... I have a Nikon camera in the top 20 at DxO Mark. To me, 105th place doesn't cut the mustard.
Yeah, we get it, and we couldn't be happier for you. Really.
I don't want to antagonize Canon owners or the buyers of the 7D-II. It is what it is. 10 frames a second and a zillion AF points are not what I care about. Dynamic range and color richness and resolution are what I care about. Other people will have other priorities, and being locked into one brand or another forces peoples' hand, and often affects the way they see things. There ARE people who'll really like the 10 frames per second and the 1.6x sensor size.
I'm not sure you were ever the target market for this camera, Darrel, and with all due respect, saying "I don't want to antagonize Canon owners..." and then going on to trash it is pretty much equivalent to "I don't want to be *that guy*, but...". You're using what -- a D3X now? I sure *hope* that's better than a 7D. It's a top-of-the-line Pro FF camera. Kinda slow, true, but still -- it ought to run circles around a camera retailing at less than a quarter of the price.
I can't see the DxO scores right now -- apparently, their web site has been crushed by people tripping over themselves to see their scores, but I'll catch the scores later. The 7D-II isn't supposed to replace the 1DX or go head-to-head with any FF camera. It's marketed at sports & wildlife photographers who *aren't* already using the 1DX, and I think it's going to do pretty well there.
I'll be the first to admit that I was hoping the 7D-II would come along and crush the DxO benchmarks, but I guess that didn't happen. From what I've read (not being able to see the report myself), its base-ISO performance was pretty lackluster, but it did better and better (compared to its competition) as ISO rose. I'm not sure I see that as the end of the world. As near as I can see on DPReview's preview (
Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review this is about right -- it's not as detailed as the D7100 at base ISO, but the higher the ISO goes, the more competitive it is, and I'm pretty ok with that.
I looked through the Flickr search link you posted, by the way, and I didn't see too many bad photos that weren't bad because of something other than the sensor. I *did* see a photo of an Eastern Bluebird in flight at ISO 4000 and 1/6400 -- probably out of a burst taken at 10FPS, incidentally, and it looked pretty good. Now, if I'm an amateur photographer interested in sports or wildlife photography, getting some really good shots at ISO 4000 is pretty exciting, because I have a feeling I'll probably be using something like Tamron's new 150-600 at f/6.3 rather than a Canon 400mm at f/2.8 (which pairs well with a 1DX, I've heard), and the ability to crank the ISO a bit really makes a huge impact for a lens like that. I really think *that's* the target market for this camera.
On top of that, the sensor is a huge part of a camera's performance, but I think it's important to remember that it's not the end of the story. How many times have we brought up the concept that equipment is just part of what makes a photographer successful? All those "great pictures with crappy cameras" threads, right? An awful lot of the stuff I love about my camera is the stuff that makes it a better tool for helping me get the shot right. It turns out that AF performance matters. Ergonomics matter -- a ton. Big-a$$ buffers matter. Every once in a while, FPS matters. I'm really glad to see Canon doing stuff like improving the way Auto-ISO works -- that's something that'll actually make a difference to me. The camera isn't valuable *just* because of how it performs under laboratory conditions; it's valuable because it helps me get better shots when stuff is moving fast. All that other stuff, from glass to ergonomics, is there to help me make the most out of whatever sensor I've got.
When the DxO site comes back up, I'll certainly be interested in seeing the color saturation & DR results compared to equivalent sensors, because although portraits and landscapes aren't really the target market for this camera, a lot of people will own this as their only body, and as you pointed out, this stuff matters for sports & wildlife, too. I saw a couple 7D-II photos where I'd have appreciated a little more feather detail, but as a point of reference, I went and looked at some similar D7100 photos, and the ones I saw that really looked great generally showed Adobe or some other RAW converter in the EXIF, so I'm not going to lose too much sleep over this just yet. Assuming the DR results are really, really, truly awful, though, I can take some consolation knowing that I could buy a 7D-II *and* a 6D for around the price of a 5D-III, or two of each for the price of a 1DX.
There's one more point where I do agree with you: it's still pretty early. Here's a comparison I'm waiting to see: real-world results from a couple of amateurs on the sidelines (or stands) of a dimly-lit HS football game with Tam-zookas mounted on a 7D-II and anything else priced under two grand. I still think that's the real market for this camera.
This isn't the best camera on the market -- no question about it. Still, I think it's a pretty good option for a sports / wildlife photographer on an amateur budget.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31042-2fcf80c8987688129be89876d12ba006.jpg?1734159146)
