JMDean: 84%? That’s a little high IMO. This camera should rank down in the mid 70’s. Image Quality seems a little high on your scale. The only thing good about this camera is its build quality and performance. You couple in the poor image quality and the Value should go way down. I purchased this camera and after shooting around 2000 images I can honestly say this is the worse Canon I have ever bought as far as image quality. That includes the Rebels I own. The quality of the images are so bad for the price range, that this will be the first camera I have ever returned. I hope Canon does better on its next release because this one sure left a bad taste in my mouth. All the poor reviews about image quality are pretty spot on.
...continuedIf a sports/wildlife shooter has a tight budget and needs a fast, rugged body, he may skip great D810, or 5D3 or even the 1DX. For one reason or another, these will most likely be crossed off his list. He wants to find the best possible solution to get the shot within his budget. Sure, the D810 IQ is awesome, BUT can he get away with 5 fps? Not likely. So I believe that as a 'whole system', the 7DII offers a lot at a very attractive price, while still providing a very good APS-C IQ in the ISO range where most of the target audience will use it. Again, there is no perfect camera. How could there be? A million photographers have a million and 1 different needs :) Everything is a compromise. Even the new D750 has some limitations (1/4000 SS plus the lack of outside cross-type AF points.) So it's a compromise, that's why everybody has to completely understand how he can get the best system that suits his needs even if the components of this system may not be perfect.
... continuedWhat good is the great IQ of a D7100 if you run out of buffer when the receiver makes the catch? Or can't track as well as a 70D (see MichaelTheMentor's Youtube comparision after shooting about 1000 images). The bottom line is you need the whole system to perform well and reliably to get the shots. What shot? Canon created this camera for wildlife and sports shooters. So features that many people - shooters of other genres - may find gimmicky or unnecessary, might actually be of great importance of sports of wildlife shooters, e.g. fluorescent flicker filtering, super advanced AF, 10 fps. The 7DII is no different than most cameras out there. Just like cars for instance, most cameras are actually oriented towards a certain group of photographers. The 7DII is no difference, it's actually a prime example of this "orientation". continued...
I do not have a 7DII, but I do have a 70D, (plus 5D3, 5D classic, T4i, and had another 10 Canon bodies in the past.)The 7DII's IQ is a probably a tiny bit above the 70D, which I find good. I shoot mostly wildlife and some architecture with my 70D (while I shoot weddings, portraits, events, etc. with my FF cameras.) Even though the 7DII sensor is a bit behind some of the APS-C competition, it is so mostly at low ISOs, where the vast majority of the 7DII's target audience shoots very little. Sports, action, and wildlife photographers mostly shoot at higher ISO's where the other APS-C sensor don't have a huge advantage; they still do in tests, no doubt, but from a practical perspective it's pretty much a wash (at say ISO 1600). The thing is IQ - in the real world where the 7DII shoots - is a combination of several factors, the whole system contributes to IQ. FPS, AF, ergonomics, lens used, even weather proofing plays a role whether you can get the shot or not. continued...
NeilSDPR: Looks like a very good camera, however for the reviewer to state that the 5D lll AF system is behind the times
I don't think so
It's interesting that when the Canon 6D came out, everyone really liked (and still likes) its image quality, but many called it "crippled" for the 1/4000s shutter speed (using fast primes on bright days). They also knocked it for not having cross-type sensors off center, negatively affecting low light AF with points closer to the edges. Well, while I do consider the D750 a very good camera, it seems to have similar problems. Once you shoot in portrait orientation, you have a bunch of non-cross type AF points on your subjects face. I was also surprised that the 5DIII beat the D750 in low light AF. And the 5D3 is not even the best Canon at that. My 6D focused in even lower light than my 5D3. So I'm puzzled how a -3 EV rated AF was beaten by a -2 rated Canon, so that's interesting.For the record, I never felt crippled with the 1/4000 SS when I had the 6D. But I bet there may be a few people who called the 6D crippled for that but now all of a sudden ignore this "issue" with the D750.
AllOtherNamesTaken: Pretty crazy that the 5DM3 is still priced anywhere near $3,000. You'd have to be out of your mind to pay that in this environment unless you absolutely needed one for a job or something.
Regarding the 5D3 still being around $3000, there are enough 5D3 deals out there for less than $2500. B&H had a deal recently for 5D3 + Pro 100 printer for about $2450 after rebate. Sell the printer for $150 and you have a new 5D3, from one of the best retailers out there, for $2300.
munro harrap: Well, its results, posted here, do not inspire, but that is a personal thing with me. A long time ago I got rid of a 40D I had bought new, not because it did not work, it worked fine, or due to its resolution, which was fine, but due to the sad fact that compared to my 1Ds, the results were flat, processed and boring. They did not look real. They did not convince, and looking at the samples posted here, nothing has improved at all.
As a photographer I do not need to waste frames in the futile hope that the machine takes better pictures than I do, I do not need the dreadful video quality you get from DSLRs these days either.
So since this thing costs as much as a D750, and double a D7100 (whose results are much better, much), what exactly are Canon doing? This is LOT of money for not a lot of QUALITY.
You can buy a mint secondhand 1D MkIV for the same money, or TWO 70D bodies, or a 6D brand new with 24105f4 thingy. Or a D610 with a 2485thingy.I bet no reviewer here has bought one!!
So the bottom line is no links? Again, this is without any intention to offend, I'm just curious where I could pick up a mint shape 1DIV for the same amount as a new 7DII. (Note: a couple days ago I had a chance to buy a 7DII, brand new via Ebay for $1550 after $100 Ebay Bucks (Ebay's cash back program).
Any links you could post for cheap but mint 1DIV located in the US in the $1700 range? I'm still interested to see them. Unfortunately, 100-200K on the shutter is far from being mint, I'm not interested in seeing those though.
Just out of curiosity, where can I buy a mint 1DIV for $1,799? (or better yet, around $1650-ish, since I've already seen 7DII deals for that price.)
Marcus Antonius: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos7dii&attr13_1=canon_eos1dx&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=400&attr16_1=400&normalization=full&widget=170&x=-0.5100056814595039&y=1.0204721282008986
ouch! (and that's just iso 400)
Marcus,Your post (the one 3 above this one) is completely fair. I totally understand that you have certain preferences and it includes preferring the FF IQ over crop even if the "reach" is less occasionally and the frame rate might suffer (occasionally I can't decide if I should switch to a FF when shooting birds.). Most often arguments on forums stem from not being able to comprehend that we all have different standards and preferences and we need to respect that. So while I thought your second post in this thread may have been a little too "vehement", this later one (3 above this) was much more "diplomatic" and made total sense to me.
... just one more thing since Marcus Antonius brought up bird photography at 400< ISO.Having owned about 12 different Canon bodies in the last 7 years, including 1DII in the past, and recently a 6D and 5DIII, I still use my 70D for bird photography (and used a 7D before that.)I did occasionally use my 6D for birds (before I sold it), and do use my 5DIII maybe 15% of the time currently, but the 70D does a better a job "overall", even at ISO ISO 1250 for instance (with proper exposure). When I say "overall", I mean that by having the 1.6x crop reach I gain more for my bird photography than what I lose in high ISO noise handling. So overall I'm better off in focal length limited scenarios using my 70D. And most birding is that, focal length limited.And to prove I'm not just making this up, here are some of my better bird shots, taken mostly with Canon crop bodies (but there are some FF there too.)https://www.flickr.com/photos/29108710@N04/sets/72157627825385400/
Marcus, interesting comment above... I think when you compare 2 different class bodies (crop vs FF), the term "fanboy" loses most of its punch. It's different from a 7DII vs. D7100 debate for instance (both crop). The funny thing is that many of these "fanboys", as you call them, use BOTH a 1DX and 7DII, the net is abundant in reviews/tests of 1DX photographers who are extremely impressed with the 7DII.The way you're using "fanboy" in your above post is almost like accusing a father of 2 of being a fanboy when he explains why his 12 year old son can't run the 100m as fast as his 16 year old. Is he now a fanboy of his younger son?Also, show us any APS-C body with the same noise handling as the 1DX, or even the 5DIII? None, and that makes sense. It's physics. Maybe some day a crop sensor will come along and match the 1DX but by that time FF tech will also have moved forward and the difference remains the same. What also will remain the same is the "reach" advantage of crop vs FF.
Serious Sam: RAW at ISO 6400, Fuji looks cleaner while the NX1 seems to retain that little bit more detail.
First of all, hats off to Samsung. That is a very good looking sensor. I'm a Canon user but I have to agree with others here that the NX-1 IQ looks best. AND its RAW files seem to be uncooked, as opposed to the XT-1. I agree with Vignes, the XT-1 high ISO RAW files look like processed jpegs, which is unfortunate. That would be a deal breaker for me. If I wanted a processed image (from any body), I'd shoot jpeg. But I do shoot RAW so that I can process a "real", untouched RAW file to my taste, I don't want Fuji do that for me. We see that (cooking of RAW files) more and more often these days though.As for downsampling, customers actually perform downsampling every day without even knowing it. Any time a customer views a photo less than 100% (e.g. Facebook, slideshow on their computers, prints, etc.) there is downsampling going on. And since the NX-1 image gets downsampled more than the XT-1 to achieve a common output size, it does have the advantage in noise and detail.
mickeybphoto: Wow! This is kind of embarassing. Not lookin too good for 7D mkII.
So basically the 7DII sensor is clearly better at most categories, at most of the ISO range, and some margins are huge in favor of the 7DII. The D300 is practically only better at base ISO DR (only ISO 100) and only by about a 1/4 stop, which is virtually imperceptible. That is nothing and would come in handy only in a very small percentage of real world shots, if any (again, most people are not looking at the 7DII to shoot exclusively at ISO 100).
... and yet at the end we have an identical overall score of 70. Go figure.
Again, just imagine if someone would have to make a decision between these 2 bodies just purely based on the overall DxO score alone...
Overall DxO scores are very misleading. Their individual measurements are much more useful. Mickeybphoto, have you had a chance to look into those?Yes, both score 70. Hmm interesting. Let's see the details.- ISO sensitivity: 7DII is better, more sensitive, closer to the nominal ISOs than the D300.- Signal to noise ratio: 7DII is clearly better all through the ISO range.- DR: the D300 has 1/4 stop advantage up to about ISO 160 (I challenge anyone to notice a quarter stop difference in DR). However, this is kind of embarrassing for the 7DII admittedly, but the point is that ISO 200 and above the 7DII pulls away hard. At ISO 1600 the 7DII is ahead by 1 stop and and half. And the gap continues to grow.- Tonal range: they start out virtually the same, then 7DII gradually pulls ahead starting at ISO 200.- Color sensitivity: a virtual tie. D300 is ahead by a hair at base ISO (22.5 vs 22.4), then around ISO 800 the 7DII pulls ahead a bit.
thericyip: Picked up a Canon 7D mark 2 today. As a fight photographer using a Canon 1Dx, I am very happy with the camera and the results. I used the camera with a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II at a Muay Thai demo tonight. Menu system, ergonomics, using the camera, and the results were very familiar. Felt like I was shooting with the 1Dx.Since Adobe doesn't have an update for the Canon 7Dm2 yet, I shot Raw to CF and Jpeg to SD, which slowed down the buffer a bit. Not sure if this is the same problem as the 5Dm3 where the SD card slot shortens the buffer (if I remember correctly). I'm used to the 1Dx 32 RAW buffer so the difference was new to me.
Here's a Jpeg sample straight out of camera (added watermark). IMO, it's quite good a jpeg. The Canon 7Dm2 is definitely a good backup to my 1Dx. I can still comfortably shoot weddings and events with this no problem. I can see why Scott Kelby likes this camera so much.
Why don't we let him (thericyip) decide what is a good backup for him. He was just sharing his opinion, he never said all 1DX users should use the 7DII as a backup. Also, not everyone is a millionaire. Perhaps there are numerous 1DX owners who are faced with the decision of 1. buy another 1DX as a backup (again, keyword is BACKUP) using all of their budget, or 2. get a 7DII as a BACKUP and have about $4K+ left over to spend on something else, e.g. a great lens. Everybody's needs and budgets are different, we can't just categorically prescribe what is good enough and not good enough for someone. For the poster it is obviously good enough, he's happy with it. For you it probably isn't. There is no problem with that, it's everyone's own choice.
How is the buffer speed if you record RAW + Jpeg only on the CF card? (Instead of splitting RAW and Jpeg on two different cards.)
Schweikert: After reading comments, I ask, are you all looking at the same files I'm seeing?
I see absolutely nothing different between the 7D and the 7DII in raw all the way up to 12,800 ISO (other than the 2 megapixel bump). Noise looks identical.
That's poor considering the years between these two cameras.
Sure, jpegs look different, 7DII is improved. But that seems pretty sad to be the only noticeable visual improvement.
I owned the 7D and used it quite a bit for stills and video in daily client work. High ISO stills were frustrating. I see nothing improved in the 7DII for raw work.
PRINT mode doesn't necessarily mean actual paper printing. It means output size for both is equalized. That's exactly what you're doing when you view your photos on a 1080p monitor. You view a photo from the 20mp 7DII full screen on the say 23" 1080p monitor, then you view a 24mp D7100 photo on the same monitor, full screen. From the comparison point of view, it's essentially the same process as if you printed them at the same size. You are comparing two different cameras (with different size sensors) on the same size display device, be it the same monitor, or the same sized photo prints. A more extreme example would be to compare a 12mp D700 vs the 36mp D810. While the D700 may be cleaner at 100% crop view, the D810 will be cleaner when both cameras are viewed and compared full screen on the same monitor.So PRINT mode, even though it may not actually refer to paper prints, is very useful and will give a true picture when comparing 2 different sensor size cameras.
toni2: It's clear that this studio scene for comparison it's garbage. Sometimes there are an area better in a low camera that in a high end camera. Usually you can't extract any conclusion. There isn't a high ilumination zone nor high colour zone, for example. Comparing some zones in raw (detail and noise), I see 7dmk2 as 7d image quality, and they are better than nikon d7100 and sony a6000?!
That's why we have the PRINT mode here. You give up true 100% crop view (for both cameras) but the two different sensor sizes are now equalized and output at the same size (and so does WEB but in even smaller).Since PRINT mode shows you both cameras at the same output size (such as an 13x19 print from both), you can now compare apples to apples as far as which has lower noise. Again, we're not checking for noise at the pixel level (that's FULL mode), but a comparison between two different megapixel cameras output at the same size. That is why while a Nikon D700 (12mp) may look cleaner at 100% view than the 36mp D810 (in FULL mode), once you check them again in PRINT mode, the D800 should have less noise than the D700. (I know the D700 is not featured here but I wanted to pick a relatively low MP Nikon FF camera.)
Timbukto: I see they added the original 7D. I'm astonished at how well it compares. I used the 700D as a baseline for what I thought the 7D would perform. I owned a 7D and a t3i before and IMO it performed slightly worse than the t3i. This last 7D test shows its still competitive. I understand that the 7D used a dual DIGIC architecture and perhaps alternating sensor readout processing and I'm now wondering despite the old design if something tightened up in their manufacturing processes for which the IQ of more recent 7D's have much improved? Can Dpreview staff comment as to the age of the 7D being tested? Then again I forgot the 700D probably has some PDAF pixels as well? The original 7D looks *far* better than the 700D, and it is either variance and improvement in the 7D, or variance in testing I would wager. Or strange significant drop of performance in the 700D that went unnoticed.
Just one more thought. The 7D has been featured in DPreview's old studio scene since it was first tested years ago. Their copy indeed does well compared to the other 18mp Canon bodies. So it is no surprise to me that their 7D, if it is the same copy, does well in this new studio scene too. Based on its performance in the old scene, this is what I expected. I owned 5 variants of the 18mp sensor (T2i, T3i, T4i, 60D, 7D) and compared them myself similar to DPreview and found that except for the T4i (explained that in the above post) they all performed very similarly.
It's also good to compare different size sensors by choosing the PRINT mode. This way you are equalizing output size and that will give you a better comparison between the 2 (or 4) bodies.No, it will not give you a true 100% crop view, BUT makes it possible to compare different sized sensors. A good example to demonstrate that is to compare the D810 to the Df for example. 36mp sensor vs 16mp sensor. Looking at the high ISO results in FULL mode gives you 100% crops from both, with the D810 being much noisier. But switch it to PRINT and the D810 is at least as good comparatively as the Df, if not better. Neither is displayed at 100% in this mode, they're downsized. But while the Df's size is reduced by a small amount, the D810 undergoes a relatively much larger reduction. And all size reduction reduces noise.
So practically, if you print the same 8x10 high ISO photo from each, the D810 will have as little noise as the Df even though it is much noisier in FULL (100% crop) mode.