Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[HurtinMinorKey]

So, same sensor as the 70D? If true, no shocker there.

 

[Lee Jay]

DPAF in the 70D has two photosites for each pixel. I'm really surprised that no one has suggested that "fine detail" is a selectable mode that reads each photosite separately to produce a 40mp image.

If they're both under the same microlens (which is how DPAF works), you wouldn't get any more detail that way.

Totally agree. There is no benefit to splitting the photodiode underneath the same microlens and color filter.

Well, except fot the phase information, which is the whole point of them doing it.

 

[jrista]

DPAF in the 70D has two photosites for each pixel. I'm really surprised that no one has suggested that "fine detail" is a selectable mode that reads each photosite separately to produce a 40mp image.

If they're both under the same microlens (which is how DPAF works), you wouldn't get any more detail that way.

Totally agree. There is no benefit to splitting the photodiode underneath the same microlens and color filter.

Well, except fot the phase information, which is the whole point of them doing it.

Right. However from what I understand about Canon's DPAF design, the photodiodes MUST be under the microlens for it to work properly.

 

[MichaelHodges]

LOL, I'm not advocating soft images.

It sure sounded like it. You blamed waxy AA filters on end users, and then brushed the waxy filters off by saying you can sharpen soft images.

 

[Lightmaster]

i know.... but what has QE to do with sensor size when the G10 has a reported QE of 57% ?

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G10.html

or the G15 with QE 59%

It doesn't have anything to do with sensor size. Canon's smaller sensors are manufactured on their newer fabs, which do use a 180nm process and apparently better materials. It's the larger sensors that are still manufactured at their older fabs.

it was a rhetoric question.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I'd say my 70D is about two stops away from my 6D. I would never use the 70D over the 6D for wildlife in lowlight situations.

 

[jrista]

LOL, I'm not advocating soft images.

It sure sounded like it. You blamed waxy AA filters on end users, and then brushed the waxy filters off by saying you can sharpen soft images.

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Lightmaster]

Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.

Any soft image can be sharpened. But the images that are sharpest in RAW without sharpening are going to take post processing much better.

I'm actually kind of shocked to see someone on a camera forum advocating soft images.

The 7D was the softest Canon DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a bunch). So any move away from that buttery, waxy look is progress.

LOL, I'm not advocating soft images. People just plain and simply don't understand resolution. I want OVERSAMPLING, not soft images. An oversampled image is only a problem if you pixel peep. However, nicely oversampled image (say 2-3x the diffraction spot size) is never going to need any upsampling for printing large. You don't have "sharp" detail when upsampling ANYWAY, so I'd much rather start out with an image that has as much detail as possible, even if it looks "soft" at 100%...it's going to be less soft than a lower resolution image that's been upsampled to the same size.

Going in the other direction, you can always downsample an oversampled image and gain sharpness. An image oversampled 2x relative to an image that was not oversampled at all (1x) will look better when downsampled to 1/4 it's original size to match the 1x image. Additionally, the oversampled image won't have any aliasing of any kind whatsoever, where as the image sampled at 1x WILL most definitely have aliasing and possibly moire.

Removal of an AA filter also means that signal frequencies that match the sensor frequency, and those just above and just below, the frequencies that get aliased most, just end up becoming noise. But it's a harsh, sharp noise, so it's very obvious.

There are no real benefits to removal of AA filters. With the right kind of scene, say a landscape packed with non-patterned information, MIGHT benefit from it. However there are plenty of very undesirable things that absolutely do occur with the removal of AA filters...proven things, most of which have no real solution for correcting in post. I'm advocating against Canon following the uneducated trend of niche companies like Nikon and photographers who don't know what they are talking about, and forcing the introduction of a crap ton of artifacts and aliasing into our images that were perfectly fine before.

another thing people forget is that "per pixel sharpeness" does not equal "more details".

 

[jrista]

Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.

Any soft image can be sharpened. But the images that are sharpest in RAW without sharpening are going to take post processing much better.

I'm actually kind of shocked to see someone on a camera forum advocating soft images.

The 7D was the softest Canon DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a bunch). So any move away from that buttery, waxy look is progress.

LOL, I'm not advocating soft images. People just plain and simply don't understand resolution. I want OVERSAMPLING, not soft images. An oversampled image is only a problem if you pixel peep. However, nicely oversampled image (say 2-3x the diffraction spot size) is never going to need any upsampling for printing large. You don't have "sharp" detail when upsampling ANYWAY, so I'd much rather start out with an image that has as much detail as possible, even if it looks "soft" at 100%...it's going to be less soft than a lower resolution image that's been upsampled to the same size.

Going in the other direction, you can always downsample an oversampled image and gain sharpness. An image oversampled 2x relative to an image that was not oversampled at all (1x) will look better when downsampled to 1/4 it's original size to match the 1x image. Additionally, the oversampled image won't have any aliasing of any kind whatsoever, where as the image sampled at 1x WILL most definitely have aliasing and possibly moire.

Removal of an AA filter also means that signal frequencies that match the sensor frequency, and those just above and just below, the frequencies that get aliased most, just end up becoming noise. But it's a harsh, sharp noise, so it's very obvious.

There are no real benefits to removal of AA filters. With the right kind of scene, say a landscape packed with non-patterned information, MIGHT benefit from it. However there are plenty of very undesirable things that absolutely do occur with the removal of AA filters...proven things, most of which have no real solution for correcting in post. I'm advocating against Canon following the uneducated trend of niche companies like Nikon and photographers who don't know what they are talking about, and forcing the introduction of a crap ton of artifacts and aliasing into our images that were perfectly fine before.

another thing people forget is that "sharpeness" does not equal "more details".

True. I'd strongly argue that you get much more detail with an image oversampled 2-3x, than with an image that does not have an AA filter. I'd argue that you can get within 98-99% of the detail of an image that was taken without an AA filter by sharpening an image that did have an AA filter. I'd argue that you can get 99-100% of the real detail of an image taken without an AA filter by using proper deconvolution algorithms with an image that DID have an AA filter.

The convolution caused by an AA filter is highly predictable and uniform across the frame, so it's easily correctable. Aliasing, moire, and other artifacts that occur due to the LACK of an AA filter are near impossible or literally impossible to correct in post, even with the most advanced tools on the market today.

 

[MichaelHodges]

LOL, I'm not advocating soft images.

It sure sounded like it. You blamed waxy AA filters on end users, and then brushed the waxy filters off by saying you can sharpen soft images.

What in the world are you talking about?

Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.

 

[roxics]

I was not really interested in the 7D II being a big video DSLR anyway...I don't really know that anyone truly was, you just don't get that cinematic look with a smaller sensor...not without having very wide apertures anyway (like a lot of expensive cinema lenses do).

You're kidding right? Do you know how much hype there was in the video world over the original 7D? It was huge! The APS-C sensor is nearly super35mm in size, the same size as motion picture 35mm film. It matches cinema lenses well, unlike full frame cameras.

There isn't a ton of hype about the 7DmkII in the video world, only because most people have given up on Canon outside of Magic Lantern hacks. But the hope is still that Canon will release the 7DmkII to match or at least come cose to the GH4 in video specs.

 

[PureClassA]

In the previous chain about the 7DX specs better DR, IQ, and less noise are the overwhelming drivers for interest here...But I'm not convinced Canon could make such a miscalculation.

No miscalculation. What people on gearhead forums want and what the bulk of customers who will actually buy the product want are two entirely different things.
[/quote]

Like I said, I do NOT think they would miscalculate. The 7D line isn't meant for feature-only freak low end consumers. It was always geared at upper tier users. My point is that I think the end result will be (hopefully) something notably improved.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.

Any soft image can be sharpened. But the images that are sharpest in RAW without sharpening are going to take post processing much better.

I'm actually kind of shocked to see someone on a camera forum advocating soft images.

I'm not. He is advocating against messed up aliased images, not for soft images.

I hope Canon just get suckered into the Nikon/SONY fake hype over AA-less sensors.

i have to say the 810 images look not bad.
im not a nikon expert but i read the camera has no AA filter.

not that bad, but you can definitely see harsh looking jaggies and such at times all the same which I'd wish were not there. overall it's such a great sensor I'd still take it, for stills, any day over what hte 5D3 delivers, but all the same I'd way take an 810a WITH AA filter over an 810 sensor.

 

[preppyak]

There isn't a ton of hype about the 7DmkII in the video world, only because most people have given up on Canon outside of Magic Lantern hacks. But the hope is still that Canon will release the 7DmkII to match or at least come cose to the GH4 in video specs.

Yep, honest truth is that Canon has lost the low-budget indie video world a good 2+ years ago. Panasonic, BlackMagic, etc took it over, and I dont think Canon can realistically get it back. 1080/60 is something cameras had years ago, and unless the DPAF turns it into camcorder level AF, it wont win a lot of people.

Its funny, I remember the rumor coming out 2-3 years ago that "Canon thinks everything will be video in the future", thus their cine line, etc. Seems to me they just realized there is a ton of money to be made in the rental market, especially in the TV industry, and that money can't be made off the people that want a 5dIII with 4k for $1k.

 

[Lightmaster]

The convolution caused by an AA filter is highly predictable and uniform across the frame, so it's easily correctable. Aliasing, moire, and other artifacts that occur due to the LACK of an AA filter are near impossible or literally impossible to correct in post, even with the most advanced tools on the market today.

i see it from a CGI viewpoint. im doing 3D stuff for 20 years (90% of my work is stills).

for years i had to bother about what AA filter i have to use or is best for a scene.
with faster CPUs and VRAY i started to do oversampling and turned off the special AA filters (lanczos / catmull etc).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Do you think camera makers put in those horribly expensive AA filters because they want to increase their expenses and reduce image quality? They're there for a reason - to reduce aliasing, which is a totally impossible to remove artifact once it has been sampled into the raw data.

It's about finding a balance between preventing aliasing and preserving fine detail. The 7D I owned for years delivered waxy images. My 70D is a significant upgrade in this regard.

This "fine detail" sensor looks like an acknowledgement of the mushy 7D files. That's good news.

Some of the 7D mush was from using a heavily split-green CFA filter which required extra special de-Bayer processing that added just a trace of loss of micro-contrast

 

[jrista]

I was not really interested in the 7D II being a big video DSLR anyway...I don't really know that anyone truly was, you just don't get that cinematic look with a smaller sensor...not without having very wide apertures anyway (like a lot of expensive cinema lenses do).

You're kidding right? Do you know how much hype there was in the video world over the original 7D? It was huge! The APS-C sensor is nearly super35mm in size, the same size as motion picture 35mm film. It matches cinema lenses well, unlike full frame cameras.

There isn't a ton of hype about the 7DmkII in the video world, only because most people have given up on Canon outside of Magic Lantern hacks. But the hope is still that Canon will release the 7DmkII to match or at least come cose to the GH4 in video specs.

You misunderstood my point. Cinema LENSES usually have wide apertures. They are rated in T-stops, which is often wider than f/2.8. Most Canon DSLR lenses, unless your spending thousands of dollars, don't come remotely close to the quality of a cinema lens, and don't have the nice wide max apertures. So with a 7D II and "almost super 35mm size" sensor, your still not going to get that cinematic look. You certainly won't come anywhere close to the kind of beautiful cinematic quality and boke that you can get from any video-capable FF DSLR.

From what you've said, people in the video community were looking to the 7D II for the same reasons still photographers were looking to it...just to see what Canon would do, not because it would necessarily offer the right kind of IQ for their needs. It's a milestone marker for Canon...did they move 500 miles down the road yet, or did they only move five miles?

From the looks of it, on both fronts, video and still, Canon hasn't moved much more than five miles down the road...and they are still puttering along.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Do you think camera makers put in those horribly expensive AA filters because they want to increase their expenses and reduce image quality? They're there for a reason - to reduce aliasing, which is a totally impossible to remove artifact once it has been sampled into the raw data.

It's about finding a balance between preventing aliasing and preserving fine detail. The 7D I owned for years delivered waxy images. My 70D is a significant upgrade in this regard.

This "fine detail" sensor looks like an acknowledgement of the mushy 7D files. That's good news.

Some of the 7D mush was from using a heavily split-green CFA filter which required extra special de-Bayer processing that added just a trace of loss of micro-contrast

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It seems like Canon marketing at work again when it comes to 4k. The 1DC can do a full read and extract and process 4k out of 18MP using dual digic 5 so why could the 7D2 not handle a 4k read out of a 20MP sensor with dual digic 6? Now they are locked into their top sports/wildlife mini-cam not being able to shoot wildlife video at 4k for another 3-6 years....

 

[Lightmaster]

It seems like Canon marketing at work again when it comes to 4k. The 1DC can do a full read and extract and process 4k out of 18MP using dual digic 5 so why could the 7D2 not handle a 4k read out of a 20MP sensor with dual digic 6? Now they are locked into their top sports/wildlife mini-cam not being able to shoot wildlife video at 4k for another 3-6 years....

i guess it´s just a matter of a firmware update after 2 years.