Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney?

4K is the future-proof format. That's why it's important even now, when 4K TVs are still not the norm.

+1

Ever shoot a picture and crop it? Same thing.... only with movies...

It also allows post processing image stabilization.

+1

plus DIGIC (or Canon marketing, not sure which) makes internal Canon video so soft that you'd almost need inernal 4k to get true high quality 1080p detail (witness how radically much more detail ML pulls out of a 5D3 compared to stock 5D3 video)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You misunderstand, we are saying the opposite. I was arguing with people who are against including Wifi in cameras for some reason.

Oh. Well in that case, I agree...that's strange.

Only reasons I can think of is they are total brand fanboys so if their brand doesn't do something, that something can't matter for anyone. Or they are paid to astroturf the forums. Or they are the sort who can't handle spending money on something that doesn't happen to be the best in every single regard. Or are overly fearful about costs and don't have a good sense of what costs what and tech.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Or, maybe canon did target the 7 series towards sports and wildlife shooters. If the 7 series is targeted in such a manner, what would they have to take away from these proposed specs to give it 4k video? Or, how ginormous would the price tag be if it did? Would it need a third digic 6 in there to handle video output? Would they have had to back off on the AF for it? Or, if you look at the A7s, then would we see a 7d2 with a 12MP sensor?

Why would it take a third digic 6 to handle 4k video when the 1DC shows that TWO digic FIVE can already drive 4k video off of non-line skipped sensor reads?

Why would they have to back off of AF?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's amusing that a 2-3 stop difference means nothing and yet when Canon does better for SNR and it's like 1/3 stop better than it's all wow Canon rules!!!!!

A 2-3 stop difference in base ISO DR actually does mean less to me than a 1/3 stop difference in high ISO performance. This is because I virtually never run into base ISO DR problems (even with the 18MP 1.6-crop sensor), but I'm always struggling against high ISO limits.

That is fine, but that is entirely different than saying flat out that 2-3 stops means less or is a more modest difference.

 

[Woody]

The 7D Mark 2 rumored specs seem interesting (those 65 cross AF points sounds attractive to me).

What I'll like to see:
(a) weight not greater than 70D... Canon execs talk about reduced weight across all imaging products... let's see how real this one is...
(b) improved sensor quality (whether it's at high or low ISO... we are stuck in this same old 18-20 MP APS-C sensor rut for too long now...)
(c) touchscreen... this pairs up very well with DPAF... allows fast selection of AF point... don't care for DPAF if there is no touchscreen... for me...

Doubt my wishes will come true...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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'?...

Perhaps you should answer how you can take pictures with Canon stock or sale numbers?

And many a company weather the lazy storm for a while, before sales finally started taking a hit.

That wasn't my quote. It was Neuro.

Amazing to me how people who claim to have such superior knowledge and interest in technical matters can not master this site's basic HTML.

Amazing how you forgot that you quoted Neuro there to say that he got it all right, I was responding to the fact that you said you agreed with that and that he said it all.

 

[unfocused]

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'?...

Perhaps you should answer how you can take pictures with Canon stock or sale numbers?

And many a company weather the lazy storm for a while, before sales finally started taking a hit.

That wasn't my quote. It was Neuro.

Amazing to me how people who claim to have such superior knowledge and interest in technical matters can not master this site's basic HTML.

Amazing how you forgot that you quoted Neuro there to say that he got it all right, I was responding to the fact that you said you agreed with that and that he said it all.

No. You attributed Neuro's quote to me and then apparently couldn't figure out to attribute my real quotes to me.

Well from someone who actually knows QED the physics theory, I'm with jrista on this one.

So, while you might be great at "QED the physics theory," I was simply pointing out that you didn't seem able to master the site's very simple HTML.

So, from someone who doesn't know "QED the physics theory," I'm with Neuro on this one.

 

[jrista]

So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway.

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :

 

[Richard8971]

Outside of the newer technology, it sounds like a upgraded 1D4 with a crop sensor.

I'm not all that worried about it having a high megapixel sensor. I would gladly trade a few megapixels for super clean image quality. I love my 7D and likely won't rush out and buy a 7D2.

I will wait and see how the image samples compare to the 1D4. I still think that the 1D4 will have cleaner image samples over any crop body, unless it comes with a whole new sensor that blows away just about everything else out there. I would upgrade to a 1D4 in a heartbeat.

D

 

[jrista]

Mmm. Double feature...brewing T-storm off in the distance...and the milky way. All playing nice together over a field of sunflowers. ;D ;D ;D

 

[Don Haines]

So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway.

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :

+1
For me it was a canoe, a storm case of gear, egrets, herons, ducks, geese, turtles, and a very elusive kingfisher. A day well spent!

 

[jrista]

So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway.

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :

+1
For me it was a canoe, a storm case of gear, egrets, herons, ducks, geese, turtles, and a very elusive kingfisher. A day well spent!

Absolutely!

 

[dtaylor]

What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"

That's generally good enough, yes, though you're welcome to evaluate the shot with instruments.

There is not a magic formula which allows you to translate engineering SNR for a sensel into photographic dynamic range for an entire digital camera. That seems to be what you are looking for and it does not exist. There are multiple reasons for this, not the least of which is that photographic DR is evaluated for a 2 dimensional light sensitive material with many imaging elements (sensels or grains), and is not based on a single element. If you applied an "engineering" definition of DR, or SNR, to photographic film you would conclude it has 1 stop because at the level of a single grain you would find either silver or clear base and nothing in between. (Ironic that digital cameras are analog at the sensel and film is "digital" at the grain.)

There are other reasons, but the point is looking at sensel SNR...even though it's related...gives a false impression. But just because there is no simple formula to translate sensel SNR into DR does not mean that DR is arbitrary or subjective.

In every single one of those pages you linked, including the book "The Negative" by Ansel (which I own, BTW), no one actually DEFINES what "Photographic DR" is.

Luminance range between black and white. (For the nth time.)

As for Ken Rockwell: "In photography, dynamic range is the difference between the lightest light and darkest dark which can be seen in a photo." Bingo.

I do not believe there is a single objective definition of Photographic DR.

Saying this after the references I've provided is...embarrassing. You're arguing to argue, not discussing to learn.

It's just an arbitrary term, and it seems to be redefined at will.

Every source I linked has the same definition even if they call it by another name (i.e. luminance range). I'm not aware of any other definition in photography.

I am calling into question the validity of using the old film-based Zone system to describe dynamic range in digital image sensors. Film had no readout system! In film, dynamic range was limited only by the amount of grain, which means it effectively behaved like an "ideal sensor"...the only source of noise was photon shot noise, inherent in the image resolved by the lens itself.

Grain irregularity was itself noise.

I cut a lot from your post where you're theorizing. Observe, then theorize.

 

[dtaylor]

(In my experience, "Photographic DR" is far more arbitrary, as everyone seems to define it or calculate it in a different way...

The definition and method of calculation is taught to every single person who earns a degree in photography in the country. A very large number of printers and scientists know it as well. It is not arbitrary.

And yet...it still hasn't been DEFINED. What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"

I'm sorry, but a simple visual judgement is insufficient. Your ignoring read noise, which you cannot do. (Well, you can...it just isn't valid...not for electronic sensors.)

Indeed, all measurements in a digital sensor contains noise. The luminance range that is detectable depends on the amount of noise present, discussing DR in digital photography is discussing noise which boils down to statistics. Until dtaylor understand that he would best avoid these discussion and instead go hide under a bridge but he doesn't have that much sense so it is pointless to waste energy on him.

Yeah...probably right.

Pretty smug considering neither one of you have actually tested your theories.

When you do and you see gray patches beyond the 10 stops (or whatever) you predict Canon cameras have because "sensel noise!", come back with a more humble attitude so you can learn.

 

[PureClassA]

So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway.

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :

Hey can I pick your knowledgeable brain on a few astrophotography queries? Have a 6D & 7D. Would love some insight on IR sensor conversion to shoot astro. Been considering getting my 7D modified, but from WHOM?!? Seems like a lot of places do it. I know little of it but I'd much rather get your advice than continuing to endlessly google search. What do you use? after market modifications? filters, etc... ? Feel free to email off the blog. [email protected] Thanks!

 

[TeT]

So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway.

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :

Are you sure it is sunflowers, I thought they were growing other stuff in CO these days

 

[dtaylor]

It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

Every single Canon ILC I have purchased has had better IQ then the camera I purchased before it. The next Canon camera will as well. To say nothing of their lens advancements. As for DR,

Not that I'm hostile to other brands. Canon does not have a FF MILC so I imagine a Sony A7 is in my future.

 

[dtaylor]

The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D

From reviews and comments it simply cannot track like a 70D. What good is 11fps and 179 AF points if the subject doesn't stay in focus as it's moving?

Nice camera no doubt...but mirrorless claims of "world's fastest/best AF" are laughable at this point in time. It never really is that.

 

[jrista]

It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

Every single Canon ILC I have purchased has had better IQ then the camera I purchased before it. The next Canon camera will as well. To say nothing of their lens advancements. As for DR,

Not that I'm hostile to other brands. Canon does not have a FF MILC so I imagine a Sony A7 is in my future.

The sad thing here is, despite my asking you for an objective definition of photographic Dr, not one single thing you have said in this entire thread has been anything but subjective. Do you not see the problem with that? (Honest question.)

 

[jrista]

So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway.

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :

Are you sure it is sunflowers, I thought they were growing other stuff in CO these days

Oh dear god. When will it stop!!

Every time, whether it's "growing" or anything else that can be related to weed, someone makes a joke about it these days. Guess we asked for it.

BTW, never partaken of the stuff myself, and I voted to tax the crap put of it.