Canon 7D mk2 owners thread.

George said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry! First one ISO640, 1/800, f4.5, second ISO1600, 1/1000, f4.5, both taken on my 500 f4.
 
Can anyone confirm that the ACR 8.7 update DOESN'T work with PSE12, but will with PSE13? Google isn't clear, but I am starting to get the feeling that I might have to upgrade, which I am loathe to do having only gone to PSE12 this summer.

Edited to add: GRRRR! Looks as if that really is the case and ACR 8.7 won't work with PSE12.
 
Last edited:
MadWoman said:
Sorry! First one ISO640, 1/800, f4.5, second ISO1600, 1/1000, f4.5, both taken on my 500 f4.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Sue, most useful!!

It seems to me that iso 1600 is about the limit before noise starts to become a bit obtrusive, in the kite shot above, I tried printing the crop at A3, it's ok I but did run it through Imagenomic's noise reduction program which improved things.

For me it's the biggest disappointment with the Mk2 that the noise isn't better, I personally could have done without all the dual pixel malarky for video, which I never use, and wish they would concentrate on still photography quality.

If I want to shoot video, I'll use a video camera.

GEORGE.
 
I know how important it is that we assess the 7D2's performance at the higher ISO values but in my opinion it is very definitely more than good enough especially when you can use very effective noise reduction software plug-ins. I don't see any point in making ISO performance comparisons with FF bodies as it is already well established that by nature they offer smoother grain results.

Most of my shots have been ISO 1600 and I am now trying out ISO 1250 when it doesn't compromise other settings.

The bottom line is asking yourself how practical the noise level is for the type of photography you do - It's that simple.

:)
 
George said:
It seems to me that iso 1600 is about the limit before noise starts to become a bit obtrusive, in the kite shot above, I tried printing the crop at A3, it's ok I but did run it through Imagenomic's noise reduction program which improved things.

For me it's the biggest disappointment with the Mk2 that the noise isn't better, I personally could have done without all the dual pixel malarky for video, which I never use, and wish they would concentrate on still photography quality.
Click to expand...


....I never ever shoot video either but doesn't the dual pixel technology also have some added benefits for stills photography? I ask because I don't know for certain but think I read somewhere in all my 7D2 research that there is a benefit.
 
George said:
Thanks, Sue, most useful!!

It seems to me that iso 1600 is about the limit before noise starts to become a bit obtrusive, in the kite shot above, I tried printing the crop at A3, it's ok I but did run it through Imagenomic's noise reduction program which improved things.

For me it's the biggest disappointment with the Mk2 that the noise isn't better, I personally could have done without all the dual pixel malarky for video, which I never use, and wish they would concentrate on still photography quality.

If I want to shoot video, I'll use a video camera.

GEORGE.
Click to expand...


I am quite happy to use it up to ISO3200 or even 4000 depending on the subject and use of the photo, running images through Noiseware - it is a big improvement on the 7D as far as I am concerned.
 
I don,t see the point in me upgrading my 7D to the mark 2 if you still have to use noiseware progs.
Would rather spend on lenses.:):banana:
 
On the 7D I had to run EVERYTHING through Noiseware, even at 100. With the 7D2 I don't need to until 1200-1600 a vast improvement as far as I am concerned :-D
 
jockwav said:
I don,t see the point in me upgrading my 7D to the mark 2 if you still have to use noiseware progs.
Would rather spend on lenses.:):banana:
Click to expand...

Noise reduction is a part of processing these days even on lower ISO images on FF like the 5D3 depending on subject colour, background colour etc which show noise more than others.

The MkII isnt a game changer but its all round improvement that is making it a good upgrade from the Mk1.
 
I have had the 7d from when it first came out and I have loved it I have had the 7d2 for 1week and I am pleased I have got it their is a big difference on the focusing alone it is a lot quicker at locking on the subject it is early days yet I am no expert but I think it will be a winner my self
 
George said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have already offered..at iso 1600...
 
Hi I'm probably late on the boat for this one. But my 7D2 don't recognise my canon x2 exstention I don't know weather if because its new and just needs updates
 
ok folks a question for you all

I was shooting in grey flat light yesterday in AV with Auto ISO enabled with a minimum shutter of 1/1000 which led to some very high ISO's

White birds in flight against dark trees , I noticed that I was having to under expose to not blow the birds.

In actual fact when I process the shots that I was under exposing by a stop, they were still needing to be dropped again in PP by a stop or more.

I don't have to do this with my 7d or 5d3

Anybody else seen this type of behavior?
 
In flat, grey, (presumably steady) light why not just shoot manual and remove the uncertainty and gain control? You need to pick your metering pattern wisely and meter from a suitable target to position highlights to the right and you're set. That's how I'd do it, regardless of the camera I was using. AV and the like are fine when you can't keep up with changing lighting conditions, but in my experience just not worth the hassle when the lighting is highly predictable, and more so when subject and background differ significantly in tone.
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
In flat, grey, (presumably steady) light why not just shoot manual and remove the uncertainty and gain control? You need to pick your metering pattern wisely and meter from a suitable target to position highlights to the right and you're set. That's how I'd do it, regardless of the camera I was using. AV and the like are fine when you can't keep up with changing lighting conditions, but in my experience just not worth the hassle when the lighting is highly predictable, and more so when subject and background differ significantly in tone.
Click to expand...

Tim,

Thanks for the thoughts. unfortunately the light varied quite dramatically as I panned from left to right due to the density of the trees otherwise I would have shot manual.

Generally with the 7d and 5d3 I can guess what the metering system will do, but in this case, I think the 7d2 is behaving differently.

I will have to have another try and experiment a little more I think.
 
mipevo6 said:
Generally with the 7d and 5d3 I can guess what the metering system will do, but in this case, I think the 7d2 is behaving differently.

I will have to have another try and experiment a little more I think.
Click to expand...

....I think the key to it (as an alternative to shooting M-mode) is probably how you have set your metering on the 7D2. Also, which AF area may have an influence.

@tdodd Tim, does anyone really have time to check the histogram while grabbing inflight shots? Or is it viewable in the viewfinder? - I haven't checked to see if it is.
 
mipevo6 said:
Tim,

Thanks for the thoughts. unfortunately the light varied quite dramatically as I panned from left to right due to the density of the trees otherwise I would have shot manual.

Generally with the 7d and 5d3 I can guess what the metering system will do, but in this case, I think the 7d2 is behaving differently.

I will have to have another try and experiment a little more I think.
Click to expand...

It's not very often the light varies on the subject ? Background can vary a lot but its the subject your metering for forget about the BG .

As Tim says M really is the best way to go.

Rob.
 
RedRobin said:
@tdodd Tim, does anyone really have time to check the histogram while grabbing inflight shots? Or is it viewable in the viewfinder? - I haven't checked to see if it is.
Click to expand...
No, but *if* the light is unchanging you have time to set up your exposure in advance and to try a test shot or two and chimp if you need to.

I do wonder with some of these scenarios if people are just shooting to see how the camera copes rather than shooting for keepers worthy of a place on the wall. If the light is that cr4p and under the shade of trees is it really a photograph you'll want to keep or just another record or test shot? The light is kind of key to the results.
 
tdodd said:
No, but *if* the light is unchanging you have time to set up your exposure in advance and to try a test shot or two and chimp if you need to.

I do wonder with some of these scenarios if people are just shooting to see how the camera copes rather than shooting for keepers worthy of a place on the wall. If the light is that cr4p and under the shade of trees is it really a photograph you'll want to keep or just another record or test shot? The light is kind of key to the results.
Click to expand...

:agree: same with high iso shots trying to make up for light that isn't there :rolleyes:
 
tdodd said:
No, but *if* the light is unchanging you have time to set up your exposure in advance and to try a test shot or two and chimp if you need to.

I do wonder with some of these scenarios if people are just shooting to see how the camera copes rather than shooting for keepers worthy of a place on the wall. If the light is that cr4p and under the shade of trees is it really a photograph you'll want to keep or just another record or test shot? The light is kind of key to the results.
Click to expand...

Just trying it out to see how it compares tbh....
 
Can I ask - a minimum shutter speed of 1/1000 was mentioned in Av mode. Is this customisable or is this a set value? If not, is this the fastest allowed?

I'm interested as I have a 5D3 and often shoot sport. It would be handy to use Av mode to use exposure compensation sometimes and this might tempt me even further towards a 7D2.
 
tdodd said:
No, but *if* the light is unchanging you have time to set up your exposure in advance and to try a test shot or two and chimp if you need to.

I do wonder with some of these scenarios if people are just shooting to see how the camera copes rather than shooting for keepers worthy of a place on the wall. If the light is that cr4p and under the shade of trees is it really a photograph you'll want to keep or just another record or test shot? The light is kind of key to the results.
Click to expand...
Neil B said:
:agree: same with high iso shots trying to make up for light that isn't there :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

....I agree that light is fundamental to photography but if a camera is new to you then to explore its limits is a good and an important thing to do. That includes pushing to see how the ISO performs (goodness knows there's enough questions on here about the 7D Mark II's noise performance).

So yes, to begin with I am shooting just to practice becoming familiar and with the knowledge that there'll be fewer keepers for a while except where I get lucky. I did the same when I first had my 70D.

There will be times when the light is hardly there but still possibly an opportunity to get creative. That's the beauty of digital - You can bin as many as you like. Hopefully people aren't restricting themselves by their shutter count numbers just as some don't want to add mileage to their car and consequently miss out on enjoying it so much.


 
Last edited:
Sorry, I forgot to put IMHO :rolleyes: as in if the light is poor I put the camera away, for paid sports togs I guess that's not a option.
Still waiting for a go with the man just for the A.
 
Last edited:
I would be surprised if there is the same pressure to produce publication grade BIF shots under lousy lighting that there is for sports and other documentary or event based photography.
 
tdodd said:
I would be surprised if there is the same pressure to produce publication grade BIF shots under lousy lighting that there is for sports and other documentary or event based photography.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if a pro was using anything other than a FF body, I'm only at hobby level so still interested in the mk2.
 
Really? Why would you be surprised? When you make your money from photography, all that matters is getting the job done; ergo you use the right tool for the job.
All of this ego BS about full frame v crop disappears. Hey, guess what? I used a compact camera for a job and it got published.
 
Glad I came across this post. I have a mk1 but tbh I have never been 100% happy with it, photos seem soft and focus a bit hit & miss. I shoot mainly Motorsport (bikes) Googling this seems to suggest that there is a problem too.

Would upgrade to the mk2 if I was sure the upgrade was definately worth it.

What do the owners of the mk2 think ?

Col
 
DemiLion said:
Really? Why would you be surprised? When you make your money from photography, all that matters is getting the job done; ergo you use the right tool for the job.
All of this ego BS about full frame v crop disappears. Hey, guess what? I used a compact camera for a job and it got published.
Click to expand...

This is too true, while I do own full frame and crop bodies far too many people get hung up on the gear, I could shoot and make money using a 1100 if I had to, its the person that matters most, the body just makes the job easier.

In saying that though you wouldn't believe the amount of uncle bobs etc that turn up to a wedding with a d700 or something and look over to see if you are using a "Full frame Pro" body.. totally stupid
 
DemiLion said:
Really? Why would you be surprised? When you make your money from photography, all that matters is getting the job done; ergo you use the right tool for the job.
All of this ego BS about full frame v crop disappears. Hey, guess what? I used a compact camera for a job and it got published.
Click to expand...
That's because you are a highly skilled pro and don't need the advantages a FF can give.
 
Colin Port Images said:
Glad I came across this post. I have a mk1 but tbh I have never been 100% happy with it, photos seem soft and focus a bit hit & miss. I shoot mainly Motorsport (bikes) Googling this seems to suggest that there is a problem too.

Would upgrade to the mk2 if I was sure the upgrade was definately worth it.

What do the owners of the mk2 think ?

Col
Click to expand...

I have upgraded from the 7D, and in my opinion it was very definitely worth it - it is a similar step up as when I moved from my 50D to the 7D.
 
got a couple of mates with 7D MkII's and the images ive seen from them are pretty damn good. And they have 5D3 and 1DX to compare them against. Not had any chance to put mine to any serious use yet due to work but next week we will see how it gets on with fast jets and BIF.
 
Bebop said:
Can I ask - a minimum shutter speed of 1/1000 was mentioned in Av mode. Is this customisable or is this a set value? If not, is this the fastest allowed?

I'm interested as I have a 5D3 and often shoot sport. It would be handy to use Av mode to use exposure compensation sometimes and this might tempt me even further towards a 7D2.
Click to expand...

5d3 auto iSO isn't as flexible as 7d2 which allows minimum shutter speeds to be set upto 1/8000 I think the 5d3 only allows 1/250

tdodd said:
I would be surprised if there is the same pressure to produce publication grade BIF shots under lousy lighting that there is for sports and other documentary or event based photography.
Click to expand...

I think its more a case of us wanting to be able to get a decent shot whenever we go out.. If we could go out only when the weather is perfect, that would be pretty tough to manage. So we are trying to deal with the reality of being a photographer in the UK, we get lots of rubbish weather....
 
That's fair enough. I chose to shoot when the light suits my purposes. For BIF I simply wouldn't bother in dreary conditions. There will always be another day. :)
 
mipevo6 said:
I think its more a case of us wanting to be able to get a decent shot whenever we go out.. If we could go out only when the weather is perfect, that would be pretty tough to manage. So we are trying to deal with the reality of being a photographer in the UK, we get lots of rubbish weather....
Click to expand...

....I wholeheartedly agree. English weather is such that it's often changeable during the course of even just minutes. We're all agreed that it's all about the light but there are many, many 'shades' of light - Each with their own quality and of course limitations.

I recently shot 195 pics of Deer on a very overcast 'grey' day. I kept 9 of them and am very pleased indeed with my 7D Mark II's performance in those conditions and will go as far as saying that 2 of those 8 are winners (not the one I posted earlier). The weather (for photography) was such that it crossed my mind not to bother but fortunately I decided it would be a wasted opportunity not to go ahead and check it out. Afterall, what is there to lose? I could tell after the first shot that it was worth being out there for an hour or two until the light really slipped away, which it did and then even ISO would not have resulted in any keepers.

Due to its weatherproofing and that of my lenses (all L) and it's ability to capture a very good tonal range, I feel much more encouraged to try shots on my 7D Mark II than I did on my 70D.

If anyone is interested I will be posting my set of Deer photos in a separate thread in due course.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top