7DII and D400 Specs

[unfocused]

There is an interesting letter over on DPReview http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3387936#forum-post-50901841 that purports to be from Nikon Europe that unequivocally states that the D7100 will not be Nikon's flagship APS-C format camera.

On paper, the D7100 is impressive. If Canon responds with something close in the 70D, it makes me wonder what they'll put in the 7DII. I'm not sure the current rumored spec list for the 7DII would be sufficient to justify an $800 difference in cost.

On the other hand, I keep wondering if the 70D and 7DII will share the same sensors (Or for that matter, if the D7100 and D400 will as well). There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

Hard to say. I just thought the letter was interesting and worth starting a thread for people to consider what it might mean for the 70D and 7DII.

 

[Loswr]

There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

That would make the 7DII a more interesting offering, from my perspective. If it can come within 1.3 stops of the 1D X (i.e., right at the theoretical difference between APS-C and FF, vs. the currently greater advantage of the 1D X), coupled with a high-density AF sensor (e.g. 41 points with 20 crosses) and improved metering, that'll be an impressive camera...

 

[Rienzphotoz]

There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

That would make the 7DII a more interesting offering, from my perspective. If it can come within 1.3 stops of the 1D X (i.e., right at the theoretical difference between APS-C and FF, vs. the currently greater advantage of the 1D X), coupled with a high-density AF sensor (e.g. 41 points with 20 crosses) and improved metering, that'll be an impressive camera...

That would be awesome ... I do hope 7D II will be a 1.3x crop sensor

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I believe that Canon has a 7D MK II designed, perhaps with two or three variations, but will not select the final configuration until they find out how Nikon is going. That will likely happen long before a Nikon announcement, and may have happened already. The differences are likely to be in the sensor and in firmware / features, so it will not affect most of the camera pieces in the body or the electronics. It does take a while to ramp up production of sensors though, they likely need 150,000 in the first batch.

 

[x-vision]

On paper, the D7100 is impressive. If Canon responds with something close in the 70D ...

I wish ... but I doubt it.
Considering how lame the 6D is, I don't see Canon making the 70D a worthy competitor to the D7100.
In fact, just the opposite. I'm expecting the 70D to get Revel-ized even further.
Of course it will also be priced lower. Maybe $900-950 at introduction.

... it makes me wonder what they'll put in the 7DII. I'm not sure the current rumored spec list for the 7DII would be sufficient to justify an $800 difference in cost.

Yup. A lot of people will inevitably compare the 7DII to the D7100.
If the 7DII value is not there, many potential buyers will likely wait for the price to fall before buying.

There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance ...

That would make way too much sense. 8)
I'm 100% with you on this one, of course.

 

[catfish252]

If the rumored specs for the 7D Mk II are fairly accurate and I hope they are, I can't see anyone comparing it to the Nikon D7100. Spec wise the cameras are too far apart. The 7100 is a very nice enthusiasts cameras while the 7D is and probably will always be Canon's Pro cropped sensor camera. I shoot with a Nikon D300s and have been waiting for years it seems for the D300s follow-on to be announced, should Nikon shoot themselves in the foot and not announce a competitive camera to the 7D Mk II like many Nikon users are saying I believe it will be time to jump ship and get the new 7D Mk II. The leaked specs on the new 7D will make that one fantastic camera. I look forward to seeing it announced, hopefully soon. One Japanese publication says the D400? will be announced in June, The 70D in March and The 7D Mk II in Aug/Sept. I hope they are right.

 

[wickidwombat]

There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

That would make the 7DII a more interesting offering, from my perspective. If it can come within 1.3 stops of the 1D X (i.e., right at the theoretical difference between APS-C and FF, vs. the currently greater advantage of the 1D X), coupled with a high-density AF sensor (e.g. 41 points with 20 crosses) and improved metering, that'll be an impressive camera...

That would be awesome ... I do hope 7D II will be a 1.3x crop sensor

AMEN BROTHER!

 

[rs]

There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

That would make the 7DII a more interesting offering, from my perspective. If it can come within 1.3 stops of the 1D X (i.e., right at the theoretical difference between APS-C and FF, vs. the currently greater advantage of the 1D X), coupled with a high-density AF sensor (e.g. 41 points with 20 crosses) and improved metering, that'll be an impressive camera...

That would be awesome ... I do hope 7D II will be a 1.3x crop sensor

AMEN BROTHER!

By 1.3 stops, I believe Neuro meant the ISO performance. 1.3 stops equates to the difference between ISO 256 and ISO 100 - which is the theoretical difference between a 1.6x crop APS-C camera and FF - this is due to the 2.56 times greater surface area (read: light gathering area) of FF.

Canon may change tack, but so far they haven't once changed the size of a sensor in a DSLR line. If a camera comes out named 7D mk II, it's very likely to be 1.6x crop.

Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels. Leave the MP lower, and let those lower processing overheads allow them to push the hardware of the small mirror and shutter to its limits.

 

[pj1974]

There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

That would make the 7DII a more interesting offering, from my perspective. If it can come within 1.3 stops of the 1D X (i.e., right at the theoretical difference between APS-C and FF, vs. the currently greater advantage of the 1D X), coupled with a high-density AF sensor (e.g. 41 points with 20 crosses) and improved metering, that'll be an impressive camera...

That would be awesome ... I do hope 7D II will be a 1.3x crop sensor

AMEN BROTHER!

By 1.3 stops, I believe Neuro meant the ISO performance. 1.3 stops equates to the difference between ISO 256 and ISO 100 - which is the theoretical difference between a 1.6x crop APS-C camera and FF - this is due to the 2.56 times greater surface area (read: light gathering area) of FF.

Canon may change tack, but so far they haven't once changed the size of a sensor in a DSLR line. If a camera comes out named 7D mk II, it's very likely to be 1.6x crop.

Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels. Leave the MP lower, and let those lower processing overheads allow them to push the hardware of the small mirror and shutter to its limits.

"Amen!" to that!

I certainly don't hope (and neither do I see there being any logic or proof) that the 7DmkII will be a 1.3x crop sensor.

But if it's noise performance is within 1.3x (one and third stops) of the 1DX (or 6D) - I would be happy

No need for 24MP, 18 is fine by me (if they're sharp). I have some great lenses for my 7D - including L glass and some awesome EF-S specific lenses.

The 1.3x day is over. Either FF or 1.6x crop for Canon. Roll on actual annoucements. The rumoured specs for the 7DmkII look spectacular!

Happy photo-shooting everyone! 8)

Paul

 

[wickidwombat]

I just love speculating that the 7D 2 will be APS-H to see the APS-C crowd reactions

it's like a wind up toy that you wind up and let go and they bounce around all over the place make lots of noise then calm down eventually... until you wind them up again!

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I just love speculating that the 7D 2 will be APS-H to see the APS-C crowd reactions

it's like a wind up toy that you wind up and let go and they bounce around all over the place make lots of noise then calm down eventually... until you wind them up again!

;D
But seriously, forgive me for my ignorance, I know you like the APS-H, but are there any particular benefits of the 1.3 crop factor compared to the 1.6 or FF? Or is it a connoisseur thing?

 

[rs]

I just love speculating that the 7D 2 will be APS-H to see the APS-C crowd reactions

it's like a wind up toy that you wind up and let go and they bounce around all over the place make lots of noise then calm down eventually... until you wind them up again!

;D
But seriously, forgive me for my ignorance, I know you like the APS-H, but are there any particular benefits of the 1.3 crop factor compared to the 1.6 or FF? Or is it a connoisseur thing?

APS-H is a nice middle ground; better IQ than 1.6, better reach than FF. On the other hand, its worse IQ than FF and worse reach than crop.

Now FF isn't only a production reality (there were no FF cameras around when Canon introduced the APS-H 1D classic), but it is also capable of very fast frame rates in the shape of the 1D X. And APS-C has an advantage over APS-H other than reach; native lenses.

 

[dtaylor]

Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels.

Resolution doesn't work like this. In a format, a 24 MP sensor will always out perform an 18 MP sensor whatever aperture you choose. Now even under the best conditions it won't amount to much and may not be immediately obvious in large prints. But it will always be better by some amount. Diffraction is not a hard limit and is not a reason to cap APS-C sensor resolution or to limit your use of apertures.

The current 7D is "diffraction limited" at f/6.9. I regularly use f/8 and f/11, and after post processing even f/16 is fine. More to the point, the 7D is never "worse" than the 10D, 20D, 40D, etc., not even at f/22 or f/32.

High ISO is another non-reason to cap resolution. Noise for an image is determined by technology and total surface area, not pixel size. At least not until you get into the extremely small pixels on some P&S bodies.

The only possible reason to hold back on increasing the resolution is DR. Pixel size is a factor for DR. But if technology eclipses this, my guess is Canon will match the competition. Too many people will see 18 vs. 24 MP as a negative, and Canon's not going to give up that marketing point.

Given the choice I would take 18 MP if it had noticeably higher DR. But that choice may not be what anyone thinks it is, i.e. the DR gain may be less then the resolution gain. And I doubt Canon will give us the choice. Their competitors have settled on 24 MP. You can guess what they will do.

 

[dtaylor]

APS-H is a nice middle ground; better IQ than 1.6, better reach than FF.

We're at the point of diminishing returns where it really doesn't matter with FF vs. 1.6x. There's hardly a reach gain today with 1.6x. It's there, but you pretty much have to crop even further and then print 24" or larger. With 1.3x in the newest generation of sensors you would never see the gain vs. FF.

Likewise, there's hardly an IQ gain with FF except at high ISO. So the IQ difference between 1.3x and 1.6x, with the sensor tech the 7D2 will have, would be a scientific footnote, not a human observable quantity.

We're long past the days of the 5D vs. the 20D where IQ and reach differences were immediately obvious. 1.3x loses compatibility with numerous lenses and increases costs for no real advantage. It's not coming back. APS-C gives you lower cost bodies and, in some cases, lower cost glass. FF gives you more high ISO room. That's about it.

 

[rs]

Resolution doesn't work like this. In a format, a 24 MP sensor will always out perform an 18 MP sensor whatever aperture you choose. Now even under the best conditions it won't amount to much and may not be immediately obvious in large prints. But it will always be better by some amount. Diffraction is not a hard limit and is not a reason to cap APS-C sensor resolution or to limit your use of apertures.

If you need to use apertures which limit resolution, then definitely use them. Having too little DoF will be immediately noticeable at almost any print size. The diffraction caused by such a small aperture will only be noticed by pixel peepers.

If you have an aperture so small that both a high MP body and a low MP body have diffraction, the high MP body will have no advantage. It doesn't matter how finely the sensor can resolve the blur projected by the lens, its still just blur.

While a 24MP sensor with DLA setting in at f6.0 will allow for some lenses to shine at larger apertures, where will this marketing machine stop? If the next round of crop cameras hit 40mp, and then after that 60, will you still be arguing for it to carry on? There comes a point where making EF-S glass good enough to resolve such detail at the large apertures needed to avoid diffraction becomes unaffordable. We're already at the point where the 17-40L and 24-105L cost less than their EF-S counterparts.

However, if you're not interested in utilising those MP, then fine, let the marketing machine carry on and let the unsuspecting owners use their cameras in bliss. But for those than want the extra MP so they can resolve more detail, in all but very select circumstances and with all but the very best glass, they'll be very dissapointed.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I just love speculating that the 7D 2 will be APS-H to see the APS-C crowd reactions

it's like a wind up toy that you wind up and let go and they bounce around all over the place make lots of noise then calm down eventually... until you wind them up again!

;D
But seriously, forgive me for my ignorance, I know you like the APS-H, but are there any particular benefits of the 1.3 crop factor compared to the 1.6 or FF? Or is it a connoisseur thing?

APS-H is a nice middle ground; better IQ than 1.6, better reach than FF. On the other hand, its worse IQ than FF and worse reach than crop.

Now FF isn't only a production reality (there were no FF cameras around when Canon introduced the APS-H 1D classic), but it is also capable of very fast frame rates in the shape of the 1D X. And APS-C has an advantage over APS-H other than reach; native lenses.

Ah thanks for explaining. So EF-S lenses don't fit on APS-H Canon cameras?

 

[insanitybeard]

Ah thanks for explaining. So EF-S lenses don't fit on APS-H Canon cameras?

No, EF-S lenses can only be used with APS-C crop sensors- the image circle they produce isn't large enough to cover the larger sensor formats. That and the fact that there is an extended 'cap' at the rear of EF-S lenses that projects further back into the mirror box than on full frame EF lenses- if used on a full frame or APS-H sensor the mirror would collide with the back of the lens and not be able to flip up fully out of the way. Having said that..... people have modified some EF-S lenses (10-22 springs to mind) and removed the rear 'cap' and possibly made some other modifications and then used the lens on larger sensor format bodies- in the case of the 10-22 I recall reading you could only use it down to about 14mm at the wide end before either severe vignetting occurred or the mirror collided with the rear lens element!

 

[AprilForever]

There is an interesting letter over on DPReview http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3387936#forum-post-50901841 that purports to be from Nikon Europe that unequivocally states that the D7100 will not be Nikon's flagship APS-C format camera.

On paper, the D7100 is impressive. If Canon responds with something close in the 70D, it makes me wonder what they'll put in the 7DII. I'm not sure the current rumored spec list for the 7DII would be sufficient to justify an $800 difference in cost.

On the other hand, I keep wondering if the 70D and 7DII will share the same sensors (Or for that matter, if the D7100 and D400 will as well). There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

Hard to say. I just thought the letter was interesting and worth starting a thread for people to consider what it might mean for the 70D and 7DII.

I think it is very obvious from the specs of the D7000 and D7100 that neither are contenders for the D300/D300s line of cameras. Saying that they are makes about as much sense as calling the 70D the successor to the 7DII if the 70D comes out before the 7DII.

But whats weird is that I saw an official Nikon description of it calling it the new DX flagship. Simply poor communication on the part of marketing, or are they trying to nuke the D300 thang?

 

[CarlTN]

Didn't the D300 go out of production a while ago? I assumed Nikon had moved its Dx sensor camera nomenclature to Dxxxx to differentiate them from the full frame line. D400 and D600 aren't numerically that far apart. When the D300 came to market, there was no Dxxxx nomenclature, there was only the D40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Didn't the D300 go out of production a while ago? I assumed Nikon had moved its Dx sensor camera nomenclature to Dxxxx to differentiate them from the full frame line. D400 and D600 aren't numerically that far apart. When the D300 came to market, there was no Dxxxx nomenclature, there was only the D40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90.

Good point