New Workshop! Lighting 3 | Advanced Off Camera Flash


Canon Releases New 7D Mark II Firmware Update, Fixes AF Issues

By Anthony Thurston on May 13th 2015

There have been rumblings about issues with the Canon 7D Mark II‘s AF performance for quite a while now, and with no official word from Canon, it seemed as if there wasn’t much to it. That was before today.


Canon has released a new firmware update for the 7D Mark II which addresses several issues that users have reported with the camera and its autofocus. If you own a Canon 7D Mark II, you can download and install the update yourself by checking out Canon’s website here.  For a list of issues the new 1.04 Firmware update addresses, keep reading.

Canon 7D Mark II Firmware 1.04

  1. Fixes a phenomenon in which the camera’s AF function may not operate properly at a focal length of approximately 100mm when used with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens.
  2. Fixes a phenomenon in which, in rare instances, the reduction of the flicker effect cannot be achieved when in AI servo AF mode, despite the “Anti-flicker shoot” function being set to “Enable”.
  3. Fixes a phenomenon in which the Picture Style settings may not be applied to the captured image when the camera is set to custom shooting mode C1, C2 or C3.
  4. Fixes a phenomenon in which, in very rare cases, the first still image captured in live view mode may not record the correct date and time.
  5. Fixes a phenomenon in which, in very rare cases, image noise may appear in JPEG images when brightness or contrast is corrected by the Auto Lighting Optimizer function.

Overall, it looks to be a pretty standard ‘fixes’ firmware update from Canon. No new features, and no new functionality. Just fixing things that were not working correctly in the first place. But what did you expect? This is Canon we are talking about – not Fuji.

So what are your thoughts about this new firmware update from Canon for the 7D Mark II? Did they do enough, or is there more that needs to be addressed in your mind? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think. 


This site contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links, however, this does not impact accuracy or integrity of our content.

Anthony Thurston is a photographer based in the Salem, Oregon area specializing in Boudoir. He recently started a new project, Fiercely Boudoir to help support the growing boudoir community. Find him over on Instagram. You may also connect with him via Email.

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Thalis Valle

    70d needs a update with its firmware too, but canon keeps quiet! 70d is the most problematic camera with auto focus. In the DigitalRev TV after testing 3 cameras, 70d shot 120 images and only 20 was in focus! it is purely truth! thousands of people claiming about this. Canon is a shame!

    | |
  2. Oliver El Helou

    FK this. This is totally unacceptable. I bought two bodies. Now lost a shoot to the focusing issue. I am furious and might not get paid for a job I did yesterday. Unless I’m using STM lenses, nothing focuses like it should. I will install the latest FW from them hoping I can make use of the most expensive EFs lens that’s supposed to pay it’s value. 17-55 2.8 really What am I supposed to do? Eat the lens or turn it into a mug? I am very sure and positive that canon has released this fix in this new FW update DESCRETELY. I just hope it works…..

    | |
  3. jim needham

    I firmware update fixed a focusing problem I’d not seen described by anyone else, nor in the list of fixes. If I was focused on something close (say, less than 5m) then tried to focus on something far (say, 30m or more) 7DmkII refused to even try to focus unless I focused on 1 or 2 intermediary objects. This also happened going the other way — from far to near. This was true for for all the lenses I tested (70-200mm f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/4L, 100mm f/2.8L macro IS, 24-105mm f/4L, 100-400mm L, 17-40mm f4L, 40mm f/2.8 STI). I did the firmware update an hour ago and on the two lenses I just tested, all is good. That fix was not on the list, so it was a nice surprise.

    | |
  4. Marlon Fortune

    That’s good to hear, im glad that canon is seeking the interest of their customers and their reputation, however, do you know if they ever fixed the focus issues with the 70d that many users have complained about in the past.

    | |
  5. Kevin Cucci

    I am confused, maybe you guys can help me out. I was under the impression this firmware update was going to fix the consistent AF issues, such as images not being tack sharp when they should be, and continuous tracking… Am I just reading this wrong, or did they not address any of that?

    | |
    • Jeff Ringling

      They fixed it as far as I can tell. They just didn’t disclose that they fixed it. I’ve tried several lenses and they all work now.

      | |
  6. Ben Young

    Did they do enough?
    Well, if there aren’t any other issues, then yes.

    I don’t expect them to be suddenly adding new features.

    | |
  7. Thomas Horton

    Seems like Canon is discovering issues and fixing them in a timely manner. Not much else we can expect from a company these days.

    | |
    • adam sanford

      It must suck to be in product development there. There’s no net big enough to catch every odd combination of gear / settings / conditions to shake out every little bug, so every release is like putting out a little ‘failure waiting to happen’.

      The best anyone can do is have reliable hardware and faith in the corrective opportunity rev’ing the firmware represents.

      | |
    • Thomas Horton

      I fear that many companies (photography and other) are cutting budgets on QC. They are making early adopting customers pay a premium price to act as a beta tester.

      One of the many reasons why I never buy stuff when the model first comes out. I like to wait for the price to drop and for others to beta test it for me. :)

      | |
    • Ralph Hightower

      I don’t know if it would suck to be in product development at Canon. My vocation is a software developer; as a photography enthusiast, I think it would be cool to write firmware for Canon cameras and have a chance to play with the gear in testing.
      I even developed a program for myself and since I thought others might want the application, shared it with the public. It updates the calendar with NASA’s Space Shuttle schedule when the fleet was flying from 2007 to 2011.

      | |
    • adam sanford

      @Ralph — don’t mistake me, working there might be phenomenal for access to new gear and tech. I meant solely it is impossible to put out a problem-free camera as there are too many use-cases, first party compatible products and expectations for third party compatibility. Every new camera body drops the ball somewhere as it can’t all be tested for.

      | |
    • Dave Haynie

      If do product assurance the way it’s done in the computer industry, they really should be able to test everything. But that can get oppressive.

      When you see that Microsoft certified sticker on a box of software or hardware, that tells that somewhere in Redmond, they have that item available for testing. I would think that Canon has a copy of every lens they’ve made, and at least every licensed version of lenses using the EF mount, somewhere in their labs. That doesn’t mean that the PA people necessarily get to test with every lens, but it certainly does mean that if a problem is reported, verification and a fix ought to be pretty quick.

      Of course, there is also the tendency to make end-users part of the beta test process. But that used to happen anyway. The original point of beta testing was moving that test outside of the engineering group. You have found and qualified all bugs you think you can find internally, and so the beta testing period is on a feature-complete version of software, perhaps with some known but being-fixed bugs but otherwise, “we think it’s good, we need you to help prove that”.

      Eventually the beta test stops yielding new bugs, and so you release. But that does case a much wider net. Unfortunately, in the past, many CE devices simply weren’t able to be upgraded. So there were, as an easy example, about half of all first generation DVD players that couldn’t read DVD-RW discs. Not due to a design constraint, but rather, a stupid bug in the Philips reference code (my first DVD player, from Pioneer, did read DVD-RW when they came out. Pioneer wrote their own code from scratch).

      That is not how Microsoft views the beta process. Their public beta tests are more like alpha tests, particularly early on (eg, plenty of known bugs, they’re still finding more, features missing and maybe not even decided on). You definitely don’t want that in a released product.

      | |
  8. adam sanford

    Canon goes to great lengths to protect the reputation of that particular 70-200 lens. I bet if everything else was perfect on the 7D2 and the other 4 issues weren’t happening, they *still* would have released a firmware update for #1.

    | |