Joe Mayer: No real surprises. The mk2 seems a tad better than mk1 and still far behind FF.
As if there would be an APS-C camera on a market that jumps ahead of FF. You can't cheat physics.
hippo84: Why does A77II has the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture as shots from 7D and other non-transluscend mirror cameras? Wasn't shots from A77II darker and then corrected?
Good question.It's already been a while since A77 II release and still no review? Disappointing. Especially if you consider that Sony basically changed everything inside of that body comparing to the original A77.
NJOceanView: This seems like a good solution for those who need APS-C cameras. I'm one of them because I don't need uber-shallow DOF but do need every inch of reach I can get. I also shoot JPEGs much of the time for the kind of work that I do.
That being said, if you look both at the Beatles patch and the Honey Ridge Farms label in the 1) low light setting 2) as a JPEG at 3) 12800, you'll see that the 7D2 does a rather impressive job compared to the 7D1, 7100 and 6000.
I'm tending to agree with many posters that we may be hitting limits on what we can do with a crop sensor, and yes I was hoping for something even better. But if the criteria is 1) a crop sensor camera + 2) low light performance, the 7D2 looks to me to take the crown -- only by a bit in RAW but by something more notable in JPEG.
BSI-CMOS APS-C sensor won't have any notable advantage over standard, front-illuminated one. For back-side illuminated sensors to show real gain you need a high pixel density. Think: 40+ MPx on APS-C. Until we see cameras like that - BSI is pointless.
Plastek: From what I see comparing 7D mkII with Nikon D7100, Sony A6000 and Pentax K3:
Difference is clear in RAWs right from ISO400 - Sony's the worst one, then Canon, Nikon and Pentax are roughly identical. From ISO1600 Nikon starts to fall back behind others, Pentax and Canon go head to head.
As for JPGs - I won't comment on that, cause every camera can be adjusted to your liking. Canon got very aggressive sharpening on default setting, and that's the kind of edge-based sharpening I really don't like. Sony on the other hand uses sharpening similar to the photoshop unsharp mask, but one that's also causing weird artefacts (see: brush in bottom right corner - you can see ugly pixels on the edges). Nikon and Pentax got nice compromises between artefacts and sharpness, though I prefer Pentax saturation out of the box. But then again: Saturation can be adjusted too. Overall: don't shoot JPG, regardless of camera used. Even batch RAW processing will give you better results than in-body JPGs.
ISO 12,800 is useless on all of these cameras. It doesn't really matter which one is slightly better or worse.
But yea, more images are needed for any final judgment, though certainly Canon did made a large progress.
Jonath: Fascinating comparison and really not a lot of difference between these cameras. Lots of comments saying Sony is far worse or Canon is far worse - if by far worse you mean 1% maybe 2% difference - then fine but this is SO subjective and is really about how you like your RAW files to look. Canon is cleaner at higher ISO (although frankly they're all beset by a fair degree of colour noise), Sony is retaining more detail (look at the words on the colourwheels near the playing cards, top-mid-right but again very marginal). Simply put, if you were using sensor quality to decide between these cameras its almost a dead heat - further reinforcing other opinions on here that it is in other features you would determine which camera to buy.
People compare different characteristics and different spots on a photo so they get different results (ok, then there are fanboys, but that's a different topic). And yes - difference is slim, but not that slim (1-2% is impossible to perceive. Even software analysis can't really help you). That said though - pretty much every modern APS-C camera is within +-1/3EV noise performance at ISO800. And it's nothing new - this situation remains unchanged since 2010 (all cameras in their own generation got similar noise performance).
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Just came here to post the 2000th comment. I really don't care about the article. Sorry...
Wow, someone's epeen got hurt.Apologies.
You're not the only one posting, so....
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.
Switch to RAW, ISO 6400, go to bottles at the bottom center of the screen. You should see a difference there between 7D and 7D mkII quite clearly. Less color noise, less luminance noise, more details.
From what I see comparing 7D mkII with Nikon D7100, Sony A6000 and Pentax K3:
Reinhard136: Getting close to the competition, but makes you realise how far the 7d had slipped at high iso, frightening how far canon is prepared to fall behind. If the m2 image is the same in another 5 years, it will be facing not the next sony sensor, which would not be far off, but at best the one after that ........But should the competition really be based on sensor capacity or price ? If so it is pretty sad to compare the A7r with the m2.
A77/mk2 is a clear competitor to 7D. It's identical market sector, at the release it got very similar price point, and a very similar feature set (though each camera got different strong points).
I don't know why is it even being put into question. It's like wondering if 6D and D610 are competitors to each other.
Joel Benford: The 7D2 seems at home in this company. I don't see much to choose in the raws.
I would choose between current APS cameras for reasons other than image quality:- 7D2 is fast, has big AF area with slick joystick, very solid build, but it's heavy and expensive- D7100 performs quite well if the buffer is enough for you, good price, good flash- K3 has very nice viewfinder and ergonomics at a good price, but Pentax is a bit fringe- A77 II is fast and slick, and cheap, and has an EVF if you like them, but A mount has less support and it looks like this won't improve- A6000 has worse lens selection than DSLRs, and not such a good shooting experience, but it's much better for lugging around when not in use
If you care about the modest difference in sensors between these cameras, I think you should really be looking at full frame.
@Menneisyys - the best kit zooms, few great primes, and that's pretty much that they have to offer. Sorry, but I hesitate to call that thing Fuji got a "system".
@theprehistorian - you're looking at JPGs. Huge mistake. That is: unless you're JPG addict in which case - you need help ;) :P.
aris14: Good for Sony. Nikon 7100 still great...!
Not really. Seems like Sony is a new looser in the high ISO image quality.
Good for Pentax though - It still got top of the line high ISO performance comparable with Canon.
michonn: I can't see any difference between 7D and 7D ll they both are very noisy at 12800 ISO well maybe the 7D ll is a slightly by a hair less noisy but it clearly shows that 7D ll has an old technology sensor implemented which means again - canon ? WTF ?
"they both are very noisy at 12800 ISO" - Every single APS-C and smaller sensor camera is. Heck - even Full Frame is "very noisy" at this ISO (yep, including A7s and DF).
What you need is not camera but rather a time machine - to go good 10 years in future. Perhaps then we'll see ISO128000 that isn't "very noisy".
IvanM: What I see here, looking at the high iso RAW's is that there is not much difference between the Canon (new and old), Nikon & Sony. One can pixel peep till one's eyes bleed but they all look much the same to me. That goes for sharpness as well, even against the Nikon the 7d2 holds up fairly well. So whats the difference then between these brands?I would say Canon gave us a very competent sports wildlife camera that taps into the vast and may I say mostly very good Canon lens system. Ditto probably for Nikon as far as lenses go, except this new 7D2 is probably king of the hill for now ito AF and frames per second. I would buy one as a 2nd camera to my 6D...The Sony looks great on paper and in the hand but I have yet to read a lens review where the corners were not unacceptably soft. The Sony lenses just don't stack up imo...So if all these sensors are more or less on par for now what is left to differentiate? AF, frames per second, lenses, price and backup.....
Time to change glasses?
Mikael Risedal: the 6400iso are different exposed, Nikon 1/3200sec f5,6 and Canon as usual longer exposed 1/2500sec f 5,6There are higher resolution in d7100 picture at 6400Iso compared to Canon 7Dmk2 and with a shorter exposure.
@Mikael Risedal - From trio 7DmkII, K3, A6000, D7100 - it's only D7100 that got 1/3200s. Everyone else run at 1/2500.
So if anything - it's Nikon that exposes differently, not Canon.
mpgxsvcd: From the looks of the low light shadow noise in the RAW files it really looks like the 7D MKII is leaps and bounds better than the 7D MKI. However, the noise in the shadow detail seems to abruptly stop. There is a normal amount of noise in the dim parts of the scene. However, the noise just disappears in the truly dark shadows.
That makes me wonder if they are just clipping the noise in the darkest shadows. This makes your noise response look great but it absolutely crushes your dynamic range.
These sample images are promising. However, I really want to see the dynamic range charts to find out if they are cheating or not. For now I will give a Golf Clap to Canon and reserve the outright cheers for when I see the dynamic range charts.
I don't know, so far it looks like Canon improved in dynamic range, not got worse. I doubt they managed to catch up with Sony but most certainly 7DmkII isn't worse than the mkI.
miles green: Well there you have it: compare RAW at a common-for-birding ISO 800 with the Sony 24 mpx sensor found in the Pentax K3 & Nikon D7100 & (i think) the Sony A6000.
What i'm curious to see is how the new Samsung NX1 will perform, as it has a BACKLIT sensor. Maybe it will be the "quantum leap" some are talking about?
That said though - it obviously works well for their marketing needs. You're a great proof of that.
Backlit sensor won't be any "quantum leap". I'll be very surprised if they'll get more than 1/3 EV advantage. The reason why big manufacturers, like Sony or Canon, don't use backlit sensors in their large(r) sensor cameras is because it doesn't give much of an advantage unless you have really tiny pixels (think: smartphone-size tiny).
Zerg2905: OK, thank you.And now for something completely different*: where is the "crushing" superiority of the Sony sensors (Nikon and Sony cameras), in RAW, ISO 6400, bulb???
* = courtesy of Monty Python.
Yea, Sony doesn't have the output to handle all their orders so they are outsourcing their technology to 3rd party manufacturers.
I believe Sony invested over a billion dollars in a new sensor fab not that long ago (2-3 years?) no idea though when they plan to open it.
JordanRusev: I have Canon 7D (first) and i like it but the winner is Sony a6000 with much more details from others.
But let me quote Masaya Maeda Managing Director and Chief Executive, Image Communication Products Operations at Canon.
"One thing we know from our own testing is that Canon DSLR sensors can’t quite compete with some modern sensors from Sony in terms of dynamic range. How important to you is developing sensor technology?
We are very focused on getting the best image quality. I’m not sure what measurements you’re looking at but when it comes to dynamic range for example we consider image quality as a whole, from low to high ISO sensitivities and on balance we consider our sensors to be the best.My ideal camera is one that can take a picture in any environment from complete darkness to the brightest sunshine."
"Sony a6000 with much more details from others." - Sony is sharpening photos in a box. Never compare JPGs. RAWs are a way to go. And to my surprise - 7DmkII actually got nicer images all the way up from ISO400. It's quite clear if you look at it objectively (And no - I don't shot with E-mount nor EOS-mount).