Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[dtaylor]

Exmor does not have 14 stops. That's physically impossible given a linear ADC and 14-bit depth. We will not see 14 stops without improvements in noise beyond Exmor plus 16-bit ADCs.

In my capacity as self-proclaimed ML ambassador: Their dual_iso module outputs 16bit dng raw files because 14bit wouldn't do it.

Dual ISO is like having a non-linear ADC. So yeah, you can easily break the 14-bit barrier and achieve more then 14 stops.

I've always wondered why Canon hasn't redesigned/redefined HTP to be dual ISO. From what I've seen resolution losses are minimal and DR gain, both in terms of total DR and shadow latitude, is quite impressive. It seems like it would be a relatively easy firmware change for them that would result in glowing feature reviews.

 

[Marsu42]

It seems like it would be a relatively easy firmware change for them that would result in glowing feature reviews.

You still have to post-process the files, and given the speed ML's current cr2hdr tool works this cannot be done in camera.

Combined with other (minor) drawbacks of the dual_iso method, this obviously is too hackish for good ol' Canon and they would also admit that they think such a workaround is necessary at all. Better give the users a nice, magic htp option that few people really understand but suggest you can boost your dynamic range with no drawbacks

 

[raptor3x]

Exmor does not have 14 stops. That's physically impossible given a linear ADC and 14-bit depth. We will not see 14 stops without improvements in noise beyond Exmor plus 16-bit ADCs.

In my capacity as self-proclaimed ML ambassador: Their dual_iso module outputs 16bit dng raw files because 14bit wouldn't do it.

Dual ISO is like having a non-linear ADC. So yeah, you can easily break the 14-bit barrier and achieve more then 14 stops.

I've always wondered why Canon hasn't redesigned/redefined HTP to be dual ISO. From what I've seen resolution losses are minimal and DR gain, both in terms of total DR and shadow latitude, is quite impressive. It seems like it would be a relatively easy firmware change for them that would result in glowing feature reviews.

ML's DualISO is a great feature and I'm a huge proponent of it, but the version that currently exists really isn't good enough to be released to users as a commercial product. If they were to utilize the concept along with the dual pixel nature of the newer sensors, however, then I think they could have a winner on their hands. If they could do this with dual pixels then you should get all the gains, but essentially none of the downsides and since no high order interpolation schemes would be necessary in camera processing should be minimal.

 

[Loswr]

I still don't understand the arguing.....

Take Jrista as an example..... he wants more DR and less noise in his images.... The thing is, we all do. If the 7D2 came out with 20 stops of DR and almost no noise, would anyone refuse to buy it because Canon made it too good? Of course not.... but we would expect even more from the next model out. We always want more, and if the other guy already has it, that just makes the desire stronger.... So why are people arguing? Shouldn't the reaction be "me too" and then the great debate ends?

Perhaps. But there are other forces at work.

First off, jrista is making very similar arguments, in some cases identical, to certain rather aggressive and egregiously behaved predecessors. His motivation is different, but in using the same arguments, and in some cases the same images, he sounds like them...and draws the expected response. Second, he (and his predecessors) aren't simply trying to inform or educate, they are seeking agreement. It's not enough if someone acknowledges the issue about which they are dissatisfied, particularly when the acknowledgment is accompanied by a statement that the particular person isn't bothered by that issue.

It goes like this: Someone is unhappy with the low ISO IQ of his Canon sensor, fine with us. He tells us, fine with us. Those who are happy with the IQ of their Canon sensors – at low and high ISOs – don't agree that we should all rise up en masse and lambaste Canon for their poor low ISO IQ, and that's not fine with him. So he tries harder to convince us. We remain unconvinced (again, not about the issue itself, but about it's importance to us). He becomes frustrated, and so do we. Etc.

It happens over other features...4K video, etc., but DR is a well-known hot button issue here, particularly because that one issue is used by some to draw the conclusion that Canon sensors 'suck'. That's pretty clearly as untenable a position as the one stating that Canon sensors have the same low ISO DR as SoNikon. The difference is that while almost no one argues the latter, plenty of people claim that Canon's sensors deliver poor/sub-par/unacceptable IQ.

Wanting better is fine. Telling people you want better is fine. Telling people that what they have isn't good, that even though they think it's working fine for them, they're wrong...that's never going to end well. But like Don Quixote, some people are just going to ride from thread to thread, tilting at that windmill.

 

[jrista]

Oh, and...for those who REALLY want to be heard, use this:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/form_display/sup_by_email

 

[Loswr]

You were sounding quite reasonable and logical for a moment, and then this:

The latter claim, about poor/sub-par/unacceptable IQ, however, isn't untennable. It can actually be demonstrated.

How can it actually be demonstrated that current Canon sensors have poor IQ, sub-par IQ, or unacceptable IQ? All of those are value judgements. Who are you to determine what constitutes 'poor' or 'unacceptable' to anyone but yourself? You didn't state 'have lower DR than' or 'have more shadow noise under certain conditions than', did you? Those can be demonstrated. No, you stated 'unacceptable IQ' can be demonstrated. Unacceptable to whom? Unacceptable for what use? Not your call. Not DxO's call, but at least they're not foolish enough to make such an unfounded and indefensible claim.

On the bright side, Mikael would be very proud of you right now. Good job!

 

[JRPhotos]

SD or Compact flash?

 

[that1guyy]

jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.

 

[takesome1]

Maybe an announcement Sunday night or Monday of a new 7D II will start a new thread and this thread will get a well deserved death

 

[privatebydesign]

jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.

Yeah, I know I have that problem. Bad habit I formed nearly two decades ago. Try breaking a habit that old, especially when you type like the wind. You don't actually think about the words your typing...the majority of them are automatically placed onto the screen by your hands through procedural memory.

Hmm... Explains a lot. ;D

 

[takesome1]

jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.

Yeah, I know I have that problem. Bad habit I formed nearly two decades ago. Try breaking a habit that old, especially when you type like the wind. You don't actually think about the words your typing...the majority of them are automatically placed onto the screen by your hands through procedural memory.

Hmm... Explains a lot. ;D

Has the thread officially degraded in to a grammar thread. If so I need to start running my posts through spell and grammar check in word. :

 

[privatebydesign]

jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.

Yeah, I know I have that problem. Bad habit I formed nearly two decades ago. Try breaking a habit that old, especially when you type like the wind. You don't actually think about the words your typing...the majority of them are automatically placed onto the screen by your hands through procedural memory.

Hmm... Explains a lot. ;D

Has the thread officially degraded in to a grammar thread. If so I need to start running my posts through spell and grammar check in word. :

Not really, but when miscommunication, misunderstandings, and hyper over analysis is all mixed in with the emotions people show here it helps if those that do actually have English as a first language and wish to be understood were a bit better at basic communication. I have my faults too, as well as many spelling and punctuation errors, and I am often misunderstood because of it. If we all try a little harder to write what we actually mean in a way that is grammatically correct and less prone to misinterpretation the temperature might lower somewhat, which I think would be a good thing.

P.S. I think that should be "into"!

 

[takesome1]

jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.

Yeah, I know I have that problem. Bad habit I formed nearly two decades ago. Try breaking a habit that old, especially when you type like the wind. You don't actually think about the words your typing...the majority of them are automatically placed onto the screen by your hands through procedural memory.

Hmm... Explains a lot. ;D

Has the thread officially degraded in to a grammar thread. If so I need to start running my posts through spell and grammar check in word. :

Not really, but when miscommunication, misunderstandings, and hyper over analysis is all mixed in with the emotions people show here it helps if those that do actually have English as a first language and wish to be understood were a bit better at basic communication. I have my faults too, as well as many spelling and punctuation errors, and I am often misunderstood because of it. If we all try a little harder to write what we actually mean in a way that is grammatically correct and less prone to misinterpretation the temperature might lower somewhat, which I think would be a good thing.

P.S. I think that should be "into"!

Yes "into" is correct.
I guess I will have to go to the computer to post, this IPAD doesn't have a grammar check.

 

[privatebydesign]

jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.

Yeah, I know I have that problem. Bad habit I formed nearly two decades ago. Try breaking a habit that old, especially when you type like the wind. You don't actually think about the words your typing...the majority of them are automatically placed onto the screen by your hands through procedural memory.

Hmm... Explains a lot. ;D

Has the thread officially degraded in to a grammar thread. If so I need to start running my posts through spell and grammar check in word. :

Not really, but when miscommunication, misunderstandings, and hyper over analysis is all mixed in with the emotions people show here it helps if those that do actually have English as a first language and wish to be understood were a bit better at basic communication. I have my faults too, as well as many spelling and punctuation errors, and I am often misunderstood because of it. If we all try a little harder to write what we actually mean in a way that is grammatically correct and less prone to misinterpretation the temperature might lower somewhat, which I think would be a good thing.

I agree. Honestly, when I'm not whipping out 5000 words per post, I do try to pay attention to my old bad habits. It's not like I'm intentionally trying to be confusing.

Yes, in this day and age there is still a reasonable correlation between quantity and quality, but emotions and enthusiasm tend to run away with us, they inflate the quantity thus lowering the quality.

The funny thing is so much of this repeated antagonism could be so easily "proven" one way or another. I am a results guy, I am not overly interested in the tech of the gear though it can be interesting as a diversion, I am interested in the physics of photography, perspective and how that interacts with focal length and format size, I am also interested in system capabilities, like the RT flash system and what it can do with what camera etc as well as AF customization, for instance, but most importantly I want images, I am a sight driven animal and most photographers are.

Were I a mod I'd lay down the law, I'd ban (as an example) "DR" posts from Jrista and Dave Taylor until they posted their own comparison RAW files for everybody to see. If Dave wants us to believe there is little difference via his step wedge then post them, if Jon thinks there is >2 stops of DR then post the RAW files and prove it. If Dave wants to point out that is not "DR" but "editing latitude" then let him post the post processing steps he took to those linked RAW files, easy!

I have posted hundreds of images and several videos here, almost all of them have been illustrative images that reinforce my point. We can, and will, argue forever but it will never illustrate our belief like a couple of RAW files will.

In brief, we could cut through 95% of the bullsh!t here if we had a three post and prove it moratorium, you can say what you like for three posts, after that prove it with RAW images illustrative images and any post steps.

 

[dtaylor]

It's also clear that there are different definitions of DR. Your definition of DR is incongruent with everyone else's definition of DR.

No there is not, and no I am not. And I have fully documented the correct definition in the past with enough citations to fulfill college level writing requirements. That you refused to read the links and books and learn is not my problem.

Worse for you, the only two samples provided so far, Fred Miranda's and Dean's, are congruent with my definition and in-congruent with an "engineering" or sensel definition. In both FM's and Dean's photos the total DR is very nearly the same. There are not blocked up shadows on the Canon where there are details on the Nikon. It is the shadow latitude that is different because as you push the Canon shadows noise becomes an issue.

To be clear, Exmor usually does have a bit more total DR as well. But not 2 stops as predicted by looking at the SNR of a sensel. You are not looking at a sensel or a film grain, but a 2D matrix of many sensels or film grains.

It's more than just editing latitude...We can prove this with a little math.

Yet not with photographs, the only thing that matters.

You know what you call math that can't predict real world observations? Falsified.

Actually, the theoretical limit in a 14-bit ADC is 14 stops of DR.

In a simple, perfect, theoretical world perhaps. This is the real world.

 

[dtaylor]

Nice. Way to fan the fire, man. You just can't stop. You even managed to throw in another equivalency with Mikael in there. Very nice. There is a reason these threads drag on forever...and a reason they get so nasty. You.

That is rich coming from you, especially when directed at Neuro :

 

[Loswr]

Poor and sub-par IQ can both be defined and quantified in a reasonable manner.

poor
po͝or,pôr
adjective
2. worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality

What is 'usual'? Expected or desirable by whom? Still a value judgement. Who sets the standard for image quality?

You're correct that people can come here to vent, but they cannot expect everyone to agree with their position. I suspect you'll find a few people here who disagree with your belief that Canon sensors produce images of a low or inferior quality. Maybe more than a few? :

Rent a D810, shoot and post all the RAW images you want, I bet you find that the Exmor images have more DR and less noise in the shadows, especially when those shadows are pushed. But we know that already. Will you prove it actually matters to others? That's the real issue. We already know it doesn't seem to matter to Canon, as far as can be judged by their sensors over the past several years.

There's more to image quality than the pixels that make up the sensor. That's an argument that I frequently use to refute those who claim that Canon must improve their sensors. I have to say, you summed up that argument very eloquently...

tell me Jrista, image quality, what is it more than the sensor and the measurements for example DXO does?
color quality/ color resolution
resolution lp/mm
dynamic range
noise and high iso properties

Proper focus (AF system)
Non-blurry frame (FPS/AF system)
Correct frame (FPS)
Pixels on subject (pixel density)
Subject size, clarity, and noise levels in cropped frame (pixel density)

If any of the above are wrong, it doesn't really matter how good the sensor is. There is more to IQ than just the technical design of each pixel in a sensor.

But...thanks for doing something that might actually make a difference:

Oh, and...for those who REALLY want to be heard, use this:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/form_display/sup_by_email

I'd honestly encourage everyone who feels the way that you do about Canon's 'poor IQ' click on that link (or find the relevant one for their own location) and tell Canon.

Another option is to complain here: http://forums.usa.canon.com

Unlike here, Canon employees actually participate and moderate the boards.

 

[dtaylor]

When I actually started planning a rental next weekend of a D810...the guy who originally demanded I prove my claims with actual data then turned around and pleaded that I simply not bother.

Where was that again? Must be your imagination since 'the guy' has been begging you to rent a D810 and do real world testing since long before this particular DRone thread.

Honest question here: why do you feel the need to twist words and misrepresent?

I think Dean's raws were quite good...I think they were properly exposed and demonstrated the issues well. They weren't extreme in any way, not like some of Mikael's "examples"...but they still demonstrated the issues well. Even those were dismissed.

They were not 'dismissed.' But they are not like 99.999% of real world shots in exposure or processing.

 

[takesome1]

Yes, in this day and age there is still a reasonable correlation between quantity and quality, but emotions and enthusiasm tend to run away with us, they inflate the quantity thus lowering the quality.

The funny thing is so much of this repeated antagonism could be so easily "proven" one way or another. I am a results guy, I am not overly interested in the tech of the gear though it can be interesting as a diversion, I am interested in the physics of photography, perspective and how that interacts with focal length and format size, I am also interested in system capabilities, like the RT flash system and what it can do with what camera etc as well as AF customization, for instance, but most importantly I want images, I am a sight driven animal and most photographers are.

Were I a mod I'd lay down the law, I'd ban (as an example) "DR" posts from Jrista and Dave Taylor until they posted their own comparison RAW files for everybody to see. If Dave wants us to believe there is little difference via his step wedge then post them, if Jon thinks there is >2 stops of DR then post the RAW files and prove it. If Dave wants to point out that is not "DR" but "editing latitude" then let him post the post processing steps he took to those linked RAW files, easy!

I have posted hundreds of images and several videos here, almost all of them have been illustrative images that reinforce my point. We can, and will, argue forever but it will never illustrate our belief like a couple of RAW files will.

In brief, we could cut through 95% of the bullsh!t here if we had a three post and prove it moratorium, you can say what you like for three posts, after that prove it with RAW images illustrative images and any post steps.

I totally agree that physical evidence would cut through a lot of the excess words. I don't know if they would end the debates.

It's just not as easy as following the words you just wrote down, though. If money was no object, I'd already have a D800, D810, A7r, A7s, 1D X, and a whole host of other cameras. I'd be sharing RAW images all over the place.

Even doing that...I still think there are certain people who would find ways of dismissing it all, effectively rendering the "solution" to the problem moot. I'd still take all the test photos and share the RAWs, but in the long run, I don't know that it would actually settle anything. When I actually started planning a rental next weekend of a D810...the guy who originally demanded I prove my claims with actual data then turned around and pleaded that I simply not bother.

I think part of the problem is people have their ideas, and they are often simply unwilling to change their opinion about things. When faced with evidence, then that is very often where the conversations take a turn for the worse, things get more personal. I think Dean's raws were quite good...I think they were properly exposed and demonstrated the issues well. They weren't extreme in any way, not like some of Mikael's "examples"...but they still demonstrated the issues well. Even those were dismissed. Maybe they were dismissed because of the kind of guy Dean was, I don't know. Anyway, I thought it was great that someone who actually had all the gear we so often hotly debate and was willing to share some comparison photos...and, well, here we are... If I took 500 different comparison images next week with a rented D810, I don't really think it would get us anywhere...it might with some people, but in the long run, I think there are just people here who don't care about it the way you do, or I do...it's not actually about the facts. It's about long held personal opinions that aren't going to change...

Most of the time it wouldn't matter what hard evidence you present to the person you are debating with. That person usually has their mind made up. There are those like me that have 40K and over 100 CPS points worth of gear in their closet, they have a level of pride of ownership and you will not convince them their gear isn't the best. Their are those that have a little gear and wouldn't admit they didn't buy the best gear. There are the guys that think if they do it a certain way everyone else should because that is the best way, you see this in the RAP vs JPEG debates for instance. Then there are the guys that believe they know everything and you can never win an argument with them. When a debate starts out with an insult very seldom does either one win.

I read the debates on equipment and take anyones findings with a grain of salt. I know individuals on this forum that started with the 7D, while they used it they would boast about how good it is and saw no reason for the 5D II. Later they owned one and now 5D III's or 1D X's and they talk the same way about those bodies as they did when they owned the 7D.

I am result oriented. I like to know the specs so I can get an idea of results. If I am making a decision of whether Nikon is better than Canon I am going to rent those bodies and compare before I make a decision. Nikon vs Canon decision is like a Car or House purchase. Once you commit you are somewhat stuck. After six years digital I am getting ready to upgrade or swap out my landscape gear. When I do I will rent a Nikon body and Canon body and compare. I will know for myself the differences in DR and other areas. First hand experience trumps all the bs we read on the forums and that is what a person should have once they commit.

 

[takesome1]

That's an argument that I frequently use to refute those who claim that Canon must improve their sensors.

You are right, Canon sensors are great. 20 years from now they can still be using the same sensor and I bet they will be making hundreds if not thousands of dollars.