WestcoastHD wrote:
Thank you for the tables. If we put DR aside and look at noise at a given ISO, say ISO 6400, how would the new 7Dm2 compare to the 7D classic or 5Dm2.
It's a little hard to be sure what to make of it, since IR seems to change lenses and lighting too much, things needs to be kept constant, but FWIW, in that comparison the 7D2 certainly looks clearly nicer than the 7D at high ISO.
It's a little hard to be sure what to make of it, since IR seems to change lenses and lighting too much, things needs to be kept constant, but FWIW, in that comparison the 7D2 certainly looks clearly nicer than the 7D at high ISO.
The gap at ISO 6400 between the 7D II and 7D is enormous and is even noticeable at ISO 1600. Also the WB looks better on 7D II.
EB-1 wrote:
How much better is it at ISO 1600 than the 70D, 1/3 stop?
EBH
The DXO page shows 9.02 in 7Dc (classic) vs 9.75 in 7D2. But to be taken with caution (note that we are not truly comparing apples to apples, the test setup is different, and there are other factors, e.g. the true ISO setting used by the manufacturer).
WestcoastHD wrote:
Do you have the original 7D results or is the 7Dc the original 7D, I would like to see and understand the delta between the two.
I have not tested the 7Dc in the same way, I just compared my 7D2 results with DXO data from 7Dc. I realize that this is not safe since they are different cameras. But this yields comparable results for similar cameras (e.g. my 6D gets 11.4 at ISO 100 in DXO, and this is just the same result I get applying my own test).
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for posting your findings.
Although, the 7D II is the successor of the 7D, it is really a 70D variant. (At least regarding the sensor)
It would be interesting to see your DR analyses comparing these 2 cameras.
It seems that they are in line with 7D2 (0.12-0.18 EV). A bit better in 7D2, but so near that we can't conclude the cause (either test accuracy, ISO tuning, camera sample variation or better electronics). I didn't found a iSO 6400 CR2 in their samples. If somebody posts a link (better a overexposed pic) I quickly can run the test on it.
I'll open source the tool I'm writing to speedup and simplify these tests (it happened that 7D2 raws got in my hands just when I was getting the first results from it, and I took the opportunity to do something useful). However, at this development stage, it is a pain to perform still rather manual tasks (e.g. determine the usable masked pixels coordinates with a photo editor). Fortunately, the 3 cameras I mainly have tested (6D/7D2 and now 70D) all have exactly the same RAW layout :-)
mmurph wrote:
To ask the above from EB-1 in a different way: Can you estimate the DxO ISO/Speed rating from your DR Data?
Thanks!
I'm not very educated about DxO ratings and not like most of them at all. Some ratings perhaps exists for marketing reasons, and the underlaying meaning could not be useful for everybody. But it is interesting the true data they publish. While anybody can measure DR, and even SNR (taking several pictures with proper exposures) DxO also measures true ISO sensitivity, color performance, etc. using calibrated equipment.
skibum5 wrote:
Not known yet. That's much harder to test from random files like this. May have to wait for DxO for that.
DR is trivial to test with files like this. SNR at mid-tone, not so much.
All I can say is it seems like it at least has a pleasing 'grain' structure at high ISO.
The quality of noise improved a lot from 5D2 to 5D3 and 6D. So yes, we should expect no less in the new crop generation. It is amazing how much Canon can squeeze out of their mature proven tech...
The difference between 5d2 and 5d3 is...2/3 stop at high ISO, maybe another 1/3-2/3 stop from the 6D. They're still (probably intentionally) behind the 1dx.
form wrote:
The difference between 5d2 and 5d3 is...2/3 stop at high ISO, maybe another 1/3-2/3 stop from the 6D. They're still (probably intentionally) behind the 1dx.
I'd say, in use, I get more than a stop difference between the 5d2 and 5d3, and the 3 will take more pushing too so it may be even more of a difference.
form wrote:
If this camera means anything for upcoming cameras, then it's possible they will still be using the same sensor tech with inferior low ISO dynamic range in the next generation of full frame. That makes me think it's time to seriously consider re-entering Nikonland.
It seems that they are in line with 7D2 (0.12-0.18 EV). A bit better in 7D2, but so near that we can't conclude the cause (either test accuracy, ISO tuning, camera sample variation or better electronics). I didn't found a iSO 6400 CR2 in their samples. If somebody posts a link (better a overexposed pic) I quickly can run the test on it.
I'll open source the tool I'm writing to speedup and simplify these tests (it happened that 7D2 raws got in my hands just when I was getting the first results from it, and I took the opportunity to do something useful). However, at this development stage, it is a pain to perform still rather manual tasks (e.g. determine the usable masked pixels coordinates with a photo editor). Fortunately, the 3 cameras I mainly have tested (6D/7D2 and now 70D) all have exactly the same RAW layout :-) ...Show more →
An open source tool would be great!
This goes in line with the early samples we are seeing. The new camera' sensor is improved from its predecessor and just as good as the 70D.
I've gone over to visit Nikon twice, missed canon lenses the first time and the second I sold because an update was coming out soon that would drop the used price of my camera too much more.
The D750 is very appealing to me. I just wish it had 1/8000 and a pc sync port. Otherwise it's probably the camera I've been hoping Canon would come out with for years: Great low ISO dynamic range and great high ISO performance plus the best available focus system and ~20+mp. That covers just about every base for me.
1. Canon's latest sensor tech is shown in lower end cameras below the 5d3, 1dx, etc. That is their latest mainstreamed tech, what's in the 7d II.
2. The latest sensor tech does not significantly improve dynamic range at low ISOs.
3. The primary improvement to the latest sensor tech is a duel pixel focus system enhancer for live view.
From this I draw the (IMO plausible) impression that they are more interested in enhancing live view focus than with other things. From that I can get the idea that low ISO dynamic range is not something they are as worried about as other things (like live view focus). From their statements of solid sales in these camera sectors, I can get the idea that they feel generally comfortable with how their products are selling in the market. If the products are marketing well, they will probably be more inclined to stay the course. That course seems to be paying little attention to low ISO dynamic range.
Stay the course, it's working financially. That matters more than delivering what a niche few "complainers" voice their desires to have, while the vast majority continue to denounce the complainers while silently some of them wish for the exact same improvements (and will laud Canon for bringing those improvements home if it ever happens).
1. Canon's latest sensor tech is shown in lower end cameras below the 5d3, 1dx, etc. That is their latest mainstreamed tech, what's in the 7d II.
2. The latest sensor tech does not significantly improve dynamic range at low ISOs.
3. The primary improvement to the latest sensor tech is a duel pixel focus system enhancer for live view.
From this I draw the (IMO plausible) impression that they are more interested in enhancing live view focus than with other things. From that I can get the idea that low ISO dynamic range is not something they are as worried about as other things (like live view focus). From their statements of solid sales in these camera sectors, I can get the idea that they feel generally comfortable with how their products are selling in the market. If the products are marketing well, they will probably be more inclined to stay the course. That course seems to be paying little attention to low ISO dynamic range.
Stay the course, it's working financially. That matters more than delivering what a niche few "complainers" voice their desires to have, while the vast majority continue to denounce the complainers while silently some of them wish for the exact same improvements (and will laud Canon for bringing those improvements home if it ever happens).
1. Complainers
2. Complainers about the complainers
3. Coveters silently complaining
4. Complainers about those so perplexed that no equipment will ever make them happy (a subset of #2 I suppose but worth noting separately)
5. Those happy taking photos with their current gear, have fun talking about it with others on the forum, ready to purchase/use new gear from time to time as desired for continued enjoyment.
form wrote:
From that I can get the idea that low ISO dynamic range is not something they are as worried about as other things (like live view focus). From their statements of solid sales in these camera sectors, I can get the idea that they feel generally comfortable with how their products are selling in the market. If the products are marketing well, they will probably be more inclined to stay the course. That course seems to be paying little attention to low ISO dynamic range.
I would rather have Canon work on high ISO performance than low ISO performance. I don't shoot a lot at low ISO, but when I do the dynamic range seems to be good. No doubt that more dynamic range would be welcome, but it doesn't seem like a significant limitation to me. It all depends on what one photographs.
I think high ISO is pretty good. There don't seem to be too many lighting situations that are that interesting that justifies/needs greater than a very good ISO25600 with f/1.4 primes. Although we could go farther to get faster shutter speeds, it seems very adequate for most purposes.
To me, low ISO dynamic range seems more important because it's something that anyone can derive benefit from if they ever work in high contrast environments, e.g. landscapes or anything outdoors. It's not really an extreme or rare situation, it's mostly like having the ability to retain daytime skies and people in the shadows in a single image, or retaining some detail in subjects that would be either completely blown-out or completely unrecoverable from the darkness.
