# 7D II review



## goodguy (Nov 5, 2014)

A very interesting review done by Tony which I follow on youtube.

Didnt finish seeing it all but here is one interesting nugget of info.
7D II kicks the 5D III ass in low light........now that's impressive!


----------



## snerd (Nov 5, 2014)

Wow! About 4 minutes in, he says Canon's sensor in the 7D II is better than Sony. I'm a fanboy, but that's pushing it a little. Or is it?!


----------



## snerd (Nov 5, 2014)

And says it's "substantially" better than the 70D.


----------



## wyogirl (Nov 5, 2014)

I want this camera to be awesome.  I've been debating between this and a 6D.  Its really hard for me to decide because I like the crop sensor with its percieved reach.  I hardly ever shoot wide, so I like having the 1.6x.  But its the low light performance that is the most important "upgrade" for me, currently shooting with a T2i.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2014)

Canon EOS 7D Mark II versus Nikon D750 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

Uhhhh....look at the the total sensor scores. The 7D-II earns a total score of 70, versus the D7100's 83 overall, or the D750's 93 overall. Click on the measurements sub-tab...the new sensor from Canon shows weak dynamic range, and low color richness.

The 7D-II does offer LOW NOISE, yes, and along with that low noise is low color richness.The 7D-II shoots fast, yes, but the color is less-saturated than other cameras on the market now. Check out shots at high ISO's on Flickr: low noise, yes, and also low detail.

The 7D Mark II's overall  combined score of 70 ranks 105th in the DxO Mark test rankings. The Nikon D300s also gets a 70 overall, and ranks 106th in total overall score. The D7100 ranks 22nd overall. The D5300 is 23rd.

But hey...Low noise! Low noise! Low noise!


----------



## goodguy (Nov 5, 2014)

wyogirl said:


> I want this camera to be awesome.  I've been debating between this and a 6D.  Its really hard for me to decide because I like the crop sensor with its percieved reach.  I hardly ever shoot wide, so I like having the 1.6x.  But its the low light performance that is the most important "upgrade" for me, currently shooting with a T2i.


I would say wait for more info come out.
I don't think a crop sensor as good as it will be can compete a full frame sensor in low light.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 5, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Canon EOS 7D Mark II versus Nikon D750 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
> 
> Uhhhh....look at the the total sensor scores. The 7D-II earns a total score of 70, versus the D7100's 83 overall, or the D750's 93 overall. Click on the measurements sub-tab...the new sensor from Canon shows weak dynamic range, and low color richness.
> 
> ...


I was waiting for DXO to come out with this info.
I love low light in high ISO performance but I am well aware it is only one piece in the entire puzzle...........hmm looking at all this info I must admit it is a bit disappointing, I guess the price for low light is a very big price.
Its not like I was planing to sell my D750 LOL, not in a long stretch but still I enjoyed seeing Canon coming out with a new product.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2014)

You want to see "disappointing"? Do what I did last night...got to Flickr and look at as many 7D-II photographs as you can. Don't do a Tony, and look at a few frames of a black lens, and a chrome-colored plastic Canon AE-1 body, which together has 1) basically NO color in the camera's chrome-colored plastic finish and 2) the absence of all color in the black-finished lens. LMFAO...those "which has lower noise?" comparisons he did to open the video were amusing! Look at a bunch of actual photos from the 7D-II. Look at real world scenes.

Noise suppression/reduction at the expense of resolving ability and color richness and also at the expense of dynamic range. Seriously...this new sensor is way behind state of the art. As more and more critical, experienced shooters get their hands on this camera, the more its limitations will become discussed. YES-it shoots FAST. YES, it has a deep buffer. YES, the value proposition is good. YES-I bet it handles like a dream.

SO far, only a very,very few people have gotten their hands on this camera, and so far, mostly fanboy types who talk about low noise! low noise! low noise! at the expense of almost every other single image quality metric.


----------



## snerd (Nov 5, 2014)

Towards the end, he actually says the image quality has "passed" Sony and Nikon. Pretty bold statement. Not sure I'm buying it just yet. But he and his wife sound convinced of it. Unless I'm misunderstanding him. Have any of you watched it through and heard this?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2014)

It's early November, and much of North America is bathed in soft, even, dull flat lighting now.

Pay special attention to ANY image that has even a little bit of sunlight in it. Look closely at fine, fine detail in bird photos.

Flickr Search: Canon 7D Mark II


----------



## goodguy (Nov 5, 2014)

Derrel said:


> You want to see "disappointing"? Do what I did last night...got to Flickr and look at as many 7D-II photographs as you can. Don't do a Tony, and look at a few frames of a black lens, and a chrome-colored plastic Canon AE-1 body, which together has 1) basically NO color in the camera's chrome-colored plastic finish and 2) the absence of all color in the black-finished lens. LMFAO...those "which has lower noise?" comparisons he did to open the video were amusing! Look at a bunch of actual photos from the 7D-II. Look at real world scenes.
> 
> Noise suppression/reduction at the expense of resolving ability and color richness and also at the expense of dynamic range. Seriously...this new sensor is way behind state of the art. As more and more critical, experienced shooters get their hands on this camera, the more its limitations will become discussed. YES-it shoots FAST. YES, it has a deep buffer. YES, the value proposition is good. YES-I bet it handles like a dream.
> 
> SO far, only a very,very few people have gotten their hands on this camera, and so far, mostly fanboy types who talk about low noise! low noise! low noise! at the expense of almost every other single image quality metric.


I believe you definitely have more knowledge and more tools to understand how to judge these sensors then me, I just went with his stellar adoring review.
DXO does agree low light performance is good but not by much then the other cameras in its level.
I am puzzled then how did he show a picture of the 5D III which looked worst then the 7D II.
From all the numbers on DXO its obvious this is not the sensor I thought it is but the pictures he took looks very convincing (for at least people in my level of knowledge).


----------



## snerd (Nov 5, 2014)

Derrel, I'm not disagreeing with you. I find his view hard to believe after all I've read. I can see it being a great upgrade as far as build quality, 10fps, fantastic new AF system, weatherproofing, etc. But I'm just not buying that its IQ has surpassed Nikon and Sony. I don't think he's paid by Canon for this review, because he recommends other cameras to his viewers. I just can't understand why he thinks the IQ is better?!


----------



## goodguy (Nov 5, 2014)

snerd said:


> Derrel, I'm not disagreeing with you. I find his view hard to believe after all I've read. I can see it being a great upgrade as far as build quality, 10fps, fantastic new AF system, weatherproofing, etc. But I'm just not buying that its IQ has surpassed Nikon and Sony. I don't think he's paid by Canon for this review, because he recommends other cameras to his viewers. I just can't understand why he thinks the IQ is better?!


I agree, it is confusing.
I think best is see and read more reviews as they come out and get a broader view of all of this.
DXO actually recommends the Sony 77 II over the 7D II as a sports camera.
Tony is saying the 7D II is leading in IQ in its class something DXO competently disproves, all very weird.


----------



## snerd (Nov 5, 2014)

Yeah, I don't really know who this guy is. I've seen maybe 3 of his videos.


----------



## wyogirl (Nov 5, 2014)

Derrel, I hear you... I do.  But since I'm too invested in Canon glass at the moment to switch to Nikon, I'm thinking that this looks like a better option for me than a 6d because if it performs well in low light, the benefits of the focusing system, weather sealing and the potential reach are more appealing to me than the full frame sensor.  IF I could afford to drop the money on the 5dIII, I would probably go with that, but since that isn't an option.... I'm seriously considering this.  Does that make sense?  Am I crazy?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2014)

I find his review hard to believe based on what I SAW last night on Flickr. I see weak color and poor highlight handling. I care more about dynamic range, color richness, and overall resolving ability. This camera seems to lack in those areas. The emphasis so far has been on "low noise!". Yeah, okay, whatever. But I see image quality that does not measure up. If a person's been shooting a Canon 7D or a 60D or Rebel series, sure, it's better. I have a Nikon camera in the top 20 at DxO Mark. To me, 105th place doesn't cut the mustard. I only have two Canon lenses and the 5D left.

I don't want to antagonize Canon owners or the buyers of the 7D-II. It is what it is. 10 frames a second and a zillion AF points are not what I care about. Dynamic range and color richness and resolution are what I care about. Other people will have other priorities, and being locked into one brand or another forces peoples' hand, and often affects the way they see things. There ARE people who'll really like the 10 frames per second and the 1.6x sensor size.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 5, 2014)

wyogirl said:


> Derrel, I hear you... I do.  But since I'm too invested in Canon glass at the moment to switch to Nikon, I'm thinking that this looks like a better option for me than a 6d because if it performs well in low light, the benefits of the focusing system, weather sealing and the potential reach are more appealing to me than the full frame sensor.  IF I could afford to drop the money on the 5dIII, I would probably go with that, but since that isn't an option.... I'm seriously considering this.  Does that make sense?  Am I crazy?


As I said dont run to the shop just yet, give it time, don't base your decision on one review.
Also once the 7D II will be available for rent maybe you can go and rent one and then judge yourself whats best for you.


----------



## wyogirl (Nov 5, 2014)

Well, I have no immediate plans to run out and buy one.  And yes, renting is going to be my first step.  Its not just this review either.  I have looked at images, reviews and so on.  I'm sure that there are a lot of better cameras out there, but compared to what I have now, this one is a huge improvement and is in the price range where I want to buy.
The pics on flickr that I am seeing really blow my current camera out of the water, but I'm not about to make a hasty decision.  I'm one of those who contemplates a decision for so long, the next model is on its way...lol.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 6, 2014)

snerd said:


> Yeah, I don't really know who this guy is. I've seen maybe 3 of his videos.



Coastalconn Kris knows Tony and Chelsea personally and has done a couple of videos with them.  Perhaps he could speak on their integrity or objectivity if he knows them well enough.

Tony seems pretty fair imo, on this video and others of his I have seen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## snerd (Nov 6, 2014)

Oh, I wasn't questioning his integrity! They seem like nice folks, and very informative and fair. I just can't get my head around his assertion that this sensor "passed" Nikon and Sony. Maybe it's just a subjective observation on their part.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 6, 2014)

snerd said:


> Oh, I wasn't questioning his integrity! They seem like nice folks, and very informative and fair. I just can't get my head around his assertion that this sensor "passed" Nikon and Sony. Maybe it's just a subjective observation on their part.


I have seen in the past more then few videos made by different people that seem like they really know what they are talking about and in many ways they did but like all of us they made statements in some occasions which were proven later to be completely false.
These I believe were made with a honest heart and they simply were mistaken or didn't judge things in the right way thus making the mistake they did.
As for this review if I need to put my trust in what Tony say or what DXO test I would say I would go with DXO, I think Tony is trying to truly represent what he believes is true but I also believe DXO really have the proper knowledge to test sensors in a more pure scientific way and their results would be what I would go with.
For me in such a case if I was interested in the 7D II I think I would try to rent one, take it for a day of test and then know if it meets my own expectation or not.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 6, 2014)

snerd said:


> Oh, I wasn't questioning his integrity! They seem like nice folks, and very informative and fair. I just can't get my head around his assertion that this sensor "passed" Nikon and Sony. Maybe it's just a subjective observation on their part.


I think Derrel made a good point, Tony really judged this sensors one capability which we all agree is impressive which is low light performance but just as we don't buy a car just because it accelerate really fast we will not buy a camera just because it has good low light capability.
We need to look at many other factors like DR and other factors, I am not sure if Tony considered that when he made his statement.
I mean I don't know I am just trying to make sense of the big gap between his statement and the DXO results.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 6, 2014)

snerd said:


> Oh, I wasn't questioning his integrity! They seem like nice folks, and very informative and fair. I just can't get my head around his assertion that this sensor "passed" Nikon and Sony. Maybe it's just a subjective observation on their part.



It was funny when Chelsea basically said (uh oh, we are going to get hate mail).  LMAO.  They mentioned crops and A6000 early on and then just started saying Nikon and Sony.  I wonder what the alcohol content was in that brew he was drinking. 

Wyogirl - it would be a significant upgrade from a T2i in many ways.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 6, 2014)

goodguy said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I wasn't questioning his integrity! They seem like nice folks, and very informative and fair. I just can't get my head around his assertion that this sensor "passed" Nikon and Sony. Maybe it's just a subjective observation on their part.
> ...



You either trust your eyes, trust others opinions, trust lab results, real world, fake world, videos, tpf or whatever you have to do to make a choice.  How did you decide on your latest purchase?


----------



## goodguy (Nov 6, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


My thought process is very complex but I will say that at the end of the day I will always trust first and foremost myself.
So as I said best is (if possible) to rent the camera of ones interest and see if it really meets ones expectation.
I would want to say mine were fully reached but the truth is that it actually surpassed what I expected so in my case I am a happy camper 
We all need to remember that every camera is a set of compromises, putting the emphasis on certain things which means we loose on other.
Just as an example for some camera size and weight is very important thus they will go with micro 4/3 which means in low light they will not be able to compete with FF sensor camera which in return with its fast lenses much heavier.
No matter what- I am impressed with the 7D II, that doesn't mean its a perfect camera, as long as the owner is happy and the camera has reached his/her expectation then that's what counts.

Me I am basking in D750 joy and glory


----------



## jaomul (Nov 6, 2014)

I know a few swear by dxo here, maybe rightly so. I am not so sure (and I am not looking for someone to send me a link as to how scientific dxo does its figures). I had all canon gear and all the systems with Sony based sensors got majorly higher ratings than anything canon put out (Its still the same)

As a now Nikon I could say ya dxo is king, it would validate my Nikon purchases. However, all comparisons that use photos, not charts show the canon 6d for example as being better at high iso than the d610 (I am not downing the d610, I would actually like to own one). The dxo mark says the d610 is better at high iso, it just isn't.

Now no-one can argue with one view above that they sees the 7d2 photos as flat etc, that opinion is gold to the person. I don't however think the charts tell the story that some eyes see. Many for example see  a photo and add warmth through wb because it looks more pleasing, though it is not then as accurate a reproduction. Many love the files from the original canon 5d, more so than the mark2,though the mark 2 scored better on charts.

To me dxo is a guide, nothing else. I don't believe it represents specs that always transfer to everyday pictures


----------



## goodguy (Nov 6, 2014)

jaomul said:


> I know a few swear by dxo here, maybe rightly so. I am not so sure (and I am not looking for someone to send me a link as to how scientific dxo does its figures). I had all canon gear and all the systems with Sony based sensors got majorly higher ratings than anything canon put out (Its still the same)
> 
> As a now Nikon I could say ya dxo is king, it would validate my Nikon purchases. However, all comparisons that use photos, not charts show the canon 6d for example as being better at high iso than the d610 (I am not downing the d610, I would actually like to own one). The dxo mark says the d610 is better at high iso, it just isn't.
> 
> ...


Which is pretty much what I said, best is to actually try the camera you want to buy.
Other peoples experience and test is good to hear but at the end of the day you always know best what is good for you so DXO or Tony or any one else is just one more tool to help me decide what I want, just one more tool.


----------



## lambertpix (Nov 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> ... I have a Nikon camera in the top 20 at DxO Mark. To me, 105th place doesn't cut the mustard.



Yeah, we get it, and we couldn't be happier for you.  Really.



Derrel said:


> I don't want to antagonize Canon owners or the buyers of the 7D-II. It is what it is. 10 frames a second and a zillion AF points are not what I care about. Dynamic range and color richness and resolution are what I care about. Other people will have other priorities, and being locked into one brand or another forces peoples' hand, and often affects the way they see things. There ARE people who'll really like the 10 frames per second and the 1.6x sensor size.



I'm not sure you were ever the target market for this camera, Darrel, and with all due respect, saying "I don't want to antagonize Canon owners..." and then going on to trash it is pretty much equivalent to "I don't want to be *that guy*, but...".  You're using what -- a D3X now?  I sure *hope* that's better than a 7D.  It's a top-of-the-line Pro FF camera.  Kinda slow, true, but still -- it ought to run circles around a camera retailing at less than a quarter of the price.

I can't see the DxO scores right now -- apparently, their web site has been crushed by people tripping over themselves to see their scores, but I'll catch the scores later.  The 7D-II isn't supposed to replace the 1DX or go head-to-head with any FF camera.  It's marketed at sports & wildlife photographers who *aren't* already using the 1DX, and I think it's going to do pretty well there.

I'll be the first to admit that I was hoping the 7D-II would come along and crush the DxO benchmarks, but I guess that didn't happen.  From what I've read (not being able to see the report myself), its base-ISO performance was pretty lackluster, but it did better and better (compared to its competition) as ISO rose.  I'm not sure I see that as the end of the world.  As near as I can see on DPReview's preview (Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review this is about right -- it's not as detailed as the D7100 at base ISO, but the higher the ISO goes, the more competitive it is, and I'm pretty ok with that.

I looked through the Flickr search link you posted, by the way, and I didn't see too many bad photos that weren't bad because of something other than the sensor.  I *did* see a photo of an Eastern Bluebird in flight at ISO 4000 and 1/6400 -- probably out of a burst taken at 10FPS, incidentally, and it looked pretty good.  Now, if I'm an amateur photographer interested in sports or wildlife photography, getting some really good shots at ISO 4000 is pretty exciting, because I have a feeling I'll probably be using something like Tamron's new 150-600 at f/6.3 rather than a Canon 400mm at f/2.8 (which pairs well with a 1DX, I've heard), and the ability to crank the ISO a bit really makes a huge impact for a lens like that.  I really think *that's* the target market for this camera.

On top of that, the sensor is a huge part of a camera's performance, but I think it's important to remember that it's not the end of the story.  How many times have we brought up the concept that equipment is just part of what makes a photographer successful?  All those "great pictures with crappy cameras" threads, right?  An awful lot of the stuff I love about my camera is the stuff that makes it a better tool for helping me get the shot right.  It turns out that AF performance matters.  Ergonomics matter -- a ton.  Big-a$$ buffers matter.  Every once in a while, FPS matters.  I'm really glad to see Canon doing stuff like improving the way Auto-ISO works -- that's something that'll actually make a difference to me.  The camera isn't valuable *just* because of how it performs under laboratory conditions; it's valuable because it helps me get better shots when stuff is moving fast.  All that other stuff, from glass to ergonomics, is there to help me make the most out of whatever sensor I've got.

When the DxO site comes back up, I'll certainly be interested in seeing the color saturation & DR results compared to equivalent sensors, because although portraits and landscapes aren't really the target market for this camera, a lot of people will own this as their only body, and as you pointed out, this stuff matters for sports & wildlife, too.  I saw a couple 7D-II photos where I'd have appreciated a little more feather detail, but as a point of reference, I went and looked at some similar D7100 photos, and the ones I saw that really looked great generally showed Adobe or some other RAW converter in the EXIF, so I'm not going to lose too much sleep over this just yet.  Assuming the DR results are really, really, truly awful, though, I can take some consolation knowing that I could buy a 7D-II *and* a 6D for around the price of a 5D-III, or two of each for the price of a 1DX.

There's one more point where I do agree with you: it's still pretty early.  Here's a comparison I'm waiting to see: real-world results from a couple of amateurs on the sidelines (or stands) of a dimly-lit HS football game with Tam-zookas mounted on a 7D-II and anything else priced under two grand.  I still think that's the real market for this camera.  

This isn't the best camera on the market -- no question about it.  Still, I think it's a pretty good option for a sports / wildlife photographer on an amateur budget.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 6, 2014)

I really didst meant to turn this thread to be so controversial and is sorry it got there.

I wish I could try the 7D II just so I know who is right, I am pretty sure in few days of try I would know exactly what to expect of it myself.
Not to buy it of course but more just to satisfy my own curiosity.

I am glad when Canon makes good cameras, as a Nikon fan that means Nikon will have to work ever harder to come out with even better cameras so the way I see it everybody's happy.


----------



## snerd (Nov 6, 2014)

goodguy said:


> I really didst meant to turn this thread to be so controversial and is sorry it got there.......


Aw, it's the Internet. It's what we do.


----------



## ygb (Nov 7, 2014)

*lambertpix, I thought it was interesting points you had made.*
*As I am looking for a camera I started to think that maybe instead of waiting years trying to save for 5dmk3 I could buy 7dmk2 and start saving for 6d to do some portrait work, then I stumbled onto your post. *
*I found a place online that I can rent the 7dmk2 I can't wait to try it out.*


----------



## TCampbell (Nov 12, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Canon EOS 7D Mark II versus Nikon D750 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
> 
> Uhhhh....look at the the total sensor scores. The 7D-II earns a total score of 70, versus the D7100's 83 overall, or the D750's 93 overall. Click on the measurements sub-tab...the new sensor from Canon shows weak dynamic range, and low color richness.
> 
> ...



I would have predicted DxO would score it low.  But DxO gives you "scores"... not "data" ... and they refuse to tell you how they come up with the "score".  I have an extremely low opinion of DxO's level of competence (I think they suffer from delusions of adequacy.)

But as for color...

I never understood why anybody would attempt to rate a camera based on color considering there is actually no "color" in the world.

Scientifically, color is an illusion created by our brains.  What we really have are wavelengths.  The sensor has a Bayer mask and it counts how much energy it can collect at each point along the mask.  The photo sites on the mask register in straight red, green, and blue (no intermediate colors) and then an algorithm is used to "debayer" the image to render them as "color" pixels which do show intermediate color, saturation, etc.  Further to the point, our eyes are not particular sensitive to blue or red but we are especially sensitive to green.  The cameras are technically equally sensitive across the visible spectrum and even a bit beyond.  The Bayer mask biases green (out of ever 4 photo-sites, 2 are green but only 1 is blue and 1 is red) and even that's not enough of a bias so the filter in front of the sensor trims the blues and reds even a bit more (I always wondered why they don't just let it all through and trim it in software... it just seems like you'd get less noise that way.)

But (and here's my point) all that simply becomes a function of software algorithms... it's not really the sensor.  Once you have the RAW image, you can do anything you want with it.  And, btw, there are a LOT of algorithms for this.  Run the RAW through Canon's software, vs. Photoshop, vs. ... someone else... and you get a different result from each of them because they all read the same data but they all use different algorithms to interpret the data.

So I do understand why people will fuss over ISO performance and noise.  And I understand why people will fuss over dynamic range. But color... not so much.

It is an impressive camera.  You can't deny that.  Everything I read on it that shows off it's images seems to gush on about it's incredible low noise at high ISO settings. In sports photography where shooters are constantly challenged for having enough light and can't afford the fast glass, having that ISO performance is going to be a huge advantage.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 15, 2014)

Wildlife Photographer Adam Jones Takes Canon's 7D Mark II Into the Wild for a Real World Review


----------



## dolina (Nov 17, 2014)

Not a troll post so pls do not interpret it as such.

What do you *not* like about your 7D Mark II?


----------



## goodguy (Nov 17, 2014)

dolina said:


> Not a troll post so pls do not interpret it as such.
> 
> What do you *not* like about your 7D Mark II?


 
I dont like that it doesnt have a Sony sensor and a Nikon badge on it.
Also it is not a cheap camera (even though it does give a lot for the money).


----------



## MarshallG (Nov 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Canon EOS 7D Mark II versus Nikon D750 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
> 
> Uhhhh....look at the the total sensor scores. The 7D-II earns a total score of 70, versus the D7100's 83 overall, or the D750's 93 overall. Click on the measurements sub-tab...the new sensor from Canon shows weak dynamic range, and low color richness.
> 
> ...


I want to see photographs, not scores. DPReview has side-by-side photos, not scores which don't account for the camera's internal noise reduction/sharpening nor do they show us the visible advantages of any product.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 23, 2014)

*Look at the images available on-line*. Weak color, poor dynamic range, not a lot of resolution--but "Low noise! Low noise!" at higher ISO settings.

This is a sensor that is still stuck at the 2009-era level, except the noise is now better by maybe a stop.

This camera represents the best Canon can offer for what this thing is optimized for: a camera designed to shoot FAST, at 10 frames a second, for long bursts, with a new, high-tech focusing system. It is an affordably-priced sports/action/nature camera, aimed at a specific market segment. I think it is a tremendous value proposition for what it is. But it has technical image quality issues that put the technical image quality level of its output well below what full-frame cameras can do. This would be a crappy portrait camera, and a crappy wedding camera, despite the hype their shill spewed in his videos pre-release.

This camera is a tool, for specific applications, specific types of work. Again, look at the images available on-line, and you can see the image quality is not what we've grown used to from cameras with better sensors. But--this thing is designed for SPEED, and focusing, and deep buffer depth--those things are the priorities the 7D-II has been optimized for.


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 23, 2014)

It sure does shoot fast-I played with one in best buy... So fast! I can't comment on any other aspects though.


----------



## centauro74 (Nov 23, 2014)

This is a review with pictures on raw that you can download to play with. Canon 7D Mark II Real World Review | Fro Knows Photo


----------



## Derrel (Nov 23, 2014)

10 frames per second. Deep buffer that will not fill quickly. BRAND-NEW, and ALL cross-type AF system! $1799 price.

Clearly, optimized to be a "speed" camera. Hell, it would be great for a lot of assignments!

But, the sensor area is what? Is it 2.7x smaller in area than an FX sensor?

Why are people even arguing that a smaller 1.6x sensor, made on older sensor fabrication machinery, with older-era sensor fabrication technology, and LACKING the ability to perform on-chip noise reduction, is somehow "equal to" the sensors that Sony, and Toshiba have managed to create? This is laugable. Period.

The Earth is flat, I tell you, flat! *I can SEE* that the Earth's surface is flat!

My Model T is as fast as your Ferrari! Speedometers lie! Stopwatches are B.S.!


----------



## offcamber (Dec 9, 2014)

Let' s be honest. DXO is crap. Their "scores" mean nothing as it applies to photography. I  got caught up in it myself and went and bought a D800. 2 weeks later I sold it and went back to shooting with my 5d Mark III. The differences between these cameras (Nikon, Sony, Canon) is for the most part not visible.

I now have a 7D 2 and a 1DX and I couldnt be happier.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 9, 2014)

offcamber said:


> Let' s be honest. DXO is crap. Their "scores" mean nothing as it applies to photography. I  got caught up in it myself and went and bought a D800. 2 weeks later I sold it and went back to shooting with my 5d Mark III. The differences between these cameras (Nikon, Sony, Canon) is for the most part not visible.
> 
> I now have a 7D 2 and a 1DX and I couldnt be happier.


I completely disagree, DXO marks isn't god's words but it is very helpful if you know how to read into it.
I totally agree that the true difference between Canon and Nikon isn't really big, there are and always be technical advantages to one company till the other company comes out with the next big thing which will sway the advantage yet again, Canon and Nikon fight and we the users/customers are the ones that truly profit from this by getting ever better products, BUT in any case the advantages are very small and not very significant.


----------



## offcamber (Dec 9, 2014)

Honestly, their data is just complete BS. They cannot prove anything they report. Anyone that relies on their info to decide which camera is best is just ignorant. If you give them money, you are even slower. Their data on the 7D2 is so off the mark it's laughable. They give the 1DX a score of 82 and the D810 a 97? I got rid of the D810 for the 1DX and I have to say that the sensor on the D810 is better than the 1DX is a complete joke. Just dumb.



goodguy said:


> offcamber said:
> 
> 
> > Let' s be honest. DXO is crap. Their "scores" mean nothing as it applies to photography. I  got caught up in it myself and went and bought a D800. 2 weeks later I sold it and went back to shooting with my 5d Mark III. The differences between these cameras (Nikon, Sony, Canon) is for the most part not visible.
> ...


----------



## goodguy (Dec 9, 2014)

offcamber said:


> Honestly, their data is just complete BS. They cannot prove anything they report. Anyone that relies on their info to decide which camera is best is just ignorant. If you give them money, you are even slower. Their data on the 7D2 is so off the mark it's laughable. They give the 1DX a score of 82 and the D810 a 97? I got rid of the D810 for the 1DX and I have to say that the sensor on the D810 is better than the 1DX is a complete joke. Just dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not here to defend DXO, dont know what happened with you and your D810, glad you found what made you happy!
I do look at DXO and use it as one reference out of many when I decide what I want to go with, I personally find their info informative and helpful but again this is only one source I use.

Just as a side note, I believe the 1DX is a completely different animal designed to do something completely different then the D810
1DX is a Tiger while the D810 is more of an Elephant.
D810 is more of a studio camera while the 1DX feels at home in a racing course


----------



## dolina (Dec 11, 2014)

Does dXo rating impact your purchasing decision? I largely ignored it as I was more interested if the mark 2 was substantially better than the original.

If you were shopping for a whole new system it would really matter but if you are substantially invested then you either suck it up or switch or go dual system.


----------



## D-B-J (Dec 11, 2014)

I think using one review/rating site to inform your decision is dumb. I do not think DXO marks site is all BS either. Also, the resolving power and Dynamic Range of the D810 is FAR above anything the 1DX can do, and that's a significant reason for the discrepancy in ratings. 

Use every site and video possible to inform your purchases. Go in store and hold it/shoot it. Rent it. Then buy.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 11, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> I think using one review/rating site to inform your decision is dumb. I do not think DXO marks site is all BS either. Also, the resolving power and Dynamic Range of the D810 is FAR above anything the 1DX can do, and that's a significant reason for the discrepancy in ratings.
> 
> Use every site and video possible to inform your purchases. Go in store and hold it/shoot it. Rent it. Then buy.


Hallelujah, you are a smart buyer, as I said when you look at DXO you need to understand a bit what each category means, I am less concern about the total mark but the breakdown of the numbers can reveal a lot of good info on the sensor.
As you said before we buy anything and this is a rule of thumb about everything whether is a TV or a car or a camera collect as much info as you can from as many sources as you can before you pull the trigger and buy.


----------



## mcap1972 (Dec 18, 2014)

It's a nice camera.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 18, 2014)

mcap1972 said:


> It's a nice camera.


Yes it is, it does what its designed to do very nicely!


----------



## mnmcote (Dec 20, 2014)

I had one in my hands last Sunday.. It felt good!!! It is way high up on my WANT list... I really think I was drooling at the store... At least I didn't cry when I left without it...


----------



## goodguy (Dec 20, 2014)

mnmcote said:


> I had one in my hands last Sunday.. It felt good!!! It is way high up on my WANT list... I really think I was drooling at the store... At least I didn't cry when I left without it...


Sounds like a love story waiting to happened


----------

