7D Mark II users

[Ollokot]

Hi Folks,
A question for you 7D Mark II users, how much better is it's performance at ISO settings above 400 with the 7D, for example the 7D is very bad at ISO 800, how does the Mark II perform at ISO 800 ?
I would consider upgrading to the Mark II if I could see a marked improvement at these ISO Levels.

Regards, Pat

[James G]

Pat, I've had the Mk1 and now use the MK2, but I'm not totally sure I could answer your question.
I have used both for astrophotography, macro (insect and Fungi), and landscape. I rarely found the need to shoot at greater than ISO 400 for the non-astronomy images. (Even night photography as opposed to astro).

I upgraded to the Mk2 primarily because of 'improved' autofocus, more advanced bracketing options, later generation sensor and processor.

My feeling is that up to ISO 400 the MK2 is better than the MK1 regarding noise but it is really a subjective opinion that I would now be hard put to substantiate.

That said, I am absolutely happy that the MK 2 is a 'step up' from the Mk1.

Can you get access to a Mk2 and maybe shoot off a few images at ISO 800 and compare?

[Geoff F]

I'm much the same as James. When possible I like to limit myself to Iso 800 and preferably not to go beyond 400 where both cameras work reasonably well. But I've never actually done a side by side test.

If a higher Iso is selected to gain shutter speed in good light I get acceptable results, but if it is used to work in poor light then I find noise starts to appear in the shadows at 800.

Quite a few improvements with the Mk II in respect of general layout and more logical working plus, if you need it, GPS.

[Black Pearl]

Hi Folks,
A question for you 7D Mark II users, how much better is it's performance at ISO settings above 400 with the 7D, for example the 7D is very bad at ISO 800, how does the Mark II perform at ISO 800 ?
I would consider upgrading to the Mark II if I could see a marked improvement at these ISO Levels.

Regards, Pat

What do you do with your images?
What software do you use to process the CRW files?
What do you shoot?
How do you go about exposing your files?

EDIT:

I ask the above because I'm not sure why you would believe the 7D is "very bad" at 800 ISO

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...90977968298277

[chauncey]

A quick search on sites that I frequent...http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/ind...?topic=30167.0
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/....php?t=1422481
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/...?topic=94928.0

Unless you have superior customer service in your local...I would avoid it.

[rpcrowe]

Chauncey...

I just received the 7Dii from Canon (as a refurbished item - the way I always purchase my Canon cameras) today; but, I was busy all day at a dog rescue event. All I did was unpack the camera and charge the battery.

I planned that the first thing I will do is to test the quality at various ISO levels in comparison to my present 7D... If I am able to accomplish this tomorrow, I will post the results.

I plan to use the same lens for both cameras and shoot at 320, 640, 1280 and so on.

Here is an image that I did recently with the 7D at ISO 3200 (just to see what it would look like) using the EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark-1 lens.

I used NIK Dfine for noise reduction and shot the image at 1/125 second @ f/5



Actually, if I needed this for a documentary image, I could live with this quality...

[dje]

Hi Pat

I can't speak from user experience but the DXOMark figures indicate that the Dynamic Range of the 7D II is much the same as the 7D up to about ISO 800. For ISO values above 800, the 7D II gets better by up to 1 stop. This means that you should get lower shadow noise with the 7D II at ISO 1600 and above.

Dave

[rpcrowe]

I am not a great truster of DXO charts for either camera or lenses. I simply don't feel that they can be transferred to my day to day photography with any great accuracy.

I feel better about first person documentation and also real-life images. But, I don't really trust images unless I know the capability of the person posting them. Additionally. viewing images that were posted on the Internet do not validly confirm the quality of the gear used to obtain these images. I would want however to read the opinions of persons who are not employed by the firms that are offering the gear. Like politicians, I don't think that you can bring the veracity of their statements to the bank.

Of course, I would not take some "unpacking" YouTube videos done by some yahoo who needs to read the label on the box before he (I have not seen a female do one of these lame videos) can identify the box that he is unpacking.

IMO, the true quality of a camera/lens combination (for my use) is how my images look after I sharpen and apply noise reduction (if I think NR is required).

I just received a 7Dii and fully intend to run it through it's paces and will see how this camera combined with one of my most used EF lenses (most likely the 70-200mm f/4L IS which I know is a great lens). I plan to compare this camera against the 7D and a 5Dii. The reason I am using the 70-200mm instead of my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is that I want to include the 5Dii in my testing...

I will post my results but, they will be MY RESULTS arrived from MY way of shooting and MY way of post processing. The results might not be valid for anyone else. OTOH, they just might be a bit valid.

I am not going to do this testing to validate my purchase of the 7Dii but, to let me know the parameters in which I can expect IQ that I can live with...

Finally, I am not a photographer who frequently shoots with "gumteen zillion ISO levels". I shoot with the lowest ISO that I can get by with...

[Ollokot]

Thank you all for your replies.
One type of photography that I love to do is Bird photography, http://www.patswayimagery.ie/Galleries/Birds/ and use a Canon 1D MK IV and a 7D as a second body, I find the 7D dissapointing when I have to use a higher ISO to maintain shutter speed and was pondering maybe a second 1D MK IV (secondhand) or go for the 7D MK II for the modern technology. The problem is I have become accustomed to the superior image quality of the 1D MK IV even at high ISO's such as 1000.
The upgrade may be put on the long finger for now.
Once again many thanks for your replies,
Regards and Best Wishes, Pat.

[rpcrowe]

I am really involved with my dogs today since we have had a major flea outbreak in my yard. I did not have time for a comprehensive test but, since you mentioned the need to shoot at ISO 1,000; I did several shots at that ISO hand held using my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on my new 7Dii. I used programmed exposure control and I shot in RAW with in-camera sharpening turned off.

I opened the RAW files using Adobe Camera RAW via Adobe Bridge in CS6. I did no sharpening in ACR. Instead, I used NIK Dfine globally for noise reduction and applied the NIK RAW filter but, no other sharpening or manipulation. I saved full size in JPEG (Baseline Optimized) and posted the images full original size using smugmug.com...

I don't know what difference I would see using either my 7D or my 5Dii cameras but, I am not at all unhappy with the quality of these images...

200mm, f/10, 1/2,000 second


200mm, f/9, 1/1,250 second


200mm, f/9, 1/1,250 second


70mm, f/5.6, 1/250 second - in the shade


144mm, f/4, 1/125 second - indoors with window light

[William W]

. . . One type of photography that I love to do is Bird photography and use a Canon 1D MK IV and a 7D as a second body, I find the 7D dissapointing when I have to use a higher ISO to maintain shutter speed and was pondering maybe a second 1D MK IV (secondhand) or go for the 7D MK II for the modern technology. The problem is I have become accustomed to the superior image quality of the 1D MK IV even at high ISO's such as 1000. . .

Then isn't the more precise question to ask is for a comparison between a 1D MK IV and a 7DMkII? The 1DMkIV wins that challenge, IMO.

Also - if "modern technology" is a key criterion, then a 5DMkIII would be in the equation, especially from the aspect of High Quality at Higher ISO Settings. A 5DMkIII could be acquired second hand or refurbished also.

BUT -
> maybe the narrower FoV of the APS-C is a major factor for your second camera?
> maybe the fast Frame Rate is also an important criterion?

*

My two points being:

> if you are unhappy with the comparison between the 1DMkIV and the 7D - then it would be better use the 1DMkIV (and not the 7D) as your Bench Mark when you make all the comparisons to the cameras that you are considering to buy.

> only considering a 7DMkII for an upgrade of your second camera, is too narrow a choice (this comment is based upon the information disclosed).

*

It is a really nice portfolio of Birds - it was very enjoyable viewing.

WW

[Cantab]

It is a really nice portfolio of Birds - it was very enjoyable viewing.

WW

I agree with Bill. I had a look at your bird portfolio and enjoyed it.

[Ollokot]

Many thanks, Richard and Bill for your time and comments,
Hi Bruce, glad you enjoyed the the bird photos,

Pat.

[rpcrowe]

Here's a couple at ISO 3,200

70mm f/8 @ 1/500 second


180mm f/4.5 @ 1/320 second

[Ollokot]

Hi Richard,
They look impressive enough at that ISO setting. It would be interesting to see the full res Raw files.
Thanks again,
Pat

[rpcrowe]

I don't have the vaguest idea how to send a full res RAW file.

Here is an image at ISO 6400. I did some NIK Viveza contrast and structure adjustments in addition to the Dfine and RAW presharpener. Dogs weren't around so I shot this plant. I am not all that keen on the quality...



I suspect that ISO 3200 might be my top limit unless I couldn't get the image at all. That's a pretty impressive speed for a photographer who originally thought that Kodak Super XX film at ASA (prior to ISO) 125 was really fast film. After-all, the original Kodachrome was about ASA 12 and then Kodachrome was ASA 25 for most of my early photo work. My motion picture film Ektachrome Commercial was ASA 25 for 3200K light and with an 85 filter, it became ASA 16 for daylight use...

[Tronhard]

Perhaps I could offer a humble opinion as I have the 7D, 7DII and the 80D. First of all I found the performance between all three was somewhat dependent on what lenses I was using. I didn't keep the materials but I did a sort of semi-scientific study using a range of lenses with all three cameras at identical settings, with the same subjects, under similar lighting conditions (outside) and at different ISO settings. (Yes, I need to get a life...)

First of all I tend to use my cameras at the lowest possible ISO, so for me 800 is a high setting, I am more likely to use 200. That said, if I recall correctly, the best camera across the range was the 80D, then the 7DII and then the 7D. This is not completely surprising as the technology in the 80D is over 18 months newer than the 7DII and of course considerably more so than the 7D. This is backed up by DP Review's test samples that show a considerable improvement in resolution between the 80D many of the previous bodies including the 5DSR, and roughly equivalence to the 1DXII:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/716898...non-low-iso-dr

After reading the complaints about soft images on the Canon Rumours link, I thought it worth mentioning that I did not use the 65PT metering settings, I use the 9Pt Grid or Spot Metering. Doing so I have not really had soft images and the camera reacts quickly as I focus.

I bought the 7DII and 80D because I wanted to use the 1.4x Extender III on my 100-400L MkII or the 2xMkIII on the 70-200, 2.8MkII, and be able to meter and autofocus, something that was challenging for older cameras, yet both of these bodies seem to handle the combination well. I wanted the extra "reach" of 1.4x400x1.6, giving almost a 900mm field FOV, and as I was trying to catch birds on the wing, manual adjustment was not what I really wanted to deal with.

Personally I find all three of the above-mentioned bodies to be good, but each for their own purpose - I can still take great photos with the 7D and it's not worth selling it in my opinion.

Here are a couple of images with the 7DII, mostly of herons on the wing I shot hand-held at my local park. I was using the 1.4x100-400MKII if my memory serves me...

















Anyway, I hope the comments are in some way helpful.

[rpcrowe]

Great shots with the 100-400 II plus 1.4x TC. That was one reason that I purchased the 7DII but, I have not gotten around to using that combination. The true 560mm and equivalent 896mm focal length is mind boggling. Those hand held shots at that enormous focal length are super!