Canon 7D MII unleashed!

Derrel · Sep 17, 2014

Overread said:
Yeah from memory most early sneak peek photos from most cameras are underwhelming - its once the camera is out that it tends to get better results.

YES--that has been the case more often than not. There were some dreadful Canon 5D classic sample images floated, but it turned out to be a really good imager. Right now, I would guess that the majority of people with beta sample cameras have software that cannot really extract the most from the new camera's .CR2 files, and they probably are resorting to converting to .DNG and then working on their images. My feeling is the guy who processed the night scene and squirrel images is a young fellow who thinks that killing every last speck of noise and in the process ruining the detail rendering is the way to work on High ISO files, and he made the camera's capabilities look very sub-par. Both the night scene and the squirrel shot look like about 4 megapixel captures...no noise, but mush for detail. That cannot be the way this sensor operates.

ronlane · Sep 17, 2014

Derrel said:
YES--that has been the case more often than not. There were some dreadful Canon 5D classic sample images floated, but it turned out to be a really good imager. Right now, I would guess that the majority of people with beta sample cameras have software that cannot really extract the most from the new camera's .CR2 files, and they probably are resorting to converting to .DNG and then working on their images. My feeling is the guy who processed the night scene and squirrel images is a young fellow who thinks that killing every last speck of noise and in the process ruining the detail rendering is the way to work on High ISO files, and he made the camera's capabilities look very sub-par. Both the night scene and the squirrel shot look like about 4 megapixel captures...no noise, but mush for detail. That cannot be the way this sensor operates.

I thought about that at lunch Monday when I was drooling over the 7D mk ii. I am going to have to upgrade my OS so that I can go to CC in order to process the images from the 7D mk ii. I'll bet that adobe won't put out an update for LR4 to be able to read the files.

Overread · Sep 17, 2014

The other element is that even when there is custom software each camera takes its own style to work with to get the best results. Sometimes early on people don't know "how" to work the software to get best effects out of the camera.

JohnTrav · Sep 24, 2014

My brother has his 7D mkii on pre-order. I can't wait to try it out and compare it to my 7D. I'm sure after that I will be wanting one for shooting the sports that I do.

I also can't wait to see how its low light performance will look. I seen some high iso shots that looked good but they were in well lit areas still

JacaRanda · Sep 28, 2014

I know very little on what this means. In my searching for how the auto focus system works, I found this. No clue if it's good or bad and I won't be shooting much in the dark anyway.
072A0185 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

ronlane · Sep 29, 2014

JacaRanda, I saw that collection this weekend on flickr. Here is the entire set of photos taken with the 7D mk ii at various ISO's. I was impressed with them. Canon 7D Mark II - an album on Flickr

I don't feel that this one is usable but I was impressed that at ISO 51,200 at 1/160 of a second, it wasn't horrible. 037A1301 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

JacaRanda · Sep 29, 2014

ronlane said:
JacaRanda, I saw that collection this weekend on flickr. Here is the entire set of photos taken with the 7D mk ii at various ISO's. I was impressed with them. Canon 7D Mark II - an album on Flickr

I don't feel that this one is usable but I was impressed that at ISO 51,200 at 1/160 of a second, it wasn't horrible. 037A1301 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Looks like our links went to the same place.

I clearly (no pun) don't know what I am looking at. Or at least that's how I feel. In reading comments, some people are still not happy with these.
'not full res, crappy jpegs' etc.

Now I have seen some posts in regards to all the focus points working or not working with 3rd party lenses. I want to make sure I get full use out of the Tamster and now we also have the Sigma 50mm Art - will go ahead and by the docking station.

Aakajx · Oct 17, 2014

No wifi?? Why? I love that feature with my 6d. It's great to view them on the iPad. I would love to own this camera as I love taking pictures dirt track racing. Seems great with action pics.

wyogirl · Oct 19, 2014

ok folks... I saw Scott Kelbys review of this camera and he shared some pics with just stupid high ISO and they look better than anything my camera can do with 400 ISO.
So, I have found myself asking the question.... 6D or 7Dmk2?
the 7dmk2 has weather sealing which is kind of a big deal, at least to me. If the ISO performance is so fabulous as to make the benefit of the full frame sensor not that high on the proirity list...the superior focusing system seems like a bigger boon.
I CANT DECIDE FOLKS!!!

Derrel · Oct 19, 2014

I just spent almost an hour watching and listening to the ENTIRE Scott Kelby infomercial for the 7D-II. I also downloaded the three JPEG images he made available, each around 2.7 to 2.8 megabytes. My honest opinion of the ISO 640 JPEG shot of #14, the Tennessee Volunteers QB? SOFT. Not much actual detail. The ISO 1000 standing-behind-the-center shot NY Giants QB Eli Manning, made at ISO 1,000? SOFT, not much actual detail. Same with the close-up shot: soft, not much detail. The Tennessee QB was shot during the Florida-Tennessee game two weekends ago, the one Florida won 10-9, during really a dazzlingly bright, beautiful, warm day.

Kelby mentioned this was a 24 megapixel camera a couple times. No, it;'s not; Canon does not have a single camera that has 24 megapixels. Not one. This is a 20.20 MP sensor in the 7D-II, and that's total MP I believe. I am going to guess that the raw files will make better JPEGs, but just LOOK at the images of the two quarterbacks: they suck, detail-wise. There is NO real fine detail. I am honestly NOT impressed, and I think the 6D's sensor is going to be the superior sensor in terms of resolution of actual detail, and also better at higher ISO values. Sure, it's good enough for showing a 5 foot by three foot part of the world full frame with high-end glass, as it did on the Tennessee QB: but LOOK at it close. Then look at a slightly larger segment of the real world, the Eli Manning shot, and look at it only on a 30 inch Apple CInema display. That is a SMALL section of the world, not an immense landscape, which means the detail ought to look simply astounding. But it does not; the detail looks sub-par to me, at both 640 and 1,000 ISO in beautiful, bright, October daylight before mid-October.

He raves about how the 16,000 ISO shots look under the overhead "can lights" in the Tennessee locker room: yeah, so what. There's lowish noise, but damned near no detail, AND the dynamic range is extremely abrupt and narrow. This is the problem: the video is a shill session, made largely on the strength of two days' worth of football shooting in GOOD daylight. The "new" is still on his comments. That tremendous flush of enthusiasm, the factual errors, the misleading few minutes where he talks about the 160 yard distance shot-AS IF it had been made with the 70-200, but it was actually done with his 400/2,8 AND his 1.4x converter...the way that little story was related was...disingenuous...and should have been re-shot and edited to make it absolutely clear; as shown, very misleading to the uninitiated.

I had high expectations for this camera, but honestly, I think the SOOC JPEG images shown were VERY LOW in detail, especially having been shot with high-grade pro Canon lenses. This camera has been kept under wraps very well by Canon. I think that once this thing starts being used to shoot NIGHT football, it's not going to be all roses and chocolates and champagne. I'm not a fan of two-afternoon type, effusive reviews. I am waiting for real, un-affiliated "real shooters" to evaluate the 7D-II. I am honestly extremely skeptical, based on the actual large JPEG images Kelby offered for download, and the locker room stuff he showed at 16,000 ISO? That is shot under CAN LIGHTS, against dark cherry-wood lockers...those images do not show me much at all. I seriously doubt this thing has the resolution for birds or nature, at anything above 800 ISO. The 640 ISO Tennessee QB shot is very weak: NO DETAIL!!!!