Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

[Krob78]

I'll be rushing out immediately to pick up a new 7D MK II.  What all the hub-bub is about regarding the original 7D is that the complete lack of any high ISO usage, renders images useless and totally unusable for any purpose, as this sample taken at ISO 3200 on my original 7D, clearly shows...  7D MK II please get here soon! 

EOS 7D
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6mm L IS USM
1/1000 sec
F/6.3
ISO 3200
400mm

Good photo (love the colors), but I would say there are some issues with it that are definitely due to the camera and lens combination. There is also no embedded metadata, so there really isn't any way for any of us to verify that it really was shot at ISO 3200.

I've taken a lot of bird photos at ISO 3200 on the 7D (mostly with the 100-400mm lens), and the noise is usually a lot worse than that. Assuming you have not applied any NR, there is definitely a loss of fidelity. There is also a loss of detail. The 100-400mm lens imposes increased softness at f/6.3, and even more at f/5.6...usually, f/7.1 is the sharpest aperture (as f/8 is beyond the DLA of the 7D sensor and just barely a touch softer).  Having used both the 100-400 as well as the 300 & 500 Mark II lenses on my 7D recently, I can attest to the fact that at that magnification/crop, even at ISO 3200, the lens is definitely costing you some sharpness and detail definition there...even though they are noisy, a shot taken the 300 or 500 w/ 1.4x TC at f/6.3 usually has much sharper detail.

I'd also point out that the full-size download shows a fair amount of posterization in the background, which is another one of the issues you encounter when using higher ISO settings with small pixels. Gain is so high for such a low full well capacity that you get a lot more quantization error than with something like the 5D III or 1D X and their significantly higher full well capacities.

Thank you.  In the interest of keeping things above board, I've re-uploaded the file with the metadata embedded as you desired sir! 

I agree that there is certainly some posteriztion in the background and it is certainly far from perfect, I would edit exposure and some other things as well.  That being said, it is not a crop, it's the actual size of that particular image.  I have other bird and wildlife images at high iso's with my 7d as well and some that are really quite usable.  Most with my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.  It is much more challenging with the 100-400 as you pointed out. 

I'm certainly not cheering the 7D and it's high ISO capabilities, just that for all the complaints about it, decent, usable images can be had at what is considered a high iso for that camera.  My complaint with it is with regard to high iso and portrait work, there it has given me some challenges...

I love my 7d, I love my 5D MK III even more, not at first though... I will be a candidate for the 7D MK II, most likely within the year after it is available...  My 7D will be passed down or sold sometime in that future... I must say, it's served me well for the over 50,000 images I've taken with it so far! 

[East Wind Photography]

You can also "help" the 7D noise at high ISO by overexposing and pulling it back down in post...try to get as much noise as possible down into the lower DR.  Easier to process out as well.  I never got anything like this at ISO 3200 but considering it's full frame and formatted for the web.  It is quite good.

I'll be rushing out immediately to pick up a new 7D MK II.  What all the hub-bub is about regarding the original 7D is that the complete lack of any high ISO usage, renders images useless and totally unusable for any purpose, as this sample taken at ISO 3200 on my original 7D, clearly shows...  7D MK II please get here soon! 

EOS 7D
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6mm L IS USM
1/1000 sec
F/6.3
ISO 3200
400mm

Good photo (love the colors), but I would say there are some issues with it that are definitely due to the camera and lens combination. There is also no embedded metadata, so there really isn't any way for any of us to verify that it really was shot at ISO 3200.

I've taken a lot of bird photos at ISO 3200 on the 7D (mostly with the 100-400mm lens), and the noise is usually a lot worse than that. Assuming you have not applied any NR, there is definitely a loss of fidelity. There is also a loss of detail. The 100-400mm lens imposes increased softness at f/6.3, and even more at f/5.6...usually, f/7.1 is the sharpest aperture (as f/8 is beyond the DLA of the 7D sensor and just barely a touch softer).  Having used both the 100-400 as well as the 300 & 500 Mark II lenses on my 7D recently, I can attest to the fact that at that magnification/crop, even at ISO 3200, the lens is definitely costing you some sharpness and detail definition there...even though they are noisy, a shot taken the 300 or 500 w/ 1.4x TC at f/6.3 usually has much sharper detail.

I'd also point out that the full-size download shows a fair amount of posterization in the background, which is another one of the issues you encounter when using higher ISO settings with small pixels. Gain is so high for such a low full well capacity that you get a lot more quantization error than with something like the 5D III or 1D X and their significantly higher full well capacities.

Thank you.  In the interest of keeping things above board, I've re-uploaded the file with the metadata embedded as you desired sir! 

I agree that there is certainly some posteriztion in the background and it is certainly far from perfect, I would edit exposure and some other things as well.  That being said, it is not a crop, it's the actual size of that particular image.  I have other bird and wildlife images at high iso's with my 7d as well and some that are really quite usable.  Most with my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.  It is much more challenging with the 100-400 as you pointed out. 

I'm certainly not cheering the 7D and it's high ISO capabilities, just that for all the complaints about it, decent, usable images can be had at what is considered a high iso for that camera.  My complaint with it is with regard to high iso and portrait work, there it has given me some challenges...

I love my 7d, I love my 5D MK III even more, not at first though... I will be a candidate for the 7D MK II, most likely within the year after it is available...  My 7D will be passed down or sold sometime in that future... I must say, it's served me well for the over 50,000 images I've taken with it so far!

[Rienzphotoz]

I'm certainly not cheering the 7D and it's high ISO capabilities, just that for all the complaints about it, decent, usable images can be had at what is considered a high iso for that camera.  My complaint with it is with regard to high iso and portrait work, there it has given me some challenges...

I agree. I liked your photo,  I think there is nothing wrong in that photo that a decent PP could not fix ... I would desaturate the background a bit so the bird would stand out more. But just curious about your comment on high ISO and portrait work ... why would you do portrait work in high ISO, any decent portrait work is usually (if not always) done in good light or studio lighting etc ... I thought most photographers consider it a sacrilege to use high ISO for portrait work.

I will be a candidate for the 7D MK II, most likely within the year after it is available... 

I'll get it when there is a good rebate ... maybe Christmas time

[jimmy kamballur]

Specification list
http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2013/03/7d-mark-ii-will-have-32mp-sensor.html

[RS2021]

Specification list
http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2013/03/7d-mark-ii-will-have-32mp-sensor.html

Bwahahahahahaha! 32 MP ....thanks for starting my saturday right with a laugh   

[westcoaster]

With all the sensor upgrades and talk of faster autofocus (different battery for that purpose), silly question - Do you think this will crack the restriction on using 2X teleconverters on f4 lenses? I always understood the smaller sensor and inability to autofocus to be the reason for Canon not officially sanctioning the use of 2x on anything smaller than f2.8 on cropped sensors.  You have to think these advancements could pave the way to cracking the 2X teleconverter. Thoughts? I would love to use a 2X on some of the bigger telephotos.

[jrista]

With all the sensor upgrades and talk of faster autofocus (different battery for that purpose), silly question - Do you think this will crack the restriction on using 2X teleconverters on f4 lenses? I always understood the smaller sensor and inability to autofocus to be the reason for Canon not officially sanctioning the use of 2x on anything smaller than f2.8 on cropped sensors.  You have to think these advancements could pave the way to cracking the 2X teleconverter. Thoughts? I would love to use a 2X on some of the bigger telephotos.

Most of the time, AF is limited to at least f/5.6 max apertures or wider. The ability to AF at f/8 max aperture (i.e. f/4 w/ 2x TC, f/5.6 w/ 1.4x TC) is really determined by the capabilities of the dedicated AF unit, not the size of the image sensor. The image sensor does not handle AF in a DSLR...a special AF sensor housed in the AF unit underneath the mirror box handles Phase Detection AF.

Historically, the 1D line of cameras has had AF sensors with DEDICATED f/8 sensitive strips, along with AF drive firmware in the body to actually handle the instructions to the lens to AF when the maximum aperture is f/8. Special care has to be taken when performing AF in such low light...it has to be done more slowly to allow enough light to reach the AF sensor such that an accurate read can be taken and the appropriate phase shift detected.

If all of Canon's new pro/semi-pro bodies (xD lines) get either the 61pt AF system, or AF systems that support very low light (i.e. -3 EV in the 6D), then f/8 AF should be possible. Since the 7D II is rumored to be getting the 61pt AF system, it sounds like it will also be inheriting that AF unit's f/8 AF ability and the necessary firmware (and power requirements).

[bdunbar79]

Specification list
http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2013/03/7d-mark-ii-will-have-32mp-sensor.html

Bwahahahahahaha! 32 MP ....thanks for starting my saturday right with a laugh   

I spit up some coffee.  This is great, I haven't been watching any funny movies lately.  Thanks I needed that.

[ooF Fighters]

Maybe this has already been wished for, but how about a built in radio trigger so I wont have to spend north of $800 bucks just to use the new 600 flash off camera?

[mb66energy]

Specification list
http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2013/03/7d-mark-ii-will-have-32mp-sensor.html

Bwahahahahahaha! 32 MP ....thanks for starting my saturday right with a laugh   

I spit up some coffee.  This is great, I haven't been watching any funny movies lately.  Thanks I needed that.

36 or 40 MP would be good news and a raw mode which bins the pixels into 18/20 + 9/10 MP to get rid of the patterns of monochromatic light sources. With a back side illuminated sensor the net photosensor size would be the same as that of a lower MP sensor giving you the freedom to choose between different resolutions, high ISO modes and a mode which avoids demosaicing completely.

[nicku]

Specification list
http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2013/03/7d-mark-ii-will-have-32mp-sensor.html

 ha ha haaa... 

the Perfect 7D2 ( as a 1Dx backup) will have 16MP sensor and ISO quality on pair with 5Dmk2.... move 70D little bit up in the canon line (build quality like 50D) and fit it with  a 24MP sensor.

I believe this will be the best move from Canon.... definitely will pun some serious pressure on Nikon regarding crop frame - high end cameras..

[jrista]

Specification list
http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2013/03/7d-mark-ii-will-have-32mp-sensor.html

 ha ha haaa... 

the Perfect 7D2 ( as a 1Dx backup) will have 16MP sensor and ISO quality on pair with 5Dmk2.... move 70D little bit up in the canon line (build quality like 50D) and fit it with  a 24MP sensor.

I believe this will be the best move from Canon.... definitely will pun some serious pressure on Nikon regarding crop frame - high end cameras..

I'd disagree that a lower resolution 7D II would be better. ISO performance can be improved in other ways besides larger photodiode area these days. Only when we hit the maximum achievable Q.E. will we have no other option but to use larger photodiodes. Reach is the key benefit of the 7D line...and reach has to do with pixel density, not sensor size. A 24.1mp APS-C 7D II would bring in the buyers more than anything else, as that is what the 7D line is all about...reach with sports-level performance.

[rs]

I'd disagree that a lower resolution 7D II would be better. ISO performance can be improved in other ways besides larger photodiode area these days. Only when we hit the maximum achievable Q.E. will we have no other option but to use larger photodiodes. Reach is the key benefit of the 7D line...and reach has to do with pixel density, not sensor size. A 24.1mp APS-C 7D II would bring in the buyers more than anything else, as that is what the 7D line is all about...reach with sports-level performance.

The 7D is also famed for its frame rate and buffer depth. If the MP is kept in check, there's no reason why Canon can't push the boundaries and make that small mirror and shutter move much faster in the mk II. But if they increase it to 24 MP, it's likely to remain at about 8 FPS.

[jrista]

I'd disagree that a lower resolution 7D II would be better. ISO performance can be improved in other ways besides larger photodiode area these days. Only when we hit the maximum achievable Q.E. will we have no other option but to use larger photodiodes. Reach is the key benefit of the 7D line...and reach has to do with pixel density, not sensor size. A 24.1mp APS-C 7D II would bring in the buyers more than anything else, as that is what the 7D line is all about...reach with sports-level performance.

The 7D is also famed for its frame rate and buffer depth. If the MP is kept in check, there's no reason why Canon can't push the boundaries and make that small mirror and shutter move much faster in the mk II. But if they increase it to 24 MP, it's likely to remain at about 8 FPS.

Well, I just ran these calculations the other day. People have gravely miscalculated the data throughput rate of the 1D X at 144-165mb/s per DIGIC 5+ chip. Most of the calculations involve an 18mp image size, and do not account for metadata or other overhead. Additionally, not all throughput calculations people do factor in the 14fps frame rate of the 1D X (which it can do with mirror lockup.) The "real" pixel count of the 1D X is 19.3mp, as Canon masks off a border of pixels for calibration purposes, and those pixels ARE included in the RAW image when it is saved to the CF card. Accounting for a higher "real" RAW image pixel count, 14fps frame rate, and a buffer for any overhead:

Code: [Select]

19,300,000pixels * 14bit / 8bit/byte * 14fps = 473mb/s
Assuming there is some overhead, and the need for a little bit of leeway for metadata for each image, and the need to account for performing compression and the like, I'd say the total throughput of the 1D X is at least 500mb/s. That is 250mb/s per DIGIC 5+ dsp chip. Now, if we run a similar calculation for the 7D II assuming a 24.1mp image size, and a similar 7% additional pixels for the masked border pixels, we have a "real" 7D II pixel count of 25.8mp (25,787,000 pixels). Running the same calculation, only for 10fps instead of 14fps:

Code: [Select]

25,787,000 pixels * 14bit / 8bit/byte * 10fps = 452mb/s
Even with a considerably higher pixel count, the 7D II with a pair of DIGIC 5+ processors should be able to handle 10fps no problem. That would actually be a LOWER data throughput rate than the 1D X at 14fps! We can run the numbers for 11fps, too:

Code: [Select]

25,787,000 pixels * 14bit / 8bit/byte * 11fps = 497mb/s
Even at 11fps, we are still below the 500mb/s total that would be allowed if each DIGIC 5+ chip could process at a throughput rate of 250mb/s (which, to me, seems like a more plausible throughput rate than 165mb/s that you get at 18mp and 12fps). If you factor in the facts that the DIGIC 5+ processors have to not only perform ADC on the incoming sensor pixel data, but also compress and write the output pixels to the memory cards, the raw I/O throughput rate of these chips has to be very high.

I see no reason the 7D II couldn't have both a higher pixel count AND the additional 2fps bonus over the 7D I. The math certainly adds up...

[rs]

Additionally, not all throughput calculations people do factor in the 14fps frame rate of the 1D X (which it can do with mirror lockup.)

At 14 FPS, its not just a lack of mirror movement and AF, but RAW is off the menu too - read page 113 of the 1D X manual if you want to check up on it.

It all depends on whether Canon want to make it fast or really fast. In reality, the small mirror could move faster than the 12 FPS full sized mirror in the 1D X does, but something tells me they won't do that for marketing purposes. 12 FPS and a very healthy sized buffer wouldn't be out of the question if the MP is kept down.

Admittedly, your calculations resized to 12 FPS for the 1D X in RAW mode make a 24MP camera with the same processing power capable of 9 FPS, which is a slight improvement over the current 7D.