-
Disappointed in 7D II
Hi, it brought some new gear the other day ( canon 600 II and 7D II ). Although my 5D III is my main workhorse, I brought the 7D as I thought the extra reach would come in handy. After a few test, I have to be honest that I'm really dissappointed in the image quality compared to the 5D III. There's reallly no comparison and feel that a cropped 5D image is far superior to the 7D images. The 7D II image seem to need a lot of sharpening in comparison. Although this was touted as an ideal wildlife camera, I'm not impressed at the moment.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thanks
simon
Note: Please see Simon''s comments in Pane 51 where he describes 7D II IQ as "brilliant" after micro-adjusting his gear.... artie
Last edited by Arthur Morris; 02-12-2015 at 11:17 AM.
-
Lifetime Member
I would check out some of Doug Brown's avian images over the last months. He's got some amazing stuff up to 8000 ISO with the 7D2. He had a few focusing issues with it and sent it back for another version but I've heard only positive things about it.
-
Lifetime Member
Hi Simon. I'm not sure I agree with you about the 7D2's image quality compared to the 5D3's. But only if you're focal length limited. If you can fill the frame with bird, the 5D3 wins the contest. If you're focal length limited, I'll take the 7D2. I had the opportunity to test the 7D2, 5D3, 1Dx, and 1D4 in a focal length limited shooting situation right after the 7D2 came out. I'll share the 7D2 and 5D3 shots with you below. Both images were shot with the 600 mm II and the 1.4x III from the same position relative to the bird. Camera settings were identical. The first shot is the entire frame captured by each camera body. I'll start with the 5D3.
-
Lifetime Member
Here is the entire frame captured by the 7D2. Note what the crop factor does to your field of view.
-
Lifetime Member
Now for a 100% crop of the 5D3 file.
-
Lifetime Member
Here's a 100% crop of the 7D2 file.
-
Lifetime Member
What I did for the last comparison is crop the images identically and uprez the 5D3 file to match the pixel dimensions of the 7D2 file. I also noise reduced the BG of both images. These are 100% crops. 5D3 first.
-
Lifetime Member
Here's the 7D2 file.
-
Lifetime Member
I know this test isn't totally scientific, but I suspect it's fairly accurate.
-
BPN Member
Looks like the 7D2 files just need a bit more processing out of camera to get them to their best. The resolution difference is pretty evident from your example. Would be interested to see what the 5DIII files looked like with a 1.4TC. Did you happen to downsize the 7D2 file to match the 5D and if so how did that look.
-
Hi Doug, what ISO setting was it? I'd be very happy to get the 7D2 if these images were shot at ISO 1600 or more. I'm on the fence and would love to see such a comparison. TFS. Loi
-
Lifetime Member
-
Lifetime Member
And here's the 7D2 version.
-
Lifetime Member
Loi, here's a frame taken of that same bird at ISO 3200 with the 7D2. This one has been fully processed, including both NR and sharpening.
-
Lifetime Member
Originally Posted by
Don Lacy
Would be interested to see what the 5DIII files looked like with a 1.4TC. Did you happen to downsize the 7D2 file to match the 5D and if so how did that look.
Both of these were shot with the 1.4x III Don. See below for the downsize comparison.
-
Hi Dough, Could you please upload the shot with 1d4. I need to get a body for my 500f4 and I am confused between 7d2 and secondhand 1d4.
-
Lifetime Member
Am I totally thrilled with the 7D2? Definitely not. I agree with Simon that image quality could be better when the bird is large in the frame. I also think the 7D2 exhibits focus inconsistency periodically. On the other hand, I feel like you're getting 75% of a 1Dx for 30% of the price.
Last edited by Doug Brown; 12-21-2014 at 11:31 PM.
-
So I should close my eyes and buy 7d2 and kick the thought of 1d4?
Sent from my SHW-M110S using Tapatalk 2
-
-
-
Simon, I also own the 5D3 and 7D2 and find that the 7D2 is superior for focal length limited shooting. Try this test; take two shots of the moon with the 5D3 and the 7D2, with the same lens and the 2.0x TC-III, crop the 7D2 image where you like it and then crop the 5D3 image to the same screen size. I prefer the 7D2 image in that test.
I shoot with the 500/f4 and prefer the effective reach when shooting it bare on the 7D2 as compared to the 5D3 with the 1.4x TC-III. (Both cameras slow down too much for anything moving when combined with the 2.0x TC-III).
I agree that your goose shot doesn't look so impressive, but you don't provide EXIF. You mention ridding the image of Luminous noise. Of course, you know that can crush detail. I use DxO Optics Pro for such things, but back off the NR settings from the defaults to avoid losing detail. I agree, that image isn't so great, but don't you have others to show?
-
Lifetime Member
My experience goes something like this. I test new camera gear at the local zoo, where I'm quite familiar with what to expect with regard to image sharpness. I'm confident in my ability to get consistently sharp frames of slow-moving ducks on a pond. I've yet to have a session with the 7D2 where I get the percentage of tack-sharp frames that I expect. And I haven't figured out what the cause is yet. The camera is certainly capable of capturing fantastic image detail, but I'm not seeing it consistently enough. Here's what the 7D2 can do when it nails focus; it's a 100% RAW file crop with default DPP processing.
-
Lifetime Member
Marina Scarr found an interesting thread where sports shooters are struggling with a similar issue.
-
The 7D II is useful to get a bit more reach (due to 1.6 crop) over a full frame such as a 1D X or 5D III. That is much appreciated with my 400mm, or 560mm (400 + 1.4X III TC). I find the 7D II useful up 1000. If the light is too dim, and requires faster ISO time to reach for the full frame.
I suspect some of the issues of noise in images are due to Adobe Camera RAW. I personally am not impressed with how ACR processes Canon images.
Phase One's Capture One Pro 8 processes the 7D II files quite good and handles noise reduction well without sacrifice of details. I find it even better than DPP v4.
I agree fully with Doug; the 7D II does offer extra reach when focal length limilted. With the high pixel density the 7D II certainly requires careful exposure, and focusing.
Last edited by Paul Granone; 12-22-2014 at 04:09 PM.
-
-
Addendum to the above post: I checked back and I did set the Sharpening in LR to 50 from the default 25, which did enhance noise a little. NR at default.
I just read the thread in Doug's post above, that Marina found. I've never used High ISO NR, assuming it only worked with DPP, because I'm a LR user. But when I first got the camera there was still no support in LR/ACR, so the first few days I shot with RAW + JPEG and could only look at the JPEGs. The camera was set to everything neutral, but I could see at 100% in PS that the images were overboard on NR, which gave them a sort of plastic-look softness. (All were shot at ISOs of 800-1600.) I haven't had a chance to shoot a lot of action or BIF but I've been been very happy with focus and sharpness.
When I have a chance I'll check out the new DPP4, but it will be with skepticism as I tried DPP3 many times, according to the best instructions available from sources here, and always found I got better tonalities in LR and better NR with plugins in PS.
Last edited by Diane Miller; 12-22-2014 at 06:47 PM.
-
Super Moderator
The AF module in the 7D II is the same unit as the 5D3, it is not more sophisticated.
I tried the 7D2 today side-by-side with my 1DX photographing eagles in somewhat challenging conditions with my friend Henrik Nilson. The lens mounted on the 7D2 was the new 100-400 MK II (really nice lens). In my hands, the camera had trouble holding focus on a perched eagle at close range (it was a bit low light but not dim). The 1DX with the 300 II + 2X III, on the other hand rocked the focus and snapped dead-on under the same condition delivering tack sharp frame after frame.
5D3 mated to a 500 II and 1.4X III performed beautifully as well.
I think this might be consistent with what Doug had observed. It's difficult to say if it is a defect or if it is just the limitation of the AF system in the 7D2.
In this situation the 7D2 wasn't of much use, majority of RAW files came out soft and those that were in focus were quite noisy and lacking in clarity/detail compared to the 1DX and the 5D3. I will post some examples later on my blog....
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 12-22-2014 at 09:54 PM.
-
The AF module in the 7D II is the same unit as the 5D3
In my hands, the camera had trouble holding focus on a perched eagle at close range
5D3 mated to a 500 II and 1.4X III performed beautifully
...limitation of the AF system in the 7D2.
How do we reconcile these statements? If the 7D2 and 5D3 have the same AF module, wouldn't we expect the autofocus performance to be roughly the same? Would Canon put the same AF system in the two cameras, but then deliberately downgrade the AF ability in the 7D2?
Very confusing to me, but I'm glad I have not upgraded to the 7D2.
John
-
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by
John Guastella
How do we reconcile these statements? If the 7D2 and 5D3 have the same AF module, wouldn't we expect the autofocus performance to be roughly the same? Would Canon put the same AF system in the two cameras, but then deliberately downgrade the AF ability in the 7D2?
Very confusing to me, but I'm glad I have not upgraded to the 7D2.
John
It does't mean the AF performance will be the same.
They could have similar AF sensors that is used for phase detection yet have different algorithm that governs AI-servo dynamics and how the camera reacts to a moving subject. Equally important, they could also have difference sub-mirror assembly and calibration.
If the sub-mirror assembly, calibration or both are performed with different levels of precision it can lead to more AF misses. My guess is that the mass-market bodies such as 7D are not assembled with the same level of precision as the higher end bodies.
Nikon Also claim to use the same module in the D4 that they use in D7100/D800 cameras but from what I hear from prominent Nikno shooters the D4 is head and shoulder above those cameras...
In terms of AF system adjustments, the 7D2 has the same tracking, acceleration and Af pt switch sensitivity settings found in the 1DX and the 5D3.
best
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 12-23-2014 at 01:26 AM.
-
Originally Posted by
arash_hazeghi
The AF module in the 7D II is the same unit as the 5D3, it is not more sophisticated.
I tried the 7D2 today side-by-side with my 1DX photographing eagles in somewhat challenging conditions with my friend Henrik Nilson. The lens mounted on the 7D2 was the new 100-400 MK II (really nice lens). In my hands, the camera had trouble holding focus on a perched eagle at close range (it was a bit low light but not dim). The 1DX with the 300 II + 2X III, on the other hand rocked the focus and snapped dead-on under the same condition delivering tack sharp frame after frame.
5D3 mated to a 500 II and 1.4X III performed beautifully as well.
I think this might be consistent with what Doug had observed. It's difficult to say if it is a defect or if it is just the limitation of the AF system in the 7D2.
In this situation the 7D2 wasn't of much use, majority of RAW files came out soft and those that were in focus were quite noisy and lacking in clarity/detail compared to the 1DX and the 5D3. I will post some examples later on my blog....
thanks for posting this Arash. This is exactly what I've found, so a bit disappointing. Not sure what to do really. Don't want to waste £1600 on something that isn't up to the job. Lost all faith in it now.
-
Super Moderator
I summarized my impressions here
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blo...nce=8a6acdd8c2
please note this is not a thorough review, just my impression after a quick test.
-
Interesting thoughts. I'm having doubts myself after buying or. Just wondering arash was the the first and 2nd image servo af setting set to focus rather than release priority?
-
I get the message:
"You do not have permission to preview drafts."
Originally Posted by
arash_hazeghi
-
I got the same but found a workaround. Use this link instead: http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blo...-100-400-l-ii/
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Lifetime Member
Originally Posted by
Ashley Cohen
Interesting thoughts. I'm having doubts myself after buying or. Just wondering arash was the the first and 2nd image servo af setting set to focus rather than release priority?
I spoke with CPS yesterday and they recommended setting both to focus priority. I haven't had a chance to test the new settings out yet, but I told them that even if the new settings work, the camera needs to focus much more consistently than it does with default settings.
-
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by
fabiobernardino
I get the message:
"You do not have permission to preview drafts."
that's weird it works from here....
-
I've always set both to focus priority, back to whatever cameras had the option. (Don't even remember when that appeared in the menus, 5D2 or 5D3.) Because I want sharp pictures viewed at 100%. I find it hard to believe that that's not the default, but it isn't.
With the 5D3, I've had some of the same complaints about some pictures in a burst not being as sharp as others, in AI Servo. Sharpness in AI Focus has been much better, but there seems to be some occasional "jitter" in both cases, moreso in AI Servo. This variation in AI Servo for a moving subject was in cases where I was keeping the center focus sensor (with 4 surrounding or none, as was appropriate) on the subject. Nobody expects 1DX performance from cameras that cost 1/3 and half as much, but from recent complaints, I'm wondering if there may be some variability in different copies of both the 5D3 and 7D2 bodies.
Doug's point about setting focus priority would be a huge factor in AI Servo focus performance. And of course the AF system settings need to be used correctly for the situation.
Last edited by Diane Miller; 12-23-2014 at 12:52 PM.
-
Same "You do not have permission to preview drafts"
-
Super Moderator
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
They could have similar AF sensors that is used for phase detection yet have different algorithm that governs AI-servo dynamics and how the camera reacts to a moving subject. Equally important, they could also have difference sub-mirror assembly and calibration.
If the sub-mirror assembly, calibration or both are performed with different levels of precision it can lead to more AF misses. My guess is that the mass-market bodies such as 7D are not assembled with the same level of precision as the higher end bodies.
Thanks for that valuable information. This type of analysis really helps the consumer see through Canon's marketing hype.
Now I'm really glad I didn't upgrade.
John
-
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by
John Guastella
Thanks for that valuable information. This type of analysis really helps the consumer see through Canon's marketing hype.
Now I'm really glad I didn't upgrade.
John
Hi John, I would wait and check back after a few months, who knows maybe a firmware update will fix it or perhaps it is limited to some bodies and not others.
Best,
-
BPN Member
Hi Simon,
Have you done an Autofocus Micro-Adjustment with this lens/body combo ?
This image sure looks like you may have a mis-match that could be corrected.
- Bill
-
I noticed something yesterday when shooting bald eagles fishing for shad in perfect light. I'm using AF Case 3 with Tracking Sensitivity at 0, Accel/decel at+2 and AF Point switching at +2. I had single point with 4 expanded points selected and was generally getting very nice AF for the flying eagles, with one exception. When the birds would hit the water to catch a fish, AF would quickly switch from the eye to the splash, resulting in a really sharp splash and not so sharp head, as follows:
Untitled by dcstep, on Flickr
I shoot hand held and tend to "bump" the AF regularly, even though I'm in AI Servo mode, and shoot in very small bursts of two or three in flight; however, when a bird would strike the water, I'd shoot a longer burst of maybe six or eight.
I'm thinking that I need to do two things differently for this situation. First, I'll program a slower Accel/Decel rate and slower AF Point switching. I may just simply go to single-point in this situation and stick to my bumping and two or three shot burst mode, making certain that I've got the AF point on the head.
In this excellent light, the 7D2 did what I asked it to, although I didn't realize at the time that I was asking it to focus on the splash. I couldn't stay as long as I would have liked, so I hope that the lake doesn't freeze over before I get another shot at this kind of action.
I just thought that I'd throw this out as an example of the kind of user error. I had a setting that had been working well for me in many other circumstances, but this situation called for different settings and I didn't realize that there was even a problem until I got home and looked closely at the images. BTW, this image is a "reject" so I didn't really process it all the way, so highlights are a little hot and there's some noise that would easily clean up.
-
My old 7D was my favourite camera body, and now I've upgraded to the 7D II, which I love even more…... but…….
I did notice that every now and then my old 7D would produce an image that had terrible IQ. Everything seemed right in terms of settings, the images didn't have a blurred look to them, and it didn't look like a missed focus. It just looked "mucky", for lack of a better term. I even tested this under a controlled setup with a tripod, and in a series of images there would be a few that had terrible IQ. Sometimes the whole series of shots would be terrible for no reason. I would do a complete reset (pull both batteries) and then things would seem to clear up for a while. I could never figure it out. It didn't matter what lens I used (multiple L lenses and multiple EF-S lenses).
I recently had a similar situation with the 7D II. I have a sample set of 3 images that were taken 2 seconds apart in a row. Each image was taken at ISO 800, SS 1/1250, F/5.6, IS turned on, using 300mm + 1.4x tele with one-shot AF (centre point).
The focus square was large enough to cover the entire Eagle's head, and that's where I placed my focus for all three shots.
Image #1 looks like the 7D II decided to front-focus on a branch way below the Eagle's head (roughly 3 focus squares below). Image #2 has no real focus point, even when I looked at the entire image I couldn't find any branch in focus to decide if it focused in-front or behind the subject (this is the "mucky" image). Image #3 was spot on and tack sharp.
I'm not sure what the 7D II AF was doing in this 3 shot series, maybe someone can explain this to me. I back-button focused for each individual shot. Do you think image #2 is due to image blur, or a combination of poor focus and image blur. It doesn't look like image blur to me.
I can say that when the 7D II hits its mark, the images can be beautifully sharp.
Images below were not edited, I simply extracted them from DPP4 with default settings and cropped them to 100%.
IMAGE #1 (100% Crop):
IMAGE #2 (100% Crop):
IMAGE #3 (100% Crop):
-
Image #3 was spot on and tack sharp
Image #3 is the sharpest of the three, but I don't agree that it is "tack sharp". It still looks a bit soft to me.
I did notice that every now and then my old 7D would produce an image that had terrible IQ. Everything seemed right in terms of settings, the images didn't have a blurred look to them, and it didn't look like a missed focus. It just looked "mucky", for lack of a better term.
Your experience with the 7D parallels mine precisely. There are times when I have found that the 7D simply can't product a high quality image (and it has nothing to do with shooting conditions, so please, no comments about atmospheric disturbance, etc.).
John
-
It's pretty much a lottery buying a 7DII just now, with so many being returned with focusing issue's, I wouldn't consider one until Canon get it sorted out.
-
I just wanted to follow up on this issue regarding the 7D II AF. It's been bugging me especially since the old 7D had some AF inconsistencies which was in part due to the poor tolerances inherent in the canon AF system. For the price paid for a used 7D I was ok with those inaccuracies, but I had high expectations for the mark II. So I did some more testing.
After testing with various lenses I'm happy to say that my 7D II is very consistent in focusing. I used a 70-200 f2.8 II lens and tried multiple tests where I focused to infinity and allowed the camera to snap in to focus at different distances. All images were in focus, maybe 2 or 3 missed the mark in over 80 images. I also focused from the shortest focus distance and allowed the camera to snap back to focus and again the results were similar to focusing at infinity. I recall with my old 7D it would miss focus more often when tested from near focus as opposed to infinity. I also tested the camera with my 300 f4 IS prime and had similar excellent results. Both lenses were micro-adjusted.
Now when I tested with my teleconverters things got interesting. It seems that my 1.4x kenko pro is causing the inconsistencies on the canon body. With the teleconverter on my 300 lens I had over a dozen images that were slightly out of focus when testing. And I did micro-adjust the combo. It seems this teleconverter is unreliable, and so maybe I should start looking for a used canon 1.4x mk II instead. I have a canon 2x mk II, and with it on my 300 lens it gave me much better focus accuracy. Sure it was slow but it was accurate when I tested it. I have to say that I'm quite happy to have a 600 f8 combo that focuses.
Another thing I've noticed is that when photographing my kids around the house under poor lighting conditions the 7D II focused more accurately on things like people's eyes. I didn't test this but it just seems like the focus does well under indoor lighting. My old 7D was jumpy especially when paired with my 35mm f2 lens.
Anyway just more food for thought. These are my on-going experiences with my new 7D mk II.
-
Super Moderator
Using third party convertors is a waste of time IMO, they are a joke compared to Canon MKIII extenders. For best results make sure you use canon MKIII extenders.
Having said that, the 300 f/4 IS lens does not take TC's very well. It's an old lens and doesn't have the modern AF electronics featured in the newer Canon lenses so the performance with a 2X TC would be hit or miss.
-
Canon has improved the III version extenders, but I don't think my 70-200 f2.8 IS II would benefit from the upgrade, nor would my old 300 f4. The mark III extenders will benefit newer telephoto lenses (i.e. focusing speed, slight increase in IQ), so I'm probably better off with using the mark II versions for now. The improved IQ isn't that significant, and they are a bargain on the used market. Unless someone can chime in and correct me on that point.
-
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by
Moe Ali
Canon has improved the III version extenders, but I don't think my 70-200 f2.8 IS II would benefit from the upgrade, nor would my old 300 f4. The mark III extenders will benefit newer telephoto lenses (i.e. focusing speed, slight increase in IQ), so I'm probably better off with using the mark II versions for now. The improved IQ isn't that significant, and they are a bargain on the used market. Unless someone can chime in and correct me on that point.
That's true for 1.4X III, but the older lenses can still benefit for the improved optics in 2X III as the old one was quite soft.
I agree your lenses are very limiting for bird photography, if I were you I would not spend any money on a new body until you can acquire a proper lens.
best
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
Reply With Quote
