21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

[aj1575]

And why didn't they bring the 70D already, since it is overdue after 2 1/2 years, when Canon has all the stuff they need (including sensor) ready. It looks to me (and I hope so), that they are delaying the 70D so they can introduce it with the new sensor.

Who said it was overdue and/or that they're delaying the 70D? Internet expectations? Or Canon? Perhaps Canon believes they're ahead of schedule. Because other than some not-so-vague comments from Canon employees who were put on the spot, I don't recall reading/hearing anything about the 70D or the 7D2 especially in regards to an impending announcement or due date.

So again, are these YOUR expectations from reading a RUMORS site, or are these missed deadlines that Canon has self-imposed? Obviously a rhetorical question...

If you would have takeen yourself more time to read, then you would have probably realized, that I wrote "It looks to me", so it was not even a rethorical question you wrote, it was just not a very intelligent question, because it just showed, that you did not read what I wrote.

When choosing to question someone's intelligence, you should really proofread your own post for misspellings, proper grammar, and proper punctuation to insure you look as intelligent as possible.

Additionally, don't try to hide behind "it looks to me" - you know my comment applied perfectly to you (and many, MANY others on this forum so I'm not just singling you out - I just happened to quote your post) with or without the inclusion of that minimally applicable qualifier.

Finally, you should avoid insults and stick to facts. However I see from your acceptance of rumors as quasi-facts that this may be difficult for you.

Sorry that english is only a second language to me.

But anyway, I still think you should read the post you are replying to correctly.

And by the way, I did not question your intelligence as such; I just said that this particular question/post was not very intelligent.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

I see several reasons:
* Programming a firmware which uses two or more CPUs needs a lot of development to parallelize "jobs" on different CPUs
* PC board layout and thermal management has to be codeveloped/improved
* If there is a need for a 2nd CPU the hardware is more powerful (120point AF system, 40 MPix sensor) and this will increase the system cost.

A specialized camera will see a lower count of bodies produced so the development cost will be higher on a per-body-perspective.

My 2ct.

You do realize the current 7D Mark I already uses dual DIGIC 4 chips, right? It never cost $2000, let alone $3000. Making use of dual processors in a 7D II would be a no brainer, and would NOT require the creation of DIGIC 6. The 1D X already uses dual DIGIC 5+ chips, and repurposing that design in a cheaper body would be a hell of a lot cheaper for Canon than designing something completely new from scratch. It also proves that the firmware ALREADY supports parallel processing, so there really isn't any extra work there, either.

You are essentially right. There exist four (?) models which use 2 CPUs and the EOS 1D X which uses 3 DIGICs - some basic development will be there. But never underestimate adaption of existing code for new CPUs with new (totally new?) additional components. And it depends on how you use the CPUs: Sharing load for different tasks is easy, but parallelizing one task is hard to do (except it is sth. like calculating noise reduction for different regions of the sensor).

My third point was perhaps the most important: If there is a need for a 2nd high power CPU the hardware will drive cost - extraordinary fps, a very advanced AF chip, etc. So the additional CPU will only add 100 or 200 EUR/USD but the things that made it necessary are really expensive (high speed mirror mechanism, shutter system, complex and specialized AF chip, ultra fast FADCs, etc,).

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Rumor or not.

Reality is... the t4i caught up with everything the 60D and 7D had to offer.

So there is a definite need for a serious upgrade, and weather sealing won't just cut it anymore.

t4i caught up with 7D? ... I am curious to know how ... also why "weather sealing won't cut it anymore"?

 

[Zv]

Rumor or not.

Reality is... the t4i caught up with everything the 60D and 7D had to offer.

So there is a definite need for a serious upgrade, and weather sealing won't just cut it anymore.

t4i caught up with 7D? ... I am curious to know how ... also why "weather sealing won't cut it anymore"?

I doubt people who say these things have ever used a 7D. If they had they would realize that the 7D is a full on assualt tank whearas the t4i is a water pistol in comparison. Let me see them capture a bird in flight with a t4i.

 

[Rockets95]

if the noise follows recent trends of becoming more filmy than blocky digital noise it will help greatly
as the noise from the newer sensors responds alot better to NR than the current 18MP range do

wickidwombat - I'm curious about the statement of noise becoming more filmy with new sensors. Can you point me to a place that I could find out more about this?

 

[wickidwombat]

if the noise follows recent trends of becoming more filmy than blocky digital noise it will help greatly
as the noise from the newer sensors responds alot better to NR than the current 18MP range do

wickidwombat - I'm curious about the statement of noise becoming more filmy with new sensors. Can you point me to a place that I could find out more about this?

the 5Dmk3 and 1Dx for example both have increadably visually appealing noise compared to older tech sensors
while the quantity is still there the smother more organic nature of this noise means 2 things
1) the noise responds much better to noise reduction and allows much higher effective isos without needing to go to plastacine levels of noise reduction (unfortunately the in camera processing is way too ham fisted with its NR)
or
2) leave a certain amount of noise in the image because it still works well

the older sensors the noise is more digital and rapidly falls apart at high iso that no amount of noise reduction can really help without ruining the image
i feel the same amount of noise reduction in lightroom achieves a similar image when a 5Dmk3 is at 16,000 iso vs 1600 iso of the current 18MP crop sensors and 3200 iso on the 18MP is really a maximum and that is assuming the exposure is absolutely spot on there is no room for error

so while perhaps the quantity of noise wont change too dramatically if the QUALITY (for want of a better term) of that noise becomes more like the noise out of the 5Dmk3 or the 1Dx then I can realistically see usable isos up to perhaps 8000 (all subect to an individuals tollerance to noise and ability to process it of course)
which would be pretty kick arse especially with this sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens coming out (personally i see the wider effective DoF while maintaing the 1.8 speed advantage as a positive for this system not a negative)
there is the potential for a really kick arse low light system.

So in summary my main concern is more about how that noise looks more than the quantity of it
i mean an unedited raw from a 5Dmk3 looks noisy as hell however once its processed well the images are very clean vs the 5Dmk2 which really the limit is somewhere between 3200 and 6400 depending on taste and at 6400 iso the mk2 is really quite digitally and blocky compared to the mk3

 

[jrista]

if the noise follows recent trends of becoming more filmy than blocky digital noise it will help greatly
as the noise from the newer sensors responds alot better to NR than the current 18MP range do

wickidwombat - I'm curious about the statement of noise becoming more filmy with new sensors. Can you point me to a place that I could find out more about this?

the 5Dmk3 and 1Dx for example both have increadably visually appealing noise compared to older tech sensors
while the quantity is still there the smother more organic nature of this noise means 2 things
1) the noise responds much better to noise reduction and allows much higher effective isos without needing to go to plastacine levels of noise reduction (unfortunately the in camera processing is way too ham fisted with its NR)
or
2) leave a certain amount of noise in the image because it still works well

the older sensors the noise is more digital and rapidly falls apart at high iso that no amount of noise reduction can really help without ruining the image
i feel the same amount of noise reduction in lightroom achieves a similar image when a 5Dmk3 is at 16,000 iso vs 1600 iso of the current 18MP crop sensors and 3200 iso on the 18MP is really a maximum and that is assuming the exposure is absolutely spot on there is no room for error

so while perhaps the quantity of noise wont change too dramatically if the QUALITY (for want of a better term) of that noise becomes more like the noise out of the 5Dmk3 or the 1Dx then I can realistically see usable isos up to perhaps 8000 (all subect to an individuals tollerance to noise and ability to process it of course)
which would be pretty kick arse especially with this sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens coming out (personally i see the wider effective DoF while maintaing the 1.8 speed advantage as a positive for this system not a negative)
there is the potential for a really kick arse low light system.

So in summary my main concern is more about how that noise looks more than the quantity of it
i mean an unedited raw from a 5Dmk3 looks noisy as hell however once its processed well the images are very clean vs the 5Dmk2 which really the limit is somewhere between 3200 and 6400 depending on taste and at 6400 iso the mk2 is really quite digitally and blocky compared to the mk3

I totally agree with everything here. Noise quality is really what matters, not necessarily how much there is (although in my experience the amount of noise on both the 1D X and 5D III is considerably lower at much higher ISO settings than any of Canon's 18mp APS-C cameras.)

There is definitely a problem with the top two ISO settings on Canon's previous sensors, particularly the APS-C ones. Canon uses a secondary downstream amplifier to achieve the +/- 1/3rd stop settings, and it seems they use that for ISO 3200 and 6400 as well, which is not much better than simply digitally boosting ISO 1600 (with the exception that it seems to occur before the ADC...a digital boost will also amplify any ADC noise and quantization noise.)

 

[ThomasN]

The technology is here. And the fact is, that that is the only thing we now.

See the sensor in 5D m3 with high ISO performance and good IQ, the 6D with WiFi and GPS, the 7D with fair weather sealing and high fps and several Canon cameras with video technology and the AF tech ass well and so on.

From a Canon board and share holder point of view the most important thing is to get as much money out us as possible. Period!

This means that we will get the new tech in small steps so we will buy a lot of cameras.
ONLY the competition will give us a camera with all known tech in ONE camera.

So pleeeeease Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and all you other great camera manufactors make dam good cameras in a dam hurry!

 

[jrista]

The technology is here. And the fact is, that that is the only thing we now.

See the sensor in 5D m3 with high ISO performance and good IQ, the 6D with WiFi and GPS, the 7D with fair weather sealing and high fps and several Canon cameras with video technology and the AF tech ass well and so on.

From a Canon board and share holder point of view the most important thing is to get as much money out us as possible. Period!

This means that we will get the new tech in small steps so we will buy a lot of cameras.
ONLY the competition will give us a camera with all known tech in ONE camera.

So pleeeeease Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and all you other great camera manufactors make dam good cameras in a dam hurry!

Yay. Another troll. That's just...fantastic.

 

[Stone]

The technology is here. And the fact is, that that is the only thing we now.

See the sensor in 5D m3 with high ISO performance and good IQ, the 6D with WiFi and GPS, the 7D with fair weather sealing and high fps and several Canon cameras with video technology and the AF tech ass well and so on.

From a Canon board and share holder point of view the most important thing is to get as much money out us as possible. Period!

This means that we will get the new tech in small steps so we will buy a lot of cameras.
ONLY the competition will give us a camera with all known tech in ONE camera.

So pleeeeease Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and all you other great camera manufactors make dam good cameras in a dam hurry!

 

[CarlTN]

[...]

I see several reasons:
* Programming a firmware which uses two or more CPUs needs a lot of development to parallelize "jobs" on different CPUs
* PC board layout and thermal management has to be codeveloped/improved
* If there is a need for a 2nd CPU the hardware is more powerful (120point AF system, 40 MPix sensor) and this will increase the system cost.

A specialized camera will see a lower count of bodies produced so the development cost will be higher on a per-body-perspective.

My 2ct.

You do realize the current 7D Mark I already uses dual DIGIC 4 chips, right? It never cost $2000, let alone $3000. Making use of dual processors in a 7D II would be a no brainer, and would NOT require the creation of DIGIC 6. The 1D X already uses dual DIGIC 5+ chips, and repurposing that design in a cheaper body would be a hell of a lot cheaper for Canon than designing something completely new from scratch. It also proves that the firmware ALREADY supports parallel processing, so there really isn't any extra work there, either.

You are essentially right. There exist four (?) models which use 2 CPUs and the EOS 1D X which uses 3 DIGICs - some basic development will be there. But never underestimate adaption of existing code for new CPUs with new (totally new?) additional components. And it depends on how you use the CPUs: Sharing load for different tasks is easy, but parallelizing one task is hard to do (except it is sth. like calculating noise reduction for different regions of the sensor).

My third point was perhaps the most important: If there is a need for a 2nd high power CPU the hardware will drive cost - extraordinary fps, a very advanced AF chip, etc. So the additional CPU will only add 100 or 200 EUR/USD but the things that made it necessary are really expensive (high speed mirror mechanism, shutter system, complex and specialized AF chip, ultra fast FADCs, etc,).

Mb66energy, excellent post! With that many autofocus points, it does sound like a lot of processing going on. This is the first I've ever seen speculation about so many points. However, that also seems like a bit of a stretch.

So...Canon is going to provide some sort of pioneering phase or hybrid autofocus system having twice as many points as the 1DX/5D3, within the fov of a 1.6x sensor having at least 21 MP resolution, with at least dual digic 5+, if not dual digic 6...(and likely require even more CPU's than this)...fire at 10 fps...all for a price that is closer to $2k than $3k...and the target market will purchase it in droves? All of this together seems unlikely, but maybe part of it will turn out to be true.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

.all for a price that is closer to $2k than $3k

CarlTN, stop scaring me with $3K price ;D lets not even go there ;D ... I want 7D II for around $1600 ... but if the 7D II is released in an APS-H sensor then I will gladly pay up $3K.

 

[jrista]

.all for a price that is closer to $2k than $3k

CarlTN, stop scaring me with $3K price ;D lets not even go there ;D ... I want 7D II for around $1600 ... but if the 7D II is released in an APS-H sensor then I will gladly pay up $3K.

I really don't foresee a $3000+ 7D II. Logically, it just wouldn't fit within Canon's lineup. If Canon really is trying to restructure their DSLR offerings, returning the xxxD line to the entry-level realm in the sub-$1000 market, restoring the xxD line to semi-professional grade status in the $1500 market, and placing the 6D at the entry-level/prosumer FF market around $2000, then it seems logical that the 7D II would fill in the gap between the 6D and the 5D.

I see it getting a reasonable feature update...a sensor in the 20-25mp range, 61pt AF (assuming that AF sensor will work for an APS-C crop frame...we might see something like a 41pt AF unit instead, which would still be fantastic!), a higher frame rate (10fps, keeping it in line with the 7D/1D IV ratio relative to the 1D X), better ISO thanks to some of the improvements that found their way into the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D (more translucent CFA and higher SNR) supporting ISO 25600 (and clean ISO 1600 output), and maybe a process shrink to 180nm (to demonstrate Canon is and will be a competitive force in the DSLR world going forward).

I see the 7D II filling the gap at around $2500-$2700, smack dab in the middle between the 6D and 5D III official prices, with a reasonable featureset and capability upgrade to justify an $800-$1000 increase in price, justify Canon's statements about making the 7D II upgrade more "revolutionary" than "evolutionary", and also validate the xxD line's existence.

 

[aj1575]

The technology is here. And the fact is, that that is the only thing we now.

See the sensor in 5D m3 with high ISO performance and good IQ, the 6D with WiFi and GPS, the 7D with fair weather sealing and high fps and several Canon cameras with video technology and the AF tech ass well and so on.

From a Canon board and share holder point of view the most important thing is to get as much money out us as possible. Period!

This means that we will get the new tech in small steps so we will buy a lot of cameras.
ONLY the competition will give us a camera with all known tech in ONE camera.

So pleeeeease Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and all you other great camera manufactors make dam good cameras in a dam hurry!

ROFL

By the way, check this out: http://www.digitalrev.com/article/nikon-d7100-vs-canon-eos/OTM4MzUzOTY_A
The guys at digitalrev did a comparison of the new D7100 against the 4 year old 7D.

 

[StepBack]

21 24 is that a lottery pick? I would be happy with a good AF like the 19 all x type rumored. But I would want some kind of zone selection similar to the 61 AF pt system in the 5D3. As far as the 6D I'm not in love with FF anymore than pretending a M9 is truly manual when it gives hints and tips and bells ring to tell u which way to move the switches. Results is what matters not the ad. Some 6D shots I saw on this site were very capable and generally equal to the color rendition of the big boy 5D3, but as for the claimed low light? These pics were taken in a bar and the photographer must have had a few because only a bit here and there was even resolved enough to see what was going on. I suspect the 7D2 will be priced closer to the 6D than the what is that thing Nikon makes the D7200? It's crazy that Nikon offers that for so much less. Strictly marketing. Canon reminds me of Sony back in the 80's and 90's. Priced too high so status seekers would buy it. If it costs too much it must be better.

 

[aznable]

I suspect the 7D2 will be priced closer to the 6D than the what is that thing Nikon makes the D7200? It's crazy that Nikon offers that for so much less. Strictly marketing. Canon reminds me of Sony back in the 80's and 90's. Priced too high so status seekers would buy it. If it costs too much it must be better.

the competitor of 7DMkII would be the nikon D400

 

[jrista]

21 24 is that a lottery pick? I would be happy with a good AF like the 19 all x type rumored. But I would want some kind of zone selection similar to the 61 AF pt system in the 5D3. As far as the 6D I'm not in love with FF anymore than pretending a M9 is truly manual when it gives hints and tips and bells ring to tell u which way to move the switches. Results is what matters not the ad. Some 6D shots I saw on this site were very capable and generally equal to the color rendition of the big boy 5D3, but as for the claimed low light? These pics were taken in a bar and the photographer must have had a few because only a bit here and there was even resolved enough to see what was going on. I suspect the 7D2 will be priced closer to the 6D than the what is that thing Nikon makes the D7200? It's crazy that Nikon offers that for so much less. Strictly marketing. Canon reminds me of Sony back in the 80's and 90's. Priced too high so status seekers would buy it. If it costs too much it must be better.

Price is a matter of demand, not consumer desire for status. Canon has extremely high demand for their cameras, regardless of their technological status. The percentage of camera owners who care about the minutia of a manufacturers technology is extremely small relative to the total camera buying populace. High demand drives higher prices more than any other factor, with perhaps base commodity (materials) prices and import/export tariffs being close seconds.

 

[J.R.]

A 21mp / 24mp sensor on the 7DII? Cool, so the users will have even more need of buying the best lenses in the Canon lineup to exploit the resolution. Two birds with one stone for Canon.

People not upgrading their lenses will ... well, whine again because the increased resolution is nothing if you pair it with cheap lenses!

 

[CarlTN]

.all for a price that is closer to $2k than $3k

CarlTN, stop scaring me with $3K price ;D lets not even go there ;D ... I want 7D II for around $1600 ... but if the 7D II is released in an APS-H sensor then I will gladly pay up $3K.

A 21mp / 24mp sensor on the 7DII? Cool, so the users will have even more need of buying the best lenses in the Canon lineup to exploit the resolution. Two birds with one stone for Canon.

People not upgrading their lenses will ... well, whine again because the increased resolution is nothing if you pair it with cheap lenses!

I thought everyone decided "aps-h" was uncool? (I still like it...and again, I would prefer 1.1x or 1.2x...)

At any rate, there is no way a "7D" variant would receive that large of a sensor...because it would be called a 1D variant. Canon is apparently forever tied to 1.6x crop, and anything larger than 1.5x crop, would not work with the smaller (and usually cheap) lenses designed to be used with "aps-c"...

Which again...outlines a bit of a conundrum. "APS-C" was always meant to be an entry level format, was it not? Because a decade ago, it was cheaper to build smaller sensors (and couple them to smaller bodies and smaller mirror boxes). Now it is not so much cheaper, if any...to build the crop sensors, compared to full frame. So...again...why are people going to pay $2700 for a body that is hobbled by such a small sensor size? Because "aps-c"-specific lenses are superior to full frame lenses? Get friggin real, never going to happen, the physics are against it. Because they just will? Ok. Maybe they will buy because of the "cool factor", and because it's the Canon name and reputation behind it. Or maybe they won't buy as many as Canon would like. Time will tell.

One thing is for sure. 5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

 

[jrista]

.all for a price that is closer to $2k than $3k

CarlTN, stop scaring me with $3K price ;D lets not even go there ;D ... I want 7D II for around $1600 ... but if the 7D II is released in an APS-H sensor then I will gladly pay up $3K.

A 21mp / 24mp sensor on the 7DII? Cool, so the users will have even more need of buying the best lenses in the Canon lineup to exploit the resolution. Two birds with one stone for Canon.

People not upgrading their lenses will ... well, whine again because the increased resolution is nothing if you pair it with cheap lenses!

I thought everyone decided "aps-h" was uncool? (I still like it...and again, I would prefer 1.1x or 1.2x...)

At any rate, there is no way a "7D" variant would receive that large of a sensor...because it would be called a 1D variant. Canon is apparently forever tied to 1.6x crop, and anything larger than 1.5x crop, would not work with the smaller (and usually cheap) lenses designed to be used with "aps-c"...

Which again...outlines a bit of a conundrum. "APS-C" was always meant to be an entry level format, was it not? Because a decade ago, it was cheaper to build smaller sensors (and couple them to smaller bodies and smaller mirror boxes). Now it is not so much cheaper, if any...to build the crop sensors, compared to full frame. So...again...why are people going to pay $2700 for a body that is hobbled by such a small sensor size? Because "aps-c"-specific lenses are superior to full frame lenses? Get friggin real, never going to happen, the physics are against it. Because they just will? Ok. Maybe they will buy because of the "cool factor", and because it's the Canon name and reputation behind it. Or maybe they won't buy as many as Canon would like. Time will tell.

One thing is for sure. 5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

I don't think physics has anything to do with the inferiority of EF-S lenses. Optics are optics...it doesn't matter what kind of mount you use. If the optics resolve an extremely sharp image at the focus plane, you could slap on any mount you want, it doesn't matter. Leica and Zeiss lenses are examples of how lenses small in physical size can offer superior quality, for a mount that is neither EF or EF-S. The mount has nothing to do with the quality of a lens. If Canon wanted to, they could produce EF-S lenses that were just as high quality as comparable EF lenses. In some cases, they have, or very nearly so. The optics of the 10-22 and 17-85 are both very high quality. I think Canon's goal with EF-S is to keep them consumer glass, that's all.

As for APS-C, its just a format. It WAS cheaper in the past to manufacture them. As a matter of fact, it is STILL cheaper to manufacture them. Sensor cost is all about die area per sensor. No matter how you slice and dice it, FF sensors will always cost more than APS-C sensors. Waver costs have come down as 300mm crystal manufacture has improved, but that savings in cost distributes, so smaller sensors will always be cheaper than larger sensors, but a similar factor.

APS-C is not inherently "cheap", in terms of quality. APS-C also has its benefits. For anyone who photographs at range, the crop factor as well as the generally higher pixel density offers a reach advantage. Reach is everything for a number of fields of photography, and in that respect, APS-C offers significant value. For other fields of photography, getting the largest sensor you can get your hands on is the best thing to do...things like landscapes, astrophotography, portraiture and weddings, all benefit from a larger frame. There are pros and cons to both. APS-C is not intrinsically inferior technology just because the sensor is smaller.

Camera cost is also not entirely about the sensor. The advent of the 6D and D600 prove that. Even though those cameras both use a full frame sensor, they are relatively cheap. The camera as a whole is what drives its value, and that value ultimately has little to do with the materials cost (even if materials are the most significant cost), and more to do with the needs of the photographer. A 7D II with 61pt AF, 10fps, a deep frame buffer, clean high ISO (and ISO to 25600), and improved IQ overall (which would be especially likely if Canon does finally move to a 180nm process), are VALUABLE in and of themselves. That "package deal" is something photographers like myself could very much use...all that power, speed, and IQ with a cropped sensor? I WANT that reach, and I'll happily pay for it.

That said...I'll also happily pay for a 5D III AS WELL. I can use both cameras...I do stuff at range, as well as stuff close up (such as macro, which can benefit from larger pixels), as well as landscapes and astrophotography. The only question is which one I'll buy first, not which one is better than the other.