7D II review

[ygb]

lambertpix, I thought it was interesting points you had made.
As I am looking for a camera I started to think that maybe instead of waiting years trying to save for 5dmk3 I could buy 7dmk2 and start saving for 6d to do some portrait work, then I stumbled onto your post.
I found a place online that I can rent the 7dmk2 I can't wait to try it out.

 

[TCampbell]

Canon EOS 7D Mark II versus Nikon D750 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

Uhhhh....look at the the total sensor scores. The 7D-II earns a total score of 70, versus the D7100's 83 overall, or the D750's 93 overall. Click on the measurements sub-tab...the new sensor from Canon shows weak dynamic range, and low color richness.

The 7D-II does offer LOW NOISE, yes, and along with that low noise is low color richness.The 7D-II shoots fast, yes, but the color is less-saturated than other cameras on the market now. Check out shots at high ISO's on Flickr: low noise, yes, and also low detail.

The 7D Mark II's overall combined score of 70 ranks 105th in the DxO Mark test rankings. The Nikon D300s also gets a 70 overall, and ranks 106th in total overall score. The D7100 ranks 22nd overall. The D5300 is 23rd.

But hey...Low noise! Low noise! Low noise!

I would have predicted DxO would score it low. But DxO gives you "scores"... not "data" ... and they refuse to tell you how they come up with the "score". I have an extremely low opinion of DxO's level of competence (I think they suffer from delusions of adequacy.)

But as for color...

I never understood why anybody would attempt to rate a camera based on color considering there is actually no "color" in the world.

Scientifically, color is an illusion created by our brains. What we really have are wavelengths. The sensor has a Bayer mask and it counts how much energy it can collect at each point along the mask. The photo sites on the mask register in straight red, green, and blue (no intermediate colors) and then an algorithm is used to "debayer" the image to render them as "color" pixels which do show intermediate color, saturation, etc. Further to the point, our eyes are not particular sensitive to blue or red but we are especially sensitive to green. The cameras are technically equally sensitive across the visible spectrum and even a bit beyond. The Bayer mask biases green (out of ever 4 photo-sites, 2 are green but only 1 is blue and 1 is red) and even that's not enough of a bias so the filter in front of the sensor trims the blues and reds even a bit more (I always wondered why they don't just let it all through and trim it in software... it just seems like you'd get less noise that way.)

But (and here's my point) all that simply becomes a function of software algorithms... it's not really the sensor. Once you have the RAW image, you can do anything you want with it. And, btw, there are a LOT of algorithms for this. Run the RAW through Canon's software, vs. Photoshop, vs. ... someone else... and you get a different result from each of them because they all read the same data but they all use different algorithms to interpret the data.

So I do understand why people will fuss over ISO performance and noise. And I understand why people will fuss over dynamic range. But color... not so much.

It is an impressive camera. You can't deny that. Everything I read on it that shows off it's images seems to gush on about it's incredible low noise at high ISO settings. In sports photography where shooters are constantly challenged for having enough light and can't afford the fast glass, having that ISO performance is going to be a huge advantage.

 

[jaomul]

Wildlife Photographer Adam Jones Takes Canon's 7D Mark II Into the Wild for a Real World Review

 

[dolina]

Not a troll post so pls do not interpret it as such.

What do you not like about your 7D Mark II?

 

[goodguy]

Not a troll post so pls do not interpret it as such.

What do you not like about your 7D Mark II?

I dont like that it doesnt have a Sony sensor and a Nikon badge on it.
Also it is not a cheap camera (even though it does give a lot for the money).

 

[MarshallG]

Canon EOS 7D Mark II versus Nikon D750 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

Uhhhh....look at the the total sensor scores. The 7D-II earns a total score of 70, versus the D7100's 83 overall, or the D750's 93 overall. Click on the measurements sub-tab...the new sensor from Canon shows weak dynamic range, and low color richness.

The 7D-II does offer LOW NOISE, yes, and along with that low noise is low color richness.The 7D-II shoots fast, yes, but the color is less-saturated than other cameras on the market now. Check out shots at high ISO's on Flickr: low noise, yes, and also low detail.

The 7D Mark II's overall combined score of 70 ranks 105th in the DxO Mark test rankings. The Nikon D300s also gets a 70 overall, and ranks 106th in total overall score. The D7100 ranks 22nd overall. The D5300 is 23rd.

I want to see photographs, not scores. DPReview has side-by-side photos, not scores which don't account for the camera's internal noise reduction/sharpening nor do they show us the visible advantages of any product.

 

[Derrel]

Look at the images available on-line. Weak color, poor dynamic range, not a lot of resolution--but "Low noise! Low noise!" at higher ISO settings.

This is a sensor that is still stuck at the 2009-era level, except the noise is now better by maybe a stop.

This camera represents the best Canon can offer for what this thing is optimized for: a camera designed to shoot FAST, at 10 frames a second, for long bursts, with a new, high-tech focusing system. It is an affordably-priced sports/action/nature camera, aimed at a specific market segment. I think it is a tremendous value proposition for what it is. But it has technical image quality issues that put the technical image quality level of its output well below what full-frame cameras can do. This would be a crappy portrait camera, and a crappy wedding camera, despite the hype their shill spewed in his videos pre-release.

This camera is a tool, for specific applications, specific types of work. Again, look at the images available on-line, and you can see the image quality is not what we've grown used to from cameras with better sensors. But--this thing is designed for SPEED, and focusing, and deep buffer depth--those things are the priorities the 7D-II has been optimized for.

 

[D-B-J]

It sure does shoot fast-I played with one in best buy... So fast! I can't comment on any other aspects though.

 

[centauro74]

This is a review with pictures on raw that you can download to play with. Canon 7D Mark II Real World Review | Fro Knows Photo

 

[Derrel]

10 frames per second. Deep buffer that will not fill quickly. BRAND-NEW, and ALL cross-type AF system! $1799 price.

Clearly, optimized to be a "speed" camera. Hell, it would be great for a lot of assignments!

But, the sensor area is what? Is it 2.7x smaller in area than an FX sensor?

Why are people even arguing that a smaller 1.6x sensor, made on older sensor fabrication machinery, with older-era sensor fabrication technology, and LACKING the ability to perform on-chip noise reduction, is somehow "equal to" the sensors that Sony, and Toshiba have managed to create? This is laugable. Period.

The Earth is flat, I tell you, flat! I can SEE that the Earth's surface is flat!

My Model T is as fast as your Ferrari! Speedometers lie! Stopwatches are B.S.!

 

[offcamber]

Let' s be honest. DXO is crap. Their "scores" mean nothing as it applies to photography. I got caught up in it myself and went and bought a D800. 2 weeks later I sold it and went back to shooting with my 5d Mark III. The differences between these cameras (Nikon, Sony, Canon) is for the most part not visible.

I now have a 7D 2 and a 1DX and I couldnt be happier.

 

[goodguy]

Let' s be honest. DXO is crap. Their "scores" mean nothing as it applies to photography. I got caught up in it myself and went and bought a D800. 2 weeks later I sold it and went back to shooting with my 5d Mark III. The differences between these cameras (Nikon, Sony, Canon) is for the most part not visible.

I now have a 7D 2 and a 1DX and I couldnt be happier.

I completely disagree, DXO marks isn't god's words but it is very helpful if you know how to read into it.
I totally agree that the true difference between Canon and Nikon isn't really big, there are and always be technical advantages to one company till the other company comes out with the next big thing which will sway the advantage yet again, Canon and Nikon fight and we the users/customers are the ones that truly profit from this by getting ever better products, BUT in any case the advantages are very small and not very significant.

 

[offcamber]

Honestly, their data is just complete BS. They cannot prove anything they report. Anyone that relies on their info to decide which camera is best is just ignorant. If you give them money, you are even slower. Their data on the 7D2 is so off the mark it's laughable. They give the 1DX a score of 82 and the D810 a 97? I got rid of the D810 for the 1DX and I have to say that the sensor on the D810 is better than the 1DX is a complete joke. Just dumb.

Let' s be honest. DXO is crap. Their "scores" mean nothing as it applies to photography. I got caught up in it myself and went and bought a D800. 2 weeks later I sold it and went back to shooting with my 5d Mark III. The differences between these cameras (Nikon, Sony, Canon) is for the most part not visible.

I now have a 7D 2 and a 1DX and I couldnt be happier.

I completely disagree, DXO marks isn't god's words but it is very helpful if you know how to read into it.
I totally agree that the true difference between Canon and Nikon isn't really big, there are and always be technical advantages to one company till the other company comes out with the next big thing which will sway the advantage yet again, Canon and Nikon fight and we the users/customers are the ones that truly profit from this by getting ever better products, BUT in any case the advantages are very small and not very significant.

 

[goodguy]

Honestly, their data is just complete BS. They cannot prove anything they report. Anyone that relies on their info to decide which camera is best is just ignorant. If you give them money, you are even slower. Their data on the 7D2 is so off the mark it's laughable. They give the 1DX a score of 82 and the D810 a 97? I got rid of the D810 for the 1DX and I have to say that the sensor on the D810 is better than the 1DX is a complete joke. Just dumb.

Let' s be honest. DXO is crap. Their "scores" mean nothing as it applies to photography. I got caught up in it myself and went and bought a D800. 2 weeks later I sold it and went back to shooting with my 5d Mark III. The differences between these cameras (Nikon, Sony, Canon) is for the most part not visible.

I now have a 7D 2 and a 1DX and I couldnt be happier.

I completely disagree, DXO marks isn't god's words but it is very helpful if you know how to read into it.
I totally agree that the true difference between Canon and Nikon isn't really big, there are and always be technical advantages to one company till the other company comes out with the next big thing which will sway the advantage yet again, Canon and Nikon fight and we the users/customers are the ones that truly profit from this by getting ever better products, BUT in any case the advantages are very small and not very significant.

Not here to defend DXO, dont know what happened with you and your D810, glad you found what made you happy!
I do look at DXO and use it as one reference out of many when I decide what I want to go with, I personally find their info informative and helpful but again this is only one source I use.

Just as a side note, I believe the 1DX is a completely different animal designed to do something completely different then the D810
1DX is a Tiger while the D810 is more of an Elephant.
D810 is more of a studio camera while the 1DX feels at home in a racing course

 

[dolina]

Does dXo rating impact your purchasing decision? I largely ignored it as I was more interested if the mark 2 was substantially better than the original.

If you were shopping for a whole new system it would really matter but if you are substantially invested then you either suck it up or switch or go dual system.