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

[J.R.]

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

none of the Canon UWA Zooms have fluorite elements.

10-22: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 819
17-40: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 799
16-35: 3 aspherical + 2 UD - $ 1,629

(Canon MRP, not taking into account the rebates / discounts)

Of course the quality of the elements used is different amongst the lenses but I would say that the 17-40 and 10-22 are very similar except that the elements would be smaller. However, there must be a reason why the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40.

Sure, I believe all three lenses could stand to be updated. The 16-35 II is not a particularly great performer in the corners either (at least, not compared to the Nikon 14-24 anyway). I'm just trying to say, if the 10-22 or the 16-35 or any other Canon lens were redesigned and built today, any one of them, hell all of them, could perform much better than their current (and now aging) designs do. Physics is not explicitly limiting the optical performance of the 10-22, nor is the fact that it is a short-back design for a smaller mirror box, nor the fact that it is projecting a smaller image circle. None of those things intrinsically limit the resolving power of the lens...physics is not a "problem" for EF-S. If Canon so chose, they could make the EF-S 10-22 perform extremely well...it would just require more effort to build (especially if they were more hand-crafted like the great whites), and thus would also cost a lot more.

The only thing that is really against the 10-22, or any one of those three lenses, is market segment. Two cost ~$800, the other costs ~$1600. I believe the list price for the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is $2200. That extra $600 in cost gets you much better corner performance. It wouldn't matter if it was F mount, EF mount, EF-S mount, M42, or anything else. The mount does not impose a physical limitation on how good the optics in the lens body can be. That is the only point I am trying to make. The Fluorite element comment just has to do with the CA that exists in Canon's UWA lenses in the corners (which is really rather bad, even on the 16-35 II.)

All three lenses do need to be updated. The UWA zoom segment is probably is the Achilles heel for Canon at the moment with no updates in sight. That said, I'm sure the next updated lens will have fluorite elements.

I fully agree though that the IQ a lens delivers cannot be impacted in any manner by the mount it is made for. The IQ is almost entirely a function of the optical elements in a lens. The EFS 17-55 comes very very close to L lenses and there is no reason it cannot be done with the 10-22. Whether Canon wants to do it ... well its impossible to tell.

 

[jrista]

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

none of the Canon UWA Zooms have fluorite elements.

10-22: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 819
17-40: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 799
16-35: 3 aspherical + 2 UD - $ 1,629

(Canon MRP, not taking into account the rebates / discounts)

Of course the quality of the elements used is different amongst the lenses but I would say that the 17-40 and 10-22 are very similar except that the elements would be smaller. However, there must be a reason why the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40.

Sure, I believe all three lenses could stand to be updated. The 16-35 II is not a particularly great performer in the corners either (at least, not compared to the Nikon 14-24 anyway). I'm just trying to say, if the 10-22 or the 16-35 or any other Canon lens were redesigned and built today, any one of them, hell all of them, could perform much better than their current (and now aging) designs do. Physics is not explicitly limiting the optical performance of the 10-22, nor is the fact that it is a short-back design for a smaller mirror box, nor the fact that it is projecting a smaller image circle. None of those things intrinsically limit the resolving power of the lens...physics is not a "problem" for EF-S. If Canon so chose, they could make the EF-S 10-22 perform extremely well...it would just require more effort to build (especially if they were more hand-crafted like the great whites), and thus would also cost a lot more.

The only thing that is really against the 10-22, or any one of those three lenses, is market segment. Two cost ~$800, the other costs ~$1600. I believe the list price for the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is $2200. That extra $600 in cost gets you much better corner performance. It wouldn't matter if it was F mount, EF mount, EF-S mount, M42, or anything else. The mount does not impose a physical limitation on how good the optics in the lens body can be. That is the only point I am trying to make. The Fluorite element comment just has to do with the CA that exists in Canon's UWA lenses in the corners (which is really rather bad, even on the 16-35 II.)

All three lenses do need to be updated. The UWA zoom segment is probably is the Achilles heel for Canon at the moment with no updates in sight. That said, I'm sure the next updated lens will have fluorite elements.

I fully agree though that the IQ a lens delivers cannot be impacted in any manner by the mount it is made for. The IQ is almost entirely a function of the optical elements in a lens. The EFS 17-55 comes very very close to L lenses and there is no reason it cannot be done with the 10-22. Whether Canon wants to do it ... well its impossible to tell.

Aye! There has been quite a lot of competition in the WA and UWA zoom lens market lately, not just from Nikon, but from all the third-party manufacturers as well like Sigma, Tamron, etc. Canon is in the middle of a wide-ranging lens lineup update...probably to ensure they can support continued increases in pixel density/sensor resolution. I figure in the next couple of years, their UWA segment will get some updates, maybe an addition (14-24 f/2.8 of the same 24-70 f/2.8 II caliber, please!)

I don't ever foresee Canon making EF-S lenses perform as well as L-series lenses, though...that is the whole entire domain of the L-series lens in the first place. If you want the quality, you know you gotta pick up a lens with the red band...

 

[Marsu42]

All three lenses do need to be updated. The UWA zoom segment is probably is the Achilles heel for Canon at the moment with no updates in sight.

I have to disagree for the 17-40L which is the budget L choice and does ok iq-wise - any new version would surely result in a significant price "update" and this would rob the lens of one of the two key elements (the other being light & sturdy).

The 16-35L on the other hand seems to be overprices looking at the competition and could very well be replaced either by a mk3 version as the premium photojournalists' choice - a 14-24L wouldn't serve that purpose as it isn't long enough for a "always on" lens.

 

[Diko]

Hi again,

first of all - what-the-hack with that LENSE OFF TOPIC?!? And BTW had any of you imagined a APS-C with L lenses? Like in my case.

Oh yeah, it'll definitely sell. The 7D has been extremely popular, as it fills a fairly unique niche. The 7D II can only be better! How could it not sell?

Because the 6d is there.

In times of 7d & 5d2, the 7d mostly was the most expensive, i.e. "best" model in many stores, so people who wanted something "good" or "solid" were talked into buying that. Whith the 6d price on the decline, they'll probably buy ff quality & wifi/gps instead of 7d2 aps-c features a casual shooter doesn't need.

EXACTLY!!! With 6D into PLAY things get ugly. A game changer was 5D2, then 7D came out better and improved... but APS-C...

Now we have 6D. If anyone states that 5D3 was something great... nope - cheaper 1DX version with reduced features. Now 70D and 7D2... I will be happy to have xxDs back in the pro/amateur league. However I know for 100% that CANON is treating 7D as TOP ASP-C. And superiour to 6D. That is the way CANON represent it to resellers!!! NO matter the FF, wi-fi, GPS....

...
There are an awful lot of us that seem to be waiting on the 7D2. It will sell.

+1 ... If the ISO performance is better, it would interest me immensely.
\BTW, I'm not sure of the physics but what sort of processing power would a 21/24MP @ 10 fps require?

2 CPUs - true: they could be either DIGIC 5+ and yet since they have DIGIC 6 it would be better at the same PRICE to put the new one.

...

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.

...
Agreed. I feel though that the 7DII will come very close OR may even better the 5D3 under good lighting conditions. High ISO will however, be a different story.

Why not?!?! 5D3 had nothing innovative. It was updated 5D2... For me the only different between 1Dx, 5D3 & 6D is the Speed... AF... you say... 1DX - yes... the rest NO!

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.

Hell yeah! That is what I call MILKING the Canon glass owners. :-(

.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)...

So far agree!

...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).

What do you mean!?!?
1DX is to be 2 years ago released when 7D2 comes out... +/- a few months... You mean that the new APS-C flagship that is just 6 month away from the 1DX upgrade (remember the big megapixel monster with new generation of technologies that would cost around $10K) will have the same ISO and technology as 5D3?!?
What for?!? I mean - sorry I am missing the more "revolutionary" than "evolutionary" part here.

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 am sorry if I messed up the quotes on this one.... :-(

Anyways: Here in this forum I bet there are a lot of wedding photographers - perhaps they would know best... But I presume that I was one I would buy - 1Dx & 7D2 (given that both are with dual CPU and/or 10fps). ONLY L lenses.

My scenario: 24-70 L II on 1Dx and 70-200 2.8 L IS II on 7D2. The best wedding configuration... Primes not included - I have no experience there...

No 5D3, or any other body.

However my point is the timeline:

7D as I now will be more than 4 years old...

• DIGIC I = 4 Bodies
  DIGIC II = 9 Bodies
  DIGIC III = 5 Bodies
  DIGIC 4 = 10 Bodies
  DIGIC 5 = 7 Bodies
  DIGIC 6 = 1 Body... so far...

IMHO anything above 6 Bodies would be milking the technology...

CANON is perhaps a DSLR market leader - yes, but technology leader definitely NO... why would they...?

Additionally if you think that mid-range (70D) deserves DIGIC 5+... after two generations (50D & 60D) with the same CPU (DIGIC 4).. when CANON have already skipped a CPU 5D (DIGIC2) -> 5D2 (DIGIC 4). I say there is no SENSE in another body with DIGIC 5+.

I rest my case! 8)

P.S. I couldn't show the image attachment here which is a screenshot of the timeline. Please excuse me :-(

 

[Eric_2012]

What a great timeline. It is so much easier to appreciate facts in a picture.

 

[jrista]

...

BTW, I'm not sure of the physics but what sort of processing power would a 21/24MP @ 10 fps require?

Something similar to what the Sony A-77 has, I guess.
http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-%26alpha%3B77-DSLR-Camera/en/p/SLTA77V#features
"Shoots up to 12 frames per second at full-resolution 24.3 megapixels with continuous auto focus (AE locked after first frame)."

It is actually not that difficult to figure out in exact terms. Assuming a 24.3mp sensor, in the case of Canon it would actually be ~8% more, as they have a border of masked off pixels that is still part of the pixels read off the sensor. So the actual READ pixel count would be around 26.2mp. Assuming every pixel is 14 bits, then the data size of a full sensor read would be 26,200,000 * 14 / 8 (to convert to bytes), or: 45,850,000 bytes. At a rate of 10fps, that is 458,500,000 bytes per second, or ~460mb/s. A pair of DIGIC 5+ could handle that, with room to spare (as I believe each DIGIC 5+ is capable of processing input at a rate of 250mb/s).

At 12fps, the numbers would work out to 551mb/s, in which case something a little more powerful than a pair of DIGIC 5+ would be necessary.

 

[jrista]

Hi again,

first of all - what-the-hack with that LENSE OFF TOPIC?!? And BTW had any of you imagined a APS-C with L lenses? Like in my case.

Oh yeah, it'll definitely sell. The 7D has been extremely popular, as it fills a fairly unique niche. The 7D II can only be better! How could it not sell?

Because the 6d is there.

In times of 7d & 5d2, the 7d mostly was the most expensive, i.e. "best" model in many stores, so people who wanted something "good" or "solid" were talked into buying that. Whith the 6d price on the decline, they'll probably buy ff quality & wifi/gps instead of 7d2 aps-c features a casual shooter doesn't need.

EXACTLY!!! With 6D into PLAY things get ugly. A game changer was 5D2, then 7D came out better and improved... but APS-C...

Now we have 6D. If anyone states that 5D3 was something great... nope - cheaper 1DX version with reduced features. Now 70D and 7D2... I will be happy to have xxDs back in the pro/amateur league. However I know for 100% that CANON is treating 7D as TOP ASP-C. And superiour to 6D. That is the way CANON represent it to resellers!!! NO matter the FF, wi-fi, GPS....

I'm curious why you think the 6D even remotely qualifies as competition to the 7D line. The two are radically different parts. The 7D line is all about performance and reach. It has a high frame rate (currently 8fps, rumors put 7D II at 10fps), a higher end AF system (19pt all cross type, rumors put the 7D II at 61pt same as 1D X), a much deeper frame buffer, and a load of other bells and whistles.

The 6D? It is about the most gimped part Canon can possibly make. The fact that it is full frame means nothing in the context of the market position the 7D line fills. The two are incomparable...so it's odd that you compare them in such a way as to indicate the 6D is a 7D killer...IMO, it doesn't even qualify as a contestant for that title, let alone the title holder.

...
There are an awful lot of us that seem to be waiting on the 7D2. It will sell.

+1 ... If the ISO performance is better, it would interest me immensely.
\BTW, I'm not sure of the physics but what sort of processing power would a 21/24MP @ 10 fps require?

2 CPUs - true: they could be either DIGIC 5+ and yet since they have DIGIC 6 it would be better at the same PRICE to put the new one.

Well, I just did the math in a reply to another answer. Here it is again. Assuming some extra masked pixels, ~8%, then we have two sensors with "real" pixel counts of 22.7mp and 26mp. Assuming 14-bit, then the numbers work out as:

22,700,000 * 14 / 8 * 10 = 398mb/s
26,000,000 * 14 / 8 * 10 = 455mb/s

I did calculations in another thread, and I came to the conclusion that each DIGIC5+ chip is capable of processing at a throughput rate of 250mb/s. A pair of them, interleaved as they are in the 1D X, would offer 500mb/s throughput. A pair of DIGIC5+ in the 7D II should be plenty to support a 10fps frame rate at either 21mp or 24mp.

...

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.

...
Agreed. I feel though that the 7DII will come very close OR may even better the 5D3 under good lighting conditions. High ISO will however, be a different story.

Why not?!?! 5D3 had nothing innovative. It was updated 5D2... For me the only different between 1Dx, 5D3 & 6D is the Speed... AF... you say... 1DX - yes... the rest NO!

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.

Hell yeah! That is what I call MILKING the Canon glass owners. :-(

Um...did you actually READ my post? Canon isn't milking anyone. Market factors over the last five years have pushed commodity prices very high. Even after the recent "crash", they are still quite high, only pulling back to prices from about two years ago (which is considerably higher than they were for the first half of the first decade of the 21st century.) On top of materials costs...there are your BASIC supply and demand factors. Companies don't just sit pretty and "milk" their customers...if the customer thinks the price is too high, they won't buy, and the natural consequence of that is that prices come down. People were more than willing to pay $3500 for a 5D III, and have been more than willing to pay as much as $13,000 for a nice telephoto lens. Those are consumer CHOICES! It has nothing to do with a corporation milking its customers for all they are worth. Canon has to sell at what the market demands, and so long as they can sell and still make a profit, if the MARKET demands a lower price, then a lower price will be had.

.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)...

So far agree!

...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).

What do you mean!?!?
1DX is to be 2 years ago released when 7D2 comes out... +/- a few months... You mean that the new APS-C flagship that is just 6 month away from the 1DX upgrade (remember the big megapixel monster with new generation of technologies that would cost around $10K) will have the same ISO and technology as 5D3?!?
What for?!? I mean - sorry I am missing the more "revolutionary" than "evolutionary" part here.

Why do things NEED to be "revolutionary"? I mean, what exactly does "revolutionary" get you over "evolutionary"? How is that even a factor at all? If the 7D II offers significantly improved IQ, does it really matter whether the way Canon achieved that improvement is revolutionary or evolutionary? The vast majority of progress is made on the knowledge and backs of what and who came before. There is very little in any industry these days that is truly "revolutionary". The Exmor sensor could be called revolutionary by some, but the trends were already in place when Exmor was introduced...the process move to 180nm had already been done, locating high frequency components away from readout logic had already been done, etc. Most of those advancements HAD to be made for the nanoscopic sensors found in cell phones and the like to produce the kind of quality they do. Sony made one extra leap, from analog readout to digital readout. Revolutionary? Or Evolutionary? Hard to say, although personally, I feel it was part of a continual chain of evolutionary progress that has been occurring for years on the sensor front.

So, if Canon continues to build on their own knowledge in the realm of sensor design and manufacture...and if they reuse some of the improvements they first introduced with the 1D X and 5D III...that would be grounds for you NOT being interested in the 7D II? Seriously?

BTW, if Canon DOES move to a 180nm process, within the domain of Canon, that would be a pretty significant move. They have been on a 500nm process for a VERY LONG time. They have done amazing things with it, but I think it is at EOL. Canon needs to move to a new process. If they DO move to a new process, I think a lot of things will improve for Canon sensors. I think their overall IQ will increase, as they will have a lot more space on die to build noise-reduction circuitry. The relative area that is consumed by logic and wiring will also shrink considerably, even with added circuitry, which leaves more area for photodiode. At any given pixel size, on a 180nm process, the actual light-sensitive photodiode area will increase. An 18mp APS-C 7D II on a 180nm process would have a fairly considerable benefit in terms of FWC over the 18mp APS-C 7D I. That alone would improve noise performance. Improved CDS, on-die readout and digital conversion, column parallel readout, etc. all of which would be possible or more plausible with a process shrink, could also have a significant impact on IQ, reducing noise considerably, potentially even to D800 levels.

That all assumes Canon only moves to what everyone else is using. Rumors have mentioned that Canon is working on getting their process viable for mass manufacture. They could be moving to 180nm, but they have steppers and scanners capable of 90nm manufacture as well. Who's to say Canon isn't working on leapfrogging the competition in terms of process size? A 90nm process in a digital sensor would compound the benefits of moving to a 180nm process!

There is plenty of room for Canon to be "revolutionary". Even if they continue to apply the advancements they made with the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D...they can STILL be "revolutionary", and can still apply some radical improvements to their next sensors.

 

[candyman]

http://jonrista.com/photography/


Some excellent photos! I enjoyed them very much

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Yikes...there are lots of quotes here, and lots I'd love to comment on but will restrict it to a few...

The original 7d was an oddball and made many aspiring togs make choices. When I bought my 7d it was a tough choice between that and the 5d2. I knew the 5d2 had better IQ, but, the 7d would function in a greater variety. SO I went 7d. I almost never used the full frame rate on that because I was not a sports shooter.

7d vs 6d vs 7d2...each body occupies a niche that shouldn't overlap too much. For the causal user, the 7d2 will be overkill if it has the rumored specs (61pt AF, 10 fps) casual users will move to xxd or the 6d. I agree on pricing of the 7d2 - it will most likely be around $2500 - that's assuming Canon intends on making it a true pro crop body, and assuming that the 70d will have a spec sheet that would render the 7d2 dead on arrival unless it's stepped up to more of a pro level. That means it will appeal to serious shooters looking for fast frame rates and range (and yeah, the occasional casual user with too much money to burn). The 6d will be what it is...entry level FF for those that don't need machine gun style burst rates. The 6d will most likely still be a btter performer in low light. Wedding shooters will still probably flock to the 5d3 unless canon can pull off a miracle at the higher ISO's, and likewise, the 6d will still be a very viable option for wedding shooters looking for a backup body to compliment the 5d3.

So it really boils down to the niche...it seems like the 7d2 will be the perfect compliment to the 1dx for sports shooters and bird togs, while the 5d3/6d combo is the wedding/event shooter niche.

I do think the combo of 6d and 5d3 do kill the current 7d though (that and the fact that the XXXD series pulls ahead of the 7d in IQ, the only reason to get a 7d now is for the slightly better AF and burst rate).

Again, back to my decision process - if the 5d3 was there when I made my first big upgrade, I would have snagged the 5d3 because that truly was and is the body that better suits what I'm doing.

Either way, I don't see the 7d2 killing the 6d, nor do i see the 7d2 as dead on arrival because of the 6d...both will occupy a niche and both will be desired based on what each can do. Just look to history, the 7d2 did not kill the 5d2, even though the burst rate and AF were vastly superior. FF will always have an IQ edge over crop, and a feel to the images that crop just doesn't have.

It will lead to interesting decisions being made by aspiring photogs who are in the situation I was in when I made my first upgrade ---- when cost is a big issue and your still learning and trying to find the niche you want to shoot in...will they go 6d or will they go 7d2? (difference though is the 6d will most certainly be the cheaper option, where for me, it way the other way around.)

Hi again,

first of all - what-the-hack with that LENSE OFF TOPIC?!? And BTW had any of you imagined a APS-C with L lenses? Like in my case.

Oh yeah, it'll definitely sell. The 7D has been extremely popular, as it fills a fairly unique niche. The 7D II can only be better! How could it not sell?

Because the 6d is there.

In times of 7d & 5d2, the 7d mostly was the most expensive, i.e. "best" model in many stores, so people who wanted something "good" or "solid" were talked into buying that. Whith the 6d price on the decline, they'll probably buy ff quality & wifi/gps instead of 7d2 aps-c features a casual shooter doesn't need.

EXACTLY!!! With 6D into PLAY things get ugly. A game changer was 5D2, then 7D came out better and improved... but APS-C...

Now we have 6D. If anyone states that 5D3 was something great... nope - cheaper 1DX version with reduced features. Now 70D and 7D2... I will be happy to have xxDs back in the pro/amateur league. However I know for 100% that CANON is treating 7D as TOP ASP-C. And superiour to 6D. That is the way CANON represent it to resellers!!! NO matter the FF, wi-fi, GPS....

I'm curious why you think the 6D even remotely qualifies as competition to the 7D line. The two are radically different parts. The 7D line is all about performance and reach. It has a high frame rate (currently 8fps, rumors put 7D II at 10fps), a higher end AF system (19pt all cross type, rumors put the 7D II at 61pt same as 1D X), a much deeper frame buffer, and a load of other bells and whistles.

The 6D? It is about the most gimped part Canon can possibly make. The fact that it is full frame means nothing in the context of the market position the 7D line fills. The two are incomparable...so it's odd that you compare them in such a way as to indicate the 6D is a 7D killer...IMO, it doesn't even qualify as a contestant for that title, let alone the title holder.

...
There are an awful lot of us that seem to be waiting on the 7D2. It will sell.

+1 ... If the ISO performance is better, it would interest me immensely.
\BTW, I'm not sure of the physics but what sort of processing power would a 21/24MP @ 10 fps require?

2 CPUs - true: they could be either DIGIC 5+ and yet since they have DIGIC 6 it would be better at the same PRICE to put the new one.

Well, I just did the math in a reply to another answer. Here it is again. Assuming some extra masked pixels, ~8%, then we have two sensors with "real" pixel counts of 22.7mp and 26mp. Assuming 14-bit, then the numbers work out as:

22,700,000 * 14 / 8 * 10 = 398mb/s
26,000,000 * 14 / 8 * 10 = 455mb/s

I did calculations in another thread, and I came to the conclusion that each DIGIC5+ chip is capable of processing at a throughput rate of 250mb/s. A pair of them, interleaved as they are in the 1D X, would offer 500mb/s throughput. A pair of DIGIC5+ in the 7D II should be plenty to support a 10fps frame rate at either 21mp or 24mp.

...

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.

...
Agreed. I feel though that the 7DII will come very close OR may even better the 5D3 under good lighting conditions. High ISO will however, be a different story.

Why not?!?! 5D3 had nothing innovative. It was updated 5D2... For me the only different between 1Dx, 5D3 & 6D is the Speed... AF... you say... 1DX - yes... the rest NO!

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.

Hell yeah! That is what I call MILKING the Canon glass owners. :-(

Um...did you actually READ my post? Canon isn't milking anyone. Market factors over the last five years have pushed commodity prices very high. Even after the recent "crash", they are still quite high, only pulling back to prices from about two years ago (which is considerably higher than they were for the first half of the first decade of the 21st century.) On top of materials costs...there are your BASIC supply and demand factors. Companies don't just sit pretty and "milk" their customers...if the customer thinks the price is too high, they won't buy, and the natural consequence of that is that prices come down. People were more than willing to pay $3500 for a 5D III, and have been more than willing to pay as much as $13,000 for a nice telephoto lens. Those are consumer CHOICES! It has nothing to do with a corporation milking its customers for all they are worth. Canon has to sell at what the market demands, and so long as they can sell and still make a profit, if the MARKET demands a lower price, then a lower price will be had.

.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)...

So far agree!

...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).

What do you mean!?!?
1DX is to be 2 years ago released when 7D2 comes out... +/- a few months... You mean that the new APS-C flagship that is just 6 month away from the 1DX upgrade (remember the big megapixel monster with new generation of technologies that would cost around $10K) will have the same ISO and technology as 5D3?!?
What for?!? I mean - sorry I am missing the more "revolutionary" than "evolutionary" part here.

Why do things NEED to be "revolutionary"? I mean, what exactly does "revolutionary" get you over "evolutionary"? How is that even a factor at all? If the 7D II offers significantly improved IQ, does it really matter whether the way Canon achieved that improvement is revolutionary or evolutionary? The vast majority of progress is made on the knowledge and backs of what and who came before. There is very little in any industry these days that is truly "revolutionary". The Exmor sensor could be called revolutionary by some, but the trends were already in place when Exmor was introduced...the process move to 180nm had already been done, locating high frequency components away from readout logic had already been done, etc. Most of those advancements HAD to be made for the nanoscopic sensors found in cell phones and the like to produce the kind of quality they do. Sony made one extra leap, from analog readout to digital readout. Revolutionary? Or Evolutionary? Hard to say, although personally, I feel it was part of a continual chain of evolutionary progress that has been occurring for years on the sensor front.

So, if Canon continues to build on their own knowledge in the realm of sensor design and manufacture...and if they reuse some of the improvements they first introduced with the 1D X and 5D III...that would be grounds for you NOT being interested in the 7D II? Seriously?

BTW, if Canon DOES move to a 180nm process, within the domain of Canon, that would be a pretty significant move. They have been on a 500nm process for a VERY LONG time. They have done amazing things with it, but I think it is at EOL. Canon needs to move to a new process. If they DO move to a new process, I think a lot of things will improve for Canon sensors. I think their overall IQ will increase, as they will have a lot more space on die to build noise-reduction circuitry. The relative area that is consumed by logic and wiring will also shrink considerably, even with added circuitry, which leaves more area for photodiode. At any given pixel size, on a 180nm process, the actual light-sensitive photodiode area will increase. An 18mp APS-C 7D II on a 180nm process would have a fairly considerable benefit in terms of FWC over the 18mp APS-C 7D I. That alone would improve noise performance. Improved CDS, on-die readout and digital conversion, column parallel readout, etc. all of which would be possible or more plausible with a process shrink, could also have a significant impact on IQ, reducing noise considerably, potentially even to D800 levels.

That all assumes Canon only moves to what everyone else is using. Rumors have mentioned that Canon is working on getting their process viable for mass manufacture. They could be moving to 180nm, but they have steppers and scanners capable of 90nm manufacture as well. Who's to say Canon isn't working on leapfrogging the competition in terms of process size? A 90nm process in a digital sensor would compound the benefits of moving to a 180nm process!

There is plenty of room for Canon to be "revolutionary". Even if they continue to apply the advancements they made with the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D...they can STILL be "revolutionary", and can still apply some radical improvements to their next sensors.

 

[jrista]

http://jonrista.com/photography/


Some excellent photos! I enjoyed them very much

Thanks!

 

[Diko]

Hi.

Thank you for the thorough reading. I must confess that perhaps my odd english might be the cause of a few misunderstandings... Let me clarify:

I'm curious why you think the 6D even remotely qualifies as competition to the 7D line. The two are radically different parts. The 7D line is all about performance and reach. It has a high frame rate (currently 8fps, rumors put 7D II at 10fps), a higher end AF system (19pt all cross type, rumors put the 7D II at 61pt same as 1D X), a much deeper frame buffer, and a load of other bells and whistles.

I never said that they are comparable. The 6D is the bottom of FF and 7D2 is the top of the APS-C. IMO it actually will compete with the 5D3 depending on what specs will come out.. If they are "evolutionary" no chance to top 5D3... If they are revolutionary now then we are talking about an interesting game for sure. About evolutionary/revolutionary please continue reading :

...
2 CPUs - true: they could be either DIGIC 5+ and yet since they have DIGIC 6 it would be better at the same PRICE to put the new one.

Well, I just did the math in a reply to another answer. Here it is again. Assuming some extra masked pixels, ~8%, then we have two sensors with "real" pixel counts of 22.7mp and 26mp. Assuming 14-bit, then the numbers work out as:

22,700,000 * 14 / 8 * 10 = 398mb/s
26,000,000 * 14 / 8 * 10 = 455mb/s

I did calculations in another thread, and I came to the conclusion that each DIGIC5+ chip is capable of processing at a throughput rate of 250mb/s. A pair of them, interleaved as they are in the 1D X, would offer 500mb/s throughput. A pair of DIGIC5+ in the 7D II should be plenty to support a 10fps frame rate at either 21mp or 24mp.

WOW! I actually learned something new... for which I am very, very thankful!


However I hope you DO consider the possibility that additionally to the POWER OUTPUT in MHZ or whatever it is - they do implement new mathematical instructions, which later are used for new algorithms on which better ISO is achieved or totally new features. E.g. face recognition. Was it achieved in DIGIC 5 or 4?

Although to be honest so far what I hear - most new features for DIGIC 6 are video related :'(

Why not?!?! 5D3 had nothing innovative. It was updated 5D2... For me the only different between 1Dx, 5D3 & 6D is the Speed... AF... you say... 1DX - yes... the rest NO!

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.

I believe here you missed my point: I've got your idea pretty well, I believe. The high demand in DSLR market (mid, advanced, Pro) is dictated by the prerequisite of lenses ownership. Entry LEVEL is totally different game/market and perhaps easier to be explained with the basics of Economics.

Yes, I know people enough flexible and liberal to switch to NIKON... but most are conservative to go that painful road, which aside from the learning curve which is shorter for them and yet exists also includes possible loss of money by selling CANON to buy NIKON glasses.

" The percentage of camera owners who care about the minutia of a manufacturers technology is extremely small relative to the total camera buying populace." - true for point & shoot and entry level. But currently I don't want to move to NIKON even though I know that their Dynamic Range is better than Canon's. Ergo I am interested in technology and I know where it already happens, but stay with the "total camera buying populace" due to financial commitment in L glasses. And again I will state it:

Hell yeah! That is what I call MILKING the Canon glass owners. :-(

Um...did you actually READ my post? Canon isn't milking anyone. Market factors over the last five years have pushed commodity prices very high. Even after the recent "crash", they are still quite high, only pulling back to prices from about two years ago (which is considerably higher than they were for the first half of the first decade of the 21st century.)

Come one! PLEASE! Digital photography was a risky business with bad image and results compared to traditional photography back then in the "first half of the first decade of the 21st century"! Hardly could you even think of comparing prices then and now.
....

Companies don't just sit pretty and "milk" their customers...if the customer thinks the price is too high, they won't buy, and the natural consequence of that is that prices come down. People were more than willing to pay $3500 for a 5D III, and have been more than willing to pay as much as $13,000 for a nice telephoto lens.
Those are consumer CHOICES! It has nothing to do with a corporation milking its customers for all they are worth. Canon has to sell at what the market demands, and so long as they can sell and still make a profit, if the MARKET demands a lower price, then a lower price will be had.

CHOICES??? - you mean LACK OF CHOICES. What should have people bought (did I use the correct tense here!?!? :-[) when there was ONLY 5D3 and 1DX...? An OLD body? Buying in most cases is an incentive of upgrade. NOw don't tell me if you were a regular Joe you would buy your kids a 5D3 to have fun with?!? I even don't want to speculate what would have happened if 2 months after the 5D3, the 7D2 have come out... That is why we are currently in the "evolution" game.

...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).

180nm is out there even from CANON for quite some time! Since 2007. If technology available and NOT used for for 5 years... you call it principals of Economics. I call it "milking".

Why do things NEED to be "revolutionary"? I mean, what exactly does "revolutionary" get you over "evolutionary"?

DEVELOPMENT! Evolution is NO TREND SETTER. Evolution is for followers.
Revolution (here) is game changer, new trend, new DEMAND requirement for the customers if you wish. 5D2 was the first VIDEO DSLR, even if it was followed ONLY a few months later. 6D is the first wi-fi, DSLR AFAIK.
CANON is a follower FINALLY about dual memory cards. A trend in the PRO market set by... NIKON? (not sure).

That is why I don't want 7D2 with a 5D3 CPU and CMOS! I will NOT be happy with ISO achieved 2 years ago by the time the 7D2 would have reached the streets. I want & need a revolution body!

...
Sony made one extra leap, from analog readout to digital readout. Revolutionary? Or Evolutionary? Hard to say, although personally, I feel it was part of a continual chain of evolutionary progress that has been occurring for years on the sensor front.

Yeah! That is why NIKON & SONY are ahead on the DR. Do you want me to remind you whose CMOS is on the top places on DXo? :

So, if Canon continues to build on their own knowledge in the realm of sensor design and manufacture...and if they reuse some of the improvements they first introduced with the 1D X and 5D III...that would be grounds for you NOT being interested in the 7D II? Seriously?

Yeah for sure! I want all the features set by NIKON as a trend for some time before BOTH 1Dx and 5D3. And by-the-way... which "specific" feature of 5D3 should I be interested in? The FF?
The way I see it:
1DX- GREAT! but unreachable for limited pocket.
5D3 - a 1DX cheaper and slowly copy
6D - the cheapest and slowliest version of 1DX, but with wi-fi within the body.

.... An 18mp APS-C 7D II on a 180nm process would have a fairly considerable benefit in terms of FWC over the 18mp APS-C 7D I. That alone would improve noise performance. Improved CDS, on-die readout and digital conversion, column parallel readout, etc. all of which would be possible or more plausible with a process shrink, could also have a significant impact on IQ, reducing noise considerably, potentially even to D800 levels.

Using CANON technology from 2007? How inspiring! March 2012 is the street date of D800. And its current price is $2,796.95. Do you want to bet that if CANON (hopefully) have FINALLY implemented the 180nm in their CMOS the price would be above (AT LEAST) $3k. We are promised to have 8/10 fps as well 8)

A 90nm process in a digital sensor would compound the benefits of moving to a 180nm process!

Ahym if finaly this year we are to get 180nm that would make 90nm somewhere in the mid-summer of 2018? ;D

There is plenty of room for Canon to be "revolutionary". Even if they continue to apply the advancements they made with the 1DX, 5D III, and 6D...they can STILL be "revolutionary", and can still apply some radical improvements to their next sensors.

APPLY is one nice key word. The "advancement" please read as "following the competitors". The NIKON 4D was in February 2012 on the streets. The 1DX was in March 2012. Which still makes CANON a FOLLOWER!

Thank you again. I learned something very nice from you!

 

[jrista]

Hi.

Thank you for the thorough reading. I must confess that perhaps my odd english might be the cause of a few misunderstandings...

Hmm, I think I'm misunderstanding or misinterpreting some things...maybe a bit of a language barrier thing. If I understand you correctly, it seems we are pretty much in agreement. I honestly can't tell for sure, though! It does sound like I misunderstood you regarding the 6D/7D stuff...and I agree, they serve different markets. Anyway, sorry for the misunderstandings...

There is plenty of room for Canon to be "revolutionary". Even if they continue to apply the advancements they made with the 1DX, 5D III, and 6D...they can STILL be "revolutionary", and can still apply some radical improvements to their next sensors.

APPLY is one nice key word. The "advancement" please read as "following the competitors". The NIKON 4D was in February 2012 on the streets. The 1DX was in March 2012. Which still makes CANON a FOLLOWER!

Thank you again. I learned something very nice from you!

One thing I disagree about is who is the leader and who is the follower. The actual release dates of the D4 and 1D X, for example, actually have very little to do with when the technology they utilize was actually invented, designed, and implemented. It takes years to develop new technology, sometimes decades. I don't think anyone outside of Nikon and Canon can honestly say who came up with what first. We only have release dates to go by, and I would call release dates woefully inadequate as a basis upon which we determine who innovated what or when. I remember reading Canon press releases and rumors here on CR where Canon was talking about greatly improving their high ISO capability several YEARS ago. That was long before the D4 was released, or even announced, or even talked about. I think Canon had the 1D X sensor design in the works for a while.

Additionally, Nikon has outsourced a lot of its innovation, or partnered with other companies like Sony, in order to innovate at a faster rate. They have also had to outsource the manufacture of more parts to companies (and, ironically, competitors) like Sony in order to remain competitive. The D800 sensor, Exmor, is actually a Sony part, jointly designed with Nikon. It benefited from DECADES of patents and research either done by Sony, or purchased by Sony. In contrast, Canon has completely innovated all of their own technology, or perhaps purchased some of it via patent purchases over the years. From a competitive standpoint, one driven by R&D, innovation, and maintaining a loyal customer base...Canon is doing extremely well.

Whether they came up with new sensor technology "first" or not doesn't really seem to matter. Canon certainly seems to be doing what is right for their business. As much as we consumers may not like that on an immediate basis, I think doing the right business thing leads to a more stable company. Canon has not overextended themselves (Sony is radically overextended...they have so much debt new bond offerings are usually junk bonds the interest rates are so high, and the rating for Sony as a company is so low.) If I had to bet on a camera and optics company still being here in 20 years, I'd bet on Canon in a heartbeat. I think they run a better business, one that is not solely based on being the technological first in the marketplace...but rather being a solid, respected, customer-satisfying BUSINESS.

 

[daniela]

I hope the 7DII will be as good as we hope it will be.... The D7100 (dpreview) is quite an good opponent (I personally hope Canon will optimize the IQ, not only the Video quality to beat the D7100). The IQ is really good, as the pics of my boss show...

But I received an not so good rumor from an girlfriend in Japan, who is an enthusiastic photographer and working for an supplying company (they produce something for Canon that they need to sell their products, but has nothing to do with the product itself) . She wrote, that she hardly could imagine, that Canon will sell the 7D2 earlier then 11-12/2013. Maybe before christmas.... This will be the best time to earn most money for this product.
I hope, she is wrong.

But she knows nothing about the 70D. Japanese enthusiasts are without any rumors too....

Daniela

 

[garyknrd]

You know honestly. If Canon only matches the 7100 I would be very happy. If they make it better then I would be in heaven with the new Super tele lenses. Wow... If not?
I have a bud that shoots Nikon super teles with the D4 and the 7100 now. I am going to ask him next time we shoot together if I can shoot some shots with it. So I can process and look at the raw's. I love tack sharp and detailed pics and that camera looks to be what I am after. For birding.

 

[jrista]

You know honestly. If Canon only matches the 7100 I would be very happy. If they make it better then I would be in heaven with the new Super tele lenses. Wow... If not?
I have a bud that shoots Nikon super teles with the D4 and the 7100 now. I am going to ask him next time we shoot together if I can shoot some shots with it. So I can process and look at the raw's. I love tack sharp and detailed pics and that camera looks to be what I am after. For birding.

The D7100 won't be a match for the 7D II, not even close. As I've always said, IQ is about more than just the sensor.

 

[garyknrd]

You know honestly. If Canon only matches the 7100 I would be very happy. If they make it better then I would be in heaven with the new Super tele lenses. Wow... If not?
I have a bud that shoots Nikon super teles with the D4 and the 7100 now. I am going to ask him next time we shoot together if I can shoot some shots with it. So I can process and look at the raw's. I love tack sharp and detailed pics and that camera looks to be what I am after. For birding.

The D7100 won't be a match for the 7D II, not even close. As I've always said, IQ is about more than just the sensor.

I sure hope you are right. I love the new lenses. They are a joy to use in every way. I get frustrated some time. Waiting forever it seems. But if you are right then the wait will be worth it...

 

[jrista]

You know honestly. If Canon only matches the 7100 I would be very happy. If they make it better then I would be in heaven with the new Super tele lenses. Wow... If not?
I have a bud that shoots Nikon super teles with the D4 and the 7100 now. I am going to ask him next time we shoot together if I can shoot some shots with it. So I can process and look at the raw's. I love tack sharp and detailed pics and that camera looks to be what I am after. For birding.

The D7100 won't be a match for the 7D II, not even close. As I've always said, IQ is about more than just the sensor.

I sure hope you are right. I love the new lenses. They are a joy to use in every way. I get frustrated some time. Waiting forever it seems. But if you are right then the wait will be worth it...

It isn't just about better glass either, though. Everyone seems to forget that frame rate, AF system, logic pairing between lens and body for AF (another area where Canon excels), metering, IS capabilities, etc. all factor into IQ. The sensor is one factor out of MANY, and depending on the kind of shooting you do, sensor could be the LEAST important. For me, I would say AF system is most important, frame rate is second, and sensor is third...or at best, AF system is most important, and frame rate & sensor tie for second (I need excellent high ISO performance...I could really care less if the sensor offered an additional two stops DR at ISO 100 or not, I probably shoot below ISO 400 less than 2% of the time, and below 800 less than 30% of the time.)

People rag on Canon for not having excellent ISO 100 performance. That is certainly important for some types of photography, and even I myself when I do landscapes would much put low ISO sensor performance first in my list (and AF system dead last). I think more people, however, have the need to shoot at higher ISO settings. From ISO 400 on, the differences are negligible between any brand in terms of DR, and the key thing that matters to IQ is SNR/noise. Canon excels in that area right now. So even though sensor is not necessarily the single most important thing to most photographers, it is not like Canon is doing terrible in that arena either.

And it doesn't really matter how you slice up the pie...the 7D II can't be "worse" than the original 7D. There hasn't ever been a real solid competitor to the 7D in the past, and it does not appear as though there will be a significant one in the future, unless Nikon changes tack a little bit and makes the D400 a serious 7D competitor (with the key factors being frame rate and AF system).

If the rumors are true, it sounds like the 7D II will get some fairly significant boosts to all of the critical features that made the 7D a success (and it IS a success...despite the fact that it probably has one of Canon's worst sensors in the last five years, which is really saying a lot about how good that "bad" sensor really is!) It'll get a better AF system, faster frame rate, dual card slots, and...if what Canon has been saying is true...a fairly significant upgrade to it's sensor as well, not just higher resolution, but something fairly radically new. I wouldn't worry...one way or another, the 7D II will be an awesome camera, and for what the 7D line is built for...action photography with added reach, low ISO performance is not going to matter much, regardless of whether it ends up being great or no better than the original 7D.

The biggest thing for the sensor is whether it improves high ISO SNR, which should reduce noise. I can't say for sure what Canon is planning regarding the sensor, but a process shrink to me seems to be the crux of the issue. I don't see how Canon can make the 7D successor perform better on the noise front, while increasing megapixels (which is what everyone is expecting, and what Canon will probably deliver) without a process shrink. At 21 or 24 megapixels, the 500nm process would consume too much photodiode space. Even with microlenses, shrink the pixels without shrinking process, and the photodiode area will have to shrink, which will reduce the full well capacity even further than the rather mediocre level the 7D achieves now (which is just shy of 21,000 electrons max per pixel). With a process shrink, Canon could increase the megapixel count with a minimal hit to FWC, if any. There are also a number of papers published in the last five years or so that describe how to utilize the penetration depth of different wavelengths of light to improve well capacity in three dimensions rather than just two...embedding photodiodes at multiple levels in the silicon base, each one being sensitive to different frequencies of light (although these frequencies do not necessarily correspond to red, green, and blue).

 

[garyknrd]

That 7D is a good camera but I miss so many shots because of AF I finally stopped using it. If the 7100 is accurate then that alone would sway me..

Off subject but got me to thinking. I have some Sigma screw AF lenses for Pentax mount cameras. Really good glass IMO. Really anxious to see what Pentax Ricoh has to offer in there next crop sensor camera. The rumor is it is going to be a pro level crop camera? If AF is there I will be in heaven. Being able to use my Sigma glass again...

For me AF is the main thing. I quit Pentax because of it and stopped using the 7D also. I have an old IV and it hits pretty consistently. Very happy with that camera so far. Night and day in the AF systems? Right now I am very happy with Canon gear.