Thinking Out Loud: EOS 7D Mark II Thoughts

[eml58]

Has anyone else read this story over at Canon watch, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.


http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/

 

[unfocused]

Has anyone else read this story over at Canon watch, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.


http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/

Someone started a separate thread on this, but really, it makes more sense to continue the discussion here.

I'm not buying it. Companies don't like to switch product names. Too much invested to just drop a name and start over. Particularly unlikely with something as popular as the 7D. Even Nikon didn't drop the D600 name despite how badly damaged it is. Strikes me as more rumor trolling.

 

[Don Haines]

The actual die yield rate matters quite a bit though doesnt it?

As in if you get 1 failed sensor out of 1000 for a full frame, its not going to really matter all that much that its even only 1 in a million for the APS-C sensors. Its going to be much closer to just the actual 1.6 square, ie about 3 times as much.

So depending on the numbers, we could be talking a $10 sensor vs a ~$30 one, or 10 vs 340.

The gap in price between the 6D and and a 60D or the like does seem surprisingly close though.

The fail rate is not linear.
Let's say the pass rate is 90 percent for APS-C. A full frame sensor has an area of 1.6^2, or 2.56 times an APCS sensor. The pass rate for FF is .9^2.56 or 76 percent. (with more area, a flaw is more likely to occur)

If you said an APSC sensor cost $10 to make, then the cost per working sensor is $11
You can fit 2.6 times as many APSC sensors on a wafer than you can fit FF sensors.... that would mean that a FF sensor costs $26 to make, but with a 76 percent pass rate, the cost per working FF sensor becomes $34... over three times the cost per sensor.

If the pass rate for APS-C was 50 percent, then the FF pass rate becomes 17 percent. Cost per working sensor becomes $20 for APSC and $153 for FF, or 7 1/2 times the price

If the pass rate for APS-C was 25 percent, then the FF pass rate becomes 2.9 percent. Cost per working sensor becomes $40 for APSC and $897 for FF, or 22 1/2 times the price

This is what happens as you scale larger with lower yields... Image sensors are complex to fabricate and at the start of production you can expect yields lower than 10 percent, climbing higher as experience is gained. Nobody other than Canon knows what their yields are.. these numbers are just for the purpose of making a point, but 90 percent yield for an APSC might be achievable...

 

[sdsr]

1. There had better be a 7d MK II.

2. I hate video. Optimize my camera for still images.

Divergance is an extremely important concept Canon does not get. See this link...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml

3. The 7d mk II MUST be APS-C. I have discussed many times on this forum the superior nature of APS-C.

Canon, listen, or let the K3 eat your ever dwindling customer base...

I'm not interested in video either (I was delighted to discover, after accidentally pressing it, that the movie button on the new OM-D can be assigned any one of a number of useful functions such as AF-assist or disabled altogether; perhaps that's true of all other cameras too...), and I also like the ideas of specialization and simplicity. We may be in a tiny minority, though (not only do people seem to like things that do everything, but I suspect that the longer the list of specifications, the more appealing it is to a certain sort of consumer).

Besides, these problems are exaggerated. It's easy not to use the movie functions in a camera (how much do they add to its cost), and some modern cameras, despite looking dauntingly complex, can be set up so that they are, in fact, extremely simple to use (the latest OM-D, for instance).

As for Pentax, its high-end dslrs have given better sensor performance than anyone else's for several years by some accounts (esp. DxO scores), even when they're using the same sensor as others, but that doesn't seem to have hurt Nikon, let alone Canon, and it's hard to see why it should start now. Even with its improvements, I don't think anyone is claiming that the K3's AF performance comes close to rivaling Canon's, and when it comes to lenses, not only does Pentax have nothing like the range of Canon, overall the quality isn't as good either (especially in terms of AF speed and accuracy). Sure, they have a few cute little primes (far more attractive aesthetically than anything made by Canon), but hardly any of them have really fast apertures and many of them have focus problems (speed and/or accuracy).

As it happens, before I switched to Canon I owned a K5 (five minutes with 5DII & 24-105L and I was sold), and am once again enjoying using a few old Pentax manual lenses (Takumar) because they work even better on my new OM-D (with its excellent and easy-to-use in-EVF magnification and focus assist). These new-fangled complex cameras have their advantages....

 

[Otara]

You keep working backwards though - if the yield for FF is high enough, the increased rate of failure becomes more and more irrelevant.

You quoted 90% or APS-C, but I dont see where that came from vs FF max rates possible - what is the max rate likely, and is 99, or 99.9 or whatever possible at some point or anything? The usefulness of your figures rest mostly on how often FF have to be failed, and to me thats the rate that we need to know about most.

Edit: So we seem to agree that the differences get smaller and smaller where the sensor price becomes comparatively irrelevant ie we talk 7 vs 30+ times. The 6D price alone shows either dumping is occurring, or the price of sensors are getting very low as part of the total cost - any improvement is going to have to be pretty amazing to overcome the introduction cost of something new with 10% rates etc etc.

Otara

 

[eml58]

Has anyone else read this story over at Canon watch, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.


http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/

Someone started a separate thread on this, but really, it makes more sense to continue the discussion here.

I'm not buying it. Companies don't like to switch product names. Too much invested to just drop a name and start over. Particularly unlikely with something as popular as the 7D. Even Nikon didn't drop the D600 name despite how badly damaged it is. Strikes me as more rumor trolling.

I tend to agree, but then I'm an owner of the 1DMK IV & the 1DsMKIII, and Canon without too much forward warning, if any, dropped the APSH format & the higher MP FF sensor & went with the 1Dx, but from my perspective although I was concerned to start I think it was a smart decision, the 1Dx has proven to be a pretty good piece of gear, but I do miss that higher MP Sensor.

I never quite worked out why Canon couldn't implement the same set up that Nikon have had for some time, the capability of doing in camera crop, I owned the D800 for a year before I sold it off, but that in camera crop was a pretty useful tool I thought.

 

[Don Haines]

You keep working backwards though - if the yield for FF is high enough, the increased rate of failure becomes more and more irrelevant.

You quoted 90% or APS-C, but I dont see where that came from vs FF max rates possible - what is the max rate likely, and is 99, or 99.9 or whatever possible at some point or anything? The usefulness of your figures rest mostly on how often FF have to be failed, and to me thats the rate that we need to know about most.

Otara

The max rate is obviously 100 percent, where the FF chip will cost 2.6 times the APS-C. When in "research mode", the yields may be down to 10 percent or lower... it's probably around 50 percent by the time they start making prototypes, and probably 75 percent or better by the time they go into production, and probably 90 percent after a half year or so of production....

The point to make here, is that even with 90 percent yield the cost is about 3 times APS-C, while perfect yields give 2.6 times.... the difference caused by yield during production is insignificant..

I have no idea what it costs to make an APS-C sensor, but an EOS-M can be bought for $300. Even if you said the sensor cost $100 (and 1/3 of the retail cost of a camera is insanely high), then by the above math we could expect a FF sensor to cost $300..... realistically, I would expect an APS-C sensor to cost UNDER $20 to make, and that would mean $50-$60 for a FF sensor.... $40 difference in sensor cost does not explain the price difference between APS-C and FF cameras.

 

[Don Haines]

Has anyone else read this story over at Canon watch, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.


http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/

Someone started a separate thread on this, but really, it makes more sense to continue the discussion here.

I'm not buying it. Companies don't like to switch product names. Too much invested to just drop a name and start over. Particularly unlikely with something as popular as the 7D. Even Nikon didn't drop the D600 name despite how badly damaged it is. Strikes me as more rumor trolling.

I tend to agree, but then I'm an owner of the 1DMK IV & the 1DsMKIII, and Canon without too much forward warning, if any, dropped the APSH format & the higher MP FF sensor & went with the 1Dx, but from my perspective although I was concerned to start I think it was a smart decision, the 1Dx has proven to be a pretty good piece of gear, but I do miss that higher MP Sensor.

I never quite worked out why Canon couldn't implement the same set up that Nikon have had for some time, the capability of doing in camera crop, I owned the D800 for a year before I sold it off, but that in camera crop was a pretty useful tool I thought.

The 60D has an in-camera crop mode for video probably not what you want to hear

 

[jrista]

Has anyone else read this story over at Canon watch, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.


http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/

Someone started a separate thread on this, but really, it makes more sense to continue the discussion here.

I'm not buying it. Companies don't like to switch product names. Too much invested to just drop a name and start over. Particularly unlikely with something as popular as the 7D. Even Nikon didn't drop the D600 name despite how badly damaged it is. Strikes me as more rumor trolling.

I tend to agree, but then I'm an owner of the 1DMK IV & the 1DsMKIII, and Canon without too much forward warning, if any, dropped the APSH format & the higher MP FF sensor & went with the 1Dx, but from my perspective although I was concerned to start I think it was a smart decision, the 1Dx has proven to be a pretty good piece of gear, but I do miss that higher MP Sensor.

I never quite worked out why Canon couldn't implement the same set up that Nikon have had for some time, the capability of doing in camera crop, I owned the D800 for a year before I sold it off, but that in camera crop was a pretty useful tool I thought.

I have never known Canon to really show much interest in directly competing model for model, feature for feature, with Nikon or any other competitor. As a matter of fact, one of the things I really like about Canon is the fact that they really do seem to listen to the most important and vocal collective voices of their own direct customers.

For all the complaints people have levied at Canon for the "faults" of their latest generation of cameras, Canon listened intently to, and delivered exactly, what their most important customers were calling for. The sports and wedding photographers in particular demanded, DEMANDED, better high ISO performance, faster frame rates, better AF, and in the case of sports shooters, FEWER MEGAPIXELS! In the case of wedding photographers, I think the one ubiquitous request was a better AF system for the 5D III. Canon DELIVERED. They delivered exquisitely. They focused on the things their customers asked for, and pushed out a camera with the most amazing high ISO performance I've ever seen (at least, when it comes to bird and sports photography, I've seen quite a number of entirely usable ISO 51200 photos, at magazine print and web sizes you can barely tell there is any noise at all.)

There has never been a large, vocal outcry for Canon to add dynamic cropping modes to their cameras. There are certainly some niche groups of photographers who want it, but they seem to be far from the majority of Canon's customers. The largest groups have not only the most buying power, but the most important voice when it comes to demanding what they want from the largest photography company on the planet. That is, fundamentally, the sports/olympics, wedding/portraiture, and maybe in aggregate landscape/wildlife/bird photographers. You can kind of lump sports/olympics/wildlife/bird together as well...that's the action group, and in most of the ways that count, they all need the same thing: High ISO, high speed shutter, very fast frame rate, highly accurate and fast AF. That singularly large group of photographers has Canon by the gonads, and their demands in aggregate will always reign supreme. Wedding/portraiture has similar needs, but they also benefit from much higher sensor resolution and could probably use more dynamic range as well...and they would probably make up the second largest group.

If Canon continues to listen to it's own customers as a guide for where they should direct their R&D funding, then I don't suspect we will see quite as many interesting features like dynamic crop sensors as we do from Nikon. I think we will see a direct response to the most vocal outcry from the greatest majority of users. I think higher resolution is probably the largest outcry right now...more resolution without a loss in IQ. Improved dynamic range is probably secondary to more resolution...although I am honestly not as sure that a call for more dynamic range is really strong enough to get Canon to act on it by the next generation camera releases. I don't see much call at all for any of the other various and small features that Nikon currently offers in their cameras that are not available in Canon cameras. Some certainly offer small conveniences, but until a very loud vocal majority demands it, I don't foresee Canon even batting an eye at them.

 

[RichM]

Lots of interesting thoughts here. Since this thread is still titled "Thinking Out Loud...." here goes....

I have had my 7d since the day it hit the shelves. It is still my "go to" action photography camera, despite purchasing the 5d2, and then replacing the 5d2 with a 5d3. While I'd love a 1DX, I cannot possibly justify the price, and the corresponding increase in cost for lenses that provide the same reach as my 7d/300f4 combo.

The 5d3 is simply awesome. When I can only bring 1 body, for whatever reason, the 5d3 comes along. It is outstanding for everything. It is vastly superior in low light, and for landscape and portrait photography. But there is something about the 7d that makes it a joy to use for all sports photography. It is a poor man's 1D4.

I will buy the 7d replacement, regardless of what they call it, if it provides 3 things: improved low light performance, improved image quality, and an APS-C sensor. Simply put, I'm a huge 7d fan.

 

[candc]

The article at canon watch makes sense. I read the interview where a canon exec said there would be a 7dii but they want it to be revolutionary not just evolutionary. I took that to mean a new manufacturing process, maybe its something else.

Anyway, 7dii is an evolutionary name, not a revolutionary one so I think what this is really all about is "what will the 7dii be called?"

 

[Don Haines]

There has never been a large, vocal outcry for Canon to add dynamic cropping modes to their cameras. There are certainly some niche groups of photographers who want it, but they seem to be far from the majority of Canon's customers.

Strictly speaking.... changing the aspect ratio is in-camera cropping.... but I know what you mean.

Personally, I shoot RAW and worry about cropping later. A lot of my personal work gets shown in 16x9 but I like the ability to sit down later and adjust the crop/size to what works best. At work, my shots end up in reports and documentation, so size/format are all over the place.... including playing with levels/contrast/color to make cables or markings stand out.... I don't think I have taken a single picture that was not the full sensor area.

 

[mkabi]

There is a possibility that they may call it a 7DC... in which case... I'm sold.

I do not think its going to be a mini 1Dx or 1DC, because if any consumer/prosumer/enthusiast/professional was to choose between a 1Dx or a 7D mark II... they would always choose a 7D mark ii, because of price. Especially, if the only difference between them is going to be FF vs APS-C. In which case, Canon's 1 series bodies lose...

So, I too believe that the 7D mark ii is going to have a modest upgrade, but a modest upgrade from the 70D.
Same sensor as the 70D, better low light capabilities, more fps but not 12 fps., slightly better AF.... etc.

However, I think they are going to push 4K, may be 1080/120p.
Because, they know people can't afford the 1DC (but want 4K, seeing all of Magic Lantern efforts going towards that) and they have modest sales with the C100 so video is not going to die.

But expect the price to be a little less than the C100, which would put it next to the price a 5D mark iii, when it came out.

If Sony can make camcorders with 4K for $4000, then Canon can do the same with their DSLRs.

 

[Zlyden]

Regardless of what their initial intentions might have been, the reality is that the APS-C market is now too big and too independent for either Canon or Nikon to risk alienating and losing customers by not meeting the consumers' demands.

But, if consumer demand for P&S cameras is on rapid decline, APS-C size sensor cameras becomes the primary competition arena for all camera makers where they should try to recover sales volumes that compacts lost to smartphones.

This should lead to Canon's APS-C camera prices going even lower than they are now (because it needs to compete with mirrorless offerings in $200-400 price range). The price decrease may also lead to difficulty with sales of APS-C cameras in '$1000 and up' segment.

In such situation FF DSLRS and EF lenses could be long term solution (or at least 'short term solution', until it's forced to create mirrorless FF) for Canon. It will not take a lot of marketing efforts to convince consumers that 'bigger means better'. And having only Nikon and Sony in this segment as competitors, Canon will be differentiated enough from the rest of the camera-maker crowd.

Another problem that Canon faces now and may solve by killing of 7D (in my opinion) are owners of older APS-C cameras (like 550D, 600D or 60D) who feel that may need to purchase new camera, but can not decide -- which one? "I own 550D (or 60D) what should I buy: 70D, 6D, 7D or wait for 7D II?" -- is probably frequent enough question on any photo forum. If Canon will remove 7D from the lineup (and drop official MSRP of 6D to $1500-1600 level), the answer to this question and customer's choice will be much simpler (and bring some more $$$ to company's quarter sales report).

 

[wsmith96]

Regardless of what their initial intentions might have been, the reality is that the APS-C market is now too big and too independent for either Canon or Nikon to risk alienating and losing customers by not meeting the consumers' demands.

But, if consumer demand for P&S cameras is on rapid decline, APS-C size sensor cameras becomes the primary competition arena for all camera makers where they should try to recover sales volumes that compacts lost to smartphones.

This should lead to Canon's APS-C camera prices going even lower than they are now (because it needs to compete with mirrorless offerings in $200-400 price range). The price decrease may also lead to difficulty with sales of APS-C cameras in '$1000 and up' segment.

In such situation FF DSLRS and EF lenses could be long term solution (or at least 'short term solution', until it's forced to create mirrorless FF) for Canon. It will not take a lot of marketing efforts to convince consumers that 'bigger means better'. And having only Nikon and Sony in this segment as competitors, Canon will be differentiated enough from the rest of the camera-maker crowd.

Another problem that Canon faces now and may solve by killing of 7D (in my opinion) are owners of older APS-C cameras (like 550D, 600D or 60D) who feel that may need to purchase new camera, but can not decide -- which one? "I own 550D (or 60D) what should I buy: 70D, 6D, 7D or wait for 7D II?" -- is probably frequent enough question on any photo forum. If Canon will remove 7D from the lineup (and drop official MSRP of 6D to $1500-1600 level), the answer to this question and customer's choice will be much simpler (and bring some more $$$ to company's quarter sales report).

funny you mention this as that's the position I'm in right now. So far, my answer to this would be to get both.

 

[Zlyden]

funny you mention this as that's the position I'm in right now. So far, my answer to this would be to get both.

Well, then it just means that Canon marketing folk are much wiser again and do need any suggestions from various forums.

They just needed to spread out rumor that will terminate another rumor about '7D II to be released very soon'...

 

[drmikeinpdx]

My 7D doesn't get much use anymore, because of the noise level. I'd only be interested in a 7D2 if Canon makes a substanially lower noise 1.6 sensor and from what I've seen, they are not making much progress on that front.

 

[Zlyden]

My 7D doesn't get much use anymore, because of the noise level. I'd only be interested in a 7D2 if Canon makes a substanially lower noise 1.6 sensor and from what I've seen, they are not making much progress on that front.

Well, it is not only Canon -- no camera makers in APS-C or 4/3 segment did make much progress on 'noise level' during past 10 years (unless a great jump from ISO 1600 being 'just awful' to 'almost acceptable' counts as a progress).

I do not think that it's possible that '7D II' may be much better in this quality... unless they will use the same type of sensors as in current FF cameras (like 6D) and reduce 18 MPs back to 8-10 MPs.

 

[jrista]

There has never been a large, vocal outcry for Canon to add dynamic cropping modes to their cameras. There are certainly some niche groups of photographers who want it, but they seem to be far from the majority of Canon's customers.

Strictly speaking.... changing the aspect ratio is in-camera cropping.... but I know what you mean.

Personally, I shoot RAW and worry about cropping later. A lot of my personal work gets shown in 16x9 but I like the ability to sit down later and adjust the crop/size to what works best. At work, my shots end up in reports and documentation, so size/format are all over the place.... including playing with levels/contrast/color to make cables or markings stand out.... I don't think I have taken a single picture that was not the full sensor area.

I think your misunderstanding just a little bit. By in-camera cropping, I am referring to the ability of say a FF sensor to support different crops wherein ONLY the cropped area is read out and saved to a proper RAW image format. If Canon released a 46mp FF sensor, they might also provide an 18mp APS-C cropped read. By doing so, they could offer more than just crop, but ALSO offer higher frame rate, since reading 18 megapixles requires less time and overhead than reading 46 megapixels. You might have a 4fps rate at 46mp, and 10fps at 18mp. You could also have other crop factors as well, maybe a 1.3x APS-H crop at 8fps. And, since it is still a native sensor read, just a sensor read limited to a smaller central region of pixels, there is no reason whatsoever that the output couldn't and shouldn't be the same native RAW format as full frame reads.

 

[Don Haines]

There has never been a large, vocal outcry for Canon to add dynamic cropping modes to their cameras. There are certainly some niche groups of photographers who want it, but they seem to be far from the majority of Canon's customers.

Strictly speaking.... changing the aspect ratio is in-camera cropping.... but I know what you mean.

Personally, I shoot RAW and worry about cropping later. A lot of my personal work gets shown in 16x9 but I like the ability to sit down later and adjust the crop/size to what works best. At work, my shots end up in reports and documentation, so size/format are all over the place.... including playing with levels/contrast/color to make cables or markings stand out.... I don't think I have taken a single picture that was not the full sensor area.

I think your misunderstanding just a little bit. By in-camera cropping, I am referring to the ability of say a FF sensor to support different crops wherein ONLY the cropped area is read out and saved to a proper RAW image format. If Canon released a 46mp FF sensor, they might also provide an 18mp APS-C cropped read. By doing so, they could offer more than just crop, but ALSO offer higher frame rate, since reading 18 megapixles requires less time and overhead than reading 46 megapixels. You might have a 4fps rate at 46mp, and 10fps at 18mp. You could also have other crop factors as well, maybe a 1.3x APS-H crop at 8fps. And, since it is still a native sensor read, just a sensor read limited to a smaller central region of pixels, there is no reason whatsoever that the output couldn't and shouldn't be the same native RAW format as full frame reads.

I knew exactly what you meant.... but I didn't consider the faster frame rate with the smaller files... Even a Rebel can read an 18M sensor at 60 times per second, and any "big megapixel" camera that supports video should have no problem with being able to read the sensor 60 times per second.

I think that what slows down frame rate is the shutter speed, the time needed to create the files, and mostly the ability to dump the files out to storage. I agree, smaller number of pixels to be used in the image gives faster processing and less time to write, and that gives you more frames/second.

As an interesting aside, I have a p/s with a 16M sensor, it can shoot video at 240 frames per second so that implies that time required to read the sensor is not important... As you shrink down the recorded size of the image the frame rate goes up...
11.5fps/17 images (16M)
60.3fps/60 images (3M)

If Canon put out a DSLR where you could put it into a 10Mpixel crop mode and fire off a burst at 30 or 40 frames per second there would be a lot of interested bird photographers