DxOMark's Canon EOS 7D Mk II review

[ErikKaffehr]

Hell will freeze to ice before I would admit large pixels are a great idea!

Best regards
Erik

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/

[shadowblade]

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.

The point is, you're not shooting video. You're shooting stills - at 25fps. Exactly like with a 1Dx or other action stills camera, but 11fps faster and with a correspondingly higher chance of catching the exact moment, instead of missing by a few milliseconds on either side.

A 2-second clip at stills exposure settings (to freeze action in each frame) would make for awful video anyway. But, somewhere in there, you'll probably have the exact moment of action you want.

[Isaac]

Holy moley, where do you shoot, shadowblade? O2 deprivation? Everest? 

Even hikes above the Interstate at Donner Pass are high enough that I just won't be able to concentrate as-well-as I could at sea level. Cognitive function degrades well before there's any health risk.

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.

Crush before swallowing.

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.

"Camera's capable of making great photographs have become commonplace these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations have made photography ever easier in recent decades, the art of producing images that other people will care about has become ever more formidable. This apparent paradox is due to rising expectations in a culture where we are surrounded by a growing number of sophisticated images every day of our lives."

2001, preface, Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography.

[John Koerner]

Hi Abe;

Been super busy but just read your vociferous post. I don't have the time to line-item all that you said, but did have a chuckle at 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.


This is of course again just your subjective opinion not backed with evidence.

LOL, do you really call this "evidence" of top-shelf wildlife shots ... a brief search in Flickr?

Too funny ...

Most of the really good stuff I see, action-wise, is ISO 1600 or more.

I don't think you've got any reason to be so vocal.
Chin up mate, Abe!

Abe, your entire post was kinda lame, and it wasn't really worth going into.

On the subject of being vocal, the irony is you wrote at least as much as I did ...

So worry about your own chin, mine is just fine (and, if you've ever boxed, you're actually supposed to keep it tucked in )

Jack

[John Koerner]

-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?

I admire your work. I admire your commitment to your principles.

However, while that is a dynamic photograph, action-wise, it is not so telling color/light-wise.
(I realize you have to take what you can get, when the moment happens ...)

That said, what is this "signature" you're talking about?
Because, other than your copyright logo, I fail to see any "signature" on this photo that makes me think "that was you" ...
I see a bird with a rodent, that's it.

Just being honest,

Jack

[John Koerner]

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!

Perhaps the best quote of all.

Ultimately, all of the cameras out there today are capable of capturing great images ... if the photographer behind them has the eye.

I don't think a guy like Doug cares whether his camera is #1 on the DXo chart, or not, his experience in the field ... and his being there to get them ... is what makes the photos he captures.

No one is going to pixel-peep dynamic, action shots ... it's the drama captured that matters most, and how its framed, both of which come down to experience and dedication.

Nicely said.

[John Koerner]

Two images attached. They are from the same RAW file. Can you do this with a present Canon?

CptZar, on the Page 1, you made a post showing a difference in two images you took, with shadows, and asked rhetorically, "Can you do this with a Canon?"

My answer is, "No--but I can do it in Lightroom."  
(For that matter, I can also do it by bracketing.)

The seascape image I took with a lowly 50D, and the spider image with a 7D.

Both are before/after shots, bringing out the detail from dark images with Lightroom.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is in your example. Not saying the 50D is anything as a camera, or that these are epic shots, they're just examples that popped into mind. I admit the seascape one is overdone, but I don't feel like re-doing it. The spider example is more subtle.

Jack

[Abe R. Ration]

Hi Abe;

Been super busy but just read your vociferous post. I don't have the time to line-item all that you said, but did have a chuckle at this:

LOL, do you really call this "evidence" of top-shelf wildlife shots ... a brief search in Flickr?

Too funny ...

Are you aware that you're being very impolite and rude?
As evidence it is far more valid than anything you have provided since you don't provide evidece but only your opinion which you expect everyone to expect to be absolute truth.

Most of the really good stuff I see, action-wise, is ISO 1600 or more.

That may be your experience. Mine is different. And simply sampling random images supports my view, not yours.

Abe, your entire post was kinda lame, and it wasn't really worth going into.

Please learn to be more polite, Jack. I find your comment to be insulting.
[/quote]

[CptZar]

Jack never mind. No need to convince me or you. You like your 7D II and that's OK. Others just have different preferences. Maybe you may consider checking out Raw Digger and have a closer look at Canon files and Sony RAW files. I am sure you will find some files on the net, if not I will be happy to help you out.

To start with, here are 4 Jpegs. The RAWs where underexposed, and then pushed by 4 stops.  The Canon 5DMKIII image is unusable, due to noise. This kind of noise can not be removed with LR. The A7r is very clean. If there is some noise left, it might be removed with LR.

Now you can write in Red, Blue, Bold of even Kanji to emphasis your point in endless threads. But that doesn't change the facts. It just makes it harder to read. If you are into nature photography, specialized on spiders, or butterflies etc, which you will usually photograph with a low DR background that shouldn't bother you.

The nice insect  pictures you make, can be done with an A6000, and A77II a D810 or with a 7DII. The sensors requirements are relatively low. The right lens might be much more important there. Fact is, that beside the usability you like, the 7DII  has the weakest sensor of all of those, as has been explained by others  who know much better than me, extensively.

Over and Out.

jan

[wildstork]

+10 Abe.
Thank you for your post.  Couldn't agree with you more.
Lawrence

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I admit the seascape one is overdone, but I don't feel like re-doing it....

I disagree... I think it is very realistic. You were recording a nuclear blast after all, weren't you?

[John Koerner]

Are you aware that you're being very impolite and rude?

Not having the time to go tit-for-tat with you on a hundred points isn't impolite or rude.
What I choose to do with my time is my business, not yours. I thought I was being polite by at least acknowledging your post.

As evidence it is far more valid than anything you have provided since you don't provide evidece but only your opinion which you expect everyone to expect to be absolute truth.
As evidence it is far more valid than anything you have provided since you don't provide evidece but only your opinion which you expect everyone to expect to be absolute truth.
That may be your experience. Mine is different. And simply sampling random images supports my view, not yours.

As someone who was actually involved in litigation professionally, you did not provide any "evidence" at all, you only made a claim as to what you did and what you saw.

A claim isn't "evidence"; it begs the question and demands evidence to support it.

Actual evidence would be posting some truly great action shots, with actual awards or having some set/uniform standard of excellence (to distinguish them from the crowd), displaying the EXIF data of all images, and having these repeatedly and consistently supporting your claim. (I.e., 'saying' you went to Flickr and did a 'quick search,' with no standard, and no proof of results, means nothing.)

Maybe I will search and actually provide such legitimate evidence of my own claim, at a later time; this would actually involve a lot of time, I am simply not going to bother doing so now.

Please learn to be more polite, Jack. I find your comment to be insulting.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Have a nice day, and I'll try to provide documentation from some of the great photogs of that genre.

Jack

[John Koerner]

I disagree... I think it is very realistic. You were recording a nuclear blast after all, weren't you?

 

[John Koerner]

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

I guess I don't really need to do a bunch of running around for images to prove my claim, because Les provided a DP Review video, right here on this thread, that essentially underscores everything I said. (I don't know how many people actually watched the above video, but it is really kinda fascinating.)

Adam Jones, a professional wildlife photographer for over 30 years, and at the behest of DP Review, takes the 7D II on a 2-day run. I actually watched the entire 22 min video, which was a better investment of my time than searching the web for random images. Among Mr. Jones' notable quotes were:

• "I don't care so much about test charts, and scientific evaluations on the gear, what I care about is, 'Will the camera do the job that I need it to do and be publishable.'"

• "I am at about ISO 1600 or more on almost all of these shots, just for the action-stopping capability. I would rather err on the side of stopping the action with high shutter speed."
  

Abe asks for proof of my contention that most serious wildlife photographers shoot at high ISOs, well there you have it. Further, when the two come back to look at their image results (starting at about the 15 min mark on the video), almost all the shots are at 1600 or above, confirming the quote above.

The whole point of this video was getting your hands on a camera, and actually using it, employing the features and ergonomics, rather than quibbling about graphs and charts. (The camera even has a cool time-lapse photography feature.)

The DP Review reporter ended by saying, "I get to handle a lot of cameras in my role here at DP Review, and I can honestly say that the 7D Mark II is one of the most capable DSLRs I have ever used, and certainly one of the most fun."

Hope this provides the evidence Abe sought.

Jack

[NancyP]

O2 deprivation in Donner Pass......Heh. I guess I ought to be grateful that I live in not-so-scenic Ozarks, where "mountains" are a mere 900 to 1900 ft above sea level. Plenty of oxygen, if not spectacular scenery. Here, we talk about hiking the 14ers - 14 hundred feet, that is..

Thanks for tip to Galen Rowell, Inner game of outdoor photography. I will have to try to find this.

Crush before eating....I guess the egret/heron just has to wait it out, or keep flipping the mouse until it catches the mouse in such a way to break its neck or skull.

[Isaac]

O2 deprivation in Donner Pass

If you're lucky with the traffic, it's less than 4 hours from sea level; and then hike to 9,000 ft. I'm likely to have a headache the first night, and adapt quickly the following day or two; but I'll still feel the effects above 11,000 ft.

Thanks for tip to Galen Rowell, Inner game of outdoor photography. I will have to try to find this.

Those collections of his magazine columns are worth finding: all his books are worth finding.

Crush before eating....I guess the egret/heron just has to wait it out, or keep flipping the mouse until it catches the mouse in such a way to break its neck or skull.

There's nothing delicate about that beak. One-flip, catch closer to the jaw and crunch - whole crayfish, whole ground squirrels!