# Canon 7D Mark II Image Quality



## dh (Apr 24, 2015)

Hi all,

I've been reading the "new firmware" thread about the Canon 7D Mark II. Most of the complaints there seem to be related to auto-focus accuracy. What I find disappointing about my 7D2 is not the auto-focus, but the overall image quality. My other body is a 5D3, and I find that the 7D2 doesn't hold a candle to it in terms of fine detail.

I'll admit I can be a bit of a pixel-peeper, but I just can't seem to get the kind of detail I want out of my 7D2. For example, in images of birds, the fine details of the feathers are almost completely missing.

I've seen shots that others have taken with a 7D2 that seem to have better fine detail. I'm not sure if the difference is that I've got a bad 7D2 that needs to be repaired/replaced, or if I'm doing something wrong in my post-processing.

If anyone has any insight on this, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
-dh


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 24, 2015)

I've just got a new 7D2 yesterday as upgrade for my old 7D, and I do a lot of birding with a 5D3. I hope I can check today how my 7D2 performs with a tele lens. 

One reason for mushed feather and fur textures could be too slow shutter speeds. I know this problem already from my old 7D: its smaller pixels are much more sensitive to those permanent vibrating movements which are typical e.g. for small birds. So one needs to go for shorter exposure times compared with cameras with bigger pixels. It is simply a geometrical effect, just like a higher magnification of a microscope also magnifies every movement of a probe like a lever. So I always had to use higher shutter speed settings with my 7D for birding than with my 5D3. Same with my wife's Nikon D300. With its 12 MP and bigger pixels she can go for less fast shutter speeds (using same focal lenghts) than me with my 7D  and her images still look sharp when pixel peeping. 

Unfortunately, this drives one faster to a higher ISO range, where the higher resolving, smaller pixel get more noisy... like always in life everything comes with a price tag.


----------



## Danzq (Apr 24, 2015)

I think the IQ is superb when it hits focus - no complaints there.

+1 for the comment above regarding higher shutter speeds.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 24, 2015)

Also, expecting FF quality (OP is comparing to a 5DIII), may still be high expectations in 2015. After all, 7DII costs half of 5DIII release price--and includes new features.

Very keen to se new firmware.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 24, 2015)

Danzq said:


> I think the IQ is superb when it hits focus - no complaints there.
> 
> +1 for the comment above regarding higher shutter speeds.



+2 on the higher shutter speeds....


----------



## kristianlund (Apr 24, 2015)

I have problems with AF... But when it hits its really sharp. But sometimes i experience noise at even 100 iso.


----------



## Vincwat (Apr 24, 2015)

Hi Dh,

I have bought a 7Dk2 in January. I own the 5Dmk3. Recently I bought the Sigma 150-600 sport.
When I use it with the 7Dk2 i am very disappointed with the image quality. I didn't have time to check the image quality of the images taken with the 7Dk2 and the Tamron 150-600 i owned before. But there is a huge difference between the 7Dk2 and the 5Dk3. Of course I know it is APSC vs FF. But as you mention there is no detail in the feather of a bird, it looks like the focus is never good. Even with non-moving subject, using a tripod and shutter speed of 1600 or 2000 the pictures look terrible.

As soon as I am home I will post some unprocessed raw files.

I am thinking about getting a 1Dmk4 to replace the 7Dk2.

Vincwat


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 24, 2015)

Comparing bird shots.

First you shoot tweety in the back yard using both cameras. Obviously if you are using a FF you will most likely have to crop. So you shoot the same tweety at the exact same distance. The bird fills the frame so you do not have to crop with the 7D II. In this scenario the 7D II will be noticeably sharper than the FF.

The next scenario is you shoot tweety bird with a FF but you do not have to crop because you are using a zoom and got close enough. So with the 7D II you shoot tweety farther away or you adjust the zoom to fill the frame exactly the same as FF. No cropping. The FF will be noticeably sharper than the 7D II. In this situation you might even say the 5D III blows it away, I would.

I hate to say it because I find it to be a statement that is lacking, but "more pixels on target" wins.

I have been using the 7D II exclusively for bird and wildlife since I bought it. All the situations are focal length limited situations described in my first scenario. If you are cropping the FF substantially the 7D II will give you a noticeably sharper image. 

Why are you not getting sharp images? I do not know. But if you have the skill and are able to get sharp images with the 5D III then you should be able to get sharp images with the 7D II. I could tell you how to get sharp bird photographs, but if you have the skill already with the 5D III you have it for the 7D II.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 24, 2015)

The thing that comes with a 1.6 crop, is the need for 1.6 X faster shutter speeds to avoid motion blur.

Its difficult to help someone without actually seeing the full size images that are a problem.


----------



## Visarend (Apr 24, 2015)

The obvious question not yet asked. Have you AFMA your lens? Is it not soft because your focus is not as spot on as is the case for the 5D?


----------



## Vincwat (Apr 24, 2015)

Hi guys,

I know how to take sharp pictures of birds, the shutter speed is not a factor since I keep it high and the test I did were from a tripod. We were mentioning feather because obviously this is the kind of thing in which you want a lot of details.
But my tests were not involving birds, but non-moving subjects (a wall, bricks, ...) I did these tests after realizing that my pictures taken on the field were not as I wanted them to be. Both cameras have been AFMA with the lens (Dot tune method and Focal which by the way gave me the same results).
The pictures from the 7D2 look good as ok as you dont look at it at 100%.

Vincwat


----------



## Andyx01 (Apr 24, 2015)

Sorry everyone - You don't need a faster shutter on a 7D over a 5D in fact if anything you could get away with a slower shutter since the frame will contain fewer pixels.

On the other hand, if you are not comphensating for framing, you will need a 55% faster shutter (61% faster from the crop / 1.1 slower from the decreased sensor density) at matching focal lengths if you want to see increased detail that would otherwise be lost to motion. At a given shuter, you are NOT going to lose detail on small subjects, you only increase the chance of having motion blur which will be the same amount as the 5D only zoomed back by a factor of 1.6 In other words the image will NOT be worse, it will be equal or better on content already being cropped.

Having cleared that up; the differences you are seeing are probably due to lens quality.

If you were to say that Full frame uses 100% of an EF lens, you could say that crop uses only 39% of that.

This magnifies the defects.

The better the lens, the less of an issue.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 24, 2015)

Andyx01 said:


> Having cleared that up; the differences you are seeing are probably due to lens quality.
> 
> If you were to say that Full frame uses 100% of an EF lens, you could say that crop uses only 39% of that.
> 
> ...



No it doesn't.

First you are using the best part of the lens with the crop, the center. But that doesn't even matter in an equal distance equal target comparison.
Next your pictures will not be worse with a bad lens. They may not be any better because of the limitation of the lens but they will not be worse.

I would ask you to show an example of a really bad lens shot on an older sensor compared to one of the current sensors to demonstrate this. 

Otherwise I write this line of thinking off to one of those baseless theories that we see floating around all the time. The theory starts out sound then gets warped as it is repeated. It starts out by someone saying a high resolution sensor will show more flaws in the lens, sure it would, then someone adds the line it makes your picture worse because you see flaws. One doesn't lead to the other.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 24, 2015)

Andyx01 said:


> Sorry everyone - You don't need a faster shutter on a 7D over a 5D in fact if anything you could get away with a slower shutter since the frame will contain fewer pixels.
> 
> On the other hand, if you are not comphensating for framing, you will need a 55% faster shutter (61% faster from the crop / 1.1 slower from the decreased sensor density) at matching focal lengths if you want to see increased detail that would otherwise be lost to motion. At a given shuter, you are NOT going to lose detail on small subjects, you only increase the chance of having motion blur which will be the same amount as the 5D only zoomed back by a factor of 1.6 In other words the image will NOT be worse, it will be equal or better on content already being cropped.
> 
> ...



Utterly baffling.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 25, 2015)

Vincwat, I think you'd be disappointed with the 1D4 relative to FF IQ such as the 6D. Having just bought a 1D4 it has lots of features to really like, but higher ISO such as 1250 is grainy if you're forced to crop very much. My gut feeling is that once you pixel peep with FF, a crop camera isn't going to satisfy you.

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 25, 2015)

Andyx01 said:


> Sorry everyone - You don't need a faster shutter on a 7D over a 5D in fact if anything you could get away with a slower shutter since the frame will contain fewer pixels.
> 
> On the other hand, if you are not comphensating for framing, you will need a 55% faster shutter (61% faster from the crop / 1.1 slower from the decreased sensor density) at matching focal lengths if you want to see increased detail that would otherwise be lost to motion. At a given shuter, you are NOT going to lose detail on small subjects, you only increase the chance of having motion blur which will be the same amount as the 5D only zoomed back by a factor of 1.6 In other words the image will NOT be worse, it will be equal or better on content already being cropped.
> 
> ...


Given approximately the same pixel count, the pixels on a crop camera are 62 percent of the length or width of a pixel on a FF camera. With the same lens, Vibration or movement on a FF camera that would cause a ray of light to move 1 pixel, would move 1.6 pixels of a crop camera. You counter this by reducing the time by 1.6 times.

Smaller pixels require faster shutter speed to get the same amount of blur. It is simple geometry.


----------



## candc (Apr 25, 2015)

you need a faster shutter speed with a crop camera compared to ff due to the narrower field of view. just like the longer the focal length of the lens, the faster the shutter speed you need. the general rule for ff is 1/fl but for a crop camera its 1/(fl x 1.6). if you use auto iso that is what the camera tries to maintain for a minimum shutter speed. 

when viewed at 100% small pixels will smear with movement easier than big ones so that and the narrower field of view really requires a high density sensor crop camera to need a fast shutter, some say the rule of thumb is 1/(fl x 2) 


if you are shooting action you are going to get motion blur, the more you crop or magnify the image the more noticeable it is.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 25, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Next your pictures will not be worse with a bad lens. They may not be any better because of the limitation of the lens but they will not be worse.


The resolution of the system is a function of pixel density and lens quality. There is no hard stop where increasing the quality of the lens gives you no improvements, just diminishing returns.....

Regardless of the camera, be it FF or crop, a better quality lens (less or smaller aberrations and tighter tolerances) will increase the resolution of the photo. Likewise, a poorer quality lens will decrease the resolution of the photo.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Next your pictures will not be worse with a bad lens. They may not be any better because of the limitation of the lens but they will not be worse.
> ...



For the most part I agree with this. 

My comment was in reference to a lens on a FF and the same lens on a 7D II where distance and testing are equal. The 7D II will not be worse because it "shows flaws".


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Given approximately the same pixel count, the pixels on a crop camera are 62 percent of the length or width of a pixel on a FF camera. With the same lens, Vibration or movement on a FF camera that would cause a ray of light to move 1 pixel, would move 1.6 pixels of a crop camera. You counter this by reducing the time by 1.6 times.
> 
> Smaller pixels require faster shutter speed to get the same amount of blur. It is simple geometry.



I would like to see testing that demonstrates this. Know of any?


----------



## NancyP (Apr 25, 2015)

My minimum shutter speed for moving birds on the 60D with 400 f/5.6L is 1/1000 sec.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 25, 2015)

NancyP said:


> My minimum shutter speed for moving birds on the 60D with 400 f/5.6L is 1/1000 sec.



That's been my goal as well, 1/2000 is better. The op did not post any photos or give any settings, he merely assures us that he knows how to take sharp images.

That leaves the question as to what he wants from the forum.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 25, 2015)

The OP does say he knows how to shoot his 5D III to get sharp pictures.

Then people start telling him he must double his shutter speed because of camera shake and that you loose resolution because the 7D II will show all the lens flaws.

I have been shooting the 7D II along side of my 1D IV and 5D II taking all to the blind since November. While some of this reasoning has a partial basis in truth, it doesn't play out in the real world.

If the OP has the skill and knowledge to take a sharp picture with a 5D III he as the skill to take one with the 7D II. 
Equal settings, equal shutter speeds the 7D II at the same distance with the same lens on a crop picture the 7D II will produce a sharper image. In this scenario camera shake just doesn't play out as an issue that is different from one body to the next.

There are times camera shake and shutter speed are an issue with the 7D II vs the FF, but that is related to poor ISO performance and having to use slower shutter speeds to keep ISO down.


----------



## dh (Apr 25, 2015)

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. Here are a couple of comparison shots (unprocessed, just exported from LR as JPG):

https://www.flickr.com/gp/[email protected]/26i3xe/

Maybe not the most dramatic example, but these are two relatively good side-by-side comparisons.

Happy to hear any thoughts on what's going on here -- problem with my technique, expectations too high, etc.

Thanks,
-dh


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 25, 2015)

Andyx01 said:


> Sorry everyone - You don't need a faster shutter on a 7D over a 5D in fact if anything you could get away with a slower shutter since the frame will contain fewer pixels.
> 
> On the other hand, if you are not comphensating for framing, you will need a 55% faster shutter (61% faster from the crop / 1.1 slower from the decreased sensor density) at matching focal lengths if you want to see increased detail that would otherwise be lost to motion. At a given shuter, you are NOT going to lose detail on small subjects, you only increase the chance of having motion blur which will be the same amount as the 5D only zoomed back by a factor of 1.6 In other words the image will NOT be worse, it will be equal or better on content already being cropped.
> 
> ...



Even Canon recommends a faster shutter speed for crop cameras using the same lens at the same distance. Image blur happens due to motion of the camera during a photo. The smaller and closer photosites mean that a slight movement will blur across the pixels. If you compare a crop camera with a FF body having the same pixel size and spacing, that would not be a issue.

A crop camera does not magnify defects, it crops the center of the image, and you generally get fewer issues which generally show up on the edges of the image circle.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 25, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A crop camera does not magnify defects, it crops the center of the image, and you generally get fewer issues which generally show up on the edges of the image circle.



Sure, but what flaws there are will be magnified more the smaller the sensor is, for a constant view or print size.


----------



## candc (Apr 25, 2015)

dh said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. Here are a couple of comparison shots (unprocessed, just exported from LR as JPG):
> 
> ...



Ok so what are we looking for here? The heron shots are under completely different light and the killdeer shots look pretty similar.


----------



## Vincwat (Apr 25, 2015)

Hi everyone,

I did not check the pictures from dh yet. My connection here is too slow.
Thanks everyone for your replies. The debate is not about the shutter speed on a crop factor.
When at 600mm (960 on the 7D2) my shutter speed are 1/1600 or faster.
I was thinking about starting a thread about the 7D2 image quality. But Dh reported exactly the same feeling that I have. As one of you mention. I should probably not pixel peep with a crop sensor once you have worked with FF.
I guess I have to buy a 1Dx to be satisfied. Unless of course my 7D2 has a problem. I will post pictures as soon as I can.

Vincwat


----------



## AlanF (Apr 25, 2015)

When I put the same lens on my 7DII and then the 5DIII and shoot a test card, I get better resolution from the 7DII but better contrast from the 5DIII. The better resolution is because the smaller pixels obviously can separate finely spaced lines. But, in turn, they smooth out the transition from intense black to pure white - the larger pixels have a sharper, albeit more jagged, transition. It is a combination of contrast and resolution that gives the overall apparent sharpness of an image (high and low frequency MTFs). DxO when they measure "perceptive megapixels", I think, are doing something like combining different frequency MTFs whereas lenstip, ePhotozine etc are using a standard MTF measurement.

The perceptive megapixel measurements of DxO show that an ultrasharp lens like the 300mm f/2.8 II loses comparatively little sharpness on going from FF to crop whereas softer lenses like the Tamron150-600 or the old 100-400mm are hit hard. The softer lenses lose more contrast by spreading out the transition of sharp edges even more. I see this in my own tests and you can see it by comparing FF vs crop on TDP. It was a revelation to me when I tried my old 100-400 on a 5DIII after the soft images it always gave me on the 7D.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 25, 2015)

dh said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. Here are a couple of comparison shots (unprocessed, just exported from LR as JPG):
> 
> ...



Just had a quick look at your examples. Am I not right in saying that we would expect resolution to fall on a crop camera faster than on a FF as ISO goes higher ? 

On your first two samples the FF is a ISO 250, your crop at 800. On the second two, FF is 1000 and crop 800, so pretty much the same. Advantage very much to FF in your first sample, advantage still to FF in your second sample.

If you want to compare them I would start by static tests on a tripod with your sharpest lens at base ISO, then move up from there.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Apr 25, 2015)

kristianlund said:


> But sometimes i experience noise at even 100 iso.



Yeah, that'll be down to you (and the OP) - or more to the point, your conversion/processing decisions.

This a 100% crop of a *4000* ISO file from my 7D Mk II - straight out of converter (in noise terms - no additional PP added) and it's _squeaky_ clean.

And at the image level - sharp, detailed, _right_. Again, no additional NR over what the converter applied.

_Because I used a converter that does the job..._

(The exif in the second shot will indicate that I wasn't short of light - true, I was testing Auto ISO when I took this, and had dialed in a high shutter speed, which I want for bird and motor sport photography) but, this is still a perfect demonstration of the 7D Mk II's IQ capabilities).


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 25, 2015)

Hi Al and all,

Here are some results from my first brief birding tour yesterday ith my new 7D2, compared with my 5D3. I didn’t take my old 7D because I didn’t have enough time to handle three cameras, and I could not plan and design a perfect test setup - so it's a bit rough and dirty, but with interesting results. It was already late afternoon, so I decided to visit a feathered friend, a tawny owl, who I knew would keep still enough for a bit of a test shooting . Unfortunately, his/her “apartment” is a bit high on an old, high tree. 

I used a 20 yrs old EF 500mm F/4.5 (Lady Di was paparazzied with it to death – no, that's a very bad joke) and optionally a 1.4x TC (Canon, Mk. III) on a monopod I just grabbed and threw on my backpack. This vintage lens has no IS but is very sharp when closed to >= F/5. I shot RAWs and slightly post processed them in Canon’s DPP (for those who don’t use LR) with „unsharp mask“ parameters shifted to maximum detail but standard sharpening settings untouched. Then I converted the resulting JPEGs to a reduced size allowed for uploading here (2000 Pixels width, compression quality level “7”). 

Step 1: The two images here show the whole, not cropped images I got with the 500mm, no TC. Both cameras set to F/5.6. 7D2 shot with 1/1000s ISO 1600 (to check how far I can go down without IS and get not too much blur by my tiny motions with the monopod). 5D3 shot with 1/1600s ISO 4000. The 2nd image is shot with the 7D2 (of course).


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 25, 2015)

…step 2 (check my first posting before this one): both images cropped to the same bird’s size to see which camera delivers more detail with settings as described in my first posting. First image is from my 5D3, second from my 7D2. As you can see, the 7D2 delivers a tad more fine detail in the feather texture than the 5D3 (see also my nexts postings), despite I used a slower shutter speed by 1/600s with the crop sensor 7D2. In fact, the cropped image from 5D3 has only 1350 Pixels width left, because the owl was already very small in the full image. So at least until ISO 1600 the 7D2 delivers what I hoped for – more reach and better detail for birding than my 5D3.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 25, 2015)

… step 3 (check my two previous postings first): now another interesting comparison, my 5D3 with 700mm (500mm + 1.4 TC) (1st image) compared to my 7D2 with 500mm only (2nd image). Both shot with 1/2000s, 5D3+TC combo at F/6.3 (ISO 1000), 7D2 at F/5 (ISO 1250) (I know I should have used the same F stop settings with both, but as I said, this was a rough & dirty test). So, both combos deliver about the same image framing (1.4x TC + FF vs. 1,6x crop but 2 MP less resolution). 

The images shown here are cropped to roughly 1400 Pixel width, and the results of both combos get much closer. The 5D3’s image appears to look a bit more pronounced in details. But at that moment there was more bright grazing light on the owl (light conditions changed quickly) and its aperture was more closed by 1.3 stops. You can also notice that are clipped highlight spots in both images since the light at that moment still was hard and contrast rich (not my preferred setting), and I decided to use automatic metering without compensation to see how the 7D2’s metering performs – and did the same with my 5D3 knowing that this wasn’t what I’d do normally. Well, the result shows that the 7D2 would have needed some compensation by -2/3 stops, too… 

Overall I can tell from this first brief real life test that IMO the 7D2 seems to be a really nice wildlife tool, in good light and the same focal lengths it definitely outperforms the 5D3 in resolving objects far away - in real life, as I hoped for. The game changes a bit with the 5D3+1.4 TC, but if there’s enough light I can now slab a TC on my 7D2, combine it with use an F/4(.5) super tele and get even more reach. This is the huge leap from the old 7D I hoped for (I did not yet test the 7D2 dual pixel AF in LV which should be another big leap). I also appreciate the 7D2’s great silent mode which appears even more silent than the 5D3’s one. The loud shutter noise of the old 7D sometimes threatened to scare shy animals.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 25, 2015)

To make my "step 2" posting more clear to those who do not want to compare both images in detail: here a crop of those 5D3's and 7D's images, both shot with the 500mm, 7D2 with 1/1000s ISO 1600, 5D3 with 1/1600s ISO 4000. The 7D's image looks a bit softer (I sharpened it now a bit more in Photoshop), but shows more fine detail.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 25, 2015)

dh said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. Here are a couple of comparison shots (unprocessed, just exported from LR as JPG):
> 
> ...



The picture of the heron is not comparable. Different lighting and different framing.

The other bird is shot with two different lenses with close to the same framing. The 7D II at 300mm on a zoom and the FF at 400mm on a prime. Actually I do not see what you are talking about with these pics but it's not an equal comparison. If anything I would have expected the FF to look better in this comparison.

To my original response, the extra resolution of the 7D II is only going to be seen in a focal length limited situation, where it is on your longest lens. In that situation you have to crop a substantial amount if you shoot FF. 
Because of this I only use mine on my longest lens the 500mm. If I can use an appropriate shorter focal length I will be using a different body.

In your second example if I were carrying both bodies my 7D II would have been on the prime and the 5D on the zoom.

I think the problem you may be having has nothing to do with settings or technique, rather it is your expectations of what the 7D II should be doing. The 7D II has an advantage, but only in a limited set of circumstances.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 25, 2015)

One of CR member shared some 7D II + 100-400 II RAW files with me - BIF photos. Looking through LR, I'm impressed with Canon 7D II cropped sensor. I cropped down 50% and IQ still look great. The shutter speed he shot was 1/2000. It doesn't seem his camera has issue with AF focus at all.


----------



## MikeT (Apr 25, 2015)

MikeT said:


> Because I used a converter that does the job...



Keith Reeder... Which converter did you use? I used my new 7D MkII this week, and was very disappointed in the level of noise at ISO 3200, even after using DxO Prime.


----------



## dh (Apr 25, 2015)

candc said:


> dh said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...



If you look in the killdeer shots at the amount of fine detail on the bird's wing, back, and breast, the 5D3 appears to have significantly more detail than the 7D2. Another post in this thread indicates that that would be expected in this kind of scenario, so maybe this is just a case of unrealistic expectations on my part.

Perhaps the heron shots are not as useful for side-by-side comparison, but to my eye, they show a similarly disappointing lack of detail in the 7D2 image compared to the 5D3.

Thanks,
-dh


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 25, 2015)

dh said:


> If you look in the killdeer shots at the amount of fine detail on the bird's wing, back, and breast, the 5D3 appears to have significantly more detail than the 7D2. Another post in this thread indicates that that would be expected in this kind of scenario, so maybe this is just a case of unrealistic expectations on my part.



Had you shot the killdeer with the 5D III using 70-300mm at 300mm, then cropped the picture to the same field of view as the 7D II's. Then resized the image to the exact same size then you have an equal comparison to the 7D II's image. In that situation you will see an improvement.

Focal length limited situations, at your longest focal length, where you have to crop go with the 7D II. It is a very narrow set of circumstances.

Outside of those parameters, the FF body photos will look equal or better.
Without that understanding or need for length, honestly there isn't much reason to own a 7D II. Maybe FPS, maybe video but not many reasons.


----------



## zombiePix (Apr 25, 2015)

I think the 7d2 picture of the Killdeer is slightly out of focus, while the 5d3 picture is not. This is a big part of the reason for softness from the 7d2.
I think I would start checking the potential sharpness from the 7d by carefully focusing in live view on a static subject with proper contrast and detail, camera on tripod, base iso.
And when you know how good the camera (and lens combo) can be, further do tests of the consistency of the Phase Detect AF, to see how consistent it is.

My observations, 100% view, pixelpeep:
7d2 Killdeer: Focus plane on tip of Bill or even closer to the camera.
5d3 Killdeer: Focus plane somewhere around the chest.

They both contain about equal amount of detail on the forehead / root of bill.
The tip of the bill is slightly sharper on the 7d2.
The chest, wings and legs are clearly sharper on the 5d3.

Other things might affect sharpness, like different lenses.
But I wouldn't expect the same leve of pixel sharpness from the 7d2 as from the 5d3.

Still I think your camera has higher potential if you nail focus with that 70-300L " 300mm.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 26, 2015)

dh said:


> I'll admit I can be a bit of a pixel-peeper, but I just can't seem to get the kind of detail I want out of my 7D2. For example, in images of birds, the fine details of the feathers are almost completely missing.



Essentially 100% of the time that is caused by one or more of the following:

Poor lens
Missed focus
Motion blur

Let's say you've got a good lens and you're being careful to avoid motion blur.

Then it's AF accuracy.

I spent a good bit of time in the last few days doing a careful AFMA of some of my lenses. Well, the difference between a slightly OOF shot and a nailed shot is quite dramatic (it can be a factor of 2-4 in effective resolving power).

So, before you go blaming the camera, make sure you've got all three of those points above under control.


----------



## dh (Apr 26, 2015)

Thanks all for the input and suggestions. I've taken a pass at AFMA-ing my lenses (using Dot Tune). I'll report back when I've taken them out for a spin -- I do hope that this is something that can be solved (user error, AF accuracy, shutter speed)... I really want to like my 7D2.


----------



## allanP (Apr 26, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> kristianlund said:
> 
> 
> > But sometimes i experience noise at even 100 iso.
> ...



Hi,
which one?


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 26, 2015)

dh said:


> Thanks all for the input and suggestions. I've taken a pass at AFMA-ing my lenses (using Dot Tune). I'll report back when I've taken them out for a spin -- I do hope that this is something that can be solved (user error, AF accuracy, shutter speed)... I really want to like my 7D2.



During my careful AFMA process I discovered that dot tune is reliably inaccurate. All the numbers I got from dot tune were wrong by a substantial amount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> dh said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks all for the input and suggestions. I've taken a pass at AFMA-ing my lenses (using Dot Tune). I'll report back when I've taken them out for a spin -- I do hope that this is something that can be solved (user error, AF accuracy, shutter speed)... I really want to like my 7D2.
> ...



Agreed. Well, not _all_ of them were off for me, but enough to demonstrate that the 'dot tune' method is unreliable. There are accurate ways to DIY an AFMA setup, dot tune isn't one of them.


----------



## dh (Apr 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dh said:
> ...



Would love to hear more about this -- I went out shooting today and had mixed results. Some of the lenses I had Dot Tuned were significantly worse than with AFMA disabled... others seemed to be a bit better (but maybe I just got lucky).

I've been considering purchasing FoCal, but if there are other DIY solutions that work well, I'd love some pointers.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 27, 2015)

dh said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I just made a focus test target and started shooting around five shots at a time, each with a manual defocus between them. Then I'd look at the results and determine the average error. I'd then adjust AFMA in the direction to correct the error and repeat. I did this until I could get the average error to stay around zero for 10 shots (two sets of five).

One thing that shocked me was the 70-200/2.8L IS II. Every shot in a set of five was essentially indistinguishable from the other four. I mean, it was so repeatable that I couldn't determine a variance between shots. I'm sure it's there but it was as close to zero as I could detect.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 27, 2015)

dh said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Just buy FoCal.
You can set up the box of post toasties and a tape measure and do it that way. You can use other home brewed methods. But if you do not set it up just perfect your results will be less than perfect.
But for the price just go with FoCal and get away from the stress.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 28, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> One of CR member shared some 7D II + 100-400 II RAW files with me - BIF photos. Looking through LR, I'm impressed with Canon 7D II cropped sensor. I cropped down 50% and IQ still look great. The shutter speed he shot was 1/2000. It doesn't seem his camera has issue with AF focus at all.



On the way back from the post office, I took this shot with 7D II + 100-400 II. It taken in Ai-servo. Will put it to test today, let see if 7D II can get some decent terns or not 8)

1st photo was straight convert from LR - bit of high light down etc...nothing major. 2nd was cropped about 20ish% from RAW, just to get an ideal with crop sensor.


----------



## candc (Apr 28, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > One of CR member shared some 7D II + 100-400 II RAW files with me - BIF photos. Looking through LR, I'm impressed with Canon 7D II cropped sensor. I cropped down 50% and IQ still look great. The shutter speed he shot was 1/2000. It doesn't seem his camera has issue with AF focus at all.
> ...



The bokeh looks horrible in that shot. I haven't seem that aspect of the lens commented on. I would be interested to know if that's an anomaly or a characteristic of the lens.


----------



## dolina (Apr 28, 2015)

What was the climate conditions at that moment? Relative humidity, air temp, UV light, etc? These things do influence IQ as it caused atmospheric distortion.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> What was the climate conditions at that moment? Relative humidity, air temp, UV light, etc? These things do influence IQ as it caused atmospheric distortion.



Mid afternoon, hot, humidity??

I tested 7D II in BIF shooting yesterday. I applied similiar setting I have on my 1Dx to 7D II, but the camera didn't react/respond as 1Dx. Feel like I need to spend more time fine tuning the AF.

This might be too early to say, but I feel 7D II AF is on the same league as 1Dx. IQ looks very good for crop sensor though.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 29, 2015)

Here are some photos I took yesterday. All of tern photos are original from RAW, no cropping(except the vertical one). Last four photos shot right after sunset @ ISO5000 with 15NR applied in LR.

http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Wildlife/Canon-7D-II-100400-mrk-II-Test/i-KVnsfg5

Mixed feeling at this moment from AF to IQ. I'm going to keep it for now and do more shooting in the weekend. One thing for sure, 7D II + 100-400 II combo is so much easier to carry around compared to my 1Dx + 400mm f2.8 IS II. 7D II shutter sound feel like I'm in "silent" mode from my 1Dx ;D


----------



## AndreSilva (Apr 29, 2015)

I have no complains on IQ on my 7DII. All taken with 7DII + 300mm f/2.8 IS, with noise reduction and sharpness applied. Click to see full size.


----------



## candyman (Apr 29, 2015)

AndreSilva said:


> I have no complains on IQ on my 7DII. All taken with 7DII + 300mm f/2.8 IS, with noise reduction and sharpness applied. Click to see full size.




Some great, sharp and colorful photos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Here are some photos I took yesterday. All of tern photos are original from RAW



Liar. You're not shooting RAW, you're shooting TIF.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some photos I took yesterday. All of tern photos are original from RAW
> ...



First, I was  

then ??? 

finally, wiped off my monitor ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...





Here's one of my TIFs...


----------



## ashmadux (Apr 30, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Also, expecting FF quality (OP is comparing to a 5DIII), may still be high expectations in 2015. After all, 7DII costs half of 5DIII release price--and includes new features.
> 
> Very keen to se new firmware.



Dont ever believe this. At all.

Man, i wish you guys can see what i get out of my old t2i and 70-200. Even my new wonderful 5d3 is only marginally better at iso100. And it took me aout 6 months of fiddling and repair send to get my 6d to act proper.

From my tests, 70d has impressive iq- IF the damn focus works. Mine was so busted that i almost gave the canon rep the yell of thier life. 4 days, no images in focus. but i kept cool and sent it back. That same body wa the one that was listed on CR as a refurb deal. I feel bad for whomever bought it.

Anyways, look what nikon is doing with even thier low end bodies. 3300 and 7200 iq and Dr runs circles around canon (non 5d/6d/1dx) offerings. I wont go out and trade my canon gear, but my head is also not in the sand.

So in a nutshell, making excuses for manufacturers is a fools game.


----------

