July 19, 2018, 01:43:38 PM

Author Topic: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]  (Read 128571 times)

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3242
    • Flickr
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #195 on: October 30, 2013, 03:00:05 AM »
To me a 7D would be a bird/wildlife backup camera to the 1DX. The most important thing for me, compared to what the current 7D provides, in order of priority:
1: AF. If it gets the 5DIII AF system, it will be a massive improvement.
2: High ISO performance. If it gets to 5DIII standard, I´ll be very happy
3: Dynamic range. I would love to see the DR number grow by at least 1.
4: Resolution. Provided I can get the above, I would want as much as possible. But I would not trade Noise/DR performance for more resolution.
5: fps. 8 is OK, 10 would make me happy
6: A good silent shutter mode, similar to or better than 5DIII. The 1DX machine gun can scare off grizzlies.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #195 on: October 30, 2013, 03:00:05 AM »

renegade54

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #196 on: October 30, 2013, 04:13:29 AM »
I am not a physicist, nor do I pretend to comprehend most of what some you fine folks say in that and other highly technologically advanced areas with respect to cameras.  Those of you that debate these matters truly amaze me.  Truly impressive depth of knowledge here, and I mean that sincerely.

That said, as a consumer of Canon products and basically an amateur enthusiast who just wants to get better and better at photography so I can take great photos in virtually all conditions, I cannot fathom why Canon would make a product such as the 7d2 "better" than the 1DX.  I am not taking about "better value" mind you, I mean to say "better" period.  To my logic, if Canon could do that, they would be doing it and THAT would be their flagship Professional camera body.  But there are many people that I have heard / read both here and elsewhere who not only claim that the 7d2 is going to be the APS-C version of a 1DX producing similar images to the 5d3 but that it will cost $4,000 - $5,000 LESS than a 1DX and $1500 less than a 5d3.

Why on earth would Canon do this?  The 7d2 will probably be a great camera (it better be) but if buying one eliminates the need for Pro level photographers and enthusiasts to have to buy any FF camera whatsoever then Canon would be committing business suicide.  I can list a few reasons as to why they might do this, but NONE of them make logical sense from a business perspective. 

I think the 7d2 will be an awesome camera, and it will probably be the perfect marriage to pro shooters or advanced enthusiasts currently using one of the 5 series or 1 series FF bodies.  But "replace" those FF cameras it will not.

I think part of what may be missing from your equation is that it's virtually impossible to make crop sensor IQ as good as full frame. Maybe if you compare the 70D with the 1Ds you would get a better shot off the crop camera, but anything produced within a similar time frame is going to be drastically different. Full Frame is significantly better. No one looking for the best images overall is going to get the crop camera, unless they would be cropping anyway.
Even if the 7D2 matches the 1Dx in every aspect but IQ, people will still want the 1Dx. As mentioned, it would also indicate the impending release of a significantly better full frame sensor.
There might be a handful of wildlife shooters willing to pay 1Dx prices for a pro-level crop camera, but that market is probably around two dozen people. The number of people who can't afford a 1Dx and would love to give up some IQ for the same features in a less expensive package are, well, look at the popularity of the original 7D.

Thank you for your reply, and I agree 100% with what you stated.  Despite the logic of your statement I am still hearing in this forum as well as all over the fruited plain that the 7d2 is going to be "better" than a 1DX, or have the same IQ as a 5d3.  Now while I am certain the more technical versed CR members could give me NUMEROUS examples of how the 7d2 may (upon actual release and having photos to view of course) can produced images comparable to the 5d3 in certain circumstances; but that would not translate to the 7d2 being so much as = the 1DX let alone "better" than it.  It might be close, and of course it will have it's place as several other posters mentioned.  Nonetheless, these iterations of cameras are still too close to each other (in respective ages) for a lower tiered body to suddenly overtake one much less TWO of his bigger, in every sense of the word, brothers. 


neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22829
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #197 on: October 30, 2013, 06:29:42 AM »
Despite the logic of your statement I am still hearing in this forum as well as all over the fruited plain that the 7d2 is going to be "better" than a 1DX, or have the same IQ as a 5d3. 

This is the Internet, where you can find 'evidence' that humans are descended from extraterrestrials and 'proof' of the existence of unicorns that poop rainbows.  Just sayin'.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Chosenbydestiny

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 244
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #198 on: October 30, 2013, 07:04:57 AM »
Despite the logic of your statement I am still hearing in this forum as well as all over the fruited plain that the 7d2 is going to be "better" than a 1DX, or have the same IQ as a 5d3. 

This is the Internet, where you can find 'evidence' that humans are descended from extraterrestrials and 'proof' of the existence of unicorns that poop rainbows.  Just sayin'.


+1 Thanks to DXO the internet, the quality of information is at an all time low =P
Nikon electric fan, gas stove, and slippers. Canon Elan 7, 1D Mark III, 5D mark III, and 2x6D. Canon 24mm Samyang/Rokinon, 85L, 135L, and many other lenses. 2x Canon 580ex II, third party speedlites, studio strobes

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4206
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #199 on: October 30, 2013, 01:58:04 PM »
Okay, since I've been soundly mocked for suggesting a 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance for a 7DII, I'm a bit stunned.

Is it the consensus of the techies on this forum that is truly impossible for any manufacturer to produce an APS-C sensor in which the noise level at 1,200 ISO is comparable to 400 ISO (a 1.5 stop improvement)? Or, for that matter, that ISO 800 could look as good as ISO 400 (a one stop improvement)?

That doesn't seem like an unrealistic expectation, but apparently it is.

If that is truly the case, then I have to wonder what is the point of any future upgrades? Yes, I understand there is more to a camera than the sensor and even with sensors there is the whole quagmire of dynamic range that I'd rather not get into. But, given some of the real world and highly impressive images I've seen on this forum and elsewhere shot with the 5DIII at, what for me as a former film shooter, are remarkable ISOs (3200, 6400 etc.) it just doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the 7DII to boost its ISO performance by even one stop.

If we are truly at the physical limits of sensor performance and can never get an additional fstop out of any future sensor, what does that mean for the industry? And, as a side note, given that Canon is poised to jump into the surveillance market in a much bigger way, is this a fool's errand if we have reached the limits of low-light performance?

Krob78

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1444
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #200 on: October 30, 2013, 03:28:30 PM »
Okay, since I've been soundly mocked for suggesting a 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance for a 7DII, I'm a bit stunned.

Is it the consensus of the techies on this forum that is truly impossible for any manufacturer to produce an APS-C sensor in which the noise level at 1,200 ISO is comparable to 400 ISO (a 1.5 stop improvement)? Or, for that matter, that ISO 800 could look as good as ISO 400 (a one stop improvement)?

That doesn't seem like an unrealistic expectation, but apparently it is.

If that is truly the case, then I have to wonder what is the point of any future upgrades? Yes, I understand there is more to a camera than the sensor and even with sensors there is the whole quagmire of dynamic range that I'd rather not get into. But, given some of the real world and highly impressive images I've seen on this forum and elsewhere shot with the 5DIII at, what for me as a former film shooter, are remarkable ISOs (3200, 6400 etc.) it just doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the 7DII to boost its ISO performance by even one stop.

If we are truly at the physical limits of sensor performance and can never get an additional fstop out of any future sensor, what does that mean for the industry? And, as a side note, given that Canon is poised to jump into the surveillance market in a much bigger way, is this a fool's errand if we have reached the limits of low-light performance?


Quantum efficiency (QE) is the fraction of photon flux that contributes to the photocurrent  in  a pixel. Increasing QE improves sensor signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
There are sensors from Sony who has a QE  of 75% and a pixel size of 1,85 micron, Canon best sensor regarding QE is in S100  compakt camera and QE 52%   ,  6D has the best QE among  Canon SLR  with 50%  compared with  Nikon D800 and 56% QE
The read noise from  Canon are 10 times higher  (6D)  up to 14 times higher (1dx) than in Nikon D800 .
Improving an APS sensor with real 1,5-2 stops in terms of signal /noise is a big challenge and can not be done with Canon's existing sensor technology regarding APS and 24x36mm sensors
Quote
Quantum efficiency (QE) is the fraction of photon flux that contributes to the photocurrent  in  a pixel. Increasing QE improves sensor signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
There are sensors from Sony who has a QE  of 75% and a pixel size of 1,85 micron, Canon best sensor regarding QE is in S100  compakt camera and QE 52%   ,  6D has the best QE among  Canon SLR  with 50%  compared with  Nikon D800 and 56% QE
The read noise from  Canon are 10 times higher  (6D)  up to 14 times higher (1dx) than in Nikon D800 .
Improving an APS sensor with real 1,5-2 stops in terms of signal /noise is a big challenge and can not be done with Canon's existing sensor technology regarding APS and 24x36mm sensors
Whew, that's a relief!  So... it's still safe to go out and take photos, no?  ???
Ken

5D MK III, EOS M3, 100-400L II, 11-24L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-70LIS, 17-40L, 16-35 4L, 600 EX-RT, 430EX-RT, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4206
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #201 on: October 30, 2013, 04:00:43 PM »
Quantum efficiency (QE) is the fraction of photon flux that contributes to the photocurrent  in  a pixel. Increasing QE improves sensor signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
There are sensors from Sony who has a QE  of 75% and a pixel size of 1,85 micron, Canon best sensor regarding QE is in S100  compakt camera and QE 52%   ,  6D has the best QE among  Canon SLR  with 50%  compared with  Nikon D800 and 56% QE
The read noise from  Canon are 10 times higher  (6D)  up to 14 times higher (1dx) than in Nikon D800 .
Improving an APS sensor with real 1,5-2 stops in terms of signal /noise is a big challenge and can not be done with Canon's existing sensor technology regarding APS and 24x36mm sensors
Whew, that's a relief!  So... it's still safe to go out and take photos, no?  ???

Just be sure you have a working flux capacitor.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #201 on: October 30, 2013, 04:00:43 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6968
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #202 on: October 30, 2013, 04:57:15 PM »
Quantum efficiency (QE) is the fraction of photon flux that contributes to the photocurrent  in  a pixel. Increasing QE improves sensor signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
There are sensors from Sony who has a QE  of 75% and a pixel size of 1,85 micron, Canon best sensor regarding QE is in S100  compakt camera and QE 52%   ,  6D has the best QE among  Canon SLR  with 50%  compared with  Nikon D800 and 56% QE
The read noise from  Canon are 10 times higher  (6D)  up to 14 times higher (1dx) than in Nikon D800 .
Improving an APS sensor with real 1,5-2 stops in terms of signal /noise is a big challenge and can not be done with Canon's existing sensor technology regarding APS and 24x36mm sensors
Whew, that's a relief!  So... it's still safe to go out and take photos, no?  ???

Just be sure you have a working flux capacitor.
I have a prototype for the new 700EX-RT flash.... it has one.... and the guide number is 1,210,000,000 :)
The best camera is the one in your hands

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #203 on: October 30, 2013, 05:03:27 PM »
I can't help thinking that with declining sales across the board there are too many cameras and too little real innovation in most manufacturers' line-ups. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make the 7D MkII the last conventional DSLR (at least in the APS-C range) and move towards a future without mirrors.

Good grief.  EVFs are years, if not decades away from being usable in high-speed and/or low-light situations, plus we need a good factor of 4 increase in battery performance before we go that way.

Totally agree. I'll never use anything but an OVF for my wildlife and bird photography...unless they somehow do manage to create an EVF with 10,000 ppi, 20 stops DR, and a 60fps refresh rate (something I doubt will happen any time soon...)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #204 on: October 30, 2013, 05:20:49 PM »
I don't want to get stills from video but I also don't know why I should accept poorer frames for video than I do for stills.

...
even with a 50inch 4k display you will hardly see a difference from normal viewing distances.
the human eye is not able to resolve that good.
...

Erm, this is so completely wrong. It entirely depends on your visual acuity. The whole notion of the "average" person having 20/20 vision implies that a certain percentage of people also have better vision (and some much better), and that a similar percentage of people have worse vision (and some much worse). For the people who have worse vision, corrective optics these days EASILY correct vision beyond the 20/20 mark. Personally, I am slightly near sighted, and with my contacts or glasses, I have 20/10 vision, like so many other people with corrective lenses. (At my eye doctors office, they generally purposefully try to find the absolute best correction possible, aiming for the highest visual acuity possible. They see thousands of people a year, so you have to figure that between people with excellent vision, people who are slightly far sighted, and everyone walking around with corrective lenses...the "average" visual acuity is actually higher than 20/20.) 

I currently have a trusty old Samsung 46" 1080p TV, and I can just barely see pixels when sitting from the TV at a "comfortable" distance. The distance is ideal for my room setup, with the TV at the recommended distance from my couch. There is no question that bumping the resolution up to 4k would do wonders for quality. It is just simply not enough to have pixels just on the border of 20/10 visual acuity (which is what's recommended)...you need to have the pixels be much smaller in order for them to NEVER intrude on your experience.

Same thing goes for using higher resolution computer screens. Even sitting an appropriate, comfortable distance from my 30" 2560x1600 screen, which until 4k displays started arriving had one of the smallest desktop pixel pitches, exhibits this slight pixellation effect. I can't exactly see individual pixels, but they are again just on the border of my visual acuity...so they bug me. A 4k 32" display would almost reduce the pixel pitch in half, and do wonders for microcontrast and allow me to see fine detail in my photos as fine detail, rather than fine pixels that contain detail I should be able to see. Furthermore, if you print, you'll know that it is extremely difficult to soft proof a print on a screen that has at least 1/3rd the pixel density of the print. You can never really tell how the detail will turn out in a print. Personally, I'd be ecstatic with a 28" screen that had a 300ppi pixel density. I'd be able to properly soft-proof the majority of my larger prints at a directly comparable resolution.

There is a LOT going for 4k screens, both TVs as well as workstation screens. The human eye absolutely can resolve that well unless you have particularly poor vision or just have average vision and don't use corrective lenses. Same as with sensor pixel densities, however...the actual output resolution of any system is effectively approximated by the RMS of the individual components. Increase the resolution of a screen, and the ultimate resolution of what your mind's eye sees will still improve, even if you have only 20/20 vision.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #205 on: October 30, 2013, 05:22:57 PM »
The new spec looks tempting.  Maybe I should consider selling my current one...

I wouldn't sell until the date they will hit the shelves is known. If Canon's past camera releases are any indication, the actual arrival of any new Canon DSLR is somewhat like the return of Jesus Christ...unknown, unknowable and like a thief in the night. ;)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #206 on: October 30, 2013, 05:28:07 PM »
Okay, since I've been soundly mocked for suggesting a 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance for a 7DII, I'm a bit stunned.

Is it the consensus of the techies on this forum that is truly impossible for any manufacturer to produce an APS-C sensor in which the noise level at 1,200 ISO is comparable to 400 ISO (a 1.5 stop improvement)? Or, for that matter, that ISO 800 could look as good as ISO 400 (a one stop improvement)?

That doesn't seem like an unrealistic expectation, but apparently it is.

If that is truly the case, then I have to wonder what is the point of any future upgrades? Yes, I understand there is more to a camera than the sensor and even with sensors there is the whole quagmire of dynamic range that I'd rather not get into. But, given some of the real world and highly impressive images I've seen on this forum and elsewhere shot with the 5DIII at, what for me as a former film shooter, are remarkable ISOs (3200, 6400 etc.) it just doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the 7DII to boost its ISO performance by even one stop.

If we are truly at the physical limits of sensor performance and can never get an additional fstop out of any future sensor, what does that mean for the industry? And, as a side note, given that Canon is poised to jump into the surveillance market in a much bigger way, is this a fool's errand if we have reached the limits of low-light performance?


Quantum efficiency (QE) is the fraction of photon flux that contributes to the photocurrent  in  a pixel. Increasing QE improves sensor signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
There are sensors from Sony who has a QE  of 75% and a pixel size of 1,85 micron, Canon best sensor regarding QE is in S100  compakt camera and QE 52%   ,  6D has the best QE among  Canon SLR  with 50%  compared with  Nikon D800 and 56% QE
The read noise from  Canon are 10 times higher  (6D)  up to 14 times higher (1dx) than in Nikon D800 .
Improving an APS sensor with real 1,5-2 stops in terms of signal /noise is a big challenge and can not be done with Canon's existing sensor technology regarding APS and 24x36mm sensors

Agreed....to get a visible improvement in high ISO noise performance on an APS-C sensor, Canon is going to have to improve their sensor technology. They will also need to improve their ADC technology as well, though, as a lot of read noise in Canon's current technology actually comes from downstream sources. Those downstream sources seem to cause worse read noise at lower ISO than at higher, but Canon's Q.E. has been improving at a snails pace, and without a significant jump, it is doubtful anyone will see any drastic improvement at higher ISO settings. Given that the 7D II is currently rumored to use a DIGIC 5+, it seems doubtful that Canon has changed any significant aspects of their design...the DIGIC chips currently house their ADCs, so it is most likely that the 7D II will just have two higher stops of even noiser high ISO, rather than an improvement in ISO 3200 by a stop or two.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #207 on: October 30, 2013, 05:43:55 PM »
Doesn't larger FWC allow more DR?  Of course, as I type this I'm thinking about the D800 its DR.  Ah hell, I'm going back to using the green square mode and not thinking about this crap.

Only really at the lowest ISO setting, however to get more usable DR than the best sensors offer today, you would also need to increase bit depth. The best sensors on the market (Exmor) get around 13.2 stops of DR at the lowest ISO setting. You might be able to push that to 13.8 stops and still use 14 bit data, but to get any meaningful increase, you would need to use full 16 bit data.

Full well capacity is really more a function of pixel area than pixel Q.E. Area is the defining factor when it comes to how much charge a pixel can hold. Increasing Q.E. might improve sensitivity, which is the rate at which photons convert to charge, but it doesn't do anything to increase the maximum charge (FWC) a pixel can contain. That is why cameras with larger sensors generally perform better than smaller sensors...they have historically had larger pixels.

It's a trade-off, though. While those larger pixels have less noise, they also reduce spatial resolution. If you have a FF sensor with 8µm pixels and an APS-C sensor with 4µm pixels, the FF sensor will have a higher FWC and therefor less noise, but also half the resolution.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #207 on: October 30, 2013, 05:43:55 PM »

Krob78

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1444
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #208 on: October 30, 2013, 06:16:39 PM »
Sorry all that I replied with facts regarding  improving the  Canon  APS sensor sensitivity
No problem here my friend!  I just wanted to lighten up the tone a bit and keep it real! 

Seriously, there is a lot of interest for this body and it's a great thread!  Thanks for your thoughts and input!  Some of us are learning new, fun facts!  ;D
Ken

5D MK III, EOS M3, 100-400L II, 11-24L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-70LIS, 17-40L, 16-35 4L, 600 EX-RT, 430EX-RT, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4206
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #209 on: October 30, 2013, 06:24:44 PM »
Sorry all that I replied with facts regarding  improving the  Canon  APS sensor sensitivity
No problem here my friend!  I just wanted to lighten up the tone a bit and keep it real! 

Seriously, there is a lot of interest for this body and it's a great thread!  Thanks for your thoughts and input!  Some of us are learning new, fun facts!  ;D

Same here. Sorry if my flippant response seemed insulting. That was not the intent. I know exactly Jack about sensor technology (or most any technology). I was surprised that what I thought was a not unrealistic expectation was so roundly rejected as impossible. On the other hand, maybe that gives some extra life to my 7D.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« Reply #209 on: October 30, 2013, 06:24:44 PM »