October 01, 2014, 05:23:27 PM

Author Topic: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?  (Read 67621 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14534
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #345 on: August 23, 2014, 06:44:30 PM »
I hope the 7D2 has interchangeable focus screen like 1DX & 6D.

I suspect that it will.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #345 on: August 23, 2014, 06:44:30 PM »

dtaylor

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 736
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #346 on: August 23, 2014, 06:52:34 PM »
I'm still bummed that Canon has STILL not demonstrated they are getting competitive again on the sensor front...re-purposing the 70D sensor in the 7D II just smells really sloppy and cheap....

The 70D sensor is competitive. So what would you like them to do?

Resolution? Better be north of 40 MP to see a real difference, and that's only for those of us who regularly make large prints of finely detailed subject matter (i.e. landscapes shot from a tripod at optimum apertures). Not even Sony can pull that off in APS-C right now and retain high ISO/DR.

Total DR? The 70D is 1/3 stop behind Exmor.

Shadow latitude (noise)? You yourself showed how ridiculously small the difference is when NR is intelligently applied. When I first saw a Canon v Exmor pushed shadow test I thought the tester was purposely lying because I had never seen noise that bad...because I never turn off default NR when pushing shadows hard. In fact I apply more! I routinely push shadows 2-3 stops even with the old, noisy, 7D sensor. The thing I run into pushing shadows is not noise, but a tonality/fine detail/microcontrast wall, and you hit the same wall on Sony.

High ISO? In the DPReview and IR studio comparisons the 70D looks pretty much the same as the D7100 (for example). I would shoot either to 6400 if need be.

Color? Canon seems to have nailed that one. Other people complain and profile their sensors to try and match Canon color.

The next major jumps are going to involve 16-bit designs, multilayer sensors, or some other technology twist. We are well into diminishing returns given the state of sensor fabrication right now.

The only thing "wrong" with Canon's sensors is they score poorly over at DxO relative to Exmor. So do Hasselblad medium format sensors! Only Hasselblad fans are sophisticated enough to know DxO is a joke. I doubt any of their users are silly enough to jump on a forum and say "If Hasselblad doesn't do something about these sensors I'm buying a D810!"

I hope Canon makes a major jump in the 7D2 sensor by applying NR in camera even to RAWs and therefore gaming DxO to get a higher score  ;D

DominoDude

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 337
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #347 on: August 23, 2014, 07:24:00 PM »
I hope the 7D2 has interchangeable focus screen like 1DX & 6D.

I'm quite convinced that KatzEye (http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/) will have something cooking to fix it if it doesn't come that way out of the box.
No one's perfect, and it takes a great man to admit he's wrong. Me - I'm wrong on a daily basis.

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1419
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #348 on: August 23, 2014, 08:06:53 PM »
Particularly like the built-in RT function... damn, I want it...

The more recent rumor update suggested that the -RT master would not be a feature, it'll be optical master only.

Oh, I don't really care about the 7D II.
All I want is a compact RT master built-in. Almost caved in and got the 90EX for $ 42 today, but remembered how crappy forum members had admitted it was, and how it's GN is worse than a pop up flash.
Maybe the 6D II will have an RT master? Or a 280EX-RT?
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

Stu_bert

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #349 on: August 23, 2014, 08:29:52 PM »
Too many replies for me to browse through.  I just registered in order to comment.

Very simple:  If these are truly the Specs, then this camera should have been released 2 years ago.  Why the secrecy for such Specs?

Nowadays I shoot mostly birds and use ONLY the centre focusing point.  My main upgrade requirement would be for more pixels to define the tiny subjects.  Second upgrade requirement would be faster focusing speed.  Subjects are extremely flighty.

I broke my 7D to unrepairable condition and ignored the service department's offer to allow me to purchase a replacement body for a price greater than local stores were charging.  Instead I purchased a 70D and it gives me more pixels on the subjects and focuses faster than the 7D.  One feature I would like is GPS.  If there isn't a built-in GPS, then I shall not purchase an add-on, but instead do a time-synch to a portable GPS and use Lightroom's feature to add GPS data to Exif data.

A camera with these Specs just is insufficient to bother with an "upgrade".  Very disappointing.  I may pick up a Nikon 7100 and obtain lens conversions for the long lens.

I think the DPAF feature took a while to develop....
If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future :)

Stu_bert

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #350 on: August 23, 2014, 08:50:29 PM »
I think a lot sports photographers are taking pictures and focusing on the sport. Big agencies have runners who grab the cards, while the photographer flips to the other card and continues. Transferring GB of data over wifi? I doubt this would be quicker for the qty that a Pro photographer shoots....

That may be true for the few at the upper end of the profession but the pros I've met are paid garbage and often do it as a second job or as part of other journalistic duties.  They certainly don't have assistants at beck and call. Transferring an entire card's worth of data?  Probably not a good idea, no, but that one rad shot/series of that amazing play?  Sure, preview shot->upload to editing desk->publish->done.  That would be amazing and in this day and age its gonna start being a lot more common. 

My question, that I've asked others and still haven't got an answer to, is why should wifi be specifically excluded? It would cost nothing to the end user and it would have use to some percentage of photographers.  In fact, a well implemented, fully integrated wifi would be a godsend for many.  The opposition just sounds, to me, like curmudgeonly old men complaining about kids these days with their idroids and googlefaces.

Quote
It's going to be a mini 1DX with extra reach, but not as good high iso quality and not the same frame rate, otherwise it eats too much into the high end range. That for me is sound economics, not so much marketing.

e: I keep seeing people say that they understand Canon purposely limiting the burst rate because of marketing.  So, another question:  who here that owns a 1DX would sell it off for a 7DII, spec'd as listed, if it shot 12fps and pocket the extra cash?  Who here would purchase a 7DII, spec'd as listed, that shot 12fps over a 1DX if money were not the limiting factor?  I sure as heck wouldn't!

How many Pro's want a 2nd body when they do events? Heck, I'm not a pro, but I take 2 bodies everywhere I go. Now, if you can get a cheap variant which will do 90% of your Pro body, would you? What about if it only did 50%?

If you were looking into becoming a Pro, which would you buy?  The MK II or the 1DX? And surely value for money is an important factor for most Pro's - whatever the invest they need to recoup, so money is rarely no object.

If you could afford a 60K Porsche, and then they bought out a better spec'd model for 30K, just how ecstatic would you be?

Sometime cannibalization of your high end kit works. Again, I'd like to think that Canon know their audience (1DX owners) better than we do, and therefore what their reaction would be like.

Back to the wifi - I've not seen the implementation in the 6D or other Canons personally but I thought the implementation was not so clever (in terms of the SW). Canon, Nikon and others are indeed poor when it comes to an integrated system and understanding the benefits of good workflow and expandability. Another reason why smartphones are so popular. And I don't think they should go away and do their own thing, i think integration into smartphones is easiest - be part of that ecosystem, allow simple transfer so the phone can edit and publish. I think trying to get your dSLR to log in with credentials to your blog or website, name it something, allow you to put some caption and then make it ready for publication is just too much right now. In fact I think that boat has gone. No, integrate with your phone, hence why maybe BT would be better in that respect.

Would I like wifi in every Canon body & GPS? Yes please. Until then I use a camranger and either Iphone gps logging or an external GPS. I previously used eye-fi for the same purpose.


@Jrista - you shoot with a 7D. You've shown that you can take good pictures with it. I get your frustration with Canon's release schedule. Who knows the exact reason. But as a complete solution, if you can get better elsewhere then you would have moved. Is a 70D sensor really that bad? Based on it's target market, I think the MK II will do well. Even with a tweaked 70D sensor.

If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future :)

MichaelHodges

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 362
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #351 on: August 23, 2014, 09:01:41 PM »
y.

High ISO? In the DPReview and IR studio comparisons the 70D looks pretty much the same as the D7100 (for example). I would shoot either to 6400 if need be.


I  put the camera away at ISO 1250. And I own it.


Quote
Color? Canon seems to have nailed that one. Other people complain and profile their sensors to try and match Canon color.

Big fan of Canon color.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #351 on: August 23, 2014, 09:01:41 PM »

dtaylor

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 736
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #352 on: August 23, 2014, 10:03:32 PM »
y.

High ISO? In the DPReview and IR studio comparisons the 70D looks pretty much the same as the D7100 (for example). I would shoot either to 6400 if need be.


I  put the camera away at ISO 1250. And I own it.

I guess you would be putting any APS-C away then. Makes sense if you want 24-36" prints. Not so much if you're posting online or printing to 8x10.

The 7D could make a nice ISO 3200 8x10, with noise that looked like tight film grain from a low speed portrait film, as long as you nailed exposure.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3246
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #353 on: August 23, 2014, 10:35:16 PM »
y.

High ISO? In the DPReview and IR studio comparisons the 70D looks pretty much the same as the D7100 (for example). I would shoot either to 6400 if need be.


I  put the camera away at ISO 1250. And I own it.

I guess you would be putting any APS-C away then. Makes sense if you want 24-36" prints. Not so much if you're posting online or printing to 8x10.

The 7D could make a nice ISO 3200 8x10, with noise that looked like tight film grain from a low speed portrait film, as long as you nailed exposure.
ISO 12800 and 1/30th second at F2.8 on a 60D with a 100F2.8L. This was taken in a venue where flash was not allowed.... and before anyone jumps on me for not using a FF camera under such conditions, this was a test of the camera pushed to it's limits... and I had a 5D2 sitting on the table in front of me.

Processing was minimal.... white balance and top noise slider in Lightroom.

What is scary is that the Sony A7S can do this at ISO204,800!
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 11:08:29 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4732
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #354 on: August 23, 2014, 10:51:54 PM »
I'm still bummed that Canon has STILL not demonstrated they are getting competitive again on the sensor front...re-purposing the 70D sensor in the 7D II just smells really sloppy and cheap....

The 70D sensor is competitive. So what would you like them to do?

Resolution? Better be north of 40 MP to see a real difference, and that's only for those of us who regularly make large prints of finely detailed subject matter (i.e. landscapes shot from a tripod at optimum apertures). Not even Sony can pull that off in APS-C right now and retain high ISO/DR.

Total DR? The 70D is 1/3 stop behind Exmor.

Shadow latitude (noise)? You yourself showed how ridiculously small the difference is when NR is intelligently applied. When I first saw a Canon v Exmor pushed shadow test I thought the tester was purposely lying because I had never seen noise that bad...because I never turn off default NR when pushing shadows hard. In fact I apply more! I routinely push shadows 2-3 stops even with the old, noisy, 7D sensor. The thing I run into pushing shadows is not noise, but a tonality/fine detail/microcontrast wall, and you hit the same wall on Sony.

High ISO? In the DPReview and IR studio comparisons the 70D looks pretty much the same as the D7100 (for example). I would shoot either to 6400 if need be.

Color? Canon seems to have nailed that one. Other people complain and profile their sensors to try and match Canon color.

The next major jumps are going to involve 16-bit designs, multilayer sensors, or some other technology twist. We are well into diminishing returns given the state of sensor fabrication right now.

The only thing "wrong" with Canon's sensors is they score poorly over at DxO relative to Exmor. So do Hasselblad medium format sensors! Only Hasselblad fans are sophisticated enough to know DxO is a joke. I doubt any of their users are silly enough to jump on a forum and say "If Hasselblad doesn't do something about these sensors I'm buying a D810!"

I hope Canon makes a major jump in the 7D2 sensor by applying NR in camera even to RAWs and therefore gaming DxO to get a higher score  ;D

Well, your just plain wrong about the DR. Your using IR's "total DR" number, which is irrelevant, as it doesn't take into account noise. This doesn't even refer to DXO's numbers (which are all based on the Print DR number that I loath)....across the board, whoever's measured DR on Canon sensors, from the noise floor to the FWC, regardless of whether they get 9.5 stops and 12 stops, or 11 stops and 13.2 stops, or 12 stops and 14.4 stops, it doesn't really matter. Even IR's results where they don't completely ignore noise even jive, and IR ALSO gets approximately a two-stop difference between Canon sensors and Exmors.

You are correct that some careful NR can close the gap. Thing is, if you actually look at my sample images I recently posted, there is still a gap. And, it was extra work to do the NR on the 5D III image. The real kicker is the gap is growing. Other manufacturers are not sitting still. Today, were still capped at 14 stops. I don't think we'll be stuck with 14-bit ADC units for long...technology is moving far too fast for that. There are already some sensors in the astrophotography world that get anywhere from 97-150dB worth of dynamic range. That is 16.2 to 25 stops of dynamic range! Those astro cameras use...yup, Sony, Aptina, etc. sensors.

It isn't just about DR either.  As others have stated, 4k video recording is starting to become a more common feature among competitors, and the quality of that video is higher than you can get with a Canon. DIGIC 6 may change that, but at the moment, the video processing in competitors like the A7s or GH4 is superior, and the video quality is supreme.

I've also been getting more and more into astrophotography equipment. I've purchased some equipment lately that uses sensors from Sony and Aptina. I'll be getting a high end CCD camera that uses a Kodak (now TrueSense Imaging, since Kodak went bankrupt) sensor. Every single sensor I'm encountering these days, even slightly older CCD sensors (which are pretty much just a matrix of CCDs with shift registers or global readout, but otherwise none of the additional processing that CMOS sensors have) that have been paired with newer supporting circuitry, is better than Canon's sensors.

Some of these things are RADICALLY superior to what Canon has to offer. I have a QHY5L-II camera which uses an Aptina CMOS sensor. This thing has 74% Q.E. thanks to high grade silicon, it has exceptionally low dark current, and it has extremely low read noise. This sensor sees deeper into the universe than I thought possible. (And, annoyingly enough, Sony STILL has a better sensor than this one! Their new ICX line, the 674, 694, and 814, all have even lower dark current and 77% Q.E.!! :P Freakin Sony...wherever there is a damn good sensor, they seem to have a better one...)

I've been reading every bit of sensor news that comes out lately. The sensor market keeps finding new niches. The latest one is the automative rear view sensor market. There are already some incredible innovations for that. Interestingly enough, the whole "Magic Lantern Dual ISO" thing? Other companies are now actually patenting designs for sensors that use a "dual-gain" technique for high speed, high dynamic range video supported directly in the hardware (for when your rear view is directly illuminated by the sun or something like that.) My QHY sensor? That sucker has 120dB worth of dynamic range. That is TWENTY FREAKIN STOPS!! The thing has a 20-bit readout mode to fully support that many stops as well.

A year ago, I wouldn't have said Canon was that far behind. I DID say Canon was not that far behind. But in the last year or so, things have really changed. Companies aren't just innovating and filing for patents. They are putting the technology those patents describe to use, very quickly. Canon's sensor technology is like a fossil compared to the technology that is just coming out now, and will be like fossilized bone fragments when the next generation of technology hits within the next year.

So, the 70D? It doesn't sell because of it's sensor. It sells because of the other features. The 7D II will sell for the same reason...it's other features. Those other features, though...they aren't going to keep holding Canon up forever. At some point, Canon's sensor technology, if they don't do something about it within the next DSLR release or two, is going to be so radically behind the competition...and not just Sony, but every other sensor manufacturer out there...that it will be hard for anyone to ignore the difference. What happens when Sony drops a LITERAL 16-stop sensor on the market? What happens when they figure out how to extract 120dB (20 stops) worth of DR from Exmor III? What happens if Aptina decides to enter the larger form factor market, bringing all of their high dynamic range technology to those sensors as well? Omnivision and Si Onyx are out there with cameras that use black silicon that seem to have achieved nearly 100% Q.E. They can shoot high speed video in nothing but starlight and a thin crescent moon.

When you take in the whole "Big Picture" of the current CMOS Image Sensor market, Canon is a dinosaur. They may not be fossilized yet, but given all the technology I have now for astrophotography, and given all the technology that is invented or implemented in a product every single MONTH, it won't be long before Canon's sensor technology is completely and utterly irrelevant. (Assuming they continue to do absolutely nothing with it.) Layered sensors will only keep Canon afloat for so long if they don't get control of their noise problems. To get control of their noise problems, they are going to have to stop manufacturing ADCs they way they have been manufacturing ADCs for over a decade now...that either means doing something radically new with DIGIC, or better, do what everyone else is doing...move them onto the sensor. To move the ADCs onto the sensor, without having problems with thermal signatures or anything like that, they are going to need to have a die shrink, use smaller transistors just to get it all to fit without costing them too much wafer space, and preferably, use a more modern transistor design that supports lower power usage.

I do not believe Canon can produce a low noise layered sensor on a 500nm process. They would lose so much in terms of fill factor...SO much die space would have to be dedicated to pixel activate and readout logic, the photodiodes would end up extremely tiny.

Oh, and BTW, Hasselblad? They DID do something about their sensors. All of the medium format players did. They all use Sony 50mp Medium Format Exmor sensors, and they all have the same low ISO DR and high ISO noise quality (which is admittedly not any better than Canon's, but now MFD cameras are pushing ISO 6400, when most stopped at around ISO 800 at most before...some never even had selectable ISO, and just had ISO 80 or ISO 100) that every other Exmor sensor has. However, they also still have the total sensor area advantage (which is the sole reason they still performed well before despite not having more DR...when downsampled (i.e. Print DR), all those extra pixels packed into additional sensor area were a huge bonus...they counteracted, on a normalized basis, the weaknesses of their older sensors....the same weaknesses that Canon sensors STILL HAVE!) 
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

dgatwood

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 726
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #355 on: August 23, 2014, 11:00:06 PM »
Back to the wifi - I've not seen the implementation in the 6D or other Canons personally but I thought the implementation was not so clever (in terms of the SW). Canon, Nikon and others are indeed poor when it comes to an integrated system and understanding the benefits of good workflow and expandability. Another reason why smartphones are so popular. And I don't think they should go away and do their own thing, i think integration into smartphones is easiest - be part of that ecosystem, allow simple transfer so the phone can edit and publish. I think trying to get your dSLR to log in with credentials to your blog or website, name it something, allow you to put some caption and then make it ready for publication is just too much right now. In fact I think that boat has gone. No, integrate with your phone, hence why maybe BT would be better in that respect.

Maybe Bluetooth LE.  If you do full-power Bluetooth, you'll never be able to feasibly support it with iOS unless you use the iOS-specific MFI protocol, in which case you'll have headaches on Android.

Wi-Fi works moderately well for that, though.  You just set the camera up as an AP, turn Wi-Fi on, run the appropriate app to copy pictures from the camera to your phone, shut the camera's Wi-Fi back off (so your networking works again), and do something with the pictures.  Is it ideal?  No.  Does it work?  Yes.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #356 on: August 23, 2014, 11:46:32 PM »
I think I get the no WiFi thing from Canon's point of view -

"If you want WiFi in a FF body - buy the 6D
If you want WiFi in a crop body - buy the 70D"

Leave the top end bodies for specialized use (7D2, 5D3, 1DX). Works fine for the 1 series and 5 series, why not 7?

Just a thought. I would love to see WiFi in everything, or bluetooth or NFC or something!
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

dtaylor

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 736
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #357 on: August 24, 2014, 02:24:22 AM »
Well, your just plain wrong about the DR. Your using IR's "total DR" number, which is irrelevant, 

It is the ONLY relevant number. The definition of DR is not up for debate.

How hard you can push shadows due to noise (i.e. grain) is LATITUDE.

Quote
Even IR's results where they don't completely ignore noise even jive, and IR ALSO gets approximately a two-stop difference between Canon sensors and Exmors.

Guess what would happen if you fed Imatest or DxO the D800 and 5D3+NR file you posted? They would report nearly identical DR. But applying NR to the D800 will not reveal any more detail or bump its score the same, at least not with Imatest. (DxO thinks blacker blacks with no detail still = more DR, so maybe their score would go up. But it would also be useless.)

Picking an arbitrary noise/processing threshold and arguing about it is worthless for this very reason.

Quote
You are correct that some careful NR can close the gap. Thing is, if you actually look at my sample images I recently posted, there is still a gap.

Yes. You might even spot it on a 36" print with the D800 print sitting next to it  ::)

Quote
And, it was extra work to do the NR on the 5D III image.

Usually the "extra work" involves moving sliders in ACR. I generally tailor my NR selections based on the image in front of me any way, regardless of sensor, unless it's base ISO and I won't be pushing shadows at all because they're all solid there.

If you don't want to do any work, then you probably aren't converting a RAW in the first place. For those people there are automatic 3 shot HDR modes.

Quote
The real kicker is the gap is growing.

No it's not. It's about the same today as it was when the D7000 came out against the 7D. Both sensor series have improved over time by small increments.

Quote
I don't think we'll be stuck with 14-bit ADC units for long...technology is moving far too fast for that.

Someone has to be able to fabricate a sensor that can produce useful bits >14 first. If someone does that at Photokina while Canon ships a 70D sensor variant, then Canon has a problem. But even Sony's 12 MP FF sensor isn't doing that yet so I kind of doubt it.

Quote
As others have stated, 4k video recording is starting to become a more common feature among competitors, and the quality of that video is higher than you can get with a Canon.

I'll give you that one. As a stills guy I don't personally care, but Canon needs to start shipping 4k as well as some of the other features of ML.

Quote
I've also been getting more and more into astrophotography equipment...Some of these things are RADICALLY superior to what Canon has to offer.

But these are also niche tools, are they not? In terms of general purpose cameras, I'll grant that a Sony Exmor is a better choice for astro, but it's not like you can't do good astro with a 5D2/3 or 6D. Flickr is full of those shots.

Quote
That is TWENTY FREAKIN STOPS!! The thing has a 20-bit readout mode to fully support that many stops as well.

But we don't see that in any general purpose, high resolution ILC gear. So what's the trade off? If it doesn't arrive in our cameras for two years, and Canon does the same thing at the same time or shortly after Sony (for example), then they're not way behind. They would be way behind if Sony's current FF sensors had 20 stops.

Quote
So, the 70D? It doesn't sell because of it's sensor.

The 70D has an excellent sensor that is competitive now. If Sony brings out a 20 stop ISO 25,600 APS-C monster tomorrow, that will change. But you're reading about all this new stuff that no one has yet in a general purpose ILC line. Which means there is a trade off...maybe as simple as fab yields...that everyone is experiencing.

Quote
What happens when Sony drops a LITERAL 16-stop sensor on the market?

Canon will respond. Even if it means buying the sensor from Sony, if their market is threatened they will respond. But my guess is that 16-stop sensor is not coming as soon as you imagine, nor is Canon's that far behind. Plus, I see a lot of patents coming from Canon for RGB multilayer sensors. Foveon shot themselves in the foot by overstating the advantage, but the advantage is significant. Anyone else doing any R&D here?

Quote
To get control of their noise problems, they are going to have to stop manufacturing ADCs they way they have been manufacturing ADCs for over a decade now...

When it affects their market share I'm sure they will. They're still #1, and the smart company pockets profits but has tech ready to go when they need it. I know that sucks when you want to see rapid innovation, but it's typical behavior. If you're the underdog you innovate wildly...and often lose money...trying to get at the top dog. If you're the top dog, you protect your position.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #357 on: August 24, 2014, 02:24:22 AM »

x-vision

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #358 on: August 24, 2014, 03:47:30 AM »

It is the ONLY relevant number. The definition of DR is not up for debate.

How hard you can push shadows due to noise (i.e. grain) is LATITUDE.

Look, man, call it anything you want. Here's the deal, though:

FF cameras have less noise than crop cameras. No one argues about that.
With ... ahem ... LATITUDE, it's the exact same thing: you have less noise in the shadows.

But in both cases, it's all about having less noise.

And it's very silly to argue that with some extra noise reduction, things get equalized. No, they don't.
By the same token, you can clean up an image from a crop camera and proclaim that crop is better than FF.
Would anyone take you seriously if you do that?

So, why are you doing it for DR ??

Having more DR (what you call latitude) gives you images with cleaner shadows - just like a FF camera gives you cleaner images overall.
And having cleaner shadows/images is a clear advantage. Why are you downplaying it?
What you are doing is the same as downplaying the noise advantage of FF vs crop.

It seems to me that you just can't accept that Canon, your home team, is not winning in this particular instance.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 03:55:20 AM by x-vision »

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #359 on: August 24, 2014, 03:53:57 AM »
Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney?

4K is the future-proof format. That's why it's important even now, when 4K TVs are still not the norm.
+1

Ever shoot a picture and crop it? Same thing.... only with movies...

It also allows post processing image stabilization.

I know very little about video, sorry. That was why I was asking. OK I see the advantages now.
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #359 on: August 24, 2014, 03:53:57 AM »