Canon 7D mk2 owners thread.

Well this camera has just saved my neck! I turned up at the local dog shelter for my regular photography spot this morning, just as it got very dark and the rain came in. As I walked into the office they were on the 'phone to the local paper who wanted a photo of a particular dog to publish sent over today. No way would I have managed it with my 7D, but with the 7D2 it was no problem to take a photo of the dog posing with a handler in the pouring rain at ISO4000. If anyone is local you can see the result yourself in the Worcester News tomorrow.

Edited to add: Now online: http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news...pup_beats_the_odds_to_survive_deadly_disease/
 
Last edited:
MadWoman said:
I had my first chance to try the camera on birds in flight, over at Slimbridge on Friday. I was VERY impressed with it!
and a non-flying one, just because I like it :)
Click to expand...


....Those are really good, Sue. They are showing a very nicely balanced tonal range being captured by the 7D2. I am finding the same now that Apple have updated the OS for 7D2 RAW compatibility. I'll post some later today hopefully but they'll be from edited RAW files.
 
George said:
The AF is excellent, however, the biggest improvement IMO, and people upgrading from 50, 60 and 70Ds will see a huge improvement.
Click to expand...

....The local seagulls provide good practice for my flight shots and my first efforts on the 7D2 are promising. The 70D was good when I got familiar with it but it looks as if my hit and keeper rate will be higher on the 7D2. Also I am very impressed by the tonal range getting captured. I'm shooting 'Faithful' Picture Style and RAW.

Seagull_0291vns by RedRobin_05, on Flickr
 
Canon Bob said:
I personally think that 14-15 Mp would have been adequate given the ability of today's mainstream lenses to put detail on the sensor. This could have moved the noise signature upwards 1-2 stops (based on Canon's ability with similar pixel density) and it's unlikely that "cropability" would have suffered noticeably. 20Mp on an APS-C equates to 50+Mp on a full frame sensor....more than twice what they're currently producing.

Different people look for different spec's and 15Mp would undoubtedly have attracted criticism but I'd have been happy with it.

Bob
Click to expand...

That would be a hard sell to the man on the street. Why has your top of the range crop sensor camera got less pixels than the entry level 100D? :eek: Especially when you have been selling cameras on the basis of pixels for many years.

I think 20mp was a sensible choice. It differentiates it from the rest of their 18mp crop sensor cameras, and there are many, ;) even if it is only 2mp. And as it seems that Canon can't compete with Nikon/Sony sensors, I doubt that even 14-15mp Canon sensors would be that big an improvement. If you want FF high ISO noise performance, you need to get a FF camera. Yes, FF should be a target, and crop sensor noise performance get better all the time, but noise comparisons should be made with other crop sensor cameras imho. And even then, many of them do not have similar number of pixels.

It will be interesting to compare the different reviews and how they judge the noise levels at various ISOs, rather than just talking about DxO scores.
 
Wonder how good it would have been with the Sony 16mp sensor?
Excellent would be my guess, agree totally with Bob about overdoing the mp on crop sensor cameras
 
Another edited RAW image from the 7D2. Personally, I'm pleased so far - I feel that the camera can deliver images which appeal to me and the rest is up to how successful my efforts are.

Starlings_0852vns by RedRobin_05, on Flickr
 
redhed17 said:
If you want FF high ISO noise performance, you need to get a FF camera. Yes, FF should be a target, and crop sensor noise performance get better all the time, but noise comparisons should be made with other crop sensor cameras imho. And even then, many of them do not have similar number of pixels.

It will be interesting to compare the different reviews and how they judge the noise levels at various ISOs, rather than just talking about DxO scores.
Click to expand...

tijuana taxi said:
...agree totally with Bob about overdoing the mp on crop sensor cameras
Click to expand...


....Firstly I think that the DxO assessment of the 7D Mark II should be ignored! Watch Tony Northrup's video about DxO in detail - It has already been posted in this thread.

Secondly, also check out what wildlife photographer Tony Northrup says about why a healthily high mp count on crop sensor cameras is a good thing. It's based on the real-life fact that a very high percentage of wildlife images get cropped in post-processing. It's about pixel concentration if I have understood it correctly.

There's no point dragging up the tedious and never ending debate about crop-sensor versus full-frame - They each offer their own advantages and it's horses-for-courses and you should choose what suits you best personally. I fully acknowledge the benefits of FF but my personal preference is otherwise. I'm an amateur wildlife photographer and not a professional.
 
RedRobin said:

....Firstly I think that the DxO assessment of the 7D Mark II should be ignored! Watch Tony Northrup's video about DxO in detail - It has already been posted in this thread.
Click to expand...
Did that. :)

RedRobin said:
Secondly, also check out what wildlife photographer Tony Northrup says about why a healthily high mp count on crop sensor cameras is a good thing. It's based on the real-life fact that a very high percentage of wildlife images get cropped in post-processing. It's about pixel concentration if I have understood it correctly.
Click to expand...
Did that too. ;) :LOL:

RedRobin said:
There's no point dragging up the tedious and never ending debate about crop-sensor versus full-frame - They each offer their own advantages and it's horses-for-courses and you should choose what suits you best personally. I fully acknowledge the benefits of FF but my personal preference is otherwise. I'm an amateur wildlife photographer and not a professional.
Click to expand...
I brought up FF, and that they shouldn't be compared to crop sensor cameras, because I had read it mentioned a couple of times. Anyone who expected any crop sensor to get close to FF for noise was living in a dreamland imho.

I agree, it's 'horses for courses', and it's a cropped sensor for me too. :) And possibly a 7DII in the future, which is why I'm following this thread.

I don't think you need a to be a Professional to have FF though, just quite affluent if you want to do the long stuff with it. ;)
 
redhed17 said:
I agree, it's 'horses for courses', and it's a cropped sensor for me too. :) And possibly a 7DII in the future, which is why I'm following this thread

I don't think you need a to be a Professional to have FF though, just quite affluent if you want to do the long stuff with it. ;)
Click to expand...

....I agree redhead :) - You don't have to be a professional to have or to want FF. Canon's definitions of camera body categories tends to encourage that idea though but now they have blurred the line with the introduction of the 7D Mark II.

If you want to stay with crop-sensor and also with the extensive Canon system, then the 7D2 is now their current flagship in that category. Having had (and loved) a 70D I can confidently say that the 7D2 is superior in a number of ways and this thread will doubtless support that opinion.

Out of curiosity, what do you shoot with currently?
 
tijuana taxi said:
Wonder how good it would have been with the Sony 16mp sensor?
Excellent would be my guess, agree totally with Bob about overdoing the mp on crop sensor cameras
Click to expand...

Me too, both Nikon and Canon's top of the range pro cameras are 18Mp.
 
BTW, bit of a work around to get a file in to Photoshop, open the 7D2 CR2 file in DPP then go to "tools" and at the bottom of the drop down is "transfer to Photoshop"...takes it over as a TIFF.
 
Here are a couple of shots taken 10 days ago, basically straight out of camera into DPP and converted to jpeg...firstly the full frame shot


Red kite FF by George on Talk Photography

and the crop...


Red kite crop by George on Talk Photography

Taken with a 300mmf2.8 L IS mk2 and a 2x mk3 converter. No sharpening, nothing ISO 1600
1/1250 @ f7.1 so 960mm plus crop effective.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
Out of curiosity, what do you shoot with currently?
Click to expand...
I have a Nikon D300S. The 7DII is the first camera that I feel could replace it. It improves on the D300S in almost every way. It would be an expensive change though, and I only have 2 lenses. :eek: :rolleyes:

At the moment it would be approximately £2-2.5k for the camera and the EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS which pretty much are equivalent to the lenses I have now. I would be gaining more fps, more pixels, better ISO performance and probably better AF.

You can only wait for so long with Nikon not bringing out a replacement. :(
 
RAW edited and a massive crop enlargement shot at ISO 1600, so this is stretching the limits. Also my very first Kingfisher shot which I waited one and a half hours for, but that's besides the point.

Kingfisher_0987vns by RedRobin_05, on Flickr

Here is the original shot - Canon 400mm F/5.6L on 7D Mark II, ISO 1600, Av-mode, more data on Flickr....

375A0987.jpg
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
.......If you want FF high ISO noise performance, you need to get a FF camera. Yes, FF should be a target, and crop sensor noise performance get better all the time, but noise comparisons should be made with other crop sensor cameras imho......
Click to expand...
But isn't the crop-FF comparison only invalid because of the high pixel density/small pixel size on the APS-C sensors. There's no obvious reason why a crop sensor with the same pixel density as a FF sensor shouldn't have the same noise signature.
We then start squeezing a few more pixels in (not entirely unwelcome) and the noise inevitably appears (as it would with a FF sensor if the pixel density increases). My point was that a lower density (not down to FF levels obviously) would have suited me better, given the performance of my lenses, as if would have meant higher usable iso levels with little or no loss of detail.
Canon accepted a step backwards (forwards in my opinion) when they reduced the pixel count of the 1Ds3 for the 1Dx so it was also feasible to do the same with the 7D2 and not worry about the 100D and 70D sensors. Canon grade their bodies into 3 categories.....professional, enthusiast and beginners. The "professionals" haven't squeaked much about the pixel drop and I doubt that the educated enthusiasts would have done either. The "beginners" may be more pixel orientated and that market is different.

Bob
 
tdodd said:
Bob, regarding WB, I don't have any raw analysis software which can read 5D3 files at the pixel level, but I did just perform a little, very crude, experiment. Here are four raw files loaded into Lightroom.....

20141116_223345_.JPG


The first is a red bag used to set an absurd custom white balance. The second is a "white" wall shot with that custom white balance. The third was the same white wall shot with WB = 10,000K. The fourth is using Auto WB. Exposures were manual and identical, spot metered initially at +1. File sizes differ, but not by much.

As a next step I then set the WB for all four files to Daylight in Lightroom. Note that the original red bag was shot with Daylight WB to begin with and should not be expected to change appearance (much).

20141116_223546_.JPG


Now to my untrained eye, but also using the Lightroom colour sampler, each of the shots of the white wall appear remarkably similar to me. They might look even more similar if I had used a tripod instead of hand holding. Anyway, the point is that with WB equalised there is no material difference between them. This suggests to me that the underlying RGB pixel data is also identical in each file, demonstrating that the WB value when shot has no influence in raw pixel values.

Surely if a custom WB is to materially affect pixel level raw data we should see bigger differences than none when equalising the WB parameter in post, especially when the custom WB value was so extremely off the charts of normal. Yes? No? Have I cocked up in my reasoning?
Click to expand...

Firstly I must apologise for leaving the images in the quote but we've changed pages so it makes it easier to read.

I'm not 100% certain what your test has proven, Tim. Yes, colours can be normalised again in PP irrespective of how they were captured...we clearly agree on that point.
So perhaps I didn't make my original explanation too clear....or maybe I'm wrong with my theory.

When we increase the iso level we don't alter the sensitivity of anything, we simply set a new level that corresponds to saturation. Random numbers but lets say a pixel full of photons has a level of 1000 at iso 200. If we double the iso then the pixel is adjudged to be full when it has received 500 photons and so on and so on. The inherent noise is constant and therefore becomes a larger percentage of the total signal.

When WB changes to cater for differing light temperature then the level where the pixels (R&B) are considered full is modified (their iso is changed/increased relative to the green channel) and this offset is a known parameter in the raw file.....simplistically, there's a shift from the neutral sensor calibrated value (somewhere between 5200k and 6000k). The amount of shift is equal to a selective iso increase.

A test for this would be to shoot your wall at 25600 (iso in halogen for instance) with WB set to 8000k and then reshoot at 3500k. When you process the raw files to make your wall the correct colour then I'd expect that the 8000k image would exhibit more noise than the 3500k image (blue channel noise in this test) due to the fact that the blue channel would be underexposed.....ie, it's pseudo iso wasn't high enough. If we had gone the other way and over corrected the WB (towards 2000k) then the blue channel "full level" would have been even less and the S/N ratio would have been higher as the result.

Hopefully that makes more sense.

Bob
 
I don't think these links have been posted before, but just seen these two links from a users Blog about the 7DII under low light, and must say they look mighty fine. :) Small images posted I know, which helps with noise, but my D300S would be a mess at anywhere near those ISOs.

Simon King Part 1

Simon King Part 2
 
Some wonderful birdie shots from Sue & Robin which now have me chomping at the bit to grab the Mk II, thank you for posting them, they're an inspiration. I daren't grab one just yet though since I must finish the decorating first or it will simply never get done!
 
Red Deer stag in very overcast conditions, shot at ISO 1600 and post-processed RAW in Aperture 3.6. The image is totally uncropped.

It started raining during this session, not hard, but it felt great not to have to cover up nor be concerned about it. My first ever Red Deer pictures too :) - I am loving the 7D Mark II.

Red Deer stag_m1009v1ns by RedRobin_05, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
After reading the useful comments on this thread and Robins thread here , I have reserved a MK2 at Calumet. I know I will buy one eventually so decided sooner rather than later, I cant see the price coming down anytime soon due to its popularity, and in the meantime I can be enjoying using it. Just hope Adobe get on board soon, but in the meantime its going to have to be DPP for me.
Looking forward to joining in this thread with some serious experiences and pics.
 
George said:
Here are a couple of shots taken 10 days ago, basically straight out of camera into DPP and converted to jpeg...firstly the full frame shot


Red kite FF by George on Talk Photography

and the crop...


Red kite crop by George on Talk Photography

Taken with a 300mmf2.8 L IS mk2 and a 2x mk3 converter. No sharpening, nothing ISO 1600
1/1250 @ f7.1 so 960mm plus crop effective.
Click to expand...


If anyone wants to play with the RAW file of this shot, please PM me with an email address and I'll send it..

George.
 
Mike.P said:
Robin, can I ask where you took the deer picture? I believe you are quite close to me.
Click to expand...

....Hi Mike :)

Deer pic was Richmond Park on Sunday. (#460)

Kingfisher pic was Blashford Lakes on Friday. (#455)

I'm based near Golden Cap, West Dorset. Your pics suggest you are indeed quite close. Would you like to meet up and have a play with my 7D Mark II? - Bring your own CF/SD card. If so, PM me.
 
Last edited:
Canon Bob said:
Firstly I must apologise for leaving the images in the quote but we've changed pages so it makes it easier to read.

I'm not 100% certain what your test has proven, Tim. Yes, colours can be normalised again in PP irrespective of how they were captured...we clearly agree on that point.
So perhaps I didn't make my original explanation too clear....or maybe I'm wrong with my theory.

When we increase the iso level we don't alter the sensitivity of anything, we simply set a new level that corresponds to saturation. Random numbers but lets say a pixel full of photons has a level of 1000 at iso 200. If we double the iso then the pixel is adjudged to be full when it has received 500 photons and so on and so on. The inherent noise is constant and therefore becomes a larger percentage of the total signal.

When WB changes to cater for differing light temperature then the level where the pixels (R&B) are considered full is modified (their iso is changed/increased relative to the green channel) and this offset is a known parameter in the raw file.....simplistically, there's a shift from the neutral sensor calibrated value (somewhere between 5200k and 6000k). The amount of shift is equal to a selective iso increase.

A test for this would be to shoot your wall at 25600 (iso in halogen for instance) with WB set to 8000k and then reshoot at 3500k. When you process the raw files to make your wall the correct colour then I'd expect that the 8000k image would exhibit more noise than the 3500k image (blue channel noise in this test) due to the fact that the blue channel would be underexposed.....ie, it's pseudo iso wasn't high enough. If we had gone the other way and over corrected the WB (towards 2000k) then the blue channel "full level" would have been even less and the S/N ratio would have been higher as the result.

Hopefully that makes more sense.

Bob
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't match up at all with my view of reality and as I don't think we are helping 7D2 owners, of which I am not one, I think it's best to park the discussion and move on. I hope that's OK. :)
 
michael23 said:
I tried to donwload the dpp update so I could look at the raw files I took when I tried one out. It asked for a serial number and that was that. Anyone know of a way round it?
Click to expand...

....It wants the serial number of your camera and will match it to the one you have registered with Canon.

Am I missing something here because I don't see why this would be a problem for you (serial # on base of body).

EDIT:
Sorry! I just re-read your post and saw you had borrowed a camera. Try registering your own Canon first if you have one?
 
Last edited:
cruso said:
Just been looking at the lightroom forum and if I am right they are now supporting the 7d 2 witch is ver 5.7
Click to expand...
They are indeed. I started LR this morning and it offered me an update to 5.7 with support for 7D2 raw.

Bob
 
Morning. I have LR4... A bit off topic but could you tell me the simplest, cheapest way to upgrade to LR5? Thinking about a mk2 but need it to work in LR. Thanks
 
Looks as if the Adobe a Camera Raw update is out too, for those of us who use PSE.
 
A couple more photos taken yesterday afternoon:
ISO640, 1/800, f4.5


ISO1600, 1/1000, f4.5, both taken on my 500 f4.
 
Last edited:
It would be very helpful if, when uploading shots, the ISO info was included, that's the critical info from my point of view, which is why I posted the red kite shots above at iso 1600, that and above is when the noise starts to show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top