Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review

I comprehend your scorn, but have enough experience with a multitude of cameras/sensors to factor in the APS-c vs FF difference and the Canon still lagged so badly by comparison I sold and replaced the 70D and 100-400mm w/ a Sony A77II and 70-400G2, cheerfully absorbing the financial blow for the improved IQ. Yes, it's a judgment call, and yes, of course FF typically outperforms APS-C, but I believe the difference I experienced was greater than size alone could ever explain or I wouldn't have tossed my money in the ring...
Wishing you good results with whatever equipment you are using!
Oh, a PS - re. why two bodies? Snakes move fast!

What does this post have to do with a Canon 7D Mk II ?

It's so random that it sounds like one of those people who gets paid a small sum of money to post advertisements about competing products.

If you peruse the thorough DPR analysis, they prominently note the sensor is little changed through the 7D - 70D - 7DII sequence. Having worked hard with the 7D and 70D, I chose to move on rather than continue the struggle with yet another humble Canon sensor.

Ok here i enter this potentially flawed thread.The question I have to ask, is as you say you "Unloaded all your gear",I'm presume you are an experienced Canon user.You possibly have a reasonable Sony Arsenal too, to have "selected" your lens & therefore be experienced with the camera.Having already used both Cameras,you would surely know how rubbish the Canon was before even taking it out? What was the point of having that paperweight hanging around your neck.I know photographers who are still using Nikon D300's & Canon 7Ds & Canon 5D MKiis & One even using a D90 & they all get superb Images.They are not bothered about Pixel peeping or MTF charts,Rubbishing the 70D sensor in the way that you do,makes me suspect that you have never actually taken any Decent Images with either camera.

you folks are pretty tedious, all slipping into ad hominem attacks as the coup de grace of your posts. Yes, the lugging of multiple cameras is work, thank you for pointing that out. REAL wildlife photography IS work, somehow most wildlife doesn't like people - and I've learned my own luck is mostly hard work.

I constructed my own reasonable, and final, head to head comparison and changed gear, as I find the Sony equipment superior in the extended direct comparison. How is that so hard to grasp, or accept as someone else's opinion? Please save the ad hominem attacks for your significant others, or maybe buy a roll of poo-in-a-tin of the ussr2.0 portrait toilet paper (ebay) upon which I suggest you really work out those latent hostilities!

the scoring is still confusing. I have seen similar comments by others on other product review. This shows you that the award and scoring is confusing. Doesn't this reflect that this award systems needs a review itself or DPR internal review process is missing a step called corrective action and improvement process. Something which are practised by most professional organisation.

I think Dale explained it. Percentages are for things that are measurable and awards are for how the staff feels about a product. As an example, a camera could score highly because it has a great sensor and all the bells and whistles. But maybe not get an award because it really sucks to handle and has no "soul" as a camera. Just as an example.

@Vignes I appreciate your concern. We have a very detailed scoring and award process. You can read about it here:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

Canon's continued abuse of the owner base by pushing underperforming legacy sensors comes to mind, actually very, very, quickly. This is a "bells and whistles" tour de force with an oh-so-obviously outmoded sensor. The chain is as strong as its weakest link.

Too bad Gary and Kyle didn't operate the 7DMKII correctly. They seriously need to read the manual on how to use the 65pt AF System when iTR is enabled like that had it. It was completely user error why it failed.

Bought the Sony A77m2 instead for nearly half the price, many more features and better image quality.

Very much appreciated. Steve

lol, you pics are awesome. I like the eagles when they land w/ their talons in full 'im gonna rip whatever i land on's face off' ... lol.

Noiselss, you are skilled and patient! You know how to get the most out of your equipment. Thank you for sharing. - Rick

As a 7D2 user, my advice is spend some time cal checking your lens. most of them were with front focusing issues especially wide angle. I bought a Sigma 18-35 F1.8 spend a lot of time adjusting the AF via the USB dock, swapped for a 2nd copy, still couldn't get the AF right, checked with another 7D2, still the same issue and ended up swapping the lens for Canon 17-55 F2.8. The EFS still needed some adjustment but it was fixed/OK.

You probably already know this, but you can put a different CFA on top of an existing sensor architecture - which we figure is what's going on with the Fuji X-Trans cameras.

Yes, trust us, we know that about DxO... & we wish it weren't so!

I agree with you mpgxsvcd ..

But I guess, it just shows the future potential. Where Canon can improve easily and should improve. This definitely is not an alternative to Panasonic 4k offerings ...

Video and 4K Video is a matter for videographer. Majority who buys this are going to buy this for still shots. the video feature in this camera is like 'by the the way it can do video' feature. I use video feature in my DSLR sometimes and I don't expect it to 'shine'. if serious videographer buys this camera and complains about the video feature (especially 4K) this means the person has made a wrong choice. Yes, you can make a lot of noise about it but Canon is not going give you this. They'll say spend the money on our Cinema EOS. They may offer a new firmware in the near future for 4K thing but this is their business model as of today. Companies like Canon and Sony do consult their pro user base. They would change their business model or they would have gone out of business a long time ago. I have heard this so many times, Canon is not innovating and they'll go out of business but they are still here today.

Man, that is beautiful though.

@xval - spot on, I could not agree more

@xval. Any dslr camera with a Sony sensor will beat film DR (Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji) and probably many other dslrs as well.

Huh? The case you described is the minor case where we said the Canon AF would be better. Not the Nikon.

You've got it completely backward.

Face detection & subject tracking, on the other hand, is useful to many more cases in photography, and that's where the Nikon system excels, which is why we indicated it was generally superior for a broader set of use-cases. Babies, kids, pets, weddings, the list goes on of types of photography that benefit from proper subject detection & tracking.

And lest you think we're biased, it's not just the Nikon. The 1D X also does it. As does every mirrorless camera these days, save for Fuji. Not that mirrorless cameras are good at actually focusing as fast, and predictively tracking, as traditional PDAF systems (though cameras like the a6000/5100 show are catching up in this regard). That makes the 5D3 (& most Canon DSLRs) one of the few cameras left lacking the ability to understand - and track - subjects properly.

"Looks like this case wasn't even tested"? What? You even check out all our videos & rollovers on the AF system? Specifically, the one showing the D750 failing on the vertical line due to its lack of a cross-type sensor there? You note we called that out? You note we listed it as a con & mentioned it several times?

As for non-cross-type points requiring subjects only with 'sharp horizontal lines... in real life... there are plenty of horizontal lines, as we all know' -- perhaps you misunderstand how horizontal line detect phase sensors actually work. They don't explicitly need only horizontal lines. In case you missed it, when we turned up the light, the non-cross-type points focused even on the vertical lines just fine. Why? B/c in the real world, most things we focus on have detail that has some projection along a horizontal vector.

...

And to finish this topic on positive note:

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/22/nikon-d750-owners-reporting-dark-band-problem-shows-lens-flares/

Gary's testing methodology is essentially the same as what we did for our performance test in the review. We made an audio recording of a 7D II firing shots at its maximum shutter speed, then opened the recording in a video NLE (he used Premiere, we used Final Cut) to count the number of shutter actuations per second.

He seems to be doing the counting based on how many times he hears the shutter sound, though you can actually go one step further and expand the audio track in Premiere to see the audio waveforms (which is what we did in Final Cut). That allows you to both see and hear the exact timing of every shutter actuation and it makes counting them really easy.

In principle, I agree with his methodology, however we got different results. We reproduced the test multiple times and the results were very consistent. While there was some extremely minor variation test to test (i.e. so small that a human would never notice), they averaged out to 10 fps.

We did note on page 10 of the review that iTR could slow down the AF system, which by extension could slow down the maximum shooting speed. However, I'm not sure there's a consistent way to test how much it slows things down. There's probably a lot of processing going on when iTR is engaged, so its effect on the speed of the AF system may depend on how simple or complex a given scene happens to be and how much work the camera needs to do to track a given subject.

Hi Dale! I had EOSitr turned off for that test. Today I did get the EOS7DM2 to hit 10fps - but here's what I had to do to get it. 1) take the lens off. 2) turn the camera on to M mode, 1/1000 sec and 3) leave the lens cap off. Once I did that, I got a dependable 10fps. Once I stuck the lens on, turned on tracking and autofocus, it was back down to less than 7fps.

Hi Gary! Thanks for jumping in on the discussion. We did our test with iTR off, but I definitely had a lens on the camera. (I don't have my notes in front of me, but I think it was a 24 f/1.4.)

I'm going to run our test again under a variety of conditions to see if I can replicate what you're finding. I'll post back if I find anything interesting.

What's the point of testing the camera with the lens removed? That's utterly impractical.

To get 10 fps: Turn iTR off, use AI-SERVO, shutter speed 1/1000 or higher, shoot in bright conditions (not in the dark). It's not rocket science. There are a few other settings that will deteriorate frame rate, such as High ISO Noise Reduction.

PS - Lots of 7Dii users told Gary Fong how to set his camera properly, but he'd rather ignore them and run useless tests such as removing the lens. He can't get it through his head: The camera needs light in order to shoot at a high frame rate, same as the 7D.

at the end of the day, iq is paramount, in my op/
if it lacks in that respect, the rest becomes more arbitrary in some ways, all the bells and whistles can never make up for a poorly performing sensor/just my opinion/though as you say, all depends on how much you pay and compared to what.

I do not have a 7DII, but I do have a 70D, (plus 5D3, 5D classic, T4i, and had another 10 Canon bodies in the past.)
The 7DII's IQ is a probably a tiny bit above the 70D, which I find good. I shoot mostly wildlife and some architecture with my 70D (while I shoot weddings, portraits, events, etc. with my FF cameras.)
Even though the 7DII sensor is a bit behind some of the APS-C competition, it is so mostly at low ISOs, where the vast majority of the 7DII's target audience shoots very little. Sports, action, and wildlife photographers mostly shoot at higher ISO's where the other APS-C sensor don't have a huge advantage; they still do in tests, no doubt, but from a practical perspective it's pretty much a wash (at say ISO 1600).
The thing is IQ - in the real world where the 7DII shoots - is a combination of several factors, the whole system contributes to IQ. FPS, AF, ergonomics, lens used, even weather proofing plays a role whether you can get the shot or not.
continued...

... continued
What good is the great IQ of a D7100 if you run out of buffer when the receiver makes the catch? Or can't track as well as a 70D (see MichaelTheMentor's Youtube comparision after shooting about 1000 images).
The bottom line is you need the whole system to perform well and reliably to get the shots. What shot? Canon created this camera for wildlife and sports shooters. So features that many people - shooters of other genres - may find gimmicky or unnecessary, might actually be of great importance of sports of wildlife shooters, e.g. fluorescent flicker filtering, super advanced AF, 10 fps.
The 7DII is no different than most cameras out there. Just like cars for instance, most cameras are actually oriented towards a certain group of photographers. The 7DII is no difference, it's actually a prime example of this "orientation".
continued...

...continued
If a sports/wildlife shooter has a tight budget and needs a fast, rugged body, he may skip great D810, or 5D3 or even the 1DX. For one reason or another, these will most likely be crossed off his list. He wants to find the best possible solution to get the shot within his budget. Sure, the D810 IQ is awesome, BUT can he get away with 5 fps? Not likely.
So I believe that as a 'whole system', the 7DII offers a lot at a very attractive price, while still providing a very good APS-C IQ in the ISO range where most of the target audience will use it.
Again, there is no perfect camera. How could there be? A million photographers have a million and 1 different needs :) Everything is a compromise. Even the new D750 has some limitations (1/4000 SS plus the lack of outside cross-type AF points.) So it's a compromise, that's why everybody has to completely understand how he can get the best system that suits his needs even if the components of this system may not be perfect.

You can always add wifi with external SD card that feature wifi Chip, as EyeFi, Toshiba, etc. I use the 32Gb toshiba and works perfectly.

Well I agree, But if that is your priority over other features then get another camera with WiFi.

@Peet: you are not alone. I have read it a couple of times, too. DPR staff cannot get this, it seems - some people (like me) NEVER accused them (until now) that they are clearly biased towards brand X or Y. However, my problem with them is this: 7D II is not quite a "second hand" camera - in the general lanscape of 2014 APS-C cameras. Not at all. This is surely not valid for all Canon cameras (same was true for 5D III, that was and is a great camera, but the D750 is the new king of the versatile FF DSLR hill now, overall, and I have no issue with that, period.)

accusations of bias might be new to you, as a Canon fan, but having been here for a decade I can assure you they are not new to me. We've been accused of being biased against - and for - every brand out there. Plus ça change.

^ i can imagine, by half the comments on here, you would think that many posters were paid by the companies they constantly speak of and defend/
there seems to be serial offenders too lol/

I agree with you Peet, it reminds me the 5D mark III and D800. For videos, People should watch real reviews from real field expert...Like Philip Bloom or Vincent laforet. I always gonna remember this one http://vimeo.com/42065372 people should realise that Nikon is far to be in the game for videographers..

@Simon: I am a Canon user, not a Canon fan. Canon does many dumb things (not just product wise, but market wise as well, in my opinion). And, I will say it for the last time: 7D II is not among those things. Regarding reviews: "L'Enfer, c'est les autres..." (Sartre)

There is a great deal of info posted about DXOMark's testing methods. On the main page, look in the ABOUT tab.

DPR uses ACR, which applies different raw processing, depending on manufacturer. Then of course there are manufacturers who manipulate ISO numbers to make them look better when compared by ISO, like DPR does in its Image Comparator.

DXOMark is the only source for true raw sensor measurements.

Here's why DXOMark's raw measurements are the only credible source on the net:
"Pre-cooked" RAW?
"Certain manufacturers embed a small part of the processing directly in the sensor, which means that some degree of processing occurs before the RAW image is sent to the RAW converter. In this case, measurements for these "pre-cooked" RAW images can be biased by this processing.

To avoid any potential impact on our measurements, DxOMark always tests all cameras to detect any pre-processing of RAW images. A processed or pre-cooked RAW image has different characteristics from a genuinely unprocessed image. To some extent, these characteristics enable us to walk back the processing and reconstruct the original image to perform unbiased measurements, and we always inform the user about models with embedded pre-processing."
http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measuring-sensors-using-RAW-and-testing-lenses-on-cameras

@audiobomber - There is plenty proof that they do not a single thing to detect pre-processing of the RAW, else they would have cried cassandra about the lossy compression scheme in almost all Sony cameras, the black value clipping of the Nikon sensors... Sorry, that's a big fail on DxO side...

DXOMarks noise measure is based on resolution level. Not grain level. The D800 scores in noise better than the 5DIII yet the canon's files are a lot cleaner at high iso. I do not like the way DXO makes the evaluation because is not a qualitative measure of the image but a quantitative measure of the resolution, which only say part of the story. Based on DXO higher resolution will likely score better in general, which is really not true.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Sony-A6000-versus-Nikon-D7100___977_942_865

I wouldn't rely on a single, baked down number. DxO provide a lot of detailed information, if you take the time to look for it:

Click on the Measurements tab, then select the Dynamic range tab below it. The graph shows that at base ISO up to ~ISO 400, the a6000 and the D7100 have quite a bit more dynamic range than the 7DII. However, starting from ~ISO 800 or so, there is very little difference between them. By ~ISO 3200, the sensors' performances are nearly identical.

My takeaway:

If you're shooting a lot of portraits and landscapes at lower ISOs, the Sony and the Nikon are probably better choices for you.

If you're a birder or sports shooter who does a lot of shooting at ISO 800 and above, the 7DII's autofocus, frame rate and buffer size make it the obvious choice.

If you're in between those two, well, it's hard to go wrong with any of them. ;-)

Tony Northrop (surely no Canon fanboy) explains here in detail why DxO's scoring system does not give any useful idea about the real world performance of a camera such as the 7D2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw

The 7D2 is made for sports and wildlife photographers using supertele lenses and often shooting action, and high ISO performance is what really matters then - plus a very good AF system, because if you miss a great moment that never comes back no extraordinary DR performance will compensate you.

So, overall, the 7D2 mostly meets what one can expect from such a camera. There are a few downsides, of course, touchscreen is lacking and video is a bit disappointing looking at the competition.

I agree with you about quality, the SLT is a full frame camera, and i know that de 7d mark II is not perfect in video mode, but the video mode is getting better not worst than the original 7D... Canon has brought several improvements and tools for the videographer it seems that this review is not considering this at all...

How can they give such a low rating for the video mode when the camera goes beyond multiple camera in video mode. For me this is just not reprentative and incomprehensible.

They wrote it represents an incremental jump from the 7D and is fairly similar to the 5D III, and tends to be soft. But still better than the original 7D... and they gave a much lower score compare to the original 7D.

The 7d was class leading at the time.
The 7d mk2 might be improved but nowhere near how much the competition has improved in those 5 years.

Thanks Dale, i appreciate i just don't agree about 2 scores : Meitering & Focus Accuray and Movie / Video Mode... Dual Pixel CMOS AF with phase-difference detection AF, is a milestone in AF speed and accuracy. It's advanced technology that competition just doesn't offer in dslr. I am also disappointed that you take down a score just because this cam does not come with a flip screen, this cam is well know to be very Rigid cam. Pro videographer will never use a flip screen especially outside in rain or sun condition, they will use a viewfinder with Magnigication to be sure to be accurate and focus. It looks like you rate this camera based for the amateur market, it is not at all the case. This camera is a beast that can shoot in any conditions and you do not consider that in your rating. As a videographer I have nothing to do with a flip screen, 0 niet.

7D sorry

They are not testing against moving subjects, they are testing (incompetently) against stationary subjects where they recompose - and expect the camera to stay on the chosen target. This whole contrived test is a shambles...

1. It's not a test it's an illustration of our findings in the field
2. Have you ever photographed people using a very wide aperture? They tend to move, making it challenging to nail the focus on the eye. This is no different to the illustration we used.
3. Other cameras such as the nikon d750 and canon's own 1dx do this a lot better. Not all challenging AF situations involve flying birds or sports... Ask any wedding photographer, or anyone photographing young kids.

At least in the current writeup you didn't mention which case you were using or if you customized it (because your abuse of the system as focusing/recompose crutch requires other behaviour than tracking a moving sports car or a track runner or any number of wildlife) - and since the focusing points are bigger (relative to the frame) to expect the same small area focusing ability on the 7DII as a full frame is a fallacy to begin with. I would have expected far more diligence from you as a reviewers...

i'm sorry i really don't understand what you are trying to say or how exactly we are abusing a system that's supposed to be able to deal with exactly this kind of situation. What exactly is the difference to a tracking / scene recognition system between a moving subject and static camera and a static subject with a moving camera?

The system is geared to predict subject movement, this has different patterns than a photographer moving the camera to achieve a specific composition. Probably the better the movement prediction for sports and wildlife subjects is the less successful it will be for the recomposition task.

Simply try to think what the system is geared to do. It is supposed to support the photographer who picks up a subject and then tracks it - this means the photographer tries to keep the subject at a certain position within the frame. Your use case breaks that very fundamental premise built into the system - I am a software engineer and that premise would be highest priority one, even higher than any feedback from the metering sensor. I also would expect the photographer try and regain the composition whenever that premise isn't matched. Looking how the 7DII performs the tracking I would say the Canon engineers have done just what I suggested.

Did you even try different cases or customizing it?

according to Canon: 'The EOS 7D Mark II's iTR AF focusing system uses colour and face information to recognise and track subjects as they move around the frame'. And yes, the reviewers tested this system side by side with the 1DX and other cameras in a wide variety of shooting situations. We will be publishing more soon. Our comments are about iTR, not predictive AF.

You can't uncouple iTR and tracking (I am not talking about predictive AF) - I am talking about the prediction of any subject movement, the algorithm needs to make certain assumptions on the subject to be able to assist the photographer (and not work against him). Any sports photographer (for whom the iTR tracking has been primarily created) will do his utmost to get a pleasing composition and will do that by moving his frame along with the subject as it moves. So the primary premise of the focus has to be that the photographer will do his best to keep the composition - and that premise is reflected in the way the iTR adjusts focusing! If the system is not do assume this you need to relax that constraint by choosing the correct case (or customizing the case to do so). You still dodge the issue of customization.
You seem to be unable to understand that the behaviour you want is pretty much unwanted in all the scenarios for which iTR was created...

I didn't say you could uncouple them - iTR is tracking (that's what the T stands for). Canon does not claim iTR predicts movement but that it uses scene analysis to follow a subject as it moves around in the frame (and is tailored for colors and faces). iTR is about which focus point is used, nothing else. Look at canon's own example here http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slrcameras/eos7dmarkii#Features - it's a dancer moving around the frame. iTR is pointless if you do manage to keep the subject exactly in the same position in the frame thanks to your ninja panning skills. The whole point is that as the subject moves around the frame the camera can keep track of where the point you originally focused on is. And the 1DX does it a lot better. As does the D750. A question for you: the Nikon D750 has way fewer (customization) options for its 3D tracking than the 7D2. Does that make the 7D2 better?

Simon, why do you answer by a query... is it better? How do we know D750 is better? He is just explaining about a tool usage. If the tool is complex for anybody than state it in your review. 7D2 AF is complex and frustrating in the beginning but I'm learning to appreciate it. I have to adjust to. I don't think this is a camera for all. If someone wants a good Canon APC-S DSLR with ease of use, the 70D would be a better choice or else there are other brands to choose.

Well we do know that the Nikon system works better (incidentally so does the 1DX) and you don't have to 'customize' it according to subject matter. We've been testing these systems extensively for a couple of months. Side by side. From low light portraits to high speed sports. The 7DII has an amazing AF system, but iTR is first generation, whereas Nikon has been doing 3D focus tracking for quite some time. As with all these things, we're talking pretty small differences, and taken as a whole these are all amazing photographic tools with slightly different balance of strengths and weaknesses. Brand fans might not want to hear it, but no manufacturer gets everything right.

You can lead a horse to water...

I'm curious if dpreview is going to downgrade ANY camera in this field of semi-pro cameras that can't AI servo moving objects up to the level of a 1 series or a Dx series camera body from Nikon now.

Enough of this poor sensor nonsense. It does just fine for what is designed for, future improvements in sensor tech are going to be small anyway unless we have breakthroughs. In mid-high iso range, which is what people will use this camera for anyway, is just as good as any other. People keeping on beating this dead horse have nothing to do or write. Just feeling good about bashin'

My post was actually tongue-in-cheek for those who didn't get the irony. I figured with all the fawning DPR did over the D7000 that it would have easily achieved a Gold rating -- or at the very least a higher percentage vs. the 7D2.

When confused between Canon or Nikon.. buy Sony. :) Sony sensor with FPS and buffer of the Canon and only $899 ;)

when confused over a camera, go seek help like a doctor or psy