Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[Sporgon]

Most of my pictures are B&B, but the attached picture demonstrates about the limit that I can go to with the 5DII in one exposure. ( Haven't got the 6D at the moment but it is better).

This shot is into the sun about one and a half hours before sunset, so the sun is still very intense. The sun is in the frame.
The first picture is the ooc jpeg with the exposure balanced to maximise highlights - but I'm going to lose the sun disc anyway, as I would with a D800.

The second picture is, IMO too flat, but is how people who talk of 'blocked shadows' seem to want theirs.
The third is as about the contrast I would normally go for with a little punch.
The fourth is a 200% crop of the wall in shadow.

When I can shoot straight into the sun with last generation tech I am basically quite happy, but normally I would bracket and blend like the samples you have shown.

Despite being APS I would expect the up coming 7DII to be able to do better than this, so that is going to keep 99.9% of users happy.

 

[Lee Jay]

Just noticed some things (this is about high ISO):

70D is about 1/6th of a stop better than the 7D.
6D is about 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area.
(separately), the 6D is about 2/3 of a stop better than the 7D per unit of sensor area (consistent).

are you sure? 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area?? i though it was more like 1/8th?

Every visual and quantitative test I can find shows that the 6D is right at two stops better than the 70D at high ISO.. Since its size accounts for 1 1/3 stops, yes, I think that it's 2/3 of a stop better per unit of area.

 

[Lee Jay]

i'm pretty confident the 7D successor will deliver in AF and sport department, i just really hope it will also deliver some improvements in ISO department. Digic6 should bring something to the table, hoping for 2/3 - 1 stop ISO improvement over 70D.

Digic can't improve high ISO (unless you mean in cam jpgs and the NR algorithm)

I think the DIGIC chips do the A to D conversion. If so, a better, lower noise conversion could help with high ISO performance.

 

[Don Haines]

Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)

I see nothing wrong with jrista complaining about "Canon's crappy low ISO noise". It does not make him more or less of a fanboy, it just means that he isn't blind.

 

[Don Haines]

i'm pretty confident the 7D successor will deliver in AF and sport department, i just really hope it will also deliver some improvements in ISO department. Digic6 should bring something to the table, hoping for 2/3 - 1 stop ISO improvement over 70D.

Digic can't improve high ISO (unless you mean in cam jpgs and the NR algorithm)

I think the DIGIC chips do the A to D conversion. If so, a better, lower noise conversion could help with high ISO performance.

You are correct.

A/D is done on the Digic chips and that is the reason for Canon's noise problems.

Much of the competition does the A/D on the sensor. It is better because:
On sensor A/D means no analog lines across the circuit board to pick up noise.....
On Sensor A/D can be done for an entire row or column at a time, and that means a thousand (or more) times the time to do it in, which leads to greater accuracy and less noise...

 

[jrista]

Most of my pictures are B&B, but the attached picture demonstrates about the limit that I can go to with the 5DII in one exposure. ( Haven't got the 6D at the moment but it is better).

This shot is into the sun about one and a half hours before sunset, so the sun is still very intense. The sun is in the frame.
The first picture is the ooc jpeg with the exposure balanced to maximise highlights - but I'm going to lose the sun disc anyway, as I would with a D800.

The second picture is, IMO too flat, but is how people who talk of 'blocked shadows' seem to want theirs.
The third is as about the contrast I would normally go for with a little punch.
The fourth is a 200% crop of the wall in shadow.

When I can shoot straight into the sun with last generation tech I am basically quite happy, but normally I would bracket and blend like the samples you have shown.

Despite being APS I would expect the up coming 7DII to be able to do better than this, so that is going to keep 99.9% of users happy.

Just to point out...none of those photos are even remotely DR limited. Point your camera directly into the sun, underexpose by four to five stops (so you can recover the sun, as in the D800 samples I linked), THEN see how things perform.

 

[NancyP]

So what are the engineering considerations involved in on-sensor ADC?

 

[Loswr]

If you exclude the "OMG, 1080p in the 5DII" and look at the very slow evolution of Canon's DSLRs then it is pretty easy to accurately guess where Canon will go next...

i.e. not very far.

Not far? 65 cross-type AF points, covering most of the horizontal dimension of the frame, on a dedicated PDAF sensor coupled with good Servo algorithms for excellent tracking of moving subjects). That's triple the number of cross-type points of any other crop camera, and 50% more of them than the top FF bodies.

Sad that your myopic tunnel vision leads means you can't see anything but the sensor.

 

[Don Haines]

So what are the engineering considerations involved in on-sensor ADC?

The big one is making the transistors small enough so that everything will fit.
The next big one is dealing with heat.... more heat gives you more noise....

Both considerations demand that Canon switches to a finer lithography..

 

[unfocused]

Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)

I see nothing wrong with jrista complaining about "Canon's crappy low ISO noise."

Anyone is welcome to complain about anything they want. But...

...doing it over and over and over and over again to the same audience becomes tedious.

...attempting to "prove" your point again and again to those who happen to disagree with your opinion becomes annoying.

...insisting that you are right and then attacking anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is obnoxious.

...failing to recognize that what you perceive to be a major concern isn't necessarily even a minor concern of others is rude.

...hijacking every discussion to push your agenda with long diatribes that repeat the same basic points time after time is obsessive.

...demeaning others when they raise concerns about features that you don't happen to care about (as in touch screens) is narrow minded.

...making wild claims that unless your particular obsession is addressed by a major multi-national corporation they will be doomed is delusional.

And, most important of all...thinking that these discussions on an internet forum are anything more than trivial ineffective entertainment is just silliness.

 

[ajperk]

And the way you mock and sometimes knowingly obfuscate, I mean why? To what good end for anyone?

This is the thing right here. After the ZigZagZoe episode, I started seeing this fundamentally mocking behavior. Now I'm getting it in boatloads from Sporgon. THAT is what I don't get. I've bickered about technical details all the time, but I don't think I ever got to MOCKING people. I've argued from the other side of the fence before as well, I've defended the position of D800 advocates in the past on several occasions, however most of those also involved DXO, and I walked the line between defending the D800's DR advantage, and attacking DXO's bad science.

Seeing the mockery is part of why I'm changing my stance. We all know the benefits that technology like that in Exmor can offer. And yet, when I ask...would anyone here stand up and start vocally demanding fundamentally better sensor technology from Canon in the next DSLR...I get mocked? I honestly, truly, don't understand that. DXO isn't a factor in this discussion...it's just purely about the real-world differences in editing latitude between Canon sensors and Exmor. That's all it took, to go from a guy people seemed to generally respect, to a laughing stock?

Personally, what I don't understand is why so many people spend so much time worrying that there might be someone else on this forum that doesn't agree completely with their gear choices or the rationale for those choices.

It's not that someone else doesn't agree. It's the unmitigated mocking fanboyism that REFUSES to acknowledge an alternative stance on the subject, and not only that, is apparently more than happy to KEEP THEMSELVES STUCK in the dark ages. Despicably even, some apparently don't want technology to improve so those they consider non-photographers CAN'T CREATE BETTER PHOTOS!! I'm sorry, but that disgusts me. It's a useless reason, born purely out of egotistical selfishness.

I've spouted theory and simple math for years on these forums. In most respects, the theories were correct...but I am honestly down right surprised at how poorly the 5D III, a camera of the same generation as the D800, performs at ISO 100 in the shadows. I remember the IQ from the 5D II...it was marginally worse...but generally, the same darn thing! I expected more...and I am happy to admit I was SORELY wrong about the 5D III's capabilities at low ISO. It more than lives up to my expectations at high ISO, and at any ISO where shadow lifting is not necessary, it's fine. But it doesn't do what I had hoped it would do for landscapes. So I've changed my stance. I have to look at the facts and accept I was wrong about something. So I DID!

And...I get mocked for it. That is the problem, ajperk. I could care less if someone agrees with me, really. I could really care less about being mocked...I don't care. But to see a whole community of people with their heads in the sand...and happy about it? So happy about it, in fact, that they will defend Canon to the last, to the end, regardless of whether that means they are stuck with increasingly inferior equipment as the years roll on?

Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)

I suppose we could go back and forth forever, but you seem to corroborate what I suggested: at several points in your post you essentially state that it bothers you that others don't feel the same as you do. You did elaborate as to why: e.g. you've shown time and again via examples the difference in sensor capabilities, you seem to think that their differing stance is holding back progress, and an admittedly curious theory about a desire to keep others from taking good pictures. But it still essentially seems to come down to this: you're bothered that others aren't as bothered as you are. I think you may be mistaking indifference for malice.

While the mockery is childish, I think what it comes down to is people can only figure out so many ways to say "Yep, I guess you're right about it, but it really doesn't matter that much to me Can we talk about something else?" After a while, they feel badgered (as they are often interested in topics beyond Exmor sensors and DR) and give in to impish temptations.

I'm sorry you feel stuck somewhere between Nikon's offerings and Canon's. I hope this is eventually remedied for you. In the mean time, many of the rest of us are happy, not because we are all some sect of photographic Luddites, but because we honestly have different concerns and interests when it comes to photography. And, truth be told, a few of us are pretty much happy with what we've got right now, and will see what new stuff comes out when that new stuff comes out.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word if you'd like. You take nice pictures and I bet you'll continue to with Canon, Nikon, or whatever you choose. Happy shooting!

 

[jrista]

So what are the engineering considerations involved in on-sensor ADC?

As Don stated, you need space on the sensor die. With 500nm transistors, on-die ADC will take up a lot of space. That reduces the yield from each wafer. Larger transistors, operating at a given speed, generate more heat, and heat results in increased noise from dark current.

Moving to a smaller transistor size, such as 180nm or 90nm, means you can pack a whole lot more transistors in a lot less space. Those transistors, being smaller, require lower voltage and current, therefor they don't produce as much heat.

The actual design of the on-sensor ADC matters as well. Who knows what's best there, companies would have to research that. Sony Exmor uses a column-parallel ADC with digital CDS, and a remotely located clock. This means there is one ADC unit per pixel column, the CDS (correlated double sampling) is performed AFTER ADC, so it operates on ADU's (digital numbers, rather than analog charge). Exmor also employs per-column ADC/CDS tuning, which effectively eliminates vertical banding. The ADC units, only having to process one column of pixels each rather than dozens of columns (and potentially hundreds of thousands of pixels each) can operate at a lower frequency, so you don't pick up noise from high frequency oscillations. The high frequency clock itself, which is usually a source of noise, is also remotely located on the Exmor sensor die, so the ADC units don't pick up any issues with noise from being close to the clock itself.

There are probably other ways of minimizing noise once you have die space to put a lot more transistors on the sensor die. Canon has patents for dual-scale ADC, which switches to a slower readout rate when possible, allowing even lower frequencies to be used during readout (the lower the frequency, the lower the read noise....this technique is frequently employed in astro CCD cameras...readout rates are often extremely low, requiring as much as 10 seconds to read out a single frame.) There are other patents out there that describe a variety of means for reducing noise, reducing dark current, etc.

 

[jrista]

Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)

I see nothing wrong with jrista complaining about "Canon's crappy low ISO noise."

Anyone is welcome to complain about anything they want. But...

...doing it over and over and over and over again to the same audience becomes tedious.

...attempting to "prove" your point again and again to those who happen to disagree with your opinion becomes annoying.

...insisting that you are right and then attacking anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is obnoxious.

...failing to recognize that what you perceive to be a major concern isn't necessarily even a minor concern of others is rude.

...hijacking every discussion to push your agenda with long diatribes that repeat the same basic points time after time is obsessive.

...demeaning others when they raise concerns about features that you don't happen to care about (as in touch screens) is narrow minded.

...making wild claims that unless your particular obsession is addressed by a major multi-national corporation they will be doomed is delusional.

And, most important of all...thinking that these discussions on an internet forum are anything more than trivial ineffective entertainment is just silliness.

It's far from hijacking every discussion. I've hijacked a couple. I also know I'm not alone in my desire for more DR from a Canon camera specifically. I think there are a lot of us. I'm also sure I'm not alone in getting tired of waiting for Canon to address the issue. I also think most who want more low ISO DR have given up on Canon and just added other brands to their kit, which I'll end up doing here myself. I think that's a bummer...people should figure out a way to get Canon to listen and respond, as in every other respect they have a better system. Guess landscape photographers and others who could really use more low ISO DR really are a small niche...

On the flip side, it's just as "annoying" to have people constantly say that Canon has no issues that need to be corrected again and again, or that there is no difference at all between Canon sensors and the competition (something some people here DO seem to do every time these debates start), especially now that I've noticed the highly mocking nature it's done in. There IS a difference...whether it matters to each individual or not is one thing, but to patently deny it exists at all is another. (I used to just pop into a thread, drop a few posts about technology or some such, then leave...I usually ignored all the other discussions that went on....I'm reading more posts now, and I'm getting a whole lot of flak myself....and now I notice the underlying attitude here. If ANYTHING is annoying...it's the mocking, often childish tones that everyone here takes when anyone has anything negative to say about Canon. Canon has their issues...IMO, better to acknowledge that, and see if you can do something to get them to recognize and resolve their issues if you, and any like minded individuals, can build up a strong enough voice to actually be heard. Seems clear such a voice won't be built here on CR.)

 

[JohnUSA]

Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset:...

Just wanted to thank jrista for taking the time to explain and demonstrate his concepts in an intelligent and gentlemanly way. I totally understand where jrista is coming from. For me it's super interesting stuff and at times I wish my 5D3 would have an extra stop or two of Dynamic Range.

 

[wickidwombat]

Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)

I see nothing wrong with jrista complaining about "Canon's crappy low ISO noise."

Anyone is welcome to complain about anything they want. But...

...doing it over and over and over and over again to the same audience becomes tedious.

...attempting to "prove" your point again and again to those who happen to disagree with your opinion becomes annoying.

...insisting that you are right and then attacking anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is obnoxious.

...failing to recognize that what you perceive to be a major concern isn't necessarily even a minor concern of others is rude.

...hijacking every discussion to push your agenda with long diatribes that repeat the same basic points time after time is obsessive.

...demeaning others when they raise concerns about features that you don't happen to care about (as in touch screens) is narrow minded.

...making wild claims that unless your particular obsession is addressed by a major multi-national corporation they will be doomed is delusional.

And, most important of all...thinking that these discussions on an internet forum are anything more than trivial ineffective entertainment is just silliness.

well said mr unfocused

 

[RLPhoto]

My original Guess for the 7D2 almost a year ago.

-24mp
-61 Point AF
-10 FPS

Rumored New Specs

-20mp
-65 Point AF
-10 FPS

Close Enough. 8) 8) 8)

 

[jrista]

Alright. Since it's clear you guys are fed up with the DR stuff, I'll leave the DR stuff out of this thread for now on. Here's to hoping the 7D II actually hit's the streets with something much better than rumored. We only have a couple weeks to wait before we know for sure. I am impressed with the AF and metering system rumors, and the frame rate. Hope it lands with all of those traits being true.

 

[Don Haines]

So what are the engineering considerations involved in on-sensor ADC?

This is VERY! simplified, but here goes....

When you look at a 500 nanometer process and pixels that are 4000 nanometers square, your lithography is only capable of 64 (8x8) blocks to draw circuitry inside that pixel.... and don't forget that when you draw a line you need space on each side of it! If you consider that the pixel has a border, then that means that there are only 36 (6x6) blocks left... that means that you are starting your sensor design with only 36/64 or 56 percent of your surface area usable.

And this is almost certainly the reason why Canon currently has the A/D circuitry on the external DIGIC chips.... there is not room on the sensor to do anything else.....

If you improved your lithography to 125 nanometers, then your pixel is made up of 1024 blocks (32x32) and after the border, you are left with 900 (30x30) blocks left to create your pixel. This means you are now starting your pixel design with 900/1024 or 88 percent of your surface area usable and it allows you to create far more complex circuitry.

Now go to 60 nanometers, then your pixel is made up of 4096 blocks (64x64) and after the border, you are left with 3844 (62x62) blocks left to create your pixel. This means you are now starting your pixel design with 3844/4096 or 94 percent of your surface area usable and it allows you to create even more complex circuitry.

We do not yet know the technology used on the 70D, but when you consider that if the 500 nanometer process was used, each half of the pixel would be 32 (4x8) blocks and after the border 12 (2X6) blocks, or 38 percent of the surface area usable.... and you would still have to find space to put in the more advanced electronics to handle DPAF.... that it is a certainty that the 500 nanometer process is not used here....

What this tells us is that Canon is in the process of moving to finer lithography... we just don't know how far they are going to go and what will be moved over from the Digic chips and what timeframe.... but it is happening!

 

[garyknrd]

I have always said if the 7D had good AF and frame rate it would be a killer combo... Since i have the Mark IV I will have to wait until the camera comes out and is rated, and compared to the Mark IV.
Reading this thread it sounds like the sensor is going to be extremely poor compared to Sony sensors. If the 7D II sensor can match the EXCELLENT Sony 24mp crop sensor? It will be in my bag as soon as it comes out. That will be the camera I have been dreaming about for years...

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
www.birdsthatfart.com

 

[Stu_bert]

Hi all
I m mainly wildlife photographer.
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

I have one different opinion about sport crop sensor cameras.
It is indeed very strange a sports FF camera to have 16 and 18 mp but crop sensors to have 20/24mp.
Sounds quite misunderstanding...

For most wildlife and sport users shooting sport and widlife with 20/24mp sensor crop camera means simply a lot of post processing. Nothing more...yeah it is great for landscapes and so one. But for natural light sport fast moving or wildlife needs this is totally no sense. We all need not more than 16mp here with bigger buffer and better ISO/DR performance. Cause when we shoot at 1600-3200 iso it is huge post to get good 10-12 final image. But this is impossible nowadays.

So... most important is frame rate and AF. So 7d2 will give us both. Bigger buffer ! I`m sure with dial 6 processors it will be done! Better body than 70d and similar to 5d3 done! So there is one thing missing. The sensor. Nobody wants to create a brand new sensor for specific users base on crop sensor camera. They have to be cheap after all... So current 20mp in 70d witch i have now (My 7d dead and i buy 70d) is enough. May be better 1600-3200 iso is required! Because with 5.6 lens like mine 400 5.6 it is very hard to make good IQ image winter time. We shoot constantly at 800-1600 iso at the edge of the shutter speeds required. So it make sense to say...ok if you want more go for 5d3 and 500/4IS ))

So sensor is the main market level separation here. Sony sensors is not better buy much after 800-1600 iso. They are better at 100-800 iso in DR case. After 800-1600 is equal to the canon 20mp sensor. So our market do not offer better sensors for high iso shooting with crop sensors. Just we may want at least little better performance at 1600-3200 range. May be usable 3200 shots and good 1600 iso. I have a lot of great images at 1600 and 2000 iso with my 7d and my 70d. When the image is right and post is good 1600 iso is not big problem. 3200 iso depends from the scene and light source.

So think twice before you want something... ))

Sorry for the bad english !

Nice photos, and welcome to the forum. Can I ask where you shoot your nature?