-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
7D2 is here
- Thread starter rhlpetrus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 7d
This seems to be an improved version of the EOS 70D's sensor. The 70D actually has 2/3 of a stop less DR than the D300 at ISO 200! And the D7100 has a staggering 2 and a bit stops more. SNR is about dead nuts even with the D7100. But improving on the D7100 in terms of DR or SNR would be quite a trick at this point. According to Bill Claff's numbers, for instance, the D7100 is within 3/4 of a stop of ideal DX in DR.
--
Jim
--
Jim
Last edited:
n057
Veteran Member
DR is not everything, moreover we actually don't know 7D2's DR yet. Canon new sensors in 6D and likely in 7D2 certainly improve. They might still have less DR than Sony sensors but they are much less subject to banding as we see in 6D photos, which is really my main complaint in 5D2/5D3 photos in evening photos in dark sky if I lift shadow for example, and 6D is much better in this field. Personally I don't need and even want to lift shadow aggressively but only moderately. I'd be happy as long as after moderate shadow lifting, photos don't show obvious banding.
I found this set of 7D II full-size photos. From what I have seen they are pretty good, certainly better than original 7D
http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-sample-images-movies/
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
Sorry, I guess that I didn't make my point very well.
Iliah pointed to some 7dII images and made a comment that made me think that he thought they were lacking in something.
I'd like to know how much better the 7dII images may be, compared to the d300 first, and then to the more recent DX cameras. Because that's what anyone wanting a d400 has for a reality, not a d800.
Kerry
n057
Veteran Member
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
Given the intended use of the camera for sports and wildlife action, I look at dxomark's Sports (Low Light) scores first. While the definition looks somewhat arbitrary "...low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits." in practice I find it is pretty accurate in determing the highest ISO I can get an excellent post or 8" x 12" print from. Here is the current scenario:
D300 679
EOS 70D 926
D7100 1256
As you can see, the D7100 is about 1 stop better than the D300, and the 70D in terms of stops is a little closer to the D7100 than it is to the D300. In practice I seldom shoot above ISO 1000 with the D7100 (an indicated ISO 1250 or so based on dxomark's saturation ISOs) so if the 7D Mark II exceeds 1000, I may very well buy it.
Nonetheless, the 7D Mark II will likely score much worse than the D7100 for other uses such as landscape due to limited DR at low to moderate ISOs. Likely not much better than a D300.
--
Jim
D300 679
EOS 70D 926
D7100 1256
As you can see, the D7100 is about 1 stop better than the D300, and the 70D in terms of stops is a little closer to the D7100 than it is to the D300. In practice I seldom shoot above ISO 1000 with the D7100 (an indicated ISO 1250 or so based on dxomark's saturation ISOs) so if the 7D Mark II exceeds 1000, I may very well buy it.
Nonetheless, the 7D Mark II will likely score much worse than the D7100 for other uses such as landscape due to limited DR at low to moderate ISOs. Likely not much better than a D300.
--
Jim
Last edited:
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
That is a pretty good indicator. Hopefully, this new sensor will be even closer to the d7100.
I can see why that is very important to wildlife shooters, but for sports/action, not so much.
The folks that will be using this as their only camera, will have to be a little more discerning, perhaps, depending on how much they want/need to do sports or other long tele work.
For guys like me, landscapes would generally not even be a consideration for this camera or a d400.
In reality, if you're really serious about both genres, you need at least 2 cameras, 1 DX & 1 FX. At least, that's the way I see it.
Kerry
I can see why that is very important to wildlife shooters, but for sports/action, not so much.
The folks that will be using this as their only camera, will have to be a little more discerning, perhaps, depending on how much they want/need to do sports or other long tele work.
For guys like me, landscapes would generally not even be a consideration for this camera or a d400.
In reality, if you're really serious about both genres, you need at least 2 cameras, 1 DX & 1 FX. At least, that's the way I see it.
Kerry
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
No problem.Ooops, OK.
(that alphabet soup model nomenclature is getting me dizzy
Is easy to get confused around here.Kerry
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
They lack wonders, that's what I'm saying
With 7D2, at least at base ISO, severe underexposure of the subject (2+ stops, ETTR to keep bright clouds from being blown out) is still not an option. Automatic exposure still can't be trusted, too. It puts white cloth 4 stops below maximum, and the sky is still blown out.
--
About LibRaw | LibRaw
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
Sounds like a real letdown.They lack wonders, that's what I'm saying
With 7D2, at least at base ISO, severe underexposure of the subject (2+ stops, ETTR to keep bright clouds from being blown out) is still not an option. Automatic exposure still can't be trusted, too. It puts white cloth 4 stops below maximum, and the sky is still blown out.
--
http://www.libraw.org/
Son Of Waldo
Leading Member
I'm thinking more along the lines of... the DPReview comment of thea real letdown.They lack wonders, that's what I'm saying
Last edited:
Brandon birder
Veteran Member
All things considered, as far as IQ you only sacrifice about 1 stop or thereabouts going from FX to DX of the same generation. Depending on what you're shooting the other advantages may well outweigh this one stop. I shoot with both DX and FX, and there are circumstances when I prefer D300 to D3s despite at least 2 stop difference between the two. There is no magic in FX, you gain something, you give something else.
The only advantage is that under certain situations where you have to crop anyway, DX can put more pixels on the target, all else being equal. In those situations, I'd personally rather manually do my cropping in post. I have better control that way. That's why I'd never put an FX camera in crop mode, as well. I might decide to use an off-center crop later. Make sense?
Take care.
The other trade-off that doesn't get mentioned much here is pixel density and frame rate. Look at the EOS 7D Mark II: with a 33% higher pixel density than a D810 it shoots at 10 fps. On balance I still prefer DX for wildlife shooting, but then we don't shoot in as much gloom here as you do.
Guidenet
Forum Pro
Next time you're coming to Central Florida, let me know. I'd love to show you around some areas you might not know about.
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
Most photographers don't shoot FX/135 format.
It's not plummeting. What's your source for this?
What's plummeting is profit margins.
Ironically there's been a lot of lens development for m4/3, and Nikon has even come out with a couple of CX lenses. This is something Nikon has done to harm DX, not the other way around; OTOH, Sigma now offers an 18-35/1.8 that meets a lot of DX wide to normal shooting needs.
Telephoto lenses, along with the aforementioned Sigma 18-35/1.8.
Stepping up costs money and weight, and using a DX lens on a D810 is far more expensive than using it on a D400 would be.
Equivalences can even the two formats, but in practice there are advantages for DX with telephoto lenses and Nikon's 58/1.4 weighs 275 grams less than Nikon's 85/1.4.
Likewise, why use FX with consumer zooms? Yet, Nikon advocates doing just that.
Canon has a camera that fits everyone's DSLR needs; Nikon does not.
That's like saying there's no need for 8 fps -- you can speak for yourself about that but not for others. You are confusing prices with features.
Any F-mount lens will work on a DX camera. One of the reasons to want a D400 would be to be able to share accessories (batteries, CF cards, etc.) with a similar body D810 (same as with a D610 being compatible with a D7100).
Fast enough for you, but you are again presuming to speak for everyone. Not only is the buffer too small (probably a deliberate crippling) but the body is for some uncomfortably small with many dedicated controls missing. This is a continuation of your equating a D610 with a D400, it's not a valid comparison.
Just because you don't "get it" doesn't mean others don't understand the absurdity of what your arguing here. Funny thing is that you are advocating Nikon's approach, but with regards to CX Nikon is losing that argument in the market place where those cameras are largely a bust.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum