7D Mk II Image Quality: Is it as bad as DxoMark says?

[Braineack]

How is being objective hate?

 

[snerd]

How is being objective hate?

Maybe I'm off in my assessment. It just seems he can't suppress that objective analysis no matter what. The camera is going to make a LOT of shooters VERY happy, but he just seems to want to bash it at every turn. He just seems irate that they're still buying it no matter how much he tells them it stinks.

 

[Braineack]

People still buy American cars too, it's crazy.

 

[snerd]

People still buy American cars too, it's crazy.

Exactly. Why does it bother others?!

ETA: and, actually, it just doesn't sound like Derrel! That's why I asked if he's okay. We can still worry about forum friends, can't we?!

 

[runnah]

How is being objective hate?

Maybe I'm off in my assessment. It just seems he can't suppress that objective analysis no matter what. The camera is going to make a LOT of shooters VERY happy, but he just seems to want to bash it at every turn. He just seems irate that they're still buying it no matter how much he tells them it stinks.

I am getting very sick of it to be honest.

 

[TCampbell]

We should have all those Canon engineers flogged. Would that help? ;-)

On a more serious note... we can't judge the color of the particular image without having been there. A color checker photo would be better because at least we have a real-life reference we can hold in our hands while we compare how the camera did to the colors as rendered in real life.

I don't have a 7D II. But I do have 5D III. I have photographed my color checker and pulled up the image on my color-calibrated (Using an X-Rite ColorMunki) monitor to compare. The color is exceptionally accurate.

So that brings me to my next point... From time to time I see an image out of my camera where the colors just don't appear the way I remembered them in my head. I've actually gone back out to these places and looked... REALLY LOOKED at the scene. It turns out the camera wasn't lying. The reason the colors looked dull is because the colors were dull. We like to think of all grass as looking a bit like it was maintained by the greenskeeper crew for a top-end golf club. But quite often grass looks a bit dull and yellowed and images depicting saturated greens are altered and saturated to look that way.

The initial images with a 7D II were mostly all shot using in-camera JPEG (which does apply the "picture style" assigned to it) for those images taken when nobody had RAW support for the new camera (but now I think most mainstream apps have it.)

But you have to keep in mind that RAW processing is all about the software. The de-bayering (or de-mosaicing) software can assign a hue, saturation, and brightness but all the chip really recorded was signal level at that particular location on the chip. The chip really does just see in "monochrome" but the color matrix (Bayer mask) allows it to realize that one particular photo-site had a "red" filter in front of it, while another had a "green" filter in front of it, etc. and the color hue is worked out after-the-fact.

It turns out there's more than one way to de-bayer the RAW file and you can get noticeably different results from different methods. I've heard some people argue that the Canon Digital Photo Professional

Here's an article by Craig Stark of Stark Labs. He primarily develops and sells software for astro-imaging ("PHD" is probably the most popular auto-guider software and "Nebulosity" is a popular image acquisition and processing application.) In this article, he describes how the sensor works and how the various de-bayering algorithms works and shows examples of how the these algorithms affect the outcome.

http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/resources/Articles-&-Reviews/Debayering_API.pdf

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, we get it. You hate this camera. But, dude, what's with the literal hate? Every thread, you come in swinging! You okay?

I formed my own opinion on the 7D-II's by downloading and examining the official Canon samples, and by evaluating around 150 images from Flickr, and I downloaded Scott Kelby's Canon 400/2.8-L glass images and processed them to add sharpening and see how they held up (he mentioned they were UN-sharpened, full-sized images). My **initial impression** was that this camera suffers from a LACK of fine detail. The Canon fans are cheering about low noise. What I see is LOW DETAIL. SOFT IMAGES. Muddy color.

I am tired as hell of having my opinion, formed by careful study and analysis, being discredited repeatedly by the same by people who come in here, slinging utter B.S., and trying to discredit my opinion, my experience, as well as the entire DxO Mark brand and site. Canon fanboys are crawling out of the woodwork, trying to defend their pet brand. But the pictures tell the tale.

YESTERDAY, A TPF member sent me a link to a video, based largely on a week-long field test. This is from The Camera Store. I had not seen this video until early last night!

I do not hate the camera, snerd-- I do not hate inanimate objects. After a week shooting the 7D-II, the folks at The Camera Store confirmed what I saw myself. AlI can say is, "Ouch!" As well as, "Oh, hey, I was right." The Canon fanboys can try and spin this all they want to, but the fact is--Canon is limited to its OWN sensor tech and its own sensor fabs, and their technology AND their machinery are both wayyyyyyyyy out of date. Pentium IV in the 2014 era! ;-)

The idea that there is no such thing as rich, well-differntiated color, and no such thing as weak color? HILARIOUS!!!!!

 

[centauro74]

I agree with you Derrel, I have a 70D and I'm so disappointed with the PQ. At the end of this video you can see that the nikon d3300 it's a lot Sharper than the $1800 7 ii, crazy.

 

[JacaRanda]

Did somebody Cry Uncle yet?

 

[photoguy99]

One sensor can totally botch up color more than another one.

It's a tradeoff. If you make the RGB filters in the Bayer array accept a wider range, you get better low light performance, but you get less color separation. It may not manifest as low saturation, particularly, but that would be a good processing choice to mask poor color discrimination.

It is, allegedly, one of the things that makes the giant MF sensors better - they use more restrictive Bayer filters, and so are essentially less sensitive systems with better color discrimination. Which would be appropriate for the studio and landscape they're built for.

 

[D-B-J]

Derrel, we get it. You hate this camera. But, dude, what's with the literal hate? Every thread, you come in swinging! You okay?

I formed my own opinion on the 7D-II's by downloading and examining the official Canon samples, and by evaluating around 150 images from Flickr, and I downloaded Scott Kelby's Canon 400/2.8-L glass images and processed them to add sharpening and see how they held up (he mentioned they were UN-sharpened, full-sized images). My **initial impression** was that this camera suffers from a LACK of fine detail. The Canon fans are cheering about low noise. What I see is LOW DETAIL. SOFT IMAGES. Muddy color.

I am tired as hell of having my opinion, formed by careful study and analysis, being discredited repeatedly by the same by people who come in here, slinging utter B.S., and trying to discredit my opinion, my experience, as well as the entire DxO Mark brand and site. Canon fanboys are crawling out of the woodwork, trying to defend their pet brand. But the pictures tell the tale.

YESTERDAY, A TPF member sent me a link to a video, based largely on a week-long field test. This is from The Camera Store. I had not seen this video until early last night!

I do not hate the camera, snerd-- I do not hate inanimate objects. After a week shooting the 7D-II, the folks at The Camera Store confirmed what I saw myself. AlI can say is, "Ouch!" As well as, "Oh, hey, I was right." The Canon fanboys can try and spin this all they want to, but the fact is--Canon is limited to its OWN sensor tech and its own sensor fabs, and their technology AND their machinery are both wayyyyyyyyy out of date. Pentium IV in the 2014 era! ;-)

The idea that there is no such thing as rich, well-differntiated color, and no such thing as weak color? HILARIOUS!!!!!

You missed the point. There's a difference between respectfully stating your opinion and aggressively bashing a camera and those who think it good. Have some respect for others, and appreciate the fact that you ARE allowed to disagree.

 

[Braineack]

I am tired as hell of having my opinion, formed by careful study and analysis, being discredited repeatedly by the same by people who come in here, slinging utter B.S., and trying to discredit my opinion, my experience, as well as the entire DxO Mark brand and site. Canon fanboys are crawling out of the woodwork, trying to defend their pet brand. But the pictures tell the tale.

The focusing module on the 7Dmii looks pretty impressive; shame about dat IQ.

 

[gsgary]

Derrel, we get it. You hate this camera. But, dude, what's with the literal hate? Every thread, you come in swinging! You okay?

I formed my own opinion on the 7D-II's by downloading and examining the official Canon samples, and by evaluating around 150 images from Flickr, and I downloaded Scott Kelby's Canon 400/2.8-L glass images and processed them to add sharpening and see how they held up (he mentioned they were UN-sharpened, full-sized images). My **initial impression** was that this camera suffers from a LACK of fine detail. The Canon fans are cheering about low noise. What I see is LOW DETAIL. SOFT IMAGES. Muddy color.

I am tired as hell of having my opinion, formed by careful study and analysis, being discredited repeatedly by the same by people who come in here, slinging utter B.S., and trying to discredit my opinion, my experience, as well as the entire DxO Mark brand and site. Canon fanboys are crawling out of the woodwork, trying to defend their pet brand. But the pictures tell the tale.

YESTERDAY, A TPF member sent me a link to a video, based largely on a week-long field test. This is from The Camera Store. I had not seen this video until early last night!

I do not hate the camera, snerd-- I do not hate inanimate objects. After a week shooting the 7D-II, the folks at The Camera Store confirmed what I saw myself. AlI can say is, "Ouch!" As well as, "Oh, hey, I was right." The Canon fanboys can try and spin this all they want to, but the fact is--Canon is limited to its OWN sensor tech and its own sensor fabs, and their technology AND their machinery are both wayyyyyyyyy out of date. Pentium IV in the 2014 era! ;-)

The idea that there is no such thing as rich, well-differntiated color, and no such thing as weak color? HILARIOUS!!!!!

Is this a pro photographer or just somone who works at the shop, how long have they been shooting, maybe if it was given to a well known photographer like Sabastio Salgardo and the shots were bad I would believe al your bashing of this camera

 

[minicoop1985]

I think I'll just stick with my 7D then...

 

[rexbobcat]

Derrel, we get it. You hate this camera. But, dude, what's with the literal hate? Every thread, you come in swinging! You okay?

That's kind of his schtick. He comes in very loudly and then gets mad when people tell him to quiet down.

Although this self-victimization is new.