7D Re: 7D Mark II

lyrov said:
There is aliasing in a few shots...and the image doesnt look to me improved from the previous models...
Click to expand...

I see the image looks very familiar to me as a 5D III user, Clean (very minimal aliasing and no moire) and the detail is quite muddy, sharpening will help as it does with mk III probably. I was expecting an improvement in detail (closer to the C100) not just aliasing and low-light performance.
 
lyrov said:
GH3 and GH4 are weather resistant and have a flip screen. Nikon also putting a flip screen in their new D750...
Click to expand...
Ok, well Canon doesn't put flip screens on their professional cameras. If you read photography forums, many customers don't trust flip screens as they are worried they will break off when they are running around with their cameras. It was a business decision on the part of Canon, not an oversight.
 
cpreston said:
Ok, well Canon doesn't put flip screens on their professional cameras. If you read photography forums, many customers don't trust flip screens as they are worried they will break off when they are running around with their cameras. It was a business decision on the part of Canon, not an oversight.
Click to expand...

Yes of course its a business decision...and I believe Canon is clearly showing that they want to draw a line between their DSLRs and their Cinema cameras.
 
I own a 60D and a Canon XF100. The 70D, 7DMk2, and XF200 do not interest me, although I waited for them before getting anything.

The Sony X70 is also one that I *am* very interested in. If the 4K upgrade is only $500 or so as I've seen predicted, that's even better. If the 4K upgrade package also adds 120fps at any resolution, even 720p, that would be perfect.
 
lyrov said:
There is aliasing in a few shots...and the image doesnt look to me improved from the previous models...
Click to expand...
Uh, it's a freaking YouTube video. There are some inferences we can make from what we see here, but to make such bold pronouncements based entirely on looking at heavily compressed and processed footage is a bit premature to say the least. I'm curious to get the opinions of the people who actually get to use it.

As far as all this talk about Canon's intentions, plans, schemes, plots, strategies, etc, it's pretty clear that they had a real goal in this camera...make a damn good stills camera for sports shooters that also has some video features. With that in mind they've succeeded. If you were expecting a 4k 180fps video camera, well we got one of those this week too. It's from Sony and it'll set you back $8,000. That Sony FS7 won't shoot 10fps raw stills or do any of the other still photo functions and it wasn't supposed to because it's not a stills camera!
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Uh, it's a freaking YouTube video. There are some inferences we can make from what we see here, but to make such bold pronouncements based entirely on looking at heavily compressed and processed footage is a bit premature to say the least.
Click to expand...

If there was any noticeable improvement in image quality over the previous models it would be obvious even from those YouTube videos...thats my opinion...and I wish I ll be proven wrong!
 
The only thing that matters is how the camera will actually perform in real life. If we reviewed cameras based on flashy spec sheets we would all be shooting on Scarlets instead of C300s.

Never review a camera based on specs.
 
Canon's DSLR's are now irrelevant for video. There is no reason to choose one as a video shooter when you have cameras like the a7s & GH4 among many others. Even if you have a large collection of EF lenses you are still better off leaving Canon for video.
 
vtwiz said:
Canon's DSLR's are now irrelevant for video. There is no reason to choose one as a video shooter when you have cameras like the a7s & GH4 among many others. Even if you have a large collection of EF lenses you are still better off leaving Canon for video.
Click to expand...

Or you could head on over to their cinema line. It might cost more, but the upside is that you are no longer stuck using a DSLR to shoot video.
 
I'm slightly underwhelmed with this announcement, but the trashing of Canon on this board and elsewhere I think is a bit much. It might be instructive to see the work of the people making such brutal judgments, such that we all might know what sort of masterpieces are beyond the reach of Canon gear.

In fact in some cases I have seen it, and it is, um, enlightening.
 
charliemcdanger said:
It might be instructive to see the work of the people making such brutal judgments, such that we all might know what sort of masterpieces are beyond the reach of Canon gear.

In fact in some cases I have seen it, and it is, um, enlightening.
Click to expand...

Honestly, that has nothing to do with Canon trash-talkers. That's gearheads in general unfortunately. Some people get too caught up in the tech that they spend more time obsessing about gear than they do the actual art. I knew a guy who insulted everyone that didn't shoot on a RED camera back in the day. His stuff may have been RAW and technically have more definition and color than what we shot on back then, but it was artistically uninspired. Honestly, the same guy shot more interesting stuff on a Canon T2i before he went gearhead.

We've all heard that "content is king" line to death by this point. And it is true. But having the right tools for the job can open up more possibilities, and as long as we don't get too caught up in the tech and lose sight of the art, it can be a very good thing.

Honestly, the reason folks trash talk Canon here and elsewhere is because most of us at some point had one. And most of us found something annoying about them.

Personally, I've been burned by them enough that my Canon gear mostly gets used for photography these days. I had a client complain about moire more than once- one time on a product shoot, the client actually asked why the weave fabric looked like a rainbow of colors, and demanded we find someone with "a real camera". Very embarrassing as a professional. Then there are the times that you have to intercut it with footage shot on proper pro-level gear. That's when you can really tell how the codec and and actual resolution falls apart. I'm not saying you can't shoot amazing things with it- people do all the time! But these shortcomings and Canon's unwillingness to do anything about them since the first HD video capable models has produced a healthy amount of brand loathing.

Now, every time I see a short film with unhealthy amounts of moire on someone's suit, I curse Canon under my breath.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, am I one of the only people actually excited to see what dual Digic 6's does for video IQ?

I don't shoot 4k and don't intend to in the immediate future. Honestly, I just want the best danged 1080p footage south of a c100's price point.
I'm cautiously optimistic that this camera has the potential to be just that. This is a new sensor (if I'm not mistaken) and a new image processing architecture (Digic 6, and TWO of them!).
Remember when the original Digic4 cameras were all roughly the same for video? They all suffered from the same limitations in codec and resolving power as each other, with more or less the same video recording quality and feature set. That is, except for the 7D. The first 7D was the only Digic4 era camera that produced full 1080 HDMI out while recording, which was supposedly only possible because of the dual-chip design. This made it extremely popular with those who wanted it for video purposes, and became a bit of a cult-followed product even today - and I think Canon knows that.

I see a lot of comments about this being more of an interesting sports/events still camera than anything noteworthy for video, but I think we may be unfairly jumping to conclusions. Yes, it doesn't shoot 4k. Yes, it maxes out at 60p (which is still an improvement in full HD!). But this might be the model Canon finally decides deserves a solid video recording feature on par with the C100's IQ. Dual digic 6s are certainly fast enough to handle a decent resample for HD video without throwing away resolution like other models do. The question is really whether Canon wants to release something like that or not.

I'm not keeping my fingers crossed, I've been let down by them before. But I'm going to keep my eye on this development. They announced a while back that they need to step up their video recording modes, and intend to soon. I'm guessing that they originally wanted to intentionally leave the DSLR market as-is, and focus on branding the cinema series for video. They clearly know how to improve image quality, as the C100 does it. I'm convinced they just didn't want to before, likely to protect their more expensive video line.

But with the surge in competitor's popularity, I think Canon is ready to throw DSLR users a bone (hence that announcement a few months ago). Maybe they will keep things like super high FPS and 4K for the cxxx series, but make this update to the legendary 7D the first Canon high quality 1080p DSLR.

...or not. Maybe they'll just disappoint us again. Who knows?
 
Last edited:
M. Gilden said:
...

Honestly, the reason folks trash talk Canon here and elsewhere is because most of us at some point had one. And most of us found something annoying about them.... I had a client complain about moire more than once- one time on a product shoot, the client actually asked why the weave fabric looked like a rainbow of colors, and demanded we find someone with "a real camera". Very embarrassing as a professional. Then there are the times that you have to intercut it with footage shot on proper pro-level gear. That's when you can really tell how the codec and and actual resolution falls apart. I'm not saying you can't shoot amazing things with it- people do all the time! But these shortcomings and Canon's unwillingness to do anything about them since the first HD video capable models has produced a healthy amount of brand loathing.
Click to expand...

I have to agree here...the last quote pretty much sums it up. Others have nailed it as well. I'm sure that I and others can and will get great results from this basically still camera with some video capabilities, but for $2k, it won't be me. I think it's a pretty good way for someone who is a still photographer to get into shooting video. If Canon is going to want to compete in the $2k range, they have to deliver more than this. You can buy a used 7D for $1k or so.
 
M. Gilden said:
Now, every time I see a short film with unhealthy amounts of moire on someone's suit, I curse Canon under my breath.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, this has been a thorn in my side as well.

"In your footage you find/
A bunch of weird lines/
That's a moire..."
-Dean Martin on the 7D
 
M. Gilden said:
This is a new sensor (if I'm not mistaken)
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity: what makes you think that? To me, it seems to be the same sensor of the 70D, which probably means aliasing and moire just as in the 70D. Also, I wouldn't expect more processing power to solve that, it's the sensor readout that skips the lines. Now, given Canon's usual out-of-sensor-ADC design, they may have solved the aliasing/moire by adding more ADCs, but I have no info on that.

In any case, even if they fixed aliasing/moire, it would be an underperformer by today's standards, since there's probably no DR improvement (their sensor tech doesn't allow much, plus they didn't include clog or anything like that).

I truly believe Canon dropped the ball around 2012, and hasn't reacted yet.

(I'm just an amateur, and yes, I am a gearhead, or at least a bit too technically minded. This, this and this would be my best videos released so far. I know they are not much...)
 
If Canon really dropped the ball then why do I still like my 5d mark III more than the A7s? (5d raw is effing beautiful, granted it's a hack but my god). A7s is a great b-cam for 5d raw stuff though. Even the h264 from the 5d has qualities that are better than what the a7s xavs-c files give out.

Stuff like:
+ better colors
+ no blue highlight problem (what the hell sony?)
+ no motion artifacts. (Sony has quite a bit at 1080/60p)
+ better rolling shutter
+ RAW ( + magic lantern, killer features).
+ No highlight black lines
+ Way easier usability (take pictures at the same time, all the files in user selectable folders, no stupid folder structures, video/photomode easily switchable, very easy to change settings, a7s is a bit of a pain compared)

What the A7s does better is:
+ better dynamic range especially when shooting internal codec
+ 2 stops better lowlight. I could shoot ISO 6400 raw with the 5d, now I can go ISO 25,600. Full two stops better.
+ APS-C crop. Excellent.
+ Great sharpness with internal codec
+ Possible 4k (jury is still out with that).

I will continue shooting both but considering all the hoopla about Canon falling behind, the a7s is not that huge of a jump. It's a two steps forwards, one step backwards and sideways.

None of this has anything to do with the 7d mk II just thought to put it out there as most of these things are not in specs.
 
Samuel H said:
Just out of curiosity: what makes you think that?
Click to expand...

It is a new sensor. Canon (Westfall and all Canon reps) clearly state that while it has the same pixel count, it is not the same one in the 70D or even a slight tweak, and that it has been completely redesigned from the ground up with new microlens technology that improves light gathering efficiency and detail reproduction and an improved Dual Pixel AF design. They also claim that video noise at 1600 ISO on a Digic 5 Processor looks similar to 400 ISO on a digic 6 processor, but they didn't claim that specifically regarding the 7D, just the Digic 6 processor. This is why I am mildly interested. I would guess that they probably removed moire and aliasing as they did in the 5D mk III and that it has a boost in low-light performance, which is good, but I don't expect a boost in resolution/detail beyond the 5D levels.

We'll see.
 
Everyone eagerly wants to upgrade from 5D3 to get rid of all it's issues. That's why people buy a7s, gh4 etc. with hopes, but it's not getting us exactly where we want to go. As soon as Canon will release 5D4 (hopefully substantially better then mark 3) I'm quite sure everyone will jump straight in leaving all the other cameras behind. (I can tell you I will)
 
@maarek:
RAW video with the 5D3 is indeed pretty good, completely competitive with everything else at a similar price, as long as you're ready to fight the heavy workflow. But it's not Canon's doing: Canon dropped the ball.
The a7s is far from perfect, but I do think it's a major step forward, even with highlight aliasing and that weird blue thing. Plus, it's a lot cheaper than the 5D3+RAW with a decent amount of media.
And I definitely aggree that this is not a specs thing. H.264 is soft on the 5D3 is soft, on the a7s it is sharp, but they read the same in the spec list. But I fear the 7D2 has the same image quality in video mode as the 70D, and I would definitely consider that a very bad thing.

@Ebrahim Saadawi:
They always say it's a new sensor, even when it's not. We will know soon enough...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top