helltormentor: @ Barney Britton
Is that true that the X-TRANS sensor becomes ISOless from 400 on? (By ISOless, I mean there is no noise penalty if we increase exposure in post rather than increasing sensitivity in camera while shooting).
Not sure about that...
Clearly implies cut off at ISO 1600 - almost on the button.
Very nice Barney, quite funny too. Did you actually give up on the 56mm AF or was it just simpler to work manually? I know that modelling lights are not usually all that bright.
From experiment and some data from Bill Claff it appears to be ISOless from around 1600 ISO.
HG South Africa: With regards to section 13 of this review on 'real world' DR, Simon Joinson of DPR says that the lens has no effect on DR. The 7Dii was paired with an EF 50mm f/1.4 and the D7000 was paired with Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED.All over the web you will find tests that show how lens contrast rendering can affect the DR in files - the Leica Forum has an extensive segment.At the focal lengths of these lenses and considering the different crop factors, adjustments would have had to be made to get similar rendering in the side-by-side comparison windows.In section 11, when comparing again to the D7000, where the Nikon is now mounted to a Nikkor 50mm lens, their is no difference under the 2 different light settings (in spite of the 7Dii not being perfectly focussed in this test).
Go see Tony Northrup's review of the 7Dii sensor and IQ on Youtube.I use this camera with L glass and the genuine 'real world' results are fantastic. Even EFS lenses such as the 15-85 give wonderful tonal results.
It was the photos that never got taken that were the problem... ;)
JoEick: Rishi, you need to stop being defensive and actually read what is being criticized. Everyone knows Sony exmor sensors have better low ISO DR. We knew this years before this article tried making it into something groundbreaking.
People (including myself) are taking offense to those who try to overstate the effectiveness in being able to get a shot or not, based on the low ISO DR. It's just pushing people to let their gear dictate everything for them, without any thought or skill required by the photographer.
Extra DR is nice and never hurts (except in photographer skills), but it's not really the feature that is making photos possible that were previously not possible with some basic photography skills in merging exposures.
I am aware that this is DPR, a gear praising website, where suggesting features are not needed or are overstated, is like breaking all the 10 commandments in one shot. Photographer skills are going backwards, while tech marches forwards. :(
"only if you're on glue - the lack of detail and resolution from the D7000 is staggering."
What is also staggering is your utterly transparent and over the top reaction to criticism of your pet camera.
JEROME NOLAS: A second class sensor for 1,799.00?
Are you saying popularity is a guarantee of quality?
xval: Well, it's obvious that Canon is not the "King of the Hill" anymore. DR is disappointing. But how important is it? In some cases it's critical, in most cases it's nice to have. In any case there is no way to reproduce it on monitor or paper. So people use phoshopping to emphasis shadow details which results in "pictures". Far from realistic photo. Nevertheless most are happy with HDR-looking something. ;) And even call it photography.
When DR doesn't matter much everything else becomes more important. That's where 7d2 excels. For me video with autofocus + uncompressed video out actually was one of the main reasons to upgrade. I need it. 7d + 7d2 + 2x (dirt cheap EFS 24mm lens) make a good setup for stereo photography, something I need too.
You don't need HDR to see the banding and noise in the shadows. Just try using a bit of dodge and burn.
Most 'realistic' photographs are a long way from the bland default JPEGs that come from the camera. If some people don't know how to post process, then you get some awful results, but that does not invalidate the need for improved DR.
We can finally get somewhere close to film nowadays. Unless you own a Canon of course, in which case you still can't.
Hi Rishi, I agree and thanks for the review.
Such 'real life' information is vital for newcomers. Not that I am one, but it's hard to demonstrate to people what all the data means in practice.
Now I can link to your review. Very useful. Thanks.
@ Jo Eick
"It's just pushing people to let their gear dictate everything for them, without any thought or skill required by the photographer."
I assume you never do any post processing then. If you did you might understand why losing three stops of dynamic range is a serious problem for anyone who shoots 'real life' scenes.
And no, I don't post process because I got the exposure 'wrong'. I post process because default tone curves in the camera are not optimal for anything much more than snapshots.
I suppose the amount of time and trouble that the great printers used to go through to extract the maximum tonal quality from a negative was the result of the incompetence of people like Henri Cartier-Bresson?
DaddyG: Great review - the degree to which you highlight the 7D's poor dynamic range is long overdue. You do a great job on explaining why this is so important.
This level of negative publicity is long overdue, and can only be good for us locked into the Canon system. Surely Canon must concentrate on improving its sensor technology.
However, it is odd that you do not list it as a 'Con'. Because, for me & many, it is this camera's greatest disappointment.
What this proves is that most consumers are very conservative and not very discriminating if the 'brand' has good publicity.
But once disillusionment sets in, this can turn bad very quickly indeed. It may take a few years for it to sink in, and a lot of reluctance to accept - but that just makes the rush to dump a brand worse when it happens. Its a bit like a stock market crash.
Apewithacamera: Rating cameras these days in general is overrated!
They're all quite good!
Given that 'good' is relative, I disagree. There is no point in having ratings like Excellent, very good and good and nothing else. It should be Good, Average, Poor by the standards of other current cameras.
The sensor in this Canon is poor. The DR is no better than a 1" Panasonic sensor. That really isn't very clever.
57even: Samsung still have an issue with brand recognition in the West as a serious camera brand. Hi-tech gadgets like smartphones and TVs are not generally equated with 'serious' technology like cameras.
This is a shame because this camera really deserves a serious look, and so do the lenses. It also makes me wonder where Nikon and Canon would be in terms of sales now if you negated the draw of brand recognition.
However, it proves (if it needed proving) that DSLRs are rapidly running out of anything new to offer in the face of technological progress on mirrorless cameras. Every announcement in the last 3 years has been an incremental upgrade, most of which fixed bugs that should not have existed.
I am in a holding pattern, but the traditional camera companies risk going to the wall if they don't pony up a response. Maybe not immediately, but soon enough.
The D800 is not exactly new, it has already been replaced. The 7Dii was a very long time coming, and there was no technical reason for the buffer to be so small on the previous camera. Neither of these cameras are a breakthrough in any respect. Moreover, at 29MP the Samsung is not far off the resolution of the D800.
I cannot, in all honesty, think of a reason why I would choose the 7D over the NX1. Previous Samsung cameras didn't interest me at all, but this one is completely different.
Samsung still have an issue with brand recognition in the West as a serious camera brand. Hi-tech gadgets like smartphones and TVs are not generally equated with 'serious' technology like cameras.
Seems quite competitive. Shame this sensor is only available in a DSLR. That sensor would work great in a CSC camera with its built in PDAF points.
ABM Barry: I,m answering the shallow minded "Laslen." He quotes:
" you absolutely do not need to spend $1,700 on a camera to take pictures of your children. A smaller, cheaper camera will work just as well"
That depends on your family values, .... Obviously, Children are not worthy enough in your small self-centered mind!
I wonder how his daughter feels about that?
I know quite a few of my friend's kids HATE being constantly photographed by their parents. I see that as an entirely healthy sign of independence.
But the photo in question, though nice enough, would not require a $1000+ camera. No-one mentioned camera phones as an alternative.
I was responding to the assertion that somehow NOT spending $1700 on a camera to shoot your kids is tantamount to parental neglect.
When growing up I don't remember my childhood being ruined by the poor quality of my dad's old Kodak. That $1700 is for your benefit, not your kids. If you cared about your kids you'd put the money towards their hobbies and interests, or perhaps their future. You wouldn't waste it on a camera.
ThomasSwitzerland: I cannot help. Those samples do not communicate anything what the D750 should be.
They could be taken with almost any camera, even 1” sensor or smaller, by any snap shooter.
I trust <dpreview> as a prime source. But on some of their sample galleries they communicate only one thing: Nonsense. Or said in a diplomatic way: Much room left for optimization.
And a good weekend to you too.
You can read what you like into a comment, but ad hominem insults are not very grown up, are they?
This is a free site. You don't own it, though you seem to act otherwise.
FYI I have been around since the review of the Coolpix 990. That's around 14 years. I changed my login after forgetting my old password, but I don't feel an extended tenure or impressive gear list confers any special privileges.
There is a limit to how much sample images can help you, since only a side by side comparison will show you any real differences, and they provide this with a review. What kind of post processing do you think they should use though? All the same or maximise each one?
I suggest if you need so much help making a decision, you create your own review site, and then manufacturers will give you samples for free. There comes a point when you just have to try it for yourself. C'est la vie.