If it is video oriented 22 MP like 5D III and close to other 24 MP models. 9-10 fps for pass 7D.
Upvote
0
7D Mark-II as an action oriented DSLR
- Thread starter StudentOfLight
- Start date
If I recall correctly, the Digic 6 processors were designed for point&shoot cameras to allow for better noise reduction for jpg processing. I'm not sure if they'll be used in DSLRs. Dual Digic 5+ still has plenty to offer as can be seen in the 1D-X. Remember also that Digic 5+ processors are currently in use in the 5D-III, 6D and 70D. So there are economies of scale to consider as well.NancyP said:
CFast2.0 is an exciting possibility. Sandisk claims their latest CFast2.0 card can write up to 350MB/s
http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory-cards/cfastpro/
Lexar claims that they have a card in development that writes up to 500MB/s.
http://www.lexar.com/products/lexar-professional-3333x-cfast-card
My 5D mark-III RAW files can get up into the 36MB so such a card could in theory write 24Mpx 14bit RAW files at 12fps. Obviously these are ideal maximums and Lexar guarantees minimum speed of something in the 65MB/s range.
Upvote
0
I am primarily a sports shooter, and still love my 7d, but......
The 5D3 is so much better in low light and with focus options, I almost always use it in "lower" light situations.
My wish list for the 7D2 has long been:
Nice to have (but don't need or in some cases want) :
I'll likely be an early buyer, but only if most of the "wish list" is fulfilled.
The 5D3 is so much better in low light and with focus options, I almost always use it in "lower" light situations.
My wish list for the 7D2 has long been:
- Better Low light / high ISO performance (close to 5D3)
- Better focus options ( like the 5D3 )
- AP-C format with at least 7D speed
- near $2K price
Nice to have (but don't need or in some cases want) :
- Integrated grip (very nice to have, but would buy without)
- Improved Video Performance (don't care)
- WIFI/GPS
I'll likely be an early buyer, but only if most of the "wish list" is fulfilled.
Upvote
0
RichM said:
I don't believe ISO performance similar to the 5D3 is possible given its a crop sensor.
Upvote
0
The 7D is an incredible camera for the price. Where the specs on the 7DMkII come in will be real interesting. I can see the danger of easily encroaching on the turf of the 5dmarkIII and even 1DX.
Upvote
0
Re: re
I was under the impression that the bayer filter works at the pixel level and that chroma subsampling works with adjacent pixels. I believe is the only current Canon DLSR with subpixels is the 70D, but please point me to appropriate documentation if I'm incorrect.dgatwood said:
Upvote
0
Re: re
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. A subpixel is typically defined as a single color portion of a pixel, whereas a pixel is usually defined as the set of elements needed to reproduce a single dot of an arbitrary color (which means that it is a combination of at least three subpixels). When I was describing the Bayer filter, I was using "pixel" in the more traditional sense—that is, a cluster of four subpixels that combine to form a single dot of an arbitrary color.
With that said, in the camera world, when folks talk about megapixels, they're really talking about mega-subpixels. It's something of a terminology bug that is pretty much limited to the world of cameras. Each pixel captures only one color, so it's really a subpixel, which means you have an effective pixel resolution of half the megapixel count in the greens and a quarter of the megapixel count in the reds and blues. However, because of the arrangement, in some crude way, there is some resolving power beyond that threshold as long as you're dealing with black-and-white imaging, so some folks call them pixels.
Either way, whatever you choose to call them, the light hitting one of those clusters of four subpixels goes through a set of four color filters—two green, one red, and one blue—so in effect, half of the surface area is sensitive to only green light, a quarter is sensitive only to blue, and a quarter is sensitive only to red. Therefore, assuming the light of a given color is spread evenly across the entire cluster (which, on average, is true), then half of the green light that hits that cluster of subpixels is lost, and three-quarters of the red and blue light that hits that cluster of subpixels is lost.
Note that this is completely unrelated to the concept of split pixels as exists in the 70D, where half of a subpixel/pixel picks up the light coming in from half of the lens and the other half picks up the light coming in from the other half. I'm not quite sure what to call those, but I wouldn't call them subpixels unless you want to confuse everyone.
StudentOfLight said:
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. A subpixel is typically defined as a single color portion of a pixel, whereas a pixel is usually defined as the set of elements needed to reproduce a single dot of an arbitrary color (which means that it is a combination of at least three subpixels). When I was describing the Bayer filter, I was using "pixel" in the more traditional sense—that is, a cluster of four subpixels that combine to form a single dot of an arbitrary color.
With that said, in the camera world, when folks talk about megapixels, they're really talking about mega-subpixels. It's something of a terminology bug that is pretty much limited to the world of cameras. Each pixel captures only one color, so it's really a subpixel, which means you have an effective pixel resolution of half the megapixel count in the greens and a quarter of the megapixel count in the reds and blues. However, because of the arrangement, in some crude way, there is some resolving power beyond that threshold as long as you're dealing with black-and-white imaging, so some folks call them pixels.
Either way, whatever you choose to call them, the light hitting one of those clusters of four subpixels goes through a set of four color filters—two green, one red, and one blue—so in effect, half of the surface area is sensitive to only green light, a quarter is sensitive only to blue, and a quarter is sensitive only to red. Therefore, assuming the light of a given color is spread evenly across the entire cluster (which, on average, is true), then half of the green light that hits that cluster of subpixels is lost, and three-quarters of the red and blue light that hits that cluster of subpixels is lost.
Note that this is completely unrelated to the concept of split pixels as exists in the 70D, where half of a subpixel/pixel picks up the light coming in from half of the lens and the other half picks up the light coming in from the other half. I'm not quite sure what to call those, but I wouldn't call them subpixels unless you want to confuse everyone.
Upvote
0
the only thing I would bet on is a new more MP sensor and 10FPS. with that, they could use slightly higher than 7FPS burst rate and same sensor in forthcoming 80D, which is probably due in 2016, and still wouldn't endanger the 7D2.
Upvote
0
Yes and no. 7D has Dual Digic 4 (not +) also. Dual Digic 6 are possible? But who would know.StudentOfLight said:
Upvote
0
Re: re
I have a 7D and a 5DIII and I agree with all of the above. I'd pay $4000 for 7D-II that was as good as the 5DIII. That means a better sensor and better AF and pretty much all of the other stuff that flyingSquirrel said.
That said, my 7D goes pretty much unused after I got the 5D, it's that much better and if I crop down to about the size I'd get from the 7D the images are good enough.
I too am hopeful that the 7DII will be an awesome wildlife camera. If not, then I'll join the small set of crazy people that want the 1.3 crop back as a compromise between extra reach and a high end sensor.
For the record, I'm not in the Canon bashing camp that some people seem to be. I'm 52 and the advances in camera tech in my lifetime are, to me, stunning. I feel like a kid in a candy store each time they push the boundaries.
flyingSquirrel said:
I have a 7D and a 5DIII and I agree with all of the above. I'd pay $4000 for 7D-II that was as good as the 5DIII. That means a better sensor and better AF and pretty much all of the other stuff that flyingSquirrel said.
That said, my 7D goes pretty much unused after I got the 5D, it's that much better and if I crop down to about the size I'd get from the 7D the images are good enough.
I too am hopeful that the 7DII will be an awesome wildlife camera. If not, then I'll join the small set of crazy people that want the 1.3 crop back as a compromise between extra reach and a high end sensor.
For the record, I'm not in the Canon bashing camp that some people seem to be. I'm 52 and the advances in camera tech in my lifetime are, to me, stunning. I feel like a kid in a candy store each time they push the boundaries.
Upvote
0
Re: Mirror flip speed limit?
If I were them, I'd leave the mirror up and use DPAF for continuing focus tracking. That way, you're limited only by the shutter speed (thousands per second), the readout speed (much fewer), and the flash speed (fewer still).
Larry said:pierlux said:
Would anyone familiar with mirror flip physics care to speculate on what the maximum achievable (and durable)frame rate might be? (Speaking APS-C size mechanics only, disregarding processing speed)
If I were them, I'd leave the mirror up and use DPAF for continuing focus tracking. That way, you're limited only by the shutter speed (thousands per second), the readout speed (much fewer), and the flash speed (fewer still).
Upvote
0
Re: Mirror flip speed limit?
I would, if I were familiar with maths and physycs, but unfortunately I'm not. Apart from the logical statement that moving a small mass requires less energy than moving a bigger one, I can't produce mathematical evidence of this. But I think the maximum 'achievable' frame rate, disregarding processing speed, could be higher than the maximum 'convenient' (or 'applicative') frame rate since, as you mention yourself, durability kicks in, together with image quality degradation due to vibration. I think a 'theoretical' burst at 25 fps would possibly introduce an unacceptable amount of vibration blur.Larry said:Would anyone familiar with mirror flip physics care to speculate on what the maximum achievable (and durable)frame rate might be? (Speaking APS-C size mechanics only, disregarding processing speedpierlux said:
Upvote
0
I've had a 7D for over 3-years now, it's my primary body and must be over 100k clicks by now. If been more or less faultless and has been out in all weathers and temperatures. The key for me in the 7D2 will be an improvement in the AF system at higher frame rates. At the low continuous drive speed I find the 7D effectively 100% accurate. Take it up to the higher speed (8 fps) and the accuracy falls off to 60-70% typically (and I mean absolutely sharp as opposed to "it will do"). If they can't improve that, then higher fps is meaningless.
I'm not over concerned about more mpx but like everyone else I'd like cleaner files with more dynamic range and probably more headroom in the RAW files. The 7D is noisy as hell if you don't get the exposure exactly right and have to start using even small exposure compensations in post.
If they want to make it a 1-series body (gripped) fine by me.
I'm not over concerned about more mpx but like everyone else I'd like cleaner files with more dynamic range and probably more headroom in the RAW files. The 7D is noisy as hell if you don't get the exposure exactly right and have to start using even small exposure compensations in post.
If they want to make it a 1-series body (gripped) fine by me.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Totally agree. Exactly my expectation. It might have abuilt-in RT speedlite trigger as a surprise extra deature (that would sell an extra couple 1000 of 600EX-RT speedlites!) - in line with the 7D which was the first EOS with pop-up flash serving as optical speedlite trigger.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
