Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
I know i am kinda late to the party but I keep trying to buy a 7D but keep stopping myself...The current 7D just doesn't out do my 1D Mark III so i guess i can't justify the regular 7D until I have gotten an upgrade. Why why why does this have to come out in the fall. I'd buy it right now like i bought the 5DM3 last March. Oh God I'd be so happy if they released it 2 weeks from now. Heres to unrealistic hope.
Upvote
0
Etienne said:
I would consider buying a 7D if the price on new units falls well below $1000. It might, it might not. I'll probably just buy a 6D by late summer, and keep my 50D (its noise isn't that much worse than the 7D, and the AF is way more usable than all the unfairly negative criticism would appear). But I want the 6D/24-105 combo for the "nice price", which hasn't quite happened yet. It's been close once, supposedly. However, if I start seeing used 6D's going for $1150 and below, then I think I'll just spend more and get a new 5D3/24-105 instead. The only used 6D's on amazon so far, are listed the same as the new price...or else within $100 of the new price (~1700-$1850). Of course it's only been out three months. I am more price conscious than many on here, mostly because I don't make $10k a week from doing photography.
Upvote
0
Etienne said:
That's all well and good, but just because the (e.g) 7D is old tech doesn't mean you can't still take great pictures with it. If the buying price was the same as when the product was new I would agree with you, but if the buying price of those bodies has dropped due to newer models being imminent, why pay full whack for the latest and greatest? There are some that need and are prepared to pay full price for the latest tech. Fair enough. But that isn't everybody.
Upvote
0
insanitybeard said:
+1 The 5D classic is even older but at the right price with extra money to burn I'd still buy it again today and leave it plugged in at the studio, even if it's old and used. Almost every camera has it's own distinct character in the images they take. The original 5D is legendary and I still prefer the look from it's images from lower ISOs, it also has better looking analog'esque grain than a lot of the new full frame bodies like the 5D mark III. It can't keep up for tech today, but I wouldn't consider it completely useless. I'd probably go as far as saying getting any camera is okay if you can still buy new batteries for it.
Upvote
0
Bosman said:
Key question - will the current crop of cameras work for you. By this I mean will they have sufficient IQ, approriately weatherproof, highest enough light sensitivity, .. So you can get the picture you want. After many people do great work with a phone camera.
Now if lust over the latest and greatest, perfectly okay to do so,the wait (and wait and wait) as something new is always rumored. ;D ;D
Upvote
0
WOW! ... 22 pages of posts for a camera whose specs are not even out ... is that indication of the popularity of 7D? ... there has not been this much speculation for the replacement of D7000 (i.e. D7100) coz according to Ken Rockwell "D7000 is the best APS-C DSLR ever" (I know the name Ken Rockwell invites lots of hate around here. Anyway, the number of posts here on 7D replacement, for me, is an indication of how popular it really is.
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:
Rockwell invites hate because he is a douche (you ever seen him in a video?), and because he calls just about every newest camera on the market the "Best whatever EVER!". I mean, how can you trust a guy who can't be truly objective, and just gravitates towards the newest thing and drools all over it whenever the newest thing hits the street?
(And that is nothing to say of the frequent rogue inaccuracies and blatant misrepresentations and incorrect statements he regularly makes, about ANY and ALL brands of camera.)
Upvote
0
.
I don't think Rockwell gets so much hate as he does envy. Lots of folks here know more than he does, yet he's making a good living spouting off and pretending to be an "expert."
For me, I feel sorry for him. I can't imagine choosing such an undignified way to make a living (one level below "professional wrestling," I guess). And I won't get into pimping his family. Makes me shake my head and feel sad.
I also think he does a disservice to many people who don't know much about photography.
I don't think Rockwell gets so much hate as he does envy. Lots of folks here know more than he does, yet he's making a good living spouting off and pretending to be an "expert."
For me, I feel sorry for him. I can't imagine choosing such an undignified way to make a living (one level below "professional wrestling," I guess). And I won't get into pimping his family. Makes me shake my head and feel sad.
I also think he does a disservice to many people who don't know much about photography.
jrista said:Rienzphotoz said:
Rockwell invites hate because he is a douche (you ever seen him in a video?), and because he calls just about every newest camera on the market the "Best whatever EVER!". I mean, how can you trust a guy who can't be truly objective, and just gravitates towards the newest thing and drools all over it whenever the newest thing hits the street?
Upvote
0
RGF said:
I think people have made certain assumptions about the 1D X's dual DIGIC 5+ DSP's processing speed based on incorrect calculations. Most of the numbers I've seen seem to be based on a 12fps frame rate...but remember that the 1D X has a mirror-lockup 14fps rate as well. Additionally, most people forget that Canon RAW images include a bunch of masked off pixels around the border of the sensor. The actual pixel count is 19.3mp, rather than 18mp, when it comes to computing the data processing throughput rate. Given that:
The 1D X has at at least 33.8MB per RAW image assuming 19.3mp real pixel count. At 14 frames per second, the processing rate of each DIGIC chip would have to be at least 236MB/s (~473MB/s total, vs. the 144MB/s or 165MB/s per DIGIC I've seen calculated by others.) Accounting for some additional overhead, metadata included in the images, etc. I would say the processing rate of each DIGIC 5+ chip to be at least 250MB/s. That is 500MB/s total processing power.
If the 7D II has a 24.1mp sensor, its real pixel count is probably around 25.8mp. At 10fps, that is 225MB/s per DIGIC chip. That is actually LOWER than the data rate of the 1D X at its full 14fps speed. I see absolutely no problem for the 7D II, assuming it continues to use the same Dual-DIGIC approach as the 1D line, and the same generation and version of the DIGIC chips. Actually, a higher frame rate would probably be possible. Assuming an 11fps frame rate, the maximum throughput is still less than 500mb/s (although, with any additional overhead like metadata, dual DIGIC5+ might not actually be fast enough.)
Upvote
0
I'll be rushing out immediately to pick up a new 7D MK II. What all the hub-bub is about regarding the original 7D is that the complete lack of any high ISO usage, renders images useless and totally unusable for any purpose, as this sample taken at ISO 3200 on my original 7D, clearly shows... 7D MK II please get here soon! :-X
EOS 7D
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6mm L IS USM
1/1000 sec
F/6.3
ISO 3200
400mm
EOS 7D
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6mm L IS USM
1/1000 sec
F/6.3
ISO 3200
400mm
Attachments
Upvote
0
And with all due respect to my previous post & photo, I've found the 7D quite challenging to use over ISO 400 in any portraiture work... The 5D3 has been great in that respect for me, I'm interested in what the new 7D2 will actually spec out at, I'm positive I won't be a first adapter, if it's formidable however, I'd consider it, down the road a little... be crazy not too! :
Upvote
0
Krob78 said:
Not to mention the fact that you are using that completely useless, worthless, good for nothing, sub-standard, totally blah, chuck-it-in-the-dustbin-already old clunker of a 100-400L zoom...barf, barf!!! No picture of any use whatsoever could be taken untill that day the new 7D2 and 100-400 version II arive. Then, and only then, will all be well and good in the world. :-X
Upvote
0
Krob78 said:
Good photo (love the colors), but I would say there are some issues with it that are definitely due to the camera and lens combination. There is also no embedded metadata, so there really isn't any way for any of us to verify that it really was shot at ISO 3200.
I've taken a lot of bird photos at ISO 3200 on the 7D (mostly with the 100-400mm lens), and the noise is usually a lot worse than that. Assuming you have not applied any NR, there is definitely a loss of fidelity. There is also a loss of detail. The 100-400mm lens imposes increased softness at f/6.3, and even more at f/5.6...usually, f/7.1 is the sharpest aperture (as f/8 is beyond the DLA of the 7D sensor and just barely a touch softer). Having used both the 100-400 as well as the 300 & 500 Mark II lenses on my 7D recently, I can attest to the fact that at that magnification/crop, even at ISO 3200, the lens is definitely costing you some sharpness and detail definition there...even though they are noisy, a shot taken the 300 or 500 w/ 1.4x TC at f/6.3 usually has much sharper detail.
I'd also point out that the full-size download shows a fair amount of posterization in the background, which is another one of the issues you encounter when using higher ISO settings with small pixels. Gain is so high for such a low full well capacity that you get a lot more quantization error than with something like the 5D III or 1D X and their significantly higher full well capacities.
Upvote
0
Thank you. In the interest of keeping things above board, I've re-uploaded the file with the metadata embedded as you desired sir!jrista said:
I agree that there is certainly some posteriztion in the background and it is certainly far from perfect, I would edit exposure and some other things as well. That being said, it is not a crop, it's the actual size of that particular image. I have other bird and wildlife images at high iso's with my 7d as well and some that are really quite usable. Most with my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. It is much more challenging with the 100-400 as you pointed out.
I'm certainly not cheering the 7D and it's high ISO capabilities, just that for all the complaints about it, decent, usable images can be had at what is considered a high iso for that camera. My complaint with it is with regard to high iso and portrait work, there it has given me some challenges...
I love my 7d, I love my 5D MK III even more, not at first though... I will be a candidate for the 7D MK II, most likely within the year after it is available... My 7D will be passed down or sold sometime in that future... I must say, it's served me well for the over 50,000 images I've taken with it so far!
Attachments
Upvote
0
You can also "help" the 7D noise at high ISO by overexposing and pulling it back down in post...try to get as much noise as possible down into the lower DR. Easier to process out as well. I never got anything like this at ISO 3200 but considering it's full frame and formatted for the web. It is quite good.
Krob78 said:
Upvote
0
- Status
