7d2 IQ thoughts.

[sanj]

Most of you have been using Canon for long and have been following its progress.

I realize 7d2 it will be fast, responsive etc etc. but do you think the IQ will be noticeably better than Canon's latest 70D say at ISO 1200?

I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?

I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?

 

[Khalai]

Most of you have been using Canon for long and have been following its progress.

I realize 7d2 it will be fast, responsive etc etc. but do you think the IQ will be noticeably better than Canon's latest 70D say at ISO 1200?

I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?

I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?

Problem lies in physics. You are basically wishing (as most of us, however naively) for the sensor, that is approx. 40% of FF size, yet has the same S/N per pixel density. But maybe someday, still the best APS-C sensor will be (probably) never able to compare to the concurrent best FF sensor in the S/N department.

 

[wsmith96]

Most of you have been using Canon for long and have been following its progress.

I realize 7d2 it will be fast, responsive etc etc. but do you think the IQ will be noticeably better than Canon's latest 70D say at ISO 1200?

I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?

I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?

As I peer into my crystal ball I'm seeing that the images will be technically better, but the increase in image quality will be unnoticed by most.

 

[Don Haines]

I would say yes for two reasons.

First, we can expect the sensor to have better quantum efficiency and lower read noise.... but expect the change to be a few percent better... something that can be noticed in a laboratory but will probably be invisible to even the most dedicated pixel peeper.

Second, we can expect a better AF system. I think this is where the real differences will come from... more accurate focus give less blur and a higher keeper rate.... I'd love to see a camera that could AFMA itself.... As I am fond of saying, nobody cares what the DR is of an out of focus picture

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I hope 7D Mark ii will be a great camera for fast action, lighter and cheaper than 1DX. Therefore, I would like an AF system as good as 5D Mark III. And most important, the amount of chroma noise at ISO 3200 as good as 5D Mark III at ISO 6400. I do not need more than 16 megapixels, and I think with this pixel density is feasible to achieve low noise as I hope.

 

[Marsu42]

I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?

The sensor doesn't matter that much because the light has to pass the lens first and you need top-notch glass to illuminate a 20mp crop area like 20mp full frame area.

Alas, the best Canon L lenses are always ef mount so you're paying for glass you carry, but don't use. The best you can expect from the 7d2 is "good enough" for most non-studio purposes, and if it wouldn't be for the banding the 7d1 is already there concerning pixel density.

Concerning iso capability there are physical limits and I don't expect Canon to put an entire new tech into the 7d2, they'll reserve that for their most expensive cameras... so my bet is that you'll be still stuck at iso 800 or if cutting corners iso 1600 with the 7d2 if shooting for 100% res.

Last not least, one important factor is dynamic range esp. for outdoor shots in bright sunlight - but Canon won't reach Nikon here either because the latter have patented Sony sensor tech Canon won't license even if they had the offer.

 

[Lightmaster]

Last not least, one important factor is dynamic range esp. for outdoor shots in bright sunlight - but Canon won't reach Nikon here either because the latter have patented Sony sensor tech Canon won't license even if they had the offer.

canon has not to patent anything.
there are plenty of ways to achieve things.

phase AF on the sensor for example.
it´s used by a few companys thought canon has patents for it, nikon has patents for it etc.

sony has also the benefit that it´s sensors use less space for the pixel circuits and electronics, because of the smaller manufacturing process.

if canon makes the jump to a smaller manufacturing process and includes some of it´s lately release technology patents into a new sensor there is no need for sony patents to match sonys DR and base noise performance. noise is related to DR performance.

 

[drjlo]

I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?

Being a realist, we would have to ask ourselves, "When was the last time the sensor in a new Canon body exceeded our expectations?"

 

[NancyP]

I too would be happy with keeping the 18 MP but improving the QE a bit and improving the ADC and other RAW processing a lot. The oft-heard complaint of 7Dclassic linear noise in skies does not happen with the 60D, and should be abolished in the 7D2 - and that 7D problem is related to ADC and processing, not to the MP quantity. I want sophisticated autofocusing, 8 to 12 fps, deep deep deep RAW buffer capacity (30 RAWs) and very fast buffer clearance, weather-proofing, possibly a beefier battery than the LPE6 (faster AF), possibly wifi for remote operation. Basically, I want to upgrade my 60D before the 60D keels over.

 

[Don Haines]

I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?

Being a realist, we would have to ask ourselves, "When was the last time the sensor in a new Canon body exceeded our expectations?"

70D?

 

[Don Haines]

I too would be happy with keeping the 18 MP but improving the QE a bit and improving the ADC and other RAW processing a lot. The oft-heard complaint of 7Dclassic linear noise in skies does not happen with the 60D, and should be abolished in the 7D2 - and that 7D problem is related to ADC and processing, not to the MP quantity. I want sophisticated autofocusing, 8 to 12 fps, deep deep deep RAW buffer capacity (30 RAWs) and very fast buffer clearance, weather-proofing, possibly a beefier battery than the LPE6 (faster AF), possibly wifi for remote operation. Basically, I want to upgrade my 60D before the 60D keels over.

I'm with you. My 60D is getting long in the tooth and is somewhere around 150,000 clicks on the shutter... It's definitely time for a replacement.

Over the last 5 years there have been lots of little improvements... few of which are noteworthy on their own, but add them all up and you get a big difference. Sort of like the 5D2 and the 5D3.....

 

[unfocused]

For all practical purposes, this topic was pretty much explored in this thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20525.msg387978#msg387978 Skip the first several pages of childish comments and dig into the longer explanations of the limitations of APS-C for some insights.

Shorthand Conclusion: An APS-C sensor won't exceed the quality of an APS-H sensor, so clearly, it's not going to be better than the 5DII full frame sensor.

Knowing that, I really believe we can more intelligently speculate on what the 7DII might look like.

I see Canon playing on the strengths of APS-C rather than trying to compensate for its weaknesses. I would not be surprised at all if the 7D II looks something like this:

24mp dual pixel sensor.
Very modest improvements in noise at high-ish ISOs (800-3200). Slightly better than 70D but not as clean as a full frame or even APS-H sensor.
Dual card slots (SD and CF)
Frame rate between the 7D and 1DX
Weathersealing at least as good as 5DIII, possibly better
Autofocus at least as good as 5DIII, possibly better
f8 Autofocus
Touch Screen
Wifi
A handful of video-oriented features (I don't know what these would be, because I don't shoot video, but I believe we will see some video improvements/features)
Perhaps a few other unexpected features (built in transmitter for 600 RT would be nice, but I'm guessing the regulatory issues make that too complicated to implement as it would require different bodies for different regions)

In short, I think what you will see is a high-end, high-performance body that will be great for daytime sports, birding and wildlife shooting.

Canon will build on the strengths of the 1.6 magnification factor. A 24mp or higher sensor will give distance-limited photographers an ability to crop out a significant portion of an image, and still retain enough pixels for some very nice and good sized enlargements.

Think about coupling that with a new 100-400 5.6 zoom: 400 x 1.6 = 640mm x 1.4 teleconverter (with f8 focusing) = 896mm then crop out half the frame, leaving a 12mp image = effective focal length of about 1,800mm.

Extreme example, but you get the idea.

And, from Canon's perspective, the great thing is it supplements, but doesn't replace the 5DIII or the 1Dx, which are still going to be the best available cameras for higher ISOs, portraiture, events, etc. etc.

It's all part of Canon's two-body strategy. With the market maturing, they need to find new opportunities. Selling enthusiasts two bodies is the best way to increase sales. I've read a lot of posts from former 7D users who claim that now that they have a 5DIII they don't want a 7DII. But, they haven't seen the 7DII. Canon's challenge is to change their minds and I think they'll do that.

 

[jrista]

I would say yes for two reasons.

First, we can expect the sensor to have better quantum efficiency and lower read noise.... but expect the change to be a few percent better... something that can be noticed in a laboratory but will probably be invisible to even the most dedicated pixel peeper.

Second, we can expect a better AF system. I think this is where the real differences will come from... more accurate focus give less blur and a higher keeper rate.... I'd love to see a camera that could AFMA itself.... As I am fond of saying, nobody cares what the DR is of an out of focus picture

I agree that from a technical standpoint in terms of technical specifications, the difference is likely only to be a few percent, maybe 10% at most.

However, there are some things Canon can do to make the PERCEPTUAL results better. One of the things I've noticed when I mess around and compare sample images from new cameras from all the review sites is that sharper images, even if they have the same absolute noise as a less sharp image, are PERCEIVED as having less noise. Softness makes noise stand out more. It's why noise is so visible and annoying in the soft blurry background boke, but not as visible in foreground detail. The sharper a camera and sensor are, the less impactful noise in the important detail is going to be.

Canon certainly has some sharp lenses, and I think that REALLY goes to their benefit in this area. If they can improve their overall sharpness, which probably means using slightly weaker AA filters (which will mean the potential for more moire, but maybe a worthwhile cost), then I think the 7D II is likely to be considered a visibly superior camera to the 7D and 70D.

The next biggest thing would, of course, be an increase in true sensitivity, in quantum efficiency. I'm really hoping Canon gets up to around 55% Q.E. or so, as that would offer some meaningful improvements in high ISO performance. It probably wouldn't be readily visible, but in the case of background boke, it should help.

A reduction in read noise is obviously going to be important, but only at lower ISO settings. ISO 100 and 200 would gain the most by far with a reduction in read noise. I know Canon has the technology to move ADC on-die, to hyperparallelize it, reduce operating frequency, and I know they have various patents for reducing noise in other ways, such as a power source disconnection during readout (which should effectively eliminate or nearly eliminate dark current noise, which can be a problem at higher ISO settings.) The biggest question in my mind is:

Will Canon ACTUALLY EMPLOY the technology they own...are are they once again going to just let all their sensor patents sit and rot.

They have been letting their CP-ADC patent rot since they released the 120mp 9.5fps APS-H sensor prototype. That was years ago now. They HAVE the technology. The technology is apparently quite good, if it allowed 120mp frames to be read out at 9.5fps. But...it's gone...nowhere........... That's the one thing I don't understand about Canon. According to their patents, they are sitting on some pretty bad-ass sensor tech, and it doesn't exist in any of their actual commercial equipment. It's just technology ideas rotting in a corner somewhere, apparently... :'(

 

[sagittariansrock]

Most of you have been using Canon for long and have been following its progress.

I realize 7d2 it will be fast, responsive etc etc. but do you think the IQ will be noticeably better than Canon's latest 70D say at ISO 1200?

I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?

I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?

As I peer into my crystal ball I'm seeing that the images will be technically better, but the increase in image quality will be unnoticed by most.

Don't you worry, the marketing department will make sure we not only notice the improvement, but are absolutely hooked to it.
Think television- once I thought standard definition was fine, and Trinitron was as good as it gets. Now, even high-def is passe and 4K is the next great thing.
So yeah, when everyone has a 4K monitor on their desks, can you imagine the level of pixel peeping that will go on?

 

[geonix]

I see Canon playing on the strengths of APS-C rather than trying to compensate for its weaknesses. I would not be surprised at all if the 7D II looks something like this:

24mp dual pixel sensor.
Very modest improvements in noise at high-ish ISOs (800-3200). Slightly better than 70D but not as clean as a full frame or even APS-H sensor.
Dual card slots (SD and CF)
Frame rate between the 7D and 1DX
Weathersealing at least as good as 5DIII, possibly better
Autofocus at least as good as 5DIII, possibly better
f8 Autofocus
Touch Screen
Wifi
A handful of video-oriented features (I don't know what these would be, because I don't shoot video, but I believe we will see some video improvements/features)
Perhaps a few other unexpected features (built in transmitter for 600 RT would be nice, but I'm guessing the regulatory issues make that too complicated to implement as it would require different bodies for different regions)

I really wish you are right with your assumptions. On the IQ at ISO 800 and above I wish Canon would orient themselves more at the recent cropsensors from Nikon and Pentax and not only to the 70D. Imagine the new canon cropsensor flagship coming out in Oktober/September 2014 would still lack behind the D7100 from March 2013 in terms of noise and dynamic range. I would find that... lets say: inappropriate.

On the rest of the features for the 7D2 I fear that some canon marketing guys would feel like "Hey, this would be too good." So it wouldn't actually suprise me if they -again- put only one card slot or something like that. Like for the 70D, a camera with new dual-pixel technology, a revolutionary AF for video and than they don't give it a headphone jack.

Well, somtimes I am just pessimistic

 

[Deleted member 91053]

If and when Canon bring out the 7D2 all they need to do to make it a IQ winner is to apply their current sensor technology to a LOW Mp APsc sensor. We all, me included, like the idea of higher MP counts but realistically we also know that fewer larger pixels are better in most circumstances. So basically what I am saying is that if the 7D Mk2 is 16+ MP it will be of no use to me, now if it was in the 10-12 mp range (with Canon's latest sensor technology) I would be looking at a very good backup to my 1DX.
They won't make it though - pity!

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If and when Canon bring out the 7D2 all they need to do to make it a IQ winner is to apply their current sensor technology to a LOW Mp APsc sensor. We all, me included, like the idea of higher MP counts but realistically we also know that fewer larger pixels are better in most circumstances. So basically what I am saying is that if the 7D Mk2 is 16+ MP it will be of no use to me, now if it was in the 10-12 mp range (with Canon's latest sensor technology) I would be looking at a very good backup to my 1DX.
They won't make it though - pity!

I will speak softly to anyone listening to us... :-X I would be happy with 12 megapixel (for my use). : There are concrete facts that lead me to believe that the leadership of 1DX has clean image at ISO 6400 due to the large size of the photodiodes. On the other hand, D800 has the lead DR in ISO 100 (but not greater than 800) because of quantum efficiency, which can not be copied by D4 also has large photodiodes.

Let's be realistic: ??? Improvements in ISO 6400, DO NOT guarantee optimal DR at ISO 100 the same way, improvements in ISO 100 no guarantee clean image at ISO 6400. This time 1DX is king in high ISO, and D800 is king in low ISO. It's good to have options, but I need a camera with great low-light performance and great AF, cost much lower than 1DX.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

If and when Canon bring out the 7D2 all they need to do to make it a IQ winner is to apply their current sensor technology to a LOW Mp APsc sensor. We all, me included, like the idea of higher MP counts but realistically we also know that fewer larger pixels are better in most circumstances. So basically what I am saying is that if the 7D Mk2 is 16+ MP it will be of no use to me, now if it was in the 10-12 mp range (with Canon's latest sensor technology) I would be looking at a very good backup to my 1DX.
They won't make it though - pity!

I will speak softly to anyone listening to us... :-X I would be happy with 12 megapixel (for my use). : There are concrete facts that lead me to believe that the leadership of 1DX has clean image at ISO 6400 due to the large size of the photodiodes. On the other hand, has the lead D800 DR ISO 100 (but not greater than 800) because of quantum efficiency, which can not be copied by D4 also has large photodiodes.

Let's be realistic: ??? Improvements in ISO 6400, DO NOT guarantee optimal DR at ISO 100 the same way, improvements in ISO 100, no guarantee clean image at ISO 6400 this time 1DX is king in high ISO, and D800 is king in low ISO. It's good to have options, but I need a camera with great low-light performance and great AF, cost much lower than 1DX.

For your requirements I would have a look at the 5D3 and the 6D. If you are looking more to sports/wildlife then the 5D3 would be the better option. Static subjects the the 6D is great and cheaper. Another good alternative is a used 1D4 especially if you want a fast camera.

 

[unfocused]

If and when Canon bring out the 7D2 all they need to do to make it a IQ winner is to apply their current sensor technology to a LOW Mp APsc sensor...

I will speak softly to anyone listening to us... :-X I would be happy with 12 megapixel (for my use). : ...

For your requirements I would have a look at the 5D3 and the 6D...

Exactly. Look at it from Canon's perspective. They make a 6D that is available at under $1,500 (street price). The 6D provides better image quality than a low megapixel APS-C sensor. I'm guessing they look at it and say that photographers who want the best image quality really ought to go full frame and now they have a low-cost option available to do that.

On the other hand, photographers who want reach, high resolution, high frame rates, etc., really need an APS-C body. Canon can either produce a higher-resolution, sports-wildlife-birding oriented 7DII or they can release an lower resolution APS-C body that would be great for all-around shooting but wouldn't really excel in any particular area.

Canon took a very targeted approach with the 5DIII, creating a camera that is a wedding and event photographer's dream, but that is also very desirable for higher-market enthusiasts as well. I think they'll target the 7DII at a specific audience as well -- although like the 5DIII it will be very serviceable for general purpose use as well.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

In my specific case, full frame is not the best choice because I need to shoot in low light, and still have wide depth of field. For such depth of field with full frame, I would have to close the aperture more than one stop, losing much of the advantage of high ISO. How I use two cameras at the same time also need cameras and lenses lightweight as only APS-C can be.