canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: Canon Rumors on July 09, 2013, 11:59:21 AM

Title: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Canon Rumors on July 09, 2013, 11:59:21 AM

Lots of talk

There is lots of talk about the successor to the Canon EOS 7D.  For the last 6 months we have written that the EOS 70D would move up rung in features in the EOS lineup, as such the EOS 7D Mark II will be doing the same thing.


We’re told two possible sensors are in play for the EOS 7D Mark II, the 20.2mp sensor in the 70D and a 24.1mp sensor that has yet to see the light of day. If they want separation with the EOS 7D Mark II and to charge a premium for it, I think moving beyond the sensor that will appear in the next Rebel, an EOS M camera and the EOS 70D is a good idea.


When is it coming?

It will not be shipping before the end of 2013, there is a possibility of an announcement before the year is out, but I’d say that is unlikely at this time. Timing could also depend on what Nikon is going to be doing with the D400. We’ve been told for ages that the EOS 7D Mark II will be an early 2014 camera.


We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II, which will be a pro specced APS-C camera.


cr


Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: CTJohn on July 09, 2013, 12:08:48 PM
If the 70D is ready for shipment by September, I can't imagine a lot of 7D's will be sold thereafter.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Sabaki on July 09, 2013, 12:13:37 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: candyman on July 09, 2013, 12:21:03 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: thepancakeman on July 09, 2013, 12:23:21 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: viggen61 on July 09, 2013, 12:30:08 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: whothafunk on July 09, 2013, 12:45:03 PM
and let the "i expect 10fps and 61 point AF blahblah" spam begin.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 09, 2013, 12:49:17 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Paramike on July 09, 2013, 12:52:56 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

1DX MkII?  ;)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: whothafunk on July 09, 2013, 12:59:53 PM
it's only a rumor. but still, probably 3D and dare i say 5D4? i would bet my money on one thing and that is that 70D is the last Canon's DSLR which uses Digic5 processor. 7DII and others definitely on Digic6, which is said to further help with noise control up to 6400 ISO.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Rienzphotoz on July 09, 2013, 01:03:39 PM
After the 5D MK III, 7D II is the most popular camera that is creating as much buzz ... It'd be interesting to see what specs it releases with, I guess a lot would also depend on the release of D400 ... Good times.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Click on July 09, 2013, 01:04:00 PM
Good news. Looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Paramike on July 09, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

Yes, I believe there is! Cost, FPS, preference! I like a camera with a good FPS as I like shooting fast moving subjects. If I were to demand full frame only, then that leaves me very limited to the expensive end of the Canon range, which, for a poor NHS worker like me, is entirely unattainable without selling organs! ;)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: mackguyver on July 09, 2013, 01:08:09 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....
Probably more Cinema EOS cameras ;)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pierlux on July 09, 2013, 01:09:10 PM
We’re told two possible sensors are in play for the EOS 7D Mark II, the 20.2mp sensor in the 70D and a 24.1mp sensor that has yet to see the light of day.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the 7D2 will have a 16-18 MP sensor. To be honest, I would even prefer a 16 MP 7D2 over a higher res one if this means better high ISO IQ, not to mention speed. After all, the 1Dx and the Nikon D4 are 18 and 16 MP, respectively, and none of their owners complain about this despite being both FF cameras, since both are geared for speed and highest IQ and those are the reasons for purchasing them, apart from build quality. According to rumors, the 7D2 is going to be an APS-C-sized pro body: would you guys complain for the lower res if it had 16 MP along with 2 or more stops better high ISO noise over the current 7D? I wouldn't. 16 MP is already plenty of detail for an APS-C sensor. The ability to crop? I think a 50% cropped 8 MP clean image is always better than an equally cropped 12 MP noisy one. I know I'm going to be criticized for what I'm saying, but hey, that's what I think...

We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II, which will be a pro specced APS-C camera.

Isn't a pro specced APS-C camera a pro body after all? Why couldn't the 7D2 be one of the two 2014 pro bodies? Weren't the 1D series cams pro bodies, though not FF?

and let the "i expect 10fps and 61 point AF blahblah" spam begin.

I expect at least 14 fps and 45 point AF, 61 are maybe too much for APS-C.   ;D ;D ;D

Cheers!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 09, 2013, 01:16:03 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

Yes, I believe there is! Cost, FPS, preference! I like a camera with a good FPS as I like shooting fast moving subjects. If I were to demand full frame only, then that leaves me very limited to the expensive end of the Canon range, which, for a poor NHS worker like me, is entirely unattainable without selling organs! ;)

Yes, I agree and even listed others, but not one of those has a lick to do with resolution, the most often sited "advantage" to crop cameras.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kimvette on July 09, 2013, 01:18:27 PM
Timing could also depend on what Nikon is going to be doing with the D400.

I don't believe a word from anyone who says that Canon is waiting for Nikon to see what they do with the D400. Do these people who spout off statements like that think that even Canon, having their own chip fabs, can conjure up a sensor, firmware, amplifiers, or even a new battery and get it all into a usable, rugged, reasonably bug-free camera body (keeping in mind tolerances are on the order of microns for pro camera bodies) in a matter of weeks? No, the prototyping for a product of that scale takes months, and getting anything even remotely ready for delivery can take a year or two. It's not even a matter of throwing more money and engineers at the problem (at a certain point adding more engineers makes the project unmanageable - a lot of the design for each component is the result of linear thinking).

I don't think they're going to base sensor design on what Nikon does with the D400. If they do that, they are ceding the market to Nikon for the next two years.   They might play with announcement and delivery timing (I'd suspect Canon to announce after Nikon and deliver before Nikon since Nikon preannounces way too far in advance) but that's about all the impact Nikon would have on the 7D mk II - if there will be a mk II (I hope there will be). 

I see people comment like this all the time: "Canon is holding back the nD waiting to see what Nikon does" or "Nikon is holding the Dn back to see what Canon does first."   No, the reality is R&D takes time, and they're each sufficiently successful and have such a strong revenue pipeline that they do. not. have. to. rush. and instead bake the product until it is actually done.

They can crank out rebel after rebel after rebel because for key components they're just drawing from their existing parts bin and forking software projects, with minor tweaks so development and QA efforts are minimal, and offer a huge return for minimal investment. For the XD line (and the XXD) it's a different matter, since those models usually get the sensors, software, and other bleeding-edge components first.  That's also why the xD and xxD models cost so much initially - the first unit to roll off the assembly line cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to product - the second about half as much, and so on until R&D is fully amortized, enabling Canon (and Nikon) to lower the price, as the sales morph from recovering losses to earning profits.  See: amortization.

It's one thing to add a gimmicky articulated screen to a low-end camera body using screens from your parts bin and make a new plastic mold, and tweak sensor designs you borrowed from pro and semi-pro cameras and get the product out in a month or three, and quite another to develop a whole new hardware and software architecture (as well as a fab process, metal casting molds and precision machining tooling with a tolerance of a few microns for a mass-produced product) from the ground up.

If there is ANY truth to Canon basing the product on Nikon's announcement, it would likely be choosing between a selection of workable prototypes that are similar enough that the tooling for parts is already in place for each, or could accommodate minor variances with minimal effort. They're certainly not going to get a whole new chip fab process designed, tested and scaled up for production that quickly.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: ScottyP on July 09, 2013, 01:30:19 PM
I would take 16 mp over 24 on a cropper if I could get a real 1 1/2 or 2 stops gain in IQ at high ISO.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: JohanCruyff on July 09, 2013, 01:37:54 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....


Maybe two high megapixel? 5D3big (3D?) and 1DXbig?
Or will the APS-H surprise us and come back to a new life?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Lawliet on July 09, 2013, 01:38:38 PM
but the other will be?.....

Perhaps an update for the video facilities? A PJ would find working video AF valueable, and fullHD@60fps or 4K wouldn't hurt any user group either. Hard to imagine a meaningful update in the low resolution still frame sector. As for 4K - the 70D-sensor now has just enough cells to get a 4K 4:4:4 stream, would be a unique point of sale atm.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: unfocused on July 09, 2013, 01:39:10 PM
Timing could also depend on what Nikon is going to be doing with the D400.

I don't believe a word from anyone who says that Canon is waiting for Nikon to see what they do with the D400...

Yes, R&D takes time, but the historical fact is that both Nikon and Canon tend to announce major products in tandem. Canon usually follows Nikon by anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. That is not a coincidence. They are competitors and one is not going to allow the other to release a new product that goes unchallenged.

These companies have been competing for nearly a century. They know each other very well and you can be sure each has a pretty good idea of what the other is capable of and likely to produce with each cycle. Besides, the universe of options is really pretty limited: resolution, maximum ISO, frame rate, dynamic range, video features, bells and whistles.

Canon isn't going to completely redesign the 7DII sensor in a matter of weeks based on what Nikon does, but they certainly could adjust other features once they know what their major competitor is doing.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Paramike on July 09, 2013, 01:39:31 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

Yes, I believe there is! Cost, FPS, preference! I like a camera with a good FPS as I like shooting fast moving subjects. If I were to demand full frame only, then that leaves me very limited to the expensive end of the Canon range, which, for a poor NHS worker like me, is entirely unattainable without selling organs! ;)

Yes, I agree and even listed others, but not one of those has a lick to do with resolution, the most often sited "advantage" to crop cameras.

Sorry, I think I got the wrong end of the stick! It's the problem of being at the end of a 12 hour shift! I entirely agree with your points too :)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Arkarch on July 09, 2013, 01:55:21 PM
Whatever 7D Mark II comes out, I would like to be a back-up and good foil to my Full-Frame, presently the 5D Mark III.   

For me - that would be the APS-C 1.6x factor to lengthen my lenses; higher frame rate for those situations; and decent video when I want to run both at a shoot - one video, one still.  APS-H doesnt do it for me; neither does an average fps or video mode.   I got the full frame so MP is not as important, especially if I switch up to the high MP 5DM4/3D in 2014 for my primary.

As to Nikon announcements, they may have a few different designs in development.  I suppose they could wait for Nikon as they normally do and then use that as a factor in final design determination.  But yep, whatever they have is probably already in field test somewhere.

As for timing - when does one unload a 7D Mark I ? Obviously the 70D in September will impact the resale market.  An announcement would have similar impact.  But I need a backup body; I cannot sell my current 7D Mark I too early.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Daniel Flather on July 09, 2013, 02:20:53 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

APS-H
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: dstppy on July 09, 2013, 02:28:55 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

APS-H

That'd be nice . . . let's hope it's not cinema . . .
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: meli on July 09, 2013, 02:41:26 PM
They can crank out rebel after rebel after rebel because for key components they're just drawing from their existing parts bin and forking software projects, with minor tweaks so development and QA efforts are minimal, and offer a huge return for minimal investment. For the XD line (and the XXD) it's a different matter, since those models usually get the sensors, software, and other bleeding-edge components first.  That's also why the xD and xxD models cost so much initially - the first unit to roll off the assembly line cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to product - the second about half as much, and so on until R&D is fully amortized, enabling Canon (and Nikon) to lower the price, as the sales morph from recovering losses to earning profits.  See: amortization.

You're either oversimplyfing or you dont know what you're talking about;
First off there aren't really any "bleeding edge components" in XD or XXD lines, at least not "edgier" than a touch screen or that 70d sensor etc, yes usually tech trickles down the line but given the yearly cycle of XXXD series its bound to introduce "edgy" stuff on its own.

second, this:

It's one thing to add a gimmicky articulated screen to a low-end camera body using screens from your parts bin and make a new plastic mold, and tweak sensor designs you borrowed from pro and semi-pro cameras and get the product out in a month or three, and quite another to develop a whole new hardware and software architecture (as well as a fab process, metal casting molds and precision machining tooling with a tolerance of a few microns for a mass-produced product) from the ground up.

I dont really know where to start with this one.., it contains some truth in that yes developing a whole new hardware and software architecture is more time consuming than incorporating an articulated screen but then again it never happens to develop a new hardware and software architecture for a product such as XD; there also tech tricles down from the FF models, and what new there is isnt enough to warrant the "whole new" title. Plus last i remember IM tooling is about the same as mag tooling plus its actually absurd claiming a tolerance of a few microns for a mass-produced product, where on earth you saw something on a dslr chassis requiring more than die casting tolerances for mag alloy?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Ricku on July 09, 2013, 02:44:03 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....
One of them will be the high MP body. Hopefully it will be 5D-size. :)

Resolution: 35 - 40 MP with a huge bump in DR, no banding, clean shadows.
FPS: Whatever.
AF: Whatever.
High ISO: Whatever.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 09, 2013, 03:04:18 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: x-vision on July 09, 2013, 03:14:23 PM
But I wouldn't be surprised if the 7D2 will have a 16-18 MP sensor. To be honest, I would even prefer a 16 MP 7D2 over a higher res one if this means better high ISO IQ, not to mention speed. After all, the 1Dx and the Nikon D4 are 18 and 16 MP, respectively, and none of their owners complain about this despite being both FF cameras, since both are geared for speed and highest IQ and those are the reasons for purchasing them, apart from build quality.

My thoughts exactly!

The 7D series is positioned as a sports body. So no 24mp sensor on the 7DII, that's for sure.

Lowering the resolution to 16mp might be too bold and controversial, so Canon might stick to 18mp after all.

Overall, though, Canon will most likely work to make the 7DII ISO better - and that, of course, rules out resolution increases.
For more resolution (plus good ISO), Canon offers FF cameras.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: x-vision on July 09, 2013, 03:36:43 PM
Timing could also depend on what Nikon is going to be doing with the D400.

I don't believe a word from anyone who says that Canon is waiting for Nikon to see what they do with the D400.

+1000

Canon's announcement dates are likely driven by their sales plans/schedules.

For this holiday shopping season, they will have the brand new 70D on sale - plus
a (slightly?) discounted 6D and a (heavily?) discounted 7D.

They are not announcing a 7DII this year simply because they don't seem to need it.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: RGomezPhotos on July 09, 2013, 03:42:19 PM
I also believe that in addition to the big MP camera coming out in 2014, the other Pro camera will be an updated 1DX. You simply can't have the flagship on two year-old tech. Even when that tech is so freakin' awesome.  But it won't be released until later in 2014. The current 1DX just isn't old enough. However, I'm already seeing decent price drops on it so release date could be off. Price reductions are going to happen due to lower demand. So I'll still say later in 2014.

We fashion/hi-rez folks haven't seen a true Pro camera upgrade since the 1DS Mark III. And it's going on 6 years. The 5D MKII and MKIII have been really good for fashion. But still not a TRUE pro camera (big MP, dual - CF slots, user-replaceable focus screen, superior tonal-range and resolution, pro-size body). The 1DX is AMAZING. But it really is a sports camera.  Hell, if Canon were to put the new sensor with double the MP in the 1DX and tweak it a nudge for better tonal range...  That MIGHT suffice.  But it would obviously be the bastard-brother of the line. So I don't think Canon will go that route. It has to squash the D800 to justify the obvious price increase. And dominate for the next three to four years in this segment.

I don't think a 5D MKIV will come out in 2014. Definitely 2015 and probably early in that year. The demographic which uses that camera just doesn't need an upgrade in 2013. They got the AF they wanted, an SD slot for backup or WiFI, better weather sealing, more FPS. Yes, it can be better. But they can wait for the improvements. The improved AF in Live View in the new sensor would be their big feature. If they want better video, they can buy a 70D. :-)

I mentioned a while back that 2014 will be a banner year for Canon. It's certainly looking that way.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 09, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.
HEY!

This is an emotional issue! How dare you bring common sense and facts into it!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 09, 2013, 04:12:32 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....
And we travel to the distant past, six years ago.... A DSLR had 8 to 10 megapixels.... And then high megapixel cameras came out...15, 18, even 20Mpixels.... And for several years all DSLRs were high-megapixel cameras and we began to think of 18-20 or 22 as normal. What if from 2014 on that ALL new Canon DSLR's will be high megapixel cameras..... With high megapixel now meaning 35-45, and that will become the new normal... The 70D shows Canon can put 40 onto a sensor now...

My first digital camera was 320x200
The next one jumped to 640x400...... A whopping 4 times increase to .25 megapixels!
Next came 1600x1200.... An 8 times increase to 1.9 megapixels
Then I got an 8 megapixel camera, another 4 times increase....
Then I got a 18 megapixel camera, another 2 times increase....

It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pedro on July 09, 2013, 04:47:47 PM
it's only a rumor. but still, probably 3D and dare i say 5D4? i would bet my money on one thing and that is that 70D is the last Canon's DSLR which uses Digic5 processor. 7DII and others definitely on Digic6, which is said to further help with noise control up to 6400 ISO.

Not sure about a 5DIV. The last product cycle up to the 5D3 was 3.6 years. What could be a good reason to release an upgrade after two years? Well, if Canon present something real game changing, why not. Or could they get back to an 1DIVish body despite of the 1Dx? Intresting times ahead.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kevl on July 09, 2013, 04:49:00 PM


It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kevl on July 09, 2013, 04:52:33 PM

Not sure about a 5DIV. The last product cycle up to the 5D3 was 3.6 years. What could be a good reason to release an upgrade after two years?

Yeah, I can't see them replacing the 5D3 so soon. It is hugely popular, and extremely competent and will remain so. Replacing it too early will simply devalue the line.  I also don't see them replacing the 1Dx next year.

We'll see a 3D high mp camera and a cinema camera.. at least that's my expectation.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 09, 2013, 06:13:27 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.

First, I am not presenting an argument, I am presenting empirical results of a test.

Second, I used a FF 1Ds MkIII not an APS-H 1D MkIV.

Third, I agree the 7D "wins", though I don't agree with the oversimplified knee jerk rhetoric. I even pointed out in my initial post that the 7D does have more resolution, just nowhere near as much as anybody would guess or expect, most people are pretty emphatic that the far denser sensor of the 7D would trounce the less than half the pixel numbers of the FF, but it just is not so. The 18MP of the 7D equate well to the 36MP of the D800, we all know, as a system, the 5D MkIII at 24MP and the 24-70 f2.8 MkII resolves more, as bench tested, than the D800 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8, 18MP to 15MP.

I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Lee Jay on July 09, 2013, 06:22:00 PM
And another year goes by without me giving Canon any of my money.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: fengshui on July 09, 2013, 06:29:28 PM
I was thinking about the new Dual Pixel AF that Canon's introducing in the 70D with respect to the 7D2.  If they can really do AF directly on the sensor, is there anything stopping them from going past 10fps?  On past cameras, the limiting factor on fps was the flapping of the mirror to reflect sufficient light to the AF sensor.  With on-CCD AF, could they only move the mirror as necessary for the photographer to track?  I could see a system where the camera takes 2-3 shots per mirror flip, allowing for fps in the 20+ range.  Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 09, 2013, 06:33:45 PM


It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.

Hard drives..... Time marches on there too....

First hard drive I bought for work was $10,000 for a 10 megabyte drive.... Last week I bought 24 4terrabyte drives at $250 each.... That's 100 terabytes for $6000..... Quite a drop in price per byte.... This is 7 orders of magnitude... That's like buying a mansion in 1980 for $1,000,000.00 and in 2013 buying a better mansion for $0.06
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: distant.star on July 09, 2013, 06:35:57 PM
and let the "i expect 10fps and 61 point AF blahblah" spam begin.

I thought an offer to sell was a necessary component of spam. Am I misunderstanding something?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: thepancakeman on July 09, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying the original question--"the benefit of megapixels", but all things being equal, more = more.  The rest of this is arguing that all things aren't equal, which is obviously true most of the time.  A 16MP 1Dx just might   ;) take a better picture than Nokia's 41 Mp cell phone camera cropped to 16.  All megapickles are not created equal, but that does not negate the fact that more of "the same" MPs means more freedom for cropping.  If you don't believe me, shoot an image in RAW, then the same image in sRaw, crop a chunk out and see how they look.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: distant.star on July 09, 2013, 06:41:22 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

APS-H

I think you dream in APS-H, Danny boy!!!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Lee Jay on July 09, 2013, 06:45:05 PM


The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

Of course it's realizable.  Were you kidding or just assuming everyone shoots with horribly soft lenses?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: distant.star on July 09, 2013, 06:49:27 PM
.
Great!

This will be my second body. I'm weary of the flabby AF in my old T2i.

So next year it's 5D3 and 7D2. Sounds like a perfect pair for any situation.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: bardamu on July 09, 2013, 06:49:44 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

Yes, interesting.  Some sort of advanced mirrorless option?  FF Foveon?  An RX1-like camera?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: justsomedude on July 09, 2013, 06:52:46 PM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

Yes, interesting.  Some sort of advanced mirrorless option?  FF Foveon?  An RX1-like camera?

Did some one say FOVEON???

gimmeh. 

nom.   :P
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: bardamu on July 09, 2013, 07:06:26 PM
I'm very interested in what happens with the 7D ii since it could be the right option for me.  But I'm surprised to hear the 70D sensor mentioned as a possible basis for it.  The 7D is billed as sports / wildlife cam, at least as its strongest area of performance.  Both types of photography are very viewfinder-oriented, at least at this point in time, yet the whole architecture of the 70D sensor revolves around its party-trick of having strong live-view AF.  The main thing 7D users are calling for is better ISO and better live-view AF is about the last thing.  Barring unexpectedly hot performance from the 70D sensor then this wouldn't make much sense.  Assuming Canon can make a better sensor without the Dual-Pixel CMOS stuff then hopefully they will make such a sensor and chuck it in the 7D ii.  70D sensor in the 7D ii would be weird, but not unprecedented admittedly...

The 70D test results will be of interest obviously, also Nikon's annoucement, if it happens, of the D400, since that will guarantee a 7D ii and give some idea maybe of what to expect.  I reckon Canon and Nikon know a fair bit about what each is doing at any point in time, somehow.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 09, 2013, 07:27:25 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.

First, I am not presenting an argument, I am presenting empirical results of a test.

You were, intentionally or not. When you claimed that the previous statements were untrue, you started a debate, and proceeded to present your "argument" for your opinion...

Second, I used a FF 1Ds MkIII not an APS-H 1D MkIV.

Ok, not that it really matters to the point being debated any. The point of yours that I am arguing against is the notion that all or nearly all of the benefit of the 7D's higher resolution as offered by higher pixel density is mitigated by "real world factors". And I quote:

but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This is the specific point of yours that I am debating. I think you are FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG...there ABSOLUTELY IS a difference that CAN be FULLY REALIZED in the real world. It would take some very significant camera shake or a severely missfocussed lens to diminish the resolution benefit the 7D has over the 1D III. Someone with particularly unsteady hands and a non-IS lens is probably at a much higher risk of "not being able to realize the 7D's resolution edge", but in general I think the edge is entirely realizable. I realize it every day, in both tripod-based and hand-held photography. It is the reason the 7D has been my body of choice for the last couple of years, and why I am holding out against buying a 5D III until the 7D II has been released and its upgrades evaluated.

I'll HAPPILY take an even HIGHER resolution sensor than the 7D has...because I know first hand that the extra resolution can be utilized even in a hand held scenario (or a missfocus scenario...a problem with the 7D that I believe is far more severe than its supposedly overdone sensor resolution).

Third, I agree the 7D "wins", though I don't agree with the oversimplified knee jerk rhetoric.

First..."knee jerk"?? LOL...not sure where that came from
Second..."rhetoric"?? I know I can be wordy...I often use a lot of words just to be clear in getting my point across. Ironic, as I though my last reply to you was rather concise and clear, and explicit in its form as a STATEMENT, not a question...rhetorical or otherwise. (Unless, I guess, you think the use of the word "convolution" is rhetoric...)

I even pointed out in my initial post that the 7D does have more resolution, just nowhere near as much as anybody would guess or expect, most people are pretty emphatic that the far denser sensor of the 7D would trounce the less than half the pixel numbers of the FF, but it just is not so. The 18MP of the 7D equate well to the 36MP of the D800, we all know, as a system, the 5D MkIII at 24MP and the 24-70 f2.8 MkII resolves more, as bench tested, than the D800 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8, 18MP to 15MP.

I'd be careful not to conflate spatial resolution with pixels on subject. Assuming one could frame identically, the simple fact of the matter is that the 5D II, 5D III, D800, or any other full-frame sensor with more than 18mp will produce a more detailed result. But I think that notion is counter to the prior discussion about why one would want an 18mp APS-C  (not FF) sensor: crop factor. Identically framed, hands down, the full frame sensor with more pixels is going to produce a better result...not only because it puts more pixels on the subject, but because it puts more BETTER pixels on the subject.

Your very own argument, which equated a cropped 1D III to a 7D, implicitly assumes a focal-length limited scenario where one literally cannot frame the same. That falls in line with the prior discussion, and I have no question that if actual samples of photos taken hand-held with the 7D and 1D III in a variety of scenarios at ISO settings up to 1600...the 7D would trounce the 1D III. No contest. I might even buy a 5D III just to prove the point!  ::)

I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.

If you are claiming an "empirical" observation, sample data would be a necessity to back up your claim.

I can make the same argument, that I have made empirical observations that the 7D produces very different results (and superior, in terms of resolution usefully resolved) than something like the 5D II. As a matter of fact, a well respected scientist did just that very comparison (7D, 1D IV, 5D II), and his results are pretty definitively in favor of the 7D:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html (http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html)

In the context of this discussion, I think the following statement from that article is key:

Quote
The sensor sizes are irrelevant in these examples. All three cameras could well have been full frame sensors. It is purely a test of pixel size and the trade of detail versus noise.

Additionally, the results of the test, as evaluated by Roger Clark:

Quote
Here is my assessment:

In all the images, the 5DII images fail to show the subtle color differences that the 7D and 1D4 show. The color in the 1D4 and 7D are very close (until noise hides it).

ISO 100: 7D noise is small and detail is well above other images. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4

ISO 800: 7D noise is showing, but the detail is still well above the other cameras. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4

ISO1600: 7D noise is becoming prominent, but image detail is still very good. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4, but the difference is narrowing.

ISO3200: 7D noise is becoming objectionable and color is getting lost, in particular in Mare Serenatatis (the large circular dark area in the upper center). top=1D4, 2nd 7D. A good down sampling algorithm (like 2x2 pixel average) could improve the the image.

ISO6400: Noise is too apparent in 7D, and 5DII (which is slightly older technology than the 7D or 1D4). Top=1D4, 2nd=5DII. In my numerous sensor evaluations, I consistently see the 1D series sensors have fewer hot/bad pixels and the images here show that too: the 7D and 5DII images have a lot of "spiky" noise not seen in the 1D4 image.

The visual examples, which I cannot post here, CLEARLY demonstrate the benefit of having a sensor with denser pixels. The 7D images, while at times noisier than the 1D IV, have a more than measurable increase in overall detail...a very meaningful difference between the two cameras.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 09, 2013, 07:29:21 PM
I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying the original question--"the benefit of megapixels", but all things being equal, more = more.  The rest of this is arguing that all things aren't equal, which is obviously true most of the time.  A 16MP 1Dx just might   ;) take a better picture than Nokia's 41 Mp cell phone camera cropped to 16.  All megapickles are not created equal, but that does not negate the fact that more of "the same" MPs means more freedom for cropping.  If you don't believe me, shoot an image in RAW, then the same image in sRaw, crop a chunk out and see how they look.

It depends how simplistic, or theoretical, you want to get. As usual I just presented some empirical results, that whilst not entirely defying common wisdom and repeated posting history, certainly do throw a spanner in the works of the narrow minded thinking that "more equals more". If you don't believe me conduct a series of tests of same generation crop and ff sensors, like I did. Sure more does equal more, but nothing like everybody expects it to and the test I posted was set up to maximise any and every advantage the 7D might have. Because of these tests I concluded that a 7D was of no use to me whatsoever, even in focal length limited situations.

Again, there are very good reasons to own a crop camera, but thinking you are getting "longer lenses, more reach, greater cropability, etc etc" doesn't actually amount to anything when empirically tested, and maybe that is where I am falling down here, I bothered to actually do the tests rather than rely on common thought, internet chatter and theoretical pontificating.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: hmmm on July 09, 2013, 07:35:34 PM
NR has it today that a D400 will be announced in the Aug/Sep timeframe.   That may prompt Canon to announce their 7DmkII in the fall even if it will not ship until later (much as the D600 triggered an early announcement of the 6D).

NL mentioned that the 7DmkII sensor "has a lot of additional functionality" which will eventually propagate across the line.   This comment came after the 70D release, so it may refer to something beyond the dual pixel AF innovation of the 70D.    Hopefully it is the new fabrication sensor at last.   My impression is that the 20MP sensor of the 70D is basically the old sensor technology with the new dual-pixel trick added -- nice trick though it is.

The original 7D was the first camera with the 18mp chip, so I'm hopeful that the 7D mkII will be the first with a next-generation sensor architecture -- including the dual (or more) pixel AF, plus ... ?   I'd like to think the plus will include more DR, anyway.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 09, 2013, 07:40:33 PM
The original 7D was the first camera with the 18mp chip, so I'm hopeful that the 7D mkII will be the first with a next-generation sensor architecture -- including the dual (or more) pixel AF, plus ... ?   I'd like to think the plus will include more DR, anyway.

Ditto!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 09, 2013, 07:43:57 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.

First, I am not presenting an argument, I am presenting empirical results of a test.

You were, intentionally or not. When you claimed that the previous statements were untrue, you started a debate, and proceeded to present your "argument" for your opinion...

Second, I used a FF 1Ds MkIII not an APS-H 1D MkIV.

Ok, not that it really matters to the point being debated any. The point of yours that I am arguing against is the notion that all or nearly all of the benefit of the 7D's higher resolution as offered by higher pixel density is mitigated by "real world factors". And I quote:

but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This is the specific point of yours that I am debating. I think you are FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG...there ABSOLUTELY IS a difference that CAN be FULLY REALIZED in the real world. It would take some very significant camera shake or a severely missfocussed lens to diminish the resolution benefit the 7D has over the 1D III. Someone with particularly unsteady hands and a non-IS lens is probably at a much higher risk of "not being able to realize the 7D's resolution edge", but in general I think the edge is entirely realizable. I realize it every day, in both tripod-based and hand-held photography. It is the reason the 7D has been my body of choice for the last couple of years, and why I am holding out against buying a 5D III until the 7D II has been released and its upgrades evaluated.

I'll HAPPILY take an even HIGHER resolution sensor than the 7D has...because I know first hand that the extra resolution can be utilized even in a hand held scenario (or a missfocus scenario...a problem with the 7D that I believe is far more severe than its supposedly overdone sensor resolution).

Third, I agree the 7D "wins", though I don't agree with the oversimplified knee jerk rhetoric.

First..."knee jerk"?? LOL...not sure where that came from
Second..."rhetoric"?? I know I can be wordy...I often use a lot of words just to be clear in getting my point across. Ironic, as I though my last reply to you was rather concise and clear, and explicit in its form as a STATEMENT, not a question...rhetorical or otherwise. (Unless, I guess, you think the use of the word "convolution" is rhetoric...)

I even pointed out in my initial post that the 7D does have more resolution, just nowhere near as much as anybody would guess or expect, most people are pretty emphatic that the far denser sensor of the 7D would trounce the less than half the pixel numbers of the FF, but it just is not so. The 18MP of the 7D equate well to the 36MP of the D800, we all know, as a system, the 5D MkIII at 24MP and the 24-70 f2.8 MkII resolves more, as bench tested, than the D800 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8, 18MP to 15MP.

I'd be careful not to conflate spatial resolution with pixels on subject. Assuming one could frame identically, the simple fact of the matter is that the 5D II, 5D III, D800, or any other full-frame sensor with more than 18mp will produce a more detailed result. But I think that notion is counter to the prior discussion about why one would want an 18mp APS-C  (not FF) sensor: crop factor. Identically framed, hands down, the full frame sensor with more pixels is going to produce a better result...not only because it puts more pixels on the subject, but because it puts more BETTER pixels on the subject.

Your very own argument, which equated a cropped 1D III to a 7D, implicitly assumes a focal-length limited scenario where one literally cannot frame the same. That falls in line with the prior discussion, and I have no question that if actual samples of photos taken hand-held with the 7D and 1D III in a variety of scenarios at ISO settings up to 1600...the 7D would trounce the 1D III. No contest. I might even buy a 5D III just to prove the point!  ::)

I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.

If you are claiming an "empirical" observation, sample data would be a necessity to back up your claim.

I can make the same argument, that I have made empirical observations that the 7D produces very different results (and superior, in terms of resolution usefully resolved) than something like the 5D II. As a matter of fact, a well respected scientist did just that very comparison (7D, 1D IV, 5D II), and his results are pretty definitively in favor of the 7D:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html (http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html)

In the context of this discussion, I think the following statement from that article is key:

Quote
The sensor sizes are irrelevant in these examples. All three cameras could well have been full frame sensors. It is purely a test of pixel size and the trade of detail versus noise.

Additionally, the results of the test, as evaluated by Roger Clark:

Quote
Here is my assessment:

In all the images, the 5DII images fail to show the subtle color differences that the 7D and 1D4 show. The color in the 1D4 and 7D are very close (until noise hides it).

ISO 100: 7D noise is small and detail is well above other images. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4

ISO 800: 7D noise is showing, but the detail is still well above the other cameras. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4

ISO1600: 7D noise is becoming prominent, but image detail is still very good. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4, but the difference is narrowing.

ISO3200: 7D noise is becoming objectionable and color is getting lost, in particular in Mare Serenatatis (the large circular dark area in the upper center). top=1D4, 2nd 7D. A good down sampling algorithm (like 2x2 pixel average) could improve the the image.

ISO6400: Noise is too apparent in 7D, and 5DII (which is slightly older technology than the 7D or 1D4). Top=1D4, 2nd=5DII. In my numerous sensor evaluations, I consistently see the 1D series sensors have fewer hot/bad pixels and the images here show that too: the 7D and 5DII images have a lot of "spiky" noise not seen in the 1D4 image.

The visual examples, which I cannot post here, CLEARLY demonstrate the benefit of having a sensor with denser pixels. The 7D images, while at times noisier than the 1D IV, have a more than measurable increase in overall detail...a very meaningful difference between the two cameras.

You might be well advised to go back and actually read my first post, it contains the images you ask for, the one on the left is a FF image (FROM A 1DS MkIII !) with an overlayed full image from a 7D, the red rectangle. They were shot from the same place with the same lens, a 300 mm f2.8 IS @ f5.6. This is a 100% demonstration of a focal length limited situation.

Now as I have repeatedly said, the 7D does have a fraction more resolution but it is not in the order most expect it to be. I did do further real world testing, though unfortunately don't have those images with me and they are not bench tested direct comparisons anyway (so would only lead to all sorts of not fair comparison claims), but after using both cameras side by side I concluded that the 7D gave me no more realisable resolution, I was surprised, but rather than throw down $1,500 because everybody said it would, I got a loaner and tested it for myself.

Other tests, by other people for their uses might show different results, I was surprised by my results but entirely happy they were accurate and got a second 1Ds MkIII. Again, there are many good reasons to own/buy a 7D/crop camera, but thinking you are getting a "free" TC is not the most sensible, or accurate, one.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 09, 2013, 07:44:50 PM
I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying the original question--"the benefit of megapixels", but all things being equal, more = more.  The rest of this is arguing that all things aren't equal, which is obviously true most of the time.  A 16MP 1Dx just might   ;) take a better picture than Nokia's 41 Mp cell phone camera cropped to 16.  All megapickles are not created equal, but that does not negate the fact that more of "the same" MPs means more freedom for cropping.  If you don't believe me, shoot an image in RAW, then the same image in sRaw, crop a chunk out and see how they look.

It depends how simplistic, or theoretical, you want to get. As usual I just presented some empirical results, that whilst not entirely defying common wisdom and repeated posting history, certainly do throw a spanner in the works of the narrow minded thinking that "more equals more". If you don't believe me conduct a series of tests of same generation crop and ff sensors, like I did. Sure more does equal more, but nothing like everybody expects it to and the test I posted was set up to maximise any and every advantage the 7D might have. Because of these tests I concluded that a 7D was of no use to me whatsoever, even in focal length limited situations.

Again, there are very good reasons to own a crop camera, but thinking you are getting "longer lenses, more reach, greater cropability, etc etc" doesn't actually amount to anything when empirically tested, and maybe that is where I am falling down here, I bothered to actually do the tests rather than rely on common thought, internet chatter and theoretical pontificating.
And if we really want to confuse the issue...... 5D2 vs 60D, both using 70-200 lens, in good daylight... The 60D resolves more detail on distant objects. 60D vs SX-50 in good daylight.... The SX-50 resolves more detail. Now we try the comparison in poor light and high ISO and the 5D2 out resolves the 60D and the 60D out resolves the SX-50. There is no easy answer here, it depends on conditions.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 09, 2013, 07:50:35 PM
You might be well advised to go back and actually read my first post, it contains the images you ask for, the one on the left is a FF image (FROM A 1DS MkIII !) with an overlayed full image from a 7D, the red rectangle. They were shot from the same place with the same lens, a 300 mm f2.8 IS @ f5.6. This is a 100% demonstration of a focal length limited situation.

Now as I have repeatedly said, the 7D does have a fraction more resolution but it is not in the order most expect it to be. I did do further real world testing, though unfortunately don't have those images with me and they are not bench tested direct comparisons anyway (so would only lead to all sorts of not fair comparison claims), but after using both cameras side by side I concluded that the 7D gave me no more realisable resolution, I was surprised, but rather than throw down $1,500 because everybody said it would, I got a loaner and tested it for myself.

Other tests, by other people for their uses might show different results, I was surprised by my results but entirely happy they were accurate and got a second 1Ds MkIII. Again, there are many good reasons to own/buy a 7D/crop camera, but thinking you are getting a "free" TC is not the most sensible, or accurate, one.

I saw the image, however it was a setup. Your argument was based heavily on the notion that "real world factors" like camera shake eliminate the benefit, which is a bit counter to the image you posted.

As for the image you did post...personally, the 7D photo is clearly sharper than the 1D III photo. I wouldn't call the difference minimal...not only is finer detail resolved, it is more defined, clearer, and slightly more contrasty. I'd pick the 7D photo every time without moment's pause.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: northbyten on July 09, 2013, 08:27:08 PM
I think it would be better to release the 700D, EOS M and 7D successors all around the same time.

I really just want the 6D to come down in price ^_^
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Dylan777 on July 09, 2013, 08:35:12 PM
<p>We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II, which will be a pro specced APS-C camera.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
[/html]

Both FF.
1. One @ extreme high MP(35-40) for landscape and studio shooters
2. The second is extreme low MP (12-18). Use able ISO @ 25000, similiar to current 5D III @ 6400ISO

Everybody HAPPY, Canon gets even more sales and US economy will raise 100%. THE END ;D
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: IceAgeDX on July 09, 2013, 08:59:21 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

No definitely not true. I don't even print. I never print actually. High megapixels help with cropping for a digital zoom and much more detail.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pj1974 on July 09, 2013, 09:03:39 PM
What an interesting thread... there are some valuable gems of truth, insight and opinions shared (obviously not all opinions are compatible with fact!)   :P

1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before.  Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years). 

I think 70% - 90% of what the 7DmkII will be has already been set in stone. No doubt there are parts of the camera that are known now - and might have parts being produced - which will be finalised and incorporated into a final DSLR in the future... hopefully late 2013 or early 2014.  :D

No doubt Nikon (& others) are looking very closely at what the 70D's Dual pixel AF technology is about.  Of course Nikon will get some 70D's, rip them apart - and see if they can learn from that. Of course, not copying it- that would be copyright / patent infringement, and would cost them dearly in many ways  (fines, legal costs, reputation, etc).  But I can imagine some Nikon managment telling a group of their developers / electrical engineers.. "Why didn't WE do this first! We need to Me_Me_Me this with something better!"  And visa versa (eg re: the performance of Sony's sensors at low noise, Canon engineers being 'grilled' about matching / exceeding that.)

Then there are other aspects regarding 'pitching' the product, within their own lines and verses earlier models which is done via eg cost benefit analysis by 'reading the market' on how important is FPS, AF, ISO noise, etc. These improvements also take a long time - and with careful thought, (though the promotion and marketing of such are definitely more flexible, than R&D and production - though this is still time critical).

2. Regarding what has been said (and is being written) about number of megapickles... I would be happy with anything between 14 - 24 MP.  I would rather lower MP with lower noise than higher MP with higher noise... I fully realise these 2 factors are not directly cause-effect related.  Technology does exist to have very clean photos at low ISO, and good quality at higher ISOs too... but it's all about cost and returning profits.   :)

Canon do a very good job in this regard (ie of balancing technology with being affordable and long-term sustainable for their business). That's one reason they're market leader, as well as the overall package - eg lenses, accessories, support, warrantees, etc.  So I think this sets up a great future for the 7DmkII.  I certainly hope though that Nikon, Sony - and even other manufacturers stay in the business... as competition is so helpful (and in the end, the consumers win!)

3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it.   ::) APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF.  The 6D particularly demonstrates that.  Leave it to RIP, please!
 - APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality.
 - FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.

4. 7DmkII 'ground-breaking' possibilities.  As there has been some talk that 7DmkII will be a jump up from the 7D in terms of product placement and features / functionality (it will still be an APS-C)... here are my thoughts:
 - improved implementation of the Dual Pixel AF, so much so that it will probably be very close to the optical AF, and might even be superior in some regards, eg ability to have good AF when using effective apertures like f/8 and f/11
 - the first Canon APS-C to have more than 19 AF points (as I see the 70D has largely inherited the 7D's AF)
 - a 'mirror up' option, to allow faster FPS... (might be connected with the Dual Pixel AF) with eg 10 - 20fps.  This will also allow the 7DmkII to have a substantially longer lifespan (when using LiveView more) - as the wear &  tear of mirror (& other aspects of shutter system) are reduced/ minimised.
 - best Canon APS-C ISO performance (maybe matching or even exceeding the Sony sensors?)   8)

Some other (less 'ground-breaking') features of the new 7DmkII that I forecast could include:
 - improved weather sealing
 - some enhancements to video
 - GPS integration
 - radio transmission for the latest flash units
 - wireless (for file transfer / connectivity)

As I use (and love) DxO's software 'Optics Pro' - I do hope that the Canon 7DmkII will still be supported by the 'Standard' line of their product, rather than the 'Elite'.  Thankfully so far, DxO have been keeping APS-C DSLRs (& any bridge / compacts) - in 'Standard' and all the FF (including the 6D) in 'Elite'- not just for Canon but for other manufacturers also.

When the 7D came out, I knew it was the camera I'd been waiting for - and I am very glad I bought it soon after it's release, a I've taken tens of thousands of quality photos. Since then, I felt Canon was a bit in a 'lag' in some lines of its product- but I realise this can be part of the calm before the storm (the R&D / Production cycle for the next batch of 'great cameras'). Just as the Canon 20D and some of the early 1D cameras were clearly on top of their market segment when they came out.  I felt there have been some 'lags'  (eg 30D - 60D) - with Canon keeping the xxxD series actually ticking along quite well - good set of features, etc, for the 'budget' / entry level line.

So now, I'm glad that I've been able to be particularly impressed what Canon have achieved 'recently' with these 3 cameras:
a) 5DmkIII (is what the 5DmkII should have been, eg it's build quality and AF, though to it's credit the 5DmkII did have video- a first!)
b) 6D - a true budget FF, which still includes some great features - eg central focal point, wireless, etc.
c) 70D- with it's return to AFMA, significantly improved optical AF compared to the 60D, and the LiveView / video AF a real game changer.

Looking forward to what Canon will bring in with the 7DmkII... and in the meantime I'll keep enjoying using my 7D to take thousands of photos and share with friends, clients and stakeholders

Ok, well that's my 2 cents worth!  You heard it here. (PS just to confirm APS-H is still dead!)  ;)

Paul   
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 09, 2013, 11:13:31 PM
1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before.  Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years). 

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the  80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 09, 2013, 11:15:47 PM
3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it.   ::) APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF.  The 6D particularly demonstrates that.  Leave it to RIP, please!
 - APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality.
 - FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.

You can proclaim whatever you want as much as you want. However, that won't change the fact that many of us, myself included, liked the APS-H format! Unlike you, many of us prefer to think of it as a useful half-way house between APS-C and FF. Not everyone wants FF for everything. Don't forget that there is a specific value to a cropped sensor: reach! When reach is one of the most significant factors, yet you want a balance between the often too small/too noisy pixels of APS-C, and the lack of reach of FF...well, APS-H once offered an ideal alternative that offered excellent IQ, superior IQ even, for a middle-ground price point (at least as far as professional-grade equipment goes).

I don't believe that APS-H should be brought back in the 7D II. On the contrary, I like the 7D line's positioning as the professional-grade APS-C part. I would, however, very much like to see something in the $3500-$4000 range bring back the APS-H sensor. Preferably in a 180nm part with something around 4µm pixels, and all the fancy bells ans whistles of the 5D III. The 3D?

Sorry, but I have no interest in letting APS-H rest in peace. I want the zombie back!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAAA!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pj1974 on July 09, 2013, 11:54:14 PM
1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before.  Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years). 

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the  80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

Hi Don

Thanks for posting, also with your experience.

I take it you wrote that to confirm that we agree?! :)  Because we do..... (just wasn't sure if you misunderstood what I posted). 

I also agree - that Canon will already have been working on that list of 'future' cameras: 6DmkII, 80D, 7DmkIII, 5DmkIV

PJ  8)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pj1974 on July 09, 2013, 11:59:10 PM
3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it.   ::) APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF.  The 6D particularly demonstrates that.  Leave it to RIP, please!
 - APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality.
 - FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.

You can proclaim whatever you want as much as you want. However, that won't change the fact that many of us, myself included, liked the APS-H format! Unlike you, many of us prefer to think of it as a useful half-way house between APS-C and FF. Not everyone wants FF for everything. Don't forget that there is a specific value to a cropped sensor: reach! When reach is one of the most significant factors, yet you want a balance between the often too small/too noisy pixels of APS-C, and the lack of reach of FF...well, APS-H once offered an ideal alternative that offered excellent IQ, superior IQ even, for a middle-ground price point (at least as far as professional-grade equipment goes).

I don't believe that APS-H should be brought back in the 7D II. On the contrary, I like the 7D line's positioning as the professional-grade APS-C part. I would, however, very much like to see something in the $3500-$4000 range bring back the APS-H sensor. Preferably in a 180nm part with something around 4µm pixels, and all the fancy bells ans whistles of the 5D III. The 3D?

Sorry, but I have no interest in letting APS-H rest in peace. I want the zombie back!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAAA!

:D  Ha ha... you want the zombie back... oh dear... some people have watched too many scary movies... and it's transforming DSLR bodies to 'the walking dead' bodies!! :)

I appreciate many of your posts on CR, jrista... including what you've written earlier in this thread about 7D resolution compared to an older and lower MP 1D.

So while I believe the APS-H is long in the ground - buried... and only to be resurrected via 'zombie power' - I can sympathise & understand that for some photographers, APS-H is their preferred blend / mix.

Having 1 body to cover what you want (or closely what you want) is often more practical than having bodies (2 or more) of both APS-C and FF.

APS-C is what works best for me currently.  Maybe one day APS-C will die....  I'll aim to have enough 'bodies' in my 'cool room' to create enough Frankensteins ... to 'live' for a long time into the future... lol    ;D

Paul

Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: expatinasia on July 10, 2013, 12:04:18 AM
I would not be surprised to see Canon test the elasticity of past product cycles to discover just how frequently they can update their different models. There is such hunger these days for the latest tech, the newest this and the newest that, that Canon would be silly not to.

I am looking forward to learning about the 7D Mark II, it should be a very exciting camera, but I am also curious as to what they have planned with their flagship pro camera(s). :o
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pedro on July 10, 2013, 12:51:47 AM
<p>We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II, which will be a pro specced APS-C camera.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
[/html]

Both FF.
1. One @ extreme high MP(35-40) for landscape and studio shooters
2. The second is extreme low MP (12-18). Use able ISO @ 25000, similiar to current 5D III @ 6400ISO

Everybody HAPPY, Canon gets even more sales and US economy will raise 100%. THE END ;D
I'd be willing to save up for such a beast. But wait, isn't there a similar body out there? Or at least an attempt to it? 1Dx comes close to your rumored specs in your second point. But then, it is way off track budgetwise for me. Anyway, the 5D line will improve as well. My 5D3 is fantastic at ISO 25.600 well exposed: Example from a wedding last saturday. I wasn't the official photographer. Just a happy bystander, taking some candids around midnight... 8)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7387/9251291615_99bd59fd2f_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/9251291615/)
Z96A5058bBWKlein (http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/9251291615/#) by Peter Hauri (http://www.flickr.com/people/guatitamasluz/), on Flickr

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3795/9251467827_0aba37891b_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/9251467827/)
Z96A5058bKLEIN (http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/9251467827/#) by Peter Hauri (http://www.flickr.com/people/guatitamasluz/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 10, 2013, 05:47:34 AM
I think moving beyond the sensor that will appear in the next Rebel, an EOS M camera and the EOS 70D is a good idea.

I'd disagree - the 7d1 shows that it doesn't need a better sensor to make a camera that is way above the internal competition, and Canon could charge a big premium just for better af & fw features like now (and that's the reason I've got a 60d :-p).

We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: expatinasia on July 10, 2013, 06:42:09 AM
We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.

Is the 5D pro? Canon officially classifies it as prosumer, and while a lot of pros do use it, I am not sure if it fits into that category.

Two new pro bodies could be the high MP 1D camera and a new pro level cinema body.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: nicku on July 10, 2013, 06:48:22 AM
I personally prefer the 20.2 MP sensor vs 24.1... the noise problem can be managed more easy in a smaller pixel density sensor.

I believe the biggest difference between 7Dmk2 and 70D will be the body construction, AF, fps, IQ, and other features, that can justify the price difference.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 10, 2013, 06:55:50 AM
1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before.  Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years). 

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the  80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

Hi Don

Thanks for posting, also with your experience.

I take it you wrote that to confirm that we agree?! :)  Because we do..... (just wasn't sure if you misunderstood what I posted). 

I also agree - that Canon will already have been working on that list of 'future' cameras: 6DmkII, 80D, 7DmkIII, 5DmkIV

PJ  8)
I definitly agree.... with the entire post.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 10, 2013, 07:20:27 AM
I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying the original question--"the benefit of megapixels", but all things being equal, more = more.  The rest of this is arguing that all things aren't equal, which is obviously true most of the time.  A 16MP 1Dx just might   ;) take a better picture than Nokia's 41 Mp cell phone camera cropped to 16.  All megapickles are not created equal, but that does not negate the fact that more of "the same" MPs means more freedom for cropping.  If you don't believe me, shoot an image in RAW, then the same image in sRaw, crop a chunk out and see how they look.

It depends how simplistic, or theoretical, you want to get. As usual I just presented some empirical results, that whilst not entirely defying common wisdom and repeated posting history, certainly do throw a spanner in the works of the narrow minded thinking that "more equals more". If you don't believe me conduct a series of tests of same generation crop and ff sensors, like I did. Sure more does equal more, but nothing like everybody expects it to and the test I posted was set up to maximise any and every advantage the 7D might have. Because of these tests I concluded that a 7D was of no use to me whatsoever, even in focal length limited situations.

Again, there are very good reasons to own a crop camera, but thinking you are getting "longer lenses, more reach, greater cropability, etc etc" doesn't actually amount to anything when empirically tested, and maybe that is where I am falling down here, I bothered to actually do the tests rather than rely on common thought, internet chatter and theoretical pontificating.
And if we really want to confuse the issue...... 5D2 vs 60D, both using 70-200 lens, in good daylight... The 60D resolves more detail on distant objects. 60D vs SX-50 in good daylight.... The SX-50 resolves more detail. Now we try the comparison in poor light and high ISO and the 5D2 out resolves the 60D and the 60D out resolves the SX-50. There is no easy answer here, it depends on conditions.

Exactly, and I posted in your SX-50 thread and have linked to it several times. I found, when I actually used an 18mp crop camera and a same generation 21mp ff camera, the 18mp camera realised no noticeable resolution increase despite common wisdom and over twice the pixels in focal length limited situations. Lots of people argue with that, but never present actual images backing up their opinions.

Like I have always said, at 100% and ideal conditions the 7D does have more resolution than a cropped 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII, I found, in actual use, those tiny difference disappeared in real world images. I have yet to be shown a single set of contradictory images.

So if anybody has a set of hand held, AF'd, >400iso, wide open aperture, focal length limited images from a 7D and a 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII, please, post them, I'd be interested to see how much different than my results yours are.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: schill on July 10, 2013, 08:08:29 AM
1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before.  Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years). 

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the  80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware.  And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features.  Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps.  Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps.  Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time.  I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer.  You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although  I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps :) ) and just passed 100k images).
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 10, 2013, 08:28:21 AM
1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before.  Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years). 

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the  80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware.  And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features.  Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps.  Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps.  Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time.  I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer.  You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although  I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps :) ) and just passed 100k images).

Even if it was as simple as changing one variable in one line of code in the firmware, they could not do it in a month,
even if everything else was ready to "pull the trigger"

Nikon releases product....
Canon executives discuss Nikon release.....
Decision is made to change from 14 to 12 frames per second....
30 seconds later, line of code is changed....
manual is edited.... order goes out to print new ones
box graphics are edited, order goes out to print new ones
new boxes and manuals are printed and arrive back at factory.
cameras and manuals are packed into new boxes....
stock is shipped worldwide.....
product is released.....

No way could that be done in a month....
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: AprilForever on July 10, 2013, 08:42:04 AM
We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.

Is the 5D pro? Canon officially classifies it as prosumer, and while a lot of pros do use it, I am not sure if it fits into that category.

Two new pro bodies could be the high MP 1D camera and a new pro level cinema body.

The 7D MK I was pretty pro. The 7D MK II hopefully will be more pro. I think that the sensor should have at least a 2 stop ISO improvement, and there should be better sealing, a MUCH improved grip, and also a third wheel for ISO.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: expatinasia on July 10, 2013, 08:48:46 AM
We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.

Is the 5D pro? Canon officially classifies it as prosumer, and while a lot of pros do use it, I am not sure if it fits into that category.

Two new pro bodies could be the high MP 1D camera and a new pro level cinema body.

The 7D MK I was pretty pro. The 7D MK II hopefully will be more pro. I think that the sensor should have at least a 2 stop ISO improvement, and there should be better sealing, a MUCH improved grip, and also a third wheel for ISO.

Pretty pro?! It is/was a decent camera with good fps, and other features. It never really competed with the 1 series, and the only ever time you would see one on a field/pitch was perhaps, and only perhaps, as a 2nd back up body. Nothing wrong with that.

If they did make a true Pro 7D Mark II H or C in a 1D X body with all the FPS, perhaps even improved this and that etc. I will buy one without a doubt. But I doubt it would be cheap, in fact I would say US$3-4K.  But my money would be on a watered down version of the 1D X, only question is how much water to use?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: schill on July 10, 2013, 08:53:30 AM
1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before.  Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years). 

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the  80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware.  And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features.  Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps.  Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps.  Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time.  I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer.  You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although  I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps :) ) and just passed 100k images).

Even if it was as simple as changing one variable in one line of code in the firmware, they could not do it in a month,
even if everything else was ready to "pull the trigger"

Nikon releases product....
Canon executives discuss Nikon release.....
Decision is made to change from 14 to 12 frames per second....
30 seconds later, line of code is changed....
manual is edited.... order goes out to print new ones
box graphics are edited, order goes out to print new ones
new boxes and manuals are printed and arrive back at factory.
cameras and manuals are packed into new boxes....
stock is shipped worldwide.....
product is released.....

No way could that be done in a month....

I agree.  I never said it could be done in a month.

Anyway, I was thinking "last minute before they commit to the final design/configuration [1]" and not "last minute before I walk into B&H and pick one up."

[1] after which they would print manuals/boxes, etc.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kaihp on July 10, 2013, 09:05:18 AM
I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware.  And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features.  Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps.  Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps.  Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time.  I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer.  You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although  I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps :) ) and just passed 100k images).

Even if it was as simple as changing one variable in one line of code in the firmware, they could not do it in a month,
even if everything else was ready to "pull the trigger"

Nikon releases product....
Canon executives discuss Nikon release.....
Decision is made to change from 14 to 12 frames per second....
30 seconds later, line of code is changed....
manual is edited.... order goes out to print new ones
box graphics are edited, order goes out to print new ones
new boxes and manuals are printed and arrive back at factory.
cameras and manuals are packed into new boxes....
stock is shipped worldwide.....
product is released.....

No way could that be done in a month....

I agree with Don here, but that may be because I have a similar background of Electronics. I designed integrated circuits for 16 years.

V&V will very quickly also take more than a month. Software is quite tricky and sometimes "dead simple things" just trip up stuff. But I work in the medical device industry (hearing aids), and there V&V is required.

As for doing plastic injection molding, design can take 3-9 months, then tooling is designed (the big metal box that contains the cavity that makes the actual part), tooling manufacture and then V&V on the samples - did the snaps turn out OK, are the dimensions within spec, is Marketing happy. It all takes time. Lots of time.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: schill on July 10, 2013, 09:14:50 AM
I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware.  And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features.  Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps.  Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps.  Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time.  I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer.  You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although  I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps :) ) and just passed 100k images).

Even if it was as simple as changing one variable in one line of code in the firmware, they could not do it in a month,
even if everything else was ready to "pull the trigger"

Nikon releases product....
Canon executives discuss Nikon release.....
Decision is made to change from 14 to 12 frames per second....
30 seconds later, line of code is changed....
manual is edited.... order goes out to print new ones
box graphics are edited, order goes out to print new ones
new boxes and manuals are printed and arrive back at factory.
cameras and manuals are packed into new boxes....
stock is shipped worldwide.....
product is released.....

No way could that be done in a month....

I agree with Don here, but that may be because I have a similar background of Electronics. I designed integrated circuits for 16 years.

V&V will very quickly also take more than a month. Software is quite tricky and sometimes "dead simple things" just trip up stuff. But I work in the medical device industry (hearing aids), and there V&V is required.

As for doing plastic injection molding, design can take 3-9 months, then tooling is designed (the big metal box that contains the cavity that makes the actual part), tooling manufacture and then V&V on the samples - did the snaps turn out OK, are the dimensions within spec, is Marketing happy. It all takes time. Lots of time.

I think people are missing my point.  All I was saying is that there are some things that can be changed much closer to the release of the product than others.  I never said anything about changing hardware (electronic or otherwise).

I don't believe reducing the fps of the camera will typically require retooling the molds (increasing it, maybe, but not reducing it). :)

If they have any freedom in modifying the design when they get close to release (again, before printing manuals, boxes, etc.) it is in the firmware.  And I still believe it is easier to dial back some functionality (like fps) than it is to improve it.

I do not have a problem with management saying "reduce the fps from 14 to 12 and get it tested in the next month while we print the manuals and boxes."  That may not be ideal, but I can certainly see it happening.

In fact, I will not be surprised if they already built some of this into the coding and testing process, just to give them the flexibility to change closer to the "last minute."

And since we are specifying backgrounds, while I have never developed firmware for a commercial product, I have been involved professionally in software development for 18+ years, as a hobby for a lot longer, and I've written plenty of low-level code and firmware for microcontrollers as a hobby (while nothing close to a camera's firmware, I know the effects small changes can have).

[Edit] And regarding manuals, with the move to PDF manuals instead of printed ones, who's to say that the manual can't be changed the night before I walk into B&H to buy my camera.  They have the potential to update them whenever they want - that can easily be extended to controlling the initial release of the manual until they want to, even if they've already shipped the product.

Companies have been moving away from print manuals and just including CDs with PDFs.  Now, some are starting to include only a quick-start sheet or PDF on CD.  To get the full manual you need to download it.

There's less and less of a need to include a print manual in the box.

Also, as far as printing boxes goes, does Canon include that much of a description of the camera features on the box?  I don't have a clue what's on my 7D box (and I don't keep it with me at all times :) ).  I don't remember the EOS-M box having too much written on it.  These are not boxes that are typically sitting on retail shelves for potential buyers to pick up and read.  They don't have all of the information that other retail products have.  I don't think I've ever seen store where I could walk in and pick up a 7D box and start reading it - you usually don't see the boxes at all.  The only place I might expect this would be Costco, maybe, for some cameras.  But Canon definitely doesn't design boxes that are screaming out the features of the contents to consumers.

You could probably change something like fps even after the boxes were printed and nobody would know the difference.  You just couldn't change a 7D mkII to a 3D without reprinting - I'd be wary of buying a camera in a box with a sticker over the camera name.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: JohanCruyff on July 10, 2013, 10:08:32 AM
3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it.   ::) APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF.  The 6D particularly demonstrates that.  Leave it to RIP, please!
 - APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality.
 - FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.

Maybe you're right, APS-H is an unnecessary compromise between FF and APS-C.
If you're right, we can consider G15 is an unnecessary compromise between standard point&shoot cameras and EOS M.
And maybe APS-C sensor is an unnecessary compromise between P&Ss and FF.
And maybe P&Ss are unnecessary compromises between smartphones and FF.
And ...
 
 
Well, I think that a few compromises deserve to survive.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: schill on July 10, 2013, 10:20:40 AM
...
I think people are missing my point.  All I was saying is that there are some things that can be changed much closer to the release of the product than others.  I never said anything about changing hardware (electronic or otherwise).

Like what, exactly?

Quote
If they have any freedom in modifying the design when they get close to release (again, before printing manuals, boxes, etc.) it is in the firmware.  And I still believe it is easier to dial back some functionality (like fps) than it is to improve it.

I'm pretty sure that all of the primary features are agreed upon and nailed down well in advance.

About the only thing that I could see them adding "late" would be "more high ISO" that is really noisy.

If someone thought that adding in a 14fps mode to top the 12fps mode with a few months left until announce and did so, I'm pretty sure they'd be kicked out the door.

Consider that it was 3 years from the release of the 7D in 2009 to firmware version 2.0 in 2012.

There are lots of people that think they know what it means to write software and/or build electronics hardware. Few indeed that understand what it takes to deliver such a product that is of a high enough quality standard to command the price of DSLRs.

If you actually read my post, my example was dropping down from 14 to 12 fps - not increasing it.  And if you think it "might" be possible to add "more high ISO" why "might" it not be possible to reduce fps from 14 to 12?

The whole point of my post, which I think is completely lost by now, was that if anything can be done at "the last minute" - and I did not define when that was - it is to remove or reduce features that are enabled/controlled in the firmware as opposed to in hardware.  It is typically (although not always) easier to remove functionality rather than add it.  In fact, you can leave functionality in place and just remove the menu option that turns it on and off in some cases.

In other words, while at some point the hardware design may be fixed you can still change the firmware to adapt at least to some extent to the market.  If Canon decides after seeing Nikon's latest release that the 7DII is better than it needs to be, they could reduce functionality.  It is easier to say "we don't need 14fps, drop it down to 12" than it is to say "we need to up the 12fps to 14."  By the way, I also never said that I think this actually happens.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: unfocused on July 10, 2013, 10:37:14 AM
While it is unrealistic to suggest that Canon (or Nikon) can completely and quickly revise a product based on what their competitor does, it is also unrealistic to suggest that the companies don't react and respond to each others' releases.

As I stated before, these two companies have been competing for nearly a century. They know their competitors' businesses inside and out. They are not sitting around waiting for the press release announcing a new product. Honestly, the development cycle is kind of irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it takes six months or six years to develop a product. The critical factor is how long it takes for the competition to find out what the other company is doing.

Let's say Nikon decides to put a new sensor in the D400. The development time isn't the critical factor here, it is the lag time between when Nikon makes decisions and when Canon finds out what those decisions are. For argument's sake, let's say that on average there is a one-month lag time. Doesn't matter if the development time is six years, Canon's intelligence is on a one-month lag time and that's the operative number.

Of course, this is a gross oversimplification. Some decisions may be known within minutes of the company making them. Some may not be known until the product is unveiled. Some are just common sense things that even people here on Canon Rumors can figure out (Pretty much everyone with a brain knew the 5DIII would have better autofocus than the 5DII).

You can be sure that both Nikon and Canon have people whose sole responsibility is to know what the other company is doing at all times. This isn't necessarily nefarious or underhanded. These are publicly traded companies with divisions around the world. Much of the information is readily available to anyone who takes the time to look for it and knows what they are looking for.

Additionally, they both serve the same market and so their market research is likely to run parallel to one another. There is a reason why the D4 and 1D-X are basically twins – their customers are drawn from the same pool of professional photographers.

None of us knows exactly how much consideration of the competitor's product goes into the final release decision, but to suggest that they act independently of one another is a bit naive.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kaihp on July 10, 2013, 10:40:27 AM
If you actually read my post, my example was dropping down from 14 to 12 fps - not increasing it.  And if you think it "might" be possible to add "more high ISO" why "might" it not be possible to reduce fps from 14 to 12?

The whole point of my post, which I think is completely lost by now, was that if anything can be done at "the last minute" - and I did not define when that was - it is to remove or reduce features that are enabled/controlled in the firmware as opposed to in hardware.  It is typically (although not always) easier to remove functionality rather than add it.  In fact, you can leave functionality in place and just remove the menu option that turns it on and off in some cases.

Please see Don's point about printing manuals. Menu spelling errors (like in the Info boxes) could be changed without having to change manuals. Depending on how paranoid you are, you could/could not do without V&V on the changed firmware.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: garyknrd on July 10, 2013, 10:42:18 AM
Looks like a few different company's are going to market pretty soon. Pentax is suppose to have a new one, Nikon I am sure will. Sony might. I am looking forward to the coming year. I will be in crop heaven. I will probably never have a FF camera. Not in the plans what so ever.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Krob78 on July 10, 2013, 01:35:30 PM
I like the specs.  I just pre ordered my EOS 7D Mk II.  Can't wait to get it out in the field with my 5D Mk III and get back to enjoying the good life, 5d in one hand, 7d in the other...  Should be a great combination and the Fastest canon in the west...    ;)

I like the September/October announcement and Spring 2014 release date...  8)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 10, 2013, 01:55:31 PM
Is the 5D pro? Canon officially classifies it as prosumer, and while a lot of pros do use it, I am not sure if it fits into that category.

You can see what's pro and what's not by looking at the European CPS program that qualifies products into 3
categories. 1d/5d2/5d3 = platinum (pro), 6d = silver (consumer): https://cps.canon-europe.com/Public/QualifyingProducts

While it is unrealistic to suggest that Canon (or Nikon) can completely and quickly revise a product based on what their competitor does, it is also unrealistic to suggest that the companies don't react and respond to each others' releases.

It would be really interesting to have more insight into their development process:

My guess that Canon has lots of patents (see all the lens [cr] here] and semi-finished products, but all w/o final optimization stages and production streamlining. If so, they can react fairly quickly, they just take parts from other products or open the drawer, pull out the blueprints and take some month to produce them. Proof seems to be the 6d, they conjured that up out of thin air just to sidestep Nikon's d600 while not endangering the 5d3.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Cory on July 10, 2013, 02:04:29 PM
Do you think that there might be a Rebel to follow that'll have the 7DII sensor?  If so I wonder if that might be my upgrade from a T1i.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pedro on July 10, 2013, 02:06:45 PM



About the only thing that I could see them adding "late" would be "more high ISO" that is really noisy.


As I am not involved in software programming, how does that work, if a camera manufacturer sees the necestiy to crank up the ISO? Sorry for my ignorance in so many tech related things...
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 10, 2013, 02:17:48 PM



About the only thing that I could see them adding "late" would be "more high ISO" that is really noisy.


As I am not involved in software programming, how does that work, if a camera manufacturer sees the necestiy to crank up the ISO? Sorry for my ignorance in so many tech related things...

I am not sure that is just purely a software thing. There is firmware involved, but that firmware is really instructing the hardware to do something, and if the hardware is incapable, then I don't think just a firmware update will do it. When it comes to ISO, the firmware is really instructing the hardware to use a different gain. I don't really know enough about electronics at that scale to know definitively if the hardware explicitly needs to support a specific analog gain, but I am willing to bet that it is more complicated than a "simple" firmware update to, say, add a native ISO 25600 to a camera that previously only supported ISO 12800. I bet the hardware needs to support it first.

I am not sure if a digital sensor would be the same. Exmor, which does pretty much everything except the initial pixel read digitally (bits, rather than charge)...so it might be easier to simply add a higher ISO setting with Exmor via just a firmware update than it would be for any other sensor.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: hmmm on July 10, 2013, 02:20:03 PM
Do you think that there might be a Rebel to follow that'll have the 7DII sensor?  If so I wonder if that might be my upgrade from a T1i.

My guess is that the next Rebel will have the sensor from the 70D.    Sometime in mid-2014.

If the 7D mkII has a next-gen sensor architecture, it would not make it to the Rebels until two generations from now, is my guess.   That would make it 2015.   That would give Canon time to deploy next-gen sensor architecture to pro models and perhaps even the 80D before it trickles down to the Rebel level.

Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pedro on July 10, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
@jrista: Thank you for the explanation!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: schill on July 10, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
If you actually read my post, my example was dropping down from 14 to 12 fps - not increasing it.  And if you think it "might" be possible to add "more high ISO" why "might" it not be possible to reduce fps from 14 to 12?

The whole point of my post, which I think is completely lost by now, was that if anything can be done at "the last minute" - and I did not define when that was - it is to remove or reduce features that are enabled/controlled in the firmware as opposed to in hardware.  It is typically (although not always) easier to remove functionality rather than add it.  In fact, you can leave functionality in place and just remove the menu option that turns it on and off in some cases.

Please see Don's point about printing manuals. Menu spelling errors (like in the Info boxes) could be changed without having to change manuals. Depending on how paranoid you are, you could/could not do without V&V on the changed firmware.

I have read and understood Don's post.  I even replied to it and agreed with him:

Quote
I agree.  I never said it could be done in a month.

Anyway, I was thinking "last minute before they commit to the final design/configuration [1]" and not "last minute before I walk into B&H and pick one up."

[1] after which they would print manuals/boxes, etc.

I don't expect Canon to change the specs right before I can buy the camera, but I believe that there are some things (like the changes in firmware I have mentioned) that they can do right up to the point where they print manuals or make an official announcement of the specs or something else of that nature (whatever comes first).  Until then, they can do whatever they want and I believe that some things are relatively easy to change.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: unfocused on July 10, 2013, 03:21:59 PM
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/07/09/new-wave-of-nikon-announcements-coming-in-augustseptember-d400-a-possibility.aspx/ (http://nikonrumors.com/2013/07/09/new-wave-of-nikon-announcements-coming-in-augustseptember-d400-a-possibility.aspx/)

Just a footnote to my earlier posts.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: ddashti on July 10, 2013, 03:59:51 PM
This is good news, but it's just a downer to have to wait that long.
The bigger the improvements, the better it'll be, though.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kevl on July 10, 2013, 04:06:38 PM


It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.

Hard drives..... Time marches on there too....

First hard drive I bought for work was $10,000 for a 10 megabyte drive.... Last week I bought 24 4terrabyte drives at $250 each.... That's 100 terabytes for $6000..... Quite a drop in price per byte.... This is 7 orders of magnitude... That's like buying a mansion in 1980 for $1,000,000.00 and in 2013 buying a better mansion for $0.06


LOL this is going to be rude... and your point is?

If you're spending that much on harddrives for your photography business and you want a large megapixel camera you're dealing with the wrong company here. You should visit http://www.hasselbladusa.com/ (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/)

Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: RVB on July 10, 2013, 05:56:09 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

Not true,higher res files look sharper,you can crop them and also down sample for a cleaner superior file..,only real downside is large file's and high res sensor's are more demanding on the glass...
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 10, 2013, 06:18:09 PM


It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.

Hard drives..... Time marches on there too....

First hard drive I bought for work was $10,000 for a 10 megabyte drive.... Last week I bought 24 4terrabyte drives at $250 each.... That's 100 terabytes for $6000..... Quite a drop in price per byte.... This is 7 orders of magnitude... That's like buying a mansion in 1980 for $1,000,000.00 and in 2013 buying a better mansion for $0.06


LOL this is going to be rude... and your point is?

If you're spending that much on harddrives for your photography business and you want a large megapixel camera you're dealing with the wrong company here. You should visit http://www.hasselbladusa.com/ (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/)
Last year I bought about 600 hard drives for work.... Data logging, not photography. That would be a LOT of photos :)

My work (that keeps the food on the table) is in a research lab.

My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 10, 2013, 07:22:55 PM


It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.

Hard drives..... Time marches on there too....

First hard drive I bought for work was $10,000 for a 10 megabyte drive.... Last week I bought 24 4terrabyte drives at $250 each.... That's 100 terabytes for $6000..... Quite a drop in price per byte.... This is 7 orders of magnitude... That's like buying a mansion in 1980 for $1,000,000.00 and in 2013 buying a better mansion for $0.06


LOL this is going to be rude... and your point is?

If you're spending that much on harddrives for your photography business and you want a large megapixel camera you're dealing with the wrong company here. You should visit http://www.hasselbladusa.com/ (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/)
Last year I bought about 600 hard drives for work.... Data logging, not photography. That would be a LOT of photos :)

My work (that keeps the food on the table) is in a research lab.

My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.

Agreed...storage is ridiculously cheap these days, more than cheap enough to support extremely high resolution RAW images from 40, 50, 60, 80mp sensors and beyond. I personally have four 2TB drives in a ReadyNAS NVX (8TB network storage device), as well as several more 1TB and 2TB drives for work storage, scratch and swap space, etc. in my workstation. All of that only costs a few hundred bucks these days. It is also ridiculously cheap to buy whole 25 disc spindles of LTH type Verbatim BluRay recordable discs for periodic permabackups and off-site storage of huge RAW files.

Storage space is probably the cheapest commodity in the photographic world, by a long shot.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pj1974 on July 10, 2013, 08:06:17 PM
3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it.   ::) APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF.  The 6D particularly demonstrates that.  Leave it to RIP, please!
 - APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality.
 - FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.

Maybe you're right, APS-H is an unnecessary compromise between FF and APS-C.
If you're right, we can consider G15 is an unnecessary compromise between standard point&shoot cameras and EOS M.
And maybe APS-C sensor is an unnecessary compromise between P&Ss and FF.
And maybe P&Ss are unnecessary compromises between smartphones and FF.
And ...
 
 
Well, I think that a few compromises deserve to survive.

The comparison you're drawing between target marketing and product lines within the DSLR realm and the non-DSLR (let's call them 'P&S') realm is flawed, based on both market dynamics as well as the business / technology spectrum.

Canon produces a whole lot more P&S cameras than DSLR bodies. Many more models, and sell more P&S than DSLRs (though DSLRs have increased as a proportion of P&S in the past 10 years in particular).

There is a lot more market latitude for models like the G15 and even the EOS-M (above the standard small P&S) than for an APS-H between APS-C and FF.  Also, if one looks carefully at DSLR lenses, most are best suited to either an APS-C (EF-S) OR FF (EF).  EF lenses on APS-H can of course 'work' - but often they are better on either a FF or APS-C depending on the required application.

Similarly, a comparison of P&S between smart phone and DSLR isn't quite justified... though certainly the market will segment with an increasing number of smart phone cameras, as some of them have decent cameras included in recent times.

I do appreciate that there are some compromises between A and Z which do deserve to survive. That's where I see APS-C sitting (though even that I concede in the future may disappear... not in the near future, but possibly who knows what will happen in 20 years?!)  20 years ago the thought of a (FF) digital DSLR was a very 'futuristic' idea, let alone one with Live-View that could record movies. :)

Cheers

Paul
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kaihp on July 10, 2013, 08:37:28 PM
My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.

Drives are very cheap. Doing backup of the drives continues to be a stone in the shoe, though ;)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: schill on July 10, 2013, 09:41:52 PM
My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.

Drives are very cheap. Doing backup of the drives continues to be a stone in the shoe, though ;)

That's what more drives are for. :)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kaihp on July 10, 2013, 10:10:18 PM
My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.

Drives are very cheap. Doing backup of the drives continues to be a stone in the shoe, though ;)

That's what more drives are for. :)

You're missing the point.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Blaze on July 11, 2013, 03:22:39 AM



About the only thing that I could see them adding "late" would be "more high ISO" that is really noisy.


As I am not involved in software programming, how does that work, if a camera manufacturer sees the necestiy to crank up the ISO? Sorry for my ignorance in so many tech related things...

I am not sure that is just purely a software thing. There is firmware involved, but that firmware is really instructing the hardware to do something, and if the hardware is incapable, then I don't think just a firmware update will do it. When it comes to ISO, the firmware is really instructing the hardware to use a different gain. I don't really know enough about electronics at that scale to know definitively if the hardware explicitly needs to support a specific analog gain, but I am willing to bet that it is more complicated than a "simple" firmware update to, say, add a native ISO 25600 to a camera that previously only supported ISO 12800. I bet the hardware needs to support it first.

I am not sure if a digital sensor would be the same. Exmor, which does pretty much everything except the initial pixel read digitally (bits, rather than charge)...so it might be easier to simply add a higher ISO setting with Exmor via just a firmware update than it would be for any other sensor.

I may be wrong (please correct me if I am), but I had the understanding that the "native" ISO involved boosting the analog gain, where as the "expanded" ISO increased the gain after the analog to digital conversion. If this is correct, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that another stop or two (or even more depending on how much DR you're willing to sacrifice--it's just a multiplication factor) of expanded ISO capability could be added via a "simple" firmware update. Expanding the native ISO is an entirely different matter which would require lots of testing and tweaking since it is done more at the hardware level.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 11, 2013, 04:41:29 AM
Expanding the native ISO is an entirely different matter which would require lots of testing and tweaking since it is done more at the hardware level.

Afaik you're correct, though I know this specific term as "analog" iso ... there are 3 different things:
* base/"native" iso: sensor readout w/o any analog or digital gain (not necessarily lowest settable iso/100)
* analog iso steps: don on sensor, on canon crop 100/200/400/800/1600/3200
* digital iso steps: additional digital gain on digic for intermediary steps and 6400 and above (on crop)

For 200-1600 lower intermediary values are reduced (i.e. iso 1000 has a base of 1600) and 6400 and above are pushed from 3200, that's why for raw you're better off @3200 and push it in postprocessing yourself.

So my guess is that Canon could add iso25600 on crop by fw, they just wouldn't dare because it would look even more crappy than h1/12800 and as written above it's only good for jpeg or video.

http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/ISO (http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/ISO)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: GMCPhotographics on July 11, 2013, 04:59:04 AM
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....


Maybe two high megapixel? 5D3big (3D?) and 1DXbig?
Or will the APS-H surprise us and come back to a new life?

The 5DIII was the 1DX were co-developed together. The 5DIII really is a 1Dx lite. Both cameras benefitted from the co-developement. I suspect that something simular will occurr with the big chip cameras. A 1D series with a large super-sized sensor and pro spec, and a 5D sized camera with a simular sensor and features but less fps and a more semi - pro orientated build / features.

I don't think we'll ever see another  APS-H sensor again.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: schill on July 11, 2013, 07:36:20 AM
My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.

Drives are very cheap. Doing backup of the drives continues to be a stone in the shoe, though ;)

That's what more drives are for. :)

You're missing the point.

I guess I did.  I thought you were talking about the need to back up all of the data that we are accumulating on these high capacity drives that we keep installing.  Was it something else?

My point was that one way to back up your drives is onto other drives.  All of my photos are routinely backed up this way - onto bare drives that are not kept connected to the computer/network.

Anyway, this really doesn't have anything to do with the new 7D specifically.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Hannes on July 11, 2013, 07:44:05 AM
My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.

Drives are very cheap. Doing backup of the drives continues to be a stone in the shoe, though ;)


That's what more drives are for. :)

You're missing the point.

That is why raid 1 was invented, two identical drives that automatically backs itself up to the other. Sure, there is always the risk that your house catches fire and the drives are destroyed but then it's quite hard to get round that.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 11, 2013, 10:19:12 AM



About the only thing that I could see them adding "late" would be "more high ISO" that is really noisy.


As I am not involved in software programming, how does that work, if a camera manufacturer sees the necestiy to crank up the ISO? Sorry for my ignorance in so many tech related things...

I am not sure that is just purely a software thing. There is firmware involved, but that firmware is really instructing the hardware to do something, and if the hardware is incapable, then I don't think just a firmware update will do it. When it comes to ISO, the firmware is really instructing the hardware to use a different gain. I don't really know enough about electronics at that scale to know definitively if the hardware explicitly needs to support a specific analog gain, but I am willing to bet that it is more complicated than a "simple" firmware update to, say, add a native ISO 25600 to a camera that previously only supported ISO 12800. I bet the hardware needs to support it first.

I am not sure if a digital sensor would be the same. Exmor, which does pretty much everything except the initial pixel read digitally (bits, rather than charge)...so it might be easier to simply add a higher ISO setting with Exmor via just a firmware update than it would be for any other sensor.

I may be wrong (please correct me if I am), but I had the understanding that the "native" ISO involved boosting the analog gain, where as the "expanded" ISO increased the gain after the analog to digital conversion. If this is correct, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that another stop or two (or even more depending on how much DR you're willing to sacrifice--it's just a multiplication factor) of expanded ISO capability could be added via a "simple" firmware update. Expanding the native ISO is an entirely different matter which would require lots of testing and tweaking since it is done more at the hardware level.

Well, sure...expanded ISO could be changed with firmware. I personally don't consider expanded ISO to be a factor, as it is no different than shooting at the highest native ISO and boosting in post anyway. It's a digital push...anyone can do that at any time, and achieve as many "additional ISO levels" that they want. All you have to to is underexpose (use a faster shutter, which is the whole point)...by one, two...N stops. Your mileage may vary, depending on how meticulous and careful you are with your processing in post...and in many cases, such a post-process push can produce better results than in-camera expanded ISO.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: AprilForever on July 11, 2013, 12:52:49 PM
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.

First, I am not presenting an argument, I am presenting empirical results of a test.

You were, intentionally or not. When you claimed that the previous statements were untrue, you started a debate, and proceeded to present your "argument" for your opinion...

Second, I used a FF 1Ds MkIII not an APS-H 1D MkIV.

Ok, not that it really matters to the point being debated any. The point of yours that I am arguing against is the notion that all or nearly all of the benefit of the 7D's higher resolution as offered by higher pixel density is mitigated by "real world factors". And I quote:

but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This is the specific point of yours that I am debating. I think you are FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG...there ABSOLUTELY IS a difference that CAN be FULLY REALIZED in the real world. It would take some very significant camera shake or a severely missfocussed lens to diminish the resolution benefit the 7D has over the 1D III. Someone with particularly unsteady hands and a non-IS lens is probably at a much higher risk of "not being able to realize the 7D's resolution edge", but in general I think the edge is entirely realizable. I realize it every day, in both tripod-based and hand-held photography. It is the reason the 7D has been my body of choice for the last couple of years, and why I am holding out against buying a 5D III until the 7D II has been released and its upgrades evaluated.

I'll HAPPILY take an even HIGHER resolution sensor than the 7D has...because I know first hand that the extra resolution can be utilized even in a hand held scenario (or a missfocus scenario...a problem with the 7D that I believe is far more severe than its supposedly overdone sensor resolution).

Third, I agree the 7D "wins", though I don't agree with the oversimplified knee jerk rhetoric.

First..."knee jerk"?? LOL...not sure where that came from
Second..."rhetoric"?? I know I can be wordy...I often use a lot of words just to be clear in getting my point across. Ironic, as I though my last reply to you was rather concise and clear, and explicit in its form as a STATEMENT, not a question...rhetorical or otherwise. (Unless, I guess, you think the use of the word "convolution" is rhetoric...)

I even pointed out in my initial post that the 7D does have more resolution, just nowhere near as much as anybody would guess or expect, most people are pretty emphatic that the far denser sensor of the 7D would trounce the less than half the pixel numbers of the FF, but it just is not so. The 18MP of the 7D equate well to the 36MP of the D800, we all know, as a system, the 5D MkIII at 24MP and the 24-70 f2.8 MkII resolves more, as bench tested, than the D800 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8, 18MP to 15MP.

I'd be careful not to conflate spatial resolution with pixels on subject. Assuming one could frame identically, the simple fact of the matter is that the 5D II, 5D III, D800, or any other full-frame sensor with more than 18mp will produce a more detailed result. But I think that notion is counter to the prior discussion about why one would want an 18mp APS-C  (not FF) sensor: crop factor. Identically framed, hands down, the full frame sensor with more pixels is going to produce a better result...not only because it puts more pixels on the subject, but because it puts more BETTER pixels on the subject.

Your very own argument, which equated a cropped 1D III to a 7D, implicitly assumes a focal-length limited scenario where one literally cannot frame the same. That falls in line with the prior discussion, and I have no question that if actual samples of photos taken hand-held with the 7D and 1D III in a variety of scenarios at ISO settings up to 1600...the 7D would trounce the 1D III. No contest. I might even buy a 5D III just to prove the point!  ::)

I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.

If you are claiming an "empirical" observation, sample data would be a necessity to back up your claim.

I can make the same argument, that I have made empirical observations that the 7D produces very different results (and superior, in terms of resolution usefully resolved) than something like the 5D II. As a matter of fact, a well respected scientist did just that very comparison (7D, 1D IV, 5D II), and his results are pretty definitively in favor of the 7D:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html (http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html)

In the context of this discussion, I think the following statement from that article is key:

Quote
The sensor sizes are irrelevant in these examples. All three cameras could well have been full frame sensors. It is purely a test of pixel size and the trade of detail versus noise.

Additionally, the results of the test, as evaluated by Roger Clark:

Quote
Here is my assessment:

In all the images, the 5DII images fail to show the subtle color differences that the 7D and 1D4 show. The color in the 1D4 and 7D are very close (until noise hides it).

ISO 100: 7D noise is small and detail is well above other images. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4

ISO 800: 7D noise is showing, but the detail is still well above the other cameras. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4

ISO1600: 7D noise is becoming prominent, but image detail is still very good. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4, but the difference is narrowing.

ISO3200: 7D noise is becoming objectionable and color is getting lost, in particular in Mare Serenatatis (the large circular dark area in the upper center). top=1D4, 2nd 7D. A good down sampling algorithm (like 2x2 pixel average) could improve the the image.

ISO6400: Noise is too apparent in 7D, and 5DII (which is slightly older technology than the 7D or 1D4). Top=1D4, 2nd=5DII. In my numerous sensor evaluations, I consistently see the 1D series sensors have fewer hot/bad pixels and the images here show that too: the 7D and 5DII images have a lot of "spiky" noise not seen in the 1D4 image.

The visual examples, which I cannot post here, CLEARLY demonstrate the benefit of having a sensor with denser pixels. The 7D images, while at times noisier than the 1D IV, have a more than measurable increase in overall detail...a very meaningful difference between the two cameras.

You might be well advised to go back and actually read my first post, it contains the images you ask for, the one on the left is a FF image (FROM A 1DS MkIII !) with an overlayed full image from a 7D, the red rectangle. They were shot from the same place with the same lens, a 300 mm f2.8 IS @ f5.6. This is a 100% demonstration of a focal length limited situation.

Now as I have repeatedly said, the 7D does have a fraction more resolution but it is not in the order most expect it to be. I did do further real world testing, though unfortunately don't have those images with me and they are not bench tested direct comparisons anyway (so would only lead to all sorts of not fair comparison claims), but after using both cameras side by side I concluded that the 7D gave me no more realisable resolution, I was surprised, but rather than throw down $1,500 because everybody said it would, I got a loaner and tested it for myself.

Other tests, by other people for their uses might show different results, I was surprised by my results but entirely happy they were accurate and got a second 1Ds MkIII. Again, there are many good reasons to own/buy a 7D/crop camera, but thinking you are getting a "free" TC is not the most sensible, or accurate, one.

To me, it seems to be a noticable amount more resolution than my old Rebel XSI. I assume 24MP instead of 18 would bring a rather similarly noticable help.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: RLPhoto on July 11, 2013, 01:22:15 PM
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 11, 2013, 01:50:40 PM
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

Agreed. I really hope it happens!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: neuroanatomist on July 11, 2013, 01:51:57 PM
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

What...no 135/1.8L IS to go with it?!?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: RLPhoto on July 11, 2013, 02:06:22 PM
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

What...no 135/1.8L IS to go with it?!?

Preposterous! Such a lens is for the gods only! (Or if you shoot sony  :P)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: pedro on July 11, 2013, 02:43:14 PM



About the only thing that I could see them adding "late" would be "more high ISO" that is really noisy.


As I am not involved in software programming, how does that work, if a camera manufacturer sees the necestiy to crank up the ISO? Sorry for my ignorance in so many tech related things...

I am not sure that is just purely a software thing. There is firmware involved, but that firmware is really instructing the hardware to do something, and if the hardware is incapable, then I don't think just a firmware update will do it. When it comes to ISO, the firmware is really instructing the hardware to use a different gain. I don't really know enough about electronics at that scale to know definitively if the hardware explicitly needs to support a specific analog gain, but I am willing to bet that it is more complicated than a "simple" firmware update to, say, add a native ISO 25600 to a camera that previously only supported ISO 12800. I bet the hardware needs to support it first.

I am not sure if a digital sensor would be the same. Exmor, which does pretty much everything except the initial pixel read digitally (bits, rather than charge)...so it might be easier to simply add a higher ISO setting with Exmor via just a firmware update than it would be for any other sensor.

I may be wrong (please correct me if I am), but I had the understanding that the "native" ISO involved boosting the analog gain, where as the "expanded" ISO increased the gain after the analog to digital conversion. If this is correct, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that another stop or two (or even more depending on how much DR you're willing to sacrifice--it's just a multiplication factor) of expanded ISO capability could be added via a "simple" firmware update. Expanding the native ISO is an entirely different matter which would require lots of testing and tweaking since it is done more at the hardware level.

Well, sure...expanded ISO could be changed with firmware. I personally don't consider expanded ISO to be a factor, as it is no different than shooting at the highest native ISO and boosting in post anyway. It's a digital push...anyone can do that at any time, and achieve as many "additional ISO levels" that they want. All you have to to is underexpose (use a faster shutter, which is the whole point)...by one, two...N stops. Your mileage may vary, depending on how meticulous and careful you are with your processing in post...and in many cases, such a post-process push can produce better results than in-camera expanded ISO.

good point. gotta try this with the 5D3. 25.6k underexposed by one stop: 51k. By 2 stops: 102k.  great idea, all the way.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: x-vision on July 11, 2013, 03:38:21 PM
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

Agreed. I really hope it happens!

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.
This is a sports body, remember.
Sports bodies favor ISO/noise over megapixels.

Here are my predictions:
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: AprilForever on July 11, 2013, 04:37:29 PM
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

Agreed. I really hope it happens!

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.
This is a sports body, remember.
Sports bodies favor ISO/noise over megapixels.

Here are my predictions:
  • 18mp, 1.5x crop factor
  • new AF system - but not the 1DX/5DIII AF system
  • 9fps

No, it will be 1.6, 9FPS is pretty realistic, but I am certain it will the the 5D III AF...
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Blaze on July 11, 2013, 06:04:55 PM
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

Agreed. I really hope it happens!

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.
This is a sports body, remember.
Sports bodies favor ISO/noise over megapixels.

Here are my predictions:
  • 18mp, 1.5x crop factor
  • new AF system - but not the 1DX/5DIII AF system
  • 9fps

No, it will be 1.6, 9FPS is pretty realistic, but I am certain it will the the 5D III AF...

It is certainly not going to have the 5D3 AF. You can't just stick a FF AF system on APS-C.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 11, 2013, 06:15:34 PM
Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.

Depends on what people it should appeal to - and more metapixies has consumer appeal, smartphone nowadays have 41mp cameras :-> ... and the 7d1 sells not only for sports/wildlife photogs, but also to the general shooter who wants the "best" crop body.

It is certainly not going to have the 5D3 AF. You can't just stick a FF AF system on APS-C.

Probably not the exact module, but everything else sounds a bit like an urban legend - Nikon put the ff d4 af into the d7100, surely Canon can modify the 5d3/1dx array w/o a complete redesign to go into a crop body? The real question if is Canon would want to do as aggressive tech trickle down as Nikon...
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 11, 2013, 06:38:32 PM
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

Agreed. I really hope it happens!

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.
This is a sports body, remember.
Sports bodies favor ISO/noise over megapixels.

Here are my predictions:
  • 18mp, 1.5x crop factor
  • new AF system - but not the 1DX/5DIII AF system
  • 9fps

No, it will be 1.6, 9FPS is pretty realistic, but I am certain it will the the 5D III AF...

It is certainly not going to have the 5D3 AF. You can't just stick a FF AF system on APS-C.

You might not be able to put a FF AF UNIT in an APS-C camera...but you could reuse the FF AF sensor in an AF unit designed for APS-C. The AF unit houses the sensor, as well as a special lens that handles splitting light for each AF point and directing it to the appropriate AF strips. No reason that lens couldn't be redesigned for an APS-C frame (and, for APS-C frame with very wide point spread, since vignetting wouldn't be as much of an issue as on the FF).

So sure...I believe the 61pt AF system could find its way to the 7D II.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: x-vision on July 11, 2013, 06:56:52 PM
Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.

Depends on what people it should appeal to - and more metapixies has consumer appeal

Yes, megapickles appeal to consumers.

The question is, is the 7DII supposed to be a consumer camera?

If yes, why should Canon put their 61-point pro AF system in a consumer camera - as many are asking here.
And if not, why should Canon appeal to consumers with a (noisy) 24mp sensor.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: AprilForever on July 11, 2013, 08:14:21 PM
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

Agreed. I really hope it happens!

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.
This is a sports body, remember.
Sports bodies favor ISO/noise over megapixels.

Here are my predictions:
  • 18mp, 1.5x crop factor
  • new AF system - but not the 1DX/5DIII AF system
  • 9fps

No, it will be 1.6, 9FPS is pretty realistic, but I am certain it will the the 5D III AF...

It is certainly not going to have the 5D3 AF. You can't just stick a FF AF system on APS-C.

You might not be able to put a FF AF UNIT in an APS-C camera...but you could reuse the FF AF sensor in an AF unit designed for APS-C. The AF unit houses the sensor, as well as a special lens that handles splitting light for each AF point and directing it to the appropriate AF strips. No reason that lens couldn't be redesigned for an APS-C frame (and, for APS-C frame with very wide point spread, since vignetting wouldn't be as much of an issue as on the FF).

So sure...I believe the 61pt AF system could find its way to the 7D II.

THey'll get it in there, or something along those lines... I think they fear the D400...

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.

Depends on what people it should appeal to - and more metapixies has consumer appeal

Yes, megapickles appeal to consumers.

The question is, is the 7DII supposed to be a consumer camera?

If yes, why should Canon put their 61-point pro AF system in a consumer camera - as many are asking here.
And if not, why should Canon appeal to consumers with a (noisy) 24mp sensor.

The more the better!!!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kaihp on July 11, 2013, 08:36:12 PM
Drives are very cheap. Doing backup of the drives continues to be a stone in the shoe, though ;)

That's what more drives are for. :)

You're missing the point.

That is why raid 1 was invented, two identical drives that automatically backs itself up to the other.

OK, two misconceptions here:

First, RAID-1 is not "two identical drives that automatically backs itself up to the other". RAID-1 is writing data identically to two drives all the time, producing a "mirrored set" (when reading you don't have to read from both drives). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1)

Secondly, RAID is used to protect you against accidental drive crashes (except for RAID-0, where there is no redundancy) and to get very large drive volumes, not to protect against deletions because deletions are recorded on all disks at the same time.

Backup ... is backup! Backup ensures that when you accidentally deleted at file, you can find it and restore it. So using RAID and backup are really orthogonal issues.

The reason that backup is 'expensive' is that it takes a lot of time (and performance out of your system) to rummage through your terabytes storage, and whirling off the changes to your backup platform. It's so expensive in terms of performance and time, that people just don't do full backups all the time, but only during weekends to be able to complete the backup before people come back to work Monday morning.

But yes, this is decidedly outside the 7D2 discussion.

I gave up waiting for the 7D2 last year and went for the 5D3 (I'm still in love with it). But an 7D2 like RLPhoto predicted would be very interesting indeed!
I'm crossing my fingers that Canon have been able to work on the IQ - I was always disappointed with the 'mushy' pictures from my 50D, and my friends' 7D was no better.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: roadrunner on July 11, 2013, 09:00:44 PM
Drives are very cheap. Doing backup of the drives continues to be a stone in the shoe, though ;)

That's what more drives are for. :)

You're missing the point.

That is why raid 1 was invented, two identical drives that automatically backs itself up to the other.

OK, two misconceptions here:

First, RAID-1 is not "two identical drives that automatically backs itself up to the other". RAID-1 is writing data identically to two drives all the time, producing a "mirrored set" (when reading you don't have to read from both drives). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1)

Secondly, RAID is used to protect you against accidental drive crashes (except for RAID-0, where there is no redundancy) and to get very large drive volumes, not to protect against deletions because deletions are recorded on all disks at the same time.

Backup ... is backup! Backup ensures that when you accidentally deleted at file, you can find it and restore it. So using RAID and backup are really orthogonal issues.

The reason that backup is 'expensive' is that it takes a lot of time (and performance out of your system) to rummage through your terabytes storage, and whirling off the changes to your backup platform. It's so expensive in terms of performance and time, that people just don't do full backups all the time, but only during weekends to be able to complete the backup before people come back to work Monday morning.

But yes, this is decidedly outside the 7D2 discussion.

I gave up waiting for the 7D2 last year and went for the 5D3 (I'm still in love with it). But an 7D2 like RLPhoto predicted would be very interesting indeed!
I'm crossing my fingers that Canon have been able to work on the IQ - I was always disappointed with the 'mushy' pictures from my 50D, and my friends' 7D was no better.

Great explanation. I was just getting ready to type up my response, but then I saw your's, and it hits all of the important points spot on.

TL;DR version: Raid provides redundancy, not a backup. Redundancy and backups are very different, and are not a replacement for one another. I run my file server in RAID5, and conduct weekly backups.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 11, 2013, 09:26:50 PM

TL;DR version: Raid provides redundancy, not a backup. Redundancy and backups are very different, and are not a replacement for one another. I run my file server in RAID5, and conduct weekly backups.

And might I add have an offsite backup. If your home burns down or thieves take your computer, and your backup is sitting attached to your computer, it's gone too.

more to the real topic.... I really hope the 7D2 is out by the end of the year, but if they announce early next year then that probably means spring. It might happen sooner because once the 70D comes out, sales of the 7D will flatline.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: roadrunner on July 11, 2013, 09:34:10 PM

TL;DR version: Raid provides redundancy, not a backup. Redundancy and backups are very different, and are not a replacement for one another. I run my file server in RAID5, and conduct weekly backups.

And might I add have an offsite backup. If your home burns down or thieves take your computer, and your backup is sitting attached to your computer, it's gone too.

more to the real topic.... I really hope the 7D2 is out by the end of the year, but if they announce early next year then that probably means spring. It might happen sooner because once the 70D comes out, sales of the 7D will flatline.

Another great point. Something I slack on a little bit. They're so darn inconvenient. Still, I run a hard drive over to my parent's house every month or two (Sometimes three... Not enough, I know) and store it there in a fireproof safe. Better than nothing I suppose.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: schill on July 11, 2013, 10:29:59 PM

TL;DR version: Raid provides redundancy, not a backup. Redundancy and backups are very different, and are not a replacement for one another. I run my file server in RAID5, and conduct weekly backups.

And might I add have an offsite backup. If your home burns down or thieves take your computer, and your backup is sitting attached to your computer, it's gone too.

more to the real topic.... I really hope the 7D2 is out by the end of the year, but if they announce early next year then that probably means spring. It might happen sooner because once the 70D comes out, sales of the 7D will flatline.

Another great point. Something I slack on a little bit. They're so darn inconvenient. Still, I run a hard drive over to my parent's house every month or two (Sometimes three... Not enough, I know) and store it there in a fireproof safe. Better than nothing I suppose.

I keep backup drives in a couple places, including a safe deposit box at my bank.  It's fairly cheap at under $50 a year.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 12, 2013, 04:56:28 AM
The question is, is the 7DII supposed to be a consumer camera? If yes, why should Canon put their 61-point pro AF system in a consumer camera - as many are asking here.  And if not, why should Canon appeal to consumers with a (noisy) 24mp sensor.

Answer: Because Canons wants to maximize profits, as any company, and Canon is the market leader by selling volume with broad appeal and not by producing niche products (aps-h anyone? :-)).

So at the same time they will want to put enough consumer features into the 7d2 to make vanilla amateurs upgrade even if a 70d would do just fine (= more mp on 7d, fw features, gimmicks), and give a good reason for enthusiasts/semi-pros to upgrade even if they know some $$$ is better invested in lenses (= much better af on 7d).

As for the 61pt system, I don't think Canon will go Nikon like d4->7100, but they'll engineer something between the 7d1 and 5d3 to protect their ff cameras.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Diko on July 12, 2013, 05:25:04 AM
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"\"></g:plusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Lots of talk<br />

</strong>There is lots of talk about the successor to the Canon EOS 7D.  For the last 6 months we have written that the EOS 70D would move up rung in features in the EOS lineup, as such the EOS 7D Mark II will be doing the same thing.</p>
<p>We’re told two possible sensors are in play for the EOS 7D Mark II, the 20.2mp sensor in the 70D and a 24.1mp sensor that has yet to see the light of day. If they want separation with the EOS 7D Mark II and to charge a premium for it, I think moving beyond the sensor that will appear in the next Rebel, an EOS M camera and the EOS 70D is a good idea.</p>
<p><strong>When is it coming?<br />

</strong>It will not be shipping before the end of 2013, there is a possibility of an announcement before the year is out, but I’d say that is unlikely at this time. Timing could also depend on what Nikon is going to be doing with the D400. We’ve been told for ages that the EOS 7D Mark II will be an early 2014 camera.</p>
<p>We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II, which will be a pro specced APS-C camera.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>


Is it just me or CR stated nothing new as a rumor...? He maybe ONLY updated the trustworthiness of what he already told us?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 12, 2013, 07:19:13 AM
Is it just me or CR stated nothing new as a rumor...? He maybe ONLY updated the trustworthiness of what he already told us?

Hey, give the CR guy some credit, with a company as secretive as Canon it's hard to do regular updates on a rumor site (except for amazing deals with affiliated stores and pre-order possibilities) :->

The question is, is the 7DII supposed to be a consumer camera? If yes, why should Canon put their 61-point pro AF system in a consumer camera - as many are asking here.  And if not, why should Canon appeal to consumers with a (noisy) 24mp sensor.

Answer: Because Canons wants to maximize profits, as any company, and Canon is the market leader by selling volume with broad appeal and not by producing niche products (aps-h anyone? :-)).

So at the same time they will want to put enough consumer features into the 7d2 to make vanilla amateurs upgrade even if a 70d would do just fine (= more mp on 7d, fw features, gimmicks), and give a good reason for enthusiasts/semi-pros to upgrade even if they know some $$$ is better invested in lenses (= much better af on 7d).

As for the 61pt system, I don't think Canon will go Nikon like d4->7100, but they'll engineer something between the 7d1 and 5d3 to protect their ff cameras.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Lawliet on July 12, 2013, 10:57:52 AM
As for the 61pt system, I don't think Canon will go Nikon like d4->7100, but they'll engineer something between the 7d1 and 5d3 to protect their ff cameras.

I'm not sure how much that matters any more - for most uses, high fps or high precision, a Hybrid/PDAF via image sensor is conceptually superior, just add enough computing power. That goes hand in hand with the requirements of the video market of the coming years. That 61pt system is on a course to niche market/secondary feature, its more a question whether its the next generation or the one after.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 11:02:10 AM
As for the 61pt system, I don't think Canon will go Nikon like d4->7100, but they'll engineer something between the 7d1 and 5d3 to protect their ff cameras.

I'm not sure how much that matters any more - for most uses, high fps or high precision, a Hybrid/PDAF via image sensor is conceptually superior, just add enough computing power. That goes hand in hand with the requirements of the video market of the coming years. That 61pt system is on a course to niche market/secondary feature, its more a question whether its the next generation or the one after.

With the exception that you can't use the sensor when you have an optical viewfinder. If you use the viewfinder, and expect it to be optical and not electronic (even the BEST EVFs are pitiful in comparison to an OVF), then the only option is to have a dedicated AF unit that works in concert with a viewfinder and main mirror. I wouldn't call that a niche market, either...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 12, 2013, 12:16:15 PM
Quote
"So if anybody has a set of hand held, AF'd, >400iso, wide open aperture, focal length limited images from a 7D and a 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII, please, post them, I'd be interested to see how much different than my results yours are."

Interesting, despite the vilification of me, not one person has ever replied to this challenge either in this thread or any other. After I did the real world tests, that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny here, I concluded that the over twice the pixels the crop camera put on the subject amounted to an insignificant, in normal use, difference in resolution.

That is why I didn't buy a 7D and have zero interest in a >18mp APS-C or >25mp FF sensor, I actually did the tests, no theoretical posturing to the crowds, and realised for me, and probably 95% of other users, there is no practical benefit. Sure I'll enjoy the improved iso performance and increases in DR and other performance metrics, but MP, you can keep them.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15785.msg289316#msg289316 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15785.msg289316#msg289316)
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15785.msg289013#msg289013 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15785.msg289013#msg289013)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 12:31:28 PM
Quote
"So if anybody has a set of hand held, AF'd, >400iso, wide open aperture, focal length limited images from a 7D and a 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII, please, post them, I'd be interested to see how much different than my results yours are."

Interesting, despite the vilification of me, not one person has ever replied to this challenge either in this thread or any other. After I did the real world tests, that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny here, I concluded that the over twice the pixels the crop camera put on the subject amounted to an insignificant, in normal use, difference in resolution.

That is why I didn't buy a 7D and have zero interest in a >18mp APS-C or >25mp FF sensor, I actually did the tests, no theoretical posturing to the crowds, and realised for me, and probably 95% of other users, there is no practical benefit. Sure I'll enjoy the improved iso performance and increases in DR and other performance metrics, but MP, you can keep them.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15785.msg289316#msg289316 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15785.msg289316#msg289316)
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15785.msg289013#msg289013 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15785.msg289013#msg289013)

Hmm. In your first link, I don't see any comparison images either. In the second link, the same image you posted before, personally I see quite a difference between the two. Now, we are talking about pixels here...on a pixel scale, the 7D IS about TWICE as sharp as the 1D III. If you compare the finest strand of the brush from the 7D image, which is only a couple pixels in diameter, the same thing in the 1D III is very soft, and blurred by another couple of pixels. That is an improvement of nearly a factor of two. The larger pixels of the FF help offset the spatial resolution loss, less noise/higher SNR, but unless you have a really terrible screen or something, I don't think there is any denying that the 7D photo in your second link is markedly sharper and clearer than the 1D III.

That may not be enough for you, but take the situation to a greater extreme...photographing birds from a greater distance. That extra resolution edge of the 7D gives you an edge over the 1D III, and DOES produce sharper images. If Canon ever releases a 47mp or greater FF camera that can do 6-7fps, I'll HAPPILY trade in my 7D, as the FF would then provide just as much or more reach, as well as the ability to get even MORE pixels on subject when you are not focal length limited. Simple fact of the matter, though, is your own example, on my calibrated Apple CinemaDisplay 30" screen, clearly appears meaningfully sharper to me. Given that, what all of this really boils down to is a matter of opinion and preference. You prefer FF, and the loss of detail does not bother you. I prefer getting as many pixels as I can, and putting as many of those pixels on my subject as I possibly can, and prefer APS-C in focal length limited situations because it does that job better than any current FF camera.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 12, 2013, 12:41:43 PM
Do you know the difference between a 1D MkIII and a 1Ds MkIII, because you never seem to be talking about the correct camera?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Lawliet on July 12, 2013, 01:36:36 PM
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 01:38:19 PM
Do you know the difference between a 1D MkIII and a 1Ds MkIII, because you never seem to be talking about the correct camera?

I know the difference, I'm just being lazy. The 1Ds III is the studio full frame. Whether I spell the name right or not, the comparison was between a 21mp FF and an 18mp APS-C, a point I was quite clear on, and the difference IS clear...the 7D is definitely sharper, and enough so that it is easily visible.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 01:47:52 PM
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.

Well, you've switched contexts from sports to studio photography, where use of a tethered laptop or computer is quite normal. The original context was sports and action photography, where the OVF and a dedicated AF unit still rules as king.

I would take my tethered Surface Pro any day over an EVF, though. There was a thread a while back where I computed the necessary pixel densities to make an EVF screen be high enough resolution for the average 20/20 viewer at a 25mm eye relief such that pixels were invisible. For 20/20 vision, you would need just over 5000ppi. To accomodate users who have better vision, or users such as myself who have 20/10 vision with contacts, you would need an insane 12,000ppi. With the average size of a viewfinder, 5000ppi is pushing the limit of how small pixels can be and still be transparent to light. At 12000ppi, you are already cutting off the longer frequencies of light, and therefor only able to pass greens, blues, and violets. And that isn't even touching DR, or the fact that even if the EVF supports high bit depth it is still limited by the camera's DR.

The day will never come when an EVF (or, for that matter, a tethered laptop screen) becomes superior to an optical view finder for action photography. There is no substitute for a truly real-time, high resolution, bright, optical prism based viewfinder. For action. Studio work is a different matter, but as you say, people have been tethering and using huge screens for a very long time in that industry, so they still have a superior tool than an EVF.

Not really sure what you mean about switchable glass. Sounds like you are talking about the piezoelectric effect,  however I am not really sure how that is much different than what Canon already has with their transmissive LCD that overlays their current viewfinders. It is fairly simple right now, but there is no reason Canon couldn't drop a whole ton of information into that screen with a selectable mode button...imagine seeing the histogram as black bars in the viewfinder...or the electronic level...or, any amount of information you desire, and still always have full use of the OVF.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 12, 2013, 02:07:59 PM
I'm not sure how much that matters any more - for most uses, high fps or high precision, a Hybrid/PDAF via image sensor is conceptually superior, just add enough computing power. That goes hand in hand with the requirements of the video market of the coming years.

Agreed, but there is a medium volume conservative dslr market (many of the forum users here are part of it) of people that are either pro and thus hesitant to break their successful habits or old-school enthusiasts that wouldn't touch a evf with a ten-foot pole. This group will keep demanding traditional dslrs for the next decade and pay (nearly) any price premium, so Canon will be careful to shape and deliver to this market.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 12, 2013, 02:19:38 PM
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.

There are many full time pros using EVF's, Ctein and Kirk Tuck are very prominent ones that springs to mind. Neither is sponsored by any camera manufacturer and are both pro EVF's and have written many articles on their blogs pointing out how good they are. Ctein might not need ultrafast refresh, but Kirk Tuck is a very active general shooter often in theaters and poorly lite events. Not saying EVF's are for everybody, but blanket statements like jrista's are clearly unsupportable and easily shown to be false.

As an individual I can well understand
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 12, 2013, 02:24:58 PM
Do you know the difference between a 1D MkIII and a 1Ds MkIII, because you never seem to be talking about the correct camera?

I know the difference, I'm just being lazy. The 1Ds III is the studio full frame. Whether I spell the name right or not, the comparison was between a 21mp FF and an 18mp APS-C, a point I was quite clear on, and the difference IS clear...the 7D is definitely sharper, and enough so that it is easily visible.

Yet you often pull other people up for being imprecise, it is certainly difficult to take people that are being lazy seriously.

However, my example was stage managed to show the biggest difference possible between the two. You don't need a 30" anything to view my 700px 100% crop. Further, when printed there is zero difference.

Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 12, 2013, 02:29:08 PM
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.

There are many full time pros using EVF's, Ctein and Kirk Tuck are very prominent ones that springs to mind. Neither is sponsored by any camera manufacturer and are both pro EVF's and have written many articles on their blogs pointing out how good they are. Ctein might not need ultrafast refresh, but Kirk Tuck is a very active general shooter often in theaters and poorly lite events. Not saying EVF's are for everybody, but blanket statements like jrista's are clearly unsupportable and easily shown to be false.

As an individual I can well understand
I am most definitly not a pro, but I do have an SX-50 with an electronic viewfinder. I find that it works suprisingly well in daylight, but at night it is patheticly bad. Perhaps the day will come when they are as good, or even exceed an OVF, but I don't think we are there yet... certainly not with the SX-50...
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: neuroanatomist on July 12, 2013, 02:43:46 PM
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well.  But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two.  He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D.  I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.  Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 12, 2013, 03:15:53 PM
At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 03:23:46 PM
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.

There are many full time pros using EVF's, Ctein and Kirk Tuck are very prominent ones that springs to mind. Neither is sponsored by any camera manufacturer and are both pro EVF's and have written many articles on their blogs pointing out how good they are. Ctein might not need ultrafast refresh, but Kirk Tuck is a very active general shooter often in theaters and poorly lite events. Not saying EVF's are for everybody, but blanket statements like jrista's are clearly unsupportable and easily shown to be false.

As an individual I can well understand

My statement wasn't blanket...it's limited to the original context that inspired it: high speed action photography. Sports. Wildlife. Birds. You could probably throw air shows in there as well. I am not saying that in every form of photography an OVF is superior. There are simply certain types of photography where an EVF has a LONG way to go before it even catches up, and from a technological standpoint, unless someone figures out a way to emit 700nm-550nm light from a 400nm aperture, they will never provide pixel-free viewing.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well.  But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two.  He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D.  I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.  Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.

At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.

Don't miss the critical qualification there:

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

If all you ever do is downscale and drop your images online somewhere, then I have no argument. If you print large like I do, then I still disagree...the spatial resolution advantage of a cropped sensor is still valuable, even in the face of increased noise.

I would gladly do a comparison. I don't own a FF camera myself yet, as I've been waiting for an official 7D II announcement. As soon as I pick one up, or the next time I find a good reason to rent one, I'll provide as many visual comparisons as I can, at a range of ISO settings (because Neuro is definitely right that there is a threshold wherein the superior ISO performance of bigger pixels outweighs the spatial resolution advantage of smaller pixels.)

In the mean time, I'll once again provide a link to the best visual evidence of the 7D's resolution advantage in a focal length limited situation (photographing the moon) performed by someone far more respected than myself:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html (http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html)

I don't know how many more times I can post this link and have it be ignored, but it provides exactly the visual comparison, AT A RANGE OF ISO SETTINGS, that you've been asking for @privatebydesign. You seem to have conveniently ignored it the last several times I've linked it in relation to these kinds of discussions, both in this thread and others. I would really like to hear an actual response from you, as I don't know what better evidence you want than this.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 12, 2013, 03:46:49 PM
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well.  But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two.  He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D.  I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.  Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.

At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.

Don't miss the critical qualification there:

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

If all you ever do is downscale and drop your images online somewhere, then I have no argument. If you print large like I do, then I still disagree...the spatial resolution advantage of a cropped sensor is still valuable, even in the face of increased noise.

I would gladly do a comparison. I don't own a FF camera myself yet, as I've been waiting for an official 7D II announcement. As soon as I pick one up, or the next time I find a good reason to rent one, I'll provide as many visual comparisons as I can, at a range of ISO settings (because Neuro is definitely right that there is a threshold wherein the superior ISO performance of bigger pixels outweighs the spatial resolution advantage of smaller pixels.)

So you don't have any actual images to back that up? I did.

I print, my smallest print is 16"x24". I looked at the 7D specifically to print big and to give me more reach, it doesn't give you a focal length multiplier, enhancer, or anything else many seem to think it does. "Pixels on duck", when used in this context, is a fallacy.

Even at base iso when making big prints the 7D noise interferes with the detail, the 21MP FF doesn't have the ultimate detail, but it doesn't have the noise either.

Remember, I am not theorising here, I did the tests to see for myself.

Here is 200% crop of the APS-C and a 300%+ crop of the FF, no development processing just resizes to match pixels to each other. To my mind if you process the noise out of the APS-C you get the FF detail, or
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: neuroanatomist on July 12, 2013, 03:49:30 PM
Don't miss the critical qualification there:

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

To clarify my "critical qualification," if you are printing at 16x24" or smaller, there is no difference. We aren't talking about 4x6" prints at Target. If you routinely print at 24x36", yes the APS-C sensor has an advantage, assuming the AF of the 7D is up to the task. But, that only applies at low ISO, i.e. in good light. Much of the time, my shots are not under those circumstances. 

@jrista - I encourage you to rent or borrow a 5DIII and compare it to the 7D head to head for yourself.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: neuroanatomist on July 12, 2013, 04:10:26 PM
To my mind if you process the noise out of the APS-C you get the FF detail, or

Exactly.  Roger Clark's moon shots are consistent with this.  He notices the noise of the 7D, but doesn't find it objectionable - and maybe with the background of the moon shots, it's not. But with the blurred-out green of a forest or grey of clouds in the background of a bird shot with the 7D, it's both noticeable and objectionable, to me. Sure, it can be reduced - at the cost of detail...and bye-bye goes the 'crop factor advantage'.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Lawliet on July 12, 2013, 04:30:30 PM

Well, you've switched contexts from sports to studio photography, where use of a tethered laptop or computer is quite normal. The original context was sports and action photography, where the OVF and a dedicated AF unit still rules as king.
No, both contexts are equavlly valid. For action photography you drop the need for predictions regarding the shutter lag. At the same time the AF gets more complete tracking data and the capability to take the guesswork out of focus priority. Add the option of using zebras to highlight information thats hard to follow due to small viewfinder size or just simple motion blur introduced by the human visual system. Thats what actually has an effect on the resulting picture, thats (among)what has killed the OVF in cinematography.
Quote
I would take my tethered Surface Pro any day over an EVF, though. There was a thread a while back where I computed the necessary pixel densities to make an EVF screen be high enough resolution for the average 20/20 viewer at a 25mm eye relief such that pixels were invisible.
First: You assume there are no optics involved. Not to think about the structure of the ground glass that can get annoying.
Second, and more important: Its not neccessary to surpass on OVF in that regards, its only a matter of benefits exeeding costs. Is the kind of additional information a type of VF delivers actually helping or just icing on the cake? Contemporary ground glass is quite transparent, combine that with the high magnifications digital brought and a simple high pass overlay wins in the utility department. Tradition doesn't help with taking sellable pictures or keeping production times short.
Quote
The day will never come when an EVF (or, for that matter, a tethered laptop screen) becomes superior to an optical view finder for action photography. There is no substitute for a truly real-time, high resolution, bright, optical prism based viewfinder. For action.
Well, those who actually had the choice went with EVFs. Guess that die was cast...so "will not come" is quite accurate. ;)
That guy charging towards your camera position: is the focus point on his eyes or rather on the shoulders? Motion blur and panning are also factors. Edge detection tells me what will be in focus & sharp on the final print, the OVF shows a blend of various motions.
Quote
Not really sure what you mean about switchable glass. Sounds like you are talking about the piezoelectric effect,  however I am not really sure how that is much different than what Canon already has with their transmissive LCD that overlays their current viewfinders.
The idea is akin to LCDs, but instead of transparent/black it switches between transparent/mirror - integrate it into a beam splitter and you can blend  OVF and EVF at will.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 12, 2013, 04:32:45 PM
Quote
In the mean time, I'll once again provide a link to the best visual evidence of the 7D's resolution advantage in a focal length limited situation (photographing the moon) performed by someone far more respected than myself:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html (http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html)

I don't know how many more times I can post this link and have it be ignored, but it provides exactly the visual comparison, AT A RANGE OF ISO SETTINGS, that you've been asking for @privatebydesign. You seem to have conveniently ignored it the last several times I've linked it in relation to these kinds of discussions, both in this thread and others. I would really like to hear an actual response from you, as I don't know what better evidence you want than this.

That is exactly the same test I did and presented, it is not what I asked of you for though. A shot of a brightly illuminated subject at infinity is not a taxing "real world" situation. Handhold a long lens, use AF, poor lighting etc etc, that is what I asked you for.

Don't feel bad, I have asked the same question many times in different places, nobody has ever presented real world images that illustrate the crop camera "tele advantage" when comparing same generation ff and crop sensors.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 04:40:34 PM
Don't miss the critical qualification there:

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

To clarify my "critical qualification," if you are printing at 16x24" or smaller, there is no difference. We aren't talking about 4x6" prints at Target. If you routinely print at 24x36", yes the APS-C sensor has an advantage, assuming the AF of the 7D is up to the task. But, that only applies at low ISO, i.e. in good light. Much of the time, my shots are not under those circumstances. 

@jrista - I encourage you to rent or borrow a 5DIII and compare it to the 7D head to head for yourself.

I print anywhere from 13x19" to 32x48", hence my long standing desire for pixel density. It is really more about that, than specifically crop factor (i.e. 47mp FF or 18mp APS-C, doesn't really matter to me, although the 47mp FF would be my pick for landscapes, obviously.) I'll see if I can muck with Roger Clarks images by upscaling the 5D II and 1D IV shots to 7D size to demonstrate my argument.

I intend to buy a 5D III soon enough, and if Canon doesn't announce a 7D II by fall, then I will.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Wildfire on July 12, 2013, 04:54:59 PM
Backup ... is backup! Backup ensures that when you accidentally deleted at file, you can find it and restore it. So using RAID and backup are really orthogonal issues.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

You're claiming that RAID is not a backup because it can't save you from deleting a file. But no form of backup can ever save you from deleting a file! If you make 50 backups of a harddrive and store them each in different places around the world, and then you go to all 50 locations and delete the files (accidentally or otherwise) then you're just as screwed as you would have been if you'd done the same thing with 50 HDD RAID setup.

RAID is backup, although there are other forms of backup which might offer less risk of losing your data.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 05:00:56 PM
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well.  But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two.  He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D.  I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.  Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.

At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.

Don't miss the critical qualification there:

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

If all you ever do is downscale and drop your images online somewhere, then I have no argument. If you print large like I do, then I still disagree...the spatial resolution advantage of a cropped sensor is still valuable, even in the face of increased noise.

I would gladly do a comparison. I don't own a FF camera myself yet, as I've been waiting for an official 7D II announcement. As soon as I pick one up, or the next time I find a good reason to rent one, I'll provide as many visual comparisons as I can, at a range of ISO settings (because Neuro is definitely right that there is a threshold wherein the superior ISO performance of bigger pixels outweighs the spatial resolution advantage of smaller pixels.)

So you don't have any actual images to back that up? I did.

I print, my smallest print is 16"x24". I looked at the 7D specifically to print big and to give me more reach, it doesn't give you a focal length multiplier, enhancer, or anything else many seem to think it does. "Pixels on duck", when used in this context, is a fallacy.

Even at base iso when making big prints the 7D noise interferes with the detail, the 21MP FF doesn't have the ultimate detail, but it doesn't have the noise either.

Remember, I am not theorising here, I did the tests to see for myself.

Here is 200% crop of the APS-C and a 300%+ crop of the FF, no development processing just resizes to match pixels to each other. To my mind if you process the noise out of the APS-C you get the FF detail, or

Well, perhaps this is just me, but the hair is much sharper and better defined in the 7D enlargement there than the 1D enlargement. I'd print the 7D shot without any NR, as I prefer to have a bit of noise in photos I print anyway...avoids posterization. So I don't consider the NR softens detail argument to be an issue here.

Assuming I do apply NR, I always use Topaz DeNoise 5 these days. It takes about 10 seconds for most of my work, and automatically masks areas with detail beyond a certain threshold, where noise and fine detail are indistinguishable enough that noise is a non issue. Backgrounds, where Nero pointed out noise can be a real issue, clean up beautifully with one run through DeNoise. If there is any banding, it too can be removed, and a lot of DR recovered, using DeNoise as well, with practically no effort  and without affecting fine detail.

I won't disagree that at ISO 1600 and up, there isn't any comparing a 7D and 1D X. I'd take the 1D X every time. I figure the same would be mostly true with the 5D III as well. But with modern tools, I've found that noise on the 7D is no longer an issue, and that when removing noise, it no longer has to be the detail decimating process it used to be.

Last, I do have 20/10 vision with my glasses or contacts on. I am also plagued by hypersensitivity issues...hearing, sight, and at times touch (and most of the time, they are not a benefit...sharp vision is the one thing I consider a bonus). I guess it is entirely possible I am seeing something most people don't see. To my eyes, however, the 7D in all of your actual sample shots appears to be quite a bit sharper, and even more color saturated, than the 1Ds III.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: privatebydesign on July 12, 2013, 05:01:44 PM
Quote
" I'll see if I can muck with Roger Clarks images by upscaling the 5D II and 1D IV shots to 7D size to demonstrate my argument. "

I don't want an argument, I want your own real world images backing up your assertions.

Few people trust my opinion here and there is no reason they should, but I made a statement and backed it up with my own images. Many people here respect and trust Neuro's opinion, his experience tallies with mine.

Your same generation sensor pixel density meme is false unless you are bench testing, I don't, as a rule, frame and hang prints of bench tests.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 05:15:17 PM
Quote
" I'll see if I can muck with Roger Clarks images by upscaling the 5D II and 1D IV shots to 7D size to demonstrate my argument. "

I don't want an argument, I want your own real world images backing up your assertions.

Few people trust my opinion here and there is no reason they should, but I made a statement and backed it up with my own images. Many people here respect and trust Neuro's opinion, his experience tallies with mine.

Your same generation sensor pixel density meme is false unless you are bench testing, I don't, as a rule, frame and hang prints of bench tests.

If I had the capability to, I would. As I stated, I don't have  5DIII or 1D X in my possession right this minute. You can be as unreasonable as you want to, that's your prerogative. BTW, a LOT of my work IS the moon, and I find it to be an ideal subject to provide visual backing for an argument like this (can't get much more focal length limited than the moon). Soon as I have a 5D III in my possession however, I'll happily do some comparisons with birds as well.

I don't think I've ever posted any image here when trying to visually back up my claims that involved a technical bench test, any kind of test chart, etc. My examples have always been of my actual work (assuming I've had the capability of producing such.) I can't say I've ever framed an ISO 12233 chart sample either. ;P



So, not that it matters to you specifically, but here is a comparison of the 7D, 1D IV, and 5D II using Roger Clark's moon samples. The 5D II seems quite soft in comparison to the 7D. The 1D IV is also softer. There are nuances of fine detail that the 7D picks up that the other two blur over. Enlarged 400% for emphasis.

(http://i.imgur.com/6X0kxJg.gif)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 06:02:20 PM
Since you insist on me demonstrating my own work...here is an example of how 7D noise can become a complete non-issue when using modern noise removal. Pre and Post Topaz DeNoise 5 for an ISO 800 shot that was accidentally underexposed by about 1 2/3rd stops, then lifted in post (so, roughly the equivalent of ISO 2500). Fine bird feather detail, at it's finest merely two pixels wide, is completely untouched. The background cleans up completely. Used one of the premade DeNoise profiles for medium noise removal:

Before:
(http://i.imgur.com/bUTfJqs.jpg)

After:
(http://i.imgur.com/eZ1VMvl.jpg)

Final shot (Green-tailed Towhee, for anyone who's interested):

(http://i.imgur.com/m1bRg8F.jpg)

Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: garyknrd on July 12, 2013, 06:15:32 PM
Is Topaz much better than the NR in PS? I have never tried anything but PS. 
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 12, 2013, 06:29:20 PM
Is Topaz much better than the NR in PS? I have never tried anything but PS.

It seems to be to me. I wouldn't say by a hugely significant margin, but it seems to do less damage to detail, and is definitely more configurable. It does noise reduction and detail recovery, as well as debanding in both horizontal and/or vertical. It has black level correction, as well as independent shadow, highlight, red, and blue channel fine tuning.

So far, I have not seen much need to really tweak much beyond the basic "RAW - light" or "RAW - moderate" presets. If, for whatever reason, I find detail loss in my subject to be too much, I simply mask off the subject in Photoshop, copy it to it's own layer in place, and run a preset on the base layer...and my critical subject detail remains 100% untouched. I rarely spend more than a couple minutes per image, five at most, getting results that to me seem to be ideal (something I never quite felt with just Photoshop or Lightroom noise removal.)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: kaihp on July 12, 2013, 11:57:29 PM
Backup ... is backup! Backup ensures that when you accidentally deleted at file, you can find it and restore it. So using RAID and backup are really orthogonal issues.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

You're claiming that RAID is not a backup because it can't save you from deleting a file. But no form of backup can ever save you from deleting a file!.  If you make 50 backups of a harddrive and store them each in different places around the world, and then you go to all 50 locations and delete the files (accidentally or otherwise) then you're just as screwed as you would have been if you'd done the same thing with 50 HDD RAID setup.

I'm sorry, but what you are talking about is not doing backups in my mind.

When I say backup, I'm talking about professional level backup is where you on a regular (and automated) basis copies your files to separate destination media (tapes, disks, optical media, whatever), and allow you to go back a number of days/weeks/months to find snapshots of your deleted file.
It can even allow you to restore the entire filesystem (disaster recovery), should your IT room be destroyed by fire or (more likely) water.
This is backup to me and I would say that if you talk to anyone involved in professional IT operations, that they'd say something quite similar.

Again, RAID is only designed for and can only protect you against failing drives within a storage system (be it JBOD, NAS, SAN). This is why doing regular backups of your data is orthogonal to having a reliable filesystem (and this is where RAID comes in).

For an end-user at home, I do understand why RAID and backup gets mixed up - you just want your data to be safe, and both RAID and backup seem to to that thing for you.

Sidenote:
Now, if you go and create a file (e.g. take a picture) and go and by error go and delete that file before the backup system has had a chance to do a backup that file, then ... well, then you loose out.
Been There, Done That. Didn't Bother With The T-Shirt ;)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: dgatwood on July 13, 2013, 12:09:17 AM
Backup ... is backup! Backup ensures that when you accidentally deleted at file, you can find it and restore it. So using RAID and backup are really orthogonal issues.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

You're claiming that RAID is not a backup because it can't save you from deleting a file. But no form of backup can ever save you from deleting a file! If you make 50 backups of a harddrive and store them each in different places around the world, and then you go to all 50 locations and delete the files (accidentally or otherwise) then you're just as screwed as you would have been if you'd done the same thing with 50 HDD RAID setup.

RAID is backup, although there are other forms of backup which might offer less risk of losing your data.

Those of us who work in the tech industry do not consider RAID to be a backup.  The reason for this is that most of the events that would cause data loss with a single drive will also cause data loss with a RAID array.  Deleting files, operating system filesystem corruption bugs, etc. are unaffected by the RAID.  Even disk failures don't usually get caught except when the disk fails hard.  The rest of the time, when a disk goes bad, it silently corrupts data, and the RAID controller dutifully writes the corrupted data to your "backup".

A minimum requirement for a proper backup is that it must either retain previous versions of data, be backed up only periodically, or, ideally, both.  RAID's primary purpose is not to protect you from disk failures; in fact, you are almost guaranteed to have more data loss with a RAID than without, simply because the MTBF of a group of disks equals the MTBF of a single disk divided by the number of disks.  The purpose of RAID is to get better performance than a single disk can provide.  All of the redundancy is just intended to get the reliability back up to something approaching the reliability of a single drive.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: garyknrd on July 13, 2013, 01:41:43 AM
Is Topaz much better than the NR in PS? I have never tried anything but PS.

It seems to be to me. I wouldn't say by a hugely significant margin, but it seems to do less damage to detail, and is definitely more configurable. It does noise reduction and detail recovery, as well as debanding in both horizontal and/or vertical. It has black level correction, as well as independent shadow, highlight, red, and blue channel fine tuning.

So far, I have not seen much need to really tweak much beyond the basic "RAW - light" or "RAW - moderate" presets. If, for whatever reason, I find detail loss in my subject to be too much, I simply mask off the subject in Photoshop, copy it to it's own layer in place, and run a preset on the base layer...and my critical subject detail remains 100% untouched. I rarely spend more than a couple minutes per image, five at most, getting results that to me seem to be ideal (something I never quite felt with just Photoshop or Lightroom noise removal.)

Ok, thanks
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 13, 2013, 02:10:06 AM
Is Topaz much better than the NR in PS? I have never tried anything but PS.

Afaik 3rd party nr software like noise ninja and probably topaz do automatic adaptive nr, i.e. they are much smarter than lr/ps at smoothing background bokeh and gradients while not smudging detail where is would be disturbing.

If you stick with acr, do manual adaptive nr by using a low global nr and using the brush with a higher nr setting to smooth non-detail areas ... or vice versa. Also apply lower nr for small export sizes - both techniques combined make a large difference.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Eldar on July 13, 2013, 03:21:15 PM
I am reading (most of) these posts with interest. It may be that someone else has touched on this, since the number of posts is fairly high, but I´ll give it a go.

I am not an expert on all the technical aspects of the bodies we are discussing. I am first and foremost a photographer, trying to get the best images with what I have. Currently I use 1DX and 5DIII as my main bodies, but I also have 1DIV and 7D. And I am looking forward to the 7DII. But my main concern is AF and not IQ. For everything that stands still, I prefer to use FF bodies (a few thousand reasons have been posted before this one). I have lots of high quality glass to get the framing right, so my interest for a cropped camera is only for long reach.

As I see it, the real benefit of a 1.6x sensor, besides cheaper lenses, is in combination with a 400/500/600mm tele, possibly combined with extenders. The AF system will work on a closer framed image and thus give me a better opportunity to secure focus on the specific part I want in focus. When I crop an image from a FF, it´s more of a gamble. But currently, the AF systems on both the 1DX and the 5DIII are so much better than the current 7D, that you don´t really have an advantage with a cropped sensor. So at the moment my 7D stays in the bag (actually at home). But with the 7DII, that may all change.

So, I cross my fingers and hope for a best possible AF system and good high-ISO performance (rather than very high resolution) on the 7DII. I´d be interested if some of you more technically competent could comment on this.

/Eldar
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: neuroanatomist on July 13, 2013, 06:26:35 PM
... I cross my fingers and hope for a best possible AF system and good high-ISO performance (rather than very high resolution) on the 7DII.

I hope for the same thing. The theory that a crop sensor should produce a better image when focal length-limited is sound, but reality trumps theory and in practice, the 7D doesn't best the 1D X or 5DIII.  So, I hope that a 7DII does...but I won't be surprised if, much like the new sensor in the 70D, there's not a whole lot (if any) IQ improvement over its predecessor.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: garyknrd on July 13, 2013, 11:57:21 PM
I am reading (most of) these posts with interest. It may be that someone else has touched on this, since the number of posts is fairly high, but I´ll give it a go.

I am not an expert on all the technical aspects of the bodies we are discussing. I am first and foremost a photographer, trying to get the best images with what I have. Currently I use 1DX and 5DIII as my main bodies, but I also have 1DIV and 7D. And I am looking forward to the 7DII. But my main concern is AF and not IQ. For everything that stands still, I prefer to use FF bodies (a few thousand reasons have been posted before this one). I have lots of high quality glass to get the framing right, so my interest for a cropped camera is only for long reach.

As I see it, the real benefit of a 1.6x sensor, besides cheaper lenses, is in combination with a 400/500/600mm tele, possibly combined with extenders. The AF system will work on a closer framed image and thus give me a better opportunity to secure focus on the specific part I want in focus. When I crop an image from a FF, it´s more of a gamble. But currently, the AF systems on both the 1DX and the 5DIII are so much better than the current 7D, that you don´t really have an advantage with a cropped sensor. So at the moment my 7D stays in the bag (actually at home). But with the 7DII, that may all change.

So, I cross my fingers and hope for a best possible AF system and good high-ISO performance (rather than very high resolution) on the 7DII. I´d be interested if some of you more technically competent could comment on this.

/Eldar

Man you are reading my mind. Exactly same thing here. IQ at this point is last on my list. With AF being on top.
As others though am hoping for better IQ too?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 14, 2013, 01:09:51 AM
I am reading (most of) these posts with interest. It may be that someone else has touched on this, since the number of posts is fairly high, but I´ll give it a go.

I am not an expert on all the technical aspects of the bodies we are discussing. I am first and foremost a photographer, trying to get the best images with what I have. Currently I use 1DX and 5DIII as my main bodies, but I also have 1DIV and 7D. And I am looking forward to the 7DII. But my main concern is AF and not IQ. For everything that stands still, I prefer to use FF bodies (a few thousand reasons have been posted before this one). I have lots of high quality glass to get the framing right, so my interest for a cropped camera is only for long reach.

As I see it, the real benefit of a 1.6x sensor, besides cheaper lenses, is in combination with a 400/500/600mm tele, possibly combined with extenders. The AF system will work on a closer framed image and thus give me a better opportunity to secure focus on the specific part I want in focus. When I crop an image from a FF, it´s more of a gamble. But currently, the AF systems on both the 1DX and the 5DIII are so much better than the current 7D, that you don´t really have an advantage with a cropped sensor. So at the moment my 7D stays in the bag (actually at home). But with the 7DII, that may all change.

So, I cross my fingers and hope for a best possible AF system and good high-ISO performance (rather than very high resolution) on the 7DII. I´d be interested if some of you more technically competent could comment on this.

/Eldar

Man you are reading my mind. Exactly same thing here. IQ at this point is last on my list. With AF being on top.
As others though am hoping for better IQ too?

I've made the same argument in the past. To me, both AF as well as frame rate come before sensor IQ. I don't see any real drawbacks to the 7D IQ as it is, though. I think my previous example posted a few responses up demonstrates that the 7D can extract more than enough detail to overcome any drawbacks such as higher noise (especially, as Eldar stated, when paired with a 400/500/600 and a TC).

I would go so far to state that one of the primary reasons the 1D X can do as well as the 7D is because of its AF system. The 7D's 19pt AF, while good, definitely has it's drawbacks. It's margin of error is rather large, and any time it decides to confirm focus, its really hit or miss...you might actually be missfocused enough that the shot (or even a whole sequence of shots) are a bust.

I think my top two biggest wants for the 7D II are 61pt AF and 10fps. Give me those, even with a lower noise 18mp APS-C sensor, and I'll be happy.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: garyknrd on July 14, 2013, 02:18:07 AM
Yea, that 7D was not an easy camera for me to use. It took me 4-5 months before I really started to appreciate the information you could extract from the photos. My sharpest and most detailed shots are with it. With out a doubt what so ever for me to say that. I love detailed photos.

But? I didn't realize how poor the AF was until I went with a IV camera. For me it was a trade off well worth it. And I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
The mark IV is the easiest camera I have ever worked with. But I cannot push it near as far as I did the 7D. The info is just not there to use and push.
My experience anyway, and my way of post processing. What really amazed me is in PS I could de noise and sharpen the 7D back to incredible detailed pics. With the IV I cannot. In my mind that is pixel density at work. Just amazing.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 14, 2013, 01:11:52 PM
Yea, that 7D was not an easy camera for me to use. It took me 4-5 months before I really started to appreciate the information you could extract from the photos. My sharpest and most detailed shots are with it. With out a doubt what so ever for me to say that. I love detailed photos.

But? I didn't realize how poor the AF was until I went with a IV camera. For me it was a trade off well worth it. And I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
The mark IV is the easiest camera I have ever worked with. But I cannot push it near as far as I did the 7D. The info is just not there to use and push.
My experience anyway, and my way of post processing. What really amazed me is in PS I could de noise and sharpen the 7D back to incredible detailed pics. With the IV I cannot. In my mind that is pixel density at work. Just amazing.

I haven't had the opportunity to use a 1D IV, however I have used the 5D III. It blew my mind how much better the AF system was than the 7D's. It was not only faster, but when it locked, it LOCKED. You could tell, even just in the viewfinder, that it either nailed focus, or missed it miserably. With the 7D, its "locked" range is wide enough that it can affect the final result, yet not really be entirely clear in the viewfinder. It might confirm focus, but not actually be solidly focused on whatever was under your AF point. I think that is probably the most serious drawback of the 7D.

If one was comparing resolution...say a full-frame 7D shot to a cropped 1D X shot, downscaling the 7D to the 1D X size would eliminate the issue with the 7D focus. But if you need to crop a lot (i.e. the subject was only 25-35% of the frame), then the missfocus issue was a real big issue. I consider the addition of a true professional grade, reticulated AF system, even if it ends up being something new like a 41pt system rather than the same 61pt system, to be THE critical differentiator between the 70D and 7D II. I would like 10fps, rather than 8fps, but the AF system really needs a bump up to literal "professional" grade.

Like you, at least since getting Nik and Topaz denoise tools (particularly DeNoise 5), I have not found the increased noise of the 7D to be an issue. Backgrounds may look nasty right out of camera, but within a minute of running them through DeNoise they look stunning.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos)

Your photography is excellent, BTW!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: garyknrd on July 14, 2013, 03:18:15 PM
Thnk's for the complement.
I would love to get my hands on a 1DX. I have seen some amazing shots with it and the 600 II and 500 II. But it aint going to happen for me. Just got the IV so I put the brakes on my spending for the next two years. Actually I rolled over my photography account and two years is my lock in period...  :-\ 
If the 7D II is a winner I may have to eat beans for a while. Or start now...   ;D
Been following you guys sites here also. Nice stuff.
 
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: northbyten on July 14, 2013, 09:35:48 PM
Eh I bought the 550D over the 7D since the image quality was the same and I could live without the improved AF/burst/ergonomics etc. Yes I did look up comparisons.

For me the 7D MK II has to be above the image quality of the 700D/70D to be considered a worthy successor
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: anthony11 on July 15, 2013, 07:50:58 PM
So, I cross my fingers and hope for a best possible AF system and good high-ISO performance (rather than very high resolution) on the 7DII. I´d be interested if some of you more technically competent could comment on this.
I agree.  Were the 7DII to appear with quality AF and better high-ISO performance than my 5DII I'd trade in a heartbeat -- but Canon won't do that because they want to continue forcing the sale of a $4k+ body for indoor shooting.  They'll crank up the pixel count so that the new-gen sensor tech is offset and we won't see substantially better real performance.  Note that I write *real* performance, as opposed to the red-herring of claims based on stronger JPEG/JFIF NR without actually improving the quality of what comes off the sensor.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: scottkinfw on July 15, 2013, 08:37:06 PM
Outsanding!

Yea, that 7D was not an easy camera for me to use. It took me 4-5 months before I really started to appreciate the information you could extract from the photos. My sharpest and most detailed shots are with it. With out a doubt what so ever for me to say that. I love detailed photos.

But? I didn't realize how poor the AF was until I went with a IV camera. For me it was a trade off well worth it. And I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
The mark IV is the easiest camera I have ever worked with. But I cannot push it near as far as I did the 7D. The info is just not there to use and push.
My experience anyway, and my way of post processing. What really amazed me is in PS I could de noise and sharpen the 7D back to incredible detailed pics. With the IV I cannot. In my mind that is pixel density at work. Just amazing.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Krob78 on July 18, 2013, 07:51:59 PM
Outsanding!

Yea, that 7D was not an easy camera for me to use. It took me 4-5 months before I really started to appreciate the information you could extract from the photos. My sharpest and most detailed shots are with it. With out a doubt what so ever for me to say that. I love detailed photos.

But? I didn't realize how poor the AF was until I went with a IV camera. For me it was a trade off well worth it. And I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
The mark IV is the easiest camera I have ever worked with. But I cannot push it near as far as I did the 7D. The info is just not there to use and push.
My experience anyway, and my way of post processing. What really amazed me is in PS I could de noise and sharpen the 7D back to incredible detailed pics. With the IV I cannot. In my mind that is pixel density at work. Just amazing.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos)
Quote
I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
I can understand and appreciate that.  I thought the AF on the 7d was fantastic once I conquered it... It was far superior to the 60d I purchased or any of the Rebels I've owned. 

That being said, I had no idea how incredible the AF would be on the 5D III when I purchased it!  After using it for 6 months, I came to the realization that I wasn't using my 7d at all anymore...  I then took it out for a couple of jaunts to the lake and wow, I kept putting it down and grabbing my 5d III... I have way more keepers with the 5d III than my 7d. 

I did take quite a bit of time to research and put into practice, the tweaking of my 5d III settings and have improved even more since then...

I likely wouldn't pick up another 7d, though still very fond of it but I would definitely like to see what the MK II will bring to the table with regard to AF.  I think they are going to make it quite mouth watering...  :P
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: garyknrd on July 19, 2013, 06:31:34 AM
Outsanding!

Yea, that 7D was not an easy camera for me to use. It took me 4-5 months before I really started to appreciate the information you could extract from the photos. My sharpest and most detailed shots are with it. With out a doubt what so ever for me to say that. I love detailed photos.

But? I didn't realize how poor the AF was until I went with a IV camera. For me it was a trade off well worth it. And I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
The mark IV is the easiest camera I have ever worked with. But I cannot push it near as far as I did the 7D. The info is just not there to use and push.
My experience anyway, and my way of post processing. What really amazed me is in PS I could de noise and sharpen the 7D back to incredible detailed pics. With the IV I cannot. In my mind that is pixel density at work. Just amazing.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos)
Quote
I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
I can understand and appreciate that.  I thought the AF on the 7d was fantastic once I conquered it... It was far superior to the 60d I purchased or any of the Rebels I've owned. 

That being said, I had no idea how incredible the AF would be on the 5D III when I purchased it!  After using it for 6 months, I came to the realization that I wasn't using my 7d at all anymore...  I then took it out for a couple of jaunts to the lake and wow, I kept putting it down and grabbing my 5d III... I have way more keepers with the 5d III than my 7d. 

I did take quite a bit of time to research and put into practice, the tweaking of my 5d III settings and have improved even more since then...

I likely wouldn't pick up another 7d, though still very fond of it but I would definitely like to see what the MK II will bring to the table with regard to AF.  I think they are going to make it quite mouth watering...  :P

Sorry, have been out in the field shooting Pittas for the last few days. Beautiful birds.

Agree totally. The Mark II has some pretty big shoes to fill at this point IMO. I hope Canon comes threw with the goods. If not I will keep shooting the IV.
G
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Krob78 on July 20, 2013, 11:15:27 AM
Outsanding!

Yea, that 7D was not an easy camera for me to use. It took me 4-5 months before I really started to appreciate the information you could extract from the photos. My sharpest and most detailed shots are with it. With out a doubt what so ever for me to say that. I love detailed photos.

But? I didn't realize how poor the AF was until I went with a IV camera. For me it was a trade off well worth it. And I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
The mark IV is the easiest camera I have ever worked with. But I cannot push it near as far as I did the 7D. The info is just not there to use and push.
My experience anyway, and my way of post processing. What really amazed me is in PS I could de noise and sharpen the 7D back to incredible detailed pics. With the IV I cannot. In my mind that is pixel density at work. Just amazing.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos)
Quote
I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
I can understand and appreciate that.  I thought the AF on the 7d was fantastic once I conquered it... It was far superior to the 60d I purchased or any of the Rebels I've owned. 

That being said, I had no idea how incredible the AF would be on the 5D III when I purchased it!  After using it for 6 months, I came to the realization that I wasn't using my 7d at all anymore...  I then took it out for a couple of jaunts to the lake and wow, I kept putting it down and grabbing my 5d III... I have way more keepers with the 5d III than my 7d. 

I did take quite a bit of time to research and put into practice, the tweaking of my 5d III settings and have improved even more since then...

I likely wouldn't pick up another 7d, though still very fond of it but I would definitely like to see what the MK II will bring to the table with regard to AF.  I think they are going to make it quite mouth watering...  :P

Sorry, have been out in the field shooting Pittas for the last few days. Beautiful birds.

Agree totally. The Mark II has some pretty big shoes to fill at this point IMO. I hope Canon comes threw with the goods. If not I will keep shooting the IV.
G
Well, I have an overall good feeling about the 7D Mk II.  I think they know they set the bar high when the original came out and given the popularity of the camera, my guess is that the Mk II won't be anything to sneeze at...   That being said, who knows!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 20, 2013, 11:30:20 AM
Well, I have an overall good feeling about the 7D Mk II.  I think they know they set the bar high when the original came out and given the popularity of the camera, my guess is that the Mk II won't be anything to sneeze at...   That being said, who knows!

Some Canon big shot also said so in a recent interview, they know after all the sensor and feature recycling (sans adding some gimmicks) it's time for them to have a showcase model again that shines without compromise... let's hope the 7d2 won't be so expensive that you could buy a used aps-h 1d4 for it, which afaik also isn't something to sneeze at :-p
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Krob78 on July 20, 2013, 11:35:16 AM
Well, I have an overall good feeling about the 7D Mk II.  I think they know they set the bar high when the original came out and given the popularity of the camera, my guess is that the Mk II won't be anything to sneeze at...   That being said, who knows!

Some Canon big shot also said so in a recent interview, they know after all the sensor and feature recycling (sans adding some gimmicks) it's time for them to have a showcase model again that shines without compromise... let's hope the 7d2 won't be so expensive that you could buy a used aps-h 1d4 for it, which afaik also isn't something to sneeze at :-p
Given where the new 70d came in at, I have a feeling the new 7d Mk II won't come in too much different than the original 7D body, price wise...  Maybe just a little more... I'm guessing $1600 - $1800 range... better yet, I'll guess $1599 to $1699... $1799 tops...  ;D
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 20, 2013, 12:20:04 PM
I have a feeling the new 7d Mk II won't come in too much different than the original 7D body

I'll do a price guess poll once the specs are out as a [CR3] or from Canon :-) ... but remember the $3500 5d3 which also is an "above mainstream" model, everybody was surprised to shocked then. And since you can save thousands of $$$ (and weight/bulk) by not buying 600mm lenses with a crop body, Canon might want to take a premium for the "top of the line" birding and semi-pro sports model.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Krob78 on July 20, 2013, 12:27:25 PM
I have a feeling the new 7d Mk II won't come in too much different than the original 7D body

I'll do a price guess poll once the specs are out as a [CR3] or from Canon :-) ... but remember the $3500 5d3 which also is an "above mainstream" model, everybody was surprised to shocked then. And since you can save thousands of $$$ (and weight/bulk) by not buying 600mm lenses with a crop body, Canon might want to take a premium for the "top of the line" birding and semi-pro sports model.
Wasn't the $3500 list for the body with kit lens?  I just don't remember! 

Anyway, you could well be right about that.  It is after all the flagship.  I think it will depend on the specs.  I just don't see them going over $2000 although there is a lot of speculation that it will come in between $2000 and $2500.  I hope it's under $2,000 USD.  Given the 5d3 pricing, I'd admit you may be correct but I'll continue to hold out that the 7d2 pricing will keep it in the gap that I suggest.  That is a price gap that doesn't need to be void!  We shall see soon enough I suppose! 

All the best! :)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 20, 2013, 01:47:31 PM
I have a feeling the new 7d Mk II won't come in too much different than the original 7D body

I'll do a price guess poll once the specs are out as a [CR3] or from Canon :-) ... but remember the $3500 5d3 which also is an "above mainstream" model, everybody was surprised to shocked then. And since you can save thousands of $$$ (and weight/bulk) by not buying 600mm lenses with a crop body, Canon might want to take a premium for the "top of the line" birding and semi-pro sports model.

If the 7D II comes out with the 20.2mp sensor from the 70D, I can easily foresee it being pretty cheap, no more than $1800. I mean, who would buy it, really, if that is what Canon ends up doing after actual Canon employees mentioned a couple times that they were going to so something amazing with the 7D sensor.

If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

I really can't see Canon gimping the 7D II with the same sensor as the 70D. It just wouldn't sell. I think most people expect there to be some differentiation between the XXD and 7D line now, and reusing the sensor would diminish that differentiation. It would deliver on their previous comments to make the 7D II something special, too...and maybe give everyone a glimpse of what we might see in Canon's BigMP offering.

I have a feeling the new 7d Mk II won't come in too much different than the original 7D body

I'll do a price guess poll once the specs are out as a [CR3] or from Canon :-) ... but remember the $3500 5d3 which also is an "above mainstream" model, everybody was surprised to shocked then. And since you can save thousands of $$$ (and weight/bulk) by not buying 600mm lenses with a crop body, Canon might want to take a premium for the "top of the line" birding and semi-pro sports model.
Wasn't the $3500 list for the body with kit lens?  I just don't remember! 

Anyway, you could well be right about that.  It is after all the flagship.  I think it will depend on the specs.  I just don't see them going over $2000 although there is a lot of speculation that it will come in between $2000 and $2500.  I hope it's under $2,000 USD.  Given the 5d3 pricing, I'd admit you may be correct but I'll continue to hold out that the 7d2 pricing will keep it in the gap that I suggest.  That is a price gap that doesn't need to be void!  We shall see soon enough I suppose! 

All the best! :)

The list price for the 5D III body only is $3499. It is MORE with the kit lens. If the 7D II really gets an upgrade, I can see it falling in the $2000+ range. If Canon is trying to reposition it as a true professional grade entry, and considering the pricing of all their other recent camera releases, inflation, exchange rates, etc. I can see it getting a $2000 price tag at least.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 20, 2013, 05:03:56 PM
If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

+1, my money (not that I have it) is also on a new sensor, a late release date and a $2500 price remembering of the interview I mentioned above.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: whothafunk on July 21, 2013, 08:52:12 AM
I really can't see Canon gimping the 7D II with the same sensor as the 70D. It just wouldn't sell. I think most people expect there to be some differentiation between the XXD and 7D line now, and reusing the sensor would diminish that differentiation. It would deliver on their previous comments to make the 7D II something special, too...and maybe give everyone a glimpse of what we might see in Canon's BigMP offering.
I call BS. 7DII will be purchased mostly by people who know what 7DII is and what it offers. They know it will (most probably) offer superior FPS, AF, ergonomics, (dual) CF card, 100% VF and 1x magnification, advanced fuctions, etc etc etc, not to mention I am pretty sure it will have Digic6 processor, which is said to even further improve noise performance up to 6400 ISO point, and probably image quality. 70D with 20.2MP and Digic5+ vs 7DII 20.2MP and (Dual?) Digic6(+) processor. It has got to have better ISO and IQ, doesnt matter if its the same MP count.

And since when did people transfer from "MP doesnt count" to "MP is #1 priority"?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: neuroanatomist on July 21, 2013, 09:24:31 AM
I call BS...  I am pretty sure it will have Digic6 processor, which is said to even further improve noise performance up to 6400 ISO point, and probably image quality. 70D with 20.2MP and Digic5+ vs 7DII 20.2MP and (Dual?) Digic6(+) processor. It has got to have better ISO and IQ, doesnt matter if its the same MP count.

Sure...if you shoot JPG.  But many (most?) 7D shooters know better, because RAW affords much more flexibility in post.  For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: rs on July 21, 2013, 10:39:37 AM
For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).
The world is a much richer place thanks to marketing. For instance, where would we be without 'unlimited' data plans with limits on them?  ::)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 21, 2013, 10:52:14 AM
For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).
The world is a much richer place thanks to marketing. For instance, where would we be without 'unlimited' data plans with limits on them?  ::)

Yup... and Neuro, you should dump your Canon gear for an iPhone, "The number one camera in the world", or get an entry level Nikon and "Take your photography to exciting new levels"....  :)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 21, 2013, 11:13:36 AM
I really can't see Canon gimping the 7D II with the same sensor as the 70D. It just wouldn't sell. I think most people expect there to be some differentiation between the XXD and 7D line now, and reusing the sensor would diminish that differentiation. It would deliver on their previous comments to make the 7D II something special, too...and maybe give everyone a glimpse of what we might see in Canon's BigMP offering.
I call BS. 7DII will be purchased mostly by people who know what 7DII is and what it offers. They know it will (most probably) offer superior FPS, AF, ergonomics, (dual) CF card, 100% VF and 1x magnification, advanced fuctions, etc etc etc, not to mention I am pretty sure it will have Digic6 processor, which is said to even further improve noise performance up to 6400 ISO point, and probably image quality. 70D with 20.2MP and Digic5+ vs 7DII 20.2MP and (Dual?) Digic6(+) processor. It has got to have better ISO and IQ, doesnt matter if its the same MP count.

And since when did people transfer from "MP doesnt count" to "MP is #1 priority"?

My comment wasn't as much about MP count as it was about the "revolutionary" nature of whatever sensor the 7D II gets. Canon clearly stated a couple of times that they were going to do something great with the 7D II sensor. My point, really, was that if the 7D II gets THE SAME SENSOR as the 70D, then Canon will just be doing the same old thing...AGAIN. Reusing the SAME OLD SENSOR....AGAIN. I think the extensive reuse of their 18mp sensor, even in tweaked forms that have FP-PDAF, has soured a lot of people's expectations. I think it would be negative for PR for a lot of people if Canon did not introduce some kind of new sensor in the 7D II.

Given that the only other rumored sensor is a 24mp sensor...well, I mentioned a 24mp sensor in my last answer. I do think it needs to be different, not only in design, but megapixel count. It could be a 19mp sensor, or a 21mp sensor...although given that the 7D line has always been strongly correlated with reach, I think higher IS better in this context (especially given the 24mp APS-C sensors of the competition). I do believe that with a BSI design, a 24mp sensor could be created that performs as well as the 18mp one without any other technological improvements at all. If you throw in the CFA changes of the 5D III and 1D X, and any other improvements that might have hinted about over the last year (i.e. active cooling, a shift to 180nm, on-die image processing (NR, ADC), etc.), and the 7D II sensor even with more megapixels could perform noticeably better than the original 7D.

Fundamentally, though, my point is that the sensor of the 7D II really needs to shine...it needs to be DIFFERENT than the 70D's sensor, and it should really include some innovative technology (even if Canon sticks with a 500nm process.) Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of extensive sensor reuse over a period of years, especially in a high end product like the 7D line. If I am going to spend $2000 or more on such a product, it damn well better be worthy of it.

(Oh, and BTW...I would point out that the dual DIGIC readout of the current 7D is actually the root cause of its banding problems. It gives a higher readout rate, but it also introduces fairly strong vertical banding up into the midtones (above and beyond the crosshatch banding that already exists in the deep shadows). All single-DIGIC cameras that use the same 18mp APS-C sensor actually have BETTER noise characteristics than the 7D. I don't believe the use of DIGIC 6 will alleviate that, assuming Canon continues to take their current approach to off-die ADC.)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 21, 2013, 11:14:20 AM
For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).
The world is a much richer place thanks to marketing. For instance, where would we be without 'unlimited' data plans with limits on them?  ::)

+1 LOL Seriously...
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: garyknrd on July 21, 2013, 08:42:51 PM
For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).
The world is a much richer place thanks to marketing. For instance, where would we be without 'unlimited' data plans with limits on them?  ::)

+1 LOL Seriously...

+2 here, Amazing the BS of marketing.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: expatinasia on July 21, 2013, 09:28:06 PM
If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

+1, my money (not that I have it) is also on a new sensor, a late release date and a $2500 price remembering of the interview I mentioned above.

Honestly? If Canon launched a camera as described by jrista I could easily see that reaching the US$3,000 and even the US$3,500 mark. In fact why would it be cheaper (especially on release) than the 5D Mark III?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Don Haines on July 21, 2013, 10:28:03 PM
If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

+1, my money (not that I have it) is also on a new sensor, a late release date and a $2500 price remembering of the interview I mentioned above.

Honestly? If Canon launched a camera as described by jrista I could easily see that reaching the US$3,000 and even the US$3,500 mark. In fact why would it be cheaper (especially on release) than the 5D Mark III?
I couldn't see it coming in under $2000....$2500 seems likely to me, AFTER the initial rush of early adopters is over.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 22, 2013, 11:29:52 AM
If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

+1, my money (not that I have it) is also on a new sensor, a late release date and a $2500 price remembering of the interview I mentioned above.

Honestly? If Canon launched a camera as described by jrista I could easily see that reaching the US$3,000 and even the US$3,500 mark. In fact why would it be cheaper (especially on release) than the 5D Mark III?

Well, the 1D X and 5D III pioneered some new technology. Such as the 61pt AF system. The 7D II would be able to piggyback on the profits from sales of those cameras if it reused the 61pt AF system. Same goes for the metering, etc. Canon wouldn't need to do as much R&D for the 7D II...about the only thing that really needs improvement is the sensor...and it sounds like that's being done. So I don't really foresee the 7D II hitting the $3000 mark I think it would be surprising if it came out higher than $2500...I just don't see people buying it at a price point higher than that, given the position it holds (the lowest end "pro" camera in Canon's lineup, plus APS-C to boot...a lot of people have this thing about FF being professional now.)

There is also the competitive aspect to think about. A $3000 7D II would be in a tough competitive spot with Nikon at the very least, as Nikon has been packing in as many features as possible at the cheapest price point possible lately.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: wookiee2cu on July 22, 2013, 12:52:02 PM
I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII.  If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: unfocused on July 22, 2013, 02:45:30 PM
I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII.  If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.

The 7D got newer technology than the 5DII. Giving the 7DII equal or better technology than than the 5DIII, but in an APS-C format is consistent with past practice.

Canon doesn't care about "stealing sales" from one model to the next. They care about stealing sales from Nikon.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 22, 2013, 02:53:14 PM
I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII.  If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.

The 7D got newer technology than the 5DII. Giving the 7DII equal or better technology than than the 5DIII, but in an APS-C format is consistent with past practice.

Canon doesn't care about "stealing sales" from one model to the next. They care about stealing sales from Nikon.

Totally agreed.

Competition with other brands is more important than self competition. I don't really even buy the self competition argument either...the 5D III is FF, and that is the most important factor for the majority of people who buy that camera. I know a good number of portrait and wedding photogs (well, and event photogs as well) who would NEVER buy an APS-C camera, for any price with any feature set, because the full frame FoV and DOF are far more important to them. People who buy the 7D line want it for what it is...and gimping its AF relative to the rest of Canon's pro line would just be another detractor against outside competition.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Krob78 on July 22, 2013, 03:32:53 PM
I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII.  If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.

The 7D got newer technology than the 5DII. Giving the 7DII equal or better technology than than the 5DIII, but in an APS-C format is consistent with past practice.

Canon doesn't care about "stealing sales" from one model to the next. They care about stealing sales from Nikon.

Totally agreed.

Competition with other brands is more important than self competition. I don't really even buy the self competition argument either...the 5D III is FF, and that is the most important factor for the majority of people who buy that camera. I know a good number of portrait and wedding photogs (well, and event photogs as well) who would NEVER buy an APS-C camera, for any price with any feature set, because the full frame FoV and DOF are far more important to them. People who buy the 7D line want it for what it is...and gimping its AF relative to the rest of Canon's pro line would just be another detractor against outside competition.
Yes, yes and yes!
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Krob78 on July 22, 2013, 03:35:12 PM
I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII.  If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.
43 point AF...
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Krob78 on July 22, 2013, 03:39:51 PM
If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

+1, my money (not that I have it) is also on a new sensor, a late release date and a $2500 price remembering of the interview I mentioned above.

Honestly? If Canon launched a camera as described by jrista I could easily see that reaching the US$3,000 and even the US$3,500 mark. In fact why would it be cheaper (especially on release) than the 5D Mark III?

Well, the 1D X and 5D III pioneered some new technology. Such as the 61pt AF system. The 7D II would be able to piggyback on the profits from sales of those cameras if it reused the 61pt AF system. Same goes for the metering, etc. Canon wouldn't need to do as much R&D for the 7D II...about the only thing that really needs improvement is the sensor...and it sounds like that's being done. So I don't really foresee the 7D II hitting the $3000 mark I think it would be surprising if it came out higher than $2500...I just don't see people buying it at a price point higher than that, given the position it holds (the lowest end "pro" camera in Canon's lineup, plus APS-C to boot...a lot of people have this thing about FF being professional now.)

There is also the competitive aspect to think about. A $3000 7D II would be in a tough competitive spot with Nikon at the very least, as Nikon has been packing in as many features as possible at the cheapest price point possible lately.
Quote
The 7D got newer technology than the 5DII. Giving the 7DII equal or better technology than than the 5DIII, but in an APS-C format is consistent with past practice.
The 7d came in substantially less than a new 5d2 came in at, with the "newer" technology.  Why can't a 7D2, having some of the same technology and some "newer" technology come in substantially less than the 5d3?
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: unfocused on July 22, 2013, 04:07:27 PM
The 7d came in substantially less than a new 5d2 came in at, with the "newer" technology.  Why can't a 7D2, having some of the same technology and some "newer" technology come in substantially less than the 5d3?

Agreed.

Too often, people generalize about Canon pricing based on one example – the higher cost of the 5DIII in comparison to the D800. But, that was an anomaly. Canon and Nikon traditionally price their comparable models at nearly identical price points.

They do so because that's what the market demands. A $2,500 7DII would be hard-pressed to compete against a $1,800 D400.

Why didn't the 5DIII follow that pattern?

I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800. The 5DIII with its high ISO performance is a must-have tool for photographers in a highly competitive field – weddings and events (which also happens to be about the only sizeable professional field left). Canon knew they could charge a premium because their target audience needs the competitive edge that the clean high ISOs gives them.

The D800 sacrificed high-ISO performance for high resolution. Unfortunately, there simply isn't a large professional base of photographers who gain any competitive edge from a high resolution sensor (emphasis on "large" professional base). It's a nice feature and gives some bragging rights to a company that has been perceived as being behind the curve on resolution for several years.  That's not to say that some photographers don't need high resolution, it's just that the target audience is much smaller and the competitive advantages to be gained from the high resolution are much less significant.

I don't understand why people always point to the 5DIII, which was an exception, when every other DSLR Canon makes fits nicely within the rule of consistent pricing with their competitors. Frankly, the relatively low pricing of the 70D should give some reassurance that the 7DII will likely come in comfortably under $2,000
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Sporgon on July 22, 2013, 04:51:55 PM

Why didn't the 5DIII follow that pattern ?

I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800. The 5DIII with its high ISO performance is a must-have tool for photographers in a highly competitive field – weddings and events (which also happens to be about the only sizeable professional field left).

I disagree here. The 5D mk3 was $500 more as it is $500 more camera: a professional level product in every way. The original 5D and later mk2 were not. Many pros eschewed the 1Ds mk3 in favour of the much cheaper, lighter 5Dmk2. Canon responded to demand and produced a pro grade 5D.

The D800 on the other hand is aimed fair and square at the amateur market, and it is less $$$ because it is a cheaper, less substantial product. 36 mp, a marketing game that didn't come off. They had to bring out the D600 pretty sharpish.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: RLPhoto on July 22, 2013, 04:58:56 PM
I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800.

I thought canon tagged on an extra 1000$ because they could and users would buy anyway. I used my 5Dc until I saw a reasonable price before buying my first MK3.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: unfocused on July 22, 2013, 05:12:18 PM
I disagree here...

I disagree that you disagree. :)

Seriously, I think we are saying the same thing. 5DIII targeted to a professional market to fit a specific need. D800 targeted to...whom? I've never been sure.

The 5DIII may be $500 more camera, but that's because it has features that make it worth that to a specific market.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Sporgon on July 22, 2013, 05:50:35 PM
I disagree here...

I disagree that you disagree. :)

Seriously, I think we are saying the same thing. 5DIII targeted to a professional market to fit a specific need. D800 targeted to...whom? I've never been sure.

The 5DIII may be $500 more camera, but that's because it has features that make it worth that to a specific market.

Agreed  ;)

I think the 7Dii will follow the same path. Many sports 'pros' use the 7D as a much more affordable 1D -whatever. My guess is the next one will be basically an APS-c 1Dx.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Waterloo on July 22, 2013, 06:58:42 PM
Wouldn't I just love to have a an APS-C version of my 1D X. Same size, same battery, same control layout, same number of pixels and same image quality. I've dreamed of this camera. Canon could build one if they had a mind to......
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: x-vision on July 22, 2013, 07:55:07 PM
Frankly, the relatively low pricing of the 70D should give some reassurance that the 7DII will likely come in comfortably under $2,000

Completely agree  8).

There's no reason to believe that the 7DII product positioning will change compared to that of the current 7D.
This means, of course, a sub-$2000 price tag ... and sub-$2000 specs.

So, no 61 AF-points in the 7DII.
Canon will not put their first-tier AF system in a sub-$2000 body.
Same for some of the other dream specs floating around.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: jrista on July 22, 2013, 09:43:58 PM
The 7d came in substantially less than a new 5d2 came in at, with the "newer" technology.  Why can't a 7D2, having some of the same technology and some "newer" technology come in substantially less than the 5d3?

Agreed.

Too often, people generalize about Canon pricing based on one example – the higher cost of the 5DIII in comparison to the D800. But, that was an anomaly. Canon and Nikon traditionally price their comparable models at nearly identical price points.

They do so because that's what the market demands. A $2,500 7DII would be hard-pressed to compete against a $1,800 D400.

Why didn't the 5DIII follow that pattern?

I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800. The 5DIII with its high ISO performance is a must-have tool for photographers in a highly competitive field – weddings and events (which also happens to be about the only sizeable professional field left). Canon knew they could charge a premium because their target audience needs the competitive edge that the clean high ISOs gives them.

The D800 sacrificed high-ISO performance for high resolution. Unfortunately, there simply isn't a large professional base of photographers who gain any competitive edge from a high resolution sensor (emphasis on "large" professional base). It's a nice feature and gives some bragging rights to a company that has been perceived as being behind the curve on resolution for several years.  That's not to say that some photographers don't need high resolution, it's just that the target audience is much smaller and the competitive advantages to be gained from the high resolution are much less significant.

I don't understand why people always point to the 5DIII, which was an exception, when every other DSLR Canon makes fits nicely within the rule of consistent pricing with their competitors. Frankly, the relatively low pricing of the 70D should give some reassurance that the 7DII will likely come in comfortably under $2,000

You are assuming Canon will leave the 7D II in the same target demographic bucket as the 7D. I'd point to the various statements Canon has made about how they want to do something "special" with the 7D II. That hints to me that it might end up more like the 5D III...an "anomaly" as you called it, than the same old deal...the "as cheap as possible specs with a high frame rate" deal.

I am not sure that is a safe assumption. The 7D II could very well come in like the 5D III (at least as it is in your view, as a specialized part...personally, I think the 5D III is an amazing general purpose FF camera, as it fits the bill for just about everything and anything with the sole exception being sunset photos where you get the sun, the brightly lit sky, and all the deep shadow foreground detail all in a single shot), and be effectively an APS-C 1D X, filling a niche for a specific subset of people...sports/wildlife/birds...rather than just being a cheapish APS-C "pro" camera.

Personally, I would rather spend $2000 or so on something that DID have 61pt AF, 10fps (and dual UDMA 7 CF), a 24.4mp APS-C, and a worthwhile IQ boost over ANY other APS-C sensor from Canon...something where NR works more on the level it does for the 5D III, rather than how it didn't so much for the 7D (Topaz DeNoise 5 definitely improves things...but it would be better if you could just clean up noise on the 7D II like you can on a 5D III or even better, 1D X photo).
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: x-vision on July 22, 2013, 10:14:12 PM
You are assuming Canon will leave the 7D II in the same target demographic bucket as the 7D.

This is a safe assumption to make, IMO.

To put it another way: if the 7DII is the 1DIV successor, what will be the 7D successor?

This is a rhetorical question 8).
Like I said, I don't see the 7DII morphing into a different class of camera.

Quote
I'd point to the various statements Canon has made about how they want to do something "special" with the 7D II.

What Canon actually said was that the 7DII would "evolve into new territory".
There are different ways to interpret that but I wouldn't read too much into it.
Just consider that when the 5DII was announced, its video feature was considered 'revolutionary'.
So, now that Canon is talking 'evolution', I wouldn't hold my breath for a big departure from the current concept.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Marsu42 on July 23, 2013, 06:34:05 AM
Frankly, the relatively low pricing of the 70D should give some reassurance that the 7DII will likely come in comfortably under $2,000
Completely agree  8)

Maybe, maybe not - I don't think the 70d price is a sufficient indicator because here Canon don't have a choice, they have to counter the very competent d7100, even though the Canon's dual af tech is unique while Nikon very likely has the better af system. With a potential 7d2 Canon has much more freedom to act.

There's no reason to believe that the 7DII product positioning will change compared to that of the current 7D.

There is one reason: At  the time of the original 7d there was the aps-h 1d4 with more reach than a ff, now there isn't. If Canon also wants to target the former 1d4 customers they could go for more quality & more $$$.

To put it another way: if the 7DII is the 1DIV successor, what will be the 7D successor? This is a rhetorical question 8).

I'll answer it anyway :-p ... a successor of the 7d1 is the 70d with about the same af system and some gimmicks, just as they split up the 5d2 into a higher end successor (5d3) and a reduced cost version (6d).
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: whothafunk on July 23, 2013, 11:09:47 AM
although I am quite satisfied with what Canon did with the 70D (the sensor and ISO remains to be seen), I still think it's too much crippled to be a true 7D successor.

70D doesn't have 100% VF, 1x magnification, 3x custom func, less FPS, AF spot and selection missing, CF card, mag.alloy and same weather sealing, joystick,..

swivel touchscreen, Wi-Fi and faster AF in live view arent real compensations for all that in my book.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Hardproducer on July 24, 2013, 07:18:01 AM
If the 70D is ready for shipment by September, I can't imagine a lot of 7D's will be sold thereafter.

I will wait till 7dmk2 is released before buying anything. So i can first compare before making my choice.
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: thebowtie on July 24, 2013, 09:41:00 AM
Seriously, I think we are saying the same thing. 5DIII targeted to a professional market to fit a specific need. D800
targeted to...whom? I've never been sure.
I think the D800 is targeted at trolls  ;)
Title: Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
Post by: Krob78 on July 24, 2013, 10:59:05 AM
I disagree here...

I disagree that you disagree. :)

Seriously, I think we are saying the same thing. 5DIII targeted to a professional market to fit a specific need. D800 targeted to...whom? I've never been sure.

The 5DIII may be $500 more camera, but that's because it has features that make it worth that to a specific market.

Agreed  ;)

I think the 7Dii will follow the same path. Many sports 'pros' use the 7D as a much more affordable 1D -whatever. My guess is the next one will be basically an APS-c 1Dx.
Quote
My guess is the next one will be basically an APS-c 1Dx.
How great would that be??  A brand new Canon 7Dx!  I think I'll preorder mine tonight! 8)