December 21, 2014, 08:35:07 PM

Author Topic: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]  (Read 10278 times)

gratomlin

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
    • pbase
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2014, 11:32:26 AM »
as we are seeing more and more mobile phones capable of recording in 4K, this would be my wish list

1. 20+ mp
2. 10 FPS +
3. A focus system based on the 5D III
4. Dual card slots CF and SD
5. 4K video with auto focus
6. built in Wi-Fi

then i'll be interseted
5d mkIII, 7d, 10-22, 24-105, 70-200 IS, sigma 150 macro, 12-24 mk ii and 150-500

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2014, 11:32:26 AM »

Viper28

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2014, 03:12:55 PM »
I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.

For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR!  In fact, the other way is more likely.

Hmm strange then that the Canon 5D and 40D were both approx 10mpx cameras of the same generation but the IQ, noise and DR of the 5D is clearly better than the 40D (at a given ISO). Or if you prefer the Nikon D300 and D3 both c. 12mpx cameras of the same generation and guess what the D3 has better IQ, noise and DR! So regardless of the maths or anything else, when the chips are down large pixels seem to outperform small ones
Cheer Simon

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15233
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2014, 03:16:43 PM »
I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.

For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR!  In fact, the other way is more likely.

Hmm strange then that the Canon 5D and 40D were both approx 10mpx cameras of the same generation but the IQ, noise and DR of the 5D is clearly better than the 40D (at a given ISO). Or if you prefer the Nikon D300 and D3 both c. 12mpx cameras of the same generation and guess what the D3 has better IQ, noise and DR! So regardless of the maths or anything else, when the chips are down large pixels seem to outperform small ones

Notice that Lee Jay stated lower pixel counts, and you provided examples of pairs of sensors with the same pixel counts.  What's your point? 

The cameras in your pairs have the same number of pixels, but the ones that have lower noise and better DR have BIGGER pixels.

Make sense?
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2014, 03:28:57 PM »
Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.

I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP.  More resolution and less noise that way.

That's a misconception. If you account for noise as a factor of total sensor area, it doesn't really matter how large or small your pixel are. The expectation is that you are downsampling any and all of those sensors to some common output size...i.e. the same magnification.

Otherwise, smaller pixels are always going to have more noise at the pixel level. Any technology you might apply to smaller pixels is applicable to larger pixels. Any potential technological gains you might have that allow smaller pixels are only going to make bigger pixels better. In no way can smaller pixels be less noisy than larger pixels. They may resolve more detail, but assuming Q.E. remains roughly the same, that detail WILL be noisier.


All else being equal, if you have 6 micron pixels and 3 micron pixels, the 3 micron pixels are going to have 1/4 the FWC. A 6 micron pixel might have 60,000e- max charge at ISO 100, where as a 3 micron pixel is going to have 15,000e- max charge. Since noise is the square root of the signal, you have 244e- noise with 6 micron pixels, and 122e- noise with 3 micron pixels. In other words, you have a 244:1 SNR with 6 micron pixels, and a 122:1 SNR with 3 micron pixels.

The only way to make those smaller pixels equal to the larger pixels is to downsample by a factor of two.

What's the problem with having a high resolution sensor that allows detailed images at low ISO and then downsampling to reduce noise when you need to used higher ISOs?

I'm asking because you seem to know your stuff and I'd like to get this cleared up once and for all!

Oh, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It just won't give you LESS noise. Assuming we have two APS-C sensors, if we view them a 100%, the image taken with the sensor with smaller pixels will be noisier. If we sample them to the same size, noise will be equal. The sensor with smaller pixels will be crisper when scaled to the same size, but there won't be any real difference in noise.

Why? Because both sensors have the same total physical area. Assuming the same output magnification, the only thing that matters is sensor area, not pixel size.

This is a different argument than FF vs. APS-C. In the case of FF vs. APS-C, you can look at it a couple of ways. There is equivalence. You frame the same scene identically with both FF and APS-C (doesn't matter if you get closer with FF or use a longer lens). You need a narrower aperture with FF in order to achieve the same DOF as APS-C. You end up with the same amount of noise for the same output magnification. Again, total sensor area matters here, however you have normalized all factors, so noise relative to output magnification is going to be similar.

However, I don't think that is generally how photographers think. In my experience, photographers who want the same framing with FF as their APS-C counterparts ALSO want a thinner DOF and blurrier background. That is especially the case with those who do portraiture, weddings, studio work, etc. with shorter and medium focal lengths. In that case, FF is always going to be vastly superior to APS-C. Not only do you have greater total sensor area, but you have larger pixels AND a faster aperture. No contest. Smaller pixels on a smaller sensor cannot compete in any way, shape, or form.

In any case, in none of the above scenarios will smaller pixels give you BETTER noise characteristics. They may allow sharper images, but from a noise standpoint, you at best can get the same noise performance out of smaller pixels for the same sensor size. Smaller pixels on a smaller sensor, in common use cases they will never be as good as larger pixels on a larger sensor, and at best they will only be "as good".

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2014, 03:33:34 PM »
People seem to be suggesting (not just on this forum) that Canon are scratching their heads over the potential specifications of a 7D Mk II. I'd have thought that it was pretty obvious -an APS-C sensor version of the 5D Mk III with a higher frame rate (i.e. 8-12fps).

The elephant in the room is whether the 20MP sensor from the 70D is good enough for their "flagship APS-C camera" or whether Canon are waiting to launch a new generation of sensors in the 7D Mk II. The more time passes from the 70D's introduction, the more likely I think the 7D Mk II will be the launch vehicle for the new generation of sensor; I would therefore expect any announcement to be just prior to Photokina. [Sod's law they will announce it next month and make this prediction wrong!  ::)]

Purely speculation but I would imagine one of Canon's biggest concerns is a new 7D Mark II potentially eating into 1D X and the big white market. They need to make it attractive enough, but not so attractive to take away any of the market from their flagship body and lenses.

This is such an old and tired argument. Canon has nothing to fear from the 7D II stealing from the 1D X. The 1D X is going to be a superior camera in every respect. If someone can afford it and wants the best quality they can get, they are going to get the 1D X. In my previous comment, I explain why. Ultimately, noise is more about sensor area than pixel size. When it comes to pixel peeping, pixel size matters, but pixel peeping isn't photography...it's just a waste of time. FF sensors have more total area than APS-C sensors. For identically framed subjects, that means FF always has the potential to gather more light. More light, less noise. If you choose to stop down, then that is an artistic or technical choice, not a limitation of the technology.

In no way, regardless of what features Canon puts into the 7D II or how good they are, will it ever really steal sales away from the 1D X. On the contrary, by making the 7D II as good as they possibly can at the cheapest price point they can, it will GREATLY increase their sales. The simple fact of the matter is many, many people would probably LOVE to have a 1D X, they simply cannot afford it. The biggest thing stealing sales away from the 1D X is it's price. A feature-rich, highly capable "Mini 1D X" in the 7D II would give all those people a far more affordable option that is in reach...increasing total DSLR sales.

Viper28

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2014, 03:34:16 PM »
yes perfect. My original point was that I would prefer less larger pixels because IMHO larger pixels mean less noise etc. The point of comparing the SAME generation / mpx sensors, one APC-C and the other FF proves that point in the real world. Both Canon and Nikon are as close as they can be in all but pixel size. Lee Jay is suggesting exactly the opposite in that more (smaller) pixels would provide less noise
Cheer Simon

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2014, 03:45:04 PM »
yes perfect. My original point was that I would prefer less larger pixels because IMHO larger pixels mean less noise etc. The point of comparing the SAME generation / mpx sensors, one APC-C and the other FF proves that point in the real world. Both Canon and Nikon are as close as they can be in all but pixel size. Lee Jay is suggesting exactly the opposite in that more (smaller) pixels would provide less noise

If you are not changing sensor size, then more/fewer pixels doesn't mean much. Assuming you are using the full frame. If you are reach limited, then smaller pixels have a definite and intrinsic value...you can crop more, and still have good detail. You definitely won't have less noise...you'll have more noise, however cropping higher resolution detail with more noise is often better than cropping lower resolution detail with less noise. Especially in the APS-C world.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2014, 03:45:04 PM »

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1347
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2014, 08:30:38 PM »
Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.

I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP.  More resolution and less noise that way.

That's a misconception. If you account for noise as a factor of total sensor area, it doesn't really matter how large or small your pixel are. The expectation is that you are downsampling any and all of those sensors to some common output size...i.e. the same magnification.

And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is.  Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter.  Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1347
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2014, 08:34:14 PM »
I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.

For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR!  In fact, the other way is more likely.

Hmm strange then that the Canon 5D and 40D were both approx 10mpx cameras of the same generation but the IQ, noise and DR of the 5D is clearly better than the 40D (at a given ISO). Or if you prefer the Nikon D300 and D3 both c. 12mpx cameras of the same generation and guess what the D3 has better IQ, noise and DR! So regardless of the maths or anything else, when the chips are down large pixels seem to outperform small ones

Large sensors out-perform small sensors.  Small pixels out-perform large pixels as long as you don't get so small that the smaller pixels are too small for the manufacturing technology making them.

The 70D, even with 40MP out-performs the 7D with 18MP.  The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

The idea that small pixels are somehow bad is long, long out-of-date.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2014, 09:05:31 PM »
And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is.  Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter.  Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.

Noise reduction software applies to all images, regardless of pixel size. You can't bring software into the hardware equation here. Sensors are hardware. From a hardware standpoint, smaller pixels/bigger pixels, so long as the total sensor area is the same, it really doesn't matter.

Trying to bring in post-processing aspects brings in a massive amount of subjectivity into the discussion, and then it becomes impossible to guage anything. Person A might use Topaz DeNoise, Person B might use Neat Image, Person C might just use LR/PS built in NR. Let's keep the argument to concrete information that we can all agree on. Sensor area/output magnification. That's all that would really matter. A smaller sensor has the potential to produce sharper results, but overall, noise is going to be the same (at best).

I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.

For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR!  In fact, the other way is more likely.

Hmm strange then that the Canon 5D and 40D were both approx 10mpx cameras of the same generation but the IQ, noise and DR of the 5D is clearly better than the 40D (at a given ISO). Or if you prefer the Nikon D300 and D3 both c. 12mpx cameras of the same generation and guess what the D3 has better IQ, noise and DR! So regardless of the maths or anything else, when the chips are down large pixels seem to outperform small ones

Large sensors out-perform small sensors.  Small pixels out-perform large pixels as long as you don't get so small that the smaller pixels are too small for the manufacturing technology making them.

The 70D, even with 40MP out-performs the 7D with 18MP.  The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

The idea that small pixels are somehow bad is long, long out-of-date.

First, I really have to quash this idea, because it is fundamentally WRONG: The 70D is NOT NOT NOT a 40mp camera!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 70D has 20.2 million pixels. Only the center 80% of those pixels (16.16mp) have split PHOTODIODES. A photodiode and a pixel are not the same thing. The 70D has, only has, always has had, and will only ever have, 20.2 million PIXELS. The 16.16 million center rectangle of pixels have split photodiodes. There are 32.32 million photodiodes packed into 16.16 million pixels, which comprise the center 80% of the sensors 20.2 million pixels in total.

When it comes to DPAF, photodiodes != pixels. DPAF pixels have two photodiodes, but they are still one pixel. The split photodiodes are underneath the microlens and color filter...so you could never read 32.32 million pixels out independently and have it be anything better or different than reading those 16.16 million pixels out. The split halves are the same pixel, under the same filter and same microlens. If they were separate pixels, DPAF simply wouldn't work. The entire point of the technology is that you can read light from each half of the lens, and therefor detect phase differential, from each and every individual PIXEL. The 70D has 20.2 million pixels. Only. In which case, the gap between the 7D and 70D is 2.2mp...which is practically trivial, since both sensors have roughly the same total area. (The 70D's real advantage is that it is actually slightly larger in dimensions than the 7D...more total area, more total light, albeit  a nearly trivial "more".)



As for the pixels. I've never said they are bad. Small pixels out-RESOLVE large pixels, they do not necessarily out-PERFORM large pixels. But small pixels can only out-resolve large pixels in certain circumstances. Sometimes, having more pixels for identical framing means large pixels can effectively outresolve smaller pixels...because you can either use a longer lens, or get closer, and still achieve the same framing. If resolving power is all that matters to you, and you have excellent skill with noise reduction (which is arguably more difficult to apply to images made from smaller pixels than images made from larger pixels), then smaller pixels will certainly be better for your use case.

Smaller pixels will always outresolve larger pixels, but they do not normally outperform larger pixels. The only case where smaller pixels might literally outperform larger pixels is if the smaller pixels had considerably better technology than the larger pixels. If you packed in ultra high Q.E. silicon materials (i.e. black silicon), ultra low noise readout (i.e. slower frequency readout, thermal cooling), backside illumination, high power microlenses and double microlens layers, etc. then sure, you could produce smaller pixels that might be capable of outperforming larger pixels....for a time... But the same technology can always be applied to larger pixels. On a normalized basis, where the technology field is flat, (and where you don't assume some specific post processing software is used to change the output of the sensor), smaller pixels cannot perform --> better <-- than larger pixels. At best, they could perform as well, at worst...well, they would perform worse.

Pixel performance is a fairly complex thing. I challenge you to pit G15 sports, wildlife, and bird photos against the same kinds of photos from the 1D X. I'm willing to bet good money that, assuming you find work from skilled photographers who actually know how to effectively work the equipment in hand, you will NEVER find any G15 images that are better than 1D X images. The G15 may have greater DR per pixel, but the 1D X trounces it in terms of sensor area.

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1347
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2014, 09:29:57 PM »
And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is.  Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter.  Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.

Noise reduction software applies to all images, regardless of pixel size.

And it works way better when there is more detail in the original.

Quote
You can't bring software into the hardware equation here.

Sure I can.  The entire process, from optics to processing, works together to produce the final image.

Quote
Sensors are hardware. From a hardware standpoint, smaller pixels/bigger pixels, so long as the total sensor area is the same, it really doesn't matter.

Then why not have just one enormous pixel?

Quote
As for the pixels. I've never said they are bad. Small pixels out-RESOLVE large pixels, they do not necessarily out-PERFORM large pixels.

Not necessarily, but usually.

Quote
But small pixels can only out-resolve large pixels in certain circumstances.

Virtually every circumstance.

Quote
Smaller pixels will always outresolve larger pixels, but they do not normally outperform larger pixels. The only case where smaller pixels might literally outperform larger pixels is if the smaller pixels had considerably better technology than the larger pixels.

Nope.

Quote
Pixel performance is a fairly complex thing. I challenge you to pit G15 sports, wildlife, and bird photos against the same kinds of photos from the 1D X.

The 1DX will win because of a bigger sensor and bigger optics, not because of larger pixels.  If it had the G15's pixels, it would do even better.


jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2014, 09:43:58 PM »
And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is.  Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter.  Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.

Noise reduction software applies to all images, regardless of pixel size.

And it works way better when there is more detail in the original.

Studies have shown that the lower color fidelity of smaller pixels (as enforced by a lower actual charge level, which requires a higher gain at all ISO settings than larger pixels) poses specific problems for NR. Color blotchiness, specifically, becomes a problem MUCH sooner when performing NR on images taken with smaller pixels.

Quote
You can't bring software into the hardware equation here.

Sure I can.  The entire process, from optics to processing, works together to produce the final image.

Your convoluting the issue by bringing in software. Software is a highly subjective matter. As far as I am concerned, as far as this discussion goes, software does not apply. Too many options, too many techniques, too many results.

And, again, anything you can apply to images taken with sensors with smaller pixels can be applied to sensors taken with larger pixels. There is no specific advantage to sensors with smaller pixels as far as software is concerned. It can effectively be reduced to a constant in the equation.

Quote
Sensors are hardware. From a hardware standpoint, smaller pixels/bigger pixels, so long as the total sensor area is the same, it really doesn't matter.

Then why not have just one enormous pixel?

I'm not even going to justify this with a response.

Quote
As for the pixels. I've never said they are bad. Small pixels out-RESOLVE large pixels, they do not necessarily out-PERFORM large pixels.

Not necessarily, but usually.

Just factoring in pixel size, always. If you factor in more than pixel size, such as AA filter, then sure. But that's an additional mark AGAINST smaller pixels. It's harder to create an AA filter that performs ideally for smaller pixels than for lager pixels. That is evident by the rather wide range of AA filter strengths for APS-C cameras (just look at DPR sample images and look at how widely moire varies....where as with larger sensors, the variation is much less.)

Quote
But small pixels can only out-resolve large pixels in certain circumstances.

Virtually every circumstance.

Wrong. When it comes to identical framing, more pixels will always win, in which case full frame sensors with larger pixels will trounce an APS-C sensor with smaller pixels. TROUNCE.

Quote
Smaller pixels will always outresolve larger pixels, but they do not normally outperform larger pixels. The only case where smaller pixels might literally outperform larger pixels is if the smaller pixels had considerably better technology than the larger pixels.

Nope.

Prove it. (BTW, the image below? It doesn't prove it. ;P)

Quote
Pixel performance is a fairly complex thing. I challenge you to pit G15 sports, wildlife, and bird photos against the same kinds of photos from the 1D X.

The 1DX will win because of a bigger sensor and bigger optics, not because of larger pixels.  If it had the G15's pixels, it would do even better.



The images above actually prove my point. The smaller pixels are considerably noisier. They do have more detail, but they are a lot noisier. Your original comment was that smaller pixels were less noisy. That is completely false. Your own images clearly prove they are far noisier.

When it comes to identical output magnification, again your images prove my point. The first column of images clearly demonstrates that the lower image has less noise, but roughly the same detail, as the upper image, however there is definitely more noise in the upper image that comes along with its very slight edge in detail.

Smaller pixels may resolve more than larger pixels, but they will never have less noise than larger pixels, given the same magnification.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15233
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2014, 10:34:39 PM »
The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

Yes, that G15 is really beating the pants off the 1D X in terms of DR.  Wait, I'm wrong.  For a minute there, I thought DR was like golf where lower numbers were better.  Oops.   ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2014, 10:34:39 PM »

jeffa4444

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2014, 09:16:06 AM »
Canon disappoint with nothing new (the EOS 1200D is old tech dressed up) at The Photography Show, Birmingham, UK which is really busy. Nikon have the D4s, Olympus have the OM-D E-M10 on sale through dealers at the show Canon seem to be focused on the C500 with Codex and have some double discount offers on the 5D MK3 £300 cash back, 7D £ 200, EOS 700D £100, EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM £ 420, EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II USM £ 420 and a bunch of other lenses. The Speedlite 600EX-RT also had a £ 120 double cash back. The cash backs are via Canon.

The stand is busy but not like Nikon.
Canon 6d, 7d & 550d with EF-S and EF-L glass

Tripod

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #59 on: March 02, 2014, 08:15:29 AM »
I been following the various postings on the mythical 7D MkII, over the last eighteen months or so and I finally said enough was enough and last week I pulled the trigger on a Gripped 70D. I am now so pleased that I have the 7D MkII monkey off my back, I can now go out and enjoy using my new 70D.

The 7D MkII will more than likely have a similar processor to the 70D, although the 70D version will have been hobbled a little so as to make the 7D MkII look good. The 7D MkII will probably have 4k video  which doesn't really excite me too much, as I prefer stills photography. All in all and whenever it arrives it will be a wonderful camera. Perhaps when it does eventually arrive, I just might think about a trade with my then old 70D.

Man is it good to breath again  8)
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 08:20:47 AM by Tripod »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« Reply #59 on: March 02, 2014, 08:15:29 AM »