Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[takesome1]

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.

While I have the upmost respect for NASA and what they have accomplished. In my years working with the government I would say they would be the last group I would take business advice from.

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.

 

[joejohnbear]

Last I checked, Canon's been doing fine. Sony might have some recent gains, but it doesn't take the fact away that Canon is still ahead financially by a long shot in the camera department, whether or not you're comparing just gains and losses from the previous year. I agree that Canon can be doing way better with better DR, but I'm sure they'll come ahead regardless because they make their products and lineup support better in ways that don't cost them much but help with repeat business, i.e. customer support. There's only so much you can improve a camera before gains are diminishing, so they're drawing out improvements by emphasizing other places in their business. Like I said, talk with someone familiar with product development. Or a financial analyst, whatever. The experts in their sectors are better commentators than the bloggers from Engadget, etc. Thom just has a great eye on these kind of topics and he's been able to predict the industry at a few key points.

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.

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.

I think there would be more reliable analysis in the financial sector on this one.
Witholding your R&D doesn't move your business forward.
Not in the technology sector.

 

[joejohnbear]

He works under a private contractor that contracts to NASA. Gets better pay that way because federal employees working directly for NASA can't make more than a US senator. Way to generalize and project. Five years ago, Canon was NOT better than Nikon. It was the reverse, Nikon had better supertelephotos, better 70-200 VR, better full frame autofocus systems. Canon had a better studio / landscape camera. They're now neck and neck with the D800/810 and Canon's 5DIII, 1DX and telephoto updates. Try BOTH product lineups like I have and THEN comment on how Canon "used to be better than" Nikon. Six years and earlier, Canon had better stuff when Nikon just had the D2x. If you've run a tech company, please bring up that background. It's easier to make comments on how to run a company when you aren't actually doing, same as it's easier to tell how to run a country without actually holding office as the president. I'm just going off of what I've been taught by much smarter people in my life and off of my real-world experience, which is more than what a lot of armchair commentators can say here.

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.

While I have the upmost respect for NASA and what they have accomplished. In my years working with the government I would say they would be the last group I would take business advice from.

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.

 

[PureClassA]

I thought the wax look everyone complains about was based video compression. No? I love the skin tones I get on my 6D. I haven't felt like I've gotten any compression there or wax. I did recently shoot video on my 6D doing an ice bucket challenge on myself (I'm from New Orleans' so it's our thing) and though it was good, it was kinda worse than I expected. Even with. A 35 sigma art

I think everyone can respect that opinion. You have your own personal shooting reasons why Canon doesn't always work the best for you. What I like is that you don't take the flame thrower to Canon for it where so many others on here seem to. Thanks for being an objective voice of reason. Debating the specs and numbers is one thing. Saying everything is a cow pie is another. I love my 6D. It does everything I need. I don't do landscapes like you (btw you're work is amazing, what you've posted). But if I did, I might agree with you that the sony does a little better job there. I've actually been looking a lot at the A7 myself but the 12mp video geared one for a new toy. In any case, let's wait to see what the 7d2 actually YIELDS.

Thanks. I honestly have no vendetta against Canon. I think most of the Canonites here have lumped me in with "the rest" because I'm not raving about everything Canon anymore. I want what I want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to diss Canon for everything they do. They still make great cameras...however they are falling very, very far behind on that one critical front: raw sensor IQ.

Play with a few Exmor raw images, compare them to pretty much any Canon raw image, and you'll start to see the differences. At first, you don't think it's significant...then you really start pushing exposure around, or you do just a little NR and see a huge improvement even deep into the shadows. Or you even just compare the midtones...and realize how much more color fidelity the Exmor image has without any adjustments at all (this is the wax-works that LTLRI refers to...Canon images, when you get right down into them, have a slightly grayish appearance...it's a lack of color fidelity that images from say a D800 simply don't have...the D800 colors are very rich. My suspicion is that Canon's weakened CFA is bleeding color channels...greens are mixing into reds and blues and vice versa, resulting in more washed out, less pure...and therefor grayish and "waxy"...color.)

I really wish Canon would fix the problem...and if/when they do, I'll be the first in line to pre-order and buy their new high mp, high DR camera when it hits the street. I just...kinda, don't think they will...not for a good long while. :\

 

[takesome1]

He works under a private contractor that contracts to NASA. Gets better pay that way because federal employees working directly for NASA can't make more than a US senator. Way to generalize and project. Five years ago, Canon was NOT better than Nikon. It was the reverse, Nikon had better supertelephotos, better 70-200 VR, better full frame autofocus systems. Canon had a better studio / landscape camera. They're now neck and neck with the D800/810 and Canon's 5DIII, 1DX and telephoto updates. Try BOTH product lineups like I have and THEN comment on how Canon "used to be better than" Nikon. Six years and earlier, Canon had better stuff when Nikon just had the D2x. If you've run a tech company, please bring up that background. It's easier to make comments on how to run a company when you aren't actually doing, same as it's easier to tell how to run a country without actually holding office as the president. I'm just going off of what I've been taught by much smarter people in my life and off of my real-world experience, which is more than what a lot of armchair commentators can say here.

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.

While I have the upmost respect for NASA and what they have accomplished. In my years working with the government I would say they would be the last group I would take business advice from.

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.

Who was commenting on how to run a company? Were talking about actions the company has taken.
I wasn't even saying Canon's actions were wrong, no 20/20 commentary either from me. What I was saying is your arm chair analysis of what Canon did with R&D the last five years is silly. You provided the 20/20 analysis, I commented on that.

 

[joejohnbear]

I think he's talking about a wax look after pulling shadows etc, but he'll prob have a better answer than I do. I've gotten that before when trying to do something like HDR. Exposure blending takes care of it, but like I said before, it's not ideal in certain situations. I think if your exposure is spot on and DR in the scene is limited, i.e. you use flash to balance with the sky for a portrait, etc, it's not that big of a difference, at least enough for any wedding clients to notice. That said, the high detail and wide dynamic range will be great for nature that jrista shoots where DR can be challenging, and for fashion studio shots only if you have enough time to touch up. The level of detail is actually unflattering if a client has any blemishes, so my opinion is that the D810 is better for things like fashion, but not so much for wedding and family portraits, that deal where volume can be a problem and cost-prohibitive or photoshop / magazine-style touchups.

I thought the wax look everyone complains about was based video compression. No? I love the skin tones I get on my 6D. I haven't felt like I've gotten any compression there or wax. I did recently shoot video on my 6D doing an ice bucket challenge on myself (I'm from New Orleans' so it's our thing) and though it was good, it was kinda worse than I expected. Even with. A 35 sigma art

I think everyone can respect that opinion. You have your own personal shooting reasons why Canon doesn't always work the best for you. What I like is that you don't take the flame thrower to Canon for it where so many others on here seem to. Thanks for being an objective voice of reason. Debating the specs and numbers is one thing. Saying everything is a cow pie is another. I love my 6D. It does everything I need. I don't do landscapes like you (btw you're work is amazing, what you've posted). But if I did, I might agree with you that the sony does a little better job there. I've actually been looking a lot at the A7 myself but the 12mp video geared one for a new toy. In any case, let's wait to see what the 7d2 actually YIELDS.

Thanks. I honestly have no vendetta against Canon. I think most of the Canonites here have lumped me in with "the rest" because I'm not raving about everything Canon anymore. I want what I want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to diss Canon for everything they do. They still make great cameras...however they are falling very, very far behind on that one critical front: raw sensor IQ.

Play with a few Exmor raw images, compare them to pretty much any Canon raw image, and you'll start to see the differences. At first, you don't think it's significant...then you really start pushing exposure around, or you do just a little NR and see a huge improvement even deep into the shadows. Or you even just compare the midtones...and realize how much more color fidelity the Exmor image has without any adjustments at all (this is the wax-works that LTLRI refers to...Canon images, when you get right down into them, have a slightly grayish appearance...it's a lack of color fidelity that images from say a D800 simply don't have...the D800 colors are very rich. My suspicion is that Canon's weakened CFA is bleeding color channels...greens are mixing into reds and blues and vice versa, resulting in more washed out, less pure...and therefor grayish and "waxy"...color.)

I really wish Canon would fix the problem...and if/when they do, I'll be the first in line to pre-order and buy their new high mp, high DR camera when it hits the street. I just...kinda, don't think they will...not for a good long while. :\

 

[joejohnbear]

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.

He works under a private contractor that contracts to NASA. Gets better pay that way because federal employees working directly for NASA can't make more than a US senator. Way to generalize and project. Five years ago, Canon was NOT better than Nikon. It was the reverse, Nikon had better supertelephotos, better 70-200 VR, better full frame autofocus systems. Canon had a better studio / landscape camera. They're now neck and neck with the D800/810 and Canon's 5DIII, 1DX and telephoto updates. Try BOTH product lineups like I have and THEN comment on how Canon "used to be better than" Nikon. Six years and earlier, Canon had better stuff when Nikon just had the D2x. If you've run a tech company, please bring up that background. It's easier to make comments on how to run a company when you aren't actually doing, same as it's easier to tell how to run a country without actually holding office as the president. I'm just going off of what I've been taught by much smarter people in my life and off of my real-world experience, which is more than what a lot of armchair commentators can say here.

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.

While I have the upmost respect for NASA and what they have accomplished. In my years working with the government I would say they would be the last group I would take business advice from.

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.

Who was commenting on how to run a company? Were talking about actions the company has taken.
I wasn't even saying Canon's actions were wrong, no 20/20 commentary either from me. What I was saying is your arm chair analysis of what Canon did with R&D the last five years is silly. You provided the 20/20 analysis, I commented on that.

 

[PureClassA]

Apparently this blog can't accept a 1MB image. ;D I've been trying to load one for 15 mins since the topic of HDR was mentioned.

 

[PureClassA]

Apparently this blog can't accept a 1MB image. ;D I've been trying to load one for 15 mins since the topic of HDR was mentioned.

Had to load it from the iPad...sheesh!! Ok So here's an old fart 7D triple RAW shot tripod mounted from a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. I got no complaints and the high end Champagne bar in downtown New Orleans didn't offer any. They were tickled pink. Again.. its all about how far you're willing to go ;-) HDR of triple RAWs processed in LR 5

 

[WillThompson]

So what is the min AF EV?

 

[joejohnbear]

Good question.

So what is the min AF EV?

 

[Woody]

Different brushes for different paintings. My stance is this. Canon already excels at everything else. They alrady have a phenomenal AF system. They already have some of the best frame rates in the business. They already have the better frame buffer handling (Canons just keep on going, and going, and going, and going, while Nikons usually stop dead), etc. Canon already excels at everything else. They even excel at customer support...it's truly second to none, worldwide. So where could they give photographers the single greatest gains? Sensor IQ. It's the only thing they are behind on...and the realities of how far behind the competition they are only become more and more apparent each time a new camera is released (from anyone, not just Canon).

I honestly believe that if Canon is able to produce a sensor that is as good as what Sony has, they will be back in the same position they were in during the early digital photography days. They will trounce the competition and may even cause a few companies to either collapse or at least withdraw from the camera business.

 

[xps]

Thanks. I honestly have no vendetta against Canon. I think most of the Canonites here have lumped me in with "the rest" because I'm not raving about everything Canon anymore. I want what I want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to diss Canon for everything they do. They still make great cameras...however they are falling very, very far behind on that one critical front: raw sensor IQ.

Play with a few Exmor raw images, compare them to pretty much any Canon raw image, and you'll start to see the differences. At first, you don't think it's significant...then you really start pushing exposure around, or you do just a little NR and see a huge improvement even deep into the shadows. Or you even just compare the midtones...and realize how much more color fidelity the Exmor image has without any adjustments at all (this is the wax-works that LTLRI refers to...Canon images, when you get right down into them, have a slightly grayish appearance...it's a lack of color fidelity that images from say a D800 simply don't have...the D800 colors are very rich. My suspicion is that Canon's weakened CFA is bleeding color channels...greens are mixing into reds and blues and vice versa, resulting in more washed out, less pure...and therefor grayish and "waxy"...color.)

I really wish Canon would fix the problem...and if/when they do, I'll be the first in line to pre-order and buy their new high mp, high DR camera when it hits the street. I just...kinda, don't think they will...not for a good long while. :\

+1
There is really an difference in IQ. It is a pity that Canon does not respond on this

 

[canon1dxman]

D750 announced formally

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-promo-product-tour-hands-on-videos.aspx/#more-80352

 

[joejohnbear]

+1.

Different brushes for different paintings. My stance is this. Canon already excels at everything else. They alrady have a phenomenal AF system. They already have some of the best frame rates in the business. They already have the better frame buffer handling (Canons just keep on going, and going, and going, and going, while Nikons usually stop dead), etc. Canon already excels at everything else. They even excel at customer support...it's truly second to none, worldwide. So where could they give photographers the single greatest gains? Sensor IQ. It's the only thing they are behind on...and the realities of how far behind the competition they are only become more and more apparent each time a new camera is released (from anyone, not just Canon).

I honestly believe that if Canon is able to produce a sensor that is as good as what Sony has, they will be back in the same position they were in during the early digital photography days. They will trounce the competition and may even cause a few companies to either collapse or at least withdraw from the camera business.

 

[joejohnbear]

Just saw it too. As a former D700 shooter, not my cup of tea. I still firmly believe that the D700's successor in spirit is the 5DIII. This is more of a D610 successor and should be called a D620. D750 is an arbitrary and deceptive naming convention, probably chosen by the marketing department. 1/4000th of a second, 1/200th sync speed, SD cards, and D7000/600-type controls mean this is a D600 successor, not a D700 one. I liked that I could stick a battery grip on the D700 with a D3/D3s/D4 EN-EL4(a) battery and sputter away at 8fps if I really wanted to (I just used it for a few frames at key moments for the most part, pop, pop, pop). Happy with my mk III, although this is a great camera if you're just looking for a D610 upgrade (essentially a D71007000:750610 analogous upgrade).

D750 announced formally

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-promo-product-tour-hands-on-videos.aspx/#more-80352

 

[joejohnbear]

I'd assume it's a sony exmor sensor like on the D610, Nikon FX just designates that it's full frame. DX just means crop sensor. If it's Nikon-made, that'll be a first in a while (and as you already know) as Nikon switched to having other companies fabricate for a while since their resources and sensor capabilities dwindled (Sony, Toshiba sensors outsourced). If this is indeed a switch, perhaps it's part of some expiration agreement with Sony, but let me know if you can find out more details about this as I'm also quite curious to know.

I think on the consumer market, the D750 should give the 5DIII a good run for the money, but on the pro market, it's somewhat crippled so it still doesn't compete with the D810 and the D4s and hence the 5DIII. I think I would find this useful for low light because of the -3EV and where shutter speeds don't go past 1/4000, however the 15 cross type points and smaller 51 af point area spread could prove problematic with f/1.4 aperture lenses like it did with my D700. 1/4000 shutter speed will also be an issue with f/1.4 aperture lenses in the middle of the day, although to be fair, the best light is in the shade. So it'll prob be better DR vs. better ergonomics and better extreme scenario (exotic wide aperture, ultra-low light or in bright light with wide aperture) autofocus on the 5DIII, usually the type of shooting I do, and better buffer as you mentioned.

In my experience, I always had to shoot at f/3.2 on f/2.8 zooms to get accurate autofocus on the D700 at the exterior points, while I can always shoot f/1.4 and f/1.2 on my 5DIII with no problems on outer focus points with cross-type only enabled.

Just saw it too. As a former D700 shooter, not my cup of tea. I still firmly believe that the D700's successor in spirit is the 5DIII. This is more of a D610 successor and should be called a D620. D750 is an arbitrary and deceptive naming convention, probably chosen by the marketing department. 1/4000th of a second, 1/200th sync speed, SD cards, and D7000/600-type controls mean this is a D600 successor, not a D700 one. I liked that I could stick a battery grip on the D700 with a D3/D3s/D4 EN-EL4(a) battery and sputter away at 8fps if I really wanted to (I just used it for a few frames at key moments for the most part, pop, pop, pop). Happy with my mk III, although this is a great camera if you're just looking for a D610 upgrade (essentially a D71007000:750610 analogous upgrade).

D750 announced formally

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-promo-product-tour-hands-on-videos.aspx/#more-80352

The D750 seems decently competitive with the 5D III. It has 6.5 FPS, 51pt 3D AF, and the better Nikon meter. I bet it's frame buffer still sucks, though.

The interesting thing is it says it's a Nikon FX sensor. I wonder if that means they are back to making their own sensors, and not using Exmors? Curious...

 

[hemanthforcanonrumors]

Again the DSLR war between Nikon and Canon has started. I would like to however wait for the actual announcement from Canon themselves rather than read the rumours. D750 announcement is good.. 7 fps is good enough for action and sports.. but the buffer depth will decide that.. Lets wait and watch on how long can D750 can shoot continuously at 6.5 fps before slowing down.

Speaking of 7D2.. 10 fps is super.. and 65 AF point's is a welcome move.. 19 AF points was not all that great but was still doing its job decently. The other point i want to really see is the high ISO capbility of 7D2. My expectation is if 7D2 can shoot an absolute noiseless image at ISO 6400 and a good usable image files upto ISO 8000 or so then it's more than enough for a APS-C sensor.

My take is Canon will position 7D2 more or less the same or may be tad more $$ than D750 here though it might be APS-C sensor as against the Nikon's full frame.

 

[Khalai]

My expectation is if 7D2 can shoot an absolute noiseless image at ISO 6400 and a good usable image files upto ISO 8000 or so then it's more than enough for a APS-C sensor.

Noiseless at ISO 6400? Hell, that's where even the 6D is having some noise. To expect that from a sensor of 40% the size sounds quite unrealistic. Original 7D had bordeline ISO 1600 performance. Even ISO 3200 with acceptable noise on the 7D2 would be quite a feat IMHO.

 

[rfdesigner]

New here.. but not new to CMOS/CCD imaging.

Looks like there's a bit of fixation on ISO.. which is simply how much gain the camera has between the sensor and ADC.

Fundamentally the sensitivity of a camera is defined by

QuantumEfficiency / ReadoutNoisePerUnitArea

Check out DxO data and it's hinting at what's going on.. namely the readout noise (as measured in electrons at the sensor) is roughly constant above a certain ISO. Look at the DxO data and you'll see the Dynamic range fall by one stop for every increase in ISO above a certain figure. In the Nikon D800/D600 case it falls by roughly 1 stop for every doubling in ISO all the way from ISO100... Increasing ISO just clips the image, you'd only want to use ISOs higher than 100 if you're using in camera JPEG, shoot raw, then stick with ISO100 and be prepared to "underexpose" then fix in post.

With my ancient old 30D it means there's no point in shooting RAW beyond ISO800.. I might as well underexpose by a stop at ISO800 to get the equivalent of ISO1600 or 2 stops to get the equivalent of ISO3200, as increasing the ISO just raises the noise and signal by roughly the same amount, thus clipping the hi-lights, using ISO800 and underexposing for low light means I never get clipping.

Now if we're talking in camera JPEGs, then it's all down to the processing algorithm and that could be where the 7DII really scores, after all who wants to shoot 10 seconds of 20Mpix at 10 frames a second in RAW.

So the question isn't really "what ISO does it do". That's like asking what's the highest speed shown on your speedometer, doesn't mean your car can go that fast.

IMHO the best published test will be once DxO do their stuff, and I'll predict now that the 7DII will be the first Canon APS-C to beat 1100ISO (at A4 print equivalent).. maybe. Good, but not as sensitive for A4 printing as a Classic 5D, I wouldn't buy a 7DII if I had a 7D just to get better ISO, I might do it for improved JPEG processing that means I could make use of a higher ISO but that's different

Personally I'm still waiting for Canon to introduce colour recognition via depth in the sensor, (essentially three overlayed CMOS sensors) that would buy almost 2 stops of performance.. but I think it's unlikely this will be the camera to do that... that or using as many ADCs as there are rows on the chip like the recent sCMOS sensors.. now THOSE really are awesome chips!