# 7d mark ii - Poor color rendition?



## mikoh4792 (Dec 22, 2014)

I've seen some pictures shot with this camera online and they seem to very nice, however I am reading a few posts here saying that this camera is bad with color rendition. Can anyone elaborate?


----------



## iolair (Dec 23, 2014)

This explains somewhat, although doesn't give user experience:
DxOMark's Sensor Scores State Canon 7D Mk II Looks Antiquated


----------



## jaomul (Dec 24, 2014)

Dxo is very scientific in its reviews or sensor tests. There are often questions as to how accurate the results are vs real Fay to day usage. 

The 7d2 is getting terrific reviews almost everywhere. There is a performance gap in sensors between different companies at the moment with Canon sensors scoring low in dynamic range but high in noise control at higher iso. What one works better for you depends on style of shooting but most dslrs are capable of very fantastic photos


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 24, 2014)

The design of the Bayer array can be done in such a way as to favor high ISO performance at the expense of color discrimination. I don't know if that's what was done here or not, but it's certainly a theory.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 24, 2014)

iolair said:


> although doesn't give user experience:



user experience is subjective.

not being able to achieve DR above 12EV is not.

The D3330 rates much from 100-800ISO than the 7D Mii.


----------



## jaomul (Dec 24, 2014)

^^ as said Nikon sensors rate higher in dynamic range than Canon at lower iso. That's pretty much agreed everywhere, what matters is how much this effects your style of shooting, and the fact that Canon sensors are apparently better at high iso, which would indicate Nikon is better at one thing, Canon at another


----------



## Braineack (Dec 24, 2014)

Objective: The 7D Mii does high ISO no better than the cheapest current Nikon, nor the D7100.
Subjective: I've looked at high ISO 7D mii shots and I'm thoroughly unimpressed.
Completely false: Canons are better for high ISO.


----------



## JacaRanda (Dec 24, 2014)

mikoh4792 said:


> I've seen some pictures shot with this camera online and they seem to very nice, however I am reading a few posts here saying that this camera is bad with color rendition. Can anyone elaborate?



Maybe trust what you see and not what you read?


----------



## jaomul (Dec 24, 2014)

Braineack said:


> iolair said:
> 
> 
> > although doesn't give user experience:
> ...





Braineack said:


> Objective: The 7D Mii does high ISO no better than the cheapest current Nikon, nor the D7100.
> Subjective: I've looked at high ISO 7D mii shots and I'm thoroughly unimpressed.
> Completely false: Canons are better for high ISO.



I shoot Nikon as well, it's ok if Canon does something better. Dxo will always comfort you. They also day a d610 is better at high iso than a Canon 6d. Ya right


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 24, 2014)

Trust what you see?

Ho ho ho. What you see is almost entirely a construct of the brain. It is therefore notoriously inaccurate and reflects prejudices and preconceptions more than reality.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 24, 2014)

jaomul said:


> I shoot Nikon as well, it's ok if Canon does something better. Dxo will always comfort you. They also day a d610 is better at high iso than a Canon 6d. Ya right



it would be completely okay if it were true.  I don't care whatsoever.

I'm on pixelpeeper right now looking at high ISO shots from the 6D.  I'm seriously dying from laughter.  So great.  I get to go home with a smile now.  what a great x-mas gift.


----------



## jaomul (Dec 24, 2014)

Well happy Christmas then, my good deed for the day


----------



## Overread (Dec 24, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Trust what you see?
> 
> Ho ho ho. What you see is almost entirely a construct of the brain. It is therefore notoriously inaccurate and reflects prejudices and preconceptions more than reality.



My doctor says that I shouldn't entertain the voices in my head; so if the voices in my head are now things on the screen then surely I should be destroying them - and ooh I've got a shiny ban button that destroys things!!



Braineack said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot Nikon as well, it's ok if Canon does something better. Dxo will always comfort you. They also day a d610 is better at high iso than a Canon 6d. Ya right
> ...



Lets just try and make it through Christmas without a Canon VS Nikon war shall we. I'm sure we adults can debate the various merits of each system without resorting to stupidity.


----------



## jaomul (Dec 24, 2014)

^^ fairly sure it was all light hearted enough. If I was rude delete my post. Thanks


----------



## Overread (Dec 24, 2014)

Naws no one did anything wrong *just being preemptive *


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 24, 2014)

jaomul said:


> Dxo is very scientific in its reviews or sensor tests. There are often questions as to how accurate the results are vs real Fay to day usage.
> 
> The 7d2 is getting terrific reviews almost everywhere. There is a performance gap in sensors between different companies at the moment with Canon sensors scoring low in dynamic range but high in noise control at higher iso. What one works better for you depends on style of shooting but most dslrs are capable of very fantastic photos



I agree that DxO's results are questionable.  My reasons for disagreement is because DxO isn't scientific at all.  If they were, there'd be sample data and full-disclosure of testing methods and algorithms.  DxO provides only "scores" but they guard their scoring methods.  This really limits the usefulness of their information.  What they provide would not be acceptable for purposes of scientific scrutiny.  

I have seen the objections on this site about color, but I completely disagree.  I've inspected the same images and don't think they look dull at all.  What I do find is that an enormous number of images posted on the Internet are really pumped up in color -- beyond what the scene has in real life.  And I feel as if people get used to this exaggerated / saturated color.

But I'd also point out that in reality there is no such thing as "color".  There is only wavelengths of light.  "Color" is something our human brains do to differentiate wavelengths of light.  We can build filters to limit the bandpass of wavelengths and this lets us count up how much "red" vs.  "green" vs. "blue" we have (even though each of those is a broad range of wavelengths).   When the exposure is captured, the camera has recorded a bunch of data... but now that data has to be interpreted to process it into an image.

If you put a camera in JPEG mode, your camera probably has some settings for how it will interpret color.  On a Canon they call this "Picture Style" and the camera comes with several built-in picture styles and they even give you software that lets you develop your own picture styles and load them into the camera.  You can have "faithful" or "neutral" picture styles which try to interpret the data to render a color image which the software developer felt is closer to reality.  You can also choose to use more vibrant picture styles which tend to saturate the colors... they have "landscape" picture styles which leave most colors alone, but saturate the greens... and the list goes on.   If you shoot RAW then none of this is applied... you adjust the color when you process your images on the computer (If I like an image enough to process it... I would have adjusted the color... guaranteed.   It won't matter what brand or camera model was used to take the image.)

The point is that all of these are the result of "interpretation".  You can make your output have any level of saturation across any part of the color spectrum you choose... selectively limited to just certain colors, broadly across all colors, you can even do color substitution so that a picture of a green car will show up as an orange car (I did this  to a friend once... he had a red sports car and I turned into a "Mary Kay Pink" and sent it to him as a gag.)  This is a bit easier to imagine if instead of thinking of "color" as being a red/green/blue (or cyan/magenta/yellow), you instead think of it has hue/saturation/brightness and you can trade one hue for another but leave it's saturation and brightness alone... the result is a very convincing color-swap of one for another (of course you can toy with saturation and brightness too.)

To me, the color is highly subjective... you may as well be judging the camera based on the quality of the neckstrap that came with it -- knowing fully that if you don't like the neckstrap you could always swap it for a different one.  In no way would this limit the images that can be achieved using the camera.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 24, 2014)

If the Bayer filter is designed to let a wider range of wavelengths through, which lets more light through, which boosts high ISO performance, then you're going to objectively get less color discrimination out.

That will be measurable. There's a good chance it will be visible as well. It's possible that some people will find the resulting color rendering more appealing? I find the ultimate expression of this, that is, black & white, to be quite nice.


----------



## pdq5oh (Dec 24, 2014)

I had a D610, and now have a 6D. In my real world experience, I prefer the 6D in low light, high ISO situations. It also focuses better in low light. I will say I had no complaints with the D610. As with any good camera, results are amazing when I do my part.


----------

