People should worry less about technology and just do their best to improve as photographers/visual artists. At this level - its not the cameras limitations that will hold you back....it'll be your creative flair, technique and ability to edit. My advice is to buy whatever you can afford and get on with it.
I had a canon rebel xti. Used it for many years. It's a nice camera. Then I wanted something better. So I got a canon 7d. Great camera. Then I wanted a full frame camera. Got a canon 5d mkii. Nice camera. But after getting it. I realized my 7d was still an awesome camera. Today I picked up my old rebel xti and took a few shots. And realized. After learning more and more about photography. My first digital camera really took some nice photos still. So you really need to get what you can afford and use it well. Learn it well. Learn all the functions of the camera. And take many photos. You dont need the newest stuff. Use what you have!
I got a 7D MK2 recently. I have no idea what any of you are complaining about. I have no complaints with function or image quality. Maybe I would if I was making wall size prints, but I''m not. The frame rate and quality high ISO images made me a believer in short order. For the record, I have progressed from a 20D-40D-7D and 70D. Shoot with one and I'll bet 99% of you won't really care what DxOMark found.
As always, great video Tony! I'm tired of watching "experts" give gear advice based on specs when they haven't even held the camera! It's refreshing to have a successful pro give his unbiased opinion like you!
(I just found your channel a few weeks ago and am going back looking at older videos.) I shoot high school sports, primarily gymnastics. For the last 3 years I've been shooting with a 7d MKII. Prior to that I was using the original 7D, which I still carry for backup. I have never even once had a parent come up to me and say "Your camera sucks, and DXO Mark says so!" or "We don't like the dynamic range of your photos!" I have had numerous parents come up to me in gymnastics and tell me "We never had decent action photos of our daughter until she got to high school and you started photographing her!" I rent and try new cameras that come out if I think they might do better for my needs and photography. I have yet to find a camera, any brand, that will top a 7D MKII for sports. I'll give up my 7D MKII when they pry it from my cold dead fingers...at least until Canon comes out with the 7D MKIII :)
I saw the 7D mkll at Photoplus. When people ask about if one cam us better than the other, how you use it really determines your decision. My first book was shot with an early Digital Rebel. My second was with a 60D. My 3rd will be with the 7D mk II. My reason was to increase efficiency. Most if my books have 400 pics and as you know to pick 400 may require you to shoot 3000 just to get the shot that the reader relates too. The video options are pretty good as well.
This is the reason we watch Tony & Chelsea. You can get the nitty gritty information that may not be super easy to find or understand if you do find it.
honestly ISO is all I care about .. 90 percent of the time when I edit event photos the noise is the one problem I spend most of the time dealing with. I own the 7D Mark II and there is nothing like it at all. The frame rate speeds .. The ridiculously powerful focus system. The camera is a beast. I would choose it over the 6D any day and it is priced accordingly anyhow.
Thank you for your reviews on the 7d Mark II. I appreciate your opinions because they appear objective and is backed up with numbers. What I appreciated most was the speed at which you completed this video to address the mistakes in the previous day's review.
Nikon is currently beating canon in low light performance, dynamic range, focusing systems, battery performance and much more. Sony has also showed up to kick their ass. Some pros still use canon simply because they are invested in the lenses.
@@EdmontonRails Who produces the sensor for Nikon? Sony. Canon glass will ALWAYS kick any Nikkor lenses ass. Admittedly Nikon makes a great body, but let's see what they can do making their own sensors, starting from scratch, without any input or use of Sony or Fuji technology. I shoot Canon, why? Because Nikon can't make superior lenses. Sensors aren't the whole system, and the difference is truly minimal. And the AF between the two is even less of an issue, the top 4 bodies from Canon can do anything the top 4 Nikons can.The glass is where it's at.
Still a great camera in 2022!!! I just bought one with only a 7,000 count on the shutter. It was a Black Friday special at a camera shop here in South Africa. Who knows....? My wife may even call me Santa... ha ha!
The GH4 and EM-1 sensor are not BSI, however you are correct that the NX1 sensor is BSI. I too am looking forward to NX1 reviews. Hopefully you guys will be able to get a hold of one for review.
Tony, well said on "Image isn't everything, its just the easiest thing to test". As such, to keep up with what you have invested, maximize its use and strip off the gear acquisition syndrome. However, to know the technicalities, which I appreciate how you and Chelsea deliver, provides your audience a learning experience. Thank you.
Great video. Thank you for taking the time to explain the details associated to the Dxo testing. It was very interesting in hearing the weighting associated with each of the metrics which might cause a mis understanding regarding overall sensor performance. I'll have to find / determine the algorithm that Dxo uses to calculate the overall sensor #
Hi Tony, I have a Pentax K5-2, ISO performance on DXO... Its a similar size sensor.. I'm not into the numbers, its all about the results. I'm happy with mine and I'm sure most cameras of this level produce fantastic results. I think that the 7d mk2 is all about refinement of a tool, not a leap in imaging ( were already there ). Good videos pal, keep them up.
Thanks for looping back to the tests Tony! Makes a lot more sense now. I do agree with you that for Wildlife this would make a great match to that 400 5.6, but I think the A77 II is one to keep an eye on and with some of the older Minolta glass may just keep up with the Canon. One plus with Sony is you have auto IS on all those old lenses!
Thanks for the "Real World" comparison & review, I just purchased the 7D Mark II and was becoming regretful after reading a few reviews. I've regained my confidence in my decision to purchase the 7D Mark II after viewing this video. Thanks Again!
I agree with Tony, In real usage, Color depth is not distinguishable by our eyes, The level of current color depth is way beyond our eyes limit. Only the ISO noise and Dynamic Range are relevant, especially for the purpose of sport photography. Nothing is better than 7D mark II ability in tracking the subject under $2k. That is the main point of 7D class
rondhole Thanks! I had several people violently disagree about color depth, and I asked them to send me a sample picture showing how you could see the difference in color depth... Also put out a challenge on Twitter. So far, nothing, no examples.
***** Because D600 cannot replace what 7D2 does but may be 6D. It is just different class and purpose. You cannot find anything from Nikon that has 7D2 characteristic. D7100 does not have the same level of weather sealing and toughness, nor burst rate and buffer. Besides 10% more image quality for still photo, there is no advantage of Nikon system in sport and wildlife APS-C. It is not about still picture and pixel peeping. It is all about capturing the moment, responsiveness, and dead on autofocus that 7D Class offers. If you cannot get the moment and focus, it does not matter what your sensor is. No matter what, Canon still leads the sport and wildlife APS-C camera sale for that reason, not pixel peeping.
Hi Tony, great stuff ! Very interesting, even for someone who has no intention to buy a 7DII in the near future. What i would like to comment on though, is that your audio deserves to be upgraded. The presentation is outstanding, the content is brilliant but the audio is definitely, and consistently, not at the same level. Thx !
Dear Mr. Northrup, I enjoy watching your RUclips videos and want to thank you for sharing them. They are nicely produced and contents are highly educational.
Correct me if I am wrong. But isn't dynamic range much more than just the ability of bringing up shadows or removing blown highlights? It's the total spectrum of light at the same time the sensor can resolve without blowing up.
People really need to stop looking at the overall score on the DxOMark page, colour depth, dynamic range and ISO performance are much more important and says a lot more about the cameras performance.
***** Agreed! I'd prefer DxOMark simply stopped posting their overall score; it's subjective and not applicable to many photographers. We really only care about two numbers nowadays: dynamic range and ISO.
People just have to be smart enough that DXO only rate the sensor performance and the score doesn't reflect the camera as a whole. I believe their numbers better than seat of the pants feeling. Canon is still using their old technology and I doubt very much this is a miracle sensor. People only believe DXO when it's to their advantage and backup what they say. I hope Tony when you say "We" you mean Chelsea and yourself. I was hopeful that Canon did something great but they still take advantage of the people heavily invested. Now if their technology would be as good as their marketing, they would have great cameras. I guess you can only force crap down someone's throat so many times before they realize but some will just keep on taking it.
Agree, I don't think the system is weighed properly. ISO handling is so much more important than color depth. And, hell, if you're shooting properly, you shouldn't need much of that extra dynamic range anyways, really. However, when you Nikon D300 and can't shoot over ISO 200 without getting noticable noise, that's a problem.
For the Sony A77-II, you could use the Minolta AF APO HIGH SPEED 400 mm F/4.5 G, which can be have for around $2000 on ebay, or if you want to go cheaper, the Minolta AF 300mm F/4 High Speed (HS) APO G, which sells for around $1000 on ebay. I think both these lenses give you equal quality compared to the Canon EF 400 mm F/5.6 L USM, and have a larger aperture. So there is an alternative for this Canon lens with the Sony A-mount. I realize you can only get it second hand, which some people do not like.
I hardly use my Nikon and formerly Canon anymore-I am fed up with lugging heavy kit around. I use Panasonic; superb super sharp lenses and they have the association with Leica (world's best optics?) plus I can use Olympus Zuicko lenses which are also great. All I know is, I love the quality coming straight out out my G6 camera.
Tony Northrup Can you please tell me the name of this song and where I can purchase it? I MUST HAVE IT ! Its just the perfect tune. Great review, thank you for your honest opinion. Honestly, I have a Canon 550D for 7 years now that needs recent tech into it and the 7D mkII just may be the upgrade I need. On a side note, I've heard numerous complains saying how the video sucks and no flip screen and BLAH BLAH. Everyone forgets that these are intended for pictures and video is just an added bonus. If you want video, just go to the GH4, Blackmagic, or C100 and above. To be completely fair, if you're here as a filmmaker, the camera should be the last thing on your list. Story, lighting, audio should be first. You could make the best film on a cheap camera.
I use a 7dii, and a 60d as backup, and even my 30d as backupbackup. I just don't see any difference between all three when I use plenty of light from a flashgun. For me it's all about handling and ease of use. And great AF.
That is what I call a deep analysis. It is great to see someone actually knowing what he's talking about. I share the same opinion, considering the sensor efficiency, the new 5D mark IV everybody talks about, will probably have the same performance as the D810. Which is a big step in, preventing people from switching brands.
The color depth gets more important if you make aggresive post processing. I think cameras with better color depth have better highlight rolloff but that's merely a hypothesis.
Wow, lots of negativity. Just want to share after my first full day of shooting with 7D Mark II. I owned 70D for about a month before exchanging for 7DMII. The 70 D gave soft focus way too often. I was hoping the 7DMII would give crisper images, and it did not disappoint! After importing into images I immediately noticed a much higher 'hit rate' of images with spot on focus. I quickly identified 34 photos that were stunning without any post processing (immediately rated 5 stars). I will still do some adjustments on these and others, but very happy with these results!! My buddy who was shooting the 5D Mark III, couldn't believe the fast shutter on this thing!
Nice dslr! I just started a few month ago with a 550D. I still got the body and updated my lenses to the 70-200 f4 is and the 17-40 f4 L. Now I want to buy a used body for wildlife and my Budget is limeted is the 7D still a good choise? Used they are around 500€. Keep the great work!
Really enjoyed the comparisons. In reference to the inquiry about low lit gyms, I shoot a lot of low light basketball in rural America. I'm still tweaking the settings on my 7dmkii, but I absolutely love this camera so far! In reference to the lightening, I haven't heard anyone anywhere comment on the "flicker" function. Had my doubts, but it really works. Maybe one or two amber shots in 7-800 shots. Thanks, always enjoy your info.
Color bit depth is still important (in select scenarios) because, i directly impacts your ability to post process an image (basically impacts how far you can push an image before color clipping and artifacting occurs. While if the focus is on a natural looking image where you are going for accuracy, then color depth will not matter much with modern cameras, if you are going for a rather unnatural look, then color depth is important. (Overall, it comes into play when doing some fairly uncommon and extreme edits). It can also impact your ability to do HDR processing with a single raw file, though from my experience if a scene did not do single raw image HDR with a canon raw file, it was also bad with the nikons (though not as bad, but still unacceptable when it comes to color clipping). Overall, the differences and benefits can be tested and demonstrated, though you have to intentionally go for a very unnatural and over processed image to really see them.
Razor2048 Yes, it definitely has its place and is worth measuring, and people should assess it as its own separate metric for what they need. I do think DxOMark puts too much weight in that metric, however.
Does DxO say anywhere at what ISO they measure the color depth? Because imo color depth at ISO 100 is good enough, at >1600 (concerts) not so much though..
Hey Tony I was considering getting the 6d or 7d mark 2 because of the Iso quality. I shoot portraits a lot in low light sometimes without flash. Yesterday you said 7d mark 2 is better. Do you still stand behind that? Would you say 7d mark2 or 6d??
I have been shooting with a Canon 10D for many years. I consider myself an amateur at best. The reason I bought the 10D all those years ago was simple: I kept missing my shot with point-and-shoot cameras. Nobody seemed to understand my frustration - telling me the pictures I took were fine... but they weren't the pictures I wanted of the moment I wanted to catch. Switching to the 10D solved all that and more. Over the years, I've played with a few DSLRs: canon, nikon, panasonic... I still only own my 10D, because while the improvements in size of image, quality, and response have been phenomenal, for me the 10D captured the images I wanted and I'm used to its quirks. After 40-50k images taken, I'm getting worried about things like "Will this photo set be the time my shutter breaks?" It makes me hesitate to take images when I'm not certain of the subject and the composition - which in turn causes me to miss the occasional picture. Also, the fact that I can only shoot about a dozen pictures in a reasonable time, and I've had my camera act up during certain situations and completely miss taking some photos, I think its time to move on. I'm interested in staying with canon, as that's where my lens investment is, and I absolutely adore the choices I have. That said, despite having an APS-c camera all my lenses are EF USM. I love the 1.6 crop factor for taking wildlife/moving pet and zoomed shots, but I'm starting to feel I need a full sensor to get really good wide angles. That and I'd like to drop into a bit of video. So I'm a bit torn whether to invest the money I'm going to put out in a 5DM3 or a 7DM2. Right now I'm leaning to the 7DM2, as it will let me get a new flash, the battery grip, and a couple new lenses to add to my collection for a few thousand less than I would have to worry about with the 5d. I don't make money off my photography, I'm just nowhere near that good so I hesitate to share my images. But I have fun doing it, and that's as good reason as any to invest in a good piece of hardware, IMHO. I enjoyed watching this review, BTW. I'm watching a lot to get a feel for the cameras and try to identify the one that is the best match for me. Thanks!
Tony, love your explanation on the details of the DxOMark's scores. Could you do a video explaining the details in their scores on lenses. I like the geeky stuff.
Great insights on this camera. Very informative for someone about to purchase the 7D Mark II. I Appreciate the extra effort to dig deeper into the information available from other sources.
From your presentation based on the DXO scores, The Sony SLT A77 II has a better (all around) sensor. Sony with Carl Zeiss lenses can compete with any Canon or Nikon system. I am a Canon user (the Canon 1Dx).
Thanks, Mr. Northrup for this video. I used the 7D Mark II with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and this is my next camera. It was perfect for sports (worked great for football and volleyball) and its ISO was great for a crop camera. I agree with you 100% on ISO. ISO is important for everything. I rarely can shoot at 100 ISO or just low ISO because the venues and night time simply make that option impossible. A bright day game and it can be done but clouds can alter that. Until I can afford a 1DX and supertelephotos, this will be my camera for quite a while. I found this camera far superior than Sony A77. The A77 has excellent image quality in RAW. It looks magnificent and when it locks in on a subject it looks sharp at f/4 or below. It was a little soft at wider apertures. Here's the problem and it's a big one. The system's EVF. Another one I had was focusing in low light. I shot with an A77 and a 70-200 f/2.8 G for football and although I love the image quality of the A77 during the day, its EVF was frustrating and it's lag when you place your eye on the VF was irritatingly slow. Watching a play and you can anticipate what happens (i.e. an ill advised pass is about to be intercepted) and you have to wait for the EVF to come on. The EVF finally is off it's blackout and the interception already happened! I can get a great shot of the player but the play already happened. At night with high ISO, the image quality of the A77 wasn't that good. It's a considerable drop off from day games. It focus hunted in the shadows and at night games, the focus was nowhere as fast or accurate as a Nikon D7100, 70D or 7D. The 7D Mark II's focus system and viewfinder is so much better for sports. If I would have shot Volleyball with the A77, I would have pulled my hair out. Not to mention battery life is awful for the A77. A full charge and I was shooting a doubleheader of football games (one at 4pm and one at 8pm) and I had to recharge the battery in between games because the battery would have gave out within the second quarter of the second game. The Nikon and Canon's can shoot two full games with no problem. But if I just go by DxO, then the A77 is a superior camera with a 78-70 score. Maybe the A77 II has a better EVF and works better at night, but it needs to be updated significantly if I am ever going to use this system for sports again. I'm reluctant to try a NX1 for this reason. I would love for the NX1 to have a better viewfinder and utilize that excellent image quality that the NX1 seems to have. Maybe mirrorless suits many current needs of commenters here. That's great. It doesn't suit mine though and I sure won't rely on any DxO score to tell me what camera system is better.
Good video Tony. Just for kicks I just compared the sensor with my D5200 and I was surprised. It beats it and my camera is a 2012 model. I mean, on every level.
The software / firmware factor is quite tricky. Unless you are one of the engineers who designed certain camera or a given piece of software you can never be sure, where the actual sensor output ends and where in camera processing starts ; if the software actually shows what your camera / lens is capable of or you see the processing power of a given software. For example, I noticed that SilkyPix 5 clips what it considers as overexposed highlights, rather abruptly and there is no way to restore information in those areas. When I open the same file in Lightroom I am able to restore most of the blown out highlights, that SilkyPix was not able to reproduce properly. DxO 10 is somewhere between when it comes to restoring highlights, but it is clearly ahead of both in terms of shadow details and noise reduction. I shoot Pentax K-3 which has a Sony sensor, the same as Nikon D7100. Of course when you compare the images from two cameras in the same software, you can make some conclusions, yet again some software renders RAWs from certain cameras "better" than from the others. After all RAW file is not an image file as such, just data which each software renders to it's liking. By this I do not imply, that your methodology is faulty, I just made a remark, where I express lack of certainty when it comes to camera / software outputs.
One small comment, the GH4 (and EM-1) don't have backside illumination as far as I can tell. None of the official specs mention anything other than them being "Live MOS" sensors.
Ty4ons I think you're right, someone told me that the backside illumination was responsible for their improved efficiency, but I'm not sure it's true. I suppose it doesn't much matter for the sake of this discussion, but it's interesting.
Tony Northrup The GH4 and em-1 use a Panasonic sensor. This came from the Gx7. Panasonic has been really clear about what caused the increase of efficiency. They increased the size of the focus site and decreased the wiring in front of the sensor. indicating FSI. It may or may not have become possible due a change in the fabrication process. I've found no information about that yet. Canon has and still uses a 500nm process. Sony is using 180nm for the D800. probably smaller for the BSI sensors. and Samsung is now at 65nm with the NX-1. So that may and probably will leapfrog the 7d mk2
Tony Northrup You say that you get at least a 100% stop more if you would use a faster lens but it's not only that way for the 7D2, if i use a 2.8 at my D5100 then (knowing that the lenses are from different brands) i still would get better performance over a (in this case) 7D2 with a 2.8, to know almost 10% and that camera is 4 years old and 5,25 times cheaper. I don't say that the 7d2 is a bad camera but in my opinion (with all the respect) your quote doesn't help the 7d2. Regards, a dutch subscriber :)
I think a comparison of Capture One with Lightroom would be interesting. There are significant photographers, Christian Fletcher but one of them, who prefer C1.
hi Tony, you really nailed this subject, I mean every question or thought input I had in my mind you addressed and more, really liked this session and appreciate your in depth efforts, honest and unbiased feedback. I used to watch some of your very interesting videos but this one made me subscribe :) cheers.
So it's fair to say according to your logic that a third of a stop better ISO is more important than a full stop better dynamic range ? I'm not criticizing I just don't understand. The way I see it better DR can be seen and any display size, you can show a thumbnail and a stop better DR will be visible. A third of a stop better ISO will immediately become invisible if you resize just a bit, which we all do a lot, because we display our images mostly on 2MP displays, or at most 8MP displays, or sometimes prints rarely larger than 8x10
Canon user just have to come to terms with the fact that they are not the king of the hilll any more. It bothers them like crazy, but luckily they now have Kelby to make it a little easier on them :-D
Color Depth and Dynamic Range haven't improved that much in the past 20 years, and the slightest difference makes a big change in the DxO score. On the other hand, doubling the Low Light ISO score barely adds 5 points. These days you can greatly improve the raw image quality with DxO PureRaw. The 7D Mark II improvements were focused on speed (AF, FPS + big buffer), in which they succeeded. The sensor is not bad, it just wasn't a big leap forward.
Of course, one may spend 2k on a new body and then jerk off over the specs sheet and various test site results. Or, as I do, go out and shoot. I replaced a 7D purchased in 09 with a Mk2 two days ago. Yesterday went out to our local park with my 3 year old and the AF and tracking blew me away. IQ as improved, ISO noise has improved (overall low light IQ and AF is a bliss) and I am only scratching the surface of the new features. Now, lab tests may give specific numbers but 20k photos taken with the 7D speak a specific language and so do the photos I took with the Mk2. But I wish you all the best with your discussions (Including Northrup). May you find the time to actually take photographs now and then...
Sub mariner I have taken 7,300 photos with my 7D Mk II, and many more with the original 7D. I use different cameras for different types of photography, so it's not my only body. Image quality is the deciding factor for many of us; noise in Canon images has wasted hundreds of hours of our time, because we need to manually clean the noise prior to selling the image. I'm excited to see Canon improving the noise and thus reducing the time I have to spend in post. Please be more polite in the future.
7dm2 scored close to the 70d on dxomark, which it might share similar sensor. Looking at dpreview samples the higher iso of the 7dm2 was cleaner then other aps-c cameras. But I noticed softer text then the nikon d7100, which lead me to believe there were some noise reduction applied in raw (some call raw cooking). I do believe canon 6d and nikon d750 has NR in raw. DXOmark claimed to take out any raw cooking done (how, I don't know). Dxomark overall score is weighted oldly, but I look at the individual scores like you. I can apply NR in lightroom and it takes out a lot of artifacts easily.
Tony, I think that there are good copies and bad copies of the Canon 7d Mark ii. I rented one from LensRentals and was greatly impressed. So impressed that I bought one from B&H. The one I got from B&H was horrible. It was so noisy. It was worse, by far, than my original 7d. It had focusing issues and it crashed twice during my second day in the field. I sent it back. Hopefully I will get a good copy next time. This might explain the two reviews of which you speak.
As 2 years and 7 months have now passed since your excellent video on the 7D Mark II has anything changed or improved much? I have an 80D and use it for all sorts of subject matter including sports with my two sons. Hence my interest in the 7D Mark II.
Why not recommend the D 7100? It has a DXO rating of 83. It beats the 7D MarkII in all categories. It has a decent focusing system, and it is cheaper. It also has the 1.3 crop mode which would make it better for sports.
I think DxOMark should weigh more on certain features depending on the type of photography the camera is geared for. I also think that DxOMark should refrain from making statements like "... identical to the 5 years old ..."
I don't think you made those percentage based conclusions right, here's why... Dxo makes those iso numbers from how high they can bump the iso before the noise gets really noticeable, so if, let's say, nikon d600 has dxo iso rating of 3200, and nikon d5300 has rating of 1600, it just means that the d600 is 1 full stop ahead in terms of when do you start seeing the noise. Would you then say that d600 is 100% better than the d600?
Hey Tony, I like the fact in your reviews that you include references to % difference, however I think that calculating delta's helps better put into perspective the magnitude of the changes. So for example when comparing the GH4 and 7DII ISO, we see a delta of 36% whereas GH4 performance is only 26% of that of the 7DII. I like the work you and Chelsea do, however Gary does have a bit of a point. But prolly not appropriate for fellow blogger to be so public.... Keep up the work!
There is no Consumer Screen which nearly can make use of 14 Bit Colors. And the common Fileformat used online is JPEG... a (mainly) 12 Bit ... format.... so Color Depth is not really a point today.
I can't wait until they come out with magic lantern for the 7D mk 2. I can see it being a pretty good camera for recording raw video. The data rate seems to point to a good storage controller (if it can maintain 1080p 30FPS raw, then that can open the door to some pretty amazing video when it comes to getting a more cinematic look (close to the dynamic range of a RED epic)
Hey Tony, thanks for a very helpful video. As with any of your material I have seen I think this is nice and easy for the layman, and informative. So far I am really happy with my 7D2. As you point out many cameras are better for some use cases.
I think people are freaking out that it seems like you're being unbiased and leaning towards a particular brand. Like you said, people seem to read only the headlines, and now that you're explaining it - DxO mark ain't wrong, just that the way they rate sensors means the 7d2 gets a lower score. And you agree that Canon still falls behind when talking about dynamic range, but that the 7d2 sensor is better than the previous one, meaning There's still some sort of hope for Canon in the sensor range. And lastly, even if a particular camera body blows another brand's body away, you gotta factor in the other things you need when shooting photos like lenses. If your camera has the best everything but has no lenses...what's the point?
I really learn a lot from your videos Tony and I admire the work done by DxOMark. I believe it is very important to know as much as possible about your camera and lenses. But ... sometimes ... seeing this kind of comparison between cameras I begin to think that my equipment is a piece of S... And I should change immediately whenever a new camera enters the market and that's not true. I bought my 5D3, 7D1 and all my lenses with hard work. Unfortunately I can't change my camera every year and I believe this is the reality of most professionals like me. A camera 50% better than another will not make a 50% better photograph. Thanks for reminding everyone that image quality is not everything!!! Thanks again! keep up the great work
I think people get too technical with camera's till they forget that the final result is all your own doing. just look at digitalrev series where a pro gets geared up with a very basic camera and still outperform most of us due to the skills and experience.
Canon have done such an outstanding job of the focus system, speed and build, why after 5 years in the making is the heart of the camera only as you say one third stop better than the original 7d sensor?
I check image quality after processing my RAW files through DPP4. That way all variables are in play and accounted for. What you see is what you get. I am confident in what I see and not what some theoretical test suggests. Besides I rarely shoot at ISO 100. What is wrong with that? Particularly for sports and birding? BTW, DLO mathematically corrects my Canon lenses to near theoretical perfection. It does so quickly with little gain in image size. Just because of this one feature I convert RAW with DPP only. I have LR 5.6 but I'm getting much better (major in some cases) conversion results now. For further image refinement DPP connects the image with PS. What's not to like?
I think the way iso performance and image quality were used as synonyms in the previous video must have been confusing for people. Image quality is a function of many things, for me personally the sharpness a sensor can get out a lens compared to another sensor is of utmost importance as this is truly something I can appreciate in every shot I take. Recognizing the difference between image quality and iso is very important. I just wish DXO had a standardized metric for rating a sensor's capacity for sharpness. Guess we'll just have to wait until they test it on all the different lenses out there and compare for the lenses that mean the most to us individually.
I find it sad that the photo publications go about grandstanding like this, the 7d mkii is about the closest to perfect FOR ME that I have seen in a very long time. Even one of the major nikon fanboy youtube presenters is touting the low iso performance of this body. Low light sports are a major part of my photography and between the performance of this body and canon's lenses I dont think it can be beat without spending thousands more and it still performs very well in all other areas except video (which I don't much care about)
+Terri Caldwell-Stanisha At this price point, I'd recommend a Canon 6D or Nikon D610 for either of those. Check our channel for reviews, or search northrup.photo.
+Terri Caldwell-Stanisha Hi, I got the 6D as a gift and I love it (except the super slow AF) and it was a big step for me. I used a t5i/700D before. Hope you'll like it :)
DxO Is very thorough and I will have to side with them (based on the past track record and they are pretty consistent with how they rate), with that said if I'd purchased a Canon 7D MK II and I was pleased with the results, I would care what DxO findings were. I switched from the Canon 7D, 60D, and 50D, to the LUMIX GH4 and Gx7 and I'm extremely pleased with both of them. I believe it comes down to the photographer. Cameras are just tools used by photographers to capture images that is pleasing to the eye of that photographer and so you can have the best rated camera on the planet and if you don't know how to use it, you won't be pleased with the results. I actually like what Canon has done with the upgrades that they made to the 7D MK II. I use DxO software applications and I am just an awe of how OpticsPro 9 and 10 handles and reduces noise within raw images. These guys have it down to a science. There are some things that mirror-less cameras can do (like allowing me to pre-process images, shoot video and stills without changing my mode, and extracting stills from 4K video) that I just love. But you can’t argue with the science of a full frame sensor and its advantages. But with that said I do not see either type of cameras (MFT or DSLR) performing so well that it eliminates the other one. What is going to be the undoing of the DSLR is its price. Everyone complains about the size of the DSLR, but if the price for the camera and the lenses were around or close to what the MFT cameras are, it wouldn't even be a debate. This is comparable to the MP3 format versus the audio CD and the MP4 format versus the video DVD. No one debates whether CD or DVD quality is better than his digital competitor. It's being beat out by his digital competitor because of cost and portability. It looks like history is repeating itself when it comes to MFT versus DSLR.
Hi , Tony . I would like to know that if I bought a used copy of "Photography buying Guide" , from Amazon , will I still be entitled to free update versions for the book?
Tony Northrup I think the point is another, and it's is "How could a sensor of a 1.800$ camera designed for sport be beaten by less expansive cameras like the D5100 (way older and cheaper)? The ISO is the one that confuses me most. I don't know which criteria they used to measure ISO performance (I suppose it is the ISO value where the noise surpasses a certain amount, it shouldn't be anything too complicated to measure I guess), but apparently it's flawed for Canon cameras (and note well, I'm not a Canon fanboy, I actually shoot with a Nikon!). Now, tell me who would ever buy a 7DII to shoot sport if it's ISO performances were really as bad as DXO rating states, expecially when with a bit more money you can buy something like an A7s that (always according only on DxO ISO test) is on a whole different league with a score of 3702?
One can endlessly debate the relative merits of the DxoMark metrics but the fact remains that they are consistent, valid, and reliable, even if not what any one of us might choose as the most relevant indicators of sensor performance. What this video really discloses is the extent to which we see what we anticipate seeing when examining images made by cameras for which we have preconceived expectations: Camera X is full frame so it must be better than camera Y which has a crop sensor. This is a second release so it must be better than the original. This lens is made by Leica (or Zeiss or you-fill-in) so it has to be better than that Sigma (or Tamron or Tokina). I'm a Tony 'n Chelsea fanboy and I certainly am not accusing them of fudging their conclusions because they are largely Canon shooters and the 7D Mk II is a shiny new Canon for which there have been high hopes. I do suggest that to some extent they saw what they expected to see. Discussions of this phenomenon, which is termed confirmation bias, induce defensiveness in people who may be seen as evidencing it, so let me recast this idea in terms more palatable to affronted reviewers: DxoMark measures, MFT curves, resolution charts and the like all have their uses but what really counts are the viewers' perceptions of real, live images.
There is more to DxO Marks than Color Depth, Dynamic Range and ISO Performance. The combined DxO Mark is calculated with a lot of other parameters, like Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity and Response, SNR etc... if you dig on their website you can find these values. And the "Sport" or ISO ranking isn't the "level of noise" but the threshold sensitivity before noise starts to get visible in a systematic way. Yes, better ISO performance at high and low sensitivity is very important and makes the photographer's life easier and open up to more creativity, but you can't claim based on the small recap that DxO offers that their ranking is wrong. The 7D Mk II remains a strong DSLR but it also has severe flaws, when you consider that resolution and image quality of an entry level DSLR like the Nikon D3300 are both better. Then again, the 7D Mk II is a tough camera, strongly built and with other advantages like weather sealing, large buffer and 10fps for sports and wildlife, an amazing autofocus system, reliability etc... But seeing Canon trying to follow up with the competition on image quality and sensor (and ADC) technology is a bit disappointing when you consider than not more than a couple of years ago, they were technological leaders on that same market. Canon JPEGs aren't as good as Nikon JPEGs for instance, and same goes with RAW when you look at their latest cameras like the 5D Mk III, the 70D and now the 7D Mk II, which all seem to suffer from lower resolution, softness and lack of shadow details when compared with the equivalent Nikon cameras. Nevertheless, this camera remains a beast, with the exception of Nikon who also builds strong DSLRs, nobody really comes with a camera that can compete with this one overall when you consider the workhorse it is ! By the way, even though I disagree on some points, I really liked your video and fully respect your opinions. You do make a lot of great points in this video and by no mean am I trying to offend anyone ! When discussing facts, it all comes down to which parameter is more important to you, that's why for the moment I'd rather own a rugged DSLR than a similarly or even a little bit better performing camera that wouldn't be as reliable and tough as a high end DSLR like the 7D. But µ4/3 and other mirrorless cameras have caught up on image quality and I guess that they might also catch up in other important things like strong and consistent autofocus, ruggedness etc ... Well, I hope this wasn't too annoying to read if you came down here and thumbs up for your well produced videos !
***** I don't think we disagree on anything. I understand the DxOMark overall score and what the ISO ranking is. I'm not saying the DxOMark ranking is "wrong", but it's highly subjective and over-simplified. I do think it's a terrible idea when the media cites only the overall score. OK, maybe I do think the ranking is wrong :).
Theres my next buy. Need it for fast indoor shooting, not ideal but its only one i can afford. It will work with 35 and 50 mm wide open most of the times with iso 3200, mostly for web usage.. f/2.8 is to slow for me, f/2.0 to keep over 1/1000s with with maybe little -ev on apsc.
I just compared my D5100 with the 7D mark II. In dxomark's technical data it seems that my 3.5 year old camera's sensor is better in any way than the canon's
+Tony Northrup so you said the D610 is not good for photographing birds. Would you say the same for the D750 giving that it got the focusing testing of the D810?
Minolta had the 400mm f4.5 HS, which by all accounts is still awesome, and that works great on the Sony range (as virtually all Minolta lenses do). OK, it does look like it costs about double the Canon, but it is F4.5 instead of F5.6. (OK, I know I'm reaching here!)
hi , i've just upgraded to 7D mark ii, i follow your videos and they're really helpful. it would be great if u could do a tutorial on 7D mark ii and also the lenses that go best with this one ! thanks
***** It probably won't be quite as clean as the 5D3, but the video focusing system will work much better. For video, though, you really should look at mirrorless cameras: ruclips.net/video/iZuxo2ZFz_g/видео.html
The DXO algorithm is complete balls. You buy a camera for what YOU need it for, and they seem to put priority on elements of a sensor that nearly everyone should not care about. Besides that, the AF and physical operation of the camera is far more important. I think DXO are responsible for a rising tide of inexperienced photographers who think the sensor is the only thing worth talking about on a camera. Forums are swamped with this type of person now, and they don't seem to know anything about photography other than taking photos of test charts.
You are wrong about the Portrait Color Depth not mattering. It matters very much, because the greater the color depth, the more latitude you have while post processing your pictures. This is the metric which tells you how far you can adjust the colors and perform corrections involving color before things start looking strange. They call it portrait color depth because it's most noticeable in portraits, but it really applies to any color photo.
solidliqs OK, I'll give you the same challenge I've given everyone else: send me (tony@northrup.org) a real-world example picture (obviously I need raws and processed photos) that visibly shows the weakness in color depth from any modern camera. So far I've gotten no responses, but I'm looking forward to your evidence.
Tony Northrup That's because it's not the image itself which highlights this, so much as the post processing performed on the image. Try a single image HDR on a variety of pictures, and you'll quickly see what I mean. For something you might actually want to do to a picture, follow some of the more sophisticated Phlearn tutorials on similar images from cameras with varying amounts of Portrait Color Depth. You can gather these images yourself (and this applies to anyone and everyone reading this comment); dpreview.com has plenty of RAWs to choose from.
I'm wondering about using a 7D2 or 70D versus a 5D3for video. I know it might not be your specialty, but video people are so into the 5D's because of low light performance reputation. Haven't seen if the 7/70's are becoming comparable. Ideally I want the 70D for the price and flip-out screen unless it's too noisy for run and gun video.
***** It's used by DigitalRev TV in almost all of their videos, when Kai starts doing his antics. I think they say its name in some "making of" episode.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
📷 Get the Canon 7D Mark II on Amazon at help.tc/7d2 📷
That DigitalRev TV soundtrack used as an intro really threw me off. I thought some other video started running by itself in another tab!
People should worry less about technology and just do their best to improve as photographers/visual artists.
At this level - its not the cameras limitations that will hold you back....it'll be your creative flair, technique and ability to edit.
My advice is to buy whatever you can afford and get on with it.
DIGITALSCREAMS I agree
+1
Totaly agree...Cameras and lenses of today are amazing. Just get out and enjoy. For the Love of Photography.
I had a canon rebel xti. Used it for many years. It's a nice camera. Then I wanted something better. So I got a canon 7d. Great camera. Then I wanted a full frame camera. Got a canon 5d mkii. Nice camera. But after getting it. I realized my 7d was still an awesome camera. Today I picked up my old rebel xti and took a few shots. And realized. After learning more and more about photography. My first digital camera really took some nice photos still. So you really need to get what you can afford and use it well. Learn it well. Learn all the functions of the camera. And take many photos. You dont need the newest stuff. Use what you have!
I got a 7D MK2 recently. I have no idea what any of you are complaining about. I have no complaints with function or image quality. Maybe I would if I was making wall size prints, but I''m not. The frame rate and quality high ISO images made me a believer in short order. For the record, I have progressed from a 20D-40D-7D and 70D. Shoot with one and I'll bet 99% of you won't really care what DxOMark found.
now had my 7DII for over three years, no regrets at all, I get sharp images, its a great all rounder and good companion to my 5DIII.
As always, great video Tony! I'm tired of watching "experts" give gear advice based on specs when they haven't even held the camera! It's refreshing to have a successful pro give his unbiased opinion like you!
(I just found your channel a few weeks ago and am going back looking at older videos.) I shoot high school sports, primarily gymnastics. For the last 3 years I've been shooting with a 7d MKII. Prior to that I was using the original 7D, which I still carry for backup. I have never even once had a parent come up to me and say "Your camera sucks, and DXO Mark says so!" or "We don't like the dynamic range of your photos!" I have had numerous parents come up to me in gymnastics and tell me "We never had decent action photos of our daughter until she got to high school and you started photographing her!" I rent and try new cameras that come out if I think they might do better for my needs and photography. I have yet to find a camera, any brand, that will top a 7D MKII for sports. I'll give up my 7D MKII when they pry it from my cold dead fingers...at least until Canon comes out with the 7D MKIII :)
That was a few years ago.. what are you using now? Have you switched brands? Gone to the R7?
I saw the 7D mkll at Photoplus. When people ask about if one cam us better than the other, how you use it really determines your decision. My first book was shot with an early Digital Rebel. My second was with a 60D. My 3rd will be with the 7D mk II. My reason was to increase efficiency. Most if my books have 400 pics and as you know to pick 400 may require you to shoot 3000 just to get the shot that the reader relates too. The video options are pretty good as well.
This is the reason we watch Tony & Chelsea. You can get the nitty gritty information that may not be super easy to find or understand if you do find it.
honestly ISO is all I care about .. 90 percent of the time when I edit event photos the noise is the one problem I spend most of the time dealing with. I own the 7D Mark II and there is nothing like it at all. The frame rate speeds .. The ridiculously powerful focus system. The camera is a beast. I would choose it over the 6D any day and it is priced accordingly anyhow.
Would you recommend the 7d mk ii
Or the 5d mk ii for studio fashion editorial
Props to you for coming back and correcting your findings and clarifying what others are seeing.
this is one of the best video ever seen. Very analytical!!! Perfect Tony!!!
You guys are getting so close to the million mark 😁. Love your videos, thanks for all the help.
Thank you for your reviews on the 7d Mark II. I appreciate your opinions because they appear objective and is backed up with numbers. What I appreciated most was the speed at which you completed this video to address the mistakes in the previous day's review.
nikon, sony etc always wins in tecnical tests, in reality profesionals still using canon with stuning results.. as always, even with older canons.
you got the point. ✌
it's more about all the gears, lenses you got. Changing a whole pack of L senses to nikkor or other can be costly and waste of time
It's more of the person behind the camera than the equipment. A great singer can sound good with an old microphone and speakers.
Nikon is currently beating canon in low light performance, dynamic range, focusing systems, battery performance and much more. Sony has also showed up to kick their ass. Some pros still use canon simply because they are invested in the lenses.
@@EdmontonRails Who produces the sensor for Nikon? Sony. Canon glass will ALWAYS kick any Nikkor lenses ass. Admittedly Nikon makes a great body, but let's see what they can do making their own sensors, starting from scratch, without any input or use of Sony or Fuji technology. I shoot Canon, why? Because Nikon can't make superior lenses. Sensors aren't the whole system, and the difference is truly minimal. And the AF between the two is even less of an issue, the top 4 bodies from Canon can do anything the top 4 Nikons can.The glass is where it's at.
Amazing to look at this 8 years later and seeing how iconic it became for wildlife shooting and is still used today by many.
Still a great camera in 2022!!! I just bought one with only a 7,000 count on the shutter. It was a Black Friday special at a camera shop here in South Africa. Who knows....? My wife may even call me Santa... ha ha!
The GH4 and EM-1 sensor are not BSI, however you are correct that the NX1 sensor is BSI. I too am looking forward to NX1 reviews. Hopefully you guys will be able to get a hold of one for review.
Tony, well said on "Image isn't everything, its just the easiest thing to test". As such, to keep up with what you have invested, maximize its use and strip off the gear acquisition syndrome. However, to know the technicalities, which I appreciate how you and Chelsea deliver, provides your audience a learning experience. Thank you.
Great video. Thank you for taking the time to explain the details associated to the Dxo testing. It was very interesting in hearing the weighting associated with each of the metrics which might cause a mis understanding regarding overall sensor performance. I'll have to find / determine the algorithm that Dxo uses to calculate the overall sensor #
Hi Tony, I have a Pentax K5-2, ISO performance on DXO... Its a similar size sensor.. I'm not into the numbers, its all about the results. I'm happy with mine and I'm sure most cameras of this level produce fantastic results. I think that the 7d mk2 is all about refinement of a tool, not a leap in imaging ( were already there ). Good videos pal, keep them up.
Thanks for looping back to the tests Tony! Makes a lot more sense now.
I do agree with you that for Wildlife this would make a great match to that 400 5.6, but I think the A77 II is one to keep an eye on and with some of the older Minolta glass may just keep up with the Canon. One plus with Sony is you have auto IS on all those old lenses!
Thanks for the "Real World" comparison & review, I just purchased the 7D Mark II and was becoming regretful after reading a few reviews. I've regained my confidence in my decision to purchase the 7D Mark II after viewing this video. Thanks Again!
dabiggsho We continue to use the 7D2 for all sports and wildlife, and we have one of everything. It's the best action camera ever made.
I agree with Tony, In real usage, Color depth is not distinguishable by our eyes, The level of current color depth is way beyond our eyes limit. Only the ISO noise and Dynamic Range are relevant, especially for the purpose of sport photography. Nothing is better than 7D mark II ability in tracking the subject under $2k. That is the main point of 7D class
rondhole Thanks! I had several people violently disagree about color depth, and I asked them to send me a sample picture showing how you could see the difference in color depth... Also put out a challenge on Twitter. So far, nothing, no examples.
***** Because D600 cannot replace what 7D2 does but may be 6D. It is just different class and purpose. You cannot find anything from Nikon that has 7D2 characteristic. D7100 does not have the same level of weather sealing and toughness, nor burst rate and buffer. Besides 10% more image quality for still photo, there is no advantage of Nikon system in sport and wildlife APS-C. It is not about still picture and pixel peeping. It is all about capturing the moment, responsiveness, and dead on autofocus that 7D Class offers. If you cannot get the moment and focus, it does not matter what your sensor is. No matter what, Canon still leads the sport and wildlife APS-C camera sale for that reason, not pixel peeping.
Thanks for your your unbiased review and technical explanations. Your voice is definitely needed in our industry.
Alexandre Almeida Thanks, Alexandre!
Hi Tony, great stuff ! Very interesting, even for someone who has no intention to buy a 7DII in the near future.
What i would like to comment on though, is that your audio deserves to be upgraded. The presentation is outstanding, the content is brilliant but the audio is definitely, and consistently, not at the same level.
Thx !
Dear Mr. Northrup, I enjoy watching your RUclips videos and want to thank you for sharing them. They are nicely produced and contents are highly educational.
Correct me if I am wrong. But isn't dynamic range much more than just the ability of bringing up shadows or removing blown highlights? It's the total spectrum of light at the same time the sensor can resolve without blowing up.
People really need to stop looking at the overall score on the DxOMark page, colour depth, dynamic range and ISO performance are much more important and says a lot more about the cameras performance.
***** Agreed! I'd prefer DxOMark simply stopped posting their overall score; it's subjective and not applicable to many photographers. We really only care about two numbers nowadays: dynamic range and ISO.
People just have to be smart enough that DXO only rate the sensor performance and the score doesn't reflect the camera as a whole.
I believe their numbers better than seat of the pants feeling. Canon is still using their old technology and I doubt very much this is a miracle sensor. People only believe DXO when it's to their advantage and backup what they say.
I hope Tony when you say "We" you mean Chelsea and yourself.
I was hopeful that Canon did something great but they still take advantage of the people heavily invested. Now if their technology would be as good as their marketing, they would have great cameras. I guess you can only force crap down someone's throat so many times before they realize but some will just keep on taking it.
Agree, I don't think the system is weighed properly. ISO handling is so much more important than color depth. And, hell, if you're shooting properly, you shouldn't need much of that extra dynamic range anyways, really. However, when you Nikon D300 and can't shoot over ISO 200 without getting noticable noise, that's a problem.
For the Sony A77-II, you could use the Minolta AF APO HIGH SPEED 400 mm F/4.5 G, which can be have for around $2000 on ebay, or if you want to go cheaper, the Minolta AF 300mm F/4 High Speed (HS) APO G, which sells for around $1000 on ebay. I think both these lenses give you equal quality compared to the Canon EF 400 mm F/5.6 L USM, and have a larger aperture. So there is an alternative for this Canon lens with the Sony A-mount. I realize you can only get it second hand, which some people do not like.
I hardly use my Nikon and formerly Canon anymore-I am fed up with lugging heavy kit around. I use Panasonic; superb super sharp lenses and they have the association with Leica (world's best optics?) plus I can use Olympus Zuicko lenses which are also great. All I know is, I love the quality coming straight out out my G6 camera.
Tony Northrup Can you please tell me the name of this song and where I can purchase it?
I MUST HAVE IT ! Its just the perfect tune.
Great review, thank you for your honest opinion.
Honestly, I have a Canon 550D for 7 years now that needs recent tech into it
and the 7D mkII just may be the upgrade I need.
On a side note,
I've heard numerous complains saying how the video sucks and no flip screen and BLAH BLAH.
Everyone forgets that these are intended for pictures and video is just an added bonus.
If you want video, just go to the GH4, Blackmagic, or C100 and above. To be completely fair,
if you're here as a filmmaker, the camera should be the last thing on your list.
Story, lighting, audio should be first. You could make the best film on a cheap camera.
I use a 7dii, and a 60d as backup, and even my 30d as backupbackup. I just don't see any difference between all three when I use plenty of light from a flashgun. For me it's all about handling and ease of use. And great AF.
That is what I call a deep analysis. It is great to see someone actually knowing what he's talking about.
I share the same opinion, considering the sensor efficiency, the new 5D mark IV everybody talks about, will probably have the same performance as the D810. Which is a big step in, preventing people from switching brands.
The color depth gets more important if you make aggresive post processing. I think cameras with better color depth have better highlight rolloff but that's merely a hypothesis.
I'd like to see a video or comparison like this between the new 80d, which supposedly has improved dynamic range, and the 7dmkii
Wow, lots of negativity. Just want to share after my first full day of shooting with 7D Mark II. I owned 70D for about a month before exchanging for 7DMII. The 70 D gave soft focus way too often. I was hoping the 7DMII would give crisper images, and it did not disappoint! After importing into images I immediately noticed a much higher 'hit rate' of images with spot on focus. I quickly identified 34 photos that were stunning without any post processing (immediately rated 5 stars). I will still do some adjustments on these and others, but very happy with these results!! My buddy who was shooting the 5D Mark III, couldn't believe the fast shutter on this thing!
Oops... Should be "... Importing into Lightroom..."
great vid, Tony. Just purchased the 7d mk ii in Dublin, Ire today. I had the 7d and loved it. Major thanks...
Nice dslr! I just started a few month ago with a 550D. I still got the body and updated my lenses to the 70-200 f4 is and the 17-40 f4 L. Now I want to buy a used body for wildlife and my Budget is limeted is the 7D still a good choise? Used they are around 500€. Keep the great work!
Rob1Rob2Rob3 Yes, a used original 7D with a used Canon 400mm f/5.6 remains my recommended wildlife setup at the ~$1,500-$1,600 range.
Really enjoyed the comparisons. In reference to the inquiry about low lit gyms, I shoot a lot of low light basketball in rural America. I'm still tweaking the settings on my 7dmkii, but I absolutely love this camera so far! In reference to the lightening, I haven't heard anyone anywhere comment on the "flicker" function. Had my doubts, but it really works. Maybe one or two amber shots in 7-800 shots. Thanks, always enjoy your info.
Just a great video Tony, in my opinion you're the best photography expert on you tube
Color bit depth is still important (in select scenarios) because, i directly impacts your ability to post process an image (basically impacts how far you can push an image before color clipping and artifacting occurs. While if the focus is on a natural looking image where you are going for accuracy, then color depth will not matter much with modern cameras, if you are going for a rather unnatural look, then color depth is important. (Overall, it comes into play when doing some fairly uncommon and extreme edits).
It can also impact your ability to do HDR processing with a single raw file, though from my experience if a scene did not do single raw image HDR with a canon raw file, it was also bad with the nikons (though not as bad, but still unacceptable when it comes to color clipping).
Overall, the differences and benefits can be tested and demonstrated, though you have to intentionally go for a very unnatural and over processed image to really see them.
Razor2048 Yes, it definitely has its place and is worth measuring, and people should assess it as its own separate metric for what they need. I do think DxOMark puts too much weight in that metric, however.
Does DxO say anywhere at what ISO they measure the color depth? Because imo color depth at ISO 100 is good enough, at >1600 (concerts) not so much though..
Hey Tony I was considering getting the 6d or 7d mark 2 because of the Iso quality. I shoot portraits a lot in low light sometimes without flash. Yesterday you said 7d mark 2 is better. Do you still stand behind that? Would you say 7d mark2 or 6d??
I have been shooting with a Canon 10D for many years. I consider myself an amateur at best. The reason I bought the 10D all those years ago was simple: I kept missing my shot with point-and-shoot cameras. Nobody seemed to understand my frustration - telling me the pictures I took were fine... but they weren't the pictures I wanted of the moment I wanted to catch. Switching to the 10D solved all that and more. Over the years, I've played with a few DSLRs: canon, nikon, panasonic... I still only own my 10D, because while the improvements in size of image, quality, and response have been phenomenal, for me the 10D captured the images I wanted and I'm used to its quirks. After 40-50k images taken, I'm getting worried about things like "Will this photo set be the time my shutter breaks?" It makes me hesitate to take images when I'm not certain of the subject and the composition - which in turn causes me to miss the occasional picture. Also, the fact that I can only shoot about a dozen pictures in a reasonable time, and I've had my camera act up during certain situations and completely miss taking some photos, I think its time to move on. I'm interested in staying with canon, as that's where my lens investment is, and I absolutely adore the choices I have. That said, despite having an APS-c camera all my lenses are EF USM. I love the 1.6 crop factor for taking wildlife/moving pet and zoomed shots, but I'm starting to feel I need a full sensor to get really good wide angles. That and I'd like to drop into a bit of video. So I'm a bit torn whether to invest the money I'm going to put out in a 5DM3 or a 7DM2. Right now I'm leaning to the 7DM2, as it will let me get a new flash, the battery grip, and a couple new lenses to add to my collection for a few thousand less than I would have to worry about with the 5d. I don't make money off my photography, I'm just nowhere near that good so I hesitate to share my images. But I have fun doing it, and that's as good reason as any to invest in a good piece of hardware, IMHO. I enjoyed watching this review, BTW. I'm watching a lot to get a feel for the cameras and try to identify the one that is the best match for me. Thanks!
Tony, love your explanation on the details of the DxOMark's scores. Could you do a video explaining the details in their scores on lenses. I like the geeky stuff.
Phillip Grimmer I like the geeky stuff too, as theoretical as it gets. I'll definitely add a DxOMark lens explanation to my to-do list.
Great insights on this camera. Very informative for someone about to purchase the 7D Mark II. I Appreciate the extra effort to dig deeper into the information available from other sources.
Did you get it?
cardiacade Waiting until black Friday.
Trevor Jones
Good call.
From your presentation based on the DXO scores, The Sony SLT A77 II has a better (all around) sensor. Sony with Carl Zeiss lenses can compete with any Canon or Nikon system. I am a Canon user (the Canon 1Dx).
Thanks, Mr. Northrup for this video. I used the 7D Mark II with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and this is my next camera. It was perfect for sports (worked great for football and volleyball) and its ISO was great for a crop camera.
I agree with you 100% on ISO. ISO is important for everything. I rarely can shoot at 100 ISO or just low ISO because the venues and night time simply make that option impossible. A bright day game and it can be done but clouds can alter that.
Until I can afford a 1DX and supertelephotos, this will be my camera for quite a while. I found this camera far superior than Sony A77. The A77 has excellent image quality in RAW. It looks magnificent and when it locks in on a subject it looks sharp at f/4 or below. It was a little soft at wider apertures. Here's the problem and it's a big one. The system's EVF. Another one I had was focusing in low light.
I shot with an A77 and a 70-200 f/2.8 G for football and although I love the image quality of the A77 during the day, its EVF was frustrating and it's lag when you place your eye on the VF was irritatingly slow. Watching a play and you can anticipate what happens (i.e. an ill advised pass is about to be intercepted) and you have to wait for the EVF to come on. The EVF finally is off it's blackout and the interception already happened! I can get a great shot of the player but the play already happened.
At night with high ISO, the image quality of the A77 wasn't that good. It's a considerable drop off from day games. It focus hunted in the shadows and at night games, the focus was nowhere as fast or accurate as a Nikon D7100, 70D or 7D. The 7D Mark II's focus system and viewfinder is so much better for sports.
If I would have shot Volleyball with the A77, I would have pulled my hair out.
Not to mention battery life is awful for the A77. A full charge and I was shooting a doubleheader of football games (one at 4pm and one at 8pm) and I had to recharge the battery in between games because the battery would have gave out within the second quarter of the second game. The Nikon and Canon's can shoot two full games with no problem.
But if I just go by DxO, then the A77 is a superior camera with a 78-70 score.
Maybe the A77 II has a better EVF and works better at night, but it needs to be updated significantly if I am ever going to use this system for sports again. I'm reluctant to try a NX1 for this reason. I would love for the NX1 to have a better viewfinder and utilize that excellent image quality that the NX1 seems to have.
Maybe mirrorless suits many current needs of commenters here. That's great. It doesn't suit mine though and I sure won't rely on any DxO score to tell me what camera system is better.
Sam V Great info, thanks, Sam. I have used the A77 and A77 II, but not as extensively as you, and many people do ask me to compare them.
There's also the fact that you can pay dxomark "calibrate" your camera to get a better score.
Good video Tony. Just for kicks I just compared the sensor with my D5200 and I was surprised. It beats it and my camera is a 2012 model. I mean, on every level.
What applying the same approach to the 6D mkII?
The software / firmware factor is quite tricky. Unless you are one of the engineers who designed certain camera or a given piece of software you can never be sure, where the actual sensor output ends and where in camera processing starts ; if the software actually shows what your camera / lens is capable of or you see the processing power of a given software.
For example, I noticed that SilkyPix 5 clips what it considers as overexposed highlights, rather abruptly and there is no way to restore information in those areas. When I open the same file in Lightroom I am able to restore most of the blown out highlights, that SilkyPix was not able to reproduce properly. DxO 10 is somewhere between when it comes to restoring highlights, but it is clearly ahead of both in terms of shadow details and noise reduction. I shoot Pentax K-3 which has a Sony sensor, the same as Nikon D7100.
Of course when you compare the images from two cameras in the same software, you can make some conclusions, yet again some software renders RAWs from certain cameras "better" than from the others. After all RAW file is not an image file as such, just data which each software renders to it's liking.
By this I do not imply, that your methodology is faulty, I just made a remark, where I express lack of certainty when it comes to camera / software outputs.
One small comment, the GH4 (and EM-1) don't have backside illumination as far as I can tell. None of the official specs mention anything other than them being "Live MOS" sensors.
Ty4ons I think you're right, someone told me that the backside illumination was responsible for their improved efficiency, but I'm not sure it's true. I suppose it doesn't much matter for the sake of this discussion, but it's interesting.
Tony Northrup
The GH4 and em-1 use a Panasonic sensor.
This came from the Gx7. Panasonic has been really clear about what caused the increase of efficiency.
They increased the size of the focus site and decreased the wiring in front of the sensor. indicating FSI.
It may or may not have become possible due a change in the fabrication process. I've found no information about that yet.
Canon has and still uses a 500nm process. Sony is using 180nm for the D800. probably smaller for the BSI sensors.
and Samsung is now at 65nm with the NX-1. So that may and probably will leapfrog the 7d mk2
Tony Northrup You say that you get at least a 100% stop more if you would use a faster lens but it's not only that way for the 7D2, if i use a 2.8 at my D5100 then (knowing that the lenses are from different brands) i still would get better performance over a (in this case) 7D2 with a 2.8, to know almost 10% and that camera is 4 years old and 5,25 times cheaper. I don't say that the 7d2 is a bad camera but in my opinion (with all the respect) your quote doesn't help the 7d2.
Regards, a dutch subscriber :)
I think a comparison of Capture One with Lightroom would be interesting. There are significant photographers, Christian Fletcher but one of them, who prefer C1.
hi Tony, you really nailed this subject, I mean every question or thought input I had in my mind you addressed and more, really liked this session and appreciate your in depth efforts, honest and unbiased feedback. I used to watch some of your very interesting videos but this one made me subscribe :) cheers.
So it's fair to say according to your logic that a third of a stop better ISO is more important than a full stop better dynamic range ? I'm not criticizing I just don't understand. The way I see it better DR can be seen and any display size, you can show a thumbnail and a stop better DR will be visible. A third of a stop better ISO will immediately become invisible if you resize just a bit, which we all do a lot, because we display our images mostly on 2MP displays, or at most 8MP displays, or sometimes prints rarely larger than 8x10
Canon user just have to come to terms with the fact that they are not the king of the hilll any more. It bothers them like crazy, but luckily they now have Kelby to make it a little easier on them :-D
Good troll. 10/10.
Antonio Alcala I don't think so. He has even stated the D810 as the best camera ever.
Antonio Alcala so much of a fanboy that he switched to Nikon. Moron.
Antonio Alcala Tony states in one of his videos that he'd probably switch to the D810 if he could get a similar 70-200 lens to replace his Canon.
Color Depth and Dynamic Range haven't improved that much in the past 20 years, and the slightest difference makes a big change in the DxO score. On the other hand, doubling the Low Light ISO score barely adds 5 points. These days you can greatly improve the raw image quality with DxO PureRaw. The 7D Mark II improvements were focused on speed (AF, FPS + big buffer), in which they succeeded. The sensor is not bad, it just wasn't a big leap forward.
Of course, one may spend 2k on a new body and then jerk off over the specs sheet and various test site results. Or, as I do, go out and shoot. I replaced a 7D purchased in 09 with a Mk2 two days ago. Yesterday went out to our local park with my 3 year old and the AF and tracking blew me away. IQ as improved, ISO noise has improved (overall low light IQ and AF is a bliss) and I am only scratching the surface of the new features. Now, lab tests may give specific numbers but 20k photos taken with the 7D speak a specific language and so do the photos I took with the Mk2. But I wish you all the best with your discussions (Including Northrup). May you find the time to actually take photographs now and then...
Sub mariner I have taken 7,300 photos with my 7D Mk II, and many more with the original 7D. I use different cameras for different types of photography, so it's not my only body.
Image quality is the deciding factor for many of us; noise in Canon images has wasted hundreds of hours of our time, because we need to manually clean the noise prior to selling the image. I'm excited to see Canon improving the noise and thus reducing the time I have to spend in post.
Please be more polite in the future.
7dm2 scored close to the 70d on dxomark, which it might share similar sensor. Looking at dpreview samples the higher iso of the 7dm2 was cleaner then other aps-c cameras. But I noticed softer text then the nikon d7100, which lead me to believe there were some noise reduction applied in raw (some call raw cooking). I do believe canon 6d and nikon d750 has NR in raw. DXOmark claimed to take out any raw cooking done (how, I don't know). Dxomark overall score is weighted oldly, but I look at the individual scores like you. I can apply NR in lightroom and it takes out a lot of artifacts easily.
As usual, very pertinent analysis!
Tony, I think that there are good copies and bad copies of the Canon 7d Mark ii. I rented one from LensRentals and was greatly impressed. So impressed that I bought one from B&H. The one I got from B&H was horrible. It was so noisy. It was worse, by far, than my original 7d. It had focusing issues and it crashed twice during my second day in the field. I sent it back. Hopefully I will get a good copy next time. This might explain the two reviews of which you speak.
As 2 years and 7 months have now passed since your excellent video on the 7D Mark II has anything changed or improved much? I have an 80D and use it for all sorts of subject matter including sports with my two sons. Hence my interest in the 7D Mark II.
Why not recommend the D 7100? It has a DXO rating of 83. It beats the 7D MarkII in all categories. It has a decent focusing system, and it is cheaper. It also has the 1.3 crop mode which would make it better for sports.
Alvin Witcher ruclips.net/video/JpiZHZRDRbc/видео.htmlm33s
Tony Northrup I stand corrected, my apologies. Thank you for the quick response.
I upgraded from 7D to 7D MK II and I found the MKII felt almost exactly the same in my hand as the 7D.
I think DxOMark should weigh more on certain features depending on the type of photography the camera is geared for. I also think that DxOMark should refrain from making statements like "... identical to the 5 years old ..."
I don't think you made those percentage based conclusions right, here's why...
Dxo makes those iso numbers from how high they can bump the iso before the noise gets really noticeable, so if, let's say, nikon d600 has dxo iso rating of 3200, and nikon d5300 has rating of 1600, it just means that the d600 is 1 full stop ahead in terms of when do you start seeing the noise. Would you then say that d600 is 100% better than the d600?
Vuk Mirasevic Yes, 100% = 1 stop = 100% more light, in the way I'm expressing it. Feel free to convert the numbers into different terms.
Hey Tony,
I like the fact in your reviews that you include references to % difference, however I think that calculating delta's helps better put into perspective the magnitude of the changes. So for example when comparing the GH4 and 7DII ISO, we see a delta of 36% whereas GH4 performance is only 26% of that of the 7DII.
I like the work you and Chelsea do, however Gary does have a bit of a point. But prolly not appropriate for fellow blogger to be so public....
Keep up the work!
There is no Consumer Screen which nearly can make use of 14 Bit Colors. And the common Fileformat used online is JPEG... a (mainly) 12 Bit ... format.... so Color Depth is not really a point today.
I can't wait until they come out with magic lantern for the 7D mk 2. I can see it being a pretty good camera for recording raw video. The data rate seems to point to a good storage controller (if it can maintain 1080p 30FPS raw, then that can open the door to some pretty amazing video when it comes to getting a more cinematic look (close to the dynamic range of a RED epic)
Razor2048 Try the GH4; you'll never go back to a DSLR, Magic Lantern or not.
Hey Tony, thanks for a very helpful video. As with any of your material I have seen I think this is nice and easy for the layman, and informative. So far I am really happy with my 7D2. As you point out many cameras are better for some use cases.
I think people are freaking out that it seems like you're being unbiased and leaning towards a particular brand. Like you said, people seem to read only the headlines, and now that you're explaining it - DxO mark ain't wrong, just that the way they rate sensors means the 7d2 gets a lower score.
And you agree that Canon still falls behind when talking about dynamic range, but that the 7d2 sensor is better than the previous one, meaning There's still some sort of hope for Canon in the sensor range. And lastly, even if a particular camera body blows another brand's body away, you gotta factor in the other things you need when shooting photos like lenses. If your camera has the best everything but has no lenses...what's the point?
I really learn a lot from your videos Tony and I admire the work done by DxOMark. I believe it is very important to know as much as possible about your camera and lenses.
But ... sometimes ... seeing this kind of comparison between cameras I begin to think that my equipment is a piece of S... And I should change immediately whenever a new camera enters the market and that's not true. I bought my 5D3, 7D1 and all my lenses with hard work. Unfortunately I can't change my camera every year and I believe this is the reality of most professionals like me.
A camera 50% better than another will not make a 50% better photograph. Thanks for reminding everyone that image quality is not everything!!!
Thanks again! keep up the great work
Re: Colour depth, I 99% agree but think it makes a subtle but important difference in skinetone.
Do you agree with dxomark scores with 7Dii and ef supertelephoto zooms and primes?
I think people get too technical with camera's till they forget that the final result is all your own doing. just look at digitalrev series where a pro gets geared up with a very basic camera and still outperform most of us due to the skills and experience.
Exactly
Canon have done such an outstanding job of the focus system, speed and build, why after 5 years in the making is the heart of the camera only as you say one third stop better than the original 7d sensor?
Paul Atherton 1/3 stop is a pretty big leap (especially for Canon, who had fallen way behind).
I check image quality after processing my RAW files through DPP4. That way all variables are in play and accounted for. What you see is what you get. I am confident in what I see and not what some theoretical test suggests. Besides I rarely shoot at ISO 100. What is wrong with that? Particularly for sports and birding? BTW, DLO mathematically corrects my Canon lenses to near theoretical perfection. It does so quickly with little gain in image size. Just because of this one feature I convert RAW with DPP only. I have LR 5.6 but I'm getting much better (major in some cases) conversion results now. For further image refinement DPP connects the image with PS. What's not to like?
Fred Wampler I just feel like the workflow in LR is so much better. LR also has excellent lens correction, BTW.
DLO is special. You need to personally check it out. Or maybe your charming helper could. DLO IS tuned specifically for canon lenses by canon.
I think the way iso performance and image quality were used as synonyms in the previous video must have been confusing for people. Image quality is a function of many things, for me personally the sharpness a sensor can get out a lens compared to another sensor is of utmost importance as this is truly something I can appreciate in every shot I take. Recognizing the difference between image quality and iso is very important. I just wish DXO had a standardized metric for rating a sensor's capacity for sharpness. Guess we'll just have to wait until they test it on all the different lenses out there and compare for the lenses that mean the most to us individually.
I find it sad that the photo publications go about grandstanding like this, the 7d mkii is about the closest to perfect FOR ME that I have seen in a very long time. Even one of the major nikon fanboy youtube presenters is touting the low iso performance of this body. Low light sports are a major part of my photography and between the performance of this body and canon's lenses I dont think it can be beat without spending thousands more and it still performs very well in all other areas except video (which I don't much care about)
I do a lot of landscape photography. I am now getting into weddings will the Mark II be great for both?
+Terri Caldwell-Stanisha At this price point, I'd recommend a Canon 6D or Nikon D610 for either of those. Check our channel for reviews, or search northrup.photo.
Thank you Tony I purchased the 6D and I am very happy. Thank you for your response.
+Terri Caldwell-Stanisha Hi, I got the 6D as a gift and I love it (except the super slow AF) and it was a big step for me. I used a t5i/700D before. Hope you'll like it :)
DxO Is very thorough and I will have to side with them (based on the past track record and they are pretty consistent with how they rate), with that said if I'd purchased a Canon 7D MK II and I was pleased with the results, I would care what DxO findings were. I switched from the Canon 7D, 60D, and 50D, to the LUMIX GH4 and Gx7 and I'm extremely pleased with both of them. I believe it comes down to the photographer. Cameras are just tools used by photographers to capture images that is pleasing to the eye of that photographer and so you can have the best rated camera on the planet and if you don't know how to use it, you won't be pleased with the results. I actually like what Canon has done with the upgrades that they made to the 7D MK II. I use DxO software applications and I am just an awe of how OpticsPro 9 and 10 handles and reduces noise within raw images. These guys have it down to a science.
There are some things that mirror-less cameras can do (like allowing me to pre-process images, shoot video and stills without changing my mode, and extracting stills from 4K video) that I just love. But you can’t argue with the science of a full frame sensor and its advantages. But with that said I do not see either type of cameras (MFT or DSLR) performing so well that it eliminates the other one. What is going to be the undoing of the DSLR is its price. Everyone complains about the size of the DSLR, but if the price for the camera and the lenses were around or close to what the MFT cameras are, it wouldn't even be a debate. This is comparable to the MP3 format versus the audio CD and the MP4 format versus the video DVD. No one debates whether CD or DVD quality is better than his digital competitor. It's being beat out by his digital competitor because of cost and portability. It looks like history is repeating itself when it comes to MFT versus DSLR.
Hi , Tony . I would like to know that if I bought a used copy of "Photography buying Guide" , from Amazon , will I still be entitled to free update versions for the book?
+Eric Taylor yep!
Which version DPP did you use. Version 4 is much better than earlier versions
Then compare it to the >500 dollar D3300 which has better stats in all the three categories, including like 33% better iso-performance
Yes, we constantly recommend the D3300 for even serious landscapes. The 7D2 beats it in every other way, though.
Tony Northrup I think the point is another, and it's is "How could a sensor of a 1.800$ camera designed for sport be beaten by less expansive cameras like the D5100 (way older and cheaper)? The ISO is the one that confuses me most.
I don't know which criteria they used to measure ISO performance (I suppose it is the ISO value where the noise surpasses a certain amount, it shouldn't be anything too complicated to measure I guess), but apparently it's flawed for Canon cameras (and note well, I'm not a Canon fanboy, I actually shoot with a Nikon!).
Now, tell me who would ever buy a 7DII to shoot sport if it's ISO performances were really as bad as DXO rating states, expecially when with a bit more money you can buy something like an A7s that (always according only on DxO ISO test) is on a whole different league with a score of 3702?
One can endlessly debate the relative merits of the DxoMark metrics but the fact remains that they are consistent, valid, and reliable, even if not what any one of us might choose as the most relevant indicators of sensor performance. What this video really discloses is the extent to which we see what we anticipate seeing when examining images made by cameras for which we have preconceived expectations: Camera X is full frame so it must be better than camera Y which has a crop sensor. This is a second release so it must be better than the original. This lens is made by Leica (or Zeiss or you-fill-in) so it has to be better than that Sigma (or Tamron or Tokina).
I'm a Tony 'n Chelsea fanboy and I certainly am not accusing them of fudging their conclusions because they are largely Canon shooters and the 7D Mk II is a shiny new Canon for which there have been high hopes. I do suggest that to some extent they saw what they expected to see.
Discussions of this phenomenon, which is termed confirmation bias, induce defensiveness in people who may be seen as evidencing it, so let me recast this idea in terms more palatable to affronted reviewers: DxoMark measures, MFT curves, resolution charts and the like all have their uses but what really counts are the viewers' perceptions of real, live images.
There is more to DxO Marks than Color Depth, Dynamic Range and ISO Performance. The combined DxO Mark is calculated with a lot of other parameters, like Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity and Response, SNR etc... if you dig on their website you can find these values. And the "Sport" or ISO ranking isn't the "level of noise" but the threshold sensitivity before noise starts to get visible in a systematic way. Yes, better ISO performance at high and low sensitivity is very important and makes the photographer's life easier and open up to more creativity, but you can't claim based on the small recap that DxO offers that their ranking is wrong. The 7D Mk II remains a strong DSLR but it also has severe flaws, when you consider that resolution and image quality of an entry level DSLR like the Nikon D3300 are both better. Then again, the 7D Mk II is a tough camera, strongly built and with other advantages like weather sealing, large buffer and 10fps for sports and wildlife, an amazing autofocus system, reliability etc... But seeing Canon trying to follow up with the competition on image quality and sensor (and ADC) technology is a bit disappointing when you consider than not more than a couple of years ago, they were technological leaders on that same market. Canon JPEGs aren't as good as Nikon JPEGs for instance, and same goes with RAW when you look at their latest cameras like the 5D Mk III, the 70D and now the 7D Mk II, which all seem to suffer from lower resolution, softness and lack of shadow details when compared with the equivalent Nikon cameras. Nevertheless, this camera remains a beast, with the exception of Nikon who also builds strong DSLRs, nobody really comes with a camera that can compete with this one overall when you consider the workhorse it is !
By the way, even though I disagree on some points, I really liked your video and fully respect your opinions. You do make a lot of great points in this video and by no mean am I trying to offend anyone ! When discussing facts, it all comes down to which parameter is more important to you, that's why for the moment I'd rather own a rugged DSLR than a similarly or even a little bit better performing camera that wouldn't be as reliable and tough as a high end DSLR like the 7D. But µ4/3 and other mirrorless cameras have caught up on image quality and I guess that they might also catch up in other important things like strong and consistent autofocus, ruggedness etc ... Well, I hope this wasn't too annoying to read if you came down here and thumbs up for your well produced videos !
***** I don't think we disagree on anything. I understand the DxOMark overall score and what the ISO ranking is.
I'm not saying the DxOMark ranking is "wrong", but it's highly subjective and over-simplified. I do think it's a terrible idea when the media cites only the overall score. OK, maybe I do think the ranking is wrong :).
Theres my next buy. Need it for fast indoor shooting, not ideal but its only one i can afford. It will work with 35 and 50 mm wide open most of the times with iso 3200, mostly for web usage.. f/2.8 is to slow for me, f/2.0 to keep over 1/1000s with with maybe little -ev on apsc.
I just compared my D5100 with the 7D mark II.
In dxomark's technical data it seems that my 3.5 year old camera's sensor is better in any way than the canon's
+Tony Northrup so you said the D610 is not good for photographing birds. Would you say the same for the D750 giving that it got the focusing testing of the D810?
TheKnut The D750 is definitely better, but (depending on how close you can get) you'll probably get better shots with a D5300.
Minolta had the 400mm f4.5 HS, which by all accounts is still awesome, and that works great on the Sony range (as virtually all Minolta lenses do). OK, it does look like it costs about double the Canon, but it is F4.5 instead of F5.6. (OK, I know I'm reaching here!)
hi , i've just upgraded to 7D mark ii, i follow your videos and they're really helpful.
it would be great if u could do a tutorial on 7D mark ii and also the lenses that go best with this one !
thanks
Devki Patel OK, here ya go: ruclips.net/video/JSJ4mrTzDTg/видео.html
How about the video quality on 7d2? Thanks. Compare with 5d3, will it be the same?
***** It probably won't be quite as clean as the 5D3, but the video focusing system will work much better. For video, though, you really should look at mirrorless cameras: ruclips.net/video/iZuxo2ZFz_g/видео.html
Tony Northrup Thank you!!
The DXO algorithm is complete balls. You buy a camera for what YOU need it for, and they seem to put priority on elements of a sensor that nearly everyone should not care about. Besides that, the AF and physical operation of the camera is far more important.
I think DXO are responsible for a rising tide of inexperienced photographers who think the sensor is the only thing worth talking about on a camera. Forums are swamped with this type of person now, and they don't seem to know anything about photography other than taking photos of test charts.
You are wrong about the Portrait Color Depth not mattering. It matters very much, because the greater the color depth, the more latitude you have while post processing your pictures. This is the metric which tells you how far you can adjust the colors and perform corrections involving color before things start looking strange. They call it portrait color depth because it's most noticeable in portraits, but it really applies to any color photo.
solidliqs OK, I'll give you the same challenge I've given everyone else: send me (tony@northrup.org) a real-world example picture (obviously I need raws and processed photos) that visibly shows the weakness in color depth from any modern camera.
So far I've gotten no responses, but I'm looking forward to your evidence.
Tony Northrup That's because it's not the image itself which highlights this, so much as the post processing performed on the image. Try a single image HDR on a variety of pictures, and you'll quickly see what I mean. For something you might actually want to do to a picture, follow some of the more sophisticated Phlearn tutorials on similar images from cameras with varying amounts of Portrait Color Depth. You can gather these images yourself (and this applies to anyone and everyone reading this comment); dpreview.com has plenty of RAWs to choose from.
I'm wondering about using a 7D2 or 70D versus a 5D3for video. I know it might not be your specialty, but video people are so into the 5D's because of low light performance reputation. Haven't seen if the 7/70's are becoming comparable. Ideally I want the 70D for the price and flip-out screen unless it's too noisy for run and gun video.
What is the soundtrack? I've been searching it from youtube library since I heard it's from there, but I haven't found it..
***** It's used by DigitalRev TV in almost all of their videos, when Kai starts doing his antics. I think they say its name in some "making of" episode.
+KuronoXD still can't find it………
well done Tony! Thank you..