Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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).

There is tons of fast glass for DSLRs and most 35mm films are shot on a surface that is actually NOT SLR FF size but pretty much APS-C size. FF is more like filming at 70mm in terms of how they talk about things. Movie guys ran the film through the camera sideways compared to how stills film cameras did keep in mind.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

From these specs it looks like the 7D2 is one stop worse than the 5D3...

At the same framing (when you are focal length limited and cropping anyway), this sensor is likely better than the 5D3.

maybe, is the 70D better per surface area? i don't recall it might be about the same and not better?

 

[Joe M]

I used the 7D at one point and likely won't ever use a 7D2 but the possibility of built-in RT flash control makes me jealous. Other than that, there definitely are some quirky looking things on this list. "Fine detail" and iso 100-16000 are peculiar to say the least. In any case, it must be a tough job making a camera that won't impinge on the sales of other models while appealing to people at the same time.

 

[MichaelHodges]

As for photographers, if you think the removal of an AA filter is better than oversampling, then yes, I absolutely DO BLAME YOU for forcing a ludicrous trend on camera manufacturers.

So rather than removing obstacles to improve detail and simplifying, you want to convolute the process?

Your an idiot if you think a lower resolution sensor without an AA filter is ever, even remotely, going to be better than downsampling an oversampled image that doesn't NEED an AA filter (because by oversampling, you ARE anti-aliasing!)

As for sharpening soft images...are you refuting the claim that you can restore detail by sharpening? Seriously?! I've proven this case so many times before, do I really, truly, need to prove it again?

In my response, I claimed that soft images can be sharpened. But the problem with soft images is they are much less malleable than sharp, clean images out of camera.

The better the sensor, the less post processing you have to do.

 

[MichaelHodges]

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

Interesting! Thanks for the information.

 

[Kerry B]

For me the so called specs of the new 7DMk11 are not ground breaking and are somewhat of a disappointment given the length of time Canon have had to develop this new camera. I was certainly hoping for an improvement in the Canon sensor technology, if the facts are correct we will not see this in this camera.

In essence are the rumours regarding specs for this camera any different to what the Canon 1Dmk1v has to offer, and this is a camera that is 4 years old.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Wow! A lot has been posted on this today. Must be a lazy Friday!

IMHO, based on this latest RUMOR, I think I'll be pretty glad that I jumped on the 70D + Kit Lens refurb from Canon a few days ago for $836 + tax.

The 7D-II will no doubt be a great camera but I don't think I'll be inclined to spend the major $$ it will command. Like jrista, the sensor doesn't sound like a huge game changer anyway.

 

[jrista]

As for photographers, if you think the removal of an AA filter is better than oversampling, then yes, I absolutely DO BLAME YOU for forcing a ludicrous trend on camera manufacturers.

So rather than removing obstacles to improve detail and simplifying, you want to convolute the process?

Your an idiot if you think a lower resolution sensor without an AA filter is ever, even remotely, going to be better than downsampling an oversampled image that doesn't NEED an AA filter (because by oversampling, you ARE anti-aliasing!)

As for sharpening soft images...are you refuting the claim that you can restore detail by sharpening? Seriously?! I've proven this case so many times before, do I really, truly, need to prove it again?

In my response, I claimed that soft images can be sharpened. But the problem with soft images is they are much less malleable than sharp, clean images out of camera.

The better the sensor, the less post processing you have to do.

I'm not sure there is any actual evidence for that. And again, I'd point you to all the artifacts that occur with sensors that lack an AA filter entirely. You could spend DAYS trying to correct moire or extensive aliasing in an image, and still never get rid of it. As for a sensor with an AA filter...run it through a light sharpening filter and your done. Maybe that's 5 seconds of additional processing...ooh, that's just so much time. In the grand scheme of things, I'd say that you still have to spend time sharpening an image without an AA filter...you just use less sharpening. So there really isn't any major difference in processing time period.

Now, regarding oversampling. You seem to be misunderstanding that. A sensor that oversamples lenses, at their best resolution, say f/2.8 as a round-about high quality aperture for lenses the likes of the Otus. You still wouldn't have an AA filter. However, you wouldn't NEED an AA filter, because your anti-aliasing by oversampling. You do understands what that means, right? A sensor that is capable of oversampling is going to be of MUCH higher resolution than any sensor that isn't oversampling and lacks and AA filter.

So...where, exactly, is your lower resolution AA-less sensor actually getting higher IQ than a high resolution oversampled sensor? The higher resolution sensor, even it it may look "soft" at 100% pixel peeping, is STILL resolving FAR more detail than the lower resolution sensor that lacks an AA filter. You want a sharper image? Well, if your 2x oversampled, downsample by a factor of two (reduce it to 1/4 area). If your 3x oversampled, downsample by a factor of three (reduce it to 1/9th area.) The oversampled image will be sharper, out of camera, without any sharpening or noise reduction, than the lower resolution image that did not have an AA filter.

When it comes down to sensors at today's resolutions, I'll take the one with an AA filter over one without an AA filter any day. It might take me an extra five seconds to dial in a slightly stronger amount of sharpening than one without an AA filter, but at least I won't have to spend an extra day trying to get rid of aliasing and moire.

 

[MichaelHodges]

While the 7D II specs don't blow me away, the "fine detail sensor' is encouraging. At least Canon acknowledges they are behind in this area.

But the same conclusion from four years ago stands: If you want a lowlight camera, it's time to go FF.

The people who were expecting a FF-like sensor on APS-C are the ones who are going to be most disappointed.

 

[Tugela]

No 4K video? I will skip this one then, since the camera does not satisfy my requirements. I need a camera for the future, not for the past. Time to look at Panasonic or Sony I guess

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

In my response, I claimed that soft images can be sharpened. But the problem with soft images is they are much less malleable than sharp, clean images out of camera.

The better the sensor, the less post processing you have to do.

But AA-less images are NOT sharp and clean and malleable. They have false detail and noise from false detail and you can't do much to them without hitting into an accentuating artifacts (not that you need to do much though at all, in fact without the AA filter, you really shouldn't do mcuh anything ot them at all).

 

[Lightmaster]

an image done via oversampling will have more details but may look soft at 1:1.

but it is produced from a source that has way higher resolution.
when you resample the images to a lower resolution you can gain sharpness.
you will lose some of the details (the "smaller" less MP image can hold less information).
but with a lower resolution sensor you would not have these details anyway.

a physical AA filter, in simple words, just blurs the image a bit.

this can be countered by deconvolution methods.
but they are very processing intensive. but it´s done in astronomy all the time.

But AA-less images are NOT sharp and clean and malleable. They have false detail and noise from false detail and you can't do much to them without hitting into an accentuating artifacts (not that you need to do much though at all, in fact without the AA filter, you really shouldn't do mcuh anything ot them at all).

well that depends on the motiv too.

you can have perfectly fine images without an AA filter.
but then you photograph, for example, fabrics etc. and it just looks ugly.

and i guess medium format user (like myself) who uses backs that have no AA filter would disagree too.

a foveon sensor does not need an AA filter because it does not use a bayer pattern.

AA less sensors are in some of the best cameras, so this claim you make is a bit bold.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_naked_sensor.shtml

 

[SwampYankee]

5 years for a 2 megapixel bump??????
Thanks for nothing Canon

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

While the 7D II specs don't blow me away, the "fine detail sensor' is encouraging. At least Canon acknowledges they are behind in this area.

Hah, that is the one area where IMO they have still be doing it right when it comes to sensors for stills.

So it would be a pretty shame if the one place they acknowledged they were 'behind' and tried to 'catch-up' was this while dropping the ball and falling even farther behind on DR and now 4k video (and 1080p RAW of ML).

 

[Stu_bert]

the 7D MK II will have continuous AF like camcorders. It's not necessarily required on their higher end cine slrs, and it's the reason the # AF points has increased. Does that not align with the new video features and is a result of the new sensor features. That would put it ahead of everything else?

It will appeal to sports / wildlife also, based on the specs.

I still recall a comment made by Thom Hogan and others. If you can't take a decent shot with the current cameras available from Canon and Nikon, then it's not the camera at fault. It seems that a lot of people are expecting huge changes for a camera with a designated target market that does not require those things.

It won't need huge DR, as has been discussed elsewhere. And even if the sensor does not improve order of magnitude, will it not still take good pictures and therefore sell? Why has the 7D sold so well, and what in the MK II will not re-enforce it?

 

[MichaelHodges]

NOT sharp and clean and malleable. They have false detail and noise from false detail and you can't do much to them without hitting into an accentuating artifacts (not that you need to do much though at all, in fact without the AA filter, you really shouldn't do mcuh anything ot them at all).

I've seen the results from the 800E, and they are stunning in terms of detail out-of-camera. For nature photography, you don't really need an AA filter.

I stick with Canon because I like Canon colors and the lens selection. But I have been tempted.

Nice article comparing the 800E and the 800:

http://www.mattk.com/2012/10/02/my-nikon-d800-vs-d800e-comparison/

 

[Don Haines]

65 cross type AF points, center one being dual cross....
a pair of Digic 6 processors...
Lens Electronic MF (is this automatic AFMA?)

This beast has the potential for some pretty serious AF capability...

I still can't see having no touch screen or WiFi, but hey, it's all rumours. Don't believe a thing until it is officially released....

 

[rs]

the 7D MK II will have continuous AF like camcorders. It's not necessarily required on their higher end cine slrs, and it's the reason the # AF points has increased. Does that not align with the new video features and is a result of the new sensor features. That would put it ahead of everything else?

The number of focus points refers to the amount found on the AF chip, which is completely bypassed when the mirror is up for videoing. That's where DPAF comes in, which has substantially more than 65 AF points - 20.2 million to be precise. There is no increase in numbers here over the 70D. Processing power is the big sticking point, and that's where the 7D mk II could gain.

65 AF points, all cross type, is a big gain for any situation where the mirror is down.

 

[Stu_bert]

5 years for a 2 megapixel bump??????
Thanks for nothing Canon

Sure but a 20MP vs a 24MP is 10% difference on X and Y axis approximately. Are Canon that much behind the competition? I appreciate it would be nice and in terms of those who want the bragging and don't realise then sure Canon are missing out.

 

[Stu_bert]

the 7D MK II will have continuous AF like camcorders. It's not necessarily required on their higher end cine slrs, and it's the reason the # AF points has increased. Does that not align with the new video features and is a result of the new sensor features. That would put it ahead of everything else?

The number of focus points refers to the amount found on the AF chip, which is completely bypassed when the mirror is up for videoing. That's where DPAF comes in, which has substantially more than 65 AF points - 20.2 million to be precise. There is no increase in numbers here over the 70D. Processing power is the big sticking point, and that's where the 7D mk II could gain.

65 AF points, all cross type, is a big gain for any situation where the mirror is down.

Good point, well made
Still think it will have continuous AF for video ;D