1d IV vs. 7D II

[sagittariansrock]

Not talking about 1D X, I specifically meant the 1D (APS-H) cameras, as per OP

Jon and Don, I think you misunderstood a few key points in my post. I shall clarify so we don't go off-topic.

Firstly, I am not suggesting APS-C sensors will ever come close to a FF or even APS-H sensor of the same or closely followed generation. It is physically impossible, we have had lots of discussions on it, and I am sure it has that horse is dead and buried.
When I said a future APS-C sensor (and I mentioned it WON'T be 7DII with a 70D-grade sensor) might trounce 1D series, I mean 1D through 1D Mark IV APS-H sensors, that was last designed before 2009. Hope that bit is quite clear. So let's not even bring 1D X or any later cameras, and certainly not FF cameras here.

Secondly, that same statement above oes for Canon being conservative with 1D series- I do not mean the 1D X, but the 1D APS-H cameras. Even when they released the 7D with 18 MP, they released the 1D IV with 16 MP. 50D that followed 1D III (with 10 MP) had 15 MP crammed in a much smaller sensor. So I do feel Canon has been conservative with megapixel count for their top-of-the-line sports shooters because they felt that market cared less about high MP, but more about noise and IQ. The same path was taken by Nikon for their Pro shooters. It's just my observation, please correct me if I am wrong here.

Thirdly, there is definitely much, much more to the camera than the sensor- as has been discussed ad nauseam. Let us not even go into that fruitless discussion. I was attempting to suggest that if there is a choice between keeping the 20-24 MP count and sacrificing IQ vs lowering it to say 16 and improving the IQ in a 7DII, Canon will try to go that route. I think that was OP's question. So to restate the question to you, do you think Canon will go the higher IQ-lower MP route or the lower IQ-higher MP route, everything remaining the same.

Fourth, and this is the vital take home from your post- you do not think Canon will try to replace their 1D series with the 7DII or its successors.
[Notice that you do mention 1D X from here on, so if you thought I implied 7DII replacing 1D X, trouncing 1D X etc., let's nip that in the bud. I very specifically meant the APS-H 1D cameras that have been discontinued. I think any mention of 1D X in this whole conversation is moot. I am not talking of any FF camera, certainly not the 1D X]
Now if you meant Canon will not replace its discontinued APS-H line, I will defer to your greater knowledge. I agree, Nikon has never brought out a high-end crop sensor line just for the sports shooters and birders, and APS-H and Nikon DX were both a technical compromise rather than a necessity. So that answers OP's second question- maybe Canon will not replace the 1D (APS-H) segment. Eventually time will tell.

 

[jrista]

There is no chance the 7D II is ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER going to "trounce" anything with a larger sensor. Just not gonna happen.

If we assume a similar number of pixels and similar level of technology, you are right. However, take a 50 megapixel FF camera and a 20 megapixel APS-C camera and you can expect similar levels of performance.... but go the other way and make a 12 megapixel FF camera and now you have a camera that shoots ISO 409600 like an APS-C camera shoots ISO 12800.... And likewise, compare a 7D2 to a 1D and see what happens..

First off...has anyone actually seen the sample still images from the A7s? Despite it having only 12mp, it's high ISO images are pretty crappy. Even the 6D does better at high ISO RAW than the A7s for some reason. Most of the "wow" stuff I've seen about the A7s has been video related, and I think Sony's BIONZ X processor is really what's doing all the amazing stuff. The A7s is still an Exmor...and unless Canon has tweaked the design, I believe Exmor sensors still digitally boost after CP-ADC for all ISOs. That might explain the lackluster high ISO RAW performance...

Anyway...your talking about pixel performance. On a per pixel standpoint, yes, the individual pixels of a 12mp or 10mp or 8mp 7D II would perform better than the individual pixels of a larger sensor with smaller pixels. But again, that doesn't matter. Pixel size doesn't really have anything to do with it. A single pixel doesn't make a picture. Multiple pixels in concert make a picture. Lets say we have a 50mp 1D XXX (;D) and a 12mp 7D II. Will the 7D II perform better than the 1D XXX? Hell no. There is no inverse trouncing going on here. : The 7D line will forever be in the position of leghumping Ms. 1D while she's in the middle of pole dancing for photography nerds. Why? Because so long as you are not constrained by reach...a larger sensor will always gather more light. It's sensor area that matters, not pixel area. The 50mp image can always be downsampled to the same dimensions as the 12mp 7D II. More pixels interpolated into less area...that only and always means one thing: Better results.

I used to think the same thing, years ago...that bigger pixels would make smaller sensors perform better, but the theory doesn't fit with the idea that only pixel size matters for camera performance. Pixel size is, for all intents and purposes, a non-factor. Sensor area is what matters. 36mmx24mm = 864mm^2, whereas 22.3mmx14.9mm = 332.27mm^2. That is a ratio of 2.6:1 in favor of the FF sensor. Pixel size doesn't even factor into the equation.

Now, what does factor into the equation is quantum efficiency. It we compare the original EOS 1Ds body from way back when, the 7D of today will perform better in some ways. The quality of silicon back in those days was not as high as it is today, and quantum efficiency wasn't anywhere close to where it is today (I think somewhere in the 20% range...the 7D has twice that, so like my explanation earlier about going from 41% to 82%, going from 20% to 41% is significant.) The lower quantum efficiency and older, inferior sensor design are going to cost the 1Ds in comparison with the 7D. However, the 1Ds was upgraded...we got the 1Ds II, 1Ds III and now we have the 1D X. That's why I try to refer to the "1D line" and "7D line". Any technological improvemnt you can think up for APS-C sensors can be applied to FF sensors. There is no technological improvement for APS-C sensors that can ever give it an edge over FF sensors because they all get the same technological improvements in the end. (That's basically what you said in the second half of your post.)

So...it boils down to quantum efficiency. The 7D is already at 41%. The 1D X has 2.6x the sensor area of the 7D, however you can only get up to 100% Q.E. before you run into the laws of physics where absolutely no more improvement can be made.

On an equivalence basis...bigger sensor, more light, better sensitivity. Pixel size need not apply, the job of sensitivity is already taken. ISO 400k on a 1D XXX is always going to trounce ISO 400k on a 7D II. Just as much as ISO 400k on a 55x44mm MF sensor is always going to trounce ISO 400k on a 1D XXX.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

 

[jrista]

Pretty much an excellent description of what to expect. Most of us agree that the 7DII will not equal the 1Dx. The 1DX is really purpose built for sports and action photography. The 7DII will be purpose built for video. The writing is on the wall. While I'm sure it will offer much more than the 7D and offer better IQ, much of the design is going to be built around a videographer's dream.

Heh. I think it's all the mystery that surrounds the 7D II, and what it might actually end up being in the end, is what has everyone so intrigued by all the 7D II rumors around here. It so long overdue for release now, people are biting off their fingers waiting for some concrete news to finally hit the rumormongers.

My fear is that a feature rich camera tailored to videography is going to be priced out of the range of most photographers who dont need the video features. I predict this camera will come to market around 2800.00 which will mean more like 3200.00 because we know Canon will milk us for every penny in our accounts.

I honestly think the chances of that happening are roughly around 0.0000292372349%. 8) Canon would kill off the 7D II before it ever has a chance to start if they priced it at $3200. The original 7D was $1700 (or $1900 with kit lens.) It's been on the market for a very long time, has an established and strong following, much of that following is eagerly awaiting the release of the 7D II, and it's an APS-C camera. Pricing it at $2800 means they are pricing it $1100 higher than the original 7D. The original 5D II body only was $2700, which means the increase in price to the 5D III was $800 at release (and today stands at $700 MSRP, and $0-$100 when you factor the average in-cart price, which has been between $2600 and $2800 frequently lately for gray market, and around $2800 for official market). I'd say that $800 is the absolute maximum of an increase we can expect to see, hence the maximum potential price of $2500 I mentioned before.

To make things worse just because they like to make us feel more pain, the initial order will likely be kits with lenses they have a boat load of stock on. So we are talking an initial out-lie of about 3600 to 3800.

Again, I think that is highly unlikely. That would utterly kill off the 7D line...for the demographic I think is most highly interested in the 7D II, those prices are well out of the range of "generally affordable." People may want to buy them, but so many simply wouldn't be able to afford them. That would be really bad for Canon's bottom line. Greed works in both ways...the "greedy" want to make as much money as they can, which means they have to find the price point that will sell the most copies as often as possible...and it really isn't the "greedy" company that sets the price, the market, the consumers, set the price by buying when prices are good, and not buying when prices suck. I don't think that the 7D II will hit the street with a price higher than $2500, and if it does hit the streets at that price, it will most likely be primarily due to the economic disaster brewing in Japan with higher taxes and more quantitative easing, and it will still hurt Canon. I think a price closer to $2000, give or take a couple hundred, is far more likely, as it would satisfy Canon's bottom line goals due to higher (probably significantly higher than at a $3800 price point) sales volume.

 

[jrista]

Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins. The 1D line also gets extra attention to all the fine little details, the small things that require a lot of extra hands on time to tweak and tune and refine. It's a large part of the reason the 1D models cost more...they are highly and optimally tuned. You can ask almost any 1D owner regardless of generation, and most will tell you they love the out of camera quality in every respect...higher sharpness, lower noise, better color fidelity, etc. etc. The same fine tuning applies to all the other non-sensor aspects of the camera as well. The 1D IV had a much better AF system that performed much better than the 1D III and any other Canon camera of the time. It had the high frame rate, the higher performance shutter, etc.

I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

1div is old and on its last leg. Dont see it lasting long enough for any reputable testing firm to do an official comparison against the 7dii once it comes out. Lastly it does no good to compare something against another that doesnt exist yet.

 

[Don Haines]

Re: Not talking about 1D X, I specifically meant the 1D (APS-H) cameras, as per OP

Jon and Don, I think you misunderstood a few key points in my post. I shall clarify so we don't go off-topic.

Firstly, I am not suggesting APS-C sensors will ever come close to a FF or even APS-H sensor of the same or closely followed generation. It is physically impossible, we have had lots of discussions on it, and I am sure it has that horse is dead and buried.
When I said a future APS-C sensor (and I mentioned it WON'T be 7DII with a 70D-grade sensor) might trounce 1D series, I mean 1D through 1D Mark IV APS-H sensors, that was last designed before 2009. Hope that bit is quite clear. So let's not even bring 1D X or any later cameras, and certainly not FF cameras here.

That's what I thought you meant. I think we are all saying the same thing with different words and reasoning

If we compare old tech and new tech... yes a new tech (70D) will outperform an old tech 1D (ISO 1600 max?!?!) but it is blatantly unfair... Compare a new tech 70D to a "bit out of tech" 1DX and the 1DX kicks ass! I would expect an even more severe ass kicking if the 1DX and the 70D where the same level of tech.

Whatever the last camera is that was released, that's the new tech... it makes comparisons unfair because there is no such thing as both being exactly even in tech. The APS-C line is improving by small steps.... the FF line is improving by small steps, but nowhere do current models "overlap".

Pixel size matters. With 2 1/2 times the area, as long as there are somewhere around the same number of pixels, the FF pixels will be larger and assuming anywhere near the same tech, the FF pixels will be better. If you went to a high megapixel FF camera with the same sized pixels as a 70D and the same level of tech as a 70D those pixels should act the same and one would expect the same performance. but even at that, there is also resolution to consider... smaller pixels resolve more detail than larger pixels, but at the expense of sensitivity. Everything is inter-related.

So yes, there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor. To my mind, the most important factor is the AF system. As I am fond of saying, who cares what the DR is or the number of megapixels are on a blurry picture

 

[sagittariansrock]

Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins.

Is it also true for an older sensor tech. vs a newer (future) sensor. I mean, is it theoretically impossible for an APS-C sensor to gather as much light as an APS-H sensor of the past? Not a rhetorical question, I am actually curious to know.
[for example, I know it is theoretically impossible for a future APS-C sensor to compete with the 6D, for example. Pi had proved that semi-mathematically.]

And no, everything doesn't apply. FF is a technology Canon is continuing. So, for every APS-C there will be an FF counterpart (don't take that literally, I mean around the same time). APS-H on the other hand is dead. So for any new technology APS-C takes advantage of, APS-H has no new cards to play.

I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.

As I said, I defer to your greater knowledge to this answer. I personally felt Canon will replace the discontinued smaller sensor in high end body for those who want reach, pure and simple (not unlike yourself I am sure). Of course, now they get to sell longer lenses, hence more profit

 

[sagittariansrock]

Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

1div is old and on its last leg. Dont see it lasting long enough for any reputable testing firm to do an official comparison against the 7dii once it comes out. Lastly it does no good to compare something against another that doesnt exist yet.

That is a fair point, nevertheless that was the original topic of discussion.
This is probably why you must have seen some mirth being distributed in the first few posts before Jrista straightened us out.

 

[Don Haines]

Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins. The 1D line also gets extra attention to all the fine little details, the small things that require a lot of extra hands on time to tweak and tune and refine. It's a large part of the reason the 1D models cost more...they are highly and optimally tuned. You can ask almost any 1D owner regardless of generation, and most will tell you they love the out of camera quality in every respect...higher sharpness, lower noise, better color fidelity, etc. etc. The same fine tuning applies to all the other non-sensor aspects of the camera as well. The 1D IV had a much better AF system that performed much better than the 1D III and any other Canon camera of the time. It had the high frame rate, the higher performance shutter, etc.

I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.

And the quality of the build!
Better materials, tighter tolerances, hand matching to specs, all adds up to greater consistency. Another reason why the 1D lineups outperform the rest, particularly after a few drops and tumbles.....

 

[sagittariansrock]

Re: Not talking about 1D X, I specifically meant the 1D (APS-H) cameras, as per OP

That's what I thought you meant. I think we are all saying the same thing with different words and reasoning

As I am fond of saying, who cares what the DR is or the number of megapixels are on a blurry picture

Hear, hear!

 

[Don Haines]

I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.

I agree. The APS-H sensor has 1.7 times the area of the APS-C sensor and that's a lot of ground to catch up on.

Even if it did catch up, it doesn't really matter because the 1DIV is now the 1DX and the bar is raised further.... and if there was some magic tech that made it better, just watch what happens with the 1DX2

As someone who has been shooting digital for 20+ years, I remember when high ISO was 1600 and you didn't shoot 800 or above because the noise would ruin the picture... and now I can shoot at 51,200 with less noise on a camera that is four years out of date. Tech has marched on and to compare the new and the old becomes meaningless after a while.

 

[Greatland]

Comparing the current 7d with a MK IV is kind of ridiculous don't you think??? Even if the 7d2 is all that some of you want it to be it will still be half the camera, period...no comparison, period.....start with weatherproofing and go from there....you get what you pay for, period! If any of you really want a MK IV I will sell you mine...like new, with less than 20,000 clicks on it....

 

[jrista]

Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins.

Is it also true for an older sensor tech. vs a newer (future) sensor. I mean, is it theoretically impossible for an APS-C sensor to gather as much light as an APS-H sensor of the past? Not a rhetorical question, I am actually curious to know.
[for example, I know it is theoretically impossible for a future APS-C sensor to compete with the 6D, for example. Pi had proved that semi-mathematically.]

The 1D IV APS-H sensor was very good. It's one of Canon's better sensors. It has higher Q.E. than the 7D sensor, and is 1.6x larger. The 7D II would need to improve in Q.E. by 60%...or in other words, it would literally need to convert every single photon to charge in the photodiode, to perform as well as the 1D IV. Technological improvements can be made, but there is still that pesky problem of needing to convert more light than actually exists.

I think the 7D II could perform as well as the 1D IV if Canon managed to pack a hell of a lot of innovation into the new sensor. I mean, they would have to be really cutting edge, maybe even invent some new techniques to reducing read noise and improving sensor Q.E., and probably employ some kind of thermoelectric cooling (which in turn would require some kind of innovation in battery or power source to supply the increase in power needs). It's possible...but were talking REALLY cutting edge sensor technology. Cutting edge in a way that would have to blow away Sony's sensor tech. The 1D IV isn't that old of a sensor...a lot newer than the 7D sensor. Canon is barely on the map when it comes to CMOS Image Sensor (CIS) patents and innovation...they have had a few patents published in the last couple years, but Sony, Aptina, and a bunch of other manufacturers are running circles around Canon's sensor tech (sadly.)

So, in light of that...I'll leave it to you: Do you think the 7D II can perform better than the 1D IV?

And no, everything doesn't apply. FF is a technology Canon is continuing. So, for every APS-C there will be an FF counterpart (don't take that literally, I mean around the same time). APS-H on the other hand is dead. So for any new technology APS-C takes advantage of, APS-H has no new cards to play.

Heh, well, that's an interesting argument. Again, the APS-H from the 1D IV is not that old. Canon is not innovating that much on the sensor front (although they ARE a very highly innovative company at large, especially in optics.) Technological improvements that can be made in silicon and with CMOS fabrication are becoming harder and harder to discover and produce, so the next decade is likely to see less significant improvement over the same 10-year span as we saw from 2003-2013. Sure, assuming APS-H is truly dead (it's a technology Canon owns, and unused technology is wasted technology...I still think Canon will find ways of employing APS-H in the future, although I do suspect that it will either be in mirrorless or video cameras, rather than DSLRs.)

I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.

As I said, I defer to your greater knowledge to this answer. I personally felt Canon will replace the discontinued smaller sensor in high end body for those who want reach, pure and simple (not unlike yourself I am sure). Of course, now they get to sell longer lenses, hence more profit

Reach is really just a matter of pixel size. That is more of a happy side-effect of smaller sensors, than something that is out of reach of larger sensors. Canon could create a reach-monster if they release a Big MP FF camera with 4µm pixels. I think many people would get one just because of the versatility...reach and sensor size, best of all worlds...despite the frame rate (which is likely to be slower rather than faster.)

I myself am moving more towards full frame. I'll be picking up a 5D III in the coming months, and I highly expect my 7D to either be sold, or at least take a distant back seat. I already have the necessary glass...the 600/4 II is versatile enough with 1.4x (840mm) and 2x (1200mm) teleconverters. I was sad to see APS-H go...but I do have hope for it. I really hope to see it in an EOS-M one of these days. I think Canon could put out a large sensor mirrorless that can give good ol' Sony a run for their money if they would bring APS-H back into the fold.

 

[unfocused]

My take away: Technology marches on. Physics not so much.

The headroom that is available for technological improvements is getting ever closer to the ceiling set by physics. So, from a practical standpoint, we may see some slight improvements in ISO performance from the next generation of 7D, but it won't match the performance of the last APS-H sensor Canon made.

Now, let me back up and say that we should all acknowledge just how good all the modern sensors are. If you can't take a great picture with any Canon or Nikon DSLR it is due to your own shortcomings, not the camera's.

It should be stipulated that this discussion, like almost all on this forum, is dealing with the margins. Small differences that won't affect most of us under most conditions. That's important because every once and awhile someone will assert that this or that camera or sensor is worthless. It's also important because we may refer to a particular camera as a "sports" camera, a "low-light" camera, a "high resolution" camera etc. etc., but that merely describes one characteristic of the camera and should not imply that it in any way limits its usability for other applications.

I started this thread because of curiosity about the upper limits of what could be expected out of a new 7DII sensor. We won't know the specifics until something is announced, but frankly, knowing what the limits are should help us set reasonable expectations and provide a basis for informed speculation about what such a camera might look like – until, of course, we actually see one announced.
Since I am now a 5DIII owner, I suppose I should not care. But I do. I still have a tremendous fondness for the 7D, but more importantly, I can still see it as a very useful option. I know my own financial limits and I seriously doubt those limits will allow me to own any Canon beyond 400mm. I may purchase the Tamron 600mm zoom, but no $4,000 lenses are in my future.

Also, not likely to be going on any $10,000 safaris pretty much assures me that I am likely to be distance limited under most circumstances. So, the reach of a good APS-C sensor inside of an excellent 7DII body with great autofocus, etc., etc., has its appeal.

...but I think you might be overlooking an important consideration for market differentiation-- video. That could surely influence sensor strategy as well.

You are correct. This has been a very "stills-centric" discussion and one of the unknowns is just how much emphasis Canon will place on video in the 7DII. That could totally upset the speculative apple cart.

 

[jrista]

@Unfocused: Your point about realistic expectations is pretty much the primary reason I post here. I'm not going to claim that I know absolutely everything about photography, optics, or sensors...I still have plenty to learn. I do, however, know that there are a lot of common misconceptions that people have that don't line up with the theory I do know, and I think that leads to a lot of unexpected realizations for photographers who get their hopes WAY up for new camera releases or possibly "That other brand" (take your pick, whatever tickles your fancy), etc.

I've encountered people who think that the D800 is supposed to do way better than any Canon camera on the market at all ISO settings, ended up dumping their entire Canon kit (literally), bought into Nikon, and ended up getting vividly pissed that their high ISO images couldn't be stretched any more than their Canon images at ISO 3200. I think it's sad that people buy so fully into some of the anecdotes that float around the web that they are actually willing to do something like that. If some of the wild misconceptions, such as the notion that an APS-C camera could "trounce" a FF camera in terms of sensor IQ, were curbed and corrected, I think people could be a lot happier with their purchases. Kind of like going to the movies to see something that your not sure if it will be good or not, and just expecting it to be really bad...then you get to be pleasantly surprised by how good it actually ended up being, even if it wouldn't have lived up to your "wild hype" expectations if you allowed them.

Too many people in the photography world go into a new camera release with wild hype expectations, and are woefully disappointed. I hope people can go into the 7D II release a bit more pessimistically, and be pleasantly surprised by what it actually ends up being. (Although not too pessimistically...I truly don't think the 7D II will hit the streets at $3800...that would be more expensive than the MSRP of the 5D III at the time of it's release...I don't think it matters how good the video features may be, that would be a total death sentence for the 7D line if Canon did that! )

 

[sagittariansrock]

I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.

 

[Don Haines]

I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.

Agreed!

If IQ was my only concern, I could walk into the local bestbuy and grab a 6D for less than what we expect a 7D2 will go for. There is no way short of physics defying magic that the 7D2 will beat it... But for me, I really want a more capable AF system and after playing with the touchscreen interface on a 70D, would like to see the next generation of that too... Hmmmm...... 5D4?

 

[East Wind Photography]

I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.

Agreed!

If IQ was my only concern, I could walk into the local bestbuy and grab a 6D for less than what we expect a 7D2 will go for. There is no way short of physics defying magic that the 7D2 will beat it... But for me, I really want a more capable AF system and after playing with the touchscreen interface on a 70D, would like to see the next generation of that too... Hmmmm...... 5D4?

And this is where it gets interesting. If the AF system gets improved that hopefully means more keepers as was the case with the 5DIII and 1DX. So technically the IQ of the camera could be improved with a better more accurate AF system...as we know, Sensor IQ is nothing if the image is fuzzy to start with.

One needs to look at the system and not just one feature. If the 7DII gets an AF system on par with 5DIII or 1DX then that systems is more desirable than a 6D. I would expect a higher keeper rate (At least for subjects that are in action). For me, having tasted the sweetness of the advanced AF systems, I could never go back to the old school 19point or less. I would be disappointed, even if the sensor was noiseless.

Thats just me and buying a camera based on sensor alone is an amateur mistake.

 

[Don Haines]

I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.

Agreed!

If IQ was my only concern, I could walk into the local bestbuy and grab a 6D for less than what we expect a 7D2 will go for. There is no way short of physics defying magic that the 7D2 will beat it... But for me, I really want a more capable AF system and after playing with the touchscreen interface on a 70D, would like to see the next generation of that too... Hmmmm...... 5D4?

And this is where it gets interesting. If the AF system gets improved that hopefully means more keepers as was the case with the 5DIII and 1DX. So technically the IQ of the camera could be improved with a better more accurate AF system...as we know, Sensor IQ is nothing if the image is fuzzy to start with.

One needs to look at the system and not just one feature. If the 7DII gets an AF system on par with 5DIII or 1DX then that systems is more desirable than a 6D. I would expect a higher keeper rate (At least for subjects that are in action). For me, having tasted the sweetness of the advanced AF systems, I could never go back to the old school 19point or less. I would be disappointed, even if the sensor was noiseless.

Thats just me and buying a camera based on sensor alone is an amateur mistake.

Agreed!
I did not realize how bad the AF was on the 60D until I got into birding and tried a borrowed 5D3..... now I can't imagine getting another camera without a great AF system. My ideal camera would be the sampling density of APS-C and 5D3 (or better) AF system... this is why I am so keenly waiting for the 7D2 and why I did not even consider the 70D...