, which is fairly reasonable, and if it does a better job, I'll probably move to it.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 16, 2014)

pwp said:


> DP Review has updated the 7D MkII samples gallery after they got hold of an early build of ACR 8.7.
> Check it out here:
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7693022340/raw-conversions-added-to-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-real-world-samples-beta
> 
> -pw




Looks just like the same old, out-of-date Canon crop sensors we've been using for years.

Lowlight enthusiasts should run from any Canon crop to the 6D.

I'm in the field right now with several Canon crops and FF, and the 6D has the best IQ of them all.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 16, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> And from the looks of it, they haven't really tried to do the best possible processing of the RAWs.




Why would anyone want them to process the RAW's? Unprocessed RAW's are the only baseline for comparison.


----------



## candc (Oct 17, 2014)

i opened up the imaging resource iso 3200 raw in dpp and it looks good. just look at that af point spread. i am really looking forward to that!


----------

