August 21, 2014, 10:36:35 PM

Author Topic: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]  (Read 41302 times)

bardamu

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #45 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?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2013, 06:49:44 PM »

justsomedude

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
  • Canon 5D3 and 6D
    • View Profile
    • AK Photo - Denver Photographer
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #46 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

bardamu

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #47 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.

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3939
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #48 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

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.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2175
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #49 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.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

hmmm

  • Guest
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #50 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.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 07:40:21 PM by hmmm »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3939
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #51 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!
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2013, 07:40:33 PM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2175
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #52 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

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.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #53 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.
The best camera is the one in your hands

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3939
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #54 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.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

northbyten

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #55 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 ^_^

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3859
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/browse
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #56 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
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

IceAgeDX

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #57 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2013, 08:59:21 PM »

pj1974

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
    • A selection of my photos (copyright)
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #58 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 trump 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   
I'm not a brand-fanatic. What I do appreciate is using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #59 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??
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2013, 11:13:31 PM »