Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I wasn't aware that ML allows you to add functions, is this something anyone can do, or do you have to go into the software and then compile your own version?

That's open source for you. There are two options: a) add your own module, but you need to program in C and spend some time getting to know how ML and Canon DryOS works; b) add some joe-sixpack easy script with the ML api. The latter is currently wip, look at the ML site for the status.

In each case it's not done between coffee breaks I'm afraid to say. But it's worth it because at least I am by now really able to customize control my camera (mainly buttons and exposure with auto_iso). ML is the real reason I stayed with Canon when I had the opportunity to switch back when I didn't have that many equipment.

If you cannot do it yourself: 1. Try ML for all the functions it has out of the box; 2. if you miss something add a feature request to their forum. Customizing the af with the joystick certainly sounds like a suggestion other 7d/5dx owners might pick up.

Thanks. When you get to my age, and see the sand running out of the clock quicker and quicker, it is necessary to prioritize the remaining things you want to get completed. I'd like to spend time learning the programming of ML, but that's low on my priorities.

Then, I'd probably have to recompile and debug each new magic lantern release.

I like to repair things, and last Christmas, I bought a old commercial embroidery sewing machine. That turned out to take me three months to eventually go thru ever part of it, and lots of $$ to fix up the supposedly minor issues. Then, I had to learn how to create my own embroidery designs because my daughter wanted me to make some promotional caps, jackets, shirts, etc.

Now, with the snows not far away, my pipes busted for my well, trees got blown down on our horse shelter, and another storage shed was ruined, so its one thing after another. In between rebuilding, I've a photo book to do, and next week, photos for a local horse event. I can't even imagine taking on ML

 

[Marsu42]

Thanks. When you get to my age, and see the sand running out of the clock quicker and quicker, it is necessary to prioritize the remaining things you want to get completed. I'd like to spend time learning the programming of ML, but that's low on my priorities.

Yes, I figured as much but still wanted to give you the gist of it, after all other people might be considering the same things.

As for simply *using* ML (the raw histogram and focus peaking are "worth it" alone, never mind dual_iso and all more advanced features) it's a piece of cake and done in one hour even w/o previous knowledge. Usability is also easy, it's just another menu. And if you've got ideas for improvement, writing a feature request in the ML forum also is exactly like writing a post on CR.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thanks. When you get to my age, and see the sand running out of the clock quicker and quicker, it is necessary to prioritize the remaining things you want to get completed. I'd like to spend time learning the programming of ML, but that's low on my priorities.

Yes, I figured as much but still wanted to give you the gist of it, after all other people might be considering the same things.

As for simply *using* ML (the raw histogram and focus peaking are "worth it" alone, never mind dual_iso and all more advanced features) it's a piece of cake and done in one hour even w/o previous knowledge. Usability is also easy, it's just another menu. And if you've got ideas for improvement, writing a feature request in the ML forum also is exactly like writing a post on CR.

I've no problem with the idea of installing ML, I just never seem to actually need the features. They are nice, but I get along reasonably well.

I'm going out to do some building now

 

[Renzokuken]

Your free to do what you want. I also don't doubt the sensor will get a new part number. Concurrently, I don't expect there to be any significant differences, just like the 18mp sensors. I think the downstream parts, the DIGIC 6 processors, have the potential to improve high ISO noise performance. By how much I don't know. It seems to do fairly well on the PowerShots that used it, but they never had really high ISO. Sure, we'll have to wait and see on that front.

As far as any key sensor technology changes, if there are any, I suspect it's primarily DPAF. Canon did file for another patent after the 70D, which described a DPAF sensitivity improvement. Maybe the 7D II sensor gets DPAF pixels right out to the edges of the frame, and are able to still focus despite vignetting. That would improve the video features...but fundamentally, it's still the same sensor.

I'm looking for something specific. I'm looking for a major shift away from 500nm and to 180nm or smaller transistors. I'm looking for the ADC units to be moved out of the DIGIC processor and onto the sensor itself. I'm looking for the ADC's to become column-parallel (I know Canon has a patent for that, a Dual Scale CP-ADC patent). I'm looking for the employment of a couple other Canon patents that aim to reduce noise directly within the sensor hardware.

The fact that the 7D II is going to use DIGIC 6, which has been designed and still includes the ADC, tells me these things haven't happened. If they haven't happened...well, it's not the kind of sensor technology I'm looking for from Canon. I KNOW they have the technology. They have to have had the technology since the 9.5fps 120mp APS-H...they couldn't read such a large sensor out fast enough without hyperparallelism of the ADC, and their press releases even said that they moved "image processing" on-die and made it extremely parallel. Canon has the technology...they just aren't using it. They are staying the course...which is what Canon does.

So, sorry, but for me, the evidence is clear enough. Nothing has really changed.

Quote for truth.

I've been following Camera/Imaging news on sites like PetaPixel, DPreview, Photozone and various other site for years. We all know Canon has the technology and a whole library of patents but they are holding all of it back because they want to milk as much profit as they can while their own technology still sells. It's a brilliant business decision, but from the consumer point of view this is downright disgusting.

I hold the same sentiment as you Jrista
I want Canon to improve on it's sensors. I want real innovation. I want them to go beyond faster FPS. I want better DR, I want lesser banding and noise at low ISO. They can improve all that but YET they chose to milk the old cow as much as they can.

I am a Canon fanboy. But I'm in college and unlike you I've not invested 30~40 grands on Canon lenses.
I like Canon, I prefer Canon over many other camera brands. (if they continue to do this for the next decade, I will definitely jump to other brands, albeit reluctantly. I mean just look at how much detailed can be recovered from D800's shadows vs that of the 5D3)
But like you, I'm highly disappointed.

And to the rest of you:
Yes, Still Image Quality has improved leaps and bounds since the first digital 35mm camera.
Yes. Still Image Quality is Good Enough for daily uses be it for Web or for Prints
Yes. Don't blame the camera for lousy shots.
Yes. Become a better photographer by practicing more.

But why stop there? An improved sensor will magnified and amplify your efforts. A better sensor = Real progress, both on the technological and Imaging front.

Milking the old cow for as much as you can for as long as possible is one of the downside of this capitalism driven world. I guess there's nothing we can really do other than rant about it here.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

And now a particular someone will come and tell us how about how Canon is #1 in sales and don't need to innovate. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

What's pathetic is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me my perfect camera..."

It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping you happy.

But - as a typical target for the 7D Mk II - it looks like they might've made my perfect camera. Must suck to be you, huh?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?

As an owner of the 7D, the specs just doesn't seem to make you me want to buy this as soon as it comes out.

I didn't get the memo telling me that you'd been elected to speak for all potential 7D Mk II owners...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I still find it laughable though that in the end, it really really, really, does seem like people are all too happy for Canon to not get their DR up to where the competition is

Which assumes, of course, that - unlike an old, out-of-date, underpowered PC - this supposed lack of DR actually stops us from getting the results we want.

Which it doesn't...

Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.

Let me know when a Nikony sensor can do better than this from this, and you might have a point...

 

[AvTvM]

What's pathetic is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me my perfect camera..."
It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping you happy.

Well, if Canon is not in the business of keeping US happ ... representing pretty much a cross-section of their best, most loyal and longstanding clients who typically have shelled out anywhere from a couple 1000 bucks to a couple 10.000 on Canon products ... THEN Canon has no business. AS far as I am concerned.

And YES, we are fully ENTITLED to demand better products from Canon ... as we are entitled towards any other supplier of gear who fails to deliver products that are not as good as as they could be and that are not at least as good (!) in every which way as competitor's products and "technical state of the art" is.

We are even more entitled to demand this from the self-proclaimed global leader in imaging technology who has claimed on numerous occasions to bring us nothing less than "the future of photography".

 

[privatebydesign]

What's pathetic is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me my perfect camera..."
It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping you happy.

Well, if Canon is not in the business of keeping US happ ... representing pretty much a cross-section of their best, most loyal and longstanding clients who typically have shelled out anywhere from a couple 1000 bucks to a couple 10.000 on Canon products ... THEN Canon has no business. AS far as I am concerned.

And YES, we are fully ENTITLED to demand better products from Canon ... as we are entitled towards any other supplier of gear who fails to deliver products that are not as good as as they could be and that are not at least as good (!) in every which way as competitor's products and "technical state of the art" is.

We are even more entitled to demand this from the self-proclaimed global leader in imaging technology who has claimed on numerous occasions to bring us nothing less than "the future of photography".

Tell that to the many thousands of pros back in the '80's when they swapped from FD to EF mounts. Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

 

[AvTvM]

What's pathetic is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me my perfect camera..."
It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping you happy.

Well, if Canon is not in the business of keeping US happ ... representing pretty much a cross-section of their best, most loyal and longstanding clients who typically have shelled out anywhere from a couple 1000 bucks to a couple 10.000 on Canon products ... THEN Canon has no business. AS far as I am concerned.

And YES, we are fully ENTITLED to demand better products from Canon ... as we are entitled towards any other supplier of gear who fails to deliver products that are not as good as as they could be and that are not at least as good (!) in every which way as competitor's products and "technical state of the art" is.

We are even more entitled to demand this from the self-proclaimed global leader in imaging technology who has claimed on numerous occasions to bring us nothing less than "the future of photography".

Tell that to the many thousands of pros back in the '80's when they swapped from FD to EF mounts. Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better. Not only for Canon shareholders but for any photographer willing to buy their new products and enjoy the advantages of autofocus and alls sorts of beenfits associated with electron communication between lens and camera ... in the best implementation on the entire market. Yes, Canon could also have kept muddling on ... like Nikon did with their long obsolete F-mount and mechanical aprture coupling, but that was and is a very sub-optimal scenario for their clients and one of the reasons why many of us chose and choose Canon over Nikon and other screwdriver-AF companies.

Also, those clients who did not see the benefits of AF for their work had no problem to just hold on to their FD lenses and cameras. After all, those were analogue SLRs and not DSLRs were you need to upgrade to get improvements in image quality. Mechanical Film SLRs were little more than film holders with a shutter and viewfinder in them and progress between mechanical model generations was fairly limited ... real progress was only achieved once that lens mount was changed and electrified.

Even I - being a tough critic of Canon and certainly no fanboy - applaud them for the foresight that went into the EF mount. It has held up during the major changeover from analogue film cameras to digital DSLRs and is only now approaching the end of its lifecycle, as we soon will switch-over to native mirrorless lenses with shorter flange distance. The transitions will not be as painful, because this time round it is easy to privide simple extension tube adapters to keep the EF-glass working for as long as we are willing to accept the inconveniences of such an adpater solution.

 

[takesome1]

What's pathetic is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me my perfect camera..."
It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping you happy.

Well, if Canon is not in the business of keeping US happ ... representing pretty much a cross-section of their best, most loyal and longstanding clients who typically have shelled out anywhere from a couple 1000 bucks to a couple 10.000 on Canon products ... THEN Canon has no business. AS far as I am concerned.

And YES, we are fully ENTITLED to demand better products from Canon ... as we are entitled towards any other supplier of gear who fails to deliver products that are not as good as as they could be and that are not at least as good (!) in every which way as competitor's products and "technical state of the art" is.

We are even more entitled to demand this from the self-proclaimed global leader in imaging technology who has claimed on numerous occasions to bring us nothing less than "the future of photography".

Tell that to the many thousands of pros back in the '80's when they swapped from FD to EF mounts. Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

I know one local pro that switched to Nikon when they did that. He hates Canon with a passion because of that switch.

 

[Don Haines]

What's pathetic is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me my perfect camera..."
It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping you happy.

Well, if Canon is not in the business of keeping US happ ... representing pretty much a cross-section of their best, most loyal and longstanding clients who typically have shelled out anywhere from a couple 1000 bucks to a couple 10.000 on Canon products ... THEN Canon has no business. AS far as I am concerned.

And YES, we are fully ENTITLED to demand better products from Canon ... as we are entitled towards any other supplier of gear who fails to deliver products that are not as good as as they could be and that are not at least as good (!) in every which way as competitor's products and "technical state of the art" is.

We are even more entitled to demand this from the self-proclaimed global leader in imaging technology who has claimed on numerous occasions to bring us nothing less than "the future of photography".

Tell that to the many thousands of pros back in the '80's when they swapped from FD to EF mounts. Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better. Not only for Canon shareholders but for any photographer willing to buy their new products and enjoy the advantages of autofocus and alls sorts of beenfits associated with electron communication between lens and camera ... in the best implementation on the entire market. Yes, Canon could also have kept muddling on ... like Nikon did with their long obsolete F-mount and mechanical aprture coupling, but that was and is a very sub-optimal scenario for their clients and one of the reasons why many of us chose and choose Canon over Nikon and other screwdriver-AF companies.

Also, those clients who did not see the benefits of AF for their work had no problem to just hold on to their FD lenses and cameras. After all, those were analogue SLRs and not DSLRs were you need to upgrade to get improvements in image quality. Mechanical Film SLRs were little more than film holders with a shutter and viewfinder in them and progress between mechanical model generations was fairly limited ... real progress was only achieved once that lens mount was changed and electrified.

Even I - being a tough critic of Canon and certainly no fanboy - applaud them for the foresight that went into the EF mount. It has held up during the major changeover from analogue film cameras to digital DSLRs and is only now approaching the end of its lifecycle, as we soon will switch-over to native mirrorless lenses with shorter flange distance. The transitions will not be as painful, because this time round it is easy to privide simple extension tube adapters to keep the EF-glass working for as long as we are willing to accept the inconveniences of such an adpater solution.

+1
Canon knew that the FD mount was dead. The world was going digital and they designed a new lens mount that was capable of surviving well into the future. Watch what happens when Canon goes mirrorless in it's high end bodies.... you will end up with the exact same mount....

 

[privatebydesign]

"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.

 

[Sporgon]

Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

Having moved to Canon after many years with Nikon I think there is a great deal of truth this statement

 

[unfocused]

Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

Having moved to Canon after many years with Nikon I think there is a great deal of truth this statement

True.

Except it is not coincidental. You can be certain that Canon spends millions of dollars analyzing the market, determining what customers want and will buy (with an emphasis on what they actually will buy rather than what a half dozen disgruntled people claim in gear forums).

They clearly knew what customers wanted when they released the 5DIII and the 6D, despite similar complaining on this forum.

Despite the whining we are being treated to now, I am pretty certain that the 7DII will be bought by a great many people who will be very happy with the specifications.

There is this silly myth that the interests of the shareholders are inevitably in conflict with the interests of the customers, but that's just goofy. The shareholders are not well-served unless customers want to buy a company's products. The customers are not well-served if the company cannot make a profit.

 

[Marsu42]

Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.

You completely misunderstand dynamic range.

Is this what they call "field day" in English :-> ?

 

[Sporgon]

Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.

You completely misunderstand dynamic range.

Is this what they call "field day" in English :-> ?

'Having a field day', yes, except everyone with the exception of jrista would have interpreted Keith Reeder's statement as 'photographic latitude at the top end of the dynamic range', and he is absolutely right. Look at his examples:

I still find it laughable though that in the end, it really really, really, does seem like people are all too happy for Canon to not get their DR up to where the competition is

Which assumes, of course, that - unlike an old, out-of-date, underpowered PC - this supposed lack of DR actually stops us from getting the results we want.

Which it doesn't...

Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.

Let me know when a Nikony sensor can do better than this from this, and you might have a point...

If you want to maximise the latitude from the Canon sensor you must establish how far you can push the 'over exposure', and it is often quite a long way.

If you go back to dilbert's example, in much of the picture the sensor was recording virtually no information. Try and lift this and surprise surprise, you are going to get a poor result.

 

[takesome1]

"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.

The question would be couldn't they have done the same thing and somehow preserved the FD mount?
Or was it a sales gimmick to force people to buy new gear. Remember we're talking 1987, in technology terms digital photography for the masses was a long way off.

 

[Marsu42]

Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.

You completely misunderstand dynamic range.

Is this what they call "field day" in English :-> ?

Hmm, I'm honestly not sure what you mean... ???

What I was trying to express is there is at last someone who is open to information as he might be mistaken about the benefits higher dr has - and proof, that the opposition to exmor and so on is based on wrong facts. Everybody else has to taken some position by now so further convincing might be useless.

As always, I'll also manage to sneak Magic Lantern into this post: Working with their raw histogram makes the whole thing much easier to understand as there are no highlights magically hidden anymore like in the Canon histogram which is made for jpeg files. It your camera plainly says what dr the scene and your sensor has, you have a better understanding when shadow noise or banding becomes a problem.

 

[Marsu42]

Ooh, I didn't know ML had a RAW histogram. I think that, along with the DR expansion options, is pretty much the clincher for me. I just downloaded it, am going to give it a try today.

Hah, another CR heavyweight converted :-> ... note that ML can only display the dynamic range or ettr hint in live view and not in photo mode, the latter just has the histogram. But dual_iso is a blessing, apart from all the postprocessing hassle it's the "exmor for canon" and I use it more and more often.

Edit: make sure you enable the raw histogram and zebras for photo review mode (if you manage to find the option as a ML newbie ), the latter is raw version of the Canon highlight blinkies but also work for deep shadows.