kel77
Senior Member
Yes, so for each picture you will have a RAW and a jpeg file. RAW will go to CF card and jpeg to the SD card.
You can do it on 5D Mk III too.
OFFICIAL: CANON EOS 7D Mark II - User Thread
- Thread starter raydio
- Start date
Yes, so for each picture you will have a RAW and a jpeg file. RAW will go to CF card and jpeg to the SD card.
You can do it on 5D Mk III too.
Turbonetics
Senior Member
I see...that's great!!
Turbonetics
Senior Member
I guess should be same...SD is usually slower..if don't burst shoot for long period should be ok.
Alamak, can't test it now... Am in the middle of my ICT... Am still very happy to hear bout this, as
I'm looking at (planning) to input raw to cf & jpeg to sd(wifi), looks like gotta hands on again on the weekend, but still waiting to c if any bros has got a wifi sd on dis system
I'm looking at (planning) to input raw to cf & jpeg to sd(wifi), looks like gotta hands on again on the weekend, but still waiting to c if any bros has got a wifi sd on dis system
selling my 40d to fund this now
:embrass:
:dunno:
:cry:
It's really a very nice camera, esp the AF is more than wat I was hoping for, Will b selling my 7D classic after my Ict this week,
Btw I Jus realize eye-fi icon is found on pg 154 of the manual, in fact there's 2 icon
1.eye-fi card transmission status
2.eye-fi transfer completed
Looks like canon had already thought of this.
raydio
Senior Member
Not the best of reviews from DXO as expected...
“On paper, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II looks to be a solid choice for sports and action photographers, but its sensor performance is somewhat behind the best in class, at least at low ISOs. Relatively high noise, less discriminating color, and below-average DR at base ISO all continue to hold back Canon sensors against rivals, but that’s not the case at higher sensitivities. In fact, when light levels fall, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II performs competitively, even surpassing rivals slightly. If Canon could only address performance at base and low ISO, the EOS 7D Mk II would make a thoroughly convincing all-round choice, but in this category the Sony A77 II looks to be the more compelling option.”
Regardless, I'd rather hear directly from users about their personal impressions of this promising new camera.
“On paper, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II looks to be a solid choice for sports and action photographers, but its sensor performance is somewhat behind the best in class, at least at low ISOs. Relatively high noise, less discriminating color, and below-average DR at base ISO all continue to hold back Canon sensors against rivals, but that’s not the case at higher sensitivities. In fact, when light levels fall, the Canon EOS 7D Mk II performs competitively, even surpassing rivals slightly. If Canon could only address performance at base and low ISO, the EOS 7D Mk II would make a thoroughly convincing all-round choice, but in this category the Sony A77 II looks to be the more compelling option.”
Regardless, I'd rather hear directly from users about their personal impressions of this promising new camera.
SilentSeth
New Member
Not really a bias, but DxO do a lot of test using low ISO settings. And admittedly Canon lags a bit in this area. However, when ISO is cranked up, the differences with other leading sensors start to diminish.
Please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not an avid reader of DxO
raydio
Senior Member
I guess what I find hardest to swallow is how people take these kinds of analysis so seriously. Sure its good practice to do your due diligence when researching a new camera component to ensure that your needs are met with maximum utility and is within the constraints of your budget.
But I find it hard to believe that some people will sell all their Canon gear based on an analysis like DXO's when these things tend to be transitory. Canon was best in class for most of their camera lines just a few years ago. I am confident that they will climb that hill once again and regain the summit. Its only a matter of time.
When one thinks of an investment in photography, the most valuable component of course is skill level. Unfortunately, most people obtain and spend the least amount in this component. The next most important component in a photographer's arsenal is the quality and breadth of lenses owned. The least important component is of course the camera body. At the risk of over trivializing, people place far too much value on the camera body. I realize that the body is somewhat 'sexy' to some. In some ways, owning and using the latest and greatest is tied to their ego and self worth.
The 7D Classic was considered a revolutionary camera when it was introduced. Now of course, with all the advances made in the past 5 years, it is lagging behind its younger and more capable siblings. I believe that the 7D Classic is still a fine camera and its current price point is very attractive. I also believe that the Canon 7D Mk II is a very capable camera for sports, wildlife and event photography. DXO may find fault with it's dynamic range in the test lab at low ISO's but in real world situations I do not believe that it falls so far behind as to cause one to sell their entire investment in Canon gear for a Sony or Nikon equivalent.
To all who bought a Canon 7D Mk II, congratulations! Keep shooting, use it well and pay no heed to 'DX-Ology'.
But I find it hard to believe that some people will sell all their Canon gear based on an analysis like DXO's when these things tend to be transitory. Canon was best in class for most of their camera lines just a few years ago. I am confident that they will climb that hill once again and regain the summit. Its only a matter of time.
When one thinks of an investment in photography, the most valuable component of course is skill level. Unfortunately, most people obtain and spend the least amount in this component. The next most important component in a photographer's arsenal is the quality and breadth of lenses owned. The least important component is of course the camera body. At the risk of over trivializing, people place far too much value on the camera body. I realize that the body is somewhat 'sexy' to some. In some ways, owning and using the latest and greatest is tied to their ego and self worth.
The 7D Classic was considered a revolutionary camera when it was introduced. Now of course, with all the advances made in the past 5 years, it is lagging behind its younger and more capable siblings. I believe that the 7D Classic is still a fine camera and its current price point is very attractive. I also believe that the Canon 7D Mk II is a very capable camera for sports, wildlife and event photography. DXO may find fault with it's dynamic range in the test lab at low ISO's but in real world situations I do not believe that it falls so far behind as to cause one to sell their entire investment in Canon gear for a Sony or Nikon equivalent.
To all who bought a Canon 7D Mk II, congratulations! Keep shooting, use it well and pay no heed to 'DX-Ology'.
Last edited:
Turbonetics
Senior Member
So far I had brought this camera out on field for trying. Comparing against my usual 1D4, the AF speed still feel pretty much similar but I feel both cameras has different characteristics in AF(not sure was it the settings behind?). At low or base ISO the photo looks good but at higher ISO it may have better noise control over 1D4 but it is obviously softer. So those who owned a 1D may not experienced a "WOW" factor. But those who upgrade iam sure will be awed by it.
rhino123
Senior Member
The main thing about DxO is that it is measuring sensor and sensor alone. Which is highly inaccurate. That shows when Nikon and Sony both use the same sensor in some of their cameras but Nikon somehow had cleaner images (see dpreview for the comparison). That is why I always say that sensor, although important, is not the only thing in a camera. Finally, for me, when I buy a camera, I looked for something that is comfortable to hold, with menus that make sense to me, easy to use in my opinion (or to me) and with a comfortable sets of accessories and lenses available (not just native but also third party).
Personally, I'm not really a fan of chasing figures from DXO (thou I have my fair share of reading all these figures that makes no senses to the photos I shoot).
What's really important and is not really emphasized (thou stated in DXO website) is that, it does not take other aspects of the camera into consideration. E.g. Auto Focusing and AF accuracy, FPS and other ergonomics stuffs. Again, personally, I think the other aspects should be the real reason for any buying decision.
What's really important and is not really emphasized (thou stated in DXO website) is that, it does not take other aspects of the camera into consideration. E.g. Auto Focusing and AF accuracy, FPS and other ergonomics stuffs. Again, personally, I think the other aspects should be the real reason for any buying decision.
From Roger, the respected sensor reviewer of Clarkvision:
"A note on DXO numbers. It appears that DXO is not correcting Nikons truncating of the raw data, which artificially improves dynamic range by about a stop. Also Nikon filters the raw data, improving noise and dynamic range further. I believe, based on some experiments, that if the canon data were treated similarly, it would result it numbers at least as good.
Previous to the 7D2 and 6D, pattern noise was a real limitation in Canon cameras (the 1D4 and 1DX are also pretty good, but not a good as the 7D2 and 6D). That pattern noise produced poor shadow areas compared to what could be extracted from Nikon sensors, especially at some ISOs (like 200 and 400 on many canon cameras). But Nikon's raw files look "wormy" in the shadow areas from the in camera filtering of the raw data. The Canon 7D2 raw data looks much more random, as it should be."
"A note on DXO numbers. It appears that DXO is not correcting Nikons truncating of the raw data, which artificially improves dynamic range by about a stop. Also Nikon filters the raw data, improving noise and dynamic range further. I believe, based on some experiments, that if the canon data were treated similarly, it would result it numbers at least as good.
Previous to the 7D2 and 6D, pattern noise was a real limitation in Canon cameras (the 1D4 and 1DX are also pretty good, but not a good as the 7D2 and 6D). That pattern noise produced poor shadow areas compared to what could be extracted from Nikon sensors, especially at some ISOs (like 200 and 400 on many canon cameras). But Nikon's raw files look "wormy" in the shadow areas from the in camera filtering of the raw data. The Canon 7D2 raw data looks much more random, as it should be."
Turbonetics
Senior Member
I had brought this camera out for some test shots.
My usual birding shots doesn't seem too good on this camera as the details looks kind of "washed out" and I hope to have more time to look into this. Today brought this camera for the first time on a general family outing. So far the AF seems to be pretty good at low light and accurate.
AF seems to be faster than 1D4 on low light(this is my personal feel as I didn't compare side by side to be 100% sure).
I tried out the 65 points Auto selection and it is able to detect human face and locked focus.
Speaking about the AF points,I feel that the centre point still out-performs the rest even though all are F2.8 cross type.
Will post a few casual shots taken for today in the next post.
My usual birding shots doesn't seem too good on this camera as the details looks kind of "washed out" and I hope to have more time to look into this. Today brought this camera for the first time on a general family outing. So far the AF seems to be pretty good at low light and accurate.
AF seems to be faster than 1D4 on low light(this is my personal feel as I didn't compare side by side to be 100% sure).
I tried out the 65 points Auto selection and it is able to detect human face and locked focus.
Speaking about the AF points,I feel that the centre point still out-performs the rest even though all are F2.8 cross type.
Will post a few casual shots taken for today in the next post.
Last edited:
Turbonetics
Senior Member
These are shot in JPEG and PP in LR.
For high resolution,just visit my Flickr account to view.
F2.8,ISO 320
F4,ISO 2500
F2.8,ISO 2000
F8,ISO 800
F2.8,ISO 800
For high resolution,just visit my Flickr account to view.
F2.8,ISO 320
F4,ISO 2500
F2.8,ISO 2000
F8,ISO 800
F2.8,ISO 800
raydio
Senior Member
Thanks for the photos above. They look good.
Could you post a few of your bird photos that appear to be 'washed out' and compare them to a photo or two taken from other cameras that don't seem to have this characteristic? I've heard the same kind of feedback from a few people in other sites. The photos are usually cropped fairly highly showing that the the photos look soft... is this what you mean by 'washed out'?
Similar threads
