Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]

[bdunbar79]

Okay, that makes sense.  However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have.  That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable.  I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different.  The shadows are actually really, really bad.  I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations. 

[jrista]

Okay, that makes sense.  However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have.  That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable.  I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different.  The shadows are actually really, really bad.  I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

[bdunbar79]

I'm looking now, and my highest useable ISO was 16,000.  Which I agree, is VERY good!  I just want people to be careful because I see a lot of "it can go up to ISO.............etc."  Just be careful and realize that the overall lighting matters too and 25,600 is really pushing the quality.  I am however, very happy that it performs at as high of ISO's as it does.  So no complaints on the camera at all.  I'll use it again, so I'll have more shots to compare.

[bdunbar79]

Okay, that makes sense.  However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have.  That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable.  I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different.  The shadows are actually really, really bad.  I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it.  I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow.  Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited.  I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600.  In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8.  The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

[Stone]

I don't see the specs as THAT far fetched, the 7D is supposed to be the king of crop bodies.  It makes perfect sense to me that it have this kind of spec sheet.  The 61pt AF is a no brainer since it works so well in the 1 & 5 series bodies and should be exclusive to the top of the line xD series bodies and 10fps is no longer the holy grail considering the blistering performance of the 1DX.

The only unknown is the sensor.  Are we finally going to see some new tech from Canon?  The 18MP sensor has been ubiquitous among Canon crop bodies for some time now.  It makes sense to release a new higher resolution sensor on a flagship APS-C body.  Having a slightly higher MP count isn't going to matter much to Enthusiast/Pro buyers who understand the performance characteristics of FF vs Crop, but birders and those limited by reach (like myself) would certainly appreciate the upgrade, it would also be nice marketing material for amateurs who just wanna spend a bundle since Megapixels still sell cameras.

I do expect the price for this kind of performance to increase by about $1K, this is Canon we're talking about here.  Considering the recent firmware upgrades, I can't see the 7DII dropping this year.  Canon HAS to release it's high MP monster and affordable FF bodies in the Fall/Spring just to remain competitive with the dark side, so I see a 7DII as a late summer 2013 camera which is fine by me if they spend some quality time on the sensor......   

[distant.star]

.
I think they  must pay some retired PR/media guys to dream this stuff up and send it out through the rumor mill. Wonder how I can get in on this action! Pay must be good enough for a couple of nice dinners and drinks out each month.

Let's all raise a glass for good disinformation!!!

[marekjoz]

I don't see the specs as THAT far fetched, the 7D is supposed to be the king of crop bodies.  (...)

I've read his sentence as "(...)the 7D is supposed to be the king of crap bodies." and I really don't know why, but I liked this opinion :-)

[hmmm]

I don't see the specs as THAT far fetched, the 7D is supposed to be the king of crop bodies.  (...)

I've read his sentence as "(...)the 7D is supposed to be the king of crap bodies." and I really don't know why, but I liked this opinion :-)

What juvenile humor.  Oh well, got me to laugh.   

I really like the idea that we'll know for sure by the end of next week.   Come on... twin announcement for 70D and 7D mkII !!!

[marekjoz]

I don't see the specs as THAT far fetched, the 7D is supposed to be the king of crop bodies.  (...)

I've read his sentence as "(...)the 7D is supposed to be the king of crap bodies." and I really don't know why, but I liked this opinion :-)

What juvenile humor.  Oh well, got me to laugh.   

I really like the idea that we'll know for sure by the end of next week.   Come on... twin announcement for 70D and 7D mkII !!!

What's wrong with sharing own experiences? :-) You brought my selfconfidence to the upper level with your proper sensation
EDIT: I have my own 7D, so I personally wouldn't like it to be the king of crap. I love my 7D. I care about it a lot - I get it outside for a a fresh air but I let it stay in warm backpack for the most of the time. I love it so much, that I do my best not to make it overworked.

[jrista]

Okay, that makes sense.  However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have.  That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable.  I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different.  The shadows are actually really, really bad.  I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it.  I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow.  Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited.  I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600.  In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8.  The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

In your kitchen, your subjects are probably only a few feet away. Out on a soccer field, your subjects are probably ten times as far away. Remember, light has an inverse square falloff...even if its a bright light source, on the field that light has to travel from the bulb to the subject, then from the subject to the camera. Our eyes adjust automatically, however cameras are fixed devices. A soccer field is not a particularly bright place in the grand scheme of things. The difference between f/2.8 and f/6.3 is more than two stops, or more than a four-fold difference in light let down the lens. If you simply double your aperture to f/4.5, that alone would probably do wonders (either you could drop to ISO 12800 and get more DR, or keep using 25600 and get a more saturated shot.)

[Bosman]

I got nothin to say till its at least CR2.

[dlleno]

I got nothin to say till its at least CR2.

like

[marekjoz]

Okay, that makes sense.  However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have.  That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable.  I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different.  The shadows are actually really, really bad.  I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it.  I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow.  Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited.  I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600.  In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8.  The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

In your kitchen, your subjects are probably only a few feet away. Out on a soccer field, your subjects are probably ten times as far away. Remember, light has an inverse square falloff...even if its a bright light source, on the field that light has to travel from the bulb to the subject, then from the subject to the camera. Our eyes adjust automatically, however cameras are fixed devices. A soccer field is not a particularly bright place in the grand scheme of things. The difference between f/2.8 and f/6.3 is more than two stops, or more than a four-fold difference in light let down the lens. If you simply double your aperture to f/4.5, that alone would probably do wonders (either you could drop to ISO 12800 and get more DR, or keep using 25600 and get a more saturated shot.)

Yes. Here are some examples from the soccer field with the spec details: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/uefa_euro_2012_blog_2.do Sometimes it's the quality "almost" achievable with 7D but in most cases with lenses rather out of the reach. Financial reach of course.

[jouster]

No way that's going to happen, 7D would be better than 5D3 in specs but without FF sensor.
But if it so, definitely going to upgrade.

Well, the 7D was better than the 5D2 except for its sensor. No reason the 7D2 couldn't be better than the 5D3 in the same way.

[bdunbar79]

Okay, that makes sense.  However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have.  That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable.  I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different.  The shadows are actually really, really bad.  I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it.  I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow.  Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited.  I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600.  In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8.  The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

In your kitchen, your subjects are probably only a few feet away. Out on a soccer field, your subjects are probably ten times as far away. Remember, light has an inverse square falloff...even if its a bright light source, on the field that light has to travel from the bulb to the subject, then from the subject to the camera. Our eyes adjust automatically, however cameras are fixed devices. A soccer field is not a particularly bright place in the grand scheme of things. The difference between f/2.8 and f/6.3 is more than two stops, or more than a four-fold difference in light let down the lens. If you simply double your aperture to f/4.5, that alone would probably do wonders (either you could drop to ISO 12800 and get more DR, or keep using 25600 and get a more saturated shot.)

I agree that all of this is true.  Which simply bolsters my point about shooting night soccer at ISO 25600 with a 1DX.  It's beyond lab tests and spec sheets.