Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[rfdesigner]

If you shoot raw, then stick with ISO100 and be prepared to "underexpose" then fix in post.

well that's not good advice!

Care to explain why shooting at ISO100 but underexposed by 2 stops is worse than shooting at ISO400 on a Nikon 800/600 series?

Numbers are useful here.

Try it.

This is how I shoot low light on my 30D.. I stop at ISO800.. here's the implied readout noise levels from the DxO data... on the D800 looks like ISO200 is worth having but benefit rapidly drops beyond that.

D800 DxO DR Dyn Range Read noise ISO Sensor noise level 13.23 9607.863904 1.705269784 100 1.705269784 12.56 6038.606714 2.713208655 200 1.356604327 11.74 3420.520118 4.789914818 400 1.197478705 10.93 1951.00262 8.397733469 800 1.049716684 10.03 1045.516417 15.67072476 1600 0.979420298 9 512 32 3200 1 8.07 268.727471 60.96883187 6400 0.952637998 7.06 133.4356174 122.7858073 12800 0.959264119 5.91 60.12945595 272.4787667 25600 1.064370182 Canon 5DIII DxO DR Dyn Range Read noise ISO Sensor noise level 10.97 2005.852769 8.168097006 100 8.168097006 10.87 1871.52681 8.75434961 200 4.377174805 10.69 1652.002323 9.9176616 400 2.4794154 10.41 1360.574274 12.04197398 800 1.505246747 9.94 982.2864582 16.67945217 1600 1.042465761 9.23 600.491494 27.28431654 3200 0.852634892 8.3 315.1729698 51.98415337 6400 0.812252396 7.48 178.5271893 91.77313587 12800 0.716977624 6.48 89.26359465 183.5462717 25600 0.716977624 Canon 30D ` DxO DR Dyn Range Read noise ISO Sensor noise level 10.82 1807.775736 9.063071082 100 9.063071082 10.81 1795.288517 9.126109727 200 4.563054863 10.66 1618.004607 10.12605275 400 2.531513188 10.27 1234.747216 13.26911273 800 1.658639092 9.67 814.6293594 20.11221399 1600 1.257013375 8.63 396.1766383 41.35529058 3200 1.292352831

 

[spinola]

HUMMMM

D750 is a very good camera, for $ 2,3K. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082599-REG/nikon_d750_dslr_camera_body.html

Why pay %1,9K for a 7DII?

66% more FPS, more than 4 times of X-type AF points in wider pattern, especially on the edges of AF array (in APS-C inherently covers more area of the sensor), more AF points in total, 1.6x reach, presumably bigger buffer (pure speculation on this point). Ability to mount high quality L telelenses. Those two cameras are for entirely different market...

I understand your point. My comment is based on the fact that I have a 70D at home and work with a 5D3. I could not exchange a FF sensor for only 3,5FPS. The price difference is very small in the case of the D750. It's just my opinion based on my personal experience. I understand that other users have other priorities.

 

[takesome1]

Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.

You're right, it's a terrible business strategy. That's why, over the past five years Canon has steadily lost dSLR market share to Nikon, and Canon is no longer the market leader by a significant margin.

Oh, wait...Nikon hasn't gained market share, and Canon is still the dSLR market leader by a significant margin.

I guess Canon's business strategy is sound, although your opinion of it is apparently not.

I think Canon's business strategy is sound, my comment was to joejohnbear's silly reasoning.

However;

Go back five years when you bought your 7D, how did Nikon stack up against Canon? Would you have seen the DxO number fan boys and the Nikonian trolls on this website bashing Canon's sensors?

Nikon caught up and that is why the trolls are here now.

When I went digital I went with Canon because they were in lead substantially as far as the technology goes.

 

[EOS AE1]

If you shoot raw, then stick with ISO100 and be prepared to "underexpose" then fix in post.

well that's not good advice!

Care to explain why shooting at ISO100 but underexposed by 2 stops is worse than shooting at ISO400 on a Nikon 800/600 series?

Numbers are useful here.

Try it.

This is how I shoot low light on my 30D.. I stop at ISO800.. here's the implied readout noise levels from the DxO data... on the D800 looks like ISO200 is worth having but benefit rapidly drops beyond that.

that´s all fine, the data i mean.

but what if you only have 1024 tonal values you can boost because you underexposed so much.

from experience and not whitepapers i come to the conclusion that not underexposing by 2 stops and raising ISO instead i get the better images.

i usually shoot at a maximum of ISO 1600.

you may get a bit more noise but you also get more tonal values.
i can clean the noise in post but when i have banding it´s hard to fix that.

 

[PureClassA]

HUMMMM

D750 is a very good camera, for $ 2,3K. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082599-REG/nikon_d750_dslr_camera_body.html

Why pay %1,9K for a 7DII?

66% more FPS, more than 4 times of X-type AF points in wider pattern, especially on the edges of AF array (in APS-C inherently covers more area of the sensor), more AF points in total, 1.6x reach, presumably bigger buffer (pure speculation on this point). Ability to mount high quality L telelenses. Those two cameras are for entirely different market...

I understand your point. My comment is based on the fact that I have a 70D at home and work with a 5D3. I could not exchange a FF sensor for only 3,5FPS. The price difference is very small in the case of the D750. It's just my opinion based on my personal experience. I understand that other users have other priorities.

Yup. The 750 and the 7D2 or 70D are two totally different cameras for different uses. It's similar to saying well why should I buy the weedwacker for $150 when I can buy the lawnmower for $200. Yeah they both cut grass, but they have very different purposes and specialties.

If you want to shoot portraits and artwork, in this scenario the D750 is the better machine, no question. But if you want to shoot action accurately and need 60% greater reach on your glass then you grab the 7D2, no question. And that is who will buy this camera. Regular consumers who want the "high end" retail store rig will buy the 70D (no knock against it), but pro level action shooters (sports & wildlife) will gladly spend the $1800-$2000 on the 7D2 to get the significant upgrade in AF, which is absolutely critical for what they do. That is what this camera is built for. There is a huge market for that and it's self evident by simply looking at the enormous sales of the original 7D.

And by the way, pros don't upgrade their bodies every year or every other year. While we all wish it was sooner, 5 years isn't a bad business decision from Canon's perspective I imagine. After 5 years, people with a 7D are far more like to upgrade to a new model than if this Mk II had come out 2-3 years after. Just a guess

 

[heptagon]

This is how I shoot low light on my 30D.. I stop at ISO800.. here's the implied readout noise levels from the DxO data... on the D800 looks like ISO200 is worth having but benefit rapidly drops beyond that.

Coincidentally the D810 now has native ISO64 because to improve DR and SNR.

For studio and landscape cameras the way to go is more Megapixels and lower ISOs.

 

[joejohnbear]

It's a small market segment, so I'm sure Canon and Sony don't care that much about it compared to their bread and butter cinema C300's and FS700's. And most "prosumers," aka film students, wedding videographers, documentary filmmakers, etc. buy Canon because of their lens lineup and their customer support center IN Hollywood, but you seem to have a lot of experience in video, so I bet we can trust you on that.

You mean the indie and low-end commercial video guys. It's just one segment of the market. Not everyone is making money off of youtube videos. That said, I wouldn't mind cool trickle down features, just saying there's already a higher end cinema market. With competitive pressure, Canon will trickle down features through firmware updates, but if there's no competitor, then why is the onus on Canon to give all their high end features for a lower price? The C300 is very popular with documentary filmmakers and film schools for a reason.

Because there are a lot of people who can't afford Super-35 cameras dedicated for video like the FS-700, FS-100, C100,300,500 and are hoping for features from top end features to trickle down to "cheap" cameras as soon as in their dreams. That said, the Canon DSLR's do suck for video IF you don't publish to web. ML takes care of it, but you pay tooth through nail for actual first-party support on real video cameras instead of dula purpose DSLR's/video cameras. Remember, 5d mk ii was more than enough to start the "DSLR" video revolution, but mark my words, that revolution was unintentional and more than over now that Canon has released their own cinema cameras. When prodded, they'll release more features, but as of now there are no competitors at the same price point, despite what people will try to tell you.

The worst thing to ever happen to the amazing DSLR video revolution Canon accidentally created was when Canon marketing realized they had something good. And if people think some of the posters in these forums are harsh on Canon you should hear what the video guys say about the way Canon squashed and squandered their DSLR video revolution.

But that is just it, there ARE competitors. Basically what Canon are doing is conceding market share in that segment. Sure, their prosumer products are not competing with their professional products, but within the prosumer part of the market they are not even in the ball game.

If someone wants to buy a prosumer DSLR type camera with an emphasis on video and has done their research, they will buy a Panasonic or a Sony. I would be surprised if Canon makes many, or even any, sales to those buyers since their current offerings are so primitive compared to their competition.

 

[joejohnbear]

Have a chat with your business or marketing department then and ask what their strategy is.

Look up some of Thom Hogan's articles on the approaches of different camera companies to the market. Canon is the most fiscally conservative, offering advances in features that don't cost them as much monetarily in arms races to higher megapixels, etc. Nikon loads up DR and megapixels on their D3100->3200 models and it doesn't necessarily work better at attracting consumers. People like us who are technical and get into the specs, sure, but the average camera user is interested in convenience of use more than anything else. The point and shoot market disappeared and all the camera companies are going for higher price point and shoots and MILC's now. That's probably not the way to "save" the camera industry, and they'll need something more like Apple where they use current technologies to make cameras more convenient than ever, but that's a separate tangent and long topic to cover here. Also something Hogan discusses.

Also, ask an engineer working in product development who's worked closely with marketing, they'll tell you the same thing about releasing products over time. Part of my background is that I was first taught my technical basics by a NASA engineer, so this is part of the knowledge he taught me on how tech companies stay alive.

Like I said, it's more than R&D. Canon took a fiscally conservative approach because of their perception of decreased demand due to the recession, so they released less of their R&D at once because they perceived less demand for cameras period. Not the best move for us when we want more features, but it's one of the things to do when an economy tanks. See Thom Hogan's articles on the recession and how it affects camera companies. Meanwhile, Nikon's autofocusing is good enough, but behind for f/1.4 aperture lenses shot wide open. Plusses and minuses with both companies. Canon's sensor is good enough, but behind on DR and low ISO noise. Their 5DIII high ISO is better than the D800. D810 might push high iso better. A7s is the best on market. Camera bodies continually lap each other, it's no big deal, as I've said before. Sony does better sensors but doesn't do so well having fully well-rounded lens systems and professional services to back it up.

Fair point, but I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas. Also, I think the length of the cycle has more to do with the stock market crashing and the recession starting in 2008, the year before the 7D was released I believe.
...

That's rubbish. R&D of cameras takes years, including at least 6 to 12 months just for testing and bug fixing.

Find the announcement of the C300, which was said to be Canon's fastest ever digital camera development. From inception to market, that was 2 to 3 years, so it seems reasonable to expect that a normal DSLR takes 3 to 5 years to develop and bring to market.

That whole idea is bull. If you withhold technology for years when you do release it is obsolete.
The opposite is true. If Canon had superior technology when the economy was at its worse they would have released it. If the economy is bad and you have superior technology you release it at that point. The reason you do it is to crush your competition who are struggling. In the long term the recession wouldn't matter to Canon, they make up any short fall when the economy is good again.

Canon didn't bring it to the market because Canon didn't have it.

Go back four years and you will see that Cameras were not getting hit hard five years ago. Technology reached a point it was comparable with film finally and many people were switching. The economy tanked for Canon when the PS sales died off. Go back and look at profits, Canon's profits went south because of the PS market. They were having great years when the economy was in the tank. Even in the bad years they spent the same on R&D (yen relative to dollar) and made money.

Not an engineer, but I am a scientist who works on developing technical products. Our philosophy is to produce products that are so advanced over whatever else is out there that we obliterate them. Cut their revenue stream to zero, so they can't afford to compete with our tech in the future. We rub our hands with glee when they ration out their tech because it means that we can destroy them.

 

[joejohnbear]

+1

Some people like to reinvent history.

Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.

You're right, it's a terrible business strategy. That's why, over the past five years Canon has steadily lost dSLR market share to Nikon, and Canon is no longer the market leader by a significant margin.

Oh, wait...Nikon hasn't gained market share, and Canon is still the dSLR market leader by a significant margin.

I guess Canon's business strategy is sound, although your opinion of it is apparently not.

 

[takesome1]

The good old five-year-old parroted retort, good one.

Lol, you talk about how Canon should release this tech or that tech years ago, and how their business is hurting from it, and how you're sure that's not how companies should operate, and then I'm the one commentating from the armchair? You're the one who just made an unfounded claim that Canon was doing better than Nikon five years ago (from a technology standpoint, from what I understood)! I've shot night and day with blood and sweat with BOTH camera systems from the past five years. Can you really say the same? You say that a planned product release cycle is bullshit? Go talk to any college professor in hardware development and release, I'm sure they'll tell you the same. But I suppose you're the expert.

Yes your the one in the arm chair you keep talking about. While some of the points you have are valid some are just BS which discounts your whole line of thinking.

 

[joejohnbear]

Average joe (college girl, old retiree, Asian dad, etc) really couldn't care about specs. They're driven to their purchases more by marketing.

Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.

You're right, it's a terrible business strategy. That's why, over the past five years Canon has steadily lost dSLR market share to Nikon, and Canon is no longer the market leader by a significant margin.

Oh, wait...Nikon hasn't gained market share, and Canon is still the dSLR market leader by a significant margin.

I guess Canon's business strategy is sound, although your opinion of it is apparently not.

Who says Nikon is the only competition?

Someone who is not a Sport/Action shooter better buys a smaller Fuji or Olympus camera theses days.

They offer nearly Canons APS-C quality and are great for portraits and travel.

I can not recommend Canon Rebels to family and friends anymore. :-[

For what they do they are big Dinosaurs.

Yes they are... unless you're a professional who needs a real lens and a great system. Please. Hang up the "Canon is old and obsolete" sort of tripe. It's ridiculous. You like something else better? That's ok. But folks on here acting like Canon is some old man in a wheel chair sputtering along is just absurd.

The thing is, i bet Pros are not who make the most money for Canon.
It´s the Rebels who are sold in the double digit millions.

And the Rebels look less and less like a good alternative for average Joe.

 

[joejohnbear]

Yup, your opinion over Thom Hogan's. Guess who has a better track record on analyzing the economy?

The D700 sensor was ahead of Canon's on low-light. Nikon had better f/2.8 zooms and supertelephotos. I knew because I SHOT on their system, I didn't just flip the pages of their catalog. Can you say the same? Just because DXO measurebators weren't on the scene fapping away doesn't take away that Nikon was doing VERY well five years ago. Bloody history revisionist.

And yeah, you got shut down by Neuro. You can't reword what you said, because it's all there in the thread.

Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.

You're right, it's a terrible business strategy. That's why, over the past five years Canon has steadily lost dSLR market share to Nikon, and Canon is no longer the market leader by a significant margin.

Oh, wait...Nikon hasn't gained market share, and Canon is still the dSLR market leader by a significant margin.

I guess Canon's business strategy is sound, although your opinion of it is apparently not.

I think Canon's business strategy is sound, my comment was to joejohnbear's silly reasoning.

However;

Go back five years when you bought your 7D, how did Nikon stack up against Canon? Would you have seen the DxO number fan boys and the Nikonian trolls on this website bashing Canon's sensors?

Nikon caught up and that is why the trolls are here now.

When I went digital I went with Canon because they were in lead substantially as far as the technology goes.

 

[joejohnbear]

"Which just discounts your whole line in thinking." Yup, because argumentative points can't stand on their own, and because the character of a poster is so important (ad hominem). Also, you never directly answer when I call you out on having no relevant real-world experience with Nikon. This is the very definition of armchair expert, whereas you throw the word around without knowing its meaning.

The good old five-year-old parroted retort, good one.

Lol, you talk about how Canon should release this tech or that tech years ago, and how their business is hurting from it, and how you're sure that's not how companies should operate, and then I'm the one commentating from the armchair? You're the one who just made an unfounded claim that Canon was doing better than Nikon five years ago (from a technology standpoint, from what I understood)! I've shot night and day with blood and sweat with BOTH camera systems from the past five years. Can you really say the same? You say that a planned product release cycle is bullshit? Go talk to any college professor in hardware development and release, I'm sure they'll tell you the same. But I suppose you're the expert.

Yes your the one in the arm chair you keep talking about. While some of the points you have are valid some are just BS which discounts your whole line of thinking.

 

[rfdesigner]

that´s all fine, the data i mean.

but what if you only have 1024 tonal values you can boost because you underexposed so much.

from experience and not whitepapers i come to the conclusion that not underexposing by 2 stops and raising ISO instead i get the better images.

i usually shoot at a maximum of ISO 1600.

you may get a bit more noise but you also get more tonal values.
i can clean the noise in post but when i have banding it´s hard to fix that.

By shooting 1600 max on a canon you have more or less optimised your noise. The question is does 1600 underexposed 2 stops look the same at 6400?.. On that comparison I'd expect identical performance except the 1600 would have less blown hi-lights

The whole of this argument came about because of the comments saying "Wow! 16000 ISO".. my point is, 16000 ISO won't buy you much/anything.

 

[rfdesigner]

This is how I shoot low light on my 30D.. I stop at ISO800.. here's the implied readout noise levels from the DxO data... on the D800 looks like ISO200 is worth having but benefit rapidly drops beyond that.

Coincidentally the D810 now has native ISO64 because to improve DR and SNR.

For studio and landscape cameras the way to go is more Megapixels and lower ISOs.

Interesting, thanks for pointing it out.. I'll go look it up, certainly stacks up with my experience.

 

[lintoni]

I'm going to disagree.

That's the thing...I shoot wildlife/sports/action photography. I use a T2i right now when I'm shooting with a crop. Know why? My glass is all Canon. If it wasn't for that I'd have switched. The 70D offers absolutely no improvement in image quality over the T2i. It's the same flippin sensor, just using new technologies to squeeze a .001% image quality improvement out of it. Now this is coming out with the SAME F'ING SENSOR. The sensor is about 80% of the reason you'd buy a camera, once you choose your subject matter. The 7Dii is going to be a glorified T2i. Same old ancient sensor technology, with a few useless bells & whistles, none of which get down to the root: THEY HAVEN'T MADE A SINGLE INNOVATION IN SENSOR TECHNOLOGY IN YEARS. It's the same mediocre sensor, just rehashed. This is why they're starting to, or will continue to lose market share to other companies. Absolutely insane that it took a half decade to refresh, and it's basically going to be the exact same camera with the exact same sensor, just with a tiiiiny bit extra squeezed out of that sensor. Absolute garbage. I can't tell you how pissed off I am right now.

Don't let me laugh. The reason you bought a T2i as a camera for wildlife/sports/action photography is for sure NOT the sensor. Be honest, it was the price.

What a thought that the sensor would be 80% responsible for the purchase of such a camera. If sensor quality would be that important to you, then you would have bought a 1-series. Nothing else. What a bullsh_t you are telling here. And what about the 5D3 sensor? No progress made?

As a wildlife/sports/action photographer you are not interested in those fps, 65 crosspoints AF, f8, ... ? You really make me laugh man, don't call yourself a action photographer if you are only interested in the highest quality sensor.

If you have that good Canon glass that you can't change, then simple do buy a 1Dx and stop complaining and stop telling such a nonsense !!!

 

[EOS AE1]

The whole of this argument came about because of the comments saying "Wow! 16000 ISO".. my point is, 16000 ISO won't buy you much/anything.

well i can fully agree to that.
at least for my shooting habits that´s true.

 

[Loswr]

However;

Go back five years ... Would you have seen the DxO number fan boys and the Nikonian trolls on this website bashing Canon's sensors?

Well, these forums don't go back to 2009. They launched in July, 2010. So, here's a post from about one month after CR Forums first launched...

Gaaarbage.

Given this event, should Canon just throw in the damn towel? They've been floundering since 1D3, 1Ds3, and the 50D; they've had time enough and resources enough to retake superiority from Nikon.

Meanwhile, the Nikon D7000 will add another stop of ISO performance...

Seriously, I regret deeply that I did not buy a D90 and jump on the Nikon wagon; sure, Canon has slightly better resolution at low-ISOs, but Nikon <--- dynamic range, very high ISO performance on the D3s, cheaper budget lenses (you don't have to pay for a lens hood on top of it!), better crop lenses (35mm prime, instead of fitting a .55x converter to reduce image quality on a 50mm 1.8, better wide angle crop lenses)...

I just can't see where people on the Nikon side would be jealous of Canon equipment. You get 50% more MP on the 5D2 and 7D/60D/550D, but that's it. You throw in high dynamic range at ISO 100 and you get banding.

So the Nikonian trolls have been here since the beginning. However, I didn't coin the term 'DRones' until 2013...

 

[takesome1]

+1

Some people like to reinvent history.

Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.

You're right, it's a terrible business strategy. That's why, over the past five years Canon has steadily lost dSLR market share to Nikon, and Canon is no longer the market leader by a significant margin.

Oh, wait...Nikon hasn't gained market share, and Canon is still the dSLR market leader by a significant margin.

I guess Canon's business strategy is sound, although your opinion of it is apparently not.

I had my morning laugh this morning. Looks like I will not have to go to Yahoo and read this mornings Dilbert either.

 

[takesome1]

Yup, your opinion over Thom Hogan's. Guess who has a better track record on analyzing the economy?

The D700 sensor was ahead of Canon's on low-light. Nikon had better f/2.8 zooms and supertelephotos. I knew because I SHOT on their system, I didn't just flip the pages of their catalog. Can you say the same? Just because DXO measurebators weren't on the scene fapping away doesn't take away that Nikon was doing VERY well five years ago. Bloody history revisionist.

And yeah, you got shut down by Neuro. You can't reword what you said, because it's all there in the thread.

That is laughable. Especially since Neuro commented on a comment I was making about your theories on marketing.

Go read Nikon's financial report for 2009, it was a downturn year for Nikon. I wonder why, they had such great technology at that time.