Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]

[jrista]

I didn't forget about anything. I remember the image. Let me counter. Sun sitting just below the horizon, I had to focus on a dark bird in dim diffuse light to get this:

Bird in fast flight, hunting post-sunset, flapping it's wings. This is one shot out of a sequence of about 28, which represents a mere 3.5 seconds total time. I had to not only AF, but maintain good AF lock the entire time, while hand holding a lens and panning.

This was taken with a 7D. At the perfect moment. The 6D would have captured 15 frames, rather 28, a difference of 86%! I was able to capture nearly TWICE the number of frames, in bad light with continuous AF tracking...with a lowly 7D.

Sorry, but honestly, I could have nailed that same exact bighorn shot with the 7D. The background would have been slightly noisier...but I have the skill to completely nullify that in post with one of the numerous tools I have at my disposal, or even just a bit of careful layer masking, basic NR and gaussian blurring in photoshop. The sheep themselves would be just as sharp and detailed (if not more detailed), since noise perceptually affects softer OOF areas and flat tones or gradients more than sharp detail.

This isn't about camera capabilities anymore...it's really gotten deep into the realm of personal preference. Honestly, I don't fault you in any way for personally choosing a 6D. If that is your preferred camera and you know how to make it work for you, more power to you! But to claim the 7D couldn't get that shot really only speaks to a lack of skill with it, not a lack of capability of the hardware. The 7D is and has always been an eminently capable camera. It DOES have its one drawback, that jitter between frames that sometimes crops up and costs you some frames...but only if you intend to print them. For web-size images, anything scaled down 2x or more, it's still a no-brainer to capture a consistent 8fps keepers with the 7D, even in lower light.

And thats the 7D! When it comes to the 7D II, no one in their right mind thinks it will have the same problems as the original 7D. Canon started improving the 7D's problems with the first rebel that used the 18mp sensor. By the time they got to the 650D, the 18mp sensor on that actually had solved most of the 7D's problems. Canon won't just drop some crappy sensor into the 7D II. As I said before...too many people have too many high hopes for the 7D II, too many people look to the 7D line to provide them with reach, frame rate, and good AF so they can do their action photography without having to spend untold thousands, for Canon to botch it. Canon CAN'T botch it. Canon MUST do something pretty radical with the 7D II. And it sounds like the chances of the 7D II arriving this year are fairly good, so it isn't like were going to be waiting some untold number of years before we finally see it...that theoretical wish list, or at least parts of it, could come true within months.



If I had to pick a camera today to do wildlife with, my personal choice would be the 5D III. It would really be the 1D X, but there is too much cost involved there for the primary benefit of frame rate, so it's the 5D III. To me, low noise isn't the end all-be all of IQ. IQ is a conflation of multiple factors: Sharpness, detail, subject pose (i.e. getting the right frame out of a sequence), and noise. Sharpness when it comes to fast action requires an excellent AF system. Neither the 6D nor 7D hold a stick to the 5D III when it comes to locking and tracking focus. Detail requires pixel count. If you don't have big long lenses, the cheapest way to put pixels onto subject is with an APS-C sensor. Subject pose...this one relies on two things: AF system and frame rate. Personally, I think an ideal frame rate is between 10-12fps, leaning towards 10fps (balance between the right moment, and not having to deal with too many files). Subject pose relies on the AF system because the more options you have to compose in-frame, while tracking, without having to bother with recomposition, the better. Again, the 6D doesn't hold a stick. The 7D is better...but it still doesn't compare to the 5D III. The 5D III is king here. (I like using off-center points so much I even trained myself to move the AF point WHILE TRACKING BIF...and the off-center points in the 7D work well even after sunset.) Even more important is the number of cross-type points you can use in lower light. The 7D and 6D? One. The 5D III? The full 41, so long as you have an f/4 lens! And you still have 21 high precision cross type points at f/5.6! That's probably the 5D III's single most significant edge as a composition-friendly wildlife body over the 7D and 6D. Noise, no need to explain anything here, except to say background noise is a BREEZE to clean up, and some noise in sharp detail areas isn't a problem to start with.

In all of that above...sensor only really came into play once...noise. But noise is the easiest thing to clean up in post with good tools or a little bit of technique, so it isn't the most important thing. AF system and frame rate come out on top as the most important factors for serious high action photography...bighorn clacking horns, deer in the rut, birds in flight...I'll take AF and frame rate over noise any day. I guess the one thing I'd change with the 7D, besides the AF jitter, is the hazy low pass filter. I don't mind having a strong low pass filter, I prefer it actually for bird photography. But you are right...it does have that somewhat ugly tone to it. I'd certainly trade that if I could. I expect the 7D II to have a slightly weak OLPF given the trend with Canon's other recent APS-C cameras, so I suspect noise with a 7D II will be easier to clean up and more sightly than the 7D.

 

[dolina]

What people care about are read/write speeds. Rare if you ever see anyone talk about block transfers.

Yes but the transfer rate and the throughput rates are different. If we assume that they are using block transfers, the transfer rate is 2GB/sec. That rate remains the same no matter what the read or write speed of the card is....

For example, if the read rate of the card is 200MB/sec, the data is transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec... the line is only active 10 percent of the time. Get a 500MB/sec card and the data is still transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec, but the pulses are more frequent and the line is now active for 25 percent of the time.

 

[NancyP]

I am hoping for a 5D3-like AF system in the 7D2. I am also hoping for a full stop improvement in noise. It doesn't have to be "as good as" the sensor in the 5D3 or 6D. The 7D2 is for focal-length-limited work without having to spend big bucks and hand-hold heavy lenses.

 

[MichaelHodges]

It is possible that when the 7D2 comes out that the noise levels and ISO performance will approach the 5DIII

That's a pipe dream.

And far far more important that sensors, we have AF. As I never tire saying, who cares what the IQ is on a blurry picture?

When shooting wildlife, blur is primarily caused by not being able to stop action. The AF on Canon cameras has been quite good for some time now.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Sorry, but honestly, I could have nailed that same exact bighorn shot with the 7D.

Yes, but that wasn't the point. You claimed the 6D wasn't for wildlife action. It does pretty well...better than my 7D actually in poor light. More keepers throughout the run even with less burst. I attribute this to superior sharpness, dynamic range, and color overall.

This isn't about camera capabilities anymore...it's really gotten deep into the realm of personal preference. Honestly, I don't fault you in any way for personally choosing a 6D. If that is your preferred camera and you know how to make it work for you, more power to you! But to claim the 7D couldn't get that shot really only speaks to a lack of skill with it,

I merely posted the image to prove the 6D can get that shot. However, the 7D did fail many times in light that the 6D did fine in (that image wasn't one of those...the light is good).

not a lack of capability of the hardware. The 7D is and has always been an eminently capable camera. It DOES have its one drawback, that jitter between frames that sometimes crops up and costs you some frames...but only if you intend to print them. For web-size images, anything scaled down 2x or more, it's still a no-brainer to capture a consistent 8fps keepers with the 7D, even in lower light.

Some of what I shoot gets sold at stock sites, so i need to have 100% detail at acceptable levels. but I do apply many images for web-use, so I get your point.

And thats the 7D! When it comes to the 7D II, no one in their right mind thinks it will have the same problems as the original 7D. Canon started improving the 7D's problems with the first rebel that used the 18mp sensor. By the time they got to the 650D, the 18mp sensor on that actually had solved most of the 7D's problems. Canon won't just drop some crappy sensor into the 7D II. As I said before...too many people have too many high hopes for the 7D II, too many people look to the 7D line to provide them with reach, frame rate, and good AF so they can do their action photography without having to spend untold thousands, for Canon to botch it. Canon CAN'T botch it. Canon MUST do something pretty radical with the 7D II. And it sounds like the chances of the 7D II arriving this year are fairly good, so it isn't like were going to be waiting some untold number of years before we finally see it...that theoretical wish list, or at least parts of it, could come true within months.

I wouldn't hold your breath on any groundbreaking sensors or IQ. Just a hunch.

If I had to pick a camera today to do wildlife with, my personal choice would be the 5D III. It would really be the 1D X, but there is too much cost involved there for the primary benefit of frame rate, so it's the 5D III. To me, low noise isn't the end all-be all of IQ. IQ is a conflation of multiple factors: Sharpness, detail, subject pose (i.e. getting the right frame out of a sequence), and noise. Sharpness when it comes to fast action requires an excellent AF system. Neither the 6D nor 7D hold a stick to the 5D III when it comes to locking and tracking focus. Detail requires pixel count. If you don't have big long lenses, the cheapest way to put pixels onto subject is with an APS-C sensor. Subject pose...this one relies on two things: AF system and frame rate. Personally, I think an ideal frame rate is between 10-12fps, leaning towards 10fps (balance between the right moment, and not having to deal with too many files). Subject pose relies on the AF system because the more options you have to compose in-frame, while tracking, without having to bother with recomposition, the better. Again, the 6D doesn't hold a stick. The 7D is better...but it still doesn't compare to the 5D III. The 5D III is king here. (I like using off-center points so much I even trained myself to move the AF point WHILE TRACKING BIF...and the off-center points in the 7D work well even after sunset.) Even more important is the number of cross-type points you can use in lower light. The 7D and 6D? One. The 5D III? The full 41, so long as you have an f/4 lens! And you still have 21 high precision cross type points at f/5.6! That's probably the 5D III's single most significant edge as a composition-friendly wildlife body over the 7D and 6D. Noise, no need to explain anything here, except to say background noise is a BREEZE to clean up, and some noise in sharp detail areas isn't a problem to start with.

One of the reasons I picked the 6D was for its superior long exposure noise over the 5D III, but yeah, the 5DII just has a better focus system, period....except for the 6D's -3 EV center point, which is basically just insane. I've gotten shots with that in complete darkness.

In all of that above...sensor only really came into play once...noise. But noise is the easiest thing to clean up in post with good tools or a little bit of technique, so it isn't the most important thing. AF system and frame rate come out on top as the most important factors for serious high action photography...bighorn clacking horns, deer in the rut, birds in flight...I'll take AF and frame rate over noise any day.

I was there, Jrista, with both cameras, shooting the bighorns as they bashed horns. The 6D was just better in noise, color, sharpness and overall keepers. The 7D had trouble in early morning and evening when the bighorn were most active. It just couldn't lock focus in that light the way the 6D could. Even with less pixels on the rams, they looked better.


Even with the increased FPS and burst, the 7D had too many misses. Even though I used it on and off for days, I will not post the images, even though some contain smashing horns. Just too grainy, with the detail chewed away, and strange colors. But, when the light is right (such as your bird shot) the 7D can perform very well.

I hope that Canon makes the 7D II the way you like it.

 

[Don Haines]

What people care about are read/write speeds. Rare if you ever see anyone talk about block transfers.

Yes but the transfer rate and the throughput rates are different. If we assume that they are using block transfers, the transfer rate is 2GB/sec. That rate remains the same no matter what the read or write speed of the card is....

For example, if the read rate of the card is 200MB/sec, the data is transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec... the line is only active 10 percent of the time. Get a 500MB/sec card and the data is still transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec, but the pulses are more frequent and the line is now active for 25 percent of the time.

agreed.

My point is the transfer rate does not change. It is kind of like ethernet..... packets are sent at the same speed.... it's how many packets per second that gives you the transfer rate. A fast memory card and a slow memory card both transfer data at the same block speed. A faster memory card is ready sooner with the next block and that's what makes it faster.

 

[Don Haines]

When shooting wildlife, blur is primarily caused by not being able to stop action. The AF on Canon cameras has been quite good for some time now.

I have a 60D at home. I have a 7D at work. The 7D beats the c**p out of the 60D's AF system for both moving objects and for stationary objects.

 

[Loswr]

When shooting wildlife, blur is primarily caused by not being able to stop action. The AF on Canon cameras has been quite good for some time now.

Yes, the AF on Canon cameras costing less than $3K has been quite good for some time now, and it's no coincidence that that period began with the release of the 7D. Unfortunately, the 6D's AF is 'gimped' relative to other FF bodies in the lineup, in the same way that Canon has typically used AF performance for product differentiation.

 

[jrista]

Even with the increased FPS and burst, the 7D had too many misses. Even though I used it on and off for days, I will not post the images, even though some contain smashing horns. Just too grainy, with the detail chewed away, and strange colors. But, when the light is right (such as your bird shot) the 7D can perform very well.

Sigh. You don't quite seem to get it. This is the ORIGINAL of my bird shot:

You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light. It's exposed properly, the histogram was about 1/2 way into the right-most histogram bar...but to actually get contrast exactly on the eye, where you want focus to occur, is difficult when the subject matter around the eye is all shadows. I had to process the image to bring up the detail in the bird such as you saw it in the previously posted version.

The only benefit of a scene like this is for tracking, really...the strong contrast between bird and sky makes it easier for any camera to track the subject...it just doesn't do anything to help you lock AF on the part of the subject you want (yet the 7D did quite well in that respect.)

 

[Lee Jay]

I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.

Most wildlife comes out in terrible light, with dark backgrounds (forest, brush, rock etc). The 6D has a far superior center point focus in low light, and it simply takes pictures at dawn and dusk that the 7D cannot.

Fifty extra AF points and nine extra FPS don't matter when you can't freeze a sauntering moose at dusk.

As an owner of both cameras, I often chuckle at the comments that the 7D is a "great wildlife camera in good light". The problem is, the light is crap more often than not. And a cell phone image looks good in perfect light. The true mark of a good camera is what it does when conditions are marginal to sub-marginal.

I shoot a lot of airshows in full sunlight, and I guarantee you the 7D will crush the 6D in these situations.

That's not lowlight wildlife shooting, though, as conveyed in my post.

The 7D does have faster AI-Servo acquisition than the 6D, that's for sure. But this isn't as big of a problem for giant planes that you can predictably track versus ruffed grouse surprising the hell out of you and taking off through rays of sunlight in a dim forest.

I was talking about 150mph+ small R/C airplanes, that can do 15-50g turns.

 

[Don Haines]

I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.

Most wildlife comes out in terrible light, with dark backgrounds (forest, brush, rock etc). The 6D has a far superior center point focus in low light, and it simply takes pictures at dawn and dusk that the 7D cannot.

Fifty extra AF points and nine extra FPS don't matter when you can't freeze a sauntering moose at dusk.

As an owner of both cameras, I often chuckle at the comments that the 7D is a "great wildlife camera in good light". The problem is, the light is crap more often than not. And a cell phone image looks good in perfect light. The true mark of a good camera is what it does when conditions are marginal to sub-marginal.

I shoot a lot of airshows in full sunlight, and I guarantee you the 7D will crush the 6D in these situations.

That's not lowlight wildlife shooting, though, as conveyed in my post.

The 7D does have faster AI-Servo acquisition than the 6D, that's for sure. But this isn't as big of a problem for giant planes that you can predictably track versus ruffed grouse surprising the hell out of you and taking off through rays of sunlight in a dim forest.

I was talking about 150mph+ small R/C airplanes, that can do 15-50g turns.

That's a hard target!

 

[MichaelHodges]

Even with the increased FPS and burst, the 7D had too many misses. Even though I used it on and off for days, I will not post the images, even though some contain smashing horns. Just too grainy, with the detail chewed away, and strange colors. But, when the light is right (such as your bird shot) the 7D can perform very well.

Sigh. You don't quite seem to get it. This is the ORIGINAL of my bird shot

Weird. You're acting as if I was privy to the original image, as if my comments were based on an unprocessed file that I could never possibly see until you posted it.

Let's try to be a bit more intellectually honest if we're going to have a discussion.

You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light.

How could I call a photo I never saw "right light"? You only posted the final image, which I then commented on.

 

[Canon1]

You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light. It's exposed properly, the histogram was about 1/2 way into the right-most histogram bar...but to actually get contrast exactly on the eye, where you want focus to occur, is difficult when the subject matter around the eye is all shadows. I had to process the image to bring up the detail in the bird such as you saw it in the previously posted version.

The only benefit of a scene like this is for tracking, really...the strong contrast between bird and sky makes it easier for any camera to track the subject...it just doesn't do anything to help you lock AF on the part of the subject you want (yet the 7D did quite well in that respect.)

This image is not properly exposed. Your histogram is displaying the exposure of the entire image. The raptor is way under exposed. Your final image would have been much cleaner if you had pushed exposure to the right a couple of stops. But I do agree with your point regarding the 7d as a much better AF performer then the 6d and with the 5diii being king (never owned a 1dx due to the cost).

I personally had a love-hate relationship with my 7d and a love-love relationship with my 5diii.

I'm with you on the 7dii. If it is almost as good as the 5diii at high ISO (with easy to manage luminance noise) and has a new generation AF system with 8-10 fps.... It will be the perfect nature photographer compliment to the 5diii. My hopes are high and I don't think canon will let me down.

 

[jrista]

You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light. It's exposed properly, the histogram was about 1/2 way into the right-most histogram bar...but to actually get contrast exactly on the eye, where you want focus to occur, is difficult when the subject matter around the eye is all shadows. I had to process the image to bring up the detail in the bird such as you saw it in the previously posted version.

The only benefit of a scene like this is for tracking, really...the strong contrast between bird and sky makes it easier for any camera to track the subject...it just doesn't do anything to help you lock AF on the part of the subject you want (yet the 7D did quite well in that respect.)

This image is not properly exposed. Your histogram is displaying the exposure of the entire image. The raptor is way under exposed. Your final image would have been much cleaner if you had pushed exposure to the right a couple of stops. But I do agree with your point regarding the 7d as a much better AF performer then the 6d and with the 5diii being king (never owned a 1dx due to the cost).

I personally had a love-hate relationship with my 7d and a love-love relationship with my 5diii.

If I had pushed exposure to the right "a couple stops", the sky would have been completely blown. Additionally, my shutter speed was already getting rather low...I wanted it low enough to produce blur in the birds wings, but if I let it get any lower, it would have resulted in the entire bird being motion blurred. Personally, I don't really like how bird in flight photos end up looking with a blown sky...and when you process to lift the deeper shadows (which would have still been fairly deep), you end up with a funky noise halo around the subject (not exactly sure why...seems to be a 7D thing...right where the sky meets the bird, that little border of ever so slightly blurred pixels, there is a sudden tonal drop from 255 to 245-250...looks nasty). For the scene, in order to preserve the sky, the exposure was dead on. The histogram was all the way to the right-most bar in the histogram chart. I may have been able to eek out another third stop, however when your primary task is to zero in on and track the bird, you stick with what you originally chose on the exposure.

Also, the post-processed version of the raptor:

Turned out pretty well in the end. Exposure with a digital camera is as much about knowing what you can do in post, as it is knowing how to use the histogram and where your highlight cutoff is. The shot was at ISO 400. At that ISO, you actually have pretty good DR (still around 11 stops), but you don't have nearly as much banding noise. So you can lift the shadows by quite a bit (in this case, I think I lifted them almost two stops). The whole entire exposure was increased (including the sky a little)...there was some slight banding visible originally, but after boosting the exposure the banding in the sky faded. There is still some noise at full size on the raptor's underbelly and in the lower tail...but overall it is pretty clean. I also really like the fact that the sky is still a pale blue, rather than a blown white! But, that is also somewhat personal taste...if you don't care about the sky, you certainly could have exposed more.

(BTW, check out Art Morris' book "The Art of Bird Photography", read the chapter on exposure, and let me know if you think Art would have chosen anything different. ;P)

I'm with you on the 7dii. If it is almost as good as the 5diii at high ISO (with easy to manage luminance noise) and has a new generation AF system with 8-10 fps.... It will be the perfect nature photographer compliment to the 5diii. My hopes are high and I don't think canon will let me down.

I don't know that I said the 7D II would be almost as good as the 5D III. I did say the gap between the 7D and 5D III could be closed with the 7D II. There will still be a gap, but I don't see any reason why it would be as wide as between the 7D and 5D III today. Even if we assume that Canon doubles Q.E. to 80% (unlikely), moves to black silicon (probably also unlikely), that might bring the 7D II's FWC at ISO 100 to ~60,000e-. The 5D III would still be ~68,000e-. The 7D would need even more technology to close the gap any farther than that. Color splitting along with BSI, on top of double the Q.E. and black silicon, might actually put the 7D II over the top with 70ke- or so...but that is honestly a LOT of technology to pack into a new generation APS-C sensor.

I think Canon is an innovative company...but these innovations have already been made, many are patented, and Canon is conservative. I think we'll see a jump in Q.E. to somewhere in the 55% range at best, maybe lightpipes, and a slightly weaker AA filter. I think that will really do wonders for 7D-class IQ...the 7D II will be a lot better than the 7D. It will close the gap in terms of high ISO IQ. But, realistically, the 7D II is probably at most going to have an ISO 100 FWC of around 30,000e- tops unless they reduce pixel count to ~16mp. There would be a very noticeable improvement in 7D II IQ over 7D IQ, and instead of an approximate 2-stop difference in high ISO performance with the 5D III/6D there would only be an approximate 1-stop difference. There won't, however, be any situation where the 7D II high ISO performance is actually "almost as good as" the 5D III or 6D. Nothing can really beat bigger pixels in that sense. Maybe layered photodiodes, but I've only read theoretical papers for non-foveon type layered photodiodes, and I don't even know if it is really a viable option...it's just a theory.

So, you can get your hopes up for increased 7D II IQ relative to the 7D. Just don't get your hopes up for "nearly 5D III level high ISO noise". That is highly unlikely.

 

[Canon1]

Jrista,

Art Morris would not have kept the image you captured. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but nithing came together for you except pose and nailed focus. Really tough lighting. (Helps to illustrate your point with the other poster) Your right on the principal to keep the sky from blowing out, but you were really handed a horrible shooting situation and made the best of it. No camera would have done well in that situation.

Personally I would have preferred a blown sky to get better details on the bird, but neither scenario is a win in this case.

I'm not attacking your image, just discussing the technicals. I hated shooting above ISO 400 with my 7d but I would always opt for higher ISO to attain proper exposure on my subject. Again, you did well and I am impressed that you pulled as much as you did out of that raw file. Also, I find that the histogram lies by about half a stop on blown highlights. The in camera jpeg will show a blown highlight but the raw file retains about half a stop beyond that.

 

[jrista]

Jrista,

Art Morris would not have kept the image you captured.

Oh, that's not true at all! I've been a reader of Morris' blog for a couple years now. There are many occasions when he keep images that aren't ideally exposed, and he'll often put a fair amount of work in post into them in order to preserve as much as he can. Sometimes he'll turn poorly exposed birds like that into silhouettes, other times he'll use the diversity of tools at his disposal, like Nik Software's tools, to do what's necessary to correct exposure.

I think if he had an exposure with a bird as dark as mine, he'd have found a way to make it a silhouette, I chose instead to recover the bird.

Not that there is anything wrong with it, but nithing came together for you except pose and nailed focus. Really tough lighting. (Helps to illustrate your point with the other poster) Your right on the principal to keep the sky from blowing out, but you were really handed a horrible shooting situation and made the best of it. No camera would have done well in that situation.

Personally I would have preferred a blown sky to get better details on the bird, but neither scenario is a win in this case.

I'm not attacking your image, just discussing the technicals. I hated shooting above ISO 400 with my 7d but I would always opt for higher ISO to attain proper exposure on my subject. Again, you did well and I am impressed that you pulled as much as you did out of that raw file. Also, I find that the histogram lies by about half a stop on blown highlights. The in camera jpeg will show a blown highlight but the raw file retains about half a stop beyond that.

Personally, I find the 7D does well up through ISO 1600. It's when I get above that that I really hate it, and it is really tough to find keepers at ISO above 1600. That's where a 5D III really comes in strong...it has almost twice the high ISO capability of a 7D, and it's noise tends to clean up better. If I needed a really excellent low-light performer for wildlife, it would be the 5D III: Excellent high ISO plus awesome AF.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Jrista -

I think you actually did a heck of a job processing that image. Underexposure happens in the field...the animals often decide the light, not you. It's not an airshow where you can predictably track targets. That said, IMHO, it's easier to fix the sky in Lightroom than it is to recover detail from shadows on the 7D, so I try not to underexpose BIF. This is why the dynamic range on the new Sony Sensors would be amazing for wildlife.

That said, there's something about the 7D that I just don't like for birds in flight. I think it might have something to do with that waxy AA filter look. Sometimes, when everything goes right, I'm blown away by the results. But more often than not, things are just slightly "off".

 

[jrista]

Jrista -

I think you actually did a heck of a job processing that image. Underexposure happens in the field...the animals often decide the light, not you. It's not an airshow where you can predictably track targets. That said, IMHO, it's easier to fix the sky in Lightroom than it is to recover detail from shadows on the 7D, so I try not to underexpose BIF. This is why the dynamic range on the new Sony Sensors would be amazing for wildlife.

Well, you can't fix blown. Blown is blown. One of the major drawbacks of digital technology, really.

I guess I might have gained another 1/3-1/2 stop out of the sky, but I don't think there was much left before I ran into the point where it started blocking up in that 250-255 level range (or equivalent 14-bit values). The problem with pushing ETTR too far is that once the first color channel hits 255, the rest block up on that and even if they themselves don't clip, you end up with that flat color, and odd transitions to the 240-250 level range.

And to mess with exposure to maximize ETTR, I'd have had to have taken my attention off the bird, which was already on the move. I usually meter off the sky up 30° above the horizon, push exposure until the histogram is well into the rightmost zone, and go from there. This is one of the reasons I would LOVE for Canon to add a histogram to their Transmissive LCD in the OVF. If I could quickly switch to a histogram display in the VF, I could make the finer adjustments for fixing that kind of thing without having to take my eye off the ball. I could probably even train myself to deal with that kind of thing "procedurally" so I don't even need to really shift my mental focus, and keep it on maintaining ideal tracking. So many things Canon could do with their Transmissive LCD OVF technology...

That said, there's something about the 7D that I just don't like for birds in flight. I think it might have something to do with that waxy AA filter look. Sometimes, when everything goes right, I'm blown away by the results. But more often than not, things are just slightly "off".

That is one thing I do indeed agree with you about. The 7D does have a faint "waxy" look to it, particularly at higher ISOs. I think that is actually more due to the low max saturation levels than to the AA filter, or perhaps the two working in concert. The 7D only has ~20,000e- at ISO 100 FWC. That is really low. When you get into higher ISOs, that really hurts color fidelity, which I think is part of that "waxy" look. The AA filter is certainly strong, but that is easy to combat with some unsharp masking...but the color fidelity...that's pretty tough to do anything about. In contrast, the SoNikon 24mp sensors have ~27,000e- FWC, which preserves more color fidelity at higher ISO settings, but FF sensors really can't be beat for higher ISO color fidelity...their SNR's are double or more what you get even from the better APS-C sensors. I think this is one of the things that makes the 1D X so exceptional at high ISO...it's monster pixels support a very high SNR and richer color fidelity.

 

[dolina]

It appears that I may be in error. By using PCIe 3.0 overhead is largely reduced or even eliminated to allow for ~2GB/s.

But then again we are talking about a spec rather than practical application.

I just installed a 240GB Crucial M500 SSD onto a 2010 Macbook Pro with a SATA 3Gb/s interface. Feels like having a new computer all over again!

I could imagine how it'll be like with 10x or so faster data transfers. ^_^

agreed.

My point is the transfer rate does not change. It is kind of like ethernet..... packets are sent at the same speed.... it's how many packets per second that gives you the transfer rate. A fast memory card and a slow memory card both transfer data at the same block speed. A faster memory card is ready sooner with the next block and that's what makes it faster.

 

[IslanderMV]

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15703\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15703\">Tweet</a></div>
<p>More talk that prototype versions of the EOS 7D replacement will be sent to the Olympic games in Sochi this month. For the moment, a lot of the functionality and features are still “up for grabs” on the new model. The current timeline for the camera is an announcement in Q2 of this year with a release in Q3. Perhaps the camera will be tested further in Brazil for the World Cup?</p>
<p>We expect to hear more during the Olympics, though any specs mentioned may still be omitted from the final consumer product.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href=\"http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_7dmk2.html\" target=\"_blank\">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

Has anything new been seen at the Olympics yet ??