Raw conversions added to Canon EOS 7D Mark II: Real-world samples (beta)

I'd rather have the 7DII anyday over a A77II, so thats why I am getting the 7DII and you have an A77II.

Just be happy with your camera

I can't wait for my 7Dii

Yes, maybe their lenses are F5.6 at the long end, or they want to use a teleconverter on them. Luckily the 7DII will AF at F8. If you want the cleanest high ISO, you have to go full frame. The 7DII is clearly at least as good as any existing APS--C at high ISO, and better than most. And, if you are focal length limited, you'll have to put a converter on a full frame camera to get even close to the 7D's reach, which will cost you a stop, which accounts for almost all of the high ISO advantage of a full frame camera anyway.

To give my view on the point that Matt and Shutterbud disagree on, I think the problem is that as well as being a horse for a certain course, this is also Canon's flagship APSC camera. Some users expect Canon to provide a great APSC body with great IQ, and they expect to pay for it. They want it to be good for BIF and sports, but also as good as the Nikons/Sonys/m43s etc when shooting landscapes. Given the price, this may not be too much to ask.

Is there any reason to think it's not as good as the Nikons/Sonys/m43s etc. when shooting landscape? The only advantage some of them seem to have is in extreme shadow recovery at low ISO. Most landscapes don't require extreme shadow recovery (I have never needed it). Considered as an all-around camera, you're trading off the (maybe) 1 in 1000 shots where the other cameras require less extensive post processing, against what is probably a lot more than that where their focus is off by enough to be not salvageable at all in post processing. I have yet to see a worthwhile shot with a different brand APS-C camera that I couldn't have done as well with my old 7D. And the 7DII seems to be considerably better.

"The 7DII is clearly at least as good as any existing APS--C at high ISO, and better than most."

I've seen no evidence yet that it's as good as the D7100/A77. It might very well be, but we'll have to wait for the test results to come in.

Of course, given the 7D II's superior buffer and autofocus, a little sacrifice in DR might be worth the compromise, depending on your application.

According to the DxO tests, the 7DII has less DR than the D7100 at low ISOs, but its DR is equal at medium and high ISOs, where the sports and wildlife shooters will be using it the most. Looks like Canon shooters have themselves a gem.

And oddly enough people still keep finding that Canon cameras fill their needs. The enemy is really people who think they know better and that those who disagree with them are, by default, stupid. My 7D was in my hands on day one and even after owning full frame and other crop bodies it was and still is a joy to use. The 7DII looks really great, but the real enemy of the 7DII is the original 7D; that's how great it still is, not in any way a commentary on the 7DII. Nobody makes something so compelling as to justify the cost of replacing the 7D for me, and if they did I would buy it today. Sony should make sensors and I'm glad they make cameras because they are yet another source of competition that propels the field forward, but they aren't the second coming of Christ like many believe. Nikon makes fine cameras as does Olympus and Fuji, and good on them. Enjoy your choices. We'll enjoy our choices too as happy Canon users. I'll keep making money and you do whatever you do.

Many people would list consistent design as a strength, not a weakness.

When something works well there's no need to change it. A six month release cycle and changing everything to make cameras exciting again is what you need. Change is intrinsically a good thing, right? Consistently good design is boring because it isn't new, right? Ugh. Entertain me, world! I'm bored! Give me something new and different every five minutes! No, every minute! No, every thrity seconds! No, now now now!

@Joseph
You seem more interested in bashing anyone who said anything negative comment about Canon. Go to a bar if you want a fight. I am being objective here.

As I said its not a bad design. Its ok to retain the overall design, but I would expect some experimentation with buttons, layout etc to make things more efficient. There are certainly rooms for improvement. A lot of the stuff I do frequently I still need to go to the menus.

More buttons doesn't mean more efficient. Use the quick menu. Custom functions. There's a million ways to make things more efficient. MLU? All my settings for shooting lightning? C1 and done. I don't want a button for every option.

The reason Canon tries to stay consistent with design is because many of their cameras are designed for professionals. It is very frustrating as a working photographer to switch between your 2-3 camera bodies and have to constantly look down to figure out where the controls are. This was designed to fit into a pro kit, thus it has the same control layout as the Pro cameras.

"Experimenting with button design" was done when the layout was refined for the series. Changing buttons around for fun is just going frustrate the user base.

tkbslc,
People think that everything should be like the smartphone they upgrade every other year and the operating system that changes midway through that. The great thing about the current state of cameras in the world is that if you don't like it there are plenty of other options to choose from. And continuity and consistency is boring unless you are actually a photographer and enjoy taking pictures rather than enjoying a new toy for a week and then letting it collect dust on a shelf. The DSLR market has its roots in professionals, although even serious amateurs don't want a whole new learning curve when they upgrade. I'm not bored by my cameras, lenses, or even phone that are years old; I'm bored with people being bored.

The camera is a huge let down because it seems from another generation? I actually laughed out loud there.
So you only want a camera that seems like a current generation (to you anyway)... That doesn't really sound like you're a photographer, rather a tech enthusiast instead.
Also, why were you expecting anything different in a range that's DESIGNED as a primarily stills camera for action/sports/wildlife?

If you guys could look through something other than your Canon-tinted lenses, you would see that BIG things are happening in the world. Samsung have next-generation side lit sensors of APSC size with the potential for new levels of high ISO performance, Nikon are offering embarrassingly superior sensor performance in terms of dynamic range, M4/3 sensors are now as good as Canons APSC etc etc. 4K tech can allow you to simply take stills from a moving image at decent resolution. It is all very exciting stuff.

Canon is the market leader. The IBM. The General Motors. The one with the resources and the deep pockets. And they aren't adapting. I am disappointed that Canon aren't giving us better gear than this. I am disappointed that of all the game changing stuff that is happening, Canon are not involved.

They have the means to really blow us away with amazing improvements and they are choosing not to.

As you said in your first post topstuff "sport and wildlife". That means if you want top-class gear it's all about the lenses. That means our only choice is Nikon or Canon, it's a sad fact but true and NOT brand loyalty. Their long lenses just blow everything else away. There is NO alternative.

Totally understand that it is Canon and Nikon that monopolise the lens range. If you need specialised lenses, thats where you have to go. It just bugs me that Canon seem to be abusing that position - knowing full well that they have a captive market, even if they don't put too much effort into improving their cameras. The 7D2 is nothing more than an incremental improvement over the very old 7D. It seems a cynical exercise is giving us "just enough" to remain loyal. Canon could offer a lot more than this but they choose not to. Thats all I'm saying. :)

The thing with that, is when it's so lens based, the BEST upgrade (by far) you look for in a body is better AF. Which is why a lot of people are over the moon with the 7D2 upgrade.
It's actually an amazing upgrade for me. What i'd want before any stupid gadgetry or video functions or wifi or anything.

People don't seem to understand who this line of camera is for. If it's not for you then there's no point in whinging, there are other models. Masses of people do want this 7D though.

Monopoly? What are you talking about? Canon has its place because it consistently produces great cameras. Everyone attributes their success to marketing, mindless consumers, or some unfair advantage, but they are in the free market just like everyone else. Because you have different priorities doesn't mean you have an insight that makes you smarter or a more independent thinker than people you disagree with. I've owned many brands of cameras and Canon has always been the most reliable and well-rounded. That term, well-rounded, is something that others don't acknowledge because it implies the subjectiveness with which all of our decisions are based, and that means preferences. We prefer certain things. We shoot certain things. We take our priorities, our personal interests, and balance that with technical concerns. And those are balanced with practical concerns like ergonomics, menus, lenses, accessories, size, features.

Free thinking Android users think in order to be free you have to use Android, and yet it is the very choice between various options that makes us free, not Android. People hear the very appealing rhetoric that Canon is abusing their position, only succeeds because they are good salespeople not good camera makers, and suddenly it becomes cool to have Canon as an enemy. Preaching your own intelligence and downplaying the intelligence and freedom of others doesn't make you free or smart, it makes you a self-centered egotist. It makes you exactly what you proclaim to hate. It's sad that people are this way in real life and then allow such hubris and hatefulness to be openly expressed in places on the internet because anonymity frees them to be as shabby as they truly are on the inside. Claiming to know how intelligent or of what quality someone's character is by their camera choice reveals your own lack of character.

Av,
What the what is "all arounded"? I'm sure an industrial engineer would gladly measure efficiency of carrying out actions in a menu system, or the speed with which one can learn to navigate the exterior controls of a camera system, but that kind of detail isn't going to be found in a review on the internet. That's mainly because nobody goes into mass production of images of the artistic nature and must know the most efficient method for capturing images as that kind of process is relevant only to mass production manufacturing situations. The power of a brand can't be dismissed, but don't pretend that you have a stranglehold on the psychology of the photographers who buy that brand based on that one, single variable. That smacks of megalomania. Others are building their own brands, but they still don't have the lens selection Canon has, third party support, or the level of quality available. The iPhone was a product that finally combined great features into a useful product.

Canon may be ignorning the ILC market now to a certain extent (G1 X, G7 X, M are only dipping their toes in) but the rest of the market decided that they couldn't compete in DSLRs with Nikon and Canon around so they went ILC, and it turned out not having a mirror wasn't as big of a selling point as they thought it would be. So finally other camera makers are taking camera making seriously. That's great for choice and for photography, but that doesn't mean 4k video will suddenly improve my stills photography. And just as increasing megapixels has diminishing returns, so do other factors. Nikon has a 36MP sensor and yet many photographers can't get enough of Canon's 18MP full frame sensor because the output, especially at high ISO, is stunning. If you think one variable is more important then it is...to you. Great. Shoot in good health. Here's something you can't measure: a camera being upleasant to use and making one not want to bother using it. You can't measure everything.

@Joseph
The only one who seem to be taking it very personally is you. Calm down, its just a camera.

The internet is an amazing way to allow people who should never be heard to get their opinions out where the rest of the world can see them. You can do a Google search and suddenly you think you've got a PhD in pyschology and everyone needs to hear what you have to say on the subject. If it's just a camera then quit photography and take up knitting. You won't have DxO telling you what to think about your favorite yarn that way.

"The internet is an amazing way to allow people who should never be heard to get their opinions out where the rest of the world can see them."

Joseph, everyone has a right to speak. Doesn't mean you have to take what they say seriously, there is something great to be said about ignoring comments you don't like :).

I think you are projecting your own inadequacies and insecurities into the realm of camera choice. The remark about what people think of each others gear at Disney is really telling. Normal folks at amusement parks are concentrating on having fun, not on what cameras people have.

This is the world we live in. I'm not condoning it, but good luck in deciding on who or who should not speak on the internet. To me, its easier to ignore and just lead by the best example possible. Good luck!

So lets look at topstuff's profile, is he a pipelpeeper or techjunkie or actually someone who uses this camera for what it is for, a tool for photography.

the answer is 2 submitted pictures, no entries in the challenges, no albums. It is clear to me.

I am still on a Canon 40D and had a AE1, Eos 100, 33 and a 10D before. I shoot (F1) racing and action sports like Windsurifing. The 100 had 1 focus point, the 33 had 6. Even with F1 racing I had only about 10% AF errors. THe 40D still does a great job, we have just come back from La Palma/La Gomera and took some wonderful shots with them.

I wish most of this community would start taking pictures in stead of chasing the last 98% to 99% upgrade. Get the skills to get a hit rate of 99% AF on a 40D, before perusing the next tech gizmo to hang around your neck.

btw the 40D will be replaced by the 7Dmkii. If only for the reason not to carry a AVCHD camcorder with me.

Zeisschen- Stop while you are behind. Really.

Banding is caused by the sensor, not processing- first of all.

Secondly- The DR is bad for what, number crunching and obsessing online? What application do you think the DR is not good for? Tap tap, be specific please (if you can).

"Better sensored cameras"

I think that speaks for itself.

Carl

@ joseph
I actually don't really care what makes it as long as it's there in my raws

@ cgarrad
feel free to replace "better sensored cameras" with "Aptina, Samsung, Toshiba, CMOSIS, OmniVision, or also Sony"

I didn't even say the camera is crap or anything, why so nervous? The 7DmkII is certainly a nice camera for it's sports and action niche due to the superb autofocus.
If you tell me why I should use a DSLR for my landscapes or macros and why this sensor should be good enough for me then go ahead, tell me with some strong arguments!

I will certainly ignore attacking on a personal level, so don't make it too cheap.

There's very few situations where DR at base ISO matters to anyone using a camera seriously. When you need fast shutter speeds (moving subjects), you're almost never at base ISO. There, Canon's DR is as good or better than any. If you're not shutter speed constrained (there's nothing moving in the scene), you can bracket (you should be on a tripod anyway). Also, in a high DR scene, even 13 or 14 stops may not be enough, and even then you'll get better results bracketing. This is why all the fuss about low ISO DR (by other measures their sensors are as good as or better than any) has not impacted Canon one bit. Most people don't care at all, and for those who do and are serious about it it doesn't matter.

You do read some ridiculous statements here. Pixel level sharpness is very good. Dpreview never over-sharpen their samples but download one of the raw conversions and sharpen a little in any programme and you will see how wrong Zeisschen is. As for dynamic range, well, anyone can see it is very good. One or two photos here actually push that hard with great results.

Seems a much better sensor than that noisy NEX7 one referred to above, for sure!

@Zeisschen Your conclusion is worthless as is your entire post. Even before it was officially announced, everybody knew 7dmk2 was going to be action/sports/wildlife camera. Investing effort in stating the obvious, that there indeed are far superior portrait/landscape cameras is an obscene waste of time only serving the purpose of flogging the competition. It's like ripping Usain Bolt for being a sub-par marathon runner.
The justice is, that no matter of all the trashing, this will be (and by a landslide) the best selling camera for its purpose. I don't assume there will be many birdwatchers throwing away their Canon telephotos and jumping the boat over to ... Sony?

These comments are hilarious. Who cares about DR?? Wow. DR is arguably perhaps the most important metric. 12 stops is really only one stop better than slide film. I can push my files from the k5 I and IIs all over the place. I can barely push shadows from my k-7 1EV before banding gets ugly. Many scenes have wide, challenging tonal ranges. But yeah, DR is only for pixel peepers and armchair photogs right? Its one of the most important metrics IMO.

@zos xavius DR is arguably the most important metrics for what? Action/sports/wildlife? Hardly. I mean it is an important parameter, don't get me wrong, but for the target group of 7dmk2 AF speed and precision, fps, buffer size, AF points coverage are FAR more important, than DR alone.
And if you shoot landscape/ portrait and are serious about it, you have your tripod, remote shutter and set of Lee filters anyway and you can always use AEB+multiple exposure, which will give you extra 7EV of DR, so where's your argument now?

"And the DR improvement you see in your Sony sensor is probably just processing."

That's incorrect. The increased dynamic range at base ISO is due to low levels of noise injection before the analog signal is digitized, likely because the analog to digital conversions are on the imaging chip itself and therefore very 'close' - in the signal processing chain - to the analog data coming off the image sensor.

An analysis by Chipworks indicated that a separate ADC chip is used by Canon, which they hypothesize is a large part of the reason for the extra noise injection and low dynamic range.

You can think of this noise as 'additive', after the image sensor has been read. Hence it affects deep shadows of low ISO (less amplified) images.

"There's very few situations where DR at base ISO matters to anyone using a camera seriously. When you need fast shutter speeds (moving subjects), you're almost never at base ISO."

To provide a counter-argument to this, almost all the higher DR scenes I shot in the D750 gallery - including the high shutter speed ones on the beach - were ISO 100. Often shadows were pushed stops upon stops, especially in that stairwell scene with the model.

"Also, in a high DR scene, even 13 or 14 stops may not be enough, & even then you'll get better results bracketing."

Having shot thoroughly with the D750/D810 of late, including high DR sunsets where the clouds light up bright orange a half hour after sunset when the foreground is dark, caves, sun streaming through windows in otherwise dim rooms, etc., I've yet to find a scene that maxed out DR of these cameras and yielded offensively noisy shadows.

May or may not matter to you, but to say it doesn't matter to anyone who uses a camera seriously...

@Rishi Sanyal This is an interesting topic. It actually depends on the implementation, because having a matrix of super fast ADC on the same die as ultra sensitive analog circuitry is as much of a challenge as having to IO the analog signal and transfer it to another chip without much noise pick-up along the way.
I don't know the details about the Sony chip, but I imagine it's either a hybrid or multi-die chip or they use some sort of substrate isolation between the analog and digital part.
In any case, the way you formulated it alone does not guarantee automatically a better noise performance: it brings a different set of challenges and advantages/disadvantages.

@Rishi

Thanks for supporting my arguments with your own experience and knowledge. It's so hard to discuss with diehard fanboys about things they have never seen before and obviously understand nothing about...

@Rishi Sanyal
I have read the article you mention. It is not very specific/technical, basically just states the process dimension used by Canon/Sony without even mentioning which fab they are using. It is clear, that as Sony uses 0.18um process, it would give them more option to house all the ADCs in one MCM. But that also means designing those ADCs in-house and paying eventual royalties for patented technologies. Since Sony is a large technological power house, they likely have access to truckloads of IPs in many process nodes and it is the cheapest option for them to design their own MCM (because for the ADCs all they need to do is open the drawer and pick one). The same way it seems to me, that it is the cheapest option for Canon to buy the ADCs as a standalone product and not try to outperform Analog Devices in their own game. It will be interesting to see what Canon will do in the future, eventually they have to go down in the process

Okay now Rishi is comparing a APSC DR and Noise performance with a FF DR and Noise performance to a comment made in the context of APSC Camera.

Wow!

@Zeisschen: "It's so hard to discuss with diehard fanboys about things they have never seen before and obviously understand nothing about..."

Yes because the comments here aren't supporting you 100% people are fanboys and ignorant of camera tech. That makes sense. I don't even own a Canon DSLR at this time, have had many, but not right now. I enjoy all brands.

If you could cut down on your exaggerations and stop name calling/pigeon holing people here, maybe they would take you a bit more seriously.

Like I said, and I think this is definitely true: Canon users are vast, most of them are fine with the output in raw from the sensors they produce. Canon can stand to improve their sensors however, and they should.

Chill out Zeisschen, or grow a pair.

I think the point he's making is that even the sensors with the best test scores can't capture the full DR needed in one exposure. Not yet at least.

So regardless you're going to need to bracket if you want the full DR even with the best sensors and until such time as a maker can produce a sensor that can handle extreme DR of a scene in one exposure, the argument against Canon is moot. Yes DR in other sensors produced other than Canon contain more DR available in the raw file, but its still "not enough" for the extremes we are discussing here to be handled with one exposure.

Canon needs to improve, there is no question... but sensor tech still needs to improve overall to really handle the extreme ranges of light we see in one exposure as well.

Rishi,
I was kidding. The statement was so ludicrous I thought I'd simply ascribe any difference to processing. Funny that with Canon processing the improvement is rendered meaningless and yet if it's Sony processing he doesn't care why there is a difference....as long as it is Sony winning in his mind. And others are fanboys? What a hypocrite.

@cgarrard: "I think the point he's making is that even the sensors with the best test scores can't capture the full DR needed in one exposure. Not yet at least.

So regardless you're going to need to bracket if you want the full DR even with the best sensors and until such time as a maker can produce a sensor that can handle extreme DR of a scene in one exposure, the argument against Canon is moot. Yes DR in other sensors produced other than Canon contain more DR available in the raw file, but its still "not enough" for the extremes we are discussing here to be handled with one exposure."

Have any examples of such high DR scenes that are still beyond the capabilities of the best sensors? You make them sound ubiquitous, so perhaps you could provide some examples.

Having extensively shot hundreds of high DR (sunrise/sunset) landscapes with Velvia film, Canon 5D, 5D2, 5D3, D750, and D810, with and w/out Lee graduated neutral density filters, I completely disagree with your statement.

@cgarrard - I can confidently say you're in for a surprise. I'm working on exactly the scenario you mention - a sunset where the clouds lit up bright orange almost a half-hour after sunset - exposed so as to not clip the red channel in the clouds (well, I took hundreds of exposure so I could select the right one after analysis in RawDigger).

This was shot as one exposure on the Nikon D810. You may be surprised by the results. I certainly was, having shot that exact scene many times on Velvia, and every iteration of the Canon 5D, using 3 to 4 stop graduated ND filters, no less.

Watch for it in a review or article in the near future :)

But to be frank, most of the time the noise down there is so random and unoffensive (as shot noise tends to be, especially compared to read noise and/or FPN), that I don't bother. Unless I'm going to be pushing tones a lot and printing large.

Generally, the shadows are clean enough, and dark enough (I don't like grossly opening up shadows and not having an blacks either), that the photon/shot noise doesn't really matter.

I will admit there's a certain freedom in this type of shooting, b/c of the incredible highlight headroom I always have.

But I'll stop here, b/c pictures will be worth much more than words.

Thanks for the fun discussion, folks.

@misolo & @cgarrard:

Speaking of 'ISO-less' sensors with gigantic push ability: we're getting there, but I believe we're still limited in performance at, say ISO 64 on the D810, by quantization error due to the limited bit-depth of the ADC.

That said, the blue sky at upper right in this moonlit shot of a thunderstorm in Puerto Rico was raised ~5 EV. The rest of the tones (aside from highlights/thundercloud) were pushed a bit less, but the corners/sides had to be pushed more due to vignetting.

This was an ISO 64 shot on the D810 w/ the 20/1.8 at f/2. The reason for the shorter exposure was to limit the amount the cloud lit up from lightning.

Admittedly, I could've exposed more. But this is partly my point - even when you don't completely optimize your exposure, you're still just fine (although - you will suffer from more photon noise, which makes tones look like they were shot at a higher ISO).

I agree, there is a shadow pushing improvement, specially in this image: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3049179/7dii_beta_iso3200_030a9456-acr?inalbum=canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-beta-real-world-samples

I wish we were also able to see shadow pushing at base ISO in a long exposure shot, to evaluate the camera capabilities for landscape or cityscape shooting.

Those pushed shadows look mediocre at best. And that's what the weakness of those old Canon sensors is all about. They lack by 1-2 stops compared to Sonys Exmor sensors. And 1-2 stops are WORLDS

Which pushed shadows look mediocre? Post a link, please.

Zeisschen- Exmor is the type of processor, not the sensor. Oye.

1-2 stops is not worlds in the real world. If they were worlds, Canon wouldn't sell cameras bud.

(shaking off your exaggerations)

That said, Canon could certainly improve their sensor tech. As a leader in camera sales worldwide, they are simply expected to lead sensor development as many comments seem to suggest.

However, that said, their sensors are clearly good enough for many users- there is a difference between using a camera in the real world and sitting and obsessing over test numbers and specifications on DPR forums and comment sections.

Carl

look at those comparison that explain what you can do with a sensor with a good dynamic range. Pulling shadows without getting mushy noise. For landscape photographers dynamic range at ISO 100 is almost all that counts.
Canon is ages behind.

http://photographylife.com/nikon-vs-canon-dynamic-range

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/Canon_EOS_5D_MkIII_vs_Nikon_D800_dynamic_range.html

Note the Nikon has a Sony Sensor, same like the A7r.

Zeisschen- Canon aren't ages behind, at some point DR in raw files became good enough for professional level work and overall expectations of serious photo enthusiasts. The incremental improvements since have made very little REAL LIFE improvements.

Canon certainly should improve their sensor tech as I stated, as a leader of the industry, its easy to expect them to lead sensor tech- just to stay ahead of competition. However, that doesn't mean their sensors suddenly become obsolete because they don't score 'as good' as the competition.

Clearly many people get along well with the output of Canon sensors. No need to exaggerate to get your point across. There is much more to image processing and image quality than just DR numbers. Canon could, and should, get improvement into their sensors, but the sky is clearly not falling.

@ cgarrad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor

Exmor is part of the sensor itself. The image processor on the Sony's is called BIONZ. Oye.

2 Stops in dynamic range ARE worlds, read this:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

A funny side note:
The article states that "8-12 stops is generally all one can expect from the camera."

Meanwhile the Sony A7s has 14 stops! The Canon 7DmkII is measured at 11.2 stops in laboratory tests.

You guys can keep calling Canon "good enough", that's what it is, for some.

I stand corrected, EXMOR is the name Sony has branded the sensors. Therefore everything else you are saying must be correct :).

Comparing a 12mp FF sensor to a 20mp APS-C sensor is a fair comparison.

Tell you what, knock yourself out on your crusade to prove Canon are inferior. If that makes you feel good, and gives you purpose in life, so be it. I'm sure all the shooters who like Canon's will put them down and buy a Sony just like you.

Good luck bud!