Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

[jrista]

Once you are below the DLA of the lower-resolution sensor, you won't get any more "resolution", however the detail resolved should still look better on the higher resolution sensor, as it will be more finely delinted. Beyond the DLA, you experience diminishing returns...that means things could still look better, however as you approach the minimum aperture of the lens, the improvements of the higher resolution sensor over the lower resolution sensor will diminish (not disappear, just diminish).

All of the current APS-C sensors are diffraction-limited by f/8, however diffraction is still so low at that point that it rarely matters unless you really need to resolve something with obscenely fine detail (i.e. you want to resolve the individual barbules on each barb of a birds feathers at a distance of a few feet...you are going to need something closer to a PERFECT f/4 or wider lens along with the highest resolution sensor you can possibly get your hands on...24.1mp would be pretty excellent in that situation.)

I'm still not quite convinced. So I took a image with a 7D and a 50 mm 1.8 II, aperture 11. I scaled it down to 13.5 Mpixel and up again to 18 Mpixel. Then I compared it to the original image. Even with pixelpeeping I can't recognize that the original has better image quality.

Your test strategy is fundamentally flawed, though. The proper test would be to take a photo with the 7D @ 18mp, and with something with a lower-resolution sensor in the same form factor (such as a 450D or 500D, which have 12.2mp and 15.1mp APS-C sensors respectively.) Comparing the 7D sample to the other camera, at both 100% crop and on a scale-normal basis, should clearly demonstrate the superiority of the 7D. However, that would still be insufficient unless you use an appropriate lens.

The 50/1.8 II is a decent lens, but by no means a perfect lens even by past standards. The MTF chart for that lens actually indicates its IQ is only in the "so-so" department for the high resolution sensors of today. You really need the majority of the MTF above the 0.8 mark to be "good", and great lenses relative to todays high density APS-C sensors need to be above the 0.9 mark to be "excellent". Anything less, and a sensor like the 7D will definitely show the weakness of the lens (something I struggle with every day...the 7D outresolves even my 100-400mm L by a fair amount...only the new Mark II primes and a couple of the zooms outresolve the 7D, but when they do, WOW do they bring out the most in that camera!) Even my 50 f/1.4 USM is incapable of resolving anywhere near enough detail for the 7D...pretty much every shot is somewhat soft, even at the optimal aperture with the best AFMA setting.

The 7D is already a very high resolution sensor, so to actually realize the benefit of having a high resolution sensor, you would need to perform that test with a better lens. Something along the lines of the new 24-70 L II, which has a phenomenal MTF, should be capable of outresolving the 7D, which would allow you to set the aperture to the DLA of the 7D on both cameras, and compare the results. I'd bet good money the 7D would definitely produce far better results than the 450D/500D if you used a higher quality lens, at pretty much any aperture below f/22. By f/22, diffraction would probably diminish the benefits of the 7D's superior resolution by such a degree that you wouldn't see any measurable difference on a normalized basis.

[Sporgon]

@Don Haines - so this would suggest the 6D is half plastic to further define it from the 5D, in the way the 60D was plastic to further separate it from 7D.

The 7D is actually quite a unique camera - it sits above any other APS in terms of it's professional intent. It wouldn't surprise me if the new 7D moves even further up the 'pro' ladder in the way the  5D Mkiii has. If so you can kiss good bye to the pop up flash. On CR there has been suggestion the new 70D will return to the mag alloy body. This would fit will the new 7D moving up. Unfortunately that would inevitably mean a price hike.

[RGomezPhotos]

Wow!  18 Pages of this discussion!  You know these specs are want people want or hate!   

[Don Haines]

@Don Haines - so this would suggest the 6D is half plastic to further define it from the 5D, in the way the 60D was plastic to further separate it from 7D.

The 7D is actually quite a unique camera - it sits above any other APS in terms of it's professional intent. It wouldn't surprise me if the new 7D moves even further up the 'pro' ladder in the way the  5D Mkiii has. If so you can kiss good bye to the pop up flash. On CR there has been suggestion the new 70D will return to the mag alloy body. This would fit will the new 7D moving up. Unfortunately that would inevitably mean a price hike.

I think it's cheaper to make it out of plastic, but not significantly so. From a marketing perspective, saying model X has a metal body does differentiate it to the consumer and regardless of the relative benefits of plastic or magnesium, metal is perceived as better so the consumer will pay more.

Another way of looking at it might be "if for an extra $10 we give it a metal body that's as strong or as light as the plastic body the consumer will pay an extra $100 for it". You could perceive this as the buyers of high end cameras getting ripped off

[Marsu42]

CanonRumors is the best place, really. Anything with a CR2 is pretty good information.

Are we reading the same site :-p ? Imho the CR forum is nice because a lot of knowledgeable photogs are around, but CR0 is a joke, CR1 is "your guess is as good as mine", CR2 is "that doesn't sound *that* improbable" and CR3 is "I've been told about tomorrow's press release" ...

... Canon is simply very secretive and doesn't leak anything, and except for some posts of beta testers there is no telling what will be next - as a rule of thumb if something appears to make sense from an enthusuast's perspective it most likely isn't what Canon will do.

[thepancakeman]

I don't have anything new to add, but rumor has it (haha!) that Canon is not entirely oblivious to items on this website.  So with that being said, I'll throw my hat in the ring. 

It's simple for me: if it has better low and high ISO performance than my current 7D, I'll buy it.  If it does not, I won't.

[jrista]

CanonRumors is the best place, really. Anything with a CR2 is pretty good information.

Are we reading the same site :-p ? Imho the CR forum is nice because a lot of knowledgeable photogs are around, but CR0 is a joke, CR1 is "your guess is as good as mine", CR2 is "that doesn't sound *that* improbable" and CR3 is "I've been told about tomorrow's press release" ...

... Canon is simply very secretive and doesn't leak anything, and except for some posts of beta testers there is no telling what will be next - as a rule of thumb if something appears to make sense from an enthusuast's perspective it most likely isn't what Canon will do.

I'm not talking about the forums....its pretty chaotic in here. I mean CanonRumors the site. I've only seen ONE instance since I've read this site where a CR3 did not come true, and even then, only the date was wrong, everything else was right. When the CR2's start coming, they are usually the "most accurate thing you'll find". Also, CR2 has a certain connotation to it...they come from KNOWN CR sources who have been known to provide good information in the past. That is certainly better than "it doesn't sound *THAT* improbable", but also certainly not as good as "I think this is about as close to fact as your going to get until the darn thing hits the shelves." I am not saying they are 100% accurate, they are still just rumors after all...just that of all the sources of information about Canon gear on the net, I don't think there is a better place than CanonRumors. (And that was, after all, the question. )

If you want the best information available, CR (the site, not necessarily the forum) is pretty much the place. Until a product is actually released, there really are no "facts".

[CanNotYet]

The build quality would definitely suffer if built that way. Having fragile parts that are not protected does not sound like something I'd personally want as it somewhat makes the durable body pointless. External transmitters are for that kind of purposes and if they break, you don't necessarily need to get your camera body fixed.

Well, if they can make mobile phones shock proof with WiFi and 3/4G antennas in a much smaller body, it should be definately possible in the brick that is a 7D(2).

How hard can it be?

[Marsu42]

If you want the best information available, CR (the site, not necessarily the forum) is pretty much the place.

Ok, I can subscribe to that view :-)

I don't have anything new to add, but rumor has it (haha!) that Canon is not entirely oblivious to items on this website.

Where did you get this rumor from - CR :-> ? I think the decisive Canon people are in Japan and a small circle of execs (like the CEO in a recent interview) and maybe some tech people, and I would be very surprised if any information from places like this would reach them - most likely they rely on their internal marketing studies and some direct feedback from cps professionals and beta testers.

[DanielW]

Where did you get this rumor from - CR :-> ? I think the decisive Canon people are in Japan and a small circle of execs (like the CEO in a recent interview) and maybe some tech people, and I would be very surprised if any information from places like this would reach them - most likely they rely on their internal marketing studies and some direct feedback from cps professionals and beta testers.

How harmful would it be for them to pay a small team of photo nerds to surf the web all day and find out what buyers want?
(Heck, I'd do it for free if they let me try some prototypes every now and then.)

[Lee Jay]

This camera would have a pixel density equal to a 61mp full frame camera, that is far beyond the resolving power of most lenses.

Grrrrr....would people quit saying entirely wrong stuff like that please?  First of all resolving power doesn't work like that.  Second, even if it did the better lenses can already resolve up into the many hundreds of megapixels on full frame.

Yes, but diffraction softness at this pixel density starts to become a problem, get up to f/5.6 or higher and you start loosing sharpness.

Diffraction is the most misunderstood concept in photography.

Oh, I don't know, DOF is up there pretty good too!

The notion that diffraction is ever a "problem" is just flat out wrong.

Diffraction is always a factor in resolving power.  When I'm shooting planetary photography, diffraction tends to be the driving factor, and it most certainly is a problem.  I wouldn't have just upgraded from a 5" to an 11" scope if it weren't!

Just because diffraction starts earlier with smaller pixels does NOT mean you are resolving less detail.

"Just because diffraction starts earlier with smaller pixels does NOT mean you are resolving less detail."

I just thought that was important enough for a repeat.

I really have to emphasize this: In no way, ever, can diffraction produce worse results on a higher resolution sensor than a lower resolution sensor. EVER.

That one as well:

"I really have to emphasize this: In no way, ever, can diffraction produce worse results on a higher resolution sensor than a lower resolution sensor. EVER."

[unfocused]

Where did you get this rumor from - CR :-> ? I think the decisive Canon people are in Japan and a small circle of execs (like the CEO in a recent interview) and maybe some tech people, and I would be very surprised if any information from places like this would reach them - most likely they rely on their internal marketing studies and some direct feedback from cps professionals and beta testers.

How harmful would it be for them to pay a small team of photo nerds to surf the web all day and find out what buyers want?
(Heck, I'd do it for free if they let me try some prototypes every now and then.)

Very harmful.

The data would not be simply useless, it would be misleading garbage.

Market research is a science. Canon has decades of hard data based on its sales figures. In addition, everyone who fills out a warranty card goes into a data base that Canon can mine for additional information. They scour competitors annual reports and sales figures, just as the competitors scour theirs.

The data is supplemented with surveys that adhere to strict standards to assure that they are polling a representative sample of customers. Those surveys are no doubt conducted on every continent to study trends in each region. They also likely use focus groups of key customer subsets to flesh out the data. They use field testers to try products out in the real world and give them feedback.

A basic rule of any polling is that you never, never use subjects that self-select. They are notoriously unreliable and not representative of the larger universe. Just one tiny example shows how fruitless it would be: there is zero ability to match up the data on this website with actual buying patterns. There is nothing that could assure Canon that the whining, trolling and fantasizing that goes on on internet forums has any relationship whatsoever to sales.

At most, they may employ robots to search the internet for key words and associations. The best you can hope for, is that if Canon finds a spike in the internet on some word string, like: "5DIII, Weak Focus, Low Light " they might investigate it further to see if there is a trend or problem developing.

But, it is crazy to think Canon or any other manufacturer is going to waste valuable resources trolling internet forums.

[Marsu42]

How harmful would it be for them to pay a small team of photo nerds to surf the web all day and find out what buyers want?

Because people posting in forums are not necessarily buyers, or at least there is hardly any connection between internet opinion and sales, the latest example is the underwhelming but popular 6d.

What happens if you ask buyers about what they want you can as well file for bankruptcy right away like when Homer's brother let him design a car: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Homer

[Plamen]

I really have to emphasize this: In no way, ever, can diffraction produce worse results on a higher resolution sensor than a lower resolution sensor. EVER.

That one as well:

"I really have to emphasize this: In no way, ever, can diffraction produce worse results on a higher resolution sensor than a lower resolution sensor. EVER."

Right. I do not know why this obsession with diffraction and not with lens aberrations, for example. The resolution of a system depends on several factors, and if you improve one of them, you improve the final image. At what point you get "diminished returns" is a philosophical question.

[Radiating]

Just an FYI regarding all this talk of too much resolution.

Tests have shown that even the best APS-C lenses are limited to around 20 megapixels of resolution, regardless though there are some benefits to more pixels, namely:

Better de-mosaicing, ideally each pixel in a photo should have 4 pixels behind it (1 red 2 green and 1 blue) as current photos are done with false color and the bayer pattern naturally limits resolution to around 90% of what it should be.

Less interference from anti-aliasing filters, this is actually a huge deal and can increase lens resolution by 20%.

Better color gradiation and tones.

The disadvantage to more resolution is bigger file sizes (less of an issue with S_RAW (which Nikon inexplicably doesn't have).

24 Megapixels is the perfect resolution for an APS-C camera and 28 megapixels is the perfect resolution for a full frame camera with current lens designs.