# DPR Adds Studio Samples for EOS 7D Mark II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 27, 2014)

```
<p>DPReview has added studio samples to their EOS 7D Mark II first impressions write-up. They samples are in both .jpg and RAW.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9090306601/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-studio-samples-added-to-first-impressions" target="_blank">View Studio Samples at DPR</a> | Canon EOS 7D Mark II $1799: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081808-REG/canon_9128b002_eos_7d_mark_ii.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA7DM2.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NEWZDRG/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00NEWZDRG&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=4IHYPE3ZKJN5VL4X" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Helios68 (Oct 27, 2014)

Really interesting !

Comparing to the 6D and the 7DII, it seems to have only 1 IL in ISO between the two.
The RAWs 7DII at 3200 and the 6D at 6400 look quite similar.


----------



## Gcon (Oct 27, 2014)

It would be nice if the reviewer actually hit focus from time to time. Sheesh.


----------



## Khalai (Oct 27, 2014)

Helios68 said:


> Really interesting !
> 
> Comparing to the 6D and the 7DII, it seems to have only 1 IL in ISO between the two.
> The RAWs 7DII at 3200 and the 6D at 6400 look quite similar.



Impressive indeed, ISO 1600 on 7D2 looks very similar to 6D's 3200 and 6D's 6400 is only marginally better than 3200 on 7D2.

I would not worry using 7D2 up to 1600 with 3200 (and maybe 6400) for emergency. Quite nice for a crop body...


----------



## meywd (Oct 27, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Helios68 said:
> 
> 
> > Really interesting !
> ...



well, as you can see below, the 7D @ 3200 equals the 7D Mark II @ 6400 which equals the 6D @ 12800, that is good, but is it really accurate, the 6D has the best low light/high ISO performance at least for canon, does this test represent real cases, or the difference will be bigger when shooting an night?


----------



## whothafunk (Oct 27, 2014)

In other words.. JPEG just about the same as 70D from 100-6400, maybe 1/3 of an improvement, depends where on the picture you look. I was hoping they would improve noise reduction algorytm for JPEG.


----------



## erickmoreno (Oct 27, 2014)

meywd said:


> well, as you can see below, the 7D @ 3200 equals the 7D Mark II @ 6400 which equals the 6D @ 12800, that is good, but is it really accurate, the 6D has the best low light/high ISO performance at least for canon, does this test represent real cases, or the difference will be bigger when shooting an night?



At DPreview Comparison Tool, you can set it for low light. This will simulate a situation with light less than enough.


----------



## Khufu (Oct 27, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> In other words.. JPEG just about the same as 70D from 100-6400, maybe 1/3 of an improvement, depends where on the picture you look. I was hoping they would improve noise reduction algorytm for JPEG.



Do we know if the JPEGs have default/standard High ISO NR or if they've turned it off? (ie. Not default settings)

That thing works wonders controlling chroma-noise on the 70D and SL1, sacrificing a bit of sharpness.
There's also a pretty sweet feature in the 70D and I think maybe both the SL1 and M where you can crank the ISO right up and the camera combines 4 shots into one hella-clean low-light jpeg! When I started playing with this feature I was really disappointed to see the 5D3 doesn't do this... but the 6D does! Getting back on subject: the 7D2 probably also has this NR feature 

Also, I'm pleased to see the 70D isn't totally defeated by the 7D2 - got mine for around £630 and I'm not feeling the near £1,500 7D2 is too close to seducing me into poverty just yet


----------



## unfocused (Oct 27, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> DPReview has added studio samples to their EOS 7D Mark II first impressions write-up. The samples are in both .jpg and RAW.



Is there a difference between this post and the thread that was started last week http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23352.0? Or is Canon Rumors once again being scooped by his own readers.


----------



## Khufu (Oct 27, 2014)

> Or is Canon Rumors once again being scooped by his own readers.



In all fairness there's more of us that there are of him and he did provide us with a forum


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Oct 27, 2014)

Just here for the comments ;D


----------



## LovePhotography (Oct 27, 2014)

Compared the cameras I own (t5i and 6D) and one I've shot (5D3) with the 7DII at 100 ISO. To my eye, at every point on the test exposure the order of IQ was 6D -> 5DIII -> 7DII -> t5i. Clear winner was 6D except the yellow tube of paint with black ink which I would give to the 5DIII. The 7D2, to my eye, had more in common with the t5i (D700) than the other two cameras. Just my $0.02. Was willing to trade in my t5i for a 7D2 with good evidence to support it, but, at present, I'm not feeling the love... Not bad mind you, especially if your newest camera is behind the times. But no compelling info to upgrade/update from the current line up of cameras (that I can see).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 27, 2014)

I've noted that almost every viewer sees something different, depending on what they are looking for in a image. I've also noted that the differences seem to be more or less between models depending which part of the image you view.

I thought that the 7D MK II at ISO 12800, where I seem to live a lot was better than expected, but still pretty marginal. I think that those who do not do extreme low light shooting will be pleased.

Comparing jpeg's from different cameras is going to mislead the viewer because of different sharpening, saturation, contrast, etc among cameras. You can set these in the camera to get what you like. The RAW images are the closest way we have of seeing what comes off the sensor, and even then, some brands modify the output. Raw outputs usually uses lossless tiff compression, but some cameras use lossy compression, and all have NR at the pixel level.


----------



## dufflover (Oct 28, 2014)

Had a quick play myself just now (with 70D). Going off various spots on the RAWs at 800/1600/3200 the only difference I see is they've further reduced the shadow noise (ever so small though!). Tweaked electronics or circuit tracing to reduce the things which gave the read noise issues originally?


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 28, 2014)

dufflover said:


> Had a quick play myself just now (with 70D). Going off various spots on the RAWs at 800/1600/3200 the only difference I see is they've further reduced the shadow noise (ever so small though!). Tweaked electronics or circuit tracing to reduce the things which gave the read noise issues originally?



I think that is what they have done. The files clean up nicely in relation to the 7D2 so they seem better than the unprocessed RAWs show.


----------



## quod (Oct 28, 2014)

dufflover said:


> Had a quick play myself just now (with 70D). Going off various spots on the RAWs at 800/1600/3200 the only difference I see is they've further reduced the shadow noise (ever so small though!). Tweaked electronics or circuit tracing to reduce the things which gave the read noise issues originally?


I viewed the 800-1600-3200 RAWs in Irfanview. My impression is that the 7D2 shots were a lot softer and less contrasty than the 5D3 shots at the same ISOs. I hope this was misfocus rather than an indication of the IQ.


----------



## whothafunk (Oct 28, 2014)

APS-C is never as sharp as FF, even at ISO100, no way you can expect they would be on equal terms at 800-3200, where noise is a lot more visible and apparent on APS-C than on FF. More noise, less sharpness and less contrast.


----------



## quod (Oct 28, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> APS-C is never as sharp as FF, even at ISO100, no way you can expect they would be on equal terms at 800-3200, where noise is a lot more visible and apparent on APS-C than on FF. More noise, less sharpness and less contrast.


My Fuji X100S is as sharp, if not sharper, than my 5D3 at these ISOs. Also, I was under the impression the 70D improved on sharpness in comparison to the prior Canon APS-C crop sensors due to a less aggressive AA filter.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 28, 2014)

quod said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > Had a quick play myself just now (with 70D). Going off various spots on the RAWs at 800/1600/3200 the only difference I see is they've further reduced the shadow noise (ever so small though!). Tweaked electronics or circuit tracing to reduce the things which gave the read noise issues originally?
> ...



Sounds like just about any high megapixel crop when compared to FF.


----------



## kirispupis (Oct 28, 2014)

I have the 7D2 on preorder and spent some time looking at the crops here. I had already accepted that the 7D2 at ISO 1600 was the same as the 5D3 at ISO 3200, but after looking at them I came to the conclusion that it is worse. I therefore cancelled my preorder.

I do hope that the 1Dx2 has some improvement, as the lack of progress in sensors is frustrating.


----------



## nvsravank (Oct 29, 2014)

For my events i shoot between ISO 800 and ISO 1600 on my 5D MarkIII. On the 7D mark II i will be limited to ISO 800.

tough choices!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2014)

Everyone's eyes are a little different with these comparisons.

I believe that we shouldn't be looking at JPG shots unless we can back out just how much NR was used, either in-camera or if any was done in post. Based on the clear differences between the RAW shots and the JPG with this DPReview tool, it appears that the RAW files are not noise reduced and the JPGs are quite heavily noise reduced.

And as each camera body does NR slightly differently, we should be comparing RAW for the cleanest sensor comparison.

So with my eyes looking at RAW shots (center only), I saw the following shots showing similar levels of noise:

5D3 at 6400 
7D2 at 3200 
7D at 1600

That would imply -- admittedly, ever-so-crudely -- that the 7D2 offers one stop better noise performance than the 7D, yet still one stop worse than the 5D3. That's respectable from a 'look how close APS-C can get to FF these days!' perspective. But on the other hand, given the the _five years since the 7D was released_, current 7D owners might feel a bit let down on how little Canon have improved the noise performance of the sensor.

- A


----------



## whothafunk (Oct 29, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> That's *respectable* from a 'look how close APS-C can get to FF these days!' perspective.


that respect was already earned by 70D 14 months ago.


----------



## zim (Oct 29, 2014)

Anyone know how DPR converted the RAWS? I assume latest DPP but without knowing for sure (and what settings were used) this all seems rather like the initial 5D3 threads, inaccurate.

Regards


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2014)

zim said:


> Anyone know how DPR converted the RAWS? I assume latest DPP but without knowing for sure (and what settings were used) this all seems rather like the initial 5D3 threads, inaccurate.
> 
> Regards



Agree, so many unknowns here. I strongly prefer Bryan Carnathan's mouseover samples like these he did for the 5D3 back in 2012, where he lists all settings:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera.aspx

Once he gets his production copy, his 7D2 data will be published quickly, so I would check back at that site.

- A


----------



## wyldeguy (Oct 30, 2014)

where do I get the CR2 codec that allows me to see the 7D2 raw files? I can't seem to get one that works. Not even from the disc the camera came with.


----------



## quod (Oct 31, 2014)

wyldeguy said:


> where do I get the CR2 codec that allows me to see the 7D2 raw files? I can't seem to get one that works. Not even from the disc the camera came with.


If you cannot track this down, you can view 7D2 RAW files in Irfanview. It's free. Link: http://www.irfanview.com/


----------

