Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[privatebydesign]

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject? Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

 

[Lee Jay]

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject? Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests. You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.

 

[privatebydesign]

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject? Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests. You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.

So lets see some your many "controlled tests" or maybe point us to any of the "... about only every test out there?" that demonstrate the the 7D resolution advantage when using cameras as most of us do most of the time, handheld with AF.

 

[Don Haines]

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject? Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests. You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.

So lets see some your many "controlled tests" or maybe point us to any of the "... about only every test out there?" that demonstrate the the 7D resolution advantage when using cameras as most of us do most of the time, handheld with AF.

< WARNING! SARCASM AHEAD >
I can't speak for the two of you, but I ALWAYS carry around a crop camera and a FF camera and two sets of identical lenses and take each picture with both cameras using the same settings......
< SARCASM ENDED >
Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...

 

[privatebydesign]

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject? Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests. You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.

So lets see some your many "controlled tests" or maybe point us to any of the "... about only every test out there?" that demonstrate the the 7D resolution advantage when using cameras as most of us do most of the time, handheld with AF.

< WARNING! SARCASM AHEAD >
I can't speak for the two of you, but I ALWAYS carry around a crop camera and a FF camera and two sets of identical lenses and take each picture with both cameras using the same settings......
< SARCASM ENDED >
Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...

I know Don, I was just giving Lee Jay a hard time for his "No? What about only every test out there?" comment. When the truth is none of the tests out there illustrate my point, which is sad when you consider that that is how most of us use a camera most of the time.

But leave it with me, I have some ideas and a friend with a 7D..........

 

[Lawliet]

Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...

I'd go a step further: Why should I spend big bucks on a long lens and then use it unsupported? Getting a cheaper one and a good tripod for the difference would lead to better results.
Not that I'd want to handhold them for the amount of time normally involved with wildlife and such anyway.

 

[Don Haines]

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject? Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests. You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.

So lets see some your many "controlled tests" or maybe point us to any of the "... about only every test out there?" that demonstrate the the 7D resolution advantage when using cameras as most of us do most of the time, handheld with AF.

< WARNING! SARCASM AHEAD >
I can't speak for the two of you, but I ALWAYS carry around a crop camera and a FF camera and two sets of identical lenses and take each picture with both cameras using the same settings......
< SARCASM ENDED >
Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...

I know Don, I was just giving Lee Jay a hard time for his "No? What about only every test out there?" comment. When the truth is none of the tests out there illustrate my point, which is sad when you consider that that is how most of us use a camera most of the time.

But leave it with me, I have some ideas and a friend with a 7D..........

Probably best if you handle it.... I'm thinking of duct taping a squirrel to a ceiling fan and borrowing a 5D2....

 

[privatebydesign]

I just got a 5ft "alligator" named Mr Chompy*, I was thinking of ideas to make him move across the yard at a reasonable pace along a track.

But maybe I could strap a couple of my chickens* to a fan, at least we'd get the feather details

If you do tape a squirrel to your fan I'd suggest gaffer tape rather than duct tape, duct tape can really mess up the finish on the fan blades..........

*Mr Chompy is a soft toy, my chickens are real.

In all seriousness I actually did the tests a long time ago when I was interested in getting a 7D and compared it to my 1Ds MkIII (cropped) of the dog running across the yard, with 5 acres I have plenty of room to be focal length limited and the dog will chase a ball thrown to the same spot all day and night quite happily. Unfortunately I don't have the results anymore but might try again if I can borrow the 7D and temperatures drop below the 90's.

 

[privatebydesign]

Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...

I'd go a step further: Why should I spend big bucks on a long lens and then use it unsupported? Getting a cheaper one and a good tripod for the difference would lead to better results.
Not that I'd want to handhold them for the amount of time normally involved with wildlife and such anyway.

Well I don't know about you but the vast majority of people I see using big white lenses are using them on a monopod, which isn't a test bench tripod. Of course there are many wildlife shooters using tripods, but one of the main selling points for the MkII superteles is that they are all handholdable, indeed there is one poster here who regularly uses his 800mm handheld and several who use the 600mm handheld.

There are so many long lens shooters for whom a tripod isn't an option, most sports shooters can't use tripods, paparazzi can't, have you been on safari? No tripods, sure you can use a bean bag or a window mount etc, but they also are not test bench level support. Th list goes on and on.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped.

If you aren't getting more real resolution with a 7D than with a Canon full-frame, then you have problems elsewhere - lenses, focus, motion blur, etc.

If you are getting visibly more resolution from your 7D than a FF cropped then you are not using 1 series AF, 300 f2.8 IS's etc, you are also only using your crop camera on a tripod with live view MF in good light with nice contrast and at base iso at an optimal aperture. Anything less and the differences are just not there, I looked for them, hard, years ago.

No? What about only every test out there?

7D has quite noticeably more reach than a 5D3 or 5D2. And I say that as someone who sold my 7D so I'm not some 7D owner making up justifications.

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

People use them all different ways. I have some tripod shots that make it crazy clear. Romy has tripod and hand-held test/bird shots that make it clear. I do have some shots of a woodpecker, I have to dig them up and put them online (although it's a little painful at the moment to think of it since the new neighbor cut the old-growth oak down that I took that set of shots on hard to face). It was pretty clear my 7D put more detail on it even though hand-held and at least ISO1600.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject? Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

You must be using poor lenses, not have done MFA properly or slamming the shutter trigger down or not using proper shutter speeds or something.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And way back when I was shooting 20D and 50D, the 50D sure gave me more detail for soccer pics.

And I guess all the tons of wildlife guys shooting 7D cameras are all foolish and should have just used a 5D2.

 

[privatebydesign]

"People use them all different ways. I have some tripod shots that make it crazy clear. Romy has tripod and hand-held test/bird shots that make it clear. I do have some shots of a woodpecker, I have to dig them up and put them online. It was pretty clear my 7D put more detail on it even though hand-held and at least ISO1600."



I'll believe it when I see them, no actually I won't, because when I did it there wasn't a meaningful difference so I will know you are not being fully open. Even in the absolute best set up totally artificial and remote from reality shooting test environments, in situations that maximise the differences and favour the crop camera, there is very little difference.

If you have shots that make it "crazy clear" you are not testing what I am asking.

 

[privatebydesign]

And way back when I was shooting 20D and 50D, the 50D sure gave me more detail for soccer pics.

And I guess all the tons of wildlife guys shooting 7D cameras are all foolish and should have just used a 5D2.

What kind of retort is that? Of course a crop camera with "more" will deliver "more".

I have always said there are very good reasons for using a crop camera over cropping a ff one, not least is cost, ease of framing, frame rate, etc etc, but "crazy clear" differences in resolution are not realistic and not achievable in even the most stringent of artificial testing scenarios.

 

[Lawliet]

If you have shots that make it "crazy clear" you are not testing what I am asking.

To get the results you want you have to approach the issue in about the most ham-fisted way possible. That's not evaluating the gear, but manhandling it - not exactly the best way to find out if one could get better results using proper, or at least reasonable, technique.

Sure, you could use a filter made from ground glass and declare that as standard to proof that a smaller pixel pitch makes no sense...but anyone interested in results will take it off and invalidate your conclusion.

 

[pj1974]

Happy Birthday!
I hit 55 next weekend... I asked for a 600F4 for my birthday.... I will probably get a pair of socks

Hopefully they are "Canon" socks!

With size 13 1/2 feet I am almost guaranteed "Big Whites"...

;D ;D ;D
Good one.

Well, with my Australian foot size of 8.5 I will have to settle for my 70-300mm L socks (not quite a 'big white')

And thanks for the birthday wishes! I hope for several happy years of photography ahead....

 

[sanj]

still a rumor, people. don't take it as if Canon itself listed these specs.

so many people spewing their venom over something that is:

1 - NOT official announced
2 - a RUMOUR (this one is important)
3 - NOT tested and reviewed

people always commented "i want less MP for better ISO capabitilies" and blahblah, now that this rumor surprised everyone with "only" 20MP and not 24MP, it's not good. again.

the fact of the matter is, that newer CPU's always make some leap forward in regard of noise in High ISO shots. Digic6 should be no exception. what this rumour also reports, is:

- 10 FPS (same as 1D4)
- 65 AF point (BETTER than 1D4)
- Dual Digic6 (BETTER than 1D4)
- more MP (BETTER than 1D4)

but who cares about that. all you people see is that it supposedly has 20MP.

ALL??

 

[Woody]

all you people see is that it supposedly has 20MP.

People are disappointed if it's the same 20 MP sensor from 70D.

If it's a 20 MP sensor based on EXMOR or better technology, I am sure you won't find so many pages of rant.

 

[PicaPica]

all you people see is that it supposedly has 20MP.

People are disappointed if it's the same 20 MP sensor from 70D.

If it's a 20 MP sensor based on EXMOR or better technology, I am sure you won't find so many pages of rant.

i just thought about it this morning.

a canon manager once said the current MP are the best alternative between resolution and overall IQ.

so if canon would improve the sensor performance significantly, wouldn´t they make the step to, lets say, 24 MP?

it´s not that much more but it makes them even with the APS-C competition from other brands.
not a bad thing on the paper and for PR reasons.

 

[xps]

all you people see is that it supposedly has 20MP.

People are disappointed if it's the same 20 MP sensor from 70D.

If it's a 20 MP sensor based on EXMOR or better technology, I am sure you won't find so many pages of rant.

Sometimes it is impossible to rise the MP count without changing the Layout of your chips. So, IMO, I could believe the rumors, that a rise in MPs to 24MP or more would afford an change in the manufacturing process - as we know from the computerindustry, where each 1-2 years an new manufacturing process needs to renew nearly the whole fabrication hardware.
The rumor was, that Canon is retaining to change their manufacturing hardware to maximise their profit.