A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The way DR is measured here you simple compare max signal to the noise floor and the max here is just the perfect white, channel 100% blown, max well value.

And this is not photographic dynamic range.

OTOH, though, the one and only definition of DR in signal processing...

...is not the same as the one and only definition of DR in photography.

Appreciate your post, you get why there's confusion, just trying to illustrate for those who insist DxO DR measurements have any bearing on reality.

But it DOES have bearing on reality. And even if you don't believe and numbers of definitions or whatnot, I mean just look at the images, it tells the tale that they do have a bearing on reality.

Now if you insist on viewing everything at 100% and comparing everything camera at the highest resolution it can do and then comparing noise and DR like that then yeah the Print stuff has no bearing on reality. But why are you trying to compare cameras like that in regards to declaring one better or worse for noise and DR? That is not fair IN REALITY. It is OK if you jsut want to know how things we seem with the new camera compared to your old one if you always chose to take full advantage of the resolution increase or if you just want to know how it would seem if you took full advantage of its res. That is fine and fair. But it's not fair to say that it does worse for SNR and DR, since if you compared them to the same delivered detail it might very well do better than the old camera even if it did worse when delivering more detail.

 

[x-vision]

... just trying to illustrate for those who insist DxO DR measurements have any bearing on reality.

Well, as LetTheRightLensIn said, it DOES have a bearing on reality.
You get cleaner shadows, which does contribute to better photographic DR as well.

 

[Roo]

Makes you wonder indeed why canon wouldn't invest time and money to be checking websites like CR full time so they can read all these 'pearls of wisedom'?! :

I do know a couple of local Canon reps that come on here when they need a laugh ;D

 

[dtaylor]

But it DOES have bearing on reality. And even if you don't believe and numbers of definitions or whatnot, I mean just look at the images, it tells the tale that they do have a bearing on reality.

I have looked at the images. Then I've openly laughed at DxO's estimates of DR.

One of my pet peeves is when people endlessly theorize where they should be simply observing. Shoot a transmission step wedge in RAW and develop with ACR. Canon sensors will not land in the 10.x stop range, but the 12.x stop range. Sony Exmor will land in the 13.x stop range, not the 14.x range. It doesn't matter what scale you view the step wedge at.

Now if you insist on viewing everything at 100%...

This has nothing to do with photographic dynamic range.

 

[PureClassA]

I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this one especially.

YOU MUST BE JOKING!?! RIGHT....??

UPDATE: I just came off the phone with Canon HQ in Tokyo, and they actually Do have A PERMANENT, FULLY STAFFED "SILLY INPUT" DEPARTMENT! I stand corrected... ;D

A department flooded by DxO articles no doubt.

Uhh no not really. I wasn't trying to imply they constantly monitor every forum all the time. However, any wise company is going to pay attention to it's most avid users and target audience. Canon Rumors seems to be a fairly well established source of such an audience. Does that mean they read and consider every word? Certainly not. However, canon and every larger company out there finds its own ways of keeping some basic vitals on its market. Obviously, pro level Canon users are very interested in seeing things like higher DR, high MP sensors to compete with Nikon (regardless of market share), etc.... All things discussed here. So yes, forums like this do play into the thought process, although I did not mean necessarily anything specific. How do you know what to build next if you're not listening to what the market demands?

 

[Sporgon]

By downsizing, you are lowering the noise floor - and voila, DR gets improved too.

In practice, you will see this as cleaner shadows in the downsized image.
So, downsizing has practical value too; it's not just a synthetic measure that DxO uses
(even though DxO's normalized DR is in fact synthetic).

But this isn't dynamic range, it's latitude, and these two are confused, especially when comparing Canon vs Sony Exmor. The actual dynamic range is not as dramatically different as the Exmor missionaries like to champion, but the Exmor does have considerably more latitude in the extreme low lights. However most of us never have a need to lift low lights to the extent it becomes a problem with Canon.

So I would say down sampling does have a slight advantage in latitude, but this has nothing to do with dynamic range.

And a further point: the latitude of the latest Canon FF sensors is significantly better than the older tech, even at base ISO, so those that say there has been no improvement in 'IQ' at base ISO of Canon FF are, IMO, wrong.

I can't speak for the 5DIII because I only have very limited experience with that camera, but the 6D has as much more latitude over the 5DII as the 5DII has over the original 5D.

 

[RickWagoner]

No touchscreen and no wi-fi because the body is bombproof?

Touch Screens like Gorilla glass are stronger than anything on a DSLR today, you can also do covers on top that would still make it usable. WiFi is simple and does not need anything much to get it going good (look how small the Nikon WIFI dongle is). You have plenty of antenna areas like around the top screen or the battery and card doors or even the shutter button has plenty of room. Actually it would not be that hard to do dual-band WIFI, one wifi signal sends and another receives making live view smooth and fast.

I have to give Canon credit for the wifi and touch screen DSLRs they have out now, they are not bad and at least they're doing it in the camera unlike Nikon. Nikon makes you buy a dongle, if the camera was done correct the first time it shouldn't need a dongle for something we have on a simple thermostat or oven today.

I would love to see how a DIGIC chip compares to the stuff on smartphones today and if it would make a huge difference in buffer speeds. I know both are based off ARM designs..I need to look into that.

I keep reading here how tough smartphone glass is compared to DSLR glass. It's stated repeatedly as a fact, but I'm not sure if I believe that statement. I don't know anything about Gorilla glass, so I'm not really able to say with certainty.

That being said however, I have see quite a few iPhones and Samsung (and other brands) smartphones with screens that were all but shattered after fairly trivial drops. (Possibly this is a generational thing and the older models, from even a couple years ago were not as tough as the latest?) On the other hand, I've watched videos of various Canon and Nikon cameras (and not 1 series or D3/D4's either--semi-pro models like 5D and 7D) being dropped down cement stairs repeatedly without damaged screens--and still functional after the "test." Sure there was an element of showmanship and theatre to these drop tests--but they nonetheless illustrate a point.

Is there any actual factual comparison between the glass mounted on premium DSLR's like the 1DX/D4S and the latest screens mounted to DSLR's? It's very easy to just make a statement that smartphone glass is tougher than anything mounted to a DSLR. It'd be interesting to see a comparison.

If I sound doubtful, it's just that I see plenty of dubious statements when it comes to phone vs camera. The notion that cell phone cameras render all other cameras, up to and including entry level DSLR's and CSC's as obsolete is simply silly and I've seen statements to that effect. It's even silly to say that the cell phone camera has killed all point and shoot cameras -- Superzooms (such as the SX50) and premium compacts (like the Sony RX and Canon G series) are holding their own. Even the disappearance of basic compacts has to do more with the convenience than capability. Smartphone cameras are quite amazing, but they lack optical zoom, and are thus limited to shooting wide angle, or delving into digital zoom.

Well anyways, that last bit was a bit of a tangent to the principal point, but it's one that's been on my mind! LOL

HAHA thanks for sharing your tangent. i shared a bit on my mind in the form of tangents already here. You people seem nice with them, thank you...you people make a great forum here. Very respecting of others opinions and open to talk about them in a nice way.

To answer your question about the glass itself and a few people already answered nicely. All Glass has a break point, it is where the weakness is. And all modern glass has a strong side also. For Example the Sapphire Glass used in watches are pretty much the best glass to be scratch resistant, it is said only a diamond can scratch it. The problem with the Sapphire glass on a watch (which is called the watches Crystal) is that it is very brittle. If it gets hit anywhere on the side or middle the rite way it shatters. This is why most watch companies protect the sides with the bezel design..anyway..

Gorilla Glass has a high flex rate before it snaps, Highly scratch resistant, all while being super thin. The break point is on the sides. With an iPhone you have the glass with a clean side, meaning nothing is protecting the sides of the glass unlike the a bezel on a watches Crystal. So if you drop the iPhone without any protection and it hits the glass side first it probably will break. The weird thing is if you put anything around the glass it will protect it from happening, look up the Apple iPhone Bumper, it is a thin piece of plastic that actually protects the break point and it works amazingly! If the phone lands flat on the glass it won't break, even if you sit on the phone the glass will bend but not break easily..this is the strength of it.

I can not find much info on what Canon uses but i have worked with a few displays from cameras to guess that the technology is very old..super old actually. Most Camera companies put the money in high resolution displays that are cheaper in terms of strength. It is not like someone is going to sit on the camera enough to bend the entire device and stress the glass, and most cameras have lots of protection on the sides from those would be weaker points. The problem with cheaper strength glass is it scratches easily...very easily. It amazes me that someone who buys a 1Dx puts a crappy plastic cover to protect the display, it should not need that at the price the camera is..but this is Canon. Canon is more of an incredible optics company, not a company that is fast with adopting newer better parts to replace the old weak stuff...they're no Apple. Like i said I give Canon credit for the touch screen and wifi cameras they have come out with anyway..at least they are doing something..unlike Nikon.

Hope this explains it better.

 

[wickidwombat]

sounds good I hope the AF is based on the 61 pt system if it doesn't have a built in grip then I'll seriously consider buying one

 

[RLPhoto]

We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.

Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been.

once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.

I think I may begin to see part of our disconnect. Maybe a little clarification of what I think of when I say some of these things would help.

So, first off, I do believe that only sensor size really matters from a fundamental IQ standpoint. I believe that "noise" is relative to sensor size. That's a fairly general statement, maybe I've been lax in my specificity in the past. So, to clarify this first point...I believe that photon shot noise is relative to sensor size. Very specifically, I believe that the total amount of photon shot noise, which affects the signal top to bottom, from the highlights to the shadows, which is an intrinsic part of the real image signal itself, is fundamentally relative to total sensor area.

In that respect, I believe larger sensors will always outperform smaller sensors given similar technology, for identical framing. Assuming non-similar technology, I believe that it is possible, for a short period of time, for a sensor of smaller area to outperform a sensor of larger area...but only so long as the larger sensor's technology is inferior. I believe the generational gap between the small and large sensor would need to be fairly large for the smaller sensor to outperform a larger sensor...within a single generation, I honestly do not believe that any smaller sensor would outperform a larger sensor in terms of overall IQ.

I believe this, because if you frame a subject identically in frames of different physical sizes, the larger the frame, the more total light you gather. That's it. I don't really think that needs any further qualification. More light, better IQ. It's better if you don't normalize, it's better if you do normalize. More total light gathered per unit area of subject, better IQ. It's as simple as that.
---

Alright, second. Read noise. I consider read noise to be a fairly distinct form of noise, different in nature and impact than photon shot noise. I do NOT believe that read noise has anything to do with pixel size or sensor size. I believe read noise has to do with the technology itself. I believe read noise is a complex form of noise, contributed to from multiple sources, some of them electronic (i.e. high frequency ADC unit), some of them material in nature (i.e. sensor bias noise, once you average out the random noise components, is fixed....as it partly results from the physical material nature of the sensor itself, it's physical wiring layout, etc.) I believe read noise affects overall image quality, but in a strait up comparison of two images from two cameras with identical sensor sizes, read noise in an invisible quantity. It doesn't really matter how much you scale your images, whether you scale them up or down, whether you normalize or not. Before any editing is performed, read noise is an invisible deep shadow factor, it cannot usually be seen by human eyes.

In this respect, two landscape photos of the same scene taken with different full frame cameras are all largely going to look the same. Photon shot noise is going to be the same, it may just be more finely delineated by a sensor with smaller pixels. Normalize them all, without any other edits, and you aren't going to notice much of any difference between the images. The most significant differences are likely to be firmware/setting related...a Daylight white balance setting will probably differ between cameras (one may be slightly warm, another slightly cold), small nuances of exposure may differ between cameras (one may slightly overexpose, another may slightly underexpose), there may be nuanced differences in color rendition that cater to different personal preferences.

When it comes to read noise, to me, that is all about editing latitude. Because it's a deep shadow thing, it doesn't manifest until you start making some significant exposure adjustments. You have to lift shadows at very low ISO by several stops before the differences between a camera with more sensor+ADC DR and a camera with less sensor+ADC DR really start to manifest. Those differences only matter at ISO 100 and 200, they are significantly diminished by ISO 400, and above that the differences between cameras are so negligible as to be nearly meaningless...sensor size/photon shot noise totally dominate the IQ factor.

I do believe that normalization is important to keep the frequency of photon shot noise, which is the primary visible source of noise in images that have not been edited, at the same frequency for comparison purposes. I do believe that normalization will and should show differences between larger and smaller sensors. I do not believe, however, that normalization of a non-pulled image is going to have any impact on how deep the blacks appear to an observer. I believe the only thing that can actually measure the differences in the deep shadows, where read noise exists, are software algorithms. I do believe that having lower read noise means you have better editing latitude when editing a RAW image in a RAW editor, and that for the purposes of editing, lower read noise, which leads to increased dynamic range (primarily by restoring what would have otherwise been lost to read noise in the shadows) is a good thing, and something that can and does certainly improve certain types of photography. This is the fundamental crux of my belief that DXO's PrintDR numbers are very misleading, and why I prefer to refer to their ScreenDR numbers...as the increase in DR that you gain from having lower read noise is only really of value WHEN editing a RAW image and lifting shadows. Otherwise, I really don't care about comparing cameras within a "DXO-specific context"...I care about comparing cameras based on what you can actually literally do with them in real life. (I KNOW you disagree with this one, but we should just agree to disagree here, because neither of us is ever going to win this argument. )

That is my stance on these things. I am pretty sure you'll disagree in one way or another, and that's ok. However I do not believe that my assessment of these things is fundamentally wrong. I believe it may be different than your assessment, or DXO's assessment for that matter. But I do not believe I have a wrong stance on this subject. I separate photon shot noise and the impact it has on overall IQ (which is significantly greater) from read noise, and the impact it has on the editing latitude you might experience when adjusting exposure of a RAW image in a RAW editor at an unscaled, native image size.

I disagree with you. The total light gathered matters more than sensor size and if you give the same amount of light to different sized sensors, the resulting noise is very similar. Tony Northrup had a great video on that and showed how ISO is skewed because of sensor size.

 

[Marauder]

No touchscreen and no wi-fi because the body is bombproof?

Touch Screens like Gorilla glass are stronger than anything on a DSLR today, you can also do covers on top that would still make it usable. WiFi is simple and does not need anything much to get it going good (look how small the Nikon WIFI dongle is). You have plenty of antenna areas like around the top screen or the battery and card doors or even the shutter button has plenty of room. Actually it would not be that hard to do dual-band WIFI, one wifi signal sends and another receives making live view smooth and fast.

I have to give Canon credit for the wifi and touch screen DSLRs they have out now, they are not bad and at least they're doing it in the camera unlike Nikon. Nikon makes you buy a dongle, if the camera was done correct the first time it shouldn't need a dongle for something we have on a simple thermostat or oven today.

I would love to see how a DIGIC chip compares to the stuff on smartphones today and if it would make a huge difference in buffer speeds. I know both are based off ARM designs..I need to look into that.

I keep reading here how tough smartphone glass is compared to DSLR glass. It's stated repeatedly as a fact, but I'm not sure if I believe that statement. I don't know anything about Gorilla glass, so I'm not really able to say with certainty.

That being said however, I have see quite a few iPhones and Samsung (and other brands) smartphones with screens that were all but shattered after fairly trivial drops. (Possibly this is a generational thing and the older models, from even a couple years ago were not as tough as the latest?) On the other hand, I've watched videos of various Canon and Nikon cameras (and not 1 series or D3/D4's either--semi-pro models like 5D and 7D) being dropped down cement stairs repeatedly without damaged screens--and still functional after the "test." Sure there was an element of showmanship and theatre to these drop tests--but they nonetheless illustrate a point.

Is there any actual factual comparison between the glass mounted on premium DSLR's like the 1DX/D4S and the latest screens mounted to DSLR's? It's very easy to just make a statement that smartphone glass is tougher than anything mounted to a DSLR. It'd be interesting to see a comparison.

If I sound doubtful, it's just that I see plenty of dubious statements when it comes to phone vs camera. The notion that cell phone cameras render all other cameras, up to and including entry level DSLR's and CSC's as obsolete is simply silly and I've seen statements to that effect. It's even silly to say that the cell phone camera has killed all point and shoot cameras -- Superzooms (such as the SX50) and premium compacts (like the Sony RX and Canon G series) are holding their own. Even the disappearance of basic compacts has to do more with the convenience than capability. Smartphone cameras are quite amazing, but they lack optical zoom, and are thus limited to shooting wide angle, or delving into digital zoom.

Well anyways, that last bit was a bit of a tangent to the principal point, but it's one that's been on my mind! LOL

HAHA thanks for sharing your tangent. i shared a bit on my mind in the form of tangents already here. You people seem nice with them, thank you...you people make a great forum here. Very respecting of others opinions and open to talk about them in a nice way.

To answer your question about the glass itself and a few people already answered nicely. All Glass has a break point, it is where the weakness is. And all modern glass has a strong side also. For Example the Sapphire Glass used in watches are pretty much the best glass to be scratch resistant, it is said only a diamond can scratch it. The problem with the Sapphire glass on a watch (which is called the watches Crystal) is that it is very brittle. If it gets hit anywhere on the side or middle the rite way it shatters. This is why most watch companies protect the sides with the bezel design..anyway..

Gorilla Glass has a high flex rate before it snaps, Highly scratch resistant, all while being super thin. The break point is on the sides. With an iPhone you have the glass with a clean side, meaning nothing is protecting the sides of the glass unlike the a bezel on a watches Crystal. So if you drop the iPhone without any protection and it hits the glass side first it probably will break. The weird thing is if you put anything around the glass it will protect it from happening, look up the Apple iPhone Bumper, it is a thin piece of plastic that actually protects the break point and it works amazingly! If the phone lands flat on the glass it won't break, even if you sit on the phone the glass will bend but not break easily..this is the strength of it.

I can not find much info on what Canon uses but i have worked with a few displays from cameras to guess that the technology is very old..super old actually. Most Camera companies put the money in high resolution displays that are cheaper in terms of strength. It is not like someone is going to sit on the camera enough to bend the entire device and stress the glass, and most cameras have lots of protection on the sides from those would be weaker points. The problem with cheaper strength glass is it scratches easily...very easily. It amazes me that someone who buys a 1Dx puts a crappy plastic cover to protect the display, it should not need that at the price the camera is..but this is Canon. Canon is more of an incredible optics company, not a company that is fast with adopting newer better parts to replace the old weak stuff...they're no Apple. Like i said I give Canon credit for the touch screen and wifi cameras they have come out with anyway..at least they are doing something..unlike Nikon.

Hope this explains it better.

Thank you for your coherent explanation Rick. So (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) if I'm understanding you, if Canon is not able to implement a touch screen with the required level of toughness in the 7D2, it is because they are relying on an older technology than is potentially available to them (in the form of Gorilla Glass.

That would also dovetail with my own theory that they may have tried to implement a touch screen on prototypes and had it fail from a durability standpoint, if they did not go for a more modern option. At that point it may have been a case of either abandoning a touch screen altogether, or trying to make a new one out of more modern materials--which would have cost more time and money. In essence, a 'no go' on the touch screen might have been inevitable in order to meet product deadline. I also wonder if cost is a factor. Would a solution based around Gorilla glass cost significantly more than existing camera screen tech? If so, it might have been sacrificed in order to put money towards more fundamental needs for the product, such as new sensor tech, AF system, processing power etc. For a company making Smartphones, a touch screen that can handle a person's pocket is an absolute and non-negotiable need--for a camera company, it may be desirable, but it isn't strictly necessary for the product to succeed--especially for the 7D2's target market. (It WILL be required for a DSLR that is primarily for Video however!)

 

[unfocused]

This has been a nice discussion about the durability of glass, but I have to wonder: what's the difference between the glass used for a touch screen and the glass used for the ordinary LCD display on the back of every DSLR?

If it is the durability of the glass that's an issue, how would it be any different if a touch screen is implemented versus the traditional display?

 

[RichM]

Since we are all having fun predicting...

7D should be less expensive than a 1D BUT - Canon has become greedy the last couple years and they are playing this launch a lot like Apple. They are trying to get the market in a frenzy by holding back info and tempting everyone with small tidbits of data. So it will be expensive I'm afraid. I predict $2799 to $2999. Half the the price of the 1DX and close but not above the 5D3. I would love it to be less but from what they are saying, it won't be. And people will still buy it, esp if it actually works and lives up to the hype by 80% or more. (Like the 5D3 did.)

I've decided that while WiFi (bigger loss) and Touchscreen would be missed, it wouldn't kill it for me. But without those, I think Canon should be careful how close to the moon they make the price.

If it has no pop-up flash with a 1D type metal top (meaning no GPS either, sorry) then again, they better not kill us with the price. I also want RT flash control built in, esp if there is no pop up flash. It's about time this feature is built-in on every camera Canon makes.

With cinema being such a big deal lately at Canon, I think the 7D2 will be a video powerhouse which will likely make it very expensive, maybe even above $3000. Which will likely put me out of the running since all I want are the specs we've heard so far, faster fps, solid build and spectacular sensor.

If the camera magically comes in under $2500, I'll buy it soon. If not, I'll probably just get a 70D and wait a year or more unless the X-mas deals are incredible.

I have to agree with the sentiment here. I want an improved 7d still camera and do not really care about video (better IQ and ISO perf, with at least the same speed). If the camera is under $2500, I'll likely buy. If not, I still like my current 7d/5d3 pairing.

For what its worth: I pre-ordered a 7d2 at my local camera chain, and was give a reserve receipt for $1999. I don't believe that they have any idea what the real price will be, but ..... this is a rumor site isn't it?

 

[Marauder]

Since we are all having fun predicting...

7D should be less expensive than a 1D BUT - Canon has become greedy the last couple years and they are playing this launch a lot like Apple. They are trying to get the market in a frenzy by holding back info and tempting everyone with small tidbits of data. So it will be expensive I'm afraid. I predict $2799 to $2999. Half the the price of the 1DX and close but not above the 5D3. I would love it to be less but from what they are saying, it won't be. And people will still buy it, esp if it actually works and lives up to the hype by 80% or more. (Like the 5D3 did.)

I've decided that while WiFi (bigger loss) and Touchscreen would be missed, it wouldn't kill it for me. But without those, I think Canon should be careful how close to the moon they make the price.

If it has no pop-up flash with a 1D type metal top (meaning no GPS either, sorry) then again, they better not kill us with the price. I also want RT flash control built in, esp if there is no pop up flash. It's about time this feature is built-in on every camera Canon makes.

With cinema being such a big deal lately at Canon, I think the 7D2 will be a video powerhouse which will likely make it very expensive, maybe even above $3000. Which will likely put me out of the running since all I want are the specs we've heard so far, faster fps, solid build and spectacular sensor.

If the camera magically comes in under $2500, I'll buy it soon. If not, I'll probably just get a 70D and wait a year or more unless the X-mas deals are incredible.

I have to agree with the sentiment here. I want an improved 7d still camera and do not really care about video (better IQ and ISO perf, with at least the same speed). If the camera is under $2500, I'll likely buy. If not, I still like my current 7d/5d3 pairing.

For what its worth: I pre-ordered a 7d2 at my local camera chain, and was give a reserve receipt for $1999. I don't believe that they have any idea what the real price will be, but ..... this is a rumor site isn't it?

I think it's a matter of what people are willing to pay for the product. Last year, specs similar to the ones in this post (regarding frame rate and resolution, advanced AF) appeared with an estimated price between $2000-$2500 and people were already balking at that price indicating a crop-frame isn't worth that kind of price. I believe they're wrong of course--a crop camera with a great frame rate, advanced AF and fast burst/deep buffer IS worth that kind of money--especially if it introduces a new sensor with considerable IQ improvements. However, if it goes over 3 grand, I'd question it's viability. Even new sensor tech in a crop is not likely to match 5D3 IQ, so it would be a big risk to give it a price in excess of that model. It would be an even bigger risk to have it approach 1 series pricing, at say 4 grand. Too many people will wait for a price drop before buying and that would impact bottom line and harm the camera's reputation. Somewhere north of 2 grand but south of 3 grand would be my guess---but that's a big range in itself!

Their best bet would be to go with the lowest price they can do and still make a good margin and recoup development costs. Make a BIG splash and sell LOTS of volume, right out the door. This camera has a revolutionary potential, not just for Canon shooters, but for Nikon ones as well. If it's a HUGE success, Nikon will try to counter it with a premium crop of their own (probably in the works already). If Canon misses, either by crippling the camera and/or over pricing it, it might be bad news and not just for Canon shooters. I think this camera is a litmus test for just how good and innovative a crop sensor camera can be. It's also a test for how well Canon can still bring cutting edge technology to the market place.

 

[Marauder]

This has been a nice discussion about the durability of glass, but I have to wonder: what's the difference between the glass used for a touch screen and the glass used for the ordinary LCD display on the back of every DSLR?

If it is the durability of the glass that's an issue, how would it be any different if a touch screen is implemented versus the traditional display?

Good point. I am also wondering about the durability of the capacitive touch capability. I had a Samsung Impact phone (admittedly not a top of the line model!)--after about 3 years, the touch screen failed. Not cracked or "damaged" mind you--it just stopped responding to touch, making the phone useless. I've since replaced it with a Samsung S4 Mini which, being a miniaturised version of their top of the line phone, ought to have equivalent durability to the S4, so we'll see how long that lasts. However, many users (most?) tend to replace phones far more quickly than I do, (some more often than they change their underwear, it seems! ) so the long term longevity of the touch screen may be less of an 'issue' in a phone.

I'm speculating wildly here, but if there is a fairly short life span for the touch sensitivity of such screens in real world scenarios, that might be why Canon is willing to put it into consumer products like the T4i/T5i or even enthusiast products such as the 70D, but shy away from it for a "Pro" type body.

Can anyone confirm or refute this hypothesis? I confess that's all it is--I have no data to either back it up or contradict it.

 

[mb66energy]

This has been a nice discussion about the durability of glass, but I have to wonder: what's the difference between the glass used for a touch screen and the glass used for the ordinary LCD display on the back of every DSLR?

If it is the durability of the glass that's an issue, how would it be any different if a touch screen is implemented versus the traditional display?

Good point. I am also wondering about the durability of the capacitive touch capability. I had a Samsung Impact phone (admittedly not a top of the line model!)--after about 3 years, the touch screen failed. Not cracked or "damaged" mind you--it just stopped responding to touch, making the phone useless. I've since replaced it with a Samsung S4 Mini which, being a miniaturised version of their top of the line phone, ought to have equivalent durability to the S4, so we'll see how long that lasts. However, many users (most?) tend to replace phones far more quickly than I do, (some more often than they change their underwear, it seems! ) so the long term longevity of the touch screen may be less of an 'issue' in a phone.

I'm speculating wildly here, but if there is a fairly short life span for the touch sensitivity of such screens in real world scenarios, that might be why Canon is willing to put it into consumer products like the T4i/T5i or even enthusiast products such as the 70D, but shy away from it for a "Pro" type body.

Can anyone confirm or refute this hypothesis? I confess that's all it is--I have no data to either back it up or contradict it.

Both of you brought up a good point - me too: to much focusing on the glass ...

I know that two touchscreen technologies are wide spread:
- Capacitive tracking (works with fingers, small tomatoes, water filled ballons ...)
- Inductive tracking (works with specialized pencils - WACOM is a well known company)

For capacitive touch screens I have only 3 years experience and the mobile phone has survived moderately hard treatment during thes three years.
For inductive technology I am using a 10 year old IBM/Lenovo X41 tablet/convertible - the precision including the pressure sensitivity of the pencil is very very good. Last adjustment made 4 years ago.

But I see no reason that a capacitive touch screen will not survive 10 or 20 years if properly set up. My first thought was that the layers which are able to detect capacity changes by the fingers might underlie some aging. But I think these are made from the same materials like the flat screen displays and these last 10 or perhaps 10ths of years.

Another idea is now emerging: Ever tried to use your capacitive touch screen during rain? On my (Motorola DEFY) smart phone I see strange effects when it is covered with several rain drops. This is a inherent problem of capicitive touch screen technology: A matrix of electrical condensators senses changes of surrounding material. This is done by the effect that material between/near a condensator plate changes it's capacity.
Why water? Our fingers contain a lot of water but many other materials like plastics, leather, jeans, etc. do not contain water. So they designed the electronics and the capacitor matrix to be sensitive to water. That's the reason for listing the small tomato as "tool" to operate a capacitive touch screen. I tried that because I wanted to know how touch screens operate - "What special material is in our fingers?-Water. What water filled object is availabl?-Tomato."

The guys at Canon maybe thought: We have designed a DSLR for harsh environments where water might play a role. It is contradictory to have controls which operate depending on the environmental condions where these controls might be used.

I think that we all mutate to amateur profilers which try to find out how another person thinks to guess it's next steps ... funny thing!

 

[Marauder]

This has been a nice discussion about the durability of glass, but I have to wonder: what's the difference between the glass used for a touch screen and the glass used for the ordinary LCD display on the back of every DSLR?

If it is the durability of the glass that's an issue, how would it be any different if a touch screen is implemented versus the traditional display?

Good point. I am also wondering about the durability of the capacitive touch capability. I had a Samsung Impact phone (admittedly not a top of the line model!)--after about 3 years, the touch screen failed. Not cracked or "damaged" mind you--it just stopped responding to touch, making the phone useless. I've since replaced it with a Samsung S4 Mini which, being a miniaturised version of their top of the line phone, ought to have equivalent durability to the S4, so we'll see how long that lasts. However, many users (most?) tend to replace phones far more quickly than I do, (some more often than they change their underwear, it seems! ) so the long term longevity of the touch screen may be less of an 'issue' in a phone.

I'm speculating wildly here, but if there is a fairly short life span for the touch sensitivity of such screens in real world scenarios, that might be why Canon is willing to put it into consumer products like the T4i/T5i or even enthusiast products such as the 70D, but shy away from it for a "Pro" type body.

Can anyone confirm or refute this hypothesis? I confess that's all it is--I have no data to either back it up or contradict it.

Both of you brought up a good point - me too: to much focusing on the glass ...

I know that two touchscreen technologies are wide spread:
- Capacitive tracking (works with fingers, small tomatoes, water filled ballons ...)
- Inductive tracking (works with specialized pencils - WACOM is a well known company)

For capacitive touch screens I have only 3 years experience and the mobile phone has survived moderately hard treatment during thes three years.
For inductive technology I am using a 10 year old IBM/Lenovo X41 tablet/convertible - the precision including the pressure sensitivity of the pencil is very very good. Last adjustment made 4 years ago.

But I see no reason that a capacitive touch screen will not survive 10 or 20 years if properly set up. My first thought was that the layers which are able to detect capacity changes by the fingers might underlie some aging. But I think these are made from the same materials like the flat screen displays and these last 10 or perhaps 10ths of years.

Another idea is now emerging: Ever tried to use your capacitive touch screen during rain? On my (Motorola DEFY) smart phone I see strange effects when it is covered with several rain drops. This is a inherent problem of capicitive touch screen technology: A matrix of electrical condensators senses changes of surrounding material. This is done by the effect that material between/near a condensator plate changes it's capacity.
Why water? Our fingers contain a lot of water but many other materials like plastics, leather, jeans, etc. do not contain water. So they designed the electronics and the capacitor matrix to be sensitive to water. That's the reason for listing the small tomato as "tool" to operate a capacitive touch screen. I tried that because I wanted to know how touch screens operate - "What special material is in our fingers?-Water. What water filled object is availabl?-Tomato."

The guys at Canon maybe thought: We have designed a DSLR for harsh environments where water might play a role. It is contradictory to have controls which operate depending on the environmental condions where these controls might be used.

I think that we all mutate to amateur profilers which try to find out how another person thinks to guess it's next steps ... funny thing!

For inductive

Thanks for that! I suspected the short life span of my own capacitive touch Samsung Impact phone might be just tied to the device itself, and not the underlying technology, but my own experience is too limited to tell for sure. Your estimate of 10-20 years would seem to negate the longevity theory.

But I think your onto something with the water concept. The basis of this rumour is that the 7D2 will be heavily weather sealed and designed for harsh conditions and that means exposure to rain. If the reliability of capacitive touch technology is intermittent under those conditions, that would be a definite negative for a camera explicitly designed for use by wildlife photographers in all weather conditions.

FYI, I love the tomato interface idea! "It's a fruit!" "No, it's a vegetable!" "No, you're both wrong---it's freakin stylus!!!!" LOL ;D

 

[Loswr]

But I think your onto something with the water concept. The basis of this rumour is that the 7D2 will be heavily weather sealed and designed for harsh conditions and that means exposure to rain. If the reliability of capacitive touch technology is intermittent under those conditions, that would be a definite negative for a camera explicitly designed for use by wildlife photographers in all weather conditions.

I don't think it's that big a deal. Canon could put a note in the manual, as they do for other things of that nature, such as reduced battery performance in the cold.

 

[DominoDude]

Would a touch screen still work flawlessly on a cold winter day when it's snowing and the gloves are on?

I've spent hours out shooting snowy owls and bald eagles on frigid New England winter days. Lots and lots of waiting time between flights...time during which I sometimes post on CR from the touchscreen of my iPhone, with my hands toasty warm in technical gloves. Just sayin'...

Si si, I understand. But it does mean that you need to buy those special gloves, and can't rely on using any ol' gloves.
It does require something extra from the user. I, for example, could easily miss to look out for whatever it is that makes them "touch-friendly", while concentrating on getting warm gloves that stop both wind and water. Good to know they exist anyway.

 

[DominoDude]

Would a touch screen still work flawlessly on a cold winter day when it's snowing and the gloves are on?

Around here it very rarely snows on a cold winter day... it usually has to warm up to -20C or higher before it snows. ...

Oh, blimey!
I see your point in the rest that you wrote.

 

[PureClassA]

Far as I know the gorilla glass on the iPhone is not the conductive surface but rather fused to it. I'm guessing perhaps that in so making a very rugged weather sealed hefty glass LCD, that heft may in turn prevent the touch sensor (which I believe for apple is thermal) from operating properly. It may work but it may not be terribly reliable. Just a guess