First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

[Pieces Of E]

Why the hype? We're all enjoying all the great features and improvments that the highly publicized 7D firmware upgrades did for us, right? Who needs a new 7D? 

[nicku]

Why the hype? We're all enjoying all the great features and improvments that the highly publicized 7D firmware upgrades did for us, right? Who needs a new 7D? 

Many of us... because the ISO performance at base ISO, worse than competition. 7D need a replacement to compete on the market

[Pieces Of E]

Does anyone think the ISO performance in the 7D could have been improved in a firmware update?

[eddiemrg]

Does anyone think the ISO performance in the 7D could have been improved in a firmware update?

With fw 2.0 you mean?

[Krob78]

Does anyone think the ISO performance in the 7D could have been improved in a firmware update?

Do you mean "Could have been improved" like in the past tense, did they do it and not tell us? or "Could have been improved", why the heck didn't they do it? 

If you meant the first way, I'd say definitely not.  Not in mine anyway!  If the second meaning, I say if they could have, they should have!  Sadly, I don't know enough about that part of the technology to know everything they can or can't do in a firmware upgrade... There are plenty of experts here that do know though!  Good question!

[Pieces Of E]

Well, I am assuming everyone updated to 2.0, then got furious when they released 2.0.3, leaving us to wonder what was done in 2.0, then added to 2.0.3. Once the dust settled on that, I personally think the imaging improved, but the ISO noise could have been improved(IMHO). Now with the rumour of a 7D MK2 on the horizon, everyone is complaining about the poor ISO noise of the 7D. So I guess they didn't improve it, even though they could have, right?

[Krob78]

Well, I am assuming everyone updated to 2.0, then got furious when they released 2.0.3, leaving us to wonder what was done in 2.0, then added to 2.0.3. Once the dust settled on that, I personally think the imaging improved, but the ISO noise could have been improved(IMHO). Now with the rumour of a 7D MK2 on the horizon, everyone is complaining about the poor ISO noise of the 7D. So I guess they didn't improve it, even though they could have, right?

Not me, I just waited until 2.03 came out and only loaded the firmware the one time... Too many people seemed to be having issues with 2.0, so I had a bit of trepidation with regard to just jumping on the bandwagon...

[jrista]

HMMM...New ergonomic design? Why? The 7D's, and 5D III which borrowed from it, ergonomics are pretty damn stellar...I really hope Canon doesn't screw up one of the best things they have going for them. I stick with Canon for two primary reasons: Ergonomics and Lens quality. I generally could care less about the rest of the speculation at this point...but ergonomics...Canon just better not screw that one up.

[Lee Jay]

If all that is true, why does the 1Dx have only 18MP and the Nikon D4 only 16MP?

Speed.

[Lee Jay]

Well, I am assuming everyone updated to 2.0, then got furious when they released 2.0.3, leaving us to wonder what was done in 2.0, then added to 2.0.3. Once the dust settled on that, I personally think the imaging improved, but the ISO noise could have been improved(IMHO).

I don't see how firmware would improve high-ISO noise, which is mostly dependent on the quantum efficiency of the sensor and the transmittance of the Bayer dyes.  You might be able to do some calibration tricks and dark-frame subtraction to help with fixed pattern noise, but there's just not much else you could do, other than applying noise reduction to the raw images which we generally don't like.

[K-amps]

I'm not going to get overly excited about CR1 specs from an "unknown source."

Reserve judgment on a sensor until real specs and results are known (probably won't know that until several months after the announcement). Consensus on this forum seems to be that noise and dynamic range improvements are more important than the number of pixels. Absent a major change/breakthrough in sensor design, I would be surprised if Canon ups the pixel count of the APS-C sensor above that of its full frame offerings.

New battery is a mild disappointment, but I assume Canon would make the change because they have to for design/engineering reasons.

Please, let them keep at least one CF card slot in a dual card system.

New ergonomic design is too vague to warrant comment at this point.

All in all, I'm more excited that we are finally getting rumors about a 7DII. At this point, the content of those rumors aren't as important as the fact that there are rumors circulating.

If we look at what people are unhappy about with the 7D, generally it is to do with noise and image sharpness.  I am not aware of anyone being unhappy with the pixel count.  Canon may however need to up the pixel count to 24MP to match Nikon and Sony, rather than to address any real need - i.e. for marketing reasons.  Assuming Canon continues to flow the same sensor down through its APS-C range, that would be a reason to move to 24MP. - In the market for APS-C (and especially entry-level) DSLRs a lot of customers are still comparing "mega-pickles".

Thats it, if it is another 18mp sensor, I am selling all my imaginary CAJ stock....

oh yeah, and moving to Nikon...     

[Pieces Of E]

I don't see how firmware would improve high-ISO noise, which is mostly dependent on the quantum efficiency of the sensor and the transmittance of the Bayer dyes.  You might be able to do some calibration tricks and dark-frame subtraction to help with fixed pattern noise, but there's just not much else you could do, other than applying noise reduction to the raw images which we generally don't like.


Wow. This is why I like to read and ask questions here. I learn a lot. Thanks Lee Jay.

[rpt]

I don't see how firmware would improve high-ISO noise, which is mostly dependent on the quantum efficiency of the sensor and the transmittance of the Bayer dyes.  You might be able to do some calibration tricks and dark-frame subtraction to help with fixed pattern noise, but there's just not much else you could do, other than applying noise reduction to the raw images which we generally don't like.


Wow. This is why I like to read and ask questions here. I learn a lot. Thanks Lee Jay.

In other news - development of software or firmware has nothing to do with the principles of maths/physics/chemistry or computer science... Hence one can expect improvements by leaps and bounds...

[MichaelHodges]

No, it doesn't.  The extra pixels are capable of showing the blur that was already there in more detail.  Reducing the pixel count just hides that blur inside the blur due to poor sampling.

Advanced Diffraction calculator for different sensor types:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

[SJTstudios]

What they could mean about the battery, is that they are changing the voltage. They updated the 1dx battery, even though it was still compatible with the lp-e4. Canon may just want the new battery for longer lasting life, with the 10fps, and a large file, the camera needs power to save the images.

Something else I'd like, is if canon make a new grip for this 7d ii, I hope it is like the Nikon d300 grip, where you add in a different battery for more power. If they do this with the 1dx battery, and allow the fps to go up, or the fps to last longer, sports/wildlife photographers would really go for that.