# 7D Mk II Image Quality: Is it as bad as DxoMark says?



## goodguy (Nov 6, 2014)

Continuing my post from yesteray


----------



## hamlet (Nov 6, 2014)

I think it's a hit and miss with most cameras. My d3200 handled underexposed areas better than my d7100 in my experience. Banding Noise creeps in fast.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 6, 2014)

From looking at Tony's second more thorough video I learn one thing which I already implemented, if you really want to get good low light performance go full frame


----------



## runnah (Nov 6, 2014)

Dx0 is a bit biased towards nikon.


----------



## snerd (Nov 6, 2014)

I would be buying the 7DII not for low light, but for daytime sports and wildlife. General daylight outdoor stuff. Perfect compliment to a 5DIII, I think.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 6, 2014)

runnah said:


> Dx0 is a bit biased towards nikon.


I doubt that very much, I think even Tony after correcting the NR on the software saw his initial assessment of the low light performance were incorrect.
Canon got very close to the average APS-C sensor in the market today when it comes to low light but its definitely not leading the market and that without taking into account the other parameters where is still far behind like DR.
Overall its a good sensor and the 7D II is a good camera for what it was designed to do but Canon needs to work a bit harder to reach the leading sensors in the market.
BTW the Nikon bias you suspect DXO has are not really Nikon sensors they are Sony sensors.


----------



## mcap1972 (Nov 20, 2014)

Is it true Canon is using Sony sensors for this camera?


----------



## goodguy (Nov 20, 2014)

mcap1972 said:


> Is it true Canon is using Sony sensors for this camera?


Nope, its Canon's


----------



## MarshallG (Nov 23, 2014)

Here's the question I have about DxOmark: Where are the photographs? Where is the difference that my eyes can see? They never show your eyes how the 87 camera produces a visibly better result than the 85, but people buy based on their numbers anyway. 

Dpreview.com has an outstanding Studio Comparison Tool, which lets you see the side-by-side differences between four cameras at a time. And your eyes will tell you a different story than DxO. See for yourself.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 23, 2014)

Look at the images from the New York City Marathon, shot with the new 7D-II. OMG....open shade and small bits of sunlight = unrecoverably blown-out highlights. WEAK color saturation. Look at on-line bird photography...again....weak color, narrow dynamic range. The 7D-II has been optimized for shooting FAST, at up to 10 frames per second, with a deep buffer, with a smallish file size (20.2 MP, as opposed to say....a 36 MP Nikon) on a 1.6x, smallish crop-body size frame, and to come in at $1799 at intro, with the world's highest-spec'd AF system.

Again, LOOK at the pictures on Flickr. You can SEE the difference between 7D-II images and those made by a Canon 6D or 5D-III...the 7D-III has limitations in image technical quality, but it's designed to, "Get the pictures, FAST, and IN-FOCUS, across long shooting sequences, and at elevated ISO values if needed."

It's pretty ridiculous to try and infer that the 7D-III has image quality that surpasses cameras with bigger sensors, with higher MP count, and better sensor technology. If you want a 7D-II for what you want to shoot, then get one. But please, stop trying to argue with what is obvious: this camera's sensor is nowhere near what state of the art 2014 is. This camera is not designed for the highest technical image quality: it's designed to shoot a LOT of in-focus frames FAST, across a deeeeep buffer, cheaply, not at $6999, but at $1799.


----------



## TCampbell (Nov 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Look at the images from the New York City Marathon, shot with the new 7D-II. OMG....open shade and small bits of sunlight = unrecoverably blown-out highlights. WEAK color saturation. Look at on-line bird photography...again....weak color, narrow dynamic range.



When you think about the science behind how a color sensor works, there's really no such thing as "weak" color.  This is ENTIRELY a processing choice.  Technically color exists only in our heads.  Light has "wavelengths" and it's our brain that translates those wavelengths to color.  The sensors themselves register signal.  Since most color sensors employ a Bayer mask, they register the "green" signal, "red" signal, and "blue" signal and all of this is de-bayered to create a resulting "color" for that pixel.  The process behind this is entirely in software ... there's not much to the chip design.

If you like stronger color saturation... just dial it up.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 23, 2014)

HERE is an official sample from the 7D Mark II, shot in natural, full-spectrum daylight--not under spectrally deficient light at some stadium. Shot at 3,200 ISO with the very expensive Canon 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM lens that costs $11,799 at B&H Photo.

http://canon-premium.webcdn.stream.ne.jp/www09/canon-premium/eosd/samples/eos7dmk2/downloads/07.jpg

Color saturation? LOW.

Detail rendition? LOW. Shockingly lacking on fine detail.

This image looks like s**+. It's pathetic. THIS is daylight, 3,200 ISO with a nearly $12,000 Canon uber-lens? No amount of work can save this crap image.

And sorry, but there ***is*** such a thing as *weak color*. Are you seriously so brand-loyal that you are going to argue that all color is equally "strong" at each ISO level, or that there are no differences in degrees of color saturation? HILARIOUS, and flat-out incorrect.

Seriously, are you trying to go there in public? You need to stop drinking the Canon Kool-Aid.


----------



## runnah (Nov 23, 2014)

So people are getting upset that a camera that is billed as a blazing fast sports oriented camera isn't as good as one that is designed for studio work and costs almost twice as much?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 23, 2014)

Here's a good example of the 7D Mark II's lack of detail. I would call this, "mush-level fine detail".

An "Official Sample", hosted by Canon. Low noise? ehhh.

"Weak color" too; see how the color is almost absent? One can "crank the saturation to MAX," as TCampbell suggested one do, and this will still look like crap.

http://canon-premium.webcdn.stream.ne.jp/www09/canon-premium/eosd/samples/eos7dmk2/downloads/06.jpg

And we have people here deriding DxO Mark's test results from this sensor, trying to discredit DxO mark's rigorous tests, which are applied the same way for all cameras, in a million-dollar testing lab? Download the two photos from Canon and actually ZOOM in on them! And then try your hardest to mentally make the DxO mark score go wayyyyyyyy up!


----------



## snerd (Nov 23, 2014)

Derrel, we get it. You hate this camera. But, dude, what's with the literal hate? Every thread, you come in swinging! You okay?


----------



## Braineack (Nov 23, 2014)

How is being objective hate?


----------



## snerd (Nov 23, 2014)

Braineack said:


> How is being objective hate?


Maybe I'm off in my assessment. It just seems he can't suppress that objective analysis no matter what. The camera is going to make a LOT of shooters VERY happy, but he just seems to want to bash it at every turn. He just seems irate that they're still buying it no matter how much he tells them it stinks.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 23, 2014)

People still buy American cars too, it's crazy.


----------



## snerd (Nov 23, 2014)

Braineack said:


> People still buy American cars too, it's crazy.


Exactly. Why does it bother others?!

ETA: and, actually, it just doesn't sound like Derrel! That's why I asked if he's okay. We can still worry about forum friends, can't we?!


----------



## runnah (Nov 23, 2014)

snerd said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > How is being objective hate?
> ...



I am getting very sick of it to be honest.


----------



## TCampbell (Nov 24, 2014)

We should have all those Canon engineers flogged.  Would that help?  ;-)

On a more serious note... we can't judge the color of the particular image without having been there.  A color checker photo would be better because at least we have a real-life reference we can hold in our hands while we compare how the camera did to the colors as rendered in real life.

I don't have a 7D II.  But I do have  5D III.  I have photographed my color checker and pulled up the image on my color-calibrated (Using an X-Rite ColorMunki) monitor to compare.  The color is exceptionally accurate.

So that brings me to my next point...   From time to time I see an image out of my camera where the colors just don't appear the way I remembered them in my head.  I've actually gone back out to these places and looked... REALLY LOOKED at the scene.  It turns out the camera wasn't lying.  The reason the colors looked dull is because the colors were dull.  We like to think of all grass as looking a bit like it was maintained by the greenskeeper crew for a top-end golf club.  But quite often grass looks a bit dull and yellowed and images depicting saturated greens are altered and saturated to look that way.

The initial images with a 7D II were mostly all shot using in-camera JPEG (which does apply the "picture style" assigned to it) for those images taken when nobody had RAW support for the new camera (but now I think most mainstream apps have it.)

But you have to keep in mind that RAW processing is all about the software.  The de-bayering (or de-mosaicing) software can assign a hue, saturation, and brightness but all the chip really recorded was signal level at that particular location on the chip.  The chip really does just see in "monochrome" but the color matrix (Bayer mask) allows it to realize that one particular photo-site had a "red" filter in front of it, while another had a "green" filter in front of it, etc.  and the color hue is worked out after-the-fact.

It turns out there's more than one way to de-bayer the RAW file and you can get noticeably different results from different methods.  I've heard some people argue that the Canon Digital Photo Professional

Here's an article by Craig Stark of Stark Labs.  He primarily develops and sells software for astro-imaging ("PHD" is probably the most popular auto-guider software and "Nebulosity" is a popular image acquisition and processing application.)  In this article, he describes how the sensor works and how the various de-bayering algorithms works and shows examples of how the these algorithms affect the outcome.  

http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/resources/Articles-&-Reviews/Debayering_API.pdf


----------



## Derrel (Nov 24, 2014)

snerd said:
			
		

> Derrel, we get it. You hate this camera. But, dude, what's with the literal hate? Every thread, you come in swinging! You okay?



I formed my own opinion on the 7D-II's by downloading and examining the official Canon samples, and by evaluating around 150 images from Flickr, and I downloaded Scott Kelby's Canon 400/2.8-L glass images and processed them to add sharpening and see how they held up (he mentioned they were UN-sharpened, full-sized images). My **initial impression** was that *this camera suffers from a LACK of fine detail.*  The Canon fans are cheering about low noise. What I see is LOW DETAIL. SOFT IMAGES. Muddy color.

I am tired as hell of having my opinion, formed by careful study and analysis, being discredited repeatedly by the same by people who come in here, slinging utter B.S., and trying to discredit my opinion, my experience, as well as the entire DxO Mark brand and site. Canon fanboys are crawling out of the woodwork, trying to defend their pet brand. But the pictures tell the tale.

YESTERDAY, A TPF member sent me a link to a video, based largely on a week-long field test. This is from *The Camera Store*. I had not seen this video until early last night!

I do not hate the camera, snerd-- I do not hate inanimate objects. After a week shooting the 7D-II, the folks at The Camera Store confirmed what I saw myself. AlI can say is, "Ouch!" As well as, "Oh, hey, I was right." The Canon fanboys can try and spin this all they want to, but the fact is--Canon is limited to its OWN sensor tech and its own sensor fabs, and their technology AND their machinery are both wayyyyyyyyy out of date. Pentium IV in the 2014 era!  ;-)

The idea that there is no such thing as rich, well-differntiated color, and no such thing as weak color? HILARIOUS!!!!!


----------



## centauro74 (Nov 24, 2014)

I agree with you Derrel,  I have a 70D and I'm so disappointed with the PQ.  At the end of this video you can see that the nikon d3300 it's a lot Sharper than the $1800 7 ii,  crazy.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 24, 2014)

Did somebody Cry Uncle yet?


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 24, 2014)

One sensor can totally botch up color more than another one.

It's a tradeoff. If you make the RGB filters in the Bayer array accept a wider range, you get better low light performance, but you get less color separation. It may not manifest as low saturation, particularly, but that would be a good processing choice to mask poor color discrimination.

It is, allegedly, one of the things that makes the giant MF sensors better - they use more restrictive Bayer filters, and so are essentially less sensitive systems with better color discrimination. Which would be appropriate for the studio and landscape they're built for.


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 24, 2014)

Derrel said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You missed the point. There's a difference between respectfully stating your opinion and aggressively bashing a camera and those who think it good. Have some respect for others, and appreciate the fact that you ARE allowed to disagree.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 25, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I am tired as hell of having my opinion, formed by careful study and analysis, being discredited repeatedly by the same by people who come in here, slinging utter B.S., and trying to discredit my opinion, my experience, as well as the entire DxO Mark brand and site. Canon fanboys are crawling out of the woodwork, trying to defend their pet brand. But the pictures tell the tale.









The focusing module on the 7Dmii looks pretty impressive; shame about dat IQ.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 25, 2014)

Derrel said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is this a pro photographer or just somone who works at the shop, how long have they been shooting, maybe if it was given to a well known photographer like Sabastio Salgardo and the shots were bad I would believe al your bashing of this camera


----------



## minicoop1985 (Nov 25, 2014)

I think I'll just stick with my 7D then...


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 26, 2014)

snerd said:


> Derrel, we get it. You hate this camera. But, dude, what's with the literal hate? Every thread, you come in swinging! You okay?




That's kind of his schtick. He comes in very loudly and then gets mad when people tell him to quiet down.

Although this self-victimization is new.


----------



## iolair (Dec 4, 2014)

Derrel makes a fair point - on colour and dynamic range it's foolish to deny that Canon is still lagging behind the Sony sensors that Sony and Nikon are using.  The evidence is there (DXOmark and side-by-side shot tests by reviewers).  It's particularly noticeable in images with a wide range of illumination.

With the 7D mark II and 70D, it appears Canon's sensor work has been targetted on improving the focus, rather than on out-and-out image quality.

On the other hand, Canon has (I believe) a stronger lens range, better usability and in some models the best focusing systems around.

If you're invested in Canon already - as probably most on the Canon forum are - it's hard to find a case for changing.  Both systems are strong, and have some of their strengths in different areas - and which system suits best depends to a large extent on which kind of shooting you do.

Derrel points out the 'weak colours' in Canon's squirrel photo - but perhaps a Nikon wouldn't have nailed the focus on the squirrel before it had moved again.  Who knows.  The 7DmkII is adequate in image quality, and a step up on its predecessor, but its real advantage is - due to focusing, good ergonomics and burst rate, it will get shots that other cameras might miss altogether.  On the other hand, for non-moving subjects, even the cheapest Nikons might outpace it.


----------



## runnah (Dec 4, 2014)

We live in a time where we are all lucky enough to have the choice of many cameras. So much so that we can go out and pick one that suits us perfectly. Camera makers know this so they make cameras that are targeted at a certain group of people. 

Like sports and have a lot of money? Get the 1dx
Like sports and don't have a lot of money? Get the 7dMK2

Like landscapes and portraits and have a lot of money? Get the 5Dmk3
Like landscapes and portraits and don't have a lot of money? Get the 6D

This isn't saying that you can't use any of those cameras mentioned for other things but you can't be surprised when your Mid range sports camera doesn't stack up to the top end portrait camera.


----------



## offcamber (Dec 9, 2014)

The 7d's iimage quality is subject to opinion. If you are an astophotography guy, it's the best sensor Canon has ever produced.


Canon 7DII Review Clarkvision.com: Camera Review and Sensor Analysis Series


----------

