Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

*UPDATE 2*
The battery does help a camera body autofocus an EF lens faster.
From Chuck Westfall… “In addition, the EOS-1D X achieves a higher lens motor drive speed with select L-series USM telephoto lenses than the 5D Mark III because of the 1D X’s more powerful battery pack.”

Exactly, power, i.e. V x A = W.

1 x LP-E4N is 11.1 V x 2450 mAh = 27.195 W
2 x LP-E6 is 7.2 V x 1600 mAh x 2 = 23.040 W

27 W vs. 23 W, not much of a difference, but it's there.

You missed the point, battery capacity has little effect, its the current driving the lens motor, and that is based on the voltage and resistance using ohm's law E=IR.

Given the same internal resistance of the lens motor, the current would be about 11.1/7.2 times larger or 1.52 times as much current going thru the motor. Presumably the internal resistance of the bigger battery is lower, so it would have little effect.

That will drive the motor much faster.

You are confusing power and energy.

How am I confusing it??

We are talking about autofocus speed of a lens, and the fact that a higher voltage drives the motor faster. The higher voltage generates more current in the motor which generates more torque and rotates or moves it faster.

Battery capacity does not move a motor faster.

 

[lastcoyote]

not read everybody's replies but personally I would be very surprised if the 7D MK II will have a built in battery grip à la 1DX. just can't see that happening really. i much more see it as the crop equivalent of the 5D line. the only way it differs and is more like the 1DX in terms of intended use is the high fps. of course i may have to eat my words but still, it would surprise me.

 

[pj1974]

Nikon would Just love the 7D mk 2 to be 3k, would make the d400 pretty easy to sell ;D (and yes I am a Canon user, but also a realist!!!!!!!)

Canon knows which side of their bread is buttered... for reasons I discussed few posts earlier, it is likely 7D2 will come in under 3K...well under probably.

If Canon priced their cameras based on clueless fanboys drooling over gear while living in their parents' basement playing dungeons and dragons and wondering about Taylor Swift's bra size... we would be living in an alternate universe with Minolta as king of the market

^THIS is gold!! ;D LOL.

And I agree, the 7DmkII will most likely come out quite well under $3,000 US (and hopefully in some they can be purchased at lower prices).

I bought the 7D very soon after it came out, so I paid a bit of a premium for that, but I wanted the camera then - and I haven't looked back. It's a great all round performing DLSR.

At this stage I don't necessarily need a replacement / upgrade to my 7D, but if the 7DmkII has features and image quality that really impress me, then I will consider buying it soon.

Paul

 

[Sabaki]

When you guys say $3500, it equates to R40 000 (South African rands). Can you guys imagine paying $40k for a camera?

Makes no sense. It's not $40K, it's R40K. How about paying 192K for a camera? That's how many rupees equate to $3500. How about 34 million rupiah for a camera, if you were paying in Indonesia? It's all relative.

exactly (that said, the effective pain of the price probably is less in the US than in RSA but it is certainly not an order of magnitude)

You guys are missing the point. But hey, if you need to be that way then cool.

The real point is that each country has different laws regarding the import, taxation, and regulation of products like cameras and the components they are made up of. There is a real-world actual cost to make these things, and an essential profit margin the company has to make in order to stay in business and remain competitive, while also needing to make sure the product conforms to regulatory concerns in MULTIPLE target locales...which can have a significant impact on cost, inflating the price in all countries (such as whether or not they need to conform to, say, regulations regarding batteries...it wouldn't matter if the US did not require more stringent battery regulations...the fact that Japan does forces an increase in design costs that is ultimately levied on consumers from all countries.)

In Japan, that minimum required price might be 280,000 yen, which translates into $3000 USD. The cost in another currency, however, would be that core cost plus whatever additional import taxes and costs related to regulation exist in the target country. It's for this reason that many electronics devices like phones and tablets cost several times as much in a country like Australia as they do in the US. The increase in cost is not always just due to the exchange rate, there are often significant and burdensome taxes and regulatory limitations/costs that factor into higher prices in other countries.

LOL!!! I do apologise for my 3rd world intellect!

I'm no expert but I've done a fair deal of importing in my day. Game consoles, controllers, music etc. I've bought everywhere from the US to the UK, Hong Kong, Australia, Japan and a few other places. So I have a slight idea how markets work.

Imagine...imagine is what I said.

 

[RS2021]

It is amazing how continued feeding and responding to aspects of a thread that have gone off on a tangent only results in comebacks that never end. Just saying...

 

[RS2021]

At this stage I don't necessarily need a replacement / upgrade to my 7D....

Paul

That's what they all say at first... keeps the wife from poisoning them till it is too late ;D ;D

 

[Loswr]

If the lens motor was receiving the same power from a 1D X and a 7D, then the AF speed for the lens would be the same with both bodies. But it's not, it's faster with the 1D X.

Could it be firmware trickery on the part of Canon, the 7D delivers the same power as the 1D X, but the 7D just tells the lens to AF slower? Possible, I suppose...but that seems a little too cynical, even for me.

This is something that has puzzled me about saying the lens is doing the AF. The lens does not have the AF points and it does not see the image, so how can "the lens" be doing AF.
As far as I can understand this, the camera is doing the AF and is telling the lens motor to rotate the lens to bring the image into focus. If I am wrong, please point me at something that explains it. I have read the generic description of the AF process, just nothing that would correspond to the notion that the lens is doing the AF.

Focus is achieved by the movement of element group(s) within the lens. Canon EF lenses have a motor within the lens that moves the focusing group. The 1-series bodies are able to drive that motor faster. The camera tells the motor in the lens how far and which direction to move.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If the lens motor was receiving the same power from a 1D X and a 7D, then the AF speed for the lens would be the same with both bodies. But it's not, it's faster with the 1D X.

Could it be firmware trickery on the part of Canon, the 7D delivers the same power as the 1D X, but the 7D just tells the lens to AF slower? Possible, I suppose...but that seems a little too cynical, even for me.

This is something that has puzzled me about saying the lens is doing the AF. The lens does not have the AF points and it does not see the image, so how can "the lens" be doing AF.
As far as I can understand this, the camera is doing the AF and is telling the lens motor to rotate the lens to bring the image into focus. If I am wrong, please point me at something that explains it. I have read the generic description of the AF process, just nothing that would correspond to the notion that the lens is doing the AF.

You are correct in part, there is a additional factor.
The camera body uses battery voltage to power the lens motor. If the voltage applied to the lens motor is higher, it moves the lens to its calculated focus point faster. This results in overall faster autofocus. The time for the lens to move into focus is part of the overall focus timing.

The dedicated AF processor in the camera body that tells the lens where to move also is a even more critical part in AF timing. Given the same internal processor in two bodies (5D MK II and 1D X, the motor voltage (current) determines which camera will focus faster.

The 5D MK II focuses faster than previous bodies because of the internal processor speed. It even beats the 1D MK IV (which has higher battery voltage) due to the much better AF processer in the body.

 

[dadgummit]

I think Canon will put forward an affordable camera in 7D2...~$2500 at introduction perhaps even a tad lower...a price that tracks down with time to ~$2000 or even ~1900 (gasp! WHAT!? NO?....yes!)

This is based on the assumption we are talking about 7D2 and its intended mass market and not the 4D or 3D etc.

Given that the original 7D cycle has stretched a few years now, and the pent up interest to buy is there for original users, I think they have the potential to sell a lot of units...*IF* it is priced right.

IF they miss the price mark...and offer some super-duper camera which is out of reach of many current 7D users, they have a problem... accolades and admiration by few who buy and can afford it and envy and apathy by many who can't... never paid no bills at Canon

In such a case they will have to make embarrassing "Adorama ebay sale" kind of backdoor price reduction (5D3 anyone?) moves to bring the price in line with market forces to move enough units. Bring it down a bit, and they sell more units to easily off-set even the price reduction.

One should expect the 7D "preorder" price to be high (duh! It is targeted toward a certain kind of sap...er...I meant user). Look at the price trajectory of 6D in just the past few months... and it has not settled into its "real" target price yet...give it few more months.

So the intended target price for 7D may well end up being $2000 just few months after release in which case they cannot really pack it with high-end 1DX features in earnest.

Again, we are talking about 7D successor here, not a would-be 4D candidate. Canon is a conservative company. No risky market experimentation or bold moves usually...

So 7D2 will be a sensible camera at a sensible price.

It is sounding to me that the 70D is moving up to become the 7D replacement. The 7D2 is then free to become a replacement for the 1D bodied APSH cameras for sports shooters.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Nikon would Just love the 7D mk 2 to be 3k, would make the d400 pretty easy to sell ;D (and yes I am a Canon user, but also a realist!!!!!!!)

There is no D400, and if it is announced, we do not know if they will price it higher than the $2K that the D300 went for. And, if you had to pay more to add a grip... The 7D was lower priced and stole the D300 market at $1800. However, don't worry, they will not be far apart in price, I'd expect within $100 of each other. They likely know what each other is planning by now.

Lenses are the thing that a camera buyer should be concerned with more than a body that will be obsolete in 1-3 years. Good lenses cost a lot more, and last a lot longer. Nikon is way overpriced on lenses, their repair service is painfully slow. Thats part of the overall system and not just a body.

Take the Nikon 24-120mm f/4. At $1300, it does not touch the Canon 24-105mmL that typically sells for $879, and even less as part of a kit. Nikon has finally announced a new 80-400mm zoom that appears to be a tad better than the very old Canon 100-400mmL, but it goes for a huge price, $1300 more. Canon has a huge advantage in lenses due to the big inventory of used quality lenses available. Top used Nikon lenses are difficult to find used for reasonable prices.

And, a Canon body includes some very good software which is extra cost from Nikon. Add it up, and the price heavily favors Canon, and the majority of buyers do go for price.

 

[pj1974]

At this stage I don't necessarily need a replacement / upgrade to my 7D....

Paul

That's what they all say at first... keeps the wife from poisoning them till it is too late ;D ;D

Phew... that sounds scary! Yes... well in my case I am not married - I'm divorced (but I don't believe photography had anything to do with that). Therefore at this stage I have no reason for poisoning fears when I am considering photography equipment...

Having written that, I have a secure and decent paying job, and I don't spend a fortune on photography equipment... I prefer to use more of my money for more important things: eg projects to benefit people, etc.

Maybe if I do remarry one day... I'll take more things into consideration... however I'll tackle that when I come to it - and with a degree and background in accounting, I generally don't have troubles with sensible budgetting. 8)

Come-on new technology... it's always a good thing!

Paul

 

[Lee Jay]

We’re told at least one variation of the camera being developed has an integrated grip, really making it a “Baby EOS-1D X”.

That would instantly make it a non-starter for me, as the integrated grip is the main reason the 1-series is so entirely uninteresting to me. I rarely need it, I have little hands, and it has to fit in my current bag or I won't buy it no matter what its specifications or performance.

 

[jarrieta]

There is no D400, and if it is announced, we do not know if they will price it higher than the $2K that the D300 went for. And, if you had to pay more to add a grip... The 7D was lower priced and stole the D300 market at $1800. However, don't worry, they will not be far apart in price, I'd expect within $100 of each other. They likely know what each other is planning by now.

Lenses are the thing that a camera buyer should be concerned with more than a body that will be obsolete in 1-3 years. Good lenses cost a lot more, and last a lot longer. Nikon is way overpriced on lenses, their repair service is painfully slow. Thats part of the overall system and not just a body.

Take the Nikon 24-120mm f/4. At $1300, it does not touch the Canon 24-105mmL that typically sells for $879, and even less as part of a kit. Nikon has finally announced a new 80-400mm zoom that appears to be a tad better than the very old Canon 100-400mmL, but it goes for a huge price, $1300 more. Canon has a huge advantage in lenses due to the big inventory of used quality lenses available. Top used Nikon lenses are difficult to find used for reasonable prices.

And, a Canon body includes some very good software which is extra cost from Nikon. Add it up, and the price heavily favors Canon, and the majority of buyers do go for price.

Excellent point. As a newbie these factors came into play when I was deciding which "system" to go with. Eagerly waiting what Canon comes up with next. I am not buying a new body soon (still learning everything I can with a Rebel) the 70d, 6d or 7d2 will probably be within my price point after the holidays.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

The assumption that the 7D will have an integrated grip based on this tidbit of information is hilarious. Could it be that they're just hinting on a newer, smaller, battery with a slightly higher voltage? Come on, the LP-E6 is a good battery but it's also been out for quite awhile now =P

 

[Maui5150]

The assumption that the 7D will have an integrated grip based on this tidbit of information is hilarious. Could it be that they're just hinting on a newer, smaller, battery with a slightly higher voltage? Come on, the LP-E6 is a good battery but it's also been out for quite awhile now =P

You have the support and detail backwards...

Reading what was posted.... the variation in the wild has an integrated grip... and the info about the battery is support, perhaps causation, and most likely conjecture.

It is not "Hey, it will use larger batteries... Wonder if they will need more room, i.e. integrated grip"

 

[Don Haines]

The assumption that the 7D will have an integrated grip based on this tidbit of information is hilarious. Could it be that they're just hinting on a newer, smaller, battery with a slightly higher voltage? Come on, the LP-E6 is a good battery but it's also been out for quite awhile now =P

You have the support and detail backwards...

Reading what was posted.... the variation in the wild has an integrated grip... and the info about the battery is support, perhaps causation, and most likely conjecture.

It is not "Hey, it will use larger batteries... Wonder if they will need more room, i.e. integrated grip"

It is normal that prototypes of electronics take more space than the finished project. It is very possible that a prototype 7D2 would be given an integrated grip yet the production model will not. That a protype with a larger case exists means nothing for what the final version will have.

 

[pierlux]

I don't think I'm missing the point, the point is the lens motor is powered neither at 11.1 V nor at 7.2 V. It is powered at a voltage which I don't know, but which is undoubtedly the same whichever body you are using whith whatever battery voltage/number of batteries you are using. The lens is NOT powered directly from the battery, but from a circuit which delivers constant voltage whichever body/battery combo you are using.

If the lens motor was receiving the same power from a 1D X and a 7D, then the AF speed for the lens would be the same with both bodies. But it's not, it's faster with the 1D X.

The lens receives both a power line and signal lines from the camera 'Quality' of signals are different for sure, coming from different camera subsystems running different AF routines. But if a lens is designed to be powered at a certain voltage, differet bodies should deliver the same DC output to the lens in this respect, regardless of the main battery specs. So, as far as AF is concerned, it is not only possible, but even reasonable that, although receiving the same power from the 1Dx and 7D, a lens focuses faster on a 1Dx. Rather, I would be surprised of the opposite. But I can't explain myself how focusing should be faster under the test conditions you described previously when focusing manually by wire, at least that's what I understand you did with your 85mm L II, please correct me if I misunderstood you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't believe you, and thanks again for reporting, there's just something I'm missing...

Could it be firmware trickery on the part of Canon, the 7D delivers the same power as the 1D X, but the 7D just tells the lens to AF slower? Possible, I suppose...but that seems a little too cynical, even for me.

There are a couple of interesting articles by Roger Cicala from LensRentals which, although dealing with AF accuracy and precision, may partly justify also the improved AF speed.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras#more-8458

Something tells me you already know these articles. : It appears to be a matter of old vs. new, 5DII/7D vs. 1DX/5DIII/6D, maybe both hardware and software. I truly believe it's not a matter of battery voltage, rather it may be the camera subsystems which drive the lens' AF.

So, paraphrasing your words, we may suppose that the 7D delivers the same power as the 1D X, but the 1D X just tells the lens to AF faster. Put this way, the statement turns from cynical to logical.

*UPDATE 2*
The battery does help a camera body autofocus an EF lens faster.
From Chuck Westfall… “In addition, the EOS-1D X achieves a higher lens motor drive speed with select L-series USM telephoto lenses than the 5D Mark III because of the 1D X’s more powerful battery pack.”

Exactly, power, i.e. V x A = W.

1 x LP-E4N is 11.1 V x 2450 mAh = 27.195 W
2 x LP-E6 is 7.2 V x 1600 mAh x 2 = 23.040 W

27 W vs. 23 W, not much of a difference, but it's there.

mAh is a measure of electrical charge and not max current output :-X

Well, English is not my native language, so I apologize if I'm not using the correct technical terms for physical quantities, I'm translating those terms straight from my language, so forgive my eventual lack of precision. But let me say 'electrical charge' is a totally different thing, and its SI unit is the Coulomb, not A or Ah. I guess you are referring to the battery capacity, or the total amount of energy it can store, so your statement should be rephrased: 'mAh is a measure of the amount of electrical charge and not max current output'. Fine. Still, I don't understand where this conflicts with what I wrote.

Sure, a Li-ion battery rated 7.2 V @ 1600 mAh could deliver currents much higher than the nominal current (provided the chip inside allows it, I think it doesn't), but at a much lower voltage. If you short-circuit a non-chipped batt, the current flows massively, the batt overheats, the chemicals inside alter and you kill it. This is why the V + mAh spec of a battery are termed nominal voltage and nominal capacity. Someone better skilled than me in physics please chime in and explain better, I'm sure there is. But we're going a bit off-topic here, I think.

 

[pwp]

integrated grip

Not something for me then...
-h

Definitely something for me then! Bolt on grips are a handy accessory, but do come with compromises. It's simpler for designers to refine the ergonomics of an integrated package. Compare the handling and ergonomics of any 1-Series body vs a gripped 5D3 for example. No contest. No argument. A fully integrated design will generally come in a little smaller & lighter, have better weather sealing and a tripod screw that goes straight into the actual body, not a skinny, plastic grip bottom panel. I had a 5D tripod thread pop out of the grip when it was under pressure. Messy.

A high voltage, pre-gripped 7DII? Yum! This is the body for action shooters bemoaning the demise of APS-H.

-PW

 

[jrista]

*UPDATE 2*
The battery does help a camera body autofocus an EF lens faster.
From Chuck Westfall… “In addition, the EOS-1D X achieves a higher lens motor drive speed with select L-series USM telephoto lenses than the 5D Mark III because of the 1D X’s more powerful battery pack.”

Exactly, power, i.e. V x A = W.

1 x LP-E4N is 11.1 V x 2450 mAh = 27.195 W
2 x LP-E6 is 7.2 V x 1600 mAh x 2 = 23.040 W

27 W vs. 23 W, not much of a difference, but it's there.

mAh is a measure of electrical charge and not max current output :-X

Well, English is not my native language, so I apologize if I'm not using the correct technical terms for physical quantities, I'm translating those terms straight from my language, so forgive my eventual lack of precision. But let me say 'electrical charge' is a totally different thing, and its SI unit is the Coulomb, not A or Ah. I guess you are referring to the battery capacity, or the total amount of energy it can store, so your statement should be rephrased: 'mAh is a measure of the amount of electrical charge and not max current output'. Fine. Still, I don't understand where this conflicts with what I wrote.

Sure, a Li-ion battery rated 7.2 V @ 1600 mAh could deliver currents much higher than the nominal current (provided the chip inside allows it, I think it doesn't), but at a much lower voltage. If you short-circuit a non-chipped batt, the current flows massively, the batt overheats, the chemicals inside alter and you kill it. This is why the V + mAh spec of a battery are termed nominal voltage and nominal capacity. Someone better skilled than me in physics please chime in and explain better, I'm sure there is. But we're going a bit off-topic here, I think.

I think the point BruinBear was trying to make was that you are conflating charge capacity with current flow. The term mAh is a measure of charge capacity over a period of time, and is not synonymous with mA, the actual current. The only time you would actually draw 27.195W is in the first moment of usage assuming you maximize the cameras' power draw for a moment. Actual voltage drops a little from the rated voltage, so on average you might, at full draw for some camera that actually needs 2.45amps, pull say 10.8V at 2.45A, for a power draw of 26.5W. I do not know of any reason you would be limited to 2450mA maximum current, however. Assuming you drained the battery in 30 minutes at 10.8v, you could draw ~5amps, or 53W!

Lithium battery voltage drops from the maximum rating to a slightly lower average during usage, peters off until it eventually drops off below a minimum safe level at which point a properly designed battery will usually shut off and stop supplying power. The math above is idealistic for constant power draw over a fixed period of time, and not actually representative of actual power draw by a camera in use. I honestly not sure what the actual power draw of a Canon 1D X is, however it is not continuous at a constant level...it bursts when the shutter is pressed, then drops to a lower ambient level.

Burst power draw in a 1D X, assuming max shutter speed, full AF drive of a 600mm f/4 L II lens, while tracking a moving subject, at full-size RAW+JPEG writing to two separate cards concurrently, could likely draw more than 26W. Assuming you actually draw 3400mA for a period of 8 seconds of continuous shooting like that, followed by idle draw of 20mA for 5 seconds, that would be say 10.8v times 3.4A for 0.002222 hours (36.7W over 8 seconds), 10.8v time 0.02A for 0.0014 hours (0.22W over 5 seconds), so ~37W, or 0.82Wh. (I've completely ignored resistance here...I don't know what kind of resistance you'ed have in something like the 1D X.)

 

[nicku]

I said 1 year ago about the 7D2 with integrated grip. If canon will release such a camera... they will hit the jackpot regarding sales... even if the price will be around $2500.