April 21, 2014, 09:26:22 AM

Author Topic: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]  (Read 18912 times)

CTJohn

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #45 on: December 20, 2013, 10:05:09 AM »
Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)?  With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.

Why not expect the sensor to have 2.56x more surface area?  That would give you the big ISO improvement you're asking about...  A 180nm process might get you part of the way there with a Canon APS-C sensor.  Until then, the great AF / fast fps / high ISO choice is the 1D X.
OK, thanks.  I'm not a physicist, so I really don't know the ins and outs of sensor manufacturing.  If I read this correctly, it's the sensor size that's causing the ISO performance of the 6D?  The current 7D has about 63% of the sensor size of the 6D, doesn't it?  Why 2.56x to get comparable?

Just trying to learn here.
EOS 6D * EOS 7D * Powershot S110 * EF 24/105 f/4L * EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L * EF 100 f/2.8L Macro

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #45 on: December 20, 2013, 10:05:09 AM »

Don Haines

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2440
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #46 on: December 20, 2013, 10:11:46 AM »
Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)?  With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.

Why not expect the sensor to have 2.56x more surface area?  That would give you the big ISO improvement you're asking about...  A 180nm process might get you part of the way there with a Canon APS-C sensor.  Until then, the great AF / fast fps / high ISO choice is the 1D X.
OK, thanks.  I'm not a physicist, so I really don't know the ins and outs of sensor manufacturing.  If I read this correctly, it's the sensor size that's causing the ISO performance of the 6D?  The current 7D has about 63% of the sensor size of the 6D, doesn't it?  Why 2.56x to get comparable?

Just trying to learn here.

A FF sensor is 1.6 times as high and 1.6 times as wide as an APSC sensor... the area is 1.6X1.6 times larger, or 2.56... the area of an APS-C sensor is 39% of the area of a FF sensor, not 63%.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 10:13:33 AM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

CTJohn

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #47 on: December 20, 2013, 10:19:04 AM »
Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)?  With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.

Why not expect the sensor to have 2.56x more surface area?  That would give you the big ISO improvement you're asking about...  A 180nm process might get you part of the way there with a Canon APS-C sensor.  Until then, the great AF / fast fps / high ISO choice is the 1D X.
OK, thanks.  I'm not a physicist, so I really don't know the ins and outs of sensor manufacturing.  If I read this correctly, it's the sensor size that's causing the ISO performance of the 6D?  The current 7D has about 63% of the sensor size of the 6D, doesn't it?  Why 2.56x to get comparable?

Just trying to learn here.

A FF sensor is 1.6 times as high and 1.6 times as wide as an APSC sensor... the area is 1.6X1.6 times larger, or 2.56... the area of an APS-C sensor is 39% of the area of a FF sensor, not 63%.
Thanks!  Sloppy math on my part.  So the pixels on APS-C are a lot smaller than on full frame - that's why the noise is higher?
EOS 6D * EOS 7D * Powershot S110 * EF 24/105 f/4L * EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L * EF 100 f/2.8L Macro

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
    • AprilForever.com
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #48 on: December 20, 2013, 11:08:36 AM »
This is good news – hints of ‘great news’ in the future. Another CR2… that I hope will become CR3… and then… reality- a 7DmkII.

My most desired camera item at the moment is a EF Canon 50mm f/1.4 – f/2 USM (IS).  As there was a CR2 about that recently, I’m hoping it will come out in 2014.   :)

And then… this – a replacement for my beloved 7D.  (Not that mine is broken, in fact I continue to remain impressed at how capable a camera it is). But a 7DmkII would be my next most desire camera gear to consider (when/if I need a replacement).

Improved IQ (less noise, bit more DR) at any ISO level would be my main request for improvements… mind you, I’m not a pixel peeper, and I’m happy with how my 7D does, it really is a great camera that I’ve loved since I bought it 4 years ago. I’ve taken thousands and thousands of photos with it, and it rarely disappoints.   8)

Other features to be:
- DPAF – perhaps even a noted improvement over the 70D’s revolutionary technology
- spot & partial metering tied to active AF point

Looking forward to what will appear in 2014.  In the meantime, I’ll be taking lots of photos with my 7D and existing lenses.  ;)

Price will be (puts a pinky to the corner of his mouth) one MILLION dollars. muh ha ha ha

This is a great one-line quote – that caused me a laugh this morning (here in Australia time)! Thanks, dstppy!!!  ;D

Best wishes and a great pre-Christmas weekend to all.

Paul

INDEED!!! Finally some good news!!!
What is truth?

Don Haines

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2440
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #49 on: December 20, 2013, 11:29:36 AM »
Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)?  With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.

Why not expect the sensor to have 2.56x more surface area?  That would give you the big ISO improvement you're asking about...  A 180nm process might get you part of the way there with a Canon APS-C sensor.  Until then, the great AF / fast fps / high ISO choice is the 1D X.
OK, thanks.  I'm not a physicist, so I really don't know the ins and outs of sensor manufacturing.  If I read this correctly, it's the sensor size that's causing the ISO performance of the 6D?  The current 7D has about 63% of the sensor size of the 6D, doesn't it?  Why 2.56x to get comparable?

Just trying to learn here.

A FF sensor is 1.6 times as high and 1.6 times as wide as an APSC sensor... the area is 1.6X1.6 times larger, or 2.56... the area of an APS-C sensor is 39% of the area of a FF sensor, not 63%.

A good analogy is to think of a pixel as a rain guage. Both rain gauges have the same size bucket, but the FF rain guage has a funnel with 2.56 times the area of the APS-C rain gauge. If it is raining hard (bright light) then the size of the funnel really does not matter much as both of them fill up really fast. The difference comes when there is light rain (poor light/high ISO) where the bucket does not fill. In this case the FF rain gauge collects enough water for a decent reading while with the APS-C rain gauge you have to guess. If the FF gauge gives you the readings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 the APSC rain gauge would give you 2, 5, 8, and 10..

Because the APS-C rain gauge is smaller, you can fit a lot more of them in the field. You will get 2.56 times as many collection points as with the FF rain gauge and this will allow you a denser sampling of the rain pattern.

So that sums up the difference between the two. You get  denser sampling with APS-C, but at the cost of the samples being less accurate.
The best camera is the one in your hands

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3254
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #50 on: December 20, 2013, 11:31:26 AM »
Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)?  With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.

Why not expect the sensor to have 2.56x more surface area?  That would give you the big ISO improvement you're asking about...  A 180nm process might get you part of the way there with a Canon APS-C sensor.  Until then, the great AF / fast fps / high ISO choice is the 1D X.
OK, thanks.  I'm not a physicist, so I really don't know the ins and outs of sensor manufacturing.  If I read this correctly, it's the sensor size that's causing the ISO performance of the 6D?  The current 7D has about 63% of the sensor size of the 6D, doesn't it?  Why 2.56x to get comparable?

Just trying to learn here.

A FF sensor is 1.6 times as high and 1.6 times as wide as an APSC sensor... the area is 1.6X1.6 times larger, or 2.56... the area of an APS-C sensor is 39% of the area of a FF sensor, not 63%.
Thanks!  Sloppy math on my part.  So the pixels on APS-C are a lot smaller than on full frame - that's why the noise is higher?

To  be technically accurate, the noise is higher on APS-C because the gain is higher (must be in order to produce the same ADU values after ADC). Think of an APS-C pixel like a FF pixel used at a higher ISO. On average, ISO 100 on APS-C is about the same as ISO 250-400 on FF from a noise standpoint. This is because the smaller pixel area means the photodiode area is smaller, and charge capacity in a photodiode is primarily based on area.
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

unfocused

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1762
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #51 on: December 20, 2013, 11:59:28 AM »
To  be technically accurate, the noise is higher on APS-C because the gain is higher (must be in order to produce the same ADU values after ADC). Think of an APS-C pixel like a FF pixel used at a higher ISO. On average, ISO 100 on APS-C is about the same as ISO 250-400 on FF from a noise standpoint. This is because the smaller pixel area means the photodiode area is smaller, and charge capacity in a photodiode is primarily based on area.

Jon, I always appreciate your answers and your patience with those of us less technologically inclined. It's frankly a sharp contrast to some other people here who prefer to serve up every answer with sarcasm.

I do wonder though, based on your example of ISO 100 noise on APS-C being comparable to ISO 250-400 on full frame, what do you think is a reasonable high-end for a 7DII? ISO 6400 is pretty darn impressive on the 5DIII and I would be very pleased if ISO 1600 on the 7D could match that, which is seems like it should be possible based on your comments.

What are you looking for in ISO performance from a 7DII?

pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #51 on: December 20, 2013, 11:59:28 AM »

CTJohn

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #52 on: December 20, 2013, 12:10:20 PM »
Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)?  With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.

Why not expect the sensor to have 2.56x more surface area?  That would give you the big ISO improvement you're asking about...  A 180nm process might get you part of the way there with a Canon APS-C sensor.  Until then, the great AF / fast fps / high ISO choice is the 1D X.
OK, thanks.  I'm not a physicist, so I really don't know the ins and outs of sensor manufacturing.  If I read this correctly, it's the sensor size that's causing the ISO performance of the 6D?  The current 7D has about 63% of the sensor size of the 6D, doesn't it?  Why 2.56x to get comparable?

Just trying to learn here.

A FF sensor is 1.6 times as high and 1.6 times as wide as an APSC sensor... the area is 1.6X1.6 times larger, or 2.56... the area of an APS-C sensor is 39% of the area of a FF sensor, not 63%.
Thanks!  Sloppy math on my part.  So the pixels on APS-C are a lot smaller than on full frame - that's why the noise is higher?

To  be technically accurate, the noise is higher on APS-C because the gain is higher (must be in order to produce the same ADU values after ADC). Think of an APS-C pixel like a FF pixel used at a higher ISO. On average, ISO 100 on APS-C is about the same as ISO 250-400 on FF from a noise standpoint. This is because the smaller pixel area means the photodiode area is smaller, and charge capacity in a photodiode is primarily based on area.
Thanks to jrista and Don Haines.  Explanations like this are why I keep coming to this site!
EOS 6D * EOS 7D * Powershot S110 * EF 24/105 f/4L * EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L * EF 100 f/2.8L Macro

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3254
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2013, 01:02:41 PM »
To  be technically accurate, the noise is higher on APS-C because the gain is higher (must be in order to produce the same ADU values after ADC). Think of an APS-C pixel like a FF pixel used at a higher ISO. On average, ISO 100 on APS-C is about the same as ISO 250-400 on FF from a noise standpoint. This is because the smaller pixel area means the photodiode area is smaller, and charge capacity in a photodiode is primarily based on area.

Jon, I always appreciate your answers and your patience with those of us less technologically inclined. It's frankly a sharp contrast to some other people here who prefer to serve up every answer with sarcasm.

I do wonder though, based on your example of ISO 100 noise on APS-C being comparable to ISO 250-400 on full frame, what do you think is a reasonable high-end for a 7DII? ISO 6400 is pretty darn impressive on the 5DIII and I would be very pleased if ISO 1600 on the 7D could match that, which is seems like it should be possible based on your comments.

What are you looking for in ISO performance from a 7DII?

I guess there are two factors to ISO settings, for different ranges of the ISO "spectrum", so to say. At low ISO, read noise is the critical factor. The lower your read noise, the greater your dynamic range. By reducing read noise from levels that used to be pretty normal to the industry (20-40 e-, depending on pixel size), Sony Exmor (which has a relatively constant 3- read noise) was able to properly utilize the dynamic range allowed by 14-bit ADC. This affects ISO settings 100-400.

For the other end of the range, high ISO, read noise is a factor, however more important than read noise is pixel quantum efficiency. Thanks to very efficient CDS, or correlated double sampling, Canon already has very low read noise at high ISO (from around 3.5e- to less than 1.7e- at the highest native settings), so their sensor performance is largely physics bound. Increasing quantum efficiency is the only real way to reduce noise at high ISO. The 7D has a Q.E. of 41%. Assuming we want a "true" one full stop improvement in high ISO performance (i.e. a reduction in apparent noise by one full stop) without increasing pixel size, then quantum efficiency would need to be doubled (twice the real sensitivity, twice the rate of conversion of photons to charge). That means a Q.E. of 82%. In Canon's best sensors recently, like the 6D, they have achieved Q.E. around 50-51%. The best Q.E. for room temperature CIS these days is around 60-65%.

If we figure Canon makes some amazing strides in their sensor fabrication technology, and are able to achieve 65% Q.E., that is about a half stop improvement in high ISO performance. I don't believe Canon can reach 82% Q.E. without taking a more radical approach. The only time I've read of such a real sensitivity being achieved is with extreme cooling, usually a dual-stage TEC (peltier) cooling system with a passive or passive/active cooling system for that (i.e. a heat pipe setup to a heatsink which is further cooled by a fan.) A lot of astrophotography CCD cameras use dual-stage TEC cooling with a fan (and the good ones, the FF sensor ones, cost about $4000-6000!)

There was mention, a while ago back near the beginning of the year, that Canon might try to employ some kind of active cooling technology. A simple fan probably wouldn't do much...all it would really serve to do is cycle the air locked inside the camera body, so eventually the ambient temperature is going to increase and the benefit of having a fan would be largely negated. Some kind of peltier, however, along with proper heat venting or other form of expelling heat to the exterior of the camera body, could reduce sensor temperature by a lot, thereby reducing dark current and increasing Q.E. I don't know how much thermoelectric cooling would be practical. You have a delicate balance of power usage (peltier's suck power like it was candy) and cooling capacity. Canon would need a battery capable of holding a much greater charge, and one capable of providing a higher continuous voltage. Practically speaking, I am not sure the digital photography world is ready for thermoelectric cooling yet.

So, at best, absolute best, I suspect we will see a 1/3 to 1/2 stop improvement in high ISO performance in the 7D II, assuming the pixel count (and pixel size) stay the same. If pixel count increases, pixel size must decrease, so I suspect we will see a 1/3 stop improvement at most, if that (assuming Canon actually achieves 65% Q.E.) If Canon increases the pixel size, then that will implicitly result in larger area. A megapixel reduction along with an increase in Q.E. could result in better high ISO performance. I don't really expect that to occur...the trend is, has always been, and will likely always be towards higher and higher megapixel count.

So, assuming Canon makes some modest gains in Q.E., increases megapixel count to around 22 megapixels (give or take 2mp), does NOT use any kind of thermoelectric cooling...I don't foresee any real improvement in high ISO at all. I see it staying roughly the same, which is saying something at the very least if megapixel count does indeed increase to 24mp.



As a side note, since it would take an increase to 82% Q.E. for the 7D II to gain a true ONE stop improvement in high ISO performance, we can never hope to see a true two stop improvement. The 7D II, nor any successor, nor any new pro-grade APS-C line of cameras from Canon or anyone else, will ever perform as well as a FF sensor that has larger pixels. So long as the average pixel size for FF sensors remains larger than the average pixel size for APS-C sensors, FF sensors will always perform better at high ISO. Nothing we can do about that...its just physics.

Additionally, on a composition and size-normal basis (i.e. when scaling the output images of FF and APS-C sensors to the same size...equivalence), FF sensors will always perform better than APS-C sensors, no matter what the pixel size. Assuming you frame your scene identically with a FF camera and an APS-C camera, the FF camera is going to gather more total light, period. Since you can usually pack more larger pixels into the area of a FF frame than an APS-C frame, the FF image will always be sharper and have less noise than the APS-C. Even if the FF sensor had pixels the same size as the APS-C, or even smaller than the APS-C, when normalizing the results the FF sensor will always do better. (One possible case where APS-C might achieve parity with FF is if, at ISO 100, the APS-C sensor had a stop or two better dynamic range...then, you might get similar results, but I doubt APS-C would ever produce a better result than FF.)
« Last Edit: December 23, 2013, 11:56:50 AM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3254
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #54 on: December 20, 2013, 01:03:06 PM »
Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)?  With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.

Why not expect the sensor to have 2.56x more surface area?  That would give you the big ISO improvement you're asking about...  A 180nm process might get you part of the way there with a Canon APS-C sensor.  Until then, the great AF / fast fps / high ISO choice is the 1D X.
OK, thanks.  I'm not a physicist, so I really don't know the ins and outs of sensor manufacturing.  If I read this correctly, it's the sensor size that's causing the ISO performance of the 6D?  The current 7D has about 63% of the sensor size of the 6D, doesn't it?  Why 2.56x to get comparable?

Just trying to learn here.

A FF sensor is 1.6 times as high and 1.6 times as wide as an APSC sensor... the area is 1.6X1.6 times larger, or 2.56... the area of an APS-C sensor is 39% of the area of a FF sensor, not 63%.

A good analogy is to think of a pixel as a rain guage. Both rain gauges have the same size bucket, but the FF rain guage has a funnel with 2.56 times the area of the APS-C rain gauge. If it is raining hard (bright light) then the size of the funnel really does not matter much as both of them fill up really fast. The difference comes when there is light rain (poor light/high ISO) where the bucket does not fill. In this case the FF rain gauge collects enough water for a decent reading while with the APS-C rain gauge you have to guess. If the FF gauge gives you the readings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 the APSC rain gauge would give you 2, 5, 8, and 10..

Because the APS-C rain gauge is smaller, you can fit a lot more of them in the field. You will get 2.56 times as many collection points as with the FF rain gauge and this will allow you a denser sampling of the rain pattern.

So that sums up the difference between the two. You get  denser sampling with APS-C, but at the cost of the samples being less accurate.

Great analogy! Love it!
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

dstppy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #55 on: December 23, 2013, 09:22:59 AM »
Wait, aside from people ranting about DR, what exactly is wrong with the 5Dmk3 that has everyone clamoring for a successor?

I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.

Fair enough.  I second the request for a mark 4 on those grounds alone!  ;D
Canon Rumors is presently creating photographer shortages in Middle Earth (all the trolls emigrated here)

dstppy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #56 on: December 23, 2013, 09:24:42 AM »
Price will be (puts a pinky to the corner of his mouth) one MILLION dollars. muh ha ha ha

This is a great one-line quote – that caused me a laugh this morning (here in Australia time)! Thanks, dstppy!!!  ;D

Best wishes and a great pre-Christmas weekend to all.

Paul
Yeah, I've come to realize that everything that I want and don't own will be tagged with an uncomfortable (but not unattainable) price.  Frustrates my relatives when I tell them not to get me anything for Christmas.
Canon Rumors is presently creating photographer shortages in Middle Earth (all the trolls emigrated here)

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1675
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #57 on: December 23, 2013, 09:29:09 AM »
Wait, aside from people ranting about DR, what exactly is wrong with the 5Dmk3 that has everyone clamoring for a successor?

I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.
Fair enough.  I second the request for a mark 4 on those grounds alone!  ;D
If 5D3 new costs as low as 2700$ isn't a used 5D3 close to that value? Of course it comes down to availability of used 5D3 cameras. But still a new 2700$ value 5D3 seems more attractive than a used 2000$ 5D3 one. Just my opinion...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #57 on: December 23, 2013, 09:29:09 AM »

dstppy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #58 on: December 23, 2013, 10:54:11 AM »
Wait, aside from people ranting about DR, what exactly is wrong with the 5Dmk3 that has everyone clamoring for a successor?

I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.
Fair enough.  I second the request for a mark 4 on those grounds alone!  ;D
If 5D3 new costs as low as 2700$ isn't a used 5D3 close to that value? Of course it comes down to availability of used 5D3 cameras. But still a new 2700$ value 5D3 seems more attractive than a used 2000$ 5D3 one. Just my opinion...

We're talking new . . . that and we're being silly.  Unless they want to drop the price, then we're serious  ::)
Canon Rumors is presently creating photographer shortages in Middle Earth (all the trolls emigrated here)

dgatwood

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #59 on: December 23, 2013, 12:01:30 PM »
As a side note, since it would take an increase to 82% Q.E. for the 7D II to gain a true ONE stop improvement in high ISO performance, we can never hope to see a true two stop improvement. The 7D II, nor any successor, nor any new pro-grade APS-C line of cameras from Canon or anyone else, will ever perform as well as a FF sensor that has larger pixels. So long as the average pixel size for FF sensors remains larger than the average pixel size for APS-C sensors, FF sensors will always perform better at high ISO. Nothing we can do about that...its just physics.

Well, there are a few tricks that Canon could do.  For example, if a camera used a series of fast exposures, the camera could do motion vector analysis on various parts of the image, then add them programmatically after compensating for camera and subject motion, resulting in roughly the same image as you'd get with the shorter shot length (blur-wise), but with the SNR of the longer shot length.  However, that's way beyond the realm of sensor tech.  :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« Reply #59 on: December 23, 2013, 12:01:30 PM »