DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review

[synn]

http://www.sandeepmurali.com/p411194137/h50e93e2c#h50e93e2c

This was taken with an-even-then-ancient D80 many moons ago.
I forgot how many FPS it had, but it was quite enough. Could have used a bit more DR though as the sky was just gone.

What good is a bazillion fps if the file isn't up to par?

AF, metering etc are all means to an end, IMO. That end being a file of the highest quality possible. The aids to reach there are not the core focus of any equipment. That's like saying a Kia is better than a Volkswagen because the former has lower interest rates for finance.

[telyt]

As for making "your own" photos, it is truly difficult to make unique photos of common subjects, now that photography is a common activity.

Agreed!  I've given myself the challenge of doing exactly that.

The Anna's Hummingbird is common here all year.  This is what I've come up with so far (all in my yard):

[LesPalenik]

That is an incredible photo of an accomplished and very content hunter, Douglas
Amazing detail, sharp, great colors, perfect composition with harmonized geometry, and on top of it - absolutely best possible timing with real drama - from the mouse point of view!

The hummingbirds are awesome, too!

[shadowblade]

No the person using a 10 fps AF camera would not be disadvantaged; that was never my intended point.  My point is that there are alternatives to the endless technology 'upgrade' treadmill.

This is precisely why I like improved technology - more resolution, more DR, more fps, better AF, better weather sealing.

An ideal camera is one that gets out of the way and lets me do what I do best - take landscape/cityscape/other nonmoving photos and blow them up to 40x60 to 40x120", or take photos of other subjects and print them at a more reasonable size (20x30 to 40x60). Often these are taken in difficult lighting conditions, in inclement weather, or in a state of physical exhaustion, sleep deprivation or oxygen deprivation. The last thing I want is a camera whose technical limitations make it more difficult - or impossible - to get the shot I want at the quality I want.

And the DR advantage of Nikon/Sony/anyone but Canon cannot be understated. Canon shooters like to say, 'learn to expose properly' or 'expose to the right' - but, in dramatic, contrasty lighting, you're often exposing to the right *and* to the left at the same time! Hence the need for GNDs (not possible unless the horizon is straight and the lens not too wide) or exposure bracketing (suboptimal when there are moving elements, e.g. Leaves or branches when there is a breeze).

[LesPalenik]

This just in.
Dpreview has released a video on a photo trip to Triple D Game farm and the nearby Glacier National Park in Montana with a nice demonstration of 7DII still image and video capabilities by Adam Jones.   

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0640966241/video-capturing-nature-with-the-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii

[NancyP]

Holy moley, where do you shoot, shadowblade? O2 deprivation? Everest? 
wildlight, those are lovely shots of the Anna's hummer, and the water shot is particularly unusual. Was the hummer trying to sip from a water fountain? Getting ready to bathe?

Maybe I should rent a Nikon D810 and wide angle lens, or Sony A7r with Canon adapter, and take it out for a landscape weekend, shoot high dynamic range subjects.

I am not that demanding of image quality in that I have yet to print to the enormous sizes some people prefer. Holy Batman - 40" x 120"?  For me, I stick to 11" x 14", I don't have a huge amount of wall display space, I live in a 1 bedroom flat, ginormous just looks goofy. I have printed 2' x 3' APS-C images as gifts for other people, and when seen at expected viewing distance, they look pretty good. No, the images wouldn't satisfy IQ standards of professionals and picky amateurs, full frame would have been better (but I didn't have it at the time), but I was surprised at how well they look on the wall.

[Abe R. Ration]

Wow, what a capture! I feel so sorry for the unlucky rodent 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The technology might give you an advantage until it becomes widespread, then you'll be looking for the next technology to gain an advantage.

This comes back to my question: Do you want to make photos with your unique 'signature' style, or do you want to make photos like others with the same technology?  I've seen dozens if not hundreds of photos of a heron or raptor with a fish and while technically excellent I rarely if ever see a unique photographer's style in these photos.  Maybe I'm expecting too much.  Here's my bottom line, and I suspect this will not endear me to many of LuLa's advertisers: develop your own skills and you have the option of getting off the technology treadmill.

In support of wildlightphoto's point of view, I remember the iconic image of a bear catching a fish mid-air. I believe it was made by the late Galen Rowell, and if I remember correctly, it earned him almost a million over its life time. He did it without 10fps, GPS, auto-focus, etc. Now, give a camera to your 10 year old and they will catch exactly the same image (well, one image in the burst will be). Except today, there are gazillion similar images and you'll never earn as much money (or attention) as the first guy who did it. I think that was wildlightphoto's main point and I concur.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Slobodan,

I agree and I don't.

Another place and another time ago, when I was young, I was shooting a lot of show jumping (equestrian sports). I could do with single exposure and 1600 ISO on film.

Here and now, I may have a single chance to get that picture. So I shoot at 6 FPS at 6400 ISO and hope for the best. In all probability I get better images than I got 30 years ago, but the ribbon sits higher this days

I have high regard for "wildlifephoto" and others who manage this with manual equipment, it takes life long experience, I guess.

Best regards
Erik

In support of wildlightphoto's point of view, I remember the iconic image of a bear catching a fish mid-air. I believe it was made by the late Galen Rowell, and if I remember correctly, it earned him almost a million over its life time. He did it without 10fps, GPS, auto-focus, etc. Now, give a camera to your 10 year old and they will catch exactly the same image (well, one image in the burst will be). Except today, there are gazillion similar images and you'll never earn as much money (or attention) as the first guy who did it. I think that was wildlightphoto's main point and I concur.

[deejjjaaaa]

Not that a 10fps camera is a disadvantage, just that it is not required.

but with 10 fps camera you 'd treat us to a sequence of shots about this event... not just one

PS - not you, the author, sorry

[NancyP]

This all goes to the point that I made earlier, which is that with the democratization of photography and increasingly sophisticated photographic technology, the edge will go to those who tell better stories or who have unique knowledge and views. I daresay that if I am to make a portfolio, I would be better off concentrating on local subjects and staying away from the Maroon Bells photo-ops of the world.

[Ed B]

DxO don't review the AF system, only the sensor.

Interesting. They recommend getting the A77 over this camera but they don't test the AF system or anything else with the Canon. Maybe they should stop making recommendations until they test a camera completely.

[dwswager]

In support of wildlightphoto's point of view, I remember the iconic image of a bear catching a fish mid-air. I believe it was made by the late Galen Rowell, and if I remember correctly, it earned him almost a million over its life time. He did it without 10fps, GPS, auto-focus, etc. Now, give a camera to your 10 year old and they will catch exactly the same image (well, one image in the burst will be). Except today, there are gazillion similar images and you'll never earn as much money (or attention) as the first guy who did it. I think that was wildlightphoto's main point and I concur.

What Rowell brought to the table was knowledge, experience, anticipation and patience.  Most amateurs and your 10 your old would most likely have missed the whole event that lasted 1/1000th of a second.  By the time they tripped the shutter, the event would have been over.  Hell, they might not even have had the camera at the ready.

I don't say that the technology is bad.  I am a fanatic about shutter lag.  But high speed cameras make it easier for a weak photographer to get a decent photo and a great photographer to get a great photo consistently.  When it really counts, I'll bet on a great photographer with a weak camera over a weak photographer with a great camera every time!

[shadowblade]

With Sony poised to release an 8k video camera in time for the 2016 Olympics, it will be a moot question soon anyway. Shoot a 2-second clip of a bird diving on its prey at 30fps and you're bound to have one frame on target - and, with 8k, it will be a 32MP frame. Shoot it with stills action settings (e.g. 1/1000 and ISO 800) instead of video exposure settingsto avoid the motion blur (desirable for video, not for stills) and get a nice, sharp shot.

[telyt]

With Sony poised to release an 8k video camera in time for the 2016 Olympics, it will be a moot question soon anyway. Shoot a 2-second clip of a bird diving on its prey at 30fps and you're bound to have one frame on target - and, with 8k, it will be a 32MP frame. Shoot it with stills action settings (e.g. 1/1000 and ISO 800) instead of video exposure settingsto avoid the motion blur (desirable for video, not for stills) and get a nice, sharp shot.

'Whoosh' went the point straight over his head.

[NancyP]

But did you capture the "decisive moment" of that whooshing point, wildlight?     

Sorry, but the devil made me do it.

[DeanChriss]

In support of wildlightphoto's point of view, I remember the iconic image of a bear catching a fish mid-air. I believe it was made by the late Galen Rowell, and if I remember correctly, it earned him almost a million over its life time. He did it without 10fps, GPS, auto-focus, etc. Now, give a camera to your 10 year old and they will catch exactly the same image (well, one image in the burst will be). Except today, there are gazillion similar images and you'll never earn as much money (or attention) as the first guy who did it. I think that was wildlightphoto's main point and I concur.

http://mangelsen.com/out-of-print-images/catch-of-the-day-1698.html

[powerslave12r]

Here is another tid bit from Sony that should be of interest to folk here

http://petapixel.com/2014/11/12/sony-plans-wants-take-dynamic-range-incredible-heights-active-pixel-color-sampling-sensors/

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

http://mangelsen.com/out-of-print-images/catch-of-the-day-1698.html

Yes, Mangelsen also had it. I had in mind this from Galen: http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.wildlife/images.html

[dwswager]

'Whoosh' went the point straight over his head.

ROTFLMAO

As a still photographer that doesn't really care about shooting video at all, what drives me is the challenge of telling the story, conveying the emotion, relaying the experience, in a single image.  When you nail that magic moment in a single still image, to me it has so much more impact than the fleeting moment it passes by in video.  You can be immersed in the single moment.  Let it wash over you in a way that video can't.