Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[Keith_Reeder]

Go take a long, hard look at jrista's processing of the infamous 5D3 vs. D800 online test.

Ker-ching! The correct answer. And it's possible to do a much better job than he did of the Canon files.

DxO claims that there is a 2.5 stop DR difference between these two cameras. If that were the case then that door and those tiles in the far back should be BLACK. No detail or image at all in those regions, just blocked up shadow.

Precisely. DR is about where the shadows block up into no detail - not about how much noise there is in the shadows. We have no problem with the equivalent definition at the other end of the histogram - when highlights get to 255/255/255 - yet, the utterly specious "argument of convenience" about noisy shadows has completely subverted the discussion.

Instead we see the same features that we see on the D800, just with a lot more color noise.

Yep, and that's a very easily-addressed situation - if you know what you're doing.

The color noise impacts our ability to push the shadows, or shadow latitude. But the DR is darn near the same. It certainly is not 2.5 stops less.

Exactly. Again, noise is sweet bugger-all to do with DR.

Perhaps more importantly for someone buying a camera, the final result with NR shows just how small the difference ends up being in the real world. Yes, the D800 is better. Could you spot it on a 36" print? Probably, but it certainly would not ruin the print. 24"? Most people could not without being told to look for it up close. 12"? Nope.

I've demonstrated the same "uncomfortable truth" on numerous occasions too: the difference, I guess, is that I don't convert/process Canon files in a deliberate attempt to make them look as bad as possible.

Seriously, why don't people get this? The number of times I've seen "proof" that Canon files cannot be subjected to heavy lifting in the shadows - with all the sheeple who don't know (and haven't even tried to learn) any better, going along with the BS - is extraordinary: and yet it's so easily (and has been) proven that these examples are utterly unrepresentative of what can be achieved, that - honestly - I'd be embarrassed to show that I was so gullible (or just so plain incompetent) as to believe them.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I'm debating your definition of DR. You cannot simply shut that down at will. Your definition is flat out wrong.

Nope, you're completely wrong. DR is not synonymous with noise, or we'd also be talking about highlight DR (where Canon sensors perform very well, incidentally - funny how quiet the DR whiners are about that) in terms of losing detail to noise, and we do not. In fact, it would be an impossible argument to have.

QED.

It's a blatantly biased subversion and reinvention of the term by an irrelevantly small but very vocal subset of the user base, in order to support their tedious agenda.

 

[Loswr]

@jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'. I know you're not being held hostage, but those statements sound a lot like some twisted CR forum version of Stockholm Syndrome (not coincidentally, Stockholm is in Sweden).

Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?

It's a bit sad to see you parroting all the DRoning in here. Don't get me wrong – it's perfectly fine (and correct) to state that Canon sensors deliver less low ISO DR than others. It's perfectly fine to complain about it, especially if that issue affects your shooting. It's fine to hope Canon does deliver sensors with more low ISO DR. But when you start saying Canon 'must respond' – implying consequences if they don't – with no evidence to back up that claim...that's when you join the DRones.

You state that the 70D doesn't sell because of it's sensor, it sells because of other features. The point is...it sells. The D7100 has more low ISO DR, and yet it doesn't sell as well. The 'sensor IQ gap' is irrelevant as far as sales numbers.

Your contention that the 'sensor IQ gap' will become 'so radically big' that it will have an impact 'in the next couple of dSLR releases' is, frankly, ludicrous. It's had no effect for 4-5 years, but 1-2 more years and it will make a radical difference? First off, Canon has shown a demonstrable capability to anticipate the needs/wants of consumers and to add features to meet them. That's why Canon continues to lead the market as they've done for 11 years. If differences in low ISO DR are going to affect sales (that's a big IF), Canon will address it...most likely before it becomes an issue. Second, consider the discussion going on here...

"It means I can push the shadows in RAW images 4 stops instead of 2 stops."

"You can easily see the difference in a 36-inch print."

"Shoot a Stouffer T4110 step wedge and you'll understand."

A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

Friends don't let friends become DRiveling DRones!

 

[tiger82]

Sounds like this camera should be priced around $2499 not $3499

 

[wockawocka]

I like the thought of improved sensors for my cameras yet I find exposing correctly in the first place helps a lot.

What I would like though is a much more intelligent metering system that doesn't use a grey average to calculate exposure.

 

[candc]

i am looking forward to the 7dii. i have a 70d and think its really good but there are some things i don't like. its a bit too small for my liking, i assume the 7dii will be bigger, 6d or 40d size? the af system can be inaccurate in low light with certain lenses, the 7dii af sounds like a big improvement. i think the 70d iq is great for most situations but would like more dr and high iso performance. at some point canon should be able to implement some kind of dual iso feature with the dual pixel sensors, be nice to see it in this camera

 

[Sporgon]

Canon sensors have not changed since before the 7D.

Anyone who has shot a 7D and 70D, or 7D and M, or 5D2 and 5D3 or 1DX, can tell you otherwise. Improvements are small, but that's no different from the evolution of Exmor (i.e. D7000 to latest Nikon bodies).

I can certainly confirm this, or at least regarding the FF cameras. The 6D has as larger increase in latitude over the 5DII as the 5DII had over the original 5D. Each generation has also produce a moderate increase in DR; I can't say how much exactly because I can't measure it, but I can state with confidence that the latitude within that dynamic range is much better.

But it's not only latitude. The later cameras give much better tonal transition and better graduation to total white and black. In fact in the former they are now as good as film IMO, and getting close in the latter. These are the important aspects for 'landscape' photography. Add to this that with a 6D you can shoot straight into, and include the sun, losing nothing but the sun disc, and when you put all this together you get a camera capable of producing the best quality 'landscape' shots around, which is why some real professional landscape photographers use the latest Canon FF when needing to use small equipment.

 

[crashpc]

neuroanatomist: I agree with what you wrote, but of course it will have some effect on Canon. For example I´m Canon guy. For last year I bought three Canon cams. But if they don´t deliver here, I´ll be forced to look elsewhere, that way I´ll stop buying their products. So it has effect. I hope they solve it, because I´d be very happy to buy another Canon product.

 

[9VIII]

...
<li>Built-in flash</li>
...

It's RUINED!

(I kid)


If it's only a 20MP Bayer filter though, that's pretty much the flag for me to wait for the 5D4, which will hopefully have high enough resolution to get similar detail while being full frame as well.

 

[Sporgon]

One other point; this picture of Fred Miranda's that keeps cropping up.

Go and take a look at the original full picture. Then consider why on earth you would ever want to raise those shadow areas so much.

If you want proof that the DR of both cameras is more or less the same; here it is.

This is why dslr photographers who want best possible IQ at low ISO have not moved to Nikon; this is only done for the sake of seeing what happens. Nothing more.

 

[Loswr]

neuroanatomist: I agree with what you wrote, but of course it will have some effect on Canon. For example I´m Canon guy. For last year I bought three Canon cams. But if they don´t deliver here, I´ll be forced to look elsewhere, that way I´ll stop buying their products. So it has effect. I hope they solve it, because I´d be very happy to buy another Canon product.

I didn't think I needed to spell it out explicitly, but the effect I am referring to is an effect on market share, not at an individual level. You may switch to another brand for more DR, that's not going to affect market share. Perhaps as you switch away from Canon, three other people switch to Canon for better AF for video and/or stills.

 

[unfocused]

Canon's customers asked them to improve in those areas... Canon's customers have been demanding they improve in a different area, in the area of sensor IQ...The world isn't standing still. If Canon does stand still...

I was going to respond to these remarks, but them saw Neuro's response which pretty much covers it. (I would like to add though that I'd like to know when Canon's customers asked them to improve in those areas. I'm a pretty good customer of Canon and I don't recall signing a petition asking for improvements in those areas.)

@jrista –

Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?...

...Your contention that the 'sensor IQ gap' will become 'so radically big' that it will have an impact 'in the next couple of dSLR releases' is, frankly, ludicrous...Canon has shown a demonstrable capability to anticipate the needs/wants of consumers and to add features to meet them. That's why Canon continues to lead the market as they've done for 11 years. If differences in low ISO DR are going to affect sales (that's a big IF), Canon will address it...most likely before it becomes an issue. Second, consider the discussion going on here...

"It means I can push the shadows in RAW images 4 stops instead of 2 stops."

"You can easily see the difference in a 36-inch print."

"Shoot a Stouffer T4110 step wedge and you'll understand."

A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

Neuro's comments pretty well sums it up. I realize this is a gearhead forum and gearheads have a tendency to obsess over small differences...but really...these are tiny differences that affect only the most narrow niche market out of a niche market of a niche market.

As many others have pointed out, sensors are important, but they are not the only important things about a camera and when you objectively compare the differences between all sensors today, one is very hard pressed to make the case that any improvement in sensors (aside from some miraculous physics-denying discovery) will ever have any impact on the market.

The biggest threat to the market today is from cell phones. None of the things that are obsessively discussed on this forum (dynamic range, sensor size, pixel density, etc. etc.) will have the slightest impact on addressing that threat. The biggest future threat is probably light-field imaging. Imagine the impact on the market if all the investment and research into focusing systems suddenly became irrelevant. I certainly hope Canon is investing more money in researching that field than in marginal improvements in the dynamic range of sensors.

Jon referenced Kodak and Microsoft. But, Kodak did not go belly up because Ilford and Fuji made better film. They went belly up because their market evaporated due to an industry revolutionizing technology. And, frankly, I'm not sure what the point your trying to make with Microsoft. They remain the world leaders in operating system and office software. Most computers run on Microsoft operating systems and use Microsoft programs. That's their core business and no one is able to seriously threaten that business. In fact Apple has essentially abandoned the market. If Microsoft declared bankruptcy lately, I missed the news.

So, let's stop with all the "if Canon doesn't do ...they are doomed" talk. It just makes you look foolish.

 

[RickWagoner]

How spot on is Canonwatch with their rumors...They are sure about WIFI being included.

I find it funny the simplest most basic feature we have in our lives today is the most debated for the 7Dii..

the day the NDAs end can't come soon enough!!!

 

[Don Haines]

A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Agreed! I see so many cameras in "green box" mode.... and there are probably more T3's out there than all other Canon DSLRs combined..... We at CR are definitely in the minority..

As to the Stouffer wedge... those of us who date back to B+W darkrooms have probably used Stouffer wedges, but just didn't know what it was called. (I didn't)

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

I am at the point where I am going to upgrade my camera. I would like a better sensor.... but realistically, the camera I get will be decided upon mostly by the capability of the AF system. I shoot Canon because of the glass. I am not trapped by it, I am attracted by it. To me the camera is secondary.... The one that I bought (60D) was good enough for my needs at the time, and when I bought it I was confident that by the time I outgrew it that there would be far better choices. So here we are 4 years later and EVERY SINGLE DSLR that Canon sells (except the 60DA which is a special case) has better IQ. I can pick up a 70D today that will certainly meet my needs, but I am waiting on the 7D2 in hopes of a far better AF system... any other improvements are a bonus (to me).

So yes, at least for me, in the worst case scenario that the 7D2 has no better sensor than a 70D, I will get one or the other and despite the old sensor tech that I wish they would change, they will not have lost this customer.

 

[Orangutan]

@jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'.

A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

But a fair percentage of buyers pay attention to online reviews. Neuro, I'm in nearly 100% agreement with you on your contention that sales tell the story. However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely. It's a reasonable assumption that if the I.Q. gap gets wide enough, the popular press, review sites, and entities like Cons. Rep. will start to disregard Canon's whizzbang features and marketing prowess, and view Canon's lineup as unworthy of serious consideration. You're correct that this will not likely happen soon (e.g. in the next 2-3 years), but 5 years is not out of the question.

IBM, Intel and Microsoft may have had episodes where they badly misunderstood the market, but they were able to recover due to their deep pockets and a willingness to part with previous strategies. I believe Canon can do the same. Based on Canon's (corporate) track record, I'll bet they have the ability to deliver IQ equal to or exceeding what's on the market now, but they won't do so until market conditions force them. Eventually, as jrista points out, the market will force them.

One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone. When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors. You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.

 

[tayassu]

If these are the real specs, the 7DII/whatever is going to be a great camera on paper! If the new processors do some magic with the (hopefully new) 20MP sensor, this is a perfect all around camera with focus in sports/wildlife! 10fps, more (cross-type) points than the 1DX, looks promising for video also!! Great! Compared to any other APS-C camera it would kickass, think about it! The Nikon D7100 or Pentax K-3 wouldn't even come close! I'm looking forward to the announcement and will save money even more intense now!

 

[Joe M]

I realize a lot of people like to know what cameras may have what features so that they can make informed decisions on what to buy, today. However, with this camera supposedly coming out in what you can almost count down in mere days now, what does it really matter to know what the specs are now as opposed to waiting days? The only other practical reason I can think of is to know whether or not the 7D will do the job and if the newer one will be better, it's time to sell before the price drops and it's not worth selling. It may be too late for that though. BTW, I do get it that this is CR but really, we are now talking days to reality and not rumour and I think at this point Canon has done a great job of keeping their specs secret and I doubt the entire true list of specs will come out before the camera.

 

[Loswr]

However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely.

Which is why I stated:

If differences in low ISO DR are going to affect sales (that's a big IF), Canon will address it...most likely before it becomes an issue.

One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone.

I agree. But to borrow unfocused's phrase anyone who states, "...if Canon doesn't improve low ISO DR they are doomed," is sure starting to sound like one.

 

[Marauder]

A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Agreed! I see so many cameras in "green box" mode.... and there are probably more T3's out there than all other Canon DSLRs combined..... We at CR are definitely in the minority..

As to the Stouffer wedge... those of us who date back to B+W darkrooms have probably used Stouffer wedges, but just didn't know what it was called. (I didn't)

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

I am at the point where I am going to upgrade my camera. I would like a better sensor.... but realistically, the camera I get will be decided upon mostly by the capability of the AF system. I shoot Canon because of the glass. I am not trapped by it, I am attracted by it. To me the camera is secondary.... The one that I bought (60D) was good enough for my needs at the time, and when I bought it I was confident that by the time I outgrew it that there would be far better choices. So here we are 4 years later and EVERY SINGLE DSLR that Canon sells (except the 60DA which is a special case) has better IQ. I can pick up a 70D today that will certainly meet my needs, but I am waiting on the 7D2 in hopes of a far better AF system... any other improvements are a bonus (to me).

So yes, at least for me, in the worst case scenario that the 7D2 has no better sensor than a 70D, I will get one or the other and despite the old sensor tech that I wish they would change, they will not have lost this customer.

I concur. I've seen enough comparisons between Nikon and Canon that I don't think the DR differences are nearly as great as some would have you believe. I would like to see the 7D2 ship with a different sensor than the 70D--slightly better resolution and IQ, but it's not a primary factor for me. What I'm most interested in is a rocking AF system with amazing speed and accuracy, a fast burst (10 is more than adequate--the 12fps would have been a better bet from 'staying in front of the competition" standpoint, but not a huge factor) and a deep buffer to utilize it and the same kind of ergonomics that have become so well regarded in cameras such as the 7D and 5D3. I also like the statement "I shoot Canon because of the glass. I am not trapped by it, I am attracted by it." Well said!

I think this camera is exactly what the wildlife/action/sports crop-frame camera user wants and expected. Whether this camera is exciting or disappointing for you will probably depend heavily on whether you want it for its intended purpose. For wildlife shooters, I think it's going to be made to measure for us. For landscape/low light and video users, it will be a 'good' camera, but not what you're looking for--a FF 5D3 (or upcoming 5D4) will be a better choice. And a 1DX or it's successor is still ideal for a wildlife, sports and action shooter who wants to shoot in lower light--and if they have deep pockets!!!!

 

[whothafunk]

The Nikon D7100 or Pentax K-3 wouldn't even come close!

Nikon D7100 isnt meant to compete against 7DII. It is meant to be compared against 70D. According to the rumours, Nikon has a 7DII competitor called D9300.