Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review  (Read 22343 times)

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2014, 09:06:20 pm »

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Mk-II-review-Low-ISO-performance-lags-behind-rivals

Interesting results for those who trust DxOMark.

The do a good job for what they are actually doing.  The key is never to assume some lab test will be totally indicative of real world performance.  Same with lens tests.  These tests are useful to find great performers and weed out the clunkers.  Beyond that you mileage will most certainly vary from lab results.
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2014, 09:35:00 pm »

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 7D Mark II perform better, at ever function, at every level than the Sony "except" at base ISO?

It is faster, more versatile, better AF, surpasses the Sony's sensor at high ISO ... just not at base ISO.

To say Canon "is lagging behind" is rather laughable, actually. They surpass Sony in every single possible way, except 1, in a static environment at base ISO.

I don't know if you've ever shot nature photography, but hardly anyone shoots either macro, or telephoto, at "base ISO" ...

It is Sony that is lacking on almost every level, including ergonomics and functionality ...

Jack

In my mind, the 1st criteria for selecting a camera is the quality of the output.  Then I consider the likelihood the camera can capture the image in the first place.  

But, if you believe that some high frame rate or other 'feature' is the key to shooting sports or wildlife, you would be wrong.  These types of photography have to do with knowing your subject, the environment and your technique.  I would recommend the Edwards Deming method for dealing with quality.  Learn to do it right first to the point of not needing high frame rates and such and once you no longer need these 'features' then buy them to make it easier.

The image below was shot at ISO 100, 1/640, f/7.1 on a D7100 with a AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 + TC-14EIII.  The subject (my daughter) was in the left 1/3 of a landscape frame.  I was trying to get the sweep of the foot and the grass coming up.  There are 2 ways to get this image:  1) know what you're doing and take the damn image or 2) blast away with super high frame rates and hope you get it.  I used the 1st method though the camera was set for Continuous High (6fps).  Shown also is the 2nd image in the sequence with the ball leaving the right edge of the frame at 6fps so you damn well better have a helluva fast camera when trying method 2.  The nice thing about method 1 is you can do it with a manual film camera and reasonably cheap digital (shutter lag being the constraint).

Not too long ago I read a John Shaw post about his shooting wildlife with a D800e and it's 4FPS rate.  The money quote was "Remember winding film with your thumb?"  Post here: http://www.johnshawphoto.com/nikon-d800-action/  with images!

I shoot a D7100 with 6fps and it's 22nd ranking on DxOmark.  The 7DMKII does some frame rate I don't care to know and has a 150 rating.  Hand either to a great photographer and he will bring back great images!
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 12:51:08 pm by dwswager »
Logged

powerslave12r

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
    • Flickr
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2014, 09:43:11 pm »

Not directly relevant to the 7D2 but a link I've posted in the past elsewhere.

 http://photographylife.com/nikon-vs-canon-dynamic-range

That's a lot of juicy RAW files, irrespective of what you shoot.
Logged
http://www.flickr.com/garagenoise
DP2M | X-M1 | 6D | TS-E24IIL | EF24-105L

Abe R. Ration

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
    • Abe R. Ration's lens and camera blog
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2014, 04:22:59 am »

I realize that.

But whoever wrote that DxO article is a geek behind a desk, not someone who's ever been outdoors trying to take nature or wildlife photography. You rarely use "base ISO" for that. The article was written from the perspective of a guy who doesn't even know what a camera is FOR ...
DxOMark's sensor tests are just that - sensor tests. They are not tests of camera systems or camera X or camera Z works in some conditions.
If you are not interested in such tests, why read them? Why care about them?

If he had the first clue about what a crop camera is for it is REACH

Actually it's the pixel pitch together with the quality of the lens which defines the "reach", not the crop factor.

... and if the Canon 7D Mark II has better low ISO performance than all the others
Actually it only has similar high ISO performance to that of the competition, and worse low and medium ISO performance.. The difference to one way or the other is insignificant.
There is one area of sensor image quality performance which DxO unfortunately does not measure and that is the nature of sensor generated noise, i.e. pattern noises. Traditionally this has also been more an issue with Canons, though not as much at high ISOs and less an issue lately. Don't know how 7DII performs regarding that though.

and better ergonomics, AF, functionality, etc. ... then it eclipses the competition pretty much on every level, as a wildlife/sports camera.
This is your subjective optinion, not a statement of facts. Unless you provide evidence it will only remain as such no matter how many times you repeat it.

A person who actually uses cameras, and doesn't just "measure sensors" would realize this.
DxOMark doesn't do such testing - it's not their niche. If you don't like their findings, please criticize them within the context of their niche instead of blaming them for bad review because they don't test the things you consider important.


Wow, I keep having to repeat myself: people who actually use cameras for sports and wildlife photography don't really care about "base ISO," as they almost never use this.
I certainly do use low and medium ISO for wildlife - and lots. To disprove you I went to flickr, searched to bird flight and took a note of the used ISO value in the first 12 pictures which showed it - here is the list of them:
  • 200
  • 1600
  • 100
  • 100
  • 160
  • 320
  • 400
  • 400
  • 1600
  • 400
  • 500
  • 200

This does not support your hypothesis at all.



The EOS 7D II is a more fully-functional camera, on pretty much every level ... and surpasses even the "top sensor" cameras where it matters, and that is at the higher ISOs.
This is of course again just your subjective opinion not backed with evidence. DxOMark doesn't measure them. It is not the point of what they do.

For wildlife and fast-action, it is very compelling camera all the way around, including its sensor.
Sure. I don't think many, including DxOMark claims otherwise. It's image sensor has some weaknessess compared to other contemporary sensors - that's what DxOMark is about. If you're not interested in that, then why complain?

I am not sure this is a fact.
(was about colour separation - for some reason the editor didn't quoe it.)
It is a fact. DxOMark measures this and provides the hard evidence. Why not just check it yourself? You need to go to the individual camera measurements though as the comparison mode doesn't allow for checking this data.

I have heard Canon reproduces skin tones better than Nikon, etc.
Now, this is hard evidence if anything :)

I may sound repetetive, but DxOMark measures the sensors (including the colour filter array), not how certain JPG-engines, raw-convertersion software of individuals convert the data the sensor gets into images.

Fact is that the CFA of Canon does a weak separation - this allow for less accurate colour representation than the competition. How this potential is used by individuals like you and me is irrelevant.


Most of the really great macro I have seen comes from Canon.
Most of the keen sports photography comes from Canon.
More hard evidence, right? ;)
Most of the really great macro shots I've seen comes from a quite random distribution of cameras, most from Canons and Nikons simply because there are more of them than anything else, especilly in the hand of advanced users (and for this there are many reasons).

For sports the above also applies, but even more heavily weighted to Canon & Nikon due to their pro support programs and availability of suitable lenses.

Anyhow, none of the above has anything to do with the context of the DxOMark review.

Interesting facts, thanks. But, again, high ISO is what matters most to wildlife/sports photographers,
You're welcome. But, again, unless high ISO starts from ISO 200, that's not the case as proven with the random sample of the flickr-images.

so if that is where Canon excels ... and if its ergonomics, frame rate, and functionality also at the top of the food chain, then this merely confirms its position as THE best camera of the lot of them for this purpose.
DxOMark doesn't measure what is the "best camera" - simply defining what "best" is in the context you use is impossible.
DxOMark measures image sensor performance.

7DII has strengths and weaknessess, just like any other camera. How these play out for oneself is a very personal and subjective thing. It is obvious that you like that camera very much, but that doesn't mean that it's superior to some other camera if we consider facts objectively. A good example is "ergonomics" (or rather the usability/comfort) - what you consider to be comfortable and easy to use, someone else may find to be hideous and vice versa.

Whatever they're doing now, they already have the best all-around wildlife and sports camera available. If they do what you suggest to their next FF camera, the would be nice, but already what they have is nice.
This is your subjective opinion. I don't agree when it comes to the performance of the image sensor, not even when we consider the relevant ISOs. But it certainly is better action camera (wildlife or other) than my Sony A7.

Speak for yourself: I am a natural light macro shooter.
I do use a tripod, but I almost never use flash, because I prefer the rendering of natural light.
Because of this, I am invariably at a mid-to-high ISO.
So maybe for you this is just the camera you want, but that doesn't mean that it's the same for others.


I know some awesome super telephoto wildlife photographers, and have seen scores of their images, and almost none are at base ISO ... so I think you're just making this up in your head, and don't actually try to capture wildlife photography yourself with such lenses.
I think you're repeating yourself a lot now: none of what you say is objective evidence.

The super telephoto wildlife shoots I've encountered or witnessed have almost always used a tripod, occasionally a monopod. With tripod you only need a shutter speed high enough to stop the motion. Unless the light is very low, there is no reason go pump up the ISO (and with many non-Canon sensored cameras one might want to stay at base ISO regardless to save possible highlights if any exist)


I said "High ISO is much more marginal than low ISO." and you responded:
I am not sure what you mean by this.
For most use scenatios the low ISOs are much more important than high ISO. In the niche you describe low ISO is still very important, but the (low)middle ISOs are probably the most used ones. High ISO is not, at least not if we check out exifs from images in publick sources and do a statistical analysis.


Don't know what to say about this, nor what fantacizing about the future has to do with the present subject: the Canon 7D II right now a full complement of superior features to the competition and possesses a sensor which is equal to/better, at higher ISOs, where it matters to people who actually use their cameras.
This is your opinion, not a statement of fact. Also the high-ISO thingie is not really right. Any current full frame eats it alive while Sony and Toshiba APS-C  equal it at high ISO. The new Samsung NX1 is likely to be the best APS-C in low light (due to the backside illuminated image sensor).

But I am sure it's a good camera, especially in a certain very narrow niche.


And cameras are all about being used for a purpose, not just having one, isolated aspect sensor performance evaluated by bespectacled geeks who don't actually use cameras.
If you're not interested in sensor performance, then why do you participate in a thread which is all about it?

And, for the purpose of wildlife photography & sports photography, which usually involve REACH, higher ISOs, and the ability to nail "a moment" before it's gone, the EOS 7D II delivers.
So do many or most other cameras.

You come out very defensive of the Canon 7DII - I wonder why? Has it been rubbished in some way? It's a fine camera, but that's not what DxOMark measures, nor does it measure AF, usability, weather sealing, size of the shutter release button or anything like that.

I think you should consider the context of DxOMark.

In conclusion I'd like to quote the DxOMark review you attacked so strongly:
On paper, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II looks to be a solid choice for sports and action photographers, but its sensor performance is somewhat behind the best in class, at least at low ISOs. Relatively high noise, less discriminating color, and below-average DR at base ISO all continue to hold back Canon sensors against rivals, but thatís not the case at higher sensitivities. In fact, when light levels fall, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II performs competitively, even surpassing rivals slightly

The underines were added by me to emphasize things. I don't think you've got any reason to be so vocal.

Chin up mate, Abe!


Logged
Abe R. Ration
amateur photographer, amateur scientist, amaterur camera buff
http://aberration43mm.wordpress.com/

telyt

  • Guest
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2014, 07:39:51 am »

Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2014, 08:08:50 am »

If future versions of the metabones adapter can do justice to the AF capabilities demonstrated by the A6000 , the traditional DSLR trump card of fast AF would no longer be a differentiator IMO.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

powerslave12r

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
    • Flickr
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2014, 08:12:53 am »

I have to admit, I have been impressed by the AF speed of the A6000. In another generation or two, I wonder how much Sony will improve it. Combined with its price point, a lot of sports/action/birders are gonna take notice.
Logged
http://www.flickr.com/garagenoise
DP2M | X-M1 | 6D | TS-E24IIL | EF24-105L

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13965
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2014, 08:59:46 am »

Indeed, my a5100 is almost as fast as my former Nikon V3, with a much higher image quality of course.

Don't know whether it is able to deliver the power required by the big guns though.

Cherrs,
Bernard

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2014, 10:39:50 am »

The 7D2 is a special use camera in the same way that a MF pancake camera is a special use camera. If you want a generalist's camera, get a D750 or 5D3 or D810 or..... As for the uses of high burst rate, consider a great blue heron or an eagle going after a fish. You will get a "strike" moment with a 3 fps, you will get two or three "strike moments' with a 10 fps camera. If in one of those moments the fish is optimally placed so that you see its frantic eye and its body twisted in attempts to escape, you have a better story. The patience and field skills get you to the point where you can hit the shutter at the start of the action, but your yield per strike is going to be higher with the faster frame-rate camera. The film era people had to log huge numbers of events to get the photo they wanted. Human reflexes aren't going to be as precise as a high-frame-rate camera.

I don't see either a D4/600 f/4 VR or a 1DX/ 600 f/4 L IS in my future soon, so the 7D2 is the likely new birding camera for me.
Logged

allegretto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2014, 01:29:08 pm »

The 7D2 is a special use camera in the same way that a MF pancake camera is a special use camera. If you want a generalist's camera, get a D750 or 5D3 or D810 or..... As for the uses of high burst rate, consider a great blue heron or an eagle going after a fish. You will get a "strike" moment with a 3 fps, you will get two or three "strike moments' with a 10 fps camera. If in one of those moments the fish is optimally placed so that you see its frantic eye and its body twisted in attempts to escape, you have a better story. The patience and field skills get you to the point where you can hit the shutter at the start of the action, but your yield per strike is going to be higher with the faster frame-rate camera. The film era people had to log huge numbers of events to get the photo they wanted. Human reflexes aren't going to be as precise as a high-frame-rate camera.

I don't see either a D4/600 f/4 VR or a 1DX/ 600 f/4 L IS in my future soon, so the 7D2 is the likely new birding camera for me.

+7
Logged

telyt

  • Guest
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2014, 01:52:54 pm »

..... As for the uses of high burst rate, consider a great blue heron or an eagle going after a fish. You will get a "strike" moment with a 3 fps, you will get two or three "strike moments' with a 10 fps camera. If in one of those moments the fish is optimally placed so that you see its frantic eye and its body twisted in attempts to escape, you have a better story. The patience and field skills get you to the point where you can hit the shutter at the start of the action, but your yield per strike is going to be higher with the faster frame-rate camera. The film era people had to log huge numbers of events to get the photo they wanted. Human reflexes aren't going to be as precise as a high-frame-rate camera.

-7

This ain't a fish but it didn't take a huge number of events to get the photo (it took exactly one event):



With a good tailwind my camera will do maybe 2 frames/sec.

If technology enables the photograph what's to keep someone else from buying the same technology to get a similar photograph?  I guess my question is do you want to make pictures like the ones enabled by technology you see on the interweb or do you want to make your own?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 01:57:08 pm by wildlightphoto »
Logged

allegretto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2014, 02:06:23 pm »

I love this photo and several others you've shown us here. Truly great

Now is it your position that;

1) you never miss?
2) I should expect to be able to duplicate your skill in a brief time span?
3) Everyone should be as good as you are?

So unless you answer is Y to all three what's the problem with a Nancy or me giving ourselves every chance we can?



quote author=wildlightphoto link=topic=94928.msg776625#msg776625 date=1415645574]
-7

This ain't a fish but it didn't take a huge number of events to get the photo (it took exactly one event):



With a good tailwind my camera will do maybe 2 frames/sec.

If technology enables the photograph what's to keep someone else from buying the same technology to get a similar photograph?  I guess my question is do you want to make pictures like the ones enabled by technology you see on the interweb or do you want to make your own?
[/quote]
Logged

telyt

  • Guest
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2014, 02:32:39 pm »

I love this photo and several others you've shown us here. Truly great

Now is it your position that;

1) you never miss?
2) I should expect to be able to duplicate your skill in a brief time span?
3) Everyone should be as good as you are?

So unless you answer is Y to all three what's the problem with a Nancy or me giving ourselves every chance we can?


I don't have a problem with anyone using the latest technology.  What I have a problem with is the idea that technology is always the answer.  There are many solutions to photographic problems, not all involve buying the latest technology.  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.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 03:02:12 pm by wildlightphoto »
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2014, 04:09:42 pm »

I don't have a problem with anyone using the latest technology.  What I have a problem with is the idea that technology is always the answer.  There are many solutions to photographic problems, not all involve buying the latest technology.  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.

I'm firmly in this camp!  I am not a technophobe by any calculation.  I build my own computers, I work in the best tech of the military, I love it all.  But sometimes, you just have to be smart enough to know that the best tools for the job are a piece of paper and a pencil!  Most features that distinguish modern cameras are not problem solving in nature, but for ease and convenience.  If you learn how to do it without them, it makes using them so much better.

I put the graphic below together to jack my Canon friends (whose shutters I hear firing away a mile a minute next to me) so please don't take it the wrong way.  But it shows what we are discussing.  I 'sidegraded' from the D300s to the D7100.  I can assure you that from a features and function standpoint, the D300s is twice the camera of the D7100.  The D300s had a faster frame rate and larger buffer capacity.  I waited for D400 as long as I could. The graphic shows why I side-graded.


Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2014, 04:24:18 pm »

Hi,

That's a great image.

Best regards
Erik

-7

This ain't a fish but it didn't take a huge number of events to get the photo (it took exactly one event):



With a good tailwind my camera will do maybe 2 frames/sec.

If technology enables the photograph what's to keep someone else from buying the same technology to get a similar photograph?  I guess my question is do you want to make pictures like the ones enabled by technology you see on the interweb or do you want to make your own?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13965
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2014, 05:07:22 pm »

Quote from: wildlightphoto link=topic=94928.msg776625#msg776625

With a good tailwind my camera will do maybe 2 frames/sec.

If technology enables the photograph what's to keep someone else from buying the same technology to get a similar photograph?  I guess my question is do you want to make pictures like the ones enabled by technology you see on the interweb or do you want to make your own?

That's a great image, but I fail to see how an AF camera able to capture 10 images per second would be at a disatvantage to capture it.

Not that I disagree with your point though.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 05:23:27 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

telyt

  • Guest
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2014, 06:00:27 pm »

That's a great image, but I fail to see how an AF camera able to capture 10 images per second would be at a disatvantage to capture it.

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.
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #37 on: November 10, 2014, 06:43:35 pm »

That's a great image, but I fail to see how an AF camera able to capture 10 images per second would be at a disatvantage to capture it.

Not that I disagree with your point though.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not that a 10fps camera is a disadvantage, just that it is not required.  If we compare the $1799 7DmkII with the $949 D7100 and both cameras can come back with the image, and the D7100 provides marginally better data for $850 less, what is the point of the 7DmkII?

As a D7100 owner, I smile and am grateful.  If I was a 7D owner, I doubt the mkII is enough to make me upgrade.  And that is a sad statement considering the 5 year introduction date spread between these 2 cameras. 
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2014, 07:18:04 pm »

Great photo, wildlight. Somehow that doesn't look like a great idea for that egret - I can just imagine that mouse tearing a hole in the esophagus on the way down, or scratching a cornea.

Of course you have to be in position to take the photo in the first place! I am just pointing out that other things being equal, yield per event is more likely to be higher with faster frame rate. For example, egret could have had its nictating membrane half or fully closed in the same shot that had the mouse optimally writhing and snarling. A certain amount of my GBH versus fish shots have nictating membrane closed - GBH reflex in place to help protect eyes from flailing fish tails, etc. I hit shutter on continuous and gather 10 shots or so.

Look, I am shooting with a Canon 60D and single point AF servo right now, and I am thrilled, because I remember trying to get photos with a 135 format manual advance film SLR and a 200mm manual focus lens.
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2014, 07:24:31 pm »

As for making "your own" photos, it is truly difficult to make unique photos of common subjects, now that photography is a common activity. One can try to tell a story - about your favorite organism, favorite landscape venue, etc. It is the knowledge and emotion that you bring to a photo that makes it unique, more than the technique.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up