Canon EOS 7D Mark II has officially announced, here are first official sample images of Canon EOS 7D Mark II. You can click the image to see large size:
| Canon EOS 7D Mark II Body | Amazon | B&H | Adorama | eBay |
| Canon EOS 7D Mark II w/ 18-135mm Lens | Amazon | B&H | Adorama | eBay |
Sample Movies:
You can click the link below the image to see full sample videos
via: Canon JP
| Support Cameraegg, Buy from one of our affiliate retailers, Thanks ! | ||
|---|---|---|
| Canon EOS 7D Mark II Body | $1,799 | Amazon | B&H | Adorama | eBay |
| Canon EOS 7D Mark II Body | $2,149 | Amazon | B&H | Adorama | eBay |
Follow 7D Mark II on Facebook:
Affiliate Disclosure: Some of the links in this article are affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, we may receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site and allows us to continue making comprehensive reviews.
Very tempting. Looks like it has fantastic noise control at high ISO. Really looking forward to seeing some more night city shots.
I was considering a full frame because I was worried about noise. I shoot indoor sports. With my old 7D I didn’t want to shoot past 1600 ISO. But the shoot of the squirrel was very impressive at ISO 3200. Were these shots edited for noise before posting? If they were not I’m preordering this camera.
No they were not. I edited the night shot and the squirrel shot in light room and I was able to completely remove the nose from the squirrel shot without loosing its sharpness.
Noise *
Untill we see raw files the jpeg are useless
Why do you need to see the RAW files? Are you posting RAW files to the web? Printing RAW files? The RAW file is a digital negative, and the finished Jpeg gives you the final shot of what is possible with the camera. The RAW files are going to be like any other RAW file – bland, baseless and boring. When you post an image to the web for viewing, you will be posting a Jpeg, not a RAW file.
The squirrel shot looks clean but I don’t find it detailed enough. to me it exhibits signs of heavier noise reduction that I ‘d use on my 5DMkIII files (at ISO 3200 I set the luminance NR between 1-10 and chrominance NR 20-25 in LR or ACR) For my work (weddings mostly) where I need higher ISOs (no more than 4000 nonetheless) a bit of noise is not that important, I often add grain! A RAW available for download would give us the chance to process the file for ourselves and better assess the low light capabilities of the camera.
You have a good point. My bad. 🙁
There would be millions of different jpgs from single RAW file. so quality of RAW is important. because it is digital negative as u said.
Fair enough. I see your point. 🙂
Hmm, a bit disappointing to be honest. Noise is still an issue and looks approximately par to a 1D Mk3 but the higher resolution makes the noise more prevalent here. But as Gigi states, it’s hard to judge until we can get hold of sample RAW files vs these compressed JPEGs. Thanks for the samples though, it’s a good indication.
the first photo at 6400 ISO is simply horrible
yes u right
These files look like they have been either shot as JPG or used some sort of agressive noise reduction. Image with ISO 6400 JPG looks great from color noise standpoint. But luma noise is insanse. On my 5Dmk2 i dont have that much noise at ISO12800, but my color noise even at ISO6400 looks far worse then this.