# Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files



## Keith (Sep 22, 2014)

Does anyone know if the RAW files of the new 7D will require software updates to process?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2014)

I don't know, but you can bet that with all the cameras from everyone that were announced at photokina, there will be updates released soon for most software packages.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2014)

Pretty much every new camera requires an update to RAW conversion software.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 22, 2014)

Yes they do, I got a couple of sample images and couldn't process them.

Have to wait for an update.


----------



## pwp (Sep 22, 2014)

Updates coming from Adobe for ACR & LR very, very soon.
There will be updates for a raft of new cameras that have been announced in the past week or so, not least the 7D2.

-pw


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pretty much every new camera requires an update to RAW conversion software.


This is true, but Photo Ninja is already able to make a pretty good fist of 7D Mk II conversions, even before it's officially supported: at the weekend I converted an Imaging Resource 7D Mk II sample at 1600 ISO, and converted the equivalent (supported) 6D file from the same source, and - at 100% view - it's _impossible_ to see a difference in the results, from a noise point of view.


----------



## rajivsubs (Sep 22, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> This is true, but Photo Ninja is already able to make a pretty good fist of 7D Mk II conversions, even before it's officially supported: at the weekend I converted an Imaging Resource 7D Mk II sample at 1600 ISO, and converted the equivalent (supported) 6D file from the same source, and - at 100% view - it's _impossible_ to see a difference in the results, from a noise point of view.



WOW!! Could you please post the 100% crops from both cameras?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 22, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much every new camera requires an update to RAW conversion software.
> ...


If I understand correctly:
RAW images provided by IMAGINGRESOURCE using PHOTO NINJA converter, seems equally between 6D and 7D Mark ii on the question of noise in ISO 1600?


----------



## tomscott (Sep 22, 2014)

Ye sorry, that is very hard to believe. the physical size of a full frame sensor gives it at least a 2 stop advantage.

If the noise on its own is similar I bet the image is very muddy.

The results are already up

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

The 6D and 5DMKIII perform much better. Still impressive performance tho.

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


----------



## quod (Sep 22, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Yes they do, I got a couple of sample images and couldn't process them.
> 
> Have to wait for an update.


I opened 7D2 RAWs wirh Irfanview, which is freeware. I saved them to TIFFs and edited the TIFFs with ACR and Photoshop CS6.


----------



## Leigh (Sep 22, 2014)

You can open the raw files in the free program rawTherapee .
:http://rawtherapee.com/

I downloaded 3200 ISO files of the 7D-2, & 70D; processed, & exported to PS-CS6 as TIFS, got 100% crops from 3 places in the image. (even without profiles, it's a fair comparison}
Note: I had to convert to High Quality jpeg to upload to this site, but the results are consistent.

I think it's fair to say that the 7D-2, 70D results are near identical.

Leigh


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 22, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Ye sorry, that is very hard to believe. the physical size of a full frame sensor gives it at least a 2 stop advantage.



1 1/3 stops, actually.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 22, 2014)

Leigh said:


> You can open the raw files in the free program rawTherapee .
> :http://rawtherapee.com/
> 
> I downloaded 3200 ISO files of the 7D-2, & 70D; processed, & exported to PS-CS6 as TIFS, got 100% crops from 3 places in the image. (even without profiles, it's a fair comparison}
> ...





Uh-oh.


----------



## Leigh (Sep 22, 2014)

7D vs 7D-2 vs 70D-3200 ISO raw to 16 bit TIF to jpeg for uploading---No additional processing, 100% crops.

leigh


----------



## coreyhkh (Sep 23, 2014)

What converter did you use? I am using Photo Ninja and here are my results

I used the 1dmkiv so I compared it and I am happy with the results especially when you scale the file up and that does not take into account the added crop factor you would have in the field.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.



Unusable? I'd call the 7D usable as 6400 and the 7D2 and 70D usable at 12,800 at least.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.
> ...



It all depends on the purpose. For a small print or a internet photo, you can get away with high ISO's just fine. However, some want to print large, and the noise becomes visible, or the detail is blurred by NR.

It all depends on the person and his use.

From what I've seen, the 7D MK II is just a tad better than the 70D at high ISO, and about 2 stops behind a FF like the 5D MK III.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.
> ...



I capture wildlife images, and I don't go past ISO 800 on the 7D or 70D i I can help it. Fur and feather detail becomes too mushy.

I'd consider the 7D borderline unusable at ISO 800, and know many wildlife photogs who simply gave up on the camera because of the noise at RAW ISO 800.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It all depends on the purpose. For a small print or a internet photo, you can get away with high ISO's just fine.



I'd debate that, even.  




> However, some want to print large, and the noise becomes visible, or the detail is blurred by NR.
> 
> It all depends on the person and his use.



True, it's all about taste and individual perception. But poor, mushy detail and watercolor images don't change because of a user's perception. They just are.





> From what I've seen, the 7D MK II is just a tad better than the 70D at high ISO, and about 2 stops behind a FF like the 5D MK III.



Which makes the 6D about 2 1/2 stops better. goes to show just how superior the 6D sensor is. I think that's an unacceptable outcome given the five years of 7DII development.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



I'd print those 6400 files at 18x12 or 13x19 no problem. I could manage acceptable 12x8s at 12,800.


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 23, 2014)

I might be naive, but would it not be better to wait for the codecs to appear in EOS Utility and Adobe programs before making judgments based on work-arounds?


----------



## stefsan (Sep 23, 2014)

Quasimodo said:


> I might be naive, but would it not be better to wait for the codecs to appear in EOS Utility and Adobe programs before making judgments based on work-arounds?



Of course it would be better – but who is that patient nowadays?


----------



## tomscott (Sep 23, 2014)

I think half the problem here is the conversion. When the codec comes out I think the 7DMKII will give slightly bette results than the 70D. Saying that useful up to 1600 3200 at a push, pretty much the same story with all APC. 3200 and 6400 are perfectly useable on the FF cameras like the 6D and 5DMKIII.

I don't know how you get away with only shooting 800ISO with wildlife, keeping the shutter speed at 1/1000 on an overcast day requires 1250+ in my experience. If you are in a darker environment like a forrest or under cover 3200+ is where you need to be.

Therefore for a lot of wildlife photographers the 1/2 stop advantage of the 20mp sensor might be pointless.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

tomscott said:


> I don't know how you get away with only shooting 800ISO with wildlife, keeping the shutter speed at 1/1000 on an overcast day requires 1250+ in my experience. If you are in a darker environment like a forrest or under cover 3200+ is where you need to be.



I would never use ISO 3200 for wildlife on a crop camera. You might be able to get away with it for indoor sports, but it's not going to cut it for antler and fur detail in RAW. The shots I've taken at 3200 are strictly for memories (wild bobcats, grizzly bears).

ISO 800 is about the limit of my friends usage on crop as well. I do dip into ISO 1600 from time to time, but these need major work to restore fur and antler detail.

If you are routinely using ISO 3200 on a crop camera for wildlife, you need to consider moving to FF ASAP, because that's shooting a weakness.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

This is a processed-from-JPEG Canon sample. It's shot at ISO 3200 on the 7DII, but I pushed it a stop in post (so, it's actually ISO 6400) and stretched it's contrast a ton (also enhances noise a lot). I'm posting this at 1920x1200 for viewing at that size on a 1920x1200 (or 1920x1080) screen at 1:1. On my screen, that makes it 20.5"x12.5", so it's roughly how a print that size would look. The processing I did was just a few clicks in the basic and detail panels of Lightroom. Just took 20 seconds or so.

I think this is quite good for an image that's effectively above ISO 6400.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

I don't shoot in jpeg.

The squirrel's fur also looks like a water color painting, and the delicate whiskers are eaten by noise/noise removal.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> I don't shoot in jpeg.



Well, then you should be able to do even better then, right?

The Canon sample was provided in JPEG, so that's all we have for this shot.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > I don't shoot in jpeg.
> ...



No. To get the kind of detail I want, you cannot shoot crop RAW at these ISO's.

The 5D III, 1Dx, and 6D will.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



I meant better than the sample I posted.


----------



## AprilForever (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



They said the same about 4'x6' vs. 35mm film for the longest time...


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

If you find yourself shooting ISO 3200 and 6400 consistently, it's FF time.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> If you find yourself shooting ISO 3200 and 6400 consistently, it's FF time.



So, that sample is unusable to you, correct?

I have both formats and I know what each is good for.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

Yes. The whiskers are eaten away by noise and the fur is lacking detail. Also, the face looks washed out/blown which is hard to fix in jpeg.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Yes. The whiskers are eaten away by noise and the fur is lacking detail.



Well, full-frame will get you 1 1/3 stops over APS-c given the same sensor performance. Maybe 2 stops if the sensor is quite a lot better. This is a stretched ISO 6400 shot, and I think it's quite good given that fact. Is it as good as an ISO 100 shot? No, of course not. But whatever you can shoot at ISO 12,800 with a 1Dx or 6D you can shoot at ISO 3200 or a little higher with this camera.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

As an owner of a 70D, I would disagree. I never shoot it above ISO 1600.

My FF cameras are significantly better. I would say the 6D is 2 1/2 stops better, 5DIII 2 stops.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> As an owner of a 70D, I would disagree. I never shoot it above ISO 1600.
> 
> My FF cameras are significantly better. I would say the 6D is 2 1/2 stops better, 5DIII 2 stops.



Okay, whatever. I'd call the 6D 2 stops and the 5DIII 1 1/2, but that's only a half stop discrepancy.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 23, 2014)

I thought that the squirrel-shot was quite good. Since it was taken in mid-January I suspect that there has been some alterations and tweaks done to the final product, and that RAWs will come out nicely from this 7D Mark II even at fairly high ISO settings.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how you get away with only shooting 800ISO with wildlife, keeping the shutter speed at 1/1000 on an overcast day requires 1250+ in my experience. If you are in a darker environment like a forrest or under cover 3200+ is where you need to be.
> ...



Thats why I shoot FF… Which is why I said i don't know how people get away with only shooting ISO800.

I think the squirrel image is pretty good, it is a little muddy but with a little too much sharpening.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> I thought that the squirrel-shot was quite good. Since it was taken in mid-January, I suspect that there has been some alterations and tweaks done to the final product, and that RAWs will come out nicely from this 7D Mark II even at fairly high ISO settings.



you're okay with noise/noise removal removing parts of the animal?


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

tomscott said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...




Yep. I consider crops "afternoon" wildlife ISO 100-800 cameras, and FF for crepuscular/forest shooting to 12,800. Different tools for different jobs.

The crop bring you closer in daylight when animals are more leery, and the FF gets the job done in lowlight hours when many animals are more active and willing to move closer.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Yep. I consider crops "afternoon" wildlife ISO 100-800 cameras, and FF for crepuscular/forest shooting to 12,800.



That's four stops. That's not what you said above.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. I consider crops "afternoon" wildlife ISO 100-800 cameras, and FF for crepuscular/forest shooting to 12,800.
> ...



The 6D cleans up a bit better at 12,800 for smaller web photos. But it's not something I'd do consistently.


----------



## coreyhkh (Sep 23, 2014)

WOW people really need to learn to use noise removal plugins. all my bird shots are taken at between 800 and 1600ISO on the 7D.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/corey-hayes/


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

coreyhkh said:


> WOW people really need to learn to use noise removal plugins.


 
It's not really about that. It's about using the cameras within their "sweet spots". ISO 1600+ is a serious weakness for crop cameras. If you find yourself shooting crop at those ISO's, it's time to go to a 6D, regardless of how gimped the AF is.


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 23, 2014)

I´ll wait for the official peepers to make their judgement, but I will get it regardless, as IMHO it looks like a great back up camera, which also will make my 1Dx look better


----------



## SPKoko (Sep 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > As an owner of a 70D, I would disagree. I never shoot it above ISO 1600.
> ...



According to Snapsort, that extracts ISO performance data from DxOMark, a 1,3 stops advantage for the 6D and a 1 stop advantage for the 5DIII:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Canon-EOS-70D
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-70D-vs-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II

Those numbers match reasonably well with what I can see in the dpreview's studio scene:

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

where the ISO 1600 image from the 70D is noisier than the ISO 3200 image from the 6D but it is better than the ISO 6400 image. It looks closer to the ISO 3200 image than to the ISO 6400 image. Therefore, that number of 1,3 stops advantage seems just right.


----------



## Woody (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> The squirrel's fur also looks like a water color painting, and the delicate whiskers are eaten by noise/noise removal.



No, they don't. They are fine.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 23, 2014)

Nothing in the squirrel looks in good focus, and the whiskers are eaten away by noise/noise removal.

That shot was best left for a full frame sensor.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Nothing in the squirrel looks in good focus,



The eye and parts of the tail are in good focus. It was shot at f/4 with the 200-400/4 and so it has very shallow depth-of-field.


----------



## applecider (Sep 23, 2014)

Corey I like your bird shots, especially the composition. I really wish that you and everyone really would show full exif info to show on flikr, but that's just my pet peeve.

My criteria of a sharp bird picture like yours is to be able to see the little dots around the birds' eyes. When the eye dots show the feather detail is there as well and there is no reason one should not shoot to capture all these details. BTW if anyone knows what the dots are called I'd like to know. 

For web use the crop does a decent job, for prints I still want to see the fine details, and for that FF is my boat. So I'm with Michael Hodges on this one. So far the 7Dii raws haven't given me a reason to change my thinking or shooting.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 23, 2014)

I think the real "kill shot" will be the dual pixel technology in full frame. My 7D is awesome in good light, but when the light goes low, the 5D III comes out.
The whole point of having a DSLR is accurate, high quality capture for large prints. Otherwise, a point & shoot works great for 4x5s and web size.
After using full frame, I'm really leaning toward going 100% full on all new purchases. If I need "reach", I'll use an extender.
In reality, it all boils down to what is acceptable for YOUR needs. Cost versus performance & features drive the market.
Truthfully, the only reason I went to full frame is that I got tired of trying to figure out what my focal length was going to be on the crop size.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2014)

coreyhkh said:


> WOW people really need to learn to use noise removal plugins. all my bird shots are taken at between 800 and 1600ISO on the 7D.
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/corey-hayes/



Well, it seems like all your shots posted at the link are at 1024 on the long side which will help with noise quite a bit but I tend to agree. When I had a 7D, I never shot higher than 800 because the noise was such a killer, especially when cropping, but I've learned a lot about noise reduction and general bird photography techniques since then. You can go a lot further with NR if its done thoughtfully and carefully and, of course, noise is less of a problem if you can get more of your subject in the frame.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 23, 2014)

applecider said:


> Corey I like your bird shots, especially the composition. I really wish that you and everyone really would show full exif info to show on flikr, but that's just my pet peeve.
> 
> My criteria of a sharp bird picture like yours is to be able to see the little dots around the birds' eyes. When the eye dots show the feather detail is there as well and there is no reason one should not shoot to capture all these details. BTW if anyone knows what the dots are called I'd like to know.
> 
> For web use the crop does a decent job, for prints I still want to see the fine details, and for that FF is my boat. So I'm with Michael Hodges on this one. So far the 7Dii raws haven't given me a reason to change my thinking or shooting.



I think you mean the "orbital ring", at least that's what it's called in Swedish. "Eye ring" is also appropriate.


----------



## quod (Sep 25, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> ISO 1600+ is a serious weakness for crop cameras. If you find yourself shooting crop at those ISO's, it's time to go to a 6D, regardless of how gimped the AF is.


My Fuji X100S looks very good at ISO 1600 and good at ISO 3200. It's Canon's crop cameras that struggle at ISO 1600+.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 25, 2014)

Has anyone with access to 7d2 raw files tried processing them in DPP4 ? I am not in the market for an aps-c body, FF gives me the quality I need and want. For me the interest in the 7d2 was in seeing what the latest Canon sensor R&D was capable of. But I just cannot believe that the high iso quality of the 7d2 is s till the same as the 7d, especially when Canon claim there is an improvement. So forgive my scepticism on the images and comparisons posted here...I need more proof!


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 6, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Nothing in the squirrel looks in good focus, and the whiskers are eaten away by noise/noise removal.
> 
> That shot was best left for a full frame sensor.



Clumsy processing, maybe?


----------

